fault with it and while we took it to be a defective disorderly and inconvenient mode of Worship it would be our sin to use it of choice while we may prefer a more convenient way what ever we ought to do in case of necessity when we must worship God inconveniently or not at all And as to our people for whose edification and not destruction we have our power or offices we have taken that course as far as we are able to understand which most probably tended to their good and to prevent their hurt and separation from the Church and consequently that course which did most conduce to his Majesties ends and to his real service and the Churches peace none of which would be promoted by our obtruding that upon our people which we know them unable to digest or by our hasty offending them with the use of that which we are forced to blame and are endeavouring to correct and alter And we see not how it can be justly intimated that we use no part of it when we use the Lords Prayer the Creed the Commandments the Psalms the Chapters and some other parts and how much more you expect we should have used that we might have escaped this brand of Ingratitude we know not But we know that Charity suffereth long and thinketh no evil 1 Cor. 13 4 5. and that we have not attempted to obtrude any mode of Worship on our Brethren but desired the liberty to use things of that nature as may conduce to the benefit of our Flocks And as we leave them to judge what is most beneficial to their own Flocks who know them and are upon the place so it is but the like freedome which we desire We are loath to hurt our people knowingly The time is short if you will answer our reasonable Proposals it will not be too late at the expiration of our Commission or the date of the reformed Liturgie to use it greater liberty hath been used about Liturgies in purer times of the Church with less offence and accusation It can be no just cause of offence to mind them of their duty as they do us of ours telling us It is our duty to imitate the Apostles practise in a special manner to be tender of the Churches peace and to advise of such Expedients as may conduce to the healing of breaches and uniting those that differ for preserving of the Churches peace we know no bettter nor more efficatious way then our set Liturgie there being no such way to keep us from Schism as to speak all the same thing according to the Apostle If you look to the time past by our Duties we suppose you mean our Faults for it is not Duty when it 's past If you in these words respect onely the time present and to come we reply 1. The Liturgie we are assured will not be a less but a more probable means of Concord after the desired Reformation then before the defects and inconveniences make it less fit to attain the end 2. VVhether the Apostle by speaking the same thing did mean either all using this Liturgie of ours or all using any one form of Liturgie as to the words may easily be determined This is of much later date unless you will denominate the whole form of the Lords Prayer and some little parts And those that affirm that the Apostles then had any other must undertake the task of proving it and excusing the Churches for loosing and dis-using so precious a Relict which if preserved would have prevented all our strifes about these things And in the mean time they must satisfie our Arguments for the Negative as 1. If a Liturgie had been indited by the Apostles for the Churches being by universal Officers inspired by the Holy Ghost and so of universal use it would have been used and preserved by the Church as the Holy Scriptures were But so it was not Ergo no such Liturgie was indited by them for the Churches 2. If a prescript form of words had been delivered them there would have been no such need of exhorting them to speak the same thing for the Liturgie would have held them close enough to that And if the meaning had been see that you use the same Liturgie some word or other to some of the Churches would have acquainted us with the existence of such a thing and some reproofs we should have found of those that used various Liturgies or formed Liturgies of their own or used extemporary Prayers and some express Exhortations to use the same Liturgie or Forms but the holy Scripture is silent in all those matters It is apparent therefore that the Churches then had no Liturgie but took liberty of extemporate Expressions and spoke in the things of God as men do in other matters with a natural plainness and seriousness suiting their Expressions to the subjects and occasions And though Divisions began to disturb their Peace and holy Orders the Apostle in stead of prescribing them a form of Diâ—ine Services for their unity and concord do exhort them to use their gifts and liberties aright and speak the same thing for matter avoiding Disagreements though they used not the same words 3. Just. Martyr Tertull. and others sufficiently intimate to us that the Churches quickly after the Apostles did use the personal Abilities of their Pastours in Prayer and give us no hint of any such Liturgie of Apostolical fabrication and imposition and therefore doubtless there was nothing for it could not have been so soon lost or neglected 4. It is ordinary with those of the contrary Judgement to tell us that the extraordinary Gifts of the Primitive Christians were the reason why there were no prescribed forms in those times and that