been divers and changed according to the diversity of Countryes times and mens manners so that nothing be ordained against Gods Word And after every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain change or abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying they that believe not this should not subscribe it nor require it of others As for the Testimonies cited by you they are to little purpose We deny not that the Custom of observing Lent either fewer dayes or more was as Antient as those Authors But 1. That Lent was not known or kept in the 2d or 3d. Ages you may see as followeth Tertul. de jejun l. 2. cap. 14. pleading for the Montanists Si omnem in totum devotionem temporum dierum mensium annorum erasit Apostolus cur Pascha celeramus anno circulo in mense primo cur quodraginâ—a inde diebus in omni exultatione decurrimus cur stationibus quartam sextam sabbati dicamus jejunits Parasceven quanquam vos etiam sabbatum si quando continuatis nunquam risi in Pascha jejunandum c. And cap. 15. excusing that rigor of their Fasts quontula est apud ncs interdictio ciborum duus in anno Hebdomadas xerophagiarum nec totas excaptis scilicet sabbatis dominicis offerimus Deo The old general Fast at that time was only the voluntary unconstrained fasting on Good Friday after that on one or two dayes more and then on six Iraeneus in a fragment of an Epist in Euseb Hist lib. 5. cap. 26. Gr. Lat. 23. saith the Controversy is not only of the day of Easter but of the kind of Fast it self for some think they should fast one day some two others more some measure their day by 40. hours of day and night and this variety of those that observe these Fasts began not now in our Age but long before us with our Ancestors who as is most like propagated to posterity the Custom which they retein as brought in by a certain simplicity and private will And yet all these lived peaceably among themselves and we keep peace among our selves and the difference of Fasting is so far from violating the consonancy of Faith as that it even commendeth it Thus Iraeneus read the rest of the Chapter thus is the true reading confessed by Bellarmine Rigaltius c. and Dionis Alexand. Ep. Can. ad Basil pag. 881. Balsam saith nor do all equally and alike sustain those six dayes of Fasting but some passe them all Fasting some two somethree some four some more And the Catholicks in Tert. de jejun cap. 2. say neque de caetero differentur jejunandum ex arbitrio non ex imperio nova disciplinae pro temporibus causis uniuscujusque sic Apostolos observasse nullum aliud imponentes jugum certorum in commune omnibus obeundorum jejuniorum And Socrat. admireth at many Countries that all differed about the number of dayes and yet all called it Quadragesima lib. 5. c. 22. Eat Gr. 21. So Sozomen lib. 7. c. 19. Gr. Niceph. lib. 12. cap. 34. which may help you to expound Hierom and the rest cited by you as Rigalitus doth ad Tertul. de jejun 128. as shewing that they did it with respect to Christs 40. dayes fast but not as intending any such thing themselves as any fast of 40. dayes It is against the Montanists that the Quadrages was but once a year that Hierom useth the title of Apostolick tradition And how to expound him see Epist ad Lucin. uâ—aqueque provincia abundet in suo sensu precepta Majorum leges Apostolicus arbitictur But saith August ad Casulan Ep. 86. In Evangelicis Apostolicis literis totoque Instrumento quod appellatur Testamentum Novum animo id revolens video preceptum esse jejunium quibus autem diebus non oportet jejunare quibus oporteas precepto Domini vel Apostolorum non invenio definitum And that Christ ans abstinance in Lent was voluntary quanto magis quisque vel minus voluerit vel potuerit August affirmeth cont Faustum Manich. lib. 30. cap. 5. And Soerat ubi supr saith ac quontam nemo de eâre praeceptum literarum monumentis proditam potest ostendete perspicuum est Apostolos liberam potestatem in eadem cujusque menti ac arbitrio permississe ut quisque nec metu nec necessitate inductus quod bonum sit ageret And Prosper de vit Contempl. li. 2. C. 24 veruntamen sic jejunare vel abstinere debemus ut nos non jejunandi vel abstinendi necessitate subdamus ne jam deveti sed inviti rem voluntariam faciamus And Cossianus lib. 2. col 21. cap. 30. saith in primitivâ ecclesiâ equale fuisse jejunium per totum annum Ac frigescente devotione cum negligerentur jejunia inductum Quadragiâ Sacer dotibus But when you come to describe your fast you make amends for the length by making it indeed no fast To abstain from meats and drinks of delight where neither the thing not the delight is profitable to further us in our duty to God is that which we take to be the duty of every Christian all the year as being a part of our mortification and self denyal who are commanded to Crucifie the flesh and to make no provision to satisfie the lusts of it and to subdue our bodies But when those meats and drinks do more help than hinder us in the service of God we take it to be our duty to use them unless when some other accident forbids it that would make it otherwise more hurtful And for fasting till noon we suppose it is the ordinary way of dyet to multitudes of Sedentary persons both Students and Tradesmen that find one meal a day sufficient for nature If you call this fasting your poor Brethren fast all their life time and never knew that it was fasting But to command hard Labourers to do so is but to make it a fault to have health or to do their necessary work We beseech you bring not the Clergy under the suspition of Gluttony by calling our ordinary wholesome temperance by the name of fasting sure Princes may feed as fully and delightfully as we yet Solomon saith woe to thee O Land when thy King is a Child and thy Princes eat in the morning Blessed art thou O Land when thy King is the Son of Nobles and thy Princes eat in due season for strength not for drunkenesse For meer sensual delight it is never lawful And when it is for strength it is not to be forbidden unless when by accident it will infer a greater good to abstain Eccl. 20. 16. 17. so Prov. 31. 4. 6. It is not for Kings to drink wine not for Princes strong drink give strong drink to him that is ready to perish and wine to those that be of heavy hearts Nor does the Act of Parliament 5 Elizab. forbid it
we desire no other rule to decide the Controversie by As to your Citation 1 Socrat. there tells us of the alternate singing of the Aruians in the reproach of the Orthodox and that Chrysostome not a Synod compiled Hymnes to be sung in opposition to them in the streets which came in the end to a Tumult and Bloodshed And hereupon he tells us of the original of alternate singing viz. a pretended vision of Ignatius that heard Angels sing in that order And what is all this to alternate reading and praying or to a Divine Institution when here is no mention of reading or praying but of singing Hymnes And that not upon pretence of Apostolical Tradition but a vision of uncertain credit Theodor. also speaketh only of singing Psalmes alternately and not a word of reading or praying so And he fetcheth that way of singing also as Socrat. doth but from the Church at Antioch and not from any pretended doctrine or practise of the Apostles And neither of them speaks a word of the necessitie of it or of forcing any to it so that all these your Citations speaking not a word so much as of the very Subjects in question are marvellously impertinent The words their Worship seem to intimate that singing Psalms is part of