he bears him in hand that we expound the words of 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 which we do not Nor was it likely they would ever have gone about to do so Babylon was too remote for them such a prohibition had been altogether needless and vain But 4. That Chap. 50 and 51. are one entire Prophesie that reacheth farther than the Destruction of Literal Babylon even to the ruine of all the Scripture calls so is evident For 1st This Prophesie relates to the restauration of all the Tribes Israel as well as Judah vers 4. 5. which to this day hath not been fulfilled The ten Tribes represented by Israel being in a dispersed state ever since they were carried away Captive by Salmanasser 'T is true Judah after the 70 years Captivity did return but what is that to Israel when this Prophesie is accomplished they must also be brought to their habitation which is again repeated vers 19. And I will bring Israel again to his habitation and he shall feed on Carmel This Carmel was the portion of the half Tribe of Manasseh belonging to the ten Tribes Jos 19. 2dly When God doth this the iniquity of Jacob shall be sought for and there shall be none vers 20. 3dly He will then make use of Israel as his Battle-Axe and weapon of War to destroy and break in pieces Kingdoms and Nations vers 20 21. 4thly The Deliverance and Vengeance here prophesied of is the issue of the groans and cries of the Inhabitants of Sion against Babylon vers 35 36. But against Literal Babylon the Children of Israel were not to cry but the contrary Jer. 29. 7. 5thly Many material passages in this Prophesie are applied by the Spirit of the Lord to Mystical Babylon as Chap. 50. 8. Rev. 18. 4. vers 29. Rev. 18. 6. Chap. 51. 6. Rev. 18. 4. 6thly The Babylon mentioned in this Prophesie and the Babylon spoken of in the Revelation is one and the same Babylon differing at most but as Type and Antitype Babylon is a Type of the City and Seat of Antichrist saith the Learned Ainsworth on Psal 137. v. 1. This is evident to the eye of the understanding Reader from the ensuing Scheme Jeremiah's Babylon Jer. 50. 8. Remove out of the midst of Babylon And 51. 6. Flee out of the midst of Babylon and deliver every man his soul be not cut off in her iniquity for this is the time of the Lords vengeance he will render unto her a recompence Jer. 50. 29. Recompence her according to her work according to all that she hath done do unto her for she hath been proud against the Lord against the Holy One of Israel Jer. 50. 39. The wild beasts of the desart shall dwell there and the owls shall dwell therein and it shall be no more inhabited for ever neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah Jer. 51. 7. Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lords hand that made all the earth drunken the nations have drunk of her wine therefore the nations are mad Jer. 51. 8. Babylon is suddenly fallen and destroyed howl for her John's Babylon Rev. 18. 4. Come out of her my People that ye be not partakers of her Sins and that ye receive not of her Plagues for her sins have reached unto heaven and God hath remembred her iniquities Rev. 18. 6 7. Reward her even as she hath rewarded you double unto her double according to her works in the cup which she hath filled fill to her again How much she hath glorified her self and lived deliciously so much sorrow give her Rev. 18. 2. Babylon the Great is fallen is fallen and is become the habitation of devils and the hold of every foul spirit a cage of every unclean and hateful bird Rev. 18. 22. The voice of harpers and musicians shall be heard no more at all in thee and no crafts man shall be found any more in thee vers 8. she shall be utterly burnt with fire Rev. 17. 2. With whom the Kings of the earth have committed fornication and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication And 18. 3. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornications Rev. 14. 8. Babylon is fallen is fallen Rev. 18. 2. Babylon the Great is fallen is fallen vers 9. And the Kings of the earth who committed fornication and lived deliciously with her shall bewail her saying alas alas for in one hour is thy judgement come vers 11 15 19. The sum is the Prophesie not being confined to Literal Babylon but eminently relating to Mystical Babylon or the false whoâ—ish Church in the Revelation the not taking a stone of her for a foundation having no respect to the Jews not using the stones of Babylon in building the Temple which it is not like they had the least intendment to do points out the duty of the spiritual Jew or Christian Believer in his departure from the Antichristian Church not to introduce any of her things once abused to Idolatry into the Worship of the House of God which we cited this Scripture to prove Mr. T. proceeds and tells us 2dly That external words and gestures are not contrary to John 4. 23. Answ Nor do we say they are this we affirm That a form of words enjoyned the Ceremonious pompous Worship of England managed and carried on in our Collegiat Churches and Chappels with outward pomp and state is so That which he saith in answer hereunto viz. That this Text excludes the Legal shadowy-Worship of the Law establisheth what we say For if a pompous shadowy-Worship once of the Institution of the Lord be excluded by this Scripture much more that which is so and of the devising and establishment of Antichrist In what he saith 3dly That we conceive a form of Words prescribed and devised by man to be contrary to Mat. 15. 9. and 28. 20. Deut. 12. 31. he openly prevaricates For though as commanded in the Worship of God it be so yet we rather refer those Scriptures to the whole of their humane devices in their Worship and Service viz. Surplice Organs Cross in Baptism c. that have not the least foundation in Scripture and are therefore contrary to them What Mr. T. dictates That if no prescript form of Prayer devised and imposed by penal Laws to be used by man for thus he must speak if he speak pertinently may be used then conceived forms of Prayer may not be used I desire him not to attempt the proof of because t is such an imposible task that he will never be able to make good That Christ hath commanded a set form of Prayer Luke 11. 2. Mat. 6. 7 8. is first false For 1st If he had done so it were utterly unlawful to use any other than the
things we are to pray for for at that time they were not bound to the use of so many words and syllables as are Tertullian Cyprian Cornelius a Lapide Musculus c. But 3dly should it be granted that Christ enjoyned the use of that form of Prayer as a form this will not prove that stinted forms of Prayer are lawful and as such may lawfully be imposed and used which can have no other basis then this 't is as lawful for Civil or Ecclesiastical Rulers to devise and impose forms of Prayer upon the Churches as for Christ a most absurd and blasphemous assertion As touching what he adds 2. Christ justifies the Childrens crying of Hosanna uses himself the forms which David used before in the Psalms c. We answer That in all this he doth but beat the Air and speaks not one word to the purpose We find no footsteps of any enjoyned Liturgie or stinted forths of Prayer imposed either in the old Testament or the New though we find the same words used sometimes by them yet that they might never use any other in their publick devotions which is the condition of stinted enjoyned forms the known case of the Ministers of Engl. with respect to their Church-Service we find not which is also a full answer to what he cites out of Cyprian touching their use of the Lord's Prayers and other Forms if they used any they were not bound to use them and no other When he proves this consequence the Saints of old used the same words in prayer sometimes and Christ used words before used by them Therefore a set and stinted Liturgy was in use amongst them and such an one as our Common-Prayer-Book-Worship I will be his Convert He knows the contrary His answers to Justin Martyr and Tertullian are impertinent and not worth the reciting The words of the former are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Atheists we are not seeing we worship the Maker of the World And in all our Oblations we praise him according to our abilities in the way of prayer and thanksgiving And afterwards tells us that the President of the Assembly poureth our prayers according to his ability and continues long in this work Tertullian tells us The Christians looking towards Heaven not on their Common-Prayer-Book with their hands spread abroad prayed without a Moniter because from their hearts expressions wholly exclusive of inconsistant with the formes of prayer contended for The sayings of Socrates in his Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 21. who lived about the year 430. tells us That among all the Christians in that Age scarce two were to be found that used the same words in prayer He passeth over in silence as he doth the account I give of the use of them not till about the year 600. and the imposition by Charles the Great of Gregories Liturgy as is thought and the support thereof by threats and punishments ever since These things hâ— knows to be true and yet they are such as the Dragon he labours to support cannot possibly stand before Sect. 3. Common-Prayer-Book-Worship not of the appointment of Christ because an obstruction of some positive Duty charged by Christ upon the Saints Mr. T. his Exceptions refuted Of resting on the Sabbath Day Whether Sacrificing was an obstruction of that Duty Mat. 5. 12. explained Following Christ no obstruction of positive Duties to Parents Of the gift and grace of Prayer Rom. 8. 26. opened 'T is the duty of Saints to improve Gifts received Common-Prayer-Book-Worship contrary to Scripture 'T is not necessary to the edification of the Saints The Judgment of the Reformed Churches A Second Argument advanced in S. T. to prove that Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is not of the appointment of Christ is thus formed 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 Christ hath given Officers to his Church Ephes 4. 11. to them he hath given gifts every way suiting the imployment he calls them forth unto the improvement whereof he expects and charges upon them 2 Tim. 1. 6. 1 Cor. 12. 7. Ephes 4. 11. Prov. 17. 16. Luke 19. 20. To think after all this that any Worship should be of the institution of Christ that shuts ouâ— as unnecessary the exercise of the gifts given is absurd and injurious to Christ To which Mr. T. answers Sect. 5. 1. The major is not in all cases true resting on the Sabbath Day was a positive Duty yet sacrificing which was an obstruction of that Duty called prophaning the Sabbath Mat. 12. 5. was Worship of Gods appointment following Christ preaching of the Gospel were Worship of Christs appointment yet they were obstructions to positive duties to be done to Parents Answ 1. Resting from our own works on the Sabbath Day was a positive Duty not from the works of Religion and the Worship of God as was Sacrificing 'T is true Christ saith Mat. 12. 5. That the Priests in the Temple prophaned the Sabbath but this is spoken in respect of the vulgar Opinion that thought the Sabbath violated if any necesâ—â—ry work were done therein not that indeed the Sabbath day was broken by them So Dr. Willet on Exod. 20. 9. and our Annotaâ—ors upon the place expound it 2. That following Christ is an obstruction of any posstive duty we owe to Parents Mr. T. will prove Quum durae quercus sudabunt roscida mella i. e. never 'T is true Christ sometimes calls us to leave Father and Mother for his Name and Gospel-sake but then our abiding with them is no longer any positive duty enjoyned us by him but the contraty so that the major Proposition abides firm To the minor viz. That the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is an obstruction of a positive duty viz. the exercise of the gift of Prayer which is excluded hereby He answers 1. 'T is supposed that the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is a different sort of Worship from such as is used by those who exercise the gift of Prayer Answ And so it is the one being of the Earth earthy carnal devilish the other from Heaven as good he may say the Ark and Dagon are the same as that the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship and the Worship of Jesus Christ is so When he proves the absurdities mentioned are the proper issue of this assertion we shall think our selves concern'd to take notice of them but till then we reject them as the spurious off-spring of his own begetting He adds 2dly The Author intimates that ability to conceâ—ve 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 Answ I do so indeed That there are some that have ability so to do Mr. T. will not cannot deny nor that this ability may be where there is not true Grace what will Mr. T. call this Ability to
