signifies only fervency of Spirit when it is appled to the People but he thinks it a very plain Case that a Minister cannot properly be said to pray to the utmost of his Ability when he doth not pray to the utmost of his Ablity and may not the same thing be said of the People also If the Minister use a Form may he not likewise pray with all his might or as well as he is able and is not this a plain Equivocating upon the word Ability take it first for fervency and then for a faculty of composing and the Contradiction is solved and the Fallacy Transparent The other Proof is out of Tert. Apol. cap. 1. Tertullian sine Monitore quia de pectore oramus we pray without a Monitor because we pray out of the Heart But this can be no Proof against a Form of Prayer sor 1. They who joyn with a Minister that prays Extempore do pray as much with a Monitor and have a Prayer dictated to them as much as if they joyned in a prescribed Liturgy And 2. Praying out of the Heart Schol. Hist part 1. â—p 46. c. may signifie either saying a Prayer by Heart or secret mental Prayer without words or praying heartily sincerely and affectionately de anima innocenti de Spiritis Sancto as Tertullian a little after with a prayer proceeding from an innocent Soul and the Holy Spirit moving and exciting it These interpretations are probable and consistent with the use of Liturgies and consequently from this passage no Argument can be drawn against them Yet from thence this Minister takes occasion to vent his Malice against Liturgies and to reproach them as an heathenish way of Praying Now if our Saviour prescribed a Form to his Disciples and it is impossible for him to prove the the contray then this reproach is Blasphemy might not an Atheist say as well That Prayer it self is an Heathenish practice or a Quietest Comment in Entychium p. 55. taht vocal Prayer is a Heathenish way of praying Mr. Selden thought it probable that the Heathens learnt to use set Forms from the Example of the Jewish Church and he cites Authorities to prove it and View of the Directory Dr. Hammond produces out of Plato and Alexander ab Alex. these two Reasons of that practice which he thinks may pass Christian least evil things should be asked in stead of good and least any thing should be said Preposterously in their Prayers and therefore the practice of the Heathens is so far from being a prejudice to Liturgies that it is a solid Argument for them Whether either or both the Example of Gods Church or the Catholick reason of mankind were the Original of it the universal use of them among Jews and Christians and Heathens is an impregnable Proof of their expediency and can be ascribed to no other cause but the voice of God or Nature 3. He transcribes this Objection after Mr. Clarkson when the Christians were so numerous in Constantinople that it was thought necessaryto dispose of them in several Churche the Emperour Constantine Euseb de vita Const lib. 4. c. 35. 〈◊〉 to Eusebius for 50 Bibles for the use of those Churches but there is no mention of any one common Prayer Book Eusebius commends Constantine for observing in his Court the manner of the publick Service in the Church he first imoplyed his mind in the Meditation of the Scriptures and then with those who dwelt in his Palace he repeated Ibid cap. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authorized Prayers and it is known that he himself composed a Prayer which he Ibid cap. 19 20. prescribed to his Army And after such convincing Proofs can a Negative Argument be thought considerable enough to Ballance them Is it imaginable that Eusebius intended to give an exact Inventory of all that was provided for those Churches Constantine sends to Eusebius in Palastine for 50 Bibles probably because the best Copies might be there most easily procured does it therefore follow that no prayer Books were provided at Constantinople where it was easie to procure them and if we should send to Holland for Bibles when we want them would it not be as plain a Demonstration that we have no prayer Books in England Sue Schol. Hist part 2d p. 48. c. He pretends That when Forms of Prayer began to be used ever Church made use of what Forms they pleased and for this he cites Socrates Scholas lib. 5. the passage he intends is in Chap. 22. In which the Historian reflecting upon a division among the Novatians about the time of keeping Easter and shewing that antiently in different Churches it was observed at different times without breach of Communion does pass from thence to observe the diversity of other different usages in the Christan Chruches as the different Customs of keeping the Fasts before Easter the Marriages of the Clergy and the different Rites and times of Prayer and interpreting Scripture in many Provinces and Countreys The he tells us that the Novations in the Hollespont did not observe the same manner of praying with those of Constantinople and concludes that upon the whole every where and in all the Worships or Rites of Prayers you cannot find