must not only exterminate Homoonsios Procession and eternal Generation but we must burn all our Bibles except the Greek and Hebrew because they are not properly the Word of God but Words that signifie by the Agreement of Men and if the original Words of Scripture may be Translated by Words of humane Institution why may not a Doctrine of Scripture be so expressed also Secondly as many of the Roman Church have absolved the Greeks from damnable Error in this Point so it is notorious that the Writers of our Church have always vindicated them from it and therefore it cannot be imagined that our Church in this Creed should pronounce them damn'd and it must be manifest injustice to put such Interpretations upon the Creeds of a Church as have heen ever disclaimed by the chiefest Writers of it Thirdly These damnatory Clauses must be understood to refer only to the Belief of the Doctrines contained in the Creed and not to every particular Word and Expression in it The great Fundamental Doctrine which in this Creel is called the Catholick Faith is this That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity and of this Faith it is declared That they who keep it not shall perish everlastingly And they who believe this viz. That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three Persons and me God do believe all that follows in the Creed which contains nothing but what is Essential to the Unity and Distinction of the Three Persons and therefore however they who believe the Trinity may scruple some Words and Expressions in this Creed or understand nothing of them yet as long as they believe the Doctrines they are not included in the Sentence of perishing everlastingly Faith belongs not unto Words but Things and though no one shall be damn'd for a Word yet it is no uncharitableness to say after our Saviour that he who believeth not shall be damn'd neither is it any Popery to conclude that if the Belief of the Trinity be necessary to Baptism it is necessary to Salvation and if this Minister be of another mind let him answer the Arguments that have been * Dr. Sher. Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity lately urged for the necessity of that Belief and let him also satisfie the World if he can why the Athanasian Creed which the Presbyterians appointed to be read in Churches in their Directory drawn up at the Savoy an 1661 should be afterwards a Reason of their Nonconformity But he goes on with his Scruples about the Matter of Consent and declines to speak of the Ceremonies the Cross the Surplice and behold the Reason because all know they came from Rome and when Rome falls they will fall too This is an Art full of Venome to traduce by odious Insinuations that which cannot be opposed by just Objections It appears from * Orig. in Ps 38. Hom. 2. Origen and others that the Cross in Baptism and from †See Hooker lib. 5. rect 29. S. Chrysostome and S. Jerome that such a Garment as the Surplice were of Ancient Usage their Antiquity is far enough beyond Popery and they come no more from Rome than do our Creeds and our Bibles and if this Minister hath had a Revelation in his Patmos that they shall fall with Rome we are foretold that in the last Times false Prophets shall arise and must not take his Dream for Vision Next en passant he upbraids us with our praying for King James a profest Papist that he might persevere in the Faith but there is no such Prayer in our Liturgy and if there were seeing the Papists are Christians and believe all that is necessary to Salvation for I hope he will not leap into the Throne of Judgement and pronounce them damn'd why may we not pray for their Perseverance in the Faith not the Faith of a Papist but the Faith of a Christian that will suffice to save them And now after these little Skirmishes we enter into the Battel and must encounter the Reasons which he has mustered up against reading the imposed Form of Common Prayer And here pray judge between the Church of England and the Nonconformists First he affirms that during the Apostles Times and two or three Hundred Years after there was no Liturgy used nor imposed neither did they direct for the drawing up of any and inforcing it by Penal Laws Here are many things jumbled together which must be separated Penal Laws imposing set Forms Directions for them by the Apostles and the Primitive use of them As for Penal Laws the Presbyterians themselves allow them and their Directory is as accountable for them as our Liturgy imposing to be considered hereafter and as to Directions for composing Forms out of many that are urged I shall select these three Considerations 1. Seeing there is convincing * See Dr. Flammond's View of the Directory Selden on Eutichyus p. 83. Dr. Lightfoot Vol. 2. p. 158. and Dr. Comber's Scholastical History p. 3. the Examiner of Dr. Combet p. 4. does question the Solidity of their Proofs but yet declines to undertake them Evidence that the Jewish Church had a fixed Liturgy and therefore both our Saviour and his Apostles who frequented their Synagogues did certainly