Plain Declaration that Brownists be Full Donatists, Part 2

Plain Declaration that Brownists be Full Donatists · Part 2

p. 70An anſwere to Maſter Greenewood, touching read prayer.

MAſter Greenewood in the preface of his booke, dooth ſhew, that the reaſons ſpread abroade in writing againſt read praier were his, which I did not knowe before now, and therefore bee taketh vponupon him the defence of them. He would ſeeme to hauehave found out ſuch a deapth of ſpirituall wiſdome touching the holie exerciſe of prayer, and ſo reprooueth the groſenes of this age, that wee muſt eſteeme him for the aboundance of ſpirit, as an other Montanus. For whereas hee ſeemeth to charge this age onelie as groſſe in this poynt, in verie deede he accuſeth all ages, all Churches, and all the learned teachers that hauehave beene ſince the Apoſtles; ſo that in the gifts of the ſpirite he excelleth all. Hee ſaieth hee could yet neuer ſee it ſet downe, which is the true praier that onelie pleaſeth God. It is a ſtrange thing hee hath neuer heard, that whoſoeuer aſketh in faith, whether it be with preſcript forme, or otherwiſe it is the onelie true praier that pleaſeth God. Hee ſaieth I hauehave flien vponupon him with bitterneſſe of ſpirite and carnall wiſdome, loding him and the faithfull with opprobrious titles. It is to no purpoſe that I ſhould anſwer againe with words, but when men ſhall once ſee throughlie into the fowlnes and dangers of Brow…iſme, and what filthie geare they ſpread abroade, they will th…nke it requiſite and neceſſarie to call a ſpade, a ſpade: Donatiſme p. 71muſt bee called Donatiſme, ſchiſme muſt bee called ſchiſme, and hereſies and fantaſies muſt hauehave their due titles. And now touching the defence he maketh, it is nothing but certaine ragges which he peeceth together to couer his nakednes, which alſo muſt be plucked from him. It ſeemeth he doth truſt to the ignorance, or raſhnes of ſome, which either cannot, or will not examine things aright.

God is a ſpirit, & to be worſhipped in ſpirit. I did & do cō feſſe, y^t this ſcripture doth cut downe all carnall worſhip, as diſagreeing from the nature of God: & therefore may moſt fitlie be alleaged againſt ſuch as ſhall maintaine that the verie bodilie action in reading is the worſhip of God. But it is friuolous to applie it againſt praying after a preſcript forme: ſeeing a man may vponupon a booke pray reading or after a preſcript forme with ſighes and groanes which procéed of faith. Maſter Greenewood termeth this a bodilie diſtinction. Doubtles if it be a bodilie diſtinction to affirme that the verie bodilie action of reading a prayer is not the worſhip of God (which we maintaine againſt the Papiſts in their lippe labour) I knowe not what Maſter Greenwood will allowe to bee ſpirituall. What manner of ſpirit is his? But now that he will put away all my diſtinctions by his affirming ſtill (for thoſe bee his wordes) and what? Euen the whole matter in queſtion betweene vsus: who cannot ſee what a valiant champion he is, for how falſelie he ſaith he hath prooued, ſhall appeare? Then hauing ſtoutlie affirmed that which is in queſtion, he ſaith, and yet ſay you to applie this ſcripture thus againſt read prayer is friuolous. How commeth in this word (yet)? Doth it follow that I do not well in ſaying ſo, notwithſtanding you affirme the contrarie: but you hauehave a reaſon of great force, which is in theſe words, I appeale to all mens conſciences for the waight thereof. Shall the conſciences of all men bee made iudge whether that ſcripture bee rightlie applied? Nay, I appeale from the conſciences of the Browniſts. Now in the next words where I affirmed that a man may pray by the Spirite of GOD, with ſighes and groanes vponupon a booke, or when p. 72he prayeth after a preſcript forme, and therefore the application of that ſcripture is friuolous, his ſhiftes are as ſlender. For touching this clauſe, that I ſay, (or after a preſcript forme) he ſaith, I goe about to alter the queſtion at the firſt ſteppe. For as much as all our prayers ought to be vttered after a preſcript forme, euen that perfect rule and forme our Sauiour gaue to his diſciples and all poſterities. A great peece of work. By vttering after a preſcript forme, I meane when a man hath learned a prayer eyther of the ſcripture, or framed from thence, and can vtter it without the booke, as it is written.

And whereas it can not be denied, but that many do pray feruentlie with ſighes and grones and teares, which reade the prayer vponupon the booke, or hauehave it as we vſe to ſay, by hart: He anſwereth that I begge the queſtion. If a man do proue the cauſe by the effects, which I doe heere, it is no begging of the queſtion, but a firme proofe. Where any thing is burnt, there hath beene fire. Where there be ſighes and grones in prayer with inward comfort, there is faith, there is Gods ſpirit, but theſe are in ſome that reade their prayers vponupon the booke, or vſe preſcript forme.

Maiſter Greenewood thinketh he hath diſputed ſubtillie, and couered himſelfe, when he can ſay, ye alter the queſtion, ye begge the queſtion, ye aſſume the queſtion. Nowe touching the defence of his reaſons he brought. If thoſe ſighes and grones (ſaith he) were of faith, that would miniſter matter of prayer without a booke. This reaſon (as I ſayd) is by connection drawne from the force and effect of faith, and to make it ſtrong and good, I ſaid theſe two things muſt be added, y^t faith needeth no outward helpe to miniſter matter of prayer, and that it can not ſtande or be ioyned with any outward helpes, which I ſaid are both hereticall. He ſaith he will lay the wordes againe before me, if peraduenture I may hauehave grace to call my ſelfe backe. I looke vponupon them againe, and although I did not two yeares (as you vainely imagine) nor yet two daies, conſider of that one ſaying, yet can I not call my ſelfe back, p. 73vnleſſe I be conuinced with the light of truth: and that ye ſay I ſhalbe, and will ſo confirme your ſayings by ſcriptures, that no peruerted ſpirit ſhalbe able to gaineſay or reſiſt. If the ſighes and grones were of faith, that would miniſter matter without a booke, for the ſcripture (ye affirme) teacheth euerie where that in praying, the ſpirit onelyonly helpeth our infirmities, no other helpes mentioned, or can be collected in the preſent action of praier through the ſcripture. He hath ſēt into our harts the ſpirit of his ſonne crying Abba father, wee beleeue, therefore we ſpeake. From hence now Maiſter Greenewood concludeth that I hauehave erred, and from an idle braine, & godles heart hauehave coined thoſe hereſies, becauſe I conſtraine the propoſition of the preſent action, in praying vntounto a generall ſentence of all times and actions. This is the ſumme of your anſwere, that before prayer there neede helpes and outward meanes, but in the preſent action of prayer, onelyonly the ſpirit doth helpe, let vsus ſee howe true this is, and how it dooth excuſe yee from thoſe hereticall opinions, which ye goe about to wipe away with this diſtinction.

Firſt whereas yee ſay that in the verie time and action of prayer, it is the ſpirit alone without any outward means, becauſe the ſcripture ſaith, God hath ſent into our heartes the ſpirit of his ſonne crying abba Father. I anſwere, that howſoeuer the ſcripture doth extoll or magnifie outwarde helpes, and meanes, yet when they are compared with God which worketh all in all by them, or when the ſcripture will ſet foorth the efficacie and worke to be his alone, they are either not mētioned, or elſe if they be mētioned, ſo caſt down as if they were nothing. God buildeth his Church by the miniſterie of men: yet he ſaith Paule planteth, Appollo watereth, but God giueth y^e increaſe: So that neither he which plāteth is any thing, nor he that watreth, but God that giueth the increaſe. 1. Co. 3. And therfore to gather frō thoſe ſentences of ſcripture where the ſpirit of God is only mentioned to work praier, becauſe the work is his alone, y^t there p. 74neede or there may be no outward helps or meanes in the verie inſtant and action of praying, is farre awrie. For I would hauehave maſter Greenwood anſwere whether the voice of an other that prayeth, whether faſting, liſting vp the eyes and hands (which hee mentioned) or whether proſirating the bodie and kneeling be prayer it ſelfe, or outward meanes to make the prayer more feruent? Euerie ſimple man will laugh at him, if he ſay they be prayer it ſelfe, whereupon hee muſt bee forced to confeſſe they bee but outward helpes and meanes. Then aſke maſter Greenwood againe, whether a man be to faſt, to kneele downe, to proſtrate his bodie, to lifte vp his eyes and hands onelyonly before the action of prayer, or in praying? If he anſwere, what a queſtion is that, what foole will ſay before? thoſe things are to be done in the very inſtant and action of prayer. Then all men may ſée that maſter Greenwood hath brought this, I will not ſay from an idle braine, for I ſhould not ſay true; but from an vnſound braine: that he may confirme by many teſtimonies of ſcripture, that the ſpirit onelyonly helpeth our infirmities in the preſent action of prayer, that no peruerted ſpirit ſhalbe able to gayn-ſay or reſiſt. Yee ſée the ſpirit of trueth can reſiſt it, and proue that not onelyonly before prayer, but euen in the very action of prayer, outward helps and meanes eſpecially for the ignorant and dull are needfull and good, and therefore the Browniſts ſpirit is a falſe ſpirit, which ſaith, The ſcripture teacheth eueryevery where that in praying the ſpirite onelyonly helpeth our infirmities, no other helps mentioned or can be collected in the preſent action of praier. In the next place, where hee had ſaid, A troubled heart is the pen of a readie writer, & therfore needeth not a booke. I ſayd here can bee no good argument without an abſolute perfection in knowledge, cheerefulnes, direction, memorie and vtterance, and that many are ſo perplexed in their troubles of heart, that they cannot pray, which through helpe of outward meanes doe powre foorth tears and ſupplications: He will not allow this for any anſwere; but doth diſtinguiſh of troubled mindes. The troubled minde he ſpeaketh of, p. 75which is the pen of a readie writer, is (when the minde is preſently moued with the ſight of ſome ſin or vrged by other occaſion,) a broken ſpirite, a broken and contrite heart. Pſal. 51. and not the minde which in diſpaire or doubt is perplexed. Then I anſwere that he muſt allow theſe latter the helpes and outward meanes, that they may be rid of their doubt and perplexitie. Moreouer, there is no man ſo perfect in faith, but he hath great remnants in him of diſpaire and doubting. Why elſe did Dauid crie out, Correct me not in thy wrath, my bones are troubled. Pſal. 6. Caſt me not out from thy face Pſal. 51 While I kept ſilence my bones did weare away, my moyſture was turned into the drought in Summer. pſal. 32. Hath God forgottē to be merciful, hath he ſhut vp his compaſſiōs in wrath, pſal. 77. Whereupon it doth follow, that there is no man but may be fore troubled and perplexed with doubts, when the hand of God is heauie vponupon him, and the ſight of his ſinnes doth terrifie him. It is not the glorie of faith to bee where there are us doubts of diſpaire or no perplexities▪ but to get the victorie ouer them when they do aſſaile it. Therfore the ignoranter ſorte in perplexitie need outward helps. The next part of mine anſwere, that ſuch as be troubled and perplexed and cannot pray, are holpen by a booke, and by other meanes, hee doth allow and agree vntounto, So that wee make reading one thing and praying another. Who doubteth that they be two things? did not I ſet downe at the firſt that the bodely action of reading is not the worſhip of God? Then maſter Greenwood hath his deſire (ſeeing as he ſaith) wee cannot do both at once, he that prayeth ſpeaketh to God, My God why doeſt thou hide thy face from me? But the Prieſt may ſay, My booke whie art thou ſo euill printed? For when they reade, the heart cannot reaſon and talke with God. If the matter written in the booke bee a ſpeach directed vntounto God, as In thee O Lord hauehave I put my truſt, let me neuer be confoūded, let maſter Greenewood or all the Browniſts in the world, bring anie coulour of reaſon to prooue, that a man cannot at the ſame p. 76inſtant both vtter it with his mouth in reading, and pray it with his heart. Maſter Greenwood muſt denie this againe. For alas what ſtuffe is this? or els how did they ſing pſalms to GOD and reade them vponupon the booke? how can a man heare and pray both at one inſtant? Then in the next where he ſaith, I did but aſſume the queſtion, in affirming that a man may pray by the ſpirit vponupon a booke, &c. his argument being thus, That none worſhip God but they which from the inward faith of the heart bring foorth true inuocation. This doo not they that reade vponupon the booke while they pray. I ſayd he bringeth nothing to prooue the aſſumption, but that which is friuolous. For that it is ſayd, wee would hauehave men inſtead of powring foorth their hearts, to helpe themſelues vponupon a booke. I anſwere, that we wiſh men to vſe the helpe of a booke that they may the better powre foorth their hearts to GOD, beeing ſuch as are not otherwiſe throughly able. And that we would hauehave men to fetch the cauſe of their ſighing and ſorrowing from another mans writing, euen in the time of their begging at Gods hand. I anſwered, how fondlie doo ye make that to bee the cauſe, which doth but manifeſt the cauſe? For that which we reade or heare doth but ſhewe vntounto vsus the miſerie which is within, and how it ſhall bee cured. Now let the reader obſerue how ſimple ſhifts he findeth here. The firſt is the difference betweene reading and praying, the one beeing a powring foorth of ſupplications, the other a receiuing into the ſoule ſuch things as wee reade. I pray ye tell me but this, when one heareth a prayer pronounced by another with whom he praieth, doth not his hearing receiue it into his ſoule, and at the very ſame inſtant alſo he doth powre it foorth as a praier to GOD? Are not the receiuing in and the powring foorth done both at once? How will he auoid the follie that I charged him withall, when receiuing in, and powring foorth, goe together at the ſame inſtant? But it is beyond all the reſt, that he ſaith, I graunt the whole queſtion, by granting that reading the prayers is not the prayer, but an helpe. Is it all one to aſke whether a man may be holpen to prayer by reading, p. 77and whether the reading it ſelfe be praier? Hereupon hee alſo inferreth, that all our aſſemblies hauehave had none other inuocation of Gods name, but an helpe to teach them to power foorth their hearts. Then belike it followeth that whereſoeuer the helpe is, there is, or there can be no more: becauſe ſuch as read vponupon a booke when they pray hauehave a good helpe to further them, therefore they doo not pray. Becauſe I ſaide it is an helpe to ſuch as bee not otherwiſe throughlie able: I muſt confeſſe that our whole Miniſterie is vnable; a reaſon worthie a Browniſt. There be other cauſes whie all Churches vſe preſcript forme, yea whereas all Miniſters be able to pray without a booke.

