with many more that might be added to which the Ministers of England are to subscribe and own as agreeable to the Word of God before their admission into the Ministry according to the 38. Canon Ecclesiastical Are any of these Ordinances and Constitutions of the appointment of Christ When or where were they instituted by by him That these are Posts set by the Lords Posts and Thresholds by his Thresholds of which the Lord complains Ezek. 43.8 who sees not That the present Ministers of England do conform and subscribe hereunto cannot be denied and thence an owning subscribing and submitting to Orders and Constitutions that are not of Christs appointment is evidently evinced Answ. Though I undertake not to justifie all that is in the Ecclesiastical Canons of the Synod at London Anno 1603. nor need the present Ministers nor perhaps will they or the Bishops themselves take it upon them yet that it may appear how falsly and injuriously this Authour hath dealt with them and how superficially he hath handled this Argument I say I. That he hath misrecited the Canons in all or most of the 14 particulars alledged 1. In the 7. Canon it is not said That the Orders and Offices of Arch bishops Bishops Deans Arch-deacons with many others appertaining unto this Hierarchy are Orders needful and necessary in the Church of Christ nor is it required therein that the Ministers promise subjection and obedience unto them But it is censured as a wicked errour to affirm that the Government of the Church of England under his Majesty by Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Archâ—deacons and the rest that bear Office in the same is Antichristian or repugnant to the Word of God and it is required of such as have thus affirmed that before their absolution from Excommunication they repent and publikely revoke it 2. In the 4. Canon Ministers are not required to own and submit to a Liturgy or prescript Form of Worship devised by men and imposed solely by their authority nor to tie themselves to it neither diminishing nor adding in the matter or Form thereof But it is judged a wicked errour to affirm that the Form of Gods Worship in the Church of England established by the Law and contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments is a corrupt superstitious or unlawful Worship of God or containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures and it is required of such as have thus affirmed that before their absolution from Excommunication they repent and publickly revoke it 3. In the third particular are sundry things liable to Exception 1. It is said that in the Book of Common Prayer Bowing at the Name of Jesus is prescribed which I find not there but in the 18 Canon 2. It is not well that when this Author does not yet he tells us some would say that kneeling at the Lords Supper smells very strong of the Popish Leven and is but one peg beneath the adoration of their Breaden God when he might know that not only the 28. Article of the Church of England and the Homily of the Peril of Idolatry and the Apology of the Church of England are fully against it but also the Compilers of the Common Prayer Book suffered Martyrdom for their refusal and abhorrency of such adoration and in the Rubrick of the Common Prayer Book as it is now established after the Communion there is a clear and sufficient Declaration against it which should if this Author had dealt candidly have been told ignorant people who are drawn into a separation upon this suggestion 3. It is true that in the 36 Canon subscription is required to this Article That the Book of Common Prayer and of Ordering of Bishops Priests and Deacons containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God and that it may be lawfully used and that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed in publike Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and none other which I take not to be the same with owning submitting and engaging to conform to all the Orders Rites and Ceremonies prescribed therein 4. It is said Canon 32. The Office of a Deacon is a step or degree to the Ministry according to the judgment of the ancient Fathers and the practice of the Primitive Church and the subscription is required in the 36. Canon to the Book of Ordination as I have set it down here but they are not required by that subscription to own this assertion That the Office of a Deacon is the first step or degree to the Ministry 5. In the 49. Canon it is said No person whatsoever not examined and approved by the Bishop of the Diocess or not licensed for a sufficient or convenient Preacher shall take upon him to expound in his own Cure or elsewhere any Scripture or matter or doctrine But they do not speak though judged worthy of the Cure of Souls they may have a Cure of Souls by indirect means or by reason of the imperfection of the Law to debarr them or by reason of the want of sufficient Preachers as was in the beginning of the Reformation or for want of maintenance for able Preachers to undertake it who are not judged worthy of the Cure of Souls 6 and 7. Neither of the Positions are Canons 49 57. though their Ministration of Baptism and the Lords Supper is made sufficient And the 8. particular is in Canon 57. 9. Can. 60. It is not said That Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops is an Ordinance of God but that it hath been a solemn ancient and laudable custom in the Church of God continued from the Apostles times that all Bishops should lay their hands upon children baptized and instructed in the Catechism of Christian Religion praying over them and blessing them which we commonly call Confirmation and that this holy action hath been accustomed in the Church in former ages 10. It is not said Canon 62. that it appertains to the Office of Ministers to marry but they are only regulated therein 11. The Bishop is to suspend according to Can. 68. Ministers refusing to bury but the lawfulness of it is not there asserted though presupposed 12 13. Ministers preaching administring the Communion in private houses except in times of necessity some appointing of Fasts holding Meetings for Sermons are forbidden Can. 71 72. but it is not there determined that they are forbidden because of the unlawfulness Inexpediency or inconvenience may occasion a prohibition of that which is not unlawful 14. It is not asserted Can. 74. that Ministers ought to be distinguished by the habit there prescribed but that ancient Churches thought it fit II. Were all true which this Author hath alledged in these 14 particulars yet it is not true which he saith that either in the 36 or 38. Canon Ecclesiastical Ministers are to subscribe to and own all these Orders and Ordinances as agreeable to the Word of God III. To the Questions Are any of these
Canon of his standing for fear of shedding ought But I deny that kneeling in the very time of receiving was ever in the Church of Rome any Rite of or for adoration of the Sacrament it self or any creature and therefore not Idolatrous I deny not the errour of their minds concerning that they received into their mouths But I deny that they ever intended adoration of the species at that moment of time when they took it in their mouths But then turned themselves to God rather to give him thanks which was not uncomely Of which he gives three reasons 1. Because it was never yet enjoyned by any Pope that they should then kneel 2. In the Mass there is no direction for adoration of the Sacrament when it is received 3. For that it is an incongruous thing in their superstition to adore a thing which is not higher than their polls when they adore it because they cannot be said to humble themselves to that which is lower than they can cast themselves To this last reason nothing is returned by Dr. Ames in his Triplic ch 4. p. 429. and Dallaeus adv lat cult l. 9. c. 13. Id quod adoratur eo à quo adoratur celsius ac sublimius aliquid esse debere insito à natura ipsa sensu omnes mortales confitentur atque consentiunt To which is to be added that kneeling is used according to the Common Prayer Book with Prayer to God and at the receiving of the Wine as well as at the Bread which are not so with the Papists and therefore kneeling is not to be taken as adoration of the Bread as the Papists do And for that which is said that the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling is directly opposite to the practice of the Churches of Christ for several hundred years after Christ to the time of the invention and introduction of the Popish Breaden-god it is denyed by the same Dr. Burges in that and other following Chapters by the Bishop of Rochester Paybody and others about which and the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches at this day it is not necessary that I should make inquiry sith if it were so yet it proves nor that the present Ministers of England do oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ by their submitting to kneeling at the Lords Supper Sect. 10. Forbidding to marry or eat flesh at certain times are not characters of Apostates as 1 Tim. 4.3 is meant It is added What should I mention the Constitutions and Canons before pointed to wherein 't is forbidden to any to Preach not licensed by the Bishops thereunto to marry or eat flesh at certain times with many more of the like nature all directly contrary to the soveraign edicts of Christ and some of them evident characters of the last dayes Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 from whom Saints are warned by the Lord to turn aside ver 5. These we have produced carry an undeniable evidence with them that the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ and therefore deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office Answ. To that of forbidding to Preach answer is made in the examining this Chapter Sect. 2. Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from flesh at certain times upon politick considerations or for the better observing a religious Fast are not characters of the Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 But may be justified by such passages of Scripture as Jonah 3.7 Joel 2.16 1 Cor. 7.5 Dan. 10.3 Nor do I think the most zealous Separatists but would restrain from Marriage and Flesh the members of their Churches in the times of solemn Fasts or would count it evil that the Magistrate forbids for civil ends abstinence from some kind of food which being the case of the prohibitions of the Civil Laws of England rather than the Canons of the Church which make it not a sin against God to marry or eat flesh then is unjustly made the character of Apostates 1 Tim. 4.3 which is more justly charged on the Monks and Popish Votaries who account it sinful to marry as if it were unchastness and more lawful to use Concubines than Wives for Priests as if they joyned with Pope Siricius terming such persons in the flesh and such as could not please God and place more holiness in eating Fish than Flesh which sort of people are very accurately proved to be there characterized by Mr. Joseph Mede in his Book of the Doctrine of Daemons intituled The Apostasie of the later times That the present Ministers of England are such or that precept which is not 1 Tim. 4.5 2 Tim. 3.5 From such turn aside belongs to them is not proved by this Author nor that they do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the revelation of Christ or deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office French Protestants in the Synod of Charenton 1644. chap. 13. art 24. The Church shall not solemnise marriage in the dayes on the which the Lords Supper is administred nor on the dayes of a publick Fast. See this crimination retorted on the Separatists by Paget in his Arrow ch 6. sect 3. p. 155. n. 5. Yet he hath not done with this Argument Sect. 11. No such Headship is owned by the present Ministers as is a denial of Christs Offices To all that hitherto hath been offered in this matter we shall yet add as a further demonstration of the truth we are in the disquisition of Arg. 3. Those that acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office but the present Ministers of England do own and acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ Therefore If the assertion of another King in England that as the Head thereof hath power of making and giving forth Laws to the free-born Subjects therein be a denial of his Kingly Authority as no doubt it is the major or first Proposition cannot be denied If Christ be the alone King of his Church as such he is its alone Head and Lawgiver If he hath not by any Statute-Law established any other Headship in and over his Church to act in the Holy things of God from and under him besides himself who sees not the assertion of such an Headship carries with it a contempt and denial of his Authority If there be any such Headship of the Institution of Christ let us know when and where it was instituted whether such a Dominion and Soveraignty over the Subjects of his Kingdom with respect to Worship be granted by them to any of the sons of men absolutely or conditionally if the first then must the Church it seems be governed by persons casting off the yoke of Christ trampling upon his royal Commands and Edicts for so it 's possible it may fall out those that aâ—tain this Headship may do as it 's evident many Popes of Rome the great
Mr. Selden De Diis Syris syntag 2. c. 1. in Heinsius his Aristarchus sacer on Nonnus c. 1. If Names abused to Idolatry or Superstition might not be used without such abuse the godly might not say as Isa. 63.16 Doubtless thou art our Father or we cry Abba Father or Our Father or Christ Father because Idolaters said to a stock thou art my Father Jer. 2.27 or say to the Lord thou art our God because Idolaters said our Gods Hos. 14.3 nor Christ be termed a Priest Lord Master because of the abuse of them to Saints deceased Popes Rabbins or others Surely the name Priest being the name of no Idol it cannot be proved from Zech. 13.2 Hos. 2.16 17. that it is commanded by the Lord to be abolished Nor do I think any of his Authors say it Hieroms words are Though it might well be spoken in respect of the signification of the word which signifies in common application an Husband as well as Ish yet I so hate the name of Idols that I will not have it said Baali but Ishi in â—espect of the ambiguity and likeness of speech lest while a man speaks one thing he mind another and mentioning an Husband he mean an Idol What the Hebrew Doctors and others named by this Author say upon this place of Hosea I cannot examine for want of the Books That which he produceth out of Rivet I assent to That which this Author saith that Priest or Altar are of the same allay with the word Mass and is upon the same foot of account to be rejected is not true sith Mass doth usually signifie not only the Service but also the consecrated Host as the chief thing in it which is an Idol and so is not the name Priest In the Helvetian larger Confession ch 18. 't is true they make a difference between the Ministry now and the Priesthood in the Old Testament and it is true that they assert Christs Priesthood as for ever and incommunicable and therefore give not the name of Sacerdos usually translated Priest to their Ministers not because they take the word Priest as it answers to Presbyter to be evil in the sense used in the Church of England as a Degree or Order above Deacons but as it is used in the Church of Rome as their words shew which are these For our Lord himself ordained not any Priests in the Church of the New Testament which having received a power from a Suffragan might offer daily the Host I say the very flesh and very blood of the Lord for the quick and dead but such as should teach and administer Sacraments This Author proceeds in his paralellism thus Sect. 4. The parallel particulars prove not the English Ministers symbolizing in office with Popish Priests 2. The Priests of Rome must be first Deacons ere they are Priests so must the present Ministers of England 3. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office by a Lord Bishop or his Suffragan so must the Ministers of England 4. The Priests of Rome must at their Ordination be presented by an Archdeacon or his Deputy with these Words Reverend Father c. Reverend Father I present these men unto thee to be admitted unto the Order of Priesthood so are the present Ministers of England 5. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office according to their Pontifical devised by themselves the Priests of England according to their Book of Ordering Priests and Deacons which is taken out of the Popes Pontifical as is evident to any that shall compare the one with the other and as hath been long since confessed by themselves in an Admonition to the Parliament in Q Elizabeths dayes in their second Treatise 6. The Popish Priests must kneel down upon their knees at the feet of the Lord Bishop that Ordains them and he must say to them blasphemously enough Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins ye remit or forgive they are remitted whose sins ye retain they are retained which exactly accords with the fashion of Ordaining the Priests of England 7. The Popish Priests are not Ordained in and before the Congregation to whom they are to be Priests but in some Metropolitan Cathedral City several miles from the place so are the Priests of England 8. The Popish Priests take the care of souls though not elected by them from the presentation of a Patron by the Institution and Induction of a Lord Bishop and do not the present Ministers of England the same 9. The Popish Priests wait not the Churches Call to the Ministry but make suit to some Prelate to be Ordained Priests giving money for their Letters of Ordination so do the present Ministers of England 10. The Popish Priests are Ordained to their Office though they have no flock to attend upon so are the Priests of England 11. The Popish Priests must swear Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary so do the present Ministers of England 12. The Popish Priests may at their pleasure without the consent of the People resign and give over their Benefices and betake themselves to some other of greater value A symmetrie with them herein is visible by the frequent practice of the Ministers of England 13. The Popish Priests though Ordained to preach must have special license from the Prelates so â—o do so must the Priests of England 14. The Popish Priests are subject to be silenced suspended deprived and degraded by the Prelates as are the present Ministers of England 15. The Popish Priests are not of like and equal power degree and Authority amongst themselves but are some of them inferiour to others herein as Parsons to Arch-deacons Arch-deacons to Lord Bishops Lord Bishops to Arch-bishops so the Priests of England 16. The Popish Priests must be distinguished from other people by their Vestments as Surplice Tippet c. so must the Priests of England 17. The Popish Priests are tied to a Book of stinted Prayers and a prescript Order devised by man for their Worship and Administration so are the Ministers of England and that to such an one as is taken out of the Popes Portuis as hath been proved by divers That the Common-prayer Book in Edward the sixth his time was so you have his with his Councils Testimony for it thus they write As for the Service in the English Tongue it hath manifest Reasons for it and yet perchance it seemeth to you a New Service and indeed is no other but the Old the same words in English which were in Latine If the Service of the Church were good in Latine it is good in English How little different the Common-prayer Book now in use is thereunto they that will take pains to compare the one with the other may be satisfied To these parallel particulars might be added sundry more wherein there is an exact symmetrie betwixt the Popish Priests and the present Ministers of England but ex ungue Leonem The sum of what we have been offering in this matter
conclude that these persons and their Abettors were guilty of Rebellion against their Rules and did really deny the lawfulness of their Authority This is the present case if men shall be found traversing paths in the possession and practice of Orders and Constitutions that are foreign to the edicts of Christ yea contrary thereunto shall we not as rationally conclude that these persons are really opposers of his soveraign Authority and Government doubtless so Answ. To the major proposition of the fourth Argument Those that oppugn or deny any of the Offices of Jesus Christ are not to be heard but separated from Answer is made before The major of this argument here needs elucidation and limitation Orders and Ordinances which not only are not of Christs revealing but contrary thereunto are not all of one sort Some are in points of Faith some of practice some in things not fundamental some in fundamental Owning submitting and subscribing to them is either out of ignorance inadvertency infirmity through fear or some other motive or voluntary more or less which may be aggravated by many circumstances and effects Likewise the denying really and opposing of the Offices of Christ may be virtual or formal directly or by consequence by a factious setting up an open Antichrist or by neglecting the proper Authority of Christ. It is true every sin and every errour doth in some sort and degree oppugn the Offices of Jesus Christ Every disobedience to a lawful Magistrate every subjection to an Usurper hath in it somewhat of denying or oppugning his Authority Yet he that should deny that for every such sin or errour a person can be a good Christian or for every such disobedience or subjection a person can be a true subject should too Stoically make a parity in sins and neither hold good Divinity nor teach good Policy It is true he that shall openly and factiously set up another universal Monarch of the Church make other Mediatours to God besides Christ teach any other way of justification than by faith in Christ that shall expresly forbid the observation of what Christ hath commanded as for instance the Lords Supper or any other plain Command of Christ such do deny really and oppose openly the Offices of Christ. But there may be some errours in Faith and teaching of some use in positive Rites as may be a real denying or opposing interpretatively Christs Offices as in teaching Circumcision as necessary at that time Acts 15.5 in owning submitting and subscribing to some use as may be not only not revealed by Christ but also is by nearer or remote consequence a denial of Christs Offices and yet the persons observing it as v. g. the reservation of the Bread in the Eucharist sending it to the sick absent as many did in former times either out of ignorance fear or such like motives and yet these neither to be reckoned for such as either in heart or profession or practice deny the Offices of Christ as enemies to him nor to be shunned as such but may be his true subjects though weak ones Peters denial of Christ his dissimulation Gal. 2. shewed not enmity but infirmity and instability And many sincere Christians may out of errour or weakness teach and practise many things not only a while but also all their dayes and that with much contention and zeal which may inferr a denial of Christs Offices or his Nature as for instance Lutheran Consubstantion and yet are not to be judged opposers of the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ so as to be disclaimed separated from and rejected as no true Christian Brethren or Teachers And therefore the major proposition here may be variously conceived and without some limitations and explications is not to be received But he tells us Sect. 2. Ministers submitting to Canons is unjustly censured 'T is the minor or second Proposition that may be under suspition among some viz. That the present Ministers of England the very best of them do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are not only not of Christs revealing but contrary thereunto in which two things are incumbent on us to prove 1. That the present Ministers of England do own submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are not of Christs revealing This being a charge as to matter of fact the production of a few particulars that lie near at hand for its confirmation will give it a speedy dispatch 1. They own submit and subscribe to the Orders and Offices of Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Arch-deacons with many others appertaining unto this Hierarchie as Orders needful and necessary in the Church of Christ and promise subjection and obedience unto them Eccles. Canons Can. 7. 2. They own and submit Can. 4. to a Liturgy or prescript Form of Worship devised by men and imposed solely by their authority to which they tie themselves neither diminishing nor adding any thing in the matter or form thereof 3. They own subscribe and engage to conform to all the Orders Rites and Ceremonies prescribed in the said Book of Common Prayer Can. 36. such as bowing at the Name of Jesus using the Cross in Baptism kneeling at the Lords Supper which though we do not some would say smells very strong of the Popish Leven and is but one Peg beneath the adoration of their Breaden god wearing the Surplice c 4. They own that the Office of a Deacon is the first step or degree to the Ministry Can. 32 36 to which they are tâ— submit and subscribe before they are made Priests 5. That no person be admitted to expound the Scriptures though indeed worthy of the Cure of Souls as they speak Can. 49. without license from the Bishop thereunto 6. That there be some lawful Ministers which are no Preachers Can. 49 57. 7. That these unpreaching Ministers Can. 57. may lawfully administer the Ordinances of Baptism and the Lords Supper 8. That persons refusing to have their children baptized by such dumb Ministers or receive the Communion from them worthily deserve Excommunication if they shall persist herein Can. 57. 9. That Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops is an Ordinance of God Can. 60. 10. That it appertains to the Office of Ministers to marry Can. 62. 11. That the Bishop of the Diocess may lawfully for a while suspend a Minister from his Ministry for refusing to bury the Dead Can. 68. 12. That 't is not lawful for Ministers to preach or administer the Communion in private houses except in times of necessity Can. 71. 13. That no Minister may lawfully appoint or keep any solemn private Fasts or be wittingly present at any of them nor hold any Meetings for Sermons in Market-Towns or other places which if he do and persevere therein he may lawfully be deposed from his Ministry Can. 72. 14. That Ministers ought to be distinguished by their Vestments and Apparel as Gowns Hoods Tippers Square Caps and in their journeys Cloaks with sleeves called Priests Cloaks Can 74.
