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
partly connate and natural partly revealed in Holy Writ that in matter of Gods Worship their Reason is to work not so much upon the first as second sort of these Principles hence they form Conclusions from comparing Scripture with Scripture in the light of which they walk And even in this ratiocination they do think Optimus Philosophus non nascitur and therefore judge none but walk in their own Light making no Mens Dictates or Decrees the Rule of their Practice in the things of God but crying out To the Law and to the Testimony and for the determination of the sense of that as to their own practice finally resting in the practical judgment of their own consciences If any represent them to the World as Dunces Men that have nothing to say for their dissent from others but doing what they do out of meer Faction Rebellion Disobedience to Rulers They are ready to give a reasonable account of their Actions 3. This was the apparent design of that Book composed immediately upon the coming out of the Vindicators Libertas Ecclesiastica and more than two years since given to a friend after which the Author never saw it till he saw it in print and abating the Errors of the Press the Author sees no cause to put it into his Retractations nor doth believe that one leaf of it will be a grief of heart to him when he comes to die nor be charged upon him as guilt with reference to the main matter of it in the day of Judgment But because we will not believe because the Church that is some who call themselves so believe that Faith and Fervency are the gift of Vocal Ministerial Prâ—yer which is no better than Nonsense and that there is a Natural Eternal Order and Decency left to the liberty of Rulers to specifie in particulars antecedent to the will of God concerning external Worship to which the plain precepts of God for attention and fervency in Prayer must give place and be by it regulated or that words are no essential part of Ministerial Publick Prayer and some other such like unintelligible things and as unscriptural we must be exposed at this rate for most unparallell'd Dunces and Rebels to Authority and persons who to use our Vindicators words in the close of his Introduction vent Notions to widen our Breaches and such as are inconsistent with the publick establishment of a Church and which put advantages into the hands of other Enemies the drift whereof tends to confusion and the matter of them is unsound and untrue when as in truth the imposition of Forms of Prayer on all Ministers and inforcing them to use and all the people to hear them hath been the source of all our Breaches and most if not all and those the purest Churches are established without any such imposition and they are only used amongst our greatest adversaries from whom it is that we are reformed as all men know such misteries of sense some men speak in their passion 4. From hence may appear how truly the Vindicator tells his Reverend Diocesan in the Epistle Dedic That for justifying our Seperation I have adventured so far as to charge the general use of Forms of Prayer to be sinful which if it were true would indeed be a high accusation against our Publick Worship The matter is neither so nor so if the Vindicator doth not judge this good Logick What some pious men judge as to themselves unlawful is certainly and absolutely so which is so weak as every one will see the inconsequence of it Our Vindicator will hardly be pleased to hear me tell my Reader That there is not much truth to be expected from him who so manifestly prevaricates in the first leaves nor consistency from him the second p. of whose Epistle Dedicatory agreeth no better with his Title page tho p. 138 he minds his Reader That he may not reaâ—onably expect any accuracy in the right computation for the birth and first product of Liturgies from me who talks so loosely and falsly about the Age wherein Gregory the Great lived when yet the mistake was his own not mine as I shall hereafter fully shew 5. I am beholden to the Vindicator for allowing me both in his Epistle Ded. and else where to have stated my Question plainly and then produced my Arguments but I am not so far engaged to him for owning no more in my Book than slender and weak appearances of Reason and what was not like to prevail much with understanding men wanting strength of Argument But these things being yet in Issue I shall say nothing to them save only this That in some causes it is necessary to fore speak Readers and more politick to prejudice them then to leave them to their own judgments for the strength of the Argument I shall once more try that with them and examine whether he indeed hath as he saith This great advantage to have manifest truth on his side 6. In his Introduction p. 1 2. He tells us he thought my Vndertaking strange and that in my Book he found nothing of any great weight I am not much concerned at his thinking my Undertaking strange nothing freer then thoughts But why strange Was it not the contrary Opinion that broke the Church at Frankfort in the beginning of our Reformation Was it not 100 years since disputed in Latine betwixt one Carpenter and an English Minister fled into Holland My self hath the printed Copy of it hath not Mr Cotton long since declared his judgment against the lawfulness a Prophet without Honour from a party in his own Countrey but whose name is not only very honourable