express ones self in variety and suitableness of expressions to the Children of men is a gift given by the Lord and that not to every one that to be able so to do to God should not be a gift of his is absurd Rom. 8. 26. speaks not solely of the gift but of the grace Prayer which sometimes meet in the same subject but are distinct There may be the gift where there is not the grace of Prayer and on the contrary I say not p. 62. That the gift of prayer is the donation of the Spirit as if I thought this could not be where the Spirit did not indwell though indeed none but such can be in the acceptable exercise of that gift I account not the gift of Prayer to be a gift proper to Ministers i. e. exclusively to others but affirm that all Christs Ministers have the gift of Prayer and ought to use it which the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship shuts out of doors as unnecessary and therefore is not of Christs appointment To this our Animadverter replies 1. That Ephes 4. expresses not Ministerial gifts Answ This is evidently his mistake they are expresly mentioned v. 7 8. He adds 2dly If they are implied it 's questionable whether they are ordinary or extraordinary Answ They are ordinary for they are such as are to continue with the Ministry to the perfecting the Body of Christ 3dly If ordinary whether the gift of Prayer as he means were one Answ This must be one if the exercise of the duty be for the edification of the Body of Christ v. â— 11 12. To imagine that Christ doth not continue to dispense this gift unto his Gospel-Ministers for the foresaid end is injurious to his faithfulness to love and care of his Children to conceit that better provision can be made than he makes by the bestowment of his gifts for that end and such as shall exclude the exercise of them is derogatory to his Wisdom and blasphemous He adds 4thly That though the Apostles said Acts 6. 4. We will give our selves continually to prayer and Paul 1 Tim. 2. 1. Exhorts that prayers be made for all men yet we read not that it 's made the Ministers work to express the necessities of the Church in the publick Auditory Answ 1. But this is not to the question whoever they are that are called forth to this work they are to do it according to the abilities the Lord hath given them But 2dly if it be not the Ministers work whose is it whence is it that they who repute themselves such exclude all others and monopolize this work unto themselves 3ly2 Christ and his Apostles used no forms of prayer before or after their preaching he grants and I am sure there is not the least tittle of direction touching the composing and imposing any for the future hence it follows not that either way of praying I conceive he means by stinted prescribed forms or otherwise is lawful but that devâ—sed and imposed forms of prayer are utterly unlawful for who shall dare to prescribe where Christ is silent upon his free-born Subjects What he further adds That the one way of Worship he must mean that of imposed stinted Liturgies if he speak pertinently shuts not out of doors the other is notoriously false But 4ly Christ hath given to his Ministers gifts for the edification of his Body amongst the rest the gift of Prayer which they are bound to improve when ever call'd to the discharge of that duty as we prove from 2 Tim. 1. 6. 1 Cor. 12. 7. Ephes 4. 11. Prov. 17. 16. Luke 19. 20. The exercise whereof is shut out by the Common-Prayer-Book-Service This Mr. T. should have disproved The reading of a Prayer cannot possibly by a man of the least understanding in the things of God be supposed to be the exercise of this gift Reading is not praying nor any where so called in the Scripture As for Women we assert if they have the gift of Prayer when ever call'd forth to the performance of that duty they are bound to the exercise of that gift which is a sufficient Answer to what follows though persons are not bound to be alway in the actual exercise of this gift yet when call'd to the performance of the duty of prayer for which it is eminently given of God they are obliged to be improving it their not being so is a napkening up of their Talent and Mr. T. may prove the contrary when he is able 'T is added in S. T. That it will not in the least take off the weight of the 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 is requently in most of the Assemblies of England 2. Those their prayers are also bounded and limited by the 55. Canon and that both in words and matter for they are enjoyn'd to pray in that form or to that effect as briefly as conveniently they may which will by all sober persons be accounted a boundary notwithstanding Mr. T. his confident Dictate to the contrary 3. We had alwayes thought that Christ having given gifts unto Men did require the use of those gifts whenever persons were called to the performance of that service to which they were designedly given by him by virtue of the forementioned 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 whenever 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 To the first and last of these Mr. T. is wholly silent what he saith to the second we have already removed but of the way Mr. T. adds yet further The Common-Prayer-Book-Worship may further the duty of exercising the gift of Prayer and therefore may lawfully be used Which he proves thus 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 Prayer in the Liturgy of the Church of England Therefore The Major he proves thus That which requires a Duty requires the Means conducing thereto The Minor thus The Common-Prayer-Book directs what things are to be prayed for by reason of the brevity of the Colects the Responds the frequent use the plain expressions help the memory and cloqution wherein the gift of Prayer consists Answ 1. A Papist may say as much and as truly for their Books of Devotion their Whippings Pilgrimages Mr. T. knows they do so They are means they tell us tending to the furtherance of positive duties To which our Divines answer as we do Mr. T. That only those things are to be accounted a means of furthering any positive
the Faith and Unity of the Gospel is not of the institution of Christ but that those modes and forms that are made an essential part of Worship which the Common-Prayer-Book forms are though using Notes in the Pulpit are not which are therefore impertinently and ineptly produced by our Animadverter not being necessary to the forementioned ends are not of the institution of Christ because in all Gospel-Institutions those ends were aimed at by him by which the Judicious Reader will easily perceive how little we are concern'd with his Argument That the Common-Prayer-Book-Service is as a polluted accursed abominable thing to the Reformed Churches is from hence evident that they will not touch nor meddle with it no more than with any thing that is most notoriously so Their expressions touching Popish Rites and Ceremonies of which not a few are retained in our Common Prayer-Book manifest as much Calvin cals them Filthy Dunghils Conrad Schlusselburg l. 13. p. 593. saith That the Adiaphorism of Rites Popish retained is the very Image of the Beast whose Mark Character and Name those Adiaphorous Rites are The third Angel who preacheth against the Image of the Beast and the receiving his Mark representeth the Preachers that withstand the rayl of Antichrist left behind in the Church of God The German Divines Thes de Adiaph Theol. Sax. p. 193. tell us That the retention of Popish Ceremonies under pretence that they be Adiaphora is a countermand to that precept Go out of her my People seeing hereby men do even return yea enter into Antichrist And Bucâ—r expresly avers That all things that are of the Romane Antichrist are abominated in Censur cap. 3. p. 460. What this Animadverter speaks further in this Section will receive a speedy dispatch Calvin speaks of the Prayers and Rites not their Imposition when he speaks favourably of them in Epist 87. which he abhorrd Maresius his Assertion amounts onely to a justification of forms of Prayer not our English forms much less their imposition So that notwithstanding what Mr. T. is able to say to the contrary The Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is not of the appointment of Christ and therefore those that Worship him in the way thereof worship him in a way that is not of his appointment Sect. 4. An Objection answered Nothing in the Instituted Worship of Christ that is a Circumstance thereof as such Of praying in a Form The unlawfulness thereof evinced Mr. T. his Arguments to the contrary answered Praying in the Spirit what it is What is meant by quenching the Spirit 1 Thes 5. 19. Forms of prayer imposed are necessary parts of Worship The Opinion of the Papists and present Ministers touching this matter THere is one stone of offence that lying in the way of our former discourse we endeavour in S. T. to remove 'T is this Object That the Liturgie or Common-Prayer-Book-Worship 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 away that is not of his appointment To this we answer That many things are supposed as the Basis upon which the weight of this Objection is laid which we cannot grant as 1. That there are some things in the instituted Worship of Christ that are meerly circumstances thereof as such which we deny Circumstances in the Worship of Christ attending Religious Actions as Actions we grant but Circumstances of Worship as such will never be proved To infer 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 frivolous these things being the attendment 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 To which Mr. T. Sect. 8. 1. 'T is not true that the Objection supposeth that some things in the Instituted Worship of Christ are but meer circumstances thereof as such Answ The naked meaning of the Author of S. T. in that expression is this That whereas the Liturgical forms of prayer are by their imposition made parts of the Instituted Worship of Christ the Objection supposeth that they are but meer circumstances thereof as such This was so obvious to any ordinary understanding that I cannot but fear our Animadverter did wilfully mistake our meaning whilst he makes it to be this that that particularity of action that is instituted by Christ is a meer Arbitrary circumstance which no Christian in his wits will affirm 2dly He tells us The distinction of circumstances in the Worship of Christ attending Religious Actions as actions and circumstances of Worship as such is an unnecessary nicety and intimates as if we were agreed in the thing Answ 1. If it be a nicety 't is such a one as cuts the throâ—t of his cause nothing is then to be subjected to or used in the Worship of God or Christ as a circumstance thereof there are no circumstantial accidental parts of Worship for which he hath hitherto pleaded nothing to be practised relating to it as such of an indifferent nature The whole of it being either commanded by Christ and so to be indisputably subjected to or else not of his Institution and so to be rejected how great a part of his tottering Fabrick he hath by this one concession shaken about his ears the Judicious Reader is able to discern We add in S. T. the Objection supposeth 2ly That it is lawful for Saints to tie themselves to a written stinted form of words in prayer This we say is not yet proved nor like to be That it is not needful that we enter into the debate thereof till it be proved that to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer-Book or imposed devised Liturgies is so We only briefly offer a few things that evince the unlawfulness of Saints tying themselves to a written stinted form of words in prayer Because 1st 't is a quenching of the Spirit in prayer 2dly A rendring useless the donation of the Spirit as a Spirit of Prayer unto the Children of God 3dly Directly opposite unto the many positive Precepts of Christ before instanc'd in of stirring up the gifts given to us of God 4dly If it be lawful for Saints to pray in a form 't is lawful 〈◊〉 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. To which Mr. T. pretends to answer Sect. 9. 