Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	church_n	england_n	reform_a	3,931	5	9.9167	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33973	A reasonable account why some pious, nonconforming ministers in England judge it sinful for them to perform their ministerial acts, in publick, solemn prayer by the prescribed forms of others wherein several of their arguments are modestly propounded, opended and justified against pretended answers given to them, either by Ireneus Freeman, or Mr. Falconer, in his book entituled Liberitas ecclesiastica, or others : the strength also of the several arguments brought by them, for the lawfulness of forms to be used universally by ministers, in their publick ministrations, is fairly tried.	Collinges, John, 1623-1690.; Freeman, Ireneus.; Falkner, William, d. 1682. Libertas ecclesiastica.	1679 (1679)	Wing C5330; ESTC R14423	97,441	180

allowed to be the Head of the church But our forefathers the Martyrs were not of this impudent Religion If they had they might have saved their lives But let us hear what hath been the opinion of more valuable and ancient Protestants in this case we will instance in two both eminent Bishops of Salisbury The one at the beginning of the Reformation The other dying within a few years last past Bp Jewel and Bp Davenant § 13 What Bishop Jewel thought may be read in his Apology against Harding chap. 2. Divis 7. The subject saith he is bound to obey his Prince how be it not in all things but where Gods glory is not touched These Nobles he speakes of those in Scotland had learned of St. Peter It is better to obey God then man And of the Prophet David It is better to trust in God then in Princes for they are mortal and shall dy Neither may a Godly Prince take it as any dishonour to his estate to see God obeyed before him for he is not God but the minister of God Leo saith Christ determined That we should give to God the things that are Gods and to Cesar the things that are Cesars Verily this is not to rebel against Cesar but to help him c. § 14 In the next place let us hear Bp Davenant in his excellent commentary on the Collossians chap. 2. v. 23. Ignatius Loyola saith he the father of the Jesuites in that Epistle of his which is read in the Jesuites Colledge every month warneth and commandeth them seriously by a blind obedience absolutely to do whatsoever their superiors command not considering whether it be good or profitable yea or no for that saith he takes away the value and merit of obedience It is also the common opinion of the Papists That there ought to be in Christians such an humility of mind that they must not in the least doubt of those things which are commanded by the Church of Rome either to be believed or done in Religion or in the worship of God but we sayth he notwithstanding this truly say That this Blind obedience is not onely foolish but Impious and Irreligious 1 Because we are not bound to obey superiors but in cases wherein they are our superiors now as to Doctrines of Faith and Divine worship God alone is our superior If therefore men indeavour to forge new Doctrines of faith or to bring in a New worship they go beyond the bounds of that power which is committed to them and are not in this thing acknowledged to be our superiors 2 Because the command of an inferiour power doth not oblige to obedience when it contradicteth the command of a superiour power Asts 4. 19. We must rather obey God then man 3 Because no intelligent person will expose himself to the danger of mortal Sinning as the school men speak but whosoever voweth and performeth absolute subjection and blind obedience to man exposeth himself to a manifest hazard for every man may err by commanding those things that are evil According to the Doctrine of our new edition of Divines we would gladly understand how any man can run a danger either of mortal sin or venial either by doing any thing in obedience to the command of superiors 4 Because what is proper to God cannot without great impiety be given to men But an absolute dominion over mens souls bodies is proper to God alone To him the will of man oweth an absolute obedience to him his understanding oweth in all things a prompt assent But those who require this obedience of us use to object That it is not the subjects part to judge of the faith actions of their superiors they seem therefore to recede from their duty when they doubt whether the things be true and lawful which are published and confirmed by the Authority of those who are set over them This he answereth Subjects neither may nor ought with a judgment of Authority to judge of their superiors actions but they may and ought to judge of them so far as concerneth themselves with a judgment of Discretion Aquinas excellently gives the reason of it Every one saith he is bound to examin his own acts according to the knowledge which he hath from God Whether it be natural acquired or infused for he is bound to act according to Reason It is saith he confirmed by the Examples of all pious men who although they did not arrogate to themselves a judgment of Authority upon Magistrates or Prelates yet they used their judgment of Discretion concerning things commanded by them Thus far that Reverend and very Learned man § 15 This is the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches and was wont to be the Doctrine of the Fathers in the Church of England and we humbly offer it to the consideration of our Rulers whether there can be greater factors for Popery in England then those who so boldly assert the duty of Blind Jesuitical Obedience and declaim against the Judgment of private and