means of banishing and keeping their Idolatry out of the Kingdom 3. How can this harden them or lead thither when the Papists agree with our Author That it 's unlawful to be present at or partake in the Common-Prayer Worship and are excommunicated if they do 4. How can this harden them or lead thither when there is nothing that the Papists more labour to possess the people with prejudices against But he adds p. 4. The Jews themselves are scandalized by the Liturgy It 's a celebrated Saying among them That the Christians have their Jephilleth from Armillus that is their prayer-Prayer-Books from Antichrist At what are the Jews scandalized is it that we have a Liturgy So have they themselves had of latter Ages at least And so the Author saith p. 13. That he had seen Liturgies written in the Hebrew Tongue Is it that we receive our Prayer-Book from Antichrist Yes saith he and for this quotes a Celebrated saying of theirs But is this the truer for their saying so they say it seems that Christians have receiv'd their Prayers from Antichrist but I hope that there are many Christians in the World that have Prayer-Books which they never received from the Antichrist he speaks of So the Greeks and Abyssins c. The whole is at least a sorry Mistake and which for ought I see he understands no more than we do his Jephilleth The case is plainly thus That the Rabbins say that Armillus was to be a person of prodigious form begot of a Marble Statue in Rome and was to be the last Enemy of the Jews and the Leader of the Christian Forces against them that he should kill Messias Ben Ephraim and at last be killed by Messias Ben David That he should give Tephilleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a Law to the Christians which he and they set up in opposition to the Law of Moses So that we see that his Tephilleth is the Law as well as the Prayers of Christians and they make Armillus to be toward the end of the World the last Enemy of the Jews and how could our Liturgy or the Liturgies now used by Christians be the Prayers received from Armillus when Armillus is yet to come according to the Rabinical Notion if the Reader pleases he may have a fuller account of this Jewish Garagantua in Buxtorf's Lexicon Chald. Talmud Rabbin for I am weary of this trifling and unintelligible Jargon CHAP. II. Of the Matter of the Common Prayer-Book BEfore I proceed to the particular consideration of his Objections Relating to this Head let me observe that if we should grant what he finds fault with to be blame-worthy yet it 's not to the purpose and the point he proposed which is to give Reasons why he judges it unlawful to be present at or partake in the Common-Prayer Worship And that for these Reasons For 1. There may be many things that are a reason against Ministerial Conformity which will not be a reason against communion with the Church since there are those things required to the one that are not required to the other Such is the Surplice the Office for Burying the Dead Marrying p. 8. c. which belong to the Minister and not to the People And therefore tho it should be unlawful to wear a Surplice or use these Offices yet since Lay-Communion is not concern'd in them they are no reason for separation 2. Many of his Objections are only directed against the occasional Offices and so can be no reason against constant communion in the Daily office or in those Offices in which they do not occur As supposing what he alledgeth out of the Office of Burial Marriage Baptism c. to be true and sufficient yet tho they may be a reason against being present at the Offices of Burial Baptism and Marriage they are no reason against Communion where those Offices are not concerned 3. Things inconvenient if not unlawful are no reason for a separation because then there could be no Communion with any Church since no Church is without them And if we should grant the reading a worse Translation of Scripture and the Apocrypha in the Church to be things of that nature yet it will be hard to shew them to be unlawful in themselves and so to make it necessary to withdraw from the Church where they are used If these things be consider'd most of what he has said will be prevented but that I may not seem to avoid any thing I shall take notice of the Particulars as they lie in order And his Arguments taken from the Matter of the service-Service-Book are 1. Some things appointed therein are in the judgment of sober and judicious persons extremely ridiculous As how First saith he How many odd and senseless Translations of the Holy Scripture have been found therein It 's well he said have been found for he is fain to draw all his inferences of that kind but one from the Service-Book as it stood before the last revisal and that is Psal 58. 