Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	administration_n	prayer_n	sacrament_n	2,563	5	7.2488	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57860	A rational defence of non-conformity wherein the practice of nonconformists is vindicated from promoting popery, and ruining the church, imputed to them by Dr. Stillingfleet in his Unreasonableness of separation : also his arguments from the principles and way of the reformers, and first dissenters are answered : and the case of the present separation, truly stated, and the blame of it laid where it ought to be : and the way to union among Protestants is pointed at / by Gilbert Rule ...	Rule, Gilbert, 1629?-1701.	1689 (1689)	Wing R2224; ESTC R7249	256,924	294

hath answered what hath been said against the Liturgy and the use of it in the Anatomy of the Service-Book Interest of words in prayer Smectyminis Jerubbaal's necessity of Reformation and other pieces to which I refer the Reader for satisfaction in this point Although I have made some Collections on this subject yet so much being said by others and neither the Doctor nor any other being ple●sed to Answer it I also shall wave this Controversie Only hinting a few of the chief grounds of our Scruple in this matter because the Dr. p. 332 333. chargeth his Answerers with pretending to scruple without giving reason for their Scruples Sect. 3. We do not simply nor generally condemn Forms of Prayer they may be used when that work cannot be tollerably performed without them neither do we condemn joyning in such a way of praying even when the man that chuseth that way might and ought to do otherwise Neither do we scruple joyning in the use of the Liturgy meerly because it is imposed by Authority I know we are misrepresented in all these But 1. We condemn using of set Forms of Prayer either in private or publick without such necessity as that duty cannot be tollerably performed without that help 2. We think it unlawful for the Church or any other to impose on the Ministers of the Gospel the use of a set Form of Praying where there is not absolute necessity 3. We think in the present case of the Church there is no such absolute necessity of that imposition seeing Ministers may be had who are tollerably gifted for their Work And seeing it is Christ's Institution that none but such should be in the Ministery and seeing any Escapes or Indecencies that can be observed in a Ministers Administrations are to be Corrected by the Discipline of the Church which is Christ's way not by imposing a Liturgy which is Mans way 4. We think it unlawful for Ministers who are tollerably gifted for their Work and if they be not such in the judgment of the Church they should lay aside that Work and betake themselves to other Callings To submit to such Impositions or to use such Forms of Prayer 5. What is said of Forms of Prayers let it be also understood of Forms of Preaching Administration of Sacraments and Exhortations at them and of other parts of the Service of God Here we may rationally except Forms of singing praise unto God and that on two Grounds 1. The Scripture hath furnished the Church with such Forms for all cases of a Soul and of the Church in the Book of Psalms which is not done in Prayer and other Admin●strations So that these Forms are not humane as other Forms must be● 2. The Gift of composing Spiritual Songs fit to be sung in the Church is not to be expected that it should be Commonly given to the Pastors of the Church as the Gifts of Preaching and Praying are given 6. We think it unlawful for people to joyn in Worshipping God by a frame of Service not instituted nor warranted in the Word of God both as to the matter and as to the manner of it 7. The English Service Book is such a frame of Service as is not warranted nor instituted in the Word and so it is unlawful for us to joyn in Worshipping God by it Sect. 4. If we can give good reason for the 2d 4th 6th and 7th of these Assertions sufficient ground will appear for our scrupling the use of the Liturgy imposed as one of the Terms of our Communion with the Church of England For the First of these That Men may not impose set Forms on Gifted Ministers Arguments for this are 1. There is no warrant for such practice if there be it must be either Christ's Command or his Permission or the necessity of it The first nor second is not alledged because no such thing can be proved from the Word Nor the third for such a necessity is contrary to our supposition that the men so imposed on are gifted If it be said the best gifted may slip into unfit expressions Reply This unfitness is either tolerable and so no necessity can arise from that hazard or into●erable and then it is to be cured by Christ's means Church Discipline not by the invention of man. 2. No such imposition nor usage was ever heard of in the Apostolick Church nor in the Primitive Church for 300 years and more and yet there were Ministers subject to Infirmities as Men now are and the Worship of God was by them fitly managed May not the means of securing Worship from abuse serve us that served them Or will we be wiser and m●re wary than they That there was any Forms used or imposed