Theodulia, or, A just defence of hearing the sermons and other teaching of the present ministers of England against a book unjustly entituled (in Greek) A Christian testimony against them that serve the image of the beast, (in English) A Christian and sober testimony against sinful complyance, wherein the unlawfulness of hearing the present ministers of England is pretended to be clearly demonstrated by an author termed by himself Christophilus Antichristomachus / by John Tombes.

CHAP. 7. ARG. 6. (Book 7)

Sect. 1. All Idolatry is, by exhibiting Divine Worship to a Crea∣ture.

THose that are guilty of Idolatry, Saints may not have com∣munion with (much less own them as their Teachers) but ought to separate from them: But, the present Ministers of Eng∣land are Idolaters: Therefore. The major (or first Proposition) will not be deined, because bottom'd upon express commands from Christ, 1 Cor. 5.11. and 10.14. 2 Cor. 6.14.18. Before we descend to the confirmation of the minor (or second Propositi∣on) we shall crave leave to premise; That Idolatry may be con∣sidered under a threefold notion.

1st. Most gross and absurd Idolatry, when the creature is wor∣shipped terminatively; this few are guilty of: the Israelites of old worshipped not the Calf terminatively, but God in it, there∣fore they are said to proclaim a feast to Jehovah, Exod. 32.5. Rab. M. Maimonides de Idolat. 8.2, 3, &c. observes, That never any Idolater was so silly, as to think, that an Idol of wood, stone or mettal, was a God that made the Heaven and Earth, but through them all Idolaters intend to worship God.

2ly. Somewhat more refined Idolatry, (viz. in respect of what we but now instanc'd in) when we offer up any worship or homage, proper and due to God only, before any creature, as the medium or representative of God: Such was the Idolatry of Israel in the Golden Calf, Brazen Serpent, &c. Of this are the Syna∣gogue of Rome, amongst all the combinations of men in the world, most eminently guilty. To this Head may be added,

1. The ascription of Godhead to any creature, as to Herod, Acts 12.22.

2. The ascription of the properties of the Godhead to any creature.

3. The worshipping of God in any other way than what he hath prescribed: which all that write upon the second Commandment say, is the Idolatry therein forbidden.

4. The oblation of worship or service to God, that hath been offer∣ed up to Idols, for which there is no prescription in the Scripture.

3ly. Most refined Idolatry, when the heart goes forth in de∣sires after any thing beyond what is limited by the Lord, or trusts and relyes on any creature on this side God. In the first sense,

there are (as was said) few or no Idolaters in the world: The Papists come as near thereunto as any, praying to the Cross, the Virgin Mary, Saints, Angels, &c. expresly affirming, that the Virgin Mary may be worshipped with that worsh••p, which they call Cultus Latriae, which yet they say is due only to God. In the last sense, there are none, but at one time or other may be said to be Idolaters▪ the hearts of the best men 〈◊〉〈◊〉 too often going forth too farr in desires after, and secret dependence upon▪ things be∣neath the Lord: which yet they are watching and warring a∣gainst, waiting and longing for the day, in which they shall be c••mpleatly swallowed up in the will of God. Tis in respect of the s••cond particular before instanc'd in, that we assert the present Ministers of England to be Idolaters: To the proof whereof we now add••ess ourselves.

Answ. The Conclusion is not the same with that which at first Ch. 1. was undertaken to be defended, That it is not lawful for the Saints to hear the present Ministers of England; nor doth it necessarily follow, that if we may not have communion with persons, nor own them as our teachers, but separate from them, That we may not hear them preach the Gospel. An excommunicate person I am not to have communion with, nor to own the Teachers of forreign Churches as suppose the Lutheran, as my teachers▪ yea I may be bound to separate from such, as suppose a Popish Priest, as Jansenist, preaching the doctrine of original sin, of efficacious grace▪ or the Gospel concerning redemption by the blood of Christ; whom yet I may lawfully hear hand∣ling those truths according to the received doctrine of St. Augustin.

Nor is the ma••or true, if the Idolatry be in that way which he here calls Idolatry, the worshipping of God in any o∣ther way than what he hath prescribed, nor if the Idolatry be secret and not open, nor though it be open, if by infirmity he fall into it and repents; or be not censured as such; or teacheth nor such Idolatry; nor requires any communion with him in his Idolatry. Nor do the Texts prove his ma••or: 1 Cor. 5 11. forbids no o••her communion than eat∣ing, and that eating which might be with Idolaters of this w••••ld, v. 10 and therefore not eating the Lords Supper: Nor doth it any mo••e forbid eating with a B••other called an 〈◊〉〈◊〉, than with a Brother called a fornicatour, or covetous, 〈…〉〈…〉, or an extortioner, and therefore, if

this Text prove a necessity of separation from such in holy exercises as Prayer, or the Lords Supper, it forbids doing these things with a covetous person, or railer; and then a Christian Brother must have cognizance of such sins, and be a Judge of every one he communicates with, which were absurd: and therefore it can be meant of no other than ar∣bitrary familiar converse, as in eating, where I am at liberty to eat, or not to eat; and of private judgement of discreti∣on, which each one is to exercise in the choice of his com∣pany: But nothing to the owning of a Teacher, or shunning to hear him. For here the person is considered only as a Brother, not a Teacher in Office. 1 Cor. 10 14. is less to the purpose, for it requires only to flee from Idolatry, not from Teachers that are any way Idolatrous, so as not to hear them. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16, 17, 18. requires, not to be yoaked with Infidels, not to have part with them, not to agree with Idols, to come out from among Infidels, to be separate, not to touch the unclean thing, that is the Idol; which may be done, and yet a person some way guilty of Idolatry may be heard, yea owned as our Teacher, and we may have some com∣munion with him in holy things, as in Prayer, and the Lords Supper, and praising God, which are not Idolatrous.

That which is premised by this Author before his confir∣mation of the minor, requires some Animadversions upon it. The definition of Idolatry, which hi∣therto hath been received by all Protestants that I know of, is,* 1.1 that which Dr. John Rainold hath delivered in his 2d. Book de Idololatria Ecclesiae Romanae. c. 1. that it is the exhibiting of Divine Worship to a Creature, and hath proved it from Rom. 1.25. where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whether it be read in∣stead of the Creatour, as explained by the Authors of the writing of the Constitutions of Clemens by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it is cited by Grotius in his Annot. or Praeterito Creatore, the Creatour being forsaken or neglected, as Beza after Hilarius, or besides the Creatour, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, besides that which is laid, 1 Cor. 3 11. or as the Vulgar, Potius quam Creatori, rather than to the Creatour, or as ours, more than the Creatour, shews, that there is a worship and service

proper to the Creatour, and herein was the Idolatry of the Gentiles, and all other, that they worshipped and served the creature, with that which was due only to the Crea∣tour. And therefore I conceive it, not to be Idolatry, where Divine Worship is not exhibited to a creature, that is, direct∣ed to some person or thing, substance or accident, real or imagined, which is not the Creatour of all things▪ It is true, that Heathen-Idolaters did many of them make the Creatour of all, the utmost bound or terminus of their Image-worship, as the Apostle saith, Acts 17.23. that the Athenians did ignorantly worship the unknown God, and yet were Idolaters, because their worship was first of the Image as the next terminus or object to which it was exhibited. And the same is true of the Israelites worshipping of the calf, though they worshipped God in it, Exod. 32.5. because, though they did not worship the Calf terminatively, that is, so as to intend to direct their worship to it as the utmost bound of it, or last, or chief object: yet it was the molten Image which they worshipped, Psal. 106.19. Exod. 32.8. It is indeed most gross and absurd Idolatry, when the creature is worshipped termi∣natively, and therefore the worship of Baal is accounted worse than the worship of the golden calves at Dan and Be∣thel, 1 Kings 16.31. because it was terminated lastly to the Sun, or to the Devil, who was worshipped by Molech, to whom they sacrificed their Sons and Daughters, Psal. 106.37, 38. And this Idolatry was the Idolatry of the Canaanites, and a great part of the world, and of the Jewes at last, as St. Stephen chargeth them with, Acts 7.41, 42, 43. Nor do I think it true, which this Author here, and p. 63. saith, that there are few or none that worship the creature Terminative, sith not only of old the host of Heaven was worshipped by most of the Idolaters,* 1.2 as may be gathered out of the Scriptures, and is largely demonstrated by M•• Selden in his Syntagma de Diis Syris; but also at this day the Devil himself is worshipped in the East- and West-Indies, in some Northern Coun∣tries, and Southern, if the relation of Tra∣vellers, Historians, and Chorographers be true. It is grant∣ed, that it is somewhat more refined Idolatry, when we offer up any worship or homage, proper and due to God only, before any creature, as the medium or representative of God. For then the

worship is directed to it, as Gods Deputy, to receive it for him, and so the immediate or next terminus or object is the creature, though it be intended further to or for God, as the last or utmost term, bound or object, to which it is ex∣hibited. But unless it be exhibited to the creature, it is not Idolatry, though it be done before the creature, as [before] notes only the presence of it with the worship∣per, whether seen or unseen, minded or not minded, and not any respect to it in the act of worshipping. Worship∣ping at the Temple▪ before the Ark or Altar, was no Ido∣latry, it was a duty required, Psal 99.5. Worship at his footstool, meaning the Sanctuary and Ark there, saith Mr. Ains∣worth in his Annot. Not, as the Vulgar reads it, and the Pa∣pists would have it, Worship his footstool; no nor if the Lord be worshipped before a creature, as the Objectum à quo, as the matter or thing which is the occasion, motive or reason; of worshipping the Lord at that time, is it therefore Idola∣try, though the worship be not instituted in respect of the time. We read, 2 Chron. 7.3 And when all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glory of the Lord up∣on the House (the Temple,) they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshipped and praised the Lord: yet was no Idolatry therein; nor in that which Manoah and his Wife did, Judg. 12.20. or the people, 1 Kings 18.39. 2 Chron. 20.18. Exod. 4.31. and 12.27: Whence I inferr, that, though there be divers sorts of Ido∣latry, yet in every of them there is Divine Worship; and that, as Tertullian in his Book of Idolatry, c. 15. speaks of the three Children refusing to worship the golden Image of Nebuchadnezzar, Probantes Idololatriam esse quicquid ultra hu∣mani honoris modum ad instar Divinae sublimitatis ext••llitur, then it is Idolatry, when any thing that is not God, is extolled beyond the measure of humane honour, to the likeness of Divine sublimity, whether it be terminatively, or as a representative. Con∣cerning which I acknowledge, that the Papists are deeply guilty in praying to the Cross, the Virgin Mary▪ Saints, An∣gels, &c. in which they give them, and their Breaden-God, Images, and Reliques, that which the Scripture counts La∣triam, or the Service which is to be given to God only, as to the Image of Christ, (Aqu. sum. parte 3. qu. 25 art. 3.) ••aith, is to be adored with the adoration of Latria: yea Bellarmine l. 2. de Imagin. Sanctorum, c. 21. holds, that the Images of Christ, and

the Saints, are to have veneration, not only by accident or impro∣perly, but also by themselves and properly, so as that themselves terminate the veneration, and not only as they supply the place of the Samplar. And this veneration is expressed in the Trent Council, Sess. 25. to be, the kissing of them, uncovering the head, and falling down before them, which are the same which were done to the Image of Baal, 1 Kings 19.18. and counted Idolatrous, being given to an Image. And so are the ser∣vices done to the Virgin Mary, though I think the Papists do not affirm expresly, as this Author saith of them, That the Virgin Mary may be worshipped with that worship which they call Cultus Latriae, which yet they say is due only to God; for they in words deny they give her Latriam, and call her Worship Hyperduliam. Nor do I conceive the worshipping of God in any other way than what he hath prescribed, is the Idolatry forbidden in the second Commandment; or that all who write upon the second Commandment say so, or that the oblation of worship or service to God, that hath been offered up to Idols, for which there is no pre∣scription in the Scripture, is Idolatry, though perhaps it may be superstitious, and Will-worship; Between which, if a distinction be not made, the Pharisees that worshipped God by washing their hands after the tradition of the El∣ders, will be sound Idolaters, of which Christ doth not ac∣cuse them, Matth. 15.9. And therefore, if in respect of this, it is, that the Ministers be asserted Idolaters, his proof will come short: but let us view it Thus he writes,

Sect. 2. All Will-worship of God is not Idolatry.

Arg. 1. Th••se that worship the true God in any other way than he hath said he will be worshipped in, and is prescribed by him, are Idolaters: But the present Ministers of England worsh••p the true God in another way than he hath said he will be worship∣ped it, and is prescribed by him: Therefore▪ The ma••or (or first Proposition) is evident from this single Consideration: To wo••ship the true God through false mediums is Idolatry; such as so wo••ship him are Idolaters; (This must be so, or else there is lit∣tle or no Idolatry in the world, nor ever was. The Athenians (and other Gentiles) worshipped the true God, for they wor∣sh••pped him whom Paul declared to them, even that God, that made the world, Acts 17.23, 24. Yet none doubts but they were Idolaters, which they cannot be charged with upon any other ac∣count,

than their worshipping the true God through false medi∣ums:) But to worship God in any other way than what is of his own prescription, is to worship him through a false medium: Therefore so to worship him is Idolatry, and they that so worship him are Idolaters.

Answ. If by [any other way] be meant of any creature, as the medium or representative of God, as the golden calf, or bra∣zen serpent, I yield the major to be true, and deny the mi∣nor: But if he meant by [any other way] any sort of wor∣ship, such as was the worship of God by washing of hands according to the tradition of the Elders, Mark 7.3, 4. I deny both major and minor. And to his proof of the major I answer:

Though the worshipping of the true God through such traditions of men, which he seems to call false mediums, be not Idolatry; there is and hath been too much Idolatry in the world, Paganish, and Jewish, and Popish, and is yet at this day; and in the Athenian worshipping of the true God, Acts 17.23, 24. there was Idolatry, in that they wor∣shipped this unknown God by an Image, worshipping the Image as the representative of God, which may be gather∣ed from v. 16. where the City of Athens is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, wholly given to Idolatry, as we translate it, but more rightly, full of idols; which is thus expressed by Dr. Owen in his third Book of his Theologumena, c. 13. The streets of the City were called Pagi, because to every of their Deities some Stone (that is, a Pillar consecrated to this or that Idol) was erected. Thence to signifie s••me part of the City the use of the word was first drawn. The same was done at Athens as was done at Jerusalem, Jerem. 2.13. For according in the number of thy Cities, so are thy Gods O Judah, and according to the number of the streets of Jerusalem, ye have made Altars to that shame, Altars to burn incense to Baal. And from the ex∣pression of an Altar, v 23. which among the Gentiles had an Image near it, and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Dr. Hammond in his Annot. on v. 16. saith, was not their Worsh••ps, or their Altars, but their Idols, that is, their Deities themselves, for so the word is used, Wisd. 14.20. And, on 2 Thes. 2 4. al∣ledgeth Theophylact as interpreting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Acts 17.23. by their Idols; and from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. v. 22 applyed to this worship, is collected, that the un∣known God was as a Daemor, to whom they erected an Image

or Pillar, which they conceived their Deity present at, which is rendred, a standing Image, in our translation, or an Image of stone, to which they did bow down, forbidden Levit. 26.13. of which Ainsworth in his Annot. there, may be seen. So that upon this account the Athenians may be charged with Idolatry, in that they, in bowing down to, or worshipping the unknown God, did direct it to the Idol or Pillar which did represent him, unto which also an Altar was dedicated. But its added,

Sect. 3. This Authors Argument as well proves himself an Idolater as the Conformist.

