in words and syllables 7. If Christ had bound us to this Form then we were to use no other neither might the Church prescribe any other neither might particular Christians use their gifts in Prayer nor various Forms of their own or others prescription which would be too grosly absurd for any to assert § 5. But fifthly to infer that Christ by prescribing this Form as imitable by us or by propounding and commending this to us as a Rule or Form did thereby tye us up to other Forms or gave power to the Church to binde us to Forms or that we might binde our selves to other Forms is as great an inconsequence as any in the world for we have shewed there 's more reason to judge that he left it as a Rule than Form If he left it as a Form it 's no ground for other men to make Forms but rather a ground to the contrary it being his Prerogative as our Lord and Master And besides if he hath given us a Form and we are thereby bound to words and sentences we ought not to take up other Forms and multiply thousands of mens prescriptions for the sence of Christ must needs be one of these two when you pray say i. e. use this as the onely Form of Prayer and stick to it for words and sentences and never trouble your selves about any other for if it be taken in the other sence it 's universal Take this as a standing general rule of Prayer to which all sorts of Petitions Deprecations Confessions Thanksgivings are referrable If he had authorized any to compose other teaching Forms he would have said You Apostles and your Successors thou Catholick Church or National Church or particular Congregation do you compose a Form of divine Service and I will set my hand to it § 6. The second part of the Question is Whether a Christian may suffer himself to be bound to a Form of Prayer by humane Authority pretending thereunto The Answer to this Enquiry will be double 1. That whatever Authority Ecclesiastical or Civil doth pretend to such an imposing power a Christian is not to subject himself by active submission 2. That no powers beneath Christ can pretend justly to such Authority The reasons of the first hath been largely enough insisted on before therefore I shall here but touch upon them 1. Because Christ hath not left it indifferent to a Christian to be bound in matters of his Worship where he hath left him at liberty for thereby the use of discretion in conveniencies is lost 2. All those reasons why he may not binde himself to a Form of Prayer do formally prove that he is not to permit himself to be imposed upon in this kind by another 3. None but Christ may prescribe Set-forms of his own Worship and we are not allowed obedientially to submit to any Legislative power in this kind as hath been shewed 4. If a Christian suffer himself in this to be imposed upon he parts with one of the most eminent priviledges that he is capable of viz. that of speaking his minde to God in Prayer and not to be bound to the Dictates and Suggestions of another Who can know our own case in respect of Sins Wants Temptations Mercies c. better than our selves What is more unreasonable than that a Childe though he cannot speak plainly should not be suffered to speak his mind to his Parents as well as he can but must be always prescribed to it in the Servants or elder Brothers words and expressions To deal thus with God's Children is to go about to abandon the Spirit of Adoption which God's Children are led by Rom. 8.2.14 15. which Spirit they have for this end that they cry Abba Father that they may speak the language of the Spirit in Prayer though their utterance be in broken and abrupt Sentences even in sighs and groans which God knows the meaning of Wherefore to put our selves under humane set Forms is to put ourselves into the greatest spiritual Bondage of this nature § 7. Secondly No Power Ecclesiastical or Civil can pretend justly to Authority from Christ to impose on Minister or Christian a set Form of Prayer Argum. 1. If any can pretend to such Authority it must be to impose a set Form of Christs composing or of humane composition But they cannot pretend justly to impose any Prayer of Christs composing because Christ hath neither required nor allowed the imposing the use of that which is called the Lord's Prayer by penal Laws What corporal or pecuniary Mulcts are to be inflicted on a man that doth not use the very words of that Prayer by virtue of any Law of Christ Is he to be Whipped or Fined for it by the Magistrate or Excommunicated by the Church Again they cannot pretend to impose a Form of humane composition for if there be no ground to impose a Form of Prayer of Christ's composition by a penal Law much less to impose one of Mans And for any to undertake either Church or State to prescribe the worship of Christ and to enforce it by punishments where Christ never deputed or allowed such Authority is the greatest presumption and insolency in the world § 8. Argum. 2. He or they that impose a Form of Prayer must do it because it is necessarily or indifferently requisite so to do according to the revealed Will of Christ But none can impose a Form of Prayer for any of these reasons Ergo. 1. None can because a Form of Prayer is necessarity requisite 1. Because Christ hath no where required the Church or Magistrate to impose 2. If a set-Set-form of Prayer were absolutely necessary it could not be to any person or season dispensed with 3. If the necessity be pleaded for publick Prayers that there should be a set Form there is as little necessity of that can be proved from the Word of God as of private set-Set-Forms 4. If there be need of a Form for help in some cases in respect of present weakness of Ministers or Christians it 's no reason therefore it should be imposed as necessary to all it 's pleaded for upon the account of Uniformity but if some of his Majesties Subjects wear Spectacles because of the weakness of their Eyes must all do so too for Uniformity sake though their Eyes be never so good We are to strive after perfection and conformity to Christ therein but are not to endeavour to conform to the weaknesses and imperfections of his Members and take our measures thereby though we are to bear with and condescend to them as much as may be without sin § 9. Secondly A Form of Prayer cannot be imposed as indifferently requisite to the worship of Christ because 1. If any thing be indifferently i. e. conveniently requisite to the worship of Christ it is because Christ hath willed it indifferently requisite for all matters of his Worship take their first reason from his Will 2. There is no reason from the