such Liturgies came in upon the ceasing of those Gifts and 1 Cor. 14. describeth a way of publick worshipping unlike to prescript forms of Liturgie so that the matter of Fact is proved and confessed And then how fairly the words of the Apostle exhorting them to speak the same thing are used to prove that he would have them use the same Forms or Liturgie we shall not tell you by any provoking Aggravations of such abuse of Scripture And indeed for all the miraculous Gifts of those times if prescript Forms had been judged by the Apostles to be the fittest means for the concord of the Churches it is most probable they would have prescribed such considering 1. That the said miraculous Gifts were extraordinary and belonged not to all nor to any at all times and therefore could not suffice for the ordinary publick Worship 2. And those Gifts began even betimes to be abused and need the Apostles Canons for their regulation which he giveth them in that 1 Cor. 14. without a prescript Liturgie 3. Because even then divisions had made not onely an entrance but an unhappy progress in the Churches to cure which the Apostle exhorts them oft to Unanimity and Concord without exhorting
abler Brethren If there had been a stated Form before imposed on the Churches what room could there be for this course And even this much seems but a caution made newly upon some late abuse of Prayer The same we say de Concil Malevit Can. 12. if they were but a prudentioribus tractatae vel comprobatae in Synodo new Prayers might by any man at any time be brought in which sheweth they had no such stated publick Lyturgy as is now pleaded for and even this seemeth occasioned by Pelagianism which by this caution they would keep out We hope your omission of our eighth Desire for the use of the new Translation intimateth your Grant that it shall be so But we marvel then that we find among your Concessions the alteration of no part but the Epistles and Gospels As they would have no Saints dayes observed by the Church so no Apocriphal Chapter read in the Church but upon such a reason as would exclude all Sermons as well as Apocripha viz. because the holy Scriptures contain in them all things necessary either in Doctrine to be believed or in duty to be practised If so why so many unnecessary Sermons why any more but reading of Scriptures if notwithstanding their sufficiency Sermons be necessary there is no reason why these Apocriphal Chapters should not be as useful most of them containing excellent Discourses and Rules of morality it is heartily to be wished that Sermons were as good if their fear be that by this means those Books may come to be of equal esteem with the Canon they may be secured against that by the title which the Church hath put upon them calling them Apocriphal and it is the Churches Testimony which teacheth us this difference and to leave them out were to cross the Practise of the Church in former Ages Repl. We hoped when our desires were delivered in writing they would have been better observed and understood we asked not that no Apocriphal Chapter may be read in the Church but that none may be read as Lessons For so the Chapters of holy Scripture there read are called in the Booâ— and to read them in the same place under the same Title without any sufficient note of distinction or notice given to the People that they are not Canonical Scripture they being also bound with our Bibles is such a temptation to the vulgar to take them for Gods Word as doth much prevail and is like to do so still And when Papists second it with their confident affirmations that the Apocriphal Books are Canonical well refelled by one of you the R. Reverend Bishop of Durham we should not needlesly help on their success If you cite the Apocripha as you do other human Writings or read them as Homilies when and where there is reason to read such we spake not against it To say that the People are secured by the Churches calling them Apocripha is of no force till experience be proved to be disregardable and till you have proved that the Minister is to tell the People at the reading of ever such Chapter that it is but Apocriphal and that the People all understand Greek so well as to know what Apocriphal signifieth The more sacred and honourable are these Dictates of the holy Ghost recorded in Scripture the greater is the sin by reading the Apocripha without sufficient distinction to make the People believe that the Writings of man are the Revelation and Laws of God And also we speak against the reading of the Apocripha as it excludeth much of the Canonical Scriptures and taketh in such Books in their steads as are commonly reputed fabulous By thus much you may see how you lost your Answer by mistaking us and how much you will sin against God by denying our desires That the Minister should not read the Communion Service at the Communion Table is not reasonable to demand since all the Primitive Church used it and if we do not observe that Golden Rule of the venerable Council of Nice let antient Customs prevail till reason plainly requires the contrary we shall give offence to sober Christians by a causless departure from Catholick usage and a greater advantage to enemies of our Church then our Brethren I hope would willingly grant The Priest standing at the Communion Table seemeth to give us an invitation to the holy Sacrament and minds us of our duty viz. to receive the holy Communion