A SOBER and TEMPERATE DISCOURSE, Concerning the Intereſt of Words in Prayer. The juſt Antiquity and Pedigree of LITURGIES, OR Forms of Prayer in Churches: With a View of the State of the Church, when they were firſt compoſed, or impoſed. Together with A Diſcovery of the weakneſs of the grounds upon which they were firſt brought in, or upon which Biſhop Gawden hath lately Diſcourſed, the nec•ſſity of a Liturgie, or the inconven•ency of altering the Engliſh Liturgie, the utility of Church Muſick, and the lawfulneſs of Ceremonies: in which are mixed Reaſons juſtifying thoſe Godly Miniſters, who forbear the uſe of the Common prayer, againſt the late Out-cryes of the ſaid Biſhop.
By H. D. M. A.
Not rending evil for evil, or railing for railing, but contrariwiſe bleſſing, knowing that you are thereunto called, that you ſhould inherit a bleſſing.
LONDON, Printed for W.A. and are to be ſold at the Royal Exchange, & in Pauls Chur•h yard, 1661.
HE (who had reported to Maſter Williams, Whittingham, Gilby, and others, that Cranmer Biſhop of Canterbury, had drawn up a Book of Prayer, an hundred times more perfect then•his that we now have; the ſame could not take place, for that he was matched with ſuch a wicked Clergy and Convocation, with other enemies) even he, I ſay ſtood in this, that Maſter Bullinger did like well of the Engliſh order, and had it in his Study. But when Whittingham had demanded that queſtion, Bullinger told him, that indeed Maſter H. and Maſter C. asked his judgement concerning certain points of that Book, as Surplice, Private Baptiſm, Churching of Women, the Ring in Marriage, with ſuch like, which (as he ſaid) he allowed not, and that he neither could if he would, neither would if he might uſe the ſame in his Church, whatſoever had been reported. Hiſtory of the troubles at Frankeford firſt publiſhed 1575. in the 42. 43. pag.
I. SO tranſcendent is the priviledge of coming to the Holy of Holies, by the new and living way in the moſt ſublime and ſpiritual duty of Prayer, where the ſoul talks with its Creator, as it were face to face. Such is the nature of that ſpiritual performance, conſidered in it ſelf, ſo momentous the Concernes, for which in it we wait upon the Throne of Grace; ſo many the directions which our Holy Father hath given us in his Word for the acceptable performance of it, that we muſt needs be concluded unthankful to God, who hath indulged ſo glorious a Liberty to us, unjuſt and unreaſonable to our ſelves, who are by the Law of Nature taught to2 remit or intend our minds in all performances, according to the moment of them, and unfaithful to that Word, which we own as the ſquare of all our Converſations, if we ſhould not warily attend our Souls in ſo Sacred an Homage, in which ſo much of our Intereſt lies, not offering a Female, when we have a Male in our Plock; though we knew of no ſuch Malediction as that, Curſed be he that doth the work of the Lord negligently.
II. Whilſt we view this ſacred thing Prayer, as our Priviledge, we can conſider it no otherwiſe than as a Liberty, to ask of the Father of mercies, what we or others ſtand in need of, under the encouragements of many precious Promiſes, nor ſhort of his who ſaid, Ask what thou wilt, even to the half of my Kingdom, I will give it thee; yea far beyond; for the Lord will give Grace and•lory, Pſal. 84. When we reſpect it as our duty, we find it is expreſſed in Scripture under the many notions of Seeking God, Calling upon him, wreſtling with him, powring out our ſouls before him, &c. As our view of it in the notion of a priviledge, forbids us any limitations, as to the matter of our Prayers, other than what God hath ſet us; ſo the latter obligeth us to a performance of it under ſuch Circumſtances, as ſhall neither divert the intention of our mind, nor cool the fervour of our Spirits, which two things are moſt eſſentially neceſſary to the acceptable performance of our duty in it, and ſo excellently becomes that moſt ſacred performance; and without which our performance is but lip-labour, and loſt labour; yea no other than a moſt groſs Hypocriſie, and mocking of him who cannot be mocked.
III. Prayer being the ſouls Colloquy with God, who is a Spirit, and our Tongue (which is the Organ of ſpeech) with all the faculty belonging to it, and the iſſues of it, ſerving chiefly (if not only) for intercourſe with men (Spirit having another way to communicate their ſenſe each to other) It is rationally apparent that there is no abſolute neceſſity of any words at all in Prayer. (Haunch can pray acceptably, and yet her voice not be heard, 1 Sam. 1.) for ſuch neceſſity muſt either be on the Souls part or on Gods: On the Soul part they are not neceſſary, for it can long and deſire without the Tongue; nor yet on Gods part are they ſo, for he not only knows what things we have need of, but alſo what we would have before we ask them; how elſe can he anſwer before we call, and (as be promiſeth) hear before we ſpeak.
IV. But he who made all things for himſelf, did not in that general deſign except the Tongue of man, which being his creature, is3 naturally obliged, and ex Inſtitute, is otherwiſe obliged to his Service, and as his Word hath directed its ſervice in other things, ſo alſo in the duty of Prayer, commanding us to take unto us words, and ſay, &c. And calling to his Spouſe, Let me hear thy voice, for it is comely; And his Providence hath for this end (amongſt others) diſpoſed reaſonable ſouls into humane bodies, that they ſhould animate the tongues of men to this ſacred Service: Beſides that, experience teacheth the Sons of men that the uſe of the lively voice is of excellent uſe to fix the mind, and to reſtrain that wild thing from ſuch wanton diverſions, as it is moſt prone to, in its exerciſes upon God: Whence it is that there is not only Mental, but Vocal Prayer, and both the unqueſtionable duty of Chriſtians; and an uſe of words in Prayer is, if not at all times, yet at ſome times, and for all Chriſtians, neceſſary by a neceſſity of Precept, and highly expedient generally even in the Souls privatest converſes with God.
V. But in Publick Prayer, the uſe of words is moſt unqueſtionably neceſſary: God hath not only allowed us a liberty to pray for our ſelves, and in our Cloſets, but alſo to pray one with and for another, and alſo enjoyned us it as our duty, and encouraged us to it by many gracious Promiſes. It is his revealed will, that in ſuch publick devotions, ſome particular perſons ſhould be the mouth of the reſt unto him, whoſe Prayer (according to divine Inſtitution) is made the common performance of the whole Society (whether it be that of a whole Family, or that of a greater or leſſer Congregation) by their concurrence in ſpirit with him that ſpeaketh, and their rational and fiducial aſſent to what he ſpeaketh, as well on theirs, as his own behalf. Now there being no other ordinary way of correſpondence which God hath allowed rational ſouls each with other (in their united eſtate) but by the tongues of men, animated by the ſouls to that very purpoſe, that they might be their Interpreters. It is impoſſible that publick Prayer ſhould be performed without words, and thoſe both audibly and intelligibly pronounced, which is alſo conformable to the will of God, who hath taught us when we pray, to ſay Our Father: Whence it appears, that both the ſilent, mute Meetings of Quakers, and the Latine Service of Papiſts, and the Prayers of any others ſaid or ſang, ſo that People cannot hear or underſtand what is ſaid, are all of them abominable in the ſight of God, and to be abhorred of every reaſonable Chriſtian.
4VI. But ſeeing words are no more than the deſires of our ſouls interpreted. And there being no further uſe of them in the duty of Prayer, than that by them we might ſacrifice unto God the devotion of our hearts by the Calves our lips. 2. And by the help of them we might interpret the (otherwiſe not intelligible) deſires of our ſouls unto others. And 3. Reſtrain the extravagancies of our own Spirits: A Curioſity of phraſe in Prayer, ſeems neither neceſſary nor reaſonable. Not neceſſary, becauſe as our holy Father who underſtands the thoughts of our hearts, before they be brought forth into words, hath no need of well turn'd Language to affect his ſacred ears, nor hath required more than according to the ability, which he hath given to ſeveral ſouls: So the plaineſt phraſe is beſt intelligible to the moſt of thoſe that hear us, who are to give a rational aſſent, and ſay a fiduciary Amen to what we ſpeak.
VII. Nor are the Prayers of the pooreſt Ruſtick (who ordinarily ſalutes his neighbour and expreſſeth his mind to him in terms which the Critick cals Nonſence) for their Grammatical incongruities or defects in Rhetorick, leſs acceptable unto God than the ſofty ſtrains and luxuriant iſſue of wanton Rhetorick in the prayers of others are, whoſe great ſtudy poſſibly is to put their prayers into handſom Language. Who knows not that many Idiomes in other Languages are perfect nonſence in Engliſh? Yet who doubts but God accepteth in every Nation pious ſouls, powring out their hearts unto him in Prayer, by their mouths, according to the Dialects of their ſeveral Countries.
VIII. In very deed, the only Nonſence that can attend Prayer, is the incongruity of the tongue of him that ſpeaketh with his mind and heart, or with the underſtandings of thoſe who joyn with him. Let but the tongue be the true interpreter of the heart towards God, and the expreſſions of it be commenſurate with the capacity and underſtanding of thoſe that hear, and the Prayer ſhall be diſcharged from any guilt of Nonſence in the ſight of God, accruing from a want of Grammatical order in words (unleſs ſuch want proceed from the Speakers non-attention and careleſſeneſs of his Spirit) Yea the Prayer which the wanton Orator, the curious obſerver of words, and Pryer into the proprieties of them, may call Non-ſenſe, may be moſt admirable ſenſe in the ears and judgment of God and good men, whoſe eye is upon higher things in ſpiritual duties, than a well tuned eſſe poſſe videatur.
5IX. Yea there may be in him that ſpeaketh, ſuch an affectation of nitid words and curious phraſes, ſuch a ſuperlative care, that Noun Substantives and Adjectives may ſtand in due places, and Verbs be put in right Moods and Tenſes, that too many monoſillables or pollyſillables may not hobble or rumble after one another, ſuch a ſtudy for paranomaſia's and other Fooleries of phraſe, as may make the Prayer abominable both to God and to all good men: Whilſt not the holy Omniſcient God only, but even ſober men eaſily diſcern the heart of him that ſpeaketh, as to its ſecret intention, gone a whoring from God (to whom it ſhould be united in Prayer) after that Strumpet Rhetorick in which he never took any delight. Nor is the Prayer (thus patched and painted and diſguiſed by this Taylor-like art of words) underſtood by thoſe who would better know it, and to whom it would appear far more lovely in the morning-dreſs, of a homebred, natural inaffected phraſe.
X. Yet in regard that it cannot be reaſonably preſumed, that any publick Congregation ſhould be made up of perſons equally intelligent, in the myſteries of Godlineſs, nor equally intelligent of words and phraſes, nor equally conſidering that words are but the ſhell and skin of Prayer. Nor ſo, but that there will be many amongſt them of carnal hearts; it is very reaſonable that he who ſpeaks in publick Prayer, ſhould ſo ſpeak, that whilſt he humbleth his phraſe to the meaneſt capacity and underſtanding (that his Prayer may not loſe their Amen) he alſo elevates his words, above the nauſeam and juſt reproach, of the moſt ſqeamiſhears, even of thoſe who far more regard the ſtarching of the Prayer, that it be pull'd right in every corner, and round about, than the matter of which it is compoſed, or the fervency of heart with which it is uttered.
XI. And doubtleſs who ſo in this thing keeps a due mediocrity, in the publick performance of the duty of Prayer, neither by too much curioſity of phraſe, and attention to that, diverting his ſoul from the more ſerious and fixed contemplation of God, nor by mixing too much of mans d•ing, as Luther cals it (alluding to that of Ezechiel) with ſpiritual bread, makes the duty a loathing to ſpiritual ſouls: Not yet by too much rudeneſs, and careleſneſs of phraſe, ſhall either give a juſt ſuſpition to others, that his heart attends not what his Tongue ſpeaks, or offers a temptation to the more carnal part of his Hearers, to loath and contemn the Service, hath ſufficiently diſcharged his duty, and needs be no further careful of6 words in Prayer, unleſs (which it may be is not impoſſible) he can find out or invent ſome modes and forms of expreſſions, which upon the evidence of experience ſhall appear to be more proper means, than the uſe of other words, to warm the hearts of thoſe that are to joyn with him, and to boyl them up to a greater degree of fervency in ſpirit, whilſt they are in that duty ſerving the Lord. To which purpoſe, handſom cadencies of periods, a lofty rouling ſtile, affected Paranomaſia's, pedantick quiblings of words and phraſes, (fine Knacks to pleaſe childiſh ears with) are ſo far from ſignifying any thing, that they are cuſus contrarium's in the buſineſs, good for nothing but to loath pious ſouls. And indeed, thoſe phraſes which do this excellent deed, are experimentally found to be ſuch as the inwardly affected heart of the Speaker immediatly dictates to his Tongue. It being moſt undoubtedly truth, That words coming from the heart of the Speaker, find the neareſt and readieſt way to the heart of the Hearer; and the Souls of the hearers ſhall acknowledge themſelves moſt affected, when the Speaker finds his heart moſt warmed and enlarged, as if there were a Sympathy of devout Souls, which is indeed from the mighty ſecret working of the ſame ſpirit of Prayer acting both and at the ſame time preparing the Speakers heart and tongue to dictate and ſpeak, and the Hearers ſouls to hear, ſigh, groan, and to give a fiducial aſſent, Rom. 8.26.
I. THE Gift and Grace of Prayer are two things: The Grace of Prayer is a ſpiritual ability in the Soul, from which it is enabled from the Spirit of Adoption to go unto God ſaying Abba,7 Father, with an holy boldneſs, fiducial confidence, fervency of ſpirit, begging of him things according to his Will: This Nature doth not teach, Induſtry will not neceſſarily bring us to; for this God muſt ſend forth the ſpirit of his Son into peoples hearts, crying Abba Father, Gal. 4.6. And none can do this but thoſe who have received the Spirit of Adoption, Rom. 8.15. But the gift of Prayer is nothing elſe, but an ability of mind to form words, expreſſive of ſuch deſires of our hearts, as are according to the will of God, conjoyned with a faculty of memory, and of expreſſion and elocution.
II. Hence it appears, that the gift of Prayer is partly natural; for from nature is the faculty of Meditation and Speech: partly by Induſtry attainable; For let us duly conſider, what he hath to do that prayeth, more than to ſpeak (that is in reference to the external part of Prayer, performable by the gift of Prayer) Prayer conſiſteth of a Confeſſion of all ſins, Supplications for ſupply of wants for our ſelves and others, and a thanksgiving for Mercies received. Sin is either Original or Actual: Actual ſin is a tranſgreſſion of the Law of God. This Law of God is contained in his Word; all violations of it in thought, word or deed are ſins. Suppoſing a man in a capacity to meditate and ſpeak what is wanting to any, ſave Induſtry only, why he ſhould not compoſe a Confeſſion of Sins? If he knows what the Scripture ſaith of the imputed guilt of Adams ſin, of our being conceived in ſin, and brought forth in iniquity. What the Law of God requires and forbids, and conſidereth his own and other mens words and actions, and his own heart, to which other mens hearts anſwer in a great meaſure, why ſhould he not be able to form a Confeſſion in his heart, and (if he have any elocution) to ſpeak it with his Lips? And if he hath any habit of knowledge of the Scriptures as to theſe things, why ſhould he not be able to ſpeak this Confeſſion to God ex tempore, as well as a Lawyer ſhall ſpeak in matter of Law, or a knowing Philoſopher diſcourſe Philoſophical Learning rationally, many times to the admiration of his Hearers?
It is further reaſonable, that to a Confeſſion of ſins, ſhould be added, an acknowledgment of the Juſtice of God in caſe of any Judgments already brought upon us or others, or upon ſuppoſition if God ſhould bring upon us any. Surely every Chriſtian knoweth, or ſhould know, that the wages of ſin is death, that the leaſt ſin expoſeth us to the wrath of God here and hereafter, &c. And if he hath a tongue to ſpeak, can ſay ſo to God in Prayer. In the8 ſupplicatory part of Prayer, we deprecate Judgment, we implore Mercy, for our ſelves, for others, for ſouls, for bodies, all according to the Will of God; whoſo knows he hath a Body and a ſoul, and knows the wants of both, knows what to ask for; and he that knows the Scriptures, is advantaged in that knowledge, and further is by them directed, what to ask for abſolutely, what conditionally, what Promiſes to urge upon God in Prayer, what Judgments to deprecate, and in what manner: Nor is any ſo ignorant, as not to know what is good for himſelf or others in a natural ſenſe; the Scripture tels him what is ſo ſpiritually and truly, and if he hath a tongue, he can ſurely ſay, O God, I thank thee for, &c. Doth he want Expreſſions? The Scripture is full of Expreſſions directive of him.
III. In ſhort, (ſetting Elocution aſide) now that the Word of God is in our own Language, there can be nothing but particular Chriſtians horrible neglect of acquainting themſelves with it, or their non-obſerving their own hearts, or not uſing themſelves to the exerciſe of Prayer, that can hinder any private Chriſtian from being able to ſpeak unto God in Prayer, fully, profitably acceptably, and ſo as none but prophane hearts ſhall be ſcandalized. And this Aſſertion is demonſtrable.
Rom. 8 26. Luke 21. Mark 13.11.IV. Beſides this, God hath promiſed the help of his Spirit as to words and matter (in the uſe of means) the Spirit ſhall teach us what to pray for; nor is this beneath the Holy Spirit any more than to give unto ſuffering Saints what to ſpeak in the very hour they ſhall be called before men for Chriſts ſake; for which there is a Promiſe, and they allowed therefore to take no care what to ſpeak before-hand. We acknowledge that the Gift of Prayer is no ſpecial diſtinguiſhing Gift, but a common Gift; but by no means can allow our ſelves in the ſuppreſſing of it.
V. Hence it is that many a perſon whoſe conſtant employment is not in the work of the Miniſtry, is able to poure out his ſoul in Prayer before God, in proper and apt expreſſions, without any further premeditation than is neceſſary, to take the noiſe of his worldly buſineſs out of his head, ſo orderly and methodically, and in ſuch handſom expreſſions, that any godly ſober Divine, though never ſo Learned, ſhall approve his performance, and bleſs God on his behalf.
VI. That any owning the Name of a Miniſter of the Goſpel, ſhould not be ſo able, is a great reproach to our Church, conſidering9 that this diſability muſt proceed, 1. From a want of knowledge in the Scriptures, (which every Miniſter ought to know exactly.) Or, 2. From a want of a due obſervance to, and a watchfulneſs upon his own heart and waies (whereas he ought to excel others in the practical part of Holineſs) Or, 3. From want of Elocution or freedom of ſpeech, or ſuch other natural gifts, without which none can judge himſelf called of God to that holy Employment. Or, 4. From want of exerciſing himſelf in the duty of Prayer: All which are lamentable things for any profeſſing himſelf a Miniſter, ſo much as to be ſuſpected of.
VII. Yet that de facto, there have been ſuch called by the name of Miniſters, amongſt us, and that there are many ſuch amongſt us ſtill, cannot be reaſonably denied: But we dare to aſſert, That all ſuch are either ſuch as for want of Natural Parts, are by all Scriptural Rules determined inſufficient, and not fit for the Miniſtry, or ſuch, as according to all Scriptural and Eccleſiaſtical Rules ought to be removed from the Miniſtry, as neglecting to uſe the Gift of God beſtowed on them, or neglecting to ſtudy the Scriptures, or ſuch as live in open and known courſes of Debauchery, or finally, ſuch as have ſo uſed themſelves to the lazy Devotion of Book Prayers, that they have choaked their abilities, or provoked God in righteous Judgment to deprive them of them.
VIII. It yet remains a moſt demonſtrable truth, that the work of Prayer is not ſuch, as to the uſe of words in it, but that any Miniſter of any competent abilities, (as all Miniſters ought to be) and who is in any reaſonable degree acquainted with the holy Scriptures, and with any Chriſtian diligence, either obſerveth his own heart, or peoples converſes, and watcheth over his Flock but with half an eye, may ſo perform, as neither God ſhall be offended with his performance, nor any ſober Auditor ſcandalized and made to nauſeate the Duty. And it will (upon experience) be found impoſſible for any State or Church to maintain (by impoſing Forms of Prayer) the credit of any Miniſtry, whom the people ſhall diſcern ſo wofully neglective of their duty, and defective in ſo noble a performance, in which they are excelled by the meaneſt of the Vulgar. There being no other way (when all is tried) to maintain the Authority of the Miniſtry, than the employment of ſuch, and only ſuch perſons in that work, who ſhall evidently appear to People, as to the Gifts and Graces of Gods Spirit beſtowed upon them, to be taller by the Head and Shoulders than thoſe are, over whom God hath ſet10 them. Other Devices may be tried; this only in the end will be found efficacious.
I. VVHich being premiſed, it is no wonder at all, that neither Chriſt nor his Purer Church ever impoſed upon the Church any Books of Lyturgies. Duranti rationale, l. 5. c. 2. Durantus indeed tels us, That Chriſt himſelf (who certainly had an infallible Spirit, and a proportion of it without meaſure, if that may be called a proportion) yet uſed that excellent Form of Prayer, called the Lords Prayer (by which he taught his Diſciples to pray; And that the Apoſtles uſed the Creed, called (but never yet proved) theirs: But he confeſſeth, that in Primitivâ Eccleſiâ diverſi diverſa quiſquepro ſuo velle cantabant, dummodo quod cantabant ad Dei Gloriam pertinebat. In the Primitive Church every one ſung or prayed (for that he called ſinging) as they pleaſed, ſo what they all did, related to the Glory of God. When Chriſt ſent out his Diſciples to preach, he was ſo particular in directing them, that he takes care to direct them to provide a Purſe and a Scrip, but none for a Service-Book: Nor did the Apoſtle Paul in his particular directions to Timothy or Titus (whether they were Evangelists or Biſhops) though he ordered them to ordain Miniſters, and charge them to fulfil their Office, by putting up Prayers and Supplications for all men, &c. ſo much as mention any Miſſal or Lyturgy for their directions; which it is ſtrange they ſhould have omitted, had Lyturgies been ſo neceſſary, as we are now told they be, that Religion without them cannot be preſerved, nor Hereſies without them reſtrained.
II. Thoſe holy Servants of God knew, that the Spirit of Prayer was powred out in the world, and that the gift of Prayer was one of thoſe gifts, which their Maſter when he aſcended up on high did11 give unto men; and were tender of delivering ought to the Church, which they had not received from the Lord: And (which Tertullian ſaid afterward) were willing that Miniſters ſhould pray ſine Monitore, quia de pectore, without a Monitor (not a Mummer, as ſome would have it) becauſe it was their duty to pray from their hearts; they therefore even in the Confeſſion of our Adverſaries, and the greateſt Maſters of the Ceremonies, left no Lyturgies for the Church of God.
III. Indeed Claudius de Sainctes and Pamelius (two Popiſh Divines) have diſcovered to the world the Terra incognita of certain Lyturgies, fathered upon St. James, St. Peter and St. Mark;De Miſſae apparatu, l. 7. c. 21. which Joſephus Vicecomes takes notice of (but doth not think fit to inſiſt upon them.) Cardinal Bellarmine in his Book de Scriptor. Eccleſ. neither mentions that of Peter nor Mark, but brands all Books (not mentioned by him, attributed to St. Peter) with the names of spurii & ſuppoſititii. That of St. James indeed he mentioneth,Bellarm. De Script. Eccl de Jac. Apoſtol. but tels us that it is ſo baſely augmented, that none can determine what of it was St. James's. But the Learned Mornay hath ſaid enough to prove that theſe pretended Lyturgies of the Apoſtles were all Fictions, and it will be no hard matter to evince every ſober Reader the truth of it. Who knows not how hard a thing the Biſhops in the Councils of Epheſus and Calcedon found it to find a place or two in the Writings of the Ancients, where the Virgin Mary was called〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? Where had the difficulty been if theſe Lyturgies had been in the world, and in Proclus his hand too (who was preſent in the Council of Epheſus) who they ſay, tranſmitted that of St. James to the world (for in that Lyturgy it is 5 or 6 times over: Nor certainly would the Members of the Synod of Conſtantinople have been at a loſs to have proved out of this, the calling of the Holy Spirit conſubstantial with the Father, had they ever ſeen this new invented Toy. Both in this, and St. Marks Lyturgy Chriſt is again and again called〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉with his Father, which certainly would have determined that great Queſtion about that Word in the Nicene and other Councils. Both in St. James's and St. Marks Lyturgies we have the〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉invented by Felix 480. To ſay nothing of the Notions of Altars, Temples, burning Frankincenſe, Cenſers, ſuch as lived in Monaſteries, Confeſſors, the Prayer for the Pope, In St. Marks Lyturgy, the Prayers for Sub-deacons, Readers, Singers. All which things have made them•uſtly rejected by all ſober Writers, and accounted of no better12 authority than the Epiſtles of Chriſt and Abagarus; for the very mention of which, Gelaſius of old, called Euſebius his Hiſtory Apochrypal. Nor are thoſe pretended to be St. Peters and St. Mathews of better authority. The ſame things are to be objected againſt the firſt, and ſurely if St. Peters Vicar thought better of it, the Church of Rome would have uſed it before that made by Gregory the Pope (which is that they uſe.) In that pretended to be St. Matthews, there is mention of the Epact & Golden Number (knacks invented long ſince) Prayers for Popes, Patriarchs, Archbiſhops, (perſons St. Matthew never knew) Nay Baſil, Chryſoſtom, Gregory the Great, the Nicene Council have their honourable mention in it, which were all 3, 4, 5 or 600 years after St. Matthews time. So that Baronius himſelf is aſhamed of all, but that called St. James's, nor doth Sainctes mention more. To ſay ſome things might be added,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Pariſ. 15•0. yet they might make Lyturgies of no value; 'tis that which Bellarm. and Baronius have ſaid, and ſome Semi-Protestants have taken up after them: For which they have no further proof than the Title of a Book ſet by a Popiſh Prieſt, which proves all as well as ſome.
IV. Nor is there any thing more clear to us than this, both from that of Tertullian (mentioned before) who lived Anno 200 after Chriſt, and from that long ſince quoted by Smectymnuus, out of Euſebius, That Conſtantine the Emperor made Prayers for his Army, which unqueſtionably he would not have done, had there been then any Lyturgies (eſpecially any known by the Reverend authorities or Names of Matthew, Mark, Peter, or James. Beſides that, Biſhop Hall could pretend no higher authority than the Canon of the Council of Laodicea. (of which more by and by) For any Pretences of any in the Jewiſh Church, they are perfect Apochryphals. Joſ. Vicecomes de Miſſae appas•atu, l. 7. c. 21.What truth there may be in what Vicecomes ſaith, that the Pagans had their Service-Books, to direct them in their idolatrous Service; which he proves out of Cicero, Feſtus, Clem. Alexandr. and Lactantius: We are not at leiſure to enquire, nor think it much material; for ſurely Chriſtians are to take no Copies from them.
V. The higheſt pretended Authority then for publick Lyturgies, is from the 18th Can. of the Council of Laodicea: What time that Council was celebrated, is not agreed. Caranza ſaith it was Anno 364. towards the latter end of the time of Liberius the Pope. Longus and Baronius (from whom he had it) dates it 315. under13 Pope Sylveſter; which he proves, becauſe it was before the time of Baſil and Theodoret, which are no Arguments (for Baſil wrote not till near 380. nor Theodoret till Anno 420.) Balſamon (a man well enough skilled in the Chronology of the Gr. Councils) ſets it after the Synod of Antioch, and next before that of Sardis. This Synod decrees〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (ſaith Balſamon) that the ſame Lyturgy of Prayers ſhould be uſed in the Morning and Evening: Suppoſe his a true Copy, every one knows, that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉doth not neceſſarily ſignifie a Form of words in Prayer, but meerly an Order of Prayers: But beſides this, Caranza gives this Canon another title, and phaſe too: The Title, De Orationibus quotidianis. The Canon, De eo quod ſemper ſupplicationes orationum, & ad horam nonam & veſperam oportet celebrari. According to him, (in which were but 22 Biſhops, Longus ſaith 32.) This Synod only decreed that there ſhould be conſtant Prayers at Nine in the Morning and in the Evening; not that they ſhould be the ſame Forms.
VI. Nor can we believe there were at this time any Forms of Prayer made, for all Miniſters to uſe; becauſe we find the Council of Carthage only impoſing this,Can. 23. That if any Miniſter made any Prayers for his uſe, her ſhould not uſe them, till he had communicated them to his more able Brethren: Whence we gather, that at that time, which was about 395. there were no Forms of Prayer impoſed upon Miniſters.
VII. In which we are the more confirmed by the 12th, Canon of the Council of Mela, (commonly called the Milevitane Council) held in Africa, under Aurelius the Archbiſhop, where (ſo far as their Juriſdiction reached) they reſtrain Miniſters, to the uſe of ſuch Prayers, as ſhould be approved by the Synod, ne forte aliquid contra fidem, vel per ignorantiam, vel per minus ſtudium ſit compoſitum: leaſt any thing through ignorance or negligence ſhould be vented againſt the Faith, the Doctrine of which was then wofully ſhaken by Pelagius, to condemn whoſe Errours, that Council (which was but a Provincial Synod of 60 Biſhops) were convened.
VIII. We are not ignorant of the Lyturgies fathered upon Baſil Chryſoſtome, and Ambroſe, a little before this time. Baſil was made Biſhop about the year 372. Chryſoſtome about the year 382. Ambroſe about 381. But he muſt have more Faith to ſpare, than we have, who can either believe, that the Lyturgies publiſhed under14 their names, are indeed theirs; or that they indeed impoſed any. There are two fathered upon Baſil, one printed 1569. tranſlated by Maſius. The Greek Copy is far more large than the Latine, and ſo differing one from another, that 'tis no hard thing to determine of their authority, as the Learned Morney hath done. For that of Ambroſe,Morneus de Miſſa, l. 1. c. 6. we have it not in his workes, Eraſmus, Perkins, and others condemn, thoſe two Prayers (which are found in his works, preparing the Prieſt to celebrate Maſs) as none of his; in which cenſure, Robertus Cocus, yea and ſome Papiſts agree with him. What Vouchers therefore the Papiſts have for that Officium Ambroſianum, which Jacobus de Voragine, in the Golden Legend, and Durantus in his Rationale, tell us a Tale about, we cannot tell. For that fathered upon Chryſoſtome, there are divers Copies of it, ſcarce any of them agreeing with one another. Let thoſe who can think that ſo grave a man as Chryſoſtome could direct the Church to pray for Pope Nicholas who lived almoſt 500 years after Chryſoſtome was dead) or for the Victory of Alexius, (which was in a Battel fought 700 years after he was dead) or who can believe that ſuch a confuſed Fardel of ſtuffe could be made by ſo worthy a perſon, believe it was his if they will. We are the more confirmed in the contrary, by the latter craft of Lyturgy-mongers, in leaving out the Names of Alexius and Nicholas, in their latter printed Latine Copies,Eraſm. Epiſt. in Paraph. in 1 Cor. the Tranſlation of which, they yet unwarily father upon Eraſmus, who tels us, he did not think it like to be true that ever Chryſoſtome made it.
IX. To be ſhort, When we find that Joſephus Vicecomes (as ſuperſtitious as he was) can fetch no higher authority for Lyturgies, than Arnobius, who lived 306. Athanaſius who flouriſhed 330. Hierom, who lived 385. Victor Uticenſis, who lived 480. nor any plain proof from any of theſe: Only ſome of theſe ſpoke of Books of the Chriſtians, ubi ſummons oratur Deus, (ſo Arnobius) Sacros Scripturarum Libros (ſo Athanaſius) Liber Hymnorum & Myſteriorum, ſo Hierom. Libros cunctos Domini, (ſo Uticenſis) We cannot but conclude, that at this time there were no Service-Books made, directing Forms of Prayer, though poſſibly Baſil, Chryſoſtom, Ambroſe, and others might write ſome Prayers to help ſome weak Chriſtians which they might tranſcribe.
