by the prescribed Forms of other Men not Divinely Inspired nor yet being Solemnly set apart to the Ministry wholly to forbear Preaching 5. There are many other things which I cannot but judge sinful without the doing of which I can have no station in the National Ministry Reordination Assent and Consent Ceremonies Promiscuous Administration of the Lords Supper c. 6. I do believe the Vindicator hath not given a just Answer to one Argument I brought in this cause and I profess my Arguments remain still such as I cannot Answer 7. I do finally profess That I have not wilfully brought any thing in any of my dicourses on this Argument laying any stress upon it which I have not believed to be true Nor have I been bribed with any hopes of Reward or Preferment Nor have I quoted any Author to my knowledge falsly or partially hardly three which I have not seen with my own Eyes unless I have told the Reader otherwise Nor have I done any thing to keep my Reader from a true understanding of the thing in Question nor gone about to blind him with Digressions Prejudices or Impertinent Observations nor further then the Nature of the matter doth it have I loaded my Adversary with Odium Envy or Prejudice Whence all may observe what need we have for to exercise a further Charity then is yet to be found amongst us and a greater liberty in Religious Worship then we are yet so happy to injoy and that without it we are never like to come to our desired Peace and Vnity If there were only this single point in difference East and West seem to me as likely to unite as Dissenters and those of our Vindicators perswasion The good Lord shew us a more likely way for Vnion then all Ministers using the same Words and Syllables in the Acts of their Publick Worship which is a kind of Union no where required no where promised no where found nor ever to be expected and of which there is no necessity at all FINIS Postscript BEcause our Vindicator is so mightily confident that if ever there was a Sinful Separation in the World the Dissenters altho they agree in the Doctrine of the Church of England and possibly more heartily then some others who profess only to subscribe the 39 Articles in their own sense and as Instruments of Peace and in the same Acts of Worship and do not condemn the Church or Churches of England as no Churches are guilty notwithstanding of such a Sinful Separation I shall crave leave to mind him of an Argument to the contrary brought this last Commencement at Cambridge I suppose the Vindicator might hear it which the Auditors did not judge they heard sufficiently answered by the Dr. Respondent It was this To Separate or withdraw rather from a Church which doth not acknowledge the true Ministers of Christ as such is no Sinful Separation But to separate from the Church of England is to separate from a Church that disowns the true Ministers of Christ to be such Ergo. The Minor was proved because it will not own Ministers ordained by meer Presbyters to be true Ministers and so consequently disowneth the Ministry of all Forraign Churches which by several Acts of Parliament 3 at least one 13 Eliz. another made in the Parl. 1660 and the late Act for Uniformity are acknowledged true Ministers The trite answer That it is in a case of necessity those Churches having no Bishops to ordain Ministers is pitiful for no case of necessity can make one to be that which by the Law of Christ he is not nor was there any necessity that our Parliaments should so own them in three Acts. We had Bishops in England which could have re-ordained Ministers in 13 Eliz. and in the year 1660 and 1662. The Basis of this Argument is also much larger It is this It is lawful to withdraw from any Church where any Ordinance of Christ proper and necessary for any Church is disowned or not to be enjoyed according to the Practice of that Church Now whether the choice of their own Ministers and the exclusion of the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Supper And a power in a Church to purge it self from Ministers who by their lives or Doctrine make it appear that God never called them to the Ministry and from Members that by the Laws of Christ are to be shut out of the Communion of a Church be not Institutions of Christ necessary to the very being of a Church most certainly to it s well being let any judge and that those charged with Separation can enjoy them in the Parochial Churches of England lies upon our Vindicator to prove and should have been well thought on before he had been so very positive in his charge there being especially so many men of unquestionable Learning and Piety that are of another mind in the Case and as well assured of the contrary FINIS An A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ement to the Reader WHat thou hast here in answer to Dr. Faulkner hath been more than nine Months in the Booksellers or Printers hand and is at last come out with more Errata's then are consistent with the Authors reputation some of the principal of them I shall give thee an account of and for mistakes of a letter or a stop leave my self to thy Charity Only that I may not again be so smartly reflected on for my want of skill in the Chronology of Gregory the great I must give thee notice that whereas in the Title to the Introduction the Vindicator is said to have asserted that Gregory died 15 years before according to Platina he entred his Popedome and in the Book p. 14 there is only mention of ten it is none of the Authors mistake For in the Edition of Platina in Fol. thou wilt find he entred his Popedome Anno 1610 which was but 6 years after the Vindicator saith he died but in the late Edition of Platina in 24 he is said to have entred it 1619 which was 15 years after The Author hath left thee a latitude to believe which thou wilt only with thy Pen correct these following Errata's some whereof might be mine in writing but the most the Printers P. 2. l. 13. and so in many other places for Liturgy r. Leiturgy l. 19. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 3. l. 17. r. deliver p. 7. l. 7. r. Arguments l. 8. r. with him l. 23. r. self have p. 10. l. 5. r. dicendum ne l. 13. r. frustra l. 19. r. we judge l. 28 29. r. saepe etiam olitor est opportuna locutus p. 12. l. 22. r. 604 p. 13. l. 29. r. 1000 p. 15. l. 21. r. self say p. 18. l. 5. r. Darapti Ferison p. 24. l. 7. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 28. l. 8. r. gust l. 20. r. an Author p 35. l. 25. so p. 159. l. 17. r. word-bate p. 40. l. 30. r. no other p. 41. l. 32. r. may be p. 67. l. 16. r. For Ministry he p. 76. l. 3. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 116. l. 13. r. whether it or yt p. 118. l. 15. r. by which p. 21. l. 22. r. who joyn p. 140. l. 15. r. sometimes very little then blot out these words and where they concern it very little or nothing at all p. 143. l. 15. r. when he pleaseth l. 30. r. gifts p. 145. l. 17. r. he be able p. 146. l. 22. r. in inadvised p. 185. l. 4. r. prefer p. 195. l. 17. r. I may p. 219. l. 16. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 224. l. 28. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 226. l. 24. before proper r. as p. 238. l. 5. r. prayer p. 239. l. 29. for others r. them
way of varying in the use of their own Abilities then in well considered and digested Forms is as much as to affirm that the varied Expressions of Men at every particular time are more propper pithy and expressive and full then the best composed Prayer that is at any time made and reviewed with the greatest consider and care for so it may he expected that a publikly established Form is This is now a fine flourish and harangue of words but that is all for if he meaneth it concerning our own Liturgy what might have been expected I will not say but if our Author inquireth whether any one part of it were so much as once read over by the House of Commons and being now part of an Act many think it should have been by the Law of England all read over thrice and when it was read over in the House of Lords what a mistake was found in it by their Lordships will see no reason to presume that it was by our Ecclesiastical Superiours who yet without a Parliament are not our Superiours in the point of Legal Establishments reviewed with the greatest Care and Consideration 2. If it were so surely the Nonconfor nists-Adversaries would not all this time have only contended that there were no Phrases in it but might Lawfully be used but they would have pleaded That there could no better Forms be composed or used which I do not know that any of them hath gone about to demonstrate What in a Legal Establishment is not once reviewed by one part of the Legislative power in any place cannot certainly be said to be reviewed with the greatest Consideration and Care tho possibly it might be by some said to be reviewed with a sufficient Consideration as to which I say nothing but cannot allow Superlatives in the case 3. This very Argument will conclude for Forms of Preaching every whit as much as for Forms of Prayer But I shall give a strict Answer to it 27. In the Sacred Worship of God that is best which God hath prescribed and directed In the cleansing of the Leper Levit. 