to multitudes at this day in England but over all the World where the Gospel is Preached Hath not the judgment of the Churches in New-England been the same if not more rigid then mine Hath it not been the judgment of the Church of Scotland ever since the Reformation Nay is it not the judgment of all Reformed Churches at this day where Liturgies are only prescribed and left at liberty Why then should this undertaking be so strange Especially considering that himself tells us in his Epistle Dedica That the Genius of the Non-con Party is much set against them and in their Practice they generally reject them eagerly 3. Tho indeed he saith in his Epistle That the more cautious and wary Men amongst us dissenters will not Affirm the constant use of Forms Sinful because they think suâ—h a Position not defensible But the question is Whether those Cautious Wary Men will not affirm The Vniversal use and imposition of Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship and such Forms too as were never prescribed by God or Christ or any Prophets or Apostles unlawful I never yet met with one such Dissenter tho never so Wary and Cautious and thus much I dare say That in the whole County where our Vindicator lives there is not one single Dissenting Minister would take up a Living
shunned my Company and I never yet wanted enough so far as to tempt me to be an Intruder upon any How little I was concerned in any Publick Affairs will appear from this That if I remember right from 1646 when I entred the Ministry till 1653 I never but once saw London nor I think twice more betwixt that and 1659. I much kept home and could hardly be a month from my People but my Conscience was ready to ask me in the words of Eliab With whom hast thou left those few sheep in thy trust II. Upon the coming out of the Act of Uniformity I was concerned with Two thousand Ministers more to examine whether no more were by it required of me than I might without sinning against God do I saw so many things made necessary to the keeping of my station that I suspected what I found and more too viz. That it was by some contrived to throw out of the Publick Ministry a sort of men and all of them who were possessed of my Principles in Doctrine and though it would not do as to all yet it did as to a very great part even all those who though they believed the same things with many that did conform in points of Doctrine yet had some stricter Notions as to Worship I was afterwards the more confirmed in this from a Reverend Minister now I doubt not but with God who lived and dyed a Conformist who told me that in discourse with a Brother of his a Member in that Parliament and lamenting to him the Turning out of so many Ministers and putting so many terms upon Ministers as they could not but know would Turn out the greater part of Ministers so and so principled as to Doctrine c. He told him It was their design to do it It is very like he did not speak the Sense of the House of Commons of which he was a Member but of many he doubtless did That for those of Puritan Principles as they call'd them Jehu might slay such as escaped the Sword of Hazael and Elisha those that did escape the Sword of Jehu But when I came more narrowly to look into the Things required I discoursed with Divines and those who were most Learned of the Episcopal Persuasion I offered my Arguments heard their Answers I read the generality of Books wrote on all sides but upon the whole judged that oâ— eight or nine things required I could not judge three or not above three in any degree lawful I resolved to lay down my Publick Ministry but being set apart to the Ministry having solemmly promised not to take away my hand from that Plough I could not then think my self discharged from itâ— further than in Publick Temples places in Superiors disposal Amongst other things I was then fully possest of the Unlawfulness of performing Ministerial Acts in Prayer by the prescribed Forms of others Three or four of those Arguments truly I think I may say all but one of them were my Arguments 1662. and then freely discoursed with divers of my own Brethren and several Learned men some of whom are dead some yet alive at this time and the Heads of them by me were drawn up in writing and the most considerable Inlargements as to the proof of them From that time till 1673 they lay by me some little before that all knew at what a rude rare all Nonconformists were treated in several Books as the veriest Dunces in the world men that opposed themselves to Authority meerly out of Stubbornness judging the things lawful being able to give no Reasons for their Nonconformity Men fit for Gallies Prisons c. This made me review what I had Eleven Years before drawn up for my own private use with some Additions and particularly Answers to some Arguments which in that time I had met with and Dr. Falkner's Book coming at that time out I could not baulk what he had said Whosoever readeth what I wrote will be my Compurgator that I did not give any a Presumption that I thought my Cause weak by any uncivil treating of the Doctor I saw he was a man of some Learning that he had read many Authors nor had I ever heard an ill word of him as to Sobriety of Life or Warping in Doctrine I treated him with that Civility which I thought became me meerly answering his pretended Reason and Arguments I did indeed see that the making good the Notion I was fully possess'd of would make