Duranti Rationale, c. 2. l. 5.X. But what need we any further Teſtimony than is given, by one as zealous for Lyturgies, Rituals and other Ceremonies, as ever lived in the world? it is that of Durantus in his Rationale Divinorum15 Officiorum, l. 5. c. 1. Durantus having ingeniouſly confeſſed (what none can without great impudence deny) that neither Chriſt nor his Apoſtles uſed any preſcribed Forms but the Lords Prayer and the Creed (nor doth or can he or any other ſay a word to prove they uſed them) tels us that in ſuceeding times becauſe the Church was rent by Hereſies, Theodoſius (who lived about the year 380) intreated Pope Damaſus,That ſome Eccleſiaſtical Office (or Lyturgy as we call it) might be made by ſome Eccelſiaſtical Catholick perſon, upon which Pope Damaſus commanded Hierom, who was then in Bethlehem with Paula Euſtochium, and other Virgins, to abide there, and make a Lyturgy for the Churches, becauſe he was well skill'd in Hebrew, Greek, Chaldee and Latine; which he obediently did. He appointed how much of the Pſalmes ſhould be read each day in the week, he alſo ordered the reading of the Gaſpels and Epiſtles out of the Old and New Teſtament: When he had done it, he ſent it to Rome; it was approved by Pope Damaſus, and made a Rule; and Damaſus had the honour of the work, becauſe it was done at his Command. Gelaſius (who lived 490. and was Pope) and Gregorius Magnus (who lived 600 years after Chriſt) added Prayers and Songs, the Leſſons and the Goſpels. Ambroſe, Gelaſius and Gregory (ſaith he) added the Gradualia, Tractus, Allelujah, other Doctors of the Church added other parts.— Thus far Durantus.
XI. He fetcheth the Original of Lyturgies from Theodoſius; but how probably, let the Reader judge, who ſhall conſider, that this good Emperor, was Emperor but 17 years; that in that time he convened that great and venerable Council of Conſtantinople, where were 150 worthy perſons: Now let any judge how probable it was that this Emperor ſhould never propoſe the buſineſs to theſe; (for their Canons are only about grave and neceſſary things) and ſend to Pope Damaſus about this: He was a man too much acquianted with the efficacy of fervent Prayer, to reſtrain it. Nor indeed doth Durantus ſay, that he cauſed any Prayers to be made, all that he ſaith Hierom did, was the appointing an Order of reading the Scriptures.
XII. We muſt therefore go a little further than Theodoſius his time. Nuda ab initio omnia & ſompliciter, Myſteria a Chriſto tradita apud Apoſtolos erant,De Inventor. cerum. l. 5. c. 11. &c. (ſaith Polydore Virgil) One Pope after this time brought in one piece of the Lyturgy, another brought in16 another. Coeleſtinus brought in the Introitus Miſſa, Damafus the Confeſſion, Gregory the Reſponds; and indeed till Gregories time there was no conſiderable uſe of it, nor any impoſing of it. This was near upon 600 years after Chriſt.
XIII. Pope Gregory is uſually ſaid to be the worſt of all the Biſhops of Rome that preceded him, though the beſt of thoſe that followed him; a man of no great Learning, for he confeſſeth himſelf (in one of his Epiſtles, that he underſtood no Greek) not blameleſs for Morals, (for he was accuſed before Mauritius the Emperor for the murder of one Malchus) Indeed the Proteſtant Writers make good uſe of him, for his Teſtimony, about ſome Points, viz. that about the Scriptures, Images, but chiefly in the queſtion about the Head of the Church. Ep. l. 7. c. 194.
XIV. The truth of the Story is, Two great Councils having before determined the Patriarch of Conſtantinople and the Biſhop of Rome equal, only allowing to the latter the empty Title of the Biſhop of the firſt Seat. John, Patriarch of Conſtantinople was not able to endure that, and ſo upon the Point, though both refuſed the Title, yet both ſtrove to act the part of an Univerſal Biſhop: The Patriarch had the advantage of Gregory, becauſe (the Empire being then in the Eaſt) the Emperors Seat was at Conſtantinople:Greg. ep. l 4. Ep. 75.76. which cauſed divers Epiſtles between Mauritius and Gregory, (yet extant in Gregories workes) Mauritius in the heat of this Conteſt, was baſely murdered by Phocas (one of his Captains) who was by the Souldiers made Emperor. v. Greg. Epiſt. l. 11. c. 36, 43, 44.Gregory (tending the Intereſt of his Sea) writes a moſt unworthy Letter to the Empreſs, fawning upon that vile Murderer, and beſeeching him to favour Sr. Peters Succeſſor, and to remember who ſaid, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: Soon after this, Gregory dies; but before he died, he had made a Lyturgy, (if we may believe Pamelius, he made a Lectionary or Calendar, directing Scriptures to be read in order, an Antiphonary, directing the Reſponds for Prieſts and People, and an Order for adminiſtring the Sacraments) Others think the two latter were made after; but however, theſe reached no further than Gregories power, the Extent of which was at this time but ſhort and harrow.
15. Sabinianus was Pope immediatly after Gregory, he lived but ſix Moneths; Boniface ſucceeded him, he alſo fell in with Phocas, the Murderer of his Maſter: and the Patriarch of Conſtantinople being now out of favour with Phocas, becauſe he could not flatter17 him in his horrid wickedneſſes and cruelties, Phocas deſerts him, and gives Boniface (what he asked) the Title of Univerſal Biſhop: This was about the year 605. And now he might pretend ſome authority to impoſe his Service-Book.
XVI. But yet he did little (exept in Germany) for the Lombards continual quarrels with the Emperors, till the year 800. much hindred the Popes power all that time, they lay cloſe at home, all this while encreaſed in ſuperſtition, and the ſottiſhneſs and ignorance of their Clergy encreaſed, but in Juriſdiction they did little: Only taking advantages, one while favouring the Emperors, other while the Lombards; they added (by the favour of both) to St. Peters Patrimony, by all wicked acts imaginable, to be read at large in Mornayes Myſterium Iniquitatis, and in many other Books.
. XVII. But about the year 800. Charles the Great, being come to the Empire (who was a vertuous and noble Prince, only highly addicted to the Sea of Rome) Adrian was then Pope, the Emperor was a great Favourer of him, he confirmed to him all the temporal Poſſeſſions which the Popes had got either from former Emperors, or from the Commanders of the Lombards, and added much more, which his Son Ludovicus Pius confirmed. This Emperor alſo ſetled the civil difference; which had a long time troubled the Empire, and he had a vaſt empire; it contained Italy, Germany, Hungary France, and part of Spain.
XVII. Now it grew a ſeaſonable time to impoſe a Lyturgy; to which purpoſe, Hadrian the Pope moved Charles the Great, that it might be by his civil authority impoſed,Duranti rationale, l. 5. c 2. Mornei Hiſt. Papatus, p. 141 ▪ Fol. Gregories Lyturgy was it, ſaith Durantus. Ad quod Carolus Imperator omnes Clericos Minis & Suppliciis per diverſas Provincias cogebat Libros Ambroſiani Officii comburens, i. e. To which Charles the Great compelled all his Miniſters with threats and puniſhments; and burning thoſe Books that went under the name of St. Ambroſe. The Learned Morney ſaith the ſame almoſt, where we only obſerve, That the firſt impoſing of a Lyturgy was importuned by the Biſhop of Rome, and done in favour to him, in Adriani gratiam, (ſaith Morney) and began with a perſecution. but the Univerſal Biſhop muſt give the Catholick Church a caſt of his Office, and impoſe a Lyturgy as far as he could.
XIX. But after this, there was no ſmall conteſt; one Eugenius comes and complains to Pope Hadrian, concerning the impoſing18 of Gregories Lyturgy (it ſeems he liked that of St. Ambroſe, i. e. ſaid to be his) better. Durantus ſaith his importunity cauſed ſome Holy Fathers newly broke up from a Council, to meet again, who to determine this difference, reverently and unanimouſly agreed that both the Service-Book which was made by St. Ambroſe, and that alſo made by Gregory, ſhould be laid on St. Peters Altar, ſealed up with the Seals of many Biſhops, and the Church-doors ſhould be ſhut, and the Fathers ſhould ſpend the whole night in**It were worth the while to know by what book they praied in the mean time, Jacobus de Vorag. Leg. aurea in vita Greg. Durantus ib. Fox Martyrol. Vol. 1. Prayer, deſiring God by ſome ſign to determine, which of thoſe Service-Books he would have to be uſed univerſally: It was done accordingly. In the Morning they go in, and find that of St. Ambroſe lying in its place, that of St. Gregory torn in piece; and ſcattered all about. (If it be a Lye, Reader, thou haſt it as cheap as we, and maieſt read it in the Golden Legend, Durantus and Mr. Fox his Martyrology, and doubtleſs in many other places, but in thoſe three we have read it.)
XX. But now what do the Fathers determine upon this Miracle? We ſhould have concluded, That it was the Will of God that Gregories Service-Book being full of all manner of ſuperſtitious Traſh, ſhould never be uſed, nor St. Ambroſe's impoſed, only lie by to be uſed in that Church of the Parſon pleaſed. But (ſaith Durantus) they concluded this a ſign from Heaven, that Greg. Service-Book or Miſſal ſhould be ſcattered abroad, and uſed in all Churches, and that of St. Ambroſe only uſed in his own Church. (The buſineſs was, Gregory had been Pope, but Ambroſe had not.) Accordingly Pope Hadrian moving the Emperor Charles, Gregories Service-Book was now impoſed upon all Churches in France, Hungary, Italy, Germany, and in England too, for here 60 years before this, viz. Anno 740. Ina had ſubjected his Kingdom to Pope Gregory.
XXI. By, or before this time, the whole Fardel of Popiſh ceremonies and ſuperſtitions were brought into the Church, nothing wanting (ſaith the Learned Morney) but the worſhipping of Images, (which Charles the Great alwaies oppoſed and wrote againſt, yet this alſo was about this time decreed by the Second Council of Nice, which Caranza ſaith, was celebrated, Anno 781. under Adrian and Tranſubstantiation, for which the way was how prepared too; for at this time the Lords Supper was called the Sacrifice of the Maſs, (ſaith Morney;) And he who reads the Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory of the Magdeburgenſer, will find, that all the traſh of Ceremonies and all manner of ſuperſtitious uſages were now come into19 the Church. Gregory almoſt 200 years before had defended Purgatory, and was indeed (as Alſtodius calls him) the Maſter of the ceremonies, he who defiled the Church with all manner of groſs and abominable Superſtition.
XXII. Now from this time, which was about the year 800. till the beginning of Reformation, which was about 1517. in Germany did the Church of God lie hid in the wilderneſs, ſome witneſſes to the truths of God there were, but no conſiderable open Aſſemblies, the durſt oppoſe the Popes power. The Popiſh Maſs-Books were every where uſed, and long before the Reformation, the Latine-Service was univerſal; for to that height of folly was the Holy Father come, that he could not think it enough for the Communion of the Church, that they ſhould every where pray for the ſame things, (which was alwaies done) and in the ſame words, phraſes and forms (which he had brought in) unleſs they alſo did it in the ſame language. And this impoſing of Forms, did admirably comport likewiſe with the ignorance and ſottiſhneſs of the Clergy in the 6th, and 7th. age, and ſo downward; all the world knows, in what a pickle Eraſmus found the world in as to Learning: Reuchlin, and he did much to amend it.
XXII. As the work of Reformation improved, the Maſſe-books were thrown our in England, nothing conſiderable was done until the 2. and 3. of Edward the 6. which was about the year 1549, and 1550. King Edward obſerving that Divine Service was, throughout his Kingdom, yet uſed in an unknown tongue, and that in ſeveral modes, (here was the Com. Pr. after the uſe of Sarum, York, Bangor, Lincolne, &c.) appointed the Archbiſhop of Canterbury, (Cranmer) and ſeveral other Biſhops and Learned men, to make one convenient order, rite and faſhion of Common Prayer for publick uſe. Which they did, and preſented it to the king, and it was impoſed by Authority of parliament, in the firſt year of his Reign. Stat. 1 Ed. 6.1.In this firſt Book, were many groſs remains of Superſtition:Stat 5 & 6. Ed. 6. •.1. •. • The King therefore cauſeth it to be reviſed again, explained and made fully perfect, and this ſecond Form was eſtabliſhed by Authority of Parliament, Anno 5. and 6 Ed. 6. and annexed and joyned ſo explained and perfected, to that Statute, adding alſo a form and manner of conſecrating Archbiſhops, &c.
XXIII. Theſe prudent Reformers, conſidering they had to do with a people newly come out of the dregs of Popery, did not think ſit at once to do all that was to do: In the firſt Edition of the Common20 Prayer Book, they left (if we remember right) Prayer for the dead ſtill to be uſed, gave directions for uſing the Croſs in the adminiſtring the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. In the Second Edition, theſe and other things were left out; neither did they think fit at the time to make a new Lytugry, (the Common people would have thought it a new Religion) they therefore tranſlate the old Gregorian Miſſal, leaving out the Prayers for the Pope, and to Saints, and for Saints departed, and a few ſuch things, as could not be uſed without palpable Idolatry, and tranſlate the other Prayers in the Maſs-Book out of Latine into Engliſh, and theſe were ſome of them eſtabliſhed by that Act, 5, 6. Ed. 6. Stat. 1. The truth of this any one that can underſtand Latine may convince himſelf of, by comparing the Maſs-Book with the Com. Pr. of Edw. 6. Where he will find betwixt 40. and 50. Collects tranſlated verbatim; and if he compares the other parts with the Roman Breviary, the Roman Ritual, and the Pontificale Romanum, he will yet further ſee the truth of it.
XXIV. Not indeed could it be imagined, that thoſe firſt Reformers ſhould leave at that time all Miniſters at liberty, or to their own conceived Prayers, when moſt of them were Papiſts in their hearts & generally ſo ſottiſhly ignorant, and inſufficient, that they could not have done any thing. Which very cauſe held in Qu. Eliz. time, (where 1 El. c. 2. the Common Prayer was with ſome further emendations ſpecified in the Statute,5 Eliz c 28. again impoſed) In the 5th. year of her Reign, by Act of Parliament, the Common Prayer was ordered to be tranſlated into Welch, and uſed in Wales. And this is the true Story both of Lyturgies in the General, and the Engliſh Lyturgy in ſpecial.
XXV. By this time the Reader, who hath not a mind to revive Pythagoras his School again, and to ſacrifice his Reaſon to an〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & believe every thing that is told him, before he hath tried the truth of it, may ſee reaſon to deſire the preſent L. Biſh. of Exeter to tell him (if he can) where thoſe ſame ancient models of Lyturgies (not Roman,Biſh. Hall Remonſtr. p. 13. but Christian) and contrived by the holy Martyrs and Confeſſors of the bleſſed Reformation of Religion, are to be found? The Remonstrant was challenged, to make it good out of ancient Models, but thought fit to wave the buſineſs in his Reply. It hath been the old Plea, but let them prove it if they can, (ſaith Didoclavius.) Or if his preſent Lordſhip of Exeter doth not think fit to anſwer for another, yet it is reaſon that he ſhould juſtifie his21 own words. He hath told us, in p. 8. of his Conſiderations touching the Lyturgy, That,The Ancient Churches from the very firſt Century did uſe ſuch-publick wholſom Forms of found words in their Sacramental celebrations eſpecially, and afterwards in other holy Adminiſtrations or publick duties as made up their ſolemn, devout and publick Lyturgies, which Patterns, all Modern and Reformed Churches of any Renown, have followed according to the many Scriptural Examples and Expreſſions in ſet Forms of Prayer, Pſalms, Confeſſions and Benedictions, commended to us by holy men in all ages, and by Chriſt himſelf.
XXVI. The world is grown too wary to believe any thing of this, becauſe any one ſaith ſo; and the Doctor is too wiſe, to undertake to prove this: Let him prove, That Christ preſcribed the Lords Prayer for a Form, or that the Apoſtles ever uſed it ſo. 2. Let him prove, that in any of the four firſt Centuries there was any Stated Forms of Prayer uſed in the Church. 3. Let him prove, that any Modern Reformed Churches impoſed any Forms of Prayer, ſo that thoſe and no other might be uſed. And 4, That they did this after the Pattern of the Ancient Churches from the firſt Century. All theſe things are to be proved; nor is it poſſible to prove them.
XXVII. In the 18th. p. of that Diſcourſe, he tels us, That,Dr. Gaudens Conſider. p. 19.It is a Jeſuitical Artifice and back-blow uſed by ſome to aver, though falſely, That the Engliſh Lyturgy was nothing elſe but the Romiſh Miſſal or Maſs-book turned into Engliſh: 'Tis true, he ſaith, ſome things (very ſcriptural) devout and excellent, which the Roman Miſſal had taken, and retained after the ancient Form of Lyturgies of the Church, were ſevered and taken as Wheat from Chaffe, and Jewels from Droſs, by our wiſe Reformers, and preſerved in the Engliſh Lyturgy, conform to pious and unſpotted Authority.We challenge Dr. Gauden and all others of his mind, to make this good if they can. It is true, there are ſome things in the Engliſh Lyturgy, that are not in the Gregorian Miſſal. But let any one take Miſſale Romanum, both the old one, and that eſtabliſhed by the Council of Trent: Breviarium Romanum, Rituale Romanum, and Pontificale Romanum. and compare them all with the printed Com. Prayer-book of 5 & 6 E. 6. and then judge whether he can find a 6th. part of the latter, which is in none of the former. If he finds that there is very little added, let him the learn how to truſt men talking after ſuch a magiſterial rate, and annexing no proofs of their words.
22XXVIII. If the Reader finds it true, that (whatſoever Dr. Gauden ſaith) there is in our Engliſh Lyturgy, as it is commonly expoſed to ſale, very little but what is to be found in the Maſs-book in Latine, let him then go to the Biſhop of Exeter, and deſire him (for his credit ſake) to ſhew him thoſe ancient Forms of Lyturgy uſed in the Church, out of which theſe Forms of Prayer were tranſcribed and taken, which muſt be immediately after the firſt Century; or tell him, what that ſame pious and unſpotted authority is, If he tels him, it is Pope Gregories, (which he muſt if he ſpeaks truth) let him tell him, that he hath heard, that he was a vile wretch, accuſed for a Murtherer, the Father of most of the ſuperſtitious uſages now in the Church of Rome, one who underſtood not the Greek Tongue, (as himſelf confeſſeth) a man of no admirable Judgment (witneſs his pretented Commentaries upon Job, which might have as well been upon the Revelation) a man very far from being either pious or unſpotted, or fit for his Seat, one that defended Purgatory, that fawned upon Phocas the Murderer; in ſhort, one of no deſerved Name or Authority in the Church of God.
XXIX. By this Diſcourſe it appears, that there was no Lyturgy directing Forms of Prayers for the Church, till Pope Gregories time Anno 600. nor any impoſed till the time of Charles the Great, Anno 800. when all manner of ſuperſtitious uſages were brought into the Church; nor was it then impoſed without a Perſecution attending it. And this, Reader, is the pious and unſpotted Authority, the Biſhop tels thee of. From hence thou wilt alſo conclude, the antiquity of the Engliſh Lyturgy, the reaſon of its firſt being impoſed, and no further reformed, either by K. Edw. or by Qu. Elizabeth. In King James his time, it received ſome additions, what Reformation we cannot tell.
XXX. By all this Diſcourſe, it appeareth that there is no divine Preſcript, no Apoſtolical Tradition, no Univerſal Tradition, no Example of the Purer Primitive Churches, for more than 400. yea, 700 years after Chriſt, which can be pleaded for impoſed Forms of Prayer, by any that make any conſcience of their words, or will undertake to prove what they ſay.
I. THough it may ſeem abſurd to enquire, whether the gray hairs of Lyturgies be found in the way of Righteouſneſs? when we have evinced, that they have no ſuch pretended Antiquity and Age to glory in, and that the Aſſertors of ſuch Antiquity for them, do but impoſe upon the world; yet conſidering what we remember we have learned out of Ariſtotle, That there is a youthfulneſs in reſpect of Age, or in reſpect of Manners and Conditions. It may be worthy of a further enquiry, Whether yet there may not be ſuch a neceſſity of them, or ſuch a comlineſs, beauty and gravity in them, as may not only juſtifie Magiſtrates in the impoſing of them, but oblige every ſoul that hath ought to do with reaſon, to fall in with the uſe of them, yea paſſionately to deſire them (even as much as Rachel did children) which we ſhall the better determine, by reviewing the firſt occaſions of Lyturgies, and the complexion of the Church in thoſe ages, when they were firſt made, or moſt uſed.
II. I think we may ſay of Lyturgies, as Chriſt ſaid of the Bill of Divorce, which Moſes allowed; Moſes verily for the hardneſs of your hearts, gave you a Bill of divorce, but from the beginning it was not ſo. He that had a reſidue of Spirit (as the Prophet ſaith) made one for one. The Church played Moſes his part in the buſineſs of Forms of Prayer. Chriſt who had a reſidue of Spirit, the Spirit given him without meaſure, impoſed no Forms of Prayer upon his Miniſters, or Church. The Apoſtles, who had the firſt and moſt plentiful powrings out of the Spirit of Grace, impoſed no ſuch things. Chriſt indeed gave a more general direction to his People in Prayer, to ask things according to the Will of God, and in his Name; and more particular directions in that excellent Form, called the Lords Prayer; but that (as Durantus idly ſaith) either Chriſt, or his Apostles uſed the Lords Prayer (ordinarily) as a Form of words in Prayer, or that the Apoſtles uſed a Form of words to expreſs their24 Faith,•r impoſed the Creed (commonly called, but hardly to be proved) theirs (which the ſame Author aſſerteth) muſt certainly be proved out of ſome ſuch Canonical Writings, as the Epiſtles of Chriſt to Abagarus, or to Paul and Peter, for there is no authentick Record of any ſuch things; but in proceſs of time indeed the Church began to do ſome ſuch things.
III. The higheſt mention we can find, is, that thin Synod of the Church of Laodicea, made up of 32 Biſhops; and this (whatever Biſhop Hall ſaith according to Longus) cannot be proved (as we ſaid before) to have been before the year 364. (as to which time Balſamon and Caranza agree it) but truly it had been no great wonder if this Church which many years before was grown neither hot nor cold,Rev. 3.17. but in ſuch a temper, that God was ready to ſpue it out of his mouth (for which we have an authentick record in the Revelation) ſhould long before this time have made ſuch a Salve and prudent Prouiſion for the Lazineſs of her Miniſters: He that ſhall read the Canons of that Synod, againſt the Miniſters hanting Taverns, and uſing Inchantments; as alſo the other Canons about exorciſing, and the ſeveral Officers and Offices of the Church, will ſee reaſon enough to conclude, the woful corruption of the Church in thoſe parts, if not to ſuſpect, that it was of a far lower date than is pretended.
IV. The Synod of 40 Biſhops at Carthage, (which was the 3d. Synod of Carthage) only enjoyned Miniſters to communicate to their more able brethren, their Prayers compoſed for their publick Congregations; this was in the year 397. Yet that the face of the Church at this time, had many ſpots, and much impurity cleaving to it, may appear by this Synod, by their 6th. Can. againſt giving the Lords Supper to, or Baptizing ſuch as were dead: by their many Canons, 17, 25.27. againſt Clergymen hanting Taverns, and keeping ſcandalous company with women, their 30. Can. againſt jovial Meetings in Churches. their 36 Can. about the Chriſma or the anointing Oyl, which no Presbyters muſt make. And that this Synod conſiſted not of the moſt infallibly wiſe Fathers, appears, by their Learned 29 Canon; where they take pains to decree that every Miniſter ſhould give the Sacrament of the Altar (ſo it ſeems they had learned to call the Lords Supper) faſting. Yet this Synod in the buſineſs of Prayer, did not think fit to reſtrain every Miniſter, only having ſo looſe and inſufficient a Clergy, they order the weaker ſort, having compoſed Prayers, to confer their Notes (before they uſed25 them) cum fratribus inſtructioribus, with their more able Brethren.
V. After this, the Council of Mela, Anno 416. grew more bold; and ordain (as to their Province, for what authority had they further?) that the Miniſters ſhould uſe no Prayers, but ſuch as that Synod had approved. They might juſtly expect, that the Churches under their inſpection would hardly ſwallow this new Pill, if it were not lapped up in ſome good Reaſon, and therefore they give their reaſon for it, leſt ſomthing ſhould be vented againſt the true Doctrine of Faith, either by ſome Miniſters negligence or ignorance. The cauſe of that Synods Meeting, was the cenſuring of Pelagius, that great enemy of Grace.
The Errors which Pelagius had broached, were theſe;
1. That Adams ſhould have died though he had never ſinned.
2. That Infants were born without Original ſin.
3. That there is no need of he aſſiſting Grace of God (ſin being once pardoned.)
4. That all the need we have of Grace is, to illuminate us in the knowledge of Gods Commandments.
5. That the Grace of God only helpeth us to do his will more eaſily and freely.
6. That the words of St. John, If we ſay we have no ſin, we deceive our ſelves, were only figuratively true, not literally.
7. That the Saints praying, Forgive us our Treſpaſſes, was appointed them in the behalf of others, not themſelves.
Or, 8. If for themſelves, only as an expreſſion of their humility: not concluding them to have any ſins to be forgiven.
Againſt theſe Errours that Reverend Synod made their 8 firſt Canons. Pelagius having uſed diverſe Arts (the ſtory is too long to inſert) to ſecure his Doctrine from a publick Cenſure, had far diffuſed the poyſon of this Doctrine. This Reverend Synod obſerving his Errors to be in ſuch things as are the daily matter of Miniſters Confeſſions and Supplications, thought fit for the prevention of the diffuſing this Venom by Miniſters in their publick prayers, as alſo that the Church might have due confeſſions made, as well of Original ſin as Actual, and due Petitions put up for pardoning and aſſiſting Grace, &c. And conſidering that the church was ſo debauched now in her Clergy, that ſome through ignorance could not do it, ſome through Lazineſs would neglect a due care in doing that to which they were able. Others poſſibly (though that be26 concealed) through a perverſe and corrupted Judgment, would not do it, appointed Forms of Prayer to be uſed, and reſtraine the liberty of Praying to the Miniſters within that Province, obliging them to uſe the Forms approved by the Synod.
VI. The reaſon for which (as Durantus tels us) Theodoſius much about this time, or a little before, ſet St. Hierom to compoſe a Calendar, indeed rather than a Lyturgy (for Durantus ſaith, he did no more than order the Scriptures to be read, though Pamelius hath tranſmitted to us an Antiphonary and Sacramental Lyturgy, as well as a Lectionary of his compoſing) was in regard of Hereſies riſen up in the Church. So that hitherto, we have had no other account given us of the compoſing Forms for publick worſhip, than 1. The Ignorance of the Ministry which they were forced to employ. Or 2. Their Lazineſs and Negligence. Or 3. Their, or the Peoples falling into Errors.
VII. But after that the Univerſal Biſhop got up into the Saddle, it was reaſonable that he ſhould have a power of Univerſal command, and to ſhew his authority, he muſt impoſe a compleat Lyturgy (as to all parts) and enjoyn univerſal conformity, which yet he could never obtain, till he got a great Intereſt in the Civil Magiſtrate; who had a civil power over what was then almoſt the univerſal Church. Nor muſt this ſerve the turn, for this Univerſal Biſhop muſt have all Churches, not only ſpeak the ſame words and phraſes, but in the ſame Language too; hence he brings in Latine Service. All which alſo admirably comported with the ſottiſh ignorance and debauchery of the Clergy, in the 6th. & 7th. Century, and ſo downward, till the times of Reuchlin and Eraſmus, when Reformation began to dawn, and the light began to ſpring out of darkneſs. Whether theſe ends were good and lawful, and the impoſing of Forms of publick divine Worſhip were applied as juſt means in order to them, viz. either to cure the ignorance or negligence of the Clergy, or to bring the Church to an unity in Doctrine, Worſhip or Affection, ſhall be examined: For if either the end or means be proved unlawful and againſt the Will of God, they talk vainly for the continuance of them, that urge no more than Humane Prudence, Worldly Wiſdom, being no other than perfect Folly, becauſe Enmity to God.
I. IT cannot but be confeſſed, that it is a noble end for any Church to aim at, to take care, that the people may have the truths of God aſſerted to them; and not through the ignorance or lazineſs, or perverſeneſs of its Miniſters, be ſerved with an Husk in ſtead of bread, or a Scorpion in ſtead of a Fiſh. This end is approveable both from the Word of God, and the light of all Chriſtian Reaſon. But that there ſhould be an Oneneſs in the devotion of people, as to Letters and Syllables, and Phraſes, and Forms of Sentences, is an end ſo little, and low and inſignificant in it ſelf, that we cannot expect it ſhould be juſtified from Scripture, which indeed ſaith not a word to that purpoſe.
II. And although the prevention of Errors & Hereſies, & the poyſoning of people with them, as alſo the prevention of the miſchief ariſing to the Church from ignorant and lazy, or erroneous Preachers or Ministers, be (as I ſaid before) a noble end, and well worthy of the Churches care, yet before we can allow the ſame honour to the impoſing of Lyturgies and ſtinted Forms of Prayer, as means in order to thoſe ends, we muſt both enquire, whether they be lawful means; and alſo, 2. Whether they be ſuch as Reaſon will evince, or experience hath proved effectual to the obtaining thoſe ends, and that 3. Without bringing upon the Church a miſchief every way as great, as what they are pretended to deliver us from.
III. That when Chriſt himſelf appointed no ſtated Forms of publick Devotion for his Church, to the uſe of which, and no other they ſhould be tied; nor his Apoſtles, though guided by an infallible Spirit; nor the Purer Church for ſome hundred years after, it ſhould remain yet lawful for the Church, not content to repreſs and prevent Errors and Hereſies, by ſuch waies and means as the28 Apoſtles uſed, but by this new device, to endeavour it, may be juſtly a queſtion to all ſober Chriſtians.
IV. Eſpecially conſidering, that as a liberty in coming to the Throne of Grace, and asking there whatſoever we will (provided it be conſonant to the Will of God, and begged in the Name of Chriſt) is one of the great priviledges purchaſed by Chriſt for his Church; ſo the Spirit of Grace and Supplication is eminently and frequently promiſed for their aſſiſtance, and that not only to teach them how to pray, but what to pray for, Rom. 8.26. Nor is this promiſed only to the Prelates in a Church, but to every individual Chriſtian; and the gift of Prayer, whence flows mens abilities to expreſs themſelves by words and phraſes, is one of the moſt excellent gifts which we are bound to cover, and to improve. All which being conſidered, it is far from being clear, that the reſtraining of Chriſtians, eſpecially of Miniſters in the exerciſe of the noble gift of Prayer in the publick Aſſemblies of the Church, is a lawful means in order to any end, it looking like that quenching of the Spirit, which is forbidden to all men by the Apoſtle, 1 Theſ. 5.19. and choaking the coveting of the beſt gifts, which is commanded all Chriſtians, 1 Cor. 14.1. For to what purpoſe ſhould thoſe Talents be deſired, which man hath authority to command to be laid up in a Napkin? Nay which had far better be laid up in a Napkin, than uſed, if the Doctrine of ſome be true, concerning the tranſcendent excellency of Forms of Prayer, above what are conceived by Miniſters, according to the gift of God beſtowed upon them.
