be true but if any of them be to read any such Chapter at any time which he counteth not to be profitable to be read to the people he may read one out of the New Testament instead of it as Dr. Sparke shews concerning this matter in his brotherly perswasion to unity and uniformity Chap. 10. whether for brevity sake in this treatise I refer any reasonable man adding onely thus much that if those and such other objections seem to any man not to be sufficiently answered yet they cannot make the book wholly to be rejected but needfull in some particulars to be corrected and amended The next thing they come is the grand accusation against Epistles and Gospels which I presume belongs to their second head of frivolous things for though they began orderly with the first particular of false matters yet they proceed not so but I must be forced to follow them as they go up and down from one thing to another Concerning Epistles and Gospels then they have three weighty charges with which they begin thus We may subjoyn that profaning gross abuse of Epistles and Gospels in which there are three strange and remarkable occurrences for which there is no ground or reason but from the mass-Mass-book First These three remarkable things are 1. That the Acts of the Apostles and some books of the old Testament are read for and called Epistles 2. That we read not whole Chapters but scraps and shreds as they disgracefully call them 3. That at the Epistles there is silence sitting c. at the Gospels standing scraping bowing and responds before and after To the first of these concerning the name of Epistles given to books not so called in Scripture What great matter is this to be set out under those words of profane and gross abuse For first we know the old Testament is in the new sometime called the Law and the Prophets sometimes the Law Prophets and Psalms These several expressions shew that the word Prophets is sometimes largely taken for all the old Testament except the five books of Moses sometime more strictly for the other books onely but excluding the Psalms why then also may not the word Epistles be sometime taken generally for all the Scripture except the four Gospels and sometimes more strictly except the Acts Gospel and Revelation and sometime most strictly for those books which we commonly call the Canonical Epistles taking the word in the two former acceptions what hurt in calling all that we read for Epistles by the name of Epistles especially considering secondly that the whole Scripture is a letter or Epistle indited by the Holy Ghost and so sent from God by the holy writers thereof into the world or more especially to his Church and the fitness of this appellation they themselves confess and tell us The holy fathers spake so onely they tell us They spake so in a different sense from us which difference if they had shewed we had either answered them or yelded to them To their second accusation That our Epistle and Gospels are but scraps of Scripture and never a full passage in them If by full passage they mean a whole Chapter we desire to know why a whole Chapter must always be at once and neither more nor less but if by never a full passage they mean that we break off abruptly in respect of the matter read then any one may see they do us notorious wrong and the Book answers for it self without my help To avoid therefore the guilt of so foul a slander I am willing to take them in the former sense but must withal tell them that so they may as well accuse all our Preaching of this gross abuse and say we preach not upon the Word of God but upon scraps and shreds of it and that less shreds too then the other few Texts being half the length of the very shortest Epistles we have But why either our Texts or Epistles and Gospels should be thus taxed I see not the division of Chapters not being Canonical but made according to humane wisdom and discretion Of this therefore no more I come to the third charge which is concerning Silence Sitting Bowing c. To which I must first tell them That this comes in very unseasonably in this place this belongs rather to the ridiculous manner of our Service then to the matter of it but their want of method I must needs pass over many times lest my Book should grow too big Secondly I must tell them again that the Book appoints none of these things they here inveigh against therefore if those things were as bad indeed as they would make them all this were nothing to purpose against the Book which they pretend onely to write against Nevertheless being in many passages they labor to disgrace our Church what they can as well as the Book they write against I would if they would come to particulars assay to answer all and as far as I can by these general words guess at their meaning I will briefly answer them It hath been the custom long ago in many Churches to stand up at the Gospel and it was also usual at the naming of the Gospel to say Glory be to thee O Lord and after the end of the Gospel to say Thanks be unto God These I presume are the things they aim at for the bowing at the name of Jesus was and is as much used in all parts of Service and Sermon as of the Gospel To the other three therefore as proper to the Gospel I will onely speak And first to the standing up We know many men at the naming of the Text and many times in the Sermon will stand up not onely for their ease but to hearken the more attentively Why then is it not as lawful so to do at the Gospel We know standing up when we hear one beginning to speak to us does both shew respect to what is spoken and a readiness to receive what is spoken willingly and chearfully By standing up then at the reading of the Gospel we shew our gladness and readiness to receive it and what prophaneness or grand abuse can be in this Then for saying Glory be to thee O Lord. We know when the Angel first brought word of our Saviours birth the Author of the Gospel there were presently with him a multitude of Heavenly Angels saying Glory be to God on high If the Church then in memory Luke 2. 13 14. hereof do at the naming of the Gospel use part of that Angelical Hymn what grand abuse is this when our Saviour first came into the world this was the Angels praising God and when we hear mention made of the Gospel which declares and preacheth these glad tidings to us with the benefits coming to us thereby we do with like words give glory to God the Son and we are counted prophane for it Lastly when we have heard some of the Gospel read which publisheth these things