our Worship and not of yours we hope you disown it not for our parts we are not ashamed of it your distinction between Hopkin's and David's Psalms as if the Meetre allowed by Authority to be sung in Churches made them to be no more David's Psalms seemeth to us a very hard saying If it be because it is a Translation then the Prose should be none of David's Psalms neither nor any Translation be the Scripture If it be because it is in Meetre then the exactest Translation in Meetre should be none of the Scripture If because it 's done imperfectly then the old Translation of the Bible used by the Common-Prayer-book should not be Scripture As to your reason for the supposed priority 1. Scripture examples telling us that the People had more part in the Psalms than in the Prayers or Readings satisfie us that God and his Church then saw a disparity of Reason 2. Common observation tells us that there is more Order and less hindrance of Edification in the Peoples singing than in their Reading and Praying together vocally It is desired that nothing should be in the Liturgy which so much us seems to countenance the observation of Lent as a religious Fast and this as an expedient to Peace which is in effect to desire that this our Church may be contentious for Peace sake and to divide from the Church Catholick that we may live at unity among our selves For Saint Paul reckons them amongst the lovers of Contention who shall oppose themselves against the Custome of the Churches of God that the religious observation of Lent was a Custome of the Churches of God appeares by the Testimonies following Chrysost Ser. 11. in Heb. 10. Cyrill Catec myst 5. St. August Ep. 119. ut 40. dies ante Pascha observetur Ecclesiae consuetudo roboravit and St. Hierom ad Marcell saies it was secundum traditionem Apostolorum This Demand then tends not to Peace but Dissention The fasting Forty daies may be in imitation of our Saviour for all that is here said to the contrary for though we cannot arrive to his perfection abstaining wholly from meat so long yet we may fast forty daies together either Cornelius his Fast till three of the Clock afternoon or Saint Peter 's fast till noon or at least Daniel 's fast abstaining from Meats and Drinks of delight and thus far imitate our Lord. Reply If we had said that the Church is contentious if it adore God in kneeling on the Lords daies or use not the White Garment Milk and Honey after baptism which had more pretence of Apostolical tradition and were generally used more anciently than Lent would you not have thought we wronged the Church if the purer times of the Church have one Custome and later times a contrary which must we follow or must we necessarily be contentious for not following both or rather may we not by the example of the Church that changeth them be allowed to take such things to be matters of Liberty and not necessity If we must needs conform to the Custome of other Churches in such things or be contentious it is either because God hath so commanded or because he hath given those Churches Authority to command it If the former then what Churches or what Ages must we conforme to If all must concurr to be our patterne it will be hard for us to be acquainted with them so far as to know of such Concurrences And in our Case we know that many do it not If it must be the most we would know where God commandeth us to imitate the greater number though the worse or hath secured us that they shall not be the worst or why we are not tied rather to imitate the purer Ages than the more corrupt If it be said that the Church hath Authority to command us we desire to know what Church that is and where to be found and heard that may command England and all the Churches of his Majesty's Dominions If it be said to be a General Council 1. No General Council can pretend to more Authority than that of Nice whose 20th Canon back'd with Tradition and common pratice now bindes not us and was laid by without any Repeal by following Councils 2. We know of no such things as General Councils at least that have bound us to the religious observation of Lent The Bishops of one Empire could not make a General Council 3. Nor do we know of any such power that they have ever the universal Church there being no visible head of it or Governours to make universal Laws but Christ as Rogers on the 20. Article fore-cited shews our 21. Article saith that General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes and doubtless all the Heathen and Mahomitans and all the contending Christian Princes will never agree together nor never did to let all their Christian Subjects concurre to hold a General Council It saith also and when they be gathered together forasmuch as they be an Assembly of men whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God they may erre and sometimes have erred even in things pertaining unto God therefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither strength nor authority unlesse it may be declared that they be taken out of the Holy Scriptures And if they may erre in things pertaining unto God and ordained by them as necessary to Salvation much more in lesser things And are we contentious if we erre not with them Our 39. Article determineth this Controversie saying It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like for at all times they have
the Church in the purest and most Primitive Times we have in obedience to His Majesties Commission made Inquiry but cannot find any Records of known Credit concerning any entire Forms of Liturgies within the first 300 years which are confessed to be as the most Primitive so the purest Ages of the Church nor any Imposition of Liturgies upon any National Church for some hundred years after we find indeed Liturgical Forms fathered upon St. Basil St. Chrysostome and St. Ambrose but we have not seen any Copies of them but such as give us sufficient evidence to conclude them either wholly spurious or so interpolated that we cannot make a Judgement what in them hath any Primitive Authority Having thus in general expressed our desire we come to particulars which we find numerous and of a various nature some we grant are of an inferiour consideration verbal rather than material which were they not in she Publick Liturgy of so Famous a Church we should not have mentioned others dubions and disputable as not having a clear foundation in Scripture for their warrant but some there be that seem to be corrupt and to carry in them a repugnancy to the rule of the Gospel and therefore have administred just matter of exception and offence to many truly religious and peaceable not of a private station only but Learned Judicious Divines aswel of other Reformed Churches as of the Church of England ever since the Reformation We know much hath been spoken and written by way of Apology in answer to many things that have been obiected but yet the doubts and scuples of tender consciences still continue or rather are increased We do therefore humbly conceive it therefore a Work worthy of those Wonders of Salvation which God hath wrought for his Majesty now on the Throne and for the whole Kingdome and exceedingly becoming the Ministers of the Gospel of Peace with all holy moderation and tenderness to endeavour the removal of every thing out of the Worship of God which may justly offend or grieve the spirits of sober and godly people the things themselves that we desire to be removed not being of the foundation of Religion nor the Essentials of Publick