practical Discretion The first is the very foundation of Popery The latter the foundation of the Protestant Religion § 16 But to proceed with Mr. Freeman he telleth us The Nonconformists have in word granted more then he asketh Let us first know what he asketh then see what they have granted that which he asketh is our concession That it is lawful in the worship of God to do somethings not commanded by God What have the Nonconformists granted He instanceth in three things 1 To command in the circumstances of divine worship what is generally commanded in the word of God 2 To appoint time and place 3 To appoint such circumstances without which the worship of God in the judgment of common Reason Must be indecently and disorderly performed of which he makes the following improvement p. 35. Of the Reasonableness of Divine service 1 A form of prayer is but a circumstance of Prayer and I have proved That if the Magistrate think them convenient they are in the general commanded 2 If he can appoint the time and place which he thinketh most convenient though otherwise it would be less he would fain know a reason why he may not appoint a form which he thinketh most expedient though otherwise it would be less expedient To appoint to begin at such a time is as really a limitation of the Spirit as to appoint a form For the ordinary reason which they speak of it must either be the Reason of the Magistrate or of the People or both If they mean the reason of the people Then the sense is That the Magistrate hath power to appoint such things as the People judge reasonable We thank them for nothing If both we thank them for as much If they mean that Reason which is best without restraining it to any subject I reply That Reason in the Idea doth nothing but as it is somebodie 's Reason Except the Magistrate hath power to command what he apprehendeth agreable

times both hindring ministers care to study the Scriptures and to improve in spiritual ministerial gifts and making an engine of perpetual discord from that time to this and which hath been made use of for to deprive the church of God of the gifts and abilities of hundreds of able godly and painful ministers while in the mean time many have crept into the employment of it being by Liturgies and Homilies now made so easy for them of whom every one who hath any concern for Gods glory or the churches repute hath cause to blush and be ashamed § 45 But Secondly we would see it proved That all the devout and judicious men in the five first Centuries That is for five hundred yeares after Christ either judged Prescribed forms of prayer to be ordinarily used by all ministers in their publick ministrations advantageous to devotion or that they so used them We often hear of this But when we call for proof we can meet with nothing but Gloria patri c. Sursum corda Where we desire it may be observed That a proof that in that time there were some forms extant or used by some in some particular churches will not reach the case We are not against a form to be composed proposed and left at liberty that those may use it who either have not or durst not trust to their own gift We farther know That there then might be and still may be some particular reasons in some particular churches which was the cause of the Canon of the Milevitan Council in regard of the errors of Pelagius being in matters of Doctrine ordinarily falling into ministers Confessions and Petitions And if in such a stress as that There could be proved a temporary imposition of the use of forms of sound words in prayer upon ministers who are suspected tainted in matters of doctrine we should not oppose it § 46 But whom doth our Brother call The church in the fourth and fifth Centuries or the three preceding or how doth it appear to him or can it appear to us That they generally so judged of forms of prayer or so generally used them as helps to devotion Certainly our Brother doth not call the 22 or 32 or if there were 42 Bishops in the Council of Laodicea more none speaks of the church in that age Besides that if there were 42 it is possible that 20 of them might be of another mind for we know that in councils the Major part must carry it let the excess be never so small Yet That Council of Laodicea saith nothing of stated forms of prayer cap. 18. onely orders prayers to be poured out morning and evening but that they should be read or recited out of a book given that Council saith not Nor doth the Third Council of Carthage Can. 23. quoted by our Reverend Brother p. 106. speak any thing at all nay it plainly hinteth us the quite contrary viz. That ministers were wont to compose their own prayers onely in regard it was a time of errour they required the weaker sort of ministers not to use the prayers they had made for their use without first shewing them to their more able Brethren The whole canon as Caranza gives it is this That none in their prayers should name the Father for the Son or the Son for the Father and when they stood at the Altar They should direct their Prayers to the Father And whatsoever prayers any minister should write for himself he should not use them till he had conferred them with his more able Brethren Doth not this Canon plainly imply They had no publick set forms at that time for if they had there could be no such mistakes as it is made against This was about the year 398. For the Milivitan councill Anno 402. It doth indeed decree in that overspreading floud of Pelagianism That the prayers agreed upon by the Council should be used in that Province it doth not say no other onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No others against