indifferency of any thing to impose it as necessary But in Spiritual concerns the indifferency of any thing is a reason against the imposition of it as necessary because such an imposition takes away the Formal use as an indifferency 3. What Christ hath revealed as indifferently requisite he hath required a Christian to use indifferently by the judgment of discretion for every action concerning Christ's worship is to be performed as Christ hath prescribed the nature of it necessary things to be done necessarily by us but not to be imposed on us and indifferent things indifferently Therefore an Imposition to enforce the use of indifferent things necessarily and necessary indifferently is unlawful as contrary to the Will of Christ 4. We have before proved that neither Church nor State can change an Evangelical Indifferency in the Worship of Christ into a Necessity § 10. Arg. 3. To exercise Dominion over Mens Faith is unlawful but for Church or Magistrate to impose a set Form of Prayer is to exercise Dominion over Mens Faith Ergo. The Major is without question and to exercise such a Dominion is to prescribe what we shall believe and practice or to enforce us to practice in Sacred things without believing The Minor is true because there can be no greater exercise of Dominion over Faith than in imposing on us a Form of Prayer for every Prayer is to be prayed in Faith or else it is sin Now to impose a Form on me being to enforce me to that Prayer that I be not satisfied in is to impose on my Faith i.e. to prescribe what I should believe for practice in Prayer or to enforce me to practice that which I do not believe i. e. to pray that Prayer and that constantly in such a part of Worship which I cannot do believingly § 11. Arg. 4. If one Church may enforce a Form of Prayer by a Penal Law then another may i. e. if a National Church may enforce a Form of Prayer on all her Subordinate Churches and Members then the Vniversal visible Church may on the National which are her Members and if the National can punish the Diocesan or Parochial for Non-conformity in this kind why may not the Catholick punish the National for the same fault i. e. for using a Form of Prayer not sufficiently allowed or prescribed by the Catholick and if the National can interdict an inferiour Church or Excommunicate a particular person for refusal of such Obedience why may not the Catholick deal with the National in the same kind This must needs be conceded but that it will be said we do not know Where to find the Catholick Church and though the Church of Rome calls herself so yet she is not to be believed she bears witness of herself and that witness is not true I only reply We can as easily and more find the Catholick Church as a National for there hath been always a Catholick Church but there never hath been nor will be a National Gospel organized Church in the world And we may as well believe a pretending Church calling herself Catholick as a pretending Church calling herself National when as they are equally to be accounted as no Churches of Christs Ordination as I can easily manifest when time shall serve Well then the National Church lyes liable to the censure of the Church Catholick for using a distinct set Form of publick Prayers established by her self whereby she renders herself a gross Non-Conformist to the Catholick Church and an Independent in respect of all other National her Form of Prayer being not Uniform with theirs If it be said the Church may compose and impose a Form of Prayer we must know what Church that is and not be deluded with a Name Is it the Catholick Church if so why have we not a Catholick set Form of publick Prayers and all National Churches bound to the use of it And why on the contrary doth every National Church make and use Forms of their own And if it be said The National is the Church it 's false for it 's not the Church by way of Eminency it 's not the most Generical Church because it 's not the only Church there are many National and there are many other sort of Churches that will put in for as good a right as the National and if every National under the Name of the Church may do this and have a distinct Form of Prayer what will become of Catholick Vniformity And if the Church as Provincial or Diocesan what will become of National Vniformity And if this power be granted to any or all these subordinate Churches Actum erit de Vniformitate Catholicâ § 12. But the great plea for a Form of Prayer in the Church is Vniformity for this cannot be say some Men without it Answ Uniformity in the Church cannot be by particular National Forms it must be by a Form Catholick 2. Can there be no Vniformity in the Church without a sameness in Words and Sentences in prayer there scarcely being two Scripture-Prayers that are altogether the same in Words and Sentences Doth not Uniformity consist rather in agreement in Principles and the Analogie of Faith submission to and closing with the same King Priest and Prophet conforming to and walking by the same rule of the Gospel an influence and guidance by the same Spirit 3. If Uniformity of the Church lyeth in such Externals why is not a set Form of Preaching established that none shall use any other besides such Homilies 4. If a set Form of some Prayers be necessary to Vniformity why not of all as well of private as publick for if the Church be not close tyed in bond of Vniformity by uniting Families and Individuals it will break to pieces for all a publick Form The first and main Union in