9. Or ever their pots be made hot with thorns so let indignation vex them as a thing that is raw At which he Triumphs What nonsence is this Now I do not think that to be Nonsence which is not soon understood for then what will he make of the Hebrew in this Verse which has several difficulties in it But I think there is a good account to be given of the sense of this Version and that is E're that the Pots are made hot with the Thorns they shall be severely punished The being made hot with the Thorns sets forth the suddenness and the phrase vexing a thing that is raw denotes the severity of it 2. His next Instance of things extremely ridiculous is that in the Liturgy the Writings of the Prophets Acts and Revelations are called Epistles If these were formerly they are not now so called but of these when read in the place of Epistles it 's said The portion of Scripture for the Epistle That is the Sections of Scripture read in that order are generally Epistles and so as it 's usual in other cases gives the name to all And as it is not now so never was it called the Epistle of the Prophets Acts or Revelations but the Epistle taken out of Isaiah c. 3. He objects against the Responses Those broken Responds saith he and shreds of Prayer as Mr. Cartwright calls them which the Priests and People toss between them like Tennis-Balls seem extremely ridiculous to standers-by Without doubt this is a venture of Wit but I suppose there are standers-by that will call it by another Name and instead of Wit term this scurrility in Conversation and prophaneness in Religion Especially if we consider how many Psalms there are in Holy Writ that are penn'd or supposed at least to be so by Learned men after this way And whatever his Standers-by may think there are Persons of Piety ancient and modern that have thought this way very
viz. Rom. 3. 13. and quoted by the Apostle from other Psalms c. 2. It 's not the common-prayer-common-Prayer-Book that adds but the Translations which the common-Prayer followed viz. the Septuagint and Vulgar and tho it was a mistake yet it 's far from being such as incurs the penalty of Deut. 4. 2 c. As for the Gloria Patri I deny that it 's added to the Scriptures as Canonical any more than the Contents of the Chapters the Chapters and Verses of the Bible or the Dates of the Epistles are nay I deny that it 's added at all for any one that can read will see that it 's not inserted in the Psalter but only rehearsed as the Rubrick directs And it was for a good end that this was anciently used in the Orthodox Churches of old and is continued in ours viz. in opposition to the Arians and Anti-Trinitarians Sozom. l. 26. 4 He saith Sometimes words are sacrilegiously stolen out of the Bible As the last Verse is omitted Psal 72. So are the Scriptural Titles of many Psalms And I know not how often those words Praise ye the Lord are left out He durst not trust his Reader with the things left out for they would have appear'd of so little Consequence as would have betrayed the weakness of his Cause as well as his own partiality That verse omitted Psal 72. is this the Prayers of David the Son of Jesse are ended The Titles of the Psalms are for the most part such as are no key to the matter of them and without which the Psalms are as intire as the Chapters without the Contents The Clause praise ye the Lord as in the Hebrew Hallelujah and is only left out when it 's independent and has no immediate Relation to the preceding or following Verse And the reason of these Omissions seems to be Because the Psalms being to be read in Parts according to the ancient Custom in Chrysostom's time and before or chanted and so read on without naming the Psalm the Titles c. would have made a break in that order And this was done after the manner of Singing the Psalms in the Temple-Service in which the Titles and the passage the Prayers of David the Son of Jesse are ended were to be sure no part And so it is in the Singing-Psalms used by the Dissenters as well as us And who may as well be charged with such Omissions as we who there for the reason abovesaid use neither the Verse nor Titles Surely these Persons are hard put to it that after such a bloody charge of violating adding to and taking from the Word of God can produce no better proofs and evidences for it but only that we leave out the Titles and Hallelujah and that only in the ordinary Service in the publick where they themselves read it not at all and when upon the like way of arguing we may charge them with laying aside the whole Scripture out of which they read not one Chapter for the information of the People He goes on 3. In the Liturgy the Apocrypha Books are made equal with nay advanced above the Holy Scripture Strange that a Church should be guilty of this that in their Articles exclude them out of the Canon and saith That they are not read to confirm any Doctrine but only for informing the Manners But let us see how he proves this not by any Assertion of the Church but some stretches of Arguing As 1. They are made equal For in the Preface to the Common-Prayer it 's said nothing ordained is to be read but the pure word of God or that which is evidently grounded on the same But is the Apocrypha so Here for improving his Argument he alters the words of the Preface and for that which is in that agreeable to the same he reads evidently grounded on the same and then triumphs Is the Apocrypha so But take it how he will its evident from hence that the Apocrypha is so far from being made equal with Scripture that there is a plain difference between them for that to which a thing is agreeable and on which it 's grounded is above that which is agreeable to it and grounded