Short Treatise Against the Donatists of England, Brownist position 5
The Brow▪
Iohn. 4. 23. 24.
God is a Spirit, and muſt be worſhipped in ſpirit and truth.
The reaſons why wee diſalow of read prayer, in ſtead of ſpirituall prayers, that though they may be read for meditation, as any other mens writs, yet is it Idolatry to offer vp to God ſuch manner of ſacrifices eyther priuately, or in publique aſſemblyes.
1 No apocripha muſt be brought into the publique aſſemblyes, for there only the liuely voyce of Gods owne graces, of the word, and the ſpirit, muſt be heard in the publique aſſemblyes. And more lawfull is it to vſe Homelyes, then reade prayers vntounto God.
2 To do any thing in the worſhip of God without the teſtimonie of his word, is ſinne: but there is no ground in the Scripture for ſuch manner of praying, as hauing no witneſſe of the word, whether God be pleaſed with them, or no.
3 Admitte that it were a thing indifferent, as we call it, for the forme of prayer, which is but a mockery, to call reading in ſtead of ſpirituall calling on God, to be but altering the forme, or chaunging the manner, whereas in deede it is changing the worke of the Spirit into an Image, or Idoll. Yet is it a bondage, and breaking of that libertie, which Chriſt hath purchaſed for vsus, and therefore moſt deteſtable.
4 Becauſe true prayer muſt be of faith and knowledge vttered with the hart, and liuely voyce vntounto God, I am perſwaded it is preſumptuous ignorance to bring a booke to ſpeake for vsus ſuch things, as we could not otherwiſe vtter in Gods ſight.
5 To worſhip the true God after another manner then he hath taught, is Idolatry: but he hath commaunded vsus to come vntounto him being heauy loden, with contrite hearts, yea to cry out vntounto him in the griefe of our ſoule, yea and as S. Paule ſayth, The Spirit helpeth our infirmities with groning and ſighing that can not be expreſſed, and how dare we then being a dead tree vntounto God, to ſtand reading of the ſame in ſtead of faithfull petitions, quenching the Spirit.
6 We muſt ſtriue in prayer with continuing, with feruency, without wauering, which we can not doo vppon a booke.
7 We muſt call vppon God in prayer at all times, as the neceſsities of the time requireth, not making a babling of many things, whereof we hauehave not any preſent neceſsitie: but ſtinted ſeruice cannot be ſo applyed, ſo it is but a babling of vaine repetitions.
8 All the deuiſes of Antichriſt, though it were otherwiſe lawfull, not being neceſſary, ought to be abhorred of true Chriſtians, eſpecially ſuch reliques as maintaine ſuperſtition, but to reade other mens bookes to God in ſtead of true prayers, and ſtinted ſeruice, were deuiſed by Antichriſt, and maintaine ſuperſtition, and an Idoll Miniſterie: therefore ought to be diſallowed.
The prayers and worſhip of ſuch Miniſters and people as ſtand vnderunder a falſe gouerment, are not acceptable, nor hauehave any promiſe in Gods ſight, not only becauſe they aske amiſſe, but becauſe they keepe not his commaundements.
G. G. Read prayer is one chiefe thing for which yee condemne our worſhip as Idolatrous and moſt deteſtable, and for that cauſe to be annexed vntounto this firſt accuſation.
God is a Spirit, and muſt be worſhipped in ſpirit and in truth.
The Brow. THE Scripture doth moſt briefely and pithily ſeuer all fantaſticall deuiſes of man, from the pure and ſincere worſhip of God, preſcribed in his Word. For ſeeing all fleſh is graſſe, and the wiſedome thereof fooliſhnes with God, it muſt needes follow, that mē earthly minded ſhould pleaſe themſelues in ſuch pretended religion, as agreeth nothing with the diuine nature of God. It is needfull then in the worſhip of God, that we thus alwayes conſider with our ſelues, we hauehave to do with God himſelfe, and not with men, who is ſo farre differing from vsus, that thoſe things which are moſt eaſy, and pleaſing vntounto vsus, is a weariſomnes and abhominable ſacrifice in his ſight: and although God dwelleth in the heauens in his diuinitie incomprehenſible, yet hauehave we a perfect rule, whereby we know what is agreeing to his will, namely, his written word, for that we may be heere taught 1. That all hipocriſy in ſuch things as hee hath commaunded, be carefully auoyded. 2. That wee attempt not to do any thing in his worſhip, whereof we hauehave not ſpeciall warrant from his word, of which ſort we take all manner of ſtinted prayers offered vp as a worſhipping of God, diſagreeing from the nature of God (which ſeeth in ſecret) and ſo agreeth with our fleſhly nature, that we can not pray as we ought, & ſo we ſeeke to help our ſelues with ſuch a broken ſtaffe, wearying our ſelues with our owne deuiſes, without any promiſe to receyue bleſsing thereby. And therefore where you affirme, that a man may pray in ſpirit and truth, with ſighes, and grones, proceeding from faith, when prayer is read, that is not true, for if their ſighes came from faith, it would miniſter matter and prayer without a booke, yea no doubt, a troubled mind is the penne of a readie writer; and to worſhip God in ſpirit, is, when the inward faith of the heart bringeth forth true inuocation, and it is then in truth, when ſimply it agreeth with Gods word. But you would teach men in ſtead of powring forth their harts, to help themſelues vponupon a booke, yea, to fetch their cauſe of ſorrowing & ſighing from an other mans writing, euen in the time of their begging at Gods hand. We graunt, that prayers conceaued without faith, ar not acceptable, yet may the ſame be called ſpirituall, becauſe it is the gift of the Spirit, though not ſanctified in him that ſo hipocritically mocketh with God. But what maketh this to our queſtion of ſtinted read prayers in Gods worſhip? But ſay you, to make read prayers only to ſerue for meditation, is falſe doctrine, wherein, me thinke you offer great iniurie, for we affyrmed that it had ſuch vſe as other of mēs writings hauehave. But it ſeemeth you make little cōſcience to ſlander vsus, and heere you fall into an error your ſelfe, affirming, and going about to proue, that reading of prayers is not for meditation at all: the proofe you bring, is, that Chriſt ſaid not to his diſciples, whē ye meditate, ſay thus, Our Father, but when you pray, ſay thus▪ &c. Where, beſide that you make no difference between your owne Liturgies, & the holy word of God, which is not of any priuate interpretation: Beſides this I ſay you ſeeme to proue, that the Lords prayer, & all other prayers in the Canonicall Scripture ſerue not at all for meditation. Well, you hauehave hereby made the matter apparant, that read prayers vponupon a booke are as acceptable, as faithfull prayers conceiued by the ſpirit, & vttered with vnderſtanding. You ſay that prayers read or conceiued, being void of faith, is but vaine babling: we ſay the ſame, but what of this forſooth? you cannot ſee by what cenſure it can be called Idolatry. If falſe worſhip cannot be called Idolatry, let the firſt and ſecond Commaundements be witneſſes, ſo that it is not our pennes, but the penne of Gods own finger that hath iudged all deuiſes of man, & hipocriticall worſhip of Idolatry. And although all the breaches of the firſt Table were not Idolatry, yet you know that to worſhip our own deuiſes, is Idolatry. Is not prayer a ſpeciall part of the firſt Commaundement, and our Sauiour Chriſt comprehendeth all the foure firſt Commandements in this, that we louelove God aboue all: the tranſferring of any part whereof from God, muſt needs be idolatry. But ſay you, if we do thus & hold withall, that no idolator can be ſaued, thē ſurely are all loſt, &c. This is countrey diuinity, if the Salt hauehave loſt his ſauour, what ſhould be ſeſoned therwith, we hold that no idolator cā be ſaued without true repentance, & renouncing their ſinne ſo far as God ſhall ſhew it thē, yea & craue with Dauid for pardon for their hidden & ſecret ſins. And doo you thinke any man liuing is void of idolatry, either inwardly or outwardly, ſo long as we liue, or that we can keep any one cōmandement in perfection? The Lord therfore giuegive vsus repentance: for in ſome things we ſin all. Methinks this ſhould not be, M. Giffords language to be ſo ignorant in the principles of religion, & if you hauehave waighed our arguments no better then your preface, it ſhall be greeuous to me to make any aunſwer.