Worship nor the removal of them any way tending to the prejudice of the Church or State therefore their continuance and rigorous Imposition can no ways be able to countervail the laying aside of so many pious and able Ministers and the unconceivable grief that will arise to multitudes of His Majesties most Loyal and peaceable Subjects who upon all accasions are ready to serve him with their Prayers Estates and Lives For the preventing of which evils we humbly desire that these particulars following may be taken into serious and tender consideration Concerning Morning and Evening Prayer 1. Rub. That Morning and Evening Prayer shall be used in the accustomed place of the Church Chancel or Chappel except it shall be otherwise determined by the Ordinary of the Place and the Chancel shall remain as in times past We desire that the words of the first Rub. may be expressed as in the Book established by Authority of Parliament 5 6 Edwardi 6. thus The Morning and Evening Prayer shall be used in such place of the Church Chappel or Chancel and the Minister shall so turn himself as the people may best hear and if there be any controversies therein the matter shall be referred to the Ordinary 2. Rub. And here it is to be noted that the Minister at the time of the Cimmunion and at other times in his ministration shall use such Ornaments in the Church as were in use by Authority of Parliament in the second year of the Reign of Edward the Sixth according to the Act of Parliament c. For as much as the Rubrick seemeth to bring back the Cope Albe and other vestments forbidden in the Common Prayer Book 5. 6. of Edw. 6. And for the reasons alledged against Ceremonies under our 18. general Exception we desire it may be wholly left out The Lords Prayer after the Absolution ends thus Deliver us from evill We desire that these Words For thine is the Kingdome the Power and the Glory for ever and ever Amen may be always added unto the Lords Prayer and that this Prayer may not be enjoyned to be so often used in the Morning and Evening Service And at the end of every Psalm throughout the year and likewise in the end of the Benedictus Benedicite magnificat c. Nunc Dimittis shall be repeated Glory be to the Father c. By this Rubrick and other places in the Common Prayer Book the Gloria Patri is appointed to be said six times ordinarily in every Morning and Evening Services frequently eight times in a Morning sometimes ten which we think carries with it at least an appearance of that vain repetition which Christ forbids for the avoiding of which appearance of evil we desire it may be used but once in the Morning and once in the Evening Rubr. In such places where they do sing there shall the Lessons be sung in a plain Tune and likewise the Epistle and Gospel Or this Canticle Benedicite omnia opera Except The Lessons and the Epistles and Gospels being for the most part neither Psalms nor Hymns we know no warrant why they should be sung in any place and conceive that the distinct reading of them with an audible voyce tends more to the edification of the Church We desire that some Psalm or Scripture Hymn may be appointed instead of that Apocryphal In the Letany From fornication and other deadly sins Except In regard that the wages of sin is death we desire that this clause may be thus altered From fornication and all other beynous or grievous sins From battle and murther and from sudden death Except Because this expression of sudden death hath been so often excepted against we desire if it be thought fit it may be thus read From battle and murther and from dying suddainly and unprepared That it may please thee to preserve all that travel by land and by water all women labouring with child all sick persons and young Children and to shew thy pity upon all prisoners and captives We desire that the term All may be advised upon as seeming liable to just exceptions and that it may be considered whether it may not better be put indefinitely those that travel c. rather then universally The Collect of Christmas day Almighty God which best given us thy only begotten son to take our nature upon him and this day to be born of a pure Virgin c The Rubrick Then shall follow the collect of the Nativity which shall be said continually unto New-years-day The Collect for VVhitsunday God which upon this day c. We desire that in both collects the words this day may be left out it being according to vulgar acceptation a contradiction Rubrick The same Collect to be read on Monday and Tuesday
with us in Doctrinals unless we digress to tell you who they be What if we were pleading for civil Concord among all that are loyal to the King must we needs digress to tell you who are loyal We are agreed in one Rule of Faith in one Holy Scripture and one Creed and differ not you say about the Doctrinal part of the 39. Art And will not all this seem to tell you who are Orthodox If you are resolved to make all that a matter of Contention which we desire to make a means of Peace there is no remedy while you have the Ball before you and have the Wind and Sun and the power of contending without controll But we perceive That the Catholick consent of Antiquity must go into your definition of the Orthodox but how hard it is to get a reconciling determination what Ages shall go with you and us for the true Antiquity and what is necessary to that consent that must be called Catholick is unknown to none but the unexperienced And indeed we think a man that searcheth the holy Scripture and sincerely and unreservedly gives up his Soul to understand love and obey it may be Orthodox without the knowledge of Church-History we know no universal Law-giver nor Law to the Church but one and that Law is the sufficient rule of Faith and consequently the test of the truly Orthodox though we refuse not Church-History or other means that may help us to understand it And to acquaint you with what you do not know we our selves after many Pastors of the Reformed Churches do question your Liturgie as far as is expressed in our Papers And we profess to adhere to Scripture and the Catholick Consent of Antiquity as described by Vincentius Liniensis If you will say that our Pretence and Claim is unjust we call for your Authority to judge our Hearts or depose us from the number of the Orthodox or else for your proofs to make good your Accusation But however you judge we rejoice in the expectation of the righteous Judgment that shall finally decide the Controversie to which from this Aspertion we appeal To those Generals loading Publick Form with Ch. pomp garm Imagery and many Superfluities that creep into the Church under the name of Order and Decency incumbring Churches with Superfluities over ridgid reviving of obsolete Customes c. We say that if these Generals be intended as applyable to our Liturgy in particular they are gross and foul Slanders contrary to their Profession page ult and so either that or this contrary to their Conscience if not they signifie nothing to the present business and so might with more prudence and candor have been omitted Reply You needed not go a fishing for our Charge what we had to say against the Liturgie which we now desired you to observe was here plainly laid before you Answer to this and suppose us not to say what we do not to make your selves matter of reproaching us with gross and foul slanders Only we pray you answer Mr. Hales as Mr. Hales whom we took to be a Person of much esteem with you especially that passage of his which you take no notice of