The VINDICATION of Liturgies Lately Published by Dr. FALKNER PROVED NO VINDICATION OF THE Lawfulness Usefulness and Antiquity of set-SET-FORMS of Publick Ministerial Prayer to be Generally used by or Imposed on all Ministers And consequently 〈◊〉 Answer to a Book Intituled A Reasonable Account why some Pious Nonconformists judge it sinful for them to perform their Ministerial Acts in by the Prescribed Forms of others Wherein with an Answer to what Dr. Falkner hath said in the Book aforesaid the Original Principles are discovered from whence the different apprehensions of men in this Point arise By the Author of the Reasonable Account and Supplement to it Prov. 18.7 He that is first in his own cause seemeth just but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him LONDON Printed for Benjamin Alsop at the Angel and Bible in the Poultrey 1681. To those Honourable Knights Citizens Burgesses Who Are or Shall be Chosen To Represent the Commons of England In the Next Assembly of PARLIAMENT 1. BEfore you most Renowned Patriots we most humbly spread our Cause to whom should the Commons of England make their Applications but to those whom they have chosen to represent them in their Circumstances of Distress and Grief Especially when their most Gracious Soveraign hath so often declared the Benignity of his Royal Nature to them and readiness to joyn in any Act or Acts declarative or confirmative of it and when the most Noble Lords in the years 1672 and 1673 together with the Commons then assembled had gone so far as to our Relief in the Cause as â—â—ey did notwithstanding which the mutability of your Honourable House seems to require a new Application to your Honours How far we have applied our selves to the Reverend Bishops will appear to your Honours by the Account of the Proceedings of the Commissioners of both Perswasions appointed by his Sacred Majesty c. Printed 1661 and several other overtures That the case was the same then that is by us now pleaded for will appear to your Honours by that Printed Account p. 5. in their 7 Proposal expressed in these words That the Gift of Prayer being one special Qualification for the work of the Ministry bestowed by Christ in order to the Edification of his Church to be exercised for the profit and and benefit thereof according to its various and Emergent necessities It is desired that there may be no such Imposition of the Liturgy as that the exercise of that Gift be thereby totally excluded in any part of Publick Worship And that the Commissioners on the other side so apprehended appears by their Answer then to this Proposal p. 35. where they replyed This makes the Liturgy void which is very true as to Universal use and Imposition but not otherwise 2. Nor is this Opinion a Novel Opinion or the liberty desired a Novel Request It appears by the Book called The Troubles of Frankford that it is older than our Reformation by Q. Elizabeth and coaevous in England with the first hours of Reformation much older in the Churches of Suitzerland the oldest Reformed Protestant Churches The Opinion and Practice of the Waldenses and Bohemians whose Churches I do not call Reformed but look upon them as continuing in their Integrity and succeeding in the Primitive Doctrine and Practice of the Church in a great measure whilst other parts of the World were in their Apostacy for more than a thousand years together None ever shewed us any Liturgy of Prayers they had nor do they mention any in their accounts which by their Deputies they in gave both of their Faith and Practice to Luther an Oecolampadius which are extant in Scâ—ltâ—tus's Annales Evang. That the practice we desire is the same with that in Scotland New England Holland is not to be denyed 3. The persons most Renowned Patriots on whose behalf we desire it are neither few nâ—r inconsiderable Two thousand Ministers were turned out 1662. Some are dead but possibly not a much lesser number are sprang up either in the Ministry or Candidates for it Of those let men say what they please there will not be found a tenth part that can think it lawful to perform their Ministerial Acts in Publick Solemn Prayer by the Prescribed Forms of other Men. And Dr. Falkner in his Epistle tells the World That the Genius of that party is much set against them and in their Practice they reject them almost generally with some eagerness which is very true and so appeareth in that the far greater part of them can neither upon eighteen years Trial be perswaded that it is lawful for them to hear them nor yet by any sort of Cudgells be Cudgelled into such a Belief or Practice tho I must profess my self of another mind and in that am my self a Dissenter from I believe 9 parts of ten of our Dissenters whom yet I love and honour I take in both Ministers and People unto my Account Nor are they Inconsiderable considered as to their Intellectuals or Morals or Quality in the World or usefulness to our English world which must be owned and will readily be I am sure by your Honours who are the Eyes of the Nation seeing in every corner of it and â—â—â—ng able better to judge of Numbers and Qualities of Persons than we that sit in our Studies or any that take an Account from Registers c. 4. Nor are they invaluable or the worst sort of men for Morality and which is much higher True Piety and Godliness Of late years your Honours have had many of them brought before you in your publick Sessions and Assizes Might not you say to those that brought them as the Town Clerk of Ephesus once said Acts 19.37 You have brought hither these men that are no Robbers of Churches nor Blasphemers of God I may add further no Murtherers no Adulterers no Drunkards no Profane or false Swearers no Perjured Persons no Robbers by the High way onely accused of Questions about a Law not profitable to men nor necessary for the glory of God A Law which is but the Will of King and Parliament whose Will hath been since sufficiently declared tho not yet in that formality that it should not be so rigorously pursued nor ever was that it should be exdecuted in that manner and with those circumstances that it hath been For their Religion let it be judged from what your Honours have observed in their behaviour both in Religious Duties and as to tâ—â—â—r Civil converse with men For their Religious Conversation let it be observed Whether the generality of them when they are in Gods Publick Worship are they who when they should be joyning with the Minister in putting up Prayers whether he be praying by Forms or no have their Eyes up and down here and there are whispering and talking to those that are next them it may be sleeping or rather be not those who natural infirmities allowing it do stand up or kneel keep their Eyes shut or fixed upon God
Prayer may be properly call'd the Gift of Vocal Prayer I affirm it The Vindicator denies it Chap. 1. 5 Quest Whether in Acts of external instituted Worship or any part of it any thing can be call'd Order or Decency Or be said to be Pious Religious Devout and for Edification antecedaneously or without respect to the Divine Will revealed in the Law of Nature or in Holy Writ I deny it The Vindicator affirms it Chap. 4 c. 6 Quest Whether considering the infirmity of our Nature a Person in Prayer can keep his thoughts as close to and have his affection as warm in the Duty reading a Form as in speaking from his own conceptions I deny it The Vindicator affirms pag. 75. 7 Quest Whether where God hath left Minister or People a liberty to use one or another mean in an Act of Worship but commanded all to serve him with the greatest fervor of spirit they can they be not by a Divine Precept obliged to use that means which upon experience they find most conducive to the attention of their thoughts or fervor of their spirits I affirm it 8 Quest Supposing Superiors should command Ministers and People in the Publick Worship or in their Families to pray by Forms onely which they appoint such a Command were lawful and obliging to them I deny it The Vindicator affirms pag. 193 c. 9 Quest Whether there be not equal reason for Superiors to command Ministers to perform their Ministerial Acts of Preaching by reading other mens Sermons as their Acts of Prayer by reading orbâ—rs Forms of Prayer I affirm The Vindicator denies 10 Quest Whether the Promises we have in Scripture of the influence and assistance of the Holy Spirit in Prayer may not or do not extend to words as well as pious and devout affections or our contending for a liberty as to words in Prayer he not a meer Contention for shewing our Parts and a varying of Phrases As to the first part I affirm as to the latter I deny The Vindicator affirms the latter 11 Quest Whether Prayer Preaching and Administring the Sacraments be not the main works and parts of a Gospel-Ministers ministration I affirm it The Vindicator denies it 12 Quest Whether if Ministers perform their Acts of Prayer and Preaching by prescribed Forms of others and administer the Sacraments by other Forms than Christ hath given them to use in the case they by it do not transform themselves from Ministers of Christ to meer Ministers of men The last hath not been touched and may make a new Argument in my Case I must confess the dread of it is not the least thing that aweth me The Russian Priests are brought to think they fulfil their Ministry by reading their Liturgy and in stead of Preaching reading an Homily out of Chrysostom But in these things whether they approve themselves indeed Ministers of Christ or meer Servants of Men may be considered The famous Ministry of England hath ever been judged another thing as soon Reader as thou canst fix thy answer to these Questions satisfactorily to thy own Conscience thou wilt be able to determine whether what I have said in the Reasonable Account c. or what Dr. Falkner hath said in his Vindication be of most weight and whose Positions are