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.
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
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
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-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-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-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
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-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
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-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
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-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-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
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-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-Common-prayer Book exclude conceived prayer by the speakers If they were tyed by the Governours to use no other than the common-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-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
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-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-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
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-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-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-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-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
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
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-Prayer Book Worship is not of pure humane invention But 3ly The 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-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-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-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
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-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-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-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-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-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
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-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
thereof it is not a reasonable postulatum which he demands to be granted him that in the present enquiry the whole thereof be divolved upon the Scriptures of the New Testament Yea were it granted him yet it would disadvantage those separatists with whom he concurs in Judgment about Nonconformity and separation from the Church of England and the Ministers thereof who use many places of the Old Testament not only about the Sabbath and it's observation but also about Baptism and the Lords Supper Churches ministry and ceremonies in their enquiries and himself also in the present enquiry who useth about election of Ministers by the people and other things in this dispute out of the Old Testament and even the Levitical ordinances sundry places and therefore I conceive not any reasonableness in his postulatum of divolving the whole upon the Scriptures of the New Testament Sect. 4. The judgment of the Antients not useless in this controversie That which he also speaks not perplexing our selves nor the consciences of any with the judgments of men in Generations past wherein they cannot acquiesce though to take of the prejudices of some against truth upon the account of its seeming Novelty we may here and there manifest their harmony with us in the main principles of the ensuing structures may seem to be a reasonable postulatum or demand in respect of those who are not able to examine what is said by Fathers Councils Schoolmen Protestant and Popish writers forraign and domestick and I should have liked it well if he had wholly omitted any such citations in this book which hath been dispersed so farr as I can learn chiefly if not only among such Nevertheless if we would intimate as if in this and other controversies of the separatists and others there were not use of studying and alledging those writers I think his postulatum or demand unreasonable For as Dallaeus in his Learned Book against Popish worship hath done much service to the truth in shewing out of the Fathers that the Popish worship of Saints Angels the Host or bread in the Eucharist Crosses Images and Reliques according to the tradition of the Latins was unknown to the Christians of the three first centuries so it may be of good use to satisfie mens consciences that no such separation as now is from the present Ministers of England was allowed of by the first Fathers and Writers or any approved Council it being a thing of much moment in the arguments about the Lords Day and other Festivals the Sacraments Church and Ministry to understand what was the judgment and practice of the primitive Christians with whom Religion was more pure than in after times though corruptions too soon crept in among them Sect. 5. No approved practice of the Saints afore the Law Countenanceth separation from the present preachers in England Yet saith this Author inasmuch as some Beams of Light may be communicated unto the present Enquiry by a retrospection into the state of things in the time of the Old Law it shall not be grievous to us nor will it be altogether unprofitable to the Reader briefly to remark so far as may concern the matter in hand the state and management of affairs under that Oeconomy and Dispensation Not to mention the Administration of Holy things in the time of the Antediluvian Fathers nor the General Apostacy from the pure wayes of God in the dayes of Seth when according to their duty the faithful remnant the sons of God separated from the Wicked or the daughters of men and solemnly joyned themselves together to worship God according to his holy appointments Gen. 4.26 Let us take a brief view of things with relation unto the People of God after the giving of Moses Law when a Standard was set up for them to repair unto and they became