as not being so easie to be answered for the weight and strength which it carries with it viz. That the li mitting of the Church Communion to things of doubtful disputation hath been in all Ages the ground of Schism and Separation and that he that separates from suspected Opinions is not the Separatist And may we not cite such words of one that we thought you honored and would hear without contradicting our Profession of not intending depravation or reproach against the Book without going against our consciences If we cite the words of an Author for a particular use as to perswade you of the evil of laying the Churches Unity upon unnecessary things must we be responsible therefore for all that you can say against his words in other respects we suppose you would be loath your words should have such interpretations and that you should be under such a Law for all your Citations do as you would be done by It was the wisdome of our Reformers to draw up such a Liturgy as neither Romanist nor Protestant could justly excopt against and therefore as the first never charged it with any positive errors but only the want of something they conceived necessary so it was never found fault with by those to whom the name of Protestants most properly belongs those that profess the Augustine Confession and for those who unlawfully and sinfully brought it into dislike with some people to urge the present Stave of Affaires as an Argument why the Booke should be altered to give them satisfaction and so that they should take advantage by their own unwarrantable Acts is not reasonable Reply If it be blameless no man can justly except against it But that de facto the Romanists never charged it with any positive errors is an Assertion that maketh them reformed and reconcilable to us beyond all belief Is not the very using it in our own Tongue a positive error in their account Is it no positive error in the Papists account that we profess to receive these Creatures of Bread and Wine do they think we have no positive error in our Catechism about the Sacraments that affirmeth it to be Bread and Wine after the Consecration and makes but two Sacraments necessary c. 2. And unless we were nearlier agreed than we are it seemeth to us no commendation of a Liturgie that the Papists charge it with no positive error 3. That no Divines or private men at home or of Foreign Churches that ever found fault with the Liturgie are such to whom the name of Protestant properly belongeth is an assertion that proveth not what authoritie of judgeing your Brethren you have but what you assume and commendeth your Charitie no more than it commendeth the Papists that they denie us to be Catholicks Calvin and Bucer subscribed the Augustine Confession and so have others that have found fault with our Liturgie 4. If any of us have blamed it to the people it is but with such a sort of blame as we have here exprest against it to your selves And whether it be unlawfull and sinfull the impartial comparing of your words with ours will help the willing Reader to discern But if we prove indeed that it is defective and faultie that you bring for an Offering to God when you or your Neighbours have a better which you will not bring nor suffer them that would Mal. 1. 13. and that you call evil good in justifying its blemishes which in humble modestie we besought you to amend or excuse us from offering then God will better judge of the unlawfull act than you have done But you have not proved that all or most of us have caused the people at all to dislike it if any of us have yet weigh our Argument though from the present state
we dare not think a Parliament did intend to forbid that which Christ his Church hath commanded Nor does the Act determine any thing about Lent Fast but only provide for the maintenance of the Navy and of Fishing in order thereunto as is plain by the Act. Besides we conceive that we must not so interpret one Act as to contradict another being still in force and unrepealed Now the Act of 1 Eliz. confirmes the whole Liturgy and in that the religious keeping of Lent with a severe penalty upon all those who shall by open words speak any thing in derogation of any part thereof and therefore that other Act of 5 Elizab. must not be interpreted to forbid the religious keeping of Lent Reply If when the expresse words of a Statute are cited you can so easily put it off by saying it does not forbid it and you dare not think that a Parliament did intend to forbid that which Christ his Church hath commanded and you must not interpret it as contradicting that Act which confirms the Liturgy we must think that indeed we are no lesse regardful of the Laws of the Governours than you But first we understand not what Authority this is that you set against the King and Parliament as supposing they will not forbid what it commands You call it Christs Church we suppose you mean not Christ himself by his Apostles infallibly directed and inspired If it be the National Church of England they are the Kings Subjects and why may he not forbid a Ceremony which they command or why should they command it if he forbid it If it be any Foreign Church ther 's none hath power over us If it be any pretended head of the Church universal whether Pope or general Council having power to make Laws that bind the whole Church it is a thing so copiously disproved by Protestants against both the Italian and French Papists that we think it needlesse to confute it nor indeed dare imagine that you intend it We know not the refore what you mean But whatever you mean you seem to contradict the forecited Article of the Church of England that makes all humane Laws about Rites and Ceremonies of the Church to be unchangeable by each particular National Church And that it is not necessary that Ceremonies or Traditions be in all places one or utterly like we most earnestly beseech you be cautious how you obtrude upon us a Foreign Power under the name of Christs Church that may command Ceremonies which King and Parliament may not forbid whether it be one man or a thousand we fear it is against our Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy for us do own any such Power And not presuming upon any immodest challenge we are ready in the defence of those Oathes and the Protestant Religion to prove against any in an equal conference that there is no such Power and for the Statute let the words themselves decide the Controversy which are these Be it Enacted that who soever shall by Preaching Teaching Writing or open speech notifie that any eating of Fish or forbearing of Flesh mentioned in this Statuie is of any necessity for the saving of the Soul of man or that it is the Service of God otherwise than as other Politick Laws are and be that than such persons are and shall be punished as the spreaders of false news are and ought to be And whereas you say the Act determines not any thing about Lent Fast it speaks against eating Flesh on any days now usually observed as Fish days and Lent is such and the senfe of the Act for the Lituigy may better be tryed by this which is plain than thus reduced to that which is more obscure The observation of Saints dayes is not as of Divine but Ecclesiastical Institution and therefore it is not necessary that they should have any other ground in Scripture than all other Institutions of the same nature so that they be agreeable to the Scriptare in the general end for the promoting piety and the observation of them was antient as appears by the Rituals and Liturgies and by the joynt consent of Antiquity and by the antient translation of the Bible as the Syriack and Ethiopick where the Lessons appointed for Holydayes are noted and set down the former of which was made near the Apostles times Besides our Saviour himself kept a Feast of the Churches Institution viz. the Feast of the Dedication S. Jo. 12. 