in the Apostles times we need not prove the Lord's Prayer is no Instance to the contrary it cannot be made appear that ever it was intended to be a form of words or used as such And for the Primitive times it is evident that when Constantine would help his Souldiers newly come out of Heathenism with a Form he behoved to get some composed which needed not had they then been in the Church Justin Martyr Apol. 2. p. 98. Edition Paris giving account of their publick Exercises on the Lord's day to wit reading Scripture Exhortation Prayer Singing Administration of the Lord's Supper he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Minister sendeth up Prayers and Thanksgivings as he is able then not by Book but his Ability as the Lord furnished him Tertullian Apol. c. 30. saith They prayed in their Assemblies sine monitore quum de pectore and in his Book de Oratiore he sheweth that there are many things to be asked according to every ones occasions the Lord's Prayer being laid as a Foundation where the true use of the Lord's prayer note that by the way is hinted to wit to be a Directory not a Form. Socrates Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. c. 21. which is wholly spent in shewing what diversity of usages was in the Primitive times in divers places and how little weight was laid on uniformity the great Argument for the Common-prayer hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is generally and every where in all Religions in Prayer there are not two to be found that agree in one which surely must be meant of Agreement in the same words Sect. 5. A third Argument for this is such imposing doth thwart one great design of Prayer in publick which is to lay out before the Lord all the several cases of the people or the Church their sins and wants which do so vary that no Book can suit them all I am sure ours doth not If it be answer●d th●s design may be answered by leaving a liberty to Minist●rs sometimes as af●er Sermon 〈◊〉 use their gifts I reply that this L●berty doth frustrate the design of set prayer which is to prevent venting of error and indecency is not that hazard in permitting prayer after Sermon as well

bring Papists to the Church tho' it proved after a while rather a mean of carrying Protestants to the Mass. And King Edward 6th with the Council did affirm as much in a Letter to the Rebels in the West who had risen in defence of Popery saying that the Service that now they had in English was almost the same that before they had in Latin. And any that readeth the Bible and the Mass and this Service may easily see that there is a far greater Simitude between it and the Mass than between it and all the Worship of God that the Scripture giveth account of to have been practiced in the Apostolick Church 2. This may appear if we consider the Original of this Service it was taken out of several Popish Books the Prayers out of the Breviary the Sacraments Burial Matrimony Visitation of the Sick out of the Ritual Adminstration of the Lords Supper out of the M●ss-book and Consecration of Bishops out of the Pontifical as any may see who will be at the pains to compare the Books mentioned together Sect. 12. I know it will be said that they retain only those parts of those Books that were composed by the Orthodox Fathers of the Church and used in the primitive times But this is no sufficient defence for 1. Suppose that Frame of worship had so good an Original yet being now of late so grosly abused to Idolatry and being so like to the Idolatrous worship of the Papists rather than like Apostolick Worship and we having departed from that Church on good Grounds why should we chuse their way of worship and in so doing both differ from the primitive times especially the Apostles times and from all other Reformed Churches 2. It is false that this Frame of Service was composed by the Fathers it is indeed said by some that Jerom composed some Prayers for the use o● weak Christians but that he or any other such did compose this Frame or any thing like it is denyed and I have proved that there was no such thing in these Times The Prayers were made by Gregory the Great Anno 600. or thereabout other parts were added by other Popes the Responds came not in till many years after What is commonly talked of the Liturgies of the Apostles or Evangelists James Peter Matthew Mark is now so exploded as learned men among our Brethren do not plead for them This shall suffice concerning the Liturgy about which more might have been said but I have said more than at first I intended SECT VIII The other Terms of Communion that they impose considered I proceed now to attend the Learned Dr's Discourse about thes● other Terms of Communion that his Church imposeth and we scruple And first I take notice that he chargeth his Answerers with remaining in Generals and pretending that they judge they esteem the Terms of Communion unlawful but bring no particular Arguments to prove the unlawfulness of them He saith Protestants do not do so when they charge the Church of Rome with unlawful Terms of Communion The Answer to this is easie 1. They were charged with Separation and in answering the Dr's Sermon acted