apprehension we have of his omnisciency goodness wisdome and truth who neither can be deceived nor deceive that he only knoweth all things that we are to call no man our Father upon the Earth for one is our Father which is in Heaven Mat. 23.9 As on the contrary when Ahazias 2 Kings 1. sent to Baalzebub the God of Ekron to enquire of that Idol he worshipped Baalzebub and when Saul enquired of one that had a familiar Spirit and not of the Lord 1 Chron. 10.13 14. He worshiped that familiar Spirit Our Lord Christ is that Prophet whom God requires us to hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto us Acts 3.22 God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets hath in these last dayes spoken to us by his Son Heb. 1.1 2. And they that hear his word as the person to whom all things are delivered by the Father Mat. 11.27 as he in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdome and knowledge Col. 2.3 as that great Prophet who was to come into the World Luke 7.16 do worship Christ in hearing As on the other side he that heareth any other as Rabbi or master in that sense in which Christ asserts himself to be the only Master Mat. 23.8 10. as the Papists do who enquire of the Pope as infallible when he speaks or determins from his Chair doth worship him as his great Prophet Rabbi or Master which Christ forbids as an usurpation of his prerogative This worship of Christ is immediate even when we enquire of his minde by hearing other teachers who bring his word to us though not called as the Apostles and some others in the first planting of the Christian Churches as he that attends to a Kings Proclamation read or brought by never so inconsiderable a person declares by his Loyal hearing of it his honouring of his Prince not of the reader Câ—ier or messenger Yea God is worshipped and Christ honoured by hearing the Gospel read as the word of God as immediately and truly though not so solemnly by a boy at home as by a Pastor of a Church Sect. 2. Of hearing how instituted worship and to be devolved on the Scriptures of the New Testament Instituted worship of Christ is such as is by Christs institution Now institutions saith a civil Lawyer are praeceptions by which men are instructed and taught as the books of Ouintilian inscribed Institutions of Orators of Lactantius Divine Institutions of Erasmus the Institution of a Christian Prince of Aldus Institutions of Grammer of Calvin Institutions of religion Instituted woâ—ship of Christ under the Gospel is that which is by Christs praeceptions taught directed or appointed in the times of the Gospel since Christs coming in the Flesh. Which may be meant of that natural or moral worship which belongs to God or Christ such as are prayers to God giving thanks to him such like Of this it is true in respect of the explicite way of prayer or thanksgiving in the name of Jesus Christ or such peculiar manner as belongs to the New Testament the whole thereof is to be divolved upon the Scriptures of the New Testament that is as I interpret his words the direction or precept concerning it is to be taken from the Scriptures of the New Testament yet not excluding the directions and precepts of the Scriptures of the Old Testament nor the light of nature so far as that worship is perpetual and general to all people and times as being either natural or moral Of which sort I take hearing the word of God to be though some peculiarities there are which the Almighty hath tied us to in the New Testament in hearing as Mat. 17 5. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him Luke 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me Yet these passages do not exclude the precepts or directions of the Old Testament but presuppose them to be heard and learned in respect of the matter therein contained and the persons that reveal it so our Lord Christ Luke 16.29 They have Moses and the Prophets let them hear them 2 Peter 1.19 we have also a more sure word of prophecy whereunto you do well that ye take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place Nor do I meet with any prohibitions of hearing any but False-Prophets Mat. 7.15 deceivers Titus 1.10 that teach other doctrin 1 Tim 1.3 2 John 10 another Gospel Gal. 1.8 9. Our Lord Christ Caveat is Mark 4.24 Take heed what ye hear not warning them to avoid any that preacheth the same truth that he delivers though he more especially tyed his Disciples to hear his Apostles and such other as were sent by them to him yet when all the Church at Jerusalem except the Apostles which consisted of many thousands were scattered abroad by persecution and went every where preaching the word Acts 8.1 4. It was no sin to hear them they were not the strangers meant John 10.5 whom his Sheep were to flee from but rather they were bound to hear them in preaching his Gospel though not by any peculiar calling designed for that work as their function it being Christs declaration that his Sheep hear his voice John 10.27 Nor are the many precepts or directions in the Old Testament about hearing or reading Isai. 8.20 in the books of the Psalmes and Proverbs and other parts of Holy Scriptures vacated but that they remain still rules to us about hearing in the New Testament times and therefore it seems not to me to be a reasonable postulatum or demand that in the present enquiry of the Lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers of England the whole thereof be devolved upon the Scriptures of the New Testament Sect. 3. Hearing not a meer positive or ceremonial worship But perhaps the Author means by instituted worship of Christ such as is meerly positive or as we use to speak ceremonial such as are Baptism and the Lords Supper which are only worship of God by institution in the New Testament which is probable to be his meaning by what he adds not perplexing our selves nor the Consciences of any with what was or may be supposed to be permitted unto the Saints before the time of reformation whilst the worldly Sanctuary was yet standing the carnal ordinances pertaining thereunto in being at least by the providence of God not sully dissolved as afterward both it and they were being buried in the ashes and ruines of that Temple to which they were inseparably annext But if he make hearing of the present Ministers such an instituted worship of God or Christ he seems to me very inconsiderate hearing of preachers being a moral and perpetual worship common to all times and persons not a meer positive or ceremonial as being baptized or receiving the Lords supper are and therefore by reason
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-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
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