the Church is that which knits every purticular Member to the whole by joynts and bonds and that there may be true Uniformity this must be carefully maintained but it 's 〈◊〉 which the great contenders for a pretended Uniformity least 〈◊〉 themselves about § 13. Another great plea for publick Forms of Prayer is the 〈◊〉 ness ignorance and laziness of many Ministers Rep. The 〈…〉 holds for set Forms of publick Sermons the necessity of which for a time was well considered at our first coming out of Antiâ—â—â—â—an darkness and any one that could read but a Chapter Prayer and Homily in the Mother-Tongue did a great deal of service to God and the people But there is not the same reason now the Church is better provided with able Labourers or at least might be if she would 2. It is the ready way to fill the Church with this sort of Cattle those lazy ignorant scandalous Priests for Mother-Church not only to connive at them but to countenance them and maintain them in their pride and sloth and by making their Exercisâ—s for them whilst they be idle debauched and prophane minding nothing but the profits pleasures and Honours of this Life 2. The only way Ignavum fucos pecus a praecipibus arcent is to banish these droans from the Church and not to turn all the Church unto droans and nothing starves them sooner than to leave them to their own stock for Praying and Preaching and it 's best that their Ignorance be bewrayed that they may be ashamed and get better instruction and exercise in Spiritual things which are to be guides to other Mens Souls or if they be not ashamed the people may have a full knowledge of them and be wiser than to entrust their Souls in their hands Therefore it 's good that the Props be taken away and it will soon appear whether such pretended Church-pillars be sound or rotten § 14. What is alleadged about Ministers abuse of parts in publick Prayers or want of sufficiency is no forcing Argument for imposing a Form for the abuse of good things is no argument against the use we may as well say Because some will be Drunk therefore none must drink Wine or Beer 2. Insufficient Ministers are to be removed or further instructed if they be capable and willing as Apollo was 3. Are not Church-Prayers lyable also to abuse when used by sottish Priests in a formal customary slovingly and prophane 〈…〉 and a hundred times more wrong done thereby to the honour of Religion and the poor Souls of the people than by some weak expressions and sentences or words struck out of joynt by the laborious faithful and zealous Ministers that conscientiously endeavour to use and improve the Talents given them to the service of Christ the conversion and edification of the Souls of the people FINIS
Legislative Power Chap. 5. Concerning the nature of Conscience Chap. 6. Concerning the dominion of Conscience Chap. 7. Of the strong and weak Christian Chap. 8. Of Scandals and their natures Chap. 9. Of Necessities and Indifferencies Chap. 10. Certain Propositions concerning Necessities and Indifferencies Chap. 11. Of Christian Liberty Chap. 12. The first Question handled about things indifferent Chap. 13. Of the Power of the Church in things indifferent Chap. 14. A Digression concerning Subordination of Pastors in the Church Chap. 15. Of Magistrates power in matters of Religion Chap. 16. Of the use of the Magistrates Sword in the execution of Ecclesiastical Justice Chap. 17. Of the limits of the Magistratical power in matters of Religion Chap. 18. Of a Christians duty in case of humane Laws in matters religiously indifferent Chap. 19. Of Humane Constitutions in the Worship of God besides the Word Chap. 20. Of the united Power Legislative of Church and State Chap. 21. Of Decency and Order Chap. 22. Of Imposition of Ceremonies Chap. 23. Of Obligation to a Form of Prayer ERRATA PAge 12. line 3. for when he by his Law read when man by his Law P. 13. l 3. for immediately r. mediately Ibid. l. 30. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. l. 31. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 24. l. 9. for obedience r. such obedience Ibid. l. 26. for Masters r. Master P. 25. l. 37. dele The in the most certainly P. 35. l. 13. dele They. P. 36. l. 4. for our r. your P. 44. l. for just and equal r. justly charged P. 45. l. 3. dele thereof P. 48. l. 20. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 53. l. 27. for duty r. guilt Ibid. l. 12. for in religious service r. religious service P. 85. l. 24. for c. r. and. Ibid. l. 39. for Co-ordination r. Subordination P. 88. l. 35. for Nation r. Nations P. 93. l. 8. for by Assemblies r. assembled P. 100. l. 21. r. unlawful in the Worship of God P. 112. l. 33 dele therefore that P. 114. l. 16. r. and sound in his principles P. 125. l. 19. r. of what hath been said is Ibid. l. ult for consequentially r. consequential P. 128. l. 11. for thught r. taught P. 140. l. 2. for and Christ hath r. and hath Christ P. 152. l. 17. for prophane use of them r. prophane manner CHAP. I. Of the Twofold Jurisdiction which a Christian by the Law of Christ is subjected unto § 1. THat there is such a thing as Christian Liberty none pretending to a true information in the Doctrine of the Gospel of Christ I suppose will deny neither need I make it my present task for to prove But the great Contest for many Ages hath been about the true Nature and Extent of this Liberty Some stretching the bounds thereof larger than Christ ever did intrenching on Civil and Moral Laws opening thereby a gap to Licentiousness and the violation of the bonds of Humane Societies in Magistratical Rule and Government Others curtalizing and abridging the said Liberty not allowing it those lawful extents allotted thereto by Christ audaciously depriving his poor Members of many Gospel-Priviledges and Advantages granted them by Charter from the Supreme King and Lawgiver Civil and Antichristian Powers still making it their business to spy out this Liberty and their great designe to bring them into Bondage § 2. Calvin observes Duplex esse Regimen in Homine alterum