is with the Spirit pray that he may interpret that is not only speak with the Spirit but also with the Mind Therefore it is manifest that the prayers Rom 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 are meant of such as are in extraordinary raptures and ecstacies such as the Prophets sometimes had and St. Paul speaks of 2 Cor. 12.1 2 3 4. and cannot be applied to the ordinary publike prayers of the whole Congregation Thirdly the help of the Spirit cannot be meant of suggesting a Form of words because it is said the spirit it self maketh intercession for us with groans unutterable and 1 Cor. 14.15 is such praying in the spirit as may be without the understanding of him that prays or others even such as he that occupieth the room of the unlearned cannot say Amen to seeing he understandeth not what the Speaker saith Fourthly The praying with the Spirit is such as is unfruitful of it self v. 14. and not to be affected of it self nor can be a matter of duty sith it is motus liberi spiritus as the School-men speak rightly a motion of the free Spirit such as lumen propheticum prophetical illumination is which is such a gift as that it may be our duty to use it when we have it not our duty to acquire it Upon all which reasons it is apparent that these Texts are much perverted against the use of a prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man because of the Spirits help Rom. 8.26 praying in the Spirit 1 Cor. 14 15. sith they cannot be meant of ordinary publike prayers and of praying in words unpremeditated as immediately suggested by the Spirit of God Sect 8. The admission of vitious persons to Communion justifies not separation 8. That wicked and ungodly persons and their seed are lawful members of the Church and if they consent not willingly to be so they may be compelled thereunto contrary to Psal. 110.3 Acts 2.40 41 47. and 19 9. 2 Cor. 6.14 17. and 9.13 Answ. This Author shews not where the Law is nor when or how the Ministers subscribes to a Constitution of this instance not know I where to find either It is said Psal. 110.3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power But it doth not therefore follow that men may not be compelled by pecuniary mulcts or other penalties to come to Common Prayer or the Communion For however the question be resolved about liberty of Conscience and toleration in the New Testament yet David meant not that there must none be then compelled if so neither Asa nor Josiah did well in urging the people to swear to cleave to God and to stand to it 2 Chron. 34.32 If understood of the times of the New Testament it proves that members of the Church should be a willing people but not that no other may be lawful members or admitted or caused by commands of Rulers or penalties to joyn with the Church in Gods Worship For then it must be the duty of them that admit members into the Church to know that they whom they admit are a willing people which I think none now can do It is true Acts 2.40 Peter exhorted the Jews to save themselves from that perverse generation of them that opposed Christ and v. 41. Then they that gladly received his Word were baptized and v. 47. The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved but how this proves that wicked and ungodly persons may not be admitted as lawful members of the visible Church Christian nor compelled thereunto I discern not Sure Judas was admitted to the Apostleship and to the Passover if not to the Lords Supper Ananias and Saphira were taken as lawful members Simon Magus baptized we find none blamed for admission to the Lords Supper of disorderly Corinthians And for compulsion from Idolatrous Worship and other evils if Parents may correct these in their children Princes may do it in their Subjects and if Parents may by penalties compel their children to conform to true Religion so may Princes The separation Acts 19 9. is nothing to countenance the separation from the Service and assemblies of the Church of England for that separation was not because of the presence of professed Christians of vitious life but because of divers who were hardned and believed not but spake evil of the way of Christ before the multitude and so endeavour to disturb them in the practice of Christian Religion The words 2 Cor. 6.14 whether we read it be not unequally yoked or unevenly ballanced to the other side with Infidels and whether we expound it of marriage or familiar converse or as the words v. 16. What agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols do plainly evince it to be meant do not joyn with the Idolaters in their Idol Temples to eat there things offered to Idols which he had forbidden 1 Cor. 8.7 10. to partake of the table of Devils 1 Cor. 10.21 it is manifest from v. 15. to be meant of professed Infidels opposite to him that believeth and therefore cannot be understood of not joyning in prayer and the Lords Supper with a professed Believer though of vitious life Nor can the separation from among men v. 17. be understood of any other than professed Infidels nor the the touching the unclean thing be any other then joyning in service of Idols mentioned v. 16. and therefore is manifestly impertinent to the separation from Believers by profession in the service of God by reason of their personal wickedness The last Text 2 Cor. 9.13 is less to the purpose For what shew of consequence is there in this Christians glorifie God for others professed subjection or the subjection of their Confession or consent to the Gospel of Christ therefore wicked persons and such as consent not willingly are not to be taken for lawful members of the Church nor may be compelled thereto It is added 9. That women may administer the Sacrament of Baptism contrary to 1 Cor. 14.34 1 Tim. 2.12 Matth. 28.18 19 20. Ephes. 4.11 Answ. That it is true that in Q. Elizabeths time Baptism by Women in supposed case of necessity was in the English Churches either tolerated or allowed and the like hath been in the Lutheran Churches and Mr. Hooker in his fifth Book of Ecclesiastical Policy sect 62. saith somewhat for it yet since the Conference at Hampton Court in the beginning of King James his reign to the Rubrick of private Baptism in the Common Prayer Book the words lawful Minister were added which still continue the Baptism of Women is not allowed by any constitution nor owned by the present Ministers that I know and therefore this instance is unjustly here recited Yet thus much may be said that notwithstanding Women are excluded from any Ordinary Ministery of the Word or Sacraments in the Church by the Texts alledged 1 Cor. 14.34 1 Tim. 2.12 and from baptizing Mat. 28.18 19 20. Ephes. 4.11 Sith we find that Philip the Evangelist had four
a way of prayer and thanksgiving according to their abilities Indeed Claudius de Sainctes and Pamelius two Popish Divines tell us of Liturgies compâ—sed by the Apostles James Peter and Mark Of Peter 's and Mark 's Cardinal Bellarmine himself not only takes no particular notice but upon the matter condemns them as supposititious and spurious which that they are is abundantly demonstrated by learned Moâ—ney and no more need be added thereunto There are some also fathered upon Basil Chrysostome and Ambrose but as these lâ—ved about the years 372 381 382. in which time many corruptions had crept into the Churches of Christ so the spuriousness thereof as being falsly fathered upon the persons whâ—se names they bear may easily be demonstrated T is already done to our hands by learned Morney in his Book De Missa l. 1. chap. 6. Durantus himself the great Liturgy-monger acknowledgeth That neither Christ nor his Apostles used any prescribed forms but the Lords Prayer and the Creed that they used these he sayes but proves not nor will it ever be proved to the worlds end That about the year 380. Theodosius the Church being rent by Heresies intreated Pope Damasus at whose election though the contest was betwixt him and Ursinus a Deacon of the Church there were not fewer than one hundred thirty seven persons slain that some Ecclesiastical Office might be made which was accordingly done by Hierome and approved by Pope Damasus and madâ— a Rule The unlikâ—lyhood of this later part of the story is manifest Theodosius was too well acquainted with the spirit of Prayer than to goe about any such thing had he judged it necessary having assembled the great Council of Constantinople wherein were not less than an hundred and fifty persons convened is it probable this good man Theodosius would in so momentous a Concern rather consult with one single person than such an Assembly as were by his Authority met together And yet should this be granted it would not from hence appear that at this time there was any devised and imposed all that is pretended to be done by Hierome was the appointiing an order for the reading of the Scriptures which is another thing to the imposition of Forms of Prayer in worship There is one passage in Socrates his Ecclesiastical History l. 5. c. 21. who lived about the year 430. that carrying an undeniable evidence with it that at that time there were no Liturgies we cannot pass over in silence t is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he tells us That among all the Christians in that age scarce two were to be found that used the same words in Prayer Not to tire the Reader in this disquisition Though one part of the Liturgy was not long after introduced by one Pope and another part by another yet till Gregories time who to the honour of Liturgies be it spoken was the very worst of all the Bishops of Rome that preceded him viz. about the year 600. was there any considerable use or any imposing of them yea till the time of Pâ—pe Hadrian which was about the year 800. was it not as I find by publick Authority imposed Then indeed the Emperour Charles the Great being moved thereunto by the foresaid Hadrian by his Civil Authority commands the use of a Liturgy viz. Gregories Liturgy as it is thought to which he compels his Ministers by threats and punishments the usual attendencies and support of Liturgies ever since their production in the world The summ is That in as much as first it cannot be proved the contrary being most manifest in the Scripture that any Liturgy was enjoyned by Christ or his Apostles or in use in the first Churches planted by them 2ly It is evident that for the first four hundred years and more after Christ there was no Liturgy framed nor any by solemn Authority imposed to the year eight hundred it follows undeniably from hence That to worship God in the way of a Liturgy or stinted forms of Prayer is to worship him in a way that is not of his appointment Answ. 1. It is to be remembred that as I said before were his Conclusion granted yet Ministers would not be proved to be Idolaters all worshipping of God in a way that is not of his appointment being not Idolatry except therein Divine or Religious Worship be exhibited to a Creature 2. That his own Argument whose way of Worship is not prescribed without a stinted Form of Prayer would as well prove himself an Idolater as the Ministers of England 3. That he still acknowledgeth that the worship according to the common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book is the worship of the true God nor doth he shew that according to it any other is worshipped 4. That he doth not except against the matter of the Prayers in the common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book no nor the particular forms of expression as if they were not agreeable to the Scriptures or indecent or inept But 1. That all Liturgies or stinted forms of Prayer and consequently this are not of Gods appointment but of humane invention 2. That they are unduly imposed on Ministers 3. That Ministers do sinfully yea Idolatrously use them because it is a way of Worship not appointed by God The two former of these reach not the Ministers of England but the Composers and Imposers it is the third thing which is pertinent to the present Crimination which may occasion to enquire 1. Whether stinted Forms of Prayer and service of God which are not otherwise faulty than in that they are stinted may not be lawfully used by a Minister of the Gospel in his publick ministration 2. Whether such Prayers and service may not be a Worship of God in a way that is of his appointment I affirm both and to what is said against either I answer 1. That Christ did in appointing the Lords Prayer to be used by his Apostles Matth. 6 9. Luke 11.2 the Salutation to be used by the seventy Disciples Luke 10.5 appoint such a stinted form of service 2. That we have footsteps of such a way of Worship in the New Testament in his justifying and countenancing the crying of Hosanna that is Save us now taken from Psal. 118.25 26. as Mr. Ainsworth in his Annotation observes by the multitude And the Children Matth. 21.9.15 Mark 11.9 With the Disciples Luke 19 38 40. John 12.13 In Christs using the Forms which David used before in the Psalms Matth. 27.46 He prayes in the Form used Psal. 22.1 Luke 24.46 In the Form used Psal. 31.5 In the Apostles use of a Form of Prayer in his Epistles Rom. 1.7 Rom. 16.24 1 Cor. 1.3 1 Cor. 16.23 2 Cor. 1.2 Gal 1.3 Ephes. 1.2 Phil. 1.2 Phil. 4.23 Col. 1.2 1 Thes. 1.2 1 Thes. 5.28 1 Thes. 1.2 2 Thes. 3.16 17 18. 1 Tim. 1.2 2 Tim. 1.2 Tit. 1.4 Philem. 3. Heb. 13.25 1 Pet. 1.2 2 Pet. 1.2 2 John 3. Jude 2. Revel 1.4 In the Old Testament Numb 6.23 24 25 26. 1 Chron. 16.7.35 2 Chron. 20.21
1. The whole Worship of God may according to these mens principles be discharged without any Sermon at all and it is manifest it is frequently so at one time or other in most of the Assemblies of England 2. Those their Prayers are also bounded and limited by the 55th Canon of the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical 3. We had alwayes thought that Christ having given gifts unto men did require the use of those gifts at all times when ever persons were called to the performance of that service for which they were designedly given by him by vertue of the fore-mentioned precepts When Christ hath given a gift of Prayer unto his children and charged them to stirr up the gift given them and not to napkin their Talent we had verily thought that when ever they had been called forth to the performance of that duty he did really intend and expect that they should be found in the exercise of the gift given and see as yet no reason to change our apprehensions in this matter Answ. The major Proposition is not in all cases true The resting on the Sabbath day was a positive duty charged by God yet the sacrificing which was an obstruction of that duty called by our Lord Christ Prophaning the Sabbath Matth. 12.5 was Worship of Gods appointment Following of Christ and preaching the Gospel were Worship of Christs appointment and yet they were obstructions to positive duties required to be done to Parents Wives and Children Therefore it is not true unless the thing which is an obstruction be such of its own nature of it self and not by accident and so necessarily and universally such an obstruction But not to insist on this the minor Proposition is many wayes faulty 1. It is supposed that the Common-Prayer Book worship is a different sort of Worship from such as is used by those which exercise the gift of prayer as he terms it which is absurd For then so many several forms of words as are used should be so many several sorts of Worship all expressions that are not immediately inspired should be Will-worship and so preachers several methods and expressions in preaching should be several sorts of Worship This is that which I assert That the same petitions the same Confessions and Thanksgivings for matter are the same prayer and Worship though in various expressions and that the same prayers read out of the Common-prayer Book and the prayers of the preachers framed by themselves and uttered if they ask the same things in other phrases are the same prayers and Worship And they that can joyn with the one and say Amen to them may as lawfully and safely without sin joyn with and say Amen to the other 2. This Authors phrase doth intimate that ability to conceive compose and utter in variety of expressions petitions to God is the gift of prayer and the exercise of it is the exercise of that gift which is false sith the gift of prayer is by the moving of the affections directing the mind exciting faith as the Text alledged by this Author Rom. 8.26 proves the Spirits work being there to acquaint us what we are to pray for and to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to over-intercede for us with groans unspoken or as it is read which cannot be uttered And therefore noâ— in the inspiration of words or method or fitting a person with various or unpremeditated expressions Yea those who express not who do not compose their petitions in any order or method as in Ejaculatory prayers such as Nehemiahs prayer was Nehem. 2.4 Hannahs 1 Sam. 1.13 Hezekiahs Isai. 38.14 Those who premeditate before they pray as David did Psal. 19.14 have as truly and perhaps more rightly and do exercise the gift of prayer as those who in never so extemporary manner enlarge themselves in various expressions and petitions It is true the Author of the Discourse concerning the interest of words in Prayer ch 2. tells us The gift and grace of Prayer are two things This he derives from the spirit of adoption That he defines to be an ability of mind to form words expressive of such desires of our hearts as are according to the will of God conjoyned with a faculty of memoâ—y and of expression and elocution which he saith is partly natural partly by industry attainable But the gift of Prayer here by our Authors words pag. 62. is the donation of the Spirit and usually the exercise of it in expressions unpremeditated or conceived in opposition to praying by a book or written set forms kept in the memory is termed praying in the Spirit and so no natural or acquired ability which is to be observed that the ambiguity of expressions may not deceive the unwary Reader Now if this be observed they that pray in a set form and those that read the Common-Prayer may be truly said to pray in the Spirit if their heart goe with their words and to exercise the gift of Prayer if the gift of Prayer be as the Discourse cited doth describe it 3. The gift of Prayer by alleging Ephes. 4 11 should seem by this Author to be accounted a ministerial gift proper to them for so were the gifts mentioned Ephes. 4.11 which if so then it is not common to the Saints nor the exercise of it a positive duty chaâ—ged by Christ to be performed by the Saints except they be Ministers and so it is not lawful for them except they be Ministers to seek or to use the gift of Prayer If they have it by this Authors arguing they are to exercise it as well as Ministers and it is as unlawful for them to pray by a book as for the Ministers they so praying worship in a way not appointed by God and are Idolaters as well as the Ministers and separation is to be from them as well as from Ministers Whereas iâ— the gift of Prayer be partly natural partly acquired then it is lawful for Ministers or other Saints to make use of any lawful means which may acquire that gift such are any that may be a Directory to know what they aâ—e to pray for that may advantage them for remembring composure or elocution conference imitation of others reading meditation self-examination and if the Common-Prayer Book be a help as some conceive it is it may be lawfully used or any others treatises or forms of Prayer for the obtaining of it And if so the Common Prayer Book worship may be so far from being an obstruction to the positive duty of exercising the gift of Prayer that it may further it by acquainting us with many things we should ask for as the Homilies also may be helps for the knowledge of what Doctrine Preachers are to teach their people And then this Authors Argument may be thus retorted That Form may be lawfully used for Worship which may be a means to further any positive duty charged by Christ to be performed by the Saints But such may be the forms of Prayers
extemporary conceived Prayer of Preachers and others such is the praising of God in the English metre the reading of the Scriptures according to ordinary division of chapters and verses with the contents of the chapters Therefore The major is his own the minor stands good till it be shewed where Christ hath appointed such extemporary praying or such praising such reading the Scripture so divided To which I might add in hearing taking notes of Sermons Preachers using notes in the Pulpit with sundry more but I forbear As for the Texts alledged Ephes. 4.7 c. it speaks not of Worship and its institution by Christ nor what is the necessary requisite to such Worship as is instituted by Christ but only of Gifts that is preaching Officers and the end and use of those gifts Col. 2.19 speaks not of Worship or what is requisite that it be of Christs institution but tells us that Seducers which taught worshipping of Angels held not the Head that is Christ And that from him all the Body that is the Church by joynts and bands having nourishment ministred and knit together increaseth with the increase of God Acts 9.31 speaks not at all of Worship or its institution by Christ or Christs aim in Gospel-administrations or what is requisite that Worship be of his institution Rom. 14.14 15. much less it speaks of the cleanness of things of themselves the uncleanness to him that thinks them so and our duty not to grieve our Brother with our meats 1 Cor. 10.23 tells us of the inexpediency of some things lawful in that they edifie not nothing of Christs aim in his institutions or what is requisite to his instituted Worship 1 Cor. 14.3 4 5 12 26. tells us of the benefit of prophecying the end and use of spiritual gifts nothing of Christs aim in his institution of Worship or the requisite to such institution 2 Cor. 12.10 doth not mention any thing but Pauls affection and estate 1 Tim. 1.4 nothing but the incommodity of fables and genealogies Which should be observed by the Reader that he may be wary how he trusts to this Author's and other Separatists multiplying Texts impertinently that they be not ensnared by them and that such persons may see what cause they have to repent of such abusive wresting of Scripture As for that which he saith of the Common-Prayer Book worship if he mean thereby the prayers or praises in the forms therein I will not say They are necessary for the edification comfort or preservation of the Saints in the Faith and Vnity of the Gospel I yield that they are not necessary those ends may be obtained by other forms of Prayer or rather by preaching confessions of Faith and reading of the Holy Scriptures unto which the Lessons and portions of Scripture confessions of Faith in the Common-Prayer Book are as conducible as other Whether the Churches of Christ in the four first centuries were so excellent as he saith And whether they knew not any thing of such a Worship as the Common Prayer Book worship is a disputable point Et adhuc sub judice lis est What is said That to the Reformed Churches at this day the common-Common-Prayer Book worship is as a polluted accursed abominable thing I find no cause to believe except he mean by them the Churches of the Separatists I find Calvin in his 200 th Epistle saying indeed In Anglicana Liturgia qualem describitis multas video fuisse tolerabiles ineptias Yet in his 87 th Epistle he saith Quod ad formulam precum rituum Ecclesiasticorum valde probo ut certa illa extet c. And I find Maresius of Groning in his Academical Decision of some Questions qu. 11. alledging those words of Calvin and disputing against Francis Johnson his Latine Answer to Carpenter against Liturgies and asserting Liturgical Forms to be admitted by all the Reformed Churches Nor do I find any thing to the contrary in Voetius his Ecclesiastical Policy or any other that have lately written who have gainsaid these speeches and therefore I conceive that this Author in this speech hath too great a smack of that which is in one of Tullies Epistles said of such men Qui semel vereâ—undiae fines transilierit eum gnaviter impudentem esse oportet Neither Smectymnuus nor the Assembly nor Mr. Baxter in his Disputation of a Form of Liturgy nor any other of the Presbyterians that I know have written such things of the Common-Prayer Book as this Author vents If they are to be read he that would find truth should also read the Answers to Smectymnuus Ball 's Tryal of Separation Paget 's Arrow against the Separatists with others As for â— Powel his Tract I find in it such a sardle of false Principles misallegations of Texts non-syllogizing confused Dictates with vain Giâ—des that me-thinks no sober or judicious person should be moved by it The Common-Prayer Vnmasked I have not seen The Discourse of the Interest of Words in Prayer doth not advantage this Author to prove separation from Ministers or their Ministry by reason of the Common-Prayer The Discourse of Liturgies I have read and find in it little Logick a great many words which if they were reduced to syllogistical form would appear to be a bulk without sinews Not to mention the many absurd Dictates among which I have observed this that p. 16. The Lâ—rds Prayer is made to belong to the Oeconomy of the Old Testament and to argue thence to the New is to deny Christ to be ascended on high But I must attend the Author here who adds Sect. 8. No Particularity instituted is a meer Circumstance yet Particularities undetermined are Object If to what hath hitherto been proposed it be said That the Liturgy or Common-Prayer Book is no essential part of Worship but meerly circumstantial Praying t is true is part of Worship but praying in this or that Form is not so but meerly a circumstance thereof And therefore though it be true that the present Ministers of England worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer Book yet it follows not that they worship him after a way that is not of his appointment To this we answer 1. That many things are strenuously supposed as the Basis upon which the weight of this Objection is laid which the Framers thereof knowing to be no easie task to demonstrate do earnestly beg us to grant unto them which being matter of greater moment than many are aware of we shall not part with on such easie terms T is supposed First That there are some things in the instituted Worship of Christ that are meerly circumstances thereof as such Secondly That it is lawful for Saints to pray in a Form Thirdly That Forms of Prayer imposed are but meer circumstances of Worship and no essential parts thereof Fourthly That circumstances of Worshâ—p as such are not determined by the Lord in the Scripture but left to the wills of men to determine therein as they shall