extemporary conceived Prayer of Preachers and others such is the praising of God in the English metre the reading of the Scriptures according to ordinary division of chapters and verses with the contents of the chapters Therefore The major is his own the minor stands good till it be shewed where Christ hath appointed such extemporary praying or such praising such reading the Scripture so divided To which I might add in hearing taking notes of Sermons Preachers using notes in the Pulpit with sundry more but I forbear As for the Texts alledged Ephes. 4.7 c. it speaks not of Worship and its institution by Christ nor what is the necessary requisite to such Worship as is instituted by Christ but only of Gifts that is preaching Officers and the end and use of those gifts Col. 2.19 speaks not of Worship or what is requisite that it be of Christs institution but tells us that Seducers which taught worshipping of Angels held not the Head that is Christ And that from him all the Body that is the Church by joynts and bands having nourishment ministred and knit together increaseth with the increase of God Acts 9.31 speaks not at all of Worship or its institution by Christ or Christs aim in Gospel-administrations or what is requisite that Worship be of his institution Rom. 14.14 15. much less it speaks of the cleanness of things of themselves the uncleanness to him that thinks them so and our duty not to grieve our Brother with our meats 1 Cor. 10.23 tells us of the inexpediency of some things lawful in that they edifie not nothing of Christs aim in his institutions or what is requisite to his instituted Worship 1 Cor. 14.3 4 5 12 26. tells us of the benefit of prophecying the end and use of spiritual gifts nothing of Christs aim in his institution of Worship or the requisite to such institution 2 Cor. 12.10 doth not mention any thing but Pauls affection and estate 1 Tim. 1.4 nothing but the incommodity of fables and genealogies Which should be observed by the Reader that he may be wary how he trusts to this Author's and other Separatists multiplying Texts impertinently that they be not ensnared by them and that such persons may see what cause they have to repent of such abusive wresting of Scripture As for that which he saith of the Common-Prayer Book worship if he mean thereby the prayers or praises in the forms therein I will not say They are necessary for the edification comfort or preservation of the Saints in the Faith and Vnity of the Gospel I yield that they are not necessary those ends may be obtained by other forms of Prayer or rather by preaching confessions of Faith and reading of the Holy Scriptures unto which the Lessons and portions of Scripture confessions of Faith in the Common-Prayer Book are as conducible as other Whether the Churches of Christ in the four first centuries were so excellent as he saith And whether they knew not any thing of such a Worship as the Common Prayer Book worship is a disputable point Et adhuc sub judice lis est What is said That to the Reformed Churches at this day the Common-Prayer Book worship is as a polluted accursed abominable thing I find no cause to believe except he mean by them the Churches of the Separatists I find Calvin in his 200 th Epistle saying indeed In Anglicana Liturgia qualem describitis multas video fuisse tolerabiles ineptias Yet in his 87 th Epistle he saith Quod ad formulam precum rituum Ecclesiasticorum valde probo ut certa illa extet c. And I find Maresius of Groning in his Academical Decision of some Questions qu. 11. alledging those words of Calvin and disputing against Francis Johnson his Latine Answer to Carpenter against Liturgies and asserting Liturgical Forms to be admitted by all the Reformed Churches Nor do I find any thing to the contrary in Voetius his Ecclesiastical Policy or any other that have lately written who have gainsaid these speeches and therefore I conceive that this Author in this speech hath too great a smack of that which is in one of Tullies Epistles said of such men Qui semel vereâ—undiae fines transilierit eum gnaviter impudentem esse oportet Neither Smectymnuus nor the Assembly nor Mr. Baxter in his Disputation of a Form of Liturgy nor any other of the Presbyterians that I know have written such things of the Common-Prayer Book as this Author vents If they are to be read he that would find truth should also read the Answers to Smectymnuus Ball 's Tryal of Separation Paget 's Arrow against the Separatists with others As for â— Powel his Tract I find in it such a sardle of false Principles misallegations of Texts non-syllogizing confused Dictates with vain Giâ—des that me-thinks no sober or judicious person should be moved by it The Common-Prayer Vnmasked I have not seen The Discourse of the Interest of Words in Prayer doth not advantage this Author to prove separation from Ministers or their Ministry by reason of the Common-Prayer The Discourse of Liturgies I have read and find in it little Logick a great many words which if they were reduced to syllogistical form would appear to be a bulk without sinews Not to mention the many absurd Dictates among which I have observed this that p. 16. The Lâ—rds Prayer is made to belong to the Oeconomy of the Old Testament and to argue thence to the New is to deny Christ to be ascended on high But I must attend the Author here who adds Sect. 8. No Particularity instituted is a meer Circumstance yet Particularities undetermined are Object If to what hath hitherto been proposed it be said That the Liturgy or Common-Prayer Book is no essential part of Worship but meerly circumstantial Praying t is true is part of Worship but praying in this or that Form is not so but meerly a circumstance thereof And therefore though it be true that the present Ministers of England worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer Book yet it follows not that they worship him after a way that is not of his appointment To this we answer 1. That many things are strenuously supposed as the Basis upon which the weight of this Objection is laid which the Framers thereof knowing to be no easie task to demonstrate do earnestly beg us to grant unto them which being matter of greater moment than many are aware of we shall not part with on such easie terms T is supposed First That there are some things in the instituted Worship of Christ that are meerly circumstances thereof as such Secondly That it is lawful for Saints to pray in a Form Thirdly That Forms of Prayer imposed are but meer circumstances of Worship and no essential parts thereof Fourthly That circumstances of Worshâ—p as such are not determined by the Lord in the Scripture but left to the wills of men to determine therein as they shall
