but every man prayed according to his ability Secondly that in Ezra his time eighteene short forms of Prayers were composed for the scattered Iews which had lost the use of the holy language because they thought it best to continue their Prayers and Worship of God in that sacred tongue Thirdly but not a word of any set forms which the Priests or Levits were to use but only to helpe the ignorant Iews to expresse themselves in prayer to God in the holy language at the time or houres of prayer Which the men of the great Synagogue had appointed Peter and Iohn went up together to the Temple at the houre of prayer being the ninth houre Though we alleage not this of Maymonides as a testimony to command beliefe yet wee conceive it farre more to be regarded then any Samaritan Chronicle Secondly hee hath some scraps of Iewish Liturgies out of Capellus concerning which a short answer may serve first there is not one of the Iewish Liturgies now extant which was made before the Iews ceased to be the Church of God for besides the eighteene short formes before mentioned there were no other made till Rabbi Gamaliel his time who according to the judgment of learned Criticks is that Gamaliel mentioned in the Acts from whom Paul got such bitter principles against Christian Religion But whensoever they began Capellus would laugh should he heare what a strange conceit this Remonstrant had gotten from him that the Iewish Liturgies were as ancient as the time of Moses merely because he parallels some Iewish phrases which hee found in them with certaine phrases in the Gospell which the Iews retained by Tradition from their Fathers and put into their Liturgies But Buxtorfius would fal out with him that he should so much abuse him as to say he had affirmed that Maymonides took his Creed out of the Liturgie for the man is not guilty of any such grosse mistake he saith indeed that the Articles of the Iewish Creed are printed in the Liturgies but withall hee tels the Remonstrant that Maymonides was the first composer of them whence therefore the Iews put them into their Liturgie Thus wee leave his Iewish Liturgie which the Reader will easily see to be more Iewish then hee could justly suppose our instance of William Rufus was and that it affords him as little furtherance For Christian Liturgies which the Remonstrant had affirmed to have been the best improvement of the peace and happinesse of the Evangelicall Church ever since the Apostles times we challenged the Remonstrant setting aside those that are confessedly spurious to produce any Liturgie that was the issue of the first 300 yeers in answer to which he brings us forth the Liturgies which we have under the names of Iames Basil and Chrysostome to which our Reply may be the briefer because hee himselfe dares not vouch them for the genuine writings of those holy men Onely saith hee we have them under their names Secondly he confesseth there are some intersertions spurious in them Thirdly all that he affirmes is that the substance of them cannot be taxed for any other then holy and ancient what censure the learned Criticks both Protestants and Papists have pâ—st upon these Liturgies we hope the Remonstrant knows we will onely mind him of what the leâ—rned Rivetus speaks of the Liturgies of Iames Peter Matthew Mark has omnes profectas esse ab inimico homine qâ—i bonae semenii Domini nocte super seminavit zâ—zâ—nia solidis rationibus probavit Nobilisque illustris Philip Morneus lib. 1. de Missae partihus ejus Which because the Remonstrant so often finds fault with our misenglishing wee leave to him to see if hee can construe these Zizania to be any other then these Liturgies and this inimicus homo to be any other then the Devill Nor will his implication of the ancient Councell of Ancyra helpe him which forbade those Priests that had not sacrificed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Will the Restrant say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was to serve in the holy Liturgies that is reading set Litnrgies he may as wel say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the reading of set Homilies Balsamon Zonaras Dionysius Isidore and Gentian Harvet doe all translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliquod munus sacerdotale subire And that the Remonstrant may not delude himself nor others with the ambiguitie of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if every meÌ„tion of these did by implication prove such a Liturgie as for which he contends Let him know that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is variously used in Antiquity sometimes for all the Ministeriall Offices so Zonaras in Concil Antioch Can. 4. and so Concil 4. Ancyra Can. 1. quoted by himselfe if hee would either have observed or acknowledged it sometimes only for prayer so Balsamon in Can. 12. Concil Sardic 6. Sometimes singing of our Psalmes is tearmed by Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same Father expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 13. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 27. in Act. so that for the proof of such Liturgies as are the Subject of this question it is not enough to shew us the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in antiquity let him shew the thing before he so Dictator-like condemne those for giddy heads that will not take his word for proofs and believe it was the undeniable practice of antiquity to use Liturgies and formes of prayer because he saith so His supercillious censure upon our passage about conceived prayer is not worth the taking notice of he saith We are sullen and crabbed pieces tecchy and quarrelsome men and why because we said his large prayses of conceived prayer were but a vantage ground to advance publike forms the higher how truly judg what cause we had so to think wee declared from the cruell and ungodly practices of the late times which he will scarce take notice of Our arguing about the originall and confirmation of our Church Liturgie he calls wrangling For the originall the Remonstrant said it was taken out of the ancient Models not Roman but Christian here wee tooke notice of the opposition betweene Roman and Christian because by the Remonstrant made Termini sese muâ—uâ— removentes which we perceive now hee is not willing should passe for his meaning hee will not have it meant of an opposition but of a different modification Though his instances brought to exemplifie it are not all ad oppositum We will not make digressive excursions into new controversies though wee are not affraid of burning our fingers with his hot Iron Only wee tell him that the Suffrages of unquestionable Divines are not so unanimous but that from some of them wee could fetch sparks to fling in the face of him that desired their suffrages without burning our-own fingers Compare what the booke called the Old Religion speaks of the Church of
distast if there be any such wee for our parts are innocent our care for our part hath beene to informe our people that such stumbling blocks as these are not sufficient causes of Separation But wee thinke nay we know that some few Prelats by their over-rigorous pressing of the Service-book and Ceremonies have made more Separatists than all the Preachers disaffected to the Ceremonies in England Our last reason was from the difference betweene this and all other Churches To which he answers that difference in Liturgies will breed no dis-union between Churches Secondly if it be requisite to seeke conformity our is the more ancient Liturgie and our the more noble Church Therefore fit for them to conforme to us rather then we to them It is true every difference in Liturgies doth not necessitate a dis-union of Churches but here the difference is too large to be covered with a few fig-leaves It is too well known our Ceremonies and other things in our Liturgies will not downe with other reformed Churches to the second it is not the precedencie in times that gains the Glory but the exactnesse of the work Our first Reformation was onely in doctrine theirs in doctrine and discipline too For the third that ours is the more noble Church We desire not to ecclipse the glory of this Church but rather to intreat the Lord to increase it a thousand fold how great soever it be and to ennoble it in this particular in removing what ever is a stumbling block out of the way of his people But why saith the Remonstrant should we rather conforme to the Liturgies of the Reformed Churches then those of all other Christians Grecians Armenians Copths c. should we set down what wee have read in the Liturgies of those Churches wee believe the Remonstrant would blush for intimating there is as much reason to conform to their Liturgies as those of the Reformed Churches Our second quaere is not so weak as this Remonstrant supposeth it is this whether the first Reformers of Religion did ever intend the use of a Liturgie further then to be a help in the want and to the weaknes of the Ministers In way of Answer he asketh Whether we can think that our Reformers had any other intentions then all other the founders of Liturgies No indeed wee thinke no other and howsoever the Remonstrant according to his confidence tels us that the least part of their eare was the helpe of the Ministers weaknesse yet their words tell us it was the main drift of those that first brought prescribed forms of prayer into the Church and therefore wee conceived it might possibly be the intention of our Reformers also witnesse the 23 Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage ut nemo patrem nominet profilio c. So the Composers of the Liturgie for the French Church in in Frankfort He formulae serviunt tantum rudioribus nullius liberiati praescribitur These formes serve onely for the ignorant not prescribing to any mans liberty And were it so that the mayn drift of the Composers of Liturgies were to helpe the dâ—votion of the people yet what a help to devotion many find it though we dispute not it will be hard fâ—r this Remonstrant to perswade many thousands