1. 'T is no hard thing to prove it lawful to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer-Book if we suppose the Ministers and Common-Prayer-Book-Worshippers not to have the Spirit for then they do not quench the Spirit Answ 1. But upon this supposition they are not Christians for if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his are not Ministers and so to be separated from 2dly Our present enquiry is of the duty of Saints with respect to forms of prayer of others we are not now speaking which what Mr. T. saith Is wholly forreign to and greatly impertinent as he knows He adds 2dly We must prove it lawful for the Saints to use once a stinted form of words which 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 Answ 1. Were he able to prove a stinted form of Prayer lawful he will not carry the cause except he manifest that Liturgical forms are so 2. We deny his minor with which he deals very unkindly to leave it to shift for it self so soon as he hath brought it forth into the World And retort his Argument thus That Prayer is utterly unlawful to the Saints in which something is done forbidden by God and something omitted which God requires thereunto But in a stinted form something is done that is forbidden the Spirit is quenched undervalued grieved the form is rested trusted in rather than the Spirit something is omitted which God requires viz. the exercise stirring up and improvement of the gift given To what we briefly offer touching the unlawfulness of stinted forms of prayer Mr. T. answers 1. That the things offered are bottomed upon mistakes As 1. that praying in the Spirit Ephes 6. 18. Jude 20. is meant of extemporal unprescribed forms of words whereas it 's meant of praying by operation of the Spirit within not of prayer in respect of the form of words wherein it 's expressed Answ 1. To pray in the Spirit is to pray from the power and assistance of the Spirit who not onely forms requests in the heaâ—s of the Sâ—â—â—ts but also gives in apt words for the expressing those inward groans in a way of edification and comfort to the houshould of Faith and the assistance of the Spirit in both these they experience The expressions of praying allway with all prayer do not in the least intimate that the Apostle speaks of solitary prayers and if he did Saints are wont to use words when they draw nigh to God in their secret Chambers Ephes 5. 19. is so far from proving that Ephes 6. 18. is meant of solitary prayers that it totally enervates it Their speaking to themselves in Psalms is their speaking one to another for their mutual edification 2dly We say not that meditation and preparation to this important duty of Prayer is unlawful or that he who beforehand gives himself hereunto prayes not in the Spirit as Mr. T. intimates yet this we assert that no awakened enlivened Saint under the highest preparation for this duty dares say these words will I speak and no more nor can he do it without an high undervaluation and contempt of the love care and faithfulness of the good Spirit of the Lord to him who is often enabling him in a way of enlargement beyond the utmost thoughts of his heart 3dly Suppose it lawful to use a form of words in prayer the Spirit assists in the forming of groans within answerable to that form of words without I ask What if the Spirit should form in us requests beyond what are in words expressed in the form which sure he may do for however it be pleaded that 't is lawful to bind us to the form it will not be supposed that the Spirit is bound Must I pour them forth in words he helps me to or must I not if he say the first actum est perlisti there is an end of his stinted forms of prayer if the second there is an apparent slighting quenching of the Spirit in his motions and assistance he is ready to afford us A second mistake upon which he saith The things offer'd proceed is That the ability to express petitions in words extemporary is tearmed the Spirit of Prayer as if it were in every one that hath the sanctifying Spirit of God and they only for so the alleadging Rom. 8. 9 26. for it in the fourth Argument must infer now a man may have the Spirit and yet not have this ability he may have this ability and yet not have the Spirit Answ Crimen inauditum Caie Caesar Doth Mr. T. consider what he writes 1. We no where say that this ability to express our inward desires in prompt and significant expressions to the Lord as separated from the grace of Prayer or the sanctifying presence of the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Prayer En tabulas Let him direct us to the place where we so do 2. We grant there may be the grace of Prayer without the gift and the gift without the grace but say that when God calls forth his Children to the publick discharge of this duty he bestows the gift of Prayer upon them which if they have not they are not called forth thereunto When otherwise the Spirit of Adoption in them is abundantly sufficient to enable them to pour forth their souls to God so as that they need not the help of the Crutches of Forms as some speak 3. The Question is whether it be lawful for Saints to use a stinted Form of words in Prayer Of others we are not speaking Rom. 8. is produced to prove it is not lawful for them so to do The particular Answers he gives to the Arguments produced against such Forms of Prayer are of an easie dispatch To the first he answers 1. The quenching of the Spirit is not meant of the Spirit of Prayer more than any other exercise Answ Grant it it s meant as much of the Spirit of Prayer as any other exercise The expression is wholly Metaphorical The Spirit in his operations and motions is frequently called and compared to fire as is known the quenching of him is our resisting not giving up our selves to the obedience of those motions how we do this by stinted Forms of Prayer was but now shewed He adds 2dly The quenching of the Spirit is the act of him in whom the Spirit is quenched Answ Very true the tying of our selves to a prescript form of words in Prayer is our own act none can actually compel us thereunto hereby we quench the Spirit Yea but 3dly The hearer is stinted in all joynt Prayer
Synods yet was he not set over others nor endowed with greater power than the rest cap. conf Helvet prior Arti 15. the French Churches say We believe that all true Pastors wheresoever they are placed are endowed with equal authority under that only head high and sole universal Bishop Jesus Christ and therefore it is lawful for no one Church to claim authority and dominion over another cap conf gal Confes. Art 30. So say the Belgick Churches Bely conf Art 31. So that Mr. T. out of his great love and dutifulness to his Mother the Church of England is not sparing to cast dirt in the face of the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves and most or all the Reformed Churches at this day who own no such inequality as he pleads for and therefore were are all of them not well-ordered Churches in comparison at the least to her and the Church of Rome where the Hierarchie is established To the 16th parallel about holy Vestments he is able to object on-thing worth the considering The 17th is The Popish Priests are tyed to a book of stinted Prayers and a prescript Order devised by man for their Worship and Ministration so are the Ministers of England and that to such a one as is taken out of the Popes Portuis To this Mr. T. replies 1. The Assembly of Westminster prescribed a Directory for Worship Answ 1. Quid hoc ad Rhombum I am not in the least concern'd to justifie all that was done by that Assembly and am apt to think they might in that matter have spared their pains 2dly The same Assembly abhorred the Common-Prayer-Book Service as a most detestable and filthy Idol preached printed against it procured its Abolition 3dly Every one that knows any thing knows that upon various accounts there is no likeness betwixt these two None were compell'd to the use of this or that form of words by the Directory as in the Book of common-Common-Prayer He adds 2dly Those prayers and portions of Scripture which are holy and good are never the worse because they were in the Popes Portuis no more than the acknowledgement of Jesus to be the Son of the most High God is the worse because the Devil used it Mar. 5. 7. Answ 1. Of the Scriptures and that glorious Truth of Christ's Eternal Deity as the Son of the most High God and the Common-Prayer-Book-Service there is not the same reason They were from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit originally Divine this of man devised upon the prevailing of Apostacy upon the Churches of Christ imposed with threatnings cruelties and slaughters upon the Children of Christ by his professed Enemy abused by a confessed Idolatrous generation of men if there be any such in the world That because the abuse of the Scriptures and the Truths contained in them doth not render them the worse therefore a devised Service that it the best is wicked and abominable in its imposition intolerable used by Idolaters is not the worse I chalenge Mr. T. to make good 2. Though the Scriptures are not the worse because portions of them are read in the Romish Idolatrous Service yet the following the Romish Synagogue in curtailing the Scriptures reading one part of a Chapter at one time another at another and manifestly misapplying them causing them also to give place to the Apochryphal Writings is abominable He goes on 3dly That which is suggested as if the Common-Prayer-Book now in use were little different from the Popes Missal he tells us is untrue Answ 1. The Animadverter is a little mistaken We affirm in S. T. that the Common-Prayer-Book-Service used in King Edward the 6th's dayes and the Popes Missal were not much different And for the proof of that we produced the Testimony of the King and Council which we thought M. T. would never have questioned That the Common-Prayer-Book now in use and that then used is not much different every body knows 2dly 'T is true all that is in the Pope 's Missal is not in the Common-Prayer-Book nor did any one ever assert this but the most that is in the Common-Prayer-Book is stolen out of the Popes Missal The Epistles and Gospels the Prayers or Collects the rites and usages therein joyned are so and this Mr. T. denyes not I had thought to have represented the truth of this to the eye of the Reader by exhibiting our English and the Popes Latine Masse at one view to him which I have by me faithfully collected and compared together But the swelling of this Treatise unexpectedly and the difficulty of printing any thing of this nature that is voluminous through the tyranny of the Prelates makes me wholly to lay aside that intendment to a fitter season if need be The summe of what we have been offering in this matter we say in S. T. is this 1. Those Ministers that in their names office admission into their offices are not to be found in the Scripture are not Ministers of Christ act not by vertue of an Authority Office-power Calling received from him 2. Those Ministers that in their names office admission into their office are at a perfect agreement with the Ministers of Antichrist such are the Popish Priests acknowledged to be are not the Ministers of Christ But such as have been abundantly demonstrated are the present Ministers of England Therefore The Minor Mr. T. saith is manifestly false he hath said nothing to prove it in the main Answ This is soon said had he proved it manifestly false be had done somewhat Whether any thing considerable hath been offered by us for the proof of the Minor others besides Mr. T. and I will now judge Sect. 4. The present Ministers of Engl. proved Antichristian They act from a Power Office and Calling received from a Lord-Bishop whose Office is Antichristian The opinion of the Learned touching them Their Office is not to be found in the Scripture Eph. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Tim. 3. 12. Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5 7. Acts 20. 28. know them not They were not known in the Church for some hundreds of years after The Office of Lord-Bishops wherein it consists Of Diotrephes his asserting Supremacy Our Bishops neither Evangelists nor Pastors nor Teachers nor Apostles proved Mat. 28. 19. explained Of the Rise of Episcopacy The Testimonies of Dr. Hammond Whitaker Reynolds Eusebius c. touching it WE further prove in S. T. The present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Antichrâ—stan Power Office and Calling Because 2dly That they act from a Power Office and Calling received from a Lord-Bishop whose Office is Antichristian This the summe To which Mr. T. replies That neither himself nor any sober Writer judged them Antichristian Answ 1. Whether he once so judged of them his taking the Covenant to extirpate them wherein they are condemned as Antichristian will evince 2. What he or I judge them is not material that no sober Writer or considerate man that