joyn in it and not one Iota is to be found in the Gospel that condemns it from this Silence and that Practice we may certainly conclude that the use of fixed Liturgies is lawful that the joyning in them is warranted by their Example and that separation from a Church upon that account is absolutely unlawful 2. Our Saviour himself composed a Form of Prayer for his Disciples and in so doing hath * See M. Mede on Matt. 6 9. commended a set Form of Prayer unto His Church He enjoyn'd them when they prayed to say Our Father c. which is as plain a Prescription of a Form as any Words can express It is †Clarkson 's Disc conc Liturgies p. 3. confessed that this Form was anciently used in the Church and this Primitive Use may be very reasonably ascribed to that Prescription especially when we have so plain a Testimony as that of * Tert. de Orat. ca. 1. Tertullian Novis Discipulis Christus novam Orationis Formam determinavit i. e. Christ hath prescribed a new Form of Prayer to his new Disciples And therefore from the Institution nay from the Use of that Prayer which is confessedly ancient we may certainly conclude that a Form of Prayer is lawful in it self that it is useful and edifying that a Prayor is not therefore unlawful or inexpedient because it is a Form and that the Prescription or Use of a Form in a Church will not justifie separation from it 3. All the Directions which our Saviour or His Apostles have given for the Performance of the Duty of Prayer may be apply'd to Forms of Prayer suppose a Prayer to be exactly composed according to those Directions may not such a Prayer
be frequently used Does it cease to be made according to those Directions if it becomes a Form Is a good Prayer spoyled by using it often And can the same Prayer be agreeable and not agreeable to Scripture though it is not altered The Spirit has given Directions for Prayer and those are equally applicable to Prayers composed by private Men and to those that are made for the use of a Church by the Governors of it he hath given no Direction that private or extemporate Prayer should be only used in the Church The Rules are general and if the Apostles have not directed the drawing up Forms they have left no Directions for any Prayer at all seeing every Prayer either is or may be a Form Lastly As to the Use of Liturgies in the first Ages of the Church he affirms That it hath been abundantly cleared by those that have laboured in this Controversie that the Pastors of Churches in the Primitive Times did not read Prayers Those Labourers he refers to are only Mr. Clarkson for out of his Discourse of Liturgies he has extracted his Objections and they are all answered already in Dr. Comber's Scholastical History but because he has rallied up some few of them to defend his Nonconformity it is necessary to oppose the same Answers to them He says it is abundantly cleared that the Primitive Pastors did not read Prayers Mr. Clarkson indeed affirms that no such Phrase is to be met with in any Writers of the Four of five first Ages at least And to this it is replyed * Dr. Comber 's Schol. Hist pt 2d p. 206 c. that no such Phrase as extempore Prayer nor any thing Equivalent can be produced in that time that if written Forms of Prayer be clearly proved in those Ages such positive Evidence cannot be overthrown by a negative Argument and the want of a Phrase will not prove that any thing that was not which is proved to have been That Mr. Clarkson himself hath found written Forms within that time and that it is certain that the Jews had written Forms and yet the reading them is is no where mentioned in Scripture The Minister proceeds and urges that Act. 12.5 the Prayer for Peter's Enlargement was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instant forvent without ceasing but not by any Form as is agreed on all sides as if Prayer by a Form could not be instant and servent but the antient Church were of another opinion when the Litany was commonly expressed by * See Dr. Comber on the Litany 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is earnest or servent Supplications However tho it be granted that no set Form was used on such an extraordinary occasion does it follow that none was therefore used in the ordinary Prayers of the Church Or suppose that no Forms were used when the Church had the extraordinary Assistance of the Holy Ghost to direct their Prayer does it follow that no Forms are to be used when that Assistance is long since ceased if it does then it follows also that studying Languages is now unlawful because the Apostles were taught them by Inspiration and that no Preacher ought to predmeditate or write his Sermons because we never read that the Apostles did so But the next Objection he thinks to be demonstrative some says he have been so curious as to observe that in the Primitive times the Saints usually prayed with their Eyes fixed on the Mercy-Seat or closed which utterly disables Persons from reading Prayers Mr. * On Psal 132.7 Mede has proved that the Jews worshiped towards the Ark whose