A BRIEF DISCOURSE Concerning the Lawfulness of Worshipping GOD BY THE COMMON-PRAYER Being in ANSWER To a Book Entituled A Brief Discourse concerning the Vnlawfulness of the Common-Prayer Worship Lately Printed in New-England and Re-printed in London In which the Chief Things Objected against the Liturgy are consider'd The Second Edition Corrected Let all things be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14. 40. LONDON Printed for Ri. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard M DC XCIV IMPRIMATUR August 9. 1693. GEO. ROYSE THE PREFACE HOW Pious or Learned the Author of the Book I undertake to answer may be I am no more concern'd to know than I am who the Author is whom the Publisher bath thought fit to commend as such and having so done to conceal But he is not as far as I conceive the more Learned or Pious for Writing this Book Not the more Learned for by all the helps he professes to have had from Didoclavius c. he is guilty of many gross and palpable Mistakes And not the more Pious because of the uncharitable Reflections and Inferences he every where makes For would any man of a truly Christian Temper alledge these things now against the Common-Prayer which were alter'd or expunged above thirty years before he published his Brief Discourse Or charge us with violating the Word of God because we change the word Sabbath for the Seventh Day or say that we sacrilegiously steal from it because Hallelujah or Praise the Lord is sometimes left out in the Reading-Psalms or that we equal the Apocrypha to and set it up above the Canonical Scriptures because it s read on the Highest Holy-days as he saith but not very truly tho the Articles of our Church expresly declare them to be only of humane composition Suppose now I should treat this Author after the same manner and whereas he professes to have compared our Liturgy with the Missal c. I should take all advantages given in his Book to shew that notwithstanding this he had never read them I am certain I could much more easily and as Charitably do it as he make good his abovesaid Charge For would any one conversant in the Missal Breviary and Ritual of the Church of Rome have said as he doth p. 5. That Beza notes that in the Roman Liturgy men are taught to cry Jesu Miserere mei no less than ten times one after another For what need he quote Beza for that which he has as he saith read himself and which after all Beza mistook and he with Beza or rather he mistakes Beza in since the Jesu Miserere thus repeated is not in the Missal c. but in private Offices of that Church Who again that had been conversant in our Liturgy would have said as the Author Some have observ'd that of 172 Apocryphal Chapters but 38 are omitted For what need he to be beholden to another's Observation for what he that had thus read the Liturgy must have under his own eye So easy is it to repay him in his own Coin if we will reflect and infer after his way It 's a shrewd sign this Author was hard put to it to make good his Charge against the Liturgy and to prove his Point That it 's unlawful to be present at the Common-Prayer Worship And after all it 's of little Service to our Author and those of his Communion to make such Exceptions as he has done for if all things were alter'd and remov'd that he objects against they of his way would be no nearer to us than they are as the things stand at present as long as we are a National Church and have a Liturgy and whilst they continue Independent and Congregational are against the use of any Forms even such as are Scriptural as the Lord's Prayer and Decalogue nay against reading the Scripture in their Publick Congregations Indeed he had dealt more sincerely if he had acquainted his Reader That they hold it unlawful to communicate with us because we are a National Church and that they don't joyn in the Common-Prayer Worship because it 's a Form and all Forms are in his Opinion unlawful This indeed had struck at the Root of all but this he knew was not so easily prov'd nor would look so popularly as to cry out Heathenism Judaism and Popery which he charges our Service-Book with This indeed will rouze the Multitude and it 's no wonder when possess'd with this Representation of our Worship that the deluded People broke into the Church Erected at Boston for the Worship of God according to the Church of England to search for the Images they supposed we worship'd The time was when the Antinomians from among themselves treated them in the like way and call'd them Legal Preachers Popish Factors Scribes and Opposers of Christ And they may remember what had like to have been the Effect of it if they had not taken up what their Adversaries call'd a Bloody Tenet And truly we had reason to fear it if there had not been a Superior Authority to over-rule it But I shall forbear to recriminate and shall leave the rest to the Book where I have let nothing escape that requires an Answer and I hope have given a sufficient Answer to it and in the issue have prov'd that as far as his Exceptions go they have no reason to forbear being present at or joyning in the Common-Prayer-Book Worship which is the Matter of the First Question Nor that it 's unlawful to take an Oath by laying the Hand upon the Bible which is the Matter of the Second A BRIEF DISCOURSE