warranted and engaged to attend upon it The greater hopes we have of their goodness the more are all that love the Lord Jesus bound to encourage them in this way as being the the true way of Christ and to relinquish them and separate from them for this cause is very sinfull sith it is to separate from them for doing their duty To hold them as excommunicate to reprove to urge them to repentance not to receive them to conceive of them as brethren walking disorderly is uncharitableness and injustice That the incestuous person was a good man before he repented cannot be well conceived sith he committed such a sin as was not named among the Gentiles it was the sin of the Corinthians that they were puffed up and had not rather mourned that he that had done that deed might be taken away from among them it is no sin that the Saints do not mourn that the present Ministers who are confessedly good men may be taken away from among them it is their great sin if they do not bless God for them and pray for their establishment and good success in their Ministry That the Ministry is devised by any other than God is not shewed they that talk and write ignorantly not ever reading the book of Ordination which shews what their Ministry is make invectives against them and wildly wander from them upon false suggestions often to their perdition That to hear them is not to partake with them in sin is shewed in answer to this Authors 8 th argument chap. 8 th That their Ministry is usurped is not proved if it were it might be a true Ministry which if it be though it were usurped it is not the sin but may be the duty of him that exerciseth it It follows Sect. 11. The example of the learned godly Nonconformists is some inducement to hear the present Ministers Object 7. But many learned and good men and such as in Conscience could not conform to the Ceremonies of the Church of England have in dayes past and do now hear the present Ministers thereof To which we answer 1. That the greatest Scholars and most accomplished for humane wisdom parts yea visible holiness have not been alwayes on the Lords side following him in paths of his own appointment but many times have been found the greatest persecutors and opposers of Christ the most stupendiously ignorant of the will of God in respect of the truth and work of their generation of any persons in the world witness the Scribes and Pharisees the learned Rabbies and profound Doctors of that day with what virulency did they oppose Christ and the doctrine of the Gospel preached by him 2. That persons of as great holiness and renown for learning and all manner of accomplishments as learned Ainsworth Cotton c. have been and are of the same apprehension with us in this matter not to mention the reformed Churches who generally renounce the Ministry of the Church of England not admitting any by vertue of it to the charge of Souls as they speak But 3. To the Law and to the Testimony Isa. 8.20 if they speak not according to this rule though Angels for knowledge and holiness they are not to be received or heeded one word from the Lord is of more weight to hearts made truly tender than the example of an hundred professors can be 't is possible these may err be yea and nay but so cannot the truth of God which is alwayes the same and will abide so for ever 4. The Apostle hath long since determined this case 1 Cor. 11.1 Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ so far as Saints follow Christ I may and ought to follow them but no further so that the learning parts or holiness of any that attend upon the present Ministers of England is no warrant for me so to do nor will ever be a satisfactory answer to that enquiry who hath required these things at your hands I reply It is not denied that the most learned and zealous of the law such as St. Paul among the Jews the most excellent Moralists among the Gentiles have been great enemies to the Gospel afore their calling to the faith of Christ but the objection is of learned and good men among Christians who are never found the greatest persecutors and opposers of Christ. Possibly it may fall out yea and it hath fallen out that among Christians the greatest Scholars and most acâ—ompâ—â—shed for humane parts wisdoms yea for visible holiness have not been alwayes on the Lords side following him in paths of his own appointment but have been stupendiously ignorant of the will of God in respect of the truth and work of their generation I think â—ardinal Caietan was one of the greatest Scholars of his time yet saw not what Luther saw about justification by faith and Luther though he did much in that point yet saw not so much as Calvin in the point of the reâ—l presence in the Eucharist and therefore like well the 3 d. and 4 â—h answer here that we should adhere only to the Law and to the Testimony and be followers of the learned as they are of Christ. Yet I conceive that it is a wicked course which is taken by some so to disparage learning as if it were of no necessity Universities as of no use but rather Seminaries of ungodliness to say that men that have humane learning are the unlearned and unstable which do wrest the Scriptures 2 Pet. 3.16 as How the Cobler a much followed