Where I ſaide yee ſpeake fondlie to call that the cauſe which dooth but manifeſt the cauſe: yee replie that I hauehave forgotten mine atts, becauſe there be mo cauſes than one, there be inſtrumentall cauſes. I graunt there be moe cauſes than one. And it is certaine that the efficient cauſe is manifolde, if you meane by fetching the cauſe of their ſorrowing from the booke in the time of their begging at Gods hand, the efficient cauſe inſtrumentall: I would hauehave yee but anſwer whether the inſtrumental cauſe cannot goe with the action, but the action is ouerthrowne or diſgraced? I would alſo demaund whether it followe which yee collect, there is an inſtrumentall cauſe which is an helpe: therefore there is nothing elſe? Are theſe things other than trifles? I ſaide yee did anſwere nothing to that ſaying of our Sauiour, When ye pray, ſay our Father which art in Heauen, &c. Luke 11. Yee ſeeme, that yee will not anſwer vnles I conclude from this place by Syllogiſme: but yet afterward yee do…. And indeede what needeth a Syllogiſme where the words are of themſelues ſufficient, without anie further conſequence or collection. If our Sauiour commaund to ſay thoſe words praying, then is it moſt cleere, that to vſe a preſcript forme of words in praying is not idolatrie, nor a thing moſt deteſtable. But yee ſay yee manifeſted in your firſt writing, that our Sauiour did not commaund to vſe thoſe words when wee pray: but to pray according to p. 78that forme. Saint Matthew ſay you and Saint Luke, keep not the ſame words, nor that number of words: hee ſaide not reade theſe words, or ſay th…ſe words by roate when ye pray. Theſe reaſons I hauehave ſlilie paſſed ouer, as you accuſe me. What reaſons? If it be a reaſon there is but one: for Chriſts ſpeech is plaine, when yee pray ſay thus: therefore we may vſe thoſe words. But muſt wee vſe them of neceſſitie and neuer none other? Not ſo, but wee may vſe, and it is neceſſarie for vsus to vſe particulars, which are conteined in thoſe generals which are the ground and direction of all prayers. Your one reaſon or that which hath ſhew of reaſon is in this, that Saint Luke dooth omitte for thine is the Kingdome, &c. And that in the fourth and fift petitions they expreſſe the ſame matter with ſome difference of words. As though the queſtion were about ſuch a preciſenes in words, that wee might not expreſſe the ſame petition in another phraſe, but it ceaſeth to be the ſame? Now where I conclude that it is therefore lawfull to vſe a preſcript forme of prayer, which is framed according to the Scriptures, in the aſſemblies. To this yee replie that becauſe no mans writings are without error, it is pernicious and blaſphemous doctrine which I collect. This yee affirme ſtoutlie, and for proofe bring nothing but thoſe ſtale cauills which I hauehave ſundrie times anſwered: and now yee will anſwer to the two places alleaged, Numb. 6. and Luke. 11. The prieſtes yee ſay were not commanded to vſe thoſe verie words of the bleſsing, when they bleſſed the people, the reaſon yee bring is from the Hebrew words which are as you ſay, Coh teborcu, thus ſhall yee bleſſe, Where the worde Coh is an aduerb of ſimilitude, as we ſay after this manner: which cannot be to ſay the ſame, but according to the ſame inſtructions. This word Coh is vſed throughout the Bible in this manner, in all the prophets, when they ſay, thus ſaith the Lord. To this I anſwer, firſt let all men of anie meane learning, in the Hebrew bee witnes, how vnfit Maſter Greenewood is to reaſon from that tongue, when hee can not ſo much as reade two words of it aright. For he ſaieth p. 79Coh teborcu, and it is Coh tebaracu. Then for the matter it ſelfe, this learned Hebrucian ſaith, that Coh being an aduerb of ſimilitude, as we ſay after the ſame manner, it cannot be to ſay the ſame, but according to the ſame inſtructions. Where ignorance & boldnes are met together, what childrē they bring foorth? We muſt beleeue that the Lord when he ſaith, thus ſhalt thou bleſſe, and preſcribeth the words, willeth the Prieſts not to ſpeake the ſame words, but the like. And when our Sauiour ſaith, When ye pray, ſay thus, Our father &c. It is as much as if he ſhould ſay, in any wiſe ſay not theſe wordes at any time, but the like. For, thus, is not the ſame, but the like. God ſayd to Moſes, I will ſend thee to Pharao, that thou maieſt bring the children of Iſrael out of Egypt. Moſes draweth backe, ſaying, when I ſhall come to the children of Iſrael and ſhall ſay vntounto them, the God of your fathers hath ſent me vntounto ye: If they ſhall ſay vntounto me, what is his name? what ſhall I ſay vntounto them? The Lord ſayd. Thus ſhalt thou ſay to the children of Iſrael, Eheie hath ſent me vntounto ye. Moreouer, God ſayd to Moſes, Thus ſhalt thou ſay vntounto them, The God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Iſaak, the God of Iaacob hath ſent me vntounto ye. Exod. 3. verſ. 13, 14, 15.

Now, according to Maſter Greenwoods expoſition of Coh, Moſes is not commanded to ſay thoſe words but the like. If they ſhould demaund what is his name that hath ſent thee? he may not ſay Eheie hath ſent me, becauſe God ſayd Coh, that is thus, which is not the ſame words but the like. He might not ſay the God of Abraham, the God of Iſaak, the God of Iaacob hath ſent me vntounto ye, which GOD ſaith is his name and memoriall for euer, becauſe God ſayd Coh, that is, thus ſhalt thou ſay, but hee muſt ſay the like words. He ſaith further, that Coh is ſo vſed in all the Prophets, when it is ſayd, thus ſaith the Lord. That is, GOD hath not ſpoken theſe very words, which wee bring, might the Prophets ſay, but the like. It is a like thing that Maſter Greenwood, or ſome other Hebrucian among the Browniſts, hath read ouer al the Prophets in the Hebrew tongue, p. 80to finde how Coh is euerie where vſed, when he could not reade two words right. And now what ſhall we ſay of the Scriptures? the words, if wee ſhall beléeue the Browniſts, are not Gods words, but the words of the Prophets. Is this wholeſome doctrine? Did the Prophets bring any one word which GOD did not put into their mouth? I pray ye Maſter Greenwood, or any other Browniſt, tell me, did not God ſpeake in the Prophets all the words that they vttered, euen at the verie inſtant when they ſay, thus ſaith the Lord? How can it then ſo wickedly be ſayd, they were not the very ſame words which God ſpake, but the like, becauſe the aduerb thus doth ſignifie the like, and not the ſame? But hée rendreth a reaſon, which is, that we hauehave but the ſumme of their propheſies recorded vntounto vsus by the holie Ghoſt, and not all the words. Becauſe we hauehave not all the words, therefore hauehave we not the ſame in thoſe that are ſet downe? Did the holie Ghoſt vſe this word Coh, to giuegive vsus to vnderſtand that there is written but an abridgement or ſumme of matters, and not the ſame words, that they were vttered in, but ſome ſuch like? Againe, did the holie Ghoſt recorde them, & are they not all his words which are written in the ſumme of the propheſies ſet downe? Shall we beléeue this man? I doo beléeue him in this that he ſaith the holie Ghoſt did record them: for therein he ſpeaketh the trueth. But when he ſaith, that thus ſaith the Lord, is not theſe ſame words ſaith the Lord, but the like, becauſe thus is an aduerb of likenes, it is a vile ſaying. Is not the holie Ghoſt the Lord? If hée had ſpoken thoſe things before in moe words, and now recordeth them in fewer, ſaying, thus ſaith the Lord, doth not he ſpeake theſe fewer words which are written, as well as thoſe moe wordes which were vttered? Are they not then, thus ſaith the Lord, euen the verie ſame words which the Lord ſpeaketh, and not like? If ye make many ſuch expoſitions of words ye may leade me whether ye will. There is then another reaſon rendred to prooue that the Prieſts were not tied vntounto thoſe wordes in bleſſing the people, namely, that in prayer they are bleſſed in the Pſalmes and in the p. 81Chronicles with many other words. And Eli bleſſed Hanna in other words. It is not the queſtion whether at any time the people might bee bleſſed in other words, in fewer, or in moe: but whether the Prieſts had not that forme preſcribed to vtter in bleſſing the whole aſſemblie, and whether it were Idolatrie to vſe thoſe preſcript phraſes of wordes? As likewiſe it is not maintained that when our Sauiour ſaith, ſay thus, that wee may not pray in other words, or expreſſe our petitions more particularlie: but that we may vſe thoſe words and ſentences as moſt excellent petitions. Againſt this Maſter Greenwood bringeth nothing in his words that followe. For Maſter Caluine neuer held it vnlawful to pray in that forme of words, though he teach truelie, that men are not ſo tied vntounto it, that they may vſe none other. And therefore it ſtandeth firme and ſure that the forme of words in the Lords Prayer is to bee lawfullie vſed praying.

In the next part Maſter Greenwood is in a great heate, and maketh an outcrie to call men to the beholding of an iniurie, which I, as he ſaith, as a godles man hauehave done him. Here (ſaith he) I muſt call all men that reade this fruitles diſcourſe, to be witneſſe, &c. Indeede ye may well call it a fruitles diſcourſe, which ye call men that reade to beare witneſſe with ye: and let the reader iudge by your expoſition of Coh, whether it be not worſe than fruitleſſe which ye ſpread among the ignorant ſort, which are readie to ſucke in ſuch filthie dregges. The abuſe of my tongue to the defacing of Gods trueth, is that I ſayd, he calleth all men Idolaters. And to make the matter cléere that he ſpake not the words, but I my ſelfe, he maketh a briefe repetition how we fell into that matter. But before we procéede any further, I pray ye tell me what is the reaſon, that I hauing ſet downe your whole diſcourſe touching this poynt, ſo that you cannot denie but that I hauehave alſo ſet it downe truely, you forſake that and ſet downe by péece meale but ſome of your words, and reaſon from them: If I had ment in a godles manner wilfully to peruert your words, would I hauehave deliuered them p. 82whole and together in print? It ſeemeth ye hauehave ſome hope that ſome men will reade your booke, which will not compare it with mine, or which being carried with blind heate, cannot. Now I craue no more of the reader but to marke the whole ſpeach which you deliuered, and mine anſwere to it, and to iudge indifferently. If Maſter Greenwoods words bee not ſuch as muſt needes include that which I hauehave collected, let me beare the blame for that matter, which is one of the leaſt. He ſaith I hauehave an euaſion to auoide this foyle, becauſe I ſayd I tooke it we reaſoned about ſuch groſſe Idolatrie, as a Church is to bee condemned and forſaken for which is defiled therewith. He ſaith he neuer reaſoned to that end in this whole diſcourſe. And I ſay then he muſt go from his owne words, which affirme that read prayer offered vp to GOD as a ſacrifice is Idolatrie: that to reade the prayer while one praieth, is a chaunging the worke of the ſpirit into an Idoll, a bondage and breaking of Chriſtian libertie, a thing moſt deteſtable, a deuice of Antichriſt. Let all men iudge by theſe ſpeaches what manner of Idolatrie was in queſtion betweene vsus. Maſter Greenwood as if he had wonne the field, will needs put me to my raunſome, and aſketh what mends I will make him for this ſlandering? I anſwer, that as your victorie is but in a dreame, ſo my raunſome muſt be therafter. If I could ſée I had done ye wrong, I would be ſorie. Ye will hauehave no man free from ſuch foule Idolatrie, but yet no Idolaters. No Church is free ye confeſſe from all ſpot vponupon earth. Hereupon ye growe againe into a newe heate, and charge me out of one mouth to giuegive contrarie ſentence, becauſe I call ye Donatiſts. Why man, are ye ignorant of this, that the Donatiſts did confeſſe all men to bee ſinners, and yet the arguments by which they would maintaine their ſchiſme could not bee ſtrong, vnleſſe they would maintaine a perfection, and ſome of their reaſons though they ment not ſo reached ſo farre. And ſo is it with you Browniſts. If one ſhould followe ye in all the groſſe abſurdities which will followe from your expoſition of Coh, thus ſaith the Lord, could you hauehave any way but to p. 83proteſt ye did meane no ſuch thing▪ Wee may not looke what men proteſt they hold, but what doth followe of their reaſons, and then ye ſhall ſee that ſuch as be in ſchiſme and hereſie are with the blaſts of their ſwelling pride toſſed and hurled vponupon contrarie Rockes. Now, whereas I ſayd the confeſſion of the Browniſts, that there is no Church in earth without ſpottes of Idolatrie, doth ouerthrowe the reaſons which they bring to condemne the Church of England. Becauſe they cannot argue thus, this is a fault, it is Idolatrie: therefore this or that aſſemblie which is ſpotted is no true Church. But they muſt prooue the Idolatrie to bee ſuch as deſtroyeth the faith, &c. Maſter Greenwood would beare men in hand, that I reaſon as ſimplie, as to ſay, if there bée no true Church in earth without ſpots, then the Church of Rome is the true Church, for that hath many ſpots. I anſwere, that we doo not take it that the ſpots doo make it a true Church, but becauſe there bee onelyonly ſpottes and not fundamentall errors? The fooliſh cauill here is that I aſſume that which I ſhould prooue. Doo I not prooue it by anſwering the vile and ſhameles ſlaunders of yours, when ye affirme euerie ſpot in our Churches to be blaſphemies and hereſies and abominations, and Egyptian ſores? You muſt prooue theſe your ſlaunders true, and I will ceaſe.