being gathered into one as a City on an Hall conspicuous unto all Answ. How some beams of light may be communicated unto the present enquiry by a retrospection into the state of things in the time of the Old Law will not be easie to discern if the whole thereof be divolved on the Scriptures of the New Testament Yet it will not be grievous to me to examine what I find produced for his purpose I grant that Dr. Owen hath in his Book in Latine of the nature rise progress and study of true Theologie shewed divers Corruptions in the Ages before and after the Flood of Noah in Theologie and the pure Worship of God unto Moses his time and that the restitution of true Theologie was sometimes by a separation from the Wicked when there was a general Apostacy from the true wayes of God unto a prophaning of the Name of God as some conceive Gen. 4.26 is meant either by blaspheming or by setting up of Idol-worship as it was before Abrahams separation Josh. 24.15 But neither by him nor I think by any other is it shewed that a separation was approved from Preachers that teach no worse Doctrine than is held forth by the Articles Homilies and other avowed Books of the Church of England or from a Society or Church that was no more polluted by Idolatry or other Corruptions in Worship than are chargeable on the publick enjoyned Worship of the Church of England If Gen. 4.26 be meant of a Reformation by setting up separate Congregations as Dr Owen conceives in that Book l 2. c. 3. it was that therein they might call on the Name of the Lord which shews it was from them that did not call upon the Name of the Lord not from them that did as in the Worship of the Church of England is done And if Noah did reform by separation it was from Wicked men who had filled the earth with violence Gen. 6.13 which doth indeed make a necessary separation though it appear not but that Noah continued to preach to them and live among them 1 Pet. 3.20 2 Pet. 2.5 But is not the cause of the separation avowed by this Author from the Ministers and Church of England And though it be true that by the Law at Mount Sinai and other acts of Gods providence Israel became being gathered into one as a City on a Hill conspicuous unto all yet how then a Standard was set up for the people to repair unto needs some explication sith such as Job and such like holy persons if he or any other lived at that time seem not to have repaired to them nor were bound to repair to them unless they would be made Proselytes which the avoiding Idolatry of the Gentiles might require of them not such Corruptions onely as are in the Church of England But let us see what beams of light may be communicated unto the present enquiry by retrospection into the state of things in the time of the Old Law Sect. 6. Jewish Laws admitted some dispensation and addition First then saith he that the Lord gave unto the people of the Jews whom he had chosen out of all
chosen by the Church and therefore seems not sufficient to inferr a necessary perpetual rule of such election especially other passages shewing the Constituting or Ordaining of Elders without mentioning of any such election as Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.22 And though the original and use of the word were from the custom mentioned and did in popular Elections signifie Election by suffrages yet as in other words so in this use hath enlarged its sense apples it to other creating than by such suffrage as is manifest by the use of it even in the same book Acts· 10.41 where the Apostle are termed Witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chosen before of God who did not choose by suffrages of others and by Dr. Hammond in his Annot. on Act. 14.23 is shewed to be used in like manner in Philo Judaeus and other Authors besides Christians as the same with Electing Ordaining or Constituting without Suffrages of others and must be so understood in this very place because none are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stretch out their hand but Paul and Barnabas and it is said they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be well translated any other than Ordaining by laying on their hands on the Elders not by bare stretching out or lifting up their hands as was wont to be in Suffrages and it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to or for them manifestly distinguishing the Disciples from the Electors or Ordainers by stretching out or laying on of hands So that this place doth not prove Power solely delegated to a particular Church instituted for the electing of their own Officers and therefore if all were true which is added by this Author These men as it s known have no such authority pretend not to it have it in derision come barely with a presentation from a Patron and Ordination Institution and Induction from a Lord-Bishop things forraign to the Scripture and impose themselves upon the people whether they will or no. Yet they may be Ministers of the Gospel and heard as such notwithstanding this Argument Yet I add that it will be hard for this Author to prove that the Parish Churches in England are not particular Instituted Churches of Christ or that the Ministers are imposed on the People whether they will or no the contrary is true of many places especially in London concerning the Incumbents and Lecturers Nor is the Ordination of a Lord-Bishop such a forraign thing to the Scripture as this Author would insinuate the Bishop not Ordaining without other Elders joyning with him and giving him no other authority than to Preach the word of God and to Minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto To shut up the Answer to this Argument As the Text Joh. 10.16 is abused by Hart to prove the Bishop of Rome to be the Supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ as Dr. Rainold sheweth in his Conference Ch. 6 divis 1. it being meant only of the Lord Christ and the Quakers abuse Joh. 10.12 to cry down Preachers as Hirelings because they receive Wages though it be according to Christs own determination Luke 10.7 the Lords Ordinance I Cor. 9.14 