who desire with devout hearts to worship God that the being constantly bound to the same formes though in themselves neither for matter nor composure subject to just exception will prove such a great help to their devotion But this wee are sure that if the knowing before hand the matter and the words wherewith it should be clothed make people the more intent upon devotion if this be an infallible argument it pleads against the use of present conception either in praying or preaching or any other administration either publike or private and how contradictory this is to what the Remonstrant hath professed of his reverent and pious esteem of conceived prayer let himselfe see It is neither boldly nor untruly said that all other reformed Churches though they use Liturgies do not bind Ministers to the use of them If we may trust the Canons and the Rubricks of those Churches we may both boldly and truly say it In the Canons of the Dutch Churches agreed upon in their Synod we find a Canon enjoyning some days in every week to be set apart for preaching and praying and the very next Canon saith the Minister shall conceive prayers either by the Dictate of the Spirit or by a set forme So in the first Rubricke of the Liturgie of Geneva the Minister is to exhort the people to pray quibus ei visum fuerit verbis in what words he shall think fit and though that Liturgie containe formes of prayer for publike use yet we doe not finde in all that Liturgie where they are tyed to the use of those forms and no other we finde where they are left free as in one place in Dominico die mane haec ut plurimum adhibetur formula Upon the Lords Day in the morning for the most part this prayer is used for the most part then not alwayes So in another after the Lords Super this thanksgiving or some other like it is used then they are not absolutely tied to the use of that and by this wee have learned how to construe what he hath quoted out of Master Calvine And indeed any man that reads that Epistle may easily construe what was Master Calvines judgement about Liturgies not that men should be so tied to words and forms as to have no liberty to recede from them For in the same Epistle hee doth advise to have a summary collection of doctrine which all should follow and to the observing of which all both Bishops and Ministers should be bound by Oath Yet we hope the Remonstrant will not say that Calvine did advise that Bishops and Ministers should be bound by oath not to vary from that forme of doctrine Calvine advises a set form of Catechisme will the Remonstrant say that Calvine meant the Ministers should never vary from the syllables of that forme provided they did dictate pro captu populi in quibus situs sit verus Christianismus The very words by himself quoted shew what Calvins end was in advising a set Liturgie viz. to helpe the simplicity and unskilfulnesse of some to prevent the innovation of others that the consort of all Churches among themselves might more certainly appeare all which ends may be obtained without limiting all Ministers to the words and syllables of a set forme provided they pray to that effect Which is all that is required in the Liturgies of other Churches Wee could name you many other Liturgies wherein there are not further bounds laid upon the Minister then thus Hae sunt formulae quas tamen sequitur Minister pro suo arbitrio These are forms which the Minister follows according to his liking And again Spiritus sanctus non est alligandus formulis The Holy
this Censure was the troubles raised up among the English Exiles then at Frankford about the booke of Liturgie which was then as since a spring of unhappy contentions in the Church hereupon he writes a Letter to them wherein hee useth that phrase of tolerable fooleries and in a Christian way perswades both disagreeing sides to accord which he puts not upon them by way of authority but Christian advise nay he says more that these fooleries were tolerable then yet he doubted not if Religion flourished in England many of these would be removed and other things amended and though they might begin with such weak rudiments yet it was behovefull for the grave and pious Ministers of Christ to rise to a higher pitch c. So that here Master Calvin did not unwarrantably intrude in alienam rempublicam Nor did any other then would become any of our grave and learned Divines in the case of the Wafers or Lords Day Markets of his Charge if called unto that service as Master Calvin was to this The Remonstrant leads us from the English Liturgie to a Discourse of Liturgies in generall which wee call unparalleld because no man that ever wee have seene drew the line of Liturgie so high as hee hath done even as high as Moses time to which his answer is Perhaps there are some things our not omniscient eyes have not seene and perhaps this may be one of them and perhaps there are some things which hee hath confidently avouched that his Lincean eys have not seen and perhaps this is one of them or else we should see it too But