most extravagant false and erroneous Legat penes Lectorem sit Judicium THE INTRODUCTION The Vindicator's Title not proper to his Work nor justly proportioned to the Title or Matter of the Book he pretendeth to answer The Author of the Reasonable Account pretends to no Oracular infallibilities onely to Reason working on Scriptural Principles The design of his Book The Vindicator's false account of it in his Epistle Dedicatory His slighty apprehensions of it The Policy of that The Undertaking not so strange as the Vindicator would make it The reason why the Arguments may appear to have no weight to the Vindicator yet may not be so light The Vindicator's unkind reflection upon the Author for his want of skill in Chronology as to the times of Gregory the Great and Charles the Great shewed to be only produced for sport and to have nothing of charge in it but the Vindicator himself hath commited a greater Error about Gregory the Great making him to have died Fâ—fteen years before Platina saith he was Pope The Vindicator's declining Syllogistical Arguing The seasonableness of the coming out of the Reasonable Account through the intervention of Gods Providence tho the Author at the writing of it had no prospect of any such thing The Conclusion of the Answer to his Epistle Dedicatory and Introduction 1. THE Author hath intituled his Book A Vindication of Liturgies that is of what strictly taken none of any sound mind ever found fault with for a Liturgy it ought to be wrote Liturgy tho it be by vulgarer ror neglected fignifies nothing either according to the notation of the word coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Scriptural usage of it or the usage of it in the ancientest Writers in Philology or in ancient Ecclesiastical Writers without an addition to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the like but a Publick Service or Ministry but he by and by adds Shewing the Lawfulness Vsefulness and Antiquity of performing the Publick Worship of God by Set Forms of Prayer Nor hath any that I know denied this It is onely the Lawfulness of an Vniversal Vse or Imposition of Set Forms and those too prescribed by other men and imposed on all men that is the matter in question which by the Title of his Book it seems the Author had no mind to vindicate 2. He goes on In answer to a late Book intituled A Reasonable Account why some pious Noncon Ministers judge it sinful for them to perform their Ministerial Acts in Publick Solemn Prayer by the prescribed Forms of others But how shall a Vindication of Liturgies shewing the Lawfulness Vsefulness and Antiquity of performing the Publick Worship of God by Set Forms ever answer that Book which meddles not with the Lawfulness of Liturgies but Forms of Prayer onely composed by those who do not use them and imposed on them Nor doth it say they are unlawful only shews the reasons of some persons why they cannot judge that it is lawful for them to use them 3. Neither the Author of that Book nor his Friends pretend to have the Propositions they delivered suggested to them by the Roman King's Goddess Aegeria nor yet whispered to them by Mahomets Pigeon nor yet impressed upon them as John of Leyden pretended at Munster that his were nor yet to have had them from the Possessor of any infallible Chair they pretend to no more than that Light which enlighteneth every man that comes into the World They think There is a Spirit in Man and the Almighty hath given him Vnderstanding that God hath given all men a Principle inabling men to dis-Course conclusions from Principles which we call Reason That these Principles are
only further mentions Hymns and proveth the use of Hymns of Ecclesiastical composition from Pliny and Lucian no very competent Witnesses of the Christian Churches affairs The early use of the Lords Prayer is easily yielded him but it is a strange proof of a Form of Prayers composed by other Men and generally used or imposed to prove as p. 158 That they began in some Churches with the Lords Prayer and ended with the Hymns of many names which Mr. Gregory thought was the clause at the end of the Lords Prayer and he doth but guess it some other The Lords Prayer cometh not within our question be it a Form or not a Form 25. Whatsoever he saith à p. 160. ad p. 164. is rather ad pompam then ad pugnam it all referreth to the use of Forms of Prayers in the Jewish Church To it all I shall only add 2 things 1. It is very improbable and will appear so to every considerate Christian that we should have in Scripture a full account of the Jewish Church from its Cradle to its Tomb and so particular an Account of the way of Worship which God established amongst them from which they might not vary and they should have Forms of Prayers established for ordinary use and the Scripture not mention any thing of them we read in Scripture of other Books they had some of which are perished some preserved for our Instruction and Guidance We read of the Book of the Law many times but never of their Common Prayer Book nor of any person that used the 18 Prayers We read Nehemiah 8. That in a solemn day of Worship the whole Congregation met and called to Ezra for the Book of the Law he brings it they read in it from the Morning to Mid-day v. 1 2. After this we read of many Priests and Levites who read in the Book of the Law distinctly and gave the People the sense of it and made them to understand the reading thereof but we read not a word of their Book of Prayers either there or in any other part of Scripture We read in Luke that when our Saviour came into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day they brought him the Book of the Prophet Isaiah he read in it and preached out of it but neither there do we read of the Book of 18 Prayers brought forth I must confess that in ordinary cases it is not a good Argument That this or that thing was not in being or in use because there is no Sacred Record of the being or use of it But certainly concerning Gods Worship amongst the Jews it is a good Argument to prove there was no such thing established in their Worship because in the Holy Scriptures where we have the full story of that Church a full account of their Worship either by Moses or David so many charges to them not to add thereto nor to diminish there-from there is not any mention of a Book of publick Prayers which God directed for that Church we read only of a blessing which looketh like a Form tho some have been of another mind of Gods own directing tho we often read of the Book of the Law called for brought read in and often read of the Servants of God Praying publickly yet not the least mention is made of a Book or Forms by which they prayed Admit they had had Forms if God had prescribed them it had been out of our question who will freely allow God to prescribe his own Homage and Worship but to think that any of the Jews or the whole Sanhedrim had Authoriâ—y to make any for universal use when God gave such punctual directions both to Moses for the Service of the Taberncale and all things therein and to David for the Service of the Temple that it is expresly said Exod. 39.42 3. That the very structure of the Tabernacle was according to all that the Lord commanded Moses and Deut. 4.2 there is so express a command You shall not add to the word which I command you nor shall you diminish from it which is repeated Deut. 12.32 and David saith 1 Chron. 28.11 12 13 19. All this the Lord made me to understand in Writing by his hand upon me v. 12. the pattern of all that he had by the Spirit When we read of Nadab and Abihu being struck dead Levit. 10. for but using ordinary fire in a Sacrifice and of Vzzah being struck dead for but touching the Ark when it shook in the New Cart it being Gods prescript that that Family of the Levites should carry the Ark on their shoulders Num. 4.15 7 9. I say after all this for any to go about to prove that the Jews in their Worship had Forms of Prayer not prescribed of God which their Ministers were bound to use and of which is no mention in Scripture is an undertaking fit for none but those who think they can prove Quidlibet e quolibet nor to be believed by any but such as are very credulous Our Vindicator saith their very Sacrifices were Rites of Supplications and as to them they were limited and used no such Variety Rites of Supplication and Supplications are two things and these Rites were limited by God not by the Sanhedrim I hope nor were they without some variety in them For his instance 2 Chron. 29.30 It is said They praised God with the Words of David and Asaph the Seer Asaph was a Prophet David told us he ordered nothing but by the Spirit of God what he understood by the hand of the Lord in writing upon him For Joel 2.17 which he quoteth surely Joel was divinely inspired nor is that Prayer surely of length enough for a whole Office nor was it more then a general direction for matter to be inlarged in words as the Jewish Minister thought fit For what Dr. Lightfoot Dr. Outram Scaliger Buxtorf Ainsworth tell us they have had their Intilligence from the Rabbies the eldest of which of whom we have any Record was saith Alstedius after the world was 3380 years old The Hierusalem Talmud was finished by R. Jochanan 250 years after Christ the Babilonian Talmud not till 500. The most of the Writings of their Rabbins saith Alsted appeared not to the World till 1000 years after Christ Now how competent Witnesses these are whose Books also are as full of Fables as leaves of the practice of the Jewish Church before Christ or in its incorrupt state let any judge who are men of sense 2. But admit it were a thing capable of proof that the Jews in their incorrupt times and that by Gods command ordinarily used Forms of Prayer in their Worship and that such as were neither prescribed by God nor any Prophet or Penman of Holy Writ or that in and about and since Christs time they have used such Forms of Prayer ought this to guide the Practice of the Christian Church Or will it prove that the same thing is lawful in the Christian Church I