St. Pauls practice sometime 2 Cor. 11.8 and his Precept Gal. 6.6 and his Approbation 1 Tim. 5.17 18. The word Hireling Joh. 10.12 being not used as making it a sin for a Minister to receive hire but to distinguish Christ from other Shepherds who was not as Hirelings whose Sheep are not their own but was a singular Pastor owner of the Sheep of whom he was Pastor and those abuse Joh. 10.5 who urge it against the hearing of any Preachers but those of their own Church or way calling them Strangers whereas the strangers there are such as were Usurpers of Christs Office and were enemies to the Sheep not feeding them but perverting them So this Author abuseâ—â— John 10.1 9. by saying the present Ministers of England are Thieves and Robbers because they come not into their Ministry by the door that is by any authority to them from Christ that is not by election of a particular Instituted Church when this is but from an expression in a parable in which is not the scope or Doctrin intended by it and therefore not argumentative and neither is it certain that the door v. 1. is the same with the door v. 9. nor if it were is the door that whereby there is entrance into the Ministery but the Church nor the entrance by right election of others but by the persons true faith nor is the not entring in by the door brought as the reason or form denominating them Thieves and Robbers but only as some description of them from a concomitant nor are any meant there to be Thieves and Robbers who do direct to Christ or receive him for defect of regular calling but such only as obtruded themselves as the Messiah on the people with intent to make a prey of them Sect. 4. The present Ministers may be heard as Gifted Brethren There is yet more of the like stuff 2. Saith he 'T is not lawful to hear them as Gifted Brethren 1. The most of them are not Gifted Brethren Nor 2. Brethren being Canonical Drunkards Swearers Gamesters c. Answ. That any of them are such it is to be bewailed and in a Christian way the persons that are guilty are to be rebuked Levit. 19.17 not to be thus charged in Print in a Book vented in the dark tending not to amend them but to make them odious even with them that are too much inclined to censuring and reviling of those that dissent from them or are of an opposite party But how it appears that the most of the present Ministers of England are such as he stigmatizeth them I know not and I hope it is not true However if it were so it proves not that others better qualified might not be heard nor that these men may not bethren yea if he follow St. Pauls rule 2 Thess. 3.15 alledged a little after he is not to account them as enemies but to admonish them as Brethren and were all this and more true yet they might be heard preach the Gospel as Brethren Gifted as Judas was to be heard though declared by Christ to be a Devil Joh. 6.70 But what saith he of the rest 3. The best of them cannot by Saints in respect of Gospel Communion be so accounted For 1. There was never any giving up of our selves each to other according to the Will of God and Primitive example whence such a Brotherhood doth result Answ. By Saints I doubt not he means such as are members of a particular Instituted Church Congregational distinct from Parish Churches either under Episcopal or Presbyterial Government For such only are accounted Saints by him as give up themselves each to other according to the Will of God and Primitive example and by Gospel Communion no doubt he means hearing of them preach praying with
583. yields that our English word Priest and the Dutch Priester and the French Prebstre and Prestre and the Italian Prete to be formed from Presbyter Selden de Syn Ebrae l. 1. c. 14 p. 586 Certà in Ritualibus Anglicanis nostris Priests Ministers pro Presbyteris clim semper usurpata And besides what I said before out of the English 39 Articles and letters of Orders it doth appear from the very words of the Master of the Sentences Peter Lombard cited by this Author in this Chapter pag. 26. out of the Fourth Book of the Sentences distinct 24. divis 9. that the same whom the Papists call Priests they call Presbyters and say that they have the precept of the Apostle for them and that the Order of Priesthood or Presbytery the primitive Church had and therefore in this the Papists themselves use the word Priest in English but as the same with Presbyter or Elder from the Scripture or primitive Church not from either Jews or Heathens and therefore symbolizing in this name with the Papists if men had not mistaken it and clamourously and ignorantly inveighed against it had given no cause of suspition of compliance or willingness to return to the Idolatry of the Mass as it is used in the Church of England who have declared against Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Articles 28.31 in the Liturgy as it hath been lately revised and to which assent is required by all Ministers besides other wayes as amply as any other Protestant Church and therefore it is very evil that this Author doth insinuate into the minds of men such a suspicion of the willingness of the present Ministers to return to Popery because of retaining the name Priest which neither came from the Antichristian Church so called of Rome nor is an Idolatrous Superstitious name commanded by the Lord to be abolished Hos. 2.15 Zech. 13.2 This of Zech. 13.2 is not a command but a promise that God would cut of the names of the Idols out of the Land and that they shall be no more remembred which if it imply a command yet it is but of the abolition of the names of Idols not of the name of Priests whom I never found to be reckoned amongst Idols or that the name Priest is the name of an Idol The other text Hos. 2.16 17. is thus And it shall be at that day saith the Lord that thou shalt call me Ashi and shall call me no more Baali For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall be no more remembred by their name which is a Prediction of what should be rather than a Prohibition and the reason of that Prediction seems to be this God would not be called Baali that is my Lord