22. The choice end of these dayes being not feasting but the exercise of Holy Duties they are fitter called Holydayes than Festivals and though they be all of like nature it doth not follow that they are equal The people may be dispensed with for their work after the Service as Authority pleaseth The other names are left in the Calender not that they should be so kept as Holydayes but they are useful for the preservation of their memories and for other reasons as for Leases Law-dayes c. Reply The antiquity of the Translations mentioned is far from being of determinate certainty we rather wish than hope that the Syriack could be proved to be made near the Apostles times But however the things being confessed of humane Institution and no Forreign Power having any Authority to command his Majesties Subjects and so the imposition being only by our own Governours we humbly crave that they may be left indifferent and the unity or peace of the Church or Liberty of the Ministers not laid upon them This makes the Liturgy void if every Minister may put in and leave out all at his discretion Repl. You mistake us we speak not of putting in and leaving out of the Liturgy but of having leave to intermix some exhortations or prayers besides to take off the deadnesse which will follow if there be nothing but the stinted Forms we would avoid both the extreme that would have no forms and the contrary extremes that would have nothing but forms But if we can have nothing but extremes there 's no remedy it s not our fault And this moderation and mixture which we move for is so far from making all the Liturgy void that it will do very much to make it attain its end and would heal much of the distemper which it occasioneth and consequently would do much to preserve the reputation of it As for instance it besides the Forms in the Liturgy the Minister might at Baptism the Lords Supper Marriage c. interpose some suitable exhortation or prayer upon special occasion when he finds it needful Should you deny this at the visitation of the Sick it would seem strange and why may it not be granted at other times It is a matter of far greater trouble to us that you would deny us and all Ministers the Liberty of using any other Prayers besides the Liturgy then that you impose these The gift or rather spirit of Prayer consists in the inward graces of the spirit not in ex
tempore expressions which any man of natural parts having a voluable tongue and audacity may attain to without any special gift Repl. All inward Graces of the spirit are not properly called the spirit of Prayer nor is the spirit of Prayer that gift of Prayer which we speak of Nor did we call it by the name of a special gift nor did we deny that ordinary men of natural parts and voluable tongues may attain it But yet we humbly conceive that as there is a gift of Preaching so also of Prayer which God bestows in the use of means diversified much according to mens natural parts their diligence as other acquired abilities are but also much depending on that grace that is indeed special which maketh men love and relish the holy subjects of such spiritual studies and the holy exercise of those Graces that are the soul of Prayer and consequently making men follow on such exercises with delight and diligence and therefore with success And also God is free in giving or denying his blessing to mans endeavours If you think there be no Gift of Preaching you will too dishonourably level the Ministry If Reading be all the Gift of Prayer or Preaching there needs no great understanding or learning to it Nor should Cobblers and Tinkers be so unfit men for Ministers as they are thought Nor would the reason be very apparent why a Woman might not speak by Preaching or praying in the Church But if there be any such Gift as is pretended it is to be subject to the Prophets and to the Order of the Church Repl. The Text speaks as Dr. Hammond well shews of a subjection to that Prophet himself who was the Speaker Inspiration excluded not the prudent exercise of Reason But it is a strange ordering that totally excludeth the thing ordered The Gift of Preaching as distinct from reading is to be orderly and with due subjection exercised But not to be on that pretence extinguished and cast out of the Church And indeed if you should command it you are not to be obeyed whatever we suffer And why then should the Gift of Prayer distinct from reading be cast out The mischiefs that come by Idle Impertinent Ridiculous sometimes Seditious Impious and Blasphemous expressions under pretence of the Gift to the dishonour of God and scorn of Religion being far greater than the pretended good of exercising the Gift It is fit that they who desire such liberty in publike devotions should first give the Church security that no private opinions should be put into their Prayers as is desired in the first Proposal and that nothing contrary to the Faith should be uttered before God or offered up to him in the Church Repl. The mischiefs which you pretend are Inconveniencies attending humane Imperfection which you would cure with a mischief Your Argument from the abuse against the use is a palpable Fallacy which cast out Phisicians in some Countries and rooted up Vines in others and condemneth the reading of the Scriptures in a known Tongue among the Papists If the Apostles that complained then so much of Divisions and preaching false Doctrines and in envy and strife c. had thought the way of Cure had been in sending Ministers about the world with a Prayer-book and Sermon-book and to have tied them only to read either one or both of these no doubt but they would have been so regardful of the Church as to have composed such a Prayer-book or Sermon-book themselves and not lest us to the uncertainties of an Authority not infallible nor to the Divisions that follow the Impositions of a questionable power or that which unquestionably is not Universal and therefore can procure no universal Concord If one man among you draw up a form of Prayer it is his single conception And why a man as learned and able may not be trusted to conceive a Prayer for the use of a single Congregation without the dangers mentioned by you as one man to conceive a Prayer for all the Churches in a Diocess or a Nation we know not These words That the mischief is greater than the pretended good seem to expresse an unjust Accusation of ordinary conceived prayer and a great undervaluing of the benefits If you would intimate that the Crimes expressed by you are ordinarily found in Ministers prayers we that hear so much more frequently than you must profess we have not found it so allowing men their different measures of Exactness as you have even in writing Nay to the praise of God we must say that multitudes of private men can ordinarily pray without any such Imperfection as should nauseate a sober person and with such seriousness and aptness of Expression as is greatly to the benefit and comfort of ourselves when we joyn with them And if such general Accusations may serve in a matter of publick and common fact there is no way for the Justification of the Innocent And that it is no such common