Preacher a great while ago in London vented in print that learned Scholars do make the Scriptures as a nose of wax are but Juglers and deceivers which are too too often insinuated into the minds of well meaning but weak minds whereby they are more addicted to such as How Tillinghast and other popular Orators and their injudicious discourses if stuffed with fained words and earnest affections then to the most solid proofs of the most learned whose interpretations of Scripture and handling of Controversies have cleared the truth and restored purity of Doctrine to the great benefit of the Church of God which these people understand not But it hapneth according to the saying Scientia nâ—minem habâ—â— inimicum nisi ignorantem And sure though I would have no Christian enslave his judgement to any man it were that Anthropolatria or sin of glorying in men forbidden 1 Cor. 3.21 against which I printed a little treatise in the the year 1645 foreseeing it would be the means of dividing Christians into parties nor would I have that which is propounded by men of none or lesser learning rejected because it is from them one Paphâ—utius may see that truth which a whole Council though such as the first Nâ—cene without him did not discern it was an evil spirit in Matthaeus Langius that made him disdain to be taught by Luther as is related in the History of thâ— Council of â—rent God doth out of the
Mr. Selden De Diis Syris syntag 2. c. 1. in Heinsius his Aristarchus sacer on Nonnus c. 1. If Names abused to Idolatry or Superstition might not be used without such abuse the godly might not say as Isa. 63.16 Doubtless thou art our Father or we cry Abba Father or Our Father or Christ Father because Idolaters said to a stock thou art my Father Jer. 2.27 or say to the Lord thou art our God because Idolaters said our Gods Hos. 14.3 nor Christ be termed a Priest Lord Master because of the abuse of them to Saints deceased Popes Rabbins or others Surely the name Priest being the name of no Idol it cannot be proved from Zech. 13.2 Hos. 2.16 17. that it is commanded by the Lord to be abolished Nor do I think any of his Authors say it Hieroms words are Though it might well be spoken in respect of the signification of the word which signifies in common application an Husband as well as Ish yet I so hate the name of Idols that I will not have it said Baali but Ishi in â—espect of the ambiguity and likeness of speech lest while a man speaks one thing he mind another and mentioning an Husband he mean an Idol What the Hebrew Doctors and others named by this Author say upon this place of Hosea I cannot examine for want of the Books That which he produceth out of Rivet I assent to That which this Author saith that Priest or Altar are of the same allay with the word Mass and is upon the same foot of account to be rejected is not true sith Mass doth usually signifie not only the Service but also the consecrated Host as the chief thing in it which is an Idol and so is not the name Priest In the Helvetian larger Confession ch 18. 't is true they make a difference between the Ministry now and the Priesthood in the Old Testament and it is true that they assert Christs Priesthood as for ever and incommunicable and therefore give not the name of Sacerdos usually translated Priest to their Ministers not because they take the word Priest as it answers to Presbyter to be evil in the sense used in the Church of England as a Degree or Order above Deacons but as it is used in the Church of Rome as their words shew which are these For our Lord himself ordained not any Priests in the Church of the New Testament which having received a power from a Suffragan might offer daily the Host I say the very flesh and very blood of the Lord for the quick and dead but such as should teach and administer Sacraments This Author proceeds in his paralellism thus Sect. 4. The parallel particulars prove not the English Ministers symbolizing in office with Popish Priests 2. The Priests of Rome must be first Deacons ere they are Priests so must the present Ministers of England 3. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office by a Lord Bishop or his Suffragan so must the Ministers of England 4. The Priests of Rome must at their Ordination be presented by an Archdeacon or his Deputy with these Words Reverend Father c. Reverend Father I present these men unto thee to be admitted unto the Order of Priesthood so are the present Ministers of England 5. The Priests of Rome must be Ordained to their Office according to their Pontifical devised by themselves the Priests of England according to their Book of Ordering Priests and Deacons which is taken out of the Popes Pontifical as is evident to any that shall compare the one with the other and as hath been long since confessed by themselves in an Admonition to the Parliament in Q Elizabeths dayes in their second Treatise 6. The Popish Priests must kneel down upon their knees at the feet of the Lord Bishop that Ordains them and he must say to them blasphemously enough Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins ye remit or forgive they are remitted whose sins ye retain they are retained which exactly accords with the fashion of Ordaining