cannot make the Communion of such a Church sinful nor justifie Separation and hence any one may discern how impertinent to this purpose are all this Ministers Clamours about Reformation for though the pursuit of it may be commeadable and the Church may need it yet it is evident his Nonconformity and Separation cannot be justified by it for there is no Church upon Earth which needs not Reformation and if Men may separate where they see any thing amiss this Principle will carry them to a Separation from all Christian-Society and that is a plain Demonstration of the Faishood of it I have now considered and weigh'd all his Pleas for Nonconformity and having found them light and deceitful in the Ballance having sufficiently prov'd them to be false and fallacious I conclude that the Nonconformists were not persecuted for Righteousness sake and that his * P. 24. virulent Reproaches of the Church of England in Prophetick Language are no better than Blasphemy and a contumelious Prophanation of Gods word by making it the Instrument of his Spite and Animosity And one Ressection more will make it yet more evident that they did not suffer for Righteousness it is this that tho his Pleas be allowed to have Truth and Reason in them yet they will not justifie the Dissenters Separation Every one knows that these Ministers were not punished for not conforming as Ministers but for setting up Conventicles tho they could not Act as publick Ministers yet they might have adher'd to the Communion of the Church and then they would have been in no danger of Persecution they suffered for their Separation and if all this Ministers Objections will not justifie it they will not justifie their Sufferings for it The Plea of Reformation I have shewn already to be insufficient and it is evident that Lay Dissenters are unconcerned in all the others they were neither ablig'd to renounce the Covenant nor the Lawfulness of Resistance nor the Ordination of Presbyters nor to declare their Assent and Consent to the Common-prayer and this Minister himself denies not the Lawfulness of their joyning in it Thus he hath left all his Congregation without any defence and it remains that they suffered not for Righteousness but for an unrighteous and indefensible Separation Let us see whether the same Objections will justifie his own Separation Suppose the Oath of Non-resistance to be unlawful was that a term of our Communion was it required of all that come to our Prayers or Sacraments and might he not have adhered to the Communion of our Church without swearing or declaring it be it granted next that Reordination is unlawful to be comply'd with was that likewise any term of Communion in Worship and Sacraments And if they could not Preach as Ministers could they not Communicate as Laymen and is the unlawful silencing of a Minister to be revenged with Schisin The next point is the use of the Liturgy and is there any thing unlawful in all our Prayers if he cannot Consent to some Passages in the Rubrick or in a Creed that is very Seldom recited yet there is nothing sinful in our ordinary Worship and the occasional Communion allow'd by the Presbyterians themselves is a clear Confession of it And Lastly as to the Covenant if it must not be renounced cannot they worship God in our Churches without renouncing it or does it at all oblige them to Separation Mr. * Defence of Cure p. 68. Baxter has prov'd that the Covenant binds them to Communion with our Church because it binds to Reformation according to the Example of the best reformed Churches but all reformed Churches in Christendom do commonly profess to hold Communion with the English Churches in the Liturgy if they come amongst us where it is used therefore says he it seems to me to be Perjury and Covenant breaking to refuse Communion with the Churches that use the Liturgy as a thing meerly on that Account unlawful Thus Mr. Baxter and these Concessions are very remarkable that Separation on the Account of our Liturgy is unlawful that it is a breach of their Covenant and is condemned by all Reformed Churches and what new Pleas can this Minister produce to defend his Separation Will he urge the Pretence of necessity to Preach the Gospel and that therefore he was forced to separate because he could not do it in our Churches But if he was under the same necessity the Apostle was then he has surely the Commission and Authority of an Apostle but if he hath no Commission from God let me use the words of an antient * Mr. Giffard cited in the Vnreasonableness of Separ p. 80. Nonconformist it is the Devil that hath sent him forward to Preach against the Authority of the Church and the Prohibition of the Christian Magistrate In short they have neither the same Commission as the Apostles neither is there the same necessity of their Preaching for the Gospel is now planted in this Kingdom it is Preached in our Churches and it would not be extinguished if this Minister and his Brethren to use his own Seraphical Expressions were all them Dumb Dogs or Breasts without Milk or Bells without Clappers And withal it is here to be observed that it is evidently proved * Ibid p. 1. sect 8 9 10 11 17. that according to the Doctrine of the most learned Nonconformists of former times both their Separating and their Preaching are absolutely unlawful The Sum of all is this the Laws against the Dissenters were made for the security of the Church and State the Execution of them was not so cruel as is pretended their persecuting of the Government did extort it the Presbyterians themselves have always condemned Toleration they do ever persecute whenever they have Power this Minister declaims only against Persecution for the Truth but all his Pretences to Truth appear to be false and groundless and if they were admitted would not justifie Separation and therefore the result is this That his Call to Humiliation is an unreasonable Clamour and that it ought to have been directed to the Presbyterians themselves and especially to their Ministers who have been the most grievous Persecutors who have crubified Christ Jesus by dividing hith have torn his Body into pieces have separated from the whole Catholick Church under pretence of Reforming the Reformed Religion have Reproached and weaken'd