up to him a worship meerly of humane composition once abused to Idolatry with the rites and modes of Idolaters are deeply guilty of the sin of Idolatry Answ. That the Common-prayer Book worship is a worship meerly of humane composition however the Form of words be is denied and not proved by this Author whose mistakes in confounding them are before shewed Nor is the worship of the common-Common-prayer Book proved to have been abusâ—d to Idolatry because the Foâ—ms of words were taken out of the Popish Service Books any more than that the Scriptures or Creed found in them were abused to Idolatry because thence taken The worship being agreeable to Gods Word cannot be abused to Idolatry Nor doth the Form of words used in the Mass-book or Bâ—eviary which is otherwise holy and â—ight if it had never been in those books cease to be holy and right when the Idolatrous Forms are left out any more than Gold found in a Dunghill remains Dung and ceaseth to be Gold when the filth is washed away from it To that of the common-Common-prayer Book being taken out of the Popes Portuis and King Edwards words answer is made in the Answer to the 3d. chapter sect 4. The offer of the Pope and the report of his Intelligencers pâ—oves that the Pope had nothing to except against the common-Common-Prayer Book or the Service of the Church of England but not that they are every way the same with that which is used in the Church of Rome Concerning its being taken out of the Popes Portuis at least for the greatest piece Arch-bishop Whitgift in his Aâ—swer to the first Admonition p. 82. said long agoe It maketh no matter of whom it was invented in what book it is contained so that it be good and profitable and consâ—nant to Gods Word Well saith Ambrose Omne verum à quocunque dicitur à Spiritu Sancto All truth of whomsoever it is spoken is of the Holy Ghost As for the Book of Ordination he anâ—wers the words of the second Admonition p. 201. thus It is most false and untrue that the Book of ordering Ministers and Dâ—acons c. now used is word for word drawn out of the Popes Pontifical being almost in no point correspondent to the same as yâ—u might have seen if you had compared them tâ—gether But ignorance and rashness drives you into many errours As for the rites and modes and ceremonies objected those which are in the Church of Rome Idolatrous are not observed or used by the Ministers who minister according to the Common-Prayer Book to whom conformity with the Popish Priests therein is injuriously imputed and they are so farr from being found deeply guilty of the sin of Idolatry that the very aâ—guings of this Author rather acquit them than convince them As for the words of Maccovâ—us they are not right we may retain the goods used to Idolâ—try and apply them to holy uses though they have been abused by Idolaters yea and abused to Idolatry as the Temples Bells Tables which have been abused to the Idolatry of the Mass as is largely proved by Mr. Pageâ— in his Arrow against the separation of the Brownâ—sts in answer to Mr Ainsworth ch 7. Nor is it pâ—oved by Maccovius out of the Texts alleged here That the sacred rites of Idolaters though they be things in themselves indifferent are not to be retained but that all conformity with Idolaters is to be avoided For none of the Texts speak of things in themselves indifferent Turning unto Idols and making to themselves molten Gods forbidden Levit. 19.4 being gross Idolatry the rounding the corners of their heads marring the corners of their beards v. 27. making baldness upon their head shaving off the corner of their beard cutting their flesh Levit. 21.5 making baldness bettween their eyes for the dead being heathenish customes which were Idolatrous as Ainsworth Annot. on Levit. 21.5 Such as those 1 Kings 18.28 Or as Salmasius in his Book of long hair the rounding of the corners of their hâ—ads to have been in honour of the Moon Or shewing heathenish sorrow for the dead all sinful in themselves and therefore not indifferent But there is yet one more Charge behind Sect. 15. Kneeling in receiving the Sacramental elements is not Idolatry Argument 3. Adoration in by or before a creature respectiâ—è or with relation to the creature is Idolatry such as so adore or wâ—â—ship Gâ—d are Idolaters But the present Ministers of England do adore or worship God in by or before a creature respective or with relation to the creature Therefore The major or first Proposition being generally owned by Protestants it being the very same Maxim they make use of and stop the mouth of the Papists with in the point of adoring God mediately by the creature we shall not stand upon the proof of it none that know what they say will deny it The minor Proposition viz. That the present Ministers of England do adore or worship God in by or before the creature respectivè or with relation to the creature will receive a quick dispatch Not to mention their bowing and cringing at the Altar That they kneel at receiving of the Sacrament is known That they with their Communicants should do so is enjoyned by their Church That their so dâ—ing is an adoration or worshipping of God before the creature respectivè or with relation to the creature is too manifest to admit of a denial Nothing being more certain than that the Elements are the objectum à quo or the motive of their kneeling which if they were not there they would not do And in the margin Didoclavius p. 755. saith Genusâ—ectere non modò excludit ritus institutionis sed etiam praeceptum secundum de Vitanda Idololatria multis modis violat VVhich Maccovius assents to loc com p. 861. Answ. Whether this Authors Antagonists know what they say this Author seems not a fit Judge unless either he knew better what himself saith or could better clear his meaning than he doth that his Readers might know what he saith In this Argument he doth accuse the present Mnisters of England and their Communicants of Idolatry in kneeling at the receiving of the bread and wine in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and yet ch 5. p. 40. he had said Kneeling at the Lords Supper though we do not some would say smells very strong of the Popish leaven and is but one pegg bâ—neath the adoration of their breaden-God Here he expâ—esly makes that Idolatry undeniable as being adoration or wâ—â—ship of God in by or before the creature to wit the elementâ— respectivè or with relation to the creature as objectum significativè a quo or the motive of their kneeling which if it were not they would not do So that one while he will not say it smâ—lls strongly of the Popish leaven nor that it is but one pegg beneath the adoration of their breaden-God and if so did he know what he saith he
Christ in the Scripture Sect. 7. The Office of Lord Bishops not from the Papacy Sect. 8. The Ordination of Bishops is also of Presbyters Chap. 4. Arg. 4. Sect. 1. They that deny not Christs Offices doctrinally may be heard Sect. 2. Every not hearkening to Christs Order is not a denial of his Office Sect. 3. It is not proved that Christs Sovereign Authority is rejected by the present Ministers Sect. 4. Ministers oppose not the will of Christ by not joyning in the separation pleaded for Sect. 5. Election and Excommunication by the Church are not Christs Institution Sect. 6. No contempt of the Authority of Christ is in the Church of England by setting up Officers and Offices Sect. 7. Election of Ministers by the common Suffrage of the Church is not proved to be Christs appointment Sects 8. Prophecying is not opposed by the Ministers Sect. 9. Ministers service may be Divine and Spiritual in the use of the Liturgy Sect. 10. Things objected against the Ministers are not such as justifie separation Chap. 5. Sect. 1. All owning of orders different from or contrary to Christs proves not a denial of his Offices Sect. 2. Ministers submitting to Canons is unjustly censured Sect. 3. Making Canons in things undetermined and subjection to them agrees with Scripture Sect. 4. It s no derogation from Scripture or Christ that such Canons are made and obeyed Sect. 5. All particularities of Decency and Order in things sacred are not determined in Scripture Sect. 6. It s not proved that the Ministers of England own constitutions contrary to the Revelation of Christ. Sect. 7. A prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man is not contrary to Rom. 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 Sect. 8. The admission of vitious persons to Communion justifies not separation Sect. 9. Receiving of the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to Christs practice or precept of abstaining from appearance of evil 1 Thess. 5.22 Sect. 10. Forbidding to Marry or eat Flesh at certain times are not Characters of Apostates as 1 Tim. 4.3 is meant Sect. 11. No such headship is owned by the present Ministers as is a denial of Christs Offices Sect. 12. Conformity to Laws opposite to Christs proves not owning another King co-ordinate to him Sect. 13. Headship of the Church under Christ not monstrous Sect. 14. The Kings Supremacy is such as was allowed the Kings of Israel Chap. 6. Arg. 5. Sect 1. False Doctrine only makes a false Prophet not to be heard Sect. 2. The Ministers not false Prophets because not sent as Jer. 23.21 Rom. 10.15 is meant Sect. 3. The Ministers not proved to commit Adultery and walk in lyes as Jer. 23.14 is meant Sect. 4. The Ministers are not proved to strengthen the hands of evil doers as Jer. 23.14 is meant Sect. 5. The Ministers are not proved such daubers as those Ezek. 22.28 Sect. 6. Ministers changing of places sadning some mens hearts not characters of a false Prophet Sect. 7. Pressing rigid Conformity no proof of the Ministers being false Prophets Sect. 8. The charge Ezek. 22.26 reacheth not the Ministers of England Sect. 9. The Ministers are not the false Shepheards meant Ezek. 34.4 Sect. 10. The Ministers of England are not the second Beast foretold Rev. 13.11 Chap. 7. Arg 6. Sect 1. All Idolatry is exhibiting Divine Worship to a creature Sect. 2. All will-worship of God is not Idolatry Sect. 3. This Authors Argument as well proves himself an Idolater as the Conformist Sect. 4. Prayer in a stinted form may be worship of God of his appointment Sect. 5. Common-Prayer Book worship shuts not out of doors the exercise of the gift of Prayer Sect. 6. Common-Prayer Book worship is not of pure humane invention Sect. 7. common-Common-Prayer Book worship is the same with the worship of the Reformed Churches Sect. 8. No particularity instituted is a meer circumstance yet particularities undetermined are Sect. 9. Praying in a form may be praying in the Spirit Sect. 10. The Forms of Prayer imposed are not made necessary essential parts of Worship Sect. 11. Acting in the holy things of God by the Office Power and Modes of Idolaters may be without Idolatry Sect. 12. The English Ministers oppose Popish Idolatry as other Protestants Sect. 13. The Ministers of England act not by vertue of an Office Power from Idolaters Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry Sect. 15. Kneeling in the receiving the Sacramental Elements is not Idolatry Sect. 16. The crimination of the Ministers as Idolaters is not excusable Sect. 17. The Martyrs are unjustly made Idolaters by this Author Chap. 8. Arg. 7. and 8 Sect. 1. Every offence of others makes not sinful that which is otherwise lawful Sect. 2. Hearing the present Ministers may be the Saints duty Sect. 3. Sinful scandalizing is not by hearing the present Ministers Sect. 4. It is not scandal given but when the offensive action is done blameably Sect. 5. Offending some sincere Christians by hearing the present Ministers is not the scandalizing threatned Matth. 18.16 Sect. 6. The Separatists give more just cause of offence to godly sober Christians than the Conformists do to them Sect. 7. Hearing the present Ministers may be without participation with them in sin Chap. 9. Arg 9 10 11 12. Sect. 1. Separation of some from other Christians is no institution of Christ. Sect. 2. Meeting of Christians as a distinct body is not Christs Institution Sect. 3. Separated Congregational Churches in opposition to National are not of Christs Institution Sect. 4. To attend only on the Ministry of Ministers of Congregational Churches is not Christs appointment Sect. 5. Hearing the present Ministers casts no contempt on Christs Institutions Sect. 6. Hearing the present Ministers hardens none in sin Sect. 7. Gods people are not called out of the Temples in England as places of false Worship Sect. 8. There is ground to expect a blessing in hearing the present Ministers Sect. 9. Hearing the present Ministers is no step to Apostasie Sect. 10. Pollution in one part makes not the whole worship polluted Chap. 10. Fifty Arguments for hearing the present Ministers Sect. 1. Christs direction Matth. 23.2 3. warrants hearing the present Ministers Sect. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sate in Moses his Chair as Teachers not as Magistrates Sect. 3. The Pharisees were not Church Officers of Gods appointment Sect. 4. Christ allows hearing the Pharisees while they taught the Law of Moses Sect. 5. Hearing Pharisees teaching Moses Law not attendance on their Ministry as Pastors is allowed by Christ. Sect. 6. Christ and his Apostles going to the Jewish Meetings is opposite to the Separatists opinion and practise Sect. 7. Pauls rejoycing at the preaching Christ of contention warrants hearing the present Ministers Sect. 8. The truth Ministers teach warrants the hearing of them Sect. 9. Evil persons may be heard as true Ministers Sect. 10. It is a sin not to encourage good men in their Ministry Sect. 11. The example of the learned
proposition stands as cannot be easily shaken or removed Answ. Though there be no one promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture upon persons attending on such a Ministry as theirs is that act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling whether real or supposed as such yet if any that so acts as suppose a Dominican Fryer or Jesuite in the Indies do Preach the Gospel truly there is a blessing promised in Scripture upon persons attending on such a Ministry Christ having said Luke 11.28 Blessed are they that hear the Word of God and keep it yet were there no promise of blessing the major is not proved unless this were true they are not to be heard but to be separated from to whose Ministry as such a blessing is not promised which makes unlawful the hearing of gifted Brethren unless they can produce such a promise yea every action indifferent should be unlawful unless it have a blessing promised to it What more he can say for his major yet rests in his breast and so needs no answer till it be produced I hasten to the proof of his minor Sect. 2. The names given to the Ministers of England prove not their Office not to be from Christ. The minor saith he wants not sufficient demonstration First the present Ministers of England are either from Christ or from Antichrist There is no medium a Linsey-woolsey-Ministry that is partly of Christ partly of Antichrist as 't is not to be proved by Scripture so will it not be abetted That they are not from Christ hath in part been proved already and may further be evinced 1. Their names are forraign to the Scripture where read we of Deacons in their sense Priests as distinguished from Christians in the New Testament Deans Cannons Petty-Cannons Prebendaries Arch-Deacons Lord Bishops Parsons Vicars c. these are only found in the Popes Pontifical whence they are derived Answ. It hath been abetted by Mr Bradshaw in his Answer to Francis Johnson his second reason against hearing the Ministers of the Church-Assemblies of England whose Arguments this Author hath revived though answered long since by Mr. William Bradshaw and the answers vindicated by Mr. Thomas Gataker from Mr. Cans reply that there is a medium and that a Ministry may be from Christ in respect of the thing Ministred though from Antichrist in respect of the way of entry into it yea he saith It is not necessary that the Ministry of Priests and Deacons though ordained by Antichrist himself should be the Ministry of his Apostasie but notwithstanding his Ordination their Ministry may be the Ministry of Jesus Christ as was the Ministry of Luther Huss Wickliffe and others I add that if by being from Christ or Antichrist be understood of outward calling as this Author seems to mean Ministers mâ—y be neither from Christ nor Antichrist and yet true Ministers as those that Preached Christ even of envy and strife yet St. Paul saith Philip. 1.15 18. Notwithstanding every way whether in pretence or truth Christ is Preached and I therein do rejoyce yea and will rejoyce But let us consider his proofs that the present Ministers of England are not from Christ. To the first I answer that the term Priests as distinguished from all Christians in the sense used by the Convocation of the Church of England is the same with Presbyters as appears by the Latin translation of the 39 Articles of the Church of England Art 32.36 extant by it self and in the Corpus Syntagma confessionum of the Protestant Churches and the Letters of Orders under the seals of Bishops in Latin and this is sure found in Scripture Act. 11.30 c. The other names note not any Ministry different from the Ministry of Christ but are used to signifie some difference in their maintenance or places which may be annexed to them and yet their Ministry from Christ. If this Authors reason were good the names are forraign to the Scripture therefore the things it would follow that Congregational Churches are forraign to Scripture Lecturers Sacraments Ruling Elders Itinerant Preachers c. because their names are not there But this Author adds So are 2. Their Officers Deacons attending tables we read of but Deacons Praying Preaching Administring Sacraments so called by virtue of an Office-power an order of the first step to the Priesthood we find not Priests in the Old Testament both true and false we read of In the New Saints are so called 1. In respect of Analogie to the ritual Priest of old whose prerogative it was to come near to God Deut. 21.5 to whom through Christ Saints have access with boldness Ephes. 2.18 3.19 James 4.8 2. In respect of their union and engrafture into Christ the great High-Priest over the house of God 3. In respect of that analogie there is betwixt what Christ hath done for them as Priest and by his Spirit worketh in them He offered up Sacrifice so do they Psal. 116.17 141.2 Rom. 12.1 Heb. 13.14 He was crucified died so are they Rom. 6.6 7 8 c. Gal. 2.20 4. As Priests they are anointed to the participation of do thereby attain to a kind of holy and intimate communion with Christ in all his glorious Offices Rev. 5.10 But an office of Priesthood in men for the Ministery of the Gospel that are to be branded by men in that their Office must Preach what they would have them and cease when they would have them as is the case of the present Ministry of England the Scripture is a stranger to Answ. Though the present Ministers of England men are to hear be more than Deacons yet this may be said that if it be supposed that the Office of a Deacon be not now to attend Tables as the first seven Deacons were Act. 6.2 yet according to the book of Ordination it is his Office where provision is so made to search for the sick poor and impotent people of the Parish to intimate their Estates Names and places where they dwell unto the Curate that by his Exhortation they may be relieved with the almes of the Parishioners or others If they be appointment to Pray Preach and Administer the Sacraments they have this to plead that Philip the Deacon did both Preach and Baptize Act. 8.5 12 38. that St. Paul requires of the Deacons 1 Tim. 3.9 That they hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience and v. 13. They that have used the Office of a Deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus and therefore may the Deacons Office be well conceived the first step to the Priesthood that is the Office of a Presbyter As for the word Priest as it answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament if the Saints as Saints may be termed Priests then may the Elders or the best of them surely be called Priests yea and that in
is this First those Ministers that in their Names Offices Admission into their Offices are not to be found in the Scripture are not Ministers of Christ act not by vertue of an Authority Office Power Calling received from him Secondly Those Ministers that in their Names Office Admission into their Office are at a perfect agreement with the Ministers of Antichrist such are the Popish Priests acknowledged to be by those with whom we have to do are not the Ministers of Christ have not received any Power Office or Calling from him to act in the holy things of God But such as hath been abundantly demonstrated are the present Ministers of England therefore these have received no Power Office or Calling from Christ and so are Antichristian Quod erat demonstrandum Answ. Of these particulars the three first are granted and avouched as not Popish but justifiable and agreeable to Orthodox antiquity To the fifth I return the same answer that Arch-Bishop Whitgift gave Surely if those things which were good in the Popes Pontifical and either contained in the Scripture or well used before in the ancient Church or well prescribed by General Councils be also in our Pontifical our Pontifical is never the worse for having of them for if the thing it self be good and profitable it forceth not from whom it was taken or of whom it was used so that now it be rightly used But it is most false and untrue that the Book of Ordering Ministers and Deacons c now used is word for word drawn out of the Popes Pontifical being almost in no point correspondent to the same as you might have seen if you had compared them together But ignorance and rashness drives you into many errours To the sixth though the English Prelates avouch not the Opinions of the Popish Writers of giving grace ex opere operato by the Sacrament of Orders as they call it of the indelible character imprinted by the laying on of hands of the Prelates with such other of their errours as wherein they over-magnifie the power they have in their imposition of hands yet they plead that they do use the words Joh. 20.22 23. in the Ordination of Priests without blasphemy or absurdity Archbishop Whitgift in his Answer to the Admonition p. 49. of the Edition 1572. in 40. To use these words Receive the Holy Ghost in Ordering of Ministers which Christ himself used in appointing his Apostles is no more ridiculous and blasphemous than it is to use the words that he used in the Supper But it is blasphemy thus outragiously to speak of the words of Christ. The Bishop by speaking these words doth not take upon him to give the Holy Ghost no more than he doth to remit sins when he pronounceth the remission of sins but by speaking these words of Christ Receive the Holy Ghost Whose sins soever ye remit they are remitted c. he doth shew the principal duty of a Minister and assureth him of the assistance of Gods Holy Spirit if he labour in the same accordingly Mr. Richard Hooker Eccl. Polit. l. 5. sect 77. The Holy Ghost may be used to signifie not the person alone but the gifts of the Holy Ghost and the very power and authority which is given men in the Church to be Ministers of Holy things is contained within the number of those gifts whereof the Holy Ghost is Author and therefore he which giveth this power may say without absurdity or folly Receive the Holy Ghost such power as the Spirit of Christ hath endued his Church withal See Edward Stilling fleets Irenicum part 2. c. 6. p. 231. Bradshaw against Fr. Johnson p. 65. of Gatakers Rejoynder to Can. Though in their Ordination of Ministers the Bishops use as a Ceremonial speech to say Receive the Holy Ghost and therein peradventure offer some force to the Scripture unto which they allude yet they disclaim all actual power and authority of giving the person or gifts of the Holy Ghost unto men Besides I add sith the laying on of hands is together with the designation of the person a sign of prayer as Mat. 19.13 Mark 10.16 and in Confirmation and the Apostles use Acts 8.15 and in Ordination Acts 13.3 those words may be used prayer-wise and freed from exception Whereto perhaps that makes which Dr. Field l. 5. of the Church ch 56 hath The Council of Carthage 4. Canon 3. provideth that in the Ordination of a Presbyter the Bishop holding his hand on his head and blessing him all the Presbyters that are present shall hold their hands by the hand of the Bishop and the person Ordained kneeling joyns in prayer for the Blessing So Dr. Sparks conceived it might be understood ch 15. of Unity and Uniformity Ecclesiast disc of the French Reformed Churches art 8. ch 1. The Ordained shall kneel when they impose their hands on him To the seventh Ordination is not alwayes at a Cathedral and may be before the Congregation to whom the person is to be Priest To the eighth That it is not alwayes so nor when so Popish See before in Answer to the Preface sect 22. and to chap. 2. sect 3. To the nineth To offer a persons self for Ordination may be no evil but in some cases a duty 1 Tim. 3.1 Isa. 6.8 Giving money for Letters of Ordination is no simony but only wages to the Register for his writing as when the Register was paid for writing and sealing the Instrument signifying the person to be an approved Preacher Against any Bishops taking money for Ordition and the Registers exacting overmuch provision is made Canon 135 Eccl 1. Jac. and even in the Council of Trent Sess. 21. Decr. de reformatione c. 1. To the tenth The Priests of England are not to be Ordained without some title according to Cannon 33. even the Trent Council ubi supra c. 2. hath made some provision about it It is necessary that some bâ— Ordained though they have not a fixed flock to attend upon Ministers are necessary for Armies Navies and sundry occasions which continue but for a while Even the Synod of Dort made some Orders about such and the New-England Elders that imploy Ministers to teach the Native salvage people do justifie the Ordaining to Office without a flock to attend upon unless they would have them imployed without Ordination which were incongruous to the Holy Ghosts direction Act 13.2 If Itinerant Preachers should have Approbation they should have Ordination To the eleventh subscription is required by the 36. Canon to three Articles about the Kings Supremacy the Books of common-Common-prayer and Ordination and the 39. Articles of Religion at Ordination the Priest promiseth obedience to his Ordinary to follow with a glad mind and will his godly admonitions and submit himself to his godly judgment by the late Act unfained Assent and Consent is further required but none of these by Oath the Oath of Canonical Obedience is only required at Institutions into Benefices and is
