a more publick and general concern though the Composers of our Liturgy could not foresee the Horrid Powder-Plot and the strange discovery of it the impious Murder of the late King and the happy Restoration of this yet upon the happening of those great Events our Church hath always taken care to provide such Forms of publick Prayer as are every way suitable to the Case and as for those extraordinary Cases which might be foreseen because they happen more frequently in the course of things such as want of Rain or fair Weather Dearth and War Plague and Sickness there may be Forms composed for them afore-hand as there are in our Church's Liturgy so that it is no Argument at all against publick Forms that they cannot make a due provision for extraordinary Cases and Events for before they happen extempore Prayers can no more make due provision for them than Forms and after they happen as due a provision may be made for them by Forms as by extempore Prayers 3. That supposing such provision for extraordinary Cases be not or cannot be made in the publick Form yet that is no Argument why it should not be used so far forth as it comprehends the main of the common Cases and Necessities of the People for as I shew'd before the main matter of publick Prayer may be much more fully comprehended in a studied Form than it can reasonably be supposed to be in an extempore Prayer in which in all probability there will be more omissions as to what respects the ordinary cases of Christians than there are in the publick Form as to what respects their extraordinary cases so that if the Form ought not to be used because it extends not always to all their extraordinary Cases for the same reason extempore Prayer ought not to be used because it extends not always to all their ordinary Cases But since as hath been proved at large the use of Forms is upon sundry accounts of great advantage to the publick Devotion it 's very reasonable that they should be used so far forth as they can and do express the common Cases and Necessities and that the people should not be deprived of the benefit of joyning with them in the main matters of publick Prayer because such extraordinary matters may occur as either are not or can be express'd in them especially when 4. The defect of such new provision for extraordinary Cases may be supplied by the Minister in a publick Prayer of his own for as I observed before our Church allows or at leasts permits the Minister to use a Prayer of his own composure in the Pulpit in which if any extraordinary Mercy or Judgment for which there is no provision in our Liturgie happen to the place he lives in there is no doubt but he may and ought to supply the Devotion of his People with such Confessions Petitions and Thanksgivings as are proper and suitable to the occasion and where this is allow'd of or permitted the non-provision for such extraordinary Cases in the establisht Liturgy can be no bar at all against the use of it provided its Prayers be good and comprehend all ordinary matters of Prayer it is sufficiently provided for ordinary publick Devotion and so far doubtless may be lawfully used sufficient provision being otherwise made for all those extraordinary matters which it doth not or could not comprehend The sum of all therefore is this That as for the ordinary and main matters of publick Prayer they may be more fully and distinctly comprehended in a Form than in an extempore Prayer and as for those new matters which extraordinary publick Emergencies do administer they may for the generality be as well comprehended in a new Form as in a new extempore Prayer and though it should not or could not be express'd in the publick Form yet that is no bar against our joyning with it in all other matters of Prayer especially when these new matters of Prayer may be comprehended and express'd in a publick Prayer of the Minister's own composure CASE V. Whether there be any Warrant for Forms of Prayer in Scripture or pure Antiquity IN which Case there are two Enquiries to be made 1. Whether there be any Warrant for Forms of Prayer in the holy Scripture 2. Whether there be any evidence of the publick use of them in the primitive and purer Ages of the Church 1. Whether there be any Warrant for the use of Forms of Prayer in holy Scripture Where by Warrant must be meant either first positive Command or secondly allow'd Example for upon both these our Brethren insist First they require us to produce some positive Command upon this pretence that nothing ought to be used in the Worship of God but what is commanded by him which how true it is is not my present business to enquire that being done already to excellent purpose in the Case about Indifferent Things But because upon this pretence our Brethren reject the use of Forms as unlawful I shall endeavour to prove these two things 1. That supposing this pretence were true yet it doth not conclude against the use of Forms 2. That supposing it did conclude against