The minor (or second Proposition) viz. That the present Ministers of England worship the true God in another way than he hath said he will be worshipped in, and is prescribed by him, is that which is denied by some: but the truth thereof, we doubt not, will to the unprejudiced Reader be beyond exception evident, from the ensuing Demonstration, viz. Those that worship God af∣ter the way of the Common-Prayer-Book, worship him in ano∣ther way than that he hath said he will be worshipped in, and is prescribed by him: But the present Ministers of England worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book: Therefore, &c. The minor (or second Proposition) cannot be denied; their subscription before they are admitted to the Ministry, together with their daily and constant practice, are sufficient evidences thereof.

Answ. That unwary Readers may not be deceived by the ambiguity of the phrase here used, it is to be considered, That the way of Worship not prescribed by God, may be either when the worship is to another thing besides or with God, which alone proves Idolatry, and in which sense the minor was denied, and should have been proved: Or, by another way, is meant another Ceremony or Rite, in which the Worship of God is placed, such as was the Pharisees wash∣ing their hands, which may be Will-worship, if to God on∣ly, but not Idolatry; and so, if he could prove our Ministers guilty of this, yet should they not be proved Idolaters, any more than the Pharisees were, with which neither Christ nor his Apostles do charge them; But this Author doth no•• so much as goe about to prove the minor denied in this sense. But in a third sense, to wit, by another way of Wor∣ship

than what God hath prescribed, he understands another way of expression of worship, in which the worship is not placed, but is used only as an outward means for conveni∣ency, yet accounted alterable. In which sense the minor is not denied. But the major of his Argument is denied in either of these two later senses of the phrase, and the minor in the two former: in neither of which doth he goe about to prove it. I add,

1. That he doth vainly suppose God hath appointed or prescribed the particularities of the modes or way of his Worship, in every of the sorts or kinds of worship he hath prescribed, as particularly in Prayer, that it must not, in a pre-conceived and stinted form of words, imposed by Ru∣lers, be performed to him; but that it must by the Minister be done in a loose, undetermined, unpremeditate or un∣prescribed form of words by any man; The which supposi∣tion is before shewed to be an errour, in the Answer to the Preface, sect. 20. ch. 1. sect. 3. ch. 4. sect. 9. ch. 5. sect. 3, 4, 5, 7.

2. In this sense in which he useth the phrase, his Argu∣ment may be retorted upon himself. Those that worship the true God in any other way, that is, form of expression, than he hath said he will be worshipped in, and is prescri∣bed by him, are Idolaters: But they who pray in a loose, undetermined, unpremeditated or unprescribed form of words by man; worship the true God in another way, that is, form of expression, than he hath said he will be wor∣shipped in, and is prescribed by him: Therefore they (a∣mong whom th••s Author is one) are Idolaters. The major is his own; the minor by his own grants stands firm, till he can shew where God hath said, He will be worshipped in, and hath prescribed such a loose form of expression in Pray∣er; which I yet find not. What this Author hath said be∣fore, is answered before. Till he brings better proof, though I will not pronounce him an Idolater; yet I shall judge him to be guilty of superstition, in counting that to be sin, which God hath not made such, and of usurpation of Gods Legislative power, in Pharisee-like requiring obser∣vance of his own tradition as Gods command; together with evil censoriousness, rash judging, and uncharitable separation. But let us goe on.

Sect. 4. Prayer in a stinted form may be worship of God of his ap∣pointment.

As for the major Proposition; saith he, That to worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book, is to worship him in a way that is not of his appointment.

1. Let any shew when and where such a stinted form of service was appointed by Christ, and this part of the controversie is at an end: Sure we are, there are not the least footsteps of such a way of worship to be found in the New Testament, no, not in the whole Book of God (whatever is pretended by some touching Liturgies (in the sense we are speaking) amongst the people of the Jews;) No, nor yet was there any such a way of worship thought of, much less imposed, in the first and purer times of the Gospel, for several centuries of years, after the dayes of Christ, and his Apostles. In the Epistles of the Church of Smyrna (about the martyrdome of Polycarpus,) and of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons (con∣cerning their persecution,) in the Epistle of Clemens (or the Church of Rome) to the Church of Corinth, in the writings of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Clemens, Tertullian, Origen, Cy∣prian, and their Contemporaries, there is not only an utter silence of such a thing, but assertions wholly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and opposite thereunto. Tertullian sayes expresly, Illuc suspicientes Chri∣stiani, manibus expansis, quia innocuius; capite nudo, quia non erubescimus; deni{que} sine monitore, quia de pectore ora∣mus. Apol. cap. 30. The Christians in those days (he tells us) looking towards Heaven, (not on their Common-Prayer-Books) with their hands spread abroad, &c. prayed to God without a monitor, because from their hearts. And in several places he ••e∣stifies, that they praised God in a way of prayer and thanksgiving according to their abilities. Indeed Claudius de Sainctes, and Pamelius (two Popish Divines) tell us of Liturgies comp••sed by the Apostles, James, Peter, and Mark; Of Peter's and Mark's, Cardinal Bellarmine himself not only takes no particular notice, but upon the matter condemns them, as supposititious and spurious: which that they are, is abundantly demonstrated by learned Mo••ney, and no more need be added thereunto. There are some also fathered upon Basil, Chrysostome, and Ambrose: but as these l••ved about the years 372, 381, 382. in which time many corruptions had crept into the Churches of Christ; so the spu∣riousness thereof, as being falsly fathered upon the persons wh••se

names they bear, may easily be demonstrated: Tis already done to our hands by learned Morney, in his Book De Missa, l. 1. chap. 6. Durantus himself (the great Liturgy-monger) acknowledgeth, That neither Christ, nor his Apostles, used any prescribed forms, but the Lords Prayer, and the Creed, (that they used these, he sayes, but proves not, nor will it ever be proved to the worlds end) That about the year 380. Theodosius (the Church being rent by Heresies) intreated Pope Damasus (at whose election, though the contest was betwixt him and Ursinus, a Deacon of the Church, there were not fewer than one hundred thirty seven per∣sons slain) that some Ecclesiastical Office might be made, which was accordingly done by Hierome, and approved by Pope Dama∣sus, and mad•• a Rule. The unlik••lyhood of this later part of the story is manifest: Theodosius was too well acquainted with the spirit of Prayer, than to goe about any such thing; had he judged it necessary, having assembled the great Council of Constantinople, wherein were not less than an hundred and fifty persons convened; is it probable this good man Theodosius, would in so momentous a Concern, rather consult with one single person, than such an As∣sembly as were by his Authority met together? And yet, should this be granted, it would not from hence appear, that at this time there was any devised and imposed; all that is pretended to be done by Hierome, was the appointiing an order for the reading of the Scriptures, which is another thing to the imposition of Forms of Prayer in worship. There is one passage in Socrates his Eccle∣siastical History, l. 5. c. 21. who lived about the year 430. that carrying an undeniable evidence with it, that at that time there were no Liturgies, we cannot pass over in silence, tis this: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wherein he tells us, That among all the Christians in that age, scarce two were to be found that used the same words in Prayer. Not to tire the Reader in this disquisition; Though one part of the Liturgy was not long after introduced by one Pope, and another part by another; yet till Gregories time (who, to the honour of Liturgies be it spoken, was the very worst of all the Bishops of Rome that preceded him) viz. about the year 600. was there any considerable use, or any imposing of them; yea till the time of P••pe Hadrian (which was about the year 800. was it not (as I find) by publick Authority imposed: Then indeed the Emperour Charles the Great (being moved thereunto by the foresaid Ha∣drian) by his Civil Authority commands the use of a Liturgy,

(viz. Gregories Liturgy, as it is thought) to which he compels his Ministers, by threats and punishments, the usual attendencies and support of Liturgies ever since their production in the world. The summ is, That in as much as first it cannot be proved (the contrary being most manifest in the Scripture) that any Liturgy was enjoyned by Christ, or his Apostles, or in use in the first Churches planted by them;

2ly. It is evident, that for the first four hundred years and more after Christ, there was no Liturgy framed, nor any by solemn Authority imposed, to the year eight hundred; it follows undeni∣ably from hence, That to worship God in the way of a Liturgy, or stinted forms of Prayer, is to worship him in a way that is not of his appointment.

Answ. 1. It is to be remembred, that, as I said before, were his Conclusion granted, yet Ministers would not be proved to be Idolaters; all worshipping of God, in a way that is not of his appointment, being not Idolatry, except therein Divine or Religious Worship be exhibited to a Creature.

2. That his own Argument, whose way of Worship is not prescribed without a stinted Form of Prayer, would as well prove himself an Idolater, as the Ministers of England.

3. That he still acknowledgeth, that the worship accor∣ding to the Common-Prayer-Book, is the worship of the true God, nor doth he shew, that, according to it, any other is worshipped.

4. That he doth not except against the matter of the Prayers in the Common-Prayer-Book, no nor the particular forms of expression, as if they were not agreeable to the Scriptures, or indecent, or inept▪ But,

1. That all Liturgies, or stinted forms of Prayer (and consequently this) are not of Gods appointment, but of humane invention.

2. That they are unduly imposed on Ministers.

3. That Ministers do sinfully, yea Idolatrously use them, because it is a way of Worship not appointed by God.

The two former of these reach not the Ministers of Eng∣land, but the Composers and Imposers; it is the third thing which is pertinent to the present Crimination, which may occasion to enquire,

1. Whether stinted Forms of Prayer, and service of God, which are not otherwise faulty, than in that they are stin∣ted,

may not be lawfully used by a Minister of the Gospel in his publick ministration?

2. Whether such Prayers and service may not be a Wor∣ship of God in a way that is of his appointment?

I affirm both, and to what is said against either, I answer,

1. That Christ did, in appointing the Lords Prayer to be used by his Apostles, Matth. 6 9. Luke 11.2. the Saluta∣tion to be used by the seventy Disciples, Luke 10.5. appoint such a stinted form of service.

2. That we have footsteps of such a way of Worship in the New Testament, in his justifying and countenancing the crying of Hosanna, that is, Save us now, taken from Psal. 118.25, 26. (as Mr. Ainsworth in his Annotation observes) by the multitude. And the Children, Matth. 21.9.15. Mark 11.9 With the Disciples, Luke 19 38, 40. John 12.13. In Christs using the Forms which David used before in the Psalms, Matth. 27.46. He prayes in the Form used, Psal. 22.1. Luke 24.46. In the Form used, Psal. 31.5. In the Apostles use of a Form of Prayer in his Epistles, Rom. 1.7. Rom. 16.24. 1 Cor. 1.3. 1 Cor. 16.23. 2 Cor. 1.2. Gal▪ 1.3. Ephes. 1.2. Phil. 1.2. Phil. 4.23. Col. 1.2. 1 Thes. 1.2. 1 Thes. 5.28. 1 Thes. 1.2. 2 Thes. 3.16, 17, 18. 1 Tim. 1.2 2 Tim. 1.2. Tit. 1.4. Philem. 3. Heb. 13.25. 1 Pet. 1.2. 2 Pet. 1.2. 2 John 3. Jude 2. Revel. 1.4. In the Old Testament, Numb. 6.23, 24, 25, 26. 1 Chron. 16.7.35. 2 Chron. 20.21. 2 Chron. 6.41. 2 Chron. 5.13. 2 Chron. 29.30. In the Titles of Psal. 92. and 102. Jerem. 33.11. Ezra 3.11. Zech. 3.2. Jude 9. Revel. 12.3, 4. Revel. 15. 3. Hos. 14.2, 3. Isai. 12.1. Deut. 21.8. and 26.5.10. Isai. 26.1. Mr. Ainsworth himself (than whom none was more opposite to any set Form, as appeared by his avouching in his writing to Mr. Paget, the Reasons in the Separatists Apology, p. 69. against using the words of the Lords-Prayer in prayer, to which Mr. Paget hath answered, in his Arrow against the separation of the Brownists, p. 69. &c.) in his An∣not. on Exod. 12.8. reciting the Form of the later Jews at their Passover, saith, Vnto these phrases the New Testament seemeth to have reference, when it speaketh of the cup of blessing▪ 1 Cor. 10.16. And of singing an Hymn, Mark. 14 26. And after, These Observations of the Jews, while their Common∣wealth stood, and to this day, may give light to some particulars in the Passover that Christ kept; as why they lay down, one lean∣ing

on anothers bosome, John 13.23. (a sign of rest and secu∣rity) and stood not, as at the first Passover, nei∣ther sate on high,* 1.3 as we use. Why Christ rose from supper, and washed, and sate down again, John 13.4, 5.12. Why he blessed, or gave thanks, for the bread apart, and for the cup (or wine) apart, Mark 14.22, 23. And why it is said, He took the cup after supper, Luke 22.20. Also concern∣ing the Hymn which they sung at the end, Mat. 26.30. And why Paul calleth it, the shewing forth of the Lords death, 1 Cor. 11.26. As the Jews usually called their Passover, Haggadah, that is, Shewing, or Declaration. From which Observations we may gather, that our Lord Christ did use the forms in Blessing (which is a part of Prayer) which the Jews, without particular command of God, had taken up: And that St. Paul alludes to them, expressing the use of Christi∣ans, by the phrases of the Jews, which shews the Christi∣ans used their forms. Yea, that the Apostles, in many things of their ministry, retained the customes in their Sy∣nagogues, in matters of Worship and Ecclesiastical Govern∣ment, is avouched by Mr. Stillingflete in his Irenicum, part 2d. ch 6. After Mr. Selden, Dr. Lightfoot, Dr: Hammond, Mr. Thorndike, and many others. Which things do abun∣dantly prove, that this Author doth too too inconsiderate∣ly write, That there are not the least footsteps of a stinted form of service, in the worship of God, to be found in the New Testa∣ment▪ No, not in the whole Book of God, amongst the people of the Jews; No, nor yet was there any such a way of worship thought of, much less imposed, in the first and purer times of the Gospel, for several centuries of years, after the dayes of Christ, and his Apostles. I do not gainsay what this Author writes about the Liturgies fathered on some of the Apostles, and some of the Ancients: Neither will I justifie the use or imposition of them, as they have been in the later ages; only this I say, (which is sufficient for the present purpose)

1. That neither the words of Justin Martyr in his 2d. Apo∣logy to Ant••ninus, That the President did send forth prayers and thanksgivings, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as he had ability, the people testifying their consent, by saying, Amen. Nor the words of Tertullian, alleged by this Author, out of his Apologetique against the Gentiles, c. 30. That the Christians prayed for the Emperour, looking towards Heaven, and without a monitor, be∣cause

from the heart, do necessarily exclude stinted forms of Prayer. The words of Justin Martyr may be understood of the intention of the affections, or duration of prayers, which may be in stinted forms; nor is it unlikely, but that thanks∣givings were some of them such, as in their Psalms which they sung, which Pliny mentions in his Epistle to Trajan in that age; and those it is likely were stinted forms: And they might pray without a monitor or prompter, which excludes the suggestion of others, and from the heart, includes of their own accord, and yet pray in stinted expressions: Yea, the things mentioned that they prayed for, seem to intimate Set forms, agreeable to the things he mentions as prayed for.