14. the poor mans Two Turtle Doves or two young Pidgeons such as he was able to get v. 22. was though of far less intrinsick value yet every whit as good as the Rich Mans Lamb mentioned v. 12 13 c. and therefore when the Question is What is the Will of God in the case all these discourses which is best or worst in Humane Eyes or according to Humane valuations are woful Impertinencies That is best which it is the Will of God we should use or do Nor is Superiours Establishment any evidence in which my Soul ought to rest without further enquiry to guide my Practice who am to search the Scriptures after St. Paul hath preached Acts 17. That what is Established is the Will of God in the Case if it were true instead of proving all things that I might hold fast that which is good I should prove nothing but presume it best because Superiors have established it This is the very thing that Eccius the Popish Lawyer replied to Luther at the Diet of Worms Ann. 1621. Ne que tuum est ea quae Conciliorum authoritate sunt olim definita rursus in quaestionem aut dubium vocare Sleidan de Statu Religionis c. l. 5. What is the English of that but this That is best which your Superiours have determined and how far such a Notion is improveable to the ruin of all true Religion appears by the Councel to which Eccius related which consisted of as vile a pack of Men as ever met in Council For it was the Council of Constance which determined the Pope above all Councils contrary to the Council at Basil just before and in conformity to the Factious Council of Pisa Assembled by Julius 2. to confront another Council sitting it was that Council of Constance I mean that burnt John Huss and Hierome of Prague who had both the Popes and Emperours security for safe coming and returning and established another Cursed Doctrine of Popery That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks In this case before us the difference betwixt us and our Adversaries for I see I must call Brethren no more lies here We say That is best in the Worship of God which appeareth to be the Will of God and what as to our own practice so appeareth unto us is best unto us Our Adversaries say That is best which hath a Legal Establishment and as to your Practice ought to be presumed best tho you do judge the quite contrary from Arguments which appear to you very probable and you cannot answer So in short our contest is for no less then the Foundation of the Reformed Religion But it may be this Harangue of our Answerer did not come in because he thought it pertinent but to give him an opportunity to lash him whom he had to deal with which is the next thing he attempts but never toucheth him He goes on And he who talketh of this our Church That if all her Ministers cannot constantly in their daily Prayers equal or outdo the perfection or exactness of a well considered Form for this must be his Sense if he speaketh to any purpose that this may be spoken to the shame of the Church of God in England These raw and extravagant speeches will be to the shame of those that utter them so far as they will be ashamed of uncharitable and reproachful calumnies against the Church of God and of speaking against all Sense and Reason When I read this I wondered who he meant till I saw in the Margent the Book quoted which he pretends to answer p. 157. there I find in answer to the Vindicators arguing the Necessity of Liturgyes That needful and comprehensive Petitions for all Common and Ordinary Spiritual and outward wants of our selves and others with fit Thanksgivings may not in the publick Supplications of the Church be omitted which considering men as they are can no other way be so well or at all assured That the Author of that Book had said Let it be spoken to the shame of the Church of God in England and it shall be for a Lamentation in it if in a Church whose Territories are so large there cannot be found persons enough sufficient without others prescriptions to them to put up needful comprehensive Petitions not only for common and ordinary but for the Emergent and Extraordinary Spiritual and outward wants of any persons with fit thanksgivings What makes the man in such a passion for this Here is not a wotd of all Ministers being able to equal and out do the Perfection and Exactness of a well considered Form but this he saith must be his sense or he speaks to no purpose E Cathedra dictum 1. But in cool blood when men are least subject to let their tongue outrun their reason was the Author bound to say more in his Answer then his Objector
had said in his Objection The Objectoâ— had not in his Objection said That all Ministers might put up Prayers in the greatest Perfection of Phrase or Matter or Stile and Exactness he onely spake of needful Petitions that should comprehend all Common and Ordinary Spiritual and outward wants 2. There is no need nor doth God any where require that all his Ministers should pray with the greatest perfection and exactness but that they should do the best they are able to do according to the best abilities God hath given them 3. Doth the Author say or was it the Vindicator that suggested that all Ministers are not able to do this I think it was the Vindicator who upon this Argument pleaded the necessity of Others Prescriptions 4. The Author indeed did say If it were so No B. he had said the same in the Reasonable Account p. 1â—4 it was ashame to the Church of God in England he saith so still for no such Ministers are able to preach without such Prescriptions 5. But to reconcile himself to the Vindicator he doth from his heart believe that in the Church of England there are twice ten thousand men which is as many again as there are acting Ministers who without others Prescriptions are able to put up needful and comprehensive Petitions for all Common and Ordinary Spiritual and Outward Wants of themselves and others with fit Thanksgivings Yea and something more than this for all Emergent Occasions as to which Forms cannot provide which it may be is the reason that it will be hard to prove that such Petitions and fit Thanksgivings have not Vniversally been put up with reference to the late Horid Popish Plot and most Eminent dangers of the Nation as every good English mans common reason may have judged needful 6. From hence appears that tho he be first Impeaching yet it is not the Author but the Answerer who in the place quoted hath Calumniated and Reproached the Church of God and spoken rawly and extravagantly The Vindicator plainly asserted the necessity of Liturgies because there were not in the Church persons so able The Author saith no such thing but saith It is a shame for us if there be not in the mean time believing there are so many either actually imployed in the Ministry or who may be so when they please But Vt canem caedas facile est invenire baculum 29. All this while it seems the Vindicator hath said nothing to the Authors Argument The great thing which seems to be the Question betwixt us in all this Discourse is Whether there be any such thing the duty of Ministers as Verbal Prayer or whether words have any necessary concern in Ministers Publick Prayers since Prayer is not so much a Verbal thing saith he p. 30. But is it not a Duty that cannot by a Minister be publickly performed without words if not by his leave words are essential to it for certainly that is essential to a thing without which that thing cannot be He cometh now to the Authors Argument after 26 pages spent in Prologomena The first thing which he saith p. 57. hath been before spoken to in the beginning of this Chapter when I did not think fit to have spoken any thing to his long digression tho afterwards I saw it necessary to make good my Minor Proposition 30. The second thing he saith is p. 58. That Ability of Expression is not peculiarly and particularly given by God to M nisters that they might thereby perform the publick Office of Prayer This he would prove Because it is given to others beside Ministers Because then our Lord would not have given his Disciples a Form of Prayer But is this the Question I assume no more then that it is a Mean given by God in order to the performance of the act natural and proper What if it be given to others as well as Ministers then they are also bound to perform the Act in the use of it The giving of it to others as well as Ministers surely doth not make it cease to be a Gift a Ministerial Gift a Gift in order to the Act which is all I have said And Dato non concesso supposing our Saviour did give his Disciples the Lords Prayer for a Form of words doth it follow this is not a Divine Mean natural and proper because that altho not so Natural yet it is as Divine and Proper being appointed by him who is God over all blessed for ever or that because we may doubtless use any Mean of Divine Institution therefore we may neglect a Mean given us of God and use a Mean under no Divine Prescription Certainly it will not follow that because a Form Composed and Instituted by Christ is a Divine Mean therefore Forms