it have been always undermining that Church which is the Bulwark of it have bound themselves by impious Oaths and very lately ebtred into an Alliance with the Papists to destroy it And lastly have suffered obstinately for an Unrighteous Chuse condemned by Reason and Revelation by the Universal Church of all Ages and by all the Reformed Churches in the World Having now Answer'd the whole Design if this Pamphlet and all that looks like Argument in it it would be superfluous to examine the Remainder and to reflect particularly on his malicious Hints and Intimations his Cant and Shtyr his abuse of Scripture his Uses and his Prayers which he Recommends to his People and wherein he Feaches them that Vile and Divilish Practice of turning Prayers into Libels and instructs them to Pray much worse than the Pharisee to commend themselves to God †See p. 27. As followers of the Lamb and the Lords Anointed and to accuse the Church-men before him as Dumb Dogs and Wolves and bloudy Persecutors Thus do they fill up the measure of their Fathers who sin their Prayers taught the People to Speak evil of Dignities and to Curse the best of Kings as a Bloudy Persecuting obdurate Tyrant Yet I cannot but take notice of his insolent Triumph for the Establishment of Presbytery in Scotland Now says he is fulfilled that which was spoken by the Prophet The Land of Zebulun c. The People which sate in Darkness saw great Light and to them which sat in the Region and Shadow of Death Light is sprung up And was this Prophecy never fulfilled till now It Presbytery the Messias whose Light is there foretold Did Nailor himself ever utter more Abominable Blasphemy Has the Virgin Daughter of Scotland proclaim'd a new Gospel which was not Preach'd before Is it the Evangelium Armatum or the Gospel of Xaverius or of the Whore of Babylon Hither to I thought that Episcopal Churches might have the Light of the Gospel but a new Light hath now discovered that they are all in Darkness and that all Christian Churches for 1500 Years together have been in the Regions of Death without Christ without the Light of the Gospel and consequently without Salvation One thing more I must observe that the Sermons and Writings of these Ministers do make it as clear as the Sun that all the projects of Vnïon with that Party are absolutely impracticable The Presbyterians are the only Dissenters that are thought capable of Comprehension but to take them into our Church we must cast out our Liturgy and our Bishops we must submit our Necks to the Iron Yoke of Presbytery in short we must destroy our Church if we will have an Vnion with them no Alterations will content them they who have they who have not taken the Covenant do think themselves bound to extirpate Prelacy and to Reform according to the model of Scotland they desire no Vnion and despise it when Treaties of Peace are proposed they make themselves ready to Battel their Hostility is Irreconcileable and the total Destruction of our Church is the sum of all their Endeavours and Designs But Oh! That our Lives were as good as our Religion and our Manners pure and primitive as the Constitution of our Church for then would God cover is under his Wings and he that hath deliver'd and doth deliver would still deliver us Our Church we know is Founded on a Rock let us depart from Iniquity and her Foundation shall stand sure and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it FINIS
Deacons therefore to the intent these Orders should be continued and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England it is requisite that no Man shall execute any of them excep the be called tryed examined and admitted according to the Form hereafter following and I hope it is evident from that form that a Bishop is necessary to Ordination He goes on and affirms That the French Belgick and Helvetick Churches besides many others are of his Judgment All the other Protestant Churches excepting only Geneva have Episoopal Government and that they allow Ordination by Presbyters in opposition to it is an Assertion that may well be thought incredible till it be sufficiently proved and as for the Churches he mentions their Divines account the Non-Conformists Ordinations Schismatical and the best defence of their own is necessity But he needs not name the Church of Scotland for Scotland says he hath justified all our Non-Conformity By Scotland he means the Presbyterian party of that Kingdom * See the Letters about the Persecution Scotland p. 58. the lesser part for the whole but however if Scotland justifies them it is the only Church in the world that do so Lastly He adds our Diocesan Bishops may glory over us as the Kings Bishops or Bishops of the State which is just the Raillery of the Papists Parliament Bishops and Nags-head Bishops But are our Bishops ordained by the King and State are they not Christ's Bishops and Scripture Bishops No for this new Apostle of Patmos does Peremptorily tell them that they must not pretend to be so near in Blood to the Scripture Bishops of the first Two hundred years as the Pastors of single Congregations But with Submission to his Apostleship I reply that the * Jus Divin Minis Aug. 71. Presbyterian Assembly have granted that Timothy and Titus had super out Authority over Presbyters and therefore our Bishops having the same Authority may pretend to Kindred with them 2. * Ibid. p. 140. They acknowledge also after Blondel that above 140 years after Christ Bishops were set over Presbyters so that they grant them to be introduced within 40 or 50 years after the decease of all the Apostles 3. The Epistles of Ignatius who was Contemporary with the Apostles and suffered Martyrdom within nine years after the decease of St. John do manifestly shew that the superiour Authority of Bishops was then established in the Church and therefore certainly by Apostolical Institution And the Authority of these Epistles has been so demonstratively cleared from all Exceptions by Bishop Pearson that there is now no Contreversie about it 4. Mr. Chillingworth at the end of his Book has plainly demonstrated the Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy and he Sums up his Demonstration in these Words Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been received