the Priests of England 7. The Popish Priests are not Ordained in and before the Congregation to whom they are to be Priests but in some Metropolitan Cathedral City several miles from the place so are the Priests of England 8. The Popish Priests take the care of souls though not elected by them from the presentation of a Patron by the Institution and Induction of a Lord Bishop and do not the present Ministers of England the same 9. The Popish Priests wait not the Churches Call to the Ministry but make suit to some Prelate to be Ordained Priests giving money for their Letters of Ordination so do the present Ministers of England 10. The Popish Priests are Ordained to their Office though they have no flock to attend upon so are the Priests of England 11. The Popish Priests must swear Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary so do the present Ministers of England 12. The Popish Priests may at their pleasure without the consent of the People resign and give over their Benefices and betake themselves to some other of greater value A symmetrie with them herein is visible by the frequent practice of the Ministers of England 13. The Popish Priests though Ordained to preach must have special license from the Prelates so â—o do so must the Priests of England 14. The Popish Priests are subject to be silenced suspended deprived and degraded by the Prelates as are the present Ministers of England 15. The Popish Priests are not of like and equal power degree and Authority amongst themselves but are some of them inferiour to others herein as Parsons to Arch-deacons Arch-deacons to Lord Bishops Lord Bishops to Arch-bishops so the Priests of England 16. The Popish Priests must be distinguished from other people by their Vestments as Surplice Tippet c. so must the Priests of England 17. The Popish Priests are tied to a Book of stinted Prayers and a prescript Order devised by man for their Worship and Administration so are the Ministers of England and that to such an one as is taken out of the Popes Portuis as hath been proved by divers That the Common-prayer Book in Edward the sixth his time was so you have his with his Councils Testimony for it thus they write As for the Service in the English Tongue it hath manifest Reasons for it and yet perchance it seemeth to you a New Service and indeed is no other but the Old the same words in English which were in Latine If the Service of the Church were good in Latine it is good in English How little different the Common-prayer Book now in use is thereunto they that will take pains to compare the one with the other may be satisfied To these parallel particulars might be added sundry more wherein there is an exact symmetrie betwixt the Popish Priests and the present Ministers of England but ex ungue Leonem The sum of what we have been offering in this matter
1. The whole Worship of God may according to these mens principles be discharged without any Sermon at all and it is manifest it is frequently so at one time or other in most of the Assemblies of England 2. Those their Prayers are also bounded and limited by the 55th Canon of the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical 3. We had alwayes thought that Christ having given gifts unto men did require the use of those gifts at all times when ever persons were called to the performance of that service for which they were designedly given by him by vertue of the fore-mentioned precepts When Christ hath given a gift of Prayer unto his children and charged them to stirr up the gift given them and not to napkin their Talent we had verily thought that when ever they had been called forth to the performance of that duty he did really intend and expect that they should be found in the exercise of the gift given and see as yet no reason to change our apprehensions in this matter Answ. The major Proposition is not in all cases true The resting on the Sabbath day was a positive duty charged by God yet the sacrificing which was an obstruction of that duty called by our Lord Christ Prophaning the Sabbath Matth. 12.5 was Worship of Gods appointment Following of Christ and preaching the Gospel were Worship of Christs appointment and yet they were obstructions to positive duties required to be done to Parents Wives and Children Therefore it is not true unless the thing which is an obstruction be such of its own nature of it self and not by accident and so necessarily and universally such an obstruction But not to insist on this the minor Proposition is many wayes faulty 1. It is supposed that the Common-Prayer Book worship is a different sort of Worship from such as is used by those which exercise the gift of prayer as he terms it which is absurd For then so many several forms of words as are used should be so many several sorts of Worship all expressions that are not immediately inspired should be Will-worship and so preachers several methods and expressions in preaching should be several sorts of Worship This is that which I assert That the same petitions the same Confessions and Thanksgivings for matter are the same prayer and Worship though in various expressions and that the same prayers read out of the Common-prayer Book and the prayers