because that word noted a Husband as commanding or dealing hardly or rigorously with his Wife but Ishi according to the first notation of Ishah Gen. 2.23 one from whom the Wife comes as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh and therefore is bespoken as a kind and gentle Husband which the words v. 14 19 20. lead to But if the reason of the not calling God Baali be as Grotius in his Annot Although Baal in common use signifie an Husband she shall not dare to use that name out of horrour of that name which hath been imposed on an Idol it may seem that the reason of not using should be not the unlawfulfulness of bespeaking God by that name according to the proper and original meaning but lest either she should in thought remember the Idol or be thought by others to continue that Idolatrous name For the words are not thou shalt not use the words at all thy Husband among men but thou shalt not call me Baali that is in thy Prayers and Confessions of me as thy God But if it be understood as a Prohibition according to the Law Exod 23.13 which I will not deny the 17. v. For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall be no more remembred by their name to import it cannot be conceived that it forbids any more than the use of those names with honour or so as to trust in them as their worshipers did when they applyed them to their Idols as Psal. 16.4 is meant when the Psalmist saith He would not take up the names of their gods within his lips that is as Hos. 14.3 Neither will we say any more to the work of our hands ye are our gods Which sense the words before lead to that they should not any more prepare their silver or gold for Baal as v. 8. and as in the dayes of Baalim wherein she burnt Incense to them and she decked her self with her ear-rings and her jewels and she went after her lovers and forgot me saith the Lord v. 13. By which name of Baalim was meant the Sun and other Planets as may be proved out of holy Scripture and is shewed by Mr. Selden in his Syntagma de Diis Syris So that the forbidding the name of Baal or Baalim doth not appear to be any more than the using of these names as applyed to Idols with approbation of the Idolatrous Worship done to them or giving occasion in applying the name to God to conceive as if he were like the Idols or allowed their Worship even as the Apostle Eph. 5.3 forbids any naming of fornication uncleanness or covetousness with any shew of liking For that the Prophet meant not to prohibit the name of Baal to be given at all to God much less by a Woman to her Husband or Lord as the word did originally signifie may be gathered from that Isa. 54.5 who prophesied about the same time with Hosea where what we render thy Maker is thy Husband the Lord of Hosts is his name is in the Hebrew thy Baal or Baalim in the plural number and Nahum after him Nahum 1.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Baal of wrath that is who is a Lord of wrath by our Translatours rendred furious and by God himself after him as we now read Jer. 31.32 I was a Husband unto them is in Hebrew I was a Baal to them saith the Lord. Yea were the prohibition such as that we might not give the names given to Idols to God we might not give God the title of Melec or King because the Idol of the Ammonites was called Molech Milchom or Malcham that is their King Zeph. 1.5 nor call God Jehovah because the Gentiles termed their God Jove or Jah because they termed their God Jacchus or Helion the High one because they termed the Sun Helios or Adonai because of Adonis all which to have been used in imitation of and derivation from these names of God is shewed in that imperfect relique of Mr. Hugh Stanford in the first Book of Mr. Parker De descensu ad inferos in Fullers Miscel. l. 2. c. 6. Dr. Hammond Annot. on Psal. 68.4 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-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
thereupon and so his distinction as to this thing is rather to be accounted vain and idle than the fear he mentions were the distinction good yet the fear will not quickly vanish nor be discovered to be idle and vain sith if we must abstain from all appearance to others of our evil we must abstain from all appearance of evil whether it be real from the condition of our work of it self or imaginary by accident through others interpretation which must cause perplexities unavoidable without number Yea 3. That may appear to be evil to others which is our necessary duty as Christs doctrine and actions did to the Pharisees the Apostles preaching to the Jews yea to good men as Peters going in to Cornelius Acts 11.1 2. the Magistrates punishing some vices according to his duty may seem evil to good Subjects the obeying Laws of Governours Commands of Parents and Masters do often seem evil to some that are sincere-hearted but weak in judgment yea the necessary defence of truth may be opposed and appear as evil to godly learned and otherwise judicious Divines If we must abstain from every appearance of evil to others we must abstain from these duties Gods Laws will cross one another and we must infringe or suspend one or otherwise be necessitated to sin Governours must revoke their Laws and Subjects cease to obey Gods Laws and so all confusion and Anarchy must follow Lastly Were the precept so meant that we must abstain from every thing of ours which is an appearance of evil to another our Christian liberty were evacuated there being nothing we do which will not appear evil to some or other and many things lawful and indifferent will appear evil even to the best It s true there are many cases in which we are to forbear our liberty of which before Mr. Jeans his first Edition of his Treatise I wrote in the fourth Chapter of my Book of Scandalizing but the forbearance of our liberty I did not ascribe barely to the appearance of evil to others but to the scandal that is ruine or harm to another consequent thereon And to prevent the frequent abuse of the Text 1 Thess. 