the faith should be used It doth not follow That because set prescribed forms were advantageous to devotion in that African Province so tainted in its ministry with Pelagianism that therefore they are Universally so our Reverend Brother is mistaken therefore in saying That we hold they were in use for 1300 years upon the account of these Canons for we hold no such thing nor see any pretence for it from these Canons § 47 And for the Centuries preceding we do not think it worth the while for us to write over again what hath been said almost by all who have wrote Critically upon the writings of the Ancients to shew the horrible imposture of the Liturgies said to be made by St. James St. Mark St. Andrew St. Peter St. Mathew Clemens Dionis Areop c. We onely shall say this That they are so generally rejected by all sober and learned Authors both Papists and Protestants that we stand amazed to hear our Reverend Brother so much as naming them Let those that are at leisure read Morneium de Missâ cap. 2. What a lamentable shift it is to tell us That they have undergone diverse alterations Who altered them In what things How doth it appear Those who know any thing know it was the interest of the Church of Rome to have a sottish ignorant inferiour clergy and that these could not do their work without Liturgies and therefore it was their concern First to have them made Then to avouch their original as high as they could It pleased God in their hast in this business to let them slip into most notorious errors ascribing Liturgies to Chrysostom Basil c. Where were prayers for persons not in being for some hundreds of years after and Doctrines averred That all know the Church never knew for many years after Now when the forgery is thus detected for any Protestants to tell us it is true There are some manifest interpolations which are of a later date but the Liturgies are ancient is both gratis dictum a thing can never be proved and a fair offer at the destruction of our most convincing argument of the Popish abominable forgery § 47 For what Mr. Falconer saith about Constantines composing godly prayers for his souldiers It is a good argument that the church had then no publick Liturgies for surely Constantine needed not then have made any and it had been a great derogation from the honour of the church In short our Reverend Brother might have remembred That his Majesties Commissioners at the Savoy replied to that part of his Majesties Commission which required them to compare the English Liturgy with the Ancient Liturgies of the pure and primitive church That they could not find any authentick record of any Liturgy generally imposed upon any national church for more then 300 years after Christ we believe they might have said 600 and did upon the point challenge the opposite Commissioners to justify that which they make their

Palmanum Argumentum Let but the Indifferent Reader See and Judge of what was answered though it may reasonably be presumed considering the Learning and interest of their opponents that they omitted nothing which could with any truth or modesty be spoken in the case All they say is this That there were ancient Liturgies in the church is evident St. Chrysostoms St. Basils and others And the Greeks tell us of St. James's much older then they And though we find not in all ages whole Liturgies yet it is certain there were such in the oldest times by those parts which are extant Sursum Corda Gloria Patri Benedicite Hymnus veré Cherubinus Veré dignum est justum c. Dominus Vobiscum cum Spiritu tuo With diverse others Though those which are extant may be interpolated yet such things as are found in them all consistent to primitive and Catholick Doctrine may well be presumed to have been from the first especially since we find no original of those Liturgies from general councils For answer to this We shall refer our reader to the Answer of the Noncon commissioners p. 76. Of the account of their proceedings printed 1661. § 48 To bring this point to an issue There was a book published 1662. called Asober and temperate discourse concerning the Interest of words in Prayer where chap. 3. 4. The Reader may at Large see what we judge of the Original of Liturgies when our Reverend Brother or any for him hath given a strict reply to those two chapters then we shall think they have more to say for their Antiquity then we have yet seen In the mean time we do believe That Gregory the great usually said to be the worst of all the Popes that went before him under the Protection of Charles the great was the father of all those that dwell in these tents and this eight hundred or a thousand years after Christ An imposed Liturgy unless in a particular Province for a time in a particular case such as was that of the spreading of Pelagianism we cannot find And for a Liturgy to be proposed onely and left at liberty we know most reformed churches have such a one and we have before declared our judgment for the reasonableness of it he who thinks such an Eminent man as Gregorius Magnus would do nothing which should disadvantage true Devotion hath not we think attentively either read his story or considered the Acts of the Governing-part of the church in his time § 49 We are not so uncharitably disposed as not to think there were many eminently good and judicious men in the fourth and fifth Century who were able to judge what was of true advantage or disadvantage to devotion But this is that which we say That the same things are not at all times nor yet to all persons advantages either to publick or private Devotion We have already granted forms of prayer advantages to the