bounded with such terms as make it not intolerable sure it is nothing like that which is required of Papists according to the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth supra forma juramenti professionis fidei To the twelfth The practice of leaving Benefices is not strange to any Churches even from New England some have come into Old England leaving their places there nor are there wanting like instances of Congregational men at home perhaps for greater benefit without consent of the people The practices are not on any side justifiable in all yet we read in Scripture of removals of Ministers from one place to another upon urgent occasions To the thirteenth The person Ordained hath authority committed to him by the Bishop to preach the Word of God in the Congregation where he should be lawfully appointed that is by License which is thought needful to be added besides Ordination because all persons are not alike fitted for all Congregations the Voice and other abilities not serving for one Congregation which will for another To the fourteenth Silencing Suspending and Degrading may be necessary in some cases Tit. 1.11 and 3.10 if the Laws intrust the Prelates with it so it hath been in other Churches besides the Popish The abuse of it is justifiable in none To the fifteenth Inequality is judged to have been in the Elders of the Primitive Churches by the inscription of the seven Epistles of Christ to the seven Angels of the seven Churches of Asia and hath been in some sort in all Churches which have been well ordered and too much experience shews that by reason of the inequality of parts and minds it is necessary to settled order What is undue in the Popish or Protestant Churches should be charged on the Authors not on the Ministry it self To the sixteenth The Vestments of English Priests are not all the same with Popish those that are it 's denied to have the same use and therefore not to be charged with the same superstition To the seventeenth Even the late Assembly of Westminster prescribed a Directory for Worship and Ministration The Common-prayer Book that now is urged should not be judged the worse in those prayers or portions of Scripture which are holy and good because they were in the Popes Porluis no more than the acknowledgment of Jesus to be the Son of the most High God is the worse because the Devil used it Mark 5.7 And therefore King Edward the 6. his plea for it was good and the thing not to be misliked because used in the Roman Church who though they have many great corruptions in their Doctrine and Worship yet have they retained the Bible Apostles Creed many prayers from ancient Fathers and some Popes who were holy men and Martyrs in the first Ages which are not to be rejected because continued by later vicious and Antichristian Popes That which is insinuated as if the Common-prayer Book now in use were little different from the Popes Portuis or Missal is very untruly and unjustly suggested He that shall impartially and without prejudice compare the one with the other shall find a vast difference in the things liable to exception I have made some view of the Roman Missal of Pius the 5. and Clement the 8. and Breviary of Pius the 5. and Urban the 8. and though I deny not sundry Collects Prayers Hymns Lessons Psalms Epistles and Gospels are the same in the Common-prayer Book in English with those in Latine as being either parts of Holy Scripture or agreeable to it yet there are so many differences in fundamentals of Doctrine substantials of Worship and in Rituals as the invocation of Saints and the opinions of Merit sacrifice for Quick and Dead adoration of the Host vertue of the Cross half Communion and many more things material that I cannot but judge that either much ignorance or much malice it is that makes any traduce the English Common-Prayer Book as if it were the Popish Mass Book or as bad as it and to deterr men from joyning with those Prayers and Services therein which are good as if it were joyning with Antichrist the Pope or receiving the mark of the Beast when they can hardly be ignorant that the Martyrs in Queen Maries dayes were burnt for it is impudent falshood By the parallel particulars and such other as might be alledged cannot be inferred an exact symmetrie betwixt the Popish Priests and the present Ministers of England In many particulars might there be shewn a parallelism between Ministers of the Congregational Churches and Presbyterial and the Popish yet an exact symmetrie would not thence be demonstrated Few of these particulars alledged are unjustifiable those that are if not excusable yet are far from that which is the main thing charged on the Papists and disputed against learnedly by Mr. Francis Mason against Champney that they Ordain Priests to offer the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass for Quick and Dead which is abhorred by the English Prelates and Ministers and they are not to be charged to symbolize in Office with the Popish Order of Priests for which this Author hath produced nothing though it were the chief thing to be proved and therefore the minor of his Syllogism is denied and it is manifestly false which he saith he hath abundantly demonstrated it he having said nothing to prove it in the main Sect. 5. The Office of Bishops is not proved to be Antichristian but may be found in Scripture It follows Secondly Those that receive their Power Office and Calling from a Lord Bishop and act in the Holy things of God by virtue of that Power Office or Calling act in the Holy things of God by virtue of an Anâ—ichristian Power Office and Calling But the present Ministers of England receive their Power Office and Calling from a Lord Bishop and act in the Holy things of God by virtue of that Power Office and Calling Therefore The consequence of the major or first proposition is manifest the Office of a Lord Bishop is Antichristian therefore those that act by virtue of a Power Office or Calling received from them act by virtue of an Antichristian Power Office or Calling That the Office of Lord Bishops is Antichristian one would wonder should be denied in such a day as this after so full a demonstration thereof by many witnesses of Christ who have wrote so clearly in this matter as if they carried the Sun-beams in their right hand especially that it should be denied by persons of Presbyterian and Congregational principles if indeed any of them do deny it To prosecute this matter to the uttermost is not our present intendment the intelligent Reader knows where to find it done already to our hand and if after all that hath been said any through self love or fear of persecution will herein be ignorant we might say Let them be ignorant Answ. The Office Power and Calling received from a Lord Bishop is all one with the Office Power and Calling
received from a Bishop Suffragan who is not a Lord and therefore the adding of the title Lord to Bishop being only a civil title they being made Barons of the Land by the King and nothing pertaining to their Ordination but only giving them power to vote in Parliament or Convocation with other dignities is only brought in here ad faciendum populum to create envy or hatred against them in the Common people or others who are prepossessed with prejudice against them What their Office is as Bishops may be best discerned by the Book of Consecration which I gather from their promises and the prayers then used to be the instruction of the people committed to their charge out of the Holy Scripture and to teach or maintain nothing as required of necessity to eternal salvation but that which they shall be perswaded may be concluded and proved by the same faithfully to exercise themselves in the same Holy Scriptures and call upon God by prayer for the true understanding of the same so as they may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome Doctrine and to withstand and convince the Gainsayers to be ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange Doctrine contrary to Gods Word and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same to maintain and set forward as much as shall lie in them quietness love and peace among men and such as be unquiet disobedient and criminous within their Diocess correct and punish according to such authority as they have by Gods Word and as to them shall be committed by the Ordinance of the Realm to be faithful in Ordaining Sending or Laying hands upon others to shew themselves gentle and merciful for Christs sake to poor and needy People and to all Strangers destitute of help These are their Offices which they are required to perform at their Consecration whatever their practise be it pertains not to the present point this is the Office they undertake and it is as much wonder to me that any sober man should assert this to be Antichristian as it is to him that some should deny it I deny not but there are many that have termed Bishops Antichristian nor have there been wanting who have said as much of persons of Presbyterian and Congregational principles but such use of this term I have alwayes condemned even when Bishops were lowest as tending to nothing but to inflame the minds of Dissenters in opinion with hatred one against another but I have not met with any sober Writer or considerate man who in conference hath judged their Office as it is undertaken by them to be Antichristian I deny not that many learned men at home and abroad have disputed whether Bishops are by Divine Right an Order above Presbyters nor have there been wanting even of the Bishops themselves who have denied it Somewhat I have read on both sides but shall leave that controversie now and only examine what this Author saith to prove the Office of Lord Bishops to be Antichristian We shall saith he propose briefly a word or two in this matter 1. That Office that is not to be found in the Scriptures of the institution of Christ but is contrary to express precepts and commands of his is Antichristian But the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in the Scriptures is contrary to express precepts Therefore Answ. I think the Major is not true if universal The Office of some Religious Votaries is not to be found in the Scriptures of the institution of Christ but is contrary to express Precepts and Commands of his and yet may not be Antichristian in that special sense in which the Scripture useth the word Antichrist nor as I suppose this Author useth it unless he make every sin to be Antichristian But because the Minor is that which he insists on I pass to his proof of it The minor Proposition consists of two parts 1. That the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in Scripture of the institution of Christ He gave indeed Apostles Prophets Pastors and Teachers Ephes. 4.11 of Pastors and Teachers we read Rom. 12.7 8. Ephes. 4.8 Bishops also and Deacons without the interposition of any other Order we find 1 Tim. 3.12 Deacons we have appointed Acts 7. Elders Acts 14.23 those who are Bishops we find called Presbyters Tit. 1.5 7. and those who are Presbyters we find termed Bishops Acts 20.28 Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops but where the Office of Lord-Bishops was instituted by Christ we are yet to seek indeed some appearances of a spirit striving to ascend into this chair of wickedness was seen in Diotrephes and others in the Apostles time but these were the Antichrists that were then gone abroad into the world The Scripture before mentioned Ephes. 4.11 speaks as fully to the Officers and Offices instituted by Christ as any we meet with Fail they in their deduction of their Office from hence and they will undoubtedly prove successless in their attempts Let us then fix here a little mention we find here of Apostles Prophets Pastors and Teachers none at all either here or elsewhere of Lord-Bishops But perhaps their Office though they are called by another name is comprehended in some one or other of these let that then be considered Are they Prophets that in the sense of the Spirit in this place they will not pretend to Are they Pastors or Teachers This is too great a debasement of their Lordships their Parochial Priests over whom they preside are supposed to be Offiâ—ers in that degree What then are they Apostles Their successors they do indeed boast themselves to be and are so accounted by their abettors and so doth the Pope himself but how prove they their Succession from them if they derive it through the Papacy who sees not the invalidity thereof How lubricous and uncertain is that their Succession How do they therein proclaim their shame and yield the matter in Controversie What clearer argument that they are Antichristian if the Pope be the Antichristian Head over many Countries as is by the generality of Protestants believed and will not by themselves be gainsayed But in what sense do they pretend to be the Apostles Successors Do they succeed them as Christians that is not the thing in question they stand or fall in respect thereof to their own Master herein we have no controversie with them as not willing to judge any thing before the time Do they succeed them in respect to their Offâ—ice let them prove that and take the cause The Apostles were first immediately sent by Christ secondly extraordinary Officers Commissionated to the Preaching of the Gospel throughout the Nations of the World Are their Lordships such what can be imagined more frivolous or false Where find we any Apostles after the departure of those that were immediately by Christ called to that Office Did the Apostles ordain any as their
determined to be the more excellent of all Episcopal terms the Roman Bishops should alone retain it whereas before it was common to all Bishops hath been judged deservedly the head of Antichrist which Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome had not long before lib. 7. indict 2. Epist. 96. made Antichristian and the Usurper a forerunner of Antichrist yet the Bishops of Rome in the first ages were not so accounted and therefore it follows not though the later Popes be the head of Antichrist that the Office that is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy is surely Antichristian there having been Offices perhaps derived from good Popes and continued only in the Church of Rome which deserve not that censure but approbation rather Nor is it necessary that every thing derived from Popes since they have been the head of Antichrist and continued only in the Papacy should be Antichristian the head of Antichrist may institute something that is not Antichristian 2. It is not true that the Office of Lord Bishops is derived from and is only to be found in the Papacy It is manifest in the first Nicene Council Canon 6. that then and before were Patriarchs Metropolitan Bishops and Lord Bishops with their Office and that Council was in the fourth Century about the year 326. And that in the Greek Eastern Russian Churches the same Office is continued And therefore though no other of the Reformed Churches had retained that Office besides the English yet there would be no need for the Bishops of England to run to the persecuting Whore and Beast for an Office of Ministery But it is also pleaded that the Lutheran Churches reformed that have separated from the Papacie in Germany Denmark Swethland have retained the same Office under the name of Superintendents which is the same in Latine with Bishops in Greek and that it is false that the true Spouse and witnesses of Christ have in all ages utterly rejected the Office of Lord Bishops and that it hath its entertainment only by that false Antichristian Church Yea it is manifest by the many Epistles written to the English Prelates by the reception at the Synod of Dort and innumerable other wayes that there hath been no such rejection or detestation either by any Church reformed or Eminent Writers of them except those of the Separation who have been also averse from the Discipline of the Protestant Reformed Churches beyond Sea and have given opprobrious Language to and of them as well as the English As for the testimonies here cited some of them as the Speeches of Hierome the Helvetian Confession of the Lord Cobham are only about the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters not of their Office most of them as that of Wickliffe used before by Bernard in his Tract to Pope Eugenius those of the University and Church of Geneva Beza's the Belgick French Confessions Marlorat Bale are against the Popish Hierarchy those of Cartwright Fenner and Authors of the Admonition were Speeches of Adversaries which in no Court pass for testimonies to which Arch-Bishop Whitgift and others have given answers long since It is added Sect. 8. The Ordination of Bishops is also of Presbyters Object One stone of Offence must be removed out of our way ere we pass on further it is this Though Lord Bishops are Antichristian yet it doth not follow that the Office and Ministry derived from them is so For they are also Presbyters and Ordain as Presbyters Answ. Give me leave to say that were not men resolved to say any thing that they might be thought to have somewhat to say we had not heard of this Objection For 1. That they act in the capacity of Presbyters in the matter of Ordination is false 1. Contrary to their own avowed Principles their Lordships think it too great a debasement to be degraded from their Lordly dignity to so mean an Office 2. Contrary to the known Law of the Land by which they receive power to act therein in which they are known and owned only in the capacity of Lord Bishops 3. Contrary to their late practice whereby they have sufficiently declared the nullity of a Ministerial Office received from the hands of a Presbytery in thrusting out of doors several hundreds of Ministers so Ordained Strange That it should be pleaded they act as Presbyters in the matter of Ordination and yet they themselves judge a Presbyterian Ordination invalid But 2. What if this should be granted it would avail nothing except it can be proved that they are and act as Presbyters of the Institution of Christ which these being only in a particular instituted Church of Christ will never be to the worlds end Thus far of the third argument Answ. 'T is true to some that have either renounced Episcopal Ordination as Antichristian or refused to hear Ministers Ordained by Bishops as acting by virtue of Antichristian Calling it hath been told that the Bishops were first Presbyters and Ordained Presbyters together with Presbyters and some of them that held that a Bishop and a Presbyter were not superiour in Order but in Degree did Ordain as Presbyters and that therefore if the Ordination of Presbyters be not Antichristian the Ministers should retain their Ordination by Bishops and the people hear them though that were yielded that Lord Bishops Office were Antichristian Now nothing is here replied to the allegation that Bishops Ordain with Presbyters the Bishop with the Priests present are to lay their hands on the Ordained according to the Book of Ordination Nor to this that some of the Bishops have acknowledged Episcopacy not to be an Order above Presbytery Nor to this that though the Bishop imposing hands do act as of superiour Order yet being a Presbyter his act is valid as he that conveighs a thing as conceiving himself as Heir and Executor if he be not Heir yet if he be only Executor and by that hath power to conveigh it the grant is good But he sayes 1. It is false they Ordain as Presbyters it is contrary to their principles Answ. Whether it be so in all is uncertain nor do I know how this Author can prove it unless they did declare it which is more than I have learned 2. It is contrary to the known Law of the Land Answ. 1. It is not true that the Bishops do receive power by the Law to act in Ordination in it are known and owned only in the capacity of Lord Bishops for the Ordination of Suffragan Bishops who are not Lords is valid by Law 2. The Law which gives power to act ties not Bishops to think themselves of a Superiour Order to Presbyters nor to act with such an intention or under such a notion 3. They have nullified Presbyterian Ordination and required Re-ordination by a Bishop Answ. They do not nullifie Ordination by a Presbyterie in foreign Churches but in England perhaps because the Laws require Episcopal Ordination and it is conceived necessary to avoid Schism
intent of the Apostle being to shew that by partaking thereof they shew themselves of one body or community with all Christians and so may not partake of the table of Devils ver 21. Christ did institute the Lords Supper to his Disciples but that so many or a number above two are necessary so as that otherwise it should not have the nature of that Sacrament cannot be thence inferred 1 Cor. 11.33 Acts 20.7 do prove it should be administred when all Communicants come together but whether it want the nature of the Sacrament if but two be together specially in a case extraordinary may be questioned As Acts 2.42 it is said They continued in breaking of bread so ver 46. it is said they did it from house to house therefore not the whole Church in Jerusalem brake Bread in one house but by companies in several houses and so as they could commodiously which is an argument that the smalness of the number takes not away the nature of the Sacrament if the thing appointed by Christ be done Sect. 7. A prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man is not contrary to Rom. 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 1. That a prescript Form of words in Prayer a ceremonius pompous Worship devised by man and abused to Idolatry is according to the will of God and may lawfully be used under the New-Testament dispensation contrary to Mat. 15.9 and 28.20 John 4.23 Deut. 12.32 Jer. 51.26 Rom. 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 Answ. That which the present Ministers own and subscribe to as containing in it nothing contrary to the word of God and that it may lawfully be used with promise to use it is the Book of common-Common-prayer This Author impeacheth it as contrary to the will of God and not to be lawfully used under the New-Testament dispensation 1. Because there is a prescript From of words in prayer 2. The worship is Ceremonious 3. That it is Pompous 4. Devised by man 5. Abused to Idolatry What part of it is or was abused to Idolatry should have been expressed If he mean kneeling at the Lords Supper that is his tenth instance to be considered again if that which is said already in answer to this Chapter Sect. 3. be not sufficient if he mean the whole Book because out of the Popes Portuis that is answered before in answer to Chap. 3. Sect. 4. His allegation of Jer. 51.26 seems to be brought to prove it unlawful to use any thing in the worship of God abused to Idolatry But it is so impertinent that were any conscience made how Scripture is applyed or shame to abuse Readers with texts impertinent it had been omitted it being only a prediction of the ruine of the City of Babylon not of the Temple of the Idol that it should not be built again by reason of the Opression and Idolatry of the Inhabitants not a prohibition to the Jews that they should not use the stones of Babylon to build a Temple to God at Jerusalem because abused to Idolatry Why the worship of the Common Prayer is termed Ceremonious or Pompous is left to be ghessed If he mean it as it is used in Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches and Chappels there is no constitution for it as such to which Ministers are required to subscribe if because of the ceremony of the Surplice and Cross and the Singing of Psalms or because it is with external words and gestures the first of these being an adjunct only to the Minister doth not make the Worship it self Ceremonius or Pompous and the second being only a monitory sign annexed to a rite of worship is not fitly termed Worship the third methinks should be allowed as commanded Ephes. 5.19 Col. 3.16 external words and gestures if agreeable to the examples of holy men should not be excepted against nor are they contrary to John 4.23 which excludes only the legal shawdowy worship of the Law and that which is only external and so hypocritical otherwise external Worship is required 1 Cor. 6.20 But I suppose the chief exception is that the Ministers own and use a prescript Form of words devised by man which he conceives contrary to the other texts alledged by him how pertinently is to be considered To Mat. 15 9. and Deut. 12.32 answer is made Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Mat. 28.20 requires Teachers to teach Disciples of Christ to observe all that he hath commanded But proves not that no prescript Form of Prayer devised by man may be lawfully used For then it would follow that conceived Forms of Prayer may not be used for they are devised by men they are not immediately from Gods Spirit as is apparent by the phrases and matter oft times used nor are they commanded by Christ but rather a set Form is commanded to wit the Lords Prayer Luke 11.2 and therefore the use of a prescript Form of words in Prayer devised by man is not contrary to Christs revelation Mat. 28.20 For all that Christ hath commanded may be observed by those who use it and it is more agreeable to Christs command to use one prescript Form of words of Prayer which he hath directed Mat. 6.7 8 9. Rom. 8.26 is more impertinently alledged For it is not said The Spirit helps our infirmities by suggesting to us the Form of words we shall use but by making known what things we shall ask in his secret impulse on our spirits not in ordinary motions of our tongues and by exciting in us grones and sighes that are unutterable and therefore this text is so far from proving that it is unlawful to use a prescript Form of words in Publick Prayer because of this promise of the Spirit to suggest without meditation such words as shall be spoken that it is quite another thing which is here meant First it is not meant of publick Prayers but of secret private Prayers Secondly it is not meant of private ordinary Prayers but as Cameron in his Treatise of the nature and condition of the Church observes The Apostle distinguisheth some and those singular Prayers of Believers from the rest to wit when the minde constituted in anguish and the same erected by trust in God prayes as wrapt beyond it self such as were Moses his Prayers who when he is not said to have prayed in Scripture yet God so be speaks him as if he had cryed to wit the Spirit did pray in Moses the understanding prayed not the Spirit that is the understanding conceived not distinctly the prayers And 1 Cor. 14.15 which is the other place cited by this Author I will sing with the spirit I will sing also with the mind To wit I believe none sings with the will for to sing is a work of the understanding but the Apostle hath opposed the Spirit to the Understanding because the Spirit in that place signifies the Understanding so affected as that it cannot distinctly explain what it hath conceived Therefore in the same Chapter above he exhorts that he who speaketh with tongues that