Instituted by men are till Christs Commission to them to do as much in his Church in this case as himself be well proved I leave this Answer to any fair intelligent Reader 's Judgment whether it be adequate or no 31. In the next place he tells us the Authority of Governours is of considerable weight Indeed it is but not in this case because it cannot be pleaded without begging the Question as may be seen by the clear and plain stating of it p. 5. and certainly the answering of an Argument by a plain and open begging the Question speaks the Vindicator to be as Defective in his Logick as the Author was supposed to be in his Chronological learning 32. He tells us p. 60. That the Author saith That a mans own Gift and Ability is a Divine Mean He doth so and it is true But a Form of Prayer is a meer humane Mean A Form of Prayer prescribed or composed by others to be used by me if those others were not authorized by God is but an Humane Mean nor is it possible that it should be other Now he saith this must be upon a Supposition that an ability to compose a Prayer to speak it is a Divine Ability he should have said Mean but the same ability to compose the same Prayer if it be written is a meer Humane Mean for so he should have said if he intended to speak Sense as every Reader will own An Ability to express our minds fitly in Prayer to God is a Divine Mean relating to the Action of Praying An Ability fitly to express the matter or stile of a Prayer in a Book is also a Divine Mean in order to the action of writing such a Form But how doth it appear that another Mans Ability fitly to express the matter or stile of a Prayer in a Book is also a Divine Mean in order to my Action in Prayer He that can prove this must use another Medium or else assert That what is a Divine Mean for A. B. as to one Action is also a Divine Mean for C. D. as to another Action of a quite differing Species This is now what Logicians call Ignoratio Elenchi What he saith p. 60 and
his affections fervent so as one may be undâ—r an obligation a divine obligation not to use Forms another for the present to use them So as I did not think this matter of a Superiours command because an Vniversal command here must necessarily trespass as to some upon a Divine Obligation which hath pre-obliged them to the contrary the command of Attention and Fervency in Prayer which they must not violate in obedience to any man as all Divines agree I think this is Sense and Divinity Now good Reader observe what our Answerer who hath so often told the World there is no weight no strength no truth in what I say replyeth to this 2. He tells us That He who seriously minds his duty must also have a conscientious regard toVnity Order and the Duty of due submission and the observing them are not the way to make him less devout and fervent That the Exercise of one duty will not hinder us in another That the Promises of Gods Grace and Presence are chiefly made to them who embrace Peace and Vnity I do very well know that there are Precepts for and Promises to Peace and Vnity and those that follow it and some of those Precepts which also direct us how to follow it as Heb. 12.14 Follow Peace with all Men and Holiness Rom. 12.18 If it be possible as much as lyeth in you live peaceably with all Men So that Vnity and Peace is no further our duty then it is consistent with Holiness which surely lyeth in the discharge of our Obligations to God No further then it is possible for us and as in us lyeth Now it is not Morally possible for us it lyeth not in us to be at Peace and in Vnity with them who will be in no Peace and Vnity with us unless we will consent to please them to quit what we verily believe is our Obligation to God viz. To Pray with the greatest attention of our thoughts and fervency of our Spirits Fathers and Authority of Men enough might be quoted in this case but that I fancy no such Ostentation There are Precepts also requiring order and due submission to Governours but they must both be expounded as the other Will any one then in his right reason urge us with Precepts to Vnity Order and Submission in a case where the question is Whether we can follow these Precepts with Holiness yea or no Whether they be morally possible or lie in us yea or no Or Whether before ever any such precepts of Men were we were not pre-obliged to the contrary by God 3. To as little purpose is his Text Matth. 5.23 24. brought for our Brother neither hath nor can have any thing against us tho he be offended at us if he be offended at us meerly because to be at Vnity with him or to please him we will not violate an Oblâ—gation which we believe was ever upon us from God Now that we have such an Obligation upon us this Argument was brought to prove Because we have an Oblition upon us to the greatest attention of thoughts and fervency of Spirit in Prayer and this we cannot discharge as we upon experience find by Praying by Forms But he promiseth us a discourse hereafter about Superiors power in this case To which time we shall adjourn this discourse only minding him that my instance of a command to Pray with our Eyes shut or open was not brought as a Comparison but as an Instance That there are some things indâ—fferent that are not the object of Superiors commands Yet we cannot but judge such a command as momentous as a command one while to pray standing up another while kneeling down what speaking evil of Dignities this is I cannot understand but I am sure in this and many other things as causelesly he pleaseth himself to speak evil of me which speaks him not very confident of the Validity of his own Answers It useth to be the policy of Commanders in an Army when they know they have beaten their Enemy to multiply their Adversaries Numbers and magnifie their Couragious Fighting but I see my Adversary is ruled by other Politicks 4. He comes in the next place p. 10. to tell us There can be no Publick Worship in any Church unless it be first determined to be either with or without a Form we desire no other determination then That it may be determined lawful for Ministers to Pray with or without a Form and thus this point is determined by the Churches of God in France and Holland It is determined in New England and Scotland that it shall be without a Form I ask not so much yet surely there is with this Doctors leave Publick Worship in all these places and therefore if his meaning be that there can be no Publick Worship unless one way be fixed of them two and the other destroyed he condemns all the Publick Worship of France and Holland where either of them is at liberty There is therefore no necessity for the determination of all Men in this case before there can be any Publick Worship of God no not by him that officiateth unless he means as to a Particular Act and therein he saith true but in the same Congregation Publick Worship may for ought I know be this day performed by one that useth no Form and to morrow by another who useth a Form not having Gifts or being nor confident he hath or being hindred by God at this or that time as to the use of them 5. At length he comes to the two Testimonies that of the Divines of Leyden and that of the Walachrian Classis which he had brought to prove that they judged it lawful for all Ministers in their Ministerial Acts of Prayer to use Forms of Prayer composed tho by Men not Divinely inspired tho he tells us p. 3. he laid no great stress on them yet because he chargeth me with not giving a true account of them and calls it an high degree of Carelesness and not Faithful dealing I must examine the matter again 1. He agrees as I said p. 46. of the Reasonable Account that the Walachrians professed to agree with Amesius and he agrees that Amesius was not for preferring Forms before conceived Prayer Well then where was the Errour I committed shewing my self careless and unfaithful He tells us that the Walachrians only declared their Agreement with Dr. Ames in that Question Whether Forms were lawful for Prayer and administring the Sacraments or those Churches that used them were guilty of Superstition and Will Worship and whether men might retain Communion with those Churches that used them In these words the Walachrians state the Question and that in the very place quoted in Dr. Faulconers Libertas Eccles p. 121. Considerat Cap. 7. qu. 2. The very first words in Answer to this Question are Nos in hac controversia faciles accedimus iis quae ab Amesio super hac Quaest scribuntur What saith ouâ— Answerer I acknowledge