any further answer to his Libertas Ecclesiastica needless and am very much for the Rule of Frustra fit per plura c. III. But though I quickly concluded this sinful to me to perform my Ministerial Acts in Prayer by the prescribed Forms of others yet I never intended to trouble others with my Notion till I was challenged to it by the worlds being told We had nothing to say for our selves I never that I remember preached it in one Sermon I never affirmed it sinful for People to join with others that use Forms though by the way I do not think that People in the worship of God may lawfully do whatsoever they judge just lawful if they be commanded to do it I was a little tender my self as to Total Separation This hath made me from the Year 1662 not decline hearing Ministers that used it nor as occasion offer'd receiving the Sacrament with sober Ministers and a sober People though the Minister used the Liturgy in doing of it although withal neither have I refused to hear others and receive it with them too as I had occasion nor I think shall I be deter'd from it by the Scare-crow-word Separation I fear not separating from any with whom I am but morally persuaded by Arguments which I cannot answer that I cannot join without separating from the Will of God and further I will separate from no Christians in the world This Reader is known to as many as know me by any ocular observation of my Converse IV. Further than this my Nature disposeth me to such a Benignity as I am Enemy to none but such as are open Enemies to the Glory of God or led by their Lusts and Passions to Acts disturbing Humane Societies Upon the first account I always thought Atheists open Blasphemers professed publick Idolaters were to be punished by the Judge with the severest punishments Profane Swearers and Cursers and Violation of the Sabbath with proportionable punishments and those who detected such did a good action Yet as to these I never thought an Inquisition might be set up nor an Oath Ex Officio administred to make them to accuse themselves Nor as to Idolatry did I ever think that the Magistrate ought to punish any thing but Open Profession of it or Seduction to it Upon which account until this late Plot convinced me that nothing would serve the Papists less than the whole Government and that to get it they thought Assassinations Poysoning Lying For swearing any thing lawful
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
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
He drew the Imperial Law into three Books called after Justinians Code to which were added the Digesta and last of all the Novellae constitut the former contained the Laws of all former Emperors the last such as he himself and some few Emperors next before him made Justinian confirmed these Books so they became the Imperial Law from the year 542. By the way tho this Justinian did many good things yet he was an Heretick and had many great Vices It was he who put out the eyes of Belisarius that great Commander by whom he indeed did whatsoever he did worthily in his Wars c. so as he was inforced to begg his bread before he died 13. Out of the Preface to these Novellae our Vindicator hath taken something he thinks for his purpose If he had given us the words of the Prefacer for I cannot find them in Gothofred I could have spoken distinctly to it but I suppose he hath given all that were for his turn Speaking of his Monks and Clergy he saith they would have done otherwise if they had acquainted themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to learn the way of the Holy Ministrations as to what he saith cap. 2 and cap. 6 having not the Book I can say nothing unless he had given us the Greek words I suspect them to be but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which prove nothing But it is not worth the while for admit these proofs prove the thing it proveth no Sanction of Forms of Prayer before 542 So I lose but 59 years Nor do I understand what need Pope Adrian had 259 years after this to get a Civil Sanction from Charles the Great if one were 259 year old made by Justinian and made a part of the Imperial Law 14. But I cannot but observe by the way how our Author fetching his Ecclesiastical Sanction but from the Council of Chalcedon 451 and Justinians Novellae 541 hath quite destroyed his instance out of Eusebius de Vita Constantini c. 17 19 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for if the English of that be Prayers by Authority appointed we must find an higher Authority constituting their use then that of Justinian who did what he did 542 and Constantine had been dead 200 years before Nor was the Council of Chalcedon of 130 years after Constantines death so that it should seem only the Prayers were constituted of which he speaks cap. 17 not the Forms also but I shall meet with that anon besides this Civil Sanction of Justinian being in his Novellae which contained only his own Laws and some Emperors that went immediately before him it is a certain proof there was no Ancienter Civil Sanction by Constantine and Theodosius c. we should then have found it in Justinians Code not in his Novellae for any Ecclesiastical Sanction there is no pretence to any until the Councel of Chalcedon and I have shewed there is no proof to be fetched from thence besides the Canon of the Councel of Milevis being not brought into the Code of the Vniversal Church is a sufficient Argument there was no such thing confirmed by the Councel of Chalcedon for that Canon is the only plain Canon in the case 15. But Dato non concesso as we say admit That from the year 541 they had been so imposed by Justinian and made a part of the Imperial Law what then I had been mistaken 59 years which I am far from believing or seeing the least ground for Will any one say that the practice of a Romane Emperor in that age or indeed the Church under his Government was a Copy for any Protestant Church in all things to write after I refer my Reader to the sad account given by the Centuriators who were all Learned Protestants of the most corrupt state of the Church in this Age see Magdeburg Centur Centur. 