Government because of his sons iniquity and out of fear of Nahash King of the Ammonites desired a King as other Nations because Moses Joshuah and all the Judges were immediately chosen by God and raised up extraordinarily for a time to do special services without ordinary succession and accordingly acted and ruled by extraordinary immediate motions and revelations from God in which respects the Government of the Israelites before Sauls reign was not unfitly termed by Josephus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods rule and when they would needs chuse a King or have Samuel to make them a King to judge them like all the Nations 1 Sam. 8.5 19 20. God said they rejected him that he should not reign over them v. 17. where the desire of having a King is not simply condemned as unlawful nor because they desired a Kâ—ng over the Church as such as if they might lawfully enough have desired a King over them as a political Head but not as Head of the Church as such for neither is there any intimation of any such limitation of their desire but on the contrary they desired that they might also be like all the Nations and that their King might judge them and go out before them and fight their Battels 1 Sam. 18.20 Nor is there the least hint of any reprehension of their desire that they would have a King over them as a Church to appoint them Religion and Worship as other people neither was it spoken that they rejected God as though the Lord did not reign where there is set up a Monarchical Government for it is Gods Ordinance and Kings have their power and authority from him according to that Prov. 8.15 16. By me Kings reign and Princes decree justice c. and they are his Deputies and Lieutenants by whom he ruleth In which regard the people might have lawfully desired a King if they had done it with upright hearts oâ— lawful grounds to good and warrantable ends in a right manner and in due time For the Lord had promised that when they were settled in the Land of Canaan he would when he thought good set a King over them out of whose loyns the Messiah should come and also sheweth how he would have him qualified and what he required of him Deut. 17.17 18. and he had promised unto Abraham that Kings should come out of him Gen. 17.6 And Jacob in his prophetical blessing saith That the Scepter should not depart from Judah nor a Law-giver from between his feet until Shiloh did come i. e. the Messias Gen 49.10 And David speaking of himself as a type of Christ saith Psal. 2.6 Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion And therefore this is not simply condemned as a sin in it self to desire a King but because they did it with an ill mind affecting innovation as being weary of Gods Government which he had established till himself pleased to change it and in a prâ—posterous and tumultuous manner before he had given any intimation of his pleasure and to a wrong and evil end that they might be like to the Heathen Nations and out of their confidence in a King as able to protect them and their diffidence in God as insufficient to defend them in his own way unless he would be directed in a course of their prescribing and finally because they would not wait upon him for the accomplishment of his word in his own due time but with all importunity press him to do at their own pleasure Thus the Assembly Annotations Whence the impertinency of the allegation of this Text either against Kingly Government or their Headship over the Church is manifested Noâ— is it more to the purpose which is added that to God even as to their political Head a sicle was paid yearly as a tribute called the sicle of the sanctuary For 1. If this payment be meant of that which is mentioned Exod. 30.12 13 14 15 16. it doth not appear by the Text that it was a yearly tribute paid to God as their political Head but a Tax put on them when Moses took the summ of the children of Israel after their number then they should give every man a ransome for his soul unto the Lord when he numbred them that there might be no Plague among them half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary the offering of the Lord to make an attonement for the souls which he was to appoint for the service of the tabernacle of the Congregation that it might be a memorial unto the children of Israel But if it be yielded that it was after made a yearly tribute as the Jewish Doctors say and a perpetual Ordinance according to what Mr. Ainsworth on Exod. 30 16. out of Maimony cites and that it continued so till the destruction of Jerusalem as Josephus relates in Book 7. ch 28. of the Jewish War yet this proves not that it was paid to God under that notion as to their political Head It is true that the tribute or custome called Didrachma that is shekels mentioned Mat. 17.24 25. is conceived by very many learned men to be that which was paid to the Lord for the use of the Temple as a tribute to him which is largely argued by Cameron in his praelections on that Text with whom Diodate Hugo Grotius Dr. Hammond concurr and before them Hilarius cited by Maldonat who thinks it was paid to the Romans and cites Hierome Bede and of this mind are many others as Beza Piscator Pareus But if Camerons opinion were certain yet it may seem rather to be paid to God as Head of the Church then as a political Head as this Author speaks sith it was paid for the service of the Temple 2. Were that which this Author saith granted him it should rather seâ—ve against him than for him For if it were paid to God as their Political Head it rather proves God to be the alone political Head and so against that which he saith true indeed as they were a political Body they had visible political Governours who when they ceased their policy was at an end than that God was the Churches alone Head and King and that it is false that the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church and therefore his sayings do interfer That the Kings of Israel had a Headship over them to make Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship is conceived to be proved from 2 Chron. 20.3 21. 29.27 30.1 2 4 5 23. 31.2 3. with many more which I find not yet to be enervated by the Answers I have met with I proceed to examine that which follows CHAP. 6. ARG. 5. Sect. 1. False doctrine only makes a false Prophet not to be heard HE thus writes Argument 5. Those who have the characters and properties of false Prophets and Priests upon them are not to be heard but separated from But the present Ministers of England have
2 Chron. 6.41 2 Chron. 5.13 2 Chron. 29.30 In the Titles of Psal. 92. and 102. Jerem. 33.11 Ezra 3.11 Zech. 3.2 Jude 9. Revel 12.3 4. Revel 15. 3. Hos. 14.2 3. Isai. 12.1 Deut. 21.8 and 26.5.10 Isai. 26.1 Mr. Ainsworth himself than whom none was more opposite to any set Form as appeared by his avouching in his writing to Mr. Paget the Reasons in the Separatists Apology p. 69. against using the words of the Lords-Prayer in prayer to which Mr. Paget hath answered in his Arrow against the separation of the Brownists p. 69. c. in his Annot on Exod. 12.8 reciting the Form of the later Jews at their Passover saith Vnto these phrases the New Testament seemeth to have reference when it speaketh of the cup of blessing 1 Cor. 10.16 And of singing an Hymn Mark 14 26. And after These Observations of the Jews while their Common-wealth stood and to this day may give light to some particulars in the Passover that Christ kept as why they lay down one leaning on anothers bosome John 13.23 a sign of rest and security and stood not as at the first Passover neither sate on high as we use Why Christ rose from supper and washed and sate down again John 13.4 5.12 Why he blessed or gave thanks for the bread apart and for the cup or wine apart Mark 14.22 23. And why it is said He took the cup after supper Luke 22.20 Also concerning the Hymn which they sung at the end Mat. 26.30 And why Paul calleth it the shewing forth of the Lords death 1 Cor. 11.26 As the Jews usually called their Passover Haggadah that is Shewing or Declaration From which Observations we may gather that our Lord Christ did use the forms in Blessing which is a part of Prayer which the Jews without particular command of God had taken up And that St. Paul alludes to them expressing the use of Christians by the phrases of the Jews which shews the Christians used their forms Yea that the Apostles in many things of their ministry retained the customes in their Synagogues in matters of Worship and Ecclesiastical Government is avouched by Mr. Stillingflete in his Irenicum part 2 d. ch 6. After Mr. Selden Dr. Lightfoot Dr Hammond Mr. Thorndike and many others Which things do abundantly prove that this Author doth too too inconsiderately write That there are not the least footsteps of a stinted form of service in the worship of God to be found in the New Testament No not in the whole Book of God amongst the people of the Jews No nor yet was there any such a way of worship thought of much less imposed in the first and purer times of the Gospel for several centuries of years after the dayes of Christ and his Apostles I do not gainsay what this Author writes about the Liturgies fathered on some of the Apostles and some of the Ancients Neither will I justifie the use or imposition of them as they have been in the later ages only this I say which is sufficient for the present purpose 1. That neither the words of Justin Martyr in his 2 d. Apology to Antâ—ninus That the President did send forth prayers and thanksgivings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he had ability the people testifying their consent by saying Amen Nor the words of Tertullian alleged by this Author out of his Apologetique against the Gentiles c. 30. That the Christians prayed for the Emperour looking towards Heaven and without a monitor because from the heart do necessarily exclude stinted forms of Prayer The words of Justin Martyr may be understood of the intention of the affections or duration of prayers which may be in stinted forms nor is it unlikely but that thanksgivings were some of them such as in their Psalms which they sung which Pliny mentions in his Epistle to Trajan in that age and those it is likely were stinted forms And they might pray without a monitor or prompter which excludes the suggestion of others and from the heart includes of their own accord and yet pray in stinted expressions Yea the things mentioned that they prayed for seem to intimate Set forms agreeable to the things he mentions as prayed for 2. However it is apparent if not from Tertullians Book of Prayer yet out of Cyprians Book concerning the Lords Prayer that Christians did and conceived they ought in publique prayer to use the prescript words of the Lords Prayer and that they had some other forms then whieh are still retained which those words intimate Therefore also the Priest a Preface being premised before Prayer prepares the minds of the Brethren by saying Lift up your hearts that when the people answer We lift them up to the Lord they may be minded that they ought to think on nothing else but the Lord. Which if it prove not an entire Liturgy to have been then in use yet a worship of God by a stinted form of Words was sure thought on in Cyprians time and that this Author writes too confidently when he saith The least footsteps of such a way of worship are not found nor were thought of in those times It follows Sect. 5. common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book worship shuts not out of doors the exercise of the gift of Prayer To which we add 2. That Worship which is an obstruction of any positive duty charged by Christ to be performed by the Saints is not a worship that is of his appointment But this is undeniably true of the Common-Prayer Book worship Therefore That Christ did upon his Ascension give unto his Church Officers as signal characters of his love to and care of it will not be denied Ephes 4.11 is an evidence hereof beyond exception That to thâ—se Officers he gave gifts and qualifications every way suiting the emplâ—yment he called them forth unto cannot without a most horrid advance against the wisdome faithfulness love and care of Christ towards the Beloved of his Soul be gainsaid That he not only expects but solemnly charges upon these Officers an improvement of the gifts bestowed upon them for the edification of his Body is evidently compriz'd and very frequently remarked in the Scripture 2 Tim. 1.6 1 Cor. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11 Prov. 17.16 Luke 19.20 To imagine after all this that any Worship should be of the institution of Christ that should shut out of doors as unnecessary the exercise of the gifts given by him to be made use of in the solemn discharge of the worship of his house is such an imputation of folly to him as may not be charged upon any person of an ordinary capacity or understanding Yet this is righteously to be imputed to him absit blasphemia if the common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book worship be a Worship of his appointment The exercise of the gift of Prayer to mention no more being wholly excluded hereby Nor will it in the least take off the weight of this Argument to say That liberty is granted for the exercise of this gift before and after Sermon For
in the Liturgy of the Church of England Therefore The major is grounded on the rule given by Divines about the Decalogue That which requires a duty requires the means conducing thereto The minor is proved in that the Common-Prayer Book directs what things are to be prayed for by reason of the brevity of Collects the Responds the frequent use the plain expressions help the memory and elocution wherein the acquired gift of Prayer consists therefore it is not an obstruction but a help to the gift of Prayer But this Author though he may perhaps count this tolerable in others yet not in Ministers let 's view what he saith of them He alledgeth Eph. 4.11 and would inferr from thence That all Ministers have the gift of Prayer and are to use it that the Common-Prayer Book worship shuts it out of doors as unnecessary and therefore is not of Christs appointment But 1. The Text expresseth not the several sorts of Qualifications but the several sorts of Officers 2. If it be supposed that ministerial gifts are also implyed yet whether extraordinary or ordinary may be doubted 3. If ordinary gifts there may be a question Wheâ—her the gift of Prayer as he means it were one that is Whether Christ hath required that every Minister should be able on all occasions to express himself without any stinted form either conceived by himself or composed by others to make known the requests which it concerns his people to whom he is Pastour in the most solemn and publick auditory to ask of God in their behalf in words and elocution fitting the matter and auditory I doubt not but the Minister should be able to express the requests of the people as he should be able to declare the mind of God to the people yet neither the one nor the other is of necessity to be done or the Minister tied to do it every way but the best way he is able or at least that way as is fit for the end of his expressions to wit the peoples understanding not the ostentation of his parts The Apostles could preach without study but Timothy was to give attendance to reading to meditate to give himself wholly to thâ—se things whereby his profiting might appear to all and yet had a gift given by prophecy 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15. Ministers are to preach the Word now but they are not tyed to preach without notes without study without other helps which God affords Nor are Ministers bound to express themselves alwayes without pre-conceived or prescribed forms in prayer and yet they may faithfully discharge their work Now God doth not give gifts as he did in the Apostles times and therefore the same readiness and exuberancy of expressions or composure of petitions is not to be expected of Ministers now as was of them 4· I add That though the Apostles said Acts 6.4 We will give our selves continually to Prayer and to the ministry of the Word And St Paul 1 Tim. 2.1 exhorts Thaâ— first of all supplications prayers intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men for Kings and all that are in authority Yet we read not that this is made the Ministers work to express the common necessities of the Church in a publick auditory or any rules about the form or manner of praying Nor do we find that either Christ or his Apostles used any forms of prayer before or after their preaching and therefore conceive not this to be the proper work of a Minister or that either way of praying is determined and therefore both may lawfully be used by the Minister or other Christians Nor doth the one way of Worship shut out of doors the other or the Minister by using the Common-prayer Book exclude conceived prayer by the speakers If they were tyed by the Governours to use no other than the Common-prayer Book expressions yet this is not to be imputed either to the common-Common-prayer Book or its way of worship or to the Ministers but unto those who do so rigidly impose it I add further That were there a prohibition of using any other than the common-Common-prayer yet this were not a shutting out of doors Christs institution unless it were proved Christs institution that at all times in Prayer no stinted form should be used Nor doth it shut out of doors the gift of Prayer unless it be proved they only have the gift of Prayer who use their own conceived expressions which if so not only those who use the forms of Prayer though with never so much fervency of spiâ—it which they read or remember in the Common-Prayer Book or in the Practice of Piety or any other such Book of mens composure but also those who use the words of the Psalms or the lords-Lords-Prayer yea that do say Amen to the words of any Preacher before Sermon or any that gives thanks afore meals should shut out of doors the gift of Prayer or the exercise of it sith he useth not the gift he hath to wit the ability of mind to form words and to utter them which is the definition of the gift of Prayer before given There are many in the Congregation perhaps yea some Women that can form and utter words as fit for Prayer as the Minister will not this Author have this gift of Prayer shut out of doors and yet not conclude that a positive duty is obstructed thereby Besides there may be a restraint of a duty as unseasonable sith affirmative precepts bind not ad semper to be done at all times perhaps time will not permit or weather or some accidents or more necessary business and yet the gift not shut out of doors as unnecessary but as only inconvenient at that time Do not the most able Preachers sometimes omit the exercise of their gifts and yet count not them shut out of doors as unnecessary Yea doth not the Apostle 1 Cor. 1â— put some restraints upon Prophecying to keep order Did he then shut out of doors as unnecessary the gift of Prophecy I have read that the Separatists in the Low Countries have spent so much time on the Lords day in debating causes and matters of Discipline that they have omitted exercise of their gifts in some other Ordinances and yet I presume they have not shut them out of doors as unnecessary If at one meeting of Christians no other thing had been done but the reading of St. Pauls Epistles as he appointed Col. 4.16 yet were not the exercise of Aâ—chippus his ministry thereby shut out of doors as unnecessary but only suspended for that time And this would be no Napkining up of his Talent nor such exclusion of the gift of preaching or prophecying as with others this Author clamouâ—ously inveighs against The 55 th Canon directs Preachers what they should pray for doth not limit or bound them in the words or matter It saith They shall move the people to joyn with them in prayer in this form or to this effect as briefly as conveniently they