must either justifie their Canons or manifest that they themselves do not Secondly 'T is notoriously known that that the present Ministers justifie the aforesaid Canons Ecclesiastical and dare not but do so He adds 2dly 'T is not said Caâ— 7. That the Orders and Offices of Arch-Bishops Bishops c. are Orders needful and necessary in the Church of Christ nor is it required therein that Ministers promise subjection and obedience to them Answ 1. But the former of these is fairly implied in the foresaid Canon which saith T is a wicked Error to assert them to be Antichristian or repugnant to the Word of God for which persons are ipso facto to be excommunicated 2. The latter they actually do when they are Ordained Ministers And in Artic. 36. They are to subscribe to this That the Book of Common-Prayer and of Ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons contains nothing contrary to the Word of God and that it may lawfully be used and that they themselves will use the Form in the said Book prescribed in publick Prayers and administration of the Sacraments and none other Whence it follows that they own submit to whatever is contained in the Canons Ecclesiastical though in every particular Canon it is not said they do and the Common-Prayer-Book-Service the Orders and Rites thereof with the Orders and Rites of the Book of Ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons So that when we prove this or that to be contained it this or that Canon we prove their submission thereunto Canonical Obedience or Obedience to these Canons being what at the time of their Ordination as was said they promise to the Bishop which is a sufficient answer to all that Mr. T. asserts in this Sect. In Can. 4. The Liturgy-Worship is asserted to be the Worship of God whoever affirms It is a corrupt superstitious and unlawfull Worship of God is to be excommunicated They promise at the time of their Ordination as was said To use the Form in the Common-Prayer-Book prescribed in Publick Prayers and none other which if it be not a sufficient proof that they own and submit to it I must profess I shall for ever despair of ability to prove any thing His exceptions to the Third Particular touching their engaging to conform to the Rites of the Common-Prayer Book are not worth the mentioning They own Fourthly The Office of a Deacon to be the first step to the Order of Priesthood inasmuch as this is asserted so to be in the Book of Ordering Priests and Deacons to which they are to subscribe by Can. 36. and Can. 32. It 's fairly intimated also Fifthly That no person be admitteâ— to expound the Scriptures though judged worthy of the Cure of Souls withâ—ut License from the Bishop thereunto is plainly asserted Can. 49. Though the words judged worthy of the cure of Souls be not expressed they are evidently implied the Cure they there speak of can be no other thâ—n that they so call Sixthly That there be some lawful Ministers which are no Preachers And Seventhly That these unpreaching Ministers may lawfully administer the Ordinances of Baptism and the Lords Supper is fully asserted Can. 49 57. So is the Eighth particular touching the sentence of Excommunication to be passed upon such as refuse to have their Children Baptized or to receive the Sacrament from such dumb Ministers Ninthly Though it be not said in so many words That Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops is an Ordinance of God Can. 6. yet it is fairely implied and in the Common-Prayer-Book they bottom it upon the Apostles practice which fully evinceth they esteem it as such That it Tenthly appertains to the Office of Ministers to Marry the regulation of the Ministers therein by Can. 62. clearly manifests Eleven That the Bishop of the Diocesse may lawfully suspend a Minister from his Ministry for refusing to bury the Dead Mr. T. grants is presupposed Can. 68. So is 12thly The unlawfulness of Ministers Preaching and administring the Communion in private Houses except in time of necessity And 13thly The unlawfulness of appointing Fasts holding Meetings for Sermons Can. 71 72. I wonder he dare aver the contrary Whether 14thly It be not said Can. 74. That Ministers ought to be distinguished by their Vestments and Apparrel as Gowns Hoods c. Let the Reader satisfie himself by the perusal of the said Canon to which their practice is known to be correspondent Having instanced in these 14 particulars we add in S. T. Are any of these Ordinances of the appointment of Christ when and where were they instituted by him To which this Animadverter replies 1. That he might answer by cross interrogations Are the Church Covenant-gathering-Churches in the Congregational way election of Ministers by the Church c. Ordinances of Christ when and where were they instituted Answ 1. He may so indeed but he must not imagine that any one besides himself will take this for an Answer to what is proposed and argued in this matter by us 2. Of the particulars instanced by him we have hinted somewhat in S. T. and more largely in this Treatise proving them to be Ordinances of Christ Cotton Ainsworth Bartlet Robbinson Canne c. have distinctly proved these matters at large When Mr. T. or any one else is able to say half so much for the particulars instanced in we will openly acknowledge our errour and mistake But 2dly He grants They are not Ordinances and Institutions of Christ. Answ Ingeniously said Church-Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops and the rest of that Hierarchy is no Ordinance of Christ then are they not Ministers of Christ for none are such but by his Institution The Lyturgie-Worship Rites enjoyned in the Common-Prayer-Book the Office of a Deacon as the first step to the Priesthood denial to expound the Scripture without the Bishops License unpreaching Ministers or bare Readers administration of Sacraments by such Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops the Marrying of persons burying the dead by the Priest are no Ordinances of Jesus Christ is acknowledged by Mr. T. Yet all these and much more as a National Church are owned and submâ—tted to by the present Ministers Therefore they do own and submit to Ordinances that are not of the appointment of Christ their own Advocate being judge We add in S. T. That these are Posts set by the Lords Posts of which he complains Ezek. 43. 8. who sees not To which Mr. T. replies I see not I think him in a dream or phrensie that saith he sees it no Interpreters that I have met with so expâ—und the place Answ 1. 'T is no disparagement to Mr. T. that he sees not every thing though some think he sees further than he is pleased to own in his Theodulia or at least hath done so and are sorry to find him at that toilsom work of building again the things he once destroyed Nor am I 2dly concerned with his thoughts touching this matter If I am in a phrensie 't is through grace an holy one
common consent Which that it was observed by the Apopostles of Christ the sacred History testifies Acts 15. And this is the Opinion of the most famous Doctors of the Canon-Law saith Durandus De Sanct. Minist Lib. 1. c. 11. He saith more truly perhaps than he was aware That as the whole Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod and no otherwise Now we know that the meeting of a company of Knights Gentlemen at Westminster is not the Parliament the Representative of the Kingdom Their free Election by the Body of the People of the Nation renders them so In like manner the Convention of a company of Prelates and Priests make not a Synod by our Animadverters own Argument but their Election by the People to meet and sit in Council together as their Representees which the Synod so called at London One thousand six hundred and three nor any National Synod ever since had not the Choice of the People was never minded never was their consent required So that in the sence he takes the word Church which yet is forreign to the Scripture as we say in S. T. the Church of England was never yet concerned In what follows in this Section Mr. T. himself will acknowledge I am not further concerned Sect. 2. The present Ministers oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ whilst they own Laws contrary to the Revelation of Christ That they do thus evinced by the induction of particular instances Acts 8. 27. â— Tim. 6. 15. Jer. 51. 26. Luke 11. 2. Mat. 6. 7 8 9. Whether Christ there instituted a form of Prayer Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15. Mark 14. 18 22 23. opened That Christ sate with his Disciples in the celebration of the Ordinance of breaking Bread evinced Of Kneeling The reason of its first institution It s opposition to 1 Thes 5. 22. manifested Of forbidding to Marry and commanding to abstain from Meats IN Sect. 6. Mr. T. proceeds to the examination of what is further produced in S. T. for the manifestation of the guilt of the present Ministers in their opposing the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ which we further prove because they own submit and subscribe to Laws Constitutions and Ordinances that are contrary to the Revelation of Christ This we prove by particular instances They own and acknowledge 1. That there may be other Arch-Bishops and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ besides himself Which is contrary to 1 Pet. 5. 3. 1 Cor. 12. 5. Ephes 4. 5. Heb. 3. 1. Luke 22. 22 25. 26. To which our Animadverter replies 1. They do not acknowledge them in opposition to these Scriptures Answ But that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. T. may be ashamed of such pitiful beggery He adds 2ly They do not acknowledge Arch-Bishops over the whole Church as the Pope but in their own Province Answ This is not at all material the authority of Arch-Bishops over a Province is as much against the Texts mentioned as over the whole Church 'T is not the extent of Authority Lordship that is therein condemned but the thing it self 3ly He further tells us They have no such dominion ascribed to them over the Church they oversee as is forbidden 1 Pet. 5. 3. Luke 22. 25 26. Answ 1. This is again to beg the thing in question 2ly We have proved the contrary He adds 4ly They are not Lords in the Church but in the Kingdom and Parliament Answ False and untrue I wish he speak not against knowledge in this matter 1. When invested into their Episcopal Sees they are stiled Arch-Bishops of such a place or Province Lord-Bishop of such a See 2. The Priests submit to them pray for them as their good Lords 3. They have Power Authority Precedency as such over the rest of the Clergy give forth Laws and Canons to rule and guide them to whom they promise obedience at their Ordination 4. They exercise jurisdiction authority over their respective Diocesses in their Ecclesiastical Courts and Consistories as such all evident Ensigns and Demonstrations of Lordly Dignities even in and over that which they call the Church That which he 5ly adds of the Eunuchs being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 8. 