V. Beſides, it may be worthy of enquiry, whether it be poſſible, or at leaſt ordinary with men to read any Prayer, with that fixed and conſtant intention of mind and fervency of ſpirit (the two neceſſary requiſites of Prayer) as they may ſpeak unto God from the dictate of their own hearts, while their ſouls are more abſtracted from created Objects, than they can poſſibly be, while it is a great piece of their work to look upon their Books, to ſee what to ſay next: For what ſome pretend, that the diverſion is greater in conceived Prayer, by the employment of the mind in prompting the tongue what it ſhould ſay next; beſides that this is a ſpiritual employment of the mind within it ſelf, neither doth it require any ſuch ſtudy, where the heart is right with God, and ſo acquainted with the Word and Promiſes of God, as every reaſonable Miniſter ought to be.
29VI. Nor is it out of the way to conſider whether this method of Book-praying, will not expoſe the Ministers of the Goſpel, to a perfect contempt amongſt the people, who will certainly conclude their Parſon not able to do what every ordinary Chriſtian doth. Of which contempt we have had a plentiful experience, nor do we believe that any thing hath ſo contributed to our breed of Lay-preachers as our Stinted forms of prayer; Whilſt the people have apprehended their gifts better than their Miniſters, an eaſy temptation hath ſerved them to uſurp their Office. Nor will any Miniſter longer keep his authority amongſt a knowing people, then by his performances of his Office, they ſhall be convinced he is higher in gifts than themſelves; For rational people will not ſacrifice a blind faith to the Biſh. of Exeter magnifying the forms of prayer in the Common-prayer-book beyond all meaſure, but will be enquiring, wherein their excellency lies. Are they more perfect Summaries of things to be confeſſed, or to be petitioned for? Is their phraſe more ſcriptural? &c. or if they do ſee an excellency in them, it will be hard to informe them, that the gift of reading is more admirable in their Miniſter at Church, then in their ſervant at home.
VII. Now if the Univerſal impoſing of any forms upon the aforementioned conſiderations, appear unlawfull of it ſelf, or in regard of ſome neceſſary or certain conſequent, there needs no more be ſaid to prove that men ſhould have made uſe of ſome other means in order to thoſe good ends of preventing errors, and the miſchiefs ariſing, or poſſible to ariſe from a negligent and ignorant Miniſtry, to the Church of Chriſt.
VIII. But ſuppoſe the uſe of this means lawful, yet if Reaſon might then dictate unto them that applied this means, That it was never like to effect its end; and Experience hath ſince taught poſteritie that upon the experience of 80. years, it hath proved ineffectual, certainly the very light of Nature ſhould have taught the firſt impoſers, to have uſed ſome other means, and will yet direct us (who have the advantage of experience) in this, to excel out Fore-fathers.
IX. It may put the rational world into a fit of aſtoniſhment to conſider that ſo many Biſhops ſhould think that the impoſing of formes of prayer, would ever contribute any thing to cure the ignorance or negligence of the Clergy, when in very deed, it was the right way to feed both, and to continue theſe ſcabs upon the Church30 for ever. For a man to be able to compoſe a prayer fit for a congregation, requires no leſſe then a very competent skill in the whole body of Divinity, and a very large knowledge of the Scriptures, which would have ingaged Miniſters to ſtudy the Scriptures, and to ſtir up their gifts. But when they had once thus provided for them, there needed no more skil for a Parſon, then every ordinary perſon had, viz. an ability to read the written prayers. It is true, they had yet ſome work to do in preaching, but this was ſoon taken off their ſhoulders, by adding ſtill formes of prayer, the reading of which ſhould require ſuch a length of time, that no roome was left for Sermons, or it there were, Homilies came quickly after, which would ſerve the turn: So that theſe impoſed Liturgies, in ſtead of ſerving their end, in curing the ignorance or negligence of Miniſt••s, did moſt wretchedly ſerve to fill the Church, with ignorant and lazy perſons yea and debaucht too, for now the Miniſters work was ready, and he might ſtay at the Ale-houſe till Saturday, and yet be as fit for his work, or at leaſt do as much the next day, as was required of him, which was not only miſerably exemplified in the Popiſh Church (til Eraſmus his time and the beginnings of reformation, when they began by the Proteſtants oppoſition to be quickened to a little better attendance to their work) but is at this day ſufficiently evident, as to the generality of their Prieſts, to ſay nothing of the liberal experience of it, which our own Nation hath afforded.
X. Nor certainly could juſt reaſon dictate it a proper or adequate means to prevent, or reſtrain Errors and Hereſies: for how ſhould this ever do it? ſhall preaching by a form impoſed be ſuperadded to praying? or ſhall there be forms of prayer impoſed for the Pulpit as well as the Desk? Theſe certainly had been too groſſe impoſitions. If not; had not the Miniſters as much liberty to vent their Errors in their Pulpit-prayers, as they would have had in the Desk? or in their Sermons as in their prayers? But then people would have apprehended, they ſay, that they vented their own conceits, not the doctrine of the Church? And would they not far better have apprehended this, if the Miniſter had only been enjoyned to read a perfect Syſteme of the doctrine of Faith ſummarily drawn up. (Such was the wiſdome of the Councel of Nice in the caſe, though indeed that Creed be far from a perfect Syſteme) This no ſober Miniſter would have ſcrupled. Beſides Hereſies are commonly the iſſue of Schiſmes, and experience hath told the31 world that nothing ever ſo contributed to the breeding of Schiſmes in the Church, as impoſed formes of prayer have done: So contrary hath it appeared to the Senſus communis of Chriſtians in all times, that the Miniſters of the Goſpel ſhould be reſtrained in the gift of prayer, I ſay in all times ſince the Reformation of the Church, nor would the Popiſh Church have ever been able to have impoſed theirs ſo long upon the people, if beſides that Fire and Sword which alwaies attends his Holineſſe is commands in caſe of diſobedience; they had not wiſely kept the people from the ſight of the Scriptures, or from the hearing of any Sermons (almoſt:) For nothing but the peoples ignorance, could have ſecured this devotion ſo long. And no ſooner came the light of knowledge amongſt the people, but many of them either ſaw, or thought they ſaw, that this kind of Praying was not all that God required of his Miniſters. And in thoſe Churches where were forms of prayer (though tranſlated into an intelligible tongue) there were continual Factions and Separations from that which they called the Church, and more in England then elſe-where, becauſe no reformed Church had ſuch a Liturgy, nor ſo impoſed.
XI. But ſuppoſe the impoſing formes of prayer lawfull, and that it had effected its end, done ſomething to prevent Errors & Hereſies, and ſome miſchiefes which from the Ignorance and Negligence of Miniſters might have come upon the Church. If yet the miſchief coming by the means uſed hath been, or is like to be as great, as that which they are deſigned to prevent, (or though not ſo great) if there be other more proper and regular means (not ſubject to the ſame ill conſequences) and more certain to obtain the end which may be uſed, certainly all prudent men, will conclude that, theſe old ineffectual miſchievous means, ſhould be no longer uſed, but thoſe far better applyed.
XII. The miſchiefs which the impoſing forms of prayer have brought upon the Church, have been, 1. The nurſing up of a notoriouſly ignorant and lazy Clergy, not giving themſelves to meditation and Prayer (two of thoſe things which Luther thought neceſſary to make a Divine) 2. Separation from Church Aſſemblies. 3. Dreadful Perſecutions upon Godly Miniſters and people, who could not judg their conformity lawful. The Admirers of theſe forms perſwading Princes to eſtabliſh them by their civill authority, and then ſuggeſting to them, that the Miniſters and peoples not complying with them, was out of a principle of diſloyalty to their32 Princes, and diſaffection to their authority, and bringing nonconformiſts under the crime of Laeſa Magiſtatis, evils certainly not much leſſe, then what Impoſed forms were pretended to prevent.
XIII. Yet were the continued uſe of theſe means in order to ſuch ends more tolerable, if there were no other to be found moſt certainly juſtifiable, far more regular, and more effectual, as to the end. Would the Prelates of the Church prevent the riſe and growth of errors & hereſies by the Miniſters negligence, ignorance, or perverted Judgement? Let them, 1 Take care, that none be admitted into the Miniſteral Office or truſted with the charg of Souls, but ſuch as ſhal be throughly examin'd, as to their knowledg in the body of Divinity, & of whoſe gift in prayer, they ſhal have taken an Experiment, and who ſhal not firſt by ſome open Act declare his Aſſent to the doctrine of Faith. May they not withſtanding this be lazy? or afterwards perverted in judgement? To what purpoſe ſerve Synods, Presbyteryes, &c. But to take a conſtant account of the Miniſters of ſeveral Pariſhes? how they uſe their gifts? diſcharge their Office? to admoniſh, the irregular, ſuſpend, deprive them, &c. Certainly as this means is more proper and more regular, more rational for the obtaining the aforeſaid ends, ſo the uſe of it would be far more effectual, and all good people would be ſatisfied, and rejoyce in it.
XIV. From this diſcourſe it appears, that the pretended neceſſity of a Liturgy or impoſed forms of prayer in any Church, is no other then ſuch as the author of Diſcoliminium told us merrily, Von Doſme conceived there was, when the fire burnt his Shins, that the Chimny ſhould be pulled down and ſet farther off, when it had been more eaſy, and every whit as effectual for him to have removed his Shins from the fire; yea ſuch as (the ſame author tels us) was the neceſſity which Simon the French Monk ſaw, that the poor people of a Province of France were under (wanting cloathes) to flea themſelves and ſend their Skins to be tanned, that they might have cloathes for their backs, when as they eaſily ſaw, the remedy would be as bad as the diſeaſe. In very deed there can be no pretence of the neceſſitie of impoſed forms of prayer, for the obtaining any of the Ends aforeſaid, of which aſſertion we have a demonſtration both in the Church of Scotland, and other reformed Churches, where there is no ſuch impoſed Liturgies, though poſſibly33 moſt of them have Lyturgies compoſed, to be uſed at liberty.
XV. Nor would any ſober perſons oppoſe the compoſing of a Lyturgy, for publick Aſſemblies, which might by way of puniſhment be enjoyned to thoſe to uſe, whom the Governours of the Church ſhould ſuſpect perverted by Error, or diſcern lazy and negligent, as to the ſtirring up of the Gift of God beſtowed upon them. But that ſuch Forms ſhould be impoſed upon all, cannot certainly be either lawfully or prudently adviſed or wiſhed, leſt Gods Gifts given to his Miniſters, ſhould be ſmothered, their deſires to improve them, (according to Gods Command) quenched, good people ſcandalized, and the moſt ignorant, negligent, and worſt of men encouraged in the higheſt Services of God. In fine, leſt the hearts of any Subjects by ſuch unwelcome Impoſitions, ſhould be aliened from their Magiſtrates, who (except in the matters of their God) deſire no other Priviledges or Liberties from them, as the reward of their daily Prayers and Allegiance, than their own goodnes ſhall prompt them to give them.
I. VVE have hitherto conſidered whatſoever Antiquity could pretend for the uſefulneſs of impoſed Forms of Prayer in the Church, and weighed them in the Ballance of Reaſon;Conſd p. 9. but the Reverend Biſhop of Exeter improves the notion of their uſefulneſs higher, telling us, they have very many great, and good influence, upon true Religion and upon every Church; which he endeavoureth to make good in five Inſtances, which we ſhall crave leave modeſtly to examine.
II. Firſt, He ſaith, It conduceth much to the more ſolemn, complete, and auguſt and reverent worſhip of the Divine Majeſty, in Chriſtian Congregations, where otherwiſe the moſt Sacred and venerable myſteries muſt be expoſed to that rudeneſs and unpreparedneſs, that barrenneſs34 and ſuperficialneſs, that defect and deformity, both in matter, manner, judgment and expreſſion, to which every private Minister is daily ſubject, as late experience hath taught us. It will be very hard to find any thing in this more then words.
1. It will be granted, that the publick Service of God ought to be performed ſolemnly, reverently and compleatly; for that ſame auguſt ſerving of God, we do not well underſtand the Doctors meaning; if he means outward Pomp and Splendor, in the habits of thoſe that ſerve at the Altar, or lofty high flown phraſes, ſwelling words of vanity, we never read that God either required it, or delighted in it, nor can we from any reaſon conclude the neceſſity of it or uſefulneſs of it, as being contrary to all the Copies of Prayers and Sermons ſet us by Chriſt or his Apoſtles, and no way ſuted to the ſimplicity and plainneſs of the Goſpel-Devotion: God is unqueſtionably then ſerved moſt reverently and ſolemnly, when the worſhippers of him approach him with moſt fear, and worſhip him with moſt affection and fervency of ſpirit, wreſtling with God, (as Jacob did) which the Prophet interprets by weeping and making Supplications.
2. It is true, that Miniſter ſins, who (though ignorance or negligence) expreſſeth any want of Reverence of God in his heart, by impertinent and rude expreſſions, (not fitting to be uſed in civil converſe with men) or which may make the Service of God contemptible to others.
3. But that every miniſter muſt needs be thus guilty, (with the Doctors leave) experience hath not taught us, and is very uncharitably and falſly aſſerted. We have not (bleſſed be God) ſuch a pitiful Church, that there are no Miniſters in it, but are liable to the charge of ſerving God in Prayer with rudeneſs, unpreparedneſs, barreneſs, ſuperficiality, defect, deformity, and that both in matter, manner, judgment and expreſſion. No Jeſuit ever had the confidence ſo to aſperſe the Miniſtry of England, nor could ſpeak more ſordidly to their diſhonour. Poſſibly there may be ſome, (and there have been far more than now are) who may be too liable to this charge. But where's the fault? Is it not in thoſe to whom the truſt is committed of taking a due cogniſance of ſuch as offer themſelves to be ordained, or admitted to the cure of ſouls? Should not they take care to admit none, but ſuch as are both able to preach and to pray? Do they not diſcharge their work conſcientiouſly, while they admit ſuch as are not able to pray, without35 ſuch rudeneſs as is here complained of? or make no more conſcience of it, than to do it unpreparedly, ſuperficially, with ſo much barrenneſs, defect and deformity? ſuch as neither have judgment to compoſe a Prayer, as to matter, nor elocution to pray, as to manner, ſo, but that people ſhall have juſt cauſe to nauſeate the Worſhip of God.
4. If the Doctor means (by his phraſe of every Minister being ſubject, &c.) only that 'tis poſſible that the beſt Miniſters may ſo be negligent, &c. as to run upon this Rock, that is as true concerning reading Prayers: none will deny, but he that can read very well, may read falſe, and if he keeps not his mind intent, no doubt but he will perform the Service, as rudely and ſuperficially by reading, as by ſpeaking; Inſtances might be given of this, and ſhall if need be: And certainly the conceiving of a Prayer will command more attention of mind, than reading can. All therefore ſaid under this Head, is meer air.
III. But Secondly, He tels us, That a Lyturgy is a moſt excellent means to preſerve the truth of Christian and Reformed Doctrine, by the conſonancy of publick Devotions,Pag. 10. into which otherwiſe corrupt minds are apt to infuſe the ſour Leaven of their own corrupt Opinions. Fine words again! But what reaſon? we have before ſhewed it to be,
1. Queſtionable, whether a lawful means or no.
2. If lawful, by no means effectual, except it reach to all Praying and Preaching too.
3. Not the only means, a good Summary of Chriſtian Faith is far more proper and rational.
4. A means bringing a miſchief as bad as what it pretends to cure, yea far worſe, fit for nothing but to breed rents and ſeparations, the mothers of all Hereſies.
5. An Apochryphal means by which men make themſelves wiſer than Chriſt and his Apoſtles, or the Purer Church. We ſhall only propound this Queſtion upon this ſuggeſtion: If this be true, how comes it to paſs, that all the Arminians and Popiſhly affected Clergy-men of England are ſuch Zealots for a lyturgy? The thing is demonſtrably true, that it is ſo; let the Doctor anſwer this Queſtion by his next.
IV. But Thirdly, A Lyturgy (he ſaith) is neceſſary for the holy Harmony and ſweet communion of all Chriſtians, as well in National, as Parochial Churches, whilſt thereby they are all kept in one mind and36 Spirit, praying the ſame things, and chearfully ſaying Amen to the ſame Praiſes and Petitions. Here is the old Fallacy ſtill of Verba elegancia, pro ſenſu ſimplici, That all Chriſtians have the ſame common wants, and ought to pray for the ſame things in the main, is to be granted, though as particular perſons, ſo particular Churches may have renewing wants, not common to all (for which a Lyturgy will not ſerve the turn) But is there any ſo ſimple, as not to underſtand, that the ſame things may be prayed for in different words and phraſes? The Doctor here miſtook his Mark, he ſhould have proved, that it is the Will of God that Chriſtians ſhould maintain their Communion in the uſe of the ſame phraſes, letters and ſyllables. And when he had done that, a Popiſh Prieſt ſhould have improved his Notion, and concluded that becauſe the one body of Chriſt ſhould have but one tongue, and ſince the confuſion at Babel, men in ſeveral nations have ſpoke ſeveral languages; therefore to the perfection of the Communion of the Church, there is not only a Liturgy neceſſary, but a Liturgy every where in Latine, that being a Language moſt univerſally known. The Churches external Communion lyes in their keeping the ſame Sabbath, performing the ſame Acts of worſhip (of which prayer is one) confeſſion of Original and Actual ſins, praying for the ſame mercies generally, &c. not in their ſaying all the ſame words ſure.
He tells us (fourthly) That a Liturgical form is not onely of great benefit, and comfort to the more knowing, judicious, and well-bred ſort of Chriſtians, but highly to their ſecurity, and to the holy and humble compoſure of their ſpirit in the worſhip of God, who otherwiſe are prone not onely amidſt the publique devotions curiouſly to cenſure, but ſcoffingly to deſpiſe, (By the way this is no Demonſtration, neither of their Chriſtianity, nor of their good breeding) yea many times to laugh at, and at beſt to pity, or deplore, the evident defects and incongruities which appear in many Miniſters odd expreſſions, and incongruous wayes of officiating, &c.
To reduce theſe many words to a ſhort ſum of reaſon, the uſefulneſs of impoſed Liturgies is here pleaded. 1. For the benefit of the moſt knowing, judicious, and well-bred ſort of Chriſtians. 2. To avoid the cenſures, ſcoffs, and jears of others. The Dr. hath not yet told us what benefit accrues to the former from a Liturgy, nor yet what ſolid grounds of comfort for them to feed upon, the want of which it may be is the reaſon, that if others gueſs rightly, that take all the profeſſors of Religion that can but give any underſtanding37 account of the Syſteme of Divinity, and live in any ſobriety of life and converſation, and number them (taking their judgment as you go along) and in will be found, that ten for one are againſt any impoſed Forms: On the other ſide, it is certain, that ſome others make it all their Religion: So it was of old. That Holy and Learned Oeculampadius living in a Noble mans houſe, who yet was a Proteſtant, and would ſeem a forward man in the Reformation, complains of the ſlender regard the greateſt part of the Family gave to him, and to his Miniſtry, in a Letter to his Friend in theſe words,Such a man (ſaith he) ſent for me, that I might publickly in the Church inſtruct his Family in the Chriſtian Religion, or rather feed them with the words of Chriſt, who were initiated already. I counted it my chief duty to make the Evangelical Law known familiar at hand to them, that ſo afterwards they might of themſelves proceed in the true and ſincere ſtudy of Chriſtianity, Peace, Meekneſs, Modeſty, Charity, Piety, Faith and Confidence in God. All the time of Lent that I was there, nothing hindred, but that I might every day read a piece of the Goſpel to them, and expound it, and exhort them out of it to the ſtudy of Godlineſs: But after Eaſter, it was leſs convenient; for the Family was not at-leiſure to ſpend much time at Church, their buſineſs did ſo call upon them; and there are ſome that are ſick of the Church, if they tarry there never ſo little while. pieriqueut forme ubiquemos eſt, &c. Moſt people, as the manner is, amant quotidie audire, imo videre Sacrum; love to hear, yea to ſee ſervice every day, yea to hear thoſe things mumbled over, that they underſtand not, to ſee the Ceremonies, to be preſent at the Bleſſing, to commend themſelves perfunctorily unto God, and ſo think they have been religious enough of all conſcience in that day wherein they have done this, quod ſane exigni fructus eſt, & credo plerisqueinterim conducibilius eſſet arare & texere; which truly (ſaith he) is little worth, and I am perſwaded it were better for many to have been plowing or weaving,I. 1 Epist Oeculamp. & Zuinglii Theſe words may be a Glaſs for theſe times. or Riving of Logs, or doing any other work.And (if they may be believed, not is it incredible) find more comfort in the Lyturgy than in all the Promiſes of the Goſpel, the reaſon is, Miſſa non mordet. For the Scoffes and Jears of ſuch as are poſſeſſed with a Spirit of Prophaneſſe, 'tis hard to avoid them. Nor are we further concerned, than not to give juſt cauſe to them to prophane the Worſhip of God; which may be done without a Lyturgy, if38 the Governors of the Church take due care, that none but perſons fit in reſpect both of Parts and Piety be admitted to, or continued in the exerciſe of the Office of the Miniſtry.
V. But it ſeems this Maſter of our Lyturgical Feaſt hath kept his best wine till the laſt, for he tels us, that a Lyturgy is neceſſary, or conduceth at leaſt mightily — above all — to the edification and ſalvation, as well as the unanimity and peace of the meaneſt ſort of People. Salvation and Edification in order to it, are great things, ſo alſo are unanimity and peace, and doubtleſs by all juſt and lawful means to be endeavoured: But how ſhall a Lyturgy conduce to theſe? Certainly the Captain of our Salvation hath directed the beſt and moſt proper means for the Salvation and Edification of ſouls, and we need not deviſe other than what he hath appointed; yet did he never inſtitute a Lyturgy, nor the Apoſtles after him. He tels us, That a daily variety of Expreſſions in Prayer or Sacraments, is much at one (to the Vulgar) with Latin Service, little underſtood,Pag. 11. and leſs remembred by them; they are ſtill out, and to ſeek, when a new Miniſter officiates, yea and when the ſame, if he affects variety ef words, where the duty is the ſame. For the peoples remembring, it were worth the while to examine the Vulgar people, where a Liturgy is conſtantly uſed, how much they remember of it? If the Doctor would do this, he might poſſibly be convinced, that a Lyturgy is not ſuch an effectual means to imprint Divinity notions in peoples memories. As to the peoples underſtanding, the reading of the Lyturgy ſignifies as little; if the furious Zealots for Lyturgies amongſt the Vulgar, were examined of their ſenſe of the ſeveral phraſes, they would make a wild Interpretation. It is not the uſing of a Lyturgy, will bring people to ſuch an underſtanding the Body of Divinity as is neceſſary to him that would underſtand a good Prayer (whether it be a ſtinted Form, or no) but their underſtanding of a good Catechiſme to be wrought in them by a frequent exerciſe of Catechizing; and when they once underſtand the Principles of Religion, they will eaſily underſtand a Prayer, (though they do not alwaies hear the ſame words) where the Miniſter doth not affect a vanity and ſingularity of phraſe; which if he doth, the Governors of the Church ought to reſtrain him, by admonition and other Cenſures. This is the way to make people underſtand Prayers, (whether the Phraſe be the ſame, or diverſe) provided it be not phantaſtick and vain. By this it appears, that the Biſhop hath ſaid nothing to convince the world of any neceſſity39 of impoſed Forms, nor yet of any expediency in them. We have before offered enough againſt them, ſo that thus much may ſuffice to have ſpoken of Impoſed Forms in the general.
I. FRom our former Diſcourſe, every intelligent Reader will eaſily conclude, that we have neither aſſerted it unlawful to compoſe a Form of Prayer, nor yet to uſe it, either in private or publick, no nor yet to impoſe it upon ſome: All that we have queſtioned, is the lawfulneſs of impoſing Forms of Prayer upon all Miniſters; as well thoſe whoſe gifts are eminently known, and their diligence and conſcience in that duty ſufficiently experimented, as thoſe who either through Ignorance or Lazineſs are not fit to be truſted, without ſuch a guide in the publick ſervice of God. Nor do we think it impoſſible that a Miniſter of eminent gifts, through ſome bodily, or ſpiritual diſtemper, may poſſibly be ſo out of courſe, that he may lawfully enough help himſelf with a Form: but becauſe a Staffe may be uſeful for an old withered body, and for a vegete and lively body, that hath accidentally got ſome Vertigo in his head, or wound in his foot, it will nor therefore follow, that it is reaſonable, that it be enacted, that none ſhould walk without it.
II. But certainly in reaſon, thoſe Forms which ſhould be either publickly or privately uſed, ſhould be ſuch rare Patterns of Prayer, as might juſtly commend themſelves to all ears, as containing full confeſſions of ſin Original and Actual, full Petitions for ſpiritual and temporal Mercies, for our ſelves and others, as alſo proportionable Thanksgivings, and all theſe expreſſed in Scripture phraſes, ſo ordered and couched, that the hearers may be convinced, that there is nothing contrary to the Will of God in them, nor any momentous thing, by Gods Will allowed us to ask, which is omitted. It40 is alſo reaſonable, that ſuch Forms ſhould be ſo worded, ſo every way circumſtantiated, that no ſober ear could be offended at them, all conſcientious Chriſtians might ſay Amen to them, and if any ſhould be needful to plead their cauſe, he might have more to ſay, than that jejune commendation, Nothing can be ſaid againſt them but may be anſwered, nor found in them but what is capable of a very good ſenſe. Theſe are lamentable commendations for Forms of Prayer to be impoſed upon a Church, full of holy, learned and godly Miniſters and People, who cannot be cheated into a blind Belief, That they are the beſt, becauſe ſuch a man ſaid ſo. And no private Miniſter muſt preſume to rate his private abilities above the Shekel of the Sanctuary: From whence will eaſily be concluded, that ſuppoſing it lawful to uſe Forms of Prayer in publick, yet it will not follow, that it is lawful to uſe every Form that ſhall or may be tendered to us, but ſuch only as for matter, manner and circumſtances, ſhall appear to us agreeable to the Word of God.
III. We ſay, 1. It muſt appear to us that the matter of thoſe Prayers be ſuch as Gods Word allowes us to ask of him; otherwiſe we ask not according to his Will. 2. That the mode and manner of Praying preſcribed, be ſuch as Gods Word alloweth, either by expreſs Letter of Scripture, or juſt conſequent. 3. That no appendant circumſtance make the uſe of them unlawful, which as to the matter and manner are lawful enough. For none is ſo ignorant, as not to know that in matters of practiſe a thing may ex accidenti be unlawful, which is not ſo per ſe, or of it ſelf.
IV. This now bringeth us from our general Diſcourſe concerning the lawfulneſs or expedience of any Forms, to a more particular conſideration of the particular Forms of Prayer in the Engliſh Lyturgy, according to the Copies now printed and ſold: (For what thoſe were that were eſtabliſhed by Acts of Parliament we cannot tell) and therefore muſt reſtrain our Diſcourſe to that Engliſh Lyturgy only, which is ordinarily to be had in Stationers ſhops, and at adventures from thence tranſmitted to many Churches.
V. And we cannot but take our ſelves concerned a little to ſpeak in this caſe, when the Biſhop of Exeter thinks fit to brand all thoſe Miniſters that are willing to accept his Majeſties moſt Gracious Indulgence, and to forbear the uſe of the Common Prayer; as alſo all thoſe ſober perſons, that are not ſo fond as his Lordſhip of it, with reſtiveneſs, inexcuſable moroſeneſs, an antilyturgical humor, peeviſhneſs, ingratitude, ſchiſmatical petulancy, pride, ſuch as only41 fancy they could mend ſome words & phraſes in it, or put ſome Aliaſſes to it, ſuch as ſacrifice their judgments to their Credits, yea, and (he had almoſt ſaid) Conſciences too; ſuch as ſtand in need of it to help their frequent infirmities, reſtrain their popular and deſultory levity, to ſet bounds of Diſcretion, Decency, Charity and Piety to their extravagancies: and brands their powrings out of their ſouls to God, (without the Common-Prayer-Book) with the ugly Notions of flat, dull and undevout, deadly tedious, of a confuſed length, like a Skain of Yarn courſe and ſnarled, ſomtimes ſo dubious, between wind and water, ſence and Nonſence, faction and ſedition, boldneſs and blaſphemy, &c. Is it not time when this Gentleman thinks not fit to ſpeak all this, with much more ſuch ſtuffe, in the Syriack Tongue, but upon the walls, in the face of all Iſrael in the Engliſh tongue, to make ſome reply, to let both him and the world know, That though we have not ſo learned Chriſt, as to render reviling for reviling, nor dare pretend to an ability to give the Biſhop word for word of this nature, but ſhall willingly allow him proeſtaſie in that Art and Practiſe; yet we do humbly conceive our ſelves able to give ſome reaſons of our preſent forbearance, which may poſſibly be judged good and ſufficient, if the Reformed Churches my be our Judges, and not ſuch of our Brethren at home, whoſe only deſire is to have an occaſion againſt us, and know not how to find it, in thoſe things which concern the Worſhip of our God.
VI. If, indeed, any of us have heretofore uſed it, and are ſtill ſatisfied in our Conſciences both of the lawfulneſs and expediency of it, yea and were dispoſed immediatly to have uſed it, before the Declaration of his Majeſty came forth, in caſe we had been required to it according to Law in force, rather than for default to have been puniſhed (as the Biſhop ſuggeſts, p. 4. Or if any of us thought the iterated uſe of the Lords Prayer, the daily repeating of the three Creeds, the ten Commandments, the Confeſſion of ſins and the Church-Catechiſm not only wholſom and convenient, but alſo neceſſary (as he hints, p. 2.) and that in the Common Prayer-Book, there are only ſome verbal defects, obſolete words, &c. that need emendation, and we have only forborn the uſe of it, becauſe his Majeſty hath had a compaſſionate eye to ſome mens infirmity, then indeed the forbearance of it, as to ſuch Miniſters, may be judged what doth become judicious, ſober men; but not knowing any ſuch, we cannot but look upon theſe as moſt falſe and unworthy ſuggeſtions, deſigned to no other purpoſe, than to beget in his moſt Sacred Majeſty an ill Opinion of able and conſcientious42 Miniſters, who (as ſhall God willing hereafter appear) have other more grave and momentous Reaſons to aſſign, why they have forborn the uſe of it, not only in whole but in part; yea, though poſſibly they formerly have uſed it, it not being impoſſible that either ſomthing may have intervened ſince their former uſe of it, which may have rendred the ſame practiſe now in their judgments unlawful, or that upon the fuller diſquiſition of the queſtions about the uſe of Impoſed Forms in the general, or theſe in particular, they may be convinced, that their former practiſe was their errour, not after conviction to be returned to.
VII. We ſhall therefore ſpeak, that we may both free our ſelves, and before the world excuſe thoſe of our Brethren, who are of the ſame mind with us, either in whole or in part, leaving what we ſhall ſay to be duly conſidered by all ſober Chriſtians, and ſubmitting our ſelves to the candid judgment of ſuch perſons as ſhall deſire to make a judgment of perſons and things, according to a Rule of Righteouſneſs and Reaſon.
I. IT is not clear unto us that it is lawful for all persons, and at all times to limit themſelves by any ſtinted forms of prayer. Where God hath given a gift of prayer to his Miniſters, we cannot but think it is their duty to improve, and uſe it, if indeed God hath denied that gift unto any, or by his providence any way hindereth the exerciſe of it, we (as was ſaid before) do not doubt but ſuch perſons, or any perſons at ſuch times, may help themſelves by a form;1 Cor. 12.7. but where God hath given any that gift, we conceive it is a manifeſtation of the Spirit given him to profit others by. and that he is defective to his duty, that doth not uſe it to that end; we are yet to learn, that it is not as lawful to impoſe forms of Sermons upon Miniſters, as forms of prayer; both of them, are lamentable reſtraints put upon the gifts of God beſtowed upon his43 Miniſters, to that very end, that by the uſe of them they might be profitable unto his people.