Concerning the Lawfulness of Worshipping GOD BY THE COMMON-PRAYER THE First Question proposed by the Author is Q. What are the Reasons why you judge it unlawful to be present at or to partake in the Common-Prayer Worship The Reasons he gives are four taken 1. From the Original of the common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book which saith he with the Ceremonies and Worship prescribed therein I find to be in a great measure Popish and Heathenish 2. From the Matter of the Common-Prayer-Book 3. Because Publick Liturgies of humane Composure are an Innovation and Deviation from Primitive Purity 4. In this Age of Light it would be a great Apostacy in the least to countenance or comply with the Common-Prayer-Worship These are the Reasons he advances and by which he endeavours to justify their continuance in a Separation from the Church of England and the Worship therein Administred And these I shall take the liberty to examine For the clearer discoursing upon which I shall divide what I have to say into so many Chapters viz. 1. Of the Original of the Common Prayer or English Liturgy 2. Of the Matter of it 3. Of the Original of Liturgies 4. Of Worship by a Liturgy CHAP. I. Of the Original of the English Liturgy OUR Author saith That the common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book with the Ceremonies and Worship prescribed therein are in a great measure Popish and Heathenish and therefore it is unlawful to joyn with it This will be resolved into two Questions Q. 1. Whether the Common Prayer be
trouble my self with the Opinion of those Learned Patrons of Liturgies he speaks of But I shall take his Argument as it lies before us which is That our Liturgy is Heathenish because we use Forms as they did He might as well have said our Liturgy is Heathenish because we use words as they did since it 's no more Heathenish to use Forms than Words If they had the use of Forms it rather shews the sense that Mankind generally have of this matter and that there cannot be too great a care taken of our demeanour in Divine Worship according to the Direction of the Wise man Eccl. 5. 2. Be not rash with thy mouth c. for God is in Heaven c. therefore let thy words be few and well considered But if the Heathens had Forms so had the Jews so had Christians as I shall shew and so Forms no more make our Worship Heathenish than Jewish But of this afterwards But supposing that our Liturgy was as he would have it taken out of the Mass-Book yet Q. 2. Will the being taken out of the Mass-Book make that Worship which is otherwise good and lawful to become unlawful to be used or joyned with This he affirms and offers to prove after this manner It 's a known maxim saith he Omnis honor Idoli est Idolatria He that shall put any respect upon an Idol cannot be clear of the Sin of Idolatry but the Mass-Book is an Idol And he that useth a Prayer or joyns with a Prayer taken out of that Book thereby puts an Honour upon an Idol How then can we joyn in Prayers taken out of the Idolatrous Mass-Book and offer them to the Holy God In which there are Three things contained 1. That the Mass-Book is an Idol 2. That to take a Prayer out of the Mass-Book is a respect to an Idol and is Idolatry 3. That it 's unlawful to joyn in Prayers taken out of the Mass-Book 1. The Mass-Book is an Idol This we may justly question because an Idol is the Representation of some Divine or Beatified Object and that is as such propounded and set up for Adoration such are the Images of God and our Saviour of Angels and Saints in the Church of Rome But in this sense the Mass-Book is no Idol there is no Prototype or Object it represents nor is any such Adoration paid to it as is paid to an Image or a Crucifix We grant as well as he that the Mass-Book is Idolatrous as it contains some things that are so and is used in Idolatrous Worship But it no more follows from thence that it is an Idol than that the Incense Holy Water or Vestments are Idols which are used when they say Mass But supposing the Mass-Book for once to be an Idol that we may proceed to the next question viz. 2. Whether the taking a Prayer out of the Mass-Book be such a respect to it as makes the Prayer to be Idolatrous To this I answer That the Prayers taken out of the Mass-Book and inserted in our Liturgy are so far from being a respect that it is a disrespect to it For at the same time that some Prayers were taken out those were rejected that were left behind for the gross Corruptions that were in them and by so doing the Reformers as much testified to all the World their abhorrence of it as the emptying of the House of the Goods and Utensils not infected by the Leprosy and their forsaking it was a plain declaration of its Pollution So that if Prayers taken from thence are good the using them when taken thence is no Idolatry and Communion in them no Sin and no more unlawful than it was to use the Vessels that were carried out of the infected House But this is the main Question viz. Q. Whether that which has been used in Idolatrous Worship may if otherwise good and lawful be used where the Worship is not idolatrous This he denies and for it offers these Reasons 1 We ought not to name an Idol but with detestation much less may we offer it as Worship to God Psal 16. 4. Exod. 23. 