the use of Forms it equally concludes against conceiv'd or extempore Prayer 1. That supposing this pretence were true viz. That what is not commanded by God ought not to be used in his Worship yet it doth not conclude against the use of Forms for though we do not pretend that God hath any-where commanded us to pray to him by Forms and no otherwise or that all the Prayers which we at any time offer to him should be first composed into a Form yet we do assert that he hath injoyn'd some Forms to be used and offer'd up in Prayer though together with those particular Forms we grant there might be and doubtless sometimes were other Prayers to be offer'd up to him Thus in the Old Testament we read of sundry Forms of Prayer injoyn'd to be used by God himself and which is the same thing by persons immediately inspired so Numb 6. 23 24 25 26. On this wise or thus shall Aaron and his sons bless the children of Israel saying unto them The Lord bless thee and keep thee the Lord make his face shine upon thee the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee and give thee peace In which words the Priest did solemnly invocate and pray for a Blessing on the people and he is commanded to do it saying unto them this very Form of words The Lord bless thee c. which is as plain an injunction of this Form as words can well express So also in the expiation of uncertain Murder Deut. 21. 7 8. the people are injoyn'd by God to say Be merciful O Lord unto thy people Israel whom thou hast redeem'd and lay not innocent bloud unto thy people of Israel 's charge So also at their paying their third years Tythes they were expresly injoyn'd to use this Form of words I
and of every sound part of it then our Communion with the Church is as fixt as our relation and membership is and I think no Man who understands himself will talk of an occasional member If no Man can perform any Act of Communion with a Church of which he is no member since all Acts of Communion have a necessary relation to a state of Communion and that which is an Act of Communion in a member is no Act of Communion when performed by him who is no member as I have already proved then it is as plain a contradiction to talk of an occasional Act of Communion as of occasional membership and there can be no place for occasional Communion with a Church of which we are no members unless we will say that a Man who is not in Communion may exercise Acts of Communion with the Church If all the Acts of Christian Communion which respect Christian Worship such as Prayer receiving the Lords Supper c. tho performed in a particular Church be not Acts meerly of a particular Church-Communion but of Catholick Communion with the whole Christian Church and every sound part of it then every true Catholick Christian is not only in a fixt state of Communion with the Catholick Church but lives in as constant an exercise of Christian Communion with all Sound and Orthodox Churches as he does with that Church in which he lives for every Act of Worship which is an Act of Communion with that particular Church in which it is performed if that Church be in Catholick Communion is an Act of Communion with the whole Catholick Church and therefore the very exercise of Christian Communion is equally fixt and constant or equally occasional with the whole Catholick Church There is a sense indeed wherein we may be said to be members of one particular Church considered as distinct from all other particular Churches but that principally consists in Government and Discipline every Christian is a member of the whole Christian Church and in Communion with it but he is under the immediate Instruction and Government of his own Bishop and Presbyters and is bound to Personal Communion with them and this constitutes a particular Church in which all Acts of Worship and all Acts of Discipline and Government are under the direction and conduct of a particular Bishop And when Neighbour Bishops unite into one Body and agree upon some common Rules of Government and the Administration of Religious Offices this makes them a Patriarchal or National Church and thus by submitting to the Government and Discipline of such particular or united Bishops we become members of a Diocesan or National Church considered as distinct from other Diocesan or National Churches But this does not confine our Church-membership and Communion to such a particular Church tho it strictly oblige us to conform to the Worship and Discipline and Government of that Church wherein we live while it imposes nothing on us inconsistent with the Principles of Catholick Communion But tho particular Christians are more peculiarly obliged to observe the Rites and Usages and to submit to the Government and Discipline of the Church wherein they live and to maintain Personal Communion with it and upon this account may in a peculiar manner be called the members of that Church yet every Act of Communion performed in this particular Church is an Act