II. We are ſure it is the unquestionable duty of every one that prayeth, to do it with the higheſt intention of mind imaginable, and with the greateſt fervency of Spirit, and that it is not lawful for any man in prayer, to allow himſelf in any thing, which may either divert his mind, from the moſt fixed contemplation of God, or intention upon his duty, or which may any way cool the heat, and fervency of his Spirit. We cannot be induced to believe that any one can poſſibly ſo keep his ſoul fixed upon God, or ſo intent upon God whiles he reads a Prayer, as while he ſpeaks it from his own conception; we find by experience (not to determine poſitively of the frame of other perſons Spirits) a great difference in the intention and fervency in our Spirits, when our words in prayer are directed, and determined, by the inward heat, fervency, and affection of our hearts, from what is, when our words are determined for us, by other men, yea by our ſelves before the time of prayer, vve humbly conceive, that every Chriſtian ſtands bound, not onely to look that there be an habit of fervency in his heart, vvhich at all times ſhould diſpoſe it to duties of communion with God, but that a particular fervency ſhould attend the act of Prayer; If we durſt boaſt of the former, yet we find the latter certainly hindered by a preſcribed form, and we do believe this may be experienced by any perſon's ſpeaking to a man for his life; vve do not think it poſſible for any man to have, or ſhew the like affection and fervency in reading a Speech which another hath made for him, no not in what he hath made for himſelf, before that time; as he may by ſuch words as the preſent ſenſe of his condition in that moment of time ſhall dictate to him: nor have we ever heard of any malefactor at the bar that brought his Speech for his life in a form, if he did, we believe there was (even by the hearers) diſcerned a vaſt difference betwixt ſuch ſpeeches, and ſuch as a perſon ſpeaks at that time, to whom a lively ſence of his condition, dictates words in that hour.
III. Nor can we believe, that any Miniſter praying in any form uſeth ſo rational, and experimented a means to affect his hearers hearts, as he who uſeth none. As in preaching there is a certain lively efficacy of the voice which every hearer diſcerneth, more in the Preachers ſpeaking ex animo, then from his reading a Sermon, which is paſt denial evidenced, though it be not ſo eaſie to ſay what it is. 44So that a Sermon, yea an ordinary Oration ſo ſpoke, moves and affects the hearers, infinitely more, then a Sermon, or an Oration read out of a paper (though it be never ſo well ſtarcht up with Oratory, and ſet out with the higheſt advantage of an Oratorial reading tongue) ſo we believe, and find it in the matter of prayer; and in very deed, the reaſon of this we conceive lyeth much in this, becauſe the Speaker himſelf is (diſcernably) not ſo much affected in reading, as in ſpeaking. 'Tis one thing for the heart and affections to precede the action of the tongue, and to ſee it on work; another thing, for them to follow the tongue, and be commanded by it.
IV. Speaking is an immediate act of the Tongue, but commanded by the Soul; the Tongue is but the Souls Organ, by which it exerciſeth that power vvhich God hath given it, and it cannot be ſo well performed, as when the Soul that directs, performs its work by dictating immediately to it. So that much of the Spirit and life of prayer is loſt, in praying by forms.
V. Nay laſtly (to add no more) if there were nothing elſe in the caſe, we ſhould think it very diſputable, Whether it be lawful for us in the publique worſhip of God, eſpecially as to the momentous acts, and parts of it, to do that for which we have no command in the Word of God, no preſident, or example, and we cannot but think, that the holy Pſalmiſt's variety of prayers, and the variety of prayers, which we find uſed by the ſeveral Saints, and holy pen-men of Scripture (none of which as to words and phraſes agrees per omnia with another) ſhould rather teach us, that when we go unto God in prayer (obſerving the general rules of prayer laid down in the Scripture) we ſhould take unto us words de novo, as God ſhall put them into our hearts, then borrow words from others, hardly fitted to our hearts, or preſent neceſſities. If any have not ability to do it, we conceive it is his own fault, and it were far more conſonant to the rule of Gods Word, that ſuch ſhould be removed from Gods Altar, then that the gifts of God beſtowed upon others for the benefit of his Church, ſhould be reſtrained for their ſake, which we think would be ſomething like his act, who cut the man fit for the bed, becauſe the bed way not fit for him. Certainly in all congruity of reaſon, if the Church be peſtered, and muſt needs continue ſo, with a generation of men, who either through ignorance, or through a wofull neglect to ſtir up the gift of God in them, cannot pray without a book, and for their ſake,45 a Liturgy. or ſtinted forms in prayer be neceſſary, yet from hence cannot be concluded any lawfulneſs, much leſs neceſſity, that thoſe, to whom God hath given other abilities, and another ſpirit, ſhould be obliged to uſe it, or that it ſhould be impoſed upon them.
I. BUt ſuppoſe we were ſatisfied, that it were lawful for Miniſters of the Goſpel to uſe Forms of Prayer, and that at all times, and that this were no ſtifling of the gift of prayer, no diverſion to the intention of our minds, nor abatement to the fervor of our ſpirits, nor to the affections of our people (to do any thing apertly tending to any of which, is ſimply unlawful) yet there are particular reaſons which appear to us cogent enough, as to the reſtraint of us from the uſing of this form.
II. We cannot but have ſome doubts whether it be lawful for us in the worſhip of God by an act of ours to offer up any thing to God (of meer humane compoſition) which hath been once offered in an idolatrous ſervice, eſpecially when our Brethren ſay unto us, This hath been ſo offered; That the worſhip of the Church of Rome is idolatrous, groſly idolatrous, vve hope no ſober Proteſtants will deny, their Veneration of Images, Adoration of the Eucharists, Invocation of Saints are all idolatries. Some of theſe are done as oft as their Maſs-book is uſed; ſo that their vvorſhip, toties quoties, as it is performed, is idolatrous, though not in every part, yet in the complex.
III. We do obſerve how ſome Prelatiſts mince this point of the Idolatry of the Church of Rome, they can grant (vvith much ado, vve believe) that the worſhip of the Church of Rome is in ſome ſenſe idolatrous; what their ſenſe is vve cannot tell, nor care to inquire, vve believe, that, except ſome few Pagans vvho might terminatively vvorſhip the Sun and Moon, as thinking thoſe noble46 Creatures vvere the very first movers and principles, That never any heathens vvere guilty of more ſtupid ſottiſh idolary, then the Papists are. For (let vain perſons talk vvhat they pleaſe) it vvill never enter into our thoughts that either the Jews, Jeroboam, or Michal, thought their Images the firſt principles of life and being, (ſuch as reaſon teacheth to all that God muſt be) nor yet that the Egyptians,
(vvho vvorſhipped any plants, or any thing, from vvhich they had good or hurt) thought that thoſe things vvere God. They onely dreamt that God vvas Anima mundi, the Soul of the World, informing every living thing, and vvorſhipped an unknown God in the creature, or by ſome created repreſentation, (vvhich is yet groſs and accurſed idolatry) and ſuch is the Popiſh vvorſhip.
IV. VVe are not ſo filly, as to think, that the holy Scriptures (dictated by the Spirit of God) or any thing elſe of purely Divine Inſtitution, is capable of corruptions, and therefore cannot but vvith ſome laughter read the argumentations of them, vvho argue, that if vve reject the Liturgy,V. Dr. Cauſabon on the Lords prayer. becauſe the idolatrous Papiſts uſed it, vve muſt alſo refuſe the Scriptures, and the Lords Prayer; theſe are but toyes, to blind common people, vvho cannot ſee to the bottom of an Argument. The holy Scriptures are incapable of pollution by any idolatrous ſervice.
V. Their anſwer is as filly, vvho tell us, that then vve muſt uſe none of our Churches. VVhen vve offer up Churches to God by any rational act vve vvill conſider of this frivolous anſwer, vvhich indeed may concern them that dream of a holineſs in them, by reaſon of dedication or the like: it concerns not us, vvho onely uſe them as convenient places, in vvhich vve meet to ſerve God, and believe them no more holy then any other places, though the Law of Nature obligeth us to keep, and uſe them decently. VVe do ſo by our parlours vvhere we converſe vvith our friends.
VI. Prayer is a piece of Goſpel Sacrifice, and by a rational act of our ſouls to be offered unto God, now vvhether it be lawful for us, vvhen the earth is the Lord and fulneſs thereof, vvhereas God hath given us an ability, to ſpeak vvords in another form; to take thoſe very forms, and to offer them up to God in true Goſpel vvorſhip, vvhich have been offered in an idolatrous ſervice (though47 the matter of thoſe forms be not idolatrous) is to us a great doubt, nor can vve be ſatisfied in the lawfulneſs of it.
VII. The ground of our ſcruple is in that known Text 1 Cor. 10. where the Apoſtle treateth concerning the lawfulneſs of eating meats, that had been once offered to idols. He determines as to a double caſe. 1. That it is not lawful to eat ſuch meats in an idols Temple. 2. In caſe it be ſold in the ſhambles, and we know it not, he determines, that we may buy and eat it. But in caſe our Brother ſaith unto us, this hath been offered to an idol, he ſaith, Eat it not. So that our Brethrens ſcandal upon ſuch a foundation is to be avoided by us, he gives the reaſon, becauſe there is other meat to eat. The earth is the Lords, and the fulneſs thereof.
VIII. For our part, we are not able to fathom a reaſon, why a form of words fitted up for uſe in prayer, ſhould not be liable to the ſame corruption, and pollution that a diſh of meat fitted for natural uſe is: or why it ſhould be unlawful for one to eat the latter, (if once offered in an idolatrous ſervice, our Brother minding us of it) and it yet be lawful to uſe a form of words in prayer (ſo formerly uſed) when our Brother is ſo ſcandalized.
IX. We are aware of what the Drs. of Aberdeen ſaid of old to prove that the ſcandal of brethren, weighs light, when put in the ſcale with the command of Authority. There may ſomething be ſaid for their Aſſertion, where the ſcandal is meerly paſſive, and hath no foundation in re, only men are offended, becauſe they are offended: but where the ſcandal is ſuch, as is ſo far allowed by Scripture, that a Negative precept is given upon it, eat it not, we are not of ſo eaſie a faith, as to believe what they ſay, when Gods word ſaith do it not. Man cannot oblige our conſcience to do it, he may oblige us to ſuffer, but not to act; and that this is the caſe is evident. Our Brethren ſay to us, Theſe Forms have been offered up in an idolatrous ſervice, and we know this is truth.
X. The Biſhop of Exeter is miſtaken therefore in ſuggeſting, that we forbear the uſing of the Liturgy out of a little point of reputation, amongſt ſome people (rather weak then wiſe, and to be pitied more then imitated, and he ſhews little charity, or candor in ſaying we ſacrifice our judgements (not to ſay our conſciences) to our credits, and out of a fear or lothneſs to offend ſome people, whom we might eaſily convince and ſatisfie as well by our examples, as by arguments, &c. This is not ſpoken like a tender and a good Chriſtian. We hope we can ſay, we value our reputation at a low rate in compariſon48 of our duty. Nor do we think non-conformity the way to credit now, but that our peoples ſouls (of which we confeſs we are tender) are more weak then wiſe, we cannot ſay. Wiſdom lies in avoiding ſin, yea the leaſt ſin, and all appearances of evil. That here is an appearance of evil no reaſonable perſon can deny, it is not ſo clear that we may do that as to forms of prayer, which the word expreſly forbids us as to a piece of meat, not is it ſo clear to us, that we may obey man in any caſe, where the Word of God ſaith as to the thing commanded, Do it not.
XI. In the mean time we think thoſe are to be pitied, who had rather that their brethren ſhould be all perſecuted, impriſoned, baniſhed, together with thoſe thouſands of godly people, (who cannot in conſcience worſhip God with theſe forms) differences in the Church perpetuated, and that ſo many thouſands of ſober people, ſhould have ſuch a temptation, to entertain hard thoughts of their Magiſtrate, &c. In ſhort who had rather confound heaven and earth, and ſcandalize all Chriſtians in the world, then lay aſide forms of prayer of pure humane compoſition, and that in moſt corrupt times, and only retained upon the reformation to quiet peoples ſpirits, and which (in their own confeſſion) have for 6. or 700 years before the reformation, run through the filthy ſink of the Romiſh Synagogue. When God hath himſelf told them, That the earth is his, and the fulneſs thereof. And therefore expreſly charged us not to uſe a piece of meat once offered to idols, when our brother tells us it hath been ſo polluted.
XII. But it may be ſome of our Fathers, or Brethren (what ever a company of us Puritans do) do not think the Church of Rome an idolatrous Church, nor her worſhip idolatrous, we have heard of diverſe that have lately queſtioned it. We confeſs for thoſe Proteſtants that are of that mind, our Argument upon this head ſignifies little to them, but we are of another mind in the principle, and therefore 'tis no wonder we have different thoughts of the Conſequents. In the mean time, thoſe who believe the Church of Rome idolatrous, have reaſon to think of this Argument: Thoſe who judge her yet an undefiled Virgin, we ſuppoſe may have a deſire to be married to her. And we ſhall hardly be able to forbid the banes.
XIII. VVhen the Biſhop of Exeter can ſatisfie us, That the worſhip of the Church of Rome in the whole Complex is not idolatrous, Or that it is lawful for us, to take forms of prayer of meer humane49 compoſition ſo uſed in an idolatrous ſervice, and yet continue them in the true worſhip of God. Gods VVord ſaying to us, as to meat ſo uſed, Eat it not. Or that it is lawful for us to tell our people (when they come and tell us, Sirs, They ſay this is taken out of the Maſs-book, will you uſe it?) No brethren 'tis not taken out there, when we know it is. I ſay, when his Lordſhip can ſatisfie us in theſe things, he may then conclude (which as yet he doth very uncharitably) That we might eaſily convince and ſatisfie our people, as well by our Examples as Arguments. Our people are a plain kind of Country people, that are not to be ſatisfied with a flaunt tant of high words, they have their Bibles, and having ſo plain a Scripture by the end as that of 1 Cor. 10.28. Eat it not, they choke us with ſuch things as theſe. Is not the Romiſh Church Idolatrous? have not they uſed the ſame forms in their idolatrous devotion? how can you then uſe them without ſin? So that we profeſs we cannot anſwer them. We deſire the Biſhop of Exeter would do it plainly and ſolidly.
I. BUt further yet to let the Biſhop know, that it is not out of a meer Anti-Liturgical humour that ſome of us (taking the advantage of his Majeſties Declaration, and laying hold of his Grace and Favour in it) do not yet meddle with the Book of Common-prayer. VVe deſire his Lordſhip to conſider, That we have taken the Covenant, and are afraid to bring upon us that vengeance, which we are ſure firſt or laſt will follow perjury. If his Lordſhips looſing St. Peters bands, could have looſed our Conſciences from that, we had been a ſtep nearer then we are, but we obſerve no truth of Divinity in the Principles, which his Lordſhip, and others, have laid down; from which they would conclude, that the bond of that Covenant is diſſolved; we alſo diſcern, his Lordſhip, and the others abundantly anſwered by Mr. Crofton, and Timorcus, and could wiſh that when any of them write again upon50 that Subject, they would not onely aſſert poſitions, but give their reaſons which may evince the truth of them, or elſe annex ſome Scriptures to prove them; or at leaſt tell us, what Divines were ever of their mind.
II. We have in the Covenant ſworn to endeavour a Reformation of the Church of God in England, in worſhip according to the Word of God, and the example of the beſt Reformed Churches. VVe think the worſhip of God in England, is, as to the Rule and Form of it, expreſſed in the Common-prayer Book, and the Forms of devotion there expreſſed and impoſed: We cannot find that either according to the Word of God, or the example of the beſt Reformed Churches, it is lawful for the Miniſters of the Goſpel to tye up themſelves to forms of prayer, nor that ſuch practiſe is commended to us: nor can we conceive how the uſe of the ſame forms of Worſhip ſhould be a Reformation in Worſhip. Nor (poſſibly) is it clear to every one, that there is nothing in thoſe forms of worſhip ſavouring of Superſtition, or that the uſe of them is conſiſtent with the promoving of the power of Godlineſs; at leaſt, that it is a due means to promove it, all which we have ſolemnly ſworn to indeavour; and ſurely that indeavouring to which we are ſworn, will at leaſt oblige us not to do any thing to the contrary.
III. Into which Covenant many Miniſters of the Goſpel having entred, ſince they uſed the ſaid forms of prayer; ſomething may be ſaid on their behalf, diſobliging them from a return to their former practice, though in theſe laſt 20 years time they have learn'd nothing from the many books publiſhed to the world, examining the ſaid forms in ſpecial, of offering arguments againſt impoſed forms in the general, convincing them of a former in adviſedneſs, and error in practice. If they then looked upon the uſe of thoſe forms as indifferent, ſurely the Oath they have taken puts it into another capacity. If they now judge the uſe unlawful, (it is no great wonder conſidering how much light hath ſhone upon the world in that ſpace of time, that ſome of their judgements ſhould be altered) the Biſhops charge of Schiſmatical petulancy, reſtiveneſs, moroſity, &c. cleaves not to them.
IV. If the Biſhop ſayes they had before ſubſcribed to uſe it: According to his Lordſhips doctrine, and ſome others of his mind, forced ingagements ſignifie nothing. It is true the Godly Miniſters of England are of another mind, they believe, though they were under a force, (either they muſt ſubſcribe, or looſe their51 livelyhoods, yea looſe the exerciſe of their Miniſtry) yet they are obliged by their Act, in caſe it doth not appear to them, That it is ſinful for them to do what they inadviſedly ſet their hands to; but that is the Caſe. Beſides, though they cannot think that any Earthly power can diſcharge them of an Oath made to God, yet they believe that the Parliament of England can diſcharge them of an Engagement entred to an inferiour Magiſtrate, and by Oath again bind them to do the contrary; and that's the caſe again.
V. If any ſay, That the Miniſters of England are bound by the Law of England to uſe the Common-prayer Book. Beſides that it is a great queſtion how far the Laws of a Nation can oblige the conſcience in matters of Divine VVorſhip, and moſt certain, that they cannot oblige any mans conſcience, to do any thing in the worſhip of God, that is, either directly, or by conſequence forbidden there, we make it a great queſtion whether the Common-prayer Book be eſtabliſhed by Law or no, and believe the contrary. That the Common-prayer Book 5. & 6. Edw. 6. with ſome alterations made 1 Eliz. 2. was ſo eſtabliſhed we know, but what that book was, or where it is, we cannot tell; it is apparent that the books ordinarily walking up and down are not ſo eſtabliſhed.
VI. Suppoſe it were, we do not think that this is pleadable in the Caſe, againſt the Covenant agreed by Lords and Commons legally aſſembled in Parliament, and ſo far ratified by the King, as unqueſtionably in conſcience would ſuffice to diſcharge any that ſhall keep it; (though contrary to ſome former Act of Parliament.)
VII. Nor can it enter into our thoughts, that the Parliament, or any power under Heaven, can by any future Act, diſcharge us from the obligation of an Oath; for out parts, thoſe Divines that talk any ſuch things, ſeem to us little acquainted, either with the vvord of God, or with the nature of an Oath. Not with the former, for God expreſly Numb. 30. determines the Oath eſtabliſhed for ever, if the husband of the wife, or father of the child, either at firſt conſented, or did not preſently diſſent but hold his peace; nor with the latter, for all Divines determine it, in the power of men to ingage men in an Oath to God, but not in their power to diſcharge them again, becauſe the Oath makes us debtors to God, and it belongs to God alone to diſcharge us; which eſpecially holds, where the matter of the Oath is ſuch as Gods Law required, and for which an Oath is onely a ſecurity,52 and certainly ſuch is the matter of Reformation, and the rooting out of Superſtition, and the promoving the power of Godlineſs. The Powers of the world in ſuch a caſe may contract guilt to themſelves by forcing ſuch as fear an Oath, to ſuffer, becauſe they durſt not violate their Oath; but they can never lay hold on mens Conſciences by any Act of that nature, ſo as to make them ſinners, if they do not actively obey: Nay it is far better in ſuch caſes, and in all caſes, to obey God rather than men.
I. CErtainly in reaſon, if a Lyturgy, or Form of Prayer be commended to any Church, it ſhould be ſuch a well compoſed and compleatly digeſted Pattern of Prayer, as ſhould contain in it the ſum of all things to be ordinarily confeſſed, or begged, or for which thanks ſhould be given; and this drawn up, in ſuch plain expreſſions, as ſhould be obvious to every hearer, and yet ſo handſomly, as ſhould reconcile the hearers reverence and attention to it. The Confeſſion ſhould be of the guilt of all Original ſin, as well originans as originatum; the guilt of Actual ſins. The Petitionary part ſhould conſiſt of Petitions, for a ſight and ſenſe of ſin, Faith, Juſtification, a ſenſe of it, Regeneration, &c. And all theſe ſhould be in ſuch a form, as no Hearer ſhould have a reaſonable exception to.
II. Thus we are ſure it would beſt fit two (if not the only) ends for which there can be any pretence of the neceſſity of a Lyturgy. 1. The acquainting of people with the Doctrine of the Church, as to things neceſſary to be believed, and the prevention of Errours. 2. The helping the weakneſs of ill accompliſhed Divines, who are not able ex tempore ſo to pray in a Congregation, by which means poſſibly their people never hear a juſt Confeſſion of ſins, nor put up perfect Supplications.
III. Now it is poſſible that if the Biſhop of Exeter (who hath indeed a rare art at words) may have liberty to comment upon our Lyturgy, he may prove, that ſuch as underſtand as much as53 himſelf, may from our Lyturgy, fancy ſuch a perfection of Form, and by Arguments and far-fetched conſequences, make out all theſe; but ſurely none can ſay, that take the ordinary Prayers appointed to be read every Morning Prayer, or Evening Prayer, they do contain all things requiſite to be confeſſed or petitioned for, in ſo plain and familiar expreſſions, that ordinary people can underſtand, that in thoſe Prayers we confeſs the guilt of Adams ſin, Original ſin, &c. or petition for ſuch things as are abſolutely neceſſary: Nay we believe that if they did, ſome that are great Zealots for the uſe of them, would not ſo well like them.
IV. Beſides that the matter of ſome things in the Lyturgy is not in our judgments ſo approvable; we do not underſtand with what truth we can ſay to God eight daies together that he ſent his Son to redeem us, [as on that day] nor yet as to any one particular day. Nor yet how we can pray in Faith to be delivered from Lightning, Tempeſts and ſudden death; we underſtand how we may pray in Faith to be delivered from the evil of theſe temporal judgments, and from the judgments themſelves (if it be the Lords Will, &c.)
V. We by experience find, that the Form of the Service preſcribed in the Engliſh Lyturgy, is ſuch to which the Spirits of ſober people are no waies reconcileable; who cannot underſtand what foundation is either in Scripture or right reaſon, for the uſing particular Prayers for each day, or dividing the entire Service of God betwixt Miniſters and People, or for uſing ſo many ſhreds, or ends of Prayer, or repeating the Lords Prayer ſo often. Nor can we our ſelves be more ſatisfied with it. Mr. Sparrowes Rationale in this caſe to us ſeems to have as little reaſon in it as Durantus his Rationale hath for all the ſuperſtitious uſages of the idolatrous Synagogue of Rome. — Et canpare pares, & reſpondere parati.Neither of the Barrels have in it better Herrings.
VI. Now for us (being ſo graciouſly indulged by his Majeſty) to ſcandalize all thoſe people whom we muſt ſcandalize, ſeemeth to us not lawful, conſidering how tender St. Paul was of giving offence to brethren (how light a matter ſoever be now made of it) eſpecially conſidering the obſervation which we make, which we cannot ſay is univerſally true, but as to our Congregations is generally true, and that is this; That many of the perſons offended at54 our forbearance of the Lyturgy, are not of the ſtricter, but the looſer ſort of Profeſſors, ſuch as his Majeſty hath juſtly ſtigmatized in his Proclamation, as vicious, prophane and debaucht perſons, Drunkards, Tavern-haunters, Health-drinkers, Swearers, not that they are all ſuch, but ten for one we find to be ſuch; and we as generally obſerve, That thoſe of our Pariſhioners, who fear an Oath, who live chaſtly, temperately and ſoberly, and by any Rule, are generally not deſirous of the uſe of the Lyturgy, where they have a Miniſter of any abilities: But where we have any perſons, that give up themſelves to ſtrict exerciſes of Religion, that pray in their Families, exerciſe themſelves in the Scripture, and have any great knowledge of them, we find them generally impatient of it: Now we cannot think it lawful for us, to ſcandalize the far greater number of ſtrict Chriſtians, that we may gratifie a few others, in whoſe lives we find nothing, but what is a far juſter ſcandal to all good men, than a godly Miniſters forbearing the uſe of the Lyturgy can be to them.
VII. Eſpecially alſo conſidering, that we ſee, that that ſort of people who are ſo zealous for the Lyturgy, ſo dote upon it, that it is clearly become their Idol, they think there is no ſerving of God without it, no need of any ſerving of God but with it: With many people we ſee it demonſtrably true, that if a Miniſter ſhould never preach the Word of God, yet if he did but read the Common Prayer, it would be enough. The Preacher makes their heads to ake. Now we cannot judge it lawful for us upon this view of the ſtate of our people, to nurſe them up in theſe conceits, which are hardly Chriſtian.
VIII. Yet it might go far with us, if one of fourty of thoſe people that are ſo fond of the Lyturgy, could but give us a reaſonable account, why they deſire we ſhould pray by Forms, rather than without, why by theſe Forms rather than others. VVe do not think it lawful for us to ſatisfie the irrational humours of people, contrary to our light.
IX. By all this, the Biſhop of Exeter may ſee, that we have ſomthing to ſay for our ſelves, why we do not uſe the Lyturgy: Not to enter into a particular examination of the parts of it, the woful Tranſlations of Scripture in it, the irrational cutting of verſes from verſes, Chapters from Chapters, with 1000 other things, would we examine it in parts, which hath been already done by many: We profeſſ our ſelves for theſe Reaſons to forbear it,55 and to judge our ſelves obliged in conſcience to forbear it. VVe acknowledge it in his Majesties and Parliaments power to puniſh us for that forbearance: If they ſhall think ſit to inflict any puniſhment in that caſe, we acknowledge it our duty to ſuffer patiently, comitting our ſouls unto God as to a faithful Creator: In the mean time, we are humbly thankful to his Majeſty for declaring, that none of us ſhall be puniſhed for the not uſing of it, (at leaſt not for a time.) VVe do not forbear becauſe his Majeſty gives us leave, but we forbear out of Judgment and Conſcience, and bleſs God, who hath put it into the heart of his Moſt Excellent Majeſty, to forbear puniſhing of us for Conſcience ſake, as to his matter of our God. It is therefore a ſpiteful & odious repreſentation, which Biſh. Gauden hath made of us, which hath no foundation of Truth, nor mixture of Charity. God grant him better Interpreters of his Actions, and requite him not according to his dealing with his Brethren, who deſire to fear the ſame God which he profeſſeth to worſhip, and to walk by the ſame Rule which he profeſſeth to own. Happy is he that condemneth not himſelf in what he allows.
We ſhall ſhut up this Diſcourſe with a ſummary Recapitulation of what Reaſon are ſcattered in the preceding Sheets, juſtifying our Practiſe in the forbearance of the uſe of the Common Prayer.
I. VVE cannot believe that it is lawful for all of us, at all times, by limiting our selves to a Form of Prayer, to ſmother the Gift of Prayer, given (we hope) to ſome of us, or to cool the heat and fervency of our hearts in Prayer, or the Affections of them that hear us.
II. Becauſe we can find no Precept for it is Gods Word, no Pattern of it there, but one (pretended) Form, that made by Chriſt himſelf, although we doubt whether ever it were intended for a Form of Prayer or no, and rather think it a direction for the matter of Prayer; one Evangeliſt ſaying no more, than after this manner, Chriſt and his Apoſtles leaving no Record of their uſing of it; my few of56 the entire phraſes in it to be found in other Scriptures. (Dr. Cauſabon in his late Book, is miſerably put to it to parallel the phraſes of it, as any indifferent Reader will judge) yet it being holy Scripture, we doubt not but we may uſe it in the Form, which is ſo ſhort, as we may eaſily get it by heart, and not employ our ſouls (at our eyes in reading) while they ſhould he wreſtling with God: And the divine authority of it is ſuch, as it hath another manner of influence on our Spirits in uſing (as all the Scripture hath) than can he pretended for any other Forms: And by the length of it, we eaſily underſtand, that it was never intended to be uſed without any other Prayer, to ſay nothing of many other Arguments might be uſed for that.
III. Becauſe we cannot find, that there was ever any Forms of Prayer uſed in the Church, in any part of it till 400 years (or very nigh) after Chriſt, nor any made (for more than ſome ſingle Province) till 600 years, and then by that ſuperſtitious wretch Pope Gregory, and not impoſed till 800 years after Chriſt, when all manner of Corruption was brought in; and we challenge all our Adverſaries, to prove what they ſay to the contrary of this in any Chriſtian Church: For what Dr. Cauſabon ſaith, of Forms of Prayer uſed by the Heathens to their Idols, and by the Jews in their moſt corrupted, depraved eſtate, it deſerves no Anſwer.
IV. Becauſe we cannot imagine any uſe at all of them, or any good they ever did, especially when impoſed. They were firſt invented to cure the negligent and ignorant Clergy, to prevent Hereſie and Schiſm; we have ſhewed, that in ſtead of this, they have made an ignorant and negligent Clergy, that they are neither a ſcriptural, nor rational means to prevent Hereſie, that they have been the Mothers of Hereſies, cauſing ſeparations, and conſtantly brought forth dreadful Perſecutions, and will do ſo ſtill in reaſon.
V. Becauſe we canot think it lawful in the worſhip of God, to uſe forms of Prayer (which are compounds made by men) which have once been offered in an Idolatrous Service (ſuch as is that of the Church of Rome) Dr. Cauſabon ſaith nothing, in telling us, the Scriptures are in the Maſs-Book, they are no humane Compoſitions, nor capable of defilement. Though in theſe Forms there be no Idolatry, yet they have been uſed in a Service groſſely Idolatrous. There the Queſtion lies; not whether we may uſe nothing which hath been offered to Idols, or in an Idolatrous Service? That's a Foppery to dream: but, Whether it be lawful for Christians in the ſpiritual Worſhip of God,57 by a rational act of theirs, in devotion to offer up what is of pure humane compoſition, and ſo may be altered, and which hath been before defiled, by being offered in an Idolatrous Service abhorred of God. Let our Brethren ſpeak to this Queſtion, and leave ſpeaking to other things, as our uſing the ſame Scriptures and Temples: For the latter, they know ſo did the Primitive Churches, which yet never uſed the Pagan Forms of words. This is not to ſpeak ad idem.
VI. Becauſe we have ſworn to endeavour a Reformation in Worſhip, and the extirpation of Superſtition, and what is contrary to, or may hinder the power of Godlineſs.
VII. Becauſe of the infinite ſcandal which we muſt give to ſome of our Brethren that durst not uſe it, and to thouſands of our moſt judicious, holy, ſtrictly living Christians; and we durſt not offend thoſe little ones, though we dare leave our Miniſtry, if Authority will command one or the other.
VIII. Becauſe we ſee the number of thoſe who are judicious, ſober Chriſtians who deſire it, is very ſmall, but the generality of thoſe given up to all manner of looſeneſs, prophaneſs, and debauchery, are impatient for it, and reſt in it, ('tis as the Papiſts Beads to them) and they care for no other worſhip of God, and we conceive it far from our duty, to harden any in what we know is their ſin and wickedneſs.