upon that single Term tho many of them indure hardship enough But this is a trick used to perswade our Rulers that that is a point of difference betwixt very few Dissenters and them whereas they know the contrary and as to our Brethren of the Congregational Perswasion and the Anabaptists they cannot but know that there is not a man of them judgeth Forms of Prayer generally used or imposed lawful and I dare assure him that of the Presbyterians there is not one of forty so judgeth them 7. But I am more concerned to inquire whether there be nothing in my Book of any great wâ—ight c. I have observed in Shoâ—s that the judgment of the Weight of Wares hath much depended upon the Scales and Weights used and the hand of him that pretends to set the Ballance even an Vnrighâ—â—â—â—â—â—s Thumb and Finger often makes a Commodity appear light which hath weight enough I must therefore crave leave to examine the Scales and Weights by which our Vindicator hath taken his Measures and see whether some unlucky Thumb and Finger of Prejudice or Passion hath not caused my Ware to be prenounced so l ght and intreat my Reader to weigh it over again in the Ballance of the Sanctuary with the Sealed Weights of Scripture and Right Reason and then to pass a deliberate Judgment and shall onely tell our Vindicator that it was no good Logick to put the ergo before the Premises he should first have shewed the Weakness and Lightness of them and have left these expressions for his Conclusion others and those learned Men are not all of his mind and because he is so confident upon me let it rest to justify their Weight and further to prove that he hath been so far from proving any Antiquity for any general use or Impositions of Forms of Prayers to be used by all Ministers in their publick Ministrations for 600 years after Christ that it is a thing not proveable and which no wise and learned man can undertakeÌ„ the proof of only Aliquid dicendum in nihil dicant and what is wanting in just matter must be made up with many and big words 8. He saith right That the design of his former Book is made void by my undertaking if what I say be true which I very well knew Es frustra fit perplura c. be the particular Forms used in our Church as good as they will it is nothing to us who would never have entred the Ministry if we had not thought we had and been judged by those who set us apart to the work to have had some ability to Pray as well as Preach and having so judg it Sinful not to perform our Ministerial Acts in the use of that gift 9. The Author of the Reasonable Account c. did not set his name not desiring that his Arguments should derive any Repute or Disrepute from him What matters it whether the Author be a wise Man or a Fool the question is What his Arguments in the Case are Saepe etiam tolitor est opportuno locutor But he chargeth me deeply when he says p. 3. That it is observable that when I write concerning the Ancient Practice of the Church after the Apostles times or any thing written in those days it is generally done so loosely and somtimes with such wonderful extravagancy as may surprize an intelligent Reader with some kind of Admiration Says he so Wherein He will give but one instance which he saith is in my 68 69 pages speaking of the Original of Liturgies I say We do believe that Gregory the Great under the Protection of Charles the Great was the Father of all those that dwell in these Tents and that 800 or a 1000 years after Christ My words in that place are these To bring this point to an Issue there was a Book published 1662 called A sober and temperate Discourse concerning the Interest of words in Prayer The Reader may there at large see what we judg concerning the Original of Liturgies when our Reverend Brother or any for him shall have given a strict Reply to the 3. and 4. Chapters in that Book we shall think they have more to say for their Antiquity then we have yet seen In the mean time we do believe that Gregory the Great usually said to be the worst of all Popes that went before him under the Protection of Charles the Great was the Father of all those who dwell in these Tents and that 800 or 1000 years after Christ He leaves out the first part and the reference to the other Book The truth is it was too Elliptically expressed towards a Person that sought an occasion to Carp and Reflect which that our Vindicator did too much appears from his taking notice of what was p. 68 69. of a book which had not above 180. pages in it or thereabouts In the 4 p. of his Answer and then again in p. 138. of his Answer in both which places he makes sport with it at such a rate as were unpardonable but that it was just about Prevarication time at Cambridge and indeed it was a thing fitter to make sport for boys then men who understand any thing of Sense and have any judgment 10. He comes upon it with a Firstly Secondly Thirdly then makes Application suitably which he pursueth p. 138. and amplifies with a Rabbinical Story and shuts up his Reflection with a very pretty Jest His words are these To speak of Gregory the great 800 or 1000 years after Christ is far enough from truth when he dyed about the year 1604 and Secondly that Gregory the great should be under the Protection of Charles the great is impossible when he was dead about 200 years before Charles the great began his Reign And 3ly It is altogether as inaccountable that Liturgies had their Original either in the time of Gregory or Charles the great when they were in use many 100 years before them both Quod est demonstrandum Then he comes to Application This mistake concerning these Persons whose Names are so famous in History that a Man of ordinary reading could not be unacquainted with them is as if any person should presume to give account of the Church of the Israelites and should assert that the offering of Sacrifices under the Mosaicai Law had its beginning in the days of Eli the Priest in the Reign of K. Jehosophat 600 or 800 years after the Israelites came out of Egypt This is a great piece of ignorance and error That 's the first use Surely it is a strange confidence for any person to vent such things and to write positively what he no better understandeth The Author therefore of the Reasonable Account is an ignorant confident person That is the 2d use p. 138. Therefore we must not reasonably expect any accuracy in the right computation of the time of the birth and first production of Liturgies from him who talks so loosly and falsly about the Age in
had said in his Objection The Objectoâ— had not in his Objection said That all Ministers might put up Prayers in the greatest Perfection of Phrase or Matter or Stile and Exactness he onely spake of needful Petitions that should comprehend all Common and Ordinary Spiritual and outward wants 2. There is no need nor doth God any where require that all his Ministers should pray with the greatest perfection and exactness but that they should do the best they are able to do according to the best abilities God hath given them 3. Doth the Author say or was it the Vindicator that suggested that all Ministers are not able to do this I think it was the Vindicator who upon this Argument pleaded the necessity of Others Prescriptions 4. The Author indeed did say If it were so No B. he had said the same in the Reasonable Account p. 1â—4 it was ashame to the Church of God in England he saith so still for no such Ministers are able to preach without such Prescriptions 5. But to reconcile himself to the Vindicator he doth from his heart believe that in the Church of England there are twice ten thousand men which is as many again as there are acting Ministers who without others Prescriptions are able to put up needful and comprehensive Petitions for all Common and Ordinary Spiritual and Outward Wants of themselves and others with fit Thanksgivings Yea and something more than this for all Emergent Occasions as to which Forms cannot provide which it may be is the reason that it will be hard to prove that such Petitions and fit Thanksgivings have not Vniversally been put up with reference to the late Horid Popish Plot and most Eminent dangers of the Nation as every good English mans common reason may have judged needful 6. From hence appears that tho he be first Impeaching yet it is not the Author but the Answerer who in the place quoted hath Calumniated and Reproached the Church of God and spoken rawly and extravagantly The Vindicator plainly asserted the necessity of Liturgies because there were not in the Church persons so able The Author saith no such thing but saith It is a shame for us if there be not in the mean time believing there are so many either actually imployed in the Ministry or who may be so when they please But Vt canem caedas facile est invenire baculum 29. All this while it seems the Vindicator hath said nothing to the Authors Argument The great thing which seems to be the Question betwixt us in all this Discourse is Whether there be any such thing the duty of Ministers as Verbal Prayer or whether words have any necessary concern in Ministers Publick Prayers since Prayer is not so much a Verbal thing saith he p. 30. But is it not a Duty that cannot by a Minister be publickly performed without words if not by his leave words are essential to it for certainly that is essential to a thing without which that thing cannot be He cometh now to the Authors Argument after 26 pages spent in Prologomena The first thing which he saith p. 57. hath been before spoken to in the beginning of this Chapter when I did not think fit to have spoken any thing to his long digression tho afterwards I saw it necessary to make good my Minor Proposition 30. The second thing he saith is p. 58. That