5.22 I wrote thus p 284. Lastly if it were granted that the Apostle for bids us to abstain from all that which appears to be evil to another yet no Interpreter that I meet with understands it of such appearance of evil as is conceited to be such upon some erroneous principles in him that conceives it to be such Or by reason of the meer phansie or rigid austerity or evil will or such like cause of him that thinks it evil but they usually apply it to such causes or signs of manifest evil as are means of drawing to some notorious sin as going to hear a Mass which is a cause and sign of Idolatry or wanton dalliance which is a cause or sign of whoredom And they apply hereto that saying of Julius Caesar that Caesars wife should be free not only from evil but also from the suspition of it So that even in their intent this Scripture is not appliable to this purpose as if the Apostle did prohibit a Christian to use any thing that another thought evil whether he thought so upon probable reason or no reason upon some ground or none And to speak truth the application of this Text in that manner as it is by some as if the Apostle did forbid us the use of any thing though in different in it self when it appears as evil to another without any further restraint is very absurd and so unreasonable as that it will bring a yoke upon mens consciences impossible to be born sith there is scarce any thing a man can do but some or other Infidel or Christian weak or strong in the faith Orthodox or Superstitious will think it to be evil that saying by experience being found true quot homines tot sententiae so many men so many minds nor shall a mans own Conscience only make a thing evil to him but the conscience of any other man in the World Out of all which I gather that the Ministers tenent or practice in receiving the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to this positive precept as being what hath an appearance of evil in it unless it be in it self evil or evil in their own opinion or else a probable sign and cause of their adoration of the Papists Breaden god Whereas this Author himself in this Chapter p. 40. does not say though 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 In answering which passage sect 2. of this Chapter I shewed that it could not be taken for such by any that will candidly and charitably interpret their actions as for other reasons very clear and convincing so from the words of the Rubrick at the end of the Communion which I here subjoyn Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the administration of the Lords Supper that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling which Order is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy râ—ceivers and for the avoiding such prophanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue yet lest the same kneeling should by any persons either out of ignorance and infirmity or out of malice and obstinacy be misconstrued and depraved it is here declared 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 For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians And the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs natural body to be at one time in more places then one Thus the Common Prayer Book That which is said that the receiving of the Lords Supper kneeling is a gesture used by the Papists in the adoration of their Breaden god is denied by Dr. John Burges in his Treatise of the lawfulness of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper cap. 21. p. 67. p. 479. of the Rejoynder where he thus saith With us the Bishops or Ministers communicate kneeling as well as the people But with the Papists the Pope when himself performeth the office receiveth sitting as being a type of Christ the Mass Priests receive standing reverently by the Canon of the Mass and for this he cites in the Margin Ord. Rom. apud Bâ—bl Pat. Col. â—om 8. p. 390. Colum. 1. liter â— edit Colon. 1618. The People indeed receive it kneeling as we do as did also the Priest till such time as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation bâ—got the
Ministers of England may be justly charged That they worship God after the way of the Common Prayer Book with modes and rites used in the Papacy cannot be denied Nor can their undue administration of that great ordinance of our Lord Jesus of bâ—eaking bread to all according to thâ— form therein prescribed That they are Ordained and some of them re-ordained by the Episcopacy is also known I ask are these things the sin and evil of thâ—se men or are they not If they are not Why did not our preaching Brethren receive the Ordination from the Bishâ—ps these received Yea why do not our half-conforming Brethren attend upon the reading of the Service used joyn with them in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as administred by them Doth not their absenting themselves herefrom abundantly demonstrate that they in their consciences are perswaded that t is the sin and evil of the preseâ—t Priests of England thus to act and from such a mission in the worship of the Lord Answ. The major Proposition is granted To what he saith he hath already proved answer is made before That the present Ministers are justly charged by him or that they worship God with modes and rites Popish that their bâ—eaking bread to all according to the form prescribed is undue or their Ordination requires proof The not receiving Ordination may be from another cause than perswasion in conscience that t is the sin and evil of the Ministers that they act by such a mission perhaps they cannot subscribe to what is required They may forbear the Communion not because Ministers sin in not keeping back some but because they scruple the gesture prescribed Here then is no proof of their sin let 's see how if it were granted that they did sin participation in their guilt is proved As for the Second saith he That the hearing the present Ministers of England is that which renders a man guilty of being partaker with them in their sin the consideration of the several wayes persons may be justly charged with being guilty of partaking with â—thers in their sin will abundantly demonstrate the truth thereof To