2. However, it is apparent, if not from Tertullians Book of Prayer, yet out of Cyprians Book concerning the Lords Prayer, that Christians did, and conceived they ought, in publique prayer, to use the prescript words of the Lords Prayer, and that they had some other forms then, whieh are still retained, which those words intimate, Therefore also the Priest, a Preface being premised before Prayer, prepares the minds of the Brethren, by saying, Lift up your hearts: that when the people answer, We lift them up to the Lord, they may be minded, that they ought to think on nothing else but the Lord. Which, if it prove not an entire Liturgy to have been then in use, yet a worship of God by a stinted form of Words, was sure thought on in Cyprians time; and that this Author writes too confidently, when he saith, The least footsteps of such a way of worship are not found, nor were thought of in those times. It follows.

Sect. 5. Common-Prayer-Book worship shuts not out of doors the exercise of the gift of Prayer.

To which we add, 2. That Worship which is an obstruction of any positive duty charged by Christ, to be performed by the Saints, is not a worship that is of his appointment. But this is undeniably true of the Common-Prayer Book worship. Therefore, That Christ did upon his Ascension give unto his Church, Officers, as signal characters of his love to, and care of it, will not be denied, Ephes 4.11. is an evidence hereof beyond exception. That to th••se Officers he gave gifts and qualifications, every way suiting the empl••yment he called them forth unto, cannot without a most

horrid advance against the wisdome, faithfulness, love and care of Christ towards the Beloved of his Soul, be gainsaid. That he not only expects, but solemnly charges upon these Officers, an im∣provement of the gifts bestowed upon them, for the edification of his Body, is evidently compriz'd, and very frequently remarked in the Scripture, 2 Tim. 1.6. 1 Cor. 12.7. Ephes. 4.11. Prov. 17.16. Luke 19.20. To imagine after all this, that any Worship should be of the institution of Christ, that should shut out of doors, as unnecessary, the exercise of the gifts given by him, to be made use of in the solemn discharge of the worship of his house, is such an imputation of folly to him, as may not be charged upon any person of an ordinary capacity or understanding: Yet this is righteously to be imputed to him (absit blasphemia) if the Com∣mon-Prayer-Book worship be a Worship of his appointment: The exercise of the gift of Prayer (to mention no more) being wholly excluded hereby. Nor will it in the least take off the weight of this Argument, to say, That liberty is granted for the exercise of this gift before and after Sermon: For,

1. The whole Worship of God, may, according to these mens prin∣ciples, be discharged without any Sermon at all; and it is mani∣fest it is frequently so, at one time or other, in most of the Assem∣blies of England.

2. Those their Prayers are also bounded and limited by the 55th. Canon of the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical.

3. We had alwayes thought, that Christ having given gifts un∣to men, did require the use of those gifts at all times, when ever persons were called to the performance of that service for which they were designedly given by him, by vertue of the fore-mentioned precepts. When Christ hath given a gift of Prayer unto his chil∣dren, and charged them to stirr up the gift given them, and not to napkin their Talent, we had verily thought, that when ever they had been called forth to the performance of that duty, he did really intend and expect, that they should be found in the exercise of the gift given; and see as yet no reason to change our apprehen∣sions in this matter.

Answ. The major Proposition is not in all cases true. The resting on the Sabbath day was a positive duty charged by God, yet the sacrificing, which was an obstruction of that duty, called by our Lord Christ, Prophaning the Sabbath, Matth. 12.5. was Worship of Gods appointment. Follow∣ing of Christ, and preaching the Gospel, were Worship of Christs appointment, and yet they were obstructions to po∣sitive

duties required to be done to Parents, Wives, and Children Therefore it is not true, unless the thing, which is an obstruction, be such of its own nature, of it self, and not by accident, and so necessarily and universally such an obstruction. But not to insist on this, the minor Proposition is many wayes faulty.

1. It is supposed, that the Common-Prayer Book worship is a different sort of Worship▪ from such as is used by those, which exercise the gift of prayer, as he terms it; which is absurd: For then so many several forms of words as are used, should be so many several sorts of Worship; all ex∣pressions, that are not immediately inspired, should be Will-worship; and so preachers several methods, and ex∣pressions in preaching, should be several sorts of Worship. This is that which I assert, That the same petitions, the same Confessions, and Thanksgivings, for matter, are the same prayer, and Worship, though in various expressions; and that the same prayers, read out of the Common-prayer Book, and the prayers of the preachers, framed by them∣selves, and uttered, if they ask the same things in other phrases, are the same prayers, and Worship: And they that can joyn with the one, and say Amen to them; may as lawfully, and safely, without sin, joyn with, and say Amen to the other.

2. This Authors phrase doth intimate, that ability to con∣ceive, compose, and utter in variety of expressions, petitions to God, is the gift of prayer; and the exercise of it, is the exercise of that gift; which is false: sith the gift of prayer is by the moving of the affections, directing the mind, ex∣citing faith, as the Text alledged by this Author, Rom. 8.26. proves, the Spirits work being there to acquaint us, what we are to pray for; and to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to over-intercede for us, with groans unspoken; or, as it is read, which cannot be uttered: And therefore, no•• in the inspiration of words, or method, or fitting a person with various, or unpremeditated expressions. Yea, those who express not, who do not compose their petitions in any order or method, as in Ejaculatory prayers, such as Nehemiahs prayer was, Nehem. 2.4. Hannahs, 1 Sam. 1.13. Hezekiahs, Isai. 38.14 Those who premeditate before they pray, as David did, Psal. 19.14. have as truly, and perhaps more rightly, and do exercise the gift of prayer, as

those who in never so extemporary manner, enlarge them∣selves in various expressions and petitions. It is true, the Author of the Discourse concerning the interest of words in Prayer, ch. 2. tells us, The gift and grace of Prayer are two things: This, he derives from the spirit of adoption; That, he de∣fines to be an ability of mind, to form words expressive of such de∣sires of our hearts, as are according to the will of God, conjoyned with a faculty of memo••y, and of expression, and elocution; which, he saith, is partly natural, partly by industry attainable. But the gift of Prayer here, by our Authors words, pag. 62. is the donation of the Spirit; and usually the exercise of it in ex∣pressions unpremeditated, or conceived in opposition to praying by a book, or written set forms kept in the memo∣ry, is termed praying in the Spirit, and so no natural or ac∣quired ability; which is to be observed, that the ambiguity of expressions may not deceive the unwary Reader. Now if this be observed they that pray in a set form, and those that read the Common-Prayer, may be truly said to pray in the Spirit, if their heart goe with their words; and to exer∣cise the gift of Prayer, if the gift of Prayer be as the Discourse cited doth describe it.

3. The gift of Prayer, by alleging Ephes. 4 11▪ should seem, by this Author, to be accounted a ministerial gift, proper to them; for so were the gifts mentioned Ephes. 4.11. which if so▪ then it is not common to the Saints, nor the exercise of it a positive duty cha••ged by Christ to be per∣formed by the Saints, except they be Ministers; and so it is not lawful for them, except they be Ministers, to seek, or to use the gift of Prayer. If they have it, by this Authors arguing, they are to exercise it, as well as Ministers; and it is as unlawful for them to pray by a book, as for the Mini∣sters; they so praying, worship in a way not appointed by God, and are Idolaters, as well as the Ministers; and sepa∣ration is to be from them▪ as well as from Ministers. Whereas▪ i•• the gift of Prayer be partly natural, partly ac∣quired, then it is lawful for Ministers, or other Saints, to make use of any lawful means, which may acquire that gift, such are any that may be a Directory to know what they a••e to pray for, that may advantage them, for remembring, composure, or elocution, conference, imitation of others, reading, meditation, self-examination; and if the Common-Prayer Book be a help (as some conceive it is) it may be

lawfully used, or any others treatises, or forms of Prayer, for the obtaining of it. And if so, the Common. Prayer Book worship may be, so far from being an obstruction to the po∣sitive duty of exercising the gift of Prayer, that it may fur∣ther it, by acquainting us with many things we should ask for: as the Homilies also may be helps for the knowledge of what Doctrine Preachers are to teach their people. And then this Authors Argument may be thus retorted. That Form may be lawfully used for Worship, which may be a means to further any positive duty, charged by Christ to be performed by the Saints. But such may be the forms of Prayers in the Liturgy of the Church of England. There∣fore. The major is grounded on the rule given by Divines a∣bout the Decalogue: That which requires a duty, requires the means conducing thereto. The minor is proved, in that the Common-Prayer Book directs what things are to be prayed for, by reason of the brevity of Collects; the Re∣sponds, the frequent use, the plain expressions, help the memory and elocution, wherein the acquired gift of Prayer consists; therefore it is not an obstruction, but a help to the gift of Prayer. But this Author, though he may perhaps count this tolerable in others, yet not in Ministers; let's view what he saith of them. He alledgeth Eph. 4.11. and would inferr from thence, That all Ministers have the gift of Prayer, and are to use it; that the Common-Prayer Book worship shuts it out of doors, as unnecessary, and therefore is not of Christs appointment. But,

1. The Text expresseth not the several sorts of Qualifica∣tions, but the several sorts of Officers.

2. If it be supposed, that ministerial gifts are also imply∣ed; yet whether extraordinary, or ordinary, may be doubted.

3. If ordinary gifts, there may be a question, Whe••her the gift of Prayer, as he means it, were one: that is, Whe∣ther Christ hath required▪ that every Minister should be a∣ble, on all occasions, to express himself without any stint∣ed form, either conceived by himself, or composed by o∣thers, to make known the requests, which it concerns his people, to whom he is Pastour, in the most solemn and publick auditory, to ask of God, in their behalf, in words and elocution fitting the matter and auditory. I doubt not but the Minister should be able to express the requests of

the people, as he should be able to declare the mind of God to the people; yet neither the one▪ nor the other, is of necessity to be done, or the Minister tied to do it every way, but the best way he is able, or at least, that way as is fit for the end of his expressions, to wit, the peoples understand∣ing, not the ostentation of his parts. The Apostles could preach without study, but Timothy was to give attendance to reading, to meditate, to give himself wholly to th••se things, whereby his profiting might appear to all, and yet had a gift given by prophecy, 1 Tim. 4.13, 14, 15. Ministers are to preach the Word now, but they are not tyed to preach without notes, without study, without other helps which God af∣fords: Nor are Ministers bound to express themselves al∣wayes without pre-conceived, or prescribed forms in pray∣er, and yet they may faithfully discharge their work. Now God doth not give gifts, as he did in the Apostles times; and therefore the same readiness and exuberancy of expres∣sions, or composure of petitions, is not to be expected of Ministers now, as was of them.

4· I add, That though the Apostles said, Acts 6.4. We will give our selves continually to Prayer, and to the ministry of the Word. And St▪ Paul, 1 Tim. 2.1. exhorts, Tha•• first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for Kings, and all that are in authority: Yet we read not, that this is made the Ministers work, to ex∣press the common necessities of the Church, in a publick auditory, or any rules about the form or manner of praying. Nor do we find, that either Christ, or his Apostles, used a∣ny forms of prayer, before or after their preaching; and therefore conceive not this to be the proper work of a Mi∣nister, or that either way of praying is determined▪ and therefore both may lawfully be used by the Minister, or o∣ther Christians. Nor doth the one way of Worship shut out of doors the other; or the Minister, by using the Com∣mon-prayer Book, exclude conceived prayer by the speakers. If they were tyed, by the Governours, to use no other than the Common-prayer Book expressions; yet this is not to be im∣puted, either to the Common-prayer Book, or its way of wor∣ship, or to the Ministers, but unto those who do so rigidly impose it. I add further, That were there a prohibition of using any other than the Common-prayer, yet this were not a shutting out of doors Christs institution, unless it

were proved Christs institution, that at all times in Prayer no stinted form should be used. Nor doth it shut out of doors the gift of Prayer, unless it be proved▪ they only have the gift of Prayer, who use their own conceived ex∣pressions; which if so, not only those who use the forms of Prayer, though with never so much fervency of spi••it, which they read or remember in the Common-Prayer Book, or in the Practice of Piety, or any other such Book of mens composure: but also those, who use the words of the Psalms, or the Lords-Prayer, yea that do say Amen to the words of any Preacher before Sermon, or any that gives thanks afore meals, should shut out of doors the gift of Prayer, or the exercise of it, sith he useth not the gift he hath, to wit, the ability of mind to form words, and to ut∣ter them, which is the definition of the gift of Prayer before given. There are many in the Congregation perhaps yea some Women that can form and utter words as fit for Prayer as the Minister; will not this Author have this gift of Pray∣er shut out of doors, and yet not conclude that a positive duty is obstructed thereby? Besides, there may be a re∣straint of a duty, as unseasonable, sith affirmative precepts bind not ad semper, to be done at all times, perhaps time will not permit, or weather, or some accidents, or more necessary business; and yet the gift not shut out of doors, as unnecessary, but as only inconvenient at that time. Do not the most able Preachers sometimes omit the exercise of their gifts, and yet count not them shut out of doors, as unne∣cessary? Yea, doth not the Apostle, 1 Cor. 1••. put some restraints upon Prophecying, to keep order? Did he then shut out of doors, as unnecessary, the gift of Prophecy? I have read, that the Separatists in the Low Countries, have spent so much time on the Lords day in debating causes, and matters of Discipline, that they have omitted exercise of their gifts in some other Ordinances; and yet I presume they have not shut them out of doors, as unnecessary. If at one meeting of Christians, no other thing had been done, but the reading of St. Pauls Epistles, as he appointed, Col. 4.16. yet were not the exercise of A••chippus his ministry thereby shut out of doors, as unnecessary, but only suspend∣ed for that time. And this would be no Napkining up of his Talent, nor such exclusion of the gift of preaching or pro∣phecying, as, with others, this Author clamou••ously in∣veighs

against The 55th. Canon directs Preachers what they should pray for, doth not limit or bound them in the words or matter: It saith, They shall move the people to joyn with them in prayer, in this form, or to this effect, as briefly as conveniently they may: Not forbidding to pray for other things, or in other words, than are there set down. And blessed be the Almighty, that yet Ministers have liberty at all times to express themselves in prayer and preaching, as fully as there is need; that the Kings Majesty invites to fast∣ing and prayer; That, notwithstanding it is to be bewailed, that the Worship of God is no better performed than it is; and that the intemperate abuses of some, have caused more severe restraint on others, than were to be wished: Yet there is so much purity of Worship and Doctrine▪ as that Separation is unnecessary. And this Author, as if he imi∣tated the Gloss in the Canon Law, Non satis discretus esset, &c. writes causelesly, if not blasphemously, that Folly may righteously be imputed to Christ, if the Common-Prayer Book worship be a Worship of his appointment. He goes on thus.