that needs not saith the Remonstrant for wee almost yield the question before wee argue it the happier man hee to obain that by concession that hee never could by argumentation but how doe wee yield the question in granting an order of divine administrations observed in Church Assemblies but denying an imposition of set forms We find in antiquity that when the Church met together upon the Lords day first the Scriptures were read of the old and new Testament after the reading followed an Exhortation to the practice and imitation of what was read then they all rose and joyned in Prayer Prayer being ended they went to the Sacrament in the beginning whereof the President of the Assembly powred out Prayers and Thanksgiving according to his ability and the people said Amen then followed the distribution of the Sacrament After that the collection of Almes c. this was Iustine Martyrs Liturgie Will you now see Tertullians First the Congregation meets and doe as it were besiege God with their prayers wherein they pray for the Emperors for their servāts officers c then they went to repeating the Scriptures according to the time and occasion then they edified themselves in faith and hope by holy exhortations There they had also the exercise of Discipline there they had their Love-feasts which began and ended with prayers and were celebrated with singing of Psalmes This was Tertullians Liturgie From these two Writers of the purest times it is evident that it was the custome or order of the Church in their Assemblies to pray read and expound the Scriptures administer the Sacraments but that there were set formes of Prayer prescribed and imposed upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they were tyed to read such and such Scriptures that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had words of exhortation put into his mouth that hee must use without adding or altering or diminishing all which are in a stinted Liturgy this doth not appear but rather the contrary Tertullian saith Coimus ad sacrarum literarum commemorationem si quid praesentium temporum qualitas aut praemonere cogit aut recognoscere And now we hope our Remonstrant wil see how we will avoid our own contradiction To say there was an order of administrations although there were no set and prescribed formes is no contradiction You see it in the Churches practice To say there was an order of prophecying given to the Church of Corinth by the Apostle Paul and yet no stinted forms of prophecying imposed upon them wee hope the Remonstrant himselfe will say is not contradictory But these quotations are blasted already it is but a silly ostentation of antiquity that these men bring against the Liturgie so is all wee bring if the Remonstrant may be judge but wee appeale to the learned Reader And what can our Remonstrant accuse us of First in our quotation of Tertullian Wee mis-english it Sine Monitore quia depectore without any prompter but their own heart Is this a mistranslation what then will you say to that approved Glossator Zephirus who thus expounds this place Our Prayers are not dictated to us as are the Prayers of the Heathens by their Priests but proceed from the bottome of our hearts c. Is not this to pray without any other prompter but their own hearts Nor doth Heraldus contradict this sence If Zephirus his Glosse like not you your English likes us as well as our owne and proves what wee desire Sine Monitore not being urged by any superiour injunction though wee thinke Monitor may as well be translated prompter as injunction but if no injunction how could it be a Liturgy a commanded imposed forme and if neither of these neither Zephirus nor your own please you then take Nicholas Rigaltius The Heathens had a Monitor that led them along in their prayers out of a writing that they might misse nor mistake no words c. yet what is this to a prescribed forme yes if they prayed sine Monitore it overthrows a prescribed forme read it as you will if you read it without a prompter it overthrowes a forme if it be as you read it without any Superiour injunction it overthrows a prescribed forme But why may not we saith the Remonstrant as well argue that because our Ministers doe ordinarily in their pulpits pray for the King in their own expressions therefore there is no forme of Liturgie enjoyned quite from the purpose we shew you in Tertullian where there were prayers that were not stinted and prescribed forms shew us if you can in Tertullian any such there were Our other testimony out of Terullian and Austine is full to the purpose we intended wee brought them to prove that it was free for Christians to pray as their occasions did require without being limited to prescribed formes and though we will not say peremptorily there were no publique Liturgies in Augustines time yet we dare say the place hee brings proves it not in which there is not one word of prescribed or publike forms The next place he quarrels with is Iustin Martyr the fault there is in the Translation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is guiltily translated the instructer of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falsly turned according to his ability We must quit our selves of both these crimes First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
