More Work for Priests, Answer 5 – Statement 1
J. GREENWOOD.
SEing you have indeed not answered one reason or proof I alleadged in my last writing, but with must evil conscience (as the handling sheweth) perverted them, I will leaue them to be iudged of them that shall see my writing. And here, seing you would not print it, I will answere your cheif obiections. First then you graunt, that if I put difference betweene reading vponupon the booke, and that which he hath learned out of the booke, mine Argument is founde. For by your owne confession, God hath not given anie Commandement for read prayer, and so it hath no warrant. Whervpon I gayne thus much. First, that they which impose read praier vponupon the Church, do that wherof they have no warrant in the worde, and that in the high service of God then, that they which reade vponupon a booke for praying, do that wherof they have no warrant in Gods worde: wherupon al your Ministers must leave reading their stinted prayers upon the booke, or els stand vnderunder Gods wrath, & all that so pray with them, which wilbe a fearefull reckoning if they repent not of their sinne shewed them. And although our question be cheiflie concerning the reading of mens writings instead of praying, yet I am content the other abuse of the Scriptures be included also, though I make not both in the same height of sinne, as shall appeare in my several reasons. As an vnconstāt man then, you in the latter end of the answere to this Argument would, cal backe agayne that, which you here have granted: Namely, that there is no Commandement to reade prayer vponupon a booke for praying.
Of the contrary thus you reason The people of God did reade the Psalmes vponupon a booke when they did singe, therefore men may reade vponupon a booke when they pray. I deny your Argument: besides that all men may see Your unstablenes in denying and affirming with one breath, you now go about to make reading of prayer a Commandement: thus you prove it. Singing (say you) is a part of praier. Singing may be read vponupon a Booke: therefore praier may be read vponupon a booke. Admit that Singing were a part of praier, yet doth it not followe that all prayer may be read vponupon a booke. But you speake like an ignorant man, to say that Singing is praier, seing they are twoo diuers actions & exercises of our faith: the one never read for the other, nor said to be a part of the other, through the Scriptures, but are playnely distinguished I. Cor. 14.15. what is it then I wil pray with the spirit, but I will pray, with vnderstanding, I will sing with the spirit etc. Againe, if you be sad, pray, and if you be merye sing Psalmes, prosuxomai and psalo. I wil pray, and I will sing, are divers exercises of the faith, if a man should say reading a chapter of the scripture, and prophecying were alon, were he not wide. Even so eueryevery part of Gods service is not praier. I graunt we are every where commaunded to singe Psalmes unto God. And alleadged that place of the Apostle to the Ephes. 5. 19. Speaking to your selves in Psalmes and Himnes and Spirituall songes, etc. and that of the Coloss, only to this end, that in Psalmes singing we do not alwaies speake vntounto God, as in those Psalmes which are onelie instructions and prophesies, in the 1. and 2. Psalmes you have not one worde spoken vntounto God. Againe, as all reading of the praiers in the Scriptures, is not praying or speaking unto God, so the reading or singing of Psalmes I tooke to have beene a speaking to our selves, a stirring vp of Gods graces in vsus etc. But I do not now nor did not then hold it so, in al Psalmes singing. And where you say I purposelie left out the latter part in both places, which was this. Sing vntounto God with a grace in your heartes, the Lorde knowes I had no purpose to injurie the Scripture, nor maintaine an vntruth, But though wee might do those things with a grace to God in our heartes, which were not properly and directlie a conversing by thought & worde with him alone, but one thing might have kept you from crying out, here sie, in that I added this, that I would not stand vponupon that reason, but desired to knowe it furder. But how vniustlie could you number this for an heresie mainteined of us al in your Epistle, that we should denie that Psalmes should be songe vntounto God. The Lorde keepe me from such errour, And a wofull phisition you are; if I had bene in such an errour; For the 102. Psalme, I never denied: but that it was a most excellent Psalme penned by Daniel or some other Prophet, and given to the whole Church to be songe or read as other Psalmes, in the forme of praier. But you must prove that the Church did use it as you say, to reade it over for praying, or were commaunded so to doe. This is proof enough they did not, because it is a Psalme. Now though the Ch. speake manie times in the singular number, yet it is expressed in some other verse that it is so. But now admit that you could prove that the psalmes were read insteade of, or for invocation, which you shall never be able to doe, it doth not followe that mens writinges should be brought into the assemblies and read for praier. The 6. of Numbers I have answered before: From the 92. Psalme you reason thus. If the psalmes and other formes of prayer in the scriptures were read or said by rote, the verie forme of wordes for praying; Then reading instead of, or for praying. Here you durst not set your assumption, it was so false, which should be thus. But the Psalmes & other formes of prayer were read for praying, &c. This I shewed you was verie untrue, they were never commaunded so to be used, nor never so used. My proof was this, they are given were by the holy