Now we come to the arguments which were ſet down at the firſt. No Apocrypha is to be brought into the publike aſſemblies, all read prayer is Apocripha. Here you ſay I hauehave nothing to vtter, and yet oppoſe againſt both propoſicions, to royle the doctrine with my feete leaſt others ſhould drink of it. I ſayd your propoſition is falſe becauſe the expoſition of the ſcriptures by the preacher, and the prayers of the preacher are not canonicall, which your propoſition doth exclude. Your replie is, that the Sermons and prayers of of the Preacher be the liuely voyce of Gods owne graces which ye mention in your propoſition, and ſo neither Canonicall, nor Apocripha: and ſo not excluded. Touching the Paraphraſe vponupon the Pſalmes in meeter, I holde not Canonicall in ſome reſpects: If you baniſh all writings that be p. 84not Canonicall, then ye baniſh then. Your anſwere is, that it I will affirme them to be Apocrypha, as ye ſay I cannot but doe; you will prooue they are not to be brought into the publike aſſemblies. Your proofes doe follow: Firſt no mans writings are giuen by the teſtimonie of Gods ſpirit, whome alone we are to heare. No mans writings are without errors and imperfections: The Church is builded vponupon the foundation of the Apoſtles and Prophets: If we might bring in mens writings, then al mens writings which are agreeable to Gods word. No mans writings carie that maieſtie that the pen of the holy ghoſt. No mans writings are authentike confirmed by ſignes and wonders. The ſcripture is all ſufficient; al men muſt walk by that one rule: To think there were not rules enough preſcribed by the Lorde for his houſe, is blaſphemous and papiſticall. Then ye ſay, the gifts to propheſie, are not Apocryphall, and ſo ye conclude your propoſition: that onelyonly Gods word and the liuely graces of his holy ſpirite are to be offered vp vntounto him in the publike aſſemblies. Then touching your aſſumption: I ſayd I ſee not how our ſpeech to God ſhould be called Apocrypha. Ye replie y^t it anſwereth not you, which do not holde an other mans writing to be our ſpeech vntounto God. Finally becauſe I ſaid that Apocrypha is that which is not Gods vndoubted worde vntounto vsus: yee ſay I hauehave ouerthrowen my ſelfe and caſt out all read prayer, in as much as I deny them to be Canonicall. And ſo affirming that I hauehave not in both writings made one direct anſwer to this moſt firme propoſition: OnelyOnly the Canonicall ſcriptures and liuely voice of Gods own graces are to be brought into the publike aſſemblies for doctrine and prayers: But mens writings are neither Canonicall, nor the liuely voice of Gods owne graces. Now maſter Greenwood hauing thus played the man in erecting (as he ſuppoſeth) ſo mighty a piller, that cannot be ſhaken, could content himſelf to go no further. I might end here ſaith hee with this vaine man, conſidering the whole matter is proued againſt him: And all that ſolloweth but repetitions of the ſame cauills: but that I muſt cleare p. 85my ſelfe of his vnconcionable ſlaunders. Hee …mphing thus fully, what ſhall I doe now? I aunſwere, firſt that hee is much deceiued and would deceiue others: as it is written, The deceiuers ſhall wax worſe and worſe, deceiuing and being▪ deceiued. For like as one that among many Apples doth hide and ſell one Crab, ſo he among many true principles doth bring in one falſe concluſion which deceiueth his Schollers. For if he did reaſon thus, wee muſt heare onelyonly the voice of Gods ſpirite, therefore all things in the Church are to be tried by the voice of the ſpirit. No mans writings are without errors and imperfections: therefore mē cannot ground vponupon them any further than they be conſonant to the Canonicall ſcriptures. The Church is builded vponupon the foundation of the Apoſtles and Prophets, therfore our faith is to reſt no further vponupon the ſayings and writings of men, than they be prooued by the doctrine of the Apoſtles & Prophets; he ſhould conclude a truth which is vnanſwerable. But now where maſter Greenwoods concluſiō is after this ſorte, therefore nothing but the Canonicall ſcriptures, and the liuely voice of Gods graces is to bee brought into the publike aſſemblies; he concludeth falſely, as ſhall appeare. For if nothing but the perfect rule it ſelfe is to bee brought into the Church: If nothing done by man which hath errors in it, is to hauehave place in the aſſemblies: If nothing but eyther ſuch or that which is the liuely voyce of Gods owne graces is to be vttered in the congregation; then muſt bee taſt foorth not onelyonly al written prayers: but alſo y^e whole bible, vnles it be in y^e Hebrew & Greeke, with the Sermons and praiers of the Paſtors. For there is no tranſlation of the Bible without errors, and the bookes are thus farre mans writing reſpecting onelyonly the tranſlation. And furthermore we decide not controuerſies by any tranſlation of the Bible, but by the authentike copies of the Hebrew and Greek, in one of which the olde teſtament is ſet downe by the Prophets, in the other the new teſtamēt by the Apoſtles. So that your concluſion doth not ſhut out onelyonly the Pſalmes in méeter, but the whole ſcriptures; vnles you will be ſo bolde as p. 86to ſay that tranſlations be without errors, and ſo the perfect rule.

And now touching the ſecond part, will Maſter Greenwood bee ſo vnwiſe as to affirme that the errours in the Sermons and in the prayers of the Paſtors, bee the liuely voyce of Gods owne graces? He will aſſuredly denie it: for the graces of GOD (all ſimple men know) bring not foorth errors. Then let him marke his concluſion, no mens writings are without errours and imperfections, therefore no mens writings are to be brought into the publike aſſemblie: is not this concluſion as ſtrong, no tranſlations of the Bible, no Pſalmes in meeter, no Sermons, nor Prayers of the Paſtors, are without errors and imperfections, therfore none of theſe are to be brought into the publike aſſemblies? Is there any ſo voide of ſenſe, that can not taſt howe ſower this Crabbe is, which Maiſter Greenewood conueieth in among ſo many ſweete Apples? But he replieth further to confirme his matter by argument thus, if anie mens writings may bee brought into the publike aſſemblies, then al mens writings which are thought to be agreeable to Gods word, may be brought in. To prooue the conſequence of this propoſition, he ſaith; If God commaunde any to be brought in as being agreeable to the Scriptures, then by that commaundement all are to bee brought in that be agreeable: If there be no commandement, then none are to be brought in. I anſwere that God hath commaunded that in the Church all thinges bee done for edification, now the prayers being the ſame, being holy & good, are of like maieſtie & dignitie in thēſelues vttred by him that conceaueth them, or from a preſcript forme, the matter reſteth not in that, but in the faith and feruencie of thoſe that pray, there be errours and imperfections, as well in the one as in the other, but to auoide inconuenience, and for the benefite of the ſimpler ſort, a preſcript forme is needefull, & ſo farre commaunded. Then ſee how friuolous this concluſion is, that ſo all mens writinges which are thought to be agreeable to the word, are to bee brought in, p. 87ſeeing that which is conuenient in ſome, is not conuenient in all. His reaſons which follow are in effect all one with the former, and prooue not that concluſion of his, to ſhut foorth the preſcript forme of prayer. Let the Browniſt now ſet the word Apocripha aſide, which is but a woord, and not of the Scriptures, and go to the matter it ſelfe, drawing by firme concluſion▪ that nothing is to be allowed any place in the Church which is not the perfect rule it ſelfe, in writing, or without errours vttred in ſpeech, and I will yéelde. But this ſhall all the Browniſtes in the world be neuer able to do, as I hauehave ſufficiently ſhewed before. What then, or where is his glorie and victorie which he boaſteth off, to be ſuch that hee needeth to proceede no further? But nowe I woulde hauehave the reader to vnderſtande my meaning aright, and how I argue: leaſt any ſhould thinke I compare the hauing the Bible in a tranſlation, and the prayers and Sermons of the Paſtors, with the preſcribed forme of prayer, to be of but equall or like neceſſitie. The ſumme of that I ſet downe is to this effect, that it is falſe which Maiſter Greenewood ſtandeth to prooue, namely that nothing with errour in it is to bee brought into the publicke aſſemblies, ſeeing there is a neceſſitie of hauing the ſcriptures in a tranſlation: there is alſo a neceſſitie of hauing the ſermons and Prayers of the Miniſters, and yet errours in both, that which is of neceſſitie to be had, may not bee caſt foorth, becauſe of imperfections and errours: then alſo preſcript forme of prayers, though not of neceſſitie, yet for conueniencie vntounto edification, is not to be caſt foorth, becauſe of imperfections, being not to increaſe, but to diminiſh the errours in praying.

The next argument is this, Wee muſt doe nothing in the worſhip of God, without warrant of his word. Read prayers hauehave no warrant of his woorde.

How falſe this aſſumption is, namely, That to reade a prayer when one doth pray, or to followe a preſcript forme, hath no warrant in Gods woord, I hauehave ſhewed p. 88by ſundrie ſcriptures and reaſons, and anſwered al the ſhifts brought againſt them, for which I referre the Reader to my former booke.

Maiſter Greenewood preſſed with the waight of truth, and finding he had vttred groſſe matter, could be content (but that as he ſaith to anſwere vnconſcionable ſlaunders) to ſtay in the firſt argument: as hauing wonne the field, but yet he goeth on, and by vaine ſhiftes wil doe as well as he can to couer his fault. Firſt he accuſeth me that not hauing anſwered one reaſon, I hauehave with much euill conſcience (as the handling ſheweth) peruerted them, ſaying hee will leaue them to be iudged of them that ſhall ſee his writing: and ſeeing I would not Print it, he will anſwere my chief obiections. Touching this I anſwere, that your words are manie, and I eſteemed it a wearieſome matter to write them all, accounting it ſufficient to note your reaſons, but looke whatſoeuer ye complayne off, that I hauehave peruerted and done ye wrong in, ye ſhall hauehave them in thoſe pointes fully and wholy deliuered, that all the worlde may ſee and iudge betweene vsus, whether I hauehave wilfully, and vnconſcionably, and as a godleſſe man (as ye accuſe me) charged ye with any one thing which your words doe not containe.

Now to proceede to your replie: Firſt, yee ſay that I graunt your Argument is ſounde, if yee put difference between reading vponupon the booke, and that which one hath learned out of the booke. For by your owne confeſſion (ſay you) God hath not giuen any commandement to read prayer, and ſo it hath no warrant. Hereupon yee charge mee, that as an vnconſtant man, I call back againe that which I had graunted: I ſaide I did not remember that euer I did read in the holie Scriptures that God commandeth the prayer ſhall bee read vponupon the Booke, If I hauehave called now to remembrance, where it is reade, It were no vnconſtancie to ſay now, there is commaundement. But in deede I doe not remember I hauehave euer reade any ſuch commaundement. But now you boaſt of your gaines by this confeſſion, ſaying that I graunt then there is no warrant. Lay all my words p. 89together, and yee may put your gaine in your eye, and ſee neuer the worſe. I ſet downe firſt of all that it is great audatitie, to affirme that there is no warrant of the word, for read prayer, ſeeing there be ſundrie teſtimonies to warrant the ſame, as I hauehave ſhewed: for the Lord preſcribed a forme of bleſſing, and commaunded the Prieſts ſo to bleſſe Num. 6. He preſcribed a forme of prayer for the people at the offering the firſt fruites, and cōmaunded thē to vſe it Deutr. 26 The Pſalme for the ſabaoth was commaunded to bee ſong, the Pſalme 22. was to bee ſong euerie morning, and theſe they were tied vntounto by expreſſe commaundement, though not to the booke, becauſe it is more commendable to hauehave them by heart. And the Lorde dooth not tye a man to that which is leſſe cōmendable. This is the ſumme of that reaſon which I vſed, from whence there is warrant to followe a preſcript forme. Maſter Greenewood vrgeth this, if there be no commaundement, then there is no warrant: and affirmeth it to bee inconſtancie to ſay there is no commaundement to reade praying, and yet ſome warrant for it by the word. I hauehave anſwered, that God tied the Prieſts and people vntounto ſome preſcript formes, though not preciſelie to the booke. And though that were legall, and no ſuch commandement to tie men of neceſſitie: now yet it ſheweth the thing to be holie and lawfull. Further I adde, if wee reſpect the matter as we ſay in the Theſe, or for a generalty there is no commandement: for then it ſhould bee of neceſſitie and not for conueniencie. But if we regarde it in the Hypotheſe for circumſtances in particularitie, there is commaundement: as thus, God hath commaunded thoſe thinges too bee done which ſerue as helpes for edification, or be moſt conueuient. Then where the ſtate of anie man, or the ſtate of the aſſemblies is ſuch, as that preſcript forme of prayer is conuenient and needefull for edification, there it is commanded. Now let the reader obſerue againe your words, which are that al our miniſters muſt leaue reading their ſtincted praiers vponupon the booke, or elſe ſtand vnderunder Gods wrath, and all that ſo praye with them. Maſter Greenewood complaineth of p. 90great iniury, whē I gather from his words, that he condemneth all Churches, becauſe hee knoweth that is a matter ſufficient alone to bewray the wickednes of Browniſme. Now if all our Miniſters which pray vponupon the booke, and the people, that pray with them ſtand vnderunder the wrath of God for this thing, then cannot they be the Church of God: for GOD loueth his Church; and all Churches hauehave preſcript formes of prayer which their Miniſters vſe: therfore they all ſtand vnderunder Gods wrath. But they doo it ignorantlie, will he ſay; and ſo (ſay I) did all our Churches, vntill his papers came abroad, and manie hauehave not as yet ſeene them: and ſome that hauehave ſeene them are not perſwaded, and ſo are ignorant ſtill. The next thing ye deale with, is the Argument which I drawe from the ſinging Pſalmes vponupon the booke: it is ſo cleere they did ſing them vponupon the booke, that the Browniſt himſelfe cannot denie it. It is alſo moſt manifeſt they did ſing them (as hee alſo now confeſſeth) to God, for ſo are we commaunded in many places, ſing praiſes to God. Then further he that offereth vp praiſe to God reading, it cannot be gainſaide, but that he offereth vp a ſpirituall ſacrifice to God reading. Yea praiſe is one parte of prayer: and it is as hard a thing to ſpeake praiſes to God vponupon the booke, as to craue by petitions vponupon the booke, and as ſpirituall a worke; and I may ſay a more high ſeruice: where is then that groſſe fantaſie of Maſter Greenewood, which becauſe reading is one thing; and ſpeaking to God is another, ſaith a man cannot both read and ſpeake to God at once. He cannot ſay O my God when he readeth, but O my booke why art thou ſo euill printed? I argue if the people of God in olde time, did both reade the Pſalmes vponupon the booke, and ſpeake vntounto the Lord at the ſame inſtant: how ſhould it not now bee both poſſible and lawfull, for to ſpeake vntounto God in praiers while one readeth? Hée ſaieth, I denie your Argument. I ſay that is not ſufficient to denie the Argument: let vsus therefore ſée the reaſons of the deniall. Admitte that ſinging were a part of praier (ſayeth he) yet dooth it not follow that all praier may bee read vponupon p. 91the booke: we muſt take this vponupon your bare word, at leaſt ſuch as will, may beléeue yée. I ſtand to affirme that one part of praier is as ſpirituall a worke as another; thereupon I alſo affirme, that if one part may bee read vppon the booke, and no turning the worke of the ſpirite into an Idoll, no ſt…nting the ſpirite, no quenching the ſpirit, no Idolatrie. no hindrance, but that hee which readeth may ſpeake vntounto God: it may be ſo in any other part. And let vsus ſee what hee will bee able to diſprooue this withall? But hee ſaieth I ſpeake like an ignorant man, to ſay that ſinging is praier, becauſe they be two diuers actions and exerciſes of our faith. The one neuer read for the other, nor ſaide to be a parte of the other, throughout the Scriptures, but are plainelie diſtinguiſhed, As I will praye with the Spirite, I will pray with vnderſtanding, I will ſing with the ſpirit, I will ſing with vnderſtanding, ſaith Saint Paul. I anſwer you could no where more vntimelie accuſe mee of ignorance, then where your owne ſpeech in this and that which followeth next, is patched vp with errors, almoſt as thick as the patches vponupon a beggars cloake. And for anſwere I ſay, firſt, that Saint Paul dooth diſtinguiſh them there is great reaſon, not onelie becauſe the verie ſinging it ſelfe is not praier, no more then reading or ſpeaking: but alſo that there bee manie praiers which are not ſong, and manie Pſalmes and ſongs, which are no formes of praier; nor the ſpéech directed to God: a prayer that is no pſalme is neuer called a pſalme, nor any reaſon why it ſhould: but a Pſalme that is a praier, is called both a Pſalme and a praier. The Pſalme 86. is called Tephillah a praier, and conſiſteth of ſundrie petitions. The Pſalme 90. is ſo called, being the praier of Moſes. Pſalme 102. is called Tephillah leaaui, the praier for the poore, when hee is in perplexitie, and powreth foorth his meditatiō before the Lord. The people praying for Chriſts Kingdome did vſe to ſay, Hoſanna, Bleſſed is he that commeth in the name of the Lord. Pſal. 118. The Pſalme 50. and 119. with many other conta ne petitions, almoſt in eueryevery verſe, which if a man did pray or deſire them earneſtly p. 92ſinging, it was no Idolatrie: ſinging I graunt is not called praier, but men might ſing Pſalmes to God, and were commanded, which contained praiſes and petitions: but they were giuen to the Church, to be ſong or read in y^e forme of praier (ſaith he) but denieth y^t this was to be done praying. He not only confeſſeth they were to ſing thē vntounto God, but alſo ſaith the Lord keep me frō ſuch an error, as to denie that: & yet euē in this cōfeſſion falleth into as groſe a matter. for what can bee more abſurd, than that a man ſhould vtter and ſpeake euen vntounto God that which is a prayer and yet might not pray▪ as when out of the Pſalm. 118. praying for the kingdome of Chriſt, they cried Hoſanna, bleſſed is he that commeth in the name of the Lord: or when for ſome ſpeciall benefite the whole Church was to ſing prayſe to God, and had a preſcript forme deliuered vntounto them: were they to mocke with God, and not to ſpeak prayſes vntounto him indeede from the heart and with chearefulnes▪ or did God commaund them to doe two things which cannot bee done at once▪ or wil any deny that many in ſinging, (though the ſinging it ſelfe be not praying) doe giuegive hearty thankes to God where thankſgiuing is expreſſed, and craue earneſtly when they vtter petitions▪ Maſter Greenewood doth grieuouſly complaine of me for doing him foule wrong in ſaying he denieth that the Pſalmes are to be ſung to God. And what other thing in effect doth he vtter here, when hee ſaith they were not to vtter the wordes of a Pſalme to God praying? But I willſet downe his firſt words which are theſe. The ſame may be ſayde for the hundreth and ſecond Pſalme: for although ſome hauehave taken it as a prayer of the Prophet when he was in affliction, yet may I graunt with you to be taken in the future tenſe, and auoyd that ſuperſtition you would fall into, for if it had beene giuen vntounto the Church to hauehave beene read as a prayer vntounto God, it ſhould hauehave beene ſaide, O Lord heare our prayer, and let our crie come vntounto thee. And therefore it is manifeſt that this Pſalme was giuen to the Iſralites in time of their captiuitie at Babylon, or ſome other ſuch calamitie, to comfort p. 93and inſtruct them how to ſettle themſelues, and powre foorth their prayers before the Lord. But howe will you prooue that the people were to ſay ouer theſe wordes vntounto God▪ for wee may ſee the like by Habbacuc, preſcribing the people a forme of prayers to comfort themſelues, and deliuered it to be ſung in the aſſemblies. Moreouer after manie other wordes maſter Greenwood ſayth thus: And that ſinging of Pſalmes is no part of prayer we may ſee by the exhortation which the Apoſtle vſeth to the Epheſians, ſaying Speake vntounto your ſelues in Pſalmes and Hymnes and ſpirituall ſongs: And to the Colloſ. where it is ſayde Let the word of God dwel in ye plenteouſly in al wiſdome teaching & admoniſhing your ſelues in pſalmes & hymnes and ſpiritual ſongs. And further we reade that Chriſt our Sauiour did giuegive thanks and then ſing a Pſalme after the inſtitution of the Lords Supper: for that ſinging is a reioyſing our ſelues, and inſtructing our ſelues.