we render not the word but the person the instructor of the people because the same Father but a few lines before told us that was his proper work and why should the Remonstrant cal this a guilty translation Did he think we were affraid to use the word President or Bishop for fear of advantaging the adverse cause No such matter take it translate it you Bishop if you please make this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apocalyps what will you gain by it but this that such a President or Bishop there was in every Congregation whether in the City or Country But besides the supposed guilt we are charged with false Translation for turning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to his ability if this be a false Translation let the crime lie upon Langius and not contradicted by Sylburgius in his notes who before us translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quantum pro virili potest which wee know not how to conster better then according to his ability And this Remonstrant grants they did pray according to their ability and so saith he do ours and yet we have a publike Liturgie and so had they It followeth not that they had because we have we would fain see better proofe of it The Remonstrant thinks it is proof enough to picke a quarrell with what wee have spoken and therefore scorns to trouble himself any further then to tell the Reader it is Magisterially said by these men that set and imposed formes were not introduced till the Arrian and Pelagian Heresies did invade the Church and as Clerkly they confute themselves by their own testimony So then if wee cite testimony it is not Magisterially spoken and how is it Clerkly confuted Besides what wee have done our selves he vouchsafes us the honour to bestow a marginall confutation upon us out of Conc. Laod. cap. 19. we will doe the Canon and the Cause right and give you the full view of it Oportere seorsum primum post Episcoporum Homilias Catechumenorum Orationem peragi postquam exierunt Catechumeni eorum qui poenitentiam agunt fieri orationem cum iâ— sub manum accesserint recesserint fidelium preces sic ter fieri Vnam quidem scilicet primam silentio secundam autem tertiam per pronuntiationem impleri deinde sic pacem dari sic sanctam oblationem perfici solis licere sacratis ad altare accedere communicare We desire the Reader to remember that the question is not about a set Order or Rubrick as the Remonstrant calls it of administrations but about set and imposed forms of prayer Now what doth this Canon require that after Sermon Prayer should be made first for the Catechumeni Secondly for the penitents Thirdly for the faithfull But doth it binde to set forms of prayer in all these that the Reader sees it doth not for some of the prayers required in that Canon are mentall prayers therefore not stinted nor prescribed praiers as appears by that clause in the Canon which the Remonstrant shuffling up with much lesse fidelity then we have done the Milevitan Councell leaves out in his quotation But Clerklike wee confute our selves First in going about to prove that set and imposed formes were not introduced till the Arrian and Pelagian heresie did invade the Church by the testimony of a Councell that was before Arrianisme Hee that is so quicke to take others in their self coÌ„futations doth as Clerklike confute himselfe in granting that the Laodicean Councell was between the Neocesarian and the Nicene and yet so long before Arrtanisme as it seemes ridiculous to referre from the one to the other Now the Neocesarian Councell was as Binius from Baronius computes in the yeer 314 and the Nicene was 325 or according to Eusebius 320. And was the Arrian heresie just born at the period of the Nicene Councell if not why may not the Arrian Heresie invade the Church before the time of the Laodicean Councell especially considering that the heresie of Arrius did trouble the Church sometime before it borrowed Arrius his name and under his name some yeers doubtles before the Nicen Councell Yet our meaning was not to affix the introducing of set formes into the Church upon that Councell the Remonstrant if that he had pleased might have conceived that speaking of the bringing in such formes wee shew how it was done by degrees And first as a step the Laodicean Councell did forbid mens varying their prayers as they listed and did enjoyn all men to use the same prayers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Remonstrant saith we said was a forme of mans owne prescribing No we said of a mans own composing and how wil the Remonstrant disprove it from the words of the Canon To prove our assertion we brought the words of the Councel of Carthage which our Remonstrant derides as a grosse absurdity to explicate the