6. ap 137 impr Basil I think any one who is a Protestant will be of another mind The Pope indeed at that time was not well set in his Saddle it was 6 or 7 years after that age before he got the Title of Vniversal Bishop but his foot at this time was in the Stirrop and the Bridle in his hand 16. But our Vindicator will go higher with us he will prove them from the year 400 to the year 500. I hope he means generally used in publick Devotion or imposed for such use or he proveth just nothing To prove this he again brings in the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon I have already said enough to that Next he brings in Proclus Bishop of Constantinople and he finds his Writings in Bibliotheca Patrum he tells us he declares Forms of Divine Service what is the Greek word To have been delivered from St. James and St. Clement and to have been ordered by St. Basil and St. Chrysostome That there was one Proclus Bishop of Constantinople soon after Chrysostome Eusebius tells us But that he left us any Writings must be proved from better Auhority then that of Bibliotheca Patrum However he saith as much for St. James and Clements Forms of Prayer as he doth for Basils or Chrysostomes and as to them our Author declares his not giving credit to him nor is it reasonable he should for it is not probable that had there been any Apostolical Liturgies Chrysostome and Basil would have made any Nor was Proclus a likely man to impose any for Eusebius l. 7. c. 4. gives us this Character of him He vexed no Sect but preserved and restored to the Church the great Jewel of Meekness which is best for the Church wherein he imitated the Emperor Theodosius for as he would not exert his Imperial Power against any accused for Religion so neither did Proclus concern himself as to those who held a diverse Doctrine 17 Our Vindicator riseth higher and will prove something from the year 300 to the year 400 but I observe he never tells us what will he prove the Lords Prayer was used Or that some Forms were made by others Or that some men used some Forms None denieth all this But that which he is to prove is That such Forms were generally used by or imposed upon all Ministers in any considerable part of the Church All his proof is from the Liturgies of Chrysostome and Basil Julians speaking of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Order amongst Christians in Worship which Sozomen calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Nazianzene Orat. 3. p. 101 102 calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 considering what himself had quoted out of Eusebius and from the Council of Laodicea n. 5 6 7 8. 18. What he hath said out of the Council of Laodicea hath had its full answer what he hath said from Eusebius hath had an Answer in part and anon shall have a fuller reply to it at present I will onely concern my self in the other For the Liturgies of Basil and Chrysostome admit they did make any I would fain
by the prescribed Forms of other Men not Divinely Inspired nor yet being Solemnly set apart to the Ministry wholly to forbear Preaching 5. There are many other things which I cannot but judge sinful without the doing of which I can have no station in the National Ministry Reordination Assent and Consent Ceremonies Promiscuous Administration of the Lords Supper c. 6. I do believe the Vindicator hath not given a just Answer to one Argument I brought in this cause and I profess my Arguments remain still such as I cannot Answer 7. I do finally profess That I have not wilfully brought any thing in any of my dicourses on this Argument laying any stress upon it which I have not believed to be true Nor have I been bribed with any hopes of Reward or Preferment Nor have I quoted any Author to my knowledge falsly or partially hardly three which I have not seen with my own Eyes unless I have told the Reader otherwise Nor have I done any thing to keep my Reader from a true understanding of the thing in Question nor gone about to blind him with Digressions Prejudices or Impertinent Observations nor further then the Nature of the matter doth it have I loaded my Adversary with Odium Envy or Prejudice Whence all may observe what need we have for to exercise a further Charity then is yet to be found amongst us and a greater liberty in Religious Worship then we are yet so happy to injoy and that without it we are never like to come to our desired Peace and Vnity If there were only this single point in difference East and West seem to me as likely to unite as Dissenters and those of our Vindicators perswasion The good Lord shew us a more likely way for Vnion then all Ministers using the same Words and Syllables in the Acts of their Publick Worship which is a kind of Union no