guilt will seem more probable to them that consider that such conceived Prayers both prepared and extemperate have been ordinarily used in the Pulpits in England and Scotland before our dayes till now and there hath been power enough in the Bishops and others before the Wars to punish those that speak Ridiculously Seditiously Impiously or Blasphemously And yet so few are the Instances even when jealousie was most busy of Ministers punished or once accused of any such fault in Prayer as that we find it not easy to remember any considerable number of them There being great numbers punished for not reading the Book for playing on the Lords dayes or for preaching too oft and such like for one that was ever questioned for such kind of praying And the former shewed that it was not for want of will to be severe that they spared them as to the latter And if it be but few that are guilty of any intolerable faults of that nature in their Prayers we hope you will not go on to believe that the mischiefs that come by the failings of those few are far greater than the benefit of conceived prayer by all others We presume not to make our Experiences the measure of yours or of other mens You may tell us what doth most good or hurt to your selves and those that have so communicated their Experiences to you But we also may speak our own and theirs that have discovered them to us And we must seriously profess that we have found far more benefit to our selves and to our Congregations as far as our Conference and Converse with them and our observation of the effects alloweth us to discern by conceived Prayers than by the Common-Prayer-book We find that the benefit of conceived Prayer is to keep the mind in serious Employment and to awaken the affections and to make us fervent and importunate And the Inconvenience is that some weak men are apt as in Preaching and Conference so in Prayer to shew their
have no man cast out for using the worse It is more orderly decent and edifying for the Minister to read all the Psalms than for the people to read each second verse And yet we would not cast out men from the Church or Ministry meerly for that disorder It is more orderly and decent to be uncovered in divine worship than covered And yet rather than a man should take cold we could allow him to hear a Chapter or Sermon covered why not much more rather than he should be cast out But let us come to the Application It is no undecent disorderly worshiping of God to worship him without our Crosse Surplice and kneeling in the reception of the Sacrament 1. If it were than Christ and his Apostles bad worship undecently and disorderly And the Primitive Church that used not the Surplice nor the transient Image of the Croâ—e in Baptisme but in an unguent yea the Church for many hundred years that received the Sacrament without kneeling 2. Then if the King Parliament and Conâ—ocation should change these Ceremonies it seems you would take your selves bound to retain them For you say you must not worship God undecently But that they may be changed by Authority our Articles determine and therefore Charity may well require the Magistrate to change them without any wrong to the worship of God 3. We appeal to the common judgment of the Impartial whether in the nature of the thing there be any thing that tells them that it is undecent to pray without a Surplice in the reading place and not undecent to pray without in thâ— Pulpit And that it is undecent to baptise without crossing and not to receive the Lords Supper without And that it is undecent for the Receiver to take the Lords Supper without kneeling and not for the Minister to give it him standing that prayeth in the delivery These premised we Answer to your first Reason that those things which we call Indifferent because neither expresly commanded nor forbiden by God have in them a real goodnesse a fitnesse and decency and for that cause are imposed and may be so by the Rule of St. Paul by which Rule and many others in Scripture a power is given to men to impose Signs which are never the worse surely because they signifie something that is decent and comely and so it is not doubtful whether such power be given It would rather be doubtful whether the Church could impose such idle Signs if any such there be as signifie nothing Repl. To your first Answer we reply 1. We suppose you speak of a moral goodnesse And if they are such indeed as are within their power and really good that is of their own nature fiâ—ter than their opposites they may be imposed by just authority by equal means though not by Usurpers nor by penalties that will do more harm than the things will do good 2. Signs that signifie nothing we understand not It is one thing to be decent and another to signifie something that is decent what you mean by that we know not The Crosse signifieth our not being ashamed to profess the faith of Christ crucified c. do you call that something that is decent It is something necessary to salvation 3. Signs are exceeding various At present we use but two distinctions 1. Some are signs Ex primaria intentione instituentis purposed and primarily instituted to signify as an Esoucheon or a sign at an Inne door in common matters and as the Sacrament and Cross in sacred matters and some are signs but consequently secondarily and not essentially as intended by the Institutor so hills and trees may shew us what a clock it is And so every creature signifyeth some good of mercy or duty and may be an object of holy meditation so the colour and shape of our clothes may mind us of some good which yet was none of the primary or proper end of the maker or wearer 2. Signs are either arbitrary expressions of a mans own mind in a matter where he is let free or they are covenanting signs between us and God in the Covenant of Grace to work Grace on us as moral causes and to engage us Sacramentally to him such we conceive the Cross in Baptisme to be The Preface to the Common Prayer-book saith They are apt to teach and excite c. Which is a moral operation of Grace And the Canon saith It is an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to him that died on the Cross We are signed with it in token that hereafter we shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified and manfully to fight c. now if a thing may be commanded meerly as a decent circumstance of worship yet it is unproved that a thing that in its nature as instituted and in the primary intention is thus sacramentally to dedicate and ingage us in Covenant to God by signifying the grace and duty of the Covenant be lawfully commanded by man 1. Decent Circumstances are necessary in genere There must be some fit Time Place Gesture Vesture as such Utensils c. But that there be some such dedicating engaging signs in our covenanting with God signifying the Grace of the Covenant and our state and duty as Souldiers under Christ besides Gods Sacraments this is not necessary in genere and therefore it is not left to man to determine de specie 2. If there be any reason for this use of the Cross it must be such as was in the Apostles days and concerneth the universal Church in all ages and places and then the Apostles would have taken care of it Thus much here in brief of signs and more anon when you again call us to it To the second that it is not a violation of Christs Royalty to make such Laws for decercy but an exercise of his power and authority which he hath given to the Church And the disobedience to such commands of Euperiours is plainly a violation of his Royalty As it is no violation of the Kings Authority when his Magistrates command things according to his Laws But disobedience to the command of those Injunctions of his Deputies is violation of his Authority Again it can be no impeachment of Christs Laws as insufficient to make such Laws for decency since our Saviour as is evident by the Precepts themselves did not intend by them to determine every minute and circumstance of time place manner of performance and the like but only to command in general the substance of those duties and the right ends that should be aimed at in the performance and then left every man in particular whom for that purpose he made reasonable to guide himself by rules of reason for private Services And appointed Governours of the Church to determine such particularities for the publick Thus our Lord commanded Prayers Fasting c. for the times and places of performance he did not determine every of them but