Spirituale quo Conscientia ad pietatem cultum divinum instituitur alterum Politicum quo ad Humanitatis Civilitatis officia quae inter homines servanda sunt homo eruditur Jurisdictio Spiritualis Temporalis i. e. There is in Man a twofold Government the one Spiritual whereby the Conscience is instructed unto Piety and the Worship of God The other Political whereby a man is taught the Duties of Humanity and Civility which are to be observed between man and man a spiritual Jurisdiction and a temporal Which Observation hath Moral foundation and an Evangelical ratification the whole of a Christian being comprehended under these two Heads of Duty charged upon us by the Old and New Testament towards God and towards our Neighbour On the first of which Christ hath by his peculiar Legislative Power over his Church established the whole Oeconomy thereof On the latter he hath chiefly raised the edifices of Civil States and Humane Societies where he hath allowed a latitude of Legislative Power unto the Sons of men as unto his Delegates and Substitutes in earthly Rule and Government Unto both of these Jurisdictions he hath laid on man a firm Obligation by planting his Moral Light in Conscience so that he cannot start from either of these Duties without starting from himself as our first Parents did in their Transgression and all others in putting forth the poyson of that original blot in actual sins of Omission or Commission all which are but irregularities or nonconformities to this Moral obligation laid on Conscience either manifestly so or easily reducible thereunto For whatever is a trespass against the revealed Will of God for Duty in Moral Obedience or instituted Worship is a sin not but that Instituted Worship is fundamentally Moral Obedience but is therefore in some sense distinguished from it the serving of God according to his own appointment being the principal part of the Moral Law because God hath according to the several states of his Church altered the mode and manner of his Worship as he hath thought it best in his Wisdom and as hath bin most suitable to the several ages and states of his Church which alterable or altered Circumstances being the product of Christ's Prerogative alone are called his Instituted Worship § 3. Hence both these Jurisdictions are Primarily and Morally subjected to the King of Kings he orders disposeth of and rules in the Kingdoms of men as well as in his Church and hearts of men yea by ruling Heart and Conscience as well as by disposing Providence he rules Civil States and subordinate Societies but the manifest difference is here that God's political Rule in the Kingdoms of the Earth and humane States is more remote and mediate but that of Church and Conscience being Spiritual is more proximate and immediate He only gives general Laws to Civil Societies and leaves a limited Legislative Power as to particular collateral and incident cases to humane Governours substituted providentially by him To these he leaves the immediate administration of Rule and Government as to an Executive Power altogether and as to a Legislative Power in a great measure but hath reserved the immediate administration of Rule in his Spiritual Dominions to himself alone as to Legislation in his Church and both Legislation and Execution as to Conscience § 4. These two Modes or Degrees of Administration must not be confounded together Man must have no greater share in Rule and Government than
of a Gospel-nature cannot be alter'd from their nature by any subsequent Law of man thus appears To change religious Indifferencies into Necessities is to make a Law for Christs Worship that Christ never made nor gave any man power to make but none may make a Law for the Worship of Christ which he never made nor impowred any to make Ergo the Major is without doubt if the indifferency confessed be in the worship of God then when it 's by any Law made necessary it 's still in the worship of God and being appointed so by a Law becomes instituted Worship by a Law which Christ never made The Minor appears in that none may do so i. e. institute Worship or circumstances of Worship by a Law that is not Christ's 1. It 's his Prerogative to exercise a Legislative power in his Church 2. Christ knows onely how he will be worshipped and it must be founded on his revealed will which is our Law 3. None might adde to his Laws under the Old Testament Deut. 4.1 2. much less under the New where there is less of Ceremony and Circumstances Rev. CHAP. XIII Of the power of the Church in matters indifferent § 1. WHen we come to discuss the power of the Church it 's very requisite to unfold the meaning of the word Church there being no word under which lieth more Amphibology Many understand a Church a material building or place of meeting for the worship of God being consecrated and set apart for that use and for the Propriety and Antiquity of this usage and acceptation of Ecclesia learned Mr. Mead very much contends We shall not stay upon this sence because none that will oppose us in the present controversie will insist upon this sence so far as to say that the Legislative Power is to be found here A Church is also in other sences spoken of Some say every Nation where Christian Religion is owned by ruling Authority and by the generality of the people professed is a Church Some call a Province a Church a Diocess a Church a Parish a Church so that it 's more or less extended and comprehensive and it 's usually the sence of Protestants that assert a Churches Legislative Authority in matters indifferent Others say there is no national Churches under the Gospel though there be Churches in every Nation and that properly there are no particular Churches but such who freely and voluntarily combine together in bonds of Society for the worshipping of God according to his revealed will and walk accordingly Various are the Sentiments and Disputes about a Church and the nature of it the consideration of which will not be so much our concern at this time But there is another way of the usage