and so far as man can judge mind what they are about with all Indication of Reverence and Godly fear Whether they be the Persons that talk or sleep out Sermons or that hear the word of God so far as men can judge with trembling Not that none but they do so my concern is not to discourse of others but for them Whether they generally be not a People against all Idols and Idolatry that dread to use the name of God idly or to swear by it or by any Creatures Prophanely Whether they be those that prophane the Sabbath by unnecessary Journyings or Labours or Recreation and do not ordinarily spend it in the publick and private Duties of Gods Worship For their behaviour towards men Are they generally the Sons and Daughters of this age that dare curse their Fathers and Mothers and reproach the Womb that bare them Are they Murtherers Thieves Adulterers Fornicators Perjured Persons Do they not generally make Conscience to Owe nothing to any but to love one another to deal justly with men I will not speak for every Individual Christ had a Judas in his Flock Nor do I reflect on any others I know there are many that are no Dissenters who are Pious towards God Righteous towards Men. I would only have these on both sides made one What have their worst Enemies to Object but disobedience to an Humane Law in matter of Divine Worship wherein they do in all sincerity profess they cannot do or omit the thing commanded or forbidden without sinning against God In the mean time your Honours see their bitterest Enemies can disobey Laws against Pluralities and Non-residents Others of them can disobey Laws against Drunkenness Swearing Cursing Adulteries c. and not see the beams in their own eyes tho they cannot but say these Laws are against things plainly and syllabically forbidden in the Word of God And indeed none lives on either side but violates some Humane Laws Nemo sine crimine vivit Optimus ille qui minimis urgetur said an Heathen Poet and truly without doubt 5. Nor most Honoured Patriots are the Arguments of those who are charged as disobedient as to this very point of Prayer invaluable nor can any mans confidences make them appear so to your Reasonable and Generous Souls It is not so evident as some Infallibles of our age would make it That the Holy Spirit of God hath not or may not have a special and immediate influence upon Pious Ministers Souls as to their words in Prayer as well as upon Gods Peoples words in Confession or Ministers words in Preaching both which the Scripture asserts which ought not to be excluded in that Prayer where words are to be used Nor is it certain that words are not an Essential Part of all Ministerial Prayer and these or these words an Essential part of this or that Prayer Nor that any Superior can direct an Essential Part of Gods Worship nor that in an Act of Worship where God hath left any thing to Ministers or Peoples Liberty that they may do this or that any Superiors can determine them to one part against the other Nor many things more in the following sheets which are inlarged upon Some parts of some of these Questions may appear clear to some the other part to others But this will conclude the things in themselves not to be plainly and clearly lawful Your Honours abhor an Infallible Judge boasted of by the Papists let it not be pretended to in the Tents of Protestants Nor one Infallible person suffered to triumph over others in the near concerns of Divine Worship In things necessary for all by a Divine Law we humbly allow it the Kings and your Honours duty to command us But if they appear not such upon plain evidence to our Superiors we beseech their Pardon if we say They cannot with any security to themselves from the Divine Law enjoyn them to or inforce them from those who judge them sinful in Divine Worship 6. And as it is not possible that any Divine Rule should be produced to make such a thing as this necessary to be brought into or continued in Publick Worship So these two last years have given abundant Evidence that it is not Expedient to tye all men to the use of them We are sure your Honours will grant from the Instances of the Songs of Thanksgiving Recorded in Scripture both those of Moses and Miriam and Deborah and David and from the Prayers in Scripture of Solomon David Jehosaphat Hezekiah Ezra c. That when Persons are under Signal Providences whether of Deliverances or Distress or in respect of some general Sin the Servants of God have not thought it sufficient in Publick Prayer To give thanks in general words for all Mercies and Preservations but to tell him of his particular wondrous works to recognize him the Author of this or that Salvation To confess and bewail those particular Sins if they be the Sins of the generality of the People To put up Petitions suited to those particular distresses the Church or State is in This is plain in all Scripture And where it is not done God is eminently restrained in his Glory our duty is eminently neglected We are sure God within these two years hath made England as remarkable a Stage of Provividence as ever any Nation in the World was made We have been in most eminent distresses and have had most eminent deliverances Both of them concerning the whole Nation and all that in the Nation can be dear to every good man The life of our Soveraign the life of our Religion The life of our Ancient Government The lives of several of our Noblemen multitudes of our Gentry and many thousands of our Commonalty Plots upon Plots have been discovered Uno Succiso Pullulat alter We have had to deal with an Hydra Now we humbly refer it to your Honours to judge what particular Homage either of Prayer or Praise God hath had relating to these distresses in all our particular Congregations And whether the limiting all Ministers to Old Forms of Prayer hath not been the cause of this High Omission The Practice of our Ministers satisfied as to Confirmity is two-fold Some take themselves obliged not only as all are in the Desk to add nothing to the Forms But in their Pulpits to keep to the Bidding of Prayer in the Canon or at least to Preface their Sermons with half a dozen lines taken out of some Collect and conclude them with either Gloria patri c. or that excellent Collect our Vindicator tells us of Grant we beseech Almighty God c. those and these are not a few could never put up one Prayer except upon 11 April 1679 for which were indeed good and particular Forms made for any deliverance nor yet offer up one Publick Thanksgiving Others there are who conceive that though the Statute gives them in the letter of it no further liberty yet the continual Practice of our Church
partly connate and natural partly revealed in Holy Writ that in matter of Gods Worship their Reason is to work not so much upon the first as second sort of these Principles hence they form Conclusions from comparing Scripture with Scripture in the light of which they walk And even in this ratiocination they do think Optimus Philosophus non nascitur and therefore judge none but walk in their own Light making no Mens Dictates or Decrees the Rule of their Practice in the things of God but crying out To the Law and to the Testimony and for the determination of the sense of that as to their own practice finally resting in the practical judgment of their own consciences If any represent them to the World as Dunces Men that have nothing to say for their dissent from others but doing what they do out of meer Faction Rebellion Disobedience to Rulers They are ready to give a reasonable account of their Actions 3. This was the apparent design of that Book composed immediately upon the coming out of the Vindicators Libertas Ecclesiastica and more than two years since given to a friend after which the Author never saw it till he saw it in print and abating the Errors of the Press the Author sees no cause to put it into his Retractations nor doth believe that one leaf of it will be a grief of heart to him when he comes to die nor be charged upon him as guilt with reference to the main matter of it in the day of Judgment But because we will not believe because the Church that is some who call themselves so believe that Faith and Fervency are the gift of Vocal Ministerial Prâ—yer which is no better than Nonsense and that there is a Natural Eternal Order and Decency left to the liberty of Rulers to specifie in particulars antecedent to the will of God concerning external Worship to which the plain precepts of God for attention and fervency in Prayer must give place and be by it regulated or that words are no essential part of Ministerial Publick Prayer and some other such like unintelligible things and as unscriptural we must be exposed at this rate for most unparallell'd Dunces and Rebels to Authority and persons who to use our Vindicators words in the close of his Introduction vent Notions to widen our Breaches and such as are inconsistent with the publick establishment of a Church and which put advantages into the hands of other Enemies the drift whereof tends to confusion and the matter of them is unsound and untrue when as in truth the imposition of Forms of Prayer on all Ministers and inforcing them to use and all the people to hear them hath been the source of all our Breaches and most if not all and those the purest Churches are established without any such imposition and they are only used amongst our greatest adversaries from whom it is that we are reformed as all men know such misteries of sense some men speak in their passion 4. From hence may appear how truly the Vindicator tells his Reverend Diocesan in the Epistle Dedic That for justifying our Seperation I have adventured so far as to charge the general use of Forms of Prayer to be sinful which