the part of Defendants it was enough for that de●ence to plead that they did not Separate without good Ground and to shew that they scrupled such and such Terms of Communion imposed on them by the Church It was not needful in this debate to resume all the Controversie about the Liturgy and Ceremonies 2. Our Party have given abundant proof of the reasonableness of their scrupling at these things the Books above mentioned against the Liturgy and against the Ceremonies Didoclavius the Author of the Book called the English Popish Ceremonies Mr. Jeans Treasu●e out of Rubish a Treatise of Divine Worship English Puritanism Twelve Arguments against Ceremonies Smectymn G. F. questions betwixt Conformists and Non-conformists and many other pieces There is so much said in these and yet unanswered that it was needless to repeat what is there said I must be guilty of the same fault if it be one having at length disputed against the Ceremonies and proved them to be unlawful to be used in a Piece entituled A Vindication of the Purity of Gospel Worship against Mr. Geo●ge Ritchel and others I may without blame referr the Reader thither and not repeat what is there written provided I leave nothing unanswered that the Dr. hath here said on that Subject 3. Our Party do not stand on equal Ground with the Dr. and his Party Neither have we the liberty of the Press as they have nor that immunity to speak out our Arguments but we are ready to be concluded by a Prison instead of Arguments but let not the Dr. think our Cause is laid low because our Persons and worldly Interests are so Sect. 2. He resumeth an Argument out of his Sermon against our Separating that there ought to be no Separation where there is agreement in Doctrine and Substantial parts of Worship and that this Agreement is acknowledged in our case He saith Mr. A. denyeth such Agreement both in Doctrine of this I have given my judgment above Part 2. S. 1. Section 2. also in Substantial parts of Worship and alledged the Cross in Baptism to be a Substantial part of Worship Hence the Dr. undertaketh p. 335. 1. To shew what he meaneth by Substantial parts of Worship 2. That the Cross is not made such The Dr. seemeth to lay some weight on this distinction of parts of Worship to wit Substantial and Circumstantial or Accidental and alledgeth that many of us are misled by not considering it I much desire the clearing of it and therefore resolve carefully to observe what he saith and shall be ready to receive Light. He saith that The Nonconformists great Principle is That what ever was any ways intended or designed for the Worship of God was a Real and Substantial part of his Worship and when their Adversaries told them that Divine Institution was needful to make a part of Worship they said that made True Worship but without it an Act might be Worship that is False Worship and yet they allow'd the Application of common Circumstances to Acts of Worship This Subject I have discoursed at large in the Book above cited cap. 3. sect 1 3 4. But shall now a little consider what representation the Dr. is pleased to make of our Principles 1. I know no Nonconformist that ever asserted that all that was intended or designed for Worship was Worship either Real or Substantial for they well know that the Meeting-place the Ministers Maintenance the Pulpit Communion-Table c. are designed for Worship and yet are no Worship Real nor Imaginary Substantial nor Accidental True nor False If he mean by being designed for Worship that the person doing such an Act intendeth to Worship God by so doing which I cannot take to be his meaning I hope himself will acknowledg that though such a design is needful to make an act

less imposed All the question is about the use of Sponsers in the Baptism of Infants for the adult are to undertake for themselves Some make the use of God-fathers to be witnesses of the Childs-Baptism That is very needless for the whole Church are witnesses of that The true use of them is to represent the Child as a party covenanting with God in this Solemn Sealing of the Covenant of Grace between God and the Infant and consequential to this to undertake the instruction and education of the Child in the Christian Religion and endeavouring to engage him to a personal owning of the Covenant The original of other Sponsors beside the Parents was in the Primitive Church many young ones either born of Heathen-Parents or Orphans of Christian-Parents falling into the Tuition of Heathen-Relations in reference to their worldly concerns were in hazard by that means to be bred in Heathenism Wherefore it was judged needful that some faithful and intelligent Christian should undertake for their Religious Education This usage which reason had first brought in ostentation did afterward enlarge by multiplying God-fathers and God-mothers and after that Superstition did perver● it by excluding the Parents and putting strangers in their room till at last in Popery it was quite depraved by making a spiritual kindred to result from this action Wherefore we do not deny the use of Sponsors but think the Parents the most proper Sponsors both on account of their opportunity obligation and