of Catholick Communion and an exercise of Christian Communion with the whole Church and every sound part of it Baptism makes us members of the whole Church and gives us a right to Communion with every sound part of it every Act of Christian Communion in a particular Church is a vertual Communion with the whole Church with all particular Churches which live in Communion with each other and notwithstanding my relation to a particular Church by my constant Abode and Habitation in it when ever I travel into any other Church I Communicate with them as a member so that wherever I Communicate whether in that Church in which I usually live or in any other particular Church where I am accidentally present my Communion is of the same Nature that is I Communicate as a member of the Church and it is Impossible I should Communicate otherwise for I have no right to Communion but as a member and nothing I can do can be an Act of Communion if I be not and do not own my self to be a member And yet this is the occasion of this mistake about Fixt and Occasional Communion that according to the Laws of our Church which are founded on great and wise reasons and indeed according to the Laws of Catholick Communion every Christian is bound to Communicate with that part of the Church wherein he lives now Men may have Houses in different Parishes or distinct Diocesses or may Travel into other parts of the Country and Communicate with the Churches which they find in those places where they are or they may sometimes go to Prayers or hear a Sermon or receive the Lords Supper at another Parish-Church now our ordinary Communion with those Churches where our constant Abode is may be called constant Communion and our Communion with those Churches which we accidentally visit and Communicate with may be called occasional Communion and all this without Schism because we still Communicate either with the same National Church or which is often the case of Travellers with some other sound part of the Catholick Church of which we are also members and so still keep in the same Communion and Communicate with no Churches but those of which we own our selves members as being all in the same Communion as being either sincere members of the National or Catholick Church From hence our Dissenters Conclude that their Communion with an Independent or Presbyterian Church of which they profess themselves fixt members is as constant with their occasional Communion with the Church of England when to serve some present turn they hear the Prayers and receive the Sacraments with us as our fixt Communion with our Parish-Churches is with our occasional Communion with other Parish-Churches which no Body accounts Schism tho when it is too frequent and causeless it is a great disorder But the difference between these two is vastly great for in the First case we only Communicate with such Churches which are all in Communion with each other and therefore he who is a member of one is a member of them all and Communicates with them wherever he is as a member But he who is a fixt member of a Presbyterian or Independent Church cannot Communicate so much as occasionally with the Church of England as a member because he is a member not only of another particular but of a separate Church and it is impossible for any Man who is one with himself to be a member of two separate Churches and whatever Acts of Worship we joyn in with other Churches of which we are no members they are not
our Saviour frequently resorted to it and bore a part in it John 18. 20 c. The like temper we find him of when he used the Cup of Charity after the manner of the Jews in the Passover though there was no institution for it and that it was as many other things taken up and used amongst them by way of signification and as a Testimony of entire Friendship and Charity Luke 22. 16. But I conceive alteration of Circumstances in the Institution is much more exceptionable than the addition of such to it and yet this was both done by them and observed by our Saviour when there was nothing else to oblige him but only a condescension to them in such usages and rites as were inoffensive in themselves and what were then generally used in the Church That the posture first required and used in the Pasiover was standing the Circumstances being to be eat with Staves in their Hands and Shoes on their Feet c. do prove and is affirmed by Philo de Sacrif Able c. Lightf Hor. Matth. c. 26. 20. the Jews and it is as manifest that the Jews in the time of our Saviour and for a long time before did recede from it and did eat it in the posture of discumbency whether it was as they looked upon themselves as settled in the possession of Canaan which they were at the first institution Travelling toward or as it 's said by the latter Jews because it was a sign of Liberty and after the manner of Kings and Great Men is not so material as it is that our Saviour did follow this Custom and complied with this practice of theirs without hesitation And thus did the Apostles when they observ'd the hours of Prayer Acts 3. 