To condemne and ouerthrow read prayer, yée bring, as the ground or foundation of all your matter, this ſentence▪ God is a ſpirit, and to be worſhipped in ſpirit. Iohn. 5. This ſcripture indéed is cléere and ſtrong, to cut downe all carnall worſhip as diſagréeing from the nature of God. And if any doo maintaine, that the very bodily action of reading prayer, is the worſhip of God, it may fitly be alledged againſt them. But to apply it in that manner which you doo againſt red praier, is friuolous, vnleſſe (as I ſay) yée could prooue, that a man cannot pray by the ſpirit of God, with ſighes and grones procéeding from faith, when the praier is read vpō the booke, or vttered after a preſcript forme. To this you reply with diuers arguments. The firſt is, that if the ſighes and grones were of faith, it would miniſter matter of praier without a booke. This reaſon by a connection is drawne from, and dependeth wholy vponupon the force and effect of faith, to miniſter matter of prayer. It is to be framed thus. If the prayer with ſighes and grones were of faith, it would miniſter matter without a booke: but the matter of their prayer, with ſighes and grones, is not miniſtred without a booke, therefore it is not of faith. to make this argument ſtrong and ſufficient from the connection of faith, and the liuely efficacie thereof to vtter prayer, yée muſt adde two things, the one, that faith is perfect vntounto this efficacie, to miniſter matter of praier, and néedeth no helpe. The other, that the effect and power of faith, to miniſter matter of prayer, cannot ſtand nor be ioyned with any outward helpes. Vnleſſe I ſay yée adde theſe two, with the cupling together faith and the effect, which are both of them hereticall, there can be no neceſſarie conſequence. To make it yet more manifeſt, let it be drawne into an other forme of ſyllogyſme▪ thus. That which hath power and efficacie of it ſelfe to miniſter matter of prayer▪ néede not any outward helpe, nor cannot touching the vtterance of matter in prayer, ſtand with any outward helpe: But faith hath force and efficacie in it ſelfe to miniſter matter of prayer: Therefore faith néeds not the helpe of a booke, nor cannot ſtand with any outward helpe, touching the vtterance of matter in prayer: And ſo conſequently, the ſighes and grones in prayer red, cannot be of faith. This conſequence ſhall neuer be brought in, vnleſſe yée frame your argument after that ſort. So that both theſe fantaſticall errors be included in your ſpéech, the one, that faith touching the efficacie to miniſter matter of praier is ſo abſolutely perfect, that it néedeth no outward helpe, the other, that it cannot touching prayer ſtand with any outward helpe. I doo acknowledge that there be no ſighes nor grones, nor any praiers that can be regarded of God, but ſuch as come from faith. I doo alſo hold, that faith is not in any, without ſome efficacie and power to vtter ſome matter of praier. But now we muſt conſider the degrées thereof: for doubtleſſe if there were in men a perfection of knowledge, of faith, and of quickneſſe, there ſhould néed no outward helpe: but the beſt come farre ſhort of that. Such as approche néereſt there vntounto, néed ſo much the leſſe any outward helpe. But the moſt are ignorant, weake, ſhort of memory, dull and ſlow, and néed all helpes to ſtirre them vp, and to direct them, euen as children, that are to be ſtayed vp and led by the hand. Praier indéed is a ſpirituall worke, procéeding from faith, which is a ſpirituall gift, but yet it doth ſtand with outward meanes and helpes. The Holy-ghoſt alone dooth worke faith in man, but yet it commeth by hearing, Rom. 10, Faith bringeth foorth prayer, but we muſt conſider, that as the ſame faith commeth by hearing, and is grounded vponupon the word, ſo is it cheriſhed, ſupported, increaſed, continued, and quickened in efficacie, and made more forcible vntounto eueryevery good worke by thoſe helps of outward meanes. For further confirmation ye adde, yea no doubt, a troubled minde is the penne of a ready writer. Let it ſtand in forme of ſyllogiſme thus. That which is the pen of a ready writer, néedeth not the helpe of a booke. But a troubled minde is the pen of a ready writer: therefore it néedeth not the helpe of a Booke. The propoſition is true, if by the pen of a ready writer yée vnderſtand an abſolute perfection of knowledge, chéerefulneſſe, direction, memorie and vtterance. But that was not in Moſes, Daniel, Paul, or any other. Therefore héere againe yée runne vponupon the rocke of an hereticall opinion of perfection. Your aſſumption, where yée ſay: no doubt, a troubled minde is the pen of a ready writer, is vtterly falſe, and your bold affirmation without ſcripture is not enough, ſéeing there be many ſo perplexed and confuſed in the trouble of their minde, and oppreſſed with ignorance, that they cannot pray, nor know not what to vtter: which, when they hauehave inſtruction and conſolation miniſtred vntounto them by ſome godly man, or if that chéefe help faile, by reading vponupon a booke, poure foorth teares and ſupplications.
Your next reaſon is in many words, which yet I will repeate. To worſhip God (ſay you) in ſpirite, is when the inward faith of the heart bringeth foorth true inuocation: and it is then in truth, when it ſimply agreeth with Gods word. But you would teach men in ſteed of powring foorth theyr hearts, to helpe themſelues vponupon a booke, yea to fetch the cauſe of their ſighing and ſorrowing from an other mans writing, euen in the time of their begging at Gods hand. I will alſo drawe it into a ſyllogiſme, to the end it may the better be iudged of. None worſhip God in ſpirite, but they which from the inward faith of the heart bring foorth true inuocation, that is, ſuch as ſimply agréeth with the word of God. But all ſuch as read vponupon the booke the prayer which they pray, fetch the cauſe of their ſorrowing from an other mans writing in the time that they pray, and doo not from the inward faith of the heart, bring foorth true inuocation. Therfore none that reade their praier vponupon the booke, doo worſhip God in ſpirit. The propoſition I aſſent vntounto as ſound and good: for it is no true inuocation except it agrée with Gods word. It is not to worſhip in ſpirit, vnleſſe it procéed from faith out of the heart. But your aſſumption, which is, that all that reade the praier which they pray, doo not from the inward faith of the heart, bring foorth true inuocation, I cannot allowe, ſéeing yée bring nothing for proofe thereof, but that which is moſt friuolous. For whereas yée ſay in the firſt part of your confirmation, that we would hauehave men in ſtéed of powring foorth theyr hearts, to helpe themſelues vponupon a booke, yée ſpeake vntruly and fooliſhly. For we wiſh men to vſe the helpe of a booke that they may the better poure forth their hearts to God. Being ſuch as are not otherwiſe throughly able.