natural inclination to do the office of a Sponsor for the Child which may rationally be thought to be more in them than in a stranger and we think it a gross abuse to admit of other Sponsors except in the want of Parents or their Inhability I think also considering things as they are not barely in the notions that men have of things that they will defend this practice is fallen into such abuse that even that should make it be laid aside for it is manifest and most common that God-fathers and God-mothers are chosen most unqualified for and most unconcerned in that which they make a solemn promise to God to perform which is a horrid mocking of Him and his Ordinances Are not Boys and Girls chosen or Debauched and Ignorant Persons or Strangers that may be shall never see the Child again nor mind it except it be to send it a new Coat Sect. 9. The Dr. telleth us of Mr. Cartwright yea and all Protestant Churches approving of this But will he say that they are for Excluding the Parents which is the very thing that we controvert For as the Dr. confesseth Can. 29. Ordaineth That Parents need not be Present and that they shall not be admitted to Answer that is they must not undertake for the instruction and education of their own Child But saith he The Parents are to provide such as are Fit. I desire to know what Warrant is for this even from sound reason Who can be so Fit by his opportunity and care as the Parent And if he be wholly unfit as to understanding and respect to true Religion we are not against his having a Deputy in that Case that it is done with the Parents consent is better so than otherwise but that the Parent can transfer his right to another is without all reason unless the Person to whom such a Translation is made do really take the education of the Child which though by a private compact between the Parent and Sponsor might be done yet what shadow of reason can be for a Canon compelling every Parent to do it It is saith he but like an occasion of absence to wit of the Parent in which case all allow of a Sponsor Ans. It is no way like it for the one hath necessity to warrant it the other hath nothing but mens will or superstitious conceit Is it alike for the State to make a Law that neighbours should feed and cloath the Orphans of poor Parents and to make a Law that they shall feed and cloath the Children of their rich Neighbours who are alive The case is just so here It is an injury to a man to have his Child taken from him without a cause and given to another to be educated so it is to be obliged yea forced to transfer upon another all that right he hath to represent his own child and to engage for his education He saith it is not the Churches intention to supersede the obligation of the Parent but to superinduce a further obligation upon other Persons Had the Parent been permitted to undertake for the Child jointly with the Sponsors there had been some colour for this assertion but that being expresly denied by the Canon it is evident that the Church doth what she can to make the Parent think that no obligation at all lyeth on him I meddle not with his debate against Mr. B. about Mr. B's Argument against Sponsors from the Childs having right to Baptism only from the Parents many learned men differ from Mr. B. in that and I shall not digress to dispute it Sect. 10. The Dr. pag. 386. saith he findeth nothing particularly objected against Kneeling at the Communion that deserveth consideration which he hath not answered in another place to wit Conferences First Part which Book I have not seen wherefore I shall in a few words lay down our Ground of Scrupling that Practice and so leave it We do not scruple Kneeling at Prayer which is joyned with receiving of that Sacrament nor do we deny that all possible reverence should be used in going about that Holy Ordinance but we think the expression of that Reverence should be of Gods appointing in his Word or grounded on Nature or civil Custom and not instituted by mans Will. 1. Then we scruple it because it is an uncommanded Act of Worship that it is Worship I think will not be denyed Kneeling in Prayer cannot be denyed to be an Act of external Worship no more than this That it is uncommanded we must believe till they shew us a Command for it They alledge that Kneeling being unquestionable a fit gesture to express Humility and Adoration it cannot be unfit but needful in this Case where both are required To this I reply Humility is not fitly expressed by Kneeling though Adoration be and therefore we think Kneeling in the Act of Receiving to be no fit gesture because Adoreing however needful it be in the complex Action of Communicating to wit before and after Receiving the Elements it is not the Souls work in that Act Believing or Covenanting with God is the proper Exercise of the Soul in that Act which is a solemn sealing of the Covenant and this Covenanting is very unfitly expressed by Kneeling He that is about solemn Prayer or Adoration which might be well expressed by Kneeling in the Act of receiving that Sacrament doth little know or consider the nature and use of it whence I form our Argument thus that Religious Gesture which is neither