13. Hos 2. 16 17. P. 4. 2. It was Paul's Judgment that Meat once offer'd to Idols should not be made use of 1 Cor. 10. 28. Therefore a Service-Book offer'd to Idols ought not to used For there is a parity of Reason 3. God hath strictly prohibited his people all symbolizing with the Heathen in civil usages because he would not have them imitate the Heathen Levit. 19. 19 27. especially in matters referring to the Worship of God Hence they were prohibited going up by steps to the Altar Exod. 20. 24 26. to plant a Grove near the Altar Deut. 16. 31. And to worship to the East Ezek. 8. 16. Before I proceed to consider these Arguments in particular I shall state the Case it self for resolving of which we may observe 1. That there are things Idolatrous in their own nature or by a standing positive Law and so are always the same Such is the Picture of God and Worshipping by Images 2. There are things that have been customarily appropriated to Idolatrous Worship and the use of which in common estimation has been accounted Idolatrous Such was the offering Incense among the Heathens and therefore the primitive Christians refused it as an acknowledgment of their Worship and the Thurificati were reputed Idolaters 3. There are other things that are used as well in true as Idolatrous Worship and are lawful in themselves such as Time Place Habit Posture The first is always unlawful and makes the worship Idolatrous The second is not to be used where it has been thus appropriated and thus accounted during such an opinion of them So that it 's the last of these that the whole turns upon for after all the clamour he makes about Idolatry and the charge he would fain fasten upon us he can produce nothing that is Idolatrous amongst us no Images no Prayers to Saints nor so much as any thing appropriated or in common estimation so accounted no incensings of Books or Images no sprinklings of Holy Water but it all amounts to this that Forms and Repetitions have been us'd by Idolaters that they had White Garments and observ'd Holy-days So p. 4 5 8. Which are things lawful in themselves as I shall shew and cannot be made unlawful by being us'd in Idolatrous Worship For when Idolatry is not in the nature of the thing but in the use take away the use and Idolatry ceaseth and consequently it may be lawfully used where there is no Idolatry in the Worship and no Idolatry in the use of it And if it be not to be used it 's not because it 's unlawful in it self to use it but because it 's forbidden by God as was the case among the Jews or because of some circumstances that make it inconvenient and dangerous Thus it was lawful to eat that Meat which had been offer'd to Idols when it was
refusing Communion for them that the Old Nonconformists ordinarily and constantly used the Common-Prayer-Book in their publick Ministrations as Mr. Ball one of them declares Tryal p. 121 155. 4. All of them testified against the Brownists and against a separation from the Church It was saith Mr. Baxter the Parish-Churches that had the Liturgy which Mr. Jacob the Father of the Congregational Party wrote for communion with The same I may say of Mr. Bradshaw Dr. Ames and other Nonconformists whom the Congregational Brethren think more favourable to their way In the close our Author offers some farther Objections from the false and corrupt Doctrine he pretends to find in the Liturgy 1. As that it 's certain by God's word that Children Baptized dying before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved This saith he savours of Pelagianism Ans I don't understand the falseness or Pelagianism of it It 's certain by God's Word that of such is the Kingdom of God and so they must be capable of it If capable of it it must be upon Gospel terms but what terms they are capable of but Baptism I understand not 2. That there are two Sacraments necessary to Salvation which implies a double Error viz. that the Sacraments are necessary to Salvation and that there are more Sacraments of the New-Testament than two Ans I don't see wherein is the first Error if he had truly represented it for it 's said in the Catechism two Sacraments generally necessary that is that they are a Duty belonging to all persons that are capable of it where there are persons to baptize and a Congregation to communicate with and therefore it 's not said absolutely but generally necessary As for the latter a Sacrament is not a Scripture-word but a Term of Art and so hath been variously used and applied and therefore to set out what it means the Church has defined what a Sacrament is and then shew'd there are but two and so this Phrase is used to distinguish it from any other so called and that then none but these two are generally necessary to all Christians 3. The Book saith Some Sins are deadly as if the Popish distinction of sins into Mortal and Venial were a sound distinction Ans How can that be when Fornication which is called deadly in the Liturgy in the Church of Rome is ordinarily accounted a Venial Sin and when the distinction between Mortal and Venial as used in the Church of Rome is so contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England It 's plain that our Church means thereby no other than heinous 4. It 's said Christ has redeemed all mankind Ans The Scripture saith God will have all men to be saved and that Christ died for all c. 2. He argues farther That A stinted Liturgy is opposite to the Spirit of Prayer Eph. 6. 