The next part of your confirmation, is euen to as great purpoſe, when yée ſay, We would hauehave men fetch the cauſe of their ſighing and ſorrowing, from an other mans writing, euen in the time of their begging at Gods hand. For how fondly doo yée make that to be the cauſe, which dooth but manifeſt the cauſe? for the cauſe of all ſighing and ſorrowing, is the ſinne and miſerie which is within vsus: which we may the better behold and expreſſe by inſtruction. I hauehave gréeuous ſinne, and wrath belonging therevnto, which I doo partlye know, and can make ſome moane therein, and praye: I come into the publike aſſembly, where I heare the miniſter preach the word, which dooth more fully laye open and diſplay my ſinne and miſery: I am héereby driuen into déeper ſighing and ſorrowing, with vehement praier in my heart vntounto God: ſhall it be ſaide, that I doo now fetch the cauſe of my ſorrowing from an other mans ſpéech in the time of my begging at Gods hands? If not, then why ſhould I be ſaid to fetch the cauſe from the booke, which alſo dooth inſtruct me? the like may be ſaid, when the congregation dooth pray with their paſtor: they fetch not the cauſe of their ſighing from him: but are ſtirred vp by him. Your next words ſtand thus. The reaſons why we diſalow of read prayers, in ſteed of ſpiritual prayers, that though they may be read for meditation, as any other mens writs▪ yet is it Idolatrie, to offer vp to God ſuch manner of ſacrifices, either priuately, or in the publike aſſemblies. Yée are very angrie, that I termed your reaſons, by which yée oppoſe read praier vntounto ſpirituall praier, ſpirituall fantaſies. But take you héed that they grow not to be worſe. Yée are alſo gréeued, that I call them your ſtuffe, but how good ſtuffe it is, let the pure word try. I ſaid it is falſe doctrine to make read prayer ſerue only for meditation. My proofe was this, that Chriſt ſaith not, when ye meditate, but when ye pray, ſay thus, Our Father which art in heauen: and héere ye fling about as if ye had Béez. For firſt ye exclaime that I make ſmal conſcience to ſclaunder ye, becauſe I ſaid ye make read prayer ſerue only for meditation, which is falſe doctrine. Meditation (as I take it) comprehendeth all that is done in ſtudying and muſing when one readeth, the praying is another. If ye can ſhew a third vſe when one readeth prayer, I will confeſſe an error, otherwiſe, though ye hauehave not expreſſed the word only, yet ye hauehave in effect vttered ſo much, when ye ſay read prayer is not to be prayed. Secondly, ye charge me to deny that read prayer ſerueth for meditation at all, which is in deede falſe doctrine: becauſe I ſaid Chriſt ſaith not when ye meditate, but when ye pray ſay thus, Our Father which art &c. Do I not ſay truly that Chriſt ſaith not when ye meditate, but when yée pray, ſay thus, Our Father which art &c. How can you then but like Spiders ſucke that poyſon from thence? Thirdly, ye accuſe me, that I make no difference betwéene our owne Leiturgies and the Canonicall Scripture, which is a moſt friuolous cauill, ſéeing our queſtion is about reading of prayer, whether it be Canonicall Scripture, or framed from thence according to the rules of godly prayer. Thus hauehave ye anſwered nothing at all vntounto that commaundement which I alleaged giuen by our Sauiour, to vſe that preſcript forme of prayer, but only by ſhift and cauill. Then ye goe about to proue that eueryevery ſinne againſt the firſt Table of the Lawe is Idolatry, but with no ſhewe of reaſon. And heere ye ſcoffe becauſe I ſayd, if eueryevery ſinne that is againſt the firſt Table be Idolatry, who ſhall be ſaued? and ye demaund who is frée from Idolatry? an abſurd ſpéech: for the Scripture doth not call the godly either murtherers, théeues, idolaters, or ſuch like. I thought we had not reaſoned about the reliques of ſin which remaine in the beſt ſo long as they liue héere, but of ſuch groſſe idolatry as a Church is to be condemned and forſaken which is defiled therewith. But ſéeing ye confeſſe that all men be idolaters, that is, touching the remnants of ſinne, it muſt néedes followe that there is no Church frée from all ſpottes, for if all the partes and members be defyled, the whole can not be cleane. This doth ouerthrowe all the arguments which yée bring to condemne the Church of England, which hauehave no force vnleſſe yée will maintaine a perfection: for if a Church and eueryevery member in it can not but of neceſſitie be ſpotted and defyled with ſome remnants of idolatrie, euen by your owne confeſſion: then can ye not reaſon thus, this is a fault, it is idolatrie, therefore this or that aſſemblie which is ſpotted is no true Church, but to be forſaken. But ye muſt ſtand to prooue that the idolatrie is ſo groſſe, that it deſtroyeth the faith, ouerthroweth Gods true worſhip, and ſo deſtroyeth the verie life & béeing of a Church. Thus much about your preface, now follow your argumēts.
No apocrypha is to be brought into the publike aſſemblyes.…gum. 1. All read prayer is apocrypha. Therefore no read prayer is to be brought into the publike aſſemblyes.
In my firſt anſwere I did deale only with the aſſumption or ſecond part of this Argument, affirming that I could not ſée how it can be proued, and ſhewing ſundry abſurdities that would follow; as namely, that a prayer of the Canonicall Scripture being read when one prayeth, ſhould become apocrypha, &c. But you replyed that thoſe abſurdities grow from my miſtaking your words, and I ſawe it was ſo, for our queſtion being about the reading of prayer, and not about the matter it ſelfe, I tooke it, that although yee hold the Lords prayer, and other prayers in the holy Scripture to be Canonicall in themſelues, yet being read to become apocrypha, becauſe ye ſay all read prayer is apocrypha, and did not expreſſe it with this reſtraint, all read prayer framed by men, is apocrypha. I muſt now take the Argument as you ſay your meaning is, and deale with both the parts thereof. Firſt then touching the propoſition, no apocrypha is to be brought into the publike aſſemblies, what can be more falſe? Apocrypha is oppoſed vntounto Canonicall, if nothing may be brought into the Church but the Canonicall Scriptures, then the Sermons and prayers of the paſtors and teachers are to be baniſhed. I knowe your meaning is not at all to exclude theſe, although your words (taking apocrypha as it is in vſe among vsus) do in déede ſhut them foorth, and not only them, but any paraphraſe vponupon the Scripture, as the Pſalmes in Metre▪ Now to your aſſumption, which ſaith, all read prayer is apocrypha: firſt, it is falſe touching the Pſalmes and the Lords prayer, which be Canonicall when they be prayed. Then further, I ſée no fitneſſe in applying the name apocrypha vntounto our ſpéech to God, though it be vſed for that which is not his vndoubted word to vsus. For by what name oppoſite to apocrypha, will ye call thoſe prayers which ye do allow? ye will not call them Canonicall, this Argument therfore is falſe and friuolous.
Argum. 2. We muſt do nothing in the worſhip of God without warrant of his word. Read prayers hauehave no warrant of his word: Therfore read prayers are not to be vſed in the worſhip of God.