the Mass book and our Common Prayer Book together Between which they pretend there is such a consent that every piece and parcell of our Book is taken from thence but the falsity of this we shewed in the former Chapter in which they spake of this matter and named there what we have in our book which the Mass book hath not And we add now That if we had never a word but what is there yet we having none of the evil that is there it cannot follow that ours must be evil for having in it somewhat that is there Secondly For the mutual complacency they talk of I answer that to accuse all that like our Liturgy to be likers also of the Mass is so shameless and foul a slander as none can be more And of the other side for the Papists approving of our Liturgy it is more a commendation of it then otherwise it arguing our Service to be so good that our very adversaries which in all things else are so bitter against us yet can say nothing against that Whereas therefore they say That if the Papists like it it cannot be good because they are against all good I answer This is intolerable for thus they may as well condemn much of our Doctrine as well as our Liturgy as namely all Divine and necessary Truths which we hold and teach concerning the Unity of Essence and Trinity of persons in the Divine Nature all the Artributes of God and in a word all the first part of Divinity in Thomas wherein we and the Papists have hardly any difference So then this second argument makes more for our book then against it All those sound parts and doctrines in Divinity which we with them held joyntly not having their Original from them or their writings but from the Scriptures whence we and they also took them The rest of the words which they use in this Chapter concerning this second argument as having nothing in them but foul and shameful expressions of their rancorous and mâ—licious hearts against all those that are not of their strain I pass over as nothing to purpose for the business we have in hand And so I come to the last evidence they bring against us which they call The undeniable testimony of the King namely of King Edward the sixth and of his councel Where they bring in a piece of a letter telling us they have the rest by them which may be as true as all they say else but granting all they say if the King and State to draw the Papists back to us and win them to our Church did write to that purpose what is that to the prejudice of our Liturgy as long as all the evil in the Mass book is left out in ours If ours be no new Service but the old and what is in ours be theirs to assure the Papists hereof must needs be an especial argument to move the Papists not to abhor our Churches but too frequent them and joyn with us in our Liturgy though perhaps they cannot rest satisfied with it but will privately have their own Mass besides it also Thus I have done with their third proof also Now their Syllogism made hereupon is this That which is word for word out of the Popish Mass book is not to be offered to God as a worship but to be abolished as abomination to him But the Liturgy in controversie is so as hath been abundantly proved Therefore is not to be offered c. To this we answer briefly That which they here brag to be proved to the full we have by our answer shewed to be utterly false For if there be any thing in the Mass not in ours as abundantly there is or any thing in ours not in theirs then is not ours word for word out of theirs But both these we have already shewed and so their argument is fully answered Vainely therefore do they spend so many words following by several places of Scripture to prove that which no man denies And as needless is their following Invective against the Mass which we defend not and to no purpose concerning this business is their answering two texts of Scripture used in defence of the Mass by the Papists all which words helping onely to fill up their book and nothing touching our Common Prayer Book I pass by One onely thing more have I to add concerning this Chapter that for the original of our Common Prayer book whereas in this whole discourse thereof they seem to suppose that we went to the Mass and no further to frame a Liturgy from thence this is a meer fancy of theirs we follow the old Liturgy before the Popish Mass but the truth is when we having been a long time with the Mass amongst us and other Idolatrous ceremonies very notoriously faulty in the worship of God did according to our duties begin to reform our selves we did onely cast off such things as were inevitably offensive and did retain the rest concerning which whereas they tell us It was great incogitancy to speak the least in our Reformers in King Edwards days to take a Monke from among the Canaanites c. We answer for those our holy Ancestors that they took the most advised pious and Christian course that could be taken in that kind For first hereby they took the most likely course that could be thought on to draw many of the Papists to our Religion wherein we departed no farther from them then they had first departed from the word of God all other things we still retained that they that would but reform notorious abuses might still retain fellowship with us Secondly they hereby declared sufficiently to all the world that this alteration made was neither out of hatred to them or love of novelty or singularity or any high conceit of any excellency in fancies or devices of our own brains above our forefathers but would be content with what we had from them as far as it was consonant to the word of God or not contrary to it Thirdly by this means they avoided combustion in Church and State making as little stir or noise as could be in the reformation which is always especially to be regarded by all quiet spirits and lovers of peace in any change whatsoever Fourthly by this dealing they followed the Apostles rule by shewing their meekness softness and gentleness to all men as is required So that retaining thus much of the Mass book when we Phil. 4. 5. cast off Popery was so far from incogitancy or any other scandal to be layed upon our forefathers that we may rather admire or at least must much commend their wisdom meekness love of peace and charitable desire of converting others thereby For the conclusion then of this Chapter wherein they brag so much of success telling us That It will fall out as it did with the Scribes and Pharises envying that the people should follow Christ Perceive ye not say they how ye prevail