Ability of Expression is not peculiarly and particularly given by God to M nisters that they might thereby perform the publick Office of Prayer This he would prove Because it is given to others beside Ministers Because then our Lord would not have given his Disciples a Form of Prayer But is this the Question I assume no more then that it is a Mean given by God in order to the performance of the act natural and proper What if it be given to others as well as Ministers then they are also bound to perform the Act in the use of it The giving of it to others as well as Ministers surely doth not make it cease to be a Gift a Ministerial Gift a Gift in order to the Act which is all I have said And Dato non concesso supposing our Saviour did give his Disciples the Lords Prayer for a Form of words doth it follow this is not a Divine Mean natural and proper because that altho not so Natural yet it is as Divine and Proper being appointed by him who is God over all blessed for ever or that because we may doubtless use any Mean of Divine Institution therefore we may neglect a Mean given us of God and use a Mean under no Divine Prescription Certainly it will not follow that because a Form Composed and Instituted by Christ is a Divine Mean therefore Forms Instituted by men are till Christs Commission to them to do as much in his Church in this case as himself be well proved I leave this Answer to any fair intelligent Reader 's Judgment whether it be adequate or no 31. In the next place he tells us the Authority of Governours is of considerable weight Indeed it is but not in this case because it cannot be pleaded without begging the Question as may be seen by the clear and plain stating of it p. 5. and certainly the answering of an Argument by a plain and open begging the Question speaks the Vindicator to be as Defective in his Logick as the Author was supposed to be in his Chronological learning 32. He tells us p. 60. That the Author saith That a mans own Gift and Ability is a Divine Mean He doth so and it is true But a Form of Prayer is a meer humane Mean A Form of Prayer prescribed or composed by others to be used by me if those others were not authorized by God is but an Humane Mean nor is it possible that it should be other Now he saith this must be upon a Supposition that an ability to compose a Prayer to speak it is a Divine Ability he should have said Mean but the same ability to compose the same Prayer if it be written is a meer Humane Mean for so he should have said if he intended to speak Sense as every Reader will own An Ability to express our minds fitly in Prayer to God is a Divine Mean relating to the Action of Praying An Ability fitly to express the matter or stile of a Prayer in a Book is also a Divine Mean in order to the action of writing such a Form But how doth it appear that another Mans Ability fitly to express the matter or stile of a Prayer in a Book is also a Divine Mean in order to my Action in Prayer He that can prove this must use another Medium or else assert That what is a Divine Mean for A. B. as to one Action is also a Divine Mean for C. D. as to another Action of a quite differing Species This is now what Logicians call Ignoratio Elenchi What he saith p. 60 and
61. in his 36 Paragraph is much of the same strength The Author did say That if none have an Ability to express their own and others Minds fitly to God in Prayer then no Man hath an Ability to make publick Forms for in them there must be such an Ability exercised What doth our Answerer conclude from hence Then The Ability to make Liturgies is the Gift of Prayer and consequently must be a Divine Mean for the performance of Prayer How doth this follow It will follow indeed that it is a Divine Mean for the composure of a Prayer but not for the Action of Prayer because it it not the ability of him that prayeth but of other Men whom God never imployed so far as we yet see proved to find out means for others Actions in his Worship But I am not difficult to grant That an Ability to make Forms of Prayer is a Divine Mean for some persons viz. such as have not attained to an Ability of themselves fitly to express their mind to God but will it therefore follow that it is so for them to whom God hath given another mean more proper and natural 33. The Answerer p. 61. comes to answer my Proofs which were drawn from those Texts where Ministers are from God commanded not to neglect their Gifts 1 Tim. 4.14 1 Pet. 4.10 11. Rom. 12.3 6. As to the first Text he tells us 1. That it was a charge not to neglect his Office 2. That there is not a word spoken of Prayer To which I reply 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in many other places signifies a Gift or Ability to a Religious Act in this place signifies an Office and not a Gift is spoken without any proof 2. That both the words before-going Give Attendance to Reading to Exhortation Doctrine and those immediately following Meditate on these things give thy self wholly to them Take heed to thy self and to thy Doctrine are vehement Presumptions to the contrary 3. I will not deny but it may signifie both Gift and Office if that will please our Answerer and that it doth signifie both is plain from 20 Texts in the New Testament But it seems that it will not for he goes on and tells us there is not a Word about Prayer Who said there was I onely urged it as a general Prohibition of the neglect of any Ministerial Gifts of which surely the Gift of Prayer is one The Argument is Ministers must neglect no Ministerial Gift Therefore not that of Prayer But he saith The Gift of Prayer is not given by the laying on of hands nor doth the Text say so it saith By Prophecy with the laying on of hands By Prophecy that is that you might prophecy so Piscator Vatablus and Beza render it or with Prophecy so the Syriack Arabick and Aethiopick Versions expound it or by Prophecy so the Vulgar Latine and our Translation which is hardest to expound unless as some we will expound it per oraculum immediately from God With Impositions of hands that is with the Office of the Ministry in which sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here cannot signifie the Office but the Gift But besides may not are not Ministerial Gifts in a more plentiful measure given at the time vvhen God calls a man out to the Pubiick Ministry I am Sure the Scripture tells us of another Spirit given to Persons at their calling out to Places of Magistracy I believe the same as to the Ministry But our Answerer saith it might be meant of Extraordinary Gifts which might not be neglected May then Ordinary Gifts be neglected And is not this an Infallible Answer as to any thing we can produce of this Nature It is but saying Those Texts refer to the extraordinary Gifts tho no pretence can be brought of proof for it Our Vindicator p. 63 seems again a little displeased That I should bring a Text to prove an obligation as to the manner of Performance of Prayer in which there is no mention of Prayer who p. 142. cryed out upon it as Ridiculous for another to argue from Rom. 15.16 Because the Apostle praying for like-mindedness prayed That with one mouth they might Glorifie God he might have told the Reader also that in that place I fairly stated the Argument which could be drawn from that Text thus Those who are to speak the same thing and are with one mouth to glorifie God may lawfully or must use set Forms of Prayer But Christians are to speak the same thing 1 Cor. 1.10 and with one mouth to glorifie God Ergo If our Vindicator can make more of it why doth he not I denied the Major and told him the same Argument would prove Forms of Preaching necessary and the same Forms to be used in all Churches Families and Closets yea and that it was necessary for all Christians to speak the same words in all Religious Discourse but then I should not have used the same Logick It is true none ought to do that himself which he disalloweth in another But have I done it Let us try My Argument from that Text 1 Tim. 4.14 lies thus Those who ought not in their Ministry to neglect their Ministerial Gift ought not to neglect their Gift of Prayer But Ministers in their Ministry in Prayer ought not to neglect their Ministerial Gift 1 Tim. 4.14 Ergo. I think this Arguing is according to an old Rule in Logick Quicquid praedicatur de genere praedicatur etiam de specie Let but our Vindicator prove That Ministers all Praying by one and the same Form of Words is a Species to Glorifying God with one Mouth as I will prove that Gifts of Prayer are Species of Ministerial Gifts and he will say something otherwise this is nothing but an ugly Reflexion of which his Book is too full What his quotation from Grotius means I cannot tell He was no Father no Divine but a Learned Politician very Erroneous in his Divinity of what Authority his Sentiment should be with any sober Divine I cannot imagine 35. He comes p. 64. to my Quotation of 1 Pet. 4.10 in the case as every one hath received the Gift so let him minister the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same what The same Gift As to this he saith Many understand that Text of Alms and why Because the verse before spake of Hospitality Why may not others understand it of Spiritual Gifts considering that the following words are As Stewards of the Manifold Grace of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is that Alms If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God Then he refers us to the second and third Answer which he gave to the aforementioned Text that is by Gift may he meant Office but whether is more proper to say Men minister their Office or their Gifts in their Offices But which was his third Answer it might be understood of extraordinary Gifts Then this Text now signifies nothing of Duty to us thus any thing