cover was the Mercy Seat and that the ancient Christians worshiped towards the Holy Table or Altar which Answers to the Mercy Seat in the Jewish Temple but whether their Eyes were fixed or closed is a moot Point to me and I have not the Curiosity to make a research in to it Mr. Clarkson Labours to prove that they lift up their Eyes towards Heaven but however they disposed of their Eyes I hope the officiating Minister might nevertheless read Prayers to them In out own Assemblies some devout Persons may be seen with their Eyes closed others looking towards the Altar and others towards Heaven and even the Minister himself does often lift up his Eyes in Prayer but I hope all this is no Argument that we have no Liturgy in our Church and that they who scruple its use do scruple nothing and if it is no Argument now it never was one 2. We come next to his Second Class of Reasons which he thus begins The Pastors of Churches in the Primitive times were under the teaching of the Anointing and had the Spirit and Gift of Prayer Suppose we this to be true that they were taught to pray by the Unction of the Spirit was this Unction extraordinary as the Gifts of Languages Prophecying and Miracles or was it an ordinary standing Gift which was to continue in the Church unto the end of the World If he means the former to what purpose does he urge a Gift which no one now can justly pretend to if the later why did he not explain the Nature of it and shew the Promise the extent and the necessity of it and withal answer the Arguments * Dr. Falkners Libertus Eccles his Vindication of Liturgies and the Cases Conc. the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer part 1. that have been urg'd against these Pretences But whatever he means by this Gift of Prayer he would prove the use of it from Justin Martyr and Tertullian the * Justius Apol. 2. p. 98. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former he says is Vindicated beyond all Exceptian The Objectors understand by that Phrase that the chief Minister used his own Abilities in composing a Prayer But * Libeâ—tas Eccles p. 113. c. Schol. Hist p. 33. part 1. others think that it signifies his praying with all his might i. e. with the utmost intention and fervency of Spirit They explain this Phrase by another of the same Author used a little before it where he says that they made their common Prayers to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. fervently and importunately They further prove that the same Expression in another place of Justin where he represents the Christians in general as praising God with Prayers and Thanksgivings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie only fervency of Devotion since it cannot be pretended that every Christian in the Congregation prayed publickly by his own Ability and Composure and lastly they shew that this Phrase is by the antient Writers applied to singing of Hymns which were set Forms of Prayers and Praises and not Composed at every meeting by the Minister and these are plain Demonstrations that this Expression is no Proof of any Gift in praying since it often signifies only fervency in it The P. 24. Examiner of Dr. Comber labours much to vindicate this Phrase and he cannot deny that it sometimes
Canons and Separation for them is alike unlawful He observes further that there were several Liturgies allowed even in the Roman Communion and that this Branch of the Churches Liberty was taken away by the Council of Trent and here in England by the Reformation And what was that Liberty which was thus abridged Not an Arbitrary Liberty in every Pastor of a Parish to use what Form he pleased but the use of different Rules of Prayer that were before prescribed and practiced in different National Churches and Dioceses The different Offices in England as those for instance after the use of Sarum and York did agree in Substance they had the same Forms of Prayer and differed for the most part in Rubricks and Ritualities only and when our first Reformers established an uniform Order it was not esteemed an Encroachment upon Christian Liberty neither are Unity Order and Uniformity the less valuable because Councils and Popes were for them 5. His next Reason is an Invective against the Introducers of Liturgies and in the midst of it he defines ex Cathedrd That the Liturgies which bear the great Names of S. James Peter Mark Basil and Chrysostome are known Forgeries That they are ent rely genuine as they are now extant is affirmed by no one but that they are Forgeries quite throughout and especially the Liturgy ascribed to St. James is so far from being known that we may safely affirm that it is impossible to know it And the contrary opinion of so Learned men as See Falkners Vindication p. 149. Baronius Ddurantus Leo Allatius Sixtus Senensis Possevinus Pamelius and others among the Romanists Dr. Hammond Thorudike Falkner Casaubon Salmotius Durel and some other Protestants will bear me out in affirming it But behold the Modesty Charity and Humility of this Minister 'T was the