IX. Becauſe we are aſſured in our Conſciences, that very many of thoſe in our ordinary Congregations who are earneſt for it, preſs the uſe of it, upon no other account, than from a Principle of malice againſt godly Miniſters and People, and deſire it for nothing elſe, but that they may have a weapon to deſtroy all religious perſons by; this is evident by experience, when ſome Miniſters have uſed ſome part, they are yet as zealous to turn them out, finding fault, they do not read all; then, he doth not wear the Surplice; he doth not pray the Canon Prayer; he doth not ſay later Service. Nor can we get of them any reaſon why they deſire we ſhould uſe it, only 'tis eſtabliſhed by Law, (which we cannot believe) If it were, we think in matters of Gods worſhip ſomthing elſe muſt be conſidered.
X. Becauſe the Forms appear to us very ſhort of a perfect Model of Prayer, full of obſolete words, dubious phraſes, antique reſponds, and ſuch a Method (through the whole) as is like to none in any Reformed Church in the world, nor any where to be parallel'd, but in the Roman Miſſal, nor any way ſuited to the ſpirits of Chriſtians,58 nor to the gravity of the duty: We do not ſay this is ſo, but to us it appeareth ſo, and therefore it is〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
XI. Finally, we do not conceive the Intereſt and concern of words in Prayer ſuch, that there is any need at all, that Forms ſhould be ſtarcht up for all to uſe, thoſe being beſt, which the beſt affected heart emitteth, and venteth, and which beſt affect the hearts of others: If all Miniſters be not able to pray decently enough, (as to expreſſions) and ſutably enough, as to the Matter, it is becauſe the Governours of the Church take not that due cogniſance of Miniſters Abilities, which they ought to do before they ordain and admit them; Or do not ſo watch over their Churches as they ought to do. Let then the Errour be mended, by the greater Care and Vigilance of Church-Governours, not by the reſtraining the Gifts of God beſtowed on any, for the ſake of ſome.
XII. This is the Summe of our Apology; which we humbly ſubmit to the Judgment of all that are concerned in the great Affairs of the Church; alwaies reſerving to our ſelves further Liberty of adding any further Arguments or Exceptions, profeſſing our ſelves moſt heartily willing to hear any Arguments of our Brethren, either for Forms of Prayer, to be univerſally impoſed, or for theſe Forms in particular, to which we ſhall give a reaſonable Anſwer, or yield our Cauſe. In the mean time, we proteſt againſt Dr. Cauſabons uncharitable Judgment of us, That we do it to oppoſe our Brethren. We can, we dare do nothing againſt the Truth, but are ready to do all for it. But we dare not reſiſt the Light of our Conſciences. And if it be the Will of God, that for our Conſcience ſake in this thing, we be laid aſide as uſeleſs Veſſels, we humbly ſubmit to his pleaſure, who is able of ſtones to raiſe up Children to Abraham; and we ſhall pray that our Brethren may have nothing on our behalf charged upon their ſouls in the day of Chriſt. In the mean time, what Dr. Gauden hath ſaid, we will further conſider in a few words in the following Chapters.
I. DR. Gauden hath ſo perplexed his Diſcourſe with words, and been ſo careleſs of Method, that we have found it no eaſie thing to pick out his Arguments; we could have wiſhed, that like a Logician and Divine, he had propoſed his Arguments ſtrictly, and followed them cloſely, that we might have judged that his Deſign was with a ſtrength of Argument, in the Spirit of Meekneſs, to convince us, over whom he ſo provocatively, inſults, not meerly to confound his Reader with a non-ſignificant Rhodomantado of Phraſe.
II. So far as we can gather, he one while argues for a Lyturgy, by and by for this Lyturgy, and no other; for which he one while argues, from the Obligation of the Law, another while, from the Obligation of the Example of the Primitive Churches, or of ſome Perſons now living: By and by he urgeth the uſe of it from Gratitude to his Majeſty, and from the contrary Evidence of Ingratitude, Moroſity, Peeviſhneſs, &c. in caſe of Refuſal. One while he pretends an incomparable excellency in it, another while, the unblameableneſs of it: Anon he runs a deſcant upon the Confuſions of our Church ſince it was neglected. After this, he tels us of the Neceſſity of it, the neceſſity of a Lyturgy for the planting of any Church, this Lyturgy, for the defending of our Church againſt Popery. One while he urgeth it, that we might be conformable to our Prince, another while, that we may be Loyal. He tels us of the Authority of the Church, as to Lyturgy, Ceremonies, what not? He juſtifies, not only the Forms of Prayer, but alſo the Method, the Reſponds, yea, the Muſick, the Ceremonies, the Catechiſm in the Common Prayer-Book: One while he tels us, that men have ſerved God day and night in the uſe of the Lyturgy, yea, that he is perſwaded St. Paul himſelf (had he been alive) would have uſed it; another while, he tels us, how ſome Miniſters and people have bewailed the neglect of it. 60O quo te teneam mutantem Protea vultu?The Dr. had made our work ſhorter and more methodical if he had told us, which of theſe he accounts arguments in the caſe, and which he looked upon as ſtrains of Rhetorick, onely as to which we needed not have troubled our ſelves with an anſwer; he not doing this, we muſt examine them all, ſuppoſing that the Dr. took all theſe for concluſive Arguments, in the caſe able to command reaſonable, and religious ſouls to this conformity.
III. For the pretended Antiquity of Liturgies, his Lordſhip may gather from what is already ſaid, that we do not believe any ſuch thing, nor hath he ſpoke one word to prove it, we living not in Pithagoras his School, have not learned to ſubmit to an〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉we deſire him to ſhew us any authority for a Liturgie within the firſt three Centuries.
IV. As to what he ſaith p. 2. That his moſt Sacred Majeſty in his Gracious Declaration hath not dispenſed with the legal, morall, obediential, obligation. We conceive he means the obligation which lies upon mens conſciences to obſerve the Civil Laws of the Nation, we do not elſe underſtand his meaning.
If this be it, the Dr. hath two things to do; 1. To prove that the Common-prayer-Book (vulgarly to be had) is eſtabliſhed by any Law of England. (we heard it was openly denied in the houſe of Commons in the laſt Parliament, and we cannot find any Law to that purpoſe, the Laws 1 Ed. 5 & 6. Ed. 6. & 1 El. are ſuch, that our conſciences tell us, they daily violate the Law that read theſe books.) In the mean time we ingenuouſly confeſs, That his Majeſties Declaration, as it cannot make an obliging Law, ſo it cannot diſſolve the obligation of it: but where is the Law? 2. If it could be found, how far doth it oblige any mans conſcience? certainly not to any act of ſin; if we thought we could uſe theſe forms without ſin, we ſhould never diſpute the Law in the caſe, but freely obey the leaſt intimation of his Sacred Majeſties pleaſure.
V. For what he tells us p. 8. of the example of the Church ſince the firſt Century, we can find no ſuch thing. VVe have ſaid enough to that c. 3. It is an empty unproved Aſſertion, though we know nothing but Gods Word obliging our conſciences, and are to learn that any examples oblige us (but thoſe of Chriſt and his Apoſtles) and therefore for what he tells us p. 3. of ſome Miniſters that have all this time uſed the Liturgy: Others that lately have reaſſumed the61 uſe of it: it ſignifies nothing to us who live by the unerring rule of Scripture precepts and preſidents. If others will ſin, ſurely it obligeth not us to do ſo too: Though we dare not ſay they did, or do ſin in it.
VI. He urgeth it upon us next from an ingenuous Argument, viz. Gratitude to his Majeſty for his indulgence. To which we anſwer, That we with all humility acknowledge His Moſt Excellent Majeſties gracious indulgence in it. And in point of gratitude, are willing to ſerve his Majeſty vvith all that is dear unto us (our ſouls only excepted vvhich we know he deſireth not) in token of thankfulneſs to his Majeſty, we are ready to part with any part of our livelyhoods, and ſhall in that vye with thoſe who pretend moſt to his Majeſties ſervice, (though many of us in ſeveral places have no benefit by his Majeſties Declaration, whiles ſome eager Lawyers and Juſtices, ſtill give the Statutes in charge againſt us, and cauſe us to be indicted and proſecuted, openly telling the people that the Kings Declaration is no Law, though they alſo know that there is no Law for the Common-prayer) yet we have an experiment of his gracious Majeſties good will to us his poor Subjects; and ſhall be vvilling by any vvay, which our conſciences tell us would not be ſin to us, to let his Majeſty know our gratitude. But vve are ſure that his Majeſty is more charitable to his peoples ſouls, then to deſire that to expreſs their thankfulneſs to him they ſhould commit the leaſt ſin againſt God. And this is enough to excuſe us from the Biſhops raſh charging us with Moroſity, Reſtiveneſs, Peeviſhneſs, Schiſmatical petulancy, &c. with none of which men can be charged for any action which they do, or neglect, that they may avoid the guilt of Sin before God, whether their conſciences inform them rightly or no.
VII. For the many Splendid words, which the Biſhop uſeth p. 23.31. to dazle peoples eyes at the apprehenſion of the Excellency of the Liturgy, they are of no uſe at all, for beſides that if he would have made his words good, he muſt have proved 1. That the Common-prayer hath in it a perfect Confeſſion of ſuch ſins as all are guilty of. Original, Actual, of Omiſſion, Commiſſion, a perfect ſummary of things neceſſary to be begged of God for all: and a perfect form of thanksgiving for mercies received, and all this expreſſed in moſt Significant Scriptural Language, plain, and affective expreſſions, and caſt into a lovely, and uſual method, I ſay beſides this, the Excellency of no form of words in prayer, can commend it to62 be impoſed univerſally, if ſuch impoſing be not lawful. But in ſtead of this the Biſhop gives us a parcel of fine words without a tittle of proof, and contrary to the general apprehenſion of all Reformed Churches, (who never ſpake it more then tolerable) and to the judgement of diſcretion; which the Proteſtant Religion allows to all private perſons: ſo that this is but〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉one Drs. opinion, which to us Proteſtants is not enough to make what he ſayes, a probable Doctrine.
VIII. What he argues for it, from the invalidity of the exceptions taken to it, and the ſuppoſed unblameableneſs of it, ſignifies as little, for it is blameable enough, as a form univerſally impoſed. 2. As formerly uſed in an idolatrous ſervice; and for many things which he never ſo much as indeavours to vindicate it from, though told him of old by Mr. Cartwright,V. The Common-prayer book unmaskt. the Abridgment; more lately by the book called Neceſſity of Reformation, by Vavaſor Powel, &c. beſides for what he ſpeaks to, as to the point of Baptiſmal regeneration, it is ſo without foundation in Scripture. (for all know thoſe two Texts 3 Jo. 5. and in Titus have other and better ſenſes,V. The Paralel between the Maſs-book and the Liturgie. ) So contrary to the Analogy of Faith in the point of Juſtification, Perſeverance in grace, &c. and the Dr. hath ſaid ſo little to•lear it, that thoſe Exceptions will yet ſtand good, ſo will that as to the tranſlation of the Text in Ezech. for none is ſo ſimple to aſſert, that we can as infallibly give the ſenſe of a Text, and put it in other words with our additions, as Chriſt and his Apoſtles; and ſure we are, the Text in Ezech. in the letter of it ſpeaks no ſuch thing as our Liturgy makes it to ſpeak.
IX. For what he urgeth as to the diſorders, and confuſions in our Church ſince the diſuſe of the Liturgie, which he much comments upon p. 7, 18, 40. It is no argument to evince the neceſſity or expedience of bringing back the Liturgie again, becauſe not the want of it, but rather the too long having of it, was the cauſe in a great meaſure. For 1. In what Congregations were theſe confuſions moſt ordinary? was it in thoſe Congregations where the Liturgie was out of choice laid aſide? which were furniſhed with Godly Learned Miniſters? we appeal to the Citizens of London whether they took notice of any ſuch extravagancies in their Miniſters? nor can malice it ſelf ſo charge them. But there were two other ſorts of Preachers: 1. There was an old Sect who had ſo uſed themſelves to the Liturgie, that they had loſt all their gifts, and being reſtrained in the uſe of thoſe forms, and not having a ſpirit or63 heart ſuted to their work could do juſt nothing. 2. There was another Set of Lay-preachers, and raw young Students got into livings, many of whom were alſo corrupted in their judgements, and it is no great wonder ſome of them ſhould be juſtly chargeable. The queſtion is, what ſuch confuſions there would have been, had none been admitted into livings but ſuch as were duly qualified.
X. Above all things we wonder, why a form of words in prayer at the adminiſtration of the Sacraments, ſhould be judged ſo highly neceſſary to be preſcribed; for the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as it is an Ordinance which requires the greateſt preparation, both as to him that adminiſters, and thoſe that receive: ſo we cannot but think it very hard that any diverſion ſhould be offered to the Miniſters ſoul in prayer there, and unreaſonable that he ſhould do any thing which might either abate the fervor of his own ſpirit, or be leſs affective of his peoples hearts. For the forms of words in Conſecration and Adminiſtration, we think it no way fit the Miniſter ſhould vary a tittle from the inſtitution, where Chriſt hath left us words ſufficient. Nor can we allow the Liturgie's turning the words to be ſpoken at the delivery of the Sacrament into a prayer, being no wayes agreeable to the Inſtitution. The ſame is to be ſaid as to the other Sacrament, onely if an explicit enumeration of the chief heads of the Doctrine of Faith, (to which the Parents aſſent is required) be judged neceſſary, we think it warrantable, and ſhould freely allow the Church to preſcribe a form there, and to enjoyn the obſervation of the Scriptural form of words in both adminiſtrations to be uſed, and no other.
XI. As to the deſires of the moſt Learned and Judicious, and Godly of the people, which the Dr. mentions p. 7. we ſee no ſuch thing, but the quite contrary, and dare almoſt venture it upon the vote of ſuch in our Pariſhes, as are not guilty of noted debauchery, and have any form of Religion in their families, and can give us a rational anſwer why they deſire it.
XII. We do freely allow that no Miniſter ought to oppoſe his private Spirit to the Spirit of the Prophets united: but yet muſt maintain for every Miniſter a judgement of diſcretion, (which vvhen vve have once diſputed out of the world, Popery will immediately ſucceed, & nothing remains but blind obedience) wet do allow a due honour to ſome of thoſe Reverend perſons that had an hand in compoſing the Liturgie, and do think they did worthily in their generation, according to that twilight of Goſpel light, which immediately64 after a midnight of Popiſh darkneſs ſhone out upon them: we do allow them to have done prudently, reſpecting the State of the Engliſh Nation at that time, (Rome could not be pulled down in a day) but we alſo know, how imperfect their attainments were, and how gradually they reformed their own judgements. It is ſufficiently known that one of the moſt Eminent of them, (holy Cranmer) was one of them, who (at that time himſelf being a profeſſed Proteſtant) condemned that rare Martyr Lambert, for denying the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation. In the witneſs of which truth in Queen Maries dayes himſelf (upon further light) ſuffered Martyrdom. We believe he did both in the ſincerity of his heart, and onely mention this to ſhew, that thoſe Eminent lights were not fitted to ſet a ſtanding and perpetual rule to the Church in ſo great an affair as this is.
XIII. But if as the Biſhop ſaith p. 3. Neither piety nor policy, will allow the diſcompoſing or diſſolving the whole frame of the Liturgy. And if as he tells us p. 12. The Reformed part of Religion cannot be well preſerved in England to any flouriſhing and uniform State, unleſs ſuch Liturgy be authoritatively injoined, and conſtantly maintained. Then unqueſtionably it ought to be as he dictateth. And if as he tells us p. 23. The Liturgy of England as to the main eſſentials of it in Doctrine, Devotion, Conſecration, and Celebration, for matter, order and method, be ſuch as may not be maimed. If (as p. 31.) nothing can ever be ſeen comparable to this Liturgie, if it be nulled and deſtroyed, and if after it be reviewed, it be not by Law, reeſtabliſhed and authoritatively enjoined, Truth and peace can never be eſtabliſhed; there's all the reaſon in the world that we ſhould have it, better that thoſe thouſands of Godly Miniſters and people, who cannot ſubmit to it, ſhould be baniſhed the Land, then ſuch evils come by hearkening to them, or ſuch good things be hindred by their non-conformity. But let us ſearch the bottom of this heap of words, & ſee what ſtrength of Reaſon there is in them.
XIV. He gives three reaſons for his former aſſertion, That it is againſt piety and policy to alter it.
1. It would reproach the wiſdom, and blemiſh the piety of the first compoſers of it.
2. It would imprudently diſparage the judgement and devotion of the whole Church of England.
3. It would much damp and diſcourage the preſent zeal and devotion of the greateſt and chiefeſt part of this Nation, who are much pleaſed and profited by the uſe of it.
65Ergo, The alteration is againſt Piety and Policy.
XV. For the firſt, We would be loath either to reproach the Piety, or blemiſh the wiſdom of the firſt Reformers; but we cannot underſtand how the one or the other ſhould be reproached, by not impoſing a Lyturgy, or not impoſing this Lyturgy. Was the Wiſdom of God reproached by the diſuſe of the Ceremonial Law, which yet was an excellent Schoolmaſter to bring the Jews to Chriſt? Or is the wiſdom or prudence of William Lilly or any other Maſter of Grammar reproached, becauſe when the Boy comes to be Maſter of Arts, he no longer makes Latine by Grammar Rules, nor further uſeth it than at a pinch now and then? Certainly thoſe firſt Reformers did like wiſe and pious men, with reſpect to their age, the complexion of the People, the abilities of the then-Miniſters. But if that we have not improved both in Reformation and in all Gifts, very much ſince that time (now 100 years) we have wofully abuſed our mercies. And it is the honour of our firſt Reformers, that by their means who firſt tranſlated the Service-Book into Engliſh, &c. there are ſo many thouſand Miniſters to be found now in England, who are able to ſpeak unto God before people, as well and orderly, as if they did read thoſe Forms. Is it not ſo to the Schoolmaſter, who by dictating Forms of Theams and Epistles, and Orations, teacheth his Boyes to make as good, and better than his were, in 9 or 10 years time? Surely it were rather a reproach to the Schoolmaster, ſo to inure his Boyes to Forms, that when they are Maſters of Art, they muſt ſtill have Forms dictated to them, without which they can do nothing.
XVI. Nor would the alteration of this Lyturgy, and not impoſing any, blemiſh the Judgment of our whole Church, our Kings, Princes, & Parliaments, &c. Their Judgment was excellent as to thoſe times. In King Edward his time, the Clergy were generally Popiſh, and had they been left to Liberty, would certainly have uſed the Maſs, or elſe ſuch perſons as were of mean parts, moſt of them Anglice docti, ſuch as the neceſſity of thoſe times required, becauſe better could not be had. In Qu. Elizabeths time, the ſtate of the Nation (at leaſt in the beginning of her Reign) was little better; witneſs the Record which Archbiſhop Parker left, (and is yet to be ſeen in the Library of Corpus Chriſti Colledge in Cambridge) of all the Miniſters in his Province, and their ſeveral abilities, where are 20 Anglice docti, ſuch as underſtood no Latine, for one that hath a Character for any Learning ſee upon him; this man was66 Archbiſhop in the Second year of Qu. Elizabeth. Undoubtedly it was an Act of rare Judgment for the Parliament then to impoſe Forms of Prayer, nor was it likely that ſuddenly the whole Nation would be reformed ſo well, that with any ſecurity or prudence, the Miniſters could be left at liberty. Since the time of Qu. Elizabeth no Parliament medled with it: King James indeed reformed it in part, and declared his Judgment for it. King Charles (of Glorious Memory) in his Meditation upon the Lyturgy, (though indeed he judgeth an impoſed Lyturgy lawful, and this as to the main very good) yet declareth his readineſs to have conſented to amend what upon free and publick advice, might ſeem to ſober men inconvenient as to matter or manner; by which it appears, that his Majeſty judged incapable of amendment both as to Matter and Manner.
XVII. But it is a great Riddle to us, how the amending of the Lyturgy, and not impoſing any univerſally, ſhould damp and diſcourage the zeal of the greateſt and chiefeſt part of the Nation, who find much pleaſure and profit in the uſe of it. For if it be ſtill left at liberty to them, if they pleaſe to uſe the old Forms, how is their Zeal damped or diſcouraged, by the liberty which others take? It is a fiery Zeal in men certainly, that muſt needs have all others to be of their humour, as to the uſe of Forms of words in Prayer. If by zeal, the Biſhop means the Fury of people againſt thoſe who durſt not uſe thoſe Forms, the God of Heaven more damp and diſcourage that zeal, which we are ſure is not according to knowledge. If the greateſt and chiefeſt part of the Nation be ſo zealous in this caſe, doubtleſs if they be left to liberty, people will generally fill in with thoſe Miniſters that do uſe it, and there will be an ingenuous conformity, which is alwaies beſt; for a little experience will convince the furious ones of this age, that Religion is a thing that muſt instillari, not intrudi (as Beza ſomtimes ſaid) a thing to be gently inſtilled and commended, not bluntly and forcibly intruded and compelled. Our Biſhops in this point may give counſel effectual to the filling of Goals, undoing of many thouſands, and procuring their cries unto God againſt them, but never effectual to accompliſh their deſigns, if indeed their deſigns be to bring all to an uniformity in this thing. But they very well know, that if it be left to liberty to Miniſters, to uſe or not uſe the Lyturgy, that experience will quickly make it appear, that the greater part of more knowing and zealous people are not ſo enamoured upon it, as they proclaim them to the world to be.
67XVIII. In the next place, he tels us, The Reformed part of Religion cannot be well preſerved in England without it, to any flouriſhing and uniform eſtate. Immediatly before, he told us, Religion could not any where be planted without a Lyturgy: Both of them, Propoſitions of equal truth. If Religion could not be planted without a Common Prayer-Book, it is a wonder that the Apoſtles and Paſtors of the Primitive Churches miſſed this only means: For what Lyturgy was ever heard of in the Church for 400 years after Chriſt? (the great planting time) if the Reformation of Religion cannot be preſerved without a Lyturgy impoſed, or this Lyturgy, alas for the Churches of God in Scotland, Holland, France, Genevah! If they have a Lyturgy, how unlike is it to this? Nor is it impoſed, nor the uſe of it, by penalties compelled; yet bleſſed be God, the Reformation in thoſe Churches is not leſs perfect than ours, not leſs firmly preſerved: Let their Confeſſions of Faith be read, or their printed Books againſt the Papiſts be read, and compared with ours, and let all judge: What ſingular thing then is there in the Conſtitution of men and women in England, that Religion in its Reformed part cannot ſubſiſt without the authoritative impoſing of a Lyturgy, taken out of the Roman Miſſal (as to the far greater part?) Surely none will ſay, it is becauſe the Reformed Party of England, have a more reverend opinion of Pope Gregory and the preſent Church of Rome, than the Reformed Party in other Nations hath: This indeed were a ſhameful reproach to the Church of England. Let her Enemies lay it to her charge; but let her true Sons ſpend their time in covering ſuch nakedneſs. VVe muſt know the Biſhop's Reaſons, before we can believe any truth in this, eſpecially when we know that thoſe Miniſters and people, who are moſt zealous againſt Popery, are moſt averſe to this Lyturgy.
XIX. The Biſhop inſtanceth in the matter of the Sacrament, telling us, Popery can never come in while the Form of Conſecration preſcribed in the Book of Common Prayer, which is moſt ancient and excellent is uſed. We muſt ingenuouſly confeſs, that ſome Forms of Prayer preſcribed to be read at the adminiſtration of the Lords Supper, are very good and pious; but we are much of his mind, who ſaid, Nihil ego puto a quovis praeſcriptum tam exacte ▪ quin addi aliquid poſſit, aut perfectius reddi, a quovis qui miniſterio dignus,Altare Damaſc. P. 6, 13. ad docendum vel movendum affectus, nam facile eſt addere inventis & praeſcriptis, & licet forte nihil exactius dari poſſet, tamen languet oratio, ubi non eſt verborum varietas, nec prorumpunt affectus interiores orantis68 aut exhortantis liberè in verba. Nam ut aſſiciat auditores, oportet ipſum aſſici, non autem afficitur ut debet, qui ſemper eiſdem verbis orat, aut exhortatur. It is an uſual ſaying, and may be true enough, Optimus Orator non nondum naſcitur. To ſay that either for matter or phraſe there was never any Prayers made like to thoſe, and that no ſuch can be made, are ſtrange, extravagant, and hyperbolical expreſſions, by no means either to be juſtified or demonſtrated. In ſhort, thoſe Forms of words in Prayer are undoubtedly beſt for the Speakers uſe, which come moſt from the intention of his mind and fervency of his Spirit. As to others joyning with him, thoſe are beſt, which moſt affect the Hearers hearts. That theſe, or any Forms upon this account do ſo, is not demonſtrable. For the Form of Conſecration of the Lords Supper in the Engliſh Lyturgy, we cannot find any Form for it (which we think an high Omiſſion) we do conceive, that the Conſecration ſhould be by reading the words of Inſtitution, taking, and breaking the Bread, and then bleſſing it: We find only a Form of Prayer for a Bleſſing upon the Elements, and not ſo much as a Rubrick directing the Miniſter at that time to read the words of Inſtitution, or to take and break the Bread. As for the words uſed in the delivery of the Sacrament, we find them (without any warrant from Gods Word) turned into Prayers: So that the Biſhop might have ſpared the commending of this Part of the Lyturgy, where we think is a more conſiderable Omiſſion of what ſhould be there, than he can inſtance in, in our adminiſtrations, or then the omiſſion of thoſe words, Receive the Holy Ghoſt in Ordination is, eſpecially when we know no ſuch power any Miniſters have now to give the Holy Ghoſt, as the Apoſtles had, and can eaſily diſtinguiſh betwixt the Apoſtles ordinary Act in Ordination, and their extraordinary Act in giving the Holy Ghoſt; to the latter of which, none can now pretend. For the Ancientry of theſe Forms, we have ſhewed it before, they are not of age enough to ſpeak for themſelves, and to plead their gray hairs for their continuance.
XX. To ſay, That without the authoritative impoſing of this, or any other Lyturgy, Truth and Peace can never be eſtabliſhed, is irrationally gueſſed, nor can there he any pretence for it: Certainly truth is far better preſerved by a full and ſound Confeſſion of Faith, in a Form of ſound words, in which all are agreed, and we ſhould be content to read a ſhort ſummary of it every Lords day, to ſubſcribe, own, defend it; that it ſhould be ſubſcribed and ſworn by69 all Commencers in Univerſities, by all to be ordained, or admitted into livings, by all admitted to Sacraments; how an impoſed Liturgie ſhould do half ſo much, nay how it ſhould do any thing at all to preſerve Truth, we cannot gueſs.
XXI. For Peace, we have had the experience of an 100. years to prove the contrary; ſure we are that we may thank the Impoſing of the Liturgie in former times, for all our Brownists, Anabaptists, Quakers, Familists, Sectaries of all ſorts. Their Leaders firſt ſeparated from the Church for the Common-prayer Book and Ceremonies, then ſet up for themſelves, and being themſelves unskilful in the Word of Righteouſneſs, eaſily perverted others. And we are ſure that there are now 100. for every one that diſtaſted theſe things in 1640. both Miniſters and people; how the reimpoſing ſhould bring us to Peace poſeth us to prophecy. It may bring many thouſands of perſons to ruine, for not conforming, driving them into other lands, giving their malitious adverſaries advantages to fill priſons with them; but Peace it can never bring.
XXII. We obſerve that all Reformed Churches, where are no ſuch impoſings of Liturgies, have more plenty of able Divines, (conſidering the proportion of their ground,) more zealous defenders of Truth, fewer Hereticks, and Schiſmaticks, then ever England had at any time when the Liturgie was moſt rigorouſly impoſed. Nor is it reaſonable to imagine that we ſhould ever have any peace in the Church, if the former Liturgie be impoſed, but continual ſeparations from the Church, and violent proſecutions of thoſe whole conſciences for the reaſons aforeſaid, will never allow them to uſe it.
XXIII. So that we humbly crave leave to retort this as an Argument againſt the Impoſing, either this, or any other Liturgie, Its being inconſiſtent with the peace of this Church. And we moſt humbly beſeech His moſt Excellent Majeſty, the Noble Lords, and the Gentlemen of England, ſeriouſly to conſider, Whether there being no command in Scripture, nor particular warrant for any impoſings of this nature, no preſident of the primitive Church in any part for 400 years after Chriſt; there being alſo ſuch a plenty of Godly able Miniſters in England; So many times ten thouſand of Godly Chriſtians, who cannot allow themſelves in the worſhip of God by forms of prayer; and who have taken ſo great a ſcandal at theſe forms in particular, and that for reaſons above mentioned: It can conſiſt either with Piety in them to enjoyn70 what is ſo highly offenſive, (when St. Paul profeſſeth ſo much tenderneſs to his weak brethren) or with Policy, to enjoyn that in which they cannot but know that many thouſands will be found who durſt not actively Obey, but will think themſelves bound to ſuffer? So that they will be conſtrained in purſuance of their honour (commanding ſuch things) to erect Courts, direct proſecutions of perſons, only blameable in this matter of their God, and ſuch who are ready by any Act or Oath to ſecure their Allegiance to his Majeſty, by any Action to expreſs it, paying tributes, and cuſtomes for conſcience ſake; daily praying for all the bleſſings of heaven and earth for his Majeſty, and this with far more cordiality then others drink His healths. Or whether ſuch proceedings be like to produce Peace in the Church, or rather everlaſting diviſions, animoſities, and conſtant proſecutions of ſober Chriſtians, concerning the equity of which the Juſt Judge of the whole earth muſt one day enquire? And in the mean time theſe Impoſitions to be of no further conſiderable uſe, then to help ignorant perſons unfit for the Miniſtry, and ſuch as are lazy and negligent, and make no conſcience to ſtir up the gift of God in them. We humbly leave this to our Superiours to determine.
XXIV. The queſtions as to piety are, 1. Whether pious Magiſtrates, can according to principles of piety, command and enforce thoſe things, which Gods Word doth not command in his worſhip, being openly offenſive to multitudes of Godly people? 2. Whether they can acquit their ſoules to God in making Laws, to fine, diſturb, impriſon, baniſh, &c. multitudes of their Subjects for no other crime then this, that they cannot limit themſelves to forms of prayer in Gods Worſhip? And ſuppoſe theſe two things were conſiſtent with Piety, yet whether Policy would direct it? is another queſtion; why ſhould ſo many good Subjects be loſt to a Nation? why ſhould they have temptations to eſtrange their hearts from the ancient and excellent government thereof? But matters of policy, we moſt humbly leave to the grave wiſdom and deliberations of His Sacred Majeſty and His Parliaments. Onely we muſt add a word to one or two Suggeſtions more, which the Biſhop hath for the impoſing of the Liturgy.
I. THe truth is in other parts of his Book, the Biſhop did but like the Lapwing fly far about from his main deſign and argument, which p. 27. he toucheth, and yet but very tenderly. The Authority of the Church must not be baffled. Here indeed is the bottom of all, we muſt have Liturgies and Ceremonies impoſed, to maintain the Authority and pomp, and grandieur of what they call the Church.
II. The name of the Church is a reverend name, and her Authority is reverend, and by no means to be baffled, for Christ is in her. But, as the Name and Authority of a rightful King, is reverend, ſo both the name and authority of an Uſurper is juſtly abominable. And as no Magiſtrates command is to be obeyed where he hath no right to command, ſo neither is any Church; nor is denial of obedience in that caſe any contempt of the Authority, either of the Magiſtrate or of the Church; we muſt therefore enquire ſtrictly what Church this is which is clothed with Authority, and what power ſhe hath in the things we diſpute about?