upon it A Plea grounded on the law is surely of less Authority than the Law on which it is grounded The Apocrypha being read not for establishing any Doctrine but for informing the Mannners there is nothing in what is appointed of that kind to be read but what is agreeable to the word of God and not contrary to it and so may be read as well as their Sermons be heard which can pretend to no more 2. He saith The Liturgy appoints the Apocrypha to be read as Lessons just as I find it in the Pope's service-Service-Book and in a greater proportion than Scripture for as some have observ'd of 172 Apocryphal Chapters but 38 are omitted So that these Books are equalized with the pure word of God But surely he doth not find it in our service-Service-Book that the Apocrypha Lessons are read for Canonical Scripture and declared to be so as they are in the Pope's Service-Book but only as Apocrypha He that will look for the Apocrypha-Books in the Pope's Bible as well as service-Service-Book will find them mixed with the Canonical as Hester and Esdras c. but he that will find them in our Bibles will find them by themselves and Apocrypha in the head of them If as he affirms the Apocrypha is read in a greater proportion than Scripture it doth more than equalize and doth rather advance it above the Scripture and so belongs to his next Assertion which he would have done well to have reserv'd it to to make up the proof he is there wanting in As for what he affirms that the Apocrypha is read in greater proportion than the Scripture nothing more false For 1. All the Second Lessons throughout the Year are out of the New Testament 2. All Epistles and Gospels read on Sundays and Holy-days are wholly out of Canonical Scripture 3. All First Lessons on Sundays are out of the Old Testament and none out of the Apocrypha 4. On the 33 Holy-days on the Week-days there are but 26 Apocrypha First Lessons whereas there are 40 out of the Canonical Scripture 5. When the Apocrypha is appointed to be read in Course it 's not clear two Months for First Lessons but the Holy Scripture is read all the other Ten Months and more 6. Of the 39 Books of the Old Testament but 3 are entirely omitted viz. Chronicles and Canticles but of the 13 of the Apocrypha 6 are not read at all 7. Of the 929 Chapters of the Old Testament 753 are read in course and 176 only omitted the reasons for which generally will appear to the Reader but out of the 172 Chapters of the Apocrypha there are not as he saith 38 66 omitted and among them that of Tobit that he objects against Where methinks he that pretends to have
becoming and of excellent use to quicken Devotion and excite attention What may not be said in any case by such persons as these that call this way of Devotion as he doth a taking God's Name in vain And what occasion may others take after the same manner to treat their long Prayers that are often nauseous to standers-by for their affected length and tedious enlargements and forced Repetitions 2. He objects The Common-Prayer Book is guilty of violating the sacred Word of God And here he charges it with no less than obliterating contradicting adding to it and detracting from it and then concludes Amongst men clipping and corrupting if Coin is Treason and certainly it 's a dreadful thing to add to or take from the Word of God Dent. 4. 2. Rev. 22. 19. And it 's certainly a dreadful thing and wo to them that are guilty Here I should have expected a rounder Charge by one that had so exactly read the Liturgy and that he would have told the World that we take whole Chapters from the Word of God and which have no place in our Kalendar nor are read publickly in the Church as I do acknowledge And surely if the omission of one Verse in a Psalm and of Hallelujah in others be a taking from the Word of God then much more is the omission of whole Chapters nay of three whole Books But he durst not press that too far for if he had it would have fallen hard upon such as never have the Scriptures read in their Congregations tho that was a solemn part of Divine Worship in the Churches of God as the Scripture informs us Acts 15. 21 c. And if the Church of Rome is so deservedly blamed for reading the Scriptures in an unknown tongue what do they not deserve that never read them at all in their Congregations Surely if they had according to our Saviour's advice considered the Beam in their own eye they would not have thus magnified the Mote in their Brother's eye I remember a Question in a Book of the same kind with our Author's Whether Protestants do not sin in defrauding the people of some Books and Chapters of Scripture as well as Papists in defrauding them of all And then what sort of Protestants are they that with the Church of Rome defraud the people of all so far as the Publick Service of God is concern'd But to return Before I shall consider his few Instances that he would make good this Bloody Charge by I shall premise a few things 1. That the Instances he offers are at the worst Mistranslations Slips and Errors and not chargeable with Perverseness according to what we charge upon the Church of Rome For here is no interest to be served For what is our Church concern'd whether it be read as the Liturgical