of Church wherein there is greater ambiguity which is very much to the matter in hand that we rightly understand it viz the emphatical use of the word The Church so many mens Writings and Argumentations being filled and confounded with it now a days that who can tell what they mean by The Church The Romanists say the Church hath determined this or that and when we enquire what that Church is they say the Catholick Church which being rightly understood is the true meaning of the Church according to that rule Aequivocum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato the Emphasis putting the word upon the highest and largest signification but when we come to a farther disquision of their meaning they tell us the Church of Rome is the Church and all others that dissent or separate from the Church of Rome are not the Church or of the true Catholick Church Many Protestants also that speak of the Church do not understand the Church of Rome or the Catholick Church but some particular National Church viz. of France England Spain c. but when we enquire what this Church is they will tell us it 's the body of the Clergy met together in a Convocation by a few Representatives to make Laws and Canons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions the executive power whereof is in the Bishops and their Courts so that when these few men have made Laws or exercise Ecclesiastical power compose Forms of Prayer or establish Ceremonies at their pleasure they say the Church did it These two sorts of men make use of this great commanding Word the Church and by this equivocal term sounding so loud of an uncontroulable Prerogative they suggest unto poor well-meaning people on the one side that all that the Pope and the Church of Rome doth on the other hand that all that the Bishops and their Courts do is done by the Church as if it were the whole Vniversal visible Church It is not my present task here to enquire what is the true meaning of the Church according to the Scripture-acceptation or the most true Logical notion thereof whether it be a Genus or an Integrum or totum Aggregativum I shall onely in the ensuing Discourse apply my self to the most rectified sence of those that do defend the Legislative Authority of the Church and if they will not start from all right Reason and Rules of Logick their sence must be That the Catholick Militant Church is The Church whether it may be Organical according to Scripture-constitution we argue not now constituted of Subordinate parts first National or if you please Patriarchal before that of National made up of Provincial Provincial of Diocesan Diocesan of Parochial and this ought to be the sincere meaning of The Church without prevarication in the sence of those beforementioned § 2. Now the main thing in Debate between the Assertors of the Churches Authority and the Dissentors from it is Whether the Church may exercise such a Power as may change Indifferencies in the Worship of God into Necessities Which we hold in the Negative and say That Christ hath never granted such Power unto the Church he hath granted an Executive Power unto his Church but never a Legislative Power for all lawful power that any Church hath it must have it from the Lord Jesus Christ who hath all power given unto him in Heaven and Earth and is the peculiar King of his Church and hath taken care for the right Ordering and Governance of it in all things necessary as to Salvation so to Order and Discipline And therefore what is not derived from the Lord Jesus Christ cannot be allowed to be lawfully exercised 'T is true if it could be shewed where Christ ever granted it by his Charter to his Church that in some particular concerns she might exert a Legislative Power the dispute would soon be ended but no such Charter could ever be shewn § 3. If any such Power be granted by Christ it must be granted to the Catholick Church Militant or to particular subordinate Churches but 't is not granted to either of them Ergo. Not to the Vniversal Church because it is not organized with Officers capable of a Catholick Rule unless we
few words more § 13. First If it be lawful for the Church to annex new decencies and order to the decencies and order appointed by Christ then these must be necessary or unnecessary but it 's not lawful Ergo. 1. It 's not lawful to annex unnecessary for this were to trifle and would infer the greatest absurdities imaginary therefore none will insist upon that 2. Not to annex any thing necessary for they must then judge something necessary which Christ hath not declared so as something belonging to the esse or bene esse of the Church and this were a high affront to Christ and impeachment of his wisdom as not perfect and compleat in his House as likewise it 's implicitely to condemn Christ's Worship and Ordinances as left by him for undecent and disorderly and so naked and unfit to come to publick view till they be anew dressed up and trimed by the Church in her Poppet-play Robes and Attire § 14. Secondly And then she might re-establish any old absolete Jewish decencies so she use them Evangelically upon as good or better ground than she hath brought in Heathenish practices into use in the Church Thirdly Decency and Order in the Church is no Indifferency but necessary in its kind as hath been shewed because commanded and enjoyned by Christ and Ergo if the Church hath power to enact Laws in matters of Indifferency it follows not that she hath power to do the like in matters of Decency and Order because they are not indifferent things but necessary if we understand either Moral or Evangelical decency and order § 15. It is fallacious and false to assert that the Church prescribes onely decencies in the Worship of God for they are the smallest part of her Ceremonies for what are Holy-days Cross in Baptism Musick in Divine Service And besides most or all her Ceremonies respect other Objects and are for other significancy and ends than for decency some being chiefly gratiâ divinâ as all reverential Gestures and Postures