18. Ans 1. If so then the Spirit will not communicate it self in a Liturgy or stinted Form of Prayer contrary to the sense of all sober Divines So Dr. Owen Supposing saith he those who make use of and plead for Forms of Prayer especially in publick do in a due manner prepare themselves for it by holy meditation c. I do not judge that there is any such evil in them as that God will not communicate his Spirit to any in the use of them 2. If so then almost all Churches in the world for these 1300 years at least to this day as Mr. Baxter allows have been without the Spirit of Prayer 3. If so then we cannot lawfully communicate in or with a stinted Liturgy which has yet been approved by all Reformed Churches as Mr. Ball saith and Mr. Norton saith it's lawful to embrace Communion with Churches where such Forms in Publick worship are in use 4. As for Eph. 6. 18. that we are to pray with all Prayer why is that not possible by a Liturgy when there are in it Supplications Prayers and giving of thanks 3. He le ts pass the Argument from the mischief of a prescript Liturgy and so will I pass what follows from the trivial unintelligible and dirty Reflections of it For he knows we can match his Fidler with Stories of some of those that have been Eminent the other way and could argue upon the sinfulness of unpremeditated and conceived Prayer 3. He saith Mr. Cotton speaketh weightily in saying It 's unlawful to bring ordinarily any other Book into the Publick Worship of God besides the Book of God A. I know no difference between Reading and Reciting in this case and I have heard Mr. Cotton used a Form of Prayer in the Pulpit If he did not yet all the Nonconformists in former times did as far as ever I could learn To close all he undertakes to Answer an Objection That Good men were the first Collectors and Publishers of the Liturgy and died Martyrs This he endeavours to answer and yet when it 's to serve his own Cause it 's a considerable Argument Thus saith he before The Corruptions of the Liturgy have been born witness against by good Men and his Father a Holy Man suffered much for his Nonconformity and what not Now surely if this sort of arguing is good for them it 's good for us But he Replies further 1. All Persons employed in it were not good Men as Day Bishop of Chichester He was a dissembling Hypocrite pretending to be a Protestant but afterwards shew'd himself to be a Papist A. Here he betrays gross ignorance or somewhat worse For tho Day was one of the 18 Bishops imployed for compiling the Service-Book at first Anno 1548. yet at that time he was for Transubstantiation and Solitary Masses and against having the Service in the Vulgar Tongue And when the next Review was which was 1550. when Cranmer wrote to Bucer about it it does not appear that Day was concerned nay rather that he was against it for he refused to set his hand to the Book before it was enacted by a Law and was afterward turn'd out of his Bishoprick and depriv'd But to say all in a word What was this dissembling Hypocrite to those who were truly Pious Men and acted faithfully according to the Light they had as our Author acknowledgeth 2. He saith Good men chang'd their minds so did Ridley and Cranmer A. Both gross mistakes For Archbishop Cranmer took upon him to defend the Common-Prayer Ministration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies when in Prison And Bishop Ridley a little before his Martyrdom in a Letter to his Friend saith This Church had of late the whole Divine Service all Common and Publick Prayers framed to the true vein of Holy Scripture And again after his condemnation writing an Answer to Grindal concerning Knox's peremptory Exceptions against the service-Service-Book I grant saith he a Man as he is of Wit and Learning may find apparent reasons yet I suppose he cannot soundly by the Word of God so
taken out of the mass-Mass-Book and be Heathenish as well as Popish Q. 2. Whether the being taken out of the mass-Mass-Book makes it unlawfull to be used or joyned with tho it be good and lawful in it self Q. 1. Whether the common-Common-Prayer is taken out of the Mass-Book As our Author takes care to represent it one would think there is little of the Roman Service left out in ours The Common-Prayer saith he is in a great measure Popish is taken out of the Popes Mass-Book it cannot be denied it 's derived from thence p. 1. There is very little in the English which is not to be found in the other p. 2. This is matter of Fact and so is not to be determined by Authority He himself makes a fair proposal which I shall accept of viz. Let such as have any hesitancy about this matter compare the Popish Missal c. with the English Liturgy and they will be convinced Of what That he had never read and compared them or is guilty of a notorious Abuse that he puts upon his ignorant Reader that after he pretends to have read and compared shall assert so gross a falshood and say There is very little in the English that is not to be found in the other c. 1. For there is little comparatively in the English which is to be found in the Roman Liturgy and far more is left out than ever was taken thence This