1. which were of humane institution as well as the Prayers themselves for without doubt they were publick Prayers which were used in the Temple but though the place was yet that service was of no more Authority than what was used in the Synagogues Now if the Jews did thus institute and alter things relating to external Order and Administration according as the case might require and it was lawful for them so to do as it 's plain from the compliance of our Saviour and the Apostles with them in it then much more may it be supposed lawful for the Christian Church to exercise that liberty when they have no other than such general rules for their direction as they had then without such particulars as they had And that this is no other than a certain Truth will appear from the same liberty taken in Apostolical times in Religious Assemblies when the Christian Church not only complied with the Jews in such Rites as they were under no Obligation but that of Charity to use which they did use because they were not forbidden and so lawful as when St. Paul took upon him a Vow Acts. 21. 26. but also had some Observances of it's own that were of a ritual nature and as they were taken up so might be laid down upon prudential consideration Such I account was the Washing the Disciples Feet which was done by our Saviour in token of the Humility he was to be president of and would have them follow him in and which it seems was observed amongst them 1 Tim. 5. 10. and for a long time after continued in a sort in some Churches (a) (a) (a) Ambros. Tom. 4. l. 3. de Sacrament c. 1. Such also were the Love-feasts at the Administration of the Lords Supper and the Holy-kiss used then amongst Christians if not as a constant attendant upon all publik Worship yet to be sure at Prayer (b) (b) (b) Tertul. de orat c. 14. Which and the like usages however taken up yet were in the Opinion of the Church no other than Indifferent and accordingly were upon the abuse of them as I observed before discarded From all which it appears that there was no such thing as Prescription expected before any Rite should be introduced into the Church or before it would be lawful for Christians to use it but that where it was not forbidden the Practice of the Church was to determine them and if Prescription had been thought necessary for every thing used in Divine Worship which was not Natural then certainly our Saviour and his Apostles would never have used or encouraged others to use any thing that wanted such Authority and that was not of Divine Institution Now if it should be objected that these usages of the Ames Fresh Suit l. 2. Sect. â—3 c. p. 334. Christian Church were Cilvil observances and used as well out of God's Worship as in it and therefore what there needed no Institution for and might be lawfully used without I answer 1. That this doth justify most of the usages contended for and there would be nothing unlawful in using a White Garment c. in Divine Service since that as a sign of Royalty and Dignity was Casaub Exercit 16. c. 73. used in Civil as well as Religious cases and according to this Argument may therefore lawfully be used in Religious because it was in Civil Secondly They must say that either a Civil observance when used in Religious Worship remains Civil notwithstanding it 's being so applied or that it 's Religious whilst so applied if the former then Kneeling or Standing in the Worship of God would be no acts of Adoration and not be Religious because those postures are used in Civil matters if the latter then it must be granted that there may be Rites used in the Worship of God and to a Religious end which there is no Divine Prescription for Nay Thirdly It 's evident that these and the like were not used by the Christians as meer Civil Rites this I think is made evident as to Washing the Feet by a Learned Person (a) (a) (a) Buxtorf Exercit. Hist Sacr. Coenae and not only was the kiss of Charity called the Holy-kiss in Scripture but by the Fatherrs notwithstanding what is (b) (b) (b) Ames ibid. p. 342. n. XXX objected the Seal of Prayer and the Seal of Reconciliation and both consistent the one as it was an attendant upon the office the other as it was a Testimony of their Charity and Reconciliation to each other in it Fourthly If the being Civil usages did make them which were originally so to be lawful in or at Divine Worship then there is nothing that is used out of Worship in Civil cases and affairs but may be introduced into the Church since if it be for that reason that any usages of that kind are defended the reason will as well defend all as one And then the Histrionical Practices of the Church of Rome might warantably be introduced as the rocking of a Babe in a Cradle at night at the Nativity time the Harrowing of Hell at Easter c. Then a Maypole may be brought into the Church for Children to Dance-about