instance in a few particulars Then may persons be justly chaâ—ged as guilty hereof 1. When they are found any way consenting with thâ—m in their sin Ps. 50.18 When thou sawest a thief then thou consentedst with him and hast been partaker with the adulterers T is not the doing of the act that was done by these wicked persons that is here called partaking with them but a secret consenting with them therein 2. When they do that which hath a real tendency to encourage persons in their sin 2 John 11. Receive them not into your houses bid them not God speed for he that biddeth them God speed is partaker of their evil deeds 3. When they neglect the doing of those duties which the Lord requires at their hands for the reclaiming of them from their sin such are watching over rebuking admonishing first privately then by two and in case of obstinacy and perseverance therein telling it to the Church which are duties eminently câ—mprised in the ensuing Scriptures 1 Thes. 5 14. Heb. 3.12 13. and 10.24 25. Levit. 19.17 Mat. 18 15 16 17. 4. When they notwithstanding all that they have done or can do being under an utter incapacity of proceeding further therein perceive them to persevere in their sin shall still continue to hold communion with them and not separate from them Rev. 18.4 Come out of her my people left being partakers of her sins ye receive of her plagues The abiding with obstinate persevering Offenders as it is against positive injunctions of the most High Rom. 16.17 2 Cor. 6.14 15 16 17. 1 Tim. 6.5 Ephes. 5.8 11. Rev. 18.4 So is it in the last place instanc'd in assigned by the Spirit to be one way of partaking with others in their sins Not to multiply more particulars let us in a few words make application of these remarkes to the business in hand Is there any thing in the world that carries a greater brightness and evidence with it than this That the hearing the present Ministers of England is to be partakers with them in their sin Is not our so doing a secret consenting with them and encouraging of them in their evil deeds Is this to discharge those duties incumbent upon us if we indeed look upon them as Brethren for their reclaiming Yea is this to come out of and separate from them What less So then except it can be proved that the particulars instanc'd in are not some of those wayes whereby persons do become guilty of partaking with other mens sins Or that to attend upon the present Ministers of England is not what doth symbolize with some one more or all of them which can never be done it evidently follows That t is not lawful for Saints to hear the present Ministers of England the doing whereof is apparently a partaking with them in their evil deeds Answ. I grant consent in sin doing that which hath a real tendency to encourage persons in their sin neglect of rebuking admonishing when they are our duty makes us guilty of others sins Nor do I except against the Texts brought to prove these except that Mat. 18.15 16 17. which I have said before in my Answer to the Preface of this Book sect 15. is a rule not of reproving all sorts of sins but only of particular injuries and that telling the Church is not telling a particular separate Congregation in the Independent way but such a number of Brethren as may be fit to compose the difference above two or three and that not of necessity so as if the Complainant did not do it should be his sin but as of indulgence and conveniency as being the way fittest to rectifie the Offendor The last way of partaking with other mens sins is not true to wit that if after admonition and obstinacy of the Offendor we joyn in hearing the Word of God praying with him receiving the Lords Supper we are partakers with the Minister that preacheth prayeth or administers the Lords Supper in his personal sins such as are acting by an unlawful mission or other using a sinful irregular way in his calling Nor do the Texts alleged prove it The first Rom. 16.17 is an admonition to them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine they had learnâ—d which is nothing to the avoiding of him that teacheth the same Doctrine that the Apostles taught because of his personal sins It may more fitly be applyed against such as this Author who causeth divisions and offences by his doctrine of Separation from them that hold and teach the true Faith which is contrary to the Doctrine of St. Paâ—l Râ—m 15.5 6. The coming out from among Infidels being 〈…〉 not touching the unclean thing that is the Idol or unâ—ighteousness 2 Cor. 6.14 15 16 17. is nothing to prove a separation from hearing or joyning in prayer or the
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-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-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
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
not against any Ordinance of Jesus Christ yet we are afraid that those poor Souls that know not how to spend the Lords day without hearing do too much Idolize that Ordinance of God and never knew what it was to spend that day with him 2. You need not sit at home if you are enquiring after God and communion with his people you may soon hear of some one or other of the Assemblies of the Saints whither you may repair to wait upon the Lord with them 3. But thirdly were it or should it be otherwise yet better be idle than do worse better do nothing than sin against God encourage others in their evil deeds pollute and wound thy own Soul grieve the Saints stumble and harden the wicked and cause them to blaspheme his Name Sanctuary and such as dwell therein But 4. There is no necessity of being idle if thou knowest not where to hear on that day hast thou no work to do save that 1. Art sure that God and Christ and Eternal Glory are thy portion and inheritance Thou walkest in the light of assurance or thou dost not If thou dost is one day in seven too much to spend in the solemn admiration of grace that ever so vile a creature as thou should be accounted worthy of such unexpressible kindness and glory What O what will Eternity be then If thou dost not are not these worthy of