may Not forbidding to pray for other things or in other words than are there set down And blessed be the Almighty that yet Ministers have liberty at all times to express themselves in prayer and preaching as fully as there is need that the Kings Majesty invites to fasting and prayer That notwithstanding it is to be bewailed that the Worship of God is no better performed than it is and that the intemperate abuses of some have caused more severe restraint on others than were to be wished Yet there is so much purity of Worship and Doctrine as that Separation is unnecessary And this Author as if he imitated the Gloss in the Canon Law Non satis discretus esset c. writes causelesly if not blasphemously that Folly may righteously be imputed to Christ if the Common-Prayer Book worship be a Worship of his appointment He goes on thus Sect. 6. common-Common-Prayer Book Worship is not of pure humane invention But 3ly The common-Common-Prayer Book woâ—ship is a Worship of which we find no footsteps in the Scripture nor in some centuries of years after Christ as hath already been demonstrated Whence it follows That 't is a Worship of pure humane invention which is not only not of Christs appointment but contrary to the very nature of instituted Woâ—ship as is proved in our first Argument and to very many precepts of the Lord in thâ— Scripture Exod. 20.4 5 Deut. 4 2. and 12.32 Prov. 30 16. Jer. 7 31. Matth. 15.9 13. Mark 7.7 8. Rev. 22.18 The mind of God in which Scriptures we have exemplified Lev. 10.1 2 3 4. Josh. 22.10 c. Judg. 8 2. 2 Kings 16 11. 1 Chron 15.13 Answ This Author runs on in his gross mistakes as if the form of words in the Common-Prayer Book were the Worship that it were a several sort of Worship from the prayers made by a Preacher of his own conception and that such prayers were worship of Christs institution and not the other Which mistakes are shewed before And what he saith here is answered either in this chapter sect 4. or chapt 1. sect 3. The Common-Prayer Book worship is no more a pure humane invention than Preachers conceived-conceived-prayers Nor is it any Idol forbidden Exod. 20.4 5. Nor any Prophecy added to the Book of the Revelation forbidden Revel 22.18 Nor such an Ephod as Gideon made Judg. 8.24 Nor such a not seeking God after the due order as was the carrying of the Ark in a cart and Uzzah 's putting his hand to it 1 Chron. 15.13 Nor such an invention forbidden as was the Altar of Damascus imitated by Uriah 2 Kings 16 11. And therefore it is sufficient to deny what is here said without forming of an Argument As for Josh 22 10. c. it makes for the Common-Prayer-Book not against it sith that Altar was allowed of though it were for religious signification and yet not by Divine institution and therefore proves that all inventions of men whereby our Worship of God is signified are not unlawful if they be not made necessary nor the Worship of God placed in the things so invented or their use It follows Sect. 7. Common-Prayer Book worship is the same with the Worship of the Reformed Churches 4. That Worship which is not necessary for the edification comfort or preservation of the Saints in the Faith and Vnity of the Gospel is not of the institution of Christ But such is the worship of the common-Common-Prayer Book Therefore The major or first Proposition will not be denied The Lord Jesus having freeed his Disciples from all obligations to the ceremonies of the Law institutes nothing de novo but what he knâ—w to be necessary at least would be so by vertuâ— of his institution for the ends assigned which was the great Aim in all Gospel administrations Ephes 4.7 to 15. Col. 2.19 Acts 9.31 Rom. 14.14 15. 1 Cor. 10.23 and 14.3 4 5 12 26. 2 Cor 12 10. 1 Tim 1.4 That the Common-Prayer Book wâ—â—shâ—p is nâ—t necessary for the edification comfort or preservation of the Saints in the Faith and Vnity of the Gâ—spel what ever is pretended by its admirers might many wayes be demonstrated Take one pâ—â—grant instance instead of all that will make it exceeding manâ—fest The Churches of Christ for the first four centuries of years and more after his Ascension knew not any thing of such a Worshâ—p as hath been already demonstrated not to mention the reformed Churches at this day to whom it is as a polluted accuâ—sed abominable thing yet than those first and purer Churches for light consolation truth of Doctrine and Gospel-Vnion hitherto there hath not been any extant in the world more famous or excellent no nor by many degrees comparable to them But we shall not further prosecute this Argument enough hath been said to demonstrate That the Common Prayer Book worshâ—p is not of the appointment of the Lord Therefore such as worship him in the way thereof worship him in a way that is not of his prescription If the former notwithstanding all that hath been said be scrupled by any we referr him to Tracts written by Smectymnuus V. Powel to a Treatise entituled A Discourse concerning the Interest of Words in Prayer by H. D. M. A. The Common-Prayer Book Unmask'd as also to a Treatise lately published by a learned but nameless Author entituled A Discourse concerning Liturgies and their Imposition In which that matter is industriously and laâ—gely debatâ—d Aâ—sw This Author still continues his confounding of the Worship of the common-Common-Prayer Book with the form of it that is the method and phraâ—e and manner of it which no man that speaks distinctly calls the common-Common-Prayer Book Worship The common-Common-Prayer Book Worship is no other than the prayers praises lessons ministration of the Sacraments And these are of Christs institution and are necessary for the edification comfort or preservation of the Saints in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel and accordingly the miâ—or Proposition is false which denies it But sith this Author by Worship understands the forms and modes of it though they be not prescribed or determined in Scripture or the kind of Woâ—ship in respect of those forms meaning that the Worship for example pâ—ayer praiâ—e and the like which are expressed or performed by forms or modes not prescribed by Christ though the kind or soâ—t of Worship be of Christs institution yet because it is performed in such forms or modes as are not necessary for the ediâ—ication comfort or pâ—eservation of the Saints in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel it is so adulteraeâ—d thereby that it is not of the institution of Christ. In which sense the majâ—â— Proposition is to be denied and the Argument may be 〈◊〉 thus That Worship which in respect of the mode or form of performing is not necessary for the edifâ—cation comfort or pâ—eservation of the Saints in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel is not of the institution of Christ But such is the
judge meet All unproved Of the last of we have already spoken and shall not here re-assume the debate thereof Touching the First That there are sâ—me things in the instituted Worship of Christ that are meerly circumstances thereof as such we crave liberty to deny which till the proof be attempted may suffice Circumstances in the worship of Christ attending religious actions as actions we grant but circumstances of Worship as such will never be proved To inferr that because time and place with sundry things of the like nature are circumstances in Worship therefore there are circumstances of Worship as such is frivolâ—us Those things being the attendments of religious actions common to any civil actions of the like nature to be performed by the Sons of men No action to be managed by a community can be orderly performed by them without such an assignment of time and place Publick Prayer being so to be managed as a religious action hath the circumstances before mentioned attending it and so it would were it a meer civil action to be performed by a community though it related not at all to the Worship of God Answ. It is not true that the Objection supposeth That some things in the instituted Worship of Christ are but meer circumstances thereof as such meaning that any particularity of that action which Christ hath prescribed for his Worship being instituted by him is a meer arbitrary circumstance and not a necessary part of that Worship It is held in the Lords Supper and all institutions of Christ in which particularities are expressed there should be strict observation of them as part of the Worship But in things not determined liberty is allowed to vary and therefore if Christ have not instituted that you shall pray without a Book or set Form Prayer by it may be lawfully done The distinction of circumstances in and of the Worship of Christ of religiâ—us actions as actions or as religiâ—us aâ—e but unnecessary niceâ—ies so long as the meaning of the Objection is manifest That the praying in this or that Form is not a part of the Worship as if without it the Worship were not or not according to Christs institution but an accident of it which may adesse vel abesse which is in effect if â— understand this Author the same which he grants That there are circumstances in the Wâ—rship of Christ attending religiâ—us actions as actions which are not in their particulaâ—ities expresly prescribed by Christ And if we agree in the thing it is but frivolous to wrangle about words Sect. 9. Praying in a Form may be praying in the Spirit 2. Saith this Author That t is lawful for Saints to pray in a Form i. e. to tye themselves to a written stinted form of words in Prayer is not yet proved nor like to be t is too large a field for us to enter into nor is it needful to do so till it be proved That to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer Book or imposed devised Liturgies is so Yet in transitu we crave leave humbly to offer That to pray in a Form as before explained is altogether unlawful being 1. A quenching of the Spirit of Prayer 2ly A rendring useless the donation of the Spirit as a Spirit of Prayer unto the children of God 3ly Directly opposite unto the many positive precepts of Christ before instanc'd in of stirring up the Gifts given to us of God improving the Talents he hath been graciously pleased to intrust us withall 4ly If it be lawful for Saints to pray in a Form t is lawful either because they have not the Spirit or that having the Spirit he is not a sufficient help to them in their approaches to God If the first they are not Saints Rom. 8.9 To assert the second is little less than blasphemy besides its direct opposition to Rom. 8.26 Answ. The position of this Author here by his words appears to be That not only it is altogether unlawful for Ministers but also for all Saints all that have the Spirit of God to pray in a Form And though he seems to mean by his addition that he counts it only then unlawful when they tye themselves â— whether by vow or customary use or once only to a stinted form of words in Prayer without variation written not conceived by him that prays and kept in his memory Yet his Arguments are against using any set Form by any Saint conceived by himself and kept in memory without writing though but once used For then the Spirit of Prayer is quenched its donation is rendred useless it s against the positive precepts of stirring up our Gift improving our Talent disabling the Spirit which are at no time to be done And if so no way of Worship of Christs institution and therefore Idolatrous and by this Authors Doctrine to be separated from and therefore this Authors principles carry him not only to separate from hearing the present Ministers but also from every Saint that not only often but once useth a set Form devised by himself in Family exercises as before meals or other times And if he be of Mr. Ainsworths mind in the controversie between him and Mr. Râ—binson of old he must not only separate from the publique communion of the Church of England but also from the private religious communion of every one that joyns in common Prayer or in private stinted forms of Prayer except they profess their repentance And if we should prove it lawful to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer Book or imposed devised Liturgy which seems no hard thing to do if we suppose the Ministers and common-Common-Prayer Book Worshippers not to have the Spirit for then by his Arguments they do not quench make useless neglect the gift of the Spirit and therefore are not forbidden a stinted Form which would overthrow this Argument against the Ministers yet we must do somewhat more we must prove it lawful for the Saints who have the Spirit to use once a stinted form of words though it be the Lords Prayer only Which I think will be done by this Argument That Prayer may be lawful to Saints in which neither is any thing done forbidden by God nor any thing omitted which God requires thereto but such may be praying in a Form Therefore To what this Author humbly offers I answer 1. That the things he offers proceed only upon mistakes That the praying the Spirit Ephes. 6.18 Jude 20. in the Holy Ghost is meant of extemporal unpremeditated unprescribed forms of words Whereas praying in the Spirit is meant of praying by the operation of the Spirit within not of Prayer in respect of the form of words wherein it is expressed which may be gathered concerning the former Text in that the Prayers there which are to be in the Spirit are all alwayes with all prayer and supplication watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication which cannot be well expounded of other Prayers than such as are
solitary of which many are only ejaculatory without words And this is confirmed by the words Ephes 5 19. where the effect of being filled with the Spirit is the speaking to themselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs singing and making melody to the Lord in their heart Besides as all the directions Ephâ—s 6.13 14 15 16 17. are precepts of what each Christian should do by and for himself so is v. 18. and so if not solely yet chiefly meant of solitary Prayers to which words are not necessary and therefore praying in the Spirit is by the operation of the Spirit in the heart not by the Spirits immediate forming of words in the tongue And the same is to be said of Jude 20. Of 1 Cor. 14.15 I have spoken before in answer to ch 5. sect 7. 2. The ability to express petitions in words extemporary unpremeditated is termed the Spirit of Prayer as if it were in every one that hath the sanctifying Spirit of God and they only for so the alleging Rom. 8.9.26 for it in the 4 th Argument must inferr But who knows not by experience that many that have not the Spirit of God have yet this ability to admiration as is related by Camden Saravia the Author of the relation of the conspiracy concerning Hacket in Q Elizabeths time and many others And on the other side many whose holiness of life shewed they had the Spirit yet not this ability and therefore it is ill called the Spirit of Prayer whereby many unwary souls are ensnared with the opinion as if such as can express themselves fluently in words largely and with shew of affection were immediately moved by the Spirit and they distill thereby into many inconsiderate persons errours and evil principles Whereas it is acknowledged to be but an acquired ability with help of natural endowments and many times is proved to be but a counterfeit and deceitful practice Now then in answer to each of the particulars I say 1. That the Spirit is not quenched as is forbidden 1 Thes. 5.19 by a set Form of Prayer used by another and read out of a Book any otherwise than by a pronouncing without a Book a conceived Form the ability of another to conceive and utter for matter and words is as much limited by the one as by the other It is true when prejudice is against reading or the Forms read or the Reader huddles it over or delivers it coldly it much abates the affection of the hearer and so it is in saying over a conceived Prayer if there be a prejudice against the person or his delivery be dull and heavy And it is not to be denied that lively affectionate expressions with readiness of speech and apt emphatical words have much energy on hearers and so sometimes it is when a written Sermon or Prayer is well and pathetically pronounced So that the Form doth but lessen the affection by accident not necessarily and of it self and thus either when a stinted Form is pronounced by another or by the person praying it may be very incommodious to use it usually such Forms being read or said without heed or feeling Yet universally it is not so Nor is the quenching of the Spirit meant 1 Thes. 5.19 meant of the Spirit of Prayer more than any other exercise of godliness or gifts whether ordinary or extraordinary Nor is the quenching the Spirit the act of another but of him in whom the Spirit is quenched who either by his sinful life or by cares and riches and pleasures of this life and lusts of other things châ—kes the word of God which is the sword of the Spirit Ephes. 6.17 as our Saviour speaks Luke 8 14. and they bring no fruit to perfection unto which sense the following Exhortations of not despising prophecyings and proving all things v. 20 21. do incline me and so the sense is Quench not the operation of the Spirit by the preaching of the Word whether by embracing errours or by evil lusts Or if by the Spirit be meant the comforts or extraordinary gifts of it In any of these wayes the quenching is by the persons own act in whom the Spirit is quenched It is neither by any Interpreter I meet with or any shew of reason applyed to the extinguishing or slackning the ability of another to utter and conceive Prayers by publique use of a Liturgy which doth not any otherwise quench that ability than any other way of expression doth the ability of the hearer which must be stinted and so the Spirit of Prayer as this Author terms it be quenched by the speaker in all joynt-prayer unless it be allowed all to speak together contrary to 1 Cor. 14.27 Whence I conclude that this Text is most impertinent And though it be that some mens reading and in like sort some mens speaking without book some using of a set Form in publique and in private may by accident through the fault of the speaker hearer or user abate the fervency of spirit in solitary or joynt prayers yet it is not so necessarily or of it self and therefore not unlawful nor quenching the Spirit of Prayer nor a rendring useless the donation of the Spirit as a Spirit of Prayer unto the children of God as this Author speaks in his 2 d. Offer But in some cases a stinted Form is helpful both to the understanding memory affections utterance in prayer both publique and private as many holy Saints have found by experience To the 3 d. I say That the precept to Timothy of stirring up the gift of God which was in him by the putting on of Pauls hands 2 Tim. 1.6 cannot be understood of the ability to express himself in extemporary prayer but of his ability to preach the Gospel as 1 Tim. 4.14 is meant which he is encouraged to by the next words v. 7. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear but of power of love and of a sound mind or as some read of castigation or reducing others to sâ—briety However it is impertinent to the purpose of the Author here it being not meant of exciting the gift of expression in prayer with others and yet if it were he that reads a Liturgy may stirr up the gift of expression at another time if he cannot when he reads As for the imprâ—ving of the talents Matth. 25.15.27 Luke 19.13.23 it is the duty of every Christian and not only of Ministers and if it be meant of using abilities in joynt-prayer every Christian must as he is able utter himself in prayer contrary to 1 Cor. 14.26 27. I conceive by comparing Matth. 25.29 30. with Matth 13.11 12. Mark 4.24 25 that the talent which is given to each is the knowledge or teaching of the Word of God or the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven which each person is to improve by bringing forth the fruits of it Matth 21.43 Or if it be meant of the Ministers gift it is to be understood of his ability to
preach the Gospel and the improving it by converting others to faith and obedience not of so mean a thing as an ability of conceiving and uttering Forms of prayer without book As for the 4 th thing offered The lawfulness of the Saints praying in a Form is neither because they have not the Spirit nor that having the Spirit he is not a sufficient help to them in their approaches to God but because in such praying neither is any thing done forbidden by God nor any thing omitted thereby which God requires for the performing the duty of prayer The Spirit I grant is sufficient to help in our approaches to God and doth help Rom 8.15.26 But that it is done by enabling by immediate inspiration to utter matter of prayer for the benefit of others is not meant in those places And indeed such a mistake hath filled some with high conceit of themselves and others with admiration of such to their mutual perditions Whereas this is but a common gift or rather an acquired ability often used with cunning to deceive others of which there are many footsteps in the affected expressions otherwise which shew their pâ—aying is not from the Spirit of God but their own spirit But of the impertinency of this Text I have spoken before in answer to ch 5. sect 7. It follows Sect 10. The Forms of Prayer imposed are not made necessary essential parts of Woâ—ship Answ. The 〈◊〉 Pâ—oposition mâ—ant of making it doctrinally necessaâ—y by vertue of Gods appointment so as that the omission of it at any time when the worship is performed should be sin or using any other Form should make it not Gods worship or not acceptable to him might be granted But being understood of making a thing the condition of an action by vertue of the authority of Governours so as that at some time and place it is not to be done without it by persons that are their subjectâ— under a civil penalty the major is denied In which sense the use of the Liturgy is imposed which doth not make it any other than a circumstance of Divine worship not such an adjunct as is a necessary part thereof This Author granted before here sect 8. Circumstances in the worshâ—p of Christ atttending religious actions as actions without assignment of time and place no action to be managed by a community can be orderly performed by them Therefore if the Governours assign a time and place undetermined by God it is that which they may do lawfully and not requiring them as necessary by vertue of Gods institution nor of all but only of their own subjects they are made but circumstances not necessary parts of Divine worship So if for avoiding of inconvenience publique praying be forbidden in the night and in some places and it be commanded to be done at such hours of the day in such a place these hours and place are made no other than circumstances of the religious action no Religion is placed in them â—hey are not made parts of worship but adjuncts alterable as it may stand with conveniency There is the same reason of imposing a Liturgy for uniformity to prevent dissonancy or some other inconvenience which may be incident to some persons as of requiring Prayers without it If neither be determinatively instituted by Christ but commanded for conveniency they both remain circumstances â—ot necessary parts of Divine worship notwithstanding the imposition by Governours Sacrificing on the Altar at the Tabernacle and Temple was a part of the worship because commanded by God and so would the Liturgy be if it were commanded as that was But that the Liturgy is not so it appears from the words of the Preface to it The particular forms of Divine worship and thâ— rites appointed to be vsed therein being things in their own natuâ—e indifferent and alterable and so acknowledged it is but râ—asonable that upon weighty and important considerations according to the 〈◊〉 exigency of times and occasions such changes and alterations should be made therein as to thâ—se that are in place of Authority should from time to time seem either necessary or expedient Nor do I think it true That any considerable Minister of England would affirm the Common-Prayer Book to be an essential part of worship or make it such as this Author imputes to them nor in use of it is it alwayes so observed but that it gives place to preaching to reading Briefs for collections and some other occasions and yet if they did so strictly observe it this doth not prove they esteem it a necessary essential part of worship by vertue of Gods command but that they conceive they ought to obey their Governours Laws not judging others who use it not But whatever be the judgement or practice of the present Ministers yet the words of the Preface which are more to be regarded than any particular Ministers opinion whereof some it s confess'd have too much magnified it do shew that the imposition makes it not such as this Author chargeth on them And this is enough to acquit the use of it from Idolatry even in this Authors own sense sith they do not place the worship of God in the Form but in the Kind of worship commanded by God and so the minor of his Argument is denied For though the Form of the Common-Prayer Book be not prescribed yet the way of worship therein that is Prayer Praises the Lords Supper are worship preâ—cribed by God If the Author mean by way of wor-ship the forms and modes the way of worship by Preachers conceived or extemporary prayers this Authors form of preaching and other worship is not prescribed by God and the Separatists are Idolaters as well as the Ministers of England and so his Argument is retorted as before He goes on thus Sect. 11. Acting in the holy things of God by an Office-power and modes of Idolaters may be without Idolatry To which we add Argument 2. Those who act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offer up to him a Worship meerly of humane composition once abused to Idolatry with the modes and rites of Idolaters are guilty of the sin of Idolatry But the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offer up to him a Worship meerly of humane composition oâ—câ— abusâ—d to Idolatry with the modes and rites of Idolaters Therefore The major or first Proposition carrying a brightness along with it sufficient to lead any one into the belief of the truth thereof one would think may be taken for granted Two things are asserted therein 1. That such as act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters are themselves such at least in respect of that their Office-power so received by them That Jeroboams Priests were all of them Idolaters we suppose will not be denied Supposing some or more to