preach the Gospel and the improving it by converting others to faith and obedience not of so mean a thing as an ability of conceiving and uttering Forms of prayer without book As for the 4 th thing offered The lawfulness of the Saints praying in a Form is neither because they have not the Spirit nor that having the Spirit he is not a sufficient help to them in their approaches to God but because in such praying neither is any thing done forbidden by God nor any thing omitted thereby which God requires for the performing the duty of prayer The Spirit I grant is sufficient to help in our approaches to God and doth help Rom 8.15.26 But that it is done by enabling by immediate inspiration to utter matter of prayer for the benefit of others is not meant in those places And indeed such a mistake hath filled some with high conceit of themselves and others with admiration of such to their mutual perditions Whereas this is but a common gift or rather an acquired ability often used with cunning to deceive others of which there are many footsteps in the affected expressions otherwise which shew their pâ—aying is not from the Spirit of God but their own spirit But of the impertinency of this Text I have spoken before in answer to ch 5. sect 7. It follows Sect 10. The Forms of Prayer imposed are not made necessary essential parts of Woâ—ship Answ. The 〈◊〉 Pâ—oposition mâ—ant of making it doctrinally necessaâ—y by vertue of Gods appointment so as that the omission of it at any time when the worship is performed should be sin or using any other Form should make it not Gods worship or not acceptable to him might be granted But being understood of making a thing the condition of an action by vertue of the authority of Governours so as that at some time and place it is not to be done without it by persons that are their subjectâ— under a civil penalty the major is denied In which sense the use of the Liturgy is imposed which doth not make it any other than a circumstance of Divine worship not such an adjunct as is a necessary part thereof This Author granted before here sect 8. Circumstances in the worshâ—p of Christ atttending religious actions as actions without assignment of time and place no action to be managed by a community can be orderly performed by them Therefore if the Governours assign a time and place undetermined by God it is that which they may do lawfully and not requiring them as necessary by vertue of Gods institution nor of all but only of their own subjects they are made but circumstances not necessary parts of Divine worship So if for avoiding of inconvenience publique praying be forbidden in the night and in some places and it be commanded to be done at such hours of the day in such a place these hours and place are made no other than circumstances of the religious action no Religion is placed in them â—hey are not made parts of worship but adjuncts alterable as it may stand with conveniency There is the same reason of imposing a Liturgy for uniformity to prevent dissonancy or some other inconvenience which may be incident to some persons as of requiring Prayers without it If neither be determinatively instituted by Christ but commanded for conveniency they both remain circumstances â—ot necessary parts of Divine worship notwithstanding the imposition by Governours Sacrificing on the Altar at the Tabernacle and Temple was a part of the worship because commanded by God and so would the Liturgy be if it were commanded as that was But that the Liturgy is not so it appears from the words of the Preface to it The particular forms of Divine worship and thâ— rites appointed to be vsed therein being things in their own natuâ—e indifferent and alterable and so acknowledged it is but râ—asonable that upon weighty and important considerations according to the 〈◊〉 exigency of times and occasions such changes and alterations should be made therein as to thâ—se that are in place of Authority should from time to time seem either necessary or expedient Nor do I think it true That any considerable Minister of England would affirm the Common-Prayer Book to be an essential part of worship or make it such as this Author imputes to them nor in use of it is it alwayes so observed but that it gives place to preaching to reading Briefs for collections and some other occasions and yet if they did so strictly observe it this doth not prove they esteem it a necessary essential part of worship by vertue of Gods command but that they conceive they ought to obey their Governours Laws not judging others who use it not But whatever be the judgement or practice of the present Ministers yet the words of the Preface which are more to be regarded than any particular Ministers opinion whereof some it s confess'd have too much magnified it do shew that the imposition makes it not such as this Author chargeth on them And this is enough to acquit the use of it from Idolatry even in this Authors own sense sith they do not place the worship of God in the Form but in the Kind of worship commanded by God and so the minor of his Argument is denied For though the Form of the Common-Prayer Book be not prescribed yet the way of worship therein that is Prayer Praises the Lords Supper are worship preâ—cribed by God If the Author mean by way of wor-ship the forms and modes the way of worship by Preachers conceived or extemporary prayers this Authors form of preaching and other worship is not prescribed by God and the Separatists are Idolaters as well as the Ministers of England and so his Argument is retorted as before He goes on thus Sect. 11. Acting in the holy things of God by an Office-power and modes of Idolaters may be without Idolatry To which we add Argument 2. Those who act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offer up to him a Worship meerly of humane composition once abused to Idolatry with the modes and rites of Idolaters are guilty of the sin of Idolatry But the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offer up to him a Worship meerly of humane composition oâ—câ— abusâ—d to Idolatry with the modes and rites of Idolaters Therefore The major or first Proposition carrying a brightness along with it sufficient to lead any one into the belief of the truth thereof one would think may be taken for granted Two things are asserted therein 1. That such as act in the holy things of God by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters are themselves such at least in respect of that their Office-power so received by them That Jeroboams Priests were all of them Idolaters we suppose will not be denied Supposing some or more to
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-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
mouth of Babes and Sucklings perfect praise as our Saviour Matth. 21.16 allegeth Psal. 8.2 against the Priests and Scribes indignation at the Childrens saying Hosanna yet I would have such things examined by the learned and godly especially either their own Pastors or such as are found or reputed learned and judicious and that as well what may be said against as what is said for the thing vented be weighed lest persons deceive themselves as too often they do by their propensity to take all for Oracles which is said by such as they do affect or magnifie And surely in doubtful cases and in points which are above the Sphere of common capacities to determine I mean such as require more insight in Languages History Arts and other reading than they can reach to by reason of defect in their natural abilities educations time to study means of attaining the use of books health or strength it is a safe way to rest on the received practice and determination of their learned Guides whom they have reason to judge faithfull and able and to be satisfied with their resolutions and reasons after a serious and modest arguing of the thing though every scruple be not removed As for that which is here said of Ainsworth Cotton c. I think they that knew and read what Vssher Ball Gataker and such like men were will not believe it Mr. Ainsworths differences between him and Johnson Robinson and Paget and their writings especially of this last shew him to have been much short of what this Author conceived of him What Mr. Cotton was I do not