universally in the Church presently after the Apostles times Between the Apostles times and this presently after there was not time enough for nor possibility of so great an Alteration And therefore there was no such Alterat on as is pretended And therefore Episcopacy being * By Peter du Moulin Beza Chamier Nic. vedetius whom he cites as Confessing it confessed to be so Antient and Catholick must be granted also to be Apostolick Quod erat Demonstrandum And I hope this Minister will condescend to answer this Demonstration when he writes again or however be so modest as not to conclude so confidently when he has proved nothing But behold the Chair of Infallibility Wherefore I say that Ordination by the hands of the Pastors of Churches filled with the Holy Ghost is much more elegible than by Diocesan Bishops a very peremptory Decree but we must not question it for Pythagoras hath said so yet thus much I presume to Answer that Diocesan Bishops are filled with the Holy Ghost as well as parochal Pastors and that Schismaticks have no Title to it We come now to his Third Reason of Non-Conformity the Declaration of Assent and Consent required in the Act of Vniformity to the Book of Common-Prayes And 〈◊〉 He can't Assent to that passage in the Athanasian Creed where it is said that every one that doth not keep that Faith whole shall without doubt perish Everlastingly Now it is certain the Athanasian Creed is entirely * The Judgment of Foreign Reformed Churches p. 32 33. received and approved by all the protestant Churches in the World excepting only the Antitrinitarians as hath been lately observed and therefore this Minister is herein a Non-Conformist to all Protestant Churches as well as to the Church of England and they are all Condemned together as practising a point of Popery in damning all that differ from them Let us see now the Reason upon which all Protestant Churches are condemned by him One Article says he of that Creed is about the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which the Greek Churches did not believe nor receive and supposing them in an Error he adds I must be very bold if I leap into the Throne of Judgment and pronounce them damned I am as much afraid as he is of invading Christ's Tribunal and pronouncing any one damned much more a whole Church and such a Church as comprehends so many Millions of Christians But 1. The Differences between the Greek and Latine Church about the Article of Procession is by Mr. Field of the Church lib. 3. c. 1. Loads Conf. p. 16. Pearson on the Creed p. 324. Learned men affirmed to be only verbal because the Greeks acknowledged under another Scripture Expression in the same thing which the Latines understand by Procession viz. that the Spirit is of or from the Son as he is of and from the Father That as the Son is God of God by being of the Father so the Holy Ghost is God of God by being of the Father and the Son as receiving that infinite and eternal Essence from them both Thus Bishop Pearson upon the Article and if so it be then there is no difference about the Doctrine it self but only about the word Procession But says this Minister The Procession of the Holy 〈◊〉 Ghost is a most profound Mystery and very much obscured by bringing in word Procession and is not this a most profound Objection Is it not rather profound Non Sense to say that the Procession is obscured by the word Procession And how does the expressing that Mystery by Procession any more obscure it than the infinite Duration of God is obscured by calling it Eternity But the Scripture on that occasion never uses the word In relation to the Father it is used * John 15.26 expresly and in Relation to the Son it is contained virtually in Scripture where the Holy Ghost is often said to be the Spirit of the Son and that is all which is understood by proceeding from him and if no words are to be admitted that are not found in Scripture the old-Subtersuge of the Arrians we
the Peace of the State or Church could permit Such were the Reasons of the Laws and Prosecutions against them in the happy Days of Queen Elizabeth And have not these Observations been since confirm'd by woful Experience Is it any wonder that at the Restoration of our Church and Covernment which had been destroy'd by a most unjustifiable Rebellion when the whole Kingdom had been turn'd into an Aceldama and the best of Kings was barbarously murdered the Law-givers should look back upon the Miseries they had felt and secure the King the Kingdom and the Church against the increase of those Sectaries that had so lately destroy'd them and yet it is notorious that these Laws were never rigorously executed but when necessity requir'd it Their Assemblies were ever tolerated or connived at when themselves were pleased to shew that favour to the Government but when they began to libel associate and plot against the King and it was evident that the ruin of Church and State was again attempted and all the Sectaries were ready to contribute their Strength and Power to effect it was it not then high time for the Government to oppose them to secure it self by the Execution of Laws and to prosecute those who were resolved to ruin it They had Liberty enough till it was made a Cloak of Maliciousness and the Government did never persecute them but when it was persecuted by them How impertinem then is it to clamour at the Church because the State made Laws for its own preservation How unjust to arraign their Governors as Tyrannical because they would not be destroyed and how impious to call suffering for Sedition I ersecution for the Gospel If these Ministers had any regard to the Judgment of St. * Aug. Tom. 2. Epist 48. contra Donat. Rogat devi Corrig Haeret. Augustine it would be to some purpose to ranscribe the essicacious Reasons with which he justifies the use of Temporal Penalties for the reducing of Dissenters but however they may deal with him the agreement of their chief Divines the declar'd Judgment of their infallible Assembly and their own undeniable practice when they had power will be enough to silence and condemn them The Dissenters of late have wearied the World with their outcries against Persecution they have magnified Liberty of Conscience as the Magna Charta of Mankind and cryed