if it were true would indeed be a high accusation against our Publick Worship The matter is neither so nor so if the Vindicator doth not judge this good Logick What some pious men judge as to themselves unlawful is certainly and absolutely so which is so weak as every one will see the inconsequence of it Our Vindicator will hardly be pleased to hear me tell my Reader That there is not much truth to be expected from him who so manifestly prevaricates in the first leaves nor consistency from him the second p. of whose Epistle Dedicatory agreeth no better with his Title page tho p. 138 he minds his Reader That he may not reaâ—onably expect any accuracy in the right computation for the birth and first product of Liturgies from me who talks so loosely and falsly about the Age wherein Gregory the Great lived when yet the mistake was his own not mine as I shall hereafter fully shew 5. I am beholden to the Vindicator for allowing me both in his Epistle Ded. and else where to have stated my Question plainly and then produced my Arguments but I am not so far engaged to him for owning no more in my Book than slender and weak appearances of Reason and what was not like to prevail much with understanding men wanting strength of Argument But these things being yet in Issue I shall say nothing to them save only this That in some causes it is necessary to fore speak Readers and more politick to prejudice them then to leave them to their own judgments for the strength of the Argument I shall once more try that with them and examine whether he indeed hath as he saith This great advantage to have manifest truth on his side 6. In his Introduction p. 1 2. He tells us he thought my Vndertaking strange and that in my Book he found nothing of any great weight I am not much concerned at his thinking my Undertaking strange nothing freer then thoughts But why strange Was it not the contrary Opinion that broke the Church at Frankfort in the beginning of our Reformation Was it not 100 years since disputed in Latine betwixt one Carpenter and an English Minister fled into Holland My self hath the printed Copy of it hath not Mr Cotton long since declared his judgment against the lawfulness a Prophet without Honour from a party in his own Countrey but whose name is not only very honourable to multitudes at this day in England but over all the World where the Gospel is Preached Hath not the judgment of the Churches in new-New-England been the same if not more rigid then mine Hath it not been the judgment of the Church of Scotland ever since the Reformation Nay is it not the judgment of all Reformed Churches at this day where Liturgies are only prescribed and left at liberty Why then should this undertaking be so strange Especially considering that himself tells us in his Epistle Dedica That the Genius of the Non-con Party is much set against them and in their Practice they generally reject them eagerly 3. Tho indeed he saith in his Epistle That the more cautious and wary Men amongst us dissenters will not Affirm the constant use of Forms Sinful because they think suâ—h a Position not defensible But the question is Whether those Cautious Wary Men will not affirm The Vniversal use and imposition of Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship and such Forms too as were never prescribed by God or Christ or any Prophets or Apostles unlawful I never yet met with one such Dissenter tho never so Wary and Cautious and thus much I dare say That in the whole County where our Vindicator lives there is not one single Dissenting Minister would take up a Living
that in the Jewish Worship they all used the same Prayers and Exhortations because they always killed the same specifical Beasts for Sacrifices In their very Sacrifices there was a great variety and they agreed in nothing but that they all were what God prescribed 7. What he saith in p. 15. is granted him nothing but the will of God is worth naming in the cause words in themselves are nor valuable but obedience is What makes then this trifling about the Opinions of Heathens the invaluableness of words in themselves the way of Worship under the Law c. What is all this to any purpose but to prepossess the unwary Reader 8. His next observation is That the Author doth not account himself certain of the truth of this Position What doth he mean by certain The Author is none of the Infallibles of our Age and hath more modesty than to dictate to all the World and pretend Demonstrations of a thing that it may be is not capable of it But he is morally certain certain as far as probable Arguments can make him But what then Therefore it appears not to him unlawful Will any weighed Divine in the World say That a thing is not unlawful to him that upon Arguments which to him appeareth highly probable appears unlawful Let the Author answer a Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wrote on this very Argument 9. The Author values not a rush whether the Answerer blames or not blames him for the thing some persons in this Age calls Separation He falls not by Mans Judgment There was in Apostacy which Luther gloryed in and there is a Separation which a good Christian may glory in 1 Cor. 6.17 The Question is Whether the Nonconf be guilty of a sinful Separation That Nonconf are guilty of that here is no Argument to prove but the Author accounting himself certain mentioned p. 21. which is a new Topick for I hope it is no Demonstration 10. The Vindicator p. 22. in the next place comes to tell us of considerable prejudices against the truth of my Assertion 1. That it is against the Opinion of the Church of England and the most famous Churches in the Primitive times But to the latter part of this he very honestly adds a Quod est Demonstrandum referring it to be afterwards proved And against the constitution of many eminent Churches abroad This he saith he before observed and I do not deny observe good Reader how I have not denyed it â—69p An imposed Liturgy unless in a particular Province for a time in a particular case such as was that of the spreading of Pelagianism we can not find And for a Liturgy to be proposed onely and left at liberty we know most Reformed Churches have such a one and we have before declared our judgements for the reasonableness of it It is true which I also said That the continuance of Liturgyes owes it self in a great measure to Churches not having Men enough able pray without Forms But what is this to the purpose of Universally Imposed Liturgies From this appeareth the exceeding vanity of what the Answerer addeth p. 23. The Author condemned none of the first Reformers of Sin nor hath reason to believe that all of them used any such thing if they had he condemneth them not 11. But the Author and those of his mind p. 23. are such pitiful men as determine in these weighty things according to their present humour For one while he saith Authority or Practice is a lamentable Argument His words are these While we are disputing about what is lawful or unlawful Authority or Practice is a lamentable Argument They must be lamentable Divines that will say otherwise That the Practice of Men should determine to us the will of God Well But he saith in another place The Sensus piorum neither is nor ever was judged light by persons of sobriety and worth for the truth of a proposition especially a practical proposition not plainly determined in Holy Writ Is then the Authority and Practice of particular men that have the good hap to get into a Chair of Government in the Church and the Sensus piorum the same thing think we I beg the Answerers favour if I do not believe it but believe there must be to say no more the odds of 200 to one The Sensus piorum is the general sense of persons in such or such a place minding the things of God and regulating their lives in a conformity to his will I take this in practical matters to be a thousand times more probable Argument then some particular persons tho Governours Authority and Practice 12. But it seems I so stated my Question p. 24. as to overthrow the main foundation and the chief Arguments of my Discourse That indeed is great weakness But I pray how doth this appear to be any thing but a most false calumny I granted That Forms of Prayer by God commanded in Scripture must be used and other Scriptural Forms may be used as part of our Prayer yet I declare it sinful for such Ministers as can pray otherwise to pray by Forms From the duty of using their own Gifts And 2. From the hinderance of pious Disposition Attention or Fervency from the use of a Form of words in Prayer Do I so Judge good Reader The Minor of my first Argument is this But for a Minister having the gift of Prayer Reasonable Account p. 6. ordinarily to perform his Ministerial Act in Prayer by reading or reciting Forms of Prayer composed by others confessedly not divinely inspired is for him to omit a natural and proper means given him by God c. It is true in my Second Argument p. 23. all these words are by the Printers carelessness left out by Forms of Prayer composed by others confessedly not divinely inspired nor could I help it but a man of any ordinary candor would have supplied them from the state of the Question and from the preceding Argument which will make it appear that I never said that it was unlawful to perform our Ministerial Act in Prayer by Forms but by Forms composed by others who confessedly are not divinely inspired I never was so simple as not to allow God to dispense with his own Law upon which ground any Forms commanded by God must be lawful nor yet to think we might not use Scriptural phrases in any part of worship and yet use our own gifts at the same time time too 13. For to pray nothing else but using a Scriptural Form I believe we must have a special Command of God to make that lawful to us Besides I doubt not but the Answereâ— saw what I wrote p. 51. That there is a vast difference between the pure words of God for the which God both hath and ever will secure a Reverence in all Religious Souls and Forms composed by fallible men without any direction from God Let any Christian experience whether it be possible for