To this I anſwer at the firſt, that it is great audacitie to affirme, that there is no warrant of the word for read prayer, whē there be ſundry teſtimonies to warrant the ſame, vnleſſe ye will make a difference betwéene that which a man readeth vponupon the booke, & that which he hath learned out of the booke. Further I ſaid, I do not remember that euer I hauehave read in the holy Scriptures, that God commandeth the prayer ſhall be read vponupon the booke: for he commendeth this diligēce in all his people, that they ſhould throughly learne to vnderſtand, not only the matters, but alſo the ſentences and phraſes, which his ſpirit taught his holy Prophets and ſeruants to vtter in their prayers, and that this is the reaſon why there be ſo many prayers preſcribed in the booke of the Pſalmes, and in other bookes of the Scriptures: that whatſoeuer thing befall a man, wherein he is in the feruent affection of his heart to pray vntounto the Lord, if he hauehave in memorie the ſpéeches which holy men in ſuch diſtreſſe vttered, it is a great help vntounto him, if not, he may help his memory with a booke. To this you reply, that touching the vſe of ſentences and phraſes of ſcripture, you could eaſily conſent, but that ye perceiue I would not agrée with ye in certaine points, the firſt, that this is required only at the hands of Gods children, with promiſe to be heard and accepted. I wonder with what eyes ye can ſée that I would not agrée with ye in this thing, I put ye out of doubt, I hold aſſuredly, that none hauehave promiſe to be heard and accepted but Gods children, though they vſe neuer ſo much the ſentences of Scripture in their prayers. The firſt hinderance of your conſent is remoued. The ſecond is, that ye ſée I would not agrée with ye, that the ſame ſpirit doth now teach Gods childrē to pray, which taught the Prophets & holy men in other ages. I profeſſe vntounto ye, that I hold it a wicked opinion, to deny that the ſame ſpirit doth nowe teach Gods children to pray, which taught the Prophets, &c. and ſo the ſecond let is remoued. In déede héere you and I diſſent, that I hold, that as our faith is wrought by the word of God, ſo is it nouriſhed and quickned vntounto prayer, and eueryevery good work by the ſame, and that the holy Ghoſt hath not only taught matters by the Prophets & Apoſtles, but alſo ſpéeches and phraſes ſit for to vtter ye ſame. And you hold that becauſe the ſame ſpirit now teacheth to pray, which taught the Prophets & Apoſtles that either we may not, or we néede not vſe their▪ ſpéeches. The third ſtop remaineth, which is, that I take it, God ſhould be delighted with words and ſentences. You greatly miſtake it and do but cauill: for I ſhewed my minde, not that God would regard words & ſentences, but we ſhould be holpen and comforted by them. Thus the third and laſt hinderance is alſo remoued, and now you may conſent that in our prayers we may vſe the preſcript formes, ſentences, and phraſes of the word of God. To my next wordes, where I ſayd, the reaſon why there be ſo many prayers preſcribed in the booke of the Pſalmes, is: that whatſoeuer diſtreſſe befall a man, &c. you reply: yée thinke I halt greatly, that our queſtion being about Idolatrous leiturgies, I ſéeke to ſhrowd my ſelfe vnderunder the vſe of Canonicall ſcripture. Indéed this would be a learned queſtion, whether idolatrous leiturgies be idolatrie? or whether it be not idolatry to pray an idolatrous praier? who would looke for ſo childiſh a ſhift? you know our queſtion is about the reading of a praier when one prayeth? And if it be not idolatry to vſe the praiers of the ſcriptures, euen in their preſcript forme, then all read praier offred to God as a ſacrifice, is not idolatrie. I reaſon thus: it is not idolatry to pray the Lords praier, or any other preſcript forme deliuered in the Canonicall ſcriptures: therefore it is no idolatry to vſe a preſcript forme of praier, which is framed after the rules of true praier: as to aſke of God alone, through the onelyonly mediation of his ſonne, and for no matters, but ſuch as he hath promiſed to giuegive: Yée ſay it is not true doctrine, that thoſe Pſalmes and Scriptures were written that we ſhould vſe in our praiers the words there ſet downe. Your reaſon is becauſe there be other vſes. I doo confeſſe there be other vſes, but that might yet be a ſpeciall reaſon, why there be ſo many praiers preſcribed. Then yée ſay yée do not diſalow the ſpeaking, according to the word of God, but that we might not affect ſo much the phraſes of ſpéech, as the true féeling of our wants, He that hath not the féeling of his wants in praier, but affecteth phraſes, is but an hypocrite. But ye are in a vaine opinion, if ye thinke the vſe of the phraſes and ſentences of ſcripture, being fitly applied, is any hinderance either to the féeling or opening our wants, becauſe where ſkill or memorie faileth I would hauehave them vſe the helpe of a booke. I am, you feare, papiſtically affected vntounto words and ſentences. I hauehave already ſhewed, that this is not to affect the words and ſentences, but the inſtruction, the ſupport and quickning which our faith receiueth by thoſe words & ſentences. And this doctrine is not as you charge it, diſagréeing from the counſell of the Holy ghoſt, which willeth vsus to continue in praier, to ſtriue in praier, nor contrarie to Dauid, which ſaid, O my ſoule, &c▪ nor to Paul, who teacheth that the ſpirit helpeth our infirmities, and maketh requeſt for vsus. But your doctrine, which ſaith, we muſt continue in prayer, therfore we may not vſe ſuch helps: the ſpirit dooth helpe our infirmities, and maketh requeſt for vsus, therefore we may not be holpen by the praiers, or by the words of the holy ſcripture, is phantaſticall, for the Holy ghoſt doth helpe our infirmities, and teach vsus to pray, by the written word. You thinke it were hypocriticall worſhipping of God, to take helpe by a booke, when we know not what to aſke. If a man know not what to aſke, he ſhall be able to vnderſtand little by the booke. But a man may know what he ſhould aſke, and yet not ſo well able to expreſſe the ſame without helpe, both for memory and feruencie. Stinted praiers (yée ſay) are as Cuſhions for idle papiſts, hypocrites, and Atheiſts. I graunt that ſuch people doo abuſe all the beſt things, ſhall the godly therefore be debarred from the vſe? I doo teach, that whether a man of himſelfe pray without a booke, or vponupon a booke, if he pray not in ſpirit with faith, he dooth but offer the ſacrifice of fooles, his praier is abhominable. Therfore it is but your lauiſh ſpéech, when ye ſay I giuegive libertie to the lame ſacrifices: on the contrary, if a man pray in faith vponupon a booke, or without a booke, it is true praier, and ſuch as God heareth. God will hauehave no ſtrange fire put vponupon his Altar, ſay you. I graunt it is ſo: but praiers framed by the rules of ſcripture, and offered vp in faith, are not ſtrange fire. Yée wiſh all men to take héed of this craftie doctrine, and I wiſh all men not to be to haſtie in receiuing new phantaſticall opinions▪ Your anſwer vntounto thoſe two Pſalmes, which I noted, were giuen as a preſcript forme of praier to be vſed of the Church, and the forme of bleſſing preſcribed to the Préeſts to bleſſe the people withall, Num. 6▪ is more then friuolous. For touching the firſt, which is 92▪ appointed for the Sabaoth, yée graunt it was at their méeting to magnifie the praiſes of God, & many other Pſalmes. But yée demaund, what this maketh for ſtinted leiturgies, papiſticall and erronious, impoſed, &c. I ſay, it maketh nothing at all for that which is papiſticall and erronious. But it prooueth that all read praier is not idolatrie, and that it is no ſtinting of the ſpirit, to vſe a preſcript forme of praier. Theſe fantaſies of yours are firſt confuted thereby. Then next I argue thus. If I may vſe a whole praier of the ſcripture, and no idolatrie, then a praier that is compoſed by the rules of the ſcriptures may be vſed, and no idolatrie. You deny, that the argument drawne from the vſe of the Pſalmes dooth follow, becauſe praiers compoſed by men, are not equall to the Canonicall ſcripture: and ſo ſhut out all praiers, if yée marke well what yée ſay, that are framed by the Preacher, For let them be holy and good, yet yée may not ſet them as equall with the Canonicall ſcriptures. Againe yée deny the argument, by affirming, that ſinging of Pſalmes was no part of praier, but onelyonly for inſtruction and meditation: ye take vponupon ye to prooue this a little after, and when I come to that, ye ſhall hauehave anſwer. The Pſalm. 102. ye ſay was not a praier of the Church, becauſe it is ſaid, O Lord heare my prayer, and not, O Lord heare our prayer: a poore ſhift, when vſually the church ſpeaketh of her ſelfe in the ſingular number. Touching the bleſſing: ye ſay, that forme of words was not to tie them to vſe thoſe words, but after that manner, which is manifeſtly falſe.