III. The Church is either Triumphant or Militant. The Militant Church is viſible or inviſible. It muſt be the Militant viſible Church; this alſo is an homonimous term, and either ſignifies the univerſality of the people, or the meſſengers of the people. The Univerſality of people baptized into the name of Chriſt over all the world, make up the Catholike viſible Church. The whole Company of them in this of that Province, Nation, City, Pariſh, make ſuch a National, Provincial, or Parochial Church. But we do not think this is the Church clothed with Authority: We underſtand by a Church in that ſenſe, The Officers of ſuch a Church conſtituted according to Gods Word, whether they be the Officers of a particular Church, or the meſſengers of the particular Churches, in a Lugentile Synod, a National or Provincial Synod, or (if it were, poſſible in an Oecumenical Synod. To Churches in all theſe political ſenſes vve72 ow great reverence, and acknowledge that to their ſeveral capacities, ſeveral degrees of authority, to admoniſh, ſuſpend, excommunicate, deprive, declare the doctrine of ſaith in doubtful caſes, appoint ſome things truly and properly relating to decency or order, &c.
IV. But it is more then we know that any ſuch Church as this, ever eſtabliſhed a Liturgie in England. The Papiſts have deviſed a new notion of a Church, to them the Pope and his Cardinals make the Church; but that any ſuch notion of Church is juſtifiable from Scriptures, Proteſtants deny.
V. Our State hath been pleaſed in ſome Acts of Parliament to take Church in another notion, and to call the Prelacy of England, the Church of England. That this application of the term Church is not to be juſtified from Scripture or Reaſon, is plain; nor is it needful: they may if they pleaſe, call the Prelacy of England the Parliament; or by what other name they pleaſe, what ſhould hinder? But they cannot give them that Authority, which the word of God allows onely to a Church in another notion; but may cloath them with vvhat civil power they pleaſe.
VI. Hence it appears, that it is all one vvith us in England to baffle or deſpiſe the Church and State; for that company of men whom vve call the Church of England (by a new civil application of the term) is nothing elſe, Then a company of men by a Civil Power made Biſhops, and called to adviſe the State, in things concerning Religion; who have no more Authority then they derive from the King or Parliament, for whence ſhould they have it? Not from Nature; Surely no Eccleſiaſtical power is derived from thence; Not from Scripture upon any pretence, for if vvhen Chriſt gave the Keyes to Peter, he intended his ſingle perſon as the Papists vvould have it; then St. Peter's ſucceſſor only can pretend to them, if he gave them to Peter, as an Officer of the Church; then there muſt be either a full Convention of ſuch Officers, or ſome perſons choſen by them to uſe them: If to Peter as a Chriſtian, then the Authority is in the Community.
VII. It remains, that according to the Conſtitution of Engliſh Synods, the Churches Authority is but derivative from the Civil State; and to diſobey them, is no ſin, further then it is a diſobedience to the lawful Civil Magiſtrate, to vvhom vve freely grant an authority, ſo far as Gods vvord allows us, and ſuch an authority as none ought to reſiſt or baffle, (as the Biſhop ſayes.) The73 Church of England, which we ſo often hear of, is a Civil Church, not an authoritative Church in a Scriptural notion.
VIII. We again ſay, Far be it from us to oppoſe Civil Authority, either exerciſed by Lay perſons, or Eccleſiaſtical perſons. We acknowledge it our duty to render unto Caeſar, the things that are Caeſars. We further ſay, vve are bound to obey the Civil Magiſtrate in all things, in things lawful, Actively; in things unlawful in themſelves, or vvhich appear ſo to us by ſuffering their vvill, and pleaſure, quietly and patiently. That vvhich vve inſiſt upon, is onely a lawful means in order to our own preſervation: i. e. humbly deſiring the Civil Magiſtrate, to forbear impoſing upon us in the tender things of God.
IX. VVe freely allow to the Civil Magiſtrate a power to command us in all civil things, and ſhall chearfully obey him. 2. To command us to keep the Statutes, and Commandments of God. 3. To command us in the Circumſtances relating to Divine Worſhip, to do thoſe things, vvhich are generally commanded us in the vvord to appoint time and place, and ſuch circumſtances vvithout vvhich the vvorſhip of God, in the judgement of ordinary reaſon, muſt be indecently and diſorderly performed.
X. For his power in impoſing Forms of prayer, ſignificant ceremonies, &c. vve do not diſpute it, but vve humbly crave leave to diſſent in this, and to have liberty to ſuffer his pleaſure as becomes Chriſtians, rather then do thoſe things vvhich our conſciences vvould condemn us for. And in this vve appeal to all ſober Divines, and all rational Chriſtians, vvhether vve ſpeak not as becomes ſober Chriſtians.
XI. VVe cannot vvithout ſome paſſion read vvhat the Biſhop ſayes p. 28. Doubtleſs Subjects cannot be ſo tite and firm, or ſo zealous and firm, or ſo chearful and conſtant in their Loyalty, love, and duty to their Soveraign, if they either think themſelves commanded to ſerve God in a vvay vvorſe then their Princes uſe, or that their Soveraign and Prince ſerve God worſe and leſs acceptably then they do; certainly the greateſt honour, love and ſafety of Kings, is from the ſameneſs of true Religion vvith their Subjects, as to the main.
XII. VVhat an excellent Doctrine this is, if it were true, to engage the King of France againſt all his Proteſtant Subjects from whom he differs as to Religion in the main? yet are they as loyal to him as any other; doth the Protestant Religion teach diſloyalty74 towards Princes, differing from their Subjects in the main of Religion? We defie ſuch Doctrine, and all the Aſſertors of it.
XIII. Doth it infer a difference in the main of Religion, becauſe our Soveraign thinks fit to uſe Forms of Prayer, and we uſe none? Is this a Language worthy of a Divine? Is the Mode of Worſhip, and the Main of Religion the ſame thing?
XIV. How ſhall they think themſelves commanded to uſe a better or worſe Religion, upon whom nothing is impoſed at all? which is all we beg; and againſt which the Doctor argues.
XV. How doth the Prince and his Subjects in this caſe (the firſt uſing Forms of Prayer in publick Devotion, the latter none) more differ in the main of Religion, than the Chriſtians of two Families in a Pariſh do, where the houſholders ſo far differ each from other? Or how ſhall they differ more upon this liberty, than Dr. Gauden himſelf allowes, who would not have all perſons in their Family-duties, tyed up to theſe Forms, which yet are the Kings daily Service in his Houſhold.
XVI. To be ſhort, theſe Diſcourſes are but ad populum phalera, Pretenſions in which all the judicious world ſees there is nothing of Reaſon or Argument. Qui vult decipi, decipiatur, If God hath ſo far given up men, that they cannot ſee it. But notwithſtanding all that is, or can be ſaid, the Servants of God who differ from their Brethren in this thing muſt be brought into a ſuffering eſtate: The Lord grant them Wiſdom, and Faith and Patience, and provide for his people, more able and faithful guides, than we have approved our ſelves, while we had a liberty to work in his Vineyard; and if it be a ſin in any for this reaſon to forbid us to ſpeak to poor periſhing ſouls that they might be ſaved, we ſhall be ſo charitable, as to beg of God, that it may not be laid to their charge: But we hope, and pray for better things for the poor ſouls over whom God hath ſet us.
I. THe Biſhop having ſpent himſelf much in deviſing reproachful terms, for ſuch as are not ſatisfied in their Conſciences as to the uſe of the Lyturgy, and arguing for the uſe of the Forms of Prayer, (that he might leave no part of his work undone) comes to vindicate the Quiriſters, Singing men and boies, and the uſe of Muſick alſo in the worſhip of God. It is only fit (he ſaies) for thoſe mens rudeneſs to abandon Church-Muſick, who intended to fill all things with the Alarms of war, and Cries of Confuſion: How charitably this is ſpoken, with reference either to the Purer Primitive Church, or the lately Reformed Churches, or many of his Brethren, the ſequent Diſcourſe will evince. We durſt not tender reviling for reviling, but commit our caſe to him that judges righteouſly; and offer our thoughts in this thing to all ſober Readers, who underſtand ought of Eccleſiaſtical Story, or right Reaſon.
II. But by what Topicks will this great perſon prove the Lawfulneſs of Church-Muſick? Just. Martyr, Qu. & Resp. Reſp. 107. Did this alſo come from the firſt Century? Surely no. For Juſtin Martyr (who lived in the Second Century) lets us know, that the Church then judged it a childiſh Serving of God, and that it was not received in the Church in his time: His words are theſe;
〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In his time there was only plain ſimple ſinging uſed in the Church, and more than that, viz. with inſtruments of Muſick, they looked upon as a puerile, carnal Service.
III. Indeed the Biſhop fetcheth it high enough; for he agrees76 with Durantus, in making David the Author of Organs, nor pretendeth he any authority but that of the Jewiſh Church. That there was (even by Gods Inſtitution) muſical Inſtruments uſed in the Jewiſh Church, is not to be denied, whether in the Synagogues, or only in the Temple, is doubted, the latter believed. But what kind of Muſick,Pol. Virgil l. 1. de inv•rer. c. 15. Hoſpin de Ong. Templ. is not certain: Both Polydore Virgil, Hospinian, and many others agree, our Organs were not then known in the world. When they firſt were found out, Polydore ſaies is uncertain; and in his 3 Book, reckons them amongſt thoſe things, whoſe firſt Inventers are not known. Sure we are Davids Inſtruments were ſtringed Organs, i.e. Inſtruments, not ſuch as we call Organs.
IV. But may we then agree, that what David uſed in the worſhip of God, we may? Elſe the Biſhops Argument from Davids uſe of Inſtruments, proves nothing: Let us then have Altars and Frankincenſe,Calvin, Pſal. 37. (which ſaith Mr. Calvin, are every whit as lawful, as Muſical Inſtruments in Gods worſhip.) But ſurely nothing which was figurative and typical in the Jewiſh Service, ought to be continued by us, which their Inſtruments of Muſick were; they prefigured our ſpiritual melody to be made in our hearts to the Lord; the ſweet Muſick alſo of a Conſcience juſtified by Faith, and at peace with God, ſaith Dr. Willet, and ſo Zepperus and others agree. But who knows not,Willets Synopſ. p. 593. Quaere 2 Sam. im ch. 6. v. 9. that the Jews had carnal Ordinances, (as the Apoſtle cals them) which we muſt not imitate them in, who John 4.24. are obliged to worſhip God in Spirit and Truth.
V. It is as uncertain when Organs were firſt brought into Churches, as when they were firſt deviſed. Marianus Scotus tel sus, that they were firſt ſent of a Token to King Pepin in France, in which Aventinus agrees, but adds, that they came not into any Church in France, till the year 828, when by the induſtry of a Venetian Prieſt (Ludovicus then King, and willing to be at the charge) they were there ſet up. Balaeus tels us, Vitellianus brought them in, Anno 660. Bellarmine ſaith, it was very late. What Balaeus and Platina ſay,22ae Aq. fum. q. 91. art 2. resp. ad 3. & 4. arg. that Vitellianus brought them in, cannot be true: No, nor what Almonius ſaith, who ſaith, that Ludovicus Pius brought them in, for it is plain by Aquinas his determination, (againſt the uſe of any Muſick in Churches, as Judaical and carnal) that they were not come into the Church in his time,**As both Cajetan & Greg. de valentia acknowledge. which was about 1260 years after Chriſt (which is alſo well obſerved by Cajetan upon Aqu. and by Navarrus, in his Manual, &c.
77VI. For the Reformed Churches, they have no Muſick in the worſhip of God: In ſome of their Churches, (as Zepperus notes) they have Organs, to delight people with at ordinary times, when the worſhip of God is not performed. The Biſhop might have been more charitable, both to the Apostolical Church, and the purer Primitive Churches, and all late reformed Churches, than to have determined them guilty of rudeneſs, and a deſign to fill all things with the Alarms of war and Cries of Confuſion.
VII. Having no Scripture, no Apoſtolical or Eccleſiaſtical Tradition (as they pretend for Biſhops and Lyturgies) to pretend for Church-Muſick, the Biſhop is forced to make uſe of his Reaſon here, the depth of which, as alſo its Symphony with that of the ancient Fathers, or latter Divines, cometh next to be examined.
VIII. We can find but five pieces of ſeeming Reaſon in the Biſhops Diſcourſe.
1. The Angels began the Quire at Chriſts Nativity: He is not in good earneſt ſure to ſuggeſt to the world, that the Angels brought any Muſical Inſtruments down with them from Heaven: If not, his Argument muſt be; That it is as lawful for us to praiſe God in publick Acts of worſhip, with Inſtruments of Muſick, as for the Angels to rejoyce. But now ſhall that appear? We believe no more that the Angels taught men (by that jubilation) the uſe of Church-Muſick, than the idle ſtory Socrates tels us, of Ignatius his learning the Method of Responds, by a Viſion of Angels, anſwering one another, like ſo many Quiriſters; which as Hospinian, and others ſay, was not ſurely ſuch a momentous piece of Worſhip, as that God ſhould ſend Angels down to exemplifie it.
IX. But the Biſhop tels us, we have as much cauſe to rejoyce, as the Jews had: True. And God forbid but we ſhould rejoyce with equal joy: But muſt it be in the ſame carnal manner too? Have we had any Command of God (as they had) for any ſuch Service? Why ſhould we not have Trumpets, and blow with them, as they did too? Yea, and have Altars, and Cenſers, and Incenſe, and Thank-Offerings as they had? Who is ſo blind, as not to ſee through theſe Paper-Arguments?
X. Thirdly, The Biſhop tels us, Muſick is a Gift of God,The Gift of conceived Prayer is a gift of God. Ergo, &c. and it is fit, God (in his Service) and Church ſhould have the uſe of ſo Orient a Pearl. That Muſick is the gift of God, none can deny, nor yet, that God ought to be ſerved with all his Gifts; But is78 there no way to ſerve God with the uſe of this his Gift, but to uſe it in his worſhip? Are there not 100 other things that are the Gifts of God, of which yet there is no uſe in the Worſhip of God? The Biſhop will ſay (it may be) if we may ſerve God with it, why not uſe it in his Worſhip? We anſwer, becauſe God hath not commanded it. And it is to ſet up our poſts by Gods poſts, and our Threſholds by his threſholds. This is enough, but much more might be ſaid, and ſhall be ſaid by and by.
XI. Ah! But he tels us, Fourthly, It is an exerciſe that fits the duty of Praiſe and fitteth mens Spirits in it: We think, it fitteth ſome, far better than others, and the carnal part of any, better than their ſpiritual part. But we think we ſhall never have done, if we ſtand diſputing (after our Saviours perfect Rule given in the Goſpel) what is ſitting for his Houſe. Our Saviour knew, that Muſick was a Gift of God, and fit to exhilerate perſons. And ſurely when one is dead, his or her relations had need of ſomthing to chear their ſpirits: Yet we find, our Saviour gives no great countenance to the Muſitians, nor doth any Miracle till they be gone; nor do we find him in the leaſt apointing or countenancing Muſick in any act of Worſhip: How well it fitteth mens Spirits, we ſhall hear ſomething by and by, from the obſervation of others.
XII. But he tels us, that the uſe of Muſick in Gods worſhip, is as lawful as ſinging by Meeter & Tunes, as any Pſalmody, or Hymnology: We ſhall believe this at leiſure, becauſe we read of Chriſts ſinging an Hymn, and of the Apoſtles directions and Command, Eph. 5.19. by which we are obliged to ſing Pſalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, making Melody in our hearts to the Lord. But never of any Command or Direction for Muſical Inſtruments. We are miſtaken if thoſe words, Pſalms, Hymns, Songs do not imply words caſt into a metrical order. Tunes are neceſſary, as circumſtances, without which, nature it ſelf would teach us, that the performance is undecent and diſorderly, and apparently ſo to all that ſhould hear.
XIII. But it will not be amiſs to take a view of the Judgment of Divines in all times, concerning the uſe of Muſick in Churches; by which it will appear, what devout, holy and good men have judged of it, or have by experience found true concerning the uſe of it.
XIV. We ſhewed before, that Justin Martyr, and the Church in his time, judged it a puerile Service, and upon that account, allowed it not in the Church; nor can any reaſonably expect, that any of the Ancients ſhould explicitly declare themſelves, againſt the uſe of Muſick in Churches, when it is apparent, that for 90079 years after Chriſt there was no ſuch practice, yet much may be found in them; from which we may judge what (had it then been come into Churches) would have been their ſenſe of it.
XV. Lactantius falls very foully upon the heathen, for believing, That their Gods did love what they affected,Inſtitut. l. 2. cap. 7. and for coming to the worſhip of God to look upon the Gold of the Temple, the fine Marble and Ivory, the brave Stones, and fine Habits, and for believing that their Temples had ſo much the more Majeſty, by how much they were more gay, and adorned. So that (ſaith he) Religion is nothing elſe but Cupiditas humana, [mens luſt. ] men think that muſt needs pleaſe God, which pleaſeth them.
XVI. It is true, Singing was early in the Eaſtern Church, as we learn by the account of the Chriſtians behaviour, which Pliny gives to Trajan. But the Weſtern Church received ſinging very late, Ambroſe is ſaid firſt to have uſed it at Millan, when with his Congregation he kept the Church againſt the Arrians, that the night-watchings might be leſs tedious.
XVII. Let us hear St. Auguſtine ſpeaking, from whence it will not be hard to judge vvhat that Reverend perſon's opinion was about the ſinging then uſed, and its fittedneſs to the duty of Chriſtians in praiſing God; it is in his 10th. book of Confeſſions cap. 33, vve will tranſlate it for the Reader.
XVIII. See how jealous this good man was of his own, and others hearts, leſt the melody of an innocent tune ſhould intice his heart too much from conſidering the ſpiritual matter ſang; what would he have thought if Church muſick had been then in date, where he ſhould have heard nothing but a carnal ſenſual-delighting noiſe?
XIX. In the next place let us hear St. Hierom, (or whoever he was that wrote thoſe Commentaries upon the Epiſtles of St. Paul, bound up with St. Hierome; Bellarmine, and Catharinus, think Pelagius was the author, Sixtus Senenſis and Victorius think it was at leaſt a Pelagian) whoever he was, we may learn the ſenſe of the Church about that time. In thoſe Commentaries on Eph. 5.19. D. Hieron. in Epiſt. ad Epheſ. cap. 5. v. 19. — Let thoſe youths and ſuch as ſing in the Church (ſaith he) hear this, That we must not ſing unto God with the voice, but with the heart; nor must the jawes and throats of men be pleaſed with a ſweet noiſe after the faſhion of Tragoedians theatrical tunes, and ſongs must not be ſang in the Church, but we must ſing there in timore in opere, in ſcientia ſcripturarum, &c. — — Let the ſervant of Chriſt ſo ſing that the words which are read, may pleaſe not the ſinger's tone. That the evil ſpirit which was in Saul, may in like manner now be cast out of them poſſeſſed with it, not brought into them, who make a ſtage81 of the houſe of God. What would this author have ſaid had he lived in our age? and known our Cathedrals?
XX. Bernard confeſſeth it as his ſin that he often broke his voice to ſing more loud, and was more delighted with the tune he ſang,Bernardi med. cap. 11. then regarded any cordial compunction.
XXI. Pope Gregory ſaw the abuſes of ſinging crept in early,Greg. dec. diſt. 92. and anathematized Deacons that ſhould leave their office in preaching or diſtributing alms, to turn ſinging men.
XXII. Daneus ſaith,Danei Iſag. p. 4. l. 4. cap. 16. P. Mart. in 1 Cor. 14. Tilen. Syntag. p. 1. diſ. 49. th. 47, 48, 49. Our ſinging is a meer corruption of an Ordinance of God, and which hath in it nothing of piety, nor ſerves for any thing but to tickle the ears. Peter Martyr ſaith, he cannot ſee how it can be tolerated. Tilenus ſharply damneth it. Aquinas (though a Papiſt) ſaith, the Jews Muſick was figurative and carnal, and that Muſick ſerves onely for ſenſual delight, Aq. Sum. 22ae. q. 91. art. 2. ad 3. Tilenus ſaith of it, what we will not Engliſh, Illis arrideat qui magna meretrici ſupparaſitari potius quam Chriſtianae ſimplicitati ſtudere malint. Pareus condemns it in his Commentary on 1 Cor. 14.7. And ſo indeed do the generality of Protestant Divines. But leaſt they ſhould be thought too much parties; we will conclude with one who vvas no Puritan, for vve think he lived, and died a Papist, though not reſolved to approve all he ſaw and heard in the Romiſh Synagogue, without any further account; vve vvill take pains to tranſlate what he ſaith on 1 Cor. 14.
XXIII. Upon the 1 Cor. 14.7. I had rather ſpeak five words, &c. he thus notes.
Thus far that learned man, though a profeſſed Papiſt, concerning the uſefulneſs of our Cathedral Muſick and ſinging, after he had had a large experiment of it.
XXIV. To ſhut up this Diſcourſe, We ſay, That Muſick is an excellent Gift of God, that God under the old diſpenſation of the New Covenant, appointed it to be uſed in his worſhip, as prefigurative (ſaith Aquinas, Willet, Zepperus) of our making Melody in our hearts to the Lord under the Goſpel, or of that ſweet peace of Conſcience which flows to the Soul, upon the exerciſe of Faith in84 Chriſt. Or rather, as one of thoſe Carnal Ordinances, which the Apoſtle ſaith the firſt Temple had, Heb. 9. as they alſo had terrene and earthly Promiſes (as Aquinas ſaith.) In the time of Reformation by Chriſt, neither he nor his Apoſtles uſed or appointed any; nor did the Primitive Church: Juſtin Martyr in his time accounted it Judaizing, ſo did Aquinas, within theſe 500 years: So that it is a perfect Innovation, without any pretence of Inſtitution, or any ancient Tradition, groſſely abuſed to wantonneſs and Superſtition. The Magdeburgenſes tell us, Ambroſe was againſt all Muſick any where, pudicitia gratiâ, becauſe he ſaw it ſerved for luſt, for the moſt part. To maintain the uſe of it, the Church revenue; were conſumed, in nouriſhing ſinging Boyes and ſinging men, Choriſters, Maſters of Muſick, Organiſts, and many of theſe were, and are prophine, beaſtly perſons, and no profit at all aroſe from it, but the peoples underſtanding confounded, with inſignificant noiſes, and their ears only tickled with air. People came to Church, ſaith Eraſmus, as to a Stage-play, and went away (ordinarily) ſaith Hoſpinian, aſſoon as the Muſick (for which alone they came) was over. Infinite Sums of money were ſpent about Organs. Zonaras tels us, that Michael, Emperor of Conſtantinople, made Organs of Gold; and Bruſchius in his Diſcourſes of the Monaſteries of Germany, tels us of an Abbot that made a pair of Organs, whoſe greateſt Pipe was 28 Foot long, and 4 Spans about. Upon all theſe conſiderations, and after all this experience, and the joynt Suffrage of all Proteſtants, and many ſober Papiſts, in condemning this courſe, what ſhall we ſay, to hear a Proteſtant Biſhop pleading for them, and faſtning ſuch a charge as he doth, upon all thoſe that would have them removed out of the Church? VVe can ſay nothing, but, The Lord lay it not to his charge.
Chraſtonius Polonus, in proxi de Cerem. & car. Miſſa thef. 41.42. XXV. Andreus Chraſtonius, a Polonian, (who is cited by Didoclavius in Alt. Damaſc. c. 8.) thus determines in this caſe;It ordinarily comes to paſs, that peoples ears (once accuſtomed to this Muſick) diſdain to hear the Word of God, and thoſe things which the Church ought to have repeated with the mouth for a teſtimony of her Faith, and for Edification, are committed to dumb and irrational Organ-pipes. With the Mouth, not with Trumpets: &c. is Confeſſion made to ſalvation. Whence it is that Divines teach, that theſe things hinder, not profit Prieſts according to the Order of Melchiſedech. That they are more fit for the Aaronical Order, the time it ſelf ſheweth, wherein85 they firſt began to be uſed in Sacred Offices: For Bellarmine himſelf confeſſeth, that they firſt began to be uſed in the time of Pope Vitalian, but he brings no reaſon why none of them were uſed either in the Apoſtles, or in Conſtantines time: For if they began to be uſed after the year 660. or 820. we muſt believe, that humane nature had a great wrong, in that for ſo many years it did not apply this Faculty to the praiſe of God. For we believe the Apoſtles loved Chriſt with all their hearts. The former and more religious ages had weak ones too, though no Organs were uſed to help them. I know not whether they encreaſe or diminiſh tediouſneſs: For men ſeldom ſee thoſe Muſical Maſters godly, and thoſe Inſtruments with their length, are troubleſom to ſuch as ſing with the voice. Let the matter be as it will, I affirm, that Bellar ▪ with his diſtinction of Ceremonies, could not anſwer P. Martyrs reaſon againſt theſe. For as the offering of bloudy Sacrifices, though common both to the Jews and Heathens, was taken away by Chriſts Bloud on the Croſs, as unſuitable to the Prieſthood after the Order of Melchizedech; ſo though the Heathens uſed theſe Inſtruments in the Solemnities of their Idols (as Nebuchadnezzar in the Dedication of his Image) yet theſe were convenient only for the Jewiſh, Ceremonial worſhip, &c.
XXVI. But the truth is, all that can be pretended for Church-Muſick, is the Authority of the Church, to add what Ceremonies ſhe pleaſeth to the worſhip of God; which we muſt ſpeak ſomthing to in the next Chapter: Though neither can Church-Muſick come under that Notion, for it is a perfect Service of it ſelf, not alwaies appendant to ſinging, and is ſo uſed, a perfect Poſt ſet up by Gods Posts; an Ordinance of mans added to the Ordinances of God for his Worſhip, which our ſouls ſhall deſire to take heed of.
I. VVE are come to the laſt thing which we ſhall take notice of in the Biſhops Book; and that is his zealous Aſſertion of the Churches power in appointing Ceremonies and Circumſtances of Divine Worſhip: This is indeed the root of all, the Pandora's Box, the very Fountain head of all thoſe Impoſitions, which have bred ſo much trouble, diſturbance and perſecutions in the Church of God. Let us firſt see how the Biſhop aſſerts it.
II. He tels us, That the last ſhock of popular envy which the innocent and excellent Lyturgy of England was wont to bear, was from the Ceremonies. For which, the ſumme of his Plea is this;
1. That they are few.
2. Retained as ſignal marks of Faith, or Humility, or Purity, or Courage, or Conſtancy.
3. Not as Sacramental Signs conferring Grace, but meerly as viſible Tokens, apt by a ſenſible ſign to affect the underſtanding with ſomthing worthy of its thoughts, as ſignified thereby.
4. St. Auguſtine was no enemy to them.
5. They are eſtabliſhed by the Lawes of Church and State.
6. They fall not under the Second, but the Third, Fourth and Fifth Command.
7. They are like Cloaths, fitted to our Bodies, and Perwicks to our Head, and Tunes to our Pſlams.
8. They do not burden any Conſcience.
9. It is moſt true, and undeniably to be maintained, even unto the death. That this National Church, as well others, hath from the Word of God Liberty, Power and Authority, within its own Polity and Bounds to judge of what ſeemeth to it moſt orderly and decent, as to any Ceremony or Circumſtance in the Worſhip of God, which the Lord hath87 left unconfined, free, and indifferent in its own nature, and only to be confined, or regulated, by every ſuch Eccleſiaſtical polity within it ſelf, &c.
III. We muſt in our examination of this Harangue of diſcourſe, crave leave to alter his Lordſhips method, and to begin with the laſt thing firſt; for if the Lord hath left to the Church or State, no ſuch power at large, or if it be bounded by ſome general rules to be obſerved in the exerciſe, which are not obſerved in ſome particular impoſitions, all the former pleas, that they are few, ſignal marks, &c. not Sacramental ſign, &c. come to juſt nothing. Yet we cannot but obſerve, how the Biſhop hath provided a way to light upon his legs (ſay what we will.) For it cannot be denied but the Church hath a full power from the Word of God, within its own polity and bounds, to judge of what ſeemeth to it moſt orderly and decent, as to any circumſtance in the worſhip of God, which the Lord hath left unconfined, free and indifferent in its own nature. And only to be confined or regulated by every ſuch Eccleſiaſtical Polity within it ſelf. i.e. The Lord hath left that to be regulated by the Church, which he hath left to be regulated by the Church. A moſt momentous, and undoubted truth! never denied by any. But that is not the queſtion: This is the queſtion; Whether it be the will of God, that the Church ſhould regulate and determine, all things which the Word of God hath left indifferent as to his worſhip; or, whether God by leaving them indifferent, hath not declared his will that the Church ſhould ſo leave them too?
IV. Yet were the firſt part determined affirmatively, it would not reach the mark, for it would then be queried, Whether the particular Ceremonies appointed for us, be ſuch, conſidering the letter of the Scripture, or the circumſtances of thoſe Ceremonies, with the reaſon, and conſequents of Scripture Text, that they (under thoſe circumſtances conſidered) can be lookt upon as indifferent yea or no.
V. The Biſhop is yet confounding us with the complicated notion of the Authority of the Church and State. In England there are no Ceremonies eſtabliſhed by any other authority then that of the State, wch having called together ſome Eccleſiaſtical perſons, heard their advice, and by a Law eſtabliſhed ſome Rites and Ceremonies, to which no ſoul is otherwiſe obliged, then to a State-conſtitution.
VI. That the Word of God hath left many things (not poſſible to be determined by it) to the Authority of the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, cannot be denied; whether any Ceremonies or no, is88 a queſtion, diverſe circumſtances relating to the worſhip of God, are undoubtedly ſo left. Theſe are ſuch as relate to order and decency, i. e. without which the worſhip of God cannot be orderly and decently performed, and do chiefly relate to time and place, (the ordinary adjuncts of humane actions.) Thus we freely grant that the Civil power, or the Church (orderly aſſembled) may determine, at what hours on the Lords day, the Congregation ſhall meet, as alſo it ſhall determine particular times for faſting or thanksgiving, as Gods providence ſhall adminiſter occaſions; that places of publique worſhip, ſhall be erected, frequented, kept decent, and an hundred things of that nature, which even reaſon and nature it ſelf teacheth all ſober perſons to be ſuch, as that without ſome order to be obſerved in them, the worſhip of God, either would not be performed, or would be undecently performed.
VII. But that either any Church or Civil Authority, ſhall be abſolute judges of order, and decency, and that whatſoever of this nature ſhall be commanded by them, ſhall therefore be judged decent, and orderly, becauſe they ſay ſo; and their commands ſhall oblige mens conſciences in things of this nature, where the word of God is ſilent, will want ſome proof before it be credited.
VIII. Or, that they have power, to command and impoſe ſuch things, under the notion of order and decency, which have been groſly abuſed to idolatry and superſtition, or at which pious people have for a long time declared themſelves ſcandalized, or which have any remarkable appearance of evil in them; is ſo groſly falſe, that it needs no confutation, for they themſelves are commanded, To abſtain from all appearance of evil, to give no offence either to Jew or Gentile.
IX. Nor is it true, that they have any authority to appoint significative Ceremonies, where are ſenſible ſigns to affect the underſtanding. This is to give them authority to inſtitute Sacraments, God hath appointed us Ordinances, where by ſenſible ſigns, ſpiritual myſteries are repreſented to us. Theſe are his Sacraments, we know no authority men have to add to them, though they avoid the Popiſh rock, of their conferring grace, which we ſay no true Sacrament doth ex opere operato.