devotion of particular persons who being to minister before others have not attained the gift of prayer i. e. an ability in that duty fitly to express themselves 2 To the general devotion of a church when her ministers are very many of them tainted with errors in Doctrine which was the cause of the Milivitan Canon We do know that in the fourth Century there was An Arnobius A Lactantius An Athanasius Ambrose Chrysostom Augustin Hierom and very many others but we also know there was an Arius and Pelagius and that their herecies were of desperate consequence and had over spread a great part of the church yea had tainted a very great part of the ministry of it now it will not follow That because set forms were advantages to devotion in such a time and in such parts of the church for a time therefore they will be Universally so Nor do we think that either in the fourth or fifth Century There was generally such knowledge as in the later ages of the church nor is it proved That in those ages set forms were generally imposed The Question is Whether set forms be advantages or hinderances of devotion to such whom God hath blessed with the gift of prayer and to such churches who have such ministers and are not so tainted with erroneous opinions in the fundamentals of Religion And thus we think we have fully answered whatsoever Mr. Falconer hath offered in answer to this Argument But because our strict design is not to answer M r. Falconer but to shew we have probable Arguments inducing us to believe That what ever it be to others It would be sinful for us ordinarily to perform our ministerial Acts in Prayer by reading or reciting the prescribed forms of others We will yet proceed to add some further Arguments inductive of such a persuasion in us still professing That we do not judge our selves infallible nor condemn any of our Brethren who are of another mind in the case onely as we our selves apprehend and believe so we speak so we act and not out of any factious humour as we are rashy judged CHAP. IV. The Third Argument propounded Both propositions in it proved The second commandment forbiddeth all means of worship not directed in Scripture M r. Freemans answer considered What the Noncon grant His instances answered Bishop Jewels opinion and Bishop Davenants against blind obedience The Difference between circumstances and Ceremonies what circumstances are in the power of man Why Forms of Prayer may not be commanded as well as Time and place Acts rites and means in worship must appear reasonable in themselves to him who conscientiously obeyeth § I WE thus state our Third Argument To use a mean in an Act of worship which God hath neither by the light of nature directed nor in his word prescribed no natural necessity compelling us so to do is sinful But for us or any of us to whom God hath given the gift of prayer ordinarily in prayer to perform our ministerial acts by the prescribed forms of others read or recited were for us no natural necessity compelling in Acts of worship to use means neither of God directed by the light of nature nor by him in his word prescribed Ergo. The proof of the major proposition depends upon these hypotheses 1 That divine worship is nothing else but an homage done unto God in consideration of his excellency In this we think all are agreed 2 That it belongs to God alone to prescribe both the Acts and Means of this homage which certainly is the most reasonable thing in the world That God should tell us what homage he will have at our hands and how performed God hath as much right to appoint the way of his worship as to be worshipped saith Dr. Ashton himself in his Case of persecution p. 45. 3 God having determined our Acts of worship hath likewise in his word and by the light of Nature given us sufficient direction as to the means Which if it be true it certainly must be impious

to do which too every Romish-priest and Jesuite will help him in that is To evince to men that the Bishop of Rome in all Spiritual things is all Christians superiour And he hath done the Popes business as effectually as he could have done it had he been hired to it by a Cardinals cap. But both St. Paul Col. 2. 23. and Bp Davenant as before cited on that text have told us what kind of Humility this is § 12 An eighth Argument used by some is this The people that join with a minister in prayer pray by a form The ministers prayer is but a form to them and limitation of them c. Therefore the minister may lawfully do it We have fully answered this before but in short 1 The Question is about vocal-prayer the people are onely required to pray mentally this is quite another species of Prayer In mental-prayer God onely requireth the exercise of grace In ministerial-vocal-prayer he also requireth the exercise of gifts And that not such gifts as remotely but such as specifically relate to the Act. 2 It is one thing barely to worship in prayer Another thing to minister to others in worshipping Our question is what is lawful for him that doth not onely worship but ministreth in worshipping § 13 Ninthly say some If a minister in publick be suffered to pray by conceived-prayer he may vent Blasphemy Heresy Nonsense and how shall the people say Amen This also we have fully before answered But 1 This argument holds equally if not with much more advantage against any other preaching then by reading or reciting other mens Sermons 2 If the minister doth vent error blasphemy c. we hope every one hath his Amen within his own teeth which he may withold if he hear Petitions come out his mouth not according to the will of God nor 3 Is it impossible that men may do the like by