Ignorance Carnality Sloth and Laziness of the Clergy together with their Pride which first brought in and imposed Service-Books on the Churches When the Church began to be an Harlot when Bishops were not Silver Trumpets but tinkling Cymbals c. when in Councils as of Ephesus and Chalcedon they profest they did literas ignorare and could not write their own Names to confirm their Canons then came in our Liturgies Thus far the Son of Thunder but I take heart again for find it is brutum fulmen and our Prayer-Books are in no danger from it The Falshood and weakness of this Raillery is Schol. Hist part 2d p. 276. sufficiently exposed already and it is impossible such stuff should impose upon any but the greatest Bigots of Fanaticism Ignorance Carnality Pride and Laziness brought in Liturgies he might as well have said that Burglary or Vsury did introduce them if Pride and Ignorance brought in Liturgies why are they not read in Conventicles for In his Cure of Divisions Mr. Baxter hath complained to all the World that the People who frequent them for their Ignorance Injudiciousness Pride and Self-conceitedness are their Grief and their Shaine and certainly we may believe him But if Pride and Ignorance brought in Litugies we remember well then Entbusiasm Sacriledge and Rebellion did eject them We have Preface to Dr. Still Vnreasonableness of Separation had convincing Proofs that the Jesuits first brought extempore Prayers into England those Missionaries of Antichristian were the first Teachers of them and when Presbyterian Ministers were Trumpets to Rebellion when their Sermons and their Arms brought the best of Kings to the Scaffold when the Church was rent in pieces with damnable Doctrines when Jeroroham's Priests profaned the Pulpits and the Altars when the Stalls and the Shambles were the chief Schools of the Prophets when all Religion was vanished into Cant and Blasphemy and Nonsense were entitled to the Holy Spirit then were Liturgies first abolished and extempore Prayers first universally practised in any Christian Nation in the World But Liturgies he says were brought in when the Church began to be an Harlot Smectymnius * Answer to Remonst p. 7. derived their Pedigree from Three Canons of the Laodicean Carthaginian and Milevitan Councils and thus they are allowed to be in use about 1300 years since and has the Church been a Whore for so many Ages has she forsaken her Spouse so long has she renounced Christ Jesus for 13 Centuries together Yes and much longer too when we dispute about Episcopacy for when we come to that Controversie the Mystery of iniquity was working even in the times of the Apostles and the Church did then begin to be an Harlot also so little do some men care how they wound our common Christianity and condemn the whole Catholick Church of Christ so they may but vent their Malice against Liturgies and Bishops But because he cannot deny that Liturgies were introduced in the 4th and 5th Centuries he particularly Rallies upon the Ignorance of the Bishops of those Ages And were those ever reputed ignorant Ages when was the Church better enlightned with Learning than when Chrysostome Basil Nyssene Nahianhen Epiphanius the two Cyrills Lactantius Ambrose Jerome Augustine Isidore Pelus Theodoret Vincentius Gennadius and many others were the Luminaries of it But among these Gnosticks even the Mechanicks and the Women have been thought more able Divines than the Fathers and indeed if Ability is to be measured by the Gift of Prayer as they call it they may vye Learning even with their own Teachers for their most ignorant Zealots do often pray with as much fluency of words with as much pretence to the Spirit and which is the main Gift with as much Confidence as the ablest Ministers among them But the Bishops of Ephesus and Chalcedon could not write their Names and Mr. Clarkson indeed produces the Subscriptions of Three or four to prove it And to * Schol. Hist pt 2. p. 300. this it is replied That those Subscriptions are of no credit as being suspected of Forgery but suppose there were four Bishops among 830 in those Councils who were so illiterate is it not a very impudent Calumny to say indefinitely as he does That the Bishops of Ephesus and Chalcedon could not write their Names to confirm their Canons might it not as well be said that the Assembly of Divines at Westminster were Independants because there were Five of that Sect among them or that the Nonconformists Ministers of this Age have generally died as Traitors because Two or three were executed for being in Monmouths Rebellion His last Reason concerns the imposing of Liturgies and here he denies not the Lawfulness of them but after he has begged the belief of his Followers That they were not used in the Primitive times for many Hundred of years he pretends to prove the unlawfulness of imposing them Now one would think it a very plain Case that things lawful in themselves may be lawfully enjoyned by lawful Authority but this Minister is of another opinion and the only Reason he gives for the unlawfulness of prescribing Forms is this