27. without contradiction to 1 Tim. 6. 15. where Christ is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frivolous 1. The Eunuch is not said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Potentate with respect to the Church of God over it he was not such but with respect to the Kingdom of Aethiopia where he was a Noble Man a Governor under Candace the Queen Our Bishops are Potentates in and over that which they call the Church of Christ 2. That any other besides Christ should exercise Lordship and Authority in the World is not interdicted as is their so doing in the Churches of Christ in the Scriptures mentioned He saith 5ly He hath not shewed that what is acknowledged is a Law Constitution or Ordinance nor the Ministers own it by subscription Answ True indeed I did not do so for I thought it needless to demonstrate that the Sun shines at noon-dayes Are not the Offices of Arch-Bishops Lord-Bishops Constitutions and Ordinances Have they not their Foundation and Establishment by Law Doth not Mr. T. know it Is he onely a stranger in our Israel Of the Truth of this there are not many in the Nation that are or can be ignorant That the Ministers own these whether by subscription or otherwise is not considerable Mr. T. deals injuriously whilst he suggests I say they own these with the rest of the particulars mentioned by subscription when I assert onely That they own submit and subscribe to i. some of them they manifest they own by Subscription others other wayes but they own submission to them all is too notorious to admit of a denyal They do so in their Ordination when they promise Canonical Obedience to them in their prayers for them subjection to their precepts from time to time transmitted to them which they dare not transgress 2ly That men may and ought to be made Ministers onely by these Lord-Bishops is we say in S. T. owned by the present Ministers which is contrary to Heb. 5. 4. John 10. 1 7. 13. 20. Acts 14. 23. with 6. 3 5. What Mr. T. adjoyns hereunto touching Ordination by Suffâ—agan Bishops hath already been removed out of the way How much they own a Presbyterian Ordination of which he speaks many good men in the Nation feel and find Of these things we have already spoken That Ordination by Lord-Bishops is established by Law is known and that exclusively to any other without them Hereunto the Ministers subscribe Can. 36. The Scriptures instanc'd in prove this to be contrary to the Revelation of Christ Heb. 5. 4. John 10. 1 7. 13. 20. manifestly evince That who-ever undertakes to be a Minister of the Lord in his Church must
be called of sent by him So was Aaron Acts 14. 23. 6. 3 5. manifest that the Way of the Lord's mission is not by Lord-Bishops but by his Churches and People What he tells us he hath said in answer to any of these Scriptures we have replyed to Chap. 2. We add in S. T. 3ly That Prelates their Chancellors and Officers have power from Christ to cast out of the Church of God is owned by them contrary to Mat. 18. 16 17. 1 Cor. 5. 4. To which our Animadverter subjoyns He finds no such Law Answ It may be he is willingly ignorant hereof This he cannot but know that in the Name of Christ the Officers mentioneâ— do excommunicate out of the Church so call'd of Christ Do they do this without Law Is it not one of their Church-constitutions that they may do so Do not the present Ministers own them herein Whilst they cite present persecute their Neighbours for not coming to Divine Service as they call it it may be for refusing to pay them a four-penny-due in the Ecclesiastical Courts even to an Excommunication whose Act therein they afterwards publickly denounce and declare once and again in obedience to them What more evident The weakness of his answer to Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. we have already manifested We say further in S. T. That they own 4ly that the Office of the Suffragans Deans Canons are lawful and necessary to be had in the Church contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 18 28. Rom. 12. 7. Ephes 4. 11. The Officers instituted by Christ are sufficient for the edification and perfecting of the Saints till they all come unto a perfect man v. 12 13. In what sense the forementioned being not one of them of the Institution of Christ may be owned as lawful and necessary without an high contempt of the Wisdom and Sovereignty of Christ I am not able to conceive this is the sum Mr. T. replies 1. He knows not where this imagined Ordinance is Answ That there are such Officers and Offices in the Church of England established by the Laws thereof he cannot be ignorant To say They are Antichristian or repugnant to the Word of God is censured by the Canons thereof Can. 7. That the Ministers own submit to some of them is known The vanity and impertinency of Mr. T. his pleading for them not to mention his perjury therein is discovered in our present Vindication of Chap. 3. from his exceptions against what is by us therein argued We say they own 5thly That the Office of Deacons in the Church is to be imployed in publick Praying administration of Baptism and Preaching if licensed by the Bishop thereunto contrary to Act. 6. 2. Ephes 4. 11. Mr. T. replies 'T is not contrary to Christ's Revelation that they should be imployed in those works Ans 1. But when Christ hath instituted the office of Deacons for this end to attend Tables or look after the provision and necessities of the Saints That any persons may own an Office of Deacons in the Church to be imploy'd by virtue of Office-power in any other work than that for which they are intrusted by Christ and called unto Office without an advance against that Institution of Christ is absurd to imagine 2. That the present Ministers own such an Office he doth not deny 3. What he speaks of Stephen and Philip he had said before and to it we have replied already and need noâ— add more A sixth Law or Ordinance that we say they own is this That the Ordinance of Breaking Bread or the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be administred to one alone as to a sick man ready to die Which is diametrically opposite to the Nature and Institution of that Ordinance 1 Cor. 10. 16. and 11. 33. Mat. 26. 26. Acts 2. 42. and 20. 7. To which Mr. T. This is not easily proved from the Scripâ—ures instanced in Answ Whether it be or not is left to the judgment of the judicious Reader to determine I am weary in pursuâ—â—g him in his impertinencies He grants a Communion is proved in that Sacrament 1 Cor. 10. 16. but vers 17. and 1 Cor. 12. 13. prove the Communion to be rather with all Christians Of which yet there is not one word in either of the places In vers 17. He speaks of the Church of Corinth that was one bread one body The other Scripture speaks nothing of Saints Communion one with another in this Ordinance 1 Cor. 11. 33. Acts 20. 7. he confesseth prove That it should be administred when all the Communicants Church or Brethren he should say are come together Whether its administration to one alone be not diametrically opposite hereunto as also to the very first Institution of this Ordinance Mat. 26. 26. let the Judicious judge Though it be said Act. 2. 46. that they brake bread from house to house it doth not follow there was none beside the Minister and the sick man the words import the contrary We manifest further in S. T. That they own 7thly a prescript form of Words in Prayer that a ceremonious pompous Worship devised â—y 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. By this prescript form of Words this ceremonious pompous Worship the Common-Prayer-Book Collegiat-Worship and Service is intended This I say is devised by man the owning whereof is contrary to Mat. 15. 9. and 28. 20. Deut. 12. 22. abused to Idolatry The owning hereof is opposite to Jer. 51. 26. It is Ceremonious and Pompous the abetting whereof is adverse to Joh. 4. 23. as is the owning of a prescript Form of Words to Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15. To which our Animadverter replies 1. He should have told us what part of the Common-Prayer-Book was abused to Idolatry Answ The whole of it is so being Worship not appointed by the Lord and used in that Church that is the most Idolatrous Church in the world What he hath said in this Chap. Sect. 3. or in Chap. 3. Sect. 4. We have already answered His great out-cry of our abuse of Jer. 51. 26. produced to prove it unlawful to use any thing in the Worship of God abused to Idolatry will soon be evinced to be an empty sound Vox praeterea nihil 1. We have for our Companions in this Exposition persoâ—s not contemptible for wisdom and holiness who make conscience of applying Scriptures and abusing the Reader 2. Of all men Mr. T. iâ— the most incompetent for the management of this charge who most egregiously perverts Scriptures in this Treatise contrary to former Interpretations given by himself to them and to the plain intendment of the Spirit therein As we have in part manifested and may do further in our Appendix 3. He egregiously abuseth the Reader in this very passage whilst
words therein contained because he saith When ye pray say Our Father 2dly That which is in Mat. 6. is a full Interpretation of Luke's expression and Christ's intendment viz. vers 9. After this manner pray ye c. Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to this purpose 3dly We no where find the Disciples either themselves using the form of words here mentioned nor in all their directions given to the Churches touching this important duty is there the least recommendation of the use of these words to them nor are they prescribed as a matter of duty upon any of them 4thly There are not the same words nor the same number of words in Mat. 6. 9. as in Luke 11. 2. So that if Christ enjoyns us to the use of the words he enjoyns us to sin for if I use the words recited by Matthew I sin against the injunction in Luke and so contraâ—ily 5thly Paul expresly saith We know not what to pray for as we ought Rom. 8. 26. which were scarce consistant with truth if Christ had tied us to the use of those words in Prayer 2. Impertinent â—estructive of the cause he hath undertaken the defence of upon supposition that Christ hath prescribed a Form of Prayer to be used it follows not that others may so prescribe and ordain but rather the contrary The prescription of another form by them casts on his the reproach of imperfection and insufficiency Our Saviour hath prescribed us a form of Prayer to be used as a form by the repetition of the same words therefore we may use it yea we must is an invincible Argument on supposition of the truth of the Proposition But our Saviour hath prescribed us such a form Therefore we may use another which he hath not prescribed hath saith a learned man neither shew nor colour of Reason in it But Mr. T. will prove That a form of Prayer prescribed and imposed is not contrary to Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15. For 1st 'T is not said the Spirit helps our infirmities by suggesting the form of words but by making known what things we shall ask and by exciting in us groans and sighs that are unutterable Answ 1. The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Spirit helpeth as the Nurse the Child or as a strong man him that is fainting under his burden our sicknesses weaknesses infirmities Whatever the inabilities and infirmities of the Saints are he helps them in and under them which Mr. T. doth ill to apply solely to our inward weaknesses when the Lord doth not do so 2. Hath he never known an unapâ—ness of expression to be upon him in this and other duties in which he hath been holpen by the Spirit of the Lord 3. Is not such an unaptness one of our weaknesses to prevent which iâ— is pleaded forms of Prayer are prescribed which is directly to justle out the Spirit and put these forms in his place this the Spirit shall help saith the Apostle 4. Have not many of the Saints under the sense of their inabilitie suitably to express themselves lived in a dependance upon this promise and found the Spirit helping their infirmities indeed 5. Is it not as much our duty to wait for the Spirit to give us a Mouth and Wisdom to speak to God a door of utterance when before him as when we are speaking to men 6. The Assembly in their Annotations interpret it of the assistance of the Spirit in respect of words as otherwise But Mr. T. will prove the contrary because 1. It 's said the Spirit maketh intercession for us with groans unutterable Answ 1. Groans unutterable are either 1. such as my words and expressions cannot fully reach or 2. such whose vertue and excellency doth not consist in the number and flourish of words as the prayers of Hypocrites Mat. 6. 