it up in their Addresses to K. James as the restoring of God himself to his Empire But nothing in the World that thinks and sees can possibly believe them for their own Writings both past and present do manifestly shew that they never condemn Persecution but when they cannot Persecute It may be prov'd by a vast cloud of witnesses That Toleration has been ever damn'd by the Presbyterians and therefore it unavoidably follows that Persecution has been ever approv'd by them I could make good this by a deduction from their first Apostle Mr. Cartwright to their present Patriarch Mr. Baxter but in a Matter so notorious so much labour is unnecessary I appeal to the Testimonies of * They were these Dr. Burgess Mr. Ward Mr. William Good Mr. Tho. Thorowgood Mr. Humf. Hardwick Arthur Salwey Will. Reynar Geo. Hughes Edm. Calamy Tho. Case John Lightfoot Tho. Watson R. Baxter Tho. Horton Lazarus Serman Matt. Newcomen Richard Vines Simeon Ash James Crauford Tho. Edwards Twenty of their most eminent Preachers who in the Reign of Presbytery did in their Sermons and Writings with great Zeal inveigh against Toleration as unlawful in it self and destructive unto Church and State I refer you likewise to a very pathetical Letter to the Assembly Subscribed by all the London Divines Ann. 16â—5 wherein they expresly Declare their abhorrence of Toleration and exhort the Assembly to allow no Liberty to the Independants as being notorious Schis maticks and both this Letter and that collection of Tostimonies are to be found in a Pamphlet Entituled Toleration disprov'd which was Printed at Oxford Ann. 1670. But hear the Divines of that Assembly it self expostulating with their Dissenting Brethren the Independants * Papers of Accommodation cited by Dr. Still in his Sermon about the mischief of Separation p. 41 42. They desire an Answer to this one thing Whether some must be denied Liberty of their Conscience in matter of Practice ctice or none If none then say they we must renounce our Covenant and let in Prelacp again and all other ways If a denial of Liberty unto some may be just then Vniformity may be selted without any Tyranny They charge them farther with * Cited out of the same Papers in his unreasonableness of Speararation p. 69. opening a gap for all Sects to challenge such a Liberty as their due And add That this Liberty was denied by the Churches of New England and they have as just grounds to deny it as tdey Thus we see that not the Presbyterians only but even the new Light of Independancy is against Toleration and that persecution of Dissenters was not only their Doctrine but their Vow and Covenant also In that Covenant they Swore to extirpate Prelacy and to endeavour after Vniformity in Doctrine Discipline and Worship and is it not a wonderful Confidence in this Minister to Arraign the Church for persecuting and at the same time to contend for the obligation of a persecuting Covenant to reckon Vniformity among the accursed Stuff and then Declare that they are bound by Oath to settle it But their practice at last is the clearest demonstration of their Doctrine Behold an * An Ordinance for putting in execution the Directory August 11. 1645. Ordinance of Parliament against the use of the Liturgy If any person hereafter shall at any time use or cause to be used the Book of Common Prayer in any Church or Publick place of Worship or in any Private place or Family within the Kingdom every person so offending for the first offence shall pay the sum of Five for the Second Ten pounds and for the Third shall suffer One whole years imprisonment without Bail or Mainprize Do any of our Laws forbid the dissenters to serve God in their own Families as they please or where is there such an abridgment of Liberty in our Statute Book But yet their proceedings were much more cruel than their Ordinances so far were they from allowing any indulgence to the Church of England that they would not allow Liberty of Conscience to the Supreme Head and Governor of it They refused to permit their King the use of the Common Prayer in his own Chappel and infisted to obtrude the Directory upon him against his Conscience so that he had reason to complain as he did Decl. of Jun. 18. after the Votes of Nun-Addresses of their offering violence to the Conscience of their Sovereign and to say If it be Liberty of Conscience they desire he who wants it is most ready to give it Nay those Prosbyterians when they had him in their custody were
validity of Foreign Ordinations And thus having separated their Cause from that of other Protestants I proceed to examine what he urges for it and his first Reason is this I. That the word of God makes not difference between the Bishop and the Presbyter or Pastor of a Church and he cites those Texts Acts 20.7.28 and Tit. 1.5 6 7. to prove that those Names are promiscuously used Three ways have been taken to Answer this Objection 1. That both the Names of Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture denote always the Prelatical Bishop and not the Modern Presbyter 2. That even in Scripture the Names are so distinguished that a mere Presbyter alone is never call'd a Bishop tho' a Bishop is often call'd a Presbyter Both these Opinions have been well defended * By Dr. Hammond and Dr. Taylor and perhaps it is impossible to consute them but to cut off all superfluous Disputes it is enough to Answer 3. That tho' the Names of Bishop and Presbyter are not distinct in Scripture yet it is a very fallacious way of arguing from the indistinction of Names to infer the Identity of Offices St. John the Apostle calls himself twice a * 2d Ep. John v. 1. 