Antichristianism declining to Popery or of Separation for that reason the Presbyâ—erian Churches making the like plea for themselves That the first Reformers had ordinary calling even according to the Papists own Canons and the Episcopal Divines pleading only the same thing more fully Yet it is not true which this Author saith That either the one or other make the succession from Popish Bishâ—ps one of the best pleas they have for the justâ—fication of their ministâ—y For though they plead this succession against the clamorous and violent actings of the Popish party which Petrus Molinaeus in his 3 d. Epistle to Bishop Andrews mentions to have been in France by Arnola the Jesuite and the writings of Champney Wadsworth and others shew to have been in England yet they have justified their ministry without it as may be seen in Amos Alsâ—ed Bâ—del and others And for the present Ministers of England I conceive they will deny that they act by vertue of an Office-power from the Combination and Assembly of Idolaters in the Church of Rome their Office-power being not such as Priests are ordained to in the Church of Rome to offer Sacrifice propitiatory for quick and dead but to preach the Gospel administer Sacraments and Discipline according to Christs institution And in the solemnity of their Ordination the Româ—sts rites being relinquished by the Ordainers who are not a Combination or Assembly of Idolaters but professors of the true Faith and haters of popish Idolatry though some succession of their Predecessors from Idolaters be alleged to stop the mouths of Papists who pervert their proselytes by impuâ—ation of novelty to the reformed Churches and their Ministers rather than by proving their Doctrine out of Scripture As for that which is obâ—ected That Christ would never entrust such to send forth Officers to act in the holy things of God for his Church it is without reason objected sith many of them might be and in charity we are to conceive were the servants of God who abode in the communion of the Roman Church Dr. Ames himself in his Animadversions on the Remonstrants Scripta Synodalia Artic. 5. c. 7. saith We believe there were and yet are many who have not so farr separated themselves from the Papists but that they are polluted with their manifold Idolatry who yet have their part in the Kingdom of God Even in the dayes of King Henry the 8 th and Q Mary all the Bishops were not like Gardiner Bonner and such as were inhumane persecutors Why Christ should not entrust Cranmer Tonstall and such like to send forth Officers to act in the holy things of God as well as Judas to be an Apostle I find not cause The baptism received in the Church of Rome the Brownists in their Apology p. 112. acknowledge to be so farr valid as not to need rebaptization and why not then the Ordination by their Bishops Bishops and Ministers though they be evil men and unduly get into power yet as it is with other Officers their actings are valid as Caiaphas Ananias and such like persons who by bribes unjustly and irregularly usurped the High-Priests Office yet their sentence and ministration were not therefore disannulled He who said We received the Bible from the Church of Rome it is not likely meant it to have been received by vertue of their authority but their ministry Preachers having been sent by the Pope to instruct the Saxons in the Faith But whatever was meant by that speech this we may safely say That if the Office-power of the present Ministers had been as it is not received by succession from the Church of Rome and so from Idolaters yet being no other Office-power than what hath been instituted by Christ it no more proves the present Ministers Idolaters than the receiving of baptism or the Scriptures by the ministry of men in that Church It is further added Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry 3. Nor can it be denied but they offer up to God a VVorship meerly of humane composition as the common-Common-Prayer Book worship hath been proved to be once abused to Idolatry with the mâ—â—es â—nd rites of Idolaters That the Commonâ—Prayer Book worship is a worship that was once abused to Idolatry being the worship of that Church whose worship at least in the complex thereof is so cannot with the least pretence of reason be denied That the whole of it is derived from and taken out of the Popes Portuis as are the Common-prayers out of the Breviary The administration of the Sacraments Burial Matrimony Visitation of the Sick out of the Ritual or Book of Rites The Consecration of the Lords Supper Collects Epistles Gospels out of the Mass Book The Ordination of Arch-bishops Bishops and Priests out of the Roman Pontifical hath been aâ—â—erted and proved by many VVhich might be evidenced if needful beyond exception not only by comparing the one with the other but also from the offer was made by Pope Pius the 4th and Gregory the 13th to Q. Elizabeth to confirm the English Liturgy which did it not symbolize with the service of the Church of Rome they would not have done Yea when the said Queen was interdicted by the Popes Bull Secretary Walsingham procures two Intelligencers from the Pope who seeing the service of London and Canterbury in the pomp thereof wonder that their Lord the Pope should be so unadvised as to interdict a Prince whose service and ceremonies did so symbolize with his own VVhen they come to Rome they satisfie the Pope That they saw no service ceremonies or orders in England but might very well serve in Rome upon which the Bull was recalled Not to mention what we have already minded viz. the testimomy of King Edward the 6th and his Council witnessing the English service to be the same and no other but the old the self-same words in English that were in Latine which was the worship of England and Rome in Queen Maries dayes it is evident That the present Minsters of England offer up a worship to God once abused to Idolatry That they do this with the rites ceremonies and modes of Idolaters viz. such as are in use in that Idolatrous Church of Rome needs not many words to demonstrate What else is the Priests change of voice posture and place of worship enjoyned them Not to mention their holy Vestments Bowings Cringings Candles Altars c. all which as it s known owe their original unto the appointments thereof In the margin Maccovius loc com append de adiaph p. 860. saith Non licet mutuari aut retinere res aus ritus sacros Idololatrarum sive Ethnicorum sife Pontificiorum c. etsi in se res fuerint adiaphorae quia vitandam esse omnem consormitatem cum Idololatris docemur Lev. 19.4.27 and 21.5 Deut. 14 1 It remaineth That the present Mâ—nisters of England acting in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offering
quod or the terminus ad quem to which it had been directed But if he had only taken occasion upon the sight of the Sun to worship God as David did Psal. 8.3 magnifie or worship God the Creator it had been no Idolatry though the Moon or Sun were the objectum à quo significativè or the sight 〈◊〉 it the motive to it Till Divine worship be given to a creature it is not Idolatry although in the kind or means of worship there may be Will-worship and in the opinion of those that count their act or the object to be holy when it is not there may be superstition of the mind and in the use of such things or forbearing their use superstition in the members That which this Author saith of his major Proposition as generally owned by Protestants I do not believe it to be true understanding it as he doth of relation only to the creature as objectum significativè à quo or the motive of the adoration and not the object to which it is directed As for this minor it may be denied even in his own sense for the adoring of God though it be at the receiving the elements yet the elements are not objectum significative à quo or the motive of their kneeling according to the Common-Prayer Book which saith That the order in the Office for the administration of the Lords Supper that the Communicants should receive it kneeling is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue That thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental bread and wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood Which intimate that the elements are not the objectum significativè à quo or the motive of their kneeling but the benefits of Christ in the Lords Supper given to all worthy receivers And that not the sight of bread or wine which is not seen till the cup be in their hand but the remembrance of Christs death and the remission of sins by his blood by saith are the motive to kneel to God with prayer and thanksgiving to him without any honour of the bread and wine though received eaten and drunk to remember Christs death as the procuring cause of those benefits As for his Reason if the elements were not there they would not kneel therefore they are the objectum significativè à quo or the motive of their kneeling partly the Antecedent is not true for they kneel before they receive the elements brought to them and after they have eaten and drunk while they are in the meditation of Christs death and the benefits by it using holy ejaculation in prayer and thanksgiving to God partly the consequence may be denied For though they would not kneel were not the elements there yet this is not sufficient to prove their presence the motive of kneeling any more than the presence and speech of the Mâ—nister who delivers them with prayer and exhortation to whom yet this Author makes not the kneeling to have relation And indeed it is not the presence of the elements when they are received that is while they are in the Ministers hand or their own or in their mouths which is the objectum significativè à quo but the actions with the elements at the consecration by the Minister which signifie Christs death and the use by themselves in eating and drinking whereby are signified their nourishment by Christ unto life eternal which are the motive to that gratitude and trust in Christ which in kneeling they exercise by prayer As for the words of Didoclavius with Maccovius his assent they are the words of an Adversary to the Ministers in this cause and therefore not fit to be alleged as a proof in this matter Nor if they were true would they prove kneeling to be Idolatry but to be some way against the second Commandement for avoiding Idolatry We might more justly and more to the purpose allege the words of Dr. Ames in his Triplication to Dr. Burges his Rejoynder ch 4. sect 4. p. 382. There is no Non-conformist which refuseth to kneel unto Christ in the celebration of the Lords Supper And the Conformists deny they require kneeling to any other than God and the Lord Jesus Christ. As for their bowing and cringing at the Altar it concerns them to speak for themselves who use it neither do all the Conformists use it no not in Cathedrals if my information be right nor is there any established Law for it and those that use it do avouch they do it not to any other than God and therefore are not to be charged with Idolatry whatever other fault they are chargeable with by reason of it It follows Sect. 16. The Crimination of the Ministers as Idolaters is not excusable Object To what hath been hitherto offered in this matter if it be said That the charging the present Ministers of England with Idolatry is exceeding harsh and that which is an argument of a very unchristian and censorious spirit Though this makes nothing to the enervating of what hath been offered yet we answer 1. That many words of Christ himself were accounted hard sayings and not to be born and that by such hearers as were once his admirers and did with seeming great affection attend upon his ministry That such poor worms as we should be recharged herewith it is no great marvel it is enough for the Disciple to be as his Master 2ly We have in this matter said nothing but what is in Thesi over and over asserted by most or all Protestant Writers upon the second Commandement who assert fully That the worshipping God in a way not prescribed by him is Idolatry such as do so are Idolaters With our application hereof unto the present Ministers of England if they are guilty as that they are hath been abundantly demonstrated why should any be offended To speak truth when our silence would be prejudicial to the souls of our Brethren me-thinks should not be accounted unchristian or censorious In the margin are these words Calvin Perkins Ames Maccâ—vius Altingius Wendeline Paraeus Explicat Cate. p. 3. Q. 96. p. 528. saith Quid postulat secundum praeceptum Res. Ne Deum ullâ imagine aut figurâ exprimamus neve nullâ ratione eum colamus quà m qua se in suo verbo coli praecepit 1 Sam. 15.23 Deut. 12.30 Mat. 15 9. And afterwards he addeth Huic secundo praecepto contraria sunt ea quae vero cultui divino adversantur 1. Idololatria quae est culius numinis fictitius aut superstitiosus Sunt autem Idololatriae duâ— species praecipuae una crassior cum fictitium numen colitur haec species prohibetur in primo praecepto aliquâ ex parte in tertio
of the practice of some leading bretheren in this matter against the checks of their own consciences to a conformity herein to their after grief and wounding Vpon whose doors 't is to be feared and we wish they would in the fear of God lay it to heart may be written The bloud of souls Answ. The term of visible Saints hath been too much contracted by being almost appropriated to the members of those Churches which are termed Congregational in contradistinction to Presbyterial and Prelatical or if applyed to any of the more zealous of the Presbyterial way of disciplin yet scarce vouchsafed to any of them who are for Episcopal government or conformable to the worship and ministry of the Church of England who are commonly termed Antichristian persons without in Babylon and for men to profess thâ—mselves visible Saints is in effect all one as to say they are of a gathered Church all others being counted without Which abuse of words as it smels of arrogance in appropriating to themselves the title which is common to all true believers and uncharitableness in conceiving of others as no visible Saints because they are not entered into that which is termed Church covenant so is it injurious to others though godly from whom such are estranged as no visible Saints but they are censured and declined as persons without that have nothing in them of God yea as adversaries to the power of Godliness meer formalists if they speak for the common-prayer book or any thing favourably of any of the Bishops and this serves for a design of keeping them to themselves without joyning in prayer and hearing in publique which they call hearing with the world out of the Church This I conceive to be the reason of this Authors expressions here of the saints visibly so scandalizing their bretheren by their hearing the Ministers that now preach publickly By which it may be seen that he regards not much who do hear the present ministers of England so that they do not as if it were not necessary to deterre all others from hearing them if they be false Prophets and Idolaters as this Author accuseth them yea and to oppose them even unto the death if they be such so that this argument is unnecessary if the other be good and rather supposeth all that is formerly disputed to be weak yet this point of scandal may serve turn to affright them from communion with the publique Ministery and keep them to themselves though it prove never so injurious to their peace and outward estate and sinful by reason of the Schism that is continued by it For this reason I shall examin this Argument also as it is here delivered and so much the rather because I have found by experience that when in this and other doubts of conscience I have in conference with honest but scrupulous christians satisfied them concerning the lawfulness of that which they doubted of yet in this I could hardly quiet their consciences that they might do without sin what they scrupled to do because they should offend good people the scandalizing of whom our Saviour and the Apostle Paul make a hainous sin and procuring an heavy curse For which reason I printed the treatise of scandalizing forementioned more then twenty years ago in the epistle dedicatory whereof are these words In my small reading and experience I finde few doubts of conscience concerning mens patent actions in the resolving of which the difficulty hath not most of all rested on this point of Scandal At present I shall not open the word scandal nor insist on the definition of Scandal nor the sorts of scandalizing or causes of it or the various cases concerning it leaving the Reader to that Treatise or to what else hath been since written by D. Henry Hammond of scandal Ma. Henry Jeanes of abstinence from appearance of evil and others for a fuller understanding of this point but assert that notwithstanding what is here said of the offence of brethren and the sad consequence of blood guiltiness which this Author would have it conceived the hearing the present Ministers tends to yet neither the so termed visible Saints nor any other by hearing the present Ministers do sin against the precepts of non-scandalizing given by Christ or his Aposte St. Paul Matth. 18.6 Luke 17.1 2 Rom. 14.13.15.20 1 Cor. 8.8.9.13 and 10 24. Which I prove thus 1. That is not scandalizing forbidden in these texts which is neither by giving evil example in doing that which is intrinsecally or of it self evil though none were offended nor by enticing practices or persecution impelling to evil nor by abuse of liberty in things lawful to the harm of another which are all the wayes I know of scandalizing there forbidden if there be any other shewed I think however it will not reach to the present case that which this Author seems to reduce it to is the last in that he puts in a Parenthesis in the minor these words there is no positive precept in Scriptures for it But it is not to be reduced to that sort of scandalizing for the hearing of the present Ministers of England cannot be accounted a matter of liberty or indifferency but either duty or sin hearing the word of God being an express precept in the general and so is obeying them that are Rulers now the ministers preaeh the word of God and our Rulers command us to hear them and this they have power to do and in this they have power over their subjects as parents have over their children and masters over their servants and are to be obeyed in that which is not evil but good and therefore the scandalizing is not by abuse of liberty in things indifferent nor is it scandalizing in doing a thing in it self evil or impelling to it as hath been shewed in the foregoing chapters of this answer Therefore the offending Bretheren what ever it be by hearing the present ministers is not the scandalizing forbidden 2. That is not Scandalizing forbidden in those Texts which doth not tend to any of those evils for preventing of which those precepts of not scandalizing were given But the hearing of the present Ministers tends not to any of those evils for prevenâ—ing whereof those precepts of not scandalizing were given This is proved because it tends not to any sin but to the performance of duty in hearing Gods word nor to any such sorrow or vexation as the precepts would have prevented which were such as made either persons to be discouraged in Christianity or to walk uncomfortably in the profession of it as by view of the Texts may appear But to neither of these effects doth the hearing of the present Minister tend This Author saith It makes visible Saints to grieve as their grones and tears alone and together demonstrate But how doth the Hearing the present Ministers tend to it Sure neither in the nature of the action noâ— in the will of him that hears if the person
nothing that might deter tender and considerately enquiring Christians from hearing the present Ministers It remains that I make good the catasceuastick part of this dispute by confirming the Arguments brought for hearing them which I shall apply my self to after the answering of the questions which here follow Sect. 10. A pollution in one part makes not the whole worship polluted We shall saith he onely in the close offer a few Queries to be in the fear of the holy one considered by the intelligent Reader Quer. 1. Whether the Lord Jesus be not the alone Head King and Law-giver to his Church Answ. Yes meaning it of the supream absolute independent Head King Law-giver to his Church as such 2. Whether the Laws Statutes Orders and Ordinances of Christ be not faithfully to be kept though all the Princes in the world should interdict and forbid it Answ. They are 3. Whether to introduce other Laws for the government of the Church of Christ and the worship of his house be not an high advance against and intrusion into his Kingship and Headship Answ. Not if they be no other then such as are shewed to be warranted in this answer to the Preface Sect. 8.20 to Ch. 1. Sect. 3. to Ch. 5. Sect. 11 12 13 14 3 4 5. 4. Whether the Lord Jesus as King and Head over his Church hath not instituted sufficient officers and offices for the administration of holy things in his house to whom no more can be added without a desperate undervaluation and contempt of his wisdom headship and soveraignty over it Answ. Some servants and services may be appointed by rulers without such an undervaluation or contempt 5. Whether the officers instituted by Christ are not onely Pastors Teachers Deacons and helpers Answ. In this Catalogue I find not helpers officers instituted by Christ by some others not here mentioned I find of Christs institutions 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes. 4.11 6. Whether the offices of Archbishops Lord Bishops Deacons sub-Deans Prebendaries Chancellors Priest Deacons as an order of the first step to a Priesthood Arch-Deacons sub-Deacons Commissaries Officials Proctors Registers Apparitors Parsons Vicars Curates Canons Petty-Canons Gospellers Epistollers Chaunters Virgers Organ-players Queristers be officers any where instituted by the Lord Jesus in the Scripture Answ. Some are some are not See the answer to ch 3. 7. Whether the calling and admission into these last mentioned offices their administration and maintenance now had and received in England be according to the word of God Answ. So much as is necessary to the resolving of this Question in order to the present controversie is answered before in sundry places which the Reader is to observe to satisfie himself 8. Whether every true visible particular Church of Christ be not a select company of people called and separated from the world and false worship thereof by the spirit and word of God and joyned together in the fellowship of the Gospel by their own free and voluntary consent giving up themselves to Christ and one another according to the will of God Answ. Some of these terms are so ambiguously used as is shewed before that in some sense it may be answered affirmatively in some negatively 9. Whether a company of people living in a parish though the most of them be visible Drunkards Swearers c. or at least strangers to the work of regeneration upon their souls coming by compulsion or otherwise to the hearing of publick prayers or preaching are in the Scripture account Saints and a Church of Christ according to the pattern given forth for him or rather be not to be esteemed daughters of the old Whore and Babel spoken of in the Scripture Answ. If their faith be right the first part is answered affirmatively the last negatively 10. Whether in such a Church there â—s or can rationally be supposed to be a true Ministry of the Institution of Christ Answ. It may 11. Whether the Book of common-Common-Prayer or stinted Liturgies be of the Prescription of Christ and not of mans devising and invention Answ. The worship or matter for the greatest part of the Common-Prayer-book is of Christ though the method and form of words be of men 12. Whether if one part of a worship used by a people be polluted the whole of their worship be not to be looked upon in a Scripture account as polluted and abominable according to 1 Kings 18.21 2 Kings 17.33 Isa. 66.3 Hos. 4.15 Ezek. 43.8 Zâ—ph 1.5 So that â—f their prayers be naught and polluted their Preaching be not so too Answ. No nor is any such thing said in any of these Texts not 1 Kiâ—gs 8 21. is câ—ndemned their following after Baal and not clâ—avâ—ng to God no intimation that if they cleaved to God it would be polluted by reason of the following of Baal but shewing they could not cleave to God if they did follow Baal No pollution is ascribed to the fear of the Lord 2 Kings 17.33 because of the service of the gods of the nations but the service of the gods of the nations is counted pollution notwithstanding such fear of God as they had Isa. 66.3 The killing of an ox was not a pollution because of other pollution of worship but because of the evil of the person it was polluted to him not in it self Hos. 4.15 Swearing the Lord liveth was evil because they pretended they did swear by the true God when they swore by these calves Amos 8.14 Diodati Annot. in locum Ezek. 43.8 notes not one part of lawful worship polluted by another unlawful but mentions onely an Idolatrous service near to Gods Temple of which I have spoken before in answer to Chap. 5. Sect. 2. Swearing by the Lord was not polluted because they sware by Malcham but the hypocrisie of the persons is noted who made shew of swearing by the Lord when they sware also by Malcham whereas he that serves God acceptably must cleave to him onely as God If as this Authours Quaerie intimateth a Ministers Prayers be naught and polluted his Preaching must be so too then all Preaching is naught in him that by imperfection or passion vents that in prayer which is not right which I am sure hath been in the Ministers of Congregational principles and none then should be heard Preach whose Prayers have any errour or imperfection in them which is a very gross absurdity and such as would make all mens Preaching unlawful and bring in the opinion of the Seekers who would have none accounted Ministers of God but such as speak by immediate inspiration 13. Whether a Ministry set up in direct opposition unto a Ministry of Christ which riseth upon it's fall and falls by it's rise can by such as so account of it be lawfully joyned unto Answ. No But they are bound to leave this account if it be erroneous 14. Whether such as have forsworn a Covenant-reformation according to the word of God and swear to a worship that is meerly of humane devising that