Now let the reader iudge, by comparing that which I hauehave written in my former booke with theſe words of his, whether I or he be the godles man which dealeth by vnconſcionable ſlaunders, and with much euil conſcience. Maſter Greenwood denying the vſe of preſcript forme when wee ſpeake vntounto God, and I alleadging the Pſalmes, demandeth how I wil prooue that the people were to ſay ouer thoſe wordes vntounto God▪ And after as you ſee to prooue that the wordes were not to be vttered or ſaid ouer to God praying▪ he alleageth the ſayings of Paule, Speaking to your ſelues and inſtructing your ſeluesin Pſalmes and Hymnes and ſpirituall ſongs, leauing out in both places the latter ende of the ſentence of ſinging to the Lord. Now when I hauehave prooued that the verie wordes of ſome Pſalmes were to be ſaid ouer to God, becauſe the ſcripture is cleare in many places, Sing Pſalmes to God, ſing prayſes to God, &c. and charged him with denying that the Pſalmes are to be ſung to God contrarie to ſuch expreſſe commandement, and blamed him for leauing out the parte of the ſentence which maketh againſt him, he crieth ſhame vponupon me. But maſter Greenwood p. 94it is the light of Gods word, and the waight thereof which doth preſſe ye, and cutteth downe all vngodly fantaſies, and not I. You confeſſe now, becauſe the ſcripture is plaine, that the Pſalmes were to be ſung to God, and yet ye did aſke how I would prooue the people were to ſay ouer the words. Then it followeth that the verie preſcript forms of wordes were to be ſaide ouer to God by your confeſſion, which is the whole matter that I hauehave ſtoode to prooue. And now chuſe whether you will denie that Pſalmes were to be ſung to God, or confeſſe that thoſe verie wordes of the Pſalmes and the preſcript formes were to be ſaid ouer vntounto him in ſinging.

What will he ſay now? This he will ſay, that they were in thoſe words to be ſong vntounto God, but not praying: for he ſaith I muſt proue the Church did vſe to reade the pſalmes. for praying, I wonder how a man can ſpeake to God the ſentences which are praiers, and not praying. Againe I would hauehave any Browniſt ſhew mee what ſpeach wee can hauehave to God which is not praier: if he ſay a man dooth ſpeak to God in giuing him thankes and praiſe, in acknowleging his benefites, in aſcribing vntounto him all wiſdome, power, glorie, goodnes, bountifulnes, faithfulnes, and merciemercy. A man dooth ſpeake to God, when hee confeſſeth his ſinnes, when he complaineth of the iniuries and wrongs of others: I confeſſe, and I ſay withall, that they be all of them parts of praier. Why dooth a man giuegive thankes and praiſe, and mention Gods benefits; but to ſupport his faith, and hope that he ſhall receiue further, and to moue the Lord to continue ſtill good vntounto him, or ſuch like? Why doo we ſpeake vntounto him of his glorious power, wiſdome, merciemercy and trueth, but that our faith and praier dooth reſt vponupon thoſe pillers? Why doo we confeſſe our ſinnes, but as intreating for pardon; and what doo we rehearſe the vniuſt outrage of our aduerſaries, but to procure his iuſt defence and protection: But hee demandeth what this maketh for reading praiers framed by men: I anſwer to the ſame effect which I hauehave euer done, that this is one of the pooreſt cauilles that may p. 95be among a thouſand. We reaſon not about the matter of praiers, but about the reading: for if the matter bee corrupt and naught, the pronouncing or the reading cannot make it better. If the matter be erronious, it is no more authentick pronounced, then read: if it be pure and good pronounced, the reading cannot hurt it, or make it vnpure. The reading it ſelfe is not vnpure when we ſpeake to God: for then ſhould not the Pſalmes hauehave béen ſong vponupon the booke vntounto him. Who is ſo ſenceles then as not to ſée this concluſion to follow, to vtter a preſcript forme of words, in a Pſalme when one ſpeaketh to God is no ſinne. Therefore to followe a preſcript forme of words in any godly praier, when one praieth is not ſinne; for where ſhall we finde the ſinne? If it be in following a preſcript forme, it ſhould hauehave béen vnlawfull to followe it in the Pſalmes. If it be in the matter, becauſe there bee errors in all mens writings; and therefore to bee caſt foorth: then I ſay the errors, and not the reading is in the fault, and for which only there muſt be the caſting forth, and ſo we muſt caſt foorth the praiers of the preachers. To his next words, I anſwer that it is not the repeating ouer the ſame godlie petitions againe eueryevery day, that maketh it the ſacrifice of fooles, but when men doo it of cuſtome without faith and feruent affection: for if a man with faith and zeale pray eueryevery day the ſame praier to God, it is acceptable. The reſt of his words are not worth the repeating, and yet he concludeth moſt falſly that read praier hath no warrant in Gods word.

The next Argumentis this, We may not in the worſhip of God receiue any tradition, which bringerh our libertie into bondage: read praier vponupon commandement is a tradition that dooth bring our libertie into bondage.

Againſt this I oppoſed that Moſes, the Prophets, and our Sauiour gaue preſcript formes of praiers, and if the very following a preſcript forme impoſed by commandement, be ſo deteſtable a thing, how are not they charged with this heinous ſinne? He anſwereth that here is a great ſtorme, and yet nothing but winde; doo ye not know the wind may p. 96be ſo great, as to blow downe the houſe vponupon your head, eſpecially when the blaſt of truth commeth againſt your building, which ſtandeth vponupon the rotten pillers of errours. The counterfaite zeale of Cayphas againſt the trueth, ought not to ſtay any man from being earneſt for the truth. But now to the matter, your woonted ſong was heretofore when ſuch preſcript formes were alleadged, prooue that thoſe wordes were to be ſaide ouer to God: but now being conuinced, and confeſſing that ſome Pſalmes were ſong to God, and for feare leaſt bidding mee prooue againe that the preſcript forme was followed, when they ſpake to GOD, I ſhould againe charge ye openly to denie the ſinging of Pſalmes to God, which I hauehave ſhewed yee doe couertly, ye ſeeke another ſhift, and ſay your Minor propoſition (which is that I ſtand to diſprooue) ſpeaketh of the reading for praying, and not of the forme of prayer. This is poore ſtuffe, ſeeing we reaſon about preſcript forme and reading the ſame, praying. I do not ſay that the reading it ſelfe is praying: but I hauehave prooued, that they went together, and whether there were cōmandement to followe the preſcript formes or not, in the bleſſing, for the Prieſtes to vſe. In the prayer preſcribed for the people to ſay at the offring the firſt fruites, and in ſome of the Pſalmes, whether it be not alſo lawful to ſay the Lords prayer praying, let wiſe men iudge. Nowe where as I ſaide the Browniſtes doe condemne all Churches by theſe three arguments againſt read prayers, Maiſter Greenewood at this is in no ſmall heate as his ſpeech doth ſhewe: for if hee coulde dippe his words tenne times deeper in gall, it appeareth hee woulde not ſpare. I truſt (ſaith he) your madneſſe will appeare vntounto all men, the poyſon of Aſpes is vnderunder your tongue. But Maiſter Greenewood, If I hauehave ſaide the truth which is iuſtifiable by your owne ſpeeches, your ſober minde is not to bee boaſted off. And if your ſentence include all Churches, what milke and honie doth flow from vnderunder your lippes? Heere is much a doe, this man layeth about him as if he were halfe madde: but that he is blindfolde, I could not eſcape ſome p. 97ſounde blowes. Here he hath vp the begger with his clappe diſh, and the Prieſt with his Maſſe booke, canueſing ouer the Paternoſter for their bellie. Here he ſaith I breath out my accuſtomed lies, ſlaunders, and raylings, calling them Browniſts and Donatiſts, here he deteſteth Donatus his hereſies: Browne, and the Browniſts, he ſaith are ours, hee willeth mee to remember who is the Father of ſuch vntruthes, when I ſay they condemne al reformed Churches, but becauſe my conſcience (as hee ſaith) did witneſſe I had wrongfullie charged him, and for him all true Chriſtians, I bring it in by neceſſarie conſequence. Now if the heate be any thing paſt heare a little what I ſaye, ſhewe that I hauehave any way ſlaundred ye, or rayled vponupon yee, in that I hauehave termed you Browniſts and Donatiſts: and let mee hauehave open ſhame among all men. I hauehave affirmed that the very pith of all your matter is from Maiſter Brownes bookes, conuince mée therein if yee can, I hauehave now publiſhed that Browniſme and Donatiſme are all one: let any Browniſt in the land confute me. The theefe will not abide to be ſo called, but will ſay I defie all theeues: doth that cleare him when he liueth by theeuerie? what are you the better to ſay I deteſt the hereſies of Donatus, and yet holde all that he helde, and know not what ye ſay, nor what the hereſies of Donatus were, more then doth a poſt: ſhew openly that ye renounce thoſe thinges I hauehave noted to bée the furies of the Donatiſts, & then yee may crie out that ye are ſlaundred.