3d Ep. v. 1. Presbyter †Rom. 16.7 Andronious Junia and * Phil. 2.25 Epapheaditus who according to this Minister's opinion were only Presbyters are reciprocally call'd Apostles Are the Offices of an Apostle and Presbyter therefore really the same This one instance is a clear Demonstration of the Falshood of that Consequence Though there was a confusion of Names there was yet a distinction of Offices and if that can be proved viz. That in the Apostolical Churches some single Persons had a Pre-eminency of Power and Authority over the other Presbyters it will necessarily follow that that Office to which the Name of Bishops is now appropriated is at least of Apostolical Institution Timothy and Titus * See Jus Divinum Ministerii Anglicani p. 71 72. are granted by all sides to have had such a Superiority and the Presbyterians only pretend that their Office was extraordinary and expired with them but this is affirmed without sufficient Proof for what though Timothy be required to do the Work of an Evangelist can they prove that this signifies any more than a Preacher of the Gospel And if it could be proved to be a Temporary Office how does it appear that his Episcopal Power was a part of that Office or that it was not distinct and separate from it On the contrary it may be proved by a Cloud of Witnesses that this Power was not Temporary but was every where derived by Succession upon single Persons and particulably as to the Succession of Timothy and Titus we have the Confession of Du Moulin * In his 3d. Ep. to Bishop Andrews p. 181 182. That the Episcopal Order was of Apostolical institution and that what name soever we give to Timothy and Titus whether Bishops or Evangelists it is manife that they had Bishops for their Successors and Heirs of their pre-eminency And in fine this precarious Pretence of extraordinary Offices may with equal reason be urg'd as we find it is by Anabaptists Quakers and Socinians against the whole Order of the Ministry and if it be admitted as Mr. * In his Christian Directory cited in the Vnreason of Separ p. 264. Baxter once confess'd we leave room for andaecious Wits to question other Gospel Institutions at Pastors and Sacraments and to say they were but for one Age. The Sum is this there is clear Evldence in Scripture that there were some Officers who had Power of Jurisdiction over Presbyters and therefore the Texts which he produces to shew the Community of Names can be no Argument against it But to justifie Ordination by Presbyter he cites 1 Tim. 4.14 where it is intimated that Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery To this it is answered * On the brief Account of Church Government in Answer to the writings of the Presbyterians p. 195. c. 1. That Presbytery there is taken for the Office of a Presbyter and so the Sense runs thus neglect not the Gift or Office of a Presbyter which was given thee by Prophecy with the Imposition of hands and this Sense is warranted by the Authority of * Calv. Instit lib. 4. c. 3. sect 16. Calvin and of St. * St Jerom. in Locum Jerome long before him 2. If Presbytery be taken for the Ordainers it may nevertheless be understood of such Presbyters as had a Superior Power over others for as Apostles and Bishops are sometimes called Presbyters so might they Collectively be called Presbytery and accordingly it is observed that the Apostles themselves are called by St Ignatius the Presbytery of the Church 3. It is evident from 2 Tim. 1.6 that St. Paul was the principal if not the only 〈◊〉 ordainer of him and surely it is no good consequence that if Presbyters may assist an Apostle or a Bishop at an Ordmation therefore they may ordain without him He conchides that Augustine Jerome and Chrysostome with many other Greeks and Latins are of his Judgment but he produces no passages out of any of these Authours but asserts roundly that they are all of his mind and 't is as easie to answer that they are all against him however when he shall produce his Testimonies it will be time enough to examine them Secondly He proceeds to justifie his Orders by the Authority of our own and Foreign Churches All our learned Divines at the Reformation from Popery beld that Ordination by the Pastors of Churches he means Presbyters was valid and good Thus he affirms on without proving many Greeks and Latines and all our Divines are only consident Phrases and ought to pass for nothing in short I defie him to produce any one of those Divines that has allowed of Presbyterian Ordinations made in a Schismatical opposition to Bishops and without the Case of necessity But he adds The Twenty third Article of Ministring in the Congregation seems to speak as much That Article declares That it is not lawful to exercise the Ministry without a lawful Calling and that those are lawfully called who are called by Men who have publick Authority given them in the * Quibus potestas publice concessa est in Ecclesia Art Edit 1552 1562. Congnegation i.e. the Church to do it And how impertinent is this Allegation was publick Authority ever given in our Church to Presbyters to ordain Priests or Deacons on the contrary it is expressy provided in the Preface to the * Approved Art 36. and established by Acts of Parl. Reg. Edw. 6. Eliz. p. 58. Form of Ordination in our Liturgy that whereas it is evident unto all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there hath been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and
must not only exterminate Homoonsios Procession and eternal Generation but we must burn all our Bibles except the Greek and Hebrew because they are not properly the Word of God but Words that signifie by the Agreement of Men and if the original Words of Scripture may be Translated by Words of humane Institution why may not a Doctrine of Scripture be so expressed also Secondly as many of the Roman Church have absolved the Greeks from damnable Error in this Point so it is notorious that the Writers of our Church have always vindicated them from it and therefore it cannot be imagined that our Church in this Creed should pronounce them damn'd and it must be manifest injustice to put such Interpretations upon the Creeds of a Church as have heen ever disclaimed by the chiefest Writers of it Thirdly These damnatory Clauses must be understood to refer only to the Belief of the Doctrines contained in the Creed and not to every particular Word and Expression in it The great Fundamental Doctrine which in this Creel is called the Catholick Faith is this That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity and of this Faith it is declared That they who keep it not shall perish everlastingly And they who believe this viz. That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three Persons and me God do believe all that follows in the Creed which contains nothing but what is Essential to the Unity and Distinction of the Three Persons and therefore however they who believe the Trinity may scruple some Words and Expressions in this Creed or understand nothing of them yet as long as they believe the Doctrines they are not included in the Sentence of perishing everlastingly Faith belongs not unto Words but Things and though no one shall be damn'd for a Word yet it is no uncharitableness to say after our Saviour that he who believeth not shall be damn'd neither is it any Popery to conclude that if the Belief of the Trinity be necessary to Baptism it is necessary to Salvation and if this Minister be of another mind let him answer the Arguments that have been * Dr. Sher. Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity lately urged for the necessity of that Belief and let him also satisfie the World if he can why the Athanasian Creed which the Presbyterians appointed to be read in Churches in their Directory drawn up at the Savoy an 1661 should be afterwards a Reason of their Nonconformity But he goes on with his Scruples about the Matter of Consent and declines to speak of the Ceremonies the Cross the Surplice and behold the Reason because all know they came from Rome and when Rome falls they will fall too This is an Art full of Venome to traduce by odious Insinuations that which cannot be opposed by just Objections It appears from * Orig. in Ps 38. Hom. 2. Origen and others that the Cross in Baptism and from †See Hooker lib. 5. rect 29. S. Chrysostome and S. Jerome that such a Garment as the Surplice were of Ancient Usage their Antiquity is far enough beyond Popery and they come no more from Rome than do our Creeds and our Bibles and if this Minister hath had a Revelation in his Patmos that they shall fall with Rome we are foretold that in the last Times false Prophets shall arise and must not take his Dream for Vision Next en passant he upbraids us with our praying for King James a profest Papist that he might persevere in the Faith but there is no such Prayer in our Liturgy and if there were seeing the Papists are Christians and believe all that is necessary to Salvation for I hope he will not leap into the Throne of Judgement and pronounce them damn'd why may we not pray for their Perseverance in the Faith not the Faith of a Papist but the Faith of a Christian that will suffice to save them And now after these little Skirmishes we enter into the Battel and must encounter the Reasons which he has mustered up against reading the imposed Form of Common Prayer And here pray judge between the Church of England and the Nonconformists First he affirms that during the Apostles Times and two or three Hundred Years after there was no Liturgy used nor imposed neither did they direct for the drawing up of any and inforcing it by Penal Laws Here are many things jumbled together which must be separated Penal Laws imposing set Forms Directions for them by the Apostles and the Primitive use of them As for Penal Laws the Presbyterians themselves allow them and their Directory is as accountable for them as our Liturgy imposing to be considered hereafter and as to Directions for composing Forms out of many that are urged I shall select these three Considerations 1. Seeing there is convincing * See Dr. Flammond's View of the Directory Selden on Eutichyus p. 83. Dr. Lightfoot Vol. 2. p. 158. and Dr. Comber's Scholastical History p. 3. the Examiner of Dr. Combet p. 4. does question the Solidity of their Proofs but yet declines to undertake them Evidence that the Jewish Church had a fixed Liturgy and therefore both our Saviour and his Apostles who frequented their Synagogues did certainly joyn in it and not one Iota is to be found in the Gospel that condemns it from this Silence and that Practice we may certainly conclude that the use of fixed Liturgies is lawful that the joyning in them is warranted by their Example and that separation from a Church upon that account is absolutely unlawful 2. Our Saviour himself composed a Form of Prayer for his Disciples and in so doing hath * See M. Mede on Matt. 6 9. commended a set Form of Prayer unto His Church He enjoyn'd them when they prayed to say Our Father c. which is as plain a Prescription of a Form as any Words can express It is †Clarkson 's Disc conc Liturgies p. 3. confessed that this Form was anciently used in the Church and this Primitive Use may be very reasonably ascribed to that Prescription especially when we have so plain a Testimony as that of * Tert. de Orat. ca. 1. Tertullian Novis Discipulis Christus novam Orationis Formam determinavit i. e. Christ hath prescribed a new Form of Prayer to his new Disciples And therefore from the Institution nay from the Use of that Prayer which is confessedly ancient we may certainly conclude that a Form of Prayer is lawful in it self that it is useful and edifying that a Prayor is not therefore unlawful or inexpedient because it is a Form and that the Prescription or Use of a Form in a Church will not justifie separation from it 3. All the Directions which our Saviour or His Apostles have given for the Performance of the Duty of Prayer may be apply'd to Forms of Prayer suppose a Prayer to be exactly composed according to those Directions may not such a Prayer
be frequently used Does it cease to be made according to those Directions if it becomes a Form Is a good Prayer spoyled by using it often And can the same Prayer be agreeable and not agreeable to Scripture though it is not altered The Spirit has given Directions for Prayer and those are equally applicable to Prayers composed by private Men and to those that are made for the use of a Church by the Governors of it he hath given no Direction that private or extemporate Prayer should be only used in the Church The Rules are general and if the Apostles have not directed the drawing up Forms they have left no Directions for any Prayer at all seeing every Prayer either is or may be a Form Lastly As to the Use of Liturgies in the first Ages of the Church he affirms That it hath been abundantly cleared by those that have laboured in this Controversie that the Pastors of Churches in the Primitive Times did not read Prayers Those Labourers he refers to are only Mr. Clarkson for out of his Discourse of Liturgies he has extracted his Objections and they are all answered