4 and 5 Centuries might mistake 3. I am not concerned to make good what Smectymnuus said tho I knew the Men that made that Book and know that none of them wanted learning but for the Commissioners of the Savoy their saying they could find no intire Liturgies within the first 300 years doth not argue that they found any then for I am sure they did not but those being the times of the purer Primitive Church they by their Commission were concerned to speak to no more I do say it again that they might have said That they find no Record of any Liturgy universally used or imposed and commanded to be used by all for 600 years till the time of Gregory the great nor then by any imposed but by Gregory the worst of all the Bishops of Rome before his time whose Judgment and Practice in this case signified little but under the Protection of Charles the Great 200 years after that I repeat not here an Answer to the Answerers silly Reflection p. 138 I believe I knew what time Gregory the Great and Charles the Great lived before our Vindicator could construe his Cato and that his Book did not enlighten me with this glorious peice of Learning the Supplement will inform him and all those who have a mind to laugh at such lamentable Exceptions We must attend hereafter to what our Author can say to prove Liturgies of Prayer generally used or commanded to be used before the time of Gregory the great 4. In the mean time he takes notice that I will not allow that the three Canons which he quoted that of the Councel of Laodicea cap. 18. of the third Councel of Carthage can 23. of Milevis can 12. had any res ect to Liturgies and their establishment Where have I denied they had no respect to Liturgies Or what doth he mean by Estab ishment For still it is not our Interest I perceive to speak plainly and distinctly I have denyed and do deny that those Canons have the least tittle of proof That Liturgies in the time when those Canons were made and yet the last of these was more then 400 years after Christ were generally used or commanded to be generally used one of which they must prove before they have proved that my Opinion Tâ—at the Vniversal use of Liturgies is not lawful in all probability is false because contrary to the judgment of the Church for 1300 years past 5. I had reason to say so when the last of these Councels was not till 402 and then made for a particular Church and in a particular case which I have else where largely shewed and given a full account of it and for the Two first Supplement p. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36. it is doubted whether ever there were any such Councils and tho this Author produceth something out of Justellus to prove there was such a Council of Laodicea yet there is no Canon of it enjoyning a Form of Prayers should be used morning and evening Other Collectors of Councils very ancient too have no such Council there was but 22 or 42 at it and for the other 3 Carthag Justellus tells our Vindicator the 23 Cannon could not be theirs for that Council made but 21 nor is the 23th to be found in Justellus his Code of the African Church where it should have been if it had been of any authority And our Vindicator tells us too this Code was extant 451 so as at that time they knew of no such Canon And though the first mentioned Canon of Laodicea was taken into the Code which Code was approved by the Council of Calcedon Anno 451. yet there is no proof that Forms of Prayer were then generally used or imposed For the Canon it self mentions no more then a publick Ministry of Prayers as to which Forms are not necessary In the late times in Colledge Chappels there was morning and evening 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where no Forms were used but a certain Order observed all the Week and Year long And indeed this is an usual Cheat in these debates when Men hear or read of a Liturgy of Prayers they presently think there 's a proof for Forms of Praâ—er when it is but of late years that the term Liturgy hath been appropriated to signifie a Common Prayer Book And admit there were such a Council of Carthage and they made what is called the 23 Canon which Justellus denieth yet that as I have shewed in my Supplement determined no such thing that of Milevis or Mela indeed did but in a very small Corner of the Church and for a very particular reason and the Vindicator cannot say these 2 Canons were ever brought into Justellus his Code or confirmed by any general Council But of this matter I have elsewhere said enough 6. For what our Author objects p. 143. to prove the Laodicean Canon injoyned more then the same Ministry or Order of Prayer even Forms From the next Canon it speaketh not a word of Forms more then the other only three Prayers were made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the words used neither of them signifying the reading of a Prayer out of a Book by a Form See at the end of the Book in the Review a full Answer to all said by Dr. Faulkner on this head Whereas our Answerer p. 144 complains I have not read over or considered what he hath said to prove that the Canon of Carthage contrary to the plain sense of the words commanded a Form he will find it taken notice of in my Supplement largely enough p. 28. For the Councel of Milevis it proves no universal use nor any Vniversal Imposition Now that Forms may be used by some Ministers and at some times and that in some particular Exigent they may be Vniversally Imposed for a time which was the cause then I do not doubt but enough is said of that Council Supplement p. 30.31 c. I leave to any Reader to judge whether it is not like a very great part of their Ministry were tainted with Pelagianism whatever our Vindicator saith 7. I shall not trouble my self further about this Section the Argument if it were good concluding nothing as to the Lawfulness and Vnlawfulness I have said in my Supplement as much as I think can be said at least as I can say and so I think hath our Answerer let the Reader judge who hath spoken with most probability and from most Credible Authority So far as we understand the truth of Church Affairs for the first 300 years which we can have no great certainty of for the generality of our Editions are from the Papists who would let us know as little of the truth as they could where it was contrary to their Practice what was held practiced and retained in the Church not being matter of Faith within two hundred years after Christ is no great guide to our Practice tho I said and do believe that Forms of Prayer were
generally very Learned Diligent and Sober Men. The good Lord put this thing into the Hearts of our Civil Magistrates 10. Hence it appeareth that what I said was no such Calumny as to be a Reflection on any one good man nor upon the Governours of our Church nor yet upon the Political Magistrate What makes our Adversary here in such a rage as for this twice to call me Devil once by craft p. 70. another time by Periphrasis p. 235. for we can understand the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that of The grand Accuser of the Brethren tho while he thinks not fit that Ministers in publick Services should use their Gift in Prayer he can yet think it fit to express his Charity by his two gifts of Tongues and Oratory Yet in thus abusing me he as much abuseth no mean persons of his own Brethren for he who wrote The Causes of the contempt of the Clergy and those who in their Sermons have complained of the Debauchery of the Clergy and they hâ—ve not been few have said as much possibly very much more then I have said I neither said that the main body of our Clergy were such nor yet that they were Learned Diligent and Sober Men I had no reason to say either because I do not know the tenth part of them but I know very many both of the one and of the other and amongst those that I know on either side those whom I know of the worser sort are most generally the greatest Zealots for Liturgies and greatest Railers against those that are of another mind I say most generally and the main body of them are so Tho there be some learned and sober men are warm enough too in this case and for the truth of this I appeal to the knowledge of all our English World 11. Certainly it had been more worthy of one who hath had the repute which our Vindicator hath had to have owned the thing which every eye seeth and declared his sad sense of it and acknowledge the defective Constitution of our Church having not had leisure and opportunity since our Reformation from Popery to provide against it and to have told us That altho the preparation of Ministers work for them had been or may be a Temptation to Men whose hearts are viciously inclined to indulge their Lusts yet a Liturgy is no necessary cause of this nor this a necessary consequent of a Liturgy This had been true modest and ingenious by what he hath here said he hath not exposed me but himself but if he had so spoke he had found me agreeing with him and saying the same thing p. 124. 12. As to the second Effect which I mentioned viz. The loss of Ministerial Gifts He dare not say That the totall disuse or general disuse of the Ministerial Gift of Prayer is not the next way to lose it But he tells us Blessed be God in our Church there 's no loss of any Abilities requisite for the due discharge of the Ministry No loss If he had said No want I should not have contradicted him But is there No loss Are there none or have there been none who before this tying themselves to Forms could have fitly expressed themselves to God in Prayer but now cannot without their Book Pray with a Sick Person or upon any Emergent occasion I appeal to the Experience of the World And as much as he in his next words and indeed all along in his Book contemns and slighteth an Ability fitly to express our minds to God in Prayer I believe there are thousands and ten thousands of Ministers and Consencious Christians that would not want it for all this Worlds good and perfer it to the knowledge of all Fathers and all Languages and take it to be one of the Best Gifts which every one who feareth God is obliged to Covet The Lord lay not to his charge his scorn and contempt of it I am afraid that when he and I shall appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ he will find it a graver thing then a Childish varying Phrases He hath read of words which the Holy Ghost teacheth 1 Cor. 2.13 Is he sure that none of the words which a Godly Minister or Christian powreth out from the Conceptions of his own heart first inflamed with the sense of his daily renewed Sins and Wants and Mercies are not words which the Holy Ghost teacheth It teacheth expressions in Sermons 1 Cor. 2.13 in Confessions before men and therefore our Saviour bids his Disciples take no thought before hand what to say for it shall be given you in that hour what you shall say Mar. 13.11 Luke 12.11 12. and Matth. 