viz. bowing at the Name of Jesus bowing to the Altar kneeling at the Sacrament standing up at the Gospel These are signes of divine honour and Latrical and can be no otherwise understood than respecting a Divinity and therefore there can be no pretence to call it civil Worship because in all civil Worship man is the Object and were the same or like actions which for the matter are neither civil or divine but indifferent as to both but a peculiar Adaptation to a singular end or object they receive their distinct denomination therefrom Some are chiefly gratiâ humanâ in order to the due preparing and qualifying us for Spiritual Services Surplices to make us appear more pure an Emblem of Purity and mind us of it Musick to raise the Spirits and others more mixt in their intention tà m gratiâ divinâ quà m humanâ as Saints days wherein God is blessed for Saints whereby God is honoured and the Saint too the Cross in Baptism and the Ring in Matrimony which are Seals of obligation religiously made use of therefore more than significant signes and can be no less than Sacraments There are also divers Responses and Salutations betwixt Ministers and People in all which it 's easie to perceive that there is some weightier matters respected than meer civil decencies and order whatever pretences are made to the contrary § 16. We have before hinted what we apprehend true canonical obedience to be viz. that it 's not a submission to a certain body of Laws made by any Church challenging a Legislative power neither to those feigned Canons of the Apostles but it is obedience to the Canons or Rules of Gospel-communion laid down in the Scriptures those that are acquainted with the true Churches of Christ know no other Canons nor no other canonical Obedience they are obliged unto Now those that call for canonical obedience under that term they tell us that it is obedience to the Laws Rules and Constitutions of the Church but I could never rightly understand any reason for their plea from the Church viz. of the authority pleaded for for if it be a National Church that requires the said obedience we say 1. That that Church cannot pretend to challenge obedience that is not capacitated to make or execute any Law but the National is not Ergo. The Minor appears in that there is no such thing as a National organized Church constituted by Christ under the Gospel for if there were there must be National Officers and Ordinances by the same appointment but Christ hath constituted no National Officers i. e. whose Office-power in the Church is of such extent nor no National Ordinances i. e. such Ordinances that the whole Nation may partake of in one Assembly for communion The same Argument will hold against Diocesan Churches 2. How is any one National Church the Church more than another that hath such a Ruling power if all hath it alike how various will Church-canons be and how little Uniformity in canonical obedience 3. If this obedience belongs to any Church it seems most consonant to right reason that it should belong to the Catholick Church for 1. That may be as organical as a National can be by virtue of any institution of Christ 2. That 's most comprehensive therefore challengeth the preheminence of all others in respect of extent and by way of eminency may most properly be stiled the Church 3. This is the likeliest way to attain a Vniformity for it 's pleaded as the great reason why Christ gives a Legislative Compulsive power to a National Church viz. Vniformitatis gratiâ Now it 's but a partial Uniformity obtained thereby of an Independent nature but if true Uniformity be reached it must be that which is Catholick which can be no otherwise than by Catholick canonical obedience CHAP. XXII Of the Imposition of Ceremonies § 1. NExt to the consideration of decencies and order it may be meet to enquire a little into the lawfulness of imposition 1. of Ceremonies 2. of a form of Prayer Whether a Ceremony uncommanded by God may be used in the Worship of God is not our present Undertaking to discuss for in some cases it may be lawful so it be such as is duely qualified and be used as indifferent and occasionally by the Rules of discretion but our present Enquiry shall be Whether the Church is liable to the imposition of such Ceremonies as Christ hath not made necessary by any Law of his Many Arguments before urged against the Churches Legislative power might be here of equal force I shall onely adde something proper upon this state of the Question to prove that such an imposition is not in the Churches power § 2. Arg. 1. Because the Church by such imposition doth subjugate herself in her Members to a yoke of bondage which Christ hath freed her and them from That Christians are freed from such yokes see Gal. 4.31 ch 5.1 and the Church is not to return to
Christians are liable to such Laws then it 's lawful to erect a ceremonial Law under the Gospel for what is a Law of or for a body of Ceremonies but a ceremonial Law But Christ would never pull down one ceremonial Law by his death for man to erect another and pull down one Jewish and leave it lawful for man to erect one more heathenish would he abolish one ceremonial Law of divine Institution and leave it to man to establish a new one of his own devising yea a thousand ceremonial Laws of as many sorts as there are several Churches and Ages in the world It 's a most absurd and untheological conceit that a ceremonial Law is consistent with the state of the Gospel wherein all Vails whatever is removed from the Lord Jesus besides the vail of his flesh neither is the Spirituality of his Ordinances to be clogged with such a bulkie mass of fleshly Institutions § 5. Arg. 3. If we be not liable to an imposition and enforcement of Christ's own by a temporal Penal Law much less liable to such imposition of ceremonies by Ecclesiastick or other authority for all imposition is by a Penal Law but we know Christ never made any Penal Law to be Ecclesiastically administred thereby to enforce men to Baptism and receive the Supper His people that