And now for condemning al Churches, will ye denie that which is concluded by neceſſarie conſequence from your words? Is that againſt conſcience which is brought in by neceſſarie conſequence? Ye would ſeeme to make light of it in this reſpect, that a multitude is not to bee followed to doo euill, when ye condemne all Churches: but yet it doth ſting ye ſo neere, that by no meanes ye can abide to heare of it. Thus I did reaſon, and thus I reaſon ſtill without any witneſſe of conſcience againſt me. You affirme preſcript formes of prayer brought into the publike aſſemblies, to bée p. 98the changing the worke of the ſpirit into an Idoll, a tradition breaking Chriſtian libertie, and therefore a thing moſt deteſtable, a dead letter which doth quench the ſpirit; but all reformed Churches hauehave preſcript forme of prayer impoſed: therefore yee condemne all Churches. I am glad your booke may bee ſeene of all men, that they may iudge the ſoundnes of that anſwere by which ye would cleere your ſelfe. Ye cannot goe from your firſt words, they be ſpread in the hands of ſo many, but ye ſhould ſhame your ſelfe. Ye replie therefore againe, that the true Churches might erre in this, and yet remaine Churches of God. This is ſtrange that ignorance ſhould excuſe men that worſhip an Idoll in ſtead of God, that take away the Chriſtian libertie from the conſciences of men, and doo that which is moſt deteſtable. What doo the Papiſts more than theſe? or what can they bee charged withall which is worſe than that which is moſt deteſtable? And hauehave ye not ſet downe now in this your booke in replying vponupon the ſecond Argument, that all our Miniſters muſt leaue reading their ſtinted prayers, or elſe ſtand vnderunder Gods wrath and all that pray with them? How are the Miniſters and people of other Churches priuiledged from ſtanding vnderunder Gods wrath, hauing read prayers, impoſed leiturgies, and as you terme them ſtinted prayers? or tell me, are they the Churches of God that ſtand vnderunder his wrath? Now remember who is the father of lyes. Well, your meaning was not to condemne the Churches, nor to meddle with them. Why then doo ye giuegive ſuch ſentence of condemnation which reacheth vntounto them? Tel me but this, is there any Browniſt which is a diſciple, and giueth credite vntounto ye in this matter, that read prayer is moſt deteſtable, and that ſuch as ioyne in it ſtand vnderunder Gods wrath, which yet durſt ioyne himſelfe or might ioyne himſelfe vntounto any aſſemblie in the world, euen the moſt reformed? Tell me either you or any other chiefe Browniſt, will ſay they may pray with any aſſembly where they follow a preſcript forme? If ye dare not ſay this (I meane that ye would counſell men to ioyne with a Church that hath read prayer) but ſay they p. 99muſt reprooue and condemne it, and if it were not redreſſed forſake them: then bee alſo aſhamed ſo furiouſlie to crie out vponupon me, which ſpeake nothing herein, that I ſay ye condemne all churches, but that which all indifferent men muſt néedes ſée your owne wordes and doctrine doe vpholde. As for your bitter accuſations vponupon no ſhewe I leaue them: and whereas ye require that if I hauehave any ſparkle of grace, I would procure that ye might decide the trueth with other Churches. I anſwere, that if ye had any ſparke of ſober wiſdome, ye could not with ſuch condition lay that vponupon me, which ye knowe not howe vnable I am to performe. You ſay you might iuſtly be called an Anabaptiſt, if you ſhoulde reaſon thus, Impoſing of mens writings to be read for praying, is an heinous ſinne, therefore they that vſe it are no Church. HaueHave ye ſaid no more, but that it is an hainous ſinne? HaueHave you forgotten all your former ſayings of Idolatrie, bondage breaking Chriſtian libertie, moſt deteſtable, ſtanding vnderunder Gods wrath? I hold him no Anabaptiſt nor Donatiſt, which from ſuch ſpéeches concludeth no true Church. For I neuer heard that the true Church doth ſtand vnderunder Gods wrath. The next wordes are ſore; Abaddon is the father of ſuch Prophets, ſaith Maiſter Greenewood, becauſe I ſay the Browniſts maintaine ſuch a fréedome as that will hauehave nothing impoſed by commaundement. I pray ye tell me whether you be one of thoſe which ſet out the brief ſumme of the profeſſion? And when I had written againſt it, I would knowe if ye were one that made the defence, or approoued the ſame? Did yee not approoue of the anſwers that goe vnderunder the name of Henrie Barrow? Impoſed is put for an argument by it ſelfe in thoſe writings, and ſo noted with a figure. Could the very word impoſed be an argument by it ſelfe, if any impoſing by commaundement bee lawfull in Gods worſhip? If the ciuill Magiſtrates hauehave power but to reuiew the lawes of Chriſt, and to mooue men or ſtirre them vp to the more diligent keeping of the ſame, may they then impoſe by commaundement? And as you ſpeake here of that which is not onelyonly receiued, but alſo by p. 100commaundement, as though there were great waight in the words, by commaundement. I pray ye tell me then what force ye repoſe in the words impoſed, and by commaundement, when ye oppoſe them againſt Chriſtian freedome? Tell me alſo whether yee denie not that any Canons and conſtitutions made in Synods, in matters variable, are to be impoſed by commandement? If they be, what is the reaſon that you Browniſts when yee crie out againſt Church gouernment as it is in England, ſpeake in generall againſt Canons? And a little after in this your booke, ye denie all power of making lawes in things indifferent, terming it an adding to Gods word, and alleaging againſt it the extreame curſe of God. I graunt the Churches power is limitted by the word in making ſuch lawes: and ſo is the power of Princes. There hath béen much ſayd alreadie touching the Lords Praier and other preſcript formes in the Scriptures: but yet here come in newe reaſons (if I may ſo call them) which are voide of reaſon. Houtos is the ſame that the Hebrew Coh, after this manner. I anſwere that this hath béen dealt in before, where ye muſt vnſay ſomewhat againe, or elſe the words of the Scripture now written are not the words of the Lord, but the like. Further, becauſe Chriſt ſaith, when ye pray, if he willed we ſhould ſay ouer y^e words, then ſhould we euer when we pray, ſay them. To this I anſwere, that reſpecting the rules for matters, when ye pray, when is as much as to ſay whenſoeuer ye pray, becauſe we may not depart from thoſe matters conteined in the general petitions. But if we reſpect withall the preſcript forme of words, there is a double conſideration to be had: for in them ſelues they bee moſt excellent, perfect and full, and ſo brieflie doo containe the whole ſumme and ſubſtance of all thinges which we ought to craue of God, as that nothing is wanting. But our mind is not able ſo largelie or vntounto ſuch depth at one inſtant to ſpread or extend it ſelfe in deſire, as to bee mindfull of eueryevery particular therein conteined. And alſo we are more mooued, as ſeuerall matters of néede doo preſſe vsus to craue them particularlie. Hereupon it doth followe, that p. 101as on the one part, it were agreat iniurie and hindrance that any man ſhould binde vsus, when any particular néede vrgeth, to begge reliefe onelie in the generall forme which includeth many things, and not ſuffer vsus to expreſſe the very particulars and ſingulars: ſo on the other part, to binde vsus alwaies in ſuch ſort to the ſeuerall particulars, that we may not at all vſe the generals, is very abſurd, and a diſgrace to thoſe moſt excellent petitions. For by this it muſt needes followe, that I may not ſay, Let thy Kingdome come: or forgiue vsus our treſpaſſes, as we forgiue them, that treſpas againſt vsus: vntill the Browniſts diſprooue this, he is fully conuict. For if I may vſe one petition of the generall heads when I pray, I may vſe anie one; if any one, then all.

The next argument which is brought, is to this effect, that if we be cōmaunded to ſay thoſe words, then ſhould we ſin in vſing any other forme, for thoſe being in y^e beſt forme, we are bound alwaies to bring the beſt ſacrifice we hauehave, or els we are accurſed. This reaſon I hauehave fully anſwered in that which went before, for I hauehave ſhewed in what reſpect, it is the moſt excellent & abſolute forme, & the beſt, and can by no meanes, without great abſurditie, yea wicked impietie, be reiected: & withall what is neceſſarie and fit for vsus.

Now for concluſion, let the Reader iudge, whether I hauehave more need to leaue of, as he ſaith, my popiſh dreames, or he his ſpirituall fantaſies, I am farre from maintaining, that our Sauiour, or his Apoſtles did ſtint, or bynde men vntounto certaine wordes which of neceſſitie they muſt vſe, and none other: but this is the thing which the Browniſtes muſt ioyne iſſue in with me, whether I may not pray ſaying, let thy kingdome come, or if I may ſo vſe the preſcript forme of wordes in one petition, whether I may not in any, and ſo in all? And heere let the Reader obſerue that Maiſter Greenewood crying out for freedome, complayning of a tradition that bringeth our libertie into bondage, hee doth him ſelfe take away freedome, and woulde lay a bondage vponupon men, and vponupon the Churches. For it is to lay a yoake of bondage when men will reſtraine that which God hath p. 102left free to bee vſed, as ſhalbe moſt conuenient and profitable for edification, as to follow a preſcript forme, or to reade praying. Among the Iewes in the time of the Law, God tied them to the Temple, and vntounto certaine ſet howers for the Euening and Morning ſacrifice, but in this we are ſet free in the Goſpell. For I may lawfullie goe to the Temple to heare the word and to be partaker of the Sacraments with the aſſemblie: and I may lawfullie frequent other places, where the publike worſhip is. The Churches may appoint the ſame howres for there meetings that were vnderunder the law, if it be conuenient, and they may appoint other if it ſhalbe more fitte hee that in theſe ſhall take away the freedome which is giuen to the Churches, doth lay a yoake of bondage. In like caſe preſcript forme of prayer to vſe praying, being an helpe to the weake, and a thing ſanctified of God, and left free to the Church as neede ſhall require, he that denieth that free vſe, doth lay a yoake of bondage. And ſo I charge Maiſter Greenewood here to doe.

In the next place there were three Arguments of Maiſter Greenewoods which I anſwered at once by denying the aſſumptions, and ſhewing the reaſons that moueth me, for in déede, he ſetteth downe ſome propoſitions: and out of them affirmeth that which is falſe, and ſo concludeth from thence another falſehood. It is his whole manner of reaſoning; if I ſet downe this propoſition, God is a ſpirit, it is moſt true: if I will now make ſuch an aſſumption as this, a bodelie ſubſtance cannot worſhip a ſpirite, this being moſt falſe: there will followe a falſe concluſion, which is that no man can worſhip God in bodie; he is now therefore to proue his aſſumptions, and before he commeth to it, he crieth out, ſtay and wonder, they are blinde and make blinde. Who be blinde and make blinde the Browniſts? This man hath ſome great thing in his minde, which hee ſéeth and dooth wonder, and now calleth vponupon all other to ſtay, vntill hee hath vttered it, and ſo to wonder with him. Is there anie doctrine more ſpirituall (ſaieth hee) any more inculcated by the holie Ghoſt, then this acceſſe to God in the mediation of p. 103Chriſt, &c. I anſwer who dooth doubt of this▪ You confeſſe I will ſay the propoſitions bee true and waightie matters: which I doo in deed, and thereby doo acknowledge that praier is a ſpirituall and Heauenlie thing, farre from the power of man to performe of himſelfe. Now Maſter Greenewood confeſſing I doo this, like as a great waue of the Sea commeth rowling and dooth in ſh…w, threaten to ouerwhelme all, but ſodainelie falleth of it ſelfe: So he ſwelling with the winde of his vanitie, crieth out ſtay and wonder, as if I ſhould be ouer whelmed with the ſtreame of his words, and by and by falleth of himſelfe, confeſſing that I allow the propoſitions: which in déede include the excellencie of praier, and there is an end of his wonder. The firſt aſſumption, hee muſt prooue is that to reade vponupon the booke when one prayeth is a quenching the ſpirite; for this he alleageth the ſaying of Saint Paul, Quench not the Spirite, when he hath ſet downe this, he addeth that to ſuppreſſe and leaue vnuttered the paſſions of our own heart, by the work of the Spirite, giuing vsus cauſe of praier, and in ſteed thereof to reade another mans writing, he dooth not doubt will be founde and iudged of all that hauehave ſpirituall eyes to ſee a quenching of that grace. I anſwer to this, that the ſpéeches of the Scripture are moſt fit to vtter our paſſions by. And what hauehave yee brought, but the matter in queſtion? If wee reſpect ſuch as be not able ſo well to vtter: the ſpirituall eyes to ſée and iudge that to bee a quenching of the Spirite, are but the eyes of Browniſts. Therefore all his beggarlie cauils which follow, and which hauehave been anſwered before, are to be let paſſe as they come.

The ſecond aſſumption to bee prooued is that it is preſumptuous ignorance to come with a booke. This is a lame ſacrifice, becauſe a man dooth knowe how to doe better and doth not; ſtil he would hauehave that graunted which is denied. For I ſay the booke is to helpe men to doo the better, which are in themſelues dull, and full of wants, and without helpe ſhould rather offer a lame ſacrifice. The third is for ſtriuing in praier, for which when hee hath ſpoken much of this ſtriuing p. 104which is not denied, for continuance and importunacie; he imagineth that the whole matter is prooued, for this as hee would make vsus beléeue, cannot bee effected vnles the Prieſt reade till he ſweate againe, with vaine repetitions. I might followe with many words in theſe and the reſt: but ſéeing he hath confeſſed, that the Pſalmes were to bee ſung vntounto God, let him ſhew how the verie reading then can bée ſo grieuous a thing; for this the reader muſt conſider, that our queſtion is not about the matter of prayer, nor any corruption by vaine repetitions or otherwiſe, nor about the hypocriſie and vaine babling of ſuch as pray but of faſhion, but ſimplie of the reading, when one prayeth: which vntill he can prooue that diuers Pſalmes either were not vttered to God as praier, or that they did not reade them when they did ſing, he prooueth nothing, but deceiueth the ſimple with the ſight of true things which he ſpreadeth, and from which he draweth foorth ſuch falſe concluſions. I leaue to the reader but to compare his anſweres he maketh to the reſt touching theſe arguments, and ſee if they make any thing for uim, and not rather againſt him.

The next Argument is that, We muſt pray as neceſsitie …rgu. 7.requireth: but ſtinted praiers cannot be as neceſsitie requireth.

Whereas I affirmed that there be things neceſſarie to be prayed for at all times and of all men: which indéed are the moſt things which wée are to begge of the Lord. Of theſe there may bee preſcript formes for all times: and for other things that fall out ſildome the praier is to be applied to the time, and neceſſitie. Here are large diſcourſes and ſuch as this Replier dooth much pleaſe himſelfe in, as a moſt ſpiritual man. This I take to be the drift of the whole that in praying to GOD, wee muſt come with féeling our wants, that ſo we may pray earneſtlie, which I doo yéeld vntounto as an vndoubted trueth. He holdeth it as a great abſurditie that we ſhould want the ſame thing to morrow which wee doo to day, or that all congregations ſhould néed the ſame one day which they doo another. Hee is moſt fooliſh in p. 105this and ſuch like obiections: for if I ſhould ſtand to followe particulars, there bee fewe things which we may not either for our ſelues or for our brethren at all aſſemblies begge of the Lord. If there be ſpeciall neceſſities, they are to be ſupplied. The matter is cléere, I will not ſpend time about it, more than I hauehave in my former booke.