Touching the orders of ſingers appointed by Dauid, I alledged it to no ſuch end, as you ſéeme to drawe it vntounto. But that in ſinging the Pſalmes, they did read them vponupon the booke. Héer now ye do not onelyonly deny, that ſinging of pſalmes was any part of praier, but alſo ye will prooue it by the teſtimony of S. Paul to the Epheſians, and to the Collofs. where he exhorteth thē to ſpeake vntounto themſelues in pſalmes & hymnes and ſpirituall ſongs. It is a foule audacitie, contrary to the manifeſt word of truth, to affirme that the Pſalmes were not ſunge to God, ſéeing that not onelyonly the ſpeeches be directed in a multitude of places vntounto him: but alſo the Holy-ghoſt doth call vponupon men in this wiſe. Sing vntounto God, ſing a new ſong vntounto him, ſing praiſes vntounto the Lorde. But beſide this you go further, for in both places by you cited, ye leaue out the latter part of the ſentence, which is, that they ſhould ſing vntounto the Lorde with grace in their hearts. Let the reader peruſe the places, and iudge what kinde of tricke this is. It is moſt cléere, that they did reade the Pſalmes vponupon the booke when they did ſing them. It is alſo out of controuerſie, that they did ſing them to the Lord, vnleſſe we will deny the flat word of the Holy-ghoſt, and alſo affirme, that albeit the ſpéech be directed to God, yet they did not in ſinging ſpeake vntounto him. It cannot be denied, but that many of the Pſalmes be full of petitions. Alſo praiſe is a part of prayer, and a ſpirituall ſacrifice: this was offered vp to God, in reading vponupon the booke, for it is ſaide. Sing praiſes to the Lorde: therefore I conclude, that read prayer hath warrant by the word, and the reading dooth not make it idolatrie, or contrarie to ſpirituall praier. Héere yée complaine againe▪ that this argument dooth not follow, becauſe praiers compoſed by men, are not to be matched with the Canonicall ſcriptures. I hauehave anſwered this poore ſtale ſhift already▪ that the praiers compoſed by men are no further lawfull, then they be framed by the rules of Gods word for prayer.
Thus hauehave I not, as you charge me, laid aſide the queſtion to make new queſtions: but hauehave diſprooued that your olde queſtion, by ſhewing, that reading the praier which is godly, dooth not make it contrary vntounto ſpirituall praier, nor idolatry.
Argu. 3. We may not in the worſhip of God, receiue any tradition which dooth bring our liberty into bondage. Read Prayer vponupon commaundement in the aſſemblies, is a tradition that dooth bring our libertye into bondage. Therefore read prayer, &c.
To the aſſumption of this argument, I anſwered at the firſt which I particularly rehearſed, how can yée then with any ſhew of truth, ſay my words import a deniall of the Antecedents, aſſumption and all. My words are theſe: The third argument ſaith, that the forme of praier is a bondage and breaking our libertie with, &c. The prooues which I bring do onelyonly ouerthrow the aſſumption, for I did and doo acknowledge the propoſition, which you ſay my words import a deniall of. I would wiſh yée to vſe more ſimplicitie, I ſay it is vngodlye and néere vntounto blaſphemy, to affirme that preſcript forme of prayer, is a tradition, bringing our libertie into bondage, and a changing the worke of the ſpirit into an idoll. My reaſon was and is, that the Lord by Moyſes preſcribed a forme of bleſſing which the Préeſts ſhould vſe Nomb. 6. The Prophets, as in the Pſalmes, preſcribed many formes of prayſes and prayers, to be vſed of the Church. Our Sauiour Ieſus Chriſt preſcribed a forme, and ſayd, when yée pray ſay Our Father, &c. If the verie reading, or vſing the preſcript forme commaunded, were a bondage, breaking Chriſtian libertie, or a changing the worke of the Spirit into an idoll, then the Lord God, Moyſes, the Prophets, and our Sauiour Chriſt, are charged with a great fault. Your reply is with ſome roughneſſe of ſpéech, which I omitte, becauſe it is but your faſhion. But for proofe, that read prayer is mans inuention, and thruſt vponupon the Church by conſtraint, ye ſay England knoweth by wofull experience. There hath béene I graunt in the Church of England variance about ſome matters to be read, which are commaunded in the Leiturgie, but not about the commaunding a preſcript forme of prayer to be vſed: for therein our Church doth agrée with all godly Churches, that a preſcript forme of publike prayers is conuenient, yea, the reformed Churches hauehave and do practiſe the ſame.
Héere therefore I would wiſhe the Reader to obſerue, that you Browniſts, doe not only condemne the Church of England, but all the reformed Churches whatſoeuer, and can be none other but méere Donatiſts. For héere in this your third argument ye affirme, that preſcript forme of prayer commaunded, is the changing the worke of the ſpirit into an idoll, a tradition breaking Chriſtian libertie, and therefore moſt deteſtable. In your fift Argument, ye ſay, it is a dead letter which doth quench the ſpirit. But all reformed Churches doo by commaundement receyue and vſe preſcript forme of prayers. Conſider then what ſentence yee hauehave giuen againſt all the viſible Churches of our time, and of former ages, for it will come to paſſe, that as the Donatiſts tooke themſelues to be the only true Church in earth, ſo muſt you Browniſts of neceſſitie, if your ſpéeches be weighed, ſéeing all Churches hauehave and doo things which you affirme to be moſt deteſtable idolatry: but let the matter come into queſtion to be debated among the Churches, and you will be found Anabaptiſts for imagining ſuch a Chriſtian libertie and fréedome in the Church, that nothing is to be receyued which is impoſed by commaundement. Then ye ſay, that it breaketh our libertie, S. Paul proueth moſt plainely to the Galathians and Coloſsians. I pray ye then that we may ſée ſuch plaine proofe, which as yet none but your ſelues can eſpy: note the ſentences that will prooue the matter. You take it, there is no warrant to ſet foorth any preſcript forme of prayer, becauſe Chriſt hath preſcribed a forme. Ye thinke I might more ſafely reaſon thus, Chriſt hath preſcribed a forme of prayer, therefore neyther Pope, Byſhop, or Prelate, ought to impoſe any other vponupon Gods children, vntill they can ſhewe ſome warrant from Gods word ſo to do. I am fully of your minde, that none ought to impoſe any other forme, vntill they can ſhewe warrant from Gods word. But nowe marke how the Argument will followe: Moyſes, the Prophets, and our Lord Ieſus gaue preſcript formes of prayer and prayſing God, to be vſed by the Church: therefore the reading of a preſcript forme of prayer when one prayeth or offreth vp the ſacrifice of prayſe to God, doth not change the worke of the Spirit into an idoll, nor is not a breaking Chriſtian libertie, nor idolatrie, for the holie Scripture is farre from appointing any idolatrous thing. Then I reaſon further, that if the Prophets and our Sauiour gaue preſcript formes to be vſed, the Church may take order to ſée them vſed. And from hence it doth followe, that the Church may impoſe preſcript forme of godlie prayers, which are framed aright.
If any thinke this a ſtrange conſequence, let them conſider that the Lords prayer in generall conteyneth in it matter touching the ſubſtance and ſumme of all prayers which hauehave béene made, or are to be made aright. The Pſalmes, and other prayers in the Scriptures, doo expreſſe particulars, with ſundrie ſentences, and phraſes, moſt fitte to expreſſe the ſame.
Nowe the Church hath power and authoritie, not onelyonly to expound theſe prayers, but alſo to applye them vntounto euerie ſeuerall vſe and neceſſitye. This I adde withall, that the Church hath no authoritye to bring in any one thing in prayer, which is not conteyned in thoſe prayers of Gods word: but when the prayers be compoſed and framed of nothing but the doctrine of the Scriptures, and after the rules of true prayer, nothing is brought in which God hath not commaunded. Lay aſide therefore all your ſhiftes touching Apocrypha, mens writings, and inequalitie with Canonicall Scriptures, and bring your Arguments againſt the preſcript forme and the reading, to prooue that they make a prayer holie in it ſelfe, to become abhominable, and contrarie vntounto ſpirituall prayer.