submit to his Ordinances must be willing and free whereunto they are brought by enlightning the Understanding and perswading the Will as the great end of the Gospel preached Those that will say otherwise must justifie the Spaniards in America in bringing the poor Indians to their baptism by force The claim that any make to the use of the Magistrates Sword or force of Arms to prevail with men to submit to any things pretended to be spiritual is of like nature and will fall under the like condemnation And how much worse by the Rule of Proportion must that needs be to enforce ceremonies of humane institution than those of divine Would not Christ give such a power to the Church to enjoyn his own institution under Corporal or Penal Mulcts how much less will he bear so great an usurpation for any to erect a body of ceremonial Laws with Penalties annexed thereby to enforce them on the Consciences and practices of others The Argument stands very fair and forcing from the greater to the less That power that cannot justifie the imposing any of Christ's own Ordinances on men even on unregenerate and no visible Members cannot justifie the imposing humane Ordinances on the visible Members of Jesus Christ but no Power can justifie the imposing any of Christ's Institutions by a Penal Law c. Ergo there is none can pretend to defend any such proceedings by any plausible Argument from Scripture or right Reason § 6. Arg. 4. If the Church is liable to the imposition of Ceremonies not instituted by Christ it 's either to the imposition of insignificant or of significant It 's not subjected to the imposition of insignificant i. e. of childish or irrational empty ceremonies of no signification for this were to mock God and imitate the Heathens in a gross manner to use antick gestures and actions in God's solemn Worship of which there can be no plausible reason pretended therefore such things are absolutely vain and unlawful 2. For significant Ceremonies Church-powers cannot impose them 1. Because none may devise and enact such into a Law at pleasure 2. None can pretend sufficiently to the signe and thing necessarily requiring signification thereby in Christ's Worship but Christ himself A significancy in divine service must be such as Christ would have no other he will not have such things signified as are heterogenious to his service and homogenious things onely may be represented by homogenious signes and who can determine such but the most wise Legislator and King of his Church 3. Significant Ceremonies are so by virtue of adaptation of a signe by some Law to the thing signified and they are either Moral or Instituted Moral and natural are such wherein there is a natural or moral relation between the signe and thing signified or at least acquired by use and custom as bowing the body and uncovering the head of reverence and subjection c. and there is nothing in this kind necessary to be done in the Worship of God which is not already done for if Christ had seen a necessity of any more ceremonies of that kind he would have annexed them Again ceremonies of limited Institution are not to be imposed for such are either Typical or Sacramental 1. There can be no Typical Ceremonies under the New Testament because the Body is come and the Shadows must flie away 2. Nor can there be any Sacramental Ceremonies instituted for herein lies the exercise of Christ's Prerogative to institute Sacraments neither doth he enforce the use of any by corporal or pecuniary Penal Laws 3. A Sacrament according to the Church of England is a visible signe of an invisible Grace in which sence all significant ceremonies should be Sacraments as the Surplice a signe of inward Purity but they that have not power to give the thing signified as well as the signe have no power to make a Sacrament which Christ does in all his 4. A Sacrament is not every significant sign in divine things but such a ceremony as is a federal signe and seal such was Circumcision and the Passover of old Baptism and the Lords Supper under the New Testament such though humane Innovatious is the Cross in Baptism and the Ring in Marriage for they are consecrated Ceremonies significant and federally obligatory which appears by the Churches institution of them But there may be no Sacramental ceremony instituted by the Church this would be a gross addition to Christ's Sacraments annexed to the New Covenant which must not be altered nor have any new ones superadded for if any humane power may increase the number of Sacraments viz. to three or four they may go to seven with the Papists and why not as well to seventy Those two additional which some Protestant Churches retain they are beholding to Rome for the institution of them Mr. Bradshaw and others hath sufficiently proved that no Church can institute ceremonies of Sacramental significancy and intent and therefore I need not enlarge here upon it CHAP. XXIII Of Obligation to a Form of Prayer § 1. HAving discussed that Question whether a Church or Christian is liable to imposition of Ceremonies it remains now to enquire How far a Church or Christian may be obliged to a Form of Prayer A Form of Prayer is such a Prayer as is premeditated and prescribed by our selves or others as to the matter and form of Petitions and Words constantly and unalterably to be used on times and occasions suiting the matter form and drift of the said Prayer The Question here will not be Whether a Christian may not use a Form of Prayer but Whether it be lawful for a Christian as much