Sect. 6. Common-Prayer Book Worship is not of pure humane in∣vention.

But 3ly. The Common-Prayer Book wo••ship, is a Worship, of which we find no footsteps in the Scripture (nor in some cen∣turies of years after Christ) as hath already been demonstrated: Whence it follows, That 'tis a Worship of pure humane invention, which is not only not of Christs appointment, but contrary to the very nature of instituted Wo••ship (as is proved in our first Argu∣ment) and to very many precepts of the Lord in th•• Scripture, Exod. 20.4, 5 Deut. 4 2. and 12.32. Prov. 30 16. Jer. 7 31. Matth. 15.9, 13. Mark 7.7, 8. Rev. 22.18. The mind of God in which Scriptures we have exemplified, Lev. 10.1, 2, 3, 4. Josh. 22.10. &c. Judg. 8 2. 2 Kings 16 11. 1 Chron 15.13.

Answ This Author runs on in his gross mistakes, as if the form of words in the Common-Prayer Book were the Worship, that it were a several sort of Worship from the prayers made by a Preacher of his own conception, and that such prayers were worship of Christs institution, and not the other. Which mistakes are shewed before: And what he saith here, is answered, either in this chapter, sect. 4. or chapt. 1. sect. 3.

The Common-Prayer Book worship is no more a pure humane invention, than Preachers conceived-prayers: Nor is it any Idol, forbidden Exod. 20.4, 5. Nor any Prophecy added to the Book of the Revelation, forbidden Revel. 22.18. Nor such an Ephod as Gideon made, Judg. 8.24. Nor such a not seeking God after the due order, as was the carrying of the Ark in a cart, and Uzzah's putting his hand to it, 1 Chron. 15.13. Nor such an invention forbidden, as was the Altar of Damascus, imita∣ted by Uriah, 2 Kings 16 11. And therefore it is sufficient to deny what is here said, without forming of an Argument. As for Josh 22 10. &c. it makes for the Common-Prayer-Book, not against it: sith that Altar was allowed of, though it were for religious signification, and yet not by Divine in∣stitution; and therefore proves, that all inventions of men, whereby our Worship of God is signified, are not unlawful, if they be not made necessary, nor the Worship of God pla∣ced in the things so invented, or their use. It follows,

Sect. 7. Common-Prayer Book worship is the same with the Worship of the Reformed Churches.

4. That Worship which is not necessary for the edification, com∣fort, or preservation of the Saints, in the Faith and Vnity of the Gospel, is not of the institution of Christ: But such is the worship of the Common-Prayer Book: Therefore. The major (or first Proposition) will not be denied. The Lord Jesus having freeed his Disciples from all obligations to the ceremonies of the Law, institutes nothing de novo, but what he kn••w to be neces∣sary (at least would be so by vertu•• of his institution) for the ends assigned: which was the great Aim in all Gospel administrati∣ons, Ephes 4.7. to 15. Col. 2.19 Acts 9.31. Rom. 14.14, 15. 1 Cor. 10.23. and 14.3, 4▪ 5, 12, 26. 2 Cor 12 10. 1 Tim 1.4. That the Common-Prayer Book w••••sh••p is n••t necessary for the edification, comfort, or preservation of the Saints, in the Faith and Vnity of the G••spel (what ever is pretended by its admirers) might many wayes be demonstrated. Take one p••••grant instance instead of all▪ that will make it exceeding ma∣n••fest: The Churches of Christ, for the first four centuries of years, and more, after his Ascension, knew not any thing of such a Worsh••p (as hath been already demonstrated) not to mention the reformed Churches at this day, to whom it is as a polluted, ac∣cu••sed, abominable thing) yet, than those first and purer Churches,

for light, consolation, truth of Doctrine, and Gospel-Vnion, hi∣therto there hath not been any extant in the world, more famous, or excellent; no, nor by many degrees comparable to them. But we shall not further prosecute this Argument, enough hath been said, to demonstrate, That the Common Prayer Book worsh••p is not of the appointment of the Lord: Therefore, such as worship him in the way thereof, worship him in a way that is not of his prescription. If the former, notwithstanding all that hath been said, be scrupled by any, we referr him to Tracts written by Smectymnuus, V. Powel; to a Treatise, entituled, A Dis∣course concerning the Interest of Words in Prayer, by H. D. M. A. The Common-Prayer Book Unmask'd; as also to a Treatise lately published by a learned (but nameless) Author, entituled, A Discourse concerning Liturgies, and their Im∣position: In which that matter is industriously and la••gely de∣bat••d.

A••sw This Author still continues his confounding of the Worship of the Common-Prayer Book, with the form of it, that is▪ the method, and phra••e, and manner of it, which no man that speaks distinctly▪ calls the Common-Prayer Book Worship. The Common-Prayer Book Worship is no other than the prayers, praises, lessons, ministration of the Sa∣craments: And these are of Christs institution, and are ne∣cessary for the edification, comfort, or preservation of the Saints, in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel; and accord∣ingly the mi••or Proposition is false which denies it. But sith this Author, by Worship, understands the forms and modes of it, though they be not prescribed or determined in Scripture; or the kind of Wo••ship, in respect of those forms: meaning, that the Worship, for example, p••ayer, prai••e, and the like, which are expressed or performed by forms or modes not prescribed by Christ, though the kind or so••t of Worship be of Christs institution; yet, because it is performed in such forms or modes, as are not necessary for the edi••ication, comfort, or p••eservation of the Saints, in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel, it is so adulterae••d thereby, that it is not of the institution of Christ. In which sense the maj•••• Proposition is to be denied, and the Argu∣ment may be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thus: That Worship, which in re∣spect of the mode or form of performing, is not necessary for the edif••cation, comfort, or p••eservation of the Saints, in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel, is not of the institution

of Christ: But such is the extemporary, conceived Prayer of Preachers, and others, such is the praising of God in the English metre; the reading of the Scriptures, according to ordinary division of chapters and verses, with the contents of the chapters: Therefore. The major is his own, the minor stands good, till it be shewed, where Christ hath ap∣pointed such extemporary praying, or such praising, such reading the Scripture so divided: To which I might add, in hearing, taking notes of Sermons, Preachers using notes in the Pulpit, with sundry more; but I forbear.

As for the Texts alledged, Ephes. 4.7. &c. it speaks not of Worship, and its institution by Christ; nor what is the necessary requisite to such Worship, as is instituted by Christ: but only of Gifts, that is, preaching Officers, and the end and use of those gifts. Col. 2.19. speaks not of Wor∣ship, or what is requisite, that it be of Christs institution: but tells us, that Seducers, which taught worshipping of An∣gels, held not the Head, that is, Christ: And that from him all the Body (that is, the Church) by joynts and bands, having nourishment ministred, and knit together, increaseth with the in∣crease of God. Acts 9.31. speaks not at all of Worship, or its institution by Christ, or Christs aim in Gospel-admini∣strations, or what is requisite that Worship be of his insti∣tution: Rom. 14.14, 15. much less; it speaks of the clean∣ness of things of themselves, the uncleanness to him that thinks them so; and our duty not to grieve our Brother with our meats. 1 Cor. 10.23. tells us, of the inexpediency of some things law∣ful, in that they edifie not; nothing of Christs aim in his insti∣tutions, or what is requisite to his instituted Worship. 1 Cor. 14.3, 4, 5, 12, 26. tells us, of the benefit of prophecying, the end and use of spiritual gifts; nothing of Christs aim in his institution of Worship, or the requisite to such institution. 2 Cor. 12.10. doth not mention any thing▪ but Pauls affe∣ction and estate. 1 Tim. 1.4. nothing but the incommodity of fables and genealogies. Which should be observed by the Reader, that he may be wary, how he trusts to this Author's, and other Separatists multiplying Texts imperti∣nently, that they be not ensnared by them; and that such persons may see, what cause they have to repent of such a∣busive wresting of Scripture.

As for that which he saith of the Common-Prayer Book wor∣ship, if he mean thereby the prayers or praises in the forms

therein, I will not say, They are necessary for the edification, comfort, or preservation of the Saints, in the Faith and Vnity of the Gospel: I yield, that they are not necessary; those ends may be obtained by other forms of Prayer, or rather by preaching, confessions of Faith, and reading of the Holy Scriptures; unto which the Lessons and portions of Scrip∣ture, confessions of Faith, in the Common-Prayer Book, are as conducible as other. Whether the Churches of Christ, in the four first centuries, were so excellent, as he saith: And whether they knew not any thing of such a Worship as the Common Prayer Book worship, is a disputable point, Et adhuc sub judice lis est. What is said, That to the Reformed Churches, at this day, the Common-Prayer Book worship is as a polluted, accursed, abominable thing, I find no cause to be∣lieve, except he mean by them, the Churches of the Sepa∣ratists. I find Calvin, in his 200th. Epistle, saying indeed, In Anglicana Liturgia, qualem describitis, multas video fuisse tolerabiles ineptias: Yet in his 87th. Epistle, he saith. Quod ad formulam precum & rituum Ecclesiasticorum, valde probo, ut certa illa extet, &c. And I find Maresius of Groning, in his Academical Decision of some Questions, qu. 11. alledging those words of Calvin, and disputing against Francis Johnson his Latine Answer to Carpenter against Liturgies, and asserting Li∣turgical Forms to be admitted by all the Reformed Churches: Nor do I find any thing to the contrary in Voetius his Eccle∣siastical Policy, or any other, that have lately written, who have gainsaid these speeches; and therefore, I conceive, that this Author, in this speech, hath too great a smack of that, which is in one of Tullies Epistles, said of such men: Qui semel vere••undiae fines transilierit, eum gnaviter impudentem esse oportet. Neither Smectymnuus, nor the Assembly, nor Mr. Baxter in his Disputation of a Form of Liturgy, nor any other of the Presbyterians, that I know, have written such things of the Common-Prayer Book, as this Author vents. If they are to be read, he that would find truth, should also read the Answers to Smectymnuus, Ball's Tryal of Separation, Pa∣get's Arrow against the Separatists, with others. As for ••. Powel his Tract, I find in it such a sardle of false Principles, misallegations of Texts, non-syllogizing, confused Di∣ctates, with vain Gi••des, that me-thinks no sober or judi∣cious person should be moved by it. The Common-Prayer Vnmasked, I have not seen: The Discourse of the Interest of

Words in Prayer, doth not advantage this Author, to prove separation from Ministers, or their Ministry, by reason of the Common-Prayer. The Discourse of Liturgies I have read, and find in it little Logick, a great many words, which if they were reduced to syllogistical form, would appear to be a bulk without sinews: Not to mention the many absurd Dictates; among which I have observed this, that p. 16. The L••rds Prayer is made to belong to the Oeconomy of the Old Testament, and to argue thence to the New, is to deny Christ to be ascended on high. But I must attend the Author here, who adds,

Sect. 8. No Particularity instituted is a meer Circumstance, yet Particularities undetermined are.

Object. If to what hath hitherto been proposed, it be said, That the Liturgy, or Common-Prayer Book, is no essential part of Worship, but meerly circumstantial: Praying, tis true, is part of Worship, but praying in this or that Form is not so, but meerly a circumstance thereof: And therefore, though it be true, that the present Ministers of England worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer Book; yet it follows not, that they worship him after a way that is not of his appointment. To this we answer,

1. That many things are strenuously supposed, as the Basis upon which the weight of this Objection is laid, which the Framers thereof knowing to be no easie task to demonstrate, do earnestly beg us to grant unto them: which being matter of greater moment than many are aware of, we shall not part with, on such easie terms. Tis supposed,

First, That there are some things in the instituted Worship of Christ, that are meerly circumstances thereof, as such.

Secondly, That it is lawful for Saints to pray in a Form.

Thirdly, That Forms of Prayer imposed, are but meer circum∣stances of Worship, and no essential parts thereof.

Fourthly, That circumstances of Worsh••p, as such, are not de∣termined by the Lord in the Scripture, but left to the wills of men, to determine therein as they shall judge meet. All un∣proved. Of the last of we have already spoken, and shall not here re-assume the debate thereof.

Touching the First, That there are s••me things in the instituted Worship of Christ, that are meerly circumstances thereof, as such,

we crave liberty to deny, which, till the proof be attempted, may suffice. Circumstances in the worship of Christ, attending reli∣gious actions, as actions, we grant;) but circumstances of Worship, as such, will never be proved:) To inferr, that because time and place, with sundry things of the like nature, are circumstances in Worship, therefore there are circumstances of Worship, as such, is frivol••us: Those things being the attendments of religious actions, common to any civil actions of the like nature, to be performed by the Sons of men; No action to be managed by a community, can be orderly performed by them, without such an assignment of time and place: Publick Prayer being so to be managed, as a religious action, hath the circumstances before mentioned attending it; and so it would, were it a meer civil action, to be performed by a community, though it related not at all to the Worship of God.

Answ. It is not true, that the Objection supposeth, That some things in the instituted Worship of Christ, are but meer circumstances thereof, as such: meaning, that any particularity of that action, which Christ hath prescribed for his Worship, being instituted by him, is a meer arbi∣trary circumstance, and not a necessary part of that Wor∣ship. It is held in the Lords Supper, and all institutions of Christ, in which particularities are expressed, there should be strict observation of them, as part of the Worship: But in things not determined, liberty is allowed to vary; and therefore, if Christ have not instituted, that you shall pray without a Book, or set Form, Prayer by it may be lawfully done. The distinction of circumstances in, and of the Worship of Christ; of religi••us actions, as actions, or as religi••us, a••e but unnecessary nice••ies, so long as the meaning of the Ob∣jection is manifest, That the praying in this, or that Form, is not a part of the Worship; as if without it, the Worship were not, or not according to Christs institution, but an accident of it, which may adesse vel abesse, which is in effect, if •• un∣derstand this Author, the same which he grants, That there are circumstances in the W••rship of Christ, attending religi••us actions, as actions which are not in their particula••ities ex∣presly prescribed by Christ And if we agree in the thing, it is but frivolous to wrangle about words.

Sect. 9. Praying in a Form, may be praying in the Spirit.