7. but in most lively feelings and pangs of the Spirit but that therefore we must not use words in prayer or that in so doing we may not expect the help and assistance of the Spirit is yet to be proved He adds 2dly That 1 Cor. 14. 15. is such a praying in the Spirit as may be 1. without the understanding of him that prayes or 2. others even such as he that occupieth the room of the unlearned cannot say Amen Answ 1. The first is not said Mr. T. doth ill to impose his own crude conceptions upon the Spirit of the Lord 'T is said indeed That his understanding is unfruitful viz. to others what he conceives they are not better'd by because brought forth in an unknown tongue 2. The words they speak in an unknown Tongue were from the assistance of the Spirit therefore call'd a praying in or by the Spirit so that this is so far from abetting what he produceth it for viz. that the Spirit doth not suggest words that it proves the contrary 3. A manifest evidence also that a form of prayer imposed is contrary to this gift of praying in the Spirit for had they been tied to the former the exercise hereof had been altogether shut out which being a Spiritual gift was to be coveted by the Saints chap. 14. 1. As for what he adds 1. That the assistance of the Spirit Rom. 8. is meant of secret private prayers not of publick is frivolous 'T is not to be imagined that God should promise his help in the managerie of private duties and not afford it in such as are more publick in the honourable performance whereof his glory is more eminently concerned 'T is 2. fond to imagine that it should be meant of raptures and extasies in Prayer 'T is a promise made to the Saints in general which they reap the daily fruit of to their own Souls and cannot be perswaded upon such easie tearms to let go their interest therein These Texts stand diametrically opposite to a form of Prayer which renders the assistance of the Spirit both as to matter and words useless both which are ready prepared therein We say in S. T. That the present Ministers own 8thly That wicked and ungodly persons and their Seed are lawful Members of â—he Church and if they consent not willingly to be so they may be compelled thereunto contrary to Psalm 110. 3. Acts 2. 40 41 47. 19. 9. 2 Cor. 6. 14 17. 9. 13. Which is so notoriously known to be according to the Canons of their Church and consonant to their daily practice that I wonder Mr. T. should enquire after the Law or Constitution of this instance and much more that he should say He knows not where to find it as he doth Sect. 8. He hath sure read Can. 112. 22 57. where he will find an abundant demonstration of the truth of what we have asserted He adds None of the Scriptures produced prove that persons may not be compel'd by pecuniary mulcts to come to Common-Prayer or the Communion Answ 1. And why pleads he onely for the lawfulness of Pecuniary Mulcts Doâ—h the Canon-Law extend no
Soveraignty over the Subjects of his Kingdom with respect to Worship be granted by him to any of the sons of men absolutely or conditionally If the first tâ—en must the Church be governed by persons casting off the yoke of Christ trampling upon his Royal Commands and Edicts for so its possible it may fall out those that attain this Headship may do as its evident many Popes of Rome the great pretenders hereunto have done If the second let one iota be produced from the Scripture of the Institution of such an Headship with the conditions annexed thereunto and we shall be so far from denying it that we shall chearfully pay whatever respect homage or duty by the Laws of God or man may righteously be expected from us But this we conceive will not in hast be performed and that for these Reasons 1. The Scripture makes mention of no other Head in and over the Church but Christ Ephes 1. 22. 5. 23 29. 2 Cor. 11. 2. To this Mr. T. answers 1. We use not the title of Head but of Supream Governour yet that title being given to Saul 1 Sam. 15. 17. and others 1 Cor. 11. 3. Ephes 5. 23. Exod. 6. 14. and may be used Answ 1. What We Mr. T. means when he saith We use not the title of Head I know not 't is the usual form of the present Ministers to stile the King in their prayers Under Thee and Thy Christ Supream Head and Governor But 2dly Head of the Church is a title nor to be given to any in that sence in which it is given to Christ this Animadverter grants I ask Hath Christ onely an Headship of influence to his Church communicating vital Spirits unto the true Members thereof Hath he not also an Headship of Government over it If he assert the first he knows he is departed into the Tents of the Antichristian Papal Shepherds who allow indeed such an Headship to Christ alone The second they divide betwixt him and the Pope as Mr. T. seems to do betwixt him and the King If the second be owned by him than none of the Children of men have an Headship of Government over the Churches of Christ they are not so the Supream Governors thereof as to give forth Laws and Institutions of their own for the Saints to conform to For this title of Head is not to be appropriated to any in that sense in which it is given to Christ as saith our Animadverter Besides 2dly If the Kings of the Earth are the Supream Governors of the Churches of Christ they have this Supremacy over them by grant from Christ and that either absolutely or conditionally if the first then whoever ascends the Throne of worldly Ruledom hath a right of supremacy over them though they themselves be such as have cast off the Yoak of Christ are trampling upon his Royal Laws and Edicts If the second let us see the proof thereof from Scripture with the conditions annexed to this their supremacy and we are satisfied This we told Mr. T. before but he was not pleased to take notice of it That because the Scriptures mentioned by him attribute â—he title of Head of the Tribes to Saul and the Man is called the Head of the Woman Therefore the Governors of the World may be called the Head of the Churches of Christ when that title of Head of the Church is given to none but Christ in the Scripture is such a piâ—iful non-sequitur as Mr. T. will not surely without blushing review Sir Saul was constituted by the Lord King over Israel a Man to have superiority over the Woman with allusion hereunto they are called their Head by the Spirit of the Lord But where is the Scripture constitution of the Superiority Kingship of any over the Church beside Christ Amongst whom he saith He will have no such thing Where is it that any have this title of Head of the Church ascribed to them by the Holy Ghost This must be proved or you must acknowledge the impertinency and invalidity of their present arguing the best of it is whether you will be so ingenuous or no 't is but a Fig-leaf covering that every eye can discern your nakedness through it We say in S. T. 2dly If there be any other Head of the Church besides Christ he must be either within or without the Church The latter will not be affirmed Christ had not sure so little respect to his Flock as to appoint Wolves and Lyons to their Governors and Guides in matters Ecclesiastical nor can the former for all in the Church are Brethren have no Dominion or Authority over each others Faith or Conscience Luke 22. 25. Mr. T. replies Though all in the Church are Brethren yet all are not equal nor doth Luke 22. 25. prove it Answ 'T is enough for our present purpose that all in the Church are thus far equal that being all brethren none may exercise any Ruledom or Authority over the rest without their consent nor any such Ruledom as to command in case of Worship where Christ is silent which is at least asserted Luke 22. 25. and Mr. T. may confute it when he is able Of this Scripture we have spoken at large Chap. 4. and of Rom. 13. 1. Heb. 13. 17. frequently and have fully removed out of the way what is here repeated touching the Laws of Rulers and their obligation upon Conscience nor need we add more We say further in S. T. 3dly If any other be Head of the Church but Christ then is the Church the body of some others beside Christ but this is absurd and false not to say impious and blasphemous To which Mr. T. Particular Churches in respect of that ministration and government which their Governors afford them may be said to be the bodies of their Governors Answ Boldly ventured however 1. The Church is frequently said to be the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 12. 12 27. Ephes 5. 30 32. Col. 1. 18. 2dly Is no where said to be the body of any other not of Peter Paul much less of Nero Domitian the Supream Governours of the Empire at that day By what Authority Mr. T. takes the body of Christ and joyns it to another Head besides himself I am yet to learn 3dly The Church is call'd his Body upon the account of that glorious nearness and union is betwixt Christ and them the reception of Spirits life from him their absolute indisputable subjection to him Is the Church the body of any other with respect hereunto beside Christ Where is it so called Is it united or in subjection to any other besides Christ as the Woman is to the Man upon the account whereof she is call'd his body Ephes 5. 28. his I say not anothers That Mr. T. should assert That upon the same account the Church may be called the body of some other beside Christ We add 4thly There was no Head of the Church in the Apostles dayes but Christ That upon any
in another way than he hath said he will be worshipped and is prescribed by him is in S. T. thus demonstrated Those that worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book worship him in another way than he hath said he will be worshiped in and is prâ—scribed by him But the present Ministers of England worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book Therefore The Minor cannot be denied their subscription before they are admitted into the Ministry with their daily and constant practice are sufficient evidences thereof To this Mr. T. replies Sect 3. 