But whereas the Browniſt doth obiect, that a preſcript forme doth ſhewe that men take vponupon them to knowe mens ſecrets, which God alone doth knowe, it is moſt vaine and friuolous. The Scriptures doo ſhewe that we all ſtand in neede of the ſame thinges and euermore, being ſicke of one diſeaſe, though there may be ſome particular caſes wherein ſome hauehave their ſeuerall neede. And let him anſwer me now vntounto this poynt: There be fiue or ſixe hundred in one flock, which come together to pray; if it be as you would beare vsus in hand, that there is ſuch a variablenes in our needes, that to day our neceſſitie requireth one thing, to morrowe another: then eueryevery particular man and woman hath ſeuerall wants, and is to pray for no more than they come with preſent feeling off, how then ſhall the Miniſter frame his praier to fit them all? One ſhall ſay, this pertaineth not to me, how ſhall I pray? Another ſhall ſay, this or that toucheth not my eſtate. Many ſhal complaine that their ſeueral wants are not touched. Tell me Ma. Greenwood, or any Browniſt, doth y^e Miniſter knowe what is in eueryevery man? doth he know euerie man & womans particular wants? He is to make the praier in which they are al to ioyne w^t him, in euerie requeſt that he maketh. Or is your meaning y^t euerie man and woman ſhall come vntounto him before euerie aſſemblie, and make their ſtate knowne what their ſeuerall neede is? Or can the Miniſter beare in minde when he hath heard? Ye may ſee into what abſurdities blind fantaſie doth caſt men. Men are to pray for nothing but that which they feele the want of, and are prepared to aſke, & are fit to receiue. For theſe (ſaith the Browniſts) there can be no ſet forme. And I demaund whether the preacher doth know eueryevery mans féeling, how they are prepared, & how fit to receiue▪ Will ye affirme this▪ or will ye confeſſe p. 106that theſe groſſe fantaſies which yet you will father vponupon Gods ſpirit, doo quite ouerthrowe all publike prayer? For if it bee ſinne for any to pray for more than he commeth with the preſent feeling off, if in the multitude the deſires are ſeuerall, if it bee vnpoſſible for the Miniſter to knowe them, and how the hearts bee prepared and affected, how ſhall he make prayer for them all? how ſhall they all ioyne with him in euerie requeſt? How much better is it to confeſſe that the moſt things which all are to pray for, and at all times are inuariable: and that men come not only to pray for that which they feele their neede in; but alſo to be ſtirred vp to pray for ſuch things as either they thinke not of, or be dull in. I muſt needes here lament the ſtate of our people which profeſſe the Goſpell, and cannot eſpie the groſſeneſſe of theſe thinges. When the aſſemblies doo méet, and holie petitions are made which men hauehave heard at eueryevery meeting, they ought to bee as feruent in praying as the firſt time they heard them. For it is a groſſe wickednes in men not to bee mooued with matter becauſe they hauehave often heard it, but accompt it ſtale: as we ſee mans minde coueteth ſtil that which is newe. If men hauehave not feeling it is their fault.

Touching the faults in any Leiturgie, the queſtion is not betweene vsus, which reaſon what ſhould be. That wh…ch I ſpake of the preachers not limitted in their praiers, I meane the prayers before and after their Sermons which they conceiue. That our Sauiour preſcribed no forme, I ſhewed the reaſon, that it is not a thing of neceſſitie, but to auoide inconuenience: neither are men tied to one forme in all churches. Againſt this the Browniſt replying, biddeth me ſtand to this, and ſaith I will goe from it in the next argument. I ſay, all the Browniſts vnderunder heauen ſhall neuer be able with force of reaſon to driue me from it. He firſt oppoſeth, that if I ſay it be at all times neceſſarie, then the Teſtament is not perfect. How can I ſay it is at all times neceſſarie, when I ſay it is not of neceſſitie? Chriſts Teſtament is moſt abſolutelie perfect: but yet all things touching comelines, order, and conueniencie, which are variable and may bee changed, p. 107are not expreſſelie mentioned. And that is one chiefe thing whereby the Browniſts doo ſeduce many a ſimple man. For this Browniſt doth confeſſe that there bee things contained in the generall rules of the Scripture, which are not expreſſed, but he will not hauehave any of thoſe things variable, that is, ſuch as may be for good cauſe altered. For thus he reaſoneth, I▪ it bee a part of Gods worſhip, and all times conuenient, then is it neceſſarie: and if it be not neceſſarie, put (ſaith he) ſuch conueniencie in your cornered cappe, or ſurpleſſe. And a little after, but you graunt (ſaith he) it is not of neceſsitie, therefore it is not commanded in particular, nor conteined in any generall rule. Thus may we ſee, that he holdeth there is nothing in matters of conuenience or circumſtance in Gods worſhip, which is not of neceſſitie. The ground of his reaſon is this: If it be either expreſſed in particular, or contained in any generall rule, it is commaunded of GOD, and man hath not authoritie to alter Gods commandement, therefore it is neceſſarie. I grant that matters of conueniencie are commaunded of GOD by the generall rules, and that men may not take authoritie ouer Gods commandement. I ſay therefore the Church doth ſinne either of ignorance or of negligence, when it faileth in matters of circumſtance which ſhould ſerue for edification. But herein the Browniſt ſheweth himſelfe moſt abſurdly ignorant, that he will hauehave that which is commanded to be of neceſſitie at all times. For that he may not winde out here with ſhift, as his manner is when any groſſe thing vttered by him is detected. Let the reader obſerue his words, and he ſhall ſée plainly he reaſoneth for a neceſſitie at all times. For he ſaith, If it be a part of Gods worſhip, and at all times conuenient, then is it neceſſarie. And to manifeſt that he holdeth it all times conuenient: ſaying, if it be not neceſſarie, put ſuch conueniencie into your cornered cappe. And againe hée ioyneth commanded in Gods word and neceſſarie at all times together. And a little after he ſaith, Whatſoeuer is commanded either in particular or in neceſſarie collection from the generall rules, are of neceſsitie to be obeyed, and not to be altered. p. 108This I note to ſtop his euaſion: for many matters of circumſtance ſeruing for conueniencie and order, are fit at ſome times in ſome places, and for ſome perſons, and ſo by the commaundement of GOD then to be vſed, who willeth that all things be done comelie, in order, and to edification. Now, as the times do varie with the circumſtances of place, of perſons, and of other occaſions, the ſame things which were conuenient may become inconuenient, and ſo not neceſſarie at all times, as the blinde Browniſt dooth beare in hand, but to be altered. As for example, in the time of peace it is moſt conuenient that the aſſemblies ſhould meete in ſome Temple or Church built for the purpoſe: the Church is then to ordeine that it may bee ſo. In the times of warre and cruell perſecution when the enemies raunge about and rage: it may bee farre more ſafe for feare of intrapping, to meete in the woods, or ſecret places. Kneeling is the fitteſt geſture of the bodie when men in earneſt prayer are to worſhip the Lord: the Church is to commaund it where it may fitlie be done: but if the aſſemblies be driuen to meet in ſuch places as the ground being wet, and through the trampling of their feete doth become myrie, it is inconuenient that the multitude ſhould bee compelled to kneele in the myre: and therefore the former ordinance is now changed. I might runne through a number of particulars, but theſe are ſufficient to declare what a learned Deuine maſter Greenwood is, and how perfect a ſpirit doth guide his penne. He demandeth alſo full wiſely, whether wee doo not hold it of neceſsitie, ſeeing men are excommunicate, and depoſed for not obſeruing it: or as ſome verie ignorantlie vſe to ſay, if it be a thing indifferent, why is it not left indifferent for men to vſe or not to vſe? I anſwere, that which is a thing indifferent, God commaundeth it ſhall be done when it is conuenient and for edification, and therefore when the Church doth appoynt or ordeine it, rightly he that breaketh it, wilfullie breaketh the commandement of God. And ſo on the other ſide, when it falleth out not to be conuenient, and the Church dooth alter it, hee that will now obſerue it with a reſiſting p. 109minde doth like wiſe offend againſt the rule of Gods word. I neuer doubted but that by ne…eſſary conſequence it is to be drawen from the doctrine of the ſcriptures, that prayer is to be made before and after the word preached, but I ſpeake of a commaundement in expreſſe wordes: therefore the places are cited here by the Browniſt to no purpoſe. And all the reſt of his words that follow are either in matters wherin we agree, or ſuch as he collectetth from his owne ignorance, and which are anſwered before.

The next argument is, Read prayers were deuiſed by Antichriſt and maintaine ſuperſtition and Idole miniſterie, &c.

Here the Browniſt, if he would at all ſpeak to the purpoſe ſhoulde prooue that the very reading a prayer when one prayeth is the deuiſe of Antichriſt, maintaineth ſuperſtitiō & an Idole miniſtrie. But he flieth & dealeth about the matter of leiturgies, ſaying: he hath heard, the Pope woulde hauehave approoued ours, if it might be receiued in his name. If maſter Greenwoods newes from Rome were true which hee heard, the matter were not great, for the Pope will approoue the Lords prayer, the commaundements and articles of the faith, but he wil expound them as it pleaſeth him. The Pope alſo to wind in himſelf, wil approoue in ſhew many things which he miſliketh, ſo they be not directly againſt his crowne and dignitie. And it is to be conſidered that the controuerſies betweene vsus and the Papiſts are not about the matters which we are to begge in prayer. There is no likelyhood that the Pope made ſuch offer, becauſe he knoweth we holde in the ſubſtance and grounds of the faith, that which quite ouerthroweth him: but if he did, men may ſee by theſe things which I hauehave noted, that maſter Greenwood doth but ſhift and trifle. He confeſſeth leiturgies were before Antichriſt, and yet ſaith he was the deuiſer. See the grauitie of this man: he is ſore afraide that hee ſhould here againe be ſaid to condemne all Churches becauſe they hauehave read prayer: and therfore he ſaith his arguments are falſely wreſted. Anſwere your ſelfe then, and tell vsus what ye holde p. 110them which receiue the deuiſe of Antichriſt. Why crie yee not out of the marke of the beaſt? It is a pitifull thing to ſee in what a caſe the Browniſt is: For he wil not cōdemne the Churches; and yet after he hath ſet foorth what leiturgie is, and affirmed that the new Teſtament is Chriſts leiturgie: he alleageth that they be accurſed that adde thereto; and holdeth preſcript forme of prayer an adding. Let him now be aſked: is the curſe layd vponupon the true Churches? he will ſay no. Then preſcript forme is either no adding to Chriſts Teſtament, or elſe they be vnderunder the curſe that vſe it. He ſaith leiturgies are another goſpel. Then all Churches hauehave receiued another goſepl. The wordes that follow hauehave bin anſwered before. Where I ſayd there would ſundrie inconueniences growe for want of preſcript forme of publike prayer. After he hath ſet downe that Chriſt is a perfect law giuer, and that the word of God is ſufficient, he tearmeth it blaſphemie to ſay there would be inconueniences without leiturgies: then all the Churches committe blaſphemie, whether doe ye yet condemne them or not? This is from his groſenes which doth not ſe that Chriſts Teſtament is perfect, and yet there are things commaunded in generall rules which are variable, as I hauehave before ſhewed for circumſtances of time, place, perſons, ſitting, kneeling, &c. He ſaith there can be no particular lawes made without breaking the lawe of God, as though the Church were not to ſee what in theſe is fit and conuenient vponupon euerie occaſion and time, and for that time to eſtabliſh the ſame: But euerie man to doe as he ſhall like, or ſhal take the generall rule of order and decencie, for men will not agree: this is from rules of order to drawe confuſion. Now this great deuine ſaith I hauehave made a faire hande in affirming leiturgies to be but a matter of order, or conueniencie for edification. Seeing as hee ſaith, it is all the worſhip we hauehave: this commeth from him that hath the beautie of Sion, as he boaſteth: which the inchaunters of Egipt cannot iudge of. This commeth from him that with his fellowes hath the cloude betweene them and vsus, and the pillar p. 111of fire before them as he ſpeaketh in the next wordes. Becauſe I ſay the preſcript forme and the reading are but for order, he concludeth that I confeſſe the prayer is but a matter of order or conueniencie: ye ſay I hauehave made a faire hand. But I tell ye maſter Greenwood, if ye ſhould goe into the Schooles and reaſon ſo in earneſt, the young boyes would be readie to hiſſe ye foorth as a non proficiens, and howe faire hand ſhould you make then? they will not beleeue ye hauehave it from your pillar of fire, but out of that dark cloud of your ignorance which is betweene your ſelfe and the light of the trueth. Now wheras I ſaid, y^e Church hath power to ordain according to the word of God, & to appoint ſuch orders in matters of circumſtance, about publike prayer, preaching of the worde, and adminiſtring of the Sacraments, as ſhall moſt fitly ſerue for edification: and then theſe orders being eſtabliſhed by publike authoritie the diſcipline and cenſures of the Church are to driue men to the obſeruation of the ſame that ſtubbornely break them. Here the poore Browniſt layeth open himſelfe againe to be as blinde as a beetle: he will needes hauehave it to be papiſticall mudde, and that I am in an Apoſtacie. Becauſe there can as (he ſaith) no other lawes be made in matters of circumſtance, than Chriſt himſelfe hath made: that to ordaine lawes in the Church is to plead for vnwritten verities: and to make the law of God vnſufficiēt. It is an adding to the word of God, which is execrable pride. All the Popes trinkets might bee brought in by the ſame ground. This is the foundation of Poperie, and Anabaptiſtrie, to giuegive libertie to make lawes in the worſhip of God. And by your iudgement which would hauehave men driuen to obſerue them, our Sauiour Chriſt was an Anabaptiſticall Schiſmatike that would not himſelfe nor his diſciples obey the traditions of the Elders. Thus ſpeaketh this Browniſt. But what beaſtlie ignorance doth he bewray and that in ſundrie poynts? and with what horrible things in his blinde furie, doth he charge all Churches withall? For firſt when he ſaith that for matters of order and circumſtance, there can be no other lawes made of them, thā Chriſt hath made: he ſeeth not the difference betweene the giuing p. 112generall rules of charitie, of come liues, and order, which ſerue for edification that are to be followed in making lawes touching matters in themſelues merely indifferent, and the very particular lawes thēſelues that are ſo to be made. Thē if it be true which he ſaith the matters of order and circumſtance are not variable, but ſtand fixed as inuiolable lawes of Chriſt in the particulars to be obſerued, which is falſe, ſeeing theſe circumſtances are no part of Gods worſhip: As Paul ſaith, The Kingdome of God is not meate and drinke, &c. but as handmaids, to attend vponupon it, and to adorne it; and ſo are vſed and not vſed, as occaſion ſerueth. I hauehave ſhewed this before in ſome particulars, as that the aſſemblies are in time of peace gathered in temples, and fixed places and open, in time of perſecution and tumult in the fields, in woods, and ſecret places which they change, and at the commandement of the paſtors and gouernours: the wiſe reader may conſider the like not onelie for kneeling and ſuch like, but in many other. And we ſée that the Apoſtles themſelues did decree ſome things for the time, which afterward were to bee altered, when the occaſion was taken away, as namelie to auoide giuing offence to y^e weak Iewes which ſtuck in the ceremonies of the lawe: they made this decree Act. 15. That the gentiles ſhould abſteine from blood and from ſtrangled. We doo not now obſerue this decree of the Apoſtles, neither are we to obſerue it, ſéeing the occaſion is remooued for which it was made.