Translation has it the 7 th Day or as the Common Translation The Sabbath whether as that they were not obedient to his word or as this they rebelled not against his word whether as that The rod of the wicked cometh not into the lot of the righteous or as this resteth not Whether as in that the Titles of some Psalms and Hallelujahs are omitted or as in this they are inserted Surely here is no interest visible in this that should incline our Translators of the Psalter to pick out these Texts above all others to make bold with 2. Mistranslations and Errors of this kind are no sufficient reason for not using such a Translation and much less for separating from a Church where they are used for then no Translation could be us'd or no Church communicated with because no Church is without such Translations and no Translation without such Errors Thus it was in the Church of the Jews when the Septuagint was used in publick Which doth often alter and add to the original Hebrew and yet was not only used but is quoted by the Divine Writers even in many places where those Alterations and Additions are So it alters Heb 10. 5. 11. 21. Rom. 10. 18. Act. 7. 8. It adds as Luk. 3. 36 37. Act. 7. 14 Then also must not our common Translation be used which besides the mistakes allowed to be in it does add in many places and particularly half a Verse 1 John 2. 23. So it adds the Dates and Subscriptions to the Epistles Chapters Verses and Arguments throughout the whole as if Canonical And of this kind are all his Instances As 1. He saith The common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book violates the word of God as sometimes the words of Scripture are obliterated and others put in their room Thus in the Catechism they have changed those words in the Fourth Commandment the Lord blessed the sabbath-day into the Seventh day A. We grant it is so but it 's to be remember'd that it 's not so in the 20th of Exodus but in the Liturgy and if the Liturgy differs from Exodus it 's a difference without a distinction since the Seventh day and Sabbath are all one and if it differs from Exodus it agrees with the first Institution Gen. 2. 3. where it 's said God rested on the seventh day and God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it 2. He saith Sometimes the Liturgy makes bold directly and in terms to contradict the Scripture so Psalm 105. 28. it 's said they were not rebellious but the Common-Prayer-Book saith they were not obedient and so Psal 125. 3. We grant That there is a seeming contradiction in words but not in the meaning of it for the relative they being undetermined and indifferently to be applied to Moses and Aaron or to the Egyptians accordingly is this place to be interpreted if understood of the former it 's to be read in the common Translation they were not rebellious if of the latter it 's to be read in the Translation of the Liturgy they were not obedient And this last reading is according to the present reading of the Septuagint and some other Translations that follow that And yet that Translation was generally used by the Primitive Christians and was worse than any ever used by us As for Psal 125. 3. The rod of the wicked shall not come c. that is so as to rest there and so as to tempt them beyond what they are able 3. He saith Sometimes the common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book adds to the Scripture there are three whole Verses added to the 14th Psalm And the Gloria Patri is frequently added to Scripture as if it were Canonical Ans When he saith That it is a dreadful thing to add to the word of God and charges our Church with it we might expect some very criminal instances to make it good and when he saith three whole Verses are added one would think that this was somewhat invented and herein inserted by the Church upon some wicked selfish design But 1. tho we allow that such Verses are added yet it 's not an addition to Scripture for tho not found in this place yet they are in another
disprove any thing in it 3. He saith Others were much troubled at the Service-Book as Bishop Hooper and Mr. Rogers at home and Calvin Bucer Martyr Bullinger c. abroad So Alasco and Knox and the first Reformers in Scotland A. As for Hooper's dissatisfaction it was not at the Liturgy but the Episcopal Vestments in which also he at last complied And as for Bucer's mind and Pet. Martyr's the English Reader will find it in the History of the Reformation p. 154 155. And Calvin to the English Exiles at Frankford declares against a rigorous Opposition and was pleased that he retained Moderation in this Case As for Alasco and Knox whatever they objected against the Liturgy yet both had their Publick Offices and Forms of Prayer 4. He saith In Queen Elizabeth's time the Bishops made the Common-Prayer-Book in several things worse and more intollerable than it was in the days of King Edward 6. A. 1. And I hope he will confess in many things better 2. Why those Prayers c. were left out he may see in the History of the Reformation p. 77 170 392. The reason of which has been before justified 3. There could be no great alteration to the worse if that was all that he mentions and however is nothing to us when the Rubrick of the Communion