2. Saith this Author, That tis lawful for Saints to pray in a Form (i. e. to tye themselves to a written stinted form of words in Prayer) is not yet proved, nor like to be; tis too large a field for us to enter into: nor is it needful to do so, till it be proved, That to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer Book, or imposed devised Liturgies, is so: Yet in transitu, we crave leave humbly to offer, That to pray in a Form, as before explained, is altogether unlawful, being,

1. A quenching of the Spirit of Prayer.

2ly. A rendring useless the donation of the Spirit, as a Spirit of Prayer, unto the children of God.

3ly. Directly opposite unto the many positive precepts of Christ, before instanc'd in, of stirring up the Gifts given to us of God, improving the Talents he hath been graciously pleased to intrust us withall.

4ly. If it be lawful for Saints to pray in a Form, tis lawful, either because they have not the Spirit; or that having the Spirit, he is not a sufficient help to them in their approaches to God: If the first, they are not Saints, Rom. 8.9. To assert the second, is little less than blasphemy, besides its direct opposition to Rom. 8.26.

Answ. The position of this Author here, by his words, appears to be, That not only it is altogether unlawful for Ministers, but also for all Saints, all that have the Spirit of God, to pray in a Form: And though he seems to mean by his addition, that he counts it only then unlawful, when they tye themselves, •• whether by vow, or customary use, or once only, to a stinted form of words in Prayer, without varia∣tion, written, not conceived by him that prays, and kept in his memory; Yet his Arguments are against using any set Form, by any Saint, conceived by himself, and kept in me∣mory without writing, though but once used: For then the Spirit of Prayer is quenched, its donation is rendred useless, its against the positive precepts of stirring up our Gift, improving our Talent, disabling the Spirit; which are at no time to be done: And if so, no way of Worship of Christs institution, and therefore Idolatrous, and, by this Authors Doctrine, to be separated from; and therefore this Authors principles▪ carry him, not only to separate from hearing the present

Ministers, but also from every Saint, that not only often, but once useth a set Form, devised by himself, in Family exercises, as before meals, or other times: And, if he be of Mr. Ainsworths mind, in the controversie between him and Mr. R••binson of old, he must not only separate from the publique communion of the Church of England, but also from the private religious communion of every one that joyns in common Prayer, or in private stinted forms of Prayer, except they profess their repentance: And if we should prove it lawful to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer Book, or imposed devised Liturgy (which seems no hard thing to do, if we suppose the Ministers, and Common-Prayer Book Worshippers, not to have the Spirit; for then, by his Arguments, they do not quench, make useless, neglect the gift of the Spirit; and therefore are not forbidden a stint∣ed Form, which would overthrow this Argument against the Ministers) yet we must do somewhat more; we must prove it lawful for the Saints, who have the Spirit, to use once a stinted form of words, though it be the Lords Prayer only. Which I think will be done by this Argument: That Prayer may be lawful to Saints, in which neither is a∣ny thing done forbidden by God, nor any thing omitted which God requires thereto, but such may be praying in a Form: Therefore. To what this Author humbly offers, I answer,

1. That the things he offers, proceed only upon mi∣stakes: That the praying the Spirit, Ephes. 6.18. Jude 20. in the Holy Ghost, is meant of extemporal, unpremedi∣tated, unprescribed forms of words▪ Whereas, praying in the Spirit, is meant of praying by the operation of the Spi∣rit within, not of Prayer in respect of the form of words wherein it is expressed; which may be gathered concern∣ing the former Text, in that the Prayers there, which are to be in the Spirit, are all, alwayes with all prayer and suppli∣cation, watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication: which cannot be well expounded of other Prayers, than such as are solitary, of which many are only ejaculatory, without words: And this is confirmed by the words, Ephes 5 19. where the effect of being filled with the Spirit, is the speaking to themselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord in their heart. Besides, as all the directions, Eph••s. 6.13, 14, 15, 16, 17.

are precepts of what each Christian should do by and for himself: so is v. 18. and so, if not solely, yet chiefly meant of solitary Prayers, to which words are not necessary; and therefore, praying in the Spirit, is by the operation of the Spirit in the heart, not by the Spirits immediate forming of words in the tongue. And the same is to be said of Jude 20. Of 1 Cor. 14.15. I have spoken before, in answer to ch. 5. sect. 7.

2. The ability to express petitions in words extempora∣ry, unpremeditated, is termed, the Spirit of Prayer, as if it were in every one that hath the sanctifying Spirit of God, and they only; for so the alleging Rom. 8.9.26. for it, in the 4th. Argument, must inferr. But who knows not by experience▪ that many that have not the Spirit of God, have yet this ability to admiration, as is related by Camden, Saravia, the Author of the relation of the conspiracy con∣cerning Hacket, in Q Elizabeths time, and many others: And on the other side, many whose holiness of life shewed they had the Spirit, yet not this ability; and therefore it is ill called, the Spirit of Prayer, whereby many unwary souls are ensnared with the opinion, as if such as can express themselves fluently in words, largely, and with shew of affection, were immediately moved by the Spirit; and they distill thereby into many inconsiderate persons, errours and evil principles: Whereas it is acknowledged to be but an acquired ability, with help of natural endowments, and many times is proved to be but a counterfeit and deceitful practice. Now then, in answer to each of the particulars, I say,

1. That the Spirit is not quenched, as is forbidden, 1 Thes. 5.19. by a set Form of Prayer, used by another, and read out of a Book, any otherwise, than by a pronouncing without a Book, a conceived Form; the ability of another to conceive and utter, for matter and words, is as much li∣mited by the one, as by the other. It is true, when pre∣judice is against reading, or the Forms read, or the Reader huddles it over, or delivers it coldly, it much abates the affection of the hearer: and so it is in saying over a con∣ceived Prayer, if there be a prejudice against the person, or his delivery be dull and heavy. And it is not to be denied, that lively affectionate expressions, with readiness of speech, and apt emphatical words, have much energy on hearers;

and so sometimes it is, when a written Sermon or Prayer is well and pathetically pronounced: So that the Form doth but lessen the affection by accident, not necessarily, and of it self; and thus either when a stinted Form is pro∣nounced by another, or by the person praying, it may be very incommodious to use it, usually such Forms being read or said without heed or feeling. Yet universally it is not so: Nor is the quenching of the Spirit (meant 1 Thes. 5.19.) meant of the Spirit of Prayer, more than any other exercise of godliness or gifts, whether ordinary or extraordinary: Nor is the quenching the Spirit, the act of another, but of him in whom the Spirit is quenched; who, either by his sinful life, or by cares, and riches, and pleasures of this life, and lusts of other things, ch••kes the word of God (which is the sword of the Spirit, Ephes. 6.17.) as our Saviour speaks, Luke 8 14. and they bring no fruit to perfection (unto which sense the following Exhortations, of not despising prophecy∣ings, and proving all things, v. 20, 21. do incline me) and so the sense is, Quench not the operation of the Spirit, by the preaching of the Word, whether by embracing errours, or by evil lusts: Or if, by the Spirit, be meant, the comforts or extraordinary gifts of it: In any of these wayes, the quenching is by the persons own act, in whom the Spirit is quenched: It is neither, by any Interpreter I meet with, or any shew of reason, applyed to the extinguishing or slack∣ning the ability of another, to utter and conceive Prayers, by publique use of a Liturgy, which doth not any otherwise quench that ability, than any other way of expression doth the ability of the hearer, which must be stinted; and so, the Spirit of Prayer, as this Author terms it, be quenched by the speaker in all joynt-prayer, unless it be allowed all to speak together, contrary to 1 Cor. 14.27. Whence I conclude, that this Text is most impertinent: And though it be, that some mens reading, and in like sort, some mens speaking without book, some using of a set Form in pub∣lique, and in private, may by accident, through the fault of the speaker, hearer, or user, abate the fervency of spirit in solitary or joynt prayers; yet it is not so necessarily, or of it self, and therefore not unlawful, nor quenching the Spi∣rit of Prayer, nor a rendring useless the donation of the Spirit, as a Spirit of Prayer, unto the children of God, as this Author speaks in his 2d. Offer: But in some cases a stinted Form is

helpful, both to the understanding, memory, affections, utterance in prayer, both publique and private, as many holy Saints have found by experience.

To the 3d. I say, That the precept to Timothy, of stirring up the gift of God, which was in him, by the putting on of Pauls hands, 2 Tim. 1.6. cannot be understood, of the ability to express himself in extemporary prayer; but of his ability to preach the Gospel, as 1 Tim. 4.14. is meant; which he is encouraged to by the next words, v. 7. For, God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, of love, and of a sound mind; or, as some read, of castigation, or reducing others to s••briety. However, it is impertinent to the purpose of the Author here, it being not meant of exciting the gift of ex∣pression in prayer with others; and yet, if it were, he that reads a Liturgy, may stirr up the gift of expression at another time, if he cannot when he reads. As for the im∣pr••ving of the talents, Matth. 25.15.27. Luke 19.13.23. it is the duty of every Christian, and not only of Ministers; and if it be meant, of using abilities in joynt-prayer, every Christian must, as he is able, utter himself in prayer, con∣trary to 1 Cor. 14.26, 27. I conceive, by comparing Matth. 25.29, 30. with Matth, 13.11, 12. Mark 4.24, 25▪ that the talent which is given to each, is the knowledge, or teach∣ing of the Word of God, or the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, which each person is to improve, by bringing forth the fruits of it, Matth 21.43. Or if it be meant of the Mi∣nisters gift, it is to be understood of his ability to preach the Gospel, and the improving it, by converting others to faith and obedience; not of so mean a thing, as an ability of conceiving and uttering Forms of prayer without book.

As for the 4th. thing offered, The lawfulness of the Saints praying in a Form, is neither because they have not the Spi∣rit; nor, that having the Spirit, he is not a sufficient help to them in their approaches to God: but because in such praying, neither is any thing done forbidden by God, nor any thing omitted thereby, which God requires for the performing the duty of prayer. The Spirit, I grant, is sufficient to help in our approaches to God, and doth help, Rom 8.15.26 But that it is done by enabling, by immediate inspiration, to utter matter of prayer, for the benefit of others, is not meant in those places. And indeed, such a mistake hath filled some with high conceit of themselves, and others with

admiration of such, to their mutual perditions: Whereas this is but a common gift, or rather an acquired ability▪ often used with cunning to deceive others, of which there are ma∣ny footsteps in the affected expressions, & otherwise, which shew, their p••aying is not from the Spirit of God, but their own spirit▪ But of the impertinency of this Text I have spoken before, in answer to ch. 5. sect. 7. It follows,

Sect 10. The Forms of Prayer imposed, are not made necessary essential parts of Wo••ship.

〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉

Answ. The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 P••oposition, m••ant of making it do∣ctrinally necessa••y, by vertue of Gods appointment, so as

that the omission of it at any time, when the worship is performed, should be sin; or using any other Form, should make it not Gods worship, or not acceptable to him; might be granted: But being understood, of making a thing the condition of an action, by vertue of the authority of Go∣vernours, so, as that at some time and place, it is not to be done without it, by persons that are their subject••, un∣der a civil penalty, the major is denied: In which sense, the use of the Liturgy is imposed, which doth not make it any other than a circumstance of Divine worship, not such an adjunct as is a necessary part thereof. This Author granted before here, sect. 8. Circumstances in the worsh••p of Christ, atttending religious actions, as actions; without assign∣ment of time and place, no action to be managed by a community, can be orderly performed by them. Therefore, if the Gover∣nours assign a time and place, undetermined by God, it is that which they may do lawfully, and not requiring them as necessary by vertue of Gods institution; nor of all but only of their own subjects, they are made but circumstan∣ces, not necessary parts of Divine worship. So, if for a∣voiding of inconvenience, publique praying be forbidden in the night, and in some places; and it be commanded to be done at such hours of the day, in such a place: these hours and place are made no other than circumstances of the religious action, no Religion is placed in them, ••hey are not made parts of worship, but adjuncts alterable as it may stand with conveniency. There is the same reason of imposing a Liturgy for uniformity, to prevent dissonancy, or some other inconvenience, which may be incident to some persons, as of requiring Prayers without it. If nei∣ther be determinatively instituted by Christ, but command∣ed for conveniency, they both remain circumstances, ••ot necessary parts of Divine worship, notwithstanding the imposition by Governours. Sacrificing on the Altar, at the Tabernacle and Temple, was a part of the worship, be∣cause commanded by God; and so would the Liturgy be, if it were commanded as that was: But that the Liturgy is not so, it appears from the words of the Preface to it The particular forms of Divine worship, and th•• rites appointed to be vsed therein, being things in their own natu••e indifferent and al∣terable, and so acknowledged; it is but r••asonable, that upon weighty and important considerations, according to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉

exigency of times and occasions, such changes and alterations should be made therein, as to th••se that are in place of Authority, should from time to time seem either necessary or expedient. Nor do I think it true, That any considerable Minister of Eng∣land, would affirm the Common-Prayer Book to be an essenti∣al part of worship, or make it such, as this Author im∣putes to them; nor in use of it, is it alwayes so observed, but that it gives place to preaching, to reading Briefs for collections, and some other occasions; and yet, if they did so strictly observe it, this doth not prove, they esteem it a necessary essential part of worship, by vertue of Gods com∣mand: but that they conceive they ought to obey their Go∣vernours Laws, not judging others, who use it not. But whatever be the judgement or practice of the present Ministers, yet the words of the Preface (which are more to be regarded, than any particular Ministers opinion, whereof some, its confess'd, have too much magnified it) do shew, that the imposition makes it not such as this Au∣thor chargeth on them. And this is enough to acquit the use of it from Idolatry, even in this Authors own sense, sith they do not place the worship of God in the Form, but in the Kind of worship commanded by God; and so the mi∣nor of his Argument is denied. For though the Form of the Common-Prayer Book be not prescribed, yet the way of wor∣ship therein, that is, Prayer, Praises, the Lords Supper, are worship pre••cribed by God. If the Author mean, by way of wor-ship, the forms and modes, the way of worship by Preachers conceived or extemporary prayers▪ this Authors form of preaching, and other worship, is not prescribed by God; and the Separatists are Idolaters, as well as the Mini∣sters of England; and so his Argument is retorted as before▪ He goes on thus,

Sect. 11. Acting in the holy things of God, by an Office-power and modes of Idolaters, may be without Idolatry.