already in Dr. Comber's Scholastical History but because he has rallied up some few of them to defend his Nonconformity it is necessary to oppose the same Answers to them He says it is abundantly cleared that the Primitive Pastors did not read Prayers Mr. Clarkson indeed affirms that no such Phrase is to be met with in any Writers of the Four of five first Ages at least And to this it is replyed * Dr. Comber 's Schol. Hist pt 2d p. 206 c. that no such Phrase as extempore Prayer nor any thing Equivalent can be produced in that time that if written Forms of Prayer be clearly proved in those Ages such positive Evidence cannot be overthrown by a negative Argument and the want of a Phrase will not prove that any thing that was not which is proved to have been That Mr. Clarkson himself hath found written Forms within that time and that it is certain that the Jews had written Forms and yet the reading them is is no where mentioned in Scripture The Minister proceeds and urges that Act. 12.5 the Prayer for Peter's Enlargement was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instant forvent without ceasing but not by any Form as is agreed on all sides as if Prayer by a Form could not be instant and servent but the antient Church were of another opinion when the Litany was commonly expressed by * See Dr. Comber on the Litany 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is earnest or servent Supplications However tho it be granted that no set Form was used on such an extraordinary occasion does it follow that none was therefore used in the ordinary Prayers of the Church Or suppose that no Forms were used when the Church had the extraordinary Assistance of the Holy Ghost to direct their Prayer does it follow that no Forms are to be used when that Assistance is long since ceased if it does then it follows also that studying Languages is now unlawful because the Apostles were taught them by Inspiration and that no Preacher ought to predmeditate or write his Sermons because we never read that the Apostles did so But the next Objection he thinks to be demonstrative some says he have been so curious as to observe that in the Primitive times the Saints usually prayed with their Eyes fixed on the Mercy-Seat or closed which utterly disables Persons from reading Prayers Mr. * On Psal 132.7 Mede has proved that the Jews worshiped towards the Ark whose cover was the Mercy Seat and that the ancient Christians worshiped towards the Holy Table or Altar which Answers to the Mercy Seat in the Jewish Temple but whether their Eyes were fixed or closed is a moot Point to me and I have not the Curiosity to make a research in to it Mr. Clarkson Labours to prove that they lift up their Eyes towards Heaven but however they disposed of their Eyes I hope the officiating Minister might nevertheless read Prayers to them In out own Assemblies some devout Persons may be seen with their Eyes closed others looking towards the Altar and others towards Heaven and even the Minister himself does often lift up his Eyes in Prayer but I hope all this is no Argument that we have no Liturgy in our Church and that they who scruple its use do scruple nothing and if it is no Argument now it never was one 2. We come next to his Second Class of Reasons which he thus begins The Pastors of Churches in the Primitive times were under the teaching of the Anointing and had the Spirit and Gift of Prayer Suppose we this to be true that they were taught to pray by the Unction of the Spirit was this Unction extraordinary as the Gifts of Languages Prophecying and Miracles or was it an ordinary standing Gift which was to continue in the Church unto the end of the World If he means the former to what purpose does he urge a Gift which no one now can justly pretend to if the later why did he not explain the Nature of it and shew the Promise the extent and the necessity of it and withal answer the Arguments * Dr. Falkners Libertus Eccles his Vindication of Liturgies and the Cases Conc. the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer part 1. that have been urg'd against these Pretences But whatever he means by this Gift of Prayer he would prove the use of it from Justin Martyr and Tertullian the * Justius Apol. 2. p. 98. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former he says is Vindicated beyond all Exceptian The Objectors understand by that Phrase that the chief Minister used his own Abilities in composing a Prayer But * Libeâ—tas Eccles p. 113. c. Schol. Hist p. 33. part 1. others think that it signifies his praying with all his might i. e. with the utmost intention and fervency of Spirit They explain this Phrase by another of the same Author used a little before it where he says that they made their common Prayers to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. fervently and importunately They further prove that the same Expression in another place of Justin where he represents the Christians in general as praising God with Prayers and Thanksgivings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie only fervency of Devotion since it cannot be pretended that every Christian in the Congregation prayed publickly by his own Ability and Composure and lastly they shew that this Phrase is by the antient Writers applied to singing of Hymns which were set Forms of Prayers and Praises and not Composed at every meeting by the Minister and these are plain Demonstrations that this Expression is no Proof of any Gift in praying since it often signifies only fervency in it The P. 24. Examiner of Dr. Comber labours much to vindicate this Phrase and he cannot deny that it sometimes