of the preachers framed by themselves and uttered if they ask the same things in other phrases are the same prayers and Worship And they that can joyn with the one and say Amen to them may as lawfully and safely without sin joyn with and say Amen to the other 2. This Authors phrase doth intimate that ability to conceive compose and utter in variety of expressions petitions to God is the gift of prayer and the exercise of it is the exercise of that gift which is false sith the gift of prayer is by the moving of the affections directing the mind exciting faith as the Text alledged by this Author Rom. 8.26 proves the Spirits work being there to acquaint us what we are to pray for and to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to over-intercede for us with groans unspoken or as it is read which cannot be uttered And therefore noâ— in the inspiration of words or method or fitting a person with various or unpremeditated expressions Yea those who express not who do not compose their petitions in any order or method as in Ejaculatory prayers such as Nehemiahs prayer was Nehem. 2.4 Hannahs 1 Sam. 1.13 Hezekiahs Isai. 38.14 Those who premeditate before they pray as David did Psal. 19.14 have as truly and perhaps more rightly and do exercise the gift of prayer as those who in never so extemporary manner enlarge themselves in various expressions and petitions It is true the Author of the Discourse concerning the interest of words in Prayer ch 2. tells us The gift and grace of Prayer are two things This he derives from the spirit of adoption That he defines to be an ability of mind to form words expressive of such desires of our hearts as are according to the will of God conjoyned with a faculty of memoâ—y and of expression and elocution which he saith is partly natural partly by industry attainable But the gift of Prayer here by our Authors words pag. 62. is the donation of the Spirit and usually the exercise of it in expressions unpremeditated or conceived in opposition to praying by a book or written set forms kept in the memory is termed praying in the Spirit and so no natural or acquired ability which is to be observed that the ambiguity of expressions may not deceive the unwary Reader Now if this be observed they that pray in a set form and those that read the Common-Prayer may be truly said to pray in the Spirit if their heart goe with their words and to exercise the gift of Prayer if the gift of Prayer be as the Discourse cited doth describe it 3. The gift of Prayer by alleging Ephes. 4 11 should seem by this Author to be accounted a ministerial gift proper to them for so were the gifts mentioned Ephes. 4.11 which if so then it is not common to the Saints nor the exercise of it a positive duty chaâ—ged by Christ to be performed by the Saints except they be Ministers and so it is not lawful for them except they be Ministers to seek or to use the gift of Prayer If they have it by this Authors arguing they are to exercise it as well as Ministers and it is as unlawful for them to pray by a book as for the Ministers they so praying worship in a way not appointed by God and are Idolaters as well as the Ministers and separation is to be from them as well as from Ministers Whereas iâ— the gift of Prayer be partly natural partly acquired then it is lawful for Ministers or other Saints to make use of any lawful means which may acquire that gift such are any that may be a Directory to know what they aâ—e to pray for that may advantage them for remembring composure or elocution conference imitation of others reading meditation self-examination and if the Common-Prayer Book be a help as some conceive it is it may be lawfully used or any others treatises or forms of Prayer for the obtaining of it And if so the Common Prayer Book worship may be so far from being an obstruction to the positive duty of exercising the gift of Prayer that it may further it by acquainting us with many things we should ask for as the Homilies also may be helps for the knowledge of what Doctrine Preachers are to teach their people And then this Authors Argument may be thus retorted That Form may be lawfully used for Worship which may be a means to further any positive duty charged by Christ to be performed by the Saints But such may be the forms of Prayers
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
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
daughters that did prophesie Acts 29.1 mention is made of the woman praying or prophesying 1 Cor. 11.5 we cannot exclude them from extraordinary Ministry when God gives such a gift nor sith Priscilla instructed Apollos Acts 18.26 can we exclude them from private teaching of the most able if they be fitted thereto Sect. 9. Receiving the Lords Supper kneeling is not directly opposite to Christs practice or precept of the abstaining from appearance of evil 1 Thess. 5.22 10. That the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling which is directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution thereof Mark 14.18 22 23. and positive precept as being what hath an appearance of evil in it being a gesture used by the Papists in the adoration of their Breadâ—n god 1 Thess. 