To which we add. Argument 2. Those who act in the holy things of God, by vertue of an Office-power received from Idola∣ters; and offer up to him a Worship meerly of humane composition, once abused to Idolatry, with the modes and rites of Idolaters, are guilty of the sin of Idolatry: But the present Ministers of England, act in the holy things of God, by vertue of an Office-power

received from Idolaters, and offer up to him a Worship meerly of humane composition, o••c•• abus••d to Idolatry, with the modes and rites of Idolaters. Therefore. The major (or first Proposition) carrying a brightness along with it, sufficient to lead any one into the belief of the truth thereof, one would think may be taken for granted. Two things are asserted therein,

1. That such as act in the holy things of God, by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters, are themselves such at least in respect of that their Office-power so received by them) That Jeroboams Priests were all of them Idolaters, we suppose will not be denied: Supposing some or more to act in the Worship of God, by vertue of an Office-power received from them, were these to be accounted in that respect Idolaters? It seemeth so: Nor can there be the least pretence of reason to the contrary: Cer∣tainly such as act by vertue of authority committed to them, in mat∣ters Civil, from Rebels, are equally guilty of Rebellion, as those from whom they derive that their authority. The case is here the same.

2. That such as offer up to God a Worship meerly of humane composition, once abused to Idolatry, with the modes and rites of Idolaters, are Idolaters: If these be not such, I must profess, I know not who are. That there are few, or none, that worship the Creature terminative, will not be denied, the most of Idolaters in the world are such, upon the account of their worshipping the true God through mediums of their own d••vising, with rites and modes that never entred into the heart of God to prescribe. To as∣sert, that any should symbolize with Idolaters herein (who are solely upon this foot of account such) and not be guilty of the sin of Idolatry, is absurd and irrational. The major Proposition then (as was said) may be taken for granted.

Answ. Not so, without better proof, and thus under∣stood, That they still abuse it to Idolatry; and, That the modes and rites be of themselves Idolatrous: without these limitations, the major is denied. Those that were ordained Priests by Papists, and used the Common-Prayer Book after, in the dayes of Edward the 6th. were not Idola∣ters: though this Author will not acquit Latimer, Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, and others, from Idolatry then, yet I shall boldly do it: And to what this Author saith, I reply, That the Office-power, no, not though it were from Idolaters, for Idolatrous purposes, doth not make persons actually Idolaters, till they do actually exhibit Divine worship to a

creature. Suppose a person be ordained a Priest, to offer Sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and dead in the Mass; yet if he ••epent thereof, and never do adore the Breaden-God he is not an Idolater: Yea, suppose he act in bapti∣zing, preaching, marrying, burying according to the ri∣tuals of the Romanists, by vertue of his Ordination, as a Priest; or, as this Author speaks, his Office-power, with∣out exhibiting any Divine worship to a creature (which in some of these may be) yet is he not thereby an Idolater. The reason whereof is manifest, because he is not an Idola∣ter, to whom the definition of Idolatry ag••ees not. And this is the reason why, if Jerob••ams ••riests, though conse∣crated for the worship of Idols, did not worship them, they were not to be accounted Idolaters: Nor are those that act by vertue of authority committed to them, in matters Ci∣vil, from Rebels, equally guilty of rebellion, as th••se from whom they derive that their authority, unless they act rebelliously; if they act for the restitution of their P••ince, the publique peace, they are accounted good Subjects, and not Rebels, though at first they derived their authority from Rebels. Nor doth the worshipping of God by a Form meerly of humane composition, make Idolaters, though it have been abused to Idola∣try, with the rites and m••des of Idolaters, unless the••e be Ido∣latry in the Form, and the rites and modes be Idolatrous in their use: because, notwithstanding this, no Divine wor∣ship may be given to a creature. So, though the Form of Baptism in the Roman Church▪ were mee••ly of humane composition, used with Crossings, Cream, Oyl, Spittle, if these rites were used, though by them abused to Idolatry, not as they do, so as to give Divine worship to a creature, the Users, in this manner, however guilty of Will-worship or Superstition, yet would not be justly chargeable with Idolatry; no, not though they should in ••ome sort symbo∣l••ze with Idolaters, that is, be assimilated to them, or in some sort comply with them. Much less is it true, that they are Idolaters, who use that which is of Di••ine appoint∣ment, to the right use, because Idolaters a••u••ed it to Ido∣latry: He that should use the Lords Prayer, or the Psalms, to worship God with them should not be an Idolater, be∣cause Witches have invocated the Devil, by the Lords Pray∣er, or the Papists the Virgin Ma••y, by the words of the P••alms in Bonaventures Psalter. That which he saith here,

That few or none worship the creature terminative, he doth revoke the next page save one, finding Bellarmines ass••rtion, l. de Imag. c. 21. That the Images thems••lves ••erminate the veneration given them, as they are in themselves considered, and not only as supplying the 〈…〉〈…〉 that which they represent. But had not this passage p••oved it, the Idolatry of the Papists, in worshipping the H••st, invocating Angels, Saints, the worship of the Devil by Americans, the Sun and Moon of old, would prove, that most of ••dolaters do worship the creature terminative. From that which is said, I inferr, That his maj••r may be denied wi••hout 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or irrationali••y. But I pass to his minor, of which he sai••h thus,

Sect. 12. The English Ministers opp••s•• P••pish Idolatry, as other Protestants.

Whether this be true of the pr••s••nt Ministers of England, is next to be considered, of which briefly.

1. That the Romish Church (so called) are Idolaters; their Wo••ship, in the complex thereof, Id••la••ry, will not (we sup∣pose) be denied by any that call thems••lves P••otestants; the most learned of whom have asserted an•• 〈…〉〈…〉: And then allegeth th•••••• Hymns, O felix pue••pera▪ O crux spes unica: Bo••a••scius the J••suite, that is, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lib. 3 Amphith. Honor. c. ult. ad Divam Hallensem & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 J••sum, hae••eo lac inter medita••s, inter{que} cruo••em, &c. Aqu. Sum parte 3. q 25. Bell. de Imag. c. 21. F••ar•• seus de mend••za in viri∣datio utrius{que} eruditionis, lib. 2. p••o••. 2▪ The vsual ascription in Bellarmine, Baronius, Laus Deo Virgini{que} matri Mariae.

Answ. In which I agree with him, That the Papists are guilty of most horrid Idolatry: and, could he shew any such things in the Common-p••aye•• Bo••k, or the Service of the Ministers of the Church of England, I should agree to his Separation. But when no such thing is to be found in the Liturgy or Service of the present Ministe••s of England: And, when he knows the H••mily of the Peril ••f Idolatry, and the writings of the lea••ned Bishops and D••v••nes of the Church of England, are as much against ••h••ir Idolatry as other Protestants, to insinuate into the peoples minds, as if the present Ministers of England did symbolize with these Idolaters, of whose Idolatry they shew so much de∣testation,

is a most viperous calumniation, and most un∣worthy of a Christian. But he goes on thus:

Sect. 13. The Ministers of England act not by vertue of an Of∣fice-power from Idolaters.

2. That the present Ministers of England act by vertue of an Office-power from this Combination and Assembly of Idolaters, they themselves will not deny: Succession from hence being one of the best pleas they have for the justification of their ministry: (which when they have proved, that ever the Lord Jesus did in∣trust an Assembly of the greatest Murderers, Adulterers, and Ido∣laters in the world, with any power, for the sending forth Of∣ficers, to act in the holy things of God, to, and for the Church his Spouse, will be admitted; but that they shall never be able to do) so hugely importunate are some of them herein, that they are not ashamed to ask us, VVhy Ordination may not be received from the Church (so called) of Rome, as well as the Scripture? To which we shall only say, That when it is proved, that we re∣ceived the Scripture from that Apostate Church, by vertue of any Authority thereof, as such, somewhat of moment may be admitted in that enquiry, but this will never be done. Tis true, the Bible was kept among the people, in those parts, where the Pope pre∣vaileth; yet followeth it not from hence, that we received it from their Authority, as Ordination is received: If we did, why did we not keep it, as delivered from them to us, in the Vulgar La∣tine? So that of these things there is not the same reason. It will not then be denied, but the present Ministers of England, act in the holy things of God, by vertue of an Office power re∣ceived by succession from the Church of Rome, and so from Ido∣laters (that Church being eminently so, as hath been proved.)

Answ. This Objection, though it be but a slight thing, and of no real force, to nullifie or invalidate the Calling of the present Ministers; yet, because the well-affected Pro∣testants are zealous against Popery, as having learned the Pope to be Antichrist, and that terrible threanings are, in the Revelation, against any communion with any thing that is suggested to them by those, to whom they adhere, to come from Rome, or the Pope, as being Antichristian, it is needful, that this thing should be cleared▪ for rectifying the mistakes of people, that their unadvised zeal against some things as Popish, which are not, may not occasion

unnecessary Schism, and such other evils, into which per∣sons, perhaps otherwise of honest hearts, cast themselves to their ruine. It is known to those that study Controver∣sies between Protestants and Papists, that this hath been one grand Objection of the Papists against the Reformed Churches, that their Ministers are not rightly Ordained, and therefore they have no succession; which by Bellarmine, in his Book de Notis Ecclesiae, c. 8. is made a Note of the Church; and therefore they are not a true Church, but schismatical. The Answers given to this Objection, are,

1. For the truth of the Reformed Churches, the suc∣cession in them of true Doctrine, is sufficient to demon∣strate them true Churches, as I have asserted in my Ro∣manism discussed, against the Manuel of H. T. Art. 2.

2. That Ministers may be sent of God, who teach the Doctrine of God, though they have not Ordination accord∣ing to Church-Canons▪ as was the case at the first beginning of the Reformation; in which there was something extra∣ordinary, by reason of the long tyranny of Popes, and the great corruptions in the Latine Churches.

3. That their Ministers were at first ordained by the Po∣pish Bishops; and though they did after renounce the of∣fering Sacrifice for quick and dead, yet even by the Papists own Canons, and resolutions of their Casuists, their power to administer the Word and Sacraments, according to the Word of God, continued still.

4. That those who had been thus ordained, had power to ordain others, for which the French, and other Prote∣stants of the Presbyterial Government, allege, That Pres∣byters may Ordain, even by the confession of the Ro∣manists; and that Bishops, though they be hereticks in their account, yet they lose not the power of Ordaining, no, not when degraded; of which more may be seen in Rivet. sum. Controv. tract. 2. q. 1. Alsted. suppl. ad Chamier. panstrat. de memb. Eccl. milit c. 8. Ames. Bellar. Enerv. tom. 2. l. 3. de clericis, c. 2 sect. 10. and many more, who have still pleaded, That, notwithstanding the impurity of the Church of Rome, yet the Calling, which Luther, Zuinglius, and others had from Popish Bishops, was sufficient, with∣out any other Ordination, for an ordinary calling to the Office of a Minister; and that those, who have succeeded them, have been true Pastours in their Churches. The

English Protestants, who have had Bishops above Presby∣ters, have advantage above other Protestants, to plead for the regularity of the Ordination of their Ministers, because they have been ordained by Bishops, and those Bishops consecrated by other Bishops, according to the ••anons of the Ancients, in a succession continued from Bishops ac∣knowledged by the Papists themselves. To evacuate this plea, saith Dr. Prideaux, Orat. 8. de Vocatione Ministrorum: The Papists would fain find a defect in the succession of the English B••sh••ps from the preceding B••shops, and in the solemnity of their consecration: And being beaten off from the denial of Cranmers consecration▪ by the producing of the Popes acknowledging of him Arch-bishop, and the register of his consecration, as also of other Bishops in King Edwards dayes: After, Christophorus à sacr••b••sco, or Father Halywood of Dublin in Ireland, Anthony Champney, and James Wads∣worth say, That Arch bishop Parker, Bishop Jewel, and those others, which were made Bishops in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth, though the••e were an attempt of their consecration at a Tavern, at the Nags-head in Cheapside, yet could not they procure an old Catholick Bishop to joyn with them, and therefo••e their consecration was disap∣pointed. To shew the falshood of this fable, and to make evident the compleat solemnity of Pa••kers, and others con∣secration; and the truth of the Ordination of the English Ministers,* 1.4 even by the Ca∣nons of the Papists, Bishop B••del in his An∣swer to Wadsworth, ch. 11. and Mr. Francis Mason in his Vindication of the English Mini∣stry, have fully proved the solemnity of the consecration, out of the A••ch-bishops Be∣gister, to have been ••ight, and the successi∣on to have been legitimate, even according to the Canon Law; and the Ministers Ordi∣nation to have been good, though not or∣dained sacrificing Priests for quick and dead, against the exceptions of Bellarmine, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and such other of the Papists' as have denied Protestant Mini∣sters true Pastours, and their Churches true Churches. It is not unlikely, that some of the Prela••ical party, have vented in writings and conference, such expressions, as carry a shew of their disclaiming the Churches which have

not Bishops, and extolling the Popish Churches Govern∣ment, and avouching their Ordination from Rome; which hath caused a great ave••seness in many zealous persons from Bishops, and the conforming Ministers; and is taken hold of by this Author, and other promoters of Separati∣on, as an engine sutable to that end. But as those learned men, Bedel, Mason, Prideaux, and others, have pleaded the succession of Bishops from the Popish Bishops, and the Ordination of Ministers by them, there is no cause given of that out-cry, that is made of the Bishops Antichristianism, declining to Popery, or of Separation, for that reason: the Presby••erian Churches making the like plea for themselves, That the first Reformers had ordinary calling, even accord∣ing to the Papists own Canons; and the Episcopal Divines pleading only the same thing more fully. Yet it is not true, which this Author saith, That either the one or o∣ther make the succession from Popish Bish••ps, one of the best pleas they have for the just••fication of their minist••y: For, though they plead this succession against the clamorous and violent actings of the Popish party, which Petrus Molinaeus, in his 3d. Epistle to Bishop Andrews, mentions to have been in France, by Arnola the Jesuite; and the writings of Champney, Wadsworth, and others, shew to have been in England: yet they have justified their ministry without it, as may be seen in Amos, Als••ed, B••del, and others. And for the present Ministers of England, I conceive they will deny, that they act by vertue of an Office-power from the Combination and Assembly of Idolaters in the Church of Rome; their Office-power being not such as Priests are ordained to in the Church of Rome, to offer Sacrifice propitiatory for quick and dead, but to preach the Gospel, administer Sacraments, and Discipline, according to Christs institution: And in the solemnity of their Ordination, the Rom••sts rites being relinquished by the Ordainers, who are not a Combination or Assembly of Ido∣laters, but professors of the true Faith, and haters of po∣pish Idolatry, though some succession of their Predecessors from Idolaters be alleged to stop the mouths of Papists, who pervert their proselytes, by impu••ation of novelty to the reformed Churches, and their Ministers, rather than by proving their Doctrine out of Scripture. As for that which is ob••ected, That Christ would never entrust such, to send forth Officers, to act in the holy things of God, for his

Church, it is without reason objected, sith many of them might be, and in charity we are to conceive, were the ser∣vants of God, who abode in the communion of the Roman Church. Dr. Ames himself, in his Animadversions on the Re∣monstrants Scripta Synodalia, Artic. 5. c. 7. saith, We be∣lieve there were, and yet are many, who have not so farr sepa∣rated themselves from the Papists, but that they are polluted with their manifold Idolatry, who yet have their part in the Kingdom of God. Even in the dayes of King Henry the 8th. and Q Mary, all the Bishops were not like Gardiner, Bonner, and such as were inhumane persecutors. Why Christ should not entrust Cranmer, Tonstall, and such like, to send forth Officers, to act in the holy things of God, as well as Judas to be an Apostle, I find not cause. The baptism received in the Church of Rome, the Brownists in their Apology, p. 112. acknowledge to be so farr valid, as not to need rebaptization; and why not then the Ordination by their Bishops? Bishops and Ministers, though they be evil men, and unduly get into power; yet, as it is with other Officers, their actings are valid: as Caiaphas, Ananias, and such like persons, who by bribes unjustly and irregularly usurped the High-Priests Of∣fice; yet their sentence and ministration were not therefore disannulled. He who said, We received the Bible from the Church of Rome, it is not likely meant it to have been re∣ceived by vertue of their authority, but their ministry, Preachers having been sent by the Pope, to instruct the Saxons in the Faith: But whatever was meant by that speech, this we may safely say, That if the Office-power of the present Ministers had been (as it is not) received by succession from the Church of Rome, and so from Idolaters; yet being no other Office-power, than what hath been instituted by Christ, it no more proves the present Ministers Idolaters, than the receiving of baptism, or the Scriptures, by the ministry of men in that Church. It is further added,

Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry.