rely upon Mr. Baylies Dissuasive but I think Dr. Twisse his answer to him about reprobation Mr. Cawdrey about the keyes that I mention no other shewed him not such as whose judgement might be safely rested in And I scarce think either by the reading of his way of the Churches in new England or his commendation of Mr. Nortons answer to Apollonius he could be of the same apprehension with this Author in this matter That the Reformed Churches generally renounce the Ministry of the Church of England I think is a manifest untruth The passages at the Synod of Dort Peter Moulin his Letter to Bishop Andrews with many more of the like evidences of former and later times assure me this Author is deceived He adds Sect. 12. The Magistrates command to hear the present Mininisters is to be obeyed Object 8. But the Magistrate commands us and ought we not to obey Magistrates Answ. 1. That Magistrates have no power to command in matters of instituted worship where Christ is silent or to govern in his Church is affirmed by many 2. The commands of Magistrates when contrary to the will and way of Christ are not to be subjected to This case is long since stated and resolved by the Apostle Acts 4.19 20. and 5.29 and Spirit of the Lord breathing long before in his renouned witnesses Dan. 3.16 17. and 6.10 nor is it denyed by any that are sober and judicious Whether the hearing of the present Ministers of England be contrary to the word of God the will and way of Christ we leave from what hath been offered to the considerate reader to judge And shall only add what was long since asserted by Augustin de verb Domini Serm. 6. in this matter who was herein fully of the same mind with us Sed timeo inquies ne offendas majorem time prorsus ne offendas majorem non offendes Deum Quid enim times ne offendas majorem Vide ne forsan major sit isto quâ—m times offendere Majorem certe noli offendere quis est inquies major eo qui me genuit an ille qui teipsum creavit qui enim resistit potestati Dei ordinationi resistit sed quid si illud jubeat quod non debes facere timendo potestatem ipsos humanarum rerum gradus advertite si aliquid jusserit Curator nonne faciendum est Tametsi contra Proconsul jubeat at non utique contemnis potestatem sed eligis majori servire nec hinc debet minor irasci si major praelata est Rursum si aliquid ipse Proconsul jubeat aliud jubeat Imperator numquid dubitatur in illo contemptu illi esse serviendum Ergo si aliud Imperator aliud Deus quid judicatis Solve tributum est mihi in obsequio recte Sed non in Idolio in Idolio prohibet quis prohibet major potestas Da veniam tu carcerem ille gehennam minatur He tells us plainly that such as fear to offend their Superiours should much more fear to offend God who is greater than all The Emperours and Monarchs of the world threaten us with a Prison if we disobey them the Lord threatens us with Hell upon our disobedience of him I reply The Brownists in their Confession of faith art 39. say Princes and Magistrates by the Ordinance of God are Supreme Governours under him over all persons and in all causes within their Realms and Dominions and that it is their duty to enforce all their Subjects whether Ecclesiastical or Civil to do their duties to God and men protecting and maintaining the good punishing and restraining the evil according as God hath commanded whose Lieutenants they are here on earth and to prove this many Texts are cited by them of which confession Mr. Ainsworth said to be of the fame apprehension with this Author in this matter was a principal composer In the Apology of the Non-conformists by Irenaeus Eâ—eutherius in the admonition to the Reader the Kings Supremacy is acknowledged Which hath been more largely proved before in this Answer to the 5th Chapter of this book Sect. 11 12 13 14. And though it be not yeilded that Princes should exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction or determine Doctrines of faith or impose what worship they will on the Subjects yet it is allowed by all I know except Papists that when the Magistrate commands men to be present at the true worship of God and to hear them that preach truth he doth what he ought and is to be obeyed therein This Author where in this Chapter p. 86. he supposeth Christ enjoyning his Disciples to attend upon the Scribes and Pharisees acting as Magistrates and conform to what is justly and righteously prescribed them as such must yield this that the Saints are to obey the Magistrate in this unless he can shew that it is an unlawfull thing to hear the present Ministers which he pretends he hath done but how vainly is shewed by this Answer and so his Answer here to this Objection to be insufficient And indeed it tends to the gratifying of Popish Recusants who alledge for their not hearing the non-conjunction with the Pope and Church of Rome as this Author doth the non-election and non-membership of the present Ministers in a Congregational Church to be in which as the only Instituted Church of Christ is made necessary as Papists do to be in Communion with
expression there and Jer. 7 31. of Gods not commanding must be expounded by a figure of Speech frequent in Scripture wherein Words or Phrases often signifie more than is expressed which must be understood of that place Jer. 7.31 where the thing God is said not to have commanded is that which he had most strictly forbidden and severely punished to wit the building the high places of Tophet which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire and therefore is rightly paraphrased by Mr. Gataker in the large English Annot. on Jer. 7.31 Which I commanded them not or which I never commanded but exprâ—sly forbad and professed to abhor Levit. 18.21 and 20.3 Deut. 12.31 and 18.10 And therefore these Texts are ill alledged to prove the Lords condemning of that which is done onely beside the warrant and direction of the Word and that it is not lawful for the Saints to practise that which being but an accidental part adjunct or circumstance of instituted Worship hath not warrant by command in the Scripture He adds 8. of the same mind with us in this matter are the renowned Witnesses of Christ in all ages generally all that write upon the second Commandment speak fully hereunto Answ. This assertion cannot be proved nor is it likely to be true such those few testimonies alledged of Cyprian Beza Luther and Whitaker are impertinent That of Cyprian Epist. 63. to Caecilius is manifestly meant of that which is prescribed by Christ and not of adjuncts undetermined the whole Epistle being against the Aquarii who would have water only in the Lords Supper whom Cyprian refutes asserting that Christ used and commanded Wine mingled with Water erring therein Bezas words in his Annot. on Philip. 