5.22 as also to the practice of the Churches of Christ for several hundred years after to the time of the invention and the introduction of the Popish Breaden god not to mention its contrariety to the judgment and practice of most of the reformed Churches if not all at this day Answ. This Constitution and the subscription to it by the present Ministers of England cannot be denied nor that it hath been a great stumbling block to many persons and as great a cause of separation from the Communion as it is ministred in the Church of England as any other thing But that it is directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution of the Lords Supper is denied by them For though it is said Mark 14.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate as they sate yet it is denied that this gesture is mentioned as binding Christians to the the same gesture in the use of the Lords Supper in subsequent times 1. Because this gesture seems not to have been of choice used by Chrisâ— that thence he might prescribe the same gesture he used in the Institution making his example in this as a constant rule but it seems rather to have been used occasionally because it was instituted after the Paschal Supper at which they used that gesture as they did eat Mat. 26.26 Mark 14.22 2. Because St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.23 where he saith he delivered to them what he received of the Lord he omits the mention of Christs gesture which he would not have done if he had judged it binding and necessary to Christians 3. He mentions the night in which Christ was betrayed v. 23. that he took the cup after he had supped v. 25. Luke 22. â—0 and it it is not judged necessary that the Lords Supper should be either annually on the night in which he was betrayed or weekly or monethly in the night or after supper no not though it be termed by the Apostle the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.20 therefore with 〈◊〉 reason the gesture should be urged by them as obligatory 4. If the gesture Christ used be obligatory to Christians then they must use the self same gesture he used but that was neither sitting nor standing which are used by the opposers of Kneeling but lying along on beds as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Mark 14.18 intimates and is gathered from Joh. 13.23 and other relations of the use of those times which I think will not be denied it being by the learned generally acknowledged See Ainsworth on Exod. 12.8 And so kneeling is no more directly opposite to the practice of Christ in the first Institution thereof than other gestures nor however it be different from his practice then can it be truly said to be directly opposite to his practice unless he had commanded the gesture he then used to be observed or forbidden by his practice at that time kneeling The positive precept 1 Thess. 5.22 is urged very importunely not only in this point of knâ—eling at the Lords Supper but also very frequently on many other occasions in Sermons Writings and Conferences to deterr persons especially of scrupulous Consciences and weak Understandings from any thing to which persons and practices are disaffected and therefore for the setling of such persons judgment as are not averse to the unlearning their mistakes as I did many years since in my Book of Scandalizing cap. 4. sect 23. somewhat fully open the meaning of that Text so I shall again with some enlargement in this place it being no grievance to me to write the same things again but necessary and so much the rather because Mr. Henry Jeans in his second Edition of his Tract upon this Subject gives me occasion to examine more exactly the meaning of this Precept The chief difficulty is concerning 1. The Translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Concerning the appearance of evil which we are to abstain from and how far we are by that precept bound to abstain from it 1. Concerning the Translation it is doubted whether it should not be rather read abstain from every kind or sort of evil answering to genus and species as Cicero renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as Porphyry in his Isagoge Aristotle Plato and other Logicians use it That it may be so saith Mr. Jeans Mat. Flac. Illyricus and Beza determine that it is so the Syriack Interpreter and after him Faber and after them our own great and learned Doctour Hammond resolve But I would fain know upon what ground they are thus singular against the current both of an Ancient and Modern Expositors Wherein he might have been satisfied from Dr. Hammonds own words in his Annot. on the place where having said the meaning will be from all sort or the whole kind of evil from all that is truly so be it never so small according to that in Pirke avoth be as careful in the keeping a light as a heavy Commandement to this sense he cites St. Basil on the beginning of the Proverbs Theophylact and Leonâ—ius But saith Mr. Jeans It is used but four times in the New Testament besides this place and in none of them in a Logical notion It is true and it is true also that in none of them it is taken in his sense for an appearance to the understanding but either for the shape or representation to the sight or the sight it self as it is rendred 2 Cor. â— 7. However it is sufficient for the justifying of the Translation that it is used in that notion not only in other Greek Authors but also in Ecclesiasticus ch 23.