X. Now for any ſuch Ceremonies as theſe, we crave leave to diſſent from the Biſhop, let them be never ſo few, impoſed under what ſpecious pretence they will, let who will be for them, and let them be eſtabliſhed how they will, we believe them reducible89 to no command, but certainly and juſtly burthenſom to any tender conſcience. No vvayes like clothes fitted to our bodies, (becauſe not any way neceſſary) not like tunes for Pſlams, becauſe the worſhip of God might be decently enough performed without them. They may for ought we know be as good as perukes, [or periwigs] to make a ſpecious ſhew of devotion for them, the baldneſs of whoſe hearts ſtands in need of ſuch things to diſſemble them to the world.
XI. If the Biſhop thinks that the Churches power to eſtabliſh ſuch Ceremonies, be a principle to death to be aſſerted. We dare ſay he is the firſt Confeſſor that Doctrine ever had, and (which God forbid) ſhould he ever ſeal ſuch a cauſe with his blood, we ſhould think he deſerved no better Epitaph, then, Hic jacet, Protomartyr Gregorianus, cui parem Eccleſia Chriſtiana nunquam prius habuit, nec poſthac unquam habeat. Was there ever heard of any yet that died in the defence of a Churches right to inſtitute in the Church what it pleaſed, ſo as it was ſuch as Gods Word did not forbid? Tell it not in Gath, O publiſh it not in the tent of Askelon.
XII. Let us hear Arch-Biſhop Parkers opinion in this caſe, he lived in darker times, then ours are, but yet is ſeems had more Goſpel-light, or a more Goſpel Spirit; he was conſecrated 1559.
Having told us of Auguſtine the Monk's eagerneſs (even beyond his Mr. Pope Grogories directions) to bring in the Romiſh Liturgy and Ceremonies in England, which yet he could not do,Antiq. Ecclaſ. Britan. cap. 17. (without the blood of 1200 Monks that oppoſed him.) He thus bewailes that firſt Prelates fury.
And truly (ſaith he) that contention then ſtirred up by Auguſtine, about bringing in the Popiſh Ceremonies or Rites, which could not then be appeaſed, without the blood and ſlaughter of many innocent Brittains, hath reached unto our times, with the like deſtruction and ſlaughter of Chriſtians. For when men by thoſe pompous Ceremonies departed from the pure ſimplicity of the primitive Church, they took no great care for holineſs of life, for the preaching of the Goſpel, for the comforts and efficacy of the holy Spirit, but they raiſed new contentions every day, about new Ceremonies added by ſeveral Popes, who thought none worthy of any great place, who did not bring in ſome new Ceremonious, (that I may not ſay) monſtrous, unheard of, and unuſual thing, and ſo they filled both Schools, and Pulpits with tales, and brablings: The90 primitive Church was more ſimple, and white, with the intire and inward worſhip of God, preſcribed in his word; ſhe was not ſplendid with garments, nor adorned with magnificent buildings, nor ſhining with gold, ſilver, and precious ſtones.— But the Romiſh Church, even in that great St. Auguſtines time, was ſo overgrown with Ceremonies, that he complained, that the condition of Chriſtians, in reſpect of the multitude of Rites, and Ceremonies, was vvorſe then that of the Jews, who though they acknowledged not their time of liberty, yet vvere ſubjected only to Rites appointed by Gods Law, not to humane preſumptions, for they uſed fewer Ceremonies, then the Chriſtians in Gods worſhip. But had he perceived vvhat heapes vvere after added by ſeveral Popes, I believe that he, vvho then ſaw the evil of them in the Church, vvould have ſet ſome Chriſtian bound to them. For vve ſee that the Church is nor yet free from that contention about Ceremonies; but men otherwiſe learned, and pious, contend and quarrel about Veſtments and ſuch trifles, in a more brawling, and military, then Philoſophical, or Chriſtian manner.This vvorthy perſon vvould hardly have died in defence of a power to appoint Ceremonies.
XIII. But ſuppoſe it vvere not per ſe, unlawful for the State, or Church, to appoint ſome myſtical and ſignificant Ceremonies: yet may all ſuch things be done without any regard at all to circumſtances? St. Paul ſaith, All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient, all things are lawful, but all things edifie not. And we have heard ſuch a maxime, as, Quicquid non expedit, in quantum non expedit, non licet. Every thing that is not expedient, ſo far as 'tis inexpedient, is unlawful. St. Paul determined the eating of fleſh, and many other things inexpedient, by reaſon of the offence, and the ſcandal thoſe things would have given, ſuppoſing any Ceremonies to have been uſed by idolaters; and that the former uſe of them hath proved a continual ſcandal to many good Chriſtians, and bred a continual diviſion in the Church, and if reſtored, that the ſcandal will be ten times greater then ever, and the ſufferings of innocent ſouls for non-conformity to them, an hundred times more than ever:Quaeritis quomodo vincuntur Pagani•deſcrite eorum ritus, &c. are they yet lawful? or deſirable? or is it worth the dying to maintain the Churches power as to the eſtabliſhing ſuch Ceremonies? The Father of old we know thought the beſt way to convert the heathens, was to have nothing to do with their Rites, &c. And is not this the likelieſt way to convince the91 Romiſh idolaters? at leaſt to keep our ſouls clear of their guilt?
XIV. 'Tis true; The number of Ceremonies retained in our Church, pretending to any legal authority, is but ſmall: The Surplis, the Croſs, and kneeling at Sacrament, are (we think) all;See more of this point about Ceremonies in Altare Damaſcenum. A diſpute about the Engliſh Popiſh Ceremonies. Dr. Ames his freſh ſuit againſt Ceremonies, in all which this point about Ceremonies is execellently handled. but we know how groſly all theſe are abuſed by the Papiſts, that none of them have any footing in Scripture; that kneeling as Sacrament was never heard of in the Church till 1226. in Pope Honorius his time, admirably fitted to their idolatry of Tranſubſtantiation. That they groſly make the Croſs an Idol. That the Surplis is made ſignificant of many things, for which we can ſee no ground at all; that all theſe have been ſtrenuouſly oppoſed, by as holy and learned men as any our Church hath bred: That the patern of all Synods Acts 15. thought fit to impoſe only ſome few neceſſary things for the ſtate of the Church at that time. That the urging of theſe Ceremonies, hath been the cauſe of ſad ſeparations, the loſs of diverſe learned and holy mens miniſtry: The offence of the generality of pious people. That the imployment of the Eccleſiaſtical Courts, was almoſt wholly taken up about Miniſters and people not conforming to theſe, inſtead of admoniſhing, ſuſpending, excommunicating, ſcandalous and debaucht Miniſters and people, &c.
XV. We know further, that though there be no more Ceremonies eſtabliſhed by Law as yet, yet there are many probationers, ſuch as bowing at the Name of Jeſus, bowing to the Altar, ſaying ſecond Service, (much like the Popiſh in Secreto's, which the people muſt not hear) and what not almoſt? And we can ſee no reaſon, but the Churches power, if allowed to appoint any (ſave only ſuch without which the Service of God, would apparently to all rational men, be performed indecently & diſorderly) may appoint hundreds.
XVI. Nor is it prudence (could ſuch a power he allowed to State or Church) for either of them in ſuch caſes, to do all that they may in ſtrictneſs be proved to have a power to do. Many men think that the State hath power in any civil things by Laws, to oblige the conſciences of Subjects to do any things not forbidden in Gods Word: and doubtleſs the States power, in ſuch kind of Laws ▪ is far leſs diſputable, then in the caſe of Ceremonies relating to the worſhip of God. Yet the wiſdom of all States, reſtrains them from enjoyning people by their Laws, to do ſuch kind of things, for the doing of which, rational perſons may not ſee a juſt reaſon of the Law, as either urging ſome Law of God, or tending to a92 manifeſt publique, or private good. No State yet ever buſied themſelves, or tied their Subjects by making Laws, to command all their Subjects to wear Turbants, or a thouſand ſuch things, which would apparently ſignifie nothing of profit or advantage to the State, nor yet to particular perſons, it where the way to bring their authority into contempt.
XVII. We would fain know, of what uſe, or profit, any of theſe Ceremonies are, we look upon them as things that periſh with the uſing, and upon that account by no means reaſonable (if otherwiſe lawful) for the grave Authority of a Church, or State to interpoſe in. And we hope God will thus far convince the Authority under which we are, that they will not for theſe husks of Ceremonies, deſtroy thoſe many thouſand Souls in England (who cannot conform to them) for whom yet Chriſt died. And we are moſt humbly thankful to His moſt-Excellent Majeſty. for the indulgence, as to them, which he hath granted to us, through which, we can yet ſpeak to our people that they may be ſaved: how long we ſhall enjoy this breathing time; the only all-knowing God can tell. We are ſenſible enough how much others envy it; we ſhall onely ſay (as Calvin once of Luther) We wiſh they would uſe their heat againſt the known enemies of God (ſuch as are drunkards, blaſphemers, unclean perſons, curſers, ſwearers, &c.) rather then againſt the ſervants of the living God, who ſhall one day judge betwixt them and us; and who (as it is very probable) would more approve that zeal, then this fury.
I. THere is nothing in which thoſe we have to deal with in theſe Points of Liturgies, Ceremonies, Muſick in Churches,Suppl. 1. &c. will pretend more advantage againſt us, than in the buſineſs of Antiquity, nothing ſo much in their mouths, as all Antiquity, all the Fathers, the Church of God in all ages, hath been of their minds. Our Brethren know, or may know, that the Writings of the Ancients, for 8 or 900 years, viz. from Pope Gregories time, till the Reformation, were in hands, by no means to be truſted, and that the Papiſts, who (for the moſt part of the time) had them in their keeping,, as they had opportunity, ſo they neglected not their time, to correct the Fathers, to put in, and leave out what they pleaſed, to ſuppreſs what of their Writings they pleaſed, and to publiſh Canons of Councils, and Commentaries,Witneſs the Indices expurgatorii. and other Writings under specious Names, without any ſhadow of Truth, or any reaſonable Modesty: So that it hath been a great piece of the work of our Reformed Divines, to look over the books with which the Popiſh writers in that time had filled the world, and prepared in M.S. for it (which M. Scripts they have ſince publiſhed in part, and what part yet remains who knows.) He is but meanly verſed in Divinity that knows not, that Bellarmine, Sixtus Senenſis, Poſſevinus and Eraſmus (four Popiſh writers) have took ſome pains of this nature, and how many hundred pieces of pretended Antiquity, not only Proteſtant writers, but even the Papiſts themſelves have been forced to diſclaim and reject. And how many more our learned Cocus, Rivet, Perkins, and others have ſhewed them as much reaſon to reject. Yet we cannot but obſerve,94 how ſome late writers (as if nothing had been ſaid to diſprove thoſe spurious writings have (with confidence enough) urged thoſe writings ſo rejected, as pure and unſpotted Authority; (witneſs Dr. Hamonds writings, and Dr. Sparrow in his Rationale) and indeed all thoſe who have traded in the buſineſs of Liturgies and Ceremonies, and for the Extravagancies of Epiſcopal Government, &c. we muſt confeſs, we have (upon this account) no great value, for any Arguments they bring us meerly from Antiquity, as to matters that concern the worſhip of God, becauſe we think the word of God is a perfect and ſufficient rule in the caſe, and we want Vouchers, to prove thoſe pretended pieces of Antiquity, which they produce to have been theirs, whoſe names they bear; therefore we cry to the Law, and to the Teſtimony, we know that the Copies of the Bible, have (as hath been by many demonſtrated) been by the wonderful providence of God (diſperſing them into ſo many hands) ſo preſerved, that we dare truſt them, and believe that the Scriptures which we have, are indeed the writings of holy men inſpired by God,V. Geneb. Annot. in Liturg. Pet•i Hoſii confeſſio Baronii. annales. 1.1. ad an. 63. but whoſe the Liturgies are, (called St. Peters, St. James, St. Baſils, St. Chryſoſtomes, &c.) we cannot tell, beſides that (as we ſaid before) there's enough in them, to ſhew they were none of theirs, who are made to father them, even the Papiſts themſelves being in a great meaſure Judges.
II. Yet as in matter of Doctrine (which our Proteſtant Divines have well urged) in thoſe abuſed writings of the ancients which we have, the Popiſh Correctors have (unwarily) left ſomething (and ſuch a ſomething as ſome of our Proteſtant writers have judged enough) to evince many of their Doctrines Novelties. So as to the buſineſs of Liturgies and Ceremonies, ſome things have eſcaped their nimble eyes. Joſ. Vicecomes pretends high for Liturgies, ſo doth Sainctes, Pamelius, Almarius, &c. and much for Ceremonies; but in Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, there is enough ſaid (which becauſe mentioned by others we ſpare to repeat) to prove the Church then was not limited to any forms of prayer: but there is a remarkable paſſage in Socrates the Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtorian (who lived about the year 430.) to prove there were no Liturgies in his time. Socrates Eccl. Hiſt. l. 5. c. 21. — —〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We cannot but wonder with what confidence any can tell us Liturgies were from the firſt Centuries, when we have ſo clear a teſtimony in the fifth Century, that amongſt all Chriſtians in that age hardly two95 were to be found, that uſed the ſame words in prayer. That Chapter of Socrates is well worthy the reading over, by which ſome Divines of our times, may ſee that as there was then no ſuch Uniformity of Worſhip and Ceremonies as is now contended for; ſo neither had Socrates, ſuch a reverend opinion, of thoſe that were ſo zealous to bring in Ceremonies, but looked upon it as a Judaizing humour in them, without any Juſtifiable ground from the word of God. The Chapter is too long, and the paſſages too many to tranſcribe, the Reader may ſatisfie himſelf by peruſal of it.
III. Having the advantage of this Supplement,Suppl. 2. we ſhall crave leave of our Readers to add ſome few things, to advantage our Argument againſt the Common-prayer Books, (ordinarily obtruded upon us,) from what we have ſaid before; That we find in them a mode of Worſhip and Forms, which hath been formerly uſed in idolatrous ſervices: upon which account we are much inclined to think it not lawful for us to uſe them in the ſervice of God, eſpecially conſidering what we have ſaid before, (from the Apoſtle) The Earth is the Lords, and the fulneſs thereof. We may eaſily uſe other words.
VVe vvould hope, that many of our Brethren, who are zealous for Liturgies, do believe, that the worſhip of the Church of Rome, is Idolatrous, and hath been ſo ever ſince the practice of praying to Saints and Angels; praying before Images; the worshipping of Croſſes and Relicks, and the Doctrine of Tranſubstantiation came up amongſt them. If any be otherwiſe minded, we have nothing to do with them, but only to commend them to that learned Treatiſe of Dr. Reinolds, De Idololatriâ Eccleſia Romana; and the many Tracts, and pieces of tractates wrote by Proteſtant Divines to prove this charge.
IV. We remember what Tertullian ſaith, Principale crimen generis humani, ſummus ſaeculi reatus; tota cauſa judicii Idololatria:Tertull. l. do idol. cap. 1. Of all ſins, none ſo horrid as that of Idolatry: This is ſufficiently aſſerted in Scripture, and proved by Tertullian and others. Tertul. proves the idolater a murtherer, an adulterer a thief, &c. And certainly if Chriſtians be bound to abſtain from all appearance of evil, they are much more obliged to take heed of any thing that hath the leaſt appearance of this evil, or affinity to it.
V. That Idolatry is not only committed, by worſhipping the creature terminatively (which was an idolatry we believe very few were ever guilty of,) but alſo, by the offering up any homage proper96 and due unto God onely,Non eſt auditum à ſoeculis, quod quit arcam vocaret Deum ſuum, vel ollam, vel pixidem: Gul. Paris de leg. c. 26. before any creature, as the medium, or as repreſentative of God, is ſo eminently proved by the inſtances of the Jews worſhipping the golden Calf (who yet proclaimed the feaſt to Jehovah) which the Apoſtle calls Idolatry 1 Cor. 10. By Jeroboams, and Michals idolatry, and diverſe others, that it is not a point now to be diſputed, being granted by all ſober Protestants. But beſides theſe two wayes, there are others alſo by which we may be guilty of the ſin of Idolatry, or a Jews Idololatriae, as Tertullian ſpeaks, acceſſary, if not principals. The Apoſtle 1 Cor. 10. plainly determines, that to eat of meat offered to idols (in the idols temple) was to have a fellowſhip with devils.
VI. Gods Eminent hatred of idolatry, was ſeen by diverſe ſevere prohibitions to his people, forbidding any fellowſhip with idolaters, or imitation of their actions, or to follow their modes, and methods of worſhip; or to uſe ſuch names as they uſed to call their idols by in their ſpeaking to God. 1. For civil uſages, Lev. 19.19. Lev. 19.19.17, 28.Thou ſhalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverſe kind; thou ſhalt not ſow thy field with mingled ſeed; neither ſhall a garment of linnen and woollen come upon on thee. V. 27. You ſhall not round the corners of your heads; neither shalt thou marr the corners of thy beard, 28. you shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you. To this head may alſo be referred the law againſt womans wearing mans apparel;Gul. Paris ibid. cap. 12. or the man wearing a womans apparel. All theſe ſaith Gul. Paris were to avoid the imitation of Idolaters. The firſt (ſaith he) was ſugillatio culturae ſen idolatrae Veneris & Priapi. The garment mingled of linnen and wooll vvas forbidden them (ſaith he) becauſe the Egyptian Prieſts did uſe ſuch, Aquinas, Liranus, Toſtatus, Hugo, &c. give the ſame reaſon. Herodotus tells us, that the Arabians vvere vvont to shave their hair, and to cut the corners of their beards, to bring their hair into a round figure. (which the Prophet Jeremy confirms, deſcribing them under the notion of ſuch as had the corners of their hair polled, Jer. 9.26. and again 49.32. (ſee the Margent in our English Bibles.) The Syrians, Egyptians, and Arabians, vvere vvont to pull off their hairs to make baldnes betwixt their eyes, to make prints and marks in their flesh, in mourning for the dead; God forbids them to his people, Deut. 14.1. Lev. 19.28. The Hebr. Doctors give this reaſon for this command, as may be ſeen in their 61. Neg. praec. as alſo 62.63. Lucian, Plutarch, Kirshmannus, Annobius, Euſebius, Cicero, Pliny; with many more, tell us97 ſtrange ſtories of the heathens uſages of this nature. All which God forbad his people, (as Gul. Pariſienſis well notes) to root out all the mention of idolatry from amongſt them, and to reſtrain them from any manner of conformity to the manners of idolaters. Upon which account alſo mutual marriages were expreſly forbidden betwixt the Jews and any idolatrous Nations.
2. In a further deteſtation of this ſin,Note, that both in 2 Hoſ. 15.16. and in Zech. 13.2. two texts plainly relating to the times of the Goſpel, God forbids all mention of Idolatry, and declares his will th•t it ſhould not be ſo much as remembred. Now we cannot ſee how we ſhould obey thoſe precepts, in keeping their very Rites, Modes, and Methods, of worſhip. and for a further caution, God ſayes Hoſ. 2.16, 17. Thou ſhalt call me no more Baali, thou ſhalt call me Iſhi; for I will take away the names of Baalim out of thy mouth, and they ſhall no more be remembred by that name. Where we note, that God would not allow (eſpecially in his worſhip) that his people ſhould uſe a Name to him, (how good, and proper ſoever) which had been uſed in an idolatrous ſervice. Tarnovius and Rivet both obſerve that the name Baali was not onely proper enough, (ſignifying My Lord) but alſo had formerly had a ſacred uſe; God himſelf uſing it of himſelf, Iſ. 54.5. but it having been afterwards defiled by an Emphatical uſe, in an Idolatrous ſervice; God abhors it, and will no more be called by it. This ſenſe St. Hierom of old gave of the Text; and Balleſter the Jeſuite in his Onomatographia agrees in it. Lyranus indeed follows R. Solomon Jarchi in another interpretation, making Baali Nomen timoni, Iſhi Nomen amoni.
But as (amongſt the Heb. Dectors, Kimchi and Aben Ezra interpret it more rightly, viz. That the reaſon why Baali was forbidden, was, becauſe it was the Name of an Idol; ſo the Caldee Paraphrast agrees in that ſenſe;V. Caeld paraph. in 2 Hoſ. and Ribera (though a Jeſuit) is full in it, and concludeth, that Bahal and Iſhi ſignifie the ſame thing,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(whence poſſibly that phraſe in John 3. He that hath the Bride, is the Bridegroom) and that the ſenſe of the Text, is this, Seeing the Word Iſhi and Baali ſignifie the ſame thing, yet I ſo hate the Names of Idols, that I will not have that ſpoken which might be well ſpoken, in regard of the ambiguity and ſimilitude of the word. Ribera makes St. Hierom his Author,Ribera in 2 Hoſ. 16. with whom alſo Cocceius agrees in theſe terms,— Ne dum aliud loquitur, alterius recordetur.leaſt men ſpeaking to God, ſhould think of Idols. In this ſenſe alſo agrees Cyril Alexandrinus (or whoever he was who is the Author of thoſe Commentaries, which go under his Name, upon98 the Small Prophets, Printed, Gr. Lat. Ingolſtadii, 1607.) To this agrees the Learned Rivet, Zanchy, Daneus, Sanctius, Polanus, in ſhort, almoſt all creditable Authors. Let us only add ſome of Zanchies and Rivets Notes, upon the Text, not impertinent to our purpoſe.
Zanchius in Hoſ.God declares here (ſaith Zanchy) that the Iſraelites (having put all ſuperſtitions out of their Temples, yea out of their mouths and minds) ſhould be content with one God alone, and with his pure Word. And accordingly he teacheth us, that a true Reformation is not in thoſe places, nor a true Worſhip or Religion there, where ANY Reliques of falſe Religion do remain: For all the Footſteps of Superſtition muſt be taken away, not only out of Churches, but out of our mouths and memories, that no door may be left open to former Idolatry: For the very remembrance of Falſe Worſhip, hath an influence upon men, to incite them to it again. We muſt therefore let nothing of the Popiſh Worſhip remain, unleſs we would have it all in again.
Rivetus in Hoſ.The Learned Rivet in his Corollaries from this Scripture, makes this for one;That there are many Names which in themſelves are good enough, and might be uſed, but God abhorreth the uſe of them, becauſe they have been abuſed to Idolatry.He inſtanceth in the word Maſs, applied to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, (to which may be added Prieſt and Altar) Then he inferreth thus.
993. But thirdly, God more expreſly forbad his people, any uſages in his worſhip, which were uſed in idolatrous ſervices. To this purpoſe was that Precept, Exod. 20.26. and that v. 24. in which God forbad the people of Iſrael, to go up by ſteps unto his altar; or to make an altar of hewen Stone. Both (as Lyranus, Lippomannus, and many others agree,) That they might not be like idolaters; Thoſe filthy beaſts that worſhipped Priapus, were wont ſo to aſcend by ſteps. And the heathens much fancied an Auguſt Pompous ſerving of their gods, and therefore made their Altars of hewen ſtone. God would have his Altar of Earth, or rough ſtones, to let them ſee he regarded not that pompous ſplendor, but abominated theſe things which were borrowed from Idolaters. We do not underſtand why it is reckoned as the ſin of thoſe, Ezech. 8.16. that they worſhipped with their faces towards the East, (which was unlawful to the Iſraelites) ſave onely that the Heathens ſo worſhipped their idols; (which perhaps was the reaſon why the temple ſtood another way) we are ſure Aquinas aſſignes this as a reaſon, why (as he ſaith) the Jews worſhipped Weſtward. Aqu. 12. ae q. 12 art. 4. ad 5. The ſame was the reaſon againſt Groves near Gods Altar, Deut. 16.22. Such had the Heathens Ex. 34.13. It vvas laid to the Iſraelites charge, 2 Chron. 13.9. that they made priests like the Nations: and it was Ahaz his great ſin, 2 Chron. 16.11. that he muſt have his Altar like that of Damaſcus. There are that think, that it was a piece of Uzzah's guilt, (for which God ſmote him with death,) that he carried the Ark upon a new Cart, (as the Idolatrous Philiſtines had done before) we are not ignorant that he failed in other points of order too. But we ſhall ſhut up this with two remarkable Texts, the one Levit. 18.3. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein you dwelt, ſhall you not do, and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, you ſhall not do, neither ſhall you walk in their Ordinances, you ſhall do my judgements, and keep my Ordinances, and walk in them, I am the Lord your God, you ſhall therefore keep my Statutes, and my judgements, which if a man do, he ſhall live in them.
The ſecond Text (yet more remarkable) is that Deut. 12.29, 30. &c. When the Lord thy God ſhall cut off the Nations from before thee, whither thou goeſt to poſſeſs them; and thou ſucceedeſt them, and dwelleſt in their land, take heed to thy ſelf, that thou be not ſnared, by following them, after that they be deſtroyed before thee, and that thou enquire not after their Gods, ſaying, How did theſe nations ſerve their100 Gods. Even ſo will I do likewiſe. Thou ſhalt not do ſo unto the Lord thy God. — What thing ſoever I command you, obſerve to do it, thou ſhalt not add thereto, nor diminiſh from it. Upon the firſt Text the learned Dr. Willet (who ſurely was no Fanatique, no not in the Iriſh djalect, but though he had not the honour to be a Father, may paſs for a Son of the Church) obſerves, That by the two Nations Egypt and Canaan, all other Nations were underſtood, whoſe corrupt manners they were to decline, Jer. 10.2. By the latter Text certainly in general, all humane inventions in the worſhip of God, are forbidden, and more particularly, the imitation of Idolaters in their Modes, and Methods of worſhip. Conſidering the force of all which Texts,Biſh. Andrews. our hair almoſt ſtands right up, to read a late Prelates book (if it be his) about Ceremonies, where vvith a variety of Learning he ſhews our Ceremonies, are borrowed partly from the Idolatrous heathen, partly from the Idolatrous Papists, and yet he juſtifies the uſe of them, yea could almoſt juſtifie the reduction of a great part of the Ceremonial Law of the Jews, ſo long ſince aboliſhed.
VII. We are the more ſtartled at it to conſider the zeal of the Ancients, (whom when our brethren pleaſe, or rather when they are pleaſed by what they find in them, they uſe ſo much to adore) in this great and momentous caſe. Tertull. de Idololat. lib.Tertullian in his admirable Book de Idololatriâ, chargeth very many Symbolizing with Idolaters, it will not be amiſs to give the Reader his heads.
1. Such as made Statues and Images, (though it were their trade) he tells theſe poor trades-men, That they ſacrificed their wit, their ſweat, their labour, their art, to the Idol. Illis ingenium tuum immolas,Cap. 6. illis ſudorem tuum libas, illis prudentiam tuam accendis, plus es illis quam ſacerdos, quum per te habeant ſacerdotem. He brings under this guilt, all kind of Mechanicks imployed about building, or adorning Idol-temples, &c. or the making up, or adorning the Idols.
Cap. 9.2. His ſecond ſort are Aſtrologers, whom he proves deeply guilty.
Cap. 10.3. His third ſort are School-maſters, he ſayes theſe are aſſines multimodae Idololatriae, a kin to Idolatry, in naming the names of Idols, and making honourable mention of them in their Orations, &c. Polanus on 2 Hoſ. alſo toucheth this as not ſavouring enough of Chriſtianity. Tertullian ſaith, Hinc prima diabolo fides edificatur ab initiis eruditionis.
1014. A fourth ſort he inſtanceth in,Cap. 14. are thoſe that keep Holy-dayes dedicated to Idolatrous ſervice, where he complains of the Chriſtians in his time that kept Saturnalia, Januarias, Brumas, Matronales, the Pagan Holy-dayes, (in ſtead of Saturnalia, is our Chriſtmas at the very ſame time of the year) here he cries our, O melior fides Nationum in ſuam ſectam! The Heathens (ſaith he) will not keep our Sabbath-day, nor our Pentecost, but we muſt keep their Feſtivals. How much more true to their Religion are they, then we to ours?
In the next place he brings them under the guilt of Symbolizing with Idolaters, who adorned their gates, and poſts, and houſes,Cap. 5. after the Pagan manner at Feſtivals, (as we do at Christmas) with Lawrel, Ivy, &c. One would think this were an innocent uſage, yet how vehemently doth that good man inveigh againſt it? Accendat igitur quotidie lucernas quibus lux nulla eſt, adfigant poſtibus lauros poſtea arſuras quibus ignes immanent, & teſtimonia tenebrarum & auspicia poenarum. Tu, lumen es mundi, & arbor viceris ſemper. Si templum renunciaſti ne facias templum januam tuam. Minus dixi, ſi lupanaribus renunciaſti, ne indueris fa•iem domi tuae, novi lupanaris.
We need proceed no further, what would this good man have ſaid to our Candlemas ſervices, to our Chriſtmas Ivyes and Bays, &c. nay to an hundred things of higher conſequence then theſe are? Nor do we find this primitive zeal againſt appearances of Idolatry, in ſingle perſons onely, but alſo in Councels. v. Concil. Antiſrod. can. 1 Concil Tolet. 4. can. 10. with diverſe other Canons made againſt the Calends of January, (which with us is turned to New-years-day) Concil. Tolet. would not ſuffer Allelujah be ſang that day, becauſe it was a Pagan Holy-day. Other Councels for the ſame reaſon forbad Green-boughs, and Laurels in adorning houſes. St. Auſtin forbad Chriſtians to faſt on the Lords day, becauſe the Manichees did ſo. Ep. 86. Gul. Pariſienſis ſaith,L. de leg. the Church would not allow faſting on Fridays, becauſe the Turks uſe it. In ſhort Aquinas, Suarez, Bellarmine, Pariſienſis, are all zealous, for avoiding all uſages of idolaters, which were not neceſſary. Auguſtine de verbis Domini Ser. 6. calls to Chriſtians to leave all the rites, all the ſolemnities of the Pagans, and thinks this the beſt way to convert them. And why ſhould ſuch care be uſed as to Heathens, but becauſe their ſervices were Idolatrous, they Idolaters? We are at loſs to know wherein they were greater Idolaters102 then the Papiſts. Pariſienſis ſaith right, none of the learned of them were ever ſo mad as to worſhip a piece of wood; yet the Papists worſhip a piece of bread. The Rabbies of the Heathen were doubtleſs (as we ſaid before) of Plato's mind, that God was (they knew not well what) the Soul of the World; or of the ſame mind that Triſmegiſtus, one of their great Philoſophers was, that there were certain Spirits, which they called Gods, which came and took poſſeſſion of thoſe Statues, when they had made them; and they onely made their Statues for thrones (as it were) for their Gods, and ſuppoſed repreſentations, or ſome things to put them in mind of God.
VIII. Now conſidering this we hope (how uncharitable ſoever the Biſhop of Exeter judgeth of us in our abſtaining from the uſe of the Common-prayer Book ordinarily ſold) God will judge otherwiſe, and ſo will the generality of ſober Chriſtians. Let his Lordſhip ſpeak out, Is the Church of Rome Idolatrous yea or no? Is her worſhip ſo in the whole complex yea or not? If he ſayes no, he flyes in the face of all Proteſtant writers. If he ſayes it is, we proceed further with him. Is that mode or method of worſhip preſcribed in the books of Common-prayer, ordinarily to be ſold, (as to the far greater part) the ſame, which was formerly uſed, and is to this day uſed (though in another Language) by thoſe Idolaters? If he ſays no, let any one diligently compare the Collects, Letany, &c. with the four books before mentioned, and judge whether he ſpeaks truth or no: If he ſays it is, we ask him again, Is that Service Book, neceſſary to the worſhip of God, either by a Divine Law, or by any neceſſity of nature? If he ſaith that it is, he will need none to confute him: If he ſaith it is not, only a comman•…d by the Church, or by the Laws of the Land; we deſire to know of him, whether the uſe of ſuch things as are not neceſſary, ought to be retained, when they have been once abuſed to Idolatry? If it were clear to us, that the Laws of the Land did command the uſe of the Service-book (ordinarily ſold) under a penalty, we ſhould take our ſelves bound with patience to ſuffer the penalty, but (conſidering the premiſes) we could never do the thing. But that doth not yet appear to us, how ſoon it may, we know not, The will of the Lord be done. Onely becauſe our Adverſaries have ſuch a delight to whiſper us into ſuſpicions of diſaffection, and diſloyalty, moroſeneſs, perverſeneſs, peeviſhneſs, faction; let us from the premiſes argue with them a little for our ſelves.