nothing the world is gone after him Joh 12. 19. It is so in this case of the worship of Christ c. We shall prevail nothing c. To this we need not answer any thing to them the times we humbly praise God for it have answered for us this book which was so long cast off being now generally taken up again and used with reverence devotion and thankfulness to the Lord for it in the most principal places and most Cuurches of this Kingdom so that the saying they cite there of the Pharisees and Scribes may better be applyed to these people that cite in it then to those to 〈…〉 CHAP. IV. Of the Matter HEre they inveigh against the Common Prayer Book in respect of the matter of it telling us that The matter is partly false partly ridiculously frivolous yea and some part of it is not without a tincture of blasphemy The first of these charges they go about to prove three ways saying For the general we lay down these three instances In false or corrupt translations of the word additiâ—ns to the word and substractions all which the Service Book not onely allows but injoyns subscription to them To these things we answer first in general that it is no sufficient plea against the book to cry it down wholly for some particular defects in it but to desire rather to have those things amended then the whole book so excellent in several respects totally to be abolished for some imperfections in it Secondly to come to them more particularly to the first of false translations we answer 1. That if that be sufficient for a particular place to reject a whole book or volum what shâ—ll become of our English Bible in the last and best translation that we have for in that we shall find such a translation as no English man can make sense of namely Phil. 1. 21. which words there agree with the Latine which these men are so much against for it is there Vivere est mihi Christus to me to dye is Christ but neither that Latine nor the English can express either the Apostles meaning or can indeed be understood what they mean themselves They put the Greek verbatim into English which the idiome of our tongue cannot bear and herein they reject Calvin and Beza's and Junius and Tremilius translations and agree with the Vulgar Latine yet no man wholly rejects this our new translation as containing false matter but it is not unworthily esteemed as one of the best translations extant in any language Again that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11. 29 is in both our translations rendred Damnation which is neither according to the signification of the word in it self nor according to the Apostles meaning in that place for he proves that which he saith there in the words following directly mentioning temporal judgement as vers 30. But I will not strive to defame our translations as they do our Common Prayer Book by searching how many places are not so translated as they should be but were there more defects then there are who could hereupon reject totally our English Bibles as these do our Service Book upon that score of falsity in matter through some imperfections in the translation Secondly then I pass to the next particular which they call additions To add to the word of God in general as to propound any thing for Gods word which is not so indeed I grant to be abominable but to add to any particular part of Scripture some words taken out of some other part of Scripture is no addition to the word of God for it does not affirm any thing to be Gods word which is not indeed Now of this kind are the additions they speak In Psalm 14. the words in the end added are not onely taken out of Gods word in several places but also all collected together by Saint Paul and added to the precedent words in this Psalm as we see Rom. 3. 13 14 15 16 17 18. neither are thrust into the Psalm by the composers of the Common Prayer book but are in the old Latine Bibles whence those Psalms were translated and how reasonably and fitly they are there our Bibles do note after the end of Psal 14. where they shew why they are not put into our Bibles For the next addition mentioned in Psal 13. what is that but a concluding of that Psalm with the very words of Scripture also for the same expression we find in two other Psalms near adjoyning viz. Psal 7. 17. Psal 9. 3. For the third addition it is an addition of their own making not found in the book in that 24. Psalm Whereas therefore they say lastly That they will not reckon diverse additions more they do well in that point but they had done better if they had not reckoned this neither unless there had been more truth in it I also will add no more of this matter but come to their next accusation which is concerning substractions or omissions And therein first they accuse us for omitting the titles of diverse Psalms Secondly for omitting the words Praise ye the Lord Thirdly for omitting the conclusion in the Lords Prayer For which last First if we took the Lords Prayer out of Luke 11. we omit none of it and why may we not use it sometime as it is in one place sometime as it is in another so that the cavil is onely for want of a better for the two former omissions the book makes no omission but renders the Psalms as it found them in the translations whence they were taken Their last omission is Leaving out many Chapters and some whole books unread for the Lesson in the Kalender appointed But this is not taking away any thing from the word of God except the book did profess that it hath appointed the whole word of God to be read for the Lessons but this the book does not only it appoints such parts of the word of God to be read at such times and leaves the rest to be read of the people privately The next thing is the reading of the Apochrypha very immethodically brought in here for that should rather have come in among the additions then the omissions yet it is not any addition to the word of God for we read it not as a part of Scripture to build our faith upon or to establish any doctrine of divinity thereby but for moral instruction then if they ask What need of that the Scripture being sufficient for that also We answer that we do it not as supposing defect therein but because they are books written by holy men and have been continually read publikely by the Church of God in reverence thereto we thought not fit wholly to reject them or cast them out of our Church but whereas they tell us here That some things are appointed to be out of them which are utterly false We tell them that is more then they can prove to