the land of our Nativity as Maris told Julian He thank't God that had deprived him of his sight that he might not see the face of such a man Socrat. Hist l. 3. c. 10. So we shall take it as a little abatement of our affliction that we see not the Sins and Calamities of the people whose peace and welfare we so much desire Having taking this opportunity here to conclude this part with these Requests and Warnings we now proceed to the second part containing the particulars of our Exceptions and your Answers Concerning Morning and Evening Prayer Sect. 1. Rubr. 1. We think it fit that the Rubrick stand as it is and all to be left to the discretion of the Ordinary Reply We thought the end and use more considerable than custom and that the Ordinary himself should be under the rule of doing to edification Sect. 2. Rub. For the reasons given in our Answer to the 18th General whither you refer us we think it fit that the Rubrick continue as it is Reply We have given you reason enough against the imposition of the usual Ceremonies and would you draw forth those absolute ones to increase the burden Sect. 3. Lords Pr. Deliver us from evil These words For thine is the Kingdom c. are not in S. Luke nor in the antient Copies of St. Matth. never mentioned in the antient Comments nor used in the Latin Church and therefore questioned whether they be part of the Gospel there is no reason that they should be alwayes used Reply We shall not be so over-credulous as to believe you that these words are not in the antient Copies It is enough that we believe that some few antient Copies have them not but that the most even the generality except those few have them The judgement of our English Translators and almost all other Translators of Matth. and of the reverend B of Chester among your selves putting the Copy that hath it in his Bible as that which is most receiv'd and approved by the Church do shew on which side is the chief authority if the few copies that want it had been thought more arthentick and credible the Church of England and most other Churches would not have preferred the copies that have this doxology And why will you in this contradict the later judgement of the Church expressed in the translation allowed and imposed The Syriack Ethiopick and Persian translations also have it and if the Syriack be as antient as you your selves even now asserted then the antiquity of doxology is there evident and it is not altogether to be neglected which by Chemnitius and others is conjectured that Pauls words in Tim. 4. 18. were spoken as in reference to this Doxology And as Pareus and other Protestants conclude it is more probable the Latrines neglected than that the Greeks inserted of their own heads this sentence The Socinians and Arrians have as fair pretence for their exception a ainst 1 John 5 6 7. Masculus saith non cogitant vero similius esse ut Graecorum ecclesia magis quà m Latina quod ab Evangelistis Graece scriptum est integrum servârit nihilque de suo adjecerit Quid de Graeca ecclesia dico vidi ipse vetustissimum Evangelium secundum Matth. Codicem Chaldaeis Elementis Verbis conscriptum in quo Coronis ista perinde atque in Graecis legebatur Nec Chaldaei solum sed drabes Christiani paciformiter cum Graecis orant Exemplar Hebraeum à docto celebri D. Sebast Munstero vulgatum hanc ipsam Coronidem habet Cum ergo consentiunt hâc in re Hebraeorum Chaldaeorum Arabum Graecorum Ecolesiae contra omnes reliquas tantum tribuitur authoritatis ut quod sâ—la diversum legit ab Evangelitis traditum esse credatur quod vero reliquae omnes concorditer habent orant pro addititio peregrino habeatur And that Luke hath it not will no more prove that it was not a part of the Lords Prayer than all other omissions of one Evangelist will prove that such words are corruptions in the other that have them All set together give us the Gospel fully and from all we must gather it Sect. 4. Lords Prâ—often used It is used but twice in the morning and twice in the Evening Service and twice cannot be called often much lesse so often For the Letany Communion Baptism c. they are Offices distinct from morning and evening prayer and it is not sit that any of them should want the Lord Prayer Reply We may better say we are required to use it six times every morning than but twice for it is twice in the Common morning prayer and once in the Letany once in the Communion service once at Baptism which in great Parishes is usual every day and once to be used by the Preacher in the Pulpit And if you call these distinct offices that maketh not the Lords Prayer the seldomer used sure we are the Apostles thought it fit that many of their prayers should be without the Lords Prayer Sect. 5. Glor. Patri This Doxology being a solemn Confession of the blessed Trinity should not be thought a burden to any Christian Liturgy especially being so short as it is neither is the repetition of it to be thought a vain repetition more than His mercy endureth for ever so often repeated Psal 136. We cannot give God too much glory that being the end of our Creation and should be the end of all our Services Reply Though we cannot give God too much glory we may too often repeat a form of words wherein his name and glory is mentioned there is great difference between a Psalm of praise and the praise in our ordinary prayers more liberty of repetition may be taken in Psalms and be an Ornament and there is difference between that which is unusual in one Psalm of 150. and that which is our daily course of worship When you have well proved that Christs prohibition of battology extendeth not to this Matth. 6. we shall acquiesce Sect. 6. P. 15. Ru. 2. In such places where they do sing c. The Rubr. directs only such singing as is after the manner of distinct reading and we never heard of any inconvenience thereby and therefore conceive this Demand to be needlesse Reply It tempteth men to think they should read in a singing tone and to turn reading Scripture into Singing hath the inconvenience of turning the edifying simplicity and plainness of Gods service into such affected unnatural strains and tones as is used by the Mimical and Ludicious or such as feign themselves in raptures and the highest things such as words and modes that signifie Raptures are most loathsome when forced feigned and hypocritically affected and therefore not fit for Congregations that cannot be supposed to be in such Raptures this we apply also to the sententious mode of prayers Sect. 7. Benedicite This Hymn was used all the Church over Conc. Tolet. Can.