1. Way of Worship not prescribed by God he tells us may be 1st When the Worship is to another thing besides or with God in which sense the Minor was denied and should have been proved Answ 1. But in this sense we discharged the Ministers of England of the guilt of Idolatry What obligation lies upon us to prove a charge against them we never impleaded them as guilty I know not 2. If this be all Mr. T. contends about That they worship not another thing besides or with the true God he fights with a man of straw of his own making 3. When he demonstrates as he how dictates that this alone proves Idolatry i. e. there is no other Idolatry but the worshipping that which is not God by Nature I will acknowledge my mistake we have proved the contrary in which we have the concurrent testimony of the most all Expositors and Casuists that have written about Idolatry who make worshipping the true God in a way not of his perscription to be the Idolatry forbidden in the second Commandment Dr. Willet one of their own tells us as much Com. on Exod. p. 338. So doth the learned Usher Ball Ursin Calvin Wendeline Altingius Ravanellus Maccovius c. besides those we have already mentioned He adds 2dly By another way may be meant another Ceremony or Rite in which the Worship of God is placed but this Author goes not about to prove the minor in this sense Answ 1. By worshipping God in another way I understand the tendring to God a Worship and Service of humane devising that he no where calls for This I prove the Ministers of England do when they draw nigh to God with their Common-Prayer-Book-Service in their hands And Mr. T. talks idely when he saith The Worship of God is not placed therein If it be not they have in many places of the Land no Worship of God at all 't is frequently by them call'd Diviâ—e Service and the Service of the Church 'T is made such a necessary part of Worship that Preaching must give place to it As to what he adds 1. That I suppose that God hath appointed the particularities of the way of his Worship We answer ' That particularities of Worship as such are determined by the Lord we have asserted and proved what Mr. T. hath offered to the contrary in answer to the Preface Sect. 20. chap. 1. Sect. 3. chap. 4. Sect. 9. chap. 5. Sect. 3 4 5 7. is fully answered in our Reply thereunto 2. That the Argument may be retorted upon my self is a vanity of the Animadverter because 1. our dispute is not as he would bear the Reader in hand about every form of expression but of such a form wherein the Worship of God is placed which is â—mposed upon the Churches of Christ without subjection to which it is denied them to worship God at all as such for refusing whereof they are exposed to Excommunications and total ruine in this World 2. We have already proved that forms of prayer enjoyned are condemned by the Lord and praying in the Spirit commended and commanded We proceed in S. T. and prove That to worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book is to worship him in a way that is not of his appointment which is the major proposition because the least footsteps of such a way of Worship is not to be found in the Old or New Testament enjoyned by Christ or his Apostles nor for several centuries of years afterwards of which we treat at large in S. T. What Mr. T. is pleased Sect. 4. in the first and second place to answer hereunto we have already replied to He adds 3dly He still acknowledgeth that the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is the Worship of the true God Answ 1. I do so indeed and so was the Athenian Worship Acts 17. 23. yet an Idolatrous Worship and they themselves Idolaters 2dly Though I grant it to be the Worship of the true God yet I prove it not to be the true Worship of God and therefore Idolatrous He adds 4thly That he doth not except against the matter of the prayers in the Common-Prayer-Book Answ True in the place under consideration I do not but it doth not therefore follow that it 's not liable to exception Somewhat was hinted in S. T. touching this matter and more may be added in its proper place He adds That these three things are affirmed by me 1. That all Liturgies or stinted forms of prayer are not of Gods appointment but of humane invention 2. That they are unduly imposed on Ministers 3. That Ministers do sinfully yea idolatrously use them because it 's â— way of Worship not appointed of God With respect to which he affirms 1. That stinted forms of Prayer and Service of God which are not otherwise faulty then in that they are stinted may be lawfully used by a Minister of the Gospel in his publick Administration 2. That such Prayers and Service are a Worship of God in a way of his appointment Answ 1. And both these might be granted him without the least detriment to the Cause undertaken by us For the Common-Prayer-Book-Service is otherwise faulty than in that it is stinted viz. because abused to Idolatry the matter of it is in not a few things liable to exceptions the Rites and Modes enjoyned therein abominable 2. He should have proved one thing more viz That a Service devised by man as the Common-Prayer-Book is may lawfully be imposed and as so submitted to and that this is justifiable A failure wherein renders us unconcern'd in what is nextly offered by him This he expresly tells us p. 222. He will not justifie So brave a Champion is he for the Clergy that when he should come to a close encounter he fairly takes his heels and quits the Field leaving them poor men to shift for themselves as well as they can However we attend the proof of his Assertions 1. Christ appointed the Lords Prayer to be used by the Apostles as a stinted form tying them to the use of so many words and no more Mat. 6. 9. Luke 11. 2. Answ 1. Notoriously false as we have manifested together with the invalidity of mens arguings from hence for a stinted imposed Liturgie cap. 6. of this Treatise 2. Nor is this one of the Placita of the Separatists Grotius is of the same mind on Luke 11. 1. Teach us a compendium of those
duty that God not man hath appointed as such thereunto And in this sense is the Rule given by them about the Decalogue That which requires the duty requires the means conducing thereunto And except means be taken by him in this sense we deny his Major No Form may lawfully be used in Worship but that which is a means of the appointment of God to further a positive Duty If he prove his Common-Prayer-Book-Service to be such a Form he doth somewhat but till then Rapiunt conamina Venti Hebeats the air 2ly Why speaks he so faintly in his Minor Such May be the Forms Why speaks he not out and plainly as one that believes he speaks Truth Such Are the Forms of Prayer in the Common-Prayer-Book Now this we also deny not only 1. Because they are not means appointed by the Lord for that end But also because 2. The gift of Prayer consists in somwhat else than memory and eloqution viz. In an ability of mind to form words expressive of the desires of our hearts wherein these Forms are not pleaded to be helpful And yet 3. However it comes to pass we find not the most devout Liturgists to excel either in memory or eloqution And 4. Our own experience and the experience of the whole Nation tells us the contrary to what Mr. T. affirms The Common-Prayer-Book-Priests are of all persons the most dull unapt and heavy in that duty of Prayer who must have a prayeâ— penn'd for them for every occasion or they can say nothing Now Mr. T. hath not produced one convincing Argument to prove that a man must believe contrary to what he sees and knows We add in S. T. 3dly The Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is a Worship of which we find no foot-steps in the Scripture 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 Worship as is proved in our first Argument and to very many precepts of the Lord in the Scripture Exod. 20. 4 5. Deut. 4. 2. 13. 32. Prov. 30. 16. Jer. 7. 31. Mat. 15. 9 13. Mar. 7. 7 8. Rev. 22. 18. The mind of God in which Scriptures we have exemplified Lev. 10. 1 2 3 4. Jos 22. 10. Judg. 8. 2. 2 Kings 16. 11. 1 Chr. 15. 3. What Mr. T. answers hereunto Sect. 6. is 1st No more than what he hath often said and hath been as often answered 2dly He hath culd out five or six Scriptures from the rest â—hich he yet wrests to another purpose than they were produced for We do not introduce them to prove the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is an Humane Invention which we demonstrate it to be because not founded upon the Scriptures but that the Introduction of Humane Inventions into the Worship of God is interdicted in them The verity wheâ—eof the Reader will evidently see proved by a sober perusal of them 3dly He absurdly asserts that a Worship not founded in the Scriptures is not of pure Humane Invention I confess it may be Diabolical and is call'd Devillism or worshiping the Devil Psal 106. 37. But Divine it is not whilst not built upon that Basis 4. He yeelds the whole cause whilst he grants that all Inveâ—tions of Men whereby our Worship of God is signified are unlawful if made necessary when the Worship of God is placed in them or their use which all know to be the case of our Liturgical forms Of Jos 22. 10. we have at large treated chap. 2. We say further in S. T. 4thly That Worship which is not necessary for the edification comfort or preservation of the Saints in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel is not of the institution of Christ but such is the Worship of the Common-Prayer-Book Therefore The major is evident the particulars instanced in were the great aim and end of Christ in all Gospel-Administrations Ephes 4. 7 10 15. Col. 2. 19. Acts 9. 31. Rom. 14. 14 15. 1 Cor. 10. 23. 14. 3 4 5 12 26. 2 Cor. 12. 10. 1 Tim. 1. 4. The minor is proved by this that the Churches of Christ for the first four Centuries of years and more knew not any thing of such a Worship yet they enjoyed the ends of Gospel-Administrations mentioned To which Mr. T. Sect. 7. 1. Insinuates that the Scriptures produced are abusively wrested as proving nothing of Christs aim in his Institutions Answ 1. Let this be considered Ephes 4. 7 8. Ye have an account of the ascention of Christ and his giving gifts unto men as Apostles v. 11. For what end and purpose v. 12. For the perfecting of the Saints for the edifying of the Body of Christ Col. 2. 19. speaks of the Churches increase as a Body through the nourishment ministred in the Administration of the Gospel or through the Golden Pipes of Gospel-Institutions by which Acts 9. 31. it 's said The Churches were edified Rom. 14. 19 20. It 's pressed as the duty of Saints in Gospel-fellowship to follow after things wherewith one may edifie another and 1 Cor. 10. 23 24. tells us That some things in themselves lawful are to be forborn amongst Saints in Church-Communion because they edifie not Ch. 14. 3 4. c. 26. tells us That the end for which the gift of prophesying was given was the edification of the Saints which Paul professeth 2 Cor. 12. 19. to be the aim of his Soul and charges Timothy 1 Tim. 1. 4. to mind this as the great thing in his Ministry An evident demonstration that this was the main end of Christ in these Gospel-Institutions and that the Separatists as Mr. T. talks multiply not Texts impertinently bâ—t he needlesly cavils against what is from Scripture-evidence asserted and egregiously abuseth the unwary Reader 2. Doth he denie the things mentioned to be the aim and end of Christ in Gospel-Administrations Doth he prove that the Common-Prayer-Book-Service is necessary for the obtainment of these ends nor at all He tells us indeed That Prayers Praisâ—s c. are so Which if meant of such as are of his appointment managed according to his will in his own way by his own Spirit we grant to be true but he forgets to prove that the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is so That we confound the form or mode of the Worship with the Worship is not true they themselves make these forms such a necessary part of Worship by their imposition that without them we may not pray to or praise God at all Whilst he grants Liturgical forms are not necessary for the ends mentioned he throws down the master Pillar upon which it stands upright in the thoughts of some the preservation of union amongst the people necessarily requires such an uniformity say the Masters of Ceremonies His retortion of the Argument is ridiculous We say not That that Worship which in respect of the mode or form of performing it is not necessary for the edification of the Saints in