Furthermore, if there be no lawes to be made in matters of circumſtance, how ſhal the flockes knowe what to follow or to obſerue where the paſtors ſhall diſſent and varie in iudgement? Sall not ſome be rent into one part, and ſome into another? Now when hee ſaith this is to pleade for vnwritten verities, to make the Lawe of God vnſufficient, to adde to the word, alleaging thoſe Scriptures, which ſhew how curſed a thing that is: hee dooth but ignorantlie abuſe thoſe Scriptures, and wickedlie ſeduce the ſimple ſorte of men. For thoſe Scriptures are againſt the adding of humaine precepts and lawes to be kept as parts of Gods worſhip, p. 113to binde the conſcience, to ſéeke righteouſnes, and the forgiuenes of ſinnes, or the merite of eternall life in them, or againſt ſuch rules of gouernement, as God hath ſet to bee perpetuall. This is againſt the perfection of the word, againſt Chriſtian libertie, and in the chiefe things which concerne Gods worſhip, againſt the ground and foundation of our faith: and ſo a thing moſt deteſtable and accurſed, which our ſauiour alſo and his Apoſtles refuſed iuſtlie to obſerue with the blinde Phariſies. But now where the Browniſt hath his eyes ſo daſeled with that pillar of fire which hee ſaieth they hauehave before them, that he cannot perceiue that to make and conſtitute lawes in matters of circumſtance for comelines, and order according to the generall rules of the Scripture and not to binde the conſcience, is no adding to the word, nor mixing Gods worſhip with mans inuentions, he is much to be pittied. And doubtles before this pillar of fire bee remooued, which is not the heauenlie light of Gods ſpirite, but a frantick preſumption, by which the diuell dooth delude men and blinde them with their ſwelling, he ſhall neuer ſee well. Some will ſay if theſe conſtitutions be not to binde the conſcience of men, why are men forced to keepe them? Why ſhould the diſcipline and cenſures of the Church driue men thereunto? In déede this is that which the freedome of the Browniſts can at no hand indure. To anſwer this, the reader muſt conſider what is the binding of the conſcience. It is not to ſay ſimplie yee muſt for conſcience ſake doo it, or yee are bounde for conſcience ſake to doo it; for then all the humaine conſtitutions and lawes of princes may be ſaide to binde the conſcience, becauſe Saint Paul willeth to obey them for conſcience Rom. 13. But by binding the conſcience is meant, that ſuch lawes are laid vponupon the conſcience to bee obſerued as part of the worſhip of God: when men are puniſhed for not keeping them as contemning Gods worſhip, then is the Chriſtian libertie withſtoode. But when y^e diſcipline & cenſures of the Church, doo compel men to obſerue the lawes, which in matters of comlines and order are made according to the rules of the Apoſtle: p. 114they are not puniſhed for dooing or not doing the things themſelues, but that by dooing that which is forbidden, or refuſing to doo that which is commaunded, they diſturb the peace, bréede diuiſions and offence, diſobey where they are commanded obedience: theſe bee ſinnes, and for theſe, men are to be puniſhed. This is where the orders be, not againſt the word of God, but fitte for edification.

And now to conclude about this matter, all the Churches of God vnderunder heauen doe make ſuch lawes, ſuch Canons, and conſtitutions in matters of circumſtance, and by their diſcipline compell both Miniſters and people to obey the ſame. The Browniſt alleageth againſt this, not only the ſentences. Prouerbs. 30. verſ. 5. 6▪ and Deut. 4. verſ. 12. 32. but alſo, Reuela. 22. verſ. 18. 19. Where the Lorde threatneth, that he that ſhall adde to the words of that Propheſie, he will put vponupon him the Plagues written in that booke.

Tell me now Maiſter Greenewood, doe ye yet condemne all Churches? Ye do affirme that they which make anie lawes, doe adde to the worde of God, and alleage againſt them, that God will put vponupon them the plagues written in that booke: which is a denouncing of the extreame wrath of God, for there is the lake of fire ſet foorth? If yee were not quite beſide your ſelfe, how could you thus hurle your dartes of extreame condemnation, and ſtrike all churches, and yet when I tell yee of it, crie out, that I am a liing Prophet, and will me to remember who is the father of vntrueths? But leaſt I may ſeeme to father that vponupon the Churches, which is farre from them, I wil note ſomewhat out of the harmonie of confeſſions Section. 17. The latter Heluetian confeſſion ſaith, Quod in Eccleſijs dispares inueniuntur ritus, nemo Eccleſias existimet ex eo eſſe diſſidentes. That there are vnlike rites or ceremonies found in the Churches, let no man iudge hereby, that the Churches diſſent. And the confeſſion of Bohemia hath. Quare illi tantum ritus, illaeque ceremoniae bonae ſeruari debent, quae in populo Christiano vnicam & veram fidem, ſincerúm que cultum Dei, p. 115concordium, charitatem, & veram atque Christianam ſe… religioſam pacem aedificant. Siue igitur, ab epiſcopis, ſiue a conſilijs Eccleſiasticis, aut à quibuſcumque aucthoribus alijs extiterint, aut introductae ſint, de eo ſimpliciores laborare non debent, neque hoc mou…ri, aut perturbari: ſed quia bonae ſunt ijs ad bonum vti. Wherefore thoſe rites and thoſe good ceremonies ought onelie to bee kept, which among the people of Chriſt doo edifie the onelie and true faith, and the ſincere worſhip of God, concord, charitie, and the true and Chriſtian or religious peace. Therefore whether they bee exſtant, or brought in by the Biſhops, or by the Counſels Eccleſiaſticall, or by other authors whatſoeuer, the ſimpler ſort are not to trouble themſelues about that, neither with this to bee mooued or diſquieted, but becauſe they bee good, to vſe them vntounto that which is good. And a little after, Et quanquam nostri, non omnes ritus aequè ſeruant cum alijs Eccleſijs, id quod & fieri non potest, & non est neceſſe fieri, vt omnibus in locis Christianorum conuentuum, vnae & eadem ceremoniae vſurpentur: non tamen vlli bonae & piae conſtitutioni repugnant, ſeſeuè opponunt, ne que ita animati ſunt vt ceremoniarum cauſa diſſidia vlla commouere velint, etiamſi aliquae non admodum neceſſariae eſſe iudicarentur, modò Deo & cultui atque gloriae huius non reperiantur contrariae, & quae veram in Ieſum Christum fidem quae ſola iustitiam conciliat, non diminuant. That is to ſay, And although our men do not equallie obſerue all rites with other Churches, a thing which both cannot bee done, and is not neceſſarie to bee done, that in all places of the chriſtian aſſemblies, one and the ſame ceremonies ſhould bee vſed: yet they doo not repugne anie good conſtitution, or oppoſe themſelues, neither are they ſo minded as that for the cauſe of ceremonies they will moue anie diſſentions, although ſome might be iudged to be not altogether neceſſarie, ſo that they be not founde contrarie to God, to his worſhip and glorie, and which diminiſh not the true faith in Ieſus Chriſt, which onelie dooth iuſtifie. Againe a little after, Docentur & hoc agnoſcere homines, traditiones humanas non complecti legem p. 116perpetuam & immutabilem, ſed quemadmodum iuſtis de cauſis ab …minibus instituuntur, ita etiam iuſtis & grauibus de cauſis, & re ita poſtulante, violari, abrogari, atque mutari ſine vllo peccato poſſe. That is, Men are taught alſo to acknowledge this, that humane traditions doo not conteine a perpetuall lawe and vnchangeable, but as for iuſt cauſes, they are ordeined by mē, ſo alſo for iuſt & waightie cauſes, & the matter ſo requiring, they may be violated, abrogated and changed without offending. The Auguſtine cōfeſſion, Quaerat igitur aliquis an vitam hanc hominū, ſine ordine, ſine ritibus eſſe velimus? nequaquā, ſed docemus paſtores veros Eccleſiarum poſſe in Eccleſijs ſuis publicos ritus inſtituere: That is, Some mā thē may demand whether we would hauehave this life of men to be without order, without ceremonies? In no wiſe. But we teach that the true paſtors of the churches may in their churches ordeine publique rites or ceremonies.

I might ſet downe to the ſame effect out of the confeſſions of the other reformed Churches, but I will omit it as not neceſſarie, and onelyonly note a fewe things out of Maſter Beza his Epiſtles. After he hath ſet downe Epiſt. 24. that things indifferent are ſo called, not that men may without exception doo or leaue vndone as often as they luſt and as it ſhall pleaſe them and not ſinne: but that they are ſo called, becauſe a man may vſe and not vſe them well, and hee may vſe them and not vſe them euill. And moreouer, that things indifferent by themſelues or otherwiſe, doo after a ſort change their nature, when by ſome lawfull commaundement they are either commaunded or forbidden. And further, that the vſe of them is generallie reſtrained by the lawe of charitie, and ſpeciallie or more particularlie by conſtitution either politicke or eccleſiaſticall. He addeth, Etſi enim conſcientias propriè ſolus deus ligat, tamen quatenus vel Magiſtratus, qui dei miniſter eſt, iudicat intereſſe reipublicae, vt quippiam alioqui per ſe licitum non fiat: vel eccleſia ordinis & decori adeóque aedificationis rationem habens, leges aliquas de rebus medijs ritè condit: eiuſmodi leges pijs omnino ſunt obſeruande, & eatenus conſcientias ligant vt nemo ſciens & prudens rebellandi animo p. 117poſſit abſ que peccato vel facere quae ita prohibentur, vel … mittere quae ſic pr…cipiuntur. That is to ſay, For although properlie God alone doth bind the conſciences, yet ſo farre as either the Magiſtrate which is the miniſter of God, doth iudge it profitable for the Common-wealth that ſomething ſhould not be done, which otherwiſe of it ſelf is lawful: or the Church hauing regard of order and comelines, & ſo of edification, doth rightlie make ſome lawes in matters indifferent: ſuch lawes are many wiſe to bee obſerued of the godlie, and do ſo farre bind the conſcience that no man wittinglie and willinglie with a mind to rebel can without ſinne, either doo the things which are ſo forbidden, or leaue vndone things ſo commanded.

What hauehave I ſaid more than the Churches do hold, maſter Beza and all the moſt noble Inſtruments of GOD in theſe laſt daies, if I ſhould ſtand to ſhewe it. Then ye may ſee when Maſter Greenwood doth ſo raginglie take on, and ſtrike he knowes not whom, ſuch furie is not fit for diſputation in the Church. Let not the reader here ſuppoſe that I goe about to maintaine that the prayer of any is pleaſing to God, which come with cuſtomarie words of courſe without feeling their wants: or that I ſhould hold, that a ſet forme of prayer is of men to bee vttered without meditation and preparation, as many doo of an idle cuſtome, as if the verie ſaying were a great ſeruice to God. Nor yet doo I hold that all men alike ſtand in néede of preſcript forme in their priuate praiers, or that the feruencie of praier is not often times more vehement in vttering any requeſt in priuate prayer without preſcript forme than with it, if a man be able. I ſay further; A man is to cal vpō God not only as his néed in any particular ſhal vrge him, euen at al times: but he is alſo to ſtir vp himſelfe and to prepare himſelfe to begge moe things than bee in his preſent feeling and memorie, which preſcript formes are an help to direct him vntounto. And when a man commeth to the publike aſſemblies to pray, the caſe is ſomewhat differing from making his priuate requeſts: for there he commeth not to craue thoſe things alone which hee feeleth p. 118preſent neede of, or which hee is mooued withall, but to make common requeſts with the whole congregation, in all things that they are to craue. To this he muſt now frame himſelfe: Among fiue or ſixe hundred, the particular wants or deſires are ſundrie, one mooued more in one thing: another in another thing: ſome come more fitter to pray, for this, and ſome for that. It is moſt certaine, that neither the preſcipt forme, nor the preacher can ſee into theſe ſeuerall eſtates of mens mindes & conſciences, or to the deſires which they are moſt fit and prepared to expreſſe: neither is that ſo much to bee regarded, ſeeing that which ſhould be fitteſt for one part, ſhould not be ſo fit for another: but they muſt eueryevery one frame himſelfe to pray for al things which the aſſemblie doth pray for, which are neceſſarie to be praied for at al times and of all perſons. Shall any man ſay, I am not prepared to begge theſe things, therefore they be not fit for me? Let him not be ſo wicked, but ſtirre vp himſelfe rather to begge them with the congregation. Shall any be ſo fooliſh as to ſay, wee knowe theſe things before, I am not mooued with them, men for the moſt part do but repeat them of cuſtome? Nay rather let him ſtriue againſt ſuch impietie, and ſay the things are not any thing the leſſe precious which wee craue, becauſe wee heare them often or knowe them before, or that many abuſe them: and therefore we indeuour to begge them earneſtlie with all faithful ones in the aſſemblie, ſeeing they bee ſuch as are needfull to be praied for. In the reſt I leaue the reader to compare his booke with my former.

The laſt Argument. The prayers of ſuch Miniſters and people as ſtand vnderunder a falſe gouernment are not acceptable. Thoſe Miniſters which ſtand ſubiect to the Biſhops and their Courts, are ſubiect to a falſe gouernment and to Antichriſt.