IX. Can you think it lawful to uſe modes of worſhip (abuſed to103 Idolatrous ſervices) when God would not allow his ancient people, a civil uſage, which was peculiar to the idolatrous nations? was it unlawful for them, becauſe the Egytian Prieſts wore garments mixed of linnen and woollen, to put any ſuch on their backs? And is it lawful for us to put on Veſtments (onely to be uſed in the worſhip of God) which are confeſſed to have been after the manner both of the Pagan and Romiſh Idolaters? See Biſhop Andrews on Ceremonies. p. 52. Might not they ſuffer their cattel to gender with diverſe kinds, nor ſow their grounds with diverſe ſorts of ſeed, becauſe the heathen did it? and may we in our worſhip of God, ſerve him with diverſe ſorts of Ceremonies, and modes and methods of worſhip, ſome borrowed from Pagans, ſome from Papists? (as Biſhop Andrews confeſſeth and proves) though ſome others of a more innocent extract be mingled with them? Might not they round their heards, becauſe the Arabians did ſo (who were Idolaters) nor make prints and marks in their fleſh? becauſe the Heathens did ſo. And may we, in the worſhip of God, uſe thoſe very poſtures, figures, forms, actions, which Gods word no where requires, nor are practiſed in any other Church, but in a Synagogue of Idolaters? Would not God ſuffer his people to call him Baali, (though the name be of an honeſt and proper ſignification, and ſuch a name as himſelf ſometimes called himſelf by) when once it was abuſed to Idolatry, but muſt the people after that call him Iſhi not Baali? And can we speak unto God in prayer, in the ſame forms of words, phraſes, &c. which Idolaters have profaned, and judge our ſelves innocent? Might not the Jews go up by ſteps to Gods Altar, becauſe the Heathen did ſo? Nor make God an Altar of Stone, but of Earth, becauſe the Idolatrous Heathen, went up by ſteps to the Altars of their Gods; and made their Idols Pompous Altars. And may we do thoſe things while they are done by Idolatrous Papists? Was it a guilt in Ahaz, that he would have an Altar like that of Damaſcus; and ſhall it be no guilt to us, that we muſt have a mode of worſhip, as near that of an Idolatrous Synagogue, as may be? Were the Jews commanded not ſo much as to enquire how the Idolatrous Heathens worſhipped their Gods: or to ſay, we will go and do likewiſe. Nay were they ſtrictly forbidden to do it, and as to the worſhip of God commanded to keep ſtrictly to the command of God, not adding thereto, not diminiſhing there from; and ſhall it be our practice to ſay, We will go and do juſt what the Papists do, and come as near to them as we can? ſuch workings as theſe we find in our hearts.
104X. When we hear ſome telling of us, theſe were Ceremonial and Jud•cial Laws not obliging us Chriſtians. Others, That it is true, we ought not to chuſe theſe things, but being commanded we ought to do and uſe them. And others again, That although the Popiſh Idolaters, do or did uſe theſe forms, and rites, yet theſe things were not Idolatrous, nor were the Papiſts the firſt that uſed them, for they were uſed by the purer Church, (they know not when nor where) And others, That we muſt not reject all words, phraſes, rites, and actions, which idolaters have uſed, spake or done, and would with theſe things relieve our ſelves.
XI. We find our conſciences thus ex tempore replying, Are then the Laws of God reſtraining conformity vvith Idolaters Ceremonial? vvhat vvas there in them typical, or carnal? The typical ſervices, and carnal ordinances of the Ceremonial Law, are aboliſhed; but do theſe commands relate to them? There were alſo diverſe particular Judicial Laws, which the wiſdom of God thought fit for the Jewiſh polity, which in particulari do oblige no other. But doth not the equity of the Judicial Law oblige? was not the end of theſe Laws to bear witneſs againſt idolatry; and that Gods people by no communion with Idolaters, by no apiſh imitation of them, ſhould defile themſelves, or provoke him, or grow again in love with them? Doth not God hate Idolatry now as much as then? is his jealouſie abated? or hath he ſince parted with his glory to graven Images? What means the Apoſtle then 1 Cor. 10. in cautioning the Corinthians to flee from Idolatry, and to take heed of eating of the Love-feaſt in the Idols Temple? Are they not Gospel-times which God ſpeaks of Hoſ. 2.16. when his people ſhould not call him Baali but Iſhi? nor remember the names of Idols? and which he ſpeaks of Zech. 13.3.
XII. If we would relieve our ſelves by the command of Magiſtrates interpoſing; beſides that vve can find no ſuch thing, (and pray that we never may) Our conſciences tell us, that if after theſe Laws Moſes had commanded the Iſraelites to make round their beards, or to wear garments of linnen or woollen, or women to wear mens apparel, &c. His command could not have juſtified the Iſraelites practice. We freely allow Magiſtrates, all juſt Authority, but not to command people to do what the Lord hath forbidden them.
XIII. VVhen vve are told, that though Idolaters uſed theſe Rites, Modes, &c. yet theſe Rites and Forms vvere not Idolatrous, and105 that we hear they were uſed by Christians, before there was any Popiſh Idolatry in the world, and that we muſt not throw away all things, and abominate all Actions, Rites, Ceremonies, vvhich Idolaters have abuſed. Our conſciences preſently tell us, That there was no Idolatry in the cutting of a beard, nor in ſowing ground vvith mingled ſeed, nor in an Altar of hewen ſtone, nor in a linſey-woolſey garment; nor in the name Baali, nor in the Corinthians meat.
2. That though ſome have talked that theſe Rites and Modes 'were uſed before any Popery vvas in the vvorld, yet none have proved it, or if they were, yet they are not commanded by God, and might be borrowed from the Pagan Idolaters, (as Biſhop Andrews proves they vvere) That the name Baali vvas uſed lawfully, and yet might not be uſed, vvhen it had been abuſed in idolatrous ſervice.
3. Our conſciences further ſay, That things of neceſſary ùſe, (vvhether the neceſſity aroſe from Nature, or from a Divine Law) ought to be retained, though abuſed to Idolatry. (the queſtion is not about them) They onely tell us, that it is ſin to us to uſe Modes, Forms, Methods of Divine Worſhip, which Idolaters have uſed, there being no ſuch neceſſity of them, either from Nature, or any divine precept; and ſuch Rites, Geſtures, Ceremonies, as are not commanded from the Law of Nature, nor from any Divine Laws, but have been uſed by Idolaters, and diſtinguiſhed their ſuperſtitious worſhippings of God, from the worſhip of the true Churches of Chriſt.
XIV. In fine. VVe dread the ſin of Idolatry; it is the principalè peccatum Generis humani (ſaith Tertullian) vve dread any kind of conformity (not neceſſary) to Idolaters;**In any diſtinctive uſages, or in modes of worſhip. VVe believe the Papists ſuch. And vve cannot but judge, that if vve ſhould in our vvorſhipping of God conform to their Modes, and Forms, and Rites, vve ſhould be more guilty of ſin, then thoſe Mechanicks, that make Statues, Images, Crucifixes, Agnus Dei, for them; (all vvhom yet Tertullian vvould have concluded guilty.) And vve cannot but admire, that any who pretend to reverence the Fathers, to take their dictates, ſhould think light of this Argument: vvhat vvould Tertullian have ſaid to this? who vvould not endure Bayes and Ivy at Chriſtians gates; and vvho determineth all arts, profeſſions, trades, which are exerciſed, in making any Statues, Images, Idols, or any things for their uſe and ſervice to be (upon this, account)106 account) defiled. VVe judge not others in this thing, let not them judge us; vve ſhall conclude this with that forementioned paſſage of Tertullian. — O melior ſides Nationum in ſectam ſuam! quae nullam ſolennitatem Chriſtiano um ſibi vendicat, nor Dominicum diem, non Pentecoſten; etiamſi noſſent noſſent nobiſcum non communicaſſent, timerent enim, ne Chriſtiani viderentur. Nos ne Ethnici pronunciemur non veremur. Let the Reader for Nationum and Ethnici, put in Pontiſiciorum and Pontificii, and for Chriſtiani, Proteſtantes, and ſee vvhat ſenſe it vvill make; vve are aſſured, the Papiſts vvould be more true to their Religion, then to borrow from us Rites, Veſtments, Modes, or Forms of Worſhip, or any thing of that Nature. But enough is ſaid upon this theme.
Suppl. 3. VVe remember, that in plea for ourſelves, as to our forbearance of uſing the Common-prayer Books, vve urged the ſcandal, which we are aſſured, that our uſing of it would give to tender conſcientious Chriſtians. VVe are not ignorant how much this plea is derided by ſome, and therefore ſhall take a little further liberty here to make it good:
1. VVe cannot without ſome trembling weight thoſe many Scriptures, by which God hath ſecured both the lives and ſouls of our brethren from our injuries. Upon this account it vvas that the Iſraelites vvere not to build an houſe without battlements, Deut. 22. Nor to leave a pit uncovered, Exod. 21.33. Nor to put a ſtumbling ſtone before the blind, Levit. 19.14. And as in reaſon the ſoul is more precious then the body, ſo the vviſe God hath proportionably forbidden us to do any things (in their own nature indifferent) by vvhich the ſouls of our brethren may be endangered by ſinning againſt God. This is the main buſineſs of a Chriſtian; of more value by far, then the aſſerting of his own liberty, Rom. 14.13. He muſt judge this rather that no man lay o ſtumbling block, or offence before his brother. No man muſt ſeek his own, but the good of others, 1 Cor. 10.24. VVe muſt give no offence, &c. ibid. Our liberty muſt not be uſed to the ſcandal of the weak, 1 Cor. 8.9. If our brother be offended, or grieved with our meat, we do not walk charitably, we muſt not deſtroy him with our meat, for whom Christ died, Rom. 14.15. we muſt not for our meat deſtroy the work of God. v. 20. It is a good thing, neither to eat fleſh, nor to do any thing at which our brother ſhould ſtumble, or be offended, or made weak. Saint Paul 1 Cor. 8.13. reſolved never to eat fleſh while he lived, rather then to offend his weak brother.
1072. We are not ignorant what is ſaid to take off the edge of this Argument; we are told firſt, That theſe precepts onely concern us, where the command of our Superiors, doth not make the thing neceſſary. 2. That diverſe are ſcandalized, becauſe of our not conforming. 3. That all our liberty will be taken away, if we hearken to our peoples humours; there being nothing we can wear or do, at which ſome or other will not take offence.
3. But we would (as to the firſt thing) gladly know, whether thoſe precepts of the Apostle, be not reducible to the Moral Law? and whether the Magistrate be not as much obliged not to command things indifferent, where ſuch a ſcandal will ariſe, as the inferior not to do them? We ſuppoſe that our B•ethren will not ſay, that the Magiſtrates command, can juſtifie any ſoul in violating the expreſs Law of God. And as they themſelves would not interpret the Law of God thus, Thou ſhalt not ſteal, i. e. except thy Superior command thee; or, Thou ſhalt not commit adultery, i. e. unleſs thou beaſt commanded: ſo they muſt pardon us if we cannot ſo interpret the Law of God in the caſe of Scandal. We humbly conceive that the Magiſtrate himſelf is by the Law of God reſtrained from commanding any thing by which weak Chriſtians may be ſtumbled, offended, or made weak.
4. The true notion of a ſcandalous action, (in the ſenſe we are now ſpeaking to it) is, Any action done by us (not being required by the divine Law) by which our brother, (whether from the nature and condition of the thing done, or the intention of him that doth it, or both) is made to ſin againſt God: It is true, there are a generation of men whom the doing of our duty will make to blaspheme; but our duty doth not ex conditione operis, lay any ſuch ſtumbling block before them. This is what Aquinas calls Scandalum Phariſaeorum, which our Saviour hath taught us to contemn. But to make a true Scandal, that vvhich vve do muſt be of that nature, as may give a cauſe of ſtumbling to our brethren; and this cannot be otherwiſe then in our ill uſe of our liberty, as to things of their own nature indifferent, but not appearing ſo unto all. For if the thing done by us, appear to our brethren a thing indifferent, there can be no Scandal. It is but a teachy humour in any to be offended at us, for any thing which they grant we may lawfully do; nor can the•by our practice in ſuch things be poſſibly made to ſin ex conditione operis. But where a thing appears to us in its own nature indifferent to be done, or not to be done, and doth not appear ſo to other108 conſcientious Chriſtians, (which was the caſe amongſt the Chriſtians at Rome and Corinth) here we conceive our ſelves obliged to reſtrain our own liberty out of charity to our Brethrens ſouls. And as we conceive it our duty in practice to do ſo, ſo we conceive it the duty of Superiours to reſtrain their (ſuppoſed) liberty in commanding; the reaſon is becauſe the liberty of a Magiſtrate, or a private Chriſtian, is of far leſs value, then a ſoul for which Chriſt died.
5. Now our Brethren may be made to ſin by our practice in ſuch things, many ways, 1. When our action cauſeth them to vilifie, cenſure, and condemn us, and to withdraw themſelves from communion with us. 2. When our example draws on them to do the like, while their conſcience is not ſatisfied, which is the very caſe mentioned, 1 Cor. 8.10. 'Tis their ſin to do it, (not fully perſwaded in their own mind) 'tis our ſin buy our example to intice them to it. Take heed leaſt by any means that liberty of yours, becomes a ſtumbling block to them that are weak; for if any man ſee thee, who haſt knowledge, fit at meat, in the Idols temple, ſhall not the conſcience of him which is weak, be emboldned to eat thoſe things which are offered to Idols? This is plainly our caſe. Supporting that we vvere fully ſatiſfied, that it were lawful for us to uſe an impoſed form, and that it were no reſtraining in us the gifts of the holy Spirit, no prejudice to our intention of mind, nor to the fervency of our affection, not to the affections of ſuch as hear us, nor any yielding of that liberty, (as to the worſhipping of God) with which Chriſt hath made us free, not any addition to the rule of worſhip, which God hath ſet us in his Word, and that (notwithſtanding it be confeſſed that theſe or thoſe Modes, Forms and Methods, have been uſed by Idolaters) yet vve may lawfully enough uſe them; yet we plainly ſee that they are ſo abhorred of many conſcientious Chriſtians, that as thoſe who have returned to the uſe of them, have almoſt ruined their miniſtry, by making themſelves the ſcorn of ſome, and the grief of others; ſo ſhould we do the like, ſome would for it vilifie and cenſute us, and condemn us, and ſeparate from communion with us. Now ſuppoſe this would be their ſin, yet the thing being (ſuppoſe) in its own nature indifferent, vve have learned our of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 8.12. That when we ſin againſt our brethren, and wound their weak conſciences, we ſin againſt Chriſt. And far be it from us to gratifie men by ſinning againſt Chriſt.
6. Again, whereas the Biſhop of Exeter ſuppoſeth, That our109 example would do much to bring over our people, to hear, &c. We do ingenuouſly profeſs, that we believe it would prevail with ſome; vvho vvould at the preſent, ſeeing us (vvho they think have knowledge) uſe thoſe Modes of Worſhip, (though with ſome reluctancy) be imboldned in their conſciences, to come and hear, ('tis no more than the Apoſtle ſuppoſeth 1 Cor. 8.10. ) but as they in doing of it ſhould ſin, ſo we by ſetting them an example, ſhould directly act againſt the Apoſtles precepts, and lay ſtumbling blocks before them; and when they have done it, the temper may Triumph over them, and we be found too weak to relieve their conſciences, telling them, That to follow us they have ſinned againſt their light, and the rebukes of their own conſciences.
7. Beſides, though it be apparent that thoſe Scriptures which mention the precepts againſt ſcandal,1 Cor. 8.11.10 Rom. 14.20. & v. 15. take notice of weak brethren only, ſuch for whom Chriſt died, ſuch in whom is ſome work of God, which we muſt not deſtroy. And indeed in reaſon, theſe are chiefly to be conſidered. For the end of the precept is to ſave the hazard of the ſoul of our Brethren, by ſin; now there are a generation in the world, whoſe conſtant courſe is a courſe of preſumptuous ſinning, they drink, they ſwear, they curſe, they blaſpheme, they wallow in beaſtly luſts, they will not be ſtopt in a full carreare for hell, (whoſe offence vve are not ſo concerned to reg•…d) yet even to the vvorſt of men, vve conceive our ſelves ſo far obliged by the Law of Charity, as nor vvillfully, by our example to harden them in ſin, and make them juſtifie themſelves. VVe are fully convinced, that there is nothing of more tendency to confirm the Papiſts in their way of vvorſhip, (which vve believe Idolatrous) then for them to ſee us keep much the ſame; nor are we alone in this opinion; Tertullian of old, and after him Auguſtine, were both of the ſame mind: Tertullian forbids Chriſtians any of the Ragan uſages, or coming nigh to any of their devotions, that if they would not be aſhamed of their ſuperſtitions, they might yet be aſhamed of the thin company that attended them. Auguſtine cryes out, Quaeritis quomodo vincantur Pagani, deſerite eorum ritut. VVe know how much ſome Papiſt-forreigners have triumphed, liſtning at the doors of ſome places vvhere they have heard Service, read and ſung, crying out, this is the ſame with theirs. And not to inſiſt upon the Papiſts only, vve have many (called Protestants) whom we believe moſt grievouſly to ſin in their uſe of our Common-prayer, (be it never ſo lawful in it ſelf) they believe, that their very repeating over110 the words of theſe prayers (becauſe as they f•ncy) made by the Church, is devotion enough; they are taught ſo, that 'tis no matter for the Vice,V. Dr. Sparrows Rationale. p. 10. or Vertue of the perſons praying, the prayers are the prayers of the Church, and are acceptable to God; yea 'tis no matter whether they be aſleep, or awake, preſent or abſent, (if they any juſt cauſe) nay more then this, they believe no prayers but theſe of any value, but abomination to God; they are taught ſo alſo. The publique worſhip of God preſcribed by thoſe to whom he hath given commiſſion (the author ſhould have done well to have told us who they are,ibid. p. 8.9. and to have proved it) is the onely true and right publique worſhip, and all other forms, and methods offered up, inſtead of that though never ſo exactly drawn, (and put up with never ſo much faith and fervency too, he ſhould have ſaid) are ſtrange worſhip, becauſe not commanded. Now away vvith all ſuch Atheiſtical doctrine! according to which all prayer before and after Sermons is ſtrange worſhip; the fervent effectual prayer of the righteous, (which Salomon ſaith) is Gods delight; and St. James ſaith, availeth much, is ſtrange worſhip? Is not this ſtrange Doctrine? yet verily we find many people of this faith, for which is not a tittle of Scripture, or found reaſon; and is it not time that this Braſen Serpent ſhould be a Nehuſhtan? ſhould we that are Miniſters of Chriſt, do any thing to pleaſe men, to countenance ſuch groſs conceits; ſuch odious and abominable opinions in the hearts of people?
8. Whereas we are told that we offend many others, yea and thoſe our Superiors too, becauſe we do not do it. We anſwer we are not willing to offend any, much leſs our Superiours; but if we be brought to this ſtrait, that we must either offend God or Men; the choice is not difficult. We do humbly conceive, that by enticing, or by our example encouraging others to ſin, or by hardening any in ſinful opinions, or courſes, we ſhould highly offend God, we are told ſo by his word: God knows our hearts, it is a grievous Election to us, when we are by the Law of God forced to chuſe that part-in practice, which ſhall offend out Prince, or any Magiſtrates, but our Souls are dear unto us; and in preſerving our own and others Souls, we hope our Gracious Soveraign will not be offended.
9. However we wonder that our Brethren, who ſometimes profeſs to ſo high an honour of St. Auguſtine, do not diſcharge us upon his credit; for we find him thus ſpeaking:
Sed timeo inquies; ne•ffendant Majorem, time prorſus, ne offendas111 majorem, & non offendes Deum. Quidenim times ne offendas majorem?Aug. de Verbis Dom. Ser. 6. vide ne forſa•major ſit iſte quem times offendere? Majorem certe noli offendere. — Quit eſt inquit major eo qui me genuit? An ille qui teipſam•reavit? — Ille quite vidit ut faceret antequam eſſet, quem fecit, cerie major eſt patre luo. — And again Qui enim reſiſtit poteſtati Dei ordinationi reſiſtit, ſed quid ſi illud jubeat quod non debeas facere? — Timendo poteſtatem ipſos humanarum renum gradus advertite. Si aliquid juſſerit Curator no•ne faciendum eſtis tame•ſi contra Proconſul jubeat, at non utiquecontemnis poteſtatèm ſed eligis majori ſervire, nec hinc debet minor iraſet, ſi major praelata eſt. Rurſum ſi aliquid ipſe proconſul Jubeat, & aliud jubeat Imperator, numquid dubitatur, in illo contemptu illi eſſe ſerviendum? Ergo ſi aliud Imperator, & aliud Deus, quid indicatis? Solve tribulam: eſto mihi in obſequio, Recte! ſed non in idolio, In ìdolio prohiber? Quis prohibet? Major poteſtas Da Veniam. Tis Carcerem, ille Gehennam minatur. We preſume our Brethren will grant this; but they will tell us, it is not ſinful to uſe the Liturgie. That is the queſtion, nor do we abſolutely aſſert it; we only ſay, we ſo apprehend it, we have given our reaſons. And while we thus judge, we humbly conceive our forbearance is our duty. For ſuppoſe conſciences miſtaken, yet our Brethren will grant that even an erroneous conſcience, will, and ought to tye our hands, and oblige us ad non faciendum contra, (nor is this an errour in matter of faith, if it be an errour) we are not ſtubborn againſt conviction, our eares are open, we deſire ſatisfaction; and certainly it is not for nothing that we are content; by ſuch refuſal, to put our ſelves our of hopes of preferment, and into the number of ſheep marked out for the ſlaughter, if a Gracious Soveraign, and an Honourable Parliament, doth not look with a more favourable aſpect towards us, then ſome others do. But the will of the Lord be done, — Hic aſſume da eſt ſides nostra, tanquam Scùtum. (ſaith Auguſtine) lac. p•aed.
10. Again offending is taken in a double ſenſe, we are ſaid to offend others, when we onely displeaſe them, and make them angry. 2. When we lay a ſtumbling block before them, and make them ſin. We acknowledge it our duty to avoid the firſt, (if it may be) as to our meaneſt Brethren, much more to our Superiors. But if the caſe be ſtated thus, here is a thing required to be done; if you do not do it, the Magiſtrate will be offended through anger; if you do it, many private Chriſtians will be either hardned in ſin, or, tempted112 to ſin by your example. VVhat have we to do in this caſe? but to beg of our Superiours to be merciful to us; if in this thing we cannot hearken to them, being ready in all lawful things to yield them utmoſt active obedience, and here alſo a quiet paſſive obedience. And that this is our caſe is evident to all that will not ſtop their ears, and ſhut their eyes.
II. It is true we do hear ſome whiſpering, that by this we lay alſo a ſtumbling block before our Fathers the Civil Magiſtrates, and the Biſhops, yea and many of our Brethren, who by our not uſing the ſaid Modes, and Forms of Worſhip, are ready to judge us diſloyal, diſobedient to Authority, and we tempt them to draw out the civil ſword againſt us, &c. Now if indeed we do acknowledge Magiſtracy, and are (as we profeſs) ready to yield obedience, thoſe who otherwiſe judge of us, ſin againſt God; and thoſe who ſhall puniſh us as diſloyal (we being not ſo) alſo ſin againſt God. But by this non-conformity, they tell us, we give Superiors juſt cauſe ſo to cenſure us, and ſo to deal with us.
12. But to this objection the anſwer is not difficult, for we ſuppoſe that all ſober Divines are agreed in this principle, Si de veritate ſcandalum ſumatur, utilius naſci permittetur ſcandalum, quam quod veritas relinquatur; it was an old determination, no man ought to commit any thing againſt the precepts of God, for fear of making others ſin if he doth not commit it. Charity in this caſe certainly begins at home, we muſt not by ſin deſtroy our own ſouls, out of charity, to prevent the deſtruction of the work of God in the ſouls of others. Proximus ipſe ſibi. It is a good thing for us to keep our ſouls from ſin,Bona res neminem ſcandalizant niſi malam mentem. Tert. de vel. Virg. c. 3. and good things ſcandalize none but evil hearts, (ſaith Tertullian) Nor muſt our Brethren be ſcandalized, becauſe we will not gratifie them vuith the uſe of our liberty, as vvell as others, whom they judge interior to them in knowledge, wiſdom, worldly ſtation, &c. we can appeal to God that our hearts are ſincerely troubled, when vve hear of any ſingle perſon in our Pariſhes ſcandalized, for our omiſſions in the caſe, provided they be ſuch as are guilty of no profaneneſs in their lives, (the offence of open profane and debauched drunkards, ſwearers, curſers, blasphemers, unclean perſons, doth not ſo much trouble us) and we dare not ſay but that there are ſome ſuch, (though they be not the fortieth part of thoſe that are zealous againſt us in this caſe) But what ſhall we, what can we do in the caſe for theſe good and ſober Brethren?
11313. Whiles we judge the thing in it ſelf not lawful, cannot do it let who will be offended, and that will be granted by all; and vve have found ſome of our Brethren, who wiſh vve would do it, yet ſo ingenuous, as to beſeech us, not for their ſakes to wound our conſciences. But ſuppoſe we did think it in it ſelf and in all circumſtances indifferent, that we might, or might not do it, we profeſs we ſhould ſtill be at a loſs as the caſe ſtands, for theſe of our Brethren (whom we love and honour) how to gratifie them. We (ſuppoſe it) think the thing indifferent, it may be two or three or ten of our Brethren think it ſo too, and for uniformity deſire we would do it, poſſibly twenty, thirty, fourty others of our people, whom vve ſee walking cloſe with God; they think it unlawfull, and vvith tears beſeech us not to do it. They are not humorouſly offended, but they tell us, why they think it unlawful; They cannot bring their hearts up to be equally affected with a read prayer, as with one ſpoken from the immediate dictates of the heart: they cannot think it lawful for us to uſe Modes of worſhip, formerly uſed in an idolatrous ſervice; they cannot judge it lawful for the Magiſtrate to command any part (in a thing indifferent, in the vvorſhip of God) vvhich manifeſtly is ſcandalous to any conſiderable number of ſober Christians; they think the Law of God concerning ſcandalizing the weak, concerns Magiſtrates, as vvell as others; and that it is of the ſame nature with any other Moral Law, not to be ſuperſeded by any humane power. VVhat ſhall we do in this caſe? Doubtleſs in all reaſon if it appear to us but indifferent, we are bound to abſtain by vertue of the command of God. And our Brethren, who would have us do the thing, (if they acknowledge the thing indifferent) muſt yield to their weaker Brethren, who are tied up from yielding to them, becauſe they think the thing unlawful.
14. The ſum is this, God hath commanded us (in things as to their own nature, indifferent relating to his worſhip) to do nothing by which our Brother may be grieved, ſtumbled,Rom. 14.21. or made weak. The matter for the omiſſion of which, the Biſhop of Exeter ſo ſeverely cenſureth us, is a thing in its own nature (at beſt) but indifferent; we plainly ſee, that ſhould we hearken to our Dioceſan, diverſe for whom (our conſciences tell us) Chriſt died, would be ſtumbled, offended, and made weak. VVe conceive, that the Law of Scandal concerns the Magiſtrate, as well as the Subject: And therefore ſuppoſing a command in that caſe (which114 yet we ſee not) vve humbly conceive our ſelves obliged not to diſobey the Commands of the great God of Heaven and Earth. Aquinas ſaith, that Propter ſcandalum etiam bona ſpiritualia, ſunt pro tempore, occultanda vel differenda. And Hierom. of old determined, Dimittendum propter ſcandalum omne quod potest praetermitti ſalvâ triplici Veritate Vi•ae, Juſtitiae, Doctrinae.
15. We conclude, that we judge our Bre•hren very uneven in their cenſuring of us for diſobedience to Laws, in this caſe of the Common-prayer, when they do the ſame thing themſelves, for which they ſo charge us, ſinging Anthemes and Songs, &c. and uſing Rites and Forms of Prayer in Cathedrals, expreſly contrary to the Statute, 1 Eliz. 2. and whiles the preſent Vice-chan. of Cambridge, without any Law of England, or Statute of the Univerſity, or Ca•on, or any colour of Law, and expreſly contrary to his Majeſties Declaration, and contrary to all conſcience and reaſon, could diſpenſe with his conſcience, in uſurping an arbitrary power, to the open prejudice of ſo many of His Majeſties Subjects, in their children, to ſtop fifty commencers from commencing, becauſe at 24. hours warning they could not find in their conſciences to ſubſcribe to the lawfulneſs of the Common prayer, and the book of Conſecration, and to the 39. Articles, which none can with a good conſcience ſubſcribe, but he who hath diſtinctly read over the Book of Common-prayer,V. Art. 35.36. and the Book of Conſecration, who hath diſtinctly read over both the Books of Homilies, and is well ſtudied in the point of Ceremonies, (how elſe ſhall be own art. 34.) and in the controverſie of Church Government, v. art. 36. yea and indeed in the whole body of Divinity; which none can preſume of bo•es of 18. and 19. years of age, nay how many Batchelours and Drs. in Divinity never read them?) yet all theſe muſt the Queſtioniſts ſubſcribe, and be forced to it by the arbitrary power of the Vice-chancellour, expreſly contrary to His Majeſties Declaration, (what Authority he hath ſince procured as to the future, and by what acts we know not, but we are ſure, vvhen he did this, he had no ſuch.) Yet Godly Miniſters that dare not read the Liturgie, muſt be by theſe men, whispered, as the onely men this are diſobedient to the Law; and upon that account giving just ſcandal to Magiſtrates, and oppoſing their Authority. But there is a God that judgeth the Earth, to whoſe deciſion we humbly leave this matter in queſtion, ſinging the 43. Pſalm.
PAg. 10. and in many other place, r. Liturgy, Liturgies, Liturgical, for Lyturgy. Lyturgyes. Lyturgicall.
p. 12 l. 15. r. yet they might be their Liturgies; is of no value.
p. 13. l. 14. r. This Synod (in which, &c.)
p. 24. l. 15. r. Salvo.
In the argument of the 5th. Ch. r. the inſufficiency of the Miniſters of the Church.
p. 41 l. 23. r. But in thoſe, &c. ib. l. 37. r. what doth not become.
p. 46. l. 9. r. Numina ▪
Pag. 71. l. antepenuit. r. Plugentile. p. 81. l. 29. r. in spiritu. p. 83. l. 15. r. Fauburdum. p. 84. l. 30. and in the margin there, r. Chraſtovius. p. 87. l. 3. after Harangue dele of Diſcourſe. p. 89. r. new ceremonies. p. 96. l. 8. r. or become affines Idololatriae. p. 32. l. 2. r. Majeſtatis. p. 97. l. 22. r. amoris. timoris.
(EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A82002)
Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 119424)
Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 161:E1086[14])
Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.
EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.
EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).
The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.
Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.
Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.
Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.
The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.
Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).
Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.
This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.