Ghost for other uses, as singing, reading, etc. and not commaunded anie where so to be used, so that you do but cavil, not having one proof for all your shameles assertions. Now where I demaunded what this made for your Liturgies, and reading mens writinges for praying, except you would make your owne writinges of equall authoritie with the Scriptures: You answere. That if I denie the consequence, it was lawfull to use the Psalmes, therefore mens writings, then I wil shut out all prayers, even the praier of the Pastor. See your carnall handling, shufling, and confounding Gods ordinances: Doth it followe that because mens writinges may not be brought into the publique assemblies, or there be read for praying, therfore the praiers uttered by the lively voice of the Pastor should hereby be excluded? this your shift was answered in the first Argument, your cavils are stale, you are againe convinced. Touching the other matter of cunning phrases and formes of praier by roate, to say over certeine number of wordes, it is popish and a meere evasion, and bewraieth your ignorance in prayer, In this you have granted me that he which praieth not with a feeling of his present wants of his soul, but saith over certaine number of wordes of custome or affectation, he is an hiprocrite, which is true, proved. Mat. 6.7. Now by this examine your dailie, monethlie, annuall etc. saying over, nay reading over certeine wordes, eueryevery time the same, as you are stinted. It is plaine the sacrifice of fooles. Ecclesiastes. 4.17. The two pointes wherein you protest so willinglie to agree with me, were these. First whether only such praiers as were made without the book, were accepted of Gods children. Secondly whether the same spirit teacheth vsus to pray, that taught the holie men of God before time. You grant both these, but that you would seeme to alter the first question: wel then, Gods owne spirit that taught them to pray without a booke, or stinting of wordes, teacheth vsus so to pray nowe, & in the action of praying giveth the mouth to utter what the heart desireth, moved with the same spirit. Still then after your long shifting to and fro, I trust you wil stand to your first wordes, that you never read in the Scriptures anie commaundement for reading of praiers. Secondlie, to say over certeine numbers of wordes or phrases of the Scripture of custome or affectation, without feeling of, or asking for our present wantes, is hypocrisie. Therefore I wil conclude as I beganne, mine Argument standing good, that, To doe anie thing in the worship of God werof we have no warrant of Gods worde, is sinne: But read praiers have no warrant in Gods Word, Ergo, etc.
The third Argument:
We may not in the worship of God receave any tradition which bringeth our libertie into bondage. Read prayer upon commandement brought into the publique assemblies, is a tradition that bringeth our libertie into bōdage. Therefore read prayer &c.
The Minor is thus proved, that God hath left it in all mens freedome to pray as the present occasion requireth and the spirit giveth utterance, according to his will. Againe no man hath power to commaunde anie thing in the worship of God, which God hath not commaunded &c. Marke 7.7.8.9. Math. 15. Gal. 5.1. &c.
GEORGE GIFFORD.
I say it is ungodlie and neere unto blasphemie, to affirme, that prescript forme of prayer is a tradition bringing our libertie into hondage &c. my reason was &c is, that the Lord by Moses prescribed a forme of blessing &c. Num. 6 the Prophets in the Psalmes, have prescribed manie formes of prayer. Our Saviour Christ prescribed a forme of prayer, &c.
JOHN GREENWODS Answer.
HEre is a greate storme, & yet nothing but wynde. If you were in Caiphas his place you would either have rent your clothes for zeale, or, els condemne me before you vnderstand what I say. Is it simple dealing do you thinke to say I hold it a bondage breaking our libertie, for the Lord by Moses, the Prophetes, our Saviour Christ also, to set downe a forme of praier or to prescribe a forme of praier? Did you not see that the Minor Proposition speaketh of the reading for praing, and not of the forme of praier? Againe, of the commandement, wherby men are compelled to reade instead of praing? Did you not see that these wordes brought into the publique, assemblies, did specifye the matter to be mens writings to be read in the assemblies as a worship, yea invocation of Gods name: which is a grosse mockery. Not that ther is any Commandement to reade ouer those formes of praier mentioned by you for praing, and so the Commandement so to reade them for praying, is an abuse of them, and a Commandement of men and not of God, etc. But that much more odious it is to bring in mens writings into the publique assemblies., is proved vnlawfull in the first argument, and then to commit Idolatrie with them by reading them jnstead of praing, and that to compell men by Commandement wher God had set no Commandement so to vse them, was a bringing all men into bondage of popish traditions. So that your common recitall of these places of Scripture is abuse of them, and you do but palinodian cauere. I thinke if you get St. I H O N S gospell about your necke as the Papists do, you wil thinke you hauehave religion ynough. The more fearfull is your Apostacy, you proceede from euill to worse.
GEORGE GIFFORD.
About the Commaunding a prescript forme of prayer to be used, our Church doth agree with all godly Churches, yea the reformed Churches have and do practise the same, here therefore I wish the reader to observe that you Brownists doe not only condemne the the Church of England, but all the reformed Churches whatsoever, and can be no other but Donatistes.