Councel of Laodicea by that of Carthage which is yet no more then Zâ—naras did before us But as the Remonstrant relates it the Fathers of Carthage will afford us little help You shall heare themselves speak Reader and then judge Vt nemo in precibus velpatrem pro filio vel filium propatre nominet cum â—ltari assistitur semper ad patrem dirigatur Oratio quicunque sibi preces aliunde describit non iis utatur nisi prius eas cum fratribus instructoribus contulerit Where it appears first that this Canon was made for poore ignorant Priests that knew not the difference between the Father and the Sonne Secondly that when this Canon was made there was no set forme in use in the Church for it cannot come under the possibility of imagination that a man having a set form lying before him should so grosly mistake as to name the Father for the Son or the Son for the Father Thirdly that the limiting or circumscribing the liberty in prayer was such as did not tie him to a set Liturgie but hee might use the help of any other prayer so he did conferre with the more learned of his Brethren The Milevitan Councell went something further wherein hee challenges our fidelitie in shufling up the Councell our fidelity in citing of this Councell is nothing inferiour to his in this and far above his in the former Let the Reader consider how much difference there is between what we speak and what the Remonstrant reports from this Councell and judge of the fidelity of both If wee have for brevity sake given too short a representation of the Canon it will appeare upon are view to redound onely to our own prejudice The Canon is this Placuit etiam illud ut preces vel orationes c. quae probâ—tae fuerint in Concilio sive praefationes c. ab omnibus celebreÌ„tur Nec altae omnino dicantur in Ecclesia nisi quae à prudentioribus Tractatae vel Ã
Synodo comprobatae fuerint ne forte aliquid contra fidem velper ignorantiam vel per minus stuâ—ium â—it compositum Where wee observe that this is the first mention of prayers to bee approved or ratified in a Synod and the restraining to the use of them Secondly that the restriction was not such but there was a toleration of such Prayers as were tractatae à prudentioribus used by the wise and prudent men in the Church as well as of those Prayers that were approved by the Synod Thirdly that the occasion of this restriction was the prevention of Errour in the Church ne aliquid contrae fidem c. So that here the Remonstrant may see how that we have made it good that liberty in Prayer was not taken away and set formes imposed till the Arian and Pelagian Heresie invaded the Church his owne quotations would have told him this Next to these Testimonies as a strong inducement to us to think that there were no Liturgies of the first and most venerable antiquity producible wee added this consideration that the great admirers of and searchers after ancient Liturgies either Iewish or Christian could never yet shew any to the World And now we verely thought that if the Sun did this day behold them the Remonstrant whose eys are acquainted with those secrets and rarities that wee cannot bee blest with the sight of would have brought them to publique view for the defence of his owne Cause but wee feare if there ever were any such the World hath wholy lost them he cannot serve you with a whole Liturgie such fragments as hee found served in wee shall anon tast off His miserable mistake in saying that part of the Lords Prayers was taken out of the Iewish formes we pardon because hee doth halfe acknowledge it So do wee his prudent passing by in silence what wee objected against his confident assertion of Peter and Iohns praying by a forme and that which wee brought of the Publican and Pharise to make good what we objected because we know he cannot answere it Three things hee speaks of The Lords Prayer the Iewish Liturgies and Christian Liturgies for the Lords Prayer hee saith nothing can bee more plain then that our Saviour prescribed to his Disciples besides the Rules a direct forme of Prayer we grant indeed nothing can be more plaine then that both our blessed Saviour and Iohn taught their new Converts to pray yet the Remonstrant will have a hard task to prove from Scripture that either Iohn or our Saviour gave to their Disciples publique Liturgies or that the Disciples were tied to the use of this forme But though his proofe fall short in the Lords Prayer yet it is sure he saith that Christ was pleased to make use in the Celebration of his last and heavenly Banquet both of the fashions and words which were usually in the Iewish Feasts as Cassander hath shewed in his Liturgica Yet Cassander who is his sure proof saith but this observasse videtur seemes to have observed Secondly the evidence of all this comes from no better authour then Maymonides who wrote not till above a 1000 yeers after Christ. Thirdly though it were granted that our Saviour did pro arbitrio or ex occasione use the fashion or words usually in the Jewish feast it doth not at all follow that he did