10.20 it is expresly said For it is not you that speak but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you May it not be the Spirit of our Father that speaketh in a good Christian praying from the conception of his own Heart Or in a Pious Minister praying for the people of God Especially considering that that Spirit is the Spirit of Supplications and Rom. 8.15 the Spirit of Adoption by which we cry Abba Father and v. 26. The Spirit that helpeth our Infirmities for we know not what to pray for as we ought but the Spirit it self maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered He can have no Plerophory that that Text restraineth the Operation of the Spirit there to Impressions upon the Affections The Spirit may as well speak in us in Prayer as which our Saviour asserteth Matth. 10.20 it spake in his Disciples in their Confessions which could be no otherwise then by prompting them what to say and so it is expounded Mark 13.11 Whatsoever shall be given you in that hour that speak ye They spake but yet the Spirit did so eminently influence their speech that Matth. 10.20 Christ saith It is not you that speak but the Spirit of your Father which sâ—eaketh in you The case standing thus I durst not for all this World have said This was nothing but a School-boys Varying Phrases which our Answerer hath often told us in his Book for fear all understanding Christians should have judged me Prophane and little understanding Communion with God in that duty What apprehensions or confidences others may have authorizing such expressions I know not but shall in secret mourn for 13. I had instanced in a thiâ—d Fruit or consequent of Liturgies universally imposed which I called a Flood of Iniquity I did mention some drops of that flood Bitter words in Pulpits and Sermons and Printed Books ungodly representations to Superiors of men of whom the World was not worthy suspensiâ—ns silencings of many godly Ministers Ruins of many eminent Ministers of Christ with their Families separations of Christians one from another Imprisonments of man to their undoing Revilings I might have aded Blasphemings of the Holy Spirit of God in his Operations much of which if not most had been prevented if Liturgies of Praâ—er had not
know what line of proof we have that made they were not left at liberty we have before proved there could at this time be no imposition of them doth any think there were not many in their Diocesses that needed Forms of Prayer both for their Instruction and to help them in their Devotion How doth it appear that Chrysostome or Basil did themselves use any 2. This cuts the Throat of all the fictitious Apostolical Liturgies Had there been any such things found out in their times there is no doubt but they would have rather recommended them then any of their own unto their people 3. Both these great Men flourishing in the time of the Milevitane Council it is not likely had there been known Liturgies by so famous Men as Basil and Chrysostome that they would not without any more ado have ordered the reading of them they especially living at that time or a little before But 4thly As I have before said what imaginable proof can there be more then we have that those Liturgies were none of theirs The Copies do not agree there are Doctrines in them quite contrary to their Doctrines hymns not used in their times words not then in use Prayers for Persons living 500 700 years after their time But there is enough said by my Lord of Morney in the case by Learned Rivet in his Critici Sacri Specimen in the Reasonable Account p. 67. Supplement p. 43 44. 19 As to our Vindicators Quotation out of Sozomen concerning Julians design â—o bring the Pagan Religion in credit the Reader must be wary for 1st Sozomen tells us the summ of what Julian did in his own words then for the proof of it he referreth to Julians own letter to the Pontesee of Galatia which he giveth us at large The words our Vindicator quotes as they are in Sozomen for he doth not love to give us his quotations full are these Soz. l. 5. c. 15. He saith he that is Julian determined to adorn the Gentiles Temples both with utensils and furniture Apparatu saith the Latin Translator and the order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Christian Religion and besides with Seats and Pews for the Teachers and Lecturers of the Pagan Doctrine and Exhortations and with Prayers prescribed for certain days and hours and Monasteries Then he referreth for the proof to Julians own Letter where is not a word of Prayers What is there in this to prove the Christians had at that time Forms of Prayer in the Church Because they had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Order in Worship and because the had some set days for Prayer they ordered Prayers on certain days and hours must they needs be Forms Nor do I believe was the Common Prayer Book of Julian made for the Heathen ever yet seen by any learned man at least I never heard of it But what our Vindicator means by his next words which Nazianzene calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which with all submission to his skill in Critical Learning I think is better tranlated partly a Form of Prayers then as he doth Forms of Prayers in parts I cannot Divine Doth he mean that Naz. expounded Sozomens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That could not be without a Resurrection for Nazianzen died 389 which was above 50 years before Sozomen wrote was not this as great a miracle as Gregorius Magnus his living 200 years What then Did Nazianzen expound Lucians words There is no Evidence he ever spake any such only Sozomen so phraseth what he did but Lucian in his Epistle saith no such things or at least hath no such words Indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is more properly expressive of the thing in Question Forms of Prayer then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Nazianz. is not by our Author quoted to have said any such thing was established only to expound the words of another Author who wrote 50 years after he was dead or Julians who never appears to have used such words So heâ—â— is a fine flourish of words to no purpose but to delude the Reader 20. Our Vindicator is now come to his proof from the year 200 to the year 300 where he refers to his proof in Libertas Eccles from what he had of Origen and Cyprian and I refer to my answer in my Supplement p. 21. 22 only minding our Vindicator that there is a great deal of difference betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prayers appointed and Forms of Prayers appointed The latter is not in Origen but the former which proves no appointment of Forms but that there should be Prayers at such times 21. For what he addeth out of Tertullian of their having a Form of Renuntiation in Baptism and H mns and the Council of Antioch censuring Paulus Samosetanus for disusing the Hymns It had been proper to have told us the Nicene Council also established a Form of Confession of Faith Are we arguing about Hymns Forms of Confession of Faith and Abrenuntiation of Idolatry or about Forms of Prayer to be used in Devotion Were the other Acts of Worship as Prayer is I mean the two first for singing indeed was from the instance of the Ennuch and Philip Acts 8. it seems to be an appendant to the Ordinance of Baptism that grown persons offering themselves to Baptism should profess their Faith in Christ which could not be without a Renunciation of Idolatry But surely those were no Acts of Adoration or Devotion So as these instances are meer Transitions from things of one kind to things of another from whence no proper conclusions can be 22. The Argument from Singing by Forms is as improper for a Form is necessary there how else can a whole Congregation sing the same thing But it is not necessary in publick Prayer by any necessity of Nature or Divine Precept Now it is wide Arguing to conclude from the use of Forms in an Act of Worship which cannot be performed without Forms to the lawfulness of them in another Act of Worship which may be performed without them 23. I must confess I never was for Singing any Hymns or Psalms or Spiritual Songs in Publick Worship but what were Scriptural My reasons are 1. Because I take singing to have a cognation with Reading only with a Tuneable Voice now I know nothing but the Holy Scriptures which can be read as an Act of Homage to God 2. Because it is needless we have Scriptural Hymns Psalms and Spiritual songs enough 3. Because I know none specially commissionated to compose them and Psalmistry is no ordinary gift 4. Because it hath proved and may prove of very dangerous consequence and I am much mistaken if I have not read some Ancient Canon prohibiting it tho I know it hath been since admitted in some Churches by Canons 24. For the first 200 years after Christ he speaketh faintly saying only that Justine Martyr and Ignatius have two expressions which seem to favour it He