joyneth with him who Ministreth in Prayer For the Ministers reading a Form can be no part of External Worship because in it he is neither directed by the Light of Nature nor by the Will of God in Scripture It is only an help to himself or others or both to order himself and people by in their Mentall Prayers 7. Neither can I see how it can properly be called a Mean unless the Form be particularly by God directed of Mental Prayer For in reason the mean of meer internal adorotion must be an Ability so to adore which a man hath partly from Nature whence is his Ability to think and conceive partly from the influence of the Holy Spirit of Prayer and Supplication 8. His next Observation is as idle as his Reflection in that Paragraph founded upon it is impertinent it is this p. 179. That according to this Argument the conceptions and expressions of him who Prayeth without a Form are as much forbidden as the use of Forms is pretended to be because God hath not prescribed these Expressions I had told him that both the Light of Nature and the Will of God declared in his Word 1 Tim. 4.14 1 Pet. 4.10 Rom. 12. have shewed us That an ability fitly to express our minds that is our wants and desires to God in Prayer is the means which God hath prescribed for Vocal Prayer how well he hath disproved what I said let the Reader judge from my reply so that in further answer to this his Observation I shall but oppose another observation and commend it to my Reader viz. That he hath answered my Argument learnedly by begging the Question for this was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betwixt us 9. But yet because our Author hath no mind to treat of Means and to grant us that Means as well as Acts and Parts of Divine Worship must have a Divine Institution Let us take him at his own concession That parts of Worship must have such an Institution this he yieldeth in terminis p. 177. I say that words in Vocal Prayer are parts of Worship his friend Capellus he owns hath affirmed it That by keeping to the constant use of a Form men make it a proper part of Worship This he doth not like But why then in the very same case about Forms of Prayer doth he choke us with what Capellus hath said Vindicat. p. 167 173 201. It is a just Rule in Law That he who hath produced a Witness in the same cause for himself hath granted him a sufficient Witness and shall never be allowed to except against him as not such I hope if Capellus his Authority be valuable against us it is so for us 10. But I have another Argument to prove that Forms of Prayer Vniversally imposed are parts of Prayer proper parts of Prayer that is Vocal Prayer which alone is Ministerial Prayer For the parts of that religious Action are Two The one is Internal which lyeth in the Motions of the Heart and Affections The other is External which are Our words And these are the two Essential parts of Worship in that Prayer take away either of them and it is no Prayer that is no Ministerial Vocal Prayer And these or those words are essential parts of this or that Ministerial Vocal Prayer Now if Men without express direction from God may prescribe us words they may prescribe an Essential part of VVorship which our Vindicator justly denieth they may 11. His third Observation p. 182. is That in his Libertas Ecclesiastica 2. Sect. Chap. 1. He hath largely proved That it is a false and dangerous Position to say that nothing may be used or appointed in Gods Worship besides necessary Circumstances of humane Actions but what is appointed by God himself He addeth here That it is destructive to Publick VVorship and Religion For since God hath commanded us to pray but hath not in all Acts of Worship enjoyned our words or the performance of this duty with or without a Form it must needs according to this Position be done neither by a Form nor without because both by consequence are forbidden being not prescribed Then he telleth us That God hath not prescribed what sort of bread or wine should be used in the Supper of the Lord nor what Psalms should be sang To which I reply 12. I am not at leisure to reply to all he hath said in 72 pages of his Libertas Ecclesiast but I do not remember that he hath there said That Men may appoint Essential or integral parts of VVorship if he hath I am sure he hath denyed it here p. 177. Now I have both said and proved that words are an Essential part of Ministerial Vocal Prayer If there be no words used there can be no such thing therefore by our Answerers own concession words in this Prayer must be directed by the Light of Nature or by the VVill of God VVriten in his Word I have shewed that Gods VVill is revealed in the cause both in the Light of Nature which directeth us to express our own thoughts in our own words and by his VVill revealed commanding us to Minister our Gifts and according as we have received the Gâ—ft or Grace Neither do I remember that our Vindicator hath asserted That Men not divinely authorized and inspired for that end may appoint Means of VVorship I am sure in this Book he is very shy of it if he hath said any such thing elsewhere it is false and contrary to the Second Commandment For any appointments of other things in about or relating to the Worship of God we are not here disputing nor was the Question stated with reference to them 13. It is rashly if no worse said That there can be no Publick Worship or Religion according to that Position For it plainly inferreth That in the Churches of God in Scotland Holland France New England c. there is no Publick Religion or VVorship for it is certain that in all or most of them there are no Forms of Prayer Vniversally used or imposed tho there be in some of them some made and left at liberty to be used or not used 14. Whereas he saith That according to this Position there can be no Administration of the Sacraments because according to this Principle all Bread and VVine is forbidden to be used in that Ordinance because the particular kind of Bread and Wine is not prescribed It proceedeth upon this Hypothesis which is false That we say That nothing is left to our liberty in about or relating to the Worship of God because we say no Acts Parts or Means of VVorship are left to liberty We say that particular Phrases in Prayer and Preaching so the particular kinds of Bread and VVine to be used in the Lords Supper are left to liberty but yet words are not left to liberty Nor whether any Bread or Wine should be used are not left to liberty and where God hath left any thing to
or an opportunity to discharge their lusts and passions have call'd a flanting piece of Oratory a Lecture out of Aristotles Ethicks or Plato or such a discourse as lately was made before my Lord Mayor to the admiration of all men Preaching which is just such Preaching as before the Reformation the people had from the Popish Priests whose Preaching was but a Lecturing out of Scotus and Aquinas or a story out of the Legend and as the story of that age tells us they had not onely the brutish impudence to do this but also to Petition Magistrates for a liberty to do it when the common people discerned the folly and madness of it and would no longer endure to be so abused and deluded 10. In his 214 p. he groweth very angry that I should say How many discourses of late years have we had in Pulpits pretending to prove Men have a natural power to things Spiritually good That we are not justified by the imputed Righteousness of Christ but by our own works How many perfect Satâ—res Raillerys and Evomitions of the Lusts and Choler in the Preachers hearts To this he subjoyneth These are the kind words and meek Expressions of one who judgeth and censures the sharpness of other Men. Then he comes to defend those who have spoken for Mens Natural power to Spiritual Acts and against the imputed Righteousness of Christ These things must not pass unexamined 11. Will our Answerer say there have been no such discourses of late years I appeal to thousands and ten thousands of Witnesses Will he say Ah but they should not have been spoken of because they reflect on the Ministry of our