that they agree together two in the same thing and this is the passage they insist on But 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie Ceremonies and Rites of Prayer for of different Ceremonies he was before Discoursing and then the Passage will be no proof of different Forms 2. Admitting that he speaks of different Prayers this diversity is not spoken of single Congregations but of several Nations and Dioceses such as for instance Jerusalem Cyprus Constantinople 3. A little after we have the reason fo this variety I judge says Socrates that the Bishops who presided in several Gages were the cause of it and how They transmitted their own Vsage as a Law to those who should come after them thus the cause of this diversity was not Liberty but Law and Prescription 4. Immediately after he vindicates the Nicene Council which had determined the Controversie about Easter and prescribed a certain time to keep it But diversity in praying and the different times of Easter are by this Historian proposed as things alike indifferent and if Church Authority may determine and prescribe in one case so it may also in the other Thus we have the great Example of the Nicene Fathers for prescribing and in stead of the Liberty they pretend to the Prescription of set Forms or Rights of Prayer to whole Dioceses and Nations In short the design of the Historian is to shew that there were divers Customs in the Church in Things indifferent and that the Communion of the Church ought not to be divided for them Now Custom is a Law introduced by Practice and Law is a restraint upon Liberty And if indifferent things may be prescribed by Custom they may be prescribed by
the right and have witnessed to the Truth then ought the Church of England to hang down her head c. And thus as he states the case himself if the Dissenters have not witnessed to the Truth the Church of England is not guilty and all their Outcries about Persecution must pass for nothing Here then lies the stress of the dispute Whether the Nonconformists have Truth on their side and were therefore really persecuted for Righteousness-sake I proceed therefore to examine Q. The Reasons and Objections which he pleads for his Non conformity His first Stumbling block is the Subscription in the Act of Vniformity with the Oath in the Oxford Act in which are these Words I. A. B. do declare That it is unlawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King Again I do swear That it is not lawful c. He adds we refused thus to declare and swear and he requires three Things to be observed First A man may believe a Proposition to be true but would not be willing to swear it and this Objection is a perfect Cavil He that asserts a Proposition to be true does mean only that he is convinced of its Truth and he that swears it is true does only call God to witness that he is convinced of it Nothing is more obvious than that in all assertory Oaths when we swear to the Truth of Things we are understood to declare no more than our own Belief and Knowledge concerning them and thus when I swear that it is unlawful to resist nothing more can be understood than that I am fully satisfied of it if I believe it unlawful I may subscribe and declare that it is so and if I cam do that I may also swear it since in this Case an Oath superadded to a Declaration must follow the nature of the Principal and can be nothing else but a Sacred Confirmation of my sincerity in declaring and I am morally certain that no Magistrate in England would have refused to administer the Oath with this Interpretation Secondly he objects that Barclay Grotius and others who have written in favour of Kings do yet allow some Cases in which it is lawful to resist them and if a King does govern by his Will and not by Law he doth excidere de jure that is he forfeits his Right to Govern I answer that an Arbitrary King does forfeit his Right is affirmed by neither of these Authors but is contradicted by them and though it be true that Barelay Grotius and others whether Republicans Jesuits or Presbyterians have allowed Exceptions for resisting yet I am sure the Holy Ghost has made none in Scripture they that resist shall receive Damnation is denounced without any Limitation and how shall we limit where GOD hath not limited or distinguish where He hath not distinguished So was the Rule understood and practiced by the first and best of Christians so was it taught by the first Reformers of our Church and some of them with their Blood bore witness to it The Popes were the first Christians that taught Resistance but though an Augel from Heaven had taught it we have received another Doctrine and could not have departed from it Thirdly he adds That all the Nobility and Gentry of England and Scotland and all the Protestant Princes beyond Sea in their Proceedings against King James have justified the Nonconformists in refusing the Oath Now I have no Correspondence with all these Princes Nobility and Gentry and therefore know not their minds about it but