where required no where promised no where found nor ever to be expected and of which there is no necessity at all FINIS Postscript BEcause our Vindicator is so mightily confident that if ever there was a Sinful Separation in the World the Dissenters altho they agree in the Doctrine of the Church of England and possibly more heartily then some others who profess only to subscribe the 39 Articles in their own sense and as Instruments of Peace and in the same Acts of Worship and do not condemn the Church or Churches of England as no Churches are guilty notwithstanding of such a Sinful Separation I shall crave leave to mind him of an Argument to the contrary brought this last Commencement at Cambridge I suppose the Vindicator might hear it which the Auditors did not judge they heard sufficiently answered by the Dr. Respondent It was this To Separate or withdraw rather from a Church which doth not acknowledge the true Ministers of Christ as such is no Sinful Separation But to separate from the Church of England is to separate from a Church that disowns the true Ministers of Christ to be such Ergo. The Minor was proved because it will not own Ministers ordained by meer Presbyters to be true Ministers and so consequently disowneth the Ministry of all Forraign Churches which by several Acts of Parliament 3 at least one 13 Eliz. another made in the Parl. 1660 and the late Act for Uniformity are acknowledged true Ministers The trite answer That it is in a case of necessity those Churches having no Bishops to ordain Ministers is pitiful for no case of necessity can make one to be that which by the Law of Christ he is not nor was there any necessity that our Parliaments should so own them in three Acts. We had Bishops in England which could have re-ordained Ministers in 13 Eliz. and in the year 1660 and 1662. The Basis of this Argument is also much larger It is this It is lawful to withdraw from any Church where any Ordinance of Christ proper and necessary for any Church is disowned or not to be enjoyed according to the Practice of that Church Now whether the choice of their own Ministers and the exclusion of the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Supper And a power in a Church to purge it self from Ministers who by their lives or Doctrine make it appear that God never called them to the Ministry and from Members that by the Laws of Christ are to be shut out of the Communion of a Church be not Institutions of Christ necessary to the very being of a Church most certainly to it s well being let any judge and that those charged with Separation can enjoy them in the Parochial Churches of England lies upon our Vindicator to prove and should have been well thought on before he had been so very positive in his charge there being especially so many men of unquestionable Learning and Piety that are of another mind in the Case and as well assured of the contrary FINIS An A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ement to the Reader WHat thou hast here in answer to Dr. Faulkner hath been more than nine Months in the Booksellers or Printers hand and is at last come out with more Errata's then are consistent with the Authors reputation some of the principal of them I shall give thee an account of and for mistakes of a letter or a stop leave my self to thy Charity Only that I may not again be so smartly reflected on for my want of skill in the Chronology of Gregory the great I must give thee notice that whereas in the Title to the Introduction the Vindicator is said to have asserted that Gregory died 15 years before according to Platina he entred his Popedome and in the Book p. 14 there is only mention of ten it is none of the Authors mistake For in the Edition of Platina in Fol. thou wilt find he entred his Popedome Anno 1610 which was but 6 years after the Vindicator saith he died but in the late Edition of Platina in 24 he is said to have entred it 1619 which was 15 years after The Author hath left thee a latitude to believe which thou wilt only with thy Pen correct these following Errata's some whereof might be mine in writing but the most the Printers P. 2. l. 13. and so in many other places for Liturgy r. Leiturgy l. 19. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 3. l. 17. r. deliver p. 7. l. 7. r. Arguments l. 8. r. with him l. 23. r. self have p. 10. l. 5. r. dicendum ne l. 13. r. frustra l. 19. r. we judge l. 28 29. r. saepe etiam olitor est opportuna locutus p. 12. l. 22. r. 604 p. 13. l. 29. r. 1000 p. 15. l. 21. r. self say p. 18. l. 5. r. Darapti Ferison p. 24. l. 7. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 28. l. 8. r. gust l. 20. r. an Author p 35. l. 25. so p. 159. l. 17. r. word-bate p. 40. l. 30. r. no other p. 41. l. 32. r. may be p. 67. l. 16. r. For Ministry he p. 76. l. 3. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 116. l. 13. r. whether it or yt p. 118. l. 15. r. by which p. 21. l. 22. r. who joyn p. 140. l. 15. r. sometimes very little then blot out these words and where they concern it very little or nothing at all p. 143. l. 15. r. when he pleaseth l. 30. r. gifts p. 145. l. 17. r. he be able p. 146. l. 22. r. in inadvised p. 185. l. 4. r. prefer p. 195. l. 17. r. I may p. 219. l. 16. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 224. l. 28. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 226. l. 24. before proper r. as p. 238. l. 5. r. prayer p. 239. l. 29. for others r. them