Church That is false they reflâ—ct not on the Ministry tho upon many Ministers of our Church or who call themselves so The Ministry of our Church are those who Preach according to the Doctrine of our 39 Articles which these Doctrines are not others are but Intruders whom our Church owneth not they are but our Churches Natural Sons Our Church hath declared against them in her Articles and Homilies 12. Besides did not our Answerer inforce me to what I spake he had before often told us of the Impertinencies Errors Nonsense Blasphemy to which conceived Prayer gave a scope and That a Prayer may be put up and the People could not joyn in one Petition I told him Reasonable Account p. 106. That was a rare and an hard case 2. That their not joyning might be from the Lusts and Error of their own Hearts 3. That it was the same case as to Preaching and therefore the Argument was as strong for Forms of Sermons to be Vniversally imposed and used He told me there had been many such Prayers I told him there had been also many such Sermons But must our Vindicator who knows this plead for it too as he doth now to the end of this Chapter p. 215 216. Let us hear what he saith 13. He tells us that all our Ministers own Christ to be the Saviour of the World so did Pelagius and that the New Covenant of Grace is confirmed through him so did he for ought I ever heard or read and that in this day of Grace God gives his Aids and Assistances besides the Instructions of his Word the mighty motives of his Gosâ—el and the benefits of the Ministry of Reconceliation and his Holy Sacraments Hold here a lirtle for here lieth the pinch What doth our Vindicator mean by Aids Helps and Assistances besides the Instructions of the Word and Motives of the Gospel c. doth he mean any more then the Remonstrants have in their confession 1622 thus expressed Chap. 17. n. 8. That the Holy Spirit gives to all and every Man to whom the word of Faith is ordinarily preached so much Grace or is ready to give so much as is sufficient for the begetting of Faith If he meaneth no more by those terms then this he meaneth no more then a common Grace granted unto all men that are in the Church and tho this indeed be more then a Natural Priviledge yet I do not understand how it is more then a Natural Power under the advantage of those Priviledges For Natural here is opposed to Adventitious and such adventitious assistance as is more then the improvement of meer natural Abilities by ordinary and common Means Which improvements we commonly call The common Gifts or Grace of the Holy Spirit All these are comprehended under the term of a Natural Power and are opposed to Spiritual which here signifies the mighty workings of the Spirit of God in a way of special and distinguishing Grace inabling the Soul to do some truly Spiritual Acts which it cannot do without the Assistances either from the powers of meer Nature or improved Nature but must be done from a Soul changed born again of the Spirit renewed transformed c. 14. I am sorry to read our Answerer declaring That he cannot understand the End of Preaching unless a man under no special Circumstances differencing him from none who lives within the Church hath a power to believe and work out his own Salvation and to live Godlily Righteously and Soberly I am sure no man can truly believe what he hath no sufficient Evidence of the truth of and our Saviour told Peter Flesh and Blood had not given him a sufficient Evidence That Christ was the Son of the Living God Matth. 16.17 But what our Author saith is the Arminians Argument and hath been sufficiently answered in multitudes of Books and what our Vindicator saith is confuted by the experience of many good Christians who will own the quite contrary and I am sure the Church of England saith in her 10th Art We have no power to do good works pleasing and acceptable to God without the Grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a good will and working with us when we have that good will And Art 13. Works done before the Grace of Christ and the Inspiration of his Spirit are not pleasing to God because they spring not of Faith in Jesus Christ neither do they make men meet to deserve Grace 15. As to the point of Justification our Author saith thus We disclaim every where merit in our own works so do the Socinians and acknowledge Vindication p. 217. that our Saviour hath as our Mediator interposed by his Obedience Righteousness and Sacrifice to expiate our sins give the Sanction to the New Covenant of Grace and Righteousness and to assure the Mercy of God and Pardon and Forgiveness upon the Terms of it But if we speak of the Gospel condition of Justification that must be performed by our selves and we do account that as Repentance which includes that I dare say he meant not Excludes as it is Printed though he hath not been so charitable to me as to think I meant the Opinion and Practice not the Person of Gregory the great was protected by Charles the great is a necessary condition to
the Law The Vindicators dirt thrown on the Author wiped off himself rebuked for calling an Ability to express our selves fitly to God in Prayer a Varying of Phrases A fear suggested lest by it he should have vilified Gods Holy Spirit 4 New Arguments against the Universal Use or Imposition of Forms of Prayer 1. MY Seventh Argument was thus stated That Principle which levelleth the performance of the great and sacred Office of the Ministry to the capacity of the meanest of the People cannot be a true Principle But this Principle That it is lawful for a Minister of the Gospel ordinarily to perform his Ministerial Acts in Prayer by the prescribed Forms of others doth this Ergo. This I proved p. 121 122. I first presumed it would be granted that God had appointed an ordeâ— of Men in his Name to declare his Will unto his people and to intercede with God on their behalf 2. That he would not have done it if they had nothing to do but what any of the people might do 3. That any who could read well might read printed Forms 4. That it is not probable that God would have reserved Honour or Maintenance and by a Law established it for such a kind of Ministry What saith our Vindicator 2. He answereth by five Observations His first is That I have given a very defective description of the business of the Ministry Indeed I should have put in administring the Sacraments but let it be added and then I think I have a good Authority for it from the Commission given them Matth. 28.19 Go teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things which I have commanded you and lo I am with you always to the end of the VVorld Here Teaching and Administring the Sacraments are made their great work for that both the Sacraments are there included is plain from the precept Do this in remembrance of me given them Chap. 26. We will also grant Prayer from the Apostles Authority 1 Tim. 2.3 3. He tells us p. 226. It must be their Exerciâ—â— of a special power of Office that is the doing the same things but in another notion as Officers but were we speaking of the Material or formal part of their VVorks we were speaking of what Ministers are to do not under what Nâ—tion Character or Capacity So I say take their Materiall Actions supposing such Forms lawful they have no more to do then the meanest of the people have a Natural power to do which is all I asserted 4. Who denies that these Acts done by persons called of God to do them in his Church are quite of another vertue and efficacy then as done by persons not so called of God but my Argument was That it is not probable or to us it appears not probable for the pretended demonstrations doubtlesses and certainties of others in such cases are no more then confidences That God would have instituted an Office for the doing of such Acts as the meanest people might do 5. He tells us p. 227 That his work is also to Preach but in the Argument Forms of Sermons were supposed as lawful as Forms of Prayer and I have largely answered what our Vindicator hath said to prove more need of the one then of the other For the other things he mentioneth dispensing Absolution and Remission guiding Mens Consciences directing and obliging men to observe due Rules and Exercises of Repentance convincing Adversaries watching over their Flocks By his leave if we either be guided by the practice of Christ or his Apostles considering them as things distinct from Preaching they are the least works of a Minister I am sure some of them are least attended Private satisfactions of Mens Consciences is the work of a Minister but no piece of his publick servie about which we were speaking nor what a private Christian may not do to his Ability Nor do I think that in those works a Minister doth any thing Authoritatively nor that his Counsels or advice will be found a jot more effectual then he can make it appear that what he saith is the Will of God 6. In his third Observation he tells us That when Litues rgi weâ—e laid aside in England many of the meanest of the people both of mean Abilities and of bad and erroneous principles were thought fit to be taken into the