I am sure he cannot make good his all without taking Sanctuary in Hyperbole There be many that think those Proceedings may be justified without justifying Resistance but I believe there are no Princes that will allow it against themselves and if the Majority of the Nobility and Gentry do justifie what they once condemn'd their Authority can be urged on neither side and though there he a Revolution of Opinions as well as Governments yet the nature of Things is immutable and Truth the same yesterday to day and for ever His Second scruple is about Reordination as tho' Ordination by Presbyters were not sufficient without the laying on of the hands of those we now call Bishops But first since this Minister hath now undertaken to argue he should have prov'd that Reordination implys a Nullity of their former Orders But as no Declaration of their insufficiency is requir'd so neither is it imply'd in the nature of the thing nor understood to be so by Construction of the Fact as appears from the Reordination of many French Ministers whose Orders have never been condemned by our Church who never intended to renource them by that Action nor are supposed to do so Secondly tho' the Ordination of Presbyters be granted to be sufficient yet this will not justify the Nonconformists Ordinations There is all evidnet difference betwixt the Case of these Ministers and the Presbyters of some Foreign Churches 1. Those Foreign Divines tho' their Churches are not under Episcopal Government yet they do not separate from Episcopal Communion but have all own'd Commun on with the Church of England Blondel their best Advocate for Presbyterian Parity does yet condemn Separation from Bishop as Schismatical and expresly * Praef. ad Apol. p. 59. declares that Aerius was therefore an Heretick because he asserted That separation was to be made from those who admitted any difference between Bishops and Presbyters But their approving of Episcopal Government and coadmning Separation from it as Schismatical has been so often so irrefragably * Ibid p. 47 and Bramhall's Replication to affirm the Bishop of Chalcedon p. 164 of his Works proved that there can be no longer any Controversie about it But on the other side the present Nonconformists do make Episcopal Government the chief reason of their Separation and condemn it as unlawful and Antichristian which no Resormed Church or Divine that we know did ever before them and this is certainly a very material difference between them 2. The Ordination of Presbyters withou Bishops in those Foreign Churches has been generally defended by the plea of Necessity thus it has been defended by some of the Foreign †Bishop Hall's and Mortons Bcoks in defence of Eiscopacy Archbishop Bramhall in his Sup. Dr. Durell's Church Government Saywell's Evangelical and Catholick Unity and lately in the Judgment of Foreign reformed Divines Divines themselves and thus by many * As Downham Mason Field Andrews and leately by Dr. Sherlock in his Vindication of the defence of Dr. Still Divines of our own Church As their circumstances were it was impossible for them to have Bishops and therefore they wanted them out of invincible necessity whereas our Presbyterians are uncapal le of that Plea they reject the Authority of Bishops and Ordain in opposition to them and therefore it is evident they are under no necessity and consequently their Orders may be thought in ufficient without impeaching the
validity of Foreign Ordinations And thus having separated their Cause from that of other Protestants I proceed to examine what he urges for it and his first Reason is this I. That the word of God makes not difference between the Bishop and the Presbyter or Pastor of a Church and he cites those Texts Acts 20.7.28 and Tit. 1.5 6 7. to prove that those Names are promiscuously used Three ways have been taken to Answer this Objection 1. That both the Names of Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture denote always the Prelatical Bishop and not the Modern Presbyter 2. That even in Scripture the Names are so distinguished that a mere Presbyter alone is never call'd a Bishop tho' a Bishop is often call'd a Presbyter Both these Opinions have been well defended * By Dr. Hammond and Dr. Taylor and perhaps it is impossible to consute them but to cut off all superfluous Disputes it is enough to Answer 3. That tho' the Names of Bishop and Presbyter are not distinct in Scripture yet it is a very fallacious way of arguing from the indistinction of Names to infer the Identity of Offices St. John the Apostle calls himself twice a * 2d Ep. John v. 1. 