That yee ſay, our Sauiour neuer vſed the words of the Lords prayer, when he prayed, neyther commaunded his Diſciples to ſay ouer theſe words, neyther doo we reade that the Apoſtles did euer vſe, or enforced others to vſe certayne words, &c. ye ſpeake vntruly, for the Diſciples deſired him to teach them to pray as Iohn taught his diſciples to pray, and he commaundeth, when yée pray, ſay thus: Our Father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name &c. Luke 11. and S. Mathew an Apoſtle, with S. Luke the Euangeliſt, hath deliuered the ſame to the whole Church, if we reade not any where that they did vſe the Lords prayer, or commaunded others to vſe it? Will ye reaſon thus, we do not reade that the Apoſtles, or the Church in their time, did baptize Infants, therefore Infants were not baptized? or will ye reaſon thus, we neuer read that the Apoſtles did pray eyther before or after they preached, therefore they did not? your argument is the very ſame with theſe two former, yet from hence ye will néeds conclude, yt we will impoſe vponupon whole Churches certaine words, euen our own words, ſtinting the ſpirit of God.
I hauehave alreadie ſhewed, that the Church hath not authoritie to bring any forme of prayer into the aſſemblies, but ſuch as is agréeable to the rules appointed for prayer by the word of God. And where ye call it a ſtinting of the Spirit, I aunſwere, that the Spirit of God is not ſtinted, but ſome men are furthered by preſcript formes, their infirmities requiring ſuch an eye, as I hauehave ſhewed before.
Argum. 4. Becauſe true prayer muſt be of faith, vttered with heart and liuely voyce, it is preſumptuous ignorance to bring a booke to ſpeake for vsus, &c.
Argum. 5.
To worſhip the true God after an other manner then he hath taught, is Idolatrie.
But he hath commaunded vsus to come vntounto him heauie laden with contrite hearts, &c.
How dare we then bring a dead letter vntounto God, to ſtand reading of the ſame in ſtead of faithfull petitions, quenching the ſpirit?
Argum. 6. We muſt ſtriue in prayer with continuance, &c. therefore not vponupon a booke.
Theſe thrée I ioyned together as hauing no waight. Ye ſay I anſwere by playne contradiction, without Scripture, or proofe. In déede you quote Scripture to prooue thoſe things which are not doubted of, as, that true prayer muſt be of faith, vttered with hart: that to worſhip God after an other manner then he hath taught, is idolatrie: that we muſt ſtriue in prayer with continuance. But what ſcripture do ye bring to prooue that it is preſumptuous ignorance to vſe the help of a booke, that thoſe which reade vponupon a booke come not with faith and contrite hearts, &c. but ſtand reading a dead letter which quencheth the Spirit, and that a booke is no helpe for continuance in prayer, what Scripture I ſay, bring yee to prooue any of theſe? is not my bare denyall as good as your bare affirmation, and in this farre better that I hauehave before proued the vſe of reading by ye word of God. Dauid (ſay you) would prayſe the Lord with hart and doyce, therefore not vponupon a booke. S. Paule would pray with the ſpirit, and with vnderſtanding, therefore not vponupon a booke. Dauid and Paule had not ſo much néed of the booke as other men. But whē they will other to ſing prayſes to God, as in Pſalmes, & Himnes, and ſpirituall ſongs, did they not ſend them to the booke, or to the preſcript formes, wherein others might praiſe God together with them, although they binde not men alwaies to the booke. Then yée adde a reaſon, why praier read, cannot be true praier: which is, that in reading we fetch the matter from the booke which mooueth the heart. In true praier we fetch the matter from the heart, which cauſeth the mouth to ſpeake: as, I beléeued, and therefore I ſpake. This is a moſt ridiculous vanitie, for tell me this, when we bring foorth in true praier, matter from the heart which cauſeth the mouth to ſpeake, hath not the heart béene firſt mooued with the word of faith? why may not the heart be mooued againe with hearing or reading the word, and ſo vtter true praier? the heart is mooued when one heareth the praier of the miniſter, and preſently ſendeth forth praiers together with him. Do ye imagine that the heart cannot both be mooued and pray at the ſame inſtant? Is it not poſſible for one to pray in ſinging a Pſalme?
Argu. 7. We muſt pray as neceſſitie requireth. But ſtinted praiers cannot bee as neceſſitie requireth. Therefore ſtinted prayers, &c.
To this I anſwered, approouing the propoſition, and in the aſſumption I did diſtinguiſh of matters to be praied for, as that there be things neceſſarie to be praied for at all times, and of all men: of theſe a preſcript forme may be vſed at all méetings of the Church. There be matters not at all times néedfull to be praied for: touching theſe, there can be no preſcript forme to be vſed continually, yea ſome things fall out ſo rare, that it were hard: for, as it is a fault to omit that which néedeth continually and of all men to be praied for: ſo is it a groſe babling to pray for things whereof there is no néed. And if yée obſerue the preſcript praiers of all Churches, yée ſhall find the regard of theſe two things, that nothing neceſſary be omitted, yt no praier be for ſuch things as fall out ſildome, but they are limited to the time. And further, that which falleth out beſide the preſcript formes, the miniſters of the word are to ſupply. And in the Church of England, the Preachers are not limitted touching the matters of their praiers. But if I meane by the things which be neceſſary to be prayed for at all times, the Sacraments or any ſuch thinges as Chriſt hath ſet foorth in his word, wee ſhould thinke our Sauiour Chriſt, you ſay, to hauehave forgotten himſelfe, that when he did commaund them to preach and baptize, that he did not preſcribe ſome forme of wordes for their praiers, before their doctrine and Sacraments.
To this I aunſwer, I doo not holde that for the adminiſtration of the worde and Sacramentes, it is of neceſſitie there ſhould bee a forme of praier preſcribed: for the Miniſter may conceiue the prayers at the adminiſtration of the Sacraments, as well as at the preaching of the worde. But preſcript forme, is for conueniencie. Neither am I of the minde, that one preciſe forme is of neceſſitie. Therefore yée reaſon verye fondlye, in ſaying wee might thinke our Sauiour forgat himſelfe, that he did not preſcribe a forme of wordes for their prayers, before their doctrine and Sacramentes. Your nexte wordes, that then I muſt further ſaye, that all things neceſſarye in the worſhip of GOD, are not conteined in the Canonicall Scriptures, and ſo euerye waye vpholde the Papiſts, are euen as farre wide. For all things neceſſarye and conuenient in Gods worſhippe bee conteined in the Canonicall Scriptures. But are you ignorant of this, that there be many thinges conteyned in the Scriptures, which are not in particular expreſſed, but to bee gathered from the generall groundes and rules of doctrine. What if one ſhould obiect vntounto yée, there is no commaundement nor example of the Apoſtles in the ſcriptures, for anye prayer to bee made at the Preaching of the worde, and adminiſtration of Sacraments. Therefore it is not conteined in the Scriptures, that there ſhould bee anye, and ſo a thing not neceſſarye. Would yée not flie to this, that although it bee not expreſſed by anye commaundement, that there ſhould bee ſuch prayers, yet is it to bee gathered out of the doctrine conteined in the Scriptures? How groſſe are yée then, in ſaying that this dooth vpholde the Papiſts?
But yée ſaye, it were well I ſet downe what it is, that may bee fitte at all times, and for all perſons to craue? I maruaile anye ſhould be ſo babling, as to propound ſuch a matter, making doubt. For can yée be ignorant, that going through the whole Lords praier, and opening the particulars▪ there is no one petition, but almoſt all branches of it are neceſſary to bee craued at all publike méetings and of all perſons.
When will there bee a time, and an aſſemblie, in which it ſhall not bee fitte for all to make ſupplication, that the name of the Lorde may bee ſanctified: that they may receiue the giftes and graces of the Holy-ghoſt, to imbrace the true light of the Goſpell, to increaſe in knowlege, faith, and repentance: to praye for Princes, for the whole Church, and for the ouerthrowe of Chriſtes enimies? to hauehave grace to obey, and to walke worthy of the Goſpell. To craue all benefites for our neceſſary ſuſtentation, and the pardon of our ſinnes, with deliuerance from the deuill. They bee all conteined in the Lordes praier, but wee as children néede to hauehave them particularly expreſſed, in that manner which may beſt helpe and guide vsus.