thy utmost diligence to get assurance of What stand idle and an interest in God Christ and Eternal Glory to make sure of 2. Art thou sufficiently acquainted with thine own heart Dost know so much of thy self as thou needest to know Or judgest thou this to be a work that requires not thy utmost diligence and attendance 3. Hast thou no sin to be mortified no want to be supplyed no grace to be quickned and strengthned in thee 4 Hast thou as much communion with God as thou desirest Hast heard as often from him by the teaâ—hings of the Spirit the incomparably and infinitely best teacher as thou dost wish Or dost think that God will not manifest himself to and teach in a corner a poor Soul that 's there waiting for him alone because there be no Assemblies of Saints he knows of to whom he might joyn himself and he dares not have Communion with Adulterers If thou have not fellowship with God thou desirest and teachings from him as who hath stir up thy self to lay hold on God groan and cry after him till he hath brought thee into his chambers and afforded thee richer displayes of his glory 5. Art thou altogether ready trimmed without more ado for the coming and Kingdom of Christ Jesus what should I mention those important duties of reading the Scriptures meditation on them c. hast thou all this to do and much more that might be added and yet nothing to do on the Lords day set about these things in good earnest and when thou livest in the light of assurance without the least doubt or clouding when thou art sufficiently acquainted with thine own heart the will and Scriptures of the Lord when thou hast as much communion with God in retirement as thou desirest and teachings from his Spirit when thou hast no sin to be mortified nor grace to be quickened and strengthened when thou art quite ready for the day of Christ and needest no further fittings we shall consider what may be further said to this Objection but till then it cannot be pleaded when souls have all this work to do that they must sit at home idle if they go not to hear the Preachers of this day But thus far of the Objections that are by some made against the assertion of the unlawfulness of attending upon the present Ministers of England which are all of any moment we have yet met with what of weight is in them must be left to the judgement of the Christian Reader to determine We shall add no more but this that we have spoken our judgement and conscience herein as in sincerity in the sight of God with what meekness Christian tenderness and fear of giving any just offence to the truly conscientious he knows The sole of our aim in the whole is That Christ may be glorified in the recovery of any poor lamb that is turned aside to the flocks of the companions in this cloudy and dark day that others that have hitherto kept themselves from Idols might be further established in the will of God and strengthened to follow Christ in his temptations that they may inherit that kingdom and glory prepared for them before the foundation of the world May we but in the least contribute by Divine blessing hereunto whatever becomes of these papers or however they be by others accounted of we have our end and shall rest satisfied I reply this objection I find made not onely by some of the common sort of professors but also particulaly by Mr. Crofton and made by him as an argument wherefore he did and ought to joyn in hearing and praying in publick on the Lords day notwithstanding the defects in the ministerial mode and method of the publick Ministers the worship of God substantially existing in matter and essential form in their Ministration and the Lords day being to be observed in publick as well as private where and when the Ordinances cannot be enjoyed in a purer manner His second in the book intituled Jerubbaal justified doth reduce his plea to this Syllogism Communion with the Church visible in Gods solemn publick worship is an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath and indispensable duty But communion with the English Church in the worship by her celebrated is communion with the Church visible in Gods solemn worship Ergo Communion with the English Church having no opportunity with any other in the worship of her celebrated is to me an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath and indispensable duty This Syllogism is defended in that Book to which I refer the Reader and consider the objection as here it is urged and answered The objection proceeds upon suppositions of the Separatists or Independents in the number of whom he is to be accounted as appears by his wordes in this Chapter in answer to the 7th objection where he saith Learned Ainsworth Cotton c. have been and are of the same apprehension with us in this matter Now in Mr. Cottons way of the Churches of Christ in New England it is put into the definition of a visible Church that they are a number that may meet every Lords day for all Ordinances and in the Declaration of the Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches at the Savoy Oct. 12. 1658. ch 22. art 8. The Sabbath is then kept holy to the Lord when men are taken up the whole time in the publick and private exercises of his worship and in the duties of necessity and mercy Among these art 5. The reading of the Scriptures preaching and