1.1 that it is unsafe to decline from the Word of God though but an hairs breadth are to be understood of things determined therein Luthers words on 1 Pet. 4.11 as they are cited which I have not the Book to examine are meant of Doctrines or Decrees which he would not have subscribed to or taught unless in the Word of God The place where Dr. Whitakers words are is not quoted they seem to be against the Popish use of Oyl in their Sacraments which they conceive to confer grace and add it to Baptism in which Christ hath appointed no other Element but Water and therefore I conceive them not to assert that which is the Major to be proved that the practice of adjuncts of instituted Worship undetermined is unlawful without a Command in Scripture That many others may be added to these I doubt not but that they speak home to his Proposition I believe not Voet. Polit. Eccles. part 1. l. 2. h. 1. c. 7. sect 2. Ecclesiae in genere potestatem ceremonias adiaphoras assumendi in cultu divino adhibendi nemo hactenus negarit qui ei tribuit potestatem clavium cum ea potestatem regiminis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Declaration of the Congregational Elders Ch. 1. saith there are some circumstances concerning the Worship of God and Government of the Church common to humane actions and societies which are to be ordered by the light of Nature and Christian Prudence according to the general rules of the Word Sect. 4. Prejudice is no argument nor personal motives good proof He adds The Minor or second Proposition consists of two parts 1 That Hearing is part of instituted Worship one would wonder should it be denied however 't is evident it is so from the light of this single demonstration That in which we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance for the Communication of good beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us is part of the instituted Worship of God for what I wait for not being in the thing it self in which I am waiting no ground can be assigned for my expecting good through it but Divine Institution but in the Hearing of the Word we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance for the Communication of good beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us Therefore Answ. I do grant Hearing the Word of God to be one part or sort of Gods instituted Worship in the sense delivered by me in the Answer to the Preface in the three first Sections because it is required by God and tends to shew our subjection to him as our Soveraign Lord and our acknowledgment of his transcendent Wisdom and Infallibility and is for these ends an address immediately to God on whom only we wait to know his Will though brought us by his created Messenger whose Doctrine we receive not as his Word but as the Word of the living God nor believe or obey it any farther than it appears to be his But I do not take the argument here produced to be demonstrative sith there be many things as Marriage Eating Drinking Ploughing Sowing c. in which we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance for the Communication of good beyond the vertue of any creature to conveigh to us and yet are not parts of the Instituted Worship of God 2. Saith he That hearing the present Ministers of England is not warranted in the Scripture This will be manifested when we come to the ventilating and scanning of those places which are usually produced for the abetting of the practice of some in this matter in the mean while we crave liberty to profess that it is not opinionativeness singularity vain-glory uncharitableness or any thing of that nature as some are apt uncharitably enough to censure but the dread and awe of God who is a jealous God and especially in point of worship and an holy fear of offending him that hinders us from complying in these matters could but one word tittle or iota be produced from the Scriptures of God for the warranting the hearing the present Ministers of England we should quickly lay our mouths in the dust confess and bewail our folly in refusing to conform thereunto but this we are fully assured those that dissent from us are not able to do what they say therein shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be sifted to the uttermost Answ. The hearing the present Ministers of England while they teach the Doctrine of Gods Word is warranted in Scripture which forbids only the hearing of False Prophets Mat. 7.15 Antichrists that seduce that bring not the doctrine of the Apostles 1 Joh 2.18 26. and 4.1 5 6. 2 Joh. 7.10 which if he prove the Ministers of England to be his Minor is proved but not either by personal exceptions against their entry on their Ministry or their sinful practices nor by ventilating or scanning of those places which are usually produced for the abetting of the practice of some in this matter For though Ministers be as bad as Judas yet they may be heard preach the Gospel as he was and though the places alledged should prove
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
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
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-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
that are excommunicate of excommunicating suspending or inflicting other censures and penalties on any that offend yea on Princes and Nations Finally of all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either Preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ. Which his practice sheweth to be such as to dispense with the Laws of God as by legitimating incestuous Marriages releasing of lawful Oaths granting Indulgences releasing out of Purgatory Canonizing of Saints Consecrating of things for the expulsion of Devils with many more and iâ— it be true which is related in a Book lately printed to have been asserted by the party of Jesuites in the Colledge of Clermont in France that the Pope is not only infallible in matters of Faith but also in matters of Fact he is elevated to that height as to accomplish the prophesie which is 2 Thess. 2.4 But the present Ministers of England do abhorr the giving such power to the King Bishops or Convocation yea it is disclaimed by the King Bishops and Convocation as blasphemous and that power they ascribe to the Church is set down in the 34. Article of Religion Every particular or National Church hath authority to Ordain Change and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained only by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying And that which they acknowledge belonging to the King as the only Supreme Governour of the Realm of England and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or Causes as temporal is thus explained Artic. 