And touching praiers at the Sacraments, they may verye well be the ſame, ſéeing the thinges doo euer remaine the ſame which we are then to craue. Vnleſſe yée will maintaine, that there bee thinges in adminiſtration of Sacraments, at ſometime to be prayed for, and not at other. Then ſo farre as preſcript forme of prayer dooth fullye and fitlye expreſſe our néede, it is no babling, and ſo this your argument dooth not condemne it.
Read prayers were deuiſed by Antichriſt, and maintaine ſuperſtition and an idol miniſterie. Therefore read praiers are not tollerable, &c.
Antichriſt deuiſed manye blaſphemous wicked prayers. But to ſay that the reading or following a preſcript forme of praier was his deuice, is moſt falſe: for there were leiturgies in the Church of olde, before Antichriſt was ſet in his throne. And moreouer, the preſcript formes deliuered in the ſcriptures to be vſed, and which were vſed and practiſed by the Church, ſhewe that the thing is allowed by God. Yée ſay, I hauehave confeſſed, that I neuer read in the ſcriptures any warrant to reade praiers vntounto God: and then it muſt néedes follow that it is antichriſtian. I ſay, you know that yée doo falſifie my ſpéech. For I ſaid and hauehave prooued, that it is great audacitie to affirme, that there is no warrant in Gods word for preſcript forme of praier. But I doo not remember that euer I read in the ſcriptures, that God dooth commaund a man to reade the praier vponupon the booke. My reaſon is rendered, that God dooth commend ſuch diligence in all his ſeruants, as to hauehave in memorie, &c. Will ye gather thus, it is not expreſſely commaunded, therefore there is no warrant? it is not expreſly commaunded that euer I read, that the Miniſter ſhal make praier before and after his ſermon. Will yée charge me héerevpon, that I ſay there is no warrant for it in the word? There would ſundrye inconueniences growe for want of preſcript forme of publike praiers. I did onelyonly mention this, that eueryevery frantike ſpirit, of which ſort there may bee ſome in the Miniſtrie, will not onelyonly be vnlike themſelues, but vary from others. You reply, that the Papiſts hauehave not ſo weake reaſons for their idolatrous leiturgies, rubrikes, and Canons. It appeareth by all your arguments, how méete men yée are to iudge of the waight and ſufficiencie of reaſons, alledged by the Papiſts or others. Ye ſay, if it be but in phraſes of ſpéech, that they differ, it is no ſufficient cauſe to ordaine leiturgies. I graunt that is true: then yée ſay, if it be in doctrine or conuerſation, the cenſures of the Church are to helpe that. I confeſſe that the cenſures of the Church are to redreſſe ſuch things. But your reaſon yet hath two defaults. The one, that ye deuide differing in adminiſtration of Sacraments and publike praiers, but into two members, difference of phraſes, and difference of doctrine. When as there be ſundry other differences, as in order and ceremonies, which the Church is to hauehave regard of, and not to leaue arbitrary. Your experience in theſe matters, is not ſo great as your boldneſſe. The other fault is, that becauſe the cenſures of the church ſhould redreſſe defaultes, therefore there néedeth no preſcribed order. It is a world to ſée, how many men talke of the Cenſures and gouernment of the Church, which knowe not what it meaneth.
The Church hath this power, to ordeine according to the word of God, and to appoynt ſuch Orders in matters of circumſtance about publike prayer, preaching of the word, and adminiſtring of the Sacraments, as ſhall moſt fitlie ſerue for edification. And then theſe Orders béeing eſtabliſhed by publike Authoritie, the Diſcipline and Cenſures of the Church are to driue men to the obſeruation of the ſame. Who is able to imagin the innumerable diuiſions and offences which would ariſe in the practiſe of your Anabaptiſticall fréedome, in which, yee denye the Church to hauehave power to ordeyne and to impoſe any orders? I would the Miniſterie of England were better then it is. If by tearming it a franticke Miniſterie, you meant but to ſpeake againſt vnlearned and vngodlie men, you ſhould hauehave leaue for me: but you comprehend all the learnedeſt and godly, whiche you could not bée bolde to doo, vnleſſe yee were taken with a frenſie, ſéeing there bée many whome yée are neuer lyke in any meaſure of giftes and graces, eyther for knowledge, or Godlyneſſe, to approch néere vntounto. Well, now yée fall to your ſober reaſoning agayne. Paule commaunded the Coloſsians to admoniſhe Archippus, you would hauehave a Leiturgie for your Miniſters, not onelyonly to tell them what they ſhould doo to men, but alſo to God himſelfe: this is your laſt reaſon, and hauing before ſpent your ſtrength, it is as a weake childe of your olde age. If yee had no better, I would neuer hauehave ſet this laſt. For I meruayle, vnleſſe yee did it to mocke, to what ende yee ſhoulde bring it in. Archippus was to bée admoniſhed by the Coloſsians, the Paſtors are to bée admoniſhed by theyr flockes, therefore there ought to bée no preſcript forme of publike prayer. Or is your meaning, that the Leiturgies goe too farre in telling the Miniſters what they ſhall ſay, not only to men, but to God himſelfe. Then I aunſwere, that the Coloſsians were to admoniſh Archippus, to looke to his whole dutie. Set Archippus aſide, for he doth not ſtrengthen, but weaken your argument, and take theſe words only, which ſéeme to carrie a great abſurditie, namely, that the Miniſter ſhould be told by a Leiturgie what he is to ſpeake both to God and men. I aunſwere, that the Leiturgie is not to teach Miniſters, which otherwiſe can not tell what to ſay: it is not to maintaine an idoll Miniſterie. But to auoyd thoſe inconueniences which I hauehave before mentioned, and ſuch lyke, you may ſée in the reformed Churches, they hauehave Leiturgies, and yet all theyr Miniſters are able, and knowe what to ſpeake, both to God and men. I propounded this queſtion, that if read prayers, and impoſed Leiturgies bée Idolatrie, where ſhall wée fynde a viſible Churche? You aunſwere, that in this poynt they might erre of ignorance, and yet be the true Church. This is ſome fauour yet: the Church came nowe vntounto yee in a lucky houre, but yee may continue thus gratious, leaſt the poore Churches of England craue the like at your hande. HaueHave yee not ſet downe, that to reade a prayer vppon the booke, is to woorſhip hym with a woorſhip diſagréeing from his nature? hauehave yee not ſayd, it is the deuiſe of Antichriſt, a dead letter, quenching the Spirit, ſtinting the Spirit, not of Faith, Idolatrie, a changing the worke of the Spirit, into an Idoll, a tradition and bondage, breaking our libertie which Chriſt hath purchaſed for vsus, and therefore a thing moſt deteſtable? Doo yee not denye that to bée the Church of Chriſt which hath any thing impoſed? and yet yee ſaye touching Leiturgies impoſed vppon all Churches, they might erre in this poynt, of ignorance, and yet bée a true Church. Your ſpéeches doo condemne all the viſible Churches in the worlde, wherein, yée bée rancke Donatiſts. But you woulde hide this, and make ſhewe as though yée condemned only the Churches of England. But if read prayers and impoſed Leiturgies bée ſuch as you affyrme in thoſe ſpéeches which I hauehave mentioned, how could ignorance excuſe them? And why may not the Church of Englande bée excuſed by ignorance? let the Reader héere obſerue the pride of ignorant blinde Sciſmatikes, which imagine they knowe more, then all the Churches of God in the earth. You take it that I vſe the Popiſh Argument of vniuerſalitie and Antiquitie, and ſo wonder what I will ſay againſt the Papiſts traditions, ſéeing I fight with their weapons agaynſt the truth. Nay, if yée could ſée your owne blindneſſe, it would make ye meruaile in déede.