truths into others it is seldom without somewhat that alienates them from others and engageth them to their own society with diminution of love to others if not worse dispositions and practices Whence many remain in ignorance profaneness and errours being hardned in opposition to the present Ministers whom I deny not may give too much occasion by their loose walking and negligent Preaching in which they are not to be excused yet is not the opinion of not hearing them while they Preach the Gospel thereby justified but both to be blamed as guilty of hindring the good of mens souls and Christs kingdom and so in some sort Antichristian 39. Nor are the effects of this opinion onely pernicious to them who are without but evil also to them within whether Ministers or people To Ministers in that by the neglect of hearing them and such esteem as is due to them for their work sake they are disheartened and by this wrangling opposition disquietness they meet with disabled in a great measure from doing that good which otherwise might be done Yea by this opinion their Ministery though they Preach the Gospel is disanulled and accounted as accursed So the people in that they are divided become unpeaceable some for not hearing being unnecessarily cast on the danger of the Laws deprived of Estates and Liberty in many places growing empty of fruitful knowledge exposed to the attempts of Seducers who lie in wait to deceive filled with bitterness of spirit towards others though profuse towards those that agree with them and in a word there is a sad breach between Christians of the same profession of faith which is most contrary to the union which they should have in Christ by the same spirit and I wish it were not true that it is fulfilled now which was foretold 2 Tim. 4.3 4. That men heap to themselves Teachers after their own lusts 40. The many absurdities which are consequent on the opinion should disswade us from entertaining it For if it be true That it is unlawful to hear the present Ministers then it is not lawfull for us to invite them to Preach or to exhort them to it or to rejoyce in it or to pray to God that they may or to praise God for their Preaching Then it is better that Quakerism Ranting Barbarism Rudeness should be spread among the people then they be urged to hear the publick Preachers That Magistrates do ill to command people to go to hear them That they countenance or maintain them then it is good at Sermon time to stay at home idle or to lie in an Ale-house rather then to go to hear them the non-preaching Readers are as tolerable as Preaching Ministers their forbearing to Preach is avoiding of sin the less they Preach and the less they are heard Preach there is the less sin their silencing is no evil not they to be blamed for not Preaching for it can be no evil for them to forbear Preaching if it be a sin for others to hear them they ought rather to forbear Preaching then to draw others to sin And yet so wild is this opinion that many of them that refuse to hear and condemn as this Authour doth the hearing of them do yet except against non-preaching Ministers blame the Ministers for not Preaching more frequently and those that hinder their Preaching Whereas if the hearing them were unlawful it were good counsel to perswade men not to hear their Sermons nor to Preach them which would introduce Irreligion or some pernicious Errour as the state of things now stands in this Nation Sect. 16. Some passages in the writings of Mr. John Goodwin opposite to thâ— Book Intituled Prelatical Preachers none of Christs Teachers For a conclusion whereas the Book mentioned in my Epistle to the Reader Intituled Pâ—elatical Preachers none of Christs Teacher shewed to me as that which did make men Separatists and the book was written not in a Logick form and therefore not answered by me yet the Authour being supposed the same with him who Printed in the year 1653. two books against some that about baptism left his Communion I have here added some passages with animadversions which shew how his separation in this latter book crosseth his sayings in the former In his 40. Quaeries Qu. 10. I read thus When men may separate that which is precious from that which is vile and enjoy it thus separated and apart without suffering any inconvenience by that which is vile is it a point of wisdome in them to deprive themselves of the enjoyment of what is precious because there is somewhat which they suppose to be vile near to it Why then doth lie dissuade from hearing the present Ministers who preach precious Doctrine because of some things conceived vile in them yet may be separated from that which is precious Qu. 14. The experience of many years in the reformed Churches abroad and of some years amongst our selves at home hath abundantly taught and informed us that the said question hath yielded little other fruit unto those that have set their hearts to it yea and to others also but Contention Strife Emulations evil Surmizings Distractions Confusions Alienations of mind and Affections amongst Christian Brethren evill Speakings Vilifyings Revilings needless and wastfull Expence of time loss of many precious opportunities for matters of greatest consequence unprofitable disturbings and turmoylings of weak Consciences shatterings scatterings rendings and tearings such of Churches and Christian Societies who till this root of bitterness sprang up amongst them walked in love and with the light of Gods countenance shining on them holding the Vnity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace edifying one another in their most holy faith c. These things were not the fruit of that question but of that separation which was made by occasion of it and are as true of the separation this Authour maintained in his later book Qu. 23. Whether ought not the law of edification 1 Cor. 14.26 to over-rule all Laws and Precept concerning Spiritual and Church Administrations as the law of Salus populi ought to umpire and over-rule all politique laws and constitutions in their respective executions If so the supposed laws of outward calling of Ministers should not be urged so as to hinder people from hearing Ministers because of some defect supposed therein when they may be heard to edification of the hearers In his Water-dipping Consideration 17. Is it not then presumption in the highest and an assuming of an Antichristian power to impose Laws upon Christian societies which the Lord Christ never imposed yea and to cesure and scandalize them with the odious and reproachful terms of Antichristian and unclean onely for the transgression of their own Laws What doth he less who forbids to hear in his latter Book the present Ministers Consideration 22. Whereas Antichrist himself is not more Antichristian then in claiming and exercising such a dominion over the faiths of his Proselytes and Disciples by vertue