him to read any Book of mans making a thousand times with that Gift and holy Reverence and with so little taedium as he may so read the Books and Chapters of Holy Writ So as all he saith is just nothing to the purpose the Author at first restraining his Question to Forms composed by Men that are confessedly no part of Holy Writ For Forms that are part of Holy Writ they are throughout his Book excepted nor doth he any where conclude they hinder pious Dispositions or that they may not be used as part of the exercise of the Ministerial Gift But something must be said to expose Authors instead of answering him 14. In his 25 page to raise up a prejudice against the Author he very learnedly passeth from Prayer of one kind to Prayer of another kind and concludeth That because he sinneth not who joyneth with another ministring in Prayer when it is apparent by all Scripture that he is not to pray vocally but onely to pray in his heart Therefore he sinneth not who doth it ministring in Prayer when he is to pray vocally not mentally onely It is easie to raise such prejudices and for ordinary Readers to see through them 15. Our Authors last prejudice mentioned against the Authors Opinion That a great part and he thinks the greater part of the Nonconformists will not own his Notion I fear will appear an hasty prejudging the Nonconformists 16. Though the Answerer speaks warily in the case of the Commissioners appointed 1662 for he onely saith They made this no part of their Objections yet he would plainly suggest they who by the way except the Episcopal men were all Presbyterians were of another mind What to say for those who attended not the Commission I cannot tell but for those who appeared and daily met till they had wholly drawn up what they intended to propose to my Lords the Bishops I can tell The Bishops desired them to meet by themselves which they did at Mr. Calamy's House till they had agreed all which afterward they offered at the Savoy to the Bishops What they agreed in this point may be read in these words in their Seven General Proposals That the Gift of Prayer being one special qualification for the work of the Ministry bestowed by Christ in order to the Edification of his Church and to be exercised for the profit and benefit thereof according to its various and emergent necessities It is desired that there may be no such Imposition of the Liturgy as that the Exercise of that Gift be totally excluded in any part of Publick Worship 17. That Men may not please themselves with Dreams and think those last were meer completory words upon which no stress was laid I will assure them that that Proposal had never been agreed without them they being brought in by the Reverend Mr. Mat. Newcomb after as I remember three days spent in debates about that Proposal I do know but three Men of those who appeared and would declare their minds who would hear of any Liturgy Vniversally Imposed Those three indeed were great Men. The most Reverend Bishop Reinolds was one Mr. Calamy was another the third yet living I shall not name Mr. Calamy often urged That if forms of Prayer were lawful the Imposing of them did not make them unlawful It was answered If forms of Prayer were Vniversally lawful Imposing could not make them unlawful but it was denied That they were as to use in publick Devotion Vniversally lawful 18. The debate of the 19 General Proposals was the ordinary work of the Commissioners met together In the mean time they had according to the Instructions of their Commission committed the several Offices of the old Liturgy to several Brethren to be reviewed that they might see what exceptions were reasonable to be offered The drawing up a New Form was committed to another These in their Seasons were brought in and read But the far Major part of the Commissioners present having obtained the 7th Proposal and in that a perfect liberty of the use or not use of any were very incurious as to those things onely listned so far to them as to see there was nothing but what they might own This is the truth of that story so far as it passed before they came to give in what they agreed to receive the Bishops Answer and to make their Reply What was then done the Printed Account fully tells us 19. This is enough to have spoken to this Chapter of the Reverend Doctors only I must requite him with thanks for his Complement the good Milk wherewith he suckles me and tho he presently with an oblique stroak of his heel throws it down again yet I have such a value for it as in the following Chapters I shall endeavour to gather it up and if such a thing be possible for a Non-Con redeem my reputation from such an ugly imputation as the writing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inconsistencies CHAP. II. An Answer to the Vindicators Second Chapter concerning the Gift of Prayer Whether the Gift of Prayer as to Vocal Prayer be properly an Ability to express our minds to God in Prayer or whether it be the same with the Grace given us to be used in Prayer or an Extraordinary Gift peculiarly relating to the Apostles and Christians in their Age 1. ALL this while methinks I have been in a Drapers Shop staring upon the lofty and Oblique Lights which I discerned in it and wondering wherefore â—o make up a judgment whether the Sun shined or no I must be put to a troublesome elevation of my Eye stretching my Nerves and contracting my Eye-lids till at last I discerned the Art and that a nearer and more direct light though it might have been possibly of more advantage to the buyer yet to the seller would have been less profitable giving his Customer a too near an advantage to judge of his Wares and the Arts used about them 2. I had thought that in the beginning of the former Chapter The Issue was joyned or as the Civilians speak we had had Litene contestatam The Question was stated The Opponent agreed it clearly and plainly staâ—ed The Arguments were brought What had an Answerer to do but to deny one or other Proposition or to distinguish of some Terms Twelve Pages since that have been spent and nothing of this done To what purpose is this prejudicating a Reader but to possess his mind one way before the cause is tryed and to raise his passion with strange stories before he be suffered to use his Reason to judge who hath the best cause upon hearing what each party can say But at length we shall it may be come to something which is to the purpose 3. The first Argument was stated thus To omit a mean for the performance of a Religious Act given us by God for the performance of it and being natural and proper Reasonable Account p. 5. at the command of man when
very far from believing to have any truth in it and not Forms of Sermons doth this prove that the one is more lawful then the other Are the Opinions and Practices of Men things to be urged argumentatively to prove a thing Lawful or Sinful They may be urged indeed to put us upon a strict Enquity but no further I may consider these differences when I believe the thing is true in matter of fact but I shall never so consider them if I knew the thing was true as to determine lawfulness or sin from them 5. But Preaching is directed to Men therefore there must be no imposing Forms as to that but Prayer to God therefore Forms may be appointed as to that Can any Mortal understand why there should be more care taken what a Minister speaketh in mans name unto God then in Gods Name unto Man Hath not an Embassador more reason to take care what he speaketh in the Princes name unto People then what and how he speaketh in ordinary Petitioners name unto his Prince But Men may be taken with varying of Phrases but God cannot But God may be pleased I hope with the doing of his Will and by the exercises of those Abilities in his Service which he hath given us on purpose for that Service and it speaketh no great Reverence for God for any to express these things by the Puerile expression of Varying Phrases 6. The next thing he saith p. 208 is very admirable That Erroneous Notions and Practices cannot be so well beaten down by Forms as by every Ministers Abilities This is to say that Errors may be better confuted and Arguments for them better answered by any Ministers private Conceptions and Expressions on a small premeditation then by a Book or Forms deliberately by many composed and written for Forms may be made every Month of this nature if they be lawful and necessary 7. He tells us thirdly p. 209. That by leaving men to the use of their own abilities in Preaching Ministers may acquaint People with such things as are suitable to them and in a Phrase suitable It is much that he could not consider also that if Ministers were left to pray by their own Abilities they might also pray to God for such things as new Emergencies make needful for them which they can never do by Forms except they were renewed every Week And surely God never left his Church so ill provided for that if at any time he bestowed a new Mercy upon them or the particular Members of any particular Congregation either preventing or removing some great Evil or conferring some great benefit or by his Providence brought them into some great distress they could not obey his command calling upon him in the day of Affliction that they might be delivered nor being delivered praise him till a Council was called to make a Collect for the purpose 8. Our Vindicators next difference or further need of Forms of Prayer then of Sermons assigned by him is Because in publick Prayers must be compreheâ—ded Adoration Thanksgiving and Supplication for all ordinary good things 1 Tim. 2.1 2. what he means here by Adoration as a part of Worship distinct from Confessions Supplications and giving of Thanks I cannot imagine the Apostle 1 Tim. 2.1 speaks of nothing but Supplication Prayers Intercessions Thanksgivings I hope he doth not mean bowing at the Name of Jesus or towards the Altar for they