37. We give not to our Princes the Ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testifie but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given alwayes to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers Which is so far from being no other than the Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome as this Author saith p. 47. that to shew the calumny of it I need use no other words than those of Dr. John Owen in his answer to a Popish Book entituled Fiat Lux ch 13. p. 271. The Declaration made in the dayes of King Henry the 8. that he was Head of the Church of England intended no more but that there was no other person in the World from whom any Jurisdiction to be exercised in this Church over his Subjects might be derived the Supream Authority for all exteriour Government being vested in him alone that this should be so the Word of God the Nature of the Kingly Office and the ancient Laws of this Realm do require And I challenge our Author to produce any one testimony of Scripture or any one word out of any general Council or any one Catholick Father or Writer to give the least Countenance to his assertion of two Heads of the Church in his sense an Head of Influence which is Jesus himself and an Head of Government which is the Pope in whom all the sacred Hierarchy ends This taking of one half of Christs Rule and Headship out of his hand and giving it to the Pope will not be salved by that expression thrust in by the way under him For the Headship of Influence is distinctly ascribed unto Christ and that of Government to the Pope which evidently asserts that he is not in the same manner Head unto his Church in both senses but he in the one and the Pope in the other I add that Mr. Philip Nye in his Book of the lawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy and power of the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical affairs and subordination of Churches thereunto Printed 1662. though not published hath these words p. 46. For Persons and Causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical that are properly and indeed such as first Table-duties which contain matters of Faith and Holiness and what conduceth to the eternal welfare of mens souls an interest and duty there is in the Civil Magistrate more suâ— to give Commands and exercise Lawful Jurisdiction about things of that nature And for Persons there is no man for his graces so spiritual or in respect of his gâ—fts and Office so eminent but he is under the Government of the Civil Powers in the place where he lives as much in all respects as any other subject Yea in the Apology of the Brownists Printed 1604. these words are alledged for their common defence out of the Letter of Henry Barrow to a Lady 1593. p. 92. I have every where in my writings acknowledged all duty and obedience to her Majesties government as to the sacred Ordinance of God the Supreme Power he hath set over all causes and persons whether Ecclesiastical or Civil within her Dominions Out of these things I infer that asserting the Kings Supremacy or the power of making Laws owned by the Ministers of England is not making another King besides Christ over his Church nor ascribing such a Headship to the King or Governours of the Church as is pleaded for by the Church of Rome and that for the Kings Supremacy those that dissent about Ceremonies and Church Government do acknowledge it as it is meant in the Oath taken by the Ministers Concerning which Supremacy if what I have written in the little Treatise Printed 1660. intituled A serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremncy in the proof of the fourth and fifth Propositions be not sufficient to produce from the Scripture the institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto methinks Dr. Rainold his argument which convinced Hart in the conference with him ch 10. div 1. and such other writings as have been written by Bilson Mason Bramhall and many more should have prevented this calumny of making thereby another head besides Christ equivalent to a denial of his Kingly Office And to his Objections I answer 1. to the first That we use not the title of Head but Supreme Governour yet when it was used it meaning the same it might be used as it was given to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 though not as it it is given to Christ Ephes. 1.22 and 5.23 29 2 Cor. 11.2 Nor is the title of Head so appropriate to Christ but that it is given to the Man over the Woman 1 Cor. 11.3 to the Husband over the Wife Ephes. 5.23 and may in a qualified sense in respect of Government be given to the King over the Church in his Dominions as to Saul 1 Sam. 15.17 to the chief of Families as Parents or others of greatest authority or esteem as the heads of houses Exod. 6.14 in which sense Parliament men Judges Ecclesiastical Governours may be termed Heads of the Church or State they represent
judge meet All unproved Of the last of we have already spoken and shall not here re-assume the debate thereof Touching the First That there are sâ—me things in the instituted Worship of Christ that are meerly circumstances thereof as such we crave liberty to deny which till the proof be attempted may suffice Circumstances in the worship of Christ attending religious actions as actions we grant but circumstances of Worship as such will never be proved To inferr that because time and place with sundry things of the like nature are circumstances in Worship therefore there are circumstances of Worship as such is frivolâ—us Those things being the attendments of religious actions common to any civil actions of the like nature to be performed by the Sons of men No action to be managed by a community can be orderly performed by them without such an assignment of time and place Publick Prayer being so to be managed as a religious action hath the circumstances before mentioned attending it and so it would were it a meer civil action to be performed by a community though it related not at all to the Worship of God Answ. It is not true that the Objection supposeth That some things in the instituted Worship of Christ are but meer circumstances thereof as such meaning that any particularity of that action which Christ hath prescribed for his Worship being instituted by him is a meer arbitrary circumstance and not a necessary part of that Worship It is held in the Lords Supper and all institutions of Christ in which particularities are expressed there should be strict observation of them as part of the Worship But in things not determined liberty is allowed to vary and therefore if Christ have not instituted that you shall pray without a Book or set Form Prayer by it may be lawfully done The distinction of circumstances in and of the Worship of Christ of religiâ—us actions as actions or as religiâ—us aâ—e but unnecessary niceâ—ies so long as the meaning of the Objection is manifest That the praying in this or that Form is not a part of the Worship as if without it the Worship were not or not according to Christs institution but an accident of it which may adesse vel abesse which is in effect if â— understand this Author the same which he grants That there are circumstances in the Wâ—rship of Christ attending religiâ—us actions as actions which are not in their particulaâ—ities expresly prescribed by Christ And if we agree in the thing it is but frivolous to wrangle about words Sect. 9. Praying in a Form may be praying in the Spirit 2. Saith this Author That t is lawful for Saints to pray in a Form i. e. to tye themselves to a written stinted form of words in Prayer is not yet proved nor like to be t is too large a field for us to enter into nor is it needful to do so till it be proved That to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer Book or imposed devised Liturgies is so Yet in transitu we crave leave humbly to offer That to pray in a Form as before explained is altogether unlawful being 1. A quenching of the Spirit of Prayer 2ly A rendring useless the donation of the Spirit as a Spirit of Prayer unto the children of God 3ly Directly opposite unto the many positive precepts of Christ before instanc'd in of stirring up the Gifts given to us of God improving the Talents he hath been graciously