assume these words and fashions out of Iewish Liturgies an Arbitrary custome is one thing a prescribed Liturgie is an other Yet to prove such a Liturgie that he might as far as he can stand to his assertion he brings something out of Capellus the Samaritan Chronicle and Buxtorfius his Synagoga Iudaica We begin with what he brings out of a Samaritan Chronicle sometimes in the hands of the famously learned Ioseph Scaliger out of which hee tels us of an imbezel'd book wherein were contained the Songs Prayers used before the Sacrifices which although we might let passe without danger to our cause and answer that they were onely divine Hymnes wherein there was alwayes some thing of prayer because the Remonstrant himselfe in his second mentioning of them names onely Songs and were there any thing for set prayers it is like hee would have put down some thing of them in the Authors own words as well as hee hath burthened his margent with some thing which is nothing to the purpose But we shall make bold under correction to examine the authority of his Samaritan Chronicle Ioseph Scaliger had certainly but two Samaritan Chronicles had he had any other he would certainly have mentioned it when hee undertooke to speake of all accounts Chronicles whereof that shorter is printed in his Emendat Temporum lib. 7. which is so fond and absurd a thing that hee calls it ineptissimum and there gives this censure of the Samaritans in point of antiquity Gens est totius vetustatis etiam quae ad ipsos pertinet ignarissima They are a people most ignorant of all antiquity even of that which doth most concerne themselves And more he would have said against it if he had lived to know how much it varied from the Samaritans owne Pentateuch as it is since discovered by that learned Antiquarie Master Selden in his Preface ad Marmora Arundeliana This wee know is not the Chronicle the Remonstrant means there is another which Scaliger had of which himself thus Habemus eorum magnum Chronicon ex Hebraica lingua in Arabicam conversum sed charactere Samaritano descriptum is liber incipit ab excessu Mosis desinit infra tempora Imperatoris Adriani c. Wee have also their great Chronicle translated out of the Hebrew into the Arabick tongâ—e but written in a Samaritan character which Book begins from Moses departure and ends beneath the times of Adrian the Emperour c. Of which Book Scaliger his own censure is that though it hath many things worthy of knowledge Yet they are crusted â—ver with Samaritan devices and judge how much credit wee are to give to this Book for antiquity as farre as Moses which makes no mention of their own originall any other ways then that they came out of Egypt by Moses doth not so much as speak of any of the ancient Kings of Samaria nor the defection of the ten Tribes under Rehoboam and doth onely touch the names of Samson Samuel David c. as Scaliger speaks in the beginning of his notes and so will let your Samaritan Chronâ—cle passe and give you leave to make the best of it But to this testimony what ever it be wee oppose the testimony of a learned Iew who is rather to be heard then a Samaritan The famous Rabbi Moses Maymonides who pleaseth to read part of his first second and eleventh Chapters in his Mishneh of the Law Halachah Tephillah shall evidently finde that from Moses his time to Ezra above a 1000 yeeres there were no stinted forms of prayers heard of in the Iewish Church
Ghost is not to be tyed to forms Minister concludit Orationem quam pro suo arbitrio dicit Haec esto formula nisi quid ille suâ sponie possit melius The Minister concludes the prayer which hee sayes according to his own discretion let this be that forme except of his own accord hee can doe better In another Minister ad precandum hisce aut similibus verbis invitat ad hunc modum orat in these or the like words And by this we hope the Remonstrant seeth that what wee have said was more truly then boldly spoken As for the Lutheran Churches though we blesse God for that truth that is among them for that glorious instrument of their Reformation yet we think the Remonstrant will not say that the Lutheran Churches came out so perfectly in the first Edition but that desiderantur nonnulla nor can he be ignorant that in the ordinary phrase of writing they are called the Protestant Churches the other the Reformed Churches and what if the Reformed Churches be as the Remonstrant calls them out of his respect hee beares them but a poore handfull yet is this handfull in respect of purity of truth and worship among them to be preferred before all the Christian World besides The Rubrick in the Liturgie of Edward the sixth saith he is misconstrued Because it intends onely the peoples ease and more willing addiction to hearing Two of the very ends for which wee desire a liberty which if some Ordinaries upon his certain knowledge have often yielded many now upon our certaine knowledge have denied it and ordered Sermons should rather be constantly cut short then any part of the Liturgie omitted why should it