is indeed directly contrary to what he affirms and yet let any one compare them and he will be convinced of the truth of it Take that which is called the Cannon of the Mass or Form of Administring the Eucharist and there is no Agreement not one Collect or Prayer the same Go we to Baptism there is not one Prayer belonging to that Office that is in ours And as for the Litany there is not a third part of theirs in ours and much in ours which is not in theirs 2. There is nothing in the Service of the Church of Rome which makes it the Popes Missal and is peculiar to that Church that is in ours that is there is no Popery in our Liturgy This he is in part forced to acknowledge There are saith he things as Prayers for the Dead c. in the Roman Liturgy which are not translated into English His Et cetera if branched into particulars would be very large as he could not but know if he had read and compared them As for Example Where are their Crossings Elevation and Adoration of the Elements Where their Solitary Communion and Communion in one kind Where their frequent Crossings of themselves and of the Book Where their material Crosses and the Adoration of them Where their Prayers for the Dead Where their Intercessors the Virgin Mary and Saints that are to be found in the Cannon of the Mass Where are the many Exorcisms in Baptism the Puffs they blow in the Infant 's face their Conjuration of Salt for a wholesome Sacrament to the driving away of Devils that 's put into the Mouth of the Infant as a propitiation unto Eternal Life Where the Spittle with which the Ears and Nostrils of the Infants are touched with an Ephphatha be opened Where the Oyl of Salvation as it 's call'd wherewith the Priest anoints the Child's Breast and Shoulders in form of a Cross Where the Chrism or Oyntment wherewith he anoints the Crown of the Head in figure of a Cross Where the change of Garments their Purple and White Robe that the Child is to carry unspotted before the Tribunal of our Lord Where the lighted Candle put into the Child's hand that when our Lord shall come to the Wedding he may meet him Where the many Crossings of the Head before Baptism and of the Eyes Ears Nostrils Breast Shoulders Mouth c. to be found in their Ritual and Pastoral Lastly To go no farther Where are the O Holy Mary Mother of God c. pray for us Where are the Angels and Arch-Angels the Patriarchs and Prophets the Apostles and Evangelists the Martyrs Popes and Confessors the Priests and Levites the Monks and Hermits the Virgins and Widows the Forty seven Saints in particular and all Saints in general that are called upon in their Litany Pray for us And if nothing that is truly Popish be to be found in our Liturgy we have so far reason to deny that it 's taken out of the Mass-Book 3. I add That our Service is so far from being taken out of he Missal that whatsoever in it is the same with the Office in the Church of Rome is mostly taken out of the Ancient Offices of the Christian Church And because every one cannot compare it I will produce Impartial Authority for it Thus saith Mr. Ball a Nonconformist of great Note in the last Age The English Liturgy is not a Collection out of the Mass-Book but a refining of the Liturgy which heretofore had been stained with the Mass and is not a Translation of the Mass but a Restitution of the Ancient Liturgies So the Ministers of Old England in a Letter to the Ministers of New England wrote Anno 1637. It 's no hard task to shew that our Service-Book was reformed in most things according to the purest Liturgies which were in use long before the Mass was heard of in the World p 2. To these I will add one more for the Character our Author gives of him viz. Bishop Jewel whom he calls that great Light in the English Church p. 9. Who saith We are come as near as possibly we could to the Church of the Apostles and of the old Catholick Bishops and Fathers And besides we have aimed not only our Doctrine but Sacraments also and Forms of our Publick Prayers after the patern of their Rites and Ordinances To say the truth it 's a very odd thing to represent our Liturgy as Popish when those that composed and used the Liturgy were burnt by the Papists for it and when to this day they will not communicate in it nor with the Church that useth it Our Author saith There have been Jusuits and Popish Intelligencers that approved of our Service and Pope Pius 5 th would have ratified it And is it therefore Popish The Independent allows the Presbyterian Confession of Faith And this Author saith p. 4. It must be acknowledged that such of the Church-of-England men as keep to the 39 Articles in matters of Doctrine are as Orthodox as any Protestants in the world And is therefore the Independent a Presbyterian or this Author a Church-of England-man I trow not All is that they agree in the Common Principles the other receives and yet one is no more the other than if they had no agreement in such Principles And so is it here the English Liturgy has nothing but what is agreeable to the Doctrine
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-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-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-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
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.