us to hear so much of the Churches Primitive practice where so litle evidence of it is produced Aug. ep 23. talketh not of Primitive practice Ab initio non fuit sic Was it so in the Apostles daies And afterwards you prove not that it was the judgment of the Catholick Church that bare Sponsors instead of Parents Pro-parents or Owners of the Children might procure to the Children of all Infidels a title to Baptism and its benefits Such Susceptors as became the Owners or Adopters of the Children are to be distinguished from those that pro forma stand by for an hour during the Baptizing of the Children and ever after leave them to their Parents who as they have the naturall interest in them and power of their disposall and the Education of them so are fittest to covenant in their names The Font usually stands as it did in Primitive times at or near the Church door to signify that Baptism was the entrance into the Church mysticall we are all baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12. 13. and the people may hear well enough If Jordan and all other waters be not so far sanctified by Christ as to be the matter of Baptism what authority have we to baptise and sure his Baptism was Dedicatio Baptismi Reply Our less difference of the Font and flood Jordan is almost drowned in the greater before going But to the first we say that we conceive the usual scituation for the people's hearing is to be preferred before your Ceremonious position of it And to the second we say that Dedicatio Baptismi is an unfitting phrase and yet if it were not what 's that to the sanctification of Jordan and all other waters Did Christ sanctify all Corn or Bread or Grapes or Wine to an holy use when he administred the Lords Supper Sanctifying is separating to an holy use But the flood Jordan and all other water is not separated to this holy use in any proper sense No more than all mankind is sanctified to the Priestly office because men were made Priests It hath been accounted reasonable and allowed by the best Laws that Guardians should Covenant and contract for their Minors to their benefit by the same right the Church hath appointed sureties to undertake for Children when they enter into Covenant with God by Baptism And this generall practice of the Church is enough to satisfy those that doubt Repl. 1. Who made those Sureties Guardians of the Infants that are neither Parents nor Pro-parents nor Owners of them We are not now speaking against Sponsors But you know that the very original of those Sponsors is a great Controversie And whether they were not at first most properly Sponsors for the Parents that they should perform that part they undertook because many Parents were Desertors and many proved negligent Sponsors then excluded not Parents from their proper undertaking but joyned with them God-fathers are not the Infants Guardians with us and therefore have not power thus to Covenant and Vow in their name VVe intreat you to take heed of leaving any Children indeed out of the mutual Covenant that are baptized How are those in the Covenant that cannot consent themselves and do it not by any that truly represent them nor have any Authority to act as in their names The Authority of Parents being most unquestionable who by nature and the word of God have the power of disposing of their Children and consequently of choosing and covenanting for them VVhy should it not be preferred at lest you may give leave to those Parents that desire it to be the Dedicators of and Covenanters for their own Children and not force others on them whether they will or no. 2. But the question is not of Covenanting but professing present actual believing forsaking c. In which though we believe the Churches sense was sound yet we desire that all things that may render it lyable to mis-understanding may be avoyded Receive remission of sins by spiritual Regeneration Most proper for Baptism is our spiritual Regeneration S. John 3. Unlesse a man be born again of Water and the Spirit c. And by this is received remission of sins Acts 2. 3. Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins 's So the Creed one Baptism for the remission of sins Repl. Baptism as an outward Administration is our visible Sacramental Regeneration Baptism as containing with the Sign the thing signified is our spiritual real Regeneration As we are regenerated before Baptism as you know adult Believers are so we cannot pray to receive remission of sins by that same Regeneration renewed As we are regenerated really in Baptism that Regeneration and Remission are conjunct benefits But if Baptism at once give Regeneration and Remission it follows not that it gives Remission by Regeneration But as Regeneration comprehendeth the whole change reall or Physical and relative so we acknowledge that as the part is given by the whole you may say that Remission is given by Regeneration but more fitly in it than by it But we are not willing to make more adoe about words than needs We cannot in faith say that every Child that is baptized is regenerate c. Seeing that Gods Sacraments have their effects where the Receiver doth not ponere obicem put any bar against them which children cannot do we may say in faith of every child that is baptized that it is regenerated by Gods Holy Spirit and the denial of it tends to Anabaptism and the contempt of this holy Sacrament as nothing worthy nor material whether it be administred to children or no Concerning the Cross we refer to our Answer to the same in general Repl. All Gods Sacraments attain their proper end But whether the Infants of Infidels be the due Subjects and whether their ends be to seal up Grace and Salvation to them that have no promise of it or whether it be only to seal the Covenant to believers and their seed are Questions yet undecided wherein we must intreat you not to expect that we should implicitly believe you and it is as easy for us to tell you that you are promoting Anabaptism and much more easy to prove it We take those but for words of course PRIVATE BAPTISM We desire that Baptism may not be administred in a private place And so do we where it may be brought into the publick Congregation But since our Lord hath said S. Joh 3. Unlesse one be born of Water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven We think it fit that they should be Baptized in private rather than not at all It is appointed now to be done by the lawful Minister Repl. We must needs suppose you are disputing with Protestants who ordinarily shew the Papists that that Text Joh. 3. asserteth no absolute necessity of Baptisme to salvation But we believe as well as you that it is the regular way of solemn