be a fault in us to desire that as a favour from this Honourable House which the Remonstrant grants an ordinary may without offence yield at his own discretion 3 The Homilies we say are left free reason therefore the Liturgie should which argument he confesseth might hold force did they utterly abridge all Ministers of the publike use of any conceived prayers We know some men have endevoured sacrilegiously to rob all Ministers of the exercise of the gift of prayer on what occasion soever And our argument is as strong against limiting in prayer as it is against limiting in preaching either in whole or in part and he saith nothing against it onely determines tanquam è Cathedrâ that it is no lesse sacrilege to rob the people of a set form by the liberty of a free exprâ—ssion Then it is to rob them of the Ministers gift of preaching or praying But the Remonstrant must prove that set forms and Liturgies stinted and enjoyned are not onely lawfull but Ordinances of God and not only warranted but commanded as well as preaching or praying before he doe so peremptorily conclude the taking of set formes away by the liberty of a free expression to be sacrilege and his bold closure of this Answer how true it is let him look in what we have said before of the Liturgies of other Churches 4 His fourth Answer That it is a false ground that the imposing of the book tyes godly men from exercising their gift in prayer would have been condemned for heresie in some Consistories in England within these few yeeres by such as did from the imposition of the one forbid the other Whether the liberty of prayer be infringed wholly by a set Liturgie wee dispute not But it is beyond dispute that the not binding to a Liturgie would endanger the liberty of prayer lesse 5 Our fift Reason was because many deny their presence at our Church-meeting in regard of those imposed prayers and we finde no better way to recover them from that distance in which they stand then by leaving the Liturgie free The Remonstrant saith There is no reason of such alienation from our assemblies upon such grounds The reasonablenesse or unreasonablenesse of this we determine not in the mean time wee are sure thus it is For our parts we professe that wee are not against a free use of a Liturgie nor doe we count a Liturgie a sufficient ground of separation from the Church we say with Augustine Non putamus scindendas esse Ecclesias propter ea quae nos ex se neque digniores neque indigniores coram Deo facere possunt Yet wee feare it is not the Remonstrants Dilemma that will reduce such as upon this ground are upon point of forsaking our Church assemblies The Liturgie saith hee is either good or evill if evill it is not lawfull to be used if good it is not unlawfull to be imposed The persons of whom wee speake and with whom in this argument he hath to deal will deny both and tell him the Liturgie is neither good nor yet may lawfully be imposed if it were good it may be the Remonstram might have work enough to perswade some men of either and whether it be easier to satisfie the consciences of many thousands in England that are troubled about this by argument and disputing or by loosing the bond of imposition and taking away the cause of dispute and trouble or to behold the confusion that will follow if the Lord do not in mercy direct to some means of prevention is not hard to determine The Remonstranâ— inclines to the third and making it but a small matter turns it off with O miserable misled people whom nothing will reclaim but a perfect confusion a perfect deformity a more profitable nonsence And so confident he is that this will be the issue that though this confusion appeare in no other Churches who perhaps hee grants contradicting himselfe begun without a Liturgie yet with us it could be no lesse then what hee hath prophesied yea so resolute he is not to yield to a liberty in what is established that whereas wee said that liberty in Liturgies could breed no more confusion then liberty in the Homilies we evidently see by his answer that had the reading of Homilies beene as strictly enjoyned as the Book of Common-prayer the ablest Minister in England were the Law in the Remonstrants hands must be held as strictly to them as to this Yea lastly whereas wee had said that if enjoyned at all it might be as a punishment upon the insufficient thereby to quicken them up to more diligence and care he scoffs at this as a singular project and unheard of mulct and yet himselfe comes out with a project about preaching never a whit better and doth as good as confirme our saying in the latter end Surely where God hath bestowed gifts it is fit they should be imployed and improved to the best advantage of his people But where there is nothing but an empty over-meening and proud ignorance there is great reason for a just restraint Let the ingenious Reader peruse the words and consider how much they differ from that which he calls our singular project and withall judge whether this conclusion of the Remonstrant after all his