pleased to intrust us withall 4ly If it be lawful for Saints to pray in a Form t is lawful either because they have not the Spirit or that having the Spirit he is not a sufficient help to them in their approaches to God If the first they are not Saints Rom. 8.9 To assert the second is little less than blasphemy besides its direct opposition to Rom. 8.26 Answ. The position of this Author here by his words appears to be That not only it is altogether unlawful for Ministers but also for all Saints all that have the Spirit of God to pray in a Form And though he seems to mean by his addition that he counts it only then unlawful when they tye themselves â— whether by vow or customary use or once only to a stinted form of words in Prayer without variation written not conceived by him that prays and kept in his memory Yet his Arguments are against using any set Form by any Saint conceived by himself and kept in memory without writing though but once used For then the Spirit of Prayer is quenched its donation is rendred useless it s against the positive precepts of stirring up our Gift improving our Talent disabling the Spirit which are at no time to be done And if so no way of Worship of Christs institution and therefore Idolatrous and by this Authors Doctrine to be separated from and therefore this Authors principles carry him not only to separate from hearing the present Ministers but also from every Saint that not only often but once useth a set Form devised by himself in Family exercises as before meals or other times And if he be of Mr. Ainsworths mind in the controversie between him and Mr. Râ—binson of old he must not only separate from the publique communion of the Church of England but also from the private religious communion of every one that joyns in common Prayer or in private stinted forms of Prayer except they profess their repentance And if we should prove it lawful to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer Book or imposed devised Liturgy which seems no hard thing to do if we suppose the Ministers and Common-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
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
27. The Schism in the Church of Corinth did arise from the affecting of and addicting themselves to some teachers with relinquishment if not disclaiming of others as appears by that which is said 1 Cor. 1.12 Every one of you saith I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas and I of Christ whereupon there were among them envying and strife and division 1 Cor. 3.3 and they sorted themselves into companies severed from others as may be gathered from 1 Cor. 11.17 18. and that about the Lords Supper v. 21.33 Now the not hearing of the present Ministers and the separation from the Churches that hear them and adhering only to their own teachers and Churches according to the principles of the Separatists is either the same or very like the Schism or division among the Corinthians or tends to it and hath begotten and is like to beget the same if not worse effects among the Christians in England as were in the Church of Corinth and therefore it is to be censured to be alike evil as the Schism among the Corinthians and is reckoned Gal. 5.20 21. among the works of the flesh excluding out of the Kingdom of God What is alledged by this Authour to justifie such separation is answered before That which Dr. John Owen hath in his book of Schism tending to acquit such separation from the crime of Schism or to difference it from that which was the evil among the Corinthians hath been examined by Mr. Daniel Cawdrey That notion which is appropriated to the Corinthian Schism as if it were onely division in the same particular Church and not separation from others not joyned in the same particular Congregation or such congregational Church is not agreeable with what the Apostle delivers 1 Cor. 10.17 and 12.12 13. Rom. 12.4 5. Ephes. 4.4 Ephes. 5.30 31 32. Ephes. 1.23 Col. 3.11.15 whereby every Christian believer where-ever is counted of the same body to which they should be joyned in love peace mutual affection and correspondent endeavours for their good and if the Apostle 1 Cor. 12.25 expresly count it a Schism in the body when any Christian doth neglect another and not take care of another much more is it Schism when Christians separate wiâ—hout necessary cause from communion with others and more specially when they disclaim them that are teachers of the Word of God as if Christ were divided as St. Paul speaks 1 Cor. 1.13.23 St. James in his Epistle ch 2.1 writes thus My brethren have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory with respect of persons and he expresseth himself by instance that they preferred the rich before the poor in placing them in their Assemblies and taxeth them therefore as partial in themselves and judges of evil thoughts Now to hear one that preacheth the faith of Christ because he is of our particular Society or by reason of particular interest or agreement in opinion or any other then the unity of faith in the Lord Jesus and to disclaim hearing another that hath the same faith preacheth it and holds communion with them that embrace it and to separate from such to despise or oppose such is to have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons for other reasons then their faith and therefore is condemned by St. James as evil 24. St. Paul Rom. 16 17. writes thus Now I beseech you brethren maâ—k them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine which ye have learned and avoyd them But those who teach men not to hear their Ministers which preach to them the truth of Gods Word because they are not in a congregational Church or not elected or ordained according to the rules of such Churches or because they conform to some things conceived unwarrantable which are made the reasons of unlawfulness to hear the present Ministers who preach the Gospel do cause offences and divisions contrary to the Doctrine Rom. 12.4.5 Rom. 14.1 c. Rom. 15.1 c. therefore their Doctrine is to be avoyded 25. The Apostle 1 Cor. 14.36 speaks thus What came the Word of God out from you or came it unto you only Which seems to reprehend the conceits whether schismatical or arrogant as if the Word of God were from them as the onely right teachers or confined to them as the only persons to whom it was communicated and from whom it might be received and so condemns such supposed inclosures by any Church or company of teachers But such conceits and inclosures they have and make who deny the present Ministers are to be heard conceiving the separated Churches and Ministers the only right Churches and Ministers to be heard 26. The Apostle Philip. 