I reaſon thus: It is manifeſt by the word of God, that there ſhould bée a true viſible Church in earth: but if impoſed Leiturgies be ſuch as you make them, that could not bée ſo, there could bée no true Church, in as much as all Churches that are and that hauehave béene for many hundred yeares, hauehave had impoſed Leiturgies.
The Papiſts doo drawe theyr Arguments of Antiquitie and Vniuerſalitie not from the Scriptures, as you may ſée this reaſon that I alleadge is, but againſt the Scriptures. And nowe how truly yée conclude touching this queſtion of read Prayer, and preſcript forme of Leiturgies, let the Reader iudge: and whether the Scriptures that I hauehave brought, doo not ouerthrowe your fantaſticall and Anabaptiſticall errors.
There were ioyned with theſe Arguments againſt read Prayer, two other: the firſt is this. The Prayers of ſuch Miniſters and people as ſtand vnderunder a falſe Gouernment, are not acceptable, not onelyonly becauſe they aſke amiſſe, but becauſe they breake Gods commaundement. The other is, The Prayers of ſuch as bée ſubiect to Antichriſt, are abhominable. Thoſe Miniſters which hauehave no power with theyr people to receyue in, and to caſt out, hauing come in by the windowe, are Antichriſtian, and ſubiect to Antichriſt, therefore the prayers of &c.
Theſe doo concerne the third and fourth accuſation, and therefore the Aunſwere is included in the Aunſwere to them. Yet I tooke exception againſt the firſt, that the Church may be holden by force from executing Gods commaundement touching externall Gouernment, and yet be the true Church of God. And for example, I alleadged the Church that was held captiue in Babylon.
You according to your vſuall manner, extend this to a wilfull violating of Gods commaundement. And further, you deale in that which yée demaund, as if all your accuſations againſt the Churche of Englande were true, touching Idolatrous worſhip. You ſhould aunſwere directly, whether they be not the Church of God which are by force, being willing, kept backe from executing Church Gouernment? You take your ſelues to be the true Church, and yet yée are reſtrayned from ſetting vp thoſe Orders which yée profeſſe ye would. I would knowe whether this bée not ſome bondage. If yée ſay yet this is not to be ſubiect to any falſe gouernment. To prooue that the Church may of ignorance and frailtie bée in ſome bondage of a falſe gouernment, and yet bée the true Church, I indeuored to ſhewe, that Ieruſalem from aboue is not in this world ſo fullie poſſeſſed of her fréedome, but that ſhée, and euerie one of her children, bée in ſome ſpirituall bondage. For proofe, I alleadged that Saint Paule ſayeth, He ſawe in his members a lawe, rebelling againſt the lawe of his minde, and leading him captiue to the lawe of ſinne Rom. 7.
You cry out and ſay, yée will thinke me a carnall Libertine, if I recant not this doctrine. What Atheiſt (ſay you) would thus hauehave defended his groſſe ſinne? I doo not meruayle that yée are moued ſo ſore at this doctrine, for if it bée prooued that the true Church, and euerie member of the ſame, is tyed in ſome ſpirituall bondage in this world, it breaketh the mayne piller of Browniſme, which they erect out of this ſentence, Ieruſalem from aboue is free with her children, and ſo their whole frame commeth downe: this maketh you ſo haſtely to thruſt vnderunder a rotten proppe, euen as it came to hand. Ye ſay, that Saint Paule neuer continued captiue vntounto ſinne after regeneration, neither gaue place vntounto euill thoughts: no more doo any of you. S. Paul ſaith, that the law in his members did lead him captiue to the lawe of ſinne. He ſaith I do the euil which I hate. I my ſelfe in my minde ſerue the law of God, and in my fleſh the lawe of ſinne. Was not Dauid regenerate, and yet gaue place to euill thoughts, ſo farre as to commit adultrie and murther. If the regeneration and fréedome of Browniſts from all ſpirituall bondage be ſuch, that they giuegive not place vntounto euill thoughts, they ſhall neuer hauehave any great company, vnleſſe it be of ranke hypocrites, of ſuch indéed there may be ſtoare. Ye looke that I ſhould recant. But I ſay, either you or S. Paul muſt recant: for that which you ſay, is flat contrary and oppoſite to that which hee ſaith. Looke well to it, for I tell ye, he is too conſtant to recant. If it pleaſe God to beſtow his grace, you may. Ye ſay, what Atheiſt would thus hauehave defended his groſſe ſinne? And I ſay, what Heretike could more bouldly ſpeake flat contrary to the bleſſed Apoſtle, and to the manifeſt doctrine of the Scriptures deliuered eueryevery where, then you doe? it may be ye ſtand chéefely vponupon the words of our Sauiour, which yée alledge: that no man can ſerue two maiſters. If the regenerate be held captiue in any part vntounto ſinne, they ſerue two maiſters. This needeth to be opened.
We are moſt ſure that Saint Paul in that hée ſaith, dooth not differ from our Sauiour Chriſt, and yet in ſhewe hee ſéemeth to ſpeake quite contrary. For where the one ſaith: No man can ſerue two Maiſters. The other ſaith: I my ſelfe in my minde ſerue the lawe of God, and in my fleſh the lawe of ſinne. How ſhall this bee reconciled? is there no waye but to fall vponupon the rockes of Browniſme, and to imagine that the regenerate are ſo fréed, that they be in no captiuitie vntounto ſinne, nor giuegive place vntounto euill thoughtes? Yes verelye: The regenerate doo fall into ſinne, not onelye in thoughts but in déedes: not onelye of ignorance, but euen againſt theyr knowledge, as Dauid, Peter, and manye other in the holye Scriptures.
And therefore they may be ſaid to ſerue ſinne in the fleſh, that is in the corruption yet remaining in them, not extinguiſhed by the law of the minde, that is the grace and worke of regeneration▪ Yet the doubt remaineth, for all is but one man, ſo farre as he is regenerate, and ſo farre as he is corrupt: and therefore when in the fleſh he dooth ſerue the law of ſinne, the whole man may be ſaid to ſerue the lawe of ſinne. S. Paul dooth deny that, and ſaith: I doo the euill that I hate, I conſent to the lawe of God that it is good, I delight in the law of God concerning the inner man, it is no longer I that ſinne, but the ſinne that dwelleth in me. We ſée then the ſame man ſinneth, and in ſome reſpect is ſaide to be in captiuitie, and to ſerue ſinne, and in an other reſpect he is accounted with God, not to ſerue ſinne, ſéeing he is by tyrannous forcing drawne to doo that which he hateth. How ſtandeth the fréedome then of Ieruſalem, and her Children? I ſay, her perfect fréedome with all her children is in the remiſſion of ſinnes. Touching that ſhe hath in this world, it may thus be compared. As if a man lye bound in chaines, ſo that he cannot ſtirre any member, and after his chaines be looſed he can riſe and walke: but yet his chaines hang vponupon him, and are a burthen, hee cannot caſt them off. For by nature we are ſo faſt chained, that we hauehave no moouing at all in vsus, being dead in ſinne. But through the worke of regeneration we are borne, we are raiſed, our bands and chaines are looſed and broken: we can riſe, we can ſtand, we can walke, though faintlye, our chaines, euen a lumpe of corruption in the fleſh, preſſing vsus downe ſo ſore. Then I conclude, that ſeeing the Church in this life is in ſome bondage to ſinne, and yet the true Church. And ſéeing there may be the true viſible Church vnderunder ſome yoake of outward bondage: let the Church of England hauehave that fauour which other churches hauehave had, and not bee ſo rigorouſlye condemned. Thus much touching the firſt accuſation▪ together with your arguments againſt read prayer.