miscalling or misplacing words in reading or reciting forms § 14 But Tenthly Forms they tell us are necessary for Vniformity but we must first enquire whether Vniformity be necessary or at all desireable in the sense we here take it Where by it we understand nothing but an uniformity in Sentences Words and Syllables used in prayer Vnity is indeed a beauteous thing whether it be in Affections or Judgment So is Vniformity if understood of a worship of God in the same solemn time That is on the Sabbath-day and by the same specifical Acts of worship or As to the matter of prayer Thus far all sober men are agreed We all observe the Sabbath we all on the Sabbath publickly Read the Word Pray Sing Preach c. In our prayers we all Confess our sins put up our petitions to God for good things which we or others need and give God thanks for good things which we or others have received here now is a great and beauteous Vniformity we all speak the same thing do the same thing and on the same day But how shall it be ever proved That that pitiful thing called Vniformity in Words and Syllables and Phrases was ever desired of God or that it ever came into his or his Sons heart Or that it is acceptable to him Or that it hath more beauty in it then would be in a Congregation where all men wear the same coloured clothes Or had the very same lines in their faces or the same fashioned periwiggs upon their heads 2. The Beauty of no end can justify any sinful mean Gods glory is the noblest end the Apostle hath told us That it needeth not our ly to promove it 3 If it be lawful for men to fancy ends as fine things which God never spake of It is no wonder if they can find no means adequate to them but such as are justifiable by no Right Reason or Divine Rule The Princes of Babylon had an end to destroy Daniel they saw that except in the matter of his God nothing was to be found against him In their opinion therefore it was necessary to establish an uniformity in prayers yet not that we read off in words but as to the object of the Act All must be commanded to pray onely to Darius possibly there might be some form limited but the end was naught so was the mean 4 But suppose Vniformity syllabicaluniformity Necessary Lawful Beautiful Desirable and certainly desirable it is as to Doctrines of Religion and some particular terms and phrases by which they may safely be expressed We remember what a difference was made both in the church and the Doctrine of it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How yet shall forms of prayer help us with it without forms of Sermons too and a constant sticking to the use of them and no other § 15 In the next place cometh Ireneus Freeman in and telleth us in p. 38. of his Reasonableness of Divine service That in case liberty be granted to some to do that for which they have a gift it will provoke others who have it not to imitate them He adds If the denial of liberty to some who have the gift be to Cut the man fit for the bed the granting of such a liberty as we desire would be to Stretch a man fit for the bed Now seing both will ly together he saith it is more equitable That the tall man should pull up his leggs then that the low man should be put to the rack The question in issue is Whether it be lawful universally to impose upon ministers Forms of Prayer to be ordinarily used in their publick ministrations Or for ministers whom God hath furnished with the gift of prayer to perform their ministerial acts ordinarily by the use of those forms though imposed Yes saith Mr. Freeman for it is necessary Every thing say we which is necessary eithir is so from nature or a supervening command The first is not pretended But the Second It is necessary because Magistrates or Superiours command us and God hath commanded us to obey our Superiours We say God hath onely commanded us to obey our Superiours in things where in we may obey them and not sin Which say we in this case we cannot You may saith Mr. Freeman And why Because it is necessary If this Medium be good It must be made so by some precept of God particularly relating to this case not by the general precepts of Gods word to obey our Superiours For the thing must first be agreed lawful before we can have in it any superiour but God onely Now whether This use of forms be so or no is the matter in question How then doth what he saith evince the necessity of them 2 All that he saith amounts but to a contingent disorder which may happen upon a liberty given by some to use their gifts in prayer But shall a contingent danger be pleaded in bar to a duty think we Or shall the sin of another be sufficient to justify our superiour in prohibiting

forms of prayer for all because some ministers or that go for ministers can do nothing in prayer without might with less guilt and reproach to our church cure that disease destroy that necessity which is but a Chimera made by their own fancies § 19 The Reverend Author of Libertas Ecclesiastica p. 98. c. hath given us Four or Five farther Reasons as he calls them for forms of prayer which in the last place we will consider He saith Hereby a fit true right and well ordered way of worship in addresses to God may be best secured to the church in the publick service of God that neither God nor his worship may be dishonoured There being many easily discernable ways of considerable miscarriage in the pubiick offices of the church even by those who err not in the Doctrines of Religion To which we answer 1 That alone is a fit true right and well ordred worship which God hath instituted Worship is his Homage and there 's all the reason in the world he should prescribe