is restored And now that he may end as he begun as he would have our Service-Book come from Popery so he will have it That time will discover that some who pretend Zeal for the Common-Prayer-Book are carrying on a design for Rome And time has discovered that some of those who pretended Zeal against the Common-Prayer carried on a design for Rome and helped them forward in it or stood as it were Neuters and that the Liturgy has not so much a tendency that way as Separation The World saw it in the late Reign and found that the Church that uses the Liturgy was a Bulwark against Popery and when those that were against the Liturgy either basely complied fawn'd upon it or cowardly were silent THe Second Question Q. 2. What reason have you to scruple the lawfulness of laying the Hand on the Book and Kissing the Book in Swearing To this he Answers 1. We do not find in the Scripture the Lord's Servants were wont to swear after this manner we read of lifting up the hand c. which is a natural sign of Worship A. 1. We find in Scripture that they were wont to put the hand under the Thigh in swearing And thus the same Abraham that lift up his hand required his Servant to swear by putting his hand under his Thigh Gen. 24. 2. and so Jacob made his Son Joseph to use the same Ceremony when he swore Gen. 47. 29. Now what natural Sign of Worship was in this Rite 2. Since we find different Rites us'd it 's a sign that practice of the Lord's Servants is to be no Rule to us in this matter but that we are to govern our selves by the Custom of the place where and the People among whom we live if there be nothing in it self unlawful 3. He saith and seems to allow it That the Romans of old and Italians and Spaniards use to lift up the Finger when they swear solemnly Now I conceive lifting up the Finger is no natural Sign of Worship And if it had any signification I know no reason why the Germans may not lift up three Fingers to intimate they invoke the Sacred Trinity which he saith he cannot justify Nor why we may not lay the Hand upon and Kiss the Book in token of belief of it and of our acting according to it and of our being judged according to it For the Word of God doth not prescribe in such cases 2. He answers Laying the Hand on the Book is a symbolizing with Popish Idolaters and Superstitious Jews A. 1. It 's not a symbolizing with Papists as such since there are Papists that use other Ceremonies in swearing as he saith The Italians Spaniards and Germans do And therefore if this be a reason as we must not lift up the Fingers because they do so so we must not lift up the Hand because that is not to be done but we must lift up the Fingers too 2. If it was customary among the Jews to produce the Law in giving an Oath I see no reason to condemn it and so know no hurt to observe it They used also to adjure Persons and our Saviour readily answers to it when thus call'd upon 3. He replies Kissing in a Religious way is a gesture of Adoration And he closes it This is clearly to Worship a Book and so to give unto a Creature that Honour which is due to God alone And before he saith So help you and the Contents of this Book is not much better than when the Papists say So help me God and these Holy Evangelists which is gross Idolatry A. That Kissing may be a Token of Adoration when the thing kiss'd is an Object of Adoration is acknowledged But it 's not a token of Adoration when the thing kissed is not an Object of Adoration Thus kissing the Calves and an Image is an act of Adoration because the Object is an Object of Adoration but kissing the Book is not because a Book is no Object of Adoration If it be asked Why then is the Book kissed I say it 's in token of Reverence as it 's the Book of God and which if I so kiss every time I read it it 's surely far from being Idolatry And that it is so appears from what follows So help me God and the Contents of this Book which is in different ways God by his Grace and the Contents of this Book by their Instruction the one as the efficient the other the Instrumental cause And thus without doubt it 's meant in the old Form So help me God and these Holy Evangelists that is the Gospel wrote by them as the name of Moses is given in Scripture to his Writings So that in this sence it 's neither Idolatry in them nor any thing like it in us And we may as lawfully kiss the Book as lift up the Hand since neither of them are prohibited by God's Law and so being indifferent in themselves we may act as the case requires FINIS History of Antinomians in the Preface Trial of the Grounds of Separ ◠8. p. 152. 1 Cor. 10. 25 26. A Survey of the Book of Common-Prayer An. 1610. p. 26. Espenceus de adorat Eucha l. 2. c. 16. * Of the Mass l. 1. c. 6. †Censur 9. 10. De cultu Lat. l. 3. c. 13. Mass l. 1. c. 6. So Mornay Mass l. 1. p. 19. Vol. 1. 157 158 161. Discourse of prayer p. 31. Sacrileg desert p. 102 c. Apol. ◠13. See Clerk◠Collect. of Lives p. 38. Burnet's Reformat Part 2. p. 62. and Num. 25. Ibid. p. 163 p. 203. Fox's Acts and Monuments Fol. 1465. Fox's Acts and Monuments Vol. 2. p. 1940. Vide Dr. Taylor Fox Martyr p. 1521. Vide Burnet p. 125 c. 166. Epist 200 and 206. and 228. That of Alasco printed Anno 1550. And that of Knox at Middelb 1594.