they would be more modest and humble not so forward to judge and condemn what they do not understand they would not encourage one another to hold out and persist in this their weakness nor breed up their Children in it nor so Zealously endeavour to instil the same prejudices and mistakes into all with whom they converse But the truth is they ordinarily look upon their opposition to the orders of our Church as the effect of an higher illumination greater knowledg than other Men have attained unto they rather count us the weak Christians if some of them will allow us so much for otherwise if they do not take us for the weaker and worse Christians Why do they separate from us Why do they associate and combine together into distinct Congregations as being purer more select Christians than others Now tho such persons as these may be in truth very weak of little judgment or goodness notwithstanding this conceit of themselves and their party yet these are not by any means to plead for indulgence under that Character nor to expect we should forgo our just Liberty to please and humour them And that this is nothing but the plain truth is sufficiently evident from this one observation that many amongst them will grant our Reformation to have been very excellent and laudable for those days of Darkness and Ignorance wherein it was first made But we now say they see by a clearer light have greater knowledge and have arrived to higher perfection and so discover and cannot bear those faults and defects which before were tolerable Now who doth not see that these two pleas are utterly inconsistent and destructive of one another to desire abatement of the Ceremonies and abolition or alteration of the Liturgy in complyance with their weakness and to demand the same because of the greater knowledg and light they now enjoy above that Age wherein this present Constitution of our Church was established This shews they will be either weak or strong according as it best sutes with the Argument they are managing against us they are contented to be reckoned as weak only that on it they may ground a plausible objection against us 3 Those who are really weak that is Ignorant and injudicious are to be born withal only for a time till they have received better instruction We cannot be always Bahes in Christ without our own gross fault and neglect he is something worse than a weak man who is fond of and resolutely against all means of Conviction persists in his Ignorance and mistake The case of young beginners and Novices is very pittiable who have not been taught their lesson but the same condescension is not due to those who are ever learning and yet are never able to come to the knowledg of the truth not for want of capacity to understand but for want of humility and willingness to be instructed Such who are peevish and stubborn whose Ignorance and Error is Voluntary and affected who will not yield to the clearest reason if it be against their interest or their party can upon no account claim the priviledges of weak persons It is a great piece of inhumanity and cruelty to put a stumbling-block in the way of a blind man but he walks at his own peril who hath eyes and will not be persuaded to open them that he might see and choose his way Thus our Saviour answered his Disciples when they told him that the Pharisees were offended at his Doctrine Let them alone they be blind leaders of the blind And if the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the Ditch St. Matt. 15. 14. They were resolved not to be satisfied with any thing our Saviour said or did they watched for an advantage and sought occasion against him It was their Malice not their Ignorance that made them so apt to be offended Of these therefore our Saviour had no regard who were so unreasonable and obstinate in their opposition Not that I would be so uncharitable as to condemn all or the generality of our Nonconforming Brethren for malicious and wilful in their dissent from us God forbid that I should pass such an unmerciful sentence on so many as I believe well meaning tho miserably abused persons to their own Master they stand or fall But however 1. I would out of charity to them beg earnestly of them that they would thorowly examine whether they have Conscientiously used all due means in their power for information of their judgments concerning those things they doubt of whether they have sincerely endeavoured to satisfie themselves and have devoutly Pray'd to God to free their minds from all prejudices and corrupt affections and have patiently considered the grounds and reasons of their Separation from us for unless it be thus really with them their weakness is no more to be pitied than that mans Sickness who might be cured by an easie remedy if he would but vouchsafe to apply it or would submit to good Counsel 2. I must say that old and inveterate mistakes that have been a thousand times answered and protested against are not much to be heeded by us