to his own Homage 2 That God in the Church should be truly fitly rightly and in due order worshipped is reasonable but that it should aforehand be secured That he should be so worshipped by ministers who are but men and may err is not possible Nor will forms secure it which ministers may if they will be careless and many have done it read falsely and disorderly enough There is therefore no security to be had in the case caution may be used The Rulers may say to Archippus Take heed to thy ministry 3 We do think That for twenty years together The worship of God was truly fitly rightly and in a well ordered manner performed in hundreds of congregations in England where no forms of prayer were used in the eye of all sober reasonable men better then where they were used we therefore see nothing here but a flourish of words § 20 His Second reason is That needful comprehensive petitions for all common and ordinary Spiritual and Outward wants of our selves and others with fit thanksgivings may not in the publick supplications of the church be omitted which considering men as they are can no other way be so well or at all assured To which we answer Pudet haec opprobria nobis dici potuisse c. Let it be spoken to the shame of the church of God in England and it shall be for a lamentation in it if in a church whose territories are so large there cannot be found persons enough sufficient without others prescriptions to them to put up full and comprehensive petitions not onely for common and ordinary but for emergent and extraordinary Spiritual and Outward wants of any persons with fit thanksgivings But Secondly If there be not men enough to do this yet certainly there are some and very many ministers of all persuasions that can do it what need therefore is there farther Then that such Forms be composed extant and left at liberty Must those be restrained that are able to perform their duty because there are others that either cannot or will not set themselves to the due performance of it Besides That this Argument holds stronger for forms of Sermons too to be imposed For those who know how in preaching to reveil to people the whole counsel of God most certainly know how to put up full and comprehensive petitions for all common and ordinary Spiritual Outward wants of themselves and others § 21 Mr. Falconers Third Reason is That the Affections and hearts of pious and Religious men may be more devout and better united in their presenting their Services to God where they may consider beforehand what particular prayers and thanksgivings they are to offer up and come the more ready and prepared to join in them This is an advantage of which many are deprived by a bad temper of mind sucked in by prejudice or swallowed down by carelesness To which we answer that in this pretended reason we can see nothing but words Are not we to ask of God for our selves or others all good things under such limitations as his word directeth submitting our petitions for temporary things to the will and wisdom of God Needs there any more when we come to prayer then a general composure of our Spirits to seek God for all good things we or others stand in need of If not what needs such a particular foreknowledge of the words and phrases to be used in asking If the minister transgresseth his Rule and asks what is not according to the will of God and that he may do by reading forms falsely may not people withold their Amen The Affections and hearts of all good people though the publick prayers be not by prescribed forms are united 1 As to the duty They all say to God Thy face will wee seek 2. As to the matter of the duty To Confess all sin Original Actual To beg of God whatsoever they or other stand in need of which God hath promised to give For the particular phrases There is no such need of a foreknowledge nor will it at all as we we have proved before promove but rather hinder devotion and affection § 22 His Fourth Reason is That such difficult parts of church-offices as Baptism and the Supper of the Lord the matter of which requireth great consideration That they may be aright and clearly expressed as both Conformists and many Nonconformists acknowledge is evident by the many disputes about them by men neither of mean parts nor dangerous designs may by a considerate care in the composing of a form be so framed That men of greatest understandings may with readiest assent entertain them and that they may be sufficiently vindicated against the the boldest opposers We do confess that we have met with some of our Brethren who lay some stress on this But we are no more taken with meer words from Noncon then from other men And we cannot understand What there is in the Administration of the Sacraments that makes Forms of Prayer c. necessary For the Sacrament of the Lords Supper where if any where it seemes most necessary What is there in that Administration more then 1 The Sanctification or Consecration of the elements 2 The Distribution of them and words used in the distribution 3 The Application of the General acts of the ministerial office Prayer and Exhortation to that particular action For the first the Apostle hath taught us that Sanctification or Consecration is by the word Prayer The word is nothing but the words of Institution which are in Scripture The Reading of which declares Christs separation of those elements for that use and our separation of them in his name for and during that time for that ordinance For other words and forms of consecration we know no need of them no warrant for them and believe them of ill original and consequence Now any one that can read a form can read the