AN ANSWER TO THE Call to Humiliation OR A VINDICATION OF THE Church of England From the Reproaches and Objections of W. Woodward in Two Fast Sermons Preach'd in his Conventicle at Lemster in the County of Hereford and afterwards Published by him Printed for Edward Robinson Junior Bookseller in Ludlow 1691. AN ANSWER TO THE Call to HVMILIATION OR A Vindication of the Church of England WHEN I first met with this importunate Call to Humiliation I wonder'd how it came into the Head of that Minister to call upon the Church of England in a Conventicle he might as well have call'd upon the Socinian Church in Poland or the Quakers in Pensylvania How absurd was it to summon the Church of England to the Stool of Repentance in a Presbyterian Assembly at Lemster and to proclaim a Fast for Persecution to those whom he pretends were persecuted by her But thô the Church was out of his Audience yet it was matter of great Edification to his Hearers to calumniate and reproach her and I presume at the next gathering he was well rewarded for it See how this Minister keeps his Days of Humiliation he Fasts notoriously for Strife and Debate instead of healing our Wounds he enlarges and enflames them he sets forth the Sufferings of his Dissenters with Hyperbole's and lying aggravations to what purpose but to exulcerate and enrage them as if he were sent in the Spirit of Elijah he calls in effect for Fire from Heaven upon us The Prophanation of our Fast Day was not enough for his Invectives withal he could find but little work of Humiliation for his own Sectaries but with loads of Sackcloth and Ashes he overwhelms our Church and in a word he has laid out his whole Gift of Calling and Clamouring and Railing upon it The best Apology against such a Libel would be Patience and Silence and the best Answer that which Mr. Hooker made to certain Reasons and Raileries of the Puritans to his Reasons No and to his Raileries Nothing But there is sometimes a necessity of answering some Persons according to their folly the applause and triumph with which this Pamphlet has been cried up by his followers the Confidence wherewith they pronounce every thing unanswerable that is not answer'd and the Complement of * p. 27. Dumb Dogs which this Holy Rabshakeh has bestowed upon us do make it necessary to say something in our vindication and to shew how easie it is to defend our Church against the feeble Assaults of a Lemster Conventicle In answer to his Two Sermons as he calls them I will consider 1. His Declamations about Persecution 2. The Reasons and Objections which he pleads for his Non-conformity Days of Humiliation are at all times necessary to the Church of Christ which while it is Militant will be never so far without Spot and Blemish as not to stand in need of publick Explations but when the Judgments of God are either imminent or present and the unbounded wickedness of a Nation do force them down from Heaven then certainly is the time to weep to Sanctify a Fast and to call all the Inhabitants of the Land to a Publick Repentance Our Church on such occasions hath contented her Self to follow the example of Religious Men in Scripture and to prescribe such general Confessions as are universally true of all and particularly applicable to the Case of every one there is a Confession in that last Office so full and comprehensive that no one who is not much in love with Cavil can accuse the insufficiency of it But this Minister is dissatisfied with it he hath searched among * See p. 10 11. the accursed stuff as he stiles it of Ecclesiastical Affairs and after much pains in rummaging * See p. 10 11. he finds that the accursed thing * See p. 10 11. lies hid under the covering of Decency and Order Penal Laws Laws for Vniformity Subscriptions Declarations Liturgies Articles Laws for Ceremonies and Forms of Prayer Thus one whole Constitution is accursed in his Opinion even the Articles of our Religion are not excepted thô approv'd by all the Protestant Churches and Seal'd with the Blood of Martyrs and the Prayers of all Churches for at least 1â—00 Years together have been nothing but Curses and as Achan's Sacriledge an Abomination to the Lord. But Persecution is the great Rock of Offence and he is very angry at the Compilers of the Office because they have not mention'd it in the Confession he cannot forgive a certain * The Bishop of Sarum Bishop in particular who he thinks assisted in composing the Form and had before Declar'd that Persecution had not a little contributed to fill up the measures of the sins of a Church See his Ep. Ded. and p. 11. and that they who were guilty ought seriously to profess their Repentance of it But he observes That he said this before he was a Bishop which is to insinuate that it is no wonder he should now prevaricate and that he was fall'n from Grace by taking a Bishoprick on him But here he had an occasion of shewing his Spight at the Order and even a Reconciling Bishop could have no Quarter from him Now for once let Persecution be as heinous a Sin as he