3. Nor can it be denied, but they offer up to God, a VVorship meerly of humane composition (as the Common-Prayer Book worship hath been proved to be) once abused to Idolatry, with the m••••es ••nd rites of Idolaters. That the Common••Prayer Book

worship, is a worship, that was once abused to Idolatry, being the worship of that Church, whose worship (at least in the com∣plex thereof) is so, cannot with the least pretence of reason be denied. That the whole of it, is derived from, and taken out of the Popes Portuis, as are the Common-prayers out of the Brevi∣ary: The administration of the Sacraments, Burial, Matrimony, Visitation of the Sick, out of the Ritual, or Book of Rites: The Consecration of the Lords Supper, Collects, Epistles, Gospels, out of the Mass Book: The Ordination of Arch-bishops, Bishops, and Priests, out of the Roman Pontifical, hath been a••••erted and proved by many. VVhich might be evidenced (if needful) be∣yond exception; not only by comparing the one with the other, but also from the offer was made by Pope Pius the 4th. and Gregory the 13th. to Q. Elizabeth, to confirm the English Liturgy, which, did it not symbolize with the service of the Church of Rome, they would not have done. Yea, when the said Queen was interdicted by the Popes Bull, Secretary Walsingham pro∣cures two Intelligencers from the Pope, who seeing the service of London and Canterbury in the pomp thereof, wonder, that their Lord, the Pope, should be so unadvised, as to interdict a Prince, whose service and ceremonies did so symbolize with his own: VVhen they come to Rome, they satisfie the Pope, That they saw no service, ceremonies, or orders in England, but might very well serve in Rome, upon which the Bull was recal∣led. Not to mention what we have already minded, viz. the testimomy of King Edward the 6th. and his Council; witnessing the English service to be the same, and no other but the old, the self-same words in English, that were in Latine (which was the worship of England and Rome in Queen Maries dayes) it is evident, That the present Minsters of England, offer up a wor∣ship to God, once abused to Idolatry. That they do this, with the rites, ceremonies, and modes of Idolaters, (viz. such as are in use in that Idolatrous Church of Rome) needs not many words to demonstrate: What else is the Priests change of voice, posture and place of worship enjoyned them? Not to mention their holy Vestments, Bowings, Cringings, Candles, Altars, &c. all which, as its known, owe their original unto the appointments thereof. In the margin, Maccovius loc. com. append. de adiaph. p. 860. saith, Non licet mutuari, aut retinere res aus ritus sacros Idololatrarum sive Ethnicorum sife Pontifi∣ciorum, &c. etsi in se res fuerint adiaphorae quia vitan∣dam esse omnem consormitatem cum Idololatris docemur.

Lev. 19.4.27. and 21.5. Deut. 14▪ 1▪ It remaineth, That the present M••nisters of England, acting in the holy things of God, by vertue of an Office-power received from Idolaters; and offering up to him a worship meerly of humane composition, once a∣bused to Idolatry, with the rites and modes of Idolaters, are deeply guilty of the sin of Idolatry.

Answ. That the Common-prayer Book worship, is a wor∣ship meerly of humane composition, however the Form of words be, is denied, and not proved by this Author, whose mi∣stakes in confounding them are before shewed. Nor is the worship of the Common-prayer Book proved to have been abu∣s••d to Idolatry, because the Fo••ms of words were taken out of the Popish Service Books, any more, than that the Scriptures or Creed, found in them, were abused to Idola∣try, because thence taken: The worship being agreeable to Gods Word, cannot be abused to Idolatry. Nor doth the Form of words used in the Mass-book or B••eviary, which is otherwise holy and ••ight, if it had never been in those books, cease to be holy and right, when the Idolatrous Forms are left out, any more, than Gold found in a Dung∣hill, remains Dung, and ceaseth to be Gold, when the filth is washed away from it. To that of the Common-prayer Book being taken out of the Popes Portuis, and King Ed∣wards words, answer is made in the Answer to the 3d. chap∣ter, sect. 4. The offer of the Pope, and the report of his Intelligencers, p••oves, that the Pope had nothing to ex∣cept against the Common-Prayer Book, or the Service of the Church of England; but not, that they are every way the same with that which is used in the Church of Rome. Con∣cerning its being taken out of the Popes Portuis, at least for the greatest piece, Arch-bishop Whitgift, in his A••swer to the first Admonition, p. 82. said long agoe, It maketh no matter of whom it was invented, in what book it is contained, so that it be good and profitable, and cons••nant to Gods Word. Well saith Ambrose, Omne verum à quocun{que} dicitur, à Spiritu Sancto, All truth, of whomsoever it is spoken, is of the Holy Ghost. As for the Book of Ordination, he an••wers, the words of the second Admonition, p. 201. thus▪ It is most false and untrue, that the Book of ordering Ministers and D••acons, &c. now used, is word for word drawn out of the Popes Pontifical, being almost in no point correspondent to the same; as y••u might have seen, if you had compared them t••gether: But ignorance and rashness

drives you into many errours. As for the rites, and modes, and ceremonies objected, those, which are in the Church of Rome Idolatrous, are not observed, or used by the Mini∣sters, who minister according to the Common-Prayer Book, to whom conformity with the Popish Priests therein is in∣juriously imputed; and they are so farr from being found deeply guilty of the sin of Idolatry, that the very a••guings of this Author rather acquit them, than convince them. As for the words of Maccov••us, they are not right; we may retain the goods used to Idol••try and apply them to holy uses, though they have been abused by Idolaters, yea, and abused to Idolatry, as the Temples, Bells, Tables, which have been abused to the Idolatry of the Mass, as is largely proved by Mr. Page••, in his Arrow against the separation of the Brown••sts, in answer to Mr▪ Ainsworth, ch. 7. Nor is it p••oved by Maccovius▪ out of the Texts alleged here, That the sacred rites of Idolaters, though they be things in themselves indifferent, are not to be retained; but that all conformity with Idolaters is to be avoided. For none of the Texts speak of things in themselves indifferent; Turning unto Idols, and ma∣king to themselves molten Gods, forbidden Levit. 19.4. being gross Idolatry: the rounding the corners of their heads, marring the corners of their beards, v. 27. making baldness upon their head, shaving off the corner of their beard, cutting their flesh, Levit. 21.5. making baldness bettween their eyes for the dead, being heathenish customes, which were Idolatrous; as Ainsworth, Annot. on Levit. 21.5. Such as those, 1 Kings 18.28. Or as Salmasius in his Book of long hair; the rounding of the corners of their h••ads, to have been in honour of the Moon: Or shewing heathenish sorrow for the dead; all sinful in themselves, and therefore not indifferent. But there is yet one more Charge behind.

Sect. 15. Kneeling in receiving the Sacramental elements, is not Idolatry.

Argument 3. Adoration in, by, or before a creature respe∣cti••è, or with relation to the creature, is Idolatry; such as so a∣dore or w••••ship G••d, are Idolaters: But the present Ministers of England, do adore or worship God, in, by, or before a creature respective, or with relation to the creature: Therefore. The major (or first Proposition) being generally owned by Prote∣stants,

it being the very same Maxim they make use of, and stop the mouth of the Papists with, in the point of adoring God mediately by the creature, we shall not stand upon the proof of it: none that know what they say, will deny it. The minor Proposition (viz. That the present Ministers of England do adore or worship God, in, by, or before the creature respectivè, or with relation to the creature) will receive a quick dispatch: Not to mention their bowing and cringing at the Altar: That they kneel at receiving of the Sacrament, is known: That they, with their Communi∣cants, should do so, is enjoyned by their Church: That their so d••ing, is an adoration, or worshipping of God before the creature respectivè, or with relation to the creature, is too manifest to admit of a denial: Nothing being more certain, than that the Elements are the objectum à quo, or the motive of their kneel∣ing, which if they were not there, they would not do. And in the margin. Didoclavius p. 755. saith, Genus••ectere non modò excludit ritus institutionis, sed etiam praeceptum se∣cundum de Vitanda Idololatria multis modis violat. VVhich Maccovius assents to, loc. com. p. 861.

Answ. Whether this Authors Antagonists know what they say, this Author seems not a fit Judge, unless either he knew better what himself saith, or could better clear his meaning than he doth, that his Readers might know what he saith. In this Argument, he doth accuse the pre∣sent Mnisters of England, and their Communicants of Ido∣latry, in kneeling at the receiving of the bread and wine in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; and yet, ch. 5. p. 40. he had said. Kneeling at the Lords Supper, though we do not, some would say, smells very strong of the Popish leaven, and is but one pegg b••neath the adoration of their breaden-God. Here he exp••esly makes that Idolatry undeniable, as being adoration or w••••ship of God in, by, or before the creature, to wit, the ele∣ment•• respectivè, or with relation to the creature, as objectum significativè a quo, or the motive of their kneeling; which if it were not, they would not do. So that one while, he will not say, it sm••lls strongly of the Popish leaven, nor that it is but one pegg beneath the adoration of their breaden-God; and if so (did he know what he saith) he acquits it from idolatry, which at another time he imputes to it. To which might be ad∣ded. That, whereas in the beginning of this very chapter, he ••eckons up as many sorts of Idolatry, as either he could, or thought fit at least for his design, of making the present

Ministers of England Idolaters; and indeed, more than he should: yet this sort of Idolatry, of worshipping and ado∣ring God▪ in, by, or before a creature respectivè, or wi•••• relation to the creature, as the objectum significativè à qua, or the motive of the adoration, or worship of God▪ is no•• mentioned there by him; nor is this Kneeling any of them. For neither is the kneeling at the Sacrament, the worsh••p ••f the creature terminatively: Nor before it, as the medium or re∣presentative of God: Nor the ascription of the Godhead, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 properties, to any creature: Nor the worshipping of God in any other way, than what he hath prescribed; For it is kneeling in prayer, or thanksgiving, to God, which he hath appoint∣ed: Nor is it the oblation of worship or service to God, that hath ben offered up to Idols, for which there is no prescription in the Scripture. For, if it be such, it is that which was done to the breaden-God: But that he will not say it is; for, ch. 5. p. 40. He would not say, it smells very strong of the Popish leaven, and is but one pegg beneath the adoration of their breaden God; therefore he makes it more than one pegg beneath it▪ and so beneath that oblation or service, that hath been offered up to Idols. Besides, as I have before said, the Papists themselves are not enjoyned to adore the bread, at the put∣ting into their mouths, but at the elevation of the host; i•• not consisting with their principles, to worship that which is not above them: Nor is it the most refined Idolatry, as he speaks, when the heart goes forth in desires after any thing, be∣yond what is limited by the Lord; or trusts and relyes on any crea∣ture, besides God: For this Kneeling, if it be Idolatry, is outward, not inward; of the members, not of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉; and therefore, it may be more truly charged on 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Au∣thor, that he knew not what he said, when he accused Ministers and people of Idolatry, for receiving the bread and wine at the Lords Supper kneeling, though he had said enough before to acquit them from it. And, may he not be said, not to know what he said, who writes so ambigu∣ously, indistinctly, and confusedly, as that his Reader can∣not well discern his meaning? For, whereas worshipping God in, by, or before a creature respectivè, or with relation to the creature, may be understood before it respectivè, or with relation to it, as the terminus, or object to which i•• is directed; as worshipping before, Luke 4.7. is wo••shipping of Satan, Matth. 4.9. and the relation to the creature, may

be, as conceiving God included in it, as in the consecrated host; or represented by it, as by the golden cal••, or a cru∣cifix, or as pertaining to God, being consecrated to him, as G••deons Ephod, or Popish reliques of Saints, or hallowed grains; or the like, without Gods institution; in these, and such like relations, the adoration being directed to the crea∣tures, whether as the only object to which, or the inter∣mediate object; whether properly, or improperly; of it self, or by accident; if this Author had distinctly set down, that he meant his major in one or more of these respects, his Readers would have known what he had said, and would have granted his m••jor, and denied his minor. But he thought it best to hide his major in ambiguous speech, and to express himself more intelligibly in his instance in the minor, That Kneeling is adoration o•• worshipping of God before the crea••ure respectivè, or with relation to the creature, as the objectum significativè à quo, or the motive of the kneeling. But in this sense I deny his major; and that he may not think me bereft of my wits, but that I know what I say, I give him this reason of my denial, I find the Holy Ghost inviting the Jews to worship at Gods footstool, his holy hill, Psal 99.5.9▪ which were creatures; and there they were to bow down to God, in, by, or before these creatures re∣spectivè, or with relation to them, as the objectum significa∣tivè à quo, that is, that thing which was an object signify∣ing Gods presence there, and the motive of their bowing down to God; which, if they had not been there, that is, the Ark▪ Temple, Altar, they would not have done; and there was no Idolatry therein. And to stop the evasion, that it was so, when God appointed it, though this would not avoid the instance, the bread and wine being of Gods appointment, and the use of them in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as well as the Altar, Ark, Temple, were, they were instituted to be memorative signs of Christs body and blood, communicated to the receivers by faith; yet I find that adoration or worshipping of God before the crea∣ture respectivè▪ or with relation to it, as the objectum signi∣ficativè à quo, and the motive of the adoration, hath been performed occasionally without institution, and yet no Ido∣latry committed. When the Is••aelites at mount Carmel, 1 Kings 18.38. saw the fire of the Lord fall, and consume the burnt offering, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and

lick up the water that was in the trench, they fell on their fa∣ces, and they said, The Lord he is God, the Lord he is the God. Here was adoration of God before the creature respectivè, or with relation to it, as the objectum significativè à quo, signi∣fying the Lord to be God; and as the motive of that adora∣tion, which, if it had not been there, they would not have done it; and yet no Idolatry committed. Another instance is 2 Chron. 7.3 When all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glory of the Lord upon the house, they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pave∣ment, and worshipped and praised the Lord, saying, For he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever. Here was adoration and worshipping God, in, by, or before a creature, not having special institution, abiding in their sight, as the ob∣jectum significativè à quo, or the motive of their adoration, and worship of the Lord, and yet no Idolatry. I confess, that when the worship is before it, so as it is directed to it, as upon the sight of the bread, or a crucifix, the host, or a crucifix is worshipped, whether terminatively, or as the representative of another, it is Idolatry: As If Job, when he had seen the Sun when it shined, or the Moon walking in brightness, his heart had been secretly enticed, and his mouth had kissed his hand, as it is Job 31.26, 27. it had been Ido∣latry: For then the Sun had been not only obj••ctum à quo, the motive or occasion, but also objectum ad quod, or the ter∣minus ad quem, to which it had been directed. But if he had only taken occasion, upon the sight of the Sun, to worship God, as David did, Psal. 8.3. magnifie or worship God the Creator, it had been no Idolatry, though the Moon or Sun were the objectum à quo significativè, or the sight 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it, the motive to it. Till Divine worship be given to a crea∣ture, it is not Idolatry; although in the kind or means of worship, there may be Will-worship; and in the opinion of those, that count their act, or the object to be holy, when it is not, there may be superstition of the mind; and in the use of such things, or forbearing their use, superstition in the members.