3 15 16. writes thus Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded and if in any thâ—ng ye be otherwise minded God shâ—ll reveal even this unto you thaâ— is as many of you as are well instructed in the Christian Doctrine for so the word is used 1 Cor. 2.6 1 Coâ— 14.20 Hâ—b 5 14. being opposed to Children and Babes that is wâ—ak in thâ— faith Rom. 14.1 Lâ—t them be minded as I am which he had expressed before in the chapter from v. 4. to v. 15. and if any through weakness â—n faith be otherwise minded as those Rom. 14 2.5 that thought Mosaical Laws were yet obligatory God would in time reveal this to be their liberty whicâ— I now judge to be mine Nevertheless saith he whereto ye have already attained let us walk by the same rule let us mind the same things Which requires Christian communion without separation notwithstâ—nding such difference and consequently condemns separation from Ministerâ— or Christians by reason of diversity of judgement about Church Government and Liturgy and different practise about Conformity or Non-conformity to them which are of less moment than those differences about meats and dayes and therefore notwithstanding them there should be walking together in preaching hearing praying and other duties of Christian communion 27. The Holy Ghost hath recorded the Prophesie of â—alaam Numb 24.3 4. c. of Caiaphas John 1â— 51 52. yea the sayings of Greek Infidel Idolatrous Poets cited by St. Paul as the words of Aratus Acts 17.28 of Menander 1 Cor. 15.33 of Epimâ—nides Titus 1.12 which shews the lawfulness of reading hearing and making use of true sayings of any though neither true Ministers of Christ nor believers but Idolaters and wicked enemies to the faith much more may the books be read and the Sermons heard of such learned men or preachers as clear and deliver the word of God notwithstanding dissent or disconformity to others about Liturgy and Church Discipline 28. The Apostle 1 Thess. 5.20 21. requires Christians not to despise prophesyings but to prove all things to hold fast that which is good St. John 1 Epist. chap. 4. Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God they make it not sin meerly to hear them
whereof he commandeth them to depend onely upon Ministes and Teachers of his own faith and wicked perswasion in matters of Religion severely prohibiting unto them the hearing of Protestant Preachers we understand that the same high imposing spirit domineers more generally in the Churches and Congregations which solemnly conjure all their Proselytes and Converts not to hear Jesus Christ himself speaking by any other mouth then theirs thus bearing them in hand as if a voice from heaven like unto that which was heard by the people at Christs Baptism concerning him had come to them also in reference to themselves and their Teachers in this or the like tenor of words We are the onely true Churches and Ministers of Christ Hear us Yea there was of late a very great Schism made in one of these Churches and the greater part aposynagogâ—ized by the lesser because of the high misdemeanour of some of the Members in hearing the words of eternal life from the mouths of such Ministers who follow not them in their way Such principles and practises as these we judge to be most notoriously and emphatically Antichristian and such wherein as was said in a like case the very horns and hoofs of the beast may be discerned Yea we cannot but judge them to be of most pernicious consequence to the precious souls of men as depriving them of the best means and opportunities which God most graciously affordethâ— unto them for their recovery out of all such snares wherein at any time their foot may be taken Ex ore tuo From these words might the Authour of that Book Prelatical Preachers none of Christs Teachers have learned not to condemn the hearing of the present Ministers as if none were to be heard but of his own way FINIS ERRATA PAge 2. line 5. read one p. 5. l. 39. r. by him to them p. 9. l. 4. r. case p. 11. l. 26. r. utensils p. 12. l. 5. r. wills p. 13. l. 19. add after 25. 18.15 l. 20. r. 13.10 l. 21. r. 29.25 p. 14. l. 14. r. Separatists p. 16. l. 28. r. persevering l. 33. r. 9.16 p. 21. l. 26. r. times p. 30. l. 34. r. breadth p. 31. l. 37. r. hath p. 48. running title r. makes not p. 49. l. 20. r. stupendious p. 50. l. 8. r. he p. 66. l. 29. r. distra p. 69. l. 14. r. applies p. 89. l. 41. r. bounded p. 92. l. 17. r. parallel l. 33. r. Sanctius p. 93. l. ult r. Ishi p. 101. l. 9. r. super p. 106. l. 36. r. solum p. 108. l. 26. r. preside p. 118. l. 28. r. acknow p. 136. l. 39. r. pretence p. 153. l. 22. r. did p. 161. l. 10. r. Queristers p. 197. l. 6. r. the. p. 205. l. 6. r. venting p. 206. l. 32. r. Tyanaeus p. 208. running title r. ill applied p. 223. l. 3. r. intension p. 370. l. 22. r. ly p. 318. running title r. Preacher Books Printed for Henry Eversden and are to be sold at his shop under the Crown-Tavern in West-Smithfield 1. THe Sphere of Gentry deduced from the Principles of Nature an Historical and Genealogical work of Arms and Blazon by Sylvanus Morgan 2. The History of the late Civil Warrs of England 3. Riverius his Universal Body of Physick in five Books c. 4. The Language of Arms by the Colours and Metals in quarto by Silvanus Morgan 5. Scepsis Scientifica or Confest Ignorance the way to Science by Joseph Glanvil Fellow of the Royal Society 6. The Gospel Physitian in quarto 7. The Mistery of Rhetorick unveil'd Eminently delightful and profitable for young Schollars and others of all sorts enabling them to discern and imitaâ—e the Elegancy in any other Author they read c. by John Smith Gent. 8. A Crew of kind London Gossips all met to be merry to which is added ingenious Poems or Witt and Drollery in octavo at 1 s. bound 9. The natural Rarities of England Scotland and Wales according as they are to be found in every Shire very useful for all ingenius men of what profession or quality soever by J. Childrey in octavo 10. Pearls of Eloquence or the School of Complements very useful for all young Ladies Gentlewomen and Schollars who are desirous to adorn their speech with gentile ceremonies complemental amoâ—ous and high expressions of speaking or writing at 1 s. bound 11. Hodges directions for true writing in octavo 12. Gods Alsufficiency by Mr. Jeremy in 120 See Selden de Syned Ebre l. 1. c. 14. Ainsworth of the Church of Rome against Johnson p 145. Every abuse doth not make a thing an Idol but when the honour due to God alone is given to a creature then it is made an Idol Vide Gatak Annot. in Antonin l. 12. sect 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vide Bezae Annot. in Matth. 26.20.30 Dr. Rainold in his Letter to Mr. Barker testifies his silâ—ncing Hart the Jesuite herewith which is extant in Mr. â—yfords Apology p. 11. Ludov. Crocius Antisocinism contr disp 22. qu. 3. Geniculando coenam sumere nos per se indifferens judicamus q. 11. Nobis hic ritus est indifferens allegatq Lutherum Mâ—lanchthonem ut idem statuetes contra Flacium See Dr. Hammond of Scandal § 21. Arg. 7. Owen of Schisms ch 3. Sect. 4. upon what account those Heb. 10.25 so seperated themselves is declared v. 26. thereby slipping out their necks from the Yâ—ak of Christ v. 28. and drawing back to perdition v. 29. that is they departed off to Judaism Dr. Sparks in his book of Uniformity allowed and printed by command 1607. c. 1. In the conference at Hampton Court His Majesties Order was That none of the Apocryphal books that had any errour should be read c. Dr. Barlow by the preface to the second tome of Homilies declared it might be lawful by our Church to read other chapters and alleadgeth Archbishop Abbot c. 10. Quis ergo nisi infidelis negaverit fuisse apud inferos Christum So are the words in the book of Ordination