can make it and let it be granted that many Church men have been guilty of it Yet Why must it be particularly confess'd in a general Humiliation Why more than Drunkenness Perjury Blasphemy or Whoredom Would he have every individual Confess that he has been a Persecutor a Drunkard a Blasphemer and a Whoremaster If many are innocent of these Crimes so they are of Persecution There are thousands of Congregations that never persecuted any one and yet this Vnjust Judge would force them to plead Guilty of it Be the Sin never so Epidemical yet why should I confess it if I am not Guilty And as for those that are let him read over the Confessions and he will find they are in general Expressions included in it and general Confessions are sufficient because no others can be accommodated to so many millions of Christians but nothing will please that Minister unless the whole Church lye prostrate at his Feet and submit to the Discipline he imposes and then perhaps he would think her sufficiently humbled and condescend to pardon her Let us now reflect a little on the extremity of their Sufferings as he is pleas'd to represent them and one single Paragraph out of all his Tragical Aggravations will be sufficient He assures us * p. 4. That it is as clear as the Sun that for near 30 years last past 1600 Ministers of the Gospel have suffer'd very hard things upon the account of Conscience by reason of great Fines and long Imprisonments At the Restauration there were many Mininsters ejected who had either intruded themselves into the Freeholds of others or had Vsurp'd their Benefices in the times of Schism and Rebellion without lawful Qualisications
signifies only fervency of Spirit when it is appled to the People but he thinks it a very plain Case that a Minister cannot properly be said to pray to the utmost of his Ability when he doth not pray to the utmost of his Ablity and may not the same thing be said of the People also If the Minister use a Form may he not likewise pray with all his might or as well as he is able and is not this a plain Equivocating upon the word Ability take it first for fervency and then for a faculty of composing and the Contradiction is solved and the Fallacy Transparent The other Proof is out of Tert. Apol. cap. 1. Tertullian sine Monitore quia de pectore oramus we pray without a Monitor because we pray out of the Heart But this can be no Proof against a Form of Prayer sor 1. They who joyn with a Minister that prays Extempore do pray as much with a Monitor and have a Prayer dictated to them as much as if they joyned in a prescribed Liturgy And 2. Praying out of the Heart Schol. Hist part 1. â—p 46. c. may signifie either saying a Prayer by Heart or secret mental Prayer without words or praying heartily sincerely and affectionately de anima innocenti de Spiritis Sancto as Tertullian a little after with a prayer proceeding from an innocent Soul and the Holy Spirit moving and exciting it These interpretations are probable and consistent with the use of Liturgies and consequently from this passage no Argument can be drawn against them Yet from thence this Minister takes occasion to vent his Malice against Liturgies and to reproach them as an heathenish way of Praying Now if our Saviour prescribed a Form to his Disciples and it is impossible for him to prove the the contray then this reproach is Blasphemy might not an Atheist say as well That Prayer it self is an Heathenish practice or a Quietest Comment in Entychium p. 55. taht vocal Prayer is a Heathenish way of praying Mr. Selden thought it probable that the Heathens learnt to use set Forms from the Example of the Jewish Church and he cites Authorities to prove it and View of the Directory Dr. Hammond produces out of Plato and Alexander ab Alex. these two Reasons of that practice which he thinks may pass Christian least evil things should be asked in stead of good and least any thing should be said Preposterously in their Prayers and therefore the practice of the Heathens is so far from being a prejudice to Liturgies that it is a solid Argument for them Whether either or both the Example of Gods Church or the Catholick reason of mankind were the Original of it the universal use of them among Jews and Christians and Heathens is an impregnable Proof of their expediency and can be ascribed to no other cause but the voice of God or Nature 3. He transcribes this Objection after Mr. Clarkson when the Christians were so numerous in Constantinople that it was thought necessaryto dispose of them in several Churche the Emperour Constantine Euseb de vita Const lib. 4. c. 35. 〈◊〉 to Eusebius for 50 Bibles for the use of those Churches but there is no mention of any one common Prayer Book Eusebius commends Constantine for observing in his Court the manner of the publick Service in the Church he first imoplyed his mind in the Meditation of the Scriptures and then with those who dwelt in his Palace he repeated Ibid cap. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authorized Prayers and it is known that he himself composed a Prayer which he Ibid cap. 19 20. prescribed to his Army And after such convincing Proofs can a Negative Argument be thought considerable enough to Ballance them Is it imaginable that Eusebius intended to give an exact Inventory of all that was provided for those Churches Constantine sends to Eusebius in Palastine for 50 Bibles probably because the best Copies might be there most easily procured does it therefore follow that no prayer Books were provided at Constantinople where it was easie to procure them and if we should send to Holland for Bibles when we want them would it not be as plain a Demonstration that we have no prayer Books in England Sue Schol. Hist part 2d p. 48. c. He pretends That when Forms of Prayer began to be used ever Church made use of what Forms they pleased and for this he cites Socrates Scholas lib. 5. the passage he intends is in Chap. 22. In which the Historian reflecting upon a division among the Novatians about the time of keeping Easter and shewing that antiently in different Churches it was observed at different times without breach of Communion does pass from thence to observe the diversity of other different usages in the Christan Chruches as the different Customs of keeping the Fasts before Easter the Marriages of the Clergy and the different Rites and times of Prayer and interpreting Scripture in many Provinces and Countreys The he tells us that the Novations in the Hollespont did not observe the same manner of praying with those of Constantinople and concludes that upon the whole every where and in all the Worships or Rites of Prayers you cannot find that they agree together two in the same thing and this is the passage they insist on But 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie Ceremonies and Rites of Prayer for of different Ceremonies he was before Discoursing and then the Passage will be no proof of different Forms 2. Admitting that he speaks of different Prayers this diversity is not spoken of single Congregations but of several Nations and Dioceses such as for instance Jerusalem Cyprus Constantinople 3. A little after we have the reason fo this variety I judge says Socrates that the Bishops who presided in several Gages were the cause of it and how They transmitted their own Vsage as a Law to those who should come after them thus the cause of this diversity was not Liberty but Law and Prescription 4. Immediately after he vindicates the Nicene Council which had determined the Controversie about Easter and prescribed a certain time to keep it But diversity in praying and the different times of Easter are by this Historian proposed as things alike indifferent and if Church Authority may determine and prescribe in one case so it may also in the other Thus we have the great Example of the Nicene Fathers for prescribing and in stead of the Liberty they pretend to the Prescription of set Forms or Rights of Prayer to whole Dioceses and Nations In short the design of the Historian is to shew that there were divers Customs in the Church in Things indifferent and that the Communion of the Church ought not to be divided for them Now Custom is a Law introduced by Practice and Law is a restraint upon Liberty And if indifferent things may be prescribed by Custom they may be prescribed by
That it is a restraint upon the Gifts of such Ministers as have Ability to compose better Prayers themselves and this he illustrates by the trite instances of Trespass Offering and of a Law obliging those who are not Lame and Impotent to make use of Crutches But 1. All this is impertinent to the Dispute before us for the Ministers in our Church are not restrained from the Exercise of their own Abilities in publick Prayers they may use their own conceived Prayers in the Pulpit and the Fifty fifth Canon as explained by the general Practise is an allowance of it and therefore if the Exercise of Abilities be not excluded in our Church the pretence of restraint can never justifie a Separation from it Secondly The Objection is grounded on these false Suppositions that God is better served by conceived Prayers than by a publick Liturgy that the Church is less difyed by it that it is unlawful to lay a restraint upon private Gifts and that it is lawful to separate for better Edification and unless all these Propositions here precariously supposed to be true and I think he will find it impossible to prove them then his whole reasoning and the Crutches he has brought to prop it and the Pidgeons Lambs and Bullocks which attend it are plainly unserviceable to him His Pidgeons and Crutches are designed to intimate that a Form of Prayer is a cheap impotent unedifying way of Worship in Comparison of their extempore Effusions but this he should have proved for he knows we assert the contrary we think that Prayers are not more acceptable because they are inconsiderate or of private Composure that the Framers of our Liturgy were as well gifted as Dissenters that the Church may be better edifyed by the Spirit of the Church than by the Spirit of a Member