Canons and Separation for them is alike unlawful He observes further that there were several Liturgies allowed even in the Roman Communion and that this Branch of the Churches Liberty was taken away by the Council of Trent and here in England by the Reformation And what was that Liberty which was thus abridged Not an Arbitrary Liberty in every Pastor of a Parish to use what Form he pleased but the use of different Rules of Prayer that were before prescribed and practiced in different National Churches and Dioceses The different Offices in England as those for instance after the use of Sarum and York did agree in Substance they had the same Forms of Prayer and differed for the most part in Rubricks and Ritualities only and when our first Reformers established an uniform Order it was not esteemed an Encroachment upon Christian Liberty neither are Unity Order and Uniformity the less valuable because Councils and Popes were for them 5. His next Reason is an Invective against the Introducers of Liturgies and in the midst of it he defines ex Cathedrd That the Liturgies which bear the great Names of S. James Peter Mark Basil and Chrysostome are known Forgeries That they are ent rely genuine as they are now extant is affirmed by no one but that they are Forgeries quite throughout and especially the Liturgy ascribed to St. James is so far from being known that we may safely affirm that it is impossible to know it And the contrary opinion of so Learned men as See Falkners Vindication p. 149. Baronius Ddurantus Leo Allatius Sixtus Senensis Possevinus Pamelius and others among the Romanists Dr. Hammond Thorudike Falkner Casaubon Salmotius Durel and some other Protestants will bear me out in affirming it But behold the Modesty Charity and Humility of this Minister 'T was the Ignorance Carnality Sloth and Laziness of the Clergy together with their Pride which first brought in and imposed Service-Books on the Churches When the Church began to be an Harlot when Bishops were not Silver Trumpets but tinkling Cymbals c. when in Councils as of Ephesus and Chalcedon they profest they did literas ignorare and could not write their own Names to confirm their Canons then came in our Liturgies Thus far the Son of Thunder but I take heart again for find it is brutum fulmen and our Prayer-Books are in no danger from it The Falshood and weakness of this Raillery is Schol. Hist part 2d p. 276. sufficiently exposed already and it is impossible such stuff should impose upon any but the greatest Bigots of Fanaticism Ignorance Carnality Pride and Laziness brought in Liturgies he might as well have said that Burglary or Vsury did introduce them if Pride and Ignorance brought in Liturgies why are they not read in Conventicles for In his Cure of Divisions Mr. Baxter hath complained to all the World that the People who frequent them for their Ignorance Injudiciousness Pride and Self-conceitedness are their Grief and their Shaine and certainly we may believe him But if Pride and Ignorance brought in Litugies we remember well then Entbusiasm Sacriledge and Rebellion did eject them We have Preface to Dr. Still Vnreasonableness of Separation had convincing Proofs that the Jesuits first brought extempore Prayers into England those Missionaries of Antichristian were the first Teachers of them and when Presbyterian Ministers were Trumpets to Rebellion when their Sermons and their Arms brought the best of Kings to the Scaffold when the Church was rent in pieces with damnable Doctrines when Jeroroham's Priests profaned the Pulpits and the Altars when the Stalls and the Shambles were the chief Schools of the Prophets when all Religion was vanished into Cant and Blasphemy and Nonsense were entitled to the Holy Spirit then were Liturgies first abolished and extempore Prayers first universally practised in any Christian Nation in the World But Liturgies he says were brought in when the Church began to be an Harlot Smectymnius * Answer to Remonst p. 7. derived their Pedigree from Three Canons of the Laodicean Carthaginian and Milevitan Councils and thus they are allowed to be in use about 1300 years since and has the Church been a Whore for so many Ages has she forsaken her Spouse so long has she renounced Christ Jesus for 13 Centuries together Yes and much longer too when we dispute about Episcopacy for when we come to that Controversie the Mystery of iniquity was working even in the times of the Apostles and the Church did then begin to be an Harlot also so little do some men care how they wound our common Christianity and condemn the whole Catholick Church of Christ so they may but vent their Malice against Liturgies and Bishops But because he cannot deny that Liturgies were introduced in the 4th and 5th Centuries he particularly Rallies upon the Ignorance of the Bishops of those Ages And were those ever reputed ignorant Ages when was the Church better enlightned with Learning than when Chrysostome Basil Nyssene Nahianhen Epiphanius the two Cyrills Lactantius Ambrose Jerome Augustine Isidore Pelus Theodoret Vincentius Gennadius and many others were the Luminaries of it But among these Gnosticks even the Mechanicks and the Women have been thought more able Divines than the Fathers and indeed if Ability is to be measured by the Gift of Prayer as they call it they may vye Learning even with their own Teachers for their most ignorant Zealots do often pray with as much fluency of words with as much pretence to the Spirit and which is the main Gift with as much Confidence as the ablest Ministers among them But the Bishops of Ephesus and Chalcedon could not write their Names and Mr. Clarkson indeed produces the Subscriptions of Three or four to prove it And to * Schol. Hist pt 2. p. 300. this it is replied That those Subscriptions are of no credit as being suspected of Forgery but suppose there were four Bishops among 830 in those Councils who were so illiterate is it not a very impudent Calumny to say indefinitely as he does That the Bishops of Ephesus and Chalcedon could not write their Names to confirm their Canons might it not as well be said that the Assembly of Divines at Westminster were Independants because there were Five of that Sect among them or that the Nonconformists Ministers of this Age have generally died as Traitors because Two or three were executed for being in Monmouths Rebellion His last Reason concerns the imposing of Liturgies and here he denies not the Lawfulness of them but after he has begged the belief of his Followers That they were not used in the Primitive times for many Hundred of years he pretends to prove the unlawfulness of imposing them Now one would think it a very plain Case that things lawful in themselves may be lawfully enjoyned by lawful Authority but this Minister is of another opinion and the only Reason he gives for the unlawfulness of prescribing Forms is this