Ministry yet could Pray and Preach popular Sermons in my method and to great satisfaction What is this to the purpose comparisons are odious and it is too true that in the late times too many such persons Prayed and Preached in Publick but that there were more admitted into the Ministry then since will be very hard to prove I could tell him stories enough of my own personal knowledge to make him excuse those admissions into the Ministry which were in those times But then I should be exclaimed against by our Vindicator as a great Slanderer of the Church of England though I know if our Vindicator doth not that the Bishops cannot help it We desired to mourn for and to throw out in those times any sottish Persons that by their Hypocrisie in those times crept into the Ministry when they once appeared so we never called them the Brethren or our Brethren but look'd upon them as the Scabs and Deformity of the Church For their Abilities there was no defect of Tryal of them in any Presbyterian Ordinations that hath been amended since There were none then ordained but were examined of their skill in Greek and Latine and Hebrew if they had any otherwise they solemnly ingaged to study it in Church History a great part of the Body of Divinity none but were put to make a position in Divinity and then to defend it against the Arguments of several learned Men. Let us therefore hear no more of that 7. Our Vindicator p. 231 232 233 234 spends many words to prove that God did under the Law annex a great and honourable Revenue to those that were his Officers tho their work was none other then what other persons had a natural capacity to do But 1. How doth he prove that the Priests ordinary work was nothing else but to offer Incense and Sacrifices They were to Teach Micah 3.11 Their Lipps were to keep knowledge Mal. 3.6 They were to resolve Questions concerning the Law Hag. 2.11 But further let it be considered 1. That Gods Provision for the Priests was a Provision for a whole Tribe in Israel The Males of the Levites only at the first settlement as appears from Num. 3. were near 22000 Men besides Women and Children under a Month old they cannot reasonably be thought much less then 50000 Souls besides the Priests 2. It was not reasonable that their Maintenance should be less then was assigned to the other Tribes but more because they were taken off from other means of lively-hood 3. Their imployment took up their full time I
And that he Prayed in his Family The Non-conformists say They allow those may use Forms to guide their Mental Prayers who cannot Pray Vocally therefore Constantine did well to make a Form for such and tho Eusebius saith Constantine in his Family Prayed yet it cannot be proved it was by Forms not of Dâ—vine Institution Prayers were appointed but not Forms of Prayer He quotes a speech of Sozomen relating to this Century and a Phrase of Nazianzen which he maketh expository of Sozomen or Julian but the Non-conformists say Nazianzen was dead many years before that Sozomen wrote and so could not expound his words From the year 400 to the year 500. He quotes the general Council of Chalcedon 451 confirming the Canon of Laodicea 364 but the Nonconf say that the Canon of the Council of Laodicea as appears by the words ordered not Forms of Prayer only a Publick Ministry of Prayers Morning and Night He quotes Proclus also asserting Liturgies delivered by James and Clement Basil and Chrysostome The Nonconformists say the Vindicator himself rejects the Authority of Proclus for St. James and Clement and they may as well do it as to the other and that the pretended Writings of Proclus are of no Authority On the contrary the Nonconformists say That in this Century Sozomen saith there were no two Churches to be found which spake the same words in Prayer From the year 500 to 600 he quotes Justinians Novellae confirming the Canons of Chalcedon But the Nonconformists say They have proved that Council established no Forms He quoted indeed before this the Council of Milevis but the Nonconformists say It was a particular case of a particular Province infected notoriously with Pelagianism nor was that Canon by the Council of Chalcedon 451 taken into the Code After the year 600 the Noncon wil agree that Gregory by his Canon Law established Forms of Prayer as far as his Authority went but with so bad success that if Adrian the Pope 200 years after had not obtained of Charles the Great to protect his Canon by a Civil Sanction and by an horrible Persecution to inforce it it had never obtained amongst Christians But they say at this time the true Christians were fled into France the Vallies of Piedmont Alsatia and Bohemia where we read not that their Ministers generally prayed by Forms Now upon this Evidence let all the Consciencious and Intelligent World judge and bring in their Verdict as they please whether this Question can be determined against us by any valuable Practice of the Church in the purer primitive times and whether Our Reasons be not much more valuable to prove the Vnlawfulness Viz. 1. Because we that are Ministers cannot do it without omitting a mean God hath given us for the Action and using one under no special divine Prescription 2. Because in doing it we cannot pray with the like Attention and Intention of heart and Fervent affections 3. Because we judge words an Essential part of Vocal prayer and these or these words an Essential part of this or that Vocal Prayer 4. Because in an Act or Part of Worship where God hath left a liberty to Ministers or Christians other Men cannot determine them 5. Because in doing it we must grant a principle improveable to the total Suppression of Ministerial Gifts 6. Because the Holy Spirit hath or may have an influence on our words as well in Prayer as in Preaching or Confession and it ought not to be shut out unnecessarily 7. Because we cannot understand why the precepts for Prayer should be interpreted differently from the Precept for Preaching which was never by the Church expounded Go read another Mans Forms 8. Because it transforms Ministers from Ministers of Christ to meer Ministers of Men. 9. Because it makes the highest performances of Ministers to be such as ordinary people may do so as there were no need of such an order of persons 10. Because by Experience we see That many idolize Forms of Prayer and think there is no other right Praying to God which is an horrid Error not fit for us to give the least countenance to This is the Summ of all Let the Reader read and judge and we trust he will be so candid as to think we have something to say for our Dissent in this Cause The Conclusion IT is now Reader high time to have done drawing this Saw which will goe no further I remember in the Ancient Practice of the Canon Law after the Pars Rea or as we call him the Defendant had put in his Answer to the Promoters Libel so as there was Lis contestata as we call it Issue joined the Promoter or his Proctor took an Oath which they called Juramentum Calumniae and expressed in these terms Illud juretur quod lis tibi justa videtur Et si quaeretur verum non inficietur Nil promittetur nec falsa probatio detur Vt lis tradetur dilatio nulla petetur That is the Promoter was to swear That he believed he had just cause of action That being asked he would not deny the truth That he would promise no Bribe nor bring in any false Testimony nor without just cause delay any proceedings I have observed likewise some Writers of late interposing some Solemn Professions and Protestations amongst others our Vindicator saith thus p. 21. I do freely profess that besides what concerns the Laws of the Church and of the Realm that I account my self to have as plain Evidence from the Laws of God and the Constitution of the Christian Church that Schism and Vnnecessary Separation is a sin in the breach of Christian Unity as that Adultery is a sin in the breach of Wedlock And I account my self to be as certain that if ever there were an unwarrantable Separation from any known Church since the Apostles time the separation from the Church of England is such since our Church is truly as free from any just exception in its Constitution Doctrine and Worship as any other since that time either was or is A very large Assertion I shall only in like manner enter my Protestation 1. That I do believe all unnecessary Separation from any Church of which we are or have been Members is Sinful 2. I am equally certain That Seperation is necessary where Ministers or People cannot keep communion without sin or so far forth as they cannot do this 3. I have the same certainty That the practical judgment of Ministers or Peoples Consciences must as to their practice determine what is lawful and unlawful tho it be a fallible judgment and they are therefore bound to use the best means they can for information before they form it 4. I do in like sincerity profess That I have wilfully omitted no means of a true Information as to the Will of God in this Cause and I do truly believe it is not lawful for me as a Minister of Christ ordinarily to perform my Ministerial Acts in Publick Solemn Prayer