Answ 1. Not as he is when he ties himself to a Form of Words in Prayer 2. Not so but if the Spirit whose motions are regular and leads not to such confusions as Mr. T. talks of of all speaking together moves powerfully upon the heart of the hearer he ought after the other hath done to proceed further in that work according to the ability shall be given him and not to do so were his sin So that of these things there is not the same reason How the true motions of the Spirit of God are to be discerned from the stirrings of our natural affections is of greater import than in this haste to be spoken to caution and carefulness is herein to be used To the second he answers In some cases a stinted Form is helpful to the understanding memory affections utterance in Prayer Answ 1. To this we have already replied 2ddly The experience of many Saints is far otherwise 3dly The Spirit is given to help our infirmities in Prayer Rom. 8. 26. both as to matter and manner of expression the donation of the Spirit as to both these ends is by a Form of Prayer rendred useless direct me as to matter he must not for what I am to pray for is in my Prayer-book under my eye nor as to words for I am absolutely tied up to the use of those verbal expressions are in the Prayer before me To the third he tells us 1st That that of 2 Tim. 1. 6. is to be understood of his ability to preach the Gospel so is the improving the Talentâ— Mat. 25. 15 27. Luke 19. 13 23. Answ By the Gift given and the Talents we are to understand every gift and ability given to us of the Lord which we are bound to improve by virtue of the forecited Scriptures for to that end was it given us If God hath given the gift of Prayer for the edification of the Body of Christ to any one wo be to that man that shall neglect to improve it Mr. T. talks carnally whilst he calls the gift of Prayer a mean thing Spiritual Saints know it to be sublime excellent and glorious being in them the fruit of the Spirit of Adoption He adds 2dly He may stir up the gift of expression at another time who is tied to a Lyturgical Form Answ 1. The gift of Prayer is more than the gift of Expression as we have shewed 2. Gifts received are alwayes to be exercised when called to the work for which they are received We must offer of our own that God hath graciously given us when we offer to him not another mans 3. We are alwayes obliged to those Lyturgical Forms in every Church-administration except before and after Sermon and then we are not without a boundary as was shewed To the fourth he answers The lawfulness of Saints praying in a Form is neither because they have not the Spirit nor because he is not sufficient to help them in their approaches to God but because there is nothing in such praying done that is forbidden nor any thing that is required omitted Answ The falsity and vanity of this we have evinced but even now nor is there any thing further offered touching this matter that is worth the considering but what is already replied to What he hath spoken Chap. 5. Sect. 7. we have answered in our Reply thereunto 'T were easie to multiply Arguments to prove the unlawfulness of stinted Forms of Prayer were it needful As fifthly They are no where commanded by Christ or permitted Sixthly They are neither lawful for unregenerate or regenerate persons Not for the first because 1. They teach them to blaspheme belie and misreport God viz. to call him Father when they are not begotten again of him 2. They harden them in a way of sin and strengthen their vain confidences that they are in a saved state 3. They lead them forth to a plain mocking of God viz. In praising him for that he never bestowed upon them as regeneration the holy Spirit peace joy through believing c. Nor for the regenerate are they lawful for the reasons but now mentioned as also because the most exact Forms are not expressive of what they want They bound them where God hath not bound them Ask what ye will saith God Ask only what is in the Form saith the Formalist They hinder their spiritual growth divert the intention of the mind cool the fervency of the Spirit in the performance of the duty of Prayer with much more that might be offered were it needful We add in S. T. 3dly That the Objection supposeth that Forms of Prayer imposed are but meer circumstances of Worship and not parts thereof The contrary hereunto we say is evident That which is made so the condition of an action that without it the action is not to be done is not a circumstance of it but such an adjunct as is a necessary part thereof But Forms of Prayer imposed are so made by that their imposition Therefore Sacrificing of old on the Altar at the Tabernacle and Temple was part of the Worship of God that they were to perform this Worship only at those places being once commanded was not a circumstance of that Worship but as real an essential part thereof as sacrificing was The case is the same here Prayer is commanded so is the use of these Prayers which are as really by that command made alike parts of Worship To this Mr. T. replies That what is made so the condition of an action by virtue of Gods appointment as that without it the action is not to be done is thereby made a necessary part of Worship Not so when made such a condition of an action by virtue of mans precept as is the case of Lyturgical Forms which are therefore notwithstanding that imposition but meer circumstances of Worship Answ 1. What strange Circumstances and Adiaphorisms doth Mr. T. make which are so essential to Worship as that without them it may not be performed Andr. Frisias though a Papist speaâ—s better If it be Adiaphorus why is it not left to the Liberty of every one to use or not to use as he pleaseth for that is the nature of those things that are Adiaphorus De Eccles Lib. 2. Tract 13. in Epist ad Paul 4. fol. 542. 2. How bloodily cruel and sanguinary doth he make our Spiritual Fathers who deliver their own Children over to Satan yea imprison if not banish or hang them for trivial circumstances Strange paternal affections Yet 3dly There is indeed somewhat of Truth in what is asserted by our Dictator 'T is the Authority of God alone that can make any thing a part of his own Worship the imposition and commands of men make it a part of theirs Bowing the knee falling down is no essential part of Gods Worship but it was of Nebuchadnezzars when the Decree was once published neglect of Conformity to which had neaâ— cost the Three Children their Lives Worshipping at Dan
themselves considered But this is but one Doctors opinion retracted by him de Sac. Euch. l. 4. c. 29. where he asserts that which is contrary thereunto should two or three more be remarked of the same mind with him they amount but to a few in comparison of the generality of mankind otherwise minded The Minor Proposition viz. That the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by virtue 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 we do in S. T. demonstrate Three things are in this matter argued and evinced 1st That the Romish Church are Idolaters their Worship in the complexion thereof Idolatry This we prove at large and our Animadverter grants it to be true 2dly That the present Ministers of England act by virtue of an Office-power from this combination and Assembly of Idolaters This they themselves will not deny Succession from hence being one of the best pleas they have for the justification of their Ministry This we argue at large in S. T. and Mr. T. after a great many words grants their succession from Rome But adds 2dly That this is not one of their best pleas they have for the justification of their Ministry Answ 1. When they or he for them produce a better it shall be considered this is what they especially plead an Argument 't is one of their best pleas in their account however our Animadvertâ—r thinks otherwise Nor indeed 2dly Do I see how their Episcopal Ordination can be justified without it He conceives 3dly That they will deny that they act by virtue of an Office-power received by succession from the combination of Idolaters in the Church of Rome Answ 1. The derivation of their succession from the Papacy they deny not This their succession pleaded for is a succession of Ministry That they should be so absurd as to acknowledge a succession in respect of their Ministry from them and deny the reception of their Office-power from them which is nothing more or less than their Office of Ministry I cannot imagine What follows in this Sect. hath already been replied to and therefore we shall not further trouble the Reader therewith We say in S. T. 3dly That the present Ministers offer up to God a Worship meerly of Humane composition as the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship hath been proved to be once abused to Idolatry being the Worship of that Church whose worship is so the whole of it being taken out of the Popes Portuis with the Rites and Modes of Idolaters viz. their Holy Vestments Bowings Candles Altars which are the Rites of the Idolatrous Church of Rome and were introduced from thence by Austin the Monk cannot be denied And hence conclude That the present Ministers acting in the holy things of God by virtue of an Office-power received from Idolaters and offering up to him a Worship meerly of Humane composition once abused to Idolatry with the Rites and Modes of Idolaters are deeply guilty of Idolatry What Mr. T. replies hereunto Sect. 14. hath for the most part already been removed out of the way 1. The Forms of Prayer in the Service-Book by their Imposition are made an essential part of Worship as we have proved as such they are not agreeable to Gods Word not of Divine but meerly humane composition 2. Had these Forms never been in the Mass-Book being made by their imposition a part of Worship they had been superstitious Idolatrous being an open violation of the second Commandment 3. I wonder at the forehead with which 't is affirmed that the Rites and Modes used in the Church of Rome that are Idolatrous are not observed and used What thinks he of bowing at the Altar the Name of Jesus which Dr. Willet acknowledgeth to be superstitious Idolatrous Synops Papism the 9th gener Contro p. 492 493. as do our Protestants generally kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament the Cross in Baptism These are some of the Rites used in the Papacy and as so used Mr. T. will not I presume deny them to be Idolatrous 4. The learned Muccovius proves what he asserts That the sacred Rites of Idolaters though they be things in themselves indifferent are †So say our Divines generally to whom Zâ—nchie Junius Pelican Calvin Beza Farrel yea Lyra though a Papist Pezelius Mollerus Zegedinus Danaeus Zepperus Sadael not to be retained because all conformity with Idolaters is to be avoided from Lev. 19. 19 27 28. 21. 5. Deut. 14. 1. The things there interdicted were in themselves indifferent the ground of their interdiction was because they were the sacred Rites of Idolaters as say Salmasius Herodotus l. 3. Maimonides Treat of Idolatry chap. 12. Sect. 7 11. Vatablus Fagius c. I cannot upon this occasion but remind the judicious Reader of what the learned Zanchy writes touching this matter to Q. Eliz. l. 1. Epist p. 431. 'T is not honest saith he that those things which have a long time been used in idolatrous Worship if they are things in themselves indifferent should be retained in the Church with the hazard of the Salvation of the Godly The brazen Serpent which was appointed by the Lord and indeed for the Salvation of Israel because the Isruelites abâ—sed it contrary to the Word of God was by the good King Hezekiah taken away who is greatly praised for it how much more should things and Rites indifferent instituted by men when they decline to Superstition and other abuses be removed which Mr. T. may answer at his leisure Sect. 6. A third Argument proving the Ministers of England Idolatâ—rs That worshipping God in by or before the creature respectivè or with relation to the creature is Idolatry WE advance in S. T. a third Argument to prove the Ministers of England Idolaters which is thus formed Adoration in by or before a creature respectivè or with relation to the creature is idolatrouâ— such as so adore or worship God are Idolaters But the present Ministers of England do adore or worship God in by or before a creature respectivè or with relation to the creature Therefore The major proposition we say is generally owned by Protestants it being the very same Maxime they make use of and stop the mouths of the Papists with in the point of adoring God mediately by the Creature The truth of the minor proposition their bowing and cringing at the Altar their kneeling at the receiving the Sacrament do evince That their kneeling is an adoration or worshipping God before the creature respectivè or with relation to the creature is manifest Nothing being more certain than that the Elements are objectum a quo or the motive of their kneeling which if they were not there they would not do Didoclavius p. 755. tells us That Genuflexion is Idolatry which Maccovius assents to Loc. Com. p. 861. To which Mr. T. Sect. 15. 1. The Author of S. T.