3d Ep. v. 1. Presbyter †Rom. 16.7 Andronious Junia and * Phil. 2.25 Epapheaditus who according to this Minister's opinion were only Presbyters are reciprocally call'd Apostles Are the Offices of an Apostle and Presbyter therefore really the same This one instance is a clear Demonstration of the Falshood of that Consequence Though there was a confusion of Names there was yet a distinction of Offices and if that can be proved viz. That in the Apostolical Churches some single Persons had a Pre-eminency of Power and Authority over the other Presbyters it will necessarily follow that that Office to which the Name of Bishops is now appropriated is at least of Apostolical Institution Timothy and Titus * See Jus Divinum Ministerii Anglicani p. 71 72. are granted by all sides to have had such a Superiority and the Presbyterians only pretend that their Office was extraordinary and expired with them but this is affirmed without sufficient Proof for what though Timothy be required to do the Work of an Evangelist can they prove that this signifies any more than a Preacher of the Gospel And if it could be proved to be a Temporary Office how does it appear that his Episcopal Power was a part of that Office or that it was not distinct and separate from it On the contrary it may be proved by a Cloud of Witnesses that this Power was not Temporary but was every where derived by Succession upon single Persons and particulably as to the Succession of Timothy and Titus we have the Confession of Du Moulin * In his 3d. Ep. to Bishop Andrews p. 181 182. That the Episcopal Order was of Apostolical institution and that what name soever we give to Timothy and Titus whether Bishops or Evangelists it is manife that they had Bishops for their Successors and Heirs of their pre-eminency And in fine this precarious Pretence of extraordinary Offices may with equal reason be urg'd as we find it is by Anabaptists Quakers and Socinians against the whole Order of the Ministry and if it be admitted as Mr. * In his Christian Directory cited in the Vnreason of Separ p. 264. Baxter once confess'd we leave room for andaecious Wits to question other Gospel Institutions at Pastors and Sacraments and to say they were but for one Age. The Sum is this there is clear Evldence in Scripture that there were some Officers who had Power of Jurisdiction over Presbyters and therefore the Texts which he produces to shew the Community of Names can be no Argument against it But to justifie Ordination by Presbyter he cites 1 Tim. 4.14 where it is intimated that Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery To this it is answered * On the brief Account of Church Government in Answer to the writings of the Presbyterians p. 195. c. 1. That Presbytery there is taken for the Office of a Presbyter and so the Sense runs thus neglect not the Gift or Office of a Presbyter which was given thee by Prophecy with the Imposition of hands and this Sense is warranted by the Authority of * Calv. Instit lib. 4. c. 3. sect 16. Calvin and of St. * St Jerom. in Locum Jerome long before him 2. If Presbytery be taken for the Ordainers it may nevertheless be understood of such Presbyters as had a Superior Power over others for as Apostles and Bishops are sometimes called Presbyters so might they Collectively be called Presbytery and accordingly it is observed that the Apostles themselves are called by St Ignatius the Presbytery of the Church 3. It is evident from 2 Tim. 1.6 that St. Paul was the principal if not the only 〈◊〉 ordainer of him and surely it is no good consequence that if Presbyters may assist an Apostle or a Bishop at an Ordmation therefore they may ordain without him He conchides that Augustine Jerome and Chrysostome with many other Greeks and Latins are of his Judgment but he produces no passages out of any of these Authours but asserts roundly that they are all of his mind and 't is as easie to answer that they are all against him however when he shall produce his Testimonies it will be time enough to examine them Secondly He proceeds to justifie his Orders by the Authority of our own and Foreign Churches All our learned Divines at the Reformation from Popery beld that Ordination by the Pastors of Churches he means Presbyters was valid and good Thus he affirms on without proving many Greeks and Latines and all our Divines are only consident Phrases and ought to pass for nothing in short I defie him to produce any one of those Divines that has allowed of Presbyterian Ordinations made in a Schismatical opposition to Bishops and without the Case of necessity But he adds The Twenty third Article of Ministring in the Congregation seems to speak as much That Article declares That it is not lawful to exercise the Ministry without a lawful Calling and that those are lawfully called who are called by Men who have publick Authority given them in the * Quibus potestas publice concessa est in Ecclesia Art Edit 1552 1562. Congnegation i.e. the Church to do it And how impertinent is this Allegation was publick Authority ever given in our Church to Presbyters to ordain Priests or Deacons on the contrary it is expressy provided in the Preface to the * Approved Art 36. and established by Acts of Parl. Reg. Edw. 6. Eliz. p. 58. Form of Ordination in our Liturgy that whereas it is evident unto all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there hath been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and