If people will by no means be prevailed upon having sufficient light and time allowed them to lay aside their Childish apprehensions and suspicions they can hardly be thought to deserve that compassion and tenderness St. Paul prescribes towards weak Brethren I shall give one plain instance Let us suppose that at the first Reformation of Religion amongst us some very weak and such they must be if honest were offended at the Church's requiring Kneeling at the receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as seeming to them to imply the adoration of the Bread and Wine and as likely to harden some Ignorant People in that monstrous conceit of Transubstantiation But now after so many publick Declarations made by our Church wherein she avows that no such thing is intended after the constant profession of so many that have used that decent Ceremony that they abhor the Doctrine of Christs bodily presence nay after the couragious sufferings even death it self of those that first Established this Reformation rather than they would worship the Host if after all this people shall still clamour against this gesture as Popish and be offended with those that use it as if thereby they gave divine honour to the Elements all that I shall say is this it is a great sign that it is not infirmity only to which condescension is due but something worse that raiseth and maintaineth such exceptions and offences This I suppose holds true even in things where the offence ariseth from their doubtful or suspicious nature that are capable of being misunderstood and abused and may be apt through mistake to provoke or tempt others to evil Yet if there be no moral evil in them and the doing of them is of some considerable consequence or advantage to me I am bound to forbear them no longer than till I
(f) (f) (f) Ibid. c. 19. And therefore all that can be gathered hence is that the Christian Church had no Form of Prayers for Heathen Souldiers which is no great wonder for if they had it 's very unlikely that the Heathen Souldiers would have used it but that they had Forms is evident because he calls the Prayers which Constantine used in his Court 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the manner of the Church of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (g) (g) (g) Ibid. c. 17. authorized Prayers which is the same title which he gave to that Form of Prayers which he made for his Heathen Souldiers (h) (h) (h) Ibid. c. 19. and therefore if by the authorized Prayers which he prescribed to his Souldiers he meant a Form of Prayers as it 's evident he did then by the authorized Prayers which he used in his Court after the manner of the Church he must mean a Form of Prayer also and since he had a Form of Prayers in his Court after the manner of the Church then the Church must have a Form of Prayers too Thus for the first second and third Centuries sufficient Testimony hath been given of the use of publick Forms of Prayer after which not to insist upon St. Basil's St. Chrysostom's and St. Ambrose's Liturgies which without all question are of great antiquity we have undeniable Testimonies of the use of publick Forms thus St. Chrysostom (i) (i) (i) Chrys 2. ad Cor. Hom. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For those who are possess'd with a Devil and those who are under Penance Common Prayers are made both by the People and Priest and we all say one and the self-same Prayer the Prayer which is so full of mercy And then he goes on and tells us how when the Priest had prayed for the People that is in that ancient Form of dismission The Lord be with you they prayed again for him in these words And with thy Spirit I confess to me it seems at least highly probable that they were not at first so strictly limited to one constant Form of Liturgy but that upon occasion they might intermingle other Forms either of their own or other mens composure though in process of time this liberty became very prejudicial to Religion for by this means the Prayers of Hereticks were often mingled with the publick Offices and many unadvised and ill-composed Forms were introduc'd into the publick Worship and this St. Austin complains of Multi irruunt in preces non solùm ab imperitis loquacibus sed etiam ab haereticis compositas per ignorantiae simplicitatem non eas valentes discernere utuntur eis arbitrantes quod bonae sint (k) (k) (k) Austin de Baptism cont Donat. lib. 6. Many there are speaking of the Office of Baptism who take up Prayers hand-over-head which are composed not onely by unskilful persons but also by Hereticks and not being able to discern what they are through their simplicity and ignorance do use them thinking they are very good To prevent which great inconvenience the Church was forced by degrees to limit and restrain this liberty and first the Council of Laodicea which was held about the year 314 or as others think 364 made a Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (l) (l) (l) Concil