I did referre the anſwere of theſe to the third and fourth accuſation: but yet I did take ſome exception, as my booke ſheweth. The Browniſt in replying here is in great diſtemper: I will let all his words paſſe, and come to the matter. I alleaged out of the Epiſtle to the Romanes Chapt. 7. that p. 119S. Paule was held in ſome bondage, and therefore that Ieruſalem from aboue is not in this world ſo free, but that ſhe and all her children are in ſome ſpirituall bondage. At this he did crie out of Atheiſme & carnal Libertiniſme, affirming that S. Paule neuer continued captiue vntounto ſinne after regeneration, neither gaue place vntounto euill thoughts. Where I hauehave iuſtly charged him with very foule matter, which now labouring to waſh away, he doth bemire himſelfe. Firſt he crieth out of wrong in diuers things without any cauſe. Such as do touch the queſtion of gouernment and the blaſts he bloweth that way, I doo here omit, becauſe his fellowes doo make replie as he mentioneth vntounto thoſe things, and I muſt then anſwere. OnelyOnly I deale with him now touching the place to the Romanes. He willeth if I hauehave any common honeſtie, to let his former anſwer be ſeene. I promiſe ye it will be ſmall to your credite and honeſtie let whoſoeuer ſee it, ſeeing ye doo in ſhameles manner crie out of wreſting and I knowe not what. Againſt my reaſon out of the words of Saint Paule, denie if ye hauehave the forehead, theſe to bee your words. And now (ſay you) that Scripture which the Apoſtle hath ſet downe in the anguiſh of his ſoule, concerning the inward ſtrife of the fleſh and the ſpirit, you ſhamefully peruert to your owne condemnation except you repent: for Paule neuer continued captiue vntounto ſinne after his regeneration, neither gaue place vntounto euill thoughts. Paule ſpeaketh there of the vnperfectnes of his owne righteouſnes, which maketh the lawe deadlie vntounto him. I will thinke you a fleſhlie Libertine, if you recāt not this doctrine. What Atheiſt would thus hauehave defended his owne groſſe ſinnes? Thus farre go your wordes, and now let ſuch as hauehave knowledge iudge what wrong I hauehave done ye. Let them looke vponupon that which I hauehave publiſhed, and ſee whether I hauehave wreſted your words, or ſet downe any vnſound poynt of doctrine as you would yet accuſe me, and doo importunatelie crie out: but now your words are in the light, and your anſwere alſo which ye cannot vſe ſuch ſhifts to excuſe. You lay open the diſagreement betweene you and me. Firſt you cannot agree p. 120to this, that the regenerate may be ſayd to ſtand in any bondage to ſinne. You cannot conclude againſt it, but bring in another ſaying and ſo draw a concluſion: And that is, how I alſo affirme that one ſtanding in bondage to open knowne ſinne, may in that eſtate bee accepted and communicated with as the ſeruant of Chriſt by outward profeſſion both at one inſtant: which is as to ſay, wee may bee to mans ſight the ſeruant of the diuell, and the ſeruant of Chriſt both at one time by outward profeſſion. So none ſhould bee excommunicate, none without, the world and the Church, light and darknes, Chriſt and Belial, ſhould bee mingled together. Well, then I aſke this queſtion both of your ſelfe and of your fellowes, whether there be any one of ye that can ſtand foorth and ſay, I ſee no ſinne in my ſelfe; but ſo ſoone as I hauehave eſpied I ouercome and am not at all led by it. Tell me further, whether ye hauehave not this, that ye may ſay there is euil alwayes in ye which you cannot be rid of; and that doth holde ye faſt and preſſe ye? Do ye not leaue the good vndone and commit euill, and ſuch euil as is alwayes preſent in ye? Doe not ye find great ſinnes that ye ſtand vnderunder as not able to come out of? If any Browniſt ſhall deny he is ſuch, or in this eſtate, he can be but a proud hypocrite. If yee confeſſe it, what doe you but confeſſe ſome bondage? Let me aſke ye further, is there any of ye which dare ſtand foorth and ſay I am not a ſinner in the ſight of men? I ſtand not holden vnderunder any outward ſinne: the Browniſt muſt aunſwere theſe queſtions, for he holdeth that men can not outwardly appeare ſinners and be the ſeruants of Chriſt at one inſtant. What beaſtly geare is this? There is ſinne that appeareth in the beſt men at al times, in geſture, in words, in deedes, in negligence, in wants, yea a thouſand waies: who is able to indure y^e trial of Gods law euen in that which outwardly doth appeare in him for an howre? And will yee caſt foorth all in whome there appeareth ſinne that he dooth abide in? The groſe open ſinners I confeſſe, which contemne and giuegive offence are to be caſt foorth, but are thoſe which abide within at any time free from open ſinne? couetouſneſſe p. 115is a foule ſinne, ſo is pride, ſelfe louelove, and wrath. Doe all Browniſts ſo fully ſhine in brightnes before men that in none of theſe nor any other they can bee diſcerned to be ſinners? Doth all vertue ſhine foorth in them? And touching that which I charged you withall, looke better now vponupon your owne ſpeech: If there bee any modeſtie in ye, it will be hard for ye to deny, but that I hauehave layde no more to your charge than your owne plaine wordes. For are not theſe wordes plaine, Paule neuer continued captiue vntounto ſinne after his regeneration, neither gaue place vntounto euill thoughts? But now you make a proteſtation that you hauehave euer been free from ſuch an hereſie, and your laſt writing did teſtifie much. Touching your writing it was both laſt and firſt, except your bare argument: and there is no heede to take what ye ſay, for your matter commeth foorth as the ſtreame doth turne the wheele, euen vntounto contrary motions. When before the rage of the ſtreame turned the wheele to vtter the freedome of the Church, then it muſt bee in ſuch perfection that the regenerate is not partly held captiue vntounto ſinne, nor giueth place vntounto euill thoughts.

Now when the wheele muſt hauehave a contrarie motion to purge your ſelfe, there commeth as violent a ſtreame that way. For here ye ſay, the children of God after regeneration may commit any ſinne, except the ſin againſt the holy ghoſt. And you alſo affirme that they may commit ſin of preſumption and obſtinate ſinne: In my iudgment you had neede of ſome fauourable expoſition of your ſpeech. The regenerate doubtles, as we hauehave examples in the ſcriptures may fall into grieuous ſinnes, and doe through frailtie: but that it may be of preſumption and obſtinacie, you muſt declare how filthie inceſt is not the ſinne againſt the holy ghoſt, nor if a man kill his Father, Mother, or Children. No more is witchcraft, and familiaritie with diuels. Is it your meaning, that the regenerate may of preſumption and obſtinacie committe theſe? If not, why doe you vtter ſuch wordes and not make them plaine. I ſpake vponupon the place to the Romaines, that the freedome of the Church in this world is but in parte and not p. 122perfect: he cried out, a fleſhly libertie. If I ſhould hauehave ſpoken as he ſpeaketh here, what would he hauehave ſaide? But hee now he is afraide leaſt while hee hath waſhed himſelfe ouer cleane from Anabaptiſme, he ſhould ouerthrow Browniſme, as indeede he doth. And that is the cauſe whie hee tempereth his ſpeech in the wordes following: that although in Gods fight obſtinat ſinners may be regenerate and ſo his children, yet not to men by outward profeſſion: but are to be caſt foorth which I doe not denie; and then for the leaſt bowing downe to a falſe gouernement, they are to be caſt foorth. This I omite as not the queſtion betweene him and me, and leaue his words to be conſidered of the reader. But where he procéedeth in reaſoning againſt me as if I held that obſtinate groſe ſinners are not teo bee caſt foorth by excommunication: I maruaile from whence he can gather that. But let vsus come to S. Paule againe, and ſee how maſter Greenwood excuſeth his owne ſpeech, and condemneth mine. It is out of doubt that as God is immortal & doth begette by immortal ſeede, as S. Peter ſpeaketh: ſo all which are borne of GOD and hauehave therefore receiued the ſpirite of regeneration, can neuer looſe that ſpirit. Whoſoeuer is borne of God doth not committe ſinne becauſe his ſeede abideth in him: neither can he ſinne becauſe he is borne of God. 1. Iohn. 3. v. 9. From hence maſter Greenwood holdeth himſelfe cleered, and may well ſay that S. Paule after regeneration ſtoode not in any bondage to ſinne, nor gaue place vntounto euill thoughts: becauſe he euer repented, and the ſpirit of God in him did not, nor could not cō ſent or giuegive place vntounto ſinne. His meaning then is this, that the regeneration which is from the ſpirite cannot be in bondage to ſinne, and the graces of the ſpirite cannot conſent or giuegive place vntounto euill thoughts. This is moſt true, vnleſſe a man will be ſo wicked as to holde that the grace of God may be in bondage and conſent to the worke of the deuill. If this had been the matter in queſtion betweene vsus, and he had ſaid no more, it could not be reprooued. But he proceedeth further and chargeth me with error, that when S. Paule reaſoneth of the olde man, or corruption in him, I will needes cō clude p. 123it of the new man, or inner man, or of the whole man. My wordes are extant in print, let all the Browniſts ſconne them, and ſee whether they can without falſehood and lying gather from them that I conclude that the new man or inner man which is y^e grace of regeneration is in bondage to ſin, or doth conſent vntounto euill thoughts: the whole courſe of my wordes doth lay open the contrarie. For I ſhew how Paule touching the inner man conſented to the law of God: And that in his minde, that is in the regeneration, he did ſerue the law of God. What is it then which maketh maſter Greenwood ſo boldlie to accuſe, and ſo falſely? Euen the mother of headdy boldnes, and much falſhood, palpable ignorance. For where I ſtand to affirme, that paule a regenerate man ſtood yet in ſome captiuitie and bondage vntounto ſinne. He doth imagine it will followe, that I affirme the regeneration to be in bondage vntounto ſinne: becauſe Paul is the whole man, and he that concludeth vponupon the whole, concludeth vponupon euerie part. In deede this is it which hath deceiued the Browniſt, and by which he thus laboureth to ſeduce others: that where the Scripture calleth the regeneration, or the graces of the ſpirit, the new man and the inner man, (as it calleth the corruption of nature the olde man, and the bodie of ſinne) he vnderſtandeth it, as though the perſon himſelfe, who is regenerate were called the new man, or the inner man, which is farre wide: for the graces of the ſpirite, the worke of the ſpirite, the regeneration called the inner man, are one thing, and the man himſelfe which is regenerat, another. The bodie and ſoule are Paul, the regeneration called the inner man, or the graces of the Spirite, are not Paul himſelfe, but in Paul. The ſoule & bodie are Paul, the corruption through concupiſcence called the olde man, is not Paul himſelfe but is in Paul? becauſe the regeneration ſhall neuer be extinguiſhed the regenerate are reckoned and eſteemed after it, not that the regeneration itſelfe is, either the man or a part of the man. Dauid was a man regenerate, he committed adulterie, and murther, the ſoule and bodie of Dauid ſinned, whole Dauid doth acknowledge himſelfe a ſinner, that is, p. 114he was a ſinner both in bodie and ſoule: and yet the regeneration, the ſeede of God in him, the graces of the Spirite, which were as coles of fire for the time couered in the aſhes, did not ſinne, nor conſent vntounto euill thought. Paul a regenerate man, when he ſaith Autos ego, I my ſelfe in the minde ſerue the lawe of God, but in the fleſh the lawe of ſinne, calleth not the regeneration, I my ſelfe, but his ſoule and bodie which were Paul: then the bodie and ſoule of Paul in the minde, that is ſo farre as they were regenerate, did ſerue the lawe of God. The ſame bodie and ſoule of Paul in the fleſh, that is in the corruption of nature remaining, becauſe regeneration is not full and perfect, did ſerue the lawe of ſinne: for he ſaith I my ſelfe for both. The fleſh in this place is not Paul, nor no part of Paul, but the corruption of ſinne ſpread ouer the bodie and ſoule of Paul. Euen ſo, the minde is not Paul, nor anie part of Paul, but the worke of Grace remaining, the ſoule and bodie of Paul.

Now the Browniſt, not vnderſtanding, but as the Apopoſtle ſaith, They would be Doctors of the law, not knowing what they ſpeake, nor whereof they affirme. 1. Timo▪ 1. would hauehave vsus beleeue him, that Paul after regeneration was not in anie reſpect held captiue vntounto ſinne, nor gaue place vntounto euill thoughts: becauſe the grace of God in Paul was not in bondage vntounto ſinne nor conſented.

Saint Paul ſaith, I my ſelfe in the fleſh ſerue the law of ſinne: which as I expounded in my former booke, doth not prooue that ſinne did raigne, or that it is to be accounted ſuch a ſeruice to ſinne as is done on the other part to God, becauſe this is by violent tyrannie againſt the will, ſo farre as the grace of regeneration hath reformed it; and the ſeruice to the lawe of God is with delight and willingneſſe. This is the reaſon why he ſaith, It is no longer I, but the ſinne that dwelleth in mee. It is not reckened his ſinne before God, becauſe hee doth hate it: but yet it ſticketh faſt both in his ſoule and bodie. It is no longer I that ſinne: The Browniſtes expoſition is to this effect, It is no longer I that is the inner man, or the graces of the ſpirit that p. 119doe it, but ſinne that dwelleth in me. Did the grates of regeneration euer commit ſinne, or the inner man▪ If not, how can it be ſaide it is no longer I, for nothing can be ſaid to do no longer, that hath not don before? And whē he ſaith, but ſin that dwelleth in me, this in me, is not in the regeneratiō, for though ſin dwel in man together with the works of grace, yet is it no fitte ſpeech to ſay ſinne dwelleth in the regeneration▪ Therefore this I, when he ſaith, it is no longer I that do it, is not the inner man, but the perſon of Paul conſiſting of ſoule and bodie. How fondly then doth Maiſter Greenewood affirme, that S. Paul in that place touching his bondage to ſinne, ſpeaketh but of that which is called the olde man? The olde man is the concupiſcence and corruption of ſinne. Where I alleaged that Paul ſaith, he ſaw a law in his members that did leade him captiue to the law of ſinne, hee ſaith I falſefie the text: becauſe it is leading me captiue, and not did leade me captiue. Paul ſpeaketh in the time preſent, leaſt he might ſeeme to ſpeake of a former eſtate which he was not in then. And it was more effctuall to lay open the bondage to ſinne, which in ſome reſpect the regenerate are in, though ſinne hauehave not dominion ouer them, for him to ſay, at that inſtant holding me captiue, then to ſay did leaue me captiue. The cauſe why I put it in the time paſt is, that Paul is deliuered long ſince. The diſciples ſawe Ieſus walking on the water, doe I falſefie the text, if I ſay they ſawe Ieſus did walke vponupon the water▪ But this is not all, for this Browniſt ſaith, holding him captiue, but it did not holde him. What can bee a more flatte contradiction than this▪ his reaſon is becauſe there was a ſtronger, that ſuffered not the law in his members to raigne. The matter is not about a full dominion of ſinne, but whether the body and ſoule were not ſo yoaked ſtill with it, as to be forced to commit ſinne. Now let me hauehave an anſwere to this, eyther from Maiſter Greenewood, or any other Browniſt whether the regeneration be perfect in any. He will ſay I do hym p. 126great wrong to aſke him ſuch a queſtion, becauſe he profeſſeth the contrarie. Well then, anſwere alſo whether the freedome of Gods children from ſinne, while they liue here be perfect, or but in part, as the regeneration is? If ye will ſay the freedome is perfect, ſhew how there can be a perfect freedome from ſinne, by a ſanctification which is but a part. If ye ſay the freemdome is but in part and vnperfect, as ye muſt needes ſay, (vnleſſe ye will bee right Annabaptiſts indeede) then tell me how it is poſſible, that where the freedome is but in part, that ſhould be no bondage? For what is the imperfection of freedome, but that it taketh not away all bondage? looke how farre the freedome commeth ſhort of perfection, ſo farre bondage doth remaine, chuſe whether part ye will to affirme, eyther the freedome of Gods children from ſinne while they liue here to be perfect, or elſe to be vnperfect. For if ye ſhall ſay the freedome is alreadie perfect, (as ye hauehave hetherto, by affirming that the regenerate are in no bondage to ſinne) then ſhall ye continue in Annabaptiſtrie. If ye denie the freedome of the regenerate to be perfect as yet, (which in deede is the ſound truth) then conſider that howe much is wanting of perfect freedome, ſo much remaineth of that bondage to ſinne, which as yet al ſtand vnderunder that line, and acknowledge your madnes in affirming ſo directly contrarie to the Scriptures, that Paul neuer continued captiue vntounto ſinne after regeneration, nor gaue place vntounto euill thoughtes.

FINIS. p. 82duplicate page p. 83duplicate page p. 84duplicate page p. 85duplicate page p. 86duplicate page p. 87duplicate page p. 88duplicate page p. 89duplicate page p. 90duplicate page p. 91duplicate page p. 92duplicate page p. 93duplicate page p. 94duplicate page p. 95duplicate page p. 96duplicate page p. 97duplicate page p. 98duplicate page p. 99duplicate page p. 100duplicate page p. 101duplicate page

End of the text · George Gifford, Plain Declaration that Brownists be Full Donatists (1590)