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two sorts of men ch 25.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three sorts of men and in the LXX Version Jer. 15 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 four kinds which acception is enforced by this reason which out of St. Basil Dr. Hammond thus expresseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 21. try all things being taken from Merchants that which is evil v. 22. is opposed to that which will upon trial bear the touch A good Merchant will keep that which is good unadulterate metal but will
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
though it shewed him to be negligent But is nothing to our Ministers who are not now to count any man or creature common or unclean Act. 10.15.28 Whether they have power to keep any professing the Faith from the Lords Supper it may be doubted Granting it that they have yet this Author will not allow it I presume to each single Minister and if not it is unjust to account them false Preists for not doing it But of this before in this Chapter Section 4. Sect. 9. The Ministers are not the false Shepherds meant Ezek. 34.4 It is added 10. That they exercise not pity to the weak broken scattered Sheep of Christ nor shew bowels in their recovery but with force and cruelty rule over them Ezek. 34.4 One would think the former part of the Chapter were rather an History of what is practised by the false Shepherds of this day than otherwise so perfect an agreement is there betwixt their practice and this prophecy of the Lord. They tell us 't is our weakness and distemper that we conform not to their worship that we are persons gone astray we profess to them that we would not give way to spiritual distempers nor stray one step from the wayes of God might we but know it we would thank any to convince us of our mistakes and reduce us to the true sheepfold if we are gone astray Do they seek after us in a spirit of tenderness labour to convince us and carry us in their bosomes like tender Shepherds to the true fold What less With force and cruelty they rule over us threaten us with Excommunications Imprisonments Banishments dispoiling us of what God hath graciously given us yea condemning us to death in all which through the grace of God we can rejoice though they thereby abundantly demonstrate that they are the successors of the false Shepherds here spoken of Answ. Though Diodati the Annotator in the large Annotations Junius The Marginal Notes of the Geneva Translation say he meaneth by Shepherds the King the Magistrates Priests and Prophets yet after Piscator Grotius and others I think this passage is only appliable to the Kings and other Civil Rulers of Israel the Prophets not ruling over the people with force and cruelty but beguiling them with lies and deceit Which with sundry more passages of the Chapter upon my reading of it do convince me that this Author doth misalleadge it sith the Ministers of England are not Successors of the Civil Magistrates nor are the Prince and Governors here termed false Shepherds but negligent and unmerciful which are not the signal Characters of a false Prophet or false Priest and therefore this Text is impertinent to prove the Ministers to be such As for the practice he chargeth the Ministers with sith it is in generals a distinct answer cannot be made to it nor can any but the accused well answer it Possibly that which this Author counts force and cruelty may be necessary though severe discipline I do not justifie the neglects or menaces mentioned in any nor is it unlikely but that there are men of violent spirits in the Hierarchy and Ministry of England to whom this evil is imputed nor do I think this Author can acquit all those that are Elders or other members of the Congregational Churches Iliacos intrà muros peccatur extrà It is to be lamented that such sad things should happen as he recites For my part I have even when the Congegational men had most liberty had conferences with persons in which I shewed my dissent from them in respect of the Separation with my Reasons and have often in writing answered their Arguments for it which I can yet produce yet found them still inflexible This writing was begun by me out of compassion of those to whom I was once a Preacher whom I found seduced by it and have endeavoured without any bitterness to convince this Author of his mistakes yet I doubt whether he will thank me for it I rather expect to be told for writing this Book as I was for writing of some other pieces that I am an Apostate temporizer flatterer adversary to the Saints and such like imputations They that know what hath been done in New-England and old England even at Oxford to Quakers for inveighing against their Teachers and Governors should be somewhat more moderate in censures of the present Ministers and Governors who when they read this very Chapter will be apt to think that the soul of the Quakers is by transmigration gotten into this Author My Prayer to