Laod. c. 18. About using the same Office of Prayers in the Morning and Evening that is that they should not bring in new Forms at their pleasure into the publick Worship either of their own or other mens composure as they had done before but always confine themselves to one and the same Liturgy for so not onely Zonarus (m) (m) (m) Zon. in Concil Laod. c. 18. and Balsamon (n) (n) (n) Balsam ibid. but Smectymnuus (o) (o) (o) Smect Ans to Remon p. 7. and the Presbyterian Commissioners at the Savoy (p) (p) (p) Grand Debate p. 11. understand it viz. that they should use no other Prayers in the publick Service but such as had been constantly received by the Church And that this Canon is to be understood of the received Forms is evident both from the 15th and 19th Canon of this Council for in the 15th they forbid that any should go up into the Desk to sing or call the Psalm but onely the appointed Singers who were to sing out of the publick Parchments in the which onely the received Hymns were inserted for so in the 59th Canon they forbid the calling of the Psalms of private persons (q) (q) (q) Conc. Laod. c. 15 18 19. for before it 's plain that they took the same liberty to introduce new Hymns into the publick Service of their own or other mens composure as they had done to introduce new Prayers and not onely so but any one who would was allow'd to call the Hymn for so Tertul. Post aquam manualem lumina Tertul. Apolog. c. 39. ut quisquis de Scripturis sanctis vel de proprio ingenio potest vocatur in medium Deo canere After their washing their hands and lighting the Candles any one is called forth to sing to God as he is able either out of the Scripture or by his own Gift of composure But the consequence of this liberty being afterwards found as prejudicial to Religion as that of introducing new Prayers the Council thought fit to restrain it and therefore in this 15th Canon they forbid the introducing new Psalms into the publick Worship So in the 18th they forbid the introducing new Prayers there having been the same liberty and the same ill consequence in both And then in the 19th Canon they direct That after the Homily the Prayers should be said for the Catechumeni and when they were gone the Prayers for such as were under penance and when they have received the imposition of hands and are departed then let the three Prayers for the faithful be offered up the First softly or every man to himself the Second and the Third aloud which is a plain argument that their meaning is to direct to the use of their stated Forms of Prayer for the forenamed occasions for how could the Congregation say the First of the three Prayers for the faithful to themselves and the other two aloud unless they were Forms which they had learnt by heart and were constantly used too After this there being as St. Austin complains very great disorders in the African Churches through the ill-composed and heretical Prayers which the Ministers foisted into their publick Worship and in which as it seems the Father was sometimes mentioned for the Son and the Son for the Father it was ordained in the third Council of Carthage (r) (r) (r) Concil Carth. 3 d. c. 12. That none in their Prayers should name the Father for the Son or the Son for the Father but that when they came to the Altar they should direct their Prayers to the Father Et quiccunque sibi
the Primitive Church in reading them for Example of Life and instruction of Manners but not for the Establishing of any Doctrine Which in that Article is shewed from St. Hierom to have been the Practice of that Church And besides they are not now appointed to be ordinarily on Sundays read in Our Churches These I take to be the chief of those instances of our Churches Symbolizing with that of Rome in the Composure of the Liturgy that Our Dissenters are offended at And as for their other Objections of this kind they are as easily answered And I most sincerely profess that 't is not to me imaginable that any thing better than Extreme prejudice can make any Man a Separatist from Our Communion upon such accounts as these As also that I cannot understand how any devout and pious Souls that come to our Publick Prayers without prejudice can find themselves in the least tempted not to joyn in them heartily with the Congregation Absolute perfection is not to be expected in any thing of a human make but if all would read Our Liturgy with that Candour they use in reading the Books of those they have a good opinion of as I am sure they could think nothing intolerable therein so am I as sure they would freely acknowledge it to be exceedingly well adapted to the design of it viz. the exciting of Devotion and that good temper of mind that is necessary to Our Worshipping of God in Spirit and in Truth I am certain the experience of very many as excellent Christians as this Age can boast of do bear me witness that this is no lavish commendation of Our Prayers Dr. Tayler that blessed Martyr gave