as to use any indifferency to binde himself or suffer himself to be obliged to a prescribed Form of Prayer which Enquiry falls into two parts 1. Whether a Christian may come under an obligation by vow or resolution to use a set-Set-form of Prayer as before explained 2. Whether he may suffer himself to come under any such obligation by virtue of a Law made by any pretending Authority thereunto § 2. As to the first we shall assert and confirm the Negative That it 's not lawful for a Christian to put himself under any such obligation by his own Vow or Covenant or I may adde by his customary and constant abiding therein which doth in effect amount to a Covenant-tye If such a Tye were lawful it 's either as a thing necessary or indifferent for all lawful things are so 1. It 's not lawful as a thing necessary will be easily granted because none will say that are Protestants that a Christian is necessarily bound to a Form of Prayer by the positive command of Christ if they do let it be shewn where Christ doth require any so to oblige himself or condemn any for not doing it or let him alleadge any Scriptural Example where any hath done it especially in the New Testament I suppose we need not stay on that part The second part of the Disjunction that it 's not lawful for him as an indifferency to binde up himself to such a Form I prove thus All Christian indifferent actions of concern in the Worship of Christ ought to be determined by the judgment of discretion according to the Gospel-rules of Expediency pro hic nunc but to lay ones self under such an Obligation would hinder him from walking by such Rules and by such a Judgment Ergo to use it as an Indifferency and to come under such an Obligation are most inconsistent but if it be said that it 's expedient for him to come under such an Obligation the ratio formalis must be because he cannot compose another Prayer or pray by present conception But that is not a justifiable reason for though he cannot at present he may afterwards be able so to do It 's just as if a man being lame and useth crutches makes a vow never to go without them though he shall be never so well Or it may be another Form may be offered more suitable to his condition we meeting with dayly alterations on that account it 's not fit therefore that we should be bound up always to the same Expressions Petitions Confessions and Thanksgivings our Necessities Temptations Sins and Mercies received dayly changing Besides though a man have not at present the gift of Prayer or assistance of the Spirit thereunto yet he ought to seek and wait for it and therefore ought not to binde himself up to such a Form though he may use it for present necessity § 3. Arg. 1. It 's not an indifferent thing for any man to stint himself in Religion where God hath not stinted him Where Christ hath allotted to us a Freedom the contrary to it is Bondage and no Christian ought to put himself into bondage where Christ hath made him free Whereas stinted Forms bound to brings a man into Bondage to Words or these and those Petitions Confessions c. which though it may be suitable for one state and season may not be at another neither so much to Christ's glory and his own edification for Christ hath foreseen a necessity of freedom in this kind as to the use of words and sentences in Prayer i. e. to be regulated by Gospel-rules of Expediency as all Christian liberty is 1. Because of the various Cases Occurrences and Exigences that a Christian is liable to that it 's impossible any one can suit fore-prescribed Forms unto them and we are enjoyned in all things to make our Requests known unto God 2. Because of the divers helps and assistances of the Spirit in expression of our wants Rom. 8.26 even sometimes in Sighs and Groans unutterable in words and unreducible into any Forms yea often not knowable before we come to ask because discovered to us by the Spirit searching our hearts while we are waiting upon God in the duty 3. Because of the divers frame of a Christians own spirit that he is subject unto sometimes of deadness and despondency sometimes of enlargement that for the most times those are strangers to who keep up in the road of words that the same words and sentences cannot in Faith be uttered without the sameness of heart-frame which cannot always be which they abundantly know who have their senses exercised by reason of use There are the frequent ebbings and flowings of particular Graces in a Christian's heart as of Faith Repentance Joy Patience c. according to which he is always to proportion his expressions in Prayer as neer as may be in order to his own comfort and power against prevailing corruptions Besides I might instance in the various assaults Satan makes upon us his manifold wiles as also the divers workings of our hearts towards or against corruption as lastly the various and unexpected Mercies that we be daily partakers of Examples we have many in Scripture of suiting Prayers in this manner if we consider how it was with the Saints of old as David Heman Hezekiah c. 4. Because Christ hath onely given us general Rules in the Gospel for particular Prayers and hath not bound or limited us to any particular Form § 4. Obj. But Christ hath prescribed us a Form of Prayer viz. that commonly called the Lord's Prayer for he saith Luke 11.2 When you pray say c. Answ It 's most absurd to think that Christ bound his Disciples to those words and sentences and bound us up from all others and one Scripture must explain another Mat. 6.9 it 's after this manner i.e. for sence and meaning 2. If Luke 11.2 were to be understood strictly then we must neither adde to or diminish from nor alter the Form Hence it were unlawful to use the Doxologie mentioned Mat. 6. 3. If it were so Christ's Disciples this Prayer being primarily directed to them upon their request should never have used any other Prayer but we finde not that they ever used the very Prayer in identity of words and sentences 4. In answer to their request it was most probable to be a Rule for Matter and Method for they desired our Saviour to teach them to pray as John taught his Disciples Now we finde not any prescribed Form left by John to his neither I suppose did our Saviour in this leave any more than a Pattern or a standing Rule of Prayer to his people under the Gospel 5. He never used it himself because he had no sin need not say Forgive me my sins 6. All expressions are in the plural number shewing that we have onely the most general Rules secret Prayer is to be referred to it and particular cases but not here mentioned