God is that on all sides there may be such a calm and considerate spirit that we may forbear one another and in love endeavour the rectifying of each other not bite and devour one another lest we be consumed one of another and so we be Homo homini lupus not Shepherds Sect. 10. The Ministers of England are not the second Beast foretold Revel 13.11 But there 's more behind What should I mention saith he 11. That they come up out of the Earth Rev. 13.11 are raised up by men of earthly spirits and principles 12. That they exercise the power of the first Beast or make use of the civil power for their supportment ver 13.13 That they make an Image to the Beast ver 14.15 i. e. Erect an Ecclesiastical state of Government in a proportioâ—ableness to and resemblance of the Civil State 14. That they compel all under the penalty of death to worship or bow down to this Image of the Beast or Ecclesiastical Government in its Courts Canons Laws and Ceremonies devised by it v. 15. 15. That they compel all to receive a mark either in their right hands or foreheads secretly or openly one way or other to acknowledge subjection unto this Beast without which they may neither buy nor sell being cut off from the Church by their Excommunications for their stubborness v. 16 17. All which Characters of the second Beast or false Prophet he that runs may read upon the present Hierarchy and Ministry of England It remaineth then that the present Ministers of England have the characters of the false Prophets and Preists upon them and therefore are not to be heard but to be separated from Answ. Though the Book of the Revelation be a holy Divine writing and hath been of great use to support the spirits of Christians under the great Persecutions which have befallen them and is still of very great importance for the animating of believers either to patience in sufferings or watchfulness in time of temptation yet such abuse there hath been made of it to uphold many wild conceits many irregular practises notwithstanding the confessed obscurity and the frequent refutation of such conceits as men have with much confidence delivered by the manifestation of their vanity in the event that sober men have wished it were either less read by some or more considerately weighed and more warily applyed The passages here alledged have been so abused
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-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-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-Prayer Book Worship The 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
up to him a worship meerly of humane composition once abused to Idolatry with the rites and modes of Idolaters are deeply guilty of the sin of Idolatry Answ. That the Common-prayer Book worship is a worship meerly of humane composition however the Form of words be is denied and not proved by this Author whose mistakes in confounding them are before shewed Nor is the worship of the Common-prayer Book proved to have been abusâ—d to Idolatry because the Foâ—ms of words were taken out of the Popish Service Books any more than that the Scriptures or Creed found in them were abused to Idolatry because thence taken The worship being agreeable to Gods Word cannot be abused to Idolatry Nor doth the Form of words used in the Mass-book or Bâ—eviary which is otherwise holy and â—ight if it had never been in those books cease to be holy and right when the Idolatrous Forms are left out any more than Gold found in a Dunghill remains Dung and ceaseth to be Gold when the filth is washed away from it To that of the Common-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-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
hearing of the word of God are reckoned and art 6. God is to be worshipped as in private families daily and in secret each one by himself so more solemnly in the publick assemblies which are not carelesly nor wilfully to be neglected or forsaken when God by his word or providence calleth thereunto Upon which and other suppositions it concerns every tender conscience which receiveth these principles to consider how they can acquit themselves from not observing the Lords day in publick assemblies where God is invocated in the name of Christ and the word of God truly taught especially in such places where they may enjoy these performed by the present Ministers and are deprived of their former Ministers and communion and cannot of themselves discharge these duties That which this Authour answers doth not solve the doubt That such persons conceive they cannot spend the Lords day without hearing is not out of any Idolizing the Ordinances of God but from those grounds which are by the declaration afore named and the generality of zealous Preacher pressed upon Christians That it is one duty of sanctifying the Lords day not onely to abstain from labour which makes onely Sabbatum asinorum a Sabbath that beasts have as well as men nor onely to exercise themselves in reading and prayer at home for that is every days duty but also to frequent the publick assemblies where God is worshipped which this Authour conceives injoyned Heb. 10.25 and is gathered from Exod. 20.8 Acts 20.7 Revel 1.10 1 Cor. 16.1.2 John 