and that those Prayers are fittest for the People which they are before acquainted with and wherein they are secured from Presumption and Impertinence Blasphemy and Nonsense He should have proved likewise that the Exercise of private Gifts cannot lawfully be restrained by publick Authority we know that even the miraculous Gifts of the Spirit were subject to restraint and we have an express Rule That the Spirit of the Prophets must be subject to the Prophets There is no Law no Reason nor Revelation against such a restraint on the contrary both Reason and Religion do require that the use of private Abilities be regulated by publick Order and that the vain Ostentation of them be restrained * Epist 87. ad Prot. Aug. Calvin has expresly declared for the necessity of prescribing Forms To remedy the simplicity and unskilfulness of some to testifie the Consent of all the Churches in the same Prayers and to prevent the desultory Lightness of those who affect Novelty In short all the Foreign reformed Churches do either use or approve of prescribed Liturgies the old Nonconformists always allowed them and even the Presbyterian Directory prescribed every thing but Words and if private Spirits may be restrained to Sense and Matter why not to Form and Language also Lastly Admitting that such restraint is unlawful and that conceived Prayers are more edifying than Forms he should then have proved that it is lawful to separate for better Edification The antient Puritans thought otherwise and so did the Presbyterian Assembly in their Controversie with the Independents See Vnreasonableness of Separation pt 1. and so both Reason Experience and Revelation do convince us that the restraint of private Gifts will not justifie the dividing of Christ that the silenceing an able Minister is not so mischievous as Schism that the Pretences of better Edification is the fruitful Parent of endless Separations and that the Church which is in the House of the living God cannot be built or edified by being torn in pieces and destroyed Thus have I considered at large his Discourse about Liturgies it is the principal Fort and Bulwark of his Cause and the slight defences which remain will be easily demolished 4. The Point that follows next is the abjuring of the solemn League and Covenant as in it self an unlawful Oath and imposed on the Subjects of the Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom And is it not extreamly modest in these Men to Quarrel at the State for requiring them to renounce an Impious and Rebellious Covenant was it reasonable to admit such men into the Offices of the Church as were sworn and obstinately resolved to extirpate the whole Government of it But let us consider the Reasons which he urges against the abjurating that Covenant 1. There are many learned Preachers that never redd a Law Rook they know nothing of Manna Charta Bracton Littleton Cook Common Law or Statute Law is it reasonable then to require them to declare the Covenant is contrary to known Laws and Liberties which they are utterly unacquainted with Indeed there is no necessity that a good Preacher should be an able Lawyer and much less is it necessary to read over a Lawyers Library to be convinced that the Covenant was illegal can none but profound Lawyers know that Felony and Burglary are against our Laws and Liberties Does not every sensible man know that the impofit on of an Oath without Law to warrant it is contrary to it and that nothing is Law which has not the concurrence of King Lords and Commons to enact it have these Ministers never heard of the * 3 Car. 1. c. 1. S. 2. Petition of Right which declares all others without Law to be against our Laws and Liberties Or can they tell us by what Law the Covenant was established was it not imposed without the Concurrence of the King and against his express Command had they never heard of the Oaths and Laws about the Kings Supremacy and is not the * Vid. indicium Acad Oxoniensis de solrum Freder p. 8. 14. Cotenant plainly Contradictory to it and Lastly do they not know that this Abjuration is required by an Act of Parliament and what need then of consulting Law Books about a Covenant for which there is no President in them when the Legislative Power it self has declared the unlawfulness of it it is manifest this Ignorance is affected time was when they were so well acquainted with Laws and Liberties that they preached the People into a Rebellion for them in the Covenant it self they swore expresly * Artic. 3. to preserve the Priviledges of Parliament and the Liberties of the Kingdom if then they knew those Liberties can they now be unacquainted with them or is it not as lawful to abjure as to swear without knowledge Article 1. They swore to preserve the Religion of the Church of Scotland in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government and was there one in a Thousand of the Covenanters that had a competent knowledge of these particulars How could it be imagined that he common People should know them and yet they never scrupled to exhort