this Testimony to Our Liturgy There was set Acts and Monuments p. 1696. forth by the most Innocent King Edward for whom God be Praised everlastingly the whole Church-Service with great deliberation and advice of the best Learned Men in the Realm and Authorised by the whole Parliament and received and Publisht gladly by the whole Realm which Book was never reformed but once and yet by that one Reformation it was as fully perfected according to the Rules of Our Christian Religion in every behalf that no Christian Conscience could be Offended with any thing therein contained I mean of that Book Reformed What then would he have thought of it had he lived to see it twice more Reformed as it hath been since Lastly I proceed to the fore-named Rites and Ceremonies of Our Church in which Our Symbolizing with Popery is so much Condemned and made a pretence for Separation But before I come to particulars I will observe in the general that the distance Our Church keeps from that of Rome in the imposition of Ceremonies is infinitely greater than her Agreement therein with her For as those imposed by our Church as hath been already said are exceeding few not the hundredth part scarcely of those imposed by the Roman Church so doth not our Church impose them as the other doth on the Consciences of her Members as things of necessity as parts of Religion or meritorious Services as hath been proved out of the Articles Now then 1. As to the Surplice our Church requires not the wearing of this Garment as an Holy Vestment like the Priestly Garments under the Old Law but meerly for the sake of Order and Uniformity whereas in the Church of Rome a Surplice may not be worn till 't is hallowed in a solemn manner by the Bishop or some one by his Allowance as may be seen in the Missal with divers Prayers that it may defend him who wears it from the Assaults of the Devil the Prayers being accompanied with a number of Crossings and in fine the Surplice besprinkled with Holy Water in the Name of the Blessed Trinity But I say in our Church 't is used only as a Garment of distinction no more holiness is placed in it than in the Hoods worn over it meerly for distinction of degrees And the White is preferred before any other Colour because it was a very antient Custom in the Primitive Church for the Ministers to Officiate in White Garments Beza saith of the Surplice These linnen Garments Contra Westphalum vol. 1. p. 255. we do not so stick at that we would have the progress of the Word of God hindred in the least for them And we might shew that Mr. Calvin much blamed contending with Authority about the wearing this Garment Particularly in his Epistle to Bullinger And since all the Popish abuse of this Garment is perfectly removed I know not why all Ministers should not be of their mind and much less can I imagine why those who are not obliged to wear it should be affrighted from our Churches by the meer sight of so Innocent a thing 2. As to the Cross in Baptism Our Church holds so little Conformity with the Papists herein that in no one thing of an Indifferent nature can our Symbolizing with them be less scandalous Dr. Burges in his defence of Dr. Morton Sheweth that we hold no Conformity with the Papists in the use thereof either in the P. 416. c. time when or place where or manner how or end whereto The Minister with us as he there sheweth may not Cross Himself or the People or Font Water Communion-Table or Cups or the Bread and Wine or any other of Gods Ordinances All which in Popery the Priest is bound to do for their Consecration or blessing of himself or them as without which nothing is Consecrated The Child to be Baptized with us may not be Crossed before Baptism on the Forehead Breast or any part which in Popery the Priest must do to drive away the Devil and make the Efficacy of that Sacrament more easy and strong as they teach After Baptism the Minister may not with us Cross the Children with Oyl or Chrism or without on the Crown of the Head as in Popery is required to give them their full Christendom lest they should die before Confirmation Yea at Confirmation the Minister is not to make the sign of the Cross on the Forehead with Chrism or without which is enjoyned in Popery as an Essential part of the Sacrament as they call it of Confirmation Nay as he proceeds if the Child be in danger of present death and not like to live to make profession of Christ Crucified the Minister is directed not to use the sign of the Cross that all may know that we hold it not to be either Operative upon the Child or at all necessary to the Efficacy of the Lord's Sacrament but do onely retain it according to the first and best intention as an outward badg of the Constant profession of Christ Crucified And whereas 't is said in the 30 Canon that by this lawful Ceremony and honorable badg this Child is dedicated to the service of Christ the Doctor declareth that he hath good warrant to assure those who are offended at that Explication