20.19.26 That many persons cannot in many places find such assemblies of the Saints as this Authour means is a thing out of doubt with me Were publick hearing a sin I confess it were better to do nothing than do that But that is not yet proved and I think it fit to acquaint the Reader That Mr. Norton of New England in that Answer to Apollonius his questions which is commended by Mr. Cotton Dr. Thomas Goodwin Mr. Philip Nye and Mr. Sidrach Simpson ch 13. doth thus determine Such things being observed as are to be observed it may be lawful to use forms of prayers administrations of Sacraments c. prescribed in the Church neither are the Churches which use them guilty of superstition will-worship and violating the second Commandment yea it is lawful to embrace communion with them where such forms in the publick worship are in use neither doth it lie as a duty on a believer that he separate and disjoyn himself from such a Church unless he would partake in the superstitious worship of Images Communion with a Church quâ utitur as it useth worship of it self unlawful is unlawful communion with a Church quae utitur which useth it to wit in other lawful worship is lawful and separation from it is unlawfull And to shew how evil the counsel of this Authour is to men to spend the Lord's day in a corner idle at home rather then go to hear in publick I think good to subjoyn some words of Mr John Paget in his Preface to the Christian Reader before his Book Intituled An Arrow against the separation of the Brownists Of the Brownists there are sundry sorts some separate from the Church of England for corruptions and yet confess both it and Rome and it also to be a true Church as the followers of Mr. Johnson Christian Plea p. 216 217. Some renounce the Church of England as a false Church and yet allow private communion with the godly therein as Mr. Robinson Justifie p. 339 340 247. and his followers Relig. Com. p. 1. c. Some renounce all religious communion both publique and private with any Member of that Church whosoever as Mr. Ainsworth Counterpoy pag. 197. and such as hearken unto him being deepest and stiffest in their Schism The evil of this separation is great First The minds of many are troubled and distracted hereby even of such as do not separate but have some liking thereof especially if it be true which Mr. Robinson writes of them Relig. comm preface to wit That they seeing it not to be for their purposes that the world should so esteem of them do undoubtedly strain and wring the neck of their consciences and courses to look the contrary way c. What can be more miserable then to have the necks of consciences thus broken by the doctrine of separation Secondly for those that separate but do not yet joyn unto them or being joyned do withhold from actual communion living alone and hearing the word of God in no Church as some do How great is their misery also Mr. Robinson himself ibid. p. 36.39 shews it at large noâ—ing them to be Idol-members such as break the commandment of Christ loose the fruit of his ascension and fail their own edification and salvation many ways c. Thirdly for those that being enjoyned to them do also live with them seeing they have in effect excommunicate themselves from all other Churches of Christ and consequently from the fellowship of Christ Jesus himself and from the participation of his grace and glory so far as he reveals the same by dwelling in those Churches It is therefore no wonder to hear Mr. Johnson treat on Matt. 18. Preface A. 2. complaining of the evils among them as emulation debate and other sins which daily arise and spread themselves to the great dishonour of God c. As for the directions given by this Authour how to spend at home the Lords day some of them are such as weak persons women and novices cannot make use of it yea they would be dangerous to them occasioning them to fall into errours Enthusiastick conceits some of them Antinomians count unnecessary and those that are good yet by the deprivation of society and publick teaching and heavily performed and they that take such courses do either very frequently decay in the exercise of godliness grow barren and liveless in prayer and holy conferences or turn Seekers Quakers Ranters Censurers Scoffers Libertines However were they all used yet they solve not the doubt arising from those principles which require publick hearing for hallowing the Lords day which is to be observed not onely for the benefit of our own edification but also for the glory of God and testification of our profession which is not done by private exercise of Religion And although some persons may more benefit themselves in knowledge by reading at home yet the example hinders others from the use of the publick Ordinances whereto we should by our practice encourage them For these and other reasons often urged by those who have been for separation it is not to be expected that such private exercises should be blessed or accepted of God when the publick are to be performed Both certainly should be done in their seasons not one exclude the other I have thus answered all I find in this Authour and do joyn with him in referring the thing to the Reader who if he will not cheat his