rejoyced in no way was the acting of Pilate or Herod or the Jewes to be abetted but to be abhorred though the Counsel of God was to be justified and extolled as was done Acts 4.24 c. Should the Pope send Jesuites to preach the Gospel and they should continue to preach it and no doctrine antievangelical I know no reason why the Saints might not attend on their Ministry To the 2 d. 3 d. and 4 th Answers I reply That the preaching of Christ in opposition to Paul makes it probable that they were not real Saints nor true Ministers in his sence such motives being contrary to that brotherly love which is in every real Saint 1 John 3.14 and that order of the Church by which is a lawfull mission which me thinks he should not conceive to have been in them that acted in a way of contention against St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles And for the Ministers of England I like better the words of Mr. Iohn Robinson in his Justification of the Separation p. 307. then these Authors words In the general I confess there is a proportion and so in that general and large sence wherein Mr. Bernard pag. 313. expounds the word sent or Apostle I do acknowledge many Ministers in England sent of God that is that it comes not to pass without the special providence and Ordination of God that such and such men should rise up and preach such and such truths for the furtherance of the Salvation of Gods elect in the places where they come They which preached Christ of envy and strife to add more afflictions to the Apostles bonds were in this respect sent of God and therefore it was that the Apostle joyed at their preaching How much more they that preach of a sincere mind though through ignorance or infirmity both their place and enterance into it be most unwarrantable And sure if they may in this sense be said to be sent of God it follows Saints may hear them which was to be proved It is added Sect. 8. The truth Ministers teach warrants the hearing of them Object 4. The Ministers of England preach truth and is it not lawfull to hear truth preached We answer 1. That 't is lawfull to hear truth preached is readily granted but this must be done lawfully and in the way of Christs appointment 2. All that preach truth are not to be heard nor will our discenting brethren say they are For 1. There was never yet any Heretical preacher in the world but he preached some truth is it lawfull to hear such This will not be said 2. The Devil himself preached truth yet Christ forbids him and commands that he hold his peace 3. The Popish Priests preach truth yet who will say 't is lawfull to attend upon their Ministry But 3. As the present Ministers of England preach truth so 1. They preach it but by halves and dare not for fear of the L. Bishops inhibition preach any doctrine though never so clearly revealed in the Scriptures and owned by them as the truth of Christ he commands them not to meddle with 2. The main truths they preach at least many of them are contradicted in their practice They 'l tell you that the Lord Jesus is the great Prophet and King of his Church but how palpably this is contradicted by them in their practice conforming to institutions and laws that are not of his prescription who sees not This we have abundantly demonstrated 3. With the truth they preach they mingle errours directly contrary to the Scripture and the revelation of his will therein Instances of this kind have been already exhibited to which may be added many more we shall mention but a few 1. That the Ministry Worship and Government which Christ hath appointed to his Church is not to be received or joyned unto unless the Magistrates where they are reputed Christian do allow it 2. That the Apocryphal books which have in them errors 2 Mac. 12.44 45. 14.41 42. Eccles. 46.20 Wisd. 19.11 untruths 2 Esd. 14.21 22 23. 2 Mac. 2.4.8 Tob. 5.11 12 13. with 12.15 Judith 8.33 10.9 with v. 12. 11.6.12 13 14 15. 1 Mac. 9.3.18 with 2 Mac. 1.13 to 17. and 9.1.5.7.9.28.29 blasphemy Tobit 12.12.15 with Rom. 8.34 1 Tim. 2.5 Rev. 8.3.4 magick Tob. 6.6 7 8. 9.2.3 with 3.7 8. 11.10 11 13. with 2.9 10. and contradiction to the Canonical Scriptures Judith 9.2 3 4. compared with Gen. 49.5 6 7. Esther in the Apocrypha chap. 12.5 15.9 10. with Ester Canonical chap. 6.3 5.2 Eccles. 46.20 with Isa. 57. 2. may be used in the publick worship of God 3. That the most wicked and their seed may be compelled and received to be members of the Church 4. That Marriage may be forbidden at certain seasons as in Lent Advent Rogation-week c. 5. That Baptism is to be administred with a cross in the forehead and that as a symbolical sign 6. That though the most notorious obstinate offenders be partakers of the Lords Supper yet the people that joyn with them are not defiled thereby 7. That there may be Holy days appointed to the Virgin Mary John Baptist to the Apostles all Saints and Angels together also with Fasts on their Eves on Ember-days Fridays Saturdays so called heathenishly enough and Lent 8. That the Cope Surplice Tippit Rocket c. are meet and decent ornaments for the worship of God and Ministry of the Gospel 6. That the Book of common-Common-prayer is the true worship of God 10. That Christ descended into hell as if Christ descended into the place of the damned as the Papists hold 11. That Lord Bishops can give the holy Ghost and power to forgive and retain sins 12. That Altars Candles Organs c. are necessary and useful in the Church of God 13. That all children when baptized are regenerate and received by the Lord for his own children by adoption Common-prayer-book of publick Baptism Yea 14. That children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation and shall undoubtedly be saved So they profess in the Order of Conformation in the Common-prayer-book with much more that might be offered in this matter I reply 1. The grant That it is lawfull to hear truth preached is sufficient to prove it lawful to hear the present Ministers preach truth which he denies not they do unless he could prove it were contrary to the way of Christ's appointment to hear the truth from them 2. All that preach some truth are not to be heard yet all that preach the great truths of the Gospel notwithstanding some errours non-fundamental may be heard especially if the errours be seldom or never pressed on the hearers but left to them to examine and to be approved or disproved Heretical Preachers are not to be heard because they preach not the great truths of the Gospel but errours which overthrow the foundation so do the Popish Priests yet it were no sin to hear
either of these speak truth The Devils we are to have no communion with God having put an utter enmity between the serpent and the seed of the woman 3. If the present Ministers of England preach truth but by halves it is lawful to hear them preach those halfs The Bishops allow them to preach all truths needful to salvation all that is contained in the Creed Lords Prayer and Ten Commandments in the 39 Articles the two Tomes of Homilies nor are men inhibited in Schools or Convocations or at some times in books published in Latine to discover any truths of God so it be done without disturbance or other evil consequence That some truths needful to be known are not permitted to be published to the vulgar auditories may have the same reason as Christ had for not acquainting his disciples with many things he had to say to them because they could not then bear them John 16.12 Some things may seem very clearly revealed in the Scriptures to some and be owned by them which are pernicious as that the Saints have all right to government that they are to smite the civil powers as part of the fourth Monarchy that justified persons are not under the command of the moral Law some disputable as about the thousand years reign That God cannot forgive sins without satisfaction to his justice Church-constitution Covenant Government and many more which it is agreeable to the Apostles rule Rom. 14.1 their practice Acts 15.28 not to vent in all sorts of auditories and if the Bishops do restrain Preachers especially those that are young raw injudicious but violent and apt to cause division they do agreeably to the Apostles rule to the example of all Churches where Government is not popular which breeds confusion yea I think the Separatists have found by experience some restraint necessary and that the universal liberty of Conscience or of prophesying as it is termed is intolerable and if Bishops who are men and may be more rigid then they should hold the reins in too hard yet there is no reason why the people should refuse to hear that truth which is necessary and sufficient to salvation because they cannot hear every truth which perhaps out of faction or a childish inconstancy or having itching ears they desire to know As for what is said about the Ministers contradicting their preaching by their practice it is answered before in the Answer to the 5 th Chapter And yet were it granted their personal evils are not sufficient to make the hearing of the truth unlawful to the hearers As for the errours they are said to mingle with the truths they teach they are not such as overthrow the foundation if they were errours and taught by them and therefore this is no sufficient reason why they may not be heard preaching necessary truths Yet to shew the futility of this allegation I shall consider each of the supposed errours The first I doubt not they will deny and require this Authour to prove it For the second it is not for ought I know preached by any of the Ministers That the Apocryphal books which have in them errours may be used in the publick worship of God nor do I think if they should so do could it well consist with their subscription to the sixth Article of the Confession of the Church of England which excludes them out of the Canon of holy Scriptures which contain all things necessary to salvation and saith The Church as Hierome saith doth read them for example of life and instructions of manners but yet doth it not apply them to stablish any doctrine And what Dr. Rainold the Bishop of Durham that now is with many of the English Protestant and conforming Divines have written about the Apocryphal Books is sufficient to clear the present Ministers from suspicion of complying with the Papists who according to the Decree of the Trent Council ses quarta put most of them though they leave out some of them into the Catalogue of sacred Books containing that truth and discipline of the Gospel which is saving and to be preached to every creature and receive and venerate them with equal affection of piety and reverence as other books of holy scripture And although the passages alleaged by this Authour are liable to exception nor do I think it fit for me to justifie or excuse them yet this I say to shew there is not a sufficient reason to withdraw from hearing the present Ministers preaching or praying 1. Some of the books are not appointed to be read at all 2. Some of those that are appointed to be read are capable of an easier censure and better construction then is put upon them by this Authour 3. That those which are not so capable of excuse yet are appointed to be read on such days and in such places as those that alleadge this for a reason of not hearing the present Ministers need not be present 4. That it was once resolved as lawful by Dr. George Abbot after Archbishop of Canterbury in his answer to Dr. Hill the Papist p. 317. from the Preface to the second Tome of the Homilies for the Minister instead of the Apocryphal books to read some other part of the Canonical Scripture of the old Testament Which things being considered there seems not for this to be a sufficient reason of not hearing the present Ministers or charging them as this Authour doth The third errour I conceive they will deny to be their tenent But concerning this and the 4th 5th 6â—â— 8th 9th 11th errours so much hath been said before chiefly in the answer to the 5 th 6 th 7 th chapters of this book that I need not here make a particular answer concerning each of these severally yet I say the things are not matters of the Ministers Doctrine however they be of their practice and therefore cannot be a reason of not hearing their Sermons And they who make this a sufficient reason not to hear or to pray or receive the Lords Supper with a person by reason of some errour he holds or teacheth or some undue practice on Gods worship or conversation with other men go against all rules and examples in holy Scripture and approved Christians and such a one must suppose Preachers infallible every Communicant unblameable or each Christian to have power to excommunicate if the person faulty be not amended upon his reproof that he must know what Tenents his Teacher holds and what is the conversation of each Communicant ere he can warrantably hear the one or communicate with the other Which with sundry other superstitious conceits or unnecessary scruples put an intolerable burden upon mens consciences and will as well prove withdrawing from the Ministers and Churches Congregational necessary as from the Conformists As for the 7th errour it will be denied by them to be their Tenent that there may be Holy days appointed to the Virgin Mary John Baptist c. For though they
that are erroneous if they try them they may hear pretenders prophesying if they prove it much more those Ministers who preach the truth it is each Christians duty to try their doctrine nor their sin to hear their Sermons 29. This Authour himself ch 2. in the words before cited alowed the hearing of gifted brethren though not solemnly invested into office nor do I think he would think it unlawful to hear Parents or Masters Catechize or Readers in the University when they read Divinity Lectures or dispuâ—e in Divinity Schools and therefore by a like reason must allow the hearing of such Ministers who Preach the Gospel and are found in the faith and are regularly ordained according to the discipline of that Church in which they live and are taken for true Ministers by the godly and learned at home and the most able and pious Pastours and brethren of the Reformed Churches abroad 30. The reasons of this Authour and other Separatists against hearing the present Ministers may be retorted against themselves Mr. William Bradshaw having answered Mr. Francis Johnsons Arguments to prove this conclusion It is not lawful to hear or have any spiritual communion with the present Ministry of the Church-assemblies of England added Reasons or Arguments tending to prove That it is a sin to separate from the publick Ministry of the Church-assemblies of England directly contrary to Mr. Johnsons own Reasons and usually in that regard made in the same mood and figure which are to be seen in the unreasonableness of the separation p. 126. c. Printed 1640. in Mr. Gatakers Rejoynder against the Reply of Mr. John Canne And as for this Authours 12. Arguments it were no hard matter to prove That the Ministers of the separated Churches are not to be heard by some if not by all the middle terms he hath used to prove That the present Ministers of the Church of England are not to be heard As for instance That they come not in by the door but climb another way by usurping Ministry without any regular Ordination by other Ministers That they walk disorderly in separating themselves from true Churches they have Antichristian names or titles in being called Masters That they deny Christs Offices in submitting to and imposing Orders or Ordinances about worship not appointed by Christ as Church-covenant Paedobaptism c. That they are false prophets that deny them to be true Churches of Christ who hold the faith of Christ That some commands of the Ceremonial Law of Moses are Rules to us Christians That they are Babylon and Antichristian in their constitution and their practice in dividing from other Churches not submitting to their Teachers those who have begotten them through the Gospel without any well setled order among themselves that they therefore long agree not but crumble into many small companies and sometimes take them to be members of their Churches who dwell in remote places so that their gathered Churches extend as far some times as a Bishops Diocess that they ascribe the power of the keys to the whole Church confound Governours and Governed allow men not set apart to that function to teach publickly and that frequently if not constantly those to take upon them to prophesie who are no Prophets That they scandalize their brethren their Governours by their invectives That they partake of the sins of others in allowing them to usurp that power which Christ hath not committed to them That they cast contempt upon the ways of Christ to wit the Prayers and Preaching of the Ministers of the Church of England That they go to the places of false worship as Mr. Iohn Paget in his Arrow against the Separatists proves against Ainsworth that they cannot expect a blessing from God upon their separation it having no promise of God but is against the union that should be among Christians That it is a step to Apostacy is a forsaking of the assembly of the Saints to refuse to hear the present Ministers and to joyn in Prayers with them and too much experience hath proved what backsliding if not to Popery yet to other errours of Antinomians Familists Quakers Seekers Ranters hath been the fruit of Separation But I forbear recrimination and touching the sore which I rather desire may be healed and that our breaches may be made up and not widened to which this Authours reasonings tend 31. The grounds upon which this Authour and other Separatists deny the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers are either false or doubtful as That nothing is to be done in the worship of God and Church-discipline without a particular institution That onely a Congregational Church is of Christs institution That a true Ministry cannot be in a false Church That a prescibed form of prayer by men is unlawful That we may not use any thing in Gods worship which hath been composed by Popes or used in the Church of Rome with many more whereof many are shewed in this answer to be false or uncertain and insufficient for this Authours separation and the fallacy of them manifested in so many other Treatises of Conformists and non-conformists extant in Print that I need not add any more in this place 32. On the other side the Ministers of the Church of England have so sufficiently proved the truth of their Ministry against Papists and Separatists and so firmly by wrirting and otherwise opposed Popery even the Prelates whom the Separatists do so much cry down as Antichristian Popish c. that were not men resolved never to lay down a calumny they have once taken up they would lay this down and forbear pressing separation upon such exceptions and imputations as this Authour hath gathered together in this his dung-cart to furnish the inconsiderate though perhaps otherwise well-minded in matters of Religion to cast into their faces 33 If it be not lawful to hear the present Ministers because they are not rightly Elected Ordained in and by a Congregational Church according to Christs institution as this Authour conceives or because they use the common-prayer-Common-prayer-book are faulty in their lives or some evil consequences as offence of some Saints contempts of some ways of God by accident ensue thereupon then it will follow that every hearer before he hears a Minister must 1. be able to judge of the validity of these Reasons whether they can warrant his not hearing 2. He must be able to judge every Minister or Preacher he hears whether he be rightly thus Elected Ordained or qualified 3. He must actually examine him afore he hears him 4. He must have power either to silence or withdraw from him if he be not so qualified and must use that power But 1. Such ability is not in every hearer nor indeed is it as the estate of things in this life is ordinarily possible it should be 2. Then Ministers Preaching and Ministry should be at the will of their Auditors For if one may forbear hearing all may upon the same reason and so
incense to Baal And from the expression of an Altar v 23. which among the Gentiles had an Image near it and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Dr. Hammond in his Annot. on v. 16. saith was not their Worshâ—ps or their Altars but their Idols that is their Deities themselves for so the word is used Wisd. 14.20 And on 2 Thes. 2 4. alledgeth Theophylact as interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 17.23 by their Idols and from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 22 applyed to this worship is collected that the unknown God was as a Daemor to whom they erected an Image or Pillar which they conceived their Deity present at which is rendred a standing Image in our translation or an Image of stone to which they did bow down forbidden Levit. 26.13 of which Ainsworth in his Annot. there may be seen So that upon this account the Athenians may be charged with Idolatry in that they in bowing down to or worshipping the unknown God did direct it to the Idol or Pillar which did represent him unto which also an Altar was dedicated But it s added Sect. 3. This Authors Argument as well proves himself an Idolater as the Conformist The minor or second Proposition viz. That the present Ministers of England worship the true God in another way than he hath said he will be worshipped in and is prescribed by him is that which is denied by some but the truth thereof we doubt not will to the unprejudiced Reader be beyond exception evident from the ensuing Demonstration viz. Those that worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book worship him in another way than that he hath said he will be worshipped in and is prescribed by him But the present Ministers of England worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book Therefore c. The minor or second Proposition cannot be denied their subscription before they are admitted to the Ministry together with their daily and constant practice are sufficient evidences thereof Answ. That unwary Readers may not be deceived by the ambiguity of the phrase here used it is to be considered That the way of Worship not prescribed by God may be either when the worship is to another thing besides or with God which alone proves Idolatry and in which sense the minor was denied and should have been proved Or by another way is meant another Ceremony or Rite in which the Worship of God is placed such as was the Pharisees washing their hands which may be Will-worship if to God only but not Idolatry and so if he could prove our Ministers guilty of this yet should they not be proved Idolaters any more than the Pharisees were with which neither Christ nor his Apostles do charge them But this Author doth noâ— so much as goe about to prove the minor denied in this sense But in a third sense to wit by another way of Worship than what God hath prescribed he understands another way of expression of worship in which the worship is not placed but is used only as an outward means for conveniency yet accounted alterable In which sense the minor is not denied But the major of his Argument is denied in either of these two later senses of the phrase and the minor in the two former in neither of which doth he goe about to prove it I add 1. That he doth vainly suppose God hath appointed or prescribed the particularities of the modes or way of his Worship in every of the sorts or kinds of worship he hath prescribed as particularly in Prayer that it must not in a pre-conceived and stinted form of words imposed by Rulers be performed to him but that it must by the Minister be done in a loose undetermined unpremeditate or unprescribed form of words by any man The which supposition is before shewed to be an errour in the Answer to the Preface sect 20. ch 1. sect 3. ch 4. sect 9. ch 5. sect 3 4 5 7. 2. In this sense in which he useth the phrase his Argument may be retorted upon himself Those that worship the true God in any other way that is form of expression than he hath said he will be worshipped in and is prescribed by him are Idolaters But they who pray in a loose undetermined unpremeditated or unprescribed form of words by man worship the true God in another way that is form of expression than he hath said he will be worshipped in and is prescribed by him Therefore they among whom thâ—s Author is one are Idolaters The major is his own the minor by his own grants stands firm till he can shew where God hath said He will be worshipped in and hath prescribed such a loose form of expression in Prayer which I yet find not What this Author hath said before is answered before Till he brings better proof though I will not pronounce him an Idolater yet I shall judge him to be guilty of superstition in counting that to be sin which God hath not made such and of usurpation of Gods Legislative power in Pharisee-like requiring observance of his own tradition as Gods command together with evil censoriousness rash judging and uncharitable separation But let us goe on Sect. 4. Prayer in a stinted form may be worship of God of his appointment As for the major Proposition saith he That to worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book is to worship him in a way that is not of his appointment 1. Let any shew when and where such a stinted form of service was appointed by Christ and this part of the controversie is at an end Sure we are there are not the least footsteps of such a way of worship to be found in the New Testament no not in the whole Book of God whatever is pretended by some touching Liturgies in the sense we are speaking amongst the people of the Jews No nor yet was there any such a way of worship thought of much less imposed in the first and purer times of the Gospel for several centuries of years after the dayes of Christ and his Apostles In the Epistles of the Church of Smyrna about the martyrdome of Polycarpus and of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons concerning their persecution in the Epistle of Clemens or the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth in the writings of Ignatius Justin Martyr Clemens Tertullian Origen Cyprian and their Contemporaries there is not only an utter silence of such a thing but assertions wholly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and opposite thereunto Tertullian sayes expresly Illuc suspicientes Christiani manibus expansis quia innocuius capite nudo quia non erubescimus denique sine monitore quia de pectore oramus Apol. cap. 30. The Christians in those days he tells us looking towards Heaven not on their common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Books with their hands spread abroad c. prayed to God without a monitor because from their hearts And in several places he â—estifies that they praised God in