That which this Author saith of his major Proposition, as generally owned by Protestants, I do not believe it to be true, understanding it as he doth, of relation only to the creature, as objectum significativè à quo, or the motive of the adoration, and not the object to which it is directed. As for this minor, it

may be denied, even in his own sense; for the adoring of God, though it be at the receiving the elements, yet the elements are not objectum significative à quo, or the motive of their kneeling,* 1.5 according to the Common-Prayer Book, which saith, That the order in the Office, for the administration of the Lords Supper, that the Communicants should receive it kneeling, is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknow∣ledgement of the benefits of Christ, therein gi∣ven to all worthy receivers; and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue: That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread and wine, there bodily received, or unto any corpo∣ral presence of Christs natural flesh and blood: Which intimate, that the elements are not the objectum significativè à quo, or the motive of their kneeling; but the benefits of Christ in the Lords Supper, given to all worthy receivers: And that, not the sight of bread or wine, (which is not seen till the cup be in their hand) but the remembrance of Christs death, and the remission of sins by his blood, by saith, are the motive to kneel to God, with prayer and thanksgiving to him, without any honour of the bread and wine, though received, eaten and drunk, to remember Christs death, as the procuring cause of those benefits. As for his Reason, if the elements were not there, they would not kneel; therefore they are the objectum significativè à quo, or the motive of their kneeling; partly the Antecedent is not true, for they kneel before they receive the elements brought to them, and after they have eaten and drunk, while they are in the meditation of Christs death, and the benefits by it, using holy ejaculation in prayer and thanksgiving to God; partly the consequence may be denied: For, though they would not kneel, were not the elements there, yet this is not sufficient to prove their presence the motive of kneeling, any more, than the presence and speech of the M••nister, who delivers them with prayer and exhortation, to whom yet this Author makes not the kneeling to have relation. And indeed, it is not the presence of the ele∣ments,

when they are received, that is, while they are in the Ministers hand, or their own, or in their mouths, which is the objectum significativè à quo; but the actions with the elements, at the consecration by the Minister, which signifie Christs death: and the use by themselves in eating and drinking, whereby are signified their nourish∣ment by Christ unto life eternal, which are the motive to that gratitude and trust in Christ, which in kneeling they exercise by prayer. As for the words of Didoclavius, with Maccovius his assent, they are the words of an Adversary to the Ministers in this cause, and therefore not fit to be al∣leged as a proof in this matter: Nor, if they were true, would they prove kneeling to be Idolatry, but to be some way against the second Commandement for avoiding Ido∣latry. We might more justly, and more to the purpose, allege the words of Dr. Ames, in his Triplication to Dr. Bur∣ges his Rejoynder, ch. 4. sect. 4. p. 382. There is no Non-con∣formist, which refuseth to kneel unto Christ, in the celebration of the Lords Supper: And the Conformists deny, they require kneeling to any other than God, and the Lord Jesus Christ. As for their bowing and cringing at the Altar, it concerns them to speak for themselves, who use it; neither do all the Con∣formists use it, no not in Cathedrals▪ if my information be right; nor is there any established Law for it; and those that use it, do avouch they do it, not to any other than God, and therefore are not to be charged with Idolatry, whatever other fault they are chargeable with, by reason of it. It follows

Sect. 16. The Crimination of the Ministers, as Idolaters, is not excusable.

Object. To what hath been hitherto offered in this matter, if it be said, That the charging the present Ministers of England with Idolatry, is exceeding harsh, and that which is an argu∣ment of a very unchristian and censorious spirit: Though this makes nothing to the enervating of what hath been offered, yet we answer,

1. That many words of Christ himself were accounted hard sayings, and not to be born; and that by such hearers, as were once his admirers, and did with seeming great affection attend upon his ministry. That such poor worms as we should be re∣charged

herewith, it is no great marvel, it is enough for the Dis∣ciple to be as his Master.

2ly. We have in this matter said nothing, but what is in Thesi over and over asserted by most or all Protestant Writers upon the second Commandement: who assert fully, That the worshipping God in a way not prescribed by him, is Idolatry, such as do so, are Idolaters: With our application hereof unto the present Mini∣sters of England, if they are guilty (as that they are, hath been abundantly demonstrated) why should any be offended? To speak truth, when our silence would be prejudicial to the souls of our Brethren, me-thinks should not be accounted unchristian or censo∣rious. In the margin are these words, Calvin, Perkins, Ames, Macc••vius, Altingius, Wendeline, Paraeus, Explicat. Cate. p. 3. Q. 96. p. 528. saith, Quid postulat secundum praeceptum? Res. Ne Deum ullâ imagine, aut figurâ exprimamus, neve nullâ ratione eum colamus, quàm qua se in suo verbo coli prae∣cepit, 1 Sam. 15.23. Deut. 12.30 Mat. 15 9. And af∣terwards he addeth, Huic secundo praecepto contraria sunt ea, quae vero cultui divino adversantur. 1. Idololatria, quae est culius numinis fictitius, aut superstitiosus. Sunt autem Idololatriae du•• species, praecipuae: una crassior, cum fictitium numen colitur— haec species prohibetur in primo praecepto, & aliquâ ex parte, in tertio: altera est subtilior, cum verus Deus coli fingitur, sed er∣ratur in genere culius, hoc est, cum vero Deo culius fingitur praestari, aliquo opere, quod ipse non praecepit: haec species Idolo∣latriae, hoc praecepto propriè damnatur, & nominatur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sive superstitio. And pag 529. Qui peccant contra secundum praeceptum, peccant & contra primum, quia qui Deum aliter colunt, atque vult coli, illi fingunt Deum aliter affectum, at∣que est, hoc est, alium Deum: Ita non Deum, sed cerebri sui commentum, quod sic affectum esse sibi persuadent, colunt — Fingere alium Dei cul••um, est aliam Dei voluntatem, proinde & alium Deum fingere, &c.

But, 3ly. What would these Objectors have said to Tertullian (that renowned servant, and witness of the Lord J••sus in his day) who is, by farr, more nice in this print of Idolat••y, than we have declared our selves to be: He, in his Bo••k de Idololatria, chargeth such as make Statues or Images, build or adorn Temples (though it were their Trade) Astrologers, Schoolmasters, (that name the names ••f Idols, making honourable mention of them in their orations) such as keep holydayes, d••dicated to Idolatrous service, as their Satu••nalia (in the stead of which, is the time

with us called Christmass) &c. such as adorned their gates, posts, houses, after the Pagan manner, at Festivals, with Law∣rel, Ivy, &c. as symbolizing with Idolaters: yet sure we are, he could not justly be charged with an unchristian or censorious spirit.

Answ. The charge is rightly laid, and your plea insuffi∣cient to take it off. Christs sayings were unjustly counted hard, because they were true; yours justly, because not so: his sayings tolerable, yea precious, because they tended to direct them in the way to life eternal; yours, judged to be from an unchristian and censorious spirit, because un∣charitable, and tending to division. That, which by the Protestant Writers is said, is not all true: I think all Will-worship is not ••dolatry: Our Lord, who accused the Pha∣risees of Will-worship, did not accuse them of Idolatry. How farr from Demonstrations your Arguments are, may appear by this Answer. Were it fit to recriminate, I could prove you guilty of as great Idolatry, as you impute to the Conformists. Your zeal for truth, and love to your Brethrens souls, were good, if it were in a good thing: if without knowledge, and it tend to errour and schism, it may be pernicious in its consequents. As for Tertullian, omitting what may be excepted against him, and the spirit by which he was acted in the close of his life, which shew∣ed him to be (as Dr. Casaubon observes, in his Treatise of Enthusiasm, ch. 3.) a man, though otherwise learned, that as∣cribed too much to private Revelations, out of an excess of zeal, which he shewed in all his works, (in which, I wish it were true, that this Author, who here so extolls him, were not too like him) I conceive Tertullian might have such reasons for his niceness in the point of Idolatry in his time,* 1.6 when the Christians lived among Pagan Idolaters, who bore sway in the Empire of Rome, which only maintained such Idolatry as the publick received Wor∣ship, and persecuted Christians for not conforming to their Idol-service, as this Author hath not, for his accu∣sing Ministers of Idolatry, for using a Service-book in the main right, in respect of the Worship; and a gesture, avow∣ed to be only to the true God; in a Church, holding in the main, the ••ight Faith; under a Prince, that professes the same Faith and Worship, and to be a Defender of it. As

for such reliques of Pagan customes, or Popish, as yet re∣main, though it were to be wished, they were quite left, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sith they are not used in any honour to the Pagan Idols, but the original and reason of them at first, being almost, if not quite forgotten by those that use them, and are be∣come but as civil customes, that have no state in religious worship, experience shews, that they are more easily re∣formed by neglect, than by earnest declamations against them Nor do I think, the course this Author takes, of seeking Reformation by Invectives and Separations, likely ••o promote it; but to exasperate Rulers, and make oppo∣sites more violent in their way. It is added,

Sect. 17. The Martyrs are unjustly made Idolaters by this Author.

Obj. 2. But what shall we judge of Latimer, Ridley, Hoop∣er, and many other famous witnesses and martyrs of Christ, who worshipped God after the same way of worship that these do now? Were they also Idolaters? How could they be saved then, when ••he Scripture sayes, that no Idolater shall inherit the Kingdom of God, and we do not find that they repented hereof? To this we answer,

1. That the persons instanc'd in, were eminent witnesses of Jesus Christ in their day (whose very names are in our nostrils as sweet perfume) we readily grant, and would be loth to speak one word to abate of that just esteem is due to their names, and testi∣mony for Christ.

2ly. That they are now with Christ, and shall come with him, a••d sit upon Thrones to judge their unjust Judges, in the day ap∣p••in••ed thereunto, we have not the least scruple.

But, 3ly. They were but men, encompassed about with many in∣firmities: That they were guilty of the sin of Idolatry, cannot (from what hath been said herein, its evident) be denied. Y••t,

1. They were, in that day, but just peeping out of the gates of Babylon, beginning to arise, and shake themselves out of the dust of the abominations of the great Whore; and, tis no wonder, if some of the filth of her fornications did cleave to them.

2. They worshipped God in sincerity, according to the light he was pl••••sed in that day to communicate; and God accepted of them in Christ, granting to them a general repentance for those iniqui∣ties

they saw not to be so, or knew not themselves to be guilty of: which is all we shall at present say hereunto. The intelligent Reader knows, that these things are not of any moment, for the invalidating of what hath been offered upon this subject. Thus farr of this Argument, The present Ministers of England are guilty of Idolatry; therefore, tis the duty of Saints, not to hear, but separate from them.

Answ. Though this Objection be not a direct Answer to your Argument, yet it is a very great prejudice against it, that by striking at the present Ministers, you wound the holy Martyrs; you make them Idolaters for that very thing for which they dyed, that they might not be Idolaters; judg∣ing them, as committing Idolatry, in kneeling with such re∣spect to the bread, as they did utterly detest, abhorred to the death, and for witnessing against it, laid down their lives in the flames; and making all the godly at that time, who did as they did, and held communion with them, guilty of their sin, for hearing them, and not separating from them, and urging that against the present Ministers, which the holy Martyrs rejoyced in, and the Ministers think themselves happy, that they are found like them. Me-thinks when you wrote this chapter, you should have thought of that which is Psal. 73.15. If I say, I will speak thus: behold, I should offend against the generation of thy chil∣dren: And have taken heed, how you had perswaded to se∣paration for that, which in the Martyrs you make their in∣firmity, and in charity you might so conceive of the present Ministers: whereof many of them, even of the Bishops, and such as were in exile with the King, and others, at home, and abroad, have shewed their constant adherence to the Doctrine of the Church of England, particularly a∣gainst the ado••ation of the consecrated host, when they were tempted to joyn with the Papists. I wish you did not strengthen the hands of the Papists, by this your plead∣ing, rather than help to reduce them from their great abo∣minations: and that you did not weaken the Protestant party, by hind••ing the union that should be among men that agree in the main, though they dissent in some things considerable, in this time, wherein the common Cause is endangered by divisions. If the Martrys were but peeping out of the gates of Babylon, it may seem, they were not, in your opinion, escaped thence, if some of the filth of the great

Whores fornications did cleave to them, how is it, they are now with Christ, where no unclean thing enters? That they should repent of that which they offered to justifie a little afore they dyed, is not likely. It would be more for your com∣fort, and the Churches peace, if by getting out of Babylon, you did not run to the contrary extreme of Fana••icism: and in seeking Reformation, you did no•• unsettle all; and that you did review this Argument, in which I find strong accusation, and weak proof.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Ainsworth of the Church of Rome against Johnson, p▪ 145. Every a∣buse doth not make a thing an Idol; but, when the honour due to God a∣lone, is given to a creature, then it is made an Idol.
• * 1.2

  Vide Gatak. Annot. in An∣tonin. l. 12. sect. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.3

  Vide Bezae Annot. in Matth. 26.20.30.
• * 1.4

  Dr. Rainold in his Letter to Mr. Barker, te∣stifies his sil••n∣cing Hart the Jesuite here∣with; which is extant in Mr. ••yfords Apolo∣gy, p. 11.
• * 1.5

  Ludov. Croci∣us Antisoci∣nism. contr. disp. 22. qu. 3.

  Geniculando coenam sume∣re nos per se indifferens ju∣dicamus. q. 11. Nobis hic ri∣tus est indiffe∣rens, allegatq, Lutherum, M••∣lanchthonem, ut idem statue∣tes, contra Flacium.
• * 1.6

  See Dr. Ham∣mond of Scan∣dal, § 21.