are neither of them mentioned 1 Tim. 2.1 2. For such things indeed there is need yet not so much of Forms of Prayer as of a Rubrick for there is nothing about them In Albo S. Scripturae He saith to secure this Comprehensiveness there is need of publick Forms But it is no way he saith neeedful that every Sermon should contain all the necessary points of Doctrine and Practice Now here all the Fallacy lies in the term every Sermon for there is the same need of one as of the other but not indeed in eveâ—y Sermon But how doth this prove that there is no need of Forms of Sermons Suppose that in a thousand such forms there might be all comprehended were it lawful for the Superiors to impose them Or Ministers to use them when all Ministerial Gifts in Preaching must necessarily be so supprest He seems to think it is for his next words have a scurvy hint that the contrary liberty is but indulged to comply with the humour and temper of the present age And he saith much more in his 6 and 7 Paragraphs p. 210 211 in commendation of instructing people by Set Forms as a Ministerial Act. 9. He is not pleased p. 212 that I should call Preaching the greatest Ordinance of the Gospel or from the Commissioners at the Savoy tell him That Preaching is a speaking in Gods Name unto People so that if we speak falshoods there we make God a lyar I must confess so dull was I that I did say so for if that be not what is Preaching is the publishing of the great glad tidings of the Gospel to the Children of Men. It was Christs great work for he left Baptizing to his Disciples and himself Baptized none John 4.2 and St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 1.17 That Christ sent him not to Baptize but to Preach the Gospel that is the administration of the Sacraments was not his principal work for he tells us there v. 14.16 That he did Baptize Crispus and Gaius and the houshold of Stephanas and v. 21. he tells us that Preaching is Gods Ordinance to save them that believe and Rom. 10.14 How shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard and how shall they hear without a Preacher Is there any such things spoken of any other Ordinance of the Gospel Or are there any other greater things then saving of Souls to be expected from any Religious Institution And to speak Vntruths in Preaching is as much as in us lieth to make God a lyar for it is a speaking to People in the name of the great God The Commissioners at the Savoy it is like understood as much as our Vindicator what Preaching was and whether our Vindicator be of their mind or no signifieth not much I must confess from some Mens Sermons which I have heard and read I have seen reason to suspect that they and others have had a vastly different Notion of Preaching from us The Noncon generally and very many Conformists too looking upon it as a great Institution of Christ for the publication of the Grace of Christ and perswading Men to the acceptance of that Grace to Repentance Faith and Holiness without which none can be saved Accordingly they have preached Scripturally and proved from thence what they say and the bent of their Sermons is to perswade Men to a life worthy of the Gospel to Acts of Morality out of a Principle of Faith in Christ Love to God c. Others looking upon it as a meer Exercise of Wit or an entertainment for peoples ears
that in the Jewish Worship they all used the same Prayers and Exhortations because they always killed the same specifical Beasts for Sacrifices In their very Sacrifices there was a great variety and they agreed in nothing but that they all were what God prescribed 7. What he saith in p. 15. is granted him nothing but the will of God is worth naming in the cause words in themselves are nor valuable but obedience is What makes then this trifling about the Opinions of Heathens the invaluableness of words in themselves the way of Worship under the Law c. What is all this to any purpose but to prepossess the unwary Reader 8. His next observation is That the Author doth not account himself certain of the truth of this Position What doth he mean by certain The Author is none of the Infallibles of our Age and hath more modesty than to dictate to all the World and pretend Demonstrations of a thing that it may be is not capable of it But he is morally certain certain as far as probable Arguments can make him But what then Therefore it appears not to him unlawful Will any weighed Divine in the World say That a thing is not unlawful to him that upon Arguments which to him appeareth highly probable appears unlawful Let the Author answer a Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wrote on this very Argument 9. The Author values not a rush whether the Answerer blames or not blames him for the thing some persons in this Age calls Separation He falls not by Mans Judgment There was in Apostacy which Luther gloryed in and there is a Separation which a good Christian may glory in 1 Cor. 6.17 The Question is Whether the Nonconf be guilty of a sinful Separation That Nonconf are guilty of that here is no Argument to prove but the Author accounting himself certain mentioned p. 21. which is a new Topick for I hope it is no Demonstration 10. The Vindicator p. 22. in the next place comes to tell us of considerable prejudices against the truth of my Assertion 1. That it is against the Opinion of the Church of England and the most famous Churches in the Primitive times But to the latter part of this he very honestly adds a Quod est Demonstrandum referring it to be afterwards proved And against the constitution of many eminent Churches abroad This he saith he before observed and I do not deny observe good Reader how I have not denyed it â—69p An imposed Liturgy unless in a particular Province for a time in a particular case such as was that of the spreading of Pelagianism we can not find And for a Liturgy to be proposed onely and left at liberty we know most Reformed Churches have such a one and we have before declared our judgements for the reasonableness of it It is true which I also said That the continuance of Liturgyes owes it self in a great measure to Churches not having Men enough able pray without Forms But what is this to the purpose of Universally Imposed Liturgies From this appeareth the exceeding vanity of what the Answerer addeth p. 23. The Author condemned none of the first Reformers of Sin nor hath reason to believe that all of them used any such thing if they had he condemneth them not 11. But the Author and those of his mind p. 23. are such pitiful men as determine in these weighty things according to their present humour For one while he saith Authority or Practice is a lamentable Argument His words are these While we are disputing about what is lawful or unlawful Authority or Practice is a lamentable Argument They must be lamentable Divines that will say otherwise That the Practice of Men should determine to us the will of God Well But he saith in another place The Sensus piorum neither is nor ever was judged light by persons of sobriety and worth for the truth of a proposition especially a practical proposition not plainly determined in Holy Writ Is then the Authority and Practice of particular men that have the good hap to get into a Chair of Government in the Church and the Sensus piorum the same thing think we I beg the Answerers favour if I do not believe it but believe there must be to say no more the odds of 200 to one The Sensus piorum is the general sense of persons in such or such a place minding the things of God and regulating their lives in a conformity to his will I take this in practical matters to be a thousand times more probable Argument then some particular persons tho Governours Authority and Practice 12. But it seems I so stated my Question p. 24. as to overthrow the main foundation and the chief Arguments of my Discourse That indeed is great weakness But I pray how doth this appear to be any thing but a most false calumny I granted That Forms of Prayer by God commanded in Scripture must be used and other Scriptural Forms may be used as part of our Prayer yet I declare it sinful for such Ministers as can pray otherwise to pray by Forms From the duty of using their own Gifts And 2. From the hinderance of pious Disposition Attention or Fervency from the use of a Form of words in Prayer Do I so Judge good Reader The Minor of my first Argument is this But for a Minister having the gift of Prayer Reasonable Account p. 6. ordinarily to perform his Ministerial Act in Prayer by reading or reciting Forms of Prayer composed by others confessedly not divinely inspired is for him to omit a natural and proper means given him by God c. It is true in my Second Argument p. 23. all these words are by the Printers carelessness left out by Forms of Prayer composed by others confessedly not divinely inspired nor could I help it but a man of any ordinary candor would have supplied them from the state of the Question and from the preceding Argument which will make it appear that I never said that it was unlawful to perform our Ministerial Act in Prayer by Forms but by Forms composed by others who confessedly are not divinely inspired I never was so simple as not to allow God to dispense with his own Law upon which ground any Forms commanded by God must be lawful nor yet to think we might not use Scriptural phrases in any part of worship and yet use our own gifts at the same time time too 13. For to pray nothing else but using a Scriptural Form I believe we must have a special Command of God to make that lawful to us Besides I doubt not but the Answereâ— saw what I wrote p. 51. That there is a vast difference between the pure words of God for the which God both hath and ever will secure a Reverence in all Religious Souls and Forms composed by fallible men without any direction from God Let any Christian experience whether it be possible for