some at least every Sunday and though we neglect our duty it is fit the Church should keep her standing Repl. We doubt not but one place in it self is as lawful as another but when you make such differences as have misleading intimations we desire it may be forborn That all the Primitive Church used when there was no Communion in the Sacrament to say Service at the Communion Table is a crude Assertion that must have better proof before we take it for convincing And it is not probable because they had a Communion every Lords day And if this be not your meaning you say nothing to the purpose To prove they used it when there was a Communion is no proof that they used it when there was none And you your selves disuse many things more Universally practised then this can at all be fairly pretended to have bin The Council of Nice gives no such golden Rule as you mention A Rule is a general applyable to particular Cases The Council onely speakes of one particular Let the ancient Custom continue in Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria have the Power of them all The Council here confirmeth this particular Custom but doth not determine in general of the Authority of Custom That this should be called a Catholick usage shewes us how partially the word Catholick is sometime taken And that this much cannot be granted us lest we advantage the Enemies of the Church doth make us wonder whom you take for its Enemies and what is that advantage which this will give them But we thank you that here we find our selves called Brethren when before we are not so much as spoken to but your speech is directed to some other we know not whom concerning us Your reason is that which is our reason to the contrary you say the Priest standing at the Communion Table seems to give us an invitation to the Holy Communion c. What! when there is no Sacrament by himself or us intended no warning of any given no Bread and Wine prepared Be not deceived God is not mocked Therefore we desire that there may be no such Service at the Table when no Communion is intended because we would not have such grosse dissimulation used in so Holy things as thereby to seem as you say to invite Guests when the Feast is not prepared and if they came we would turn them empty away Indeed if it were to be a private Masse and the Priest were to receive alone for want of Company
and it were really desired that the People should come it were another matter Moreover there is no Rubrick requiring this Service at the Table when there 's no Communion It is not reasonable that the Word Minister should be onely used in the Liturgy for since some parts of the Liturgy may be performed by a Deacon others by none under the order of a Priest viz. Absolution Consecration it is fit that some such word as Priest should be used for those Offices and not Minister which signifies at large every one that ministers in that holy Office of what order soever he be The word Curate signifying properly all those who are trusted by the Bishops with Cure of Souls as anciently it signified is a very fit word to be used and can offend no sober Person The word Sunday is ancient Just. Martyr Ap. 2. and therefore not to be left off Repl. The word Minister may well be used instead of Priest and Curate though the word Deacon for necessary distinction stand yet we doubt not but Priest as it is but the English of Presbyter is lawful but it is from the common danger of mistake and abuse that we argue That all Pastors else are but the Bishops Curates is a Doctrine that declares the heavy charge and account of the Bishops and tends much to the ease of the Presbyters minds if it could be proved If by Curates you mean such as have not directly by Divine obligation the Cure of Souls but onely by the Bishops Deligation But if the Office of a Presbyter be not of Divine Right and so if they be not the Curates of Christ and Pastors of the Church none are And for the ancient use of it we find not that it was so from the beginning And as there 's difference between the ancient Bishops of one single Church and a Diocesan that hath many hundreds so is there between their Curates But why will ye not yeeld so much as to change the word Sunday into the Lords Day when you know that the later is the name used by the holy Ghost in Scripture and commonly by the Ancient Writers of the Church and more becoming Christians Just. Martyr speaking to Infidels tells how they called the day and not how Christians called it All he saith is that on Sunday that is so called by the Heathens the Christians hold their Meetings see the usage of the Church in this point in August Cont. Faustum Manich. lib. 18. cap. 5. Singing of Psalms in Meeter is no part of the Lyturgy and so no part of our Commission Repl. If the word Lyturgy signifie the publick worship God forbid you should exclude the singing of Psalms And sure you have no fitter way of singing then in Meeter When these and all Prayers conceived by private men as you call the Pastors whether prepared or extemporary and by purity of reason Preaching are cast out what will your Lyturgy be We hope you make no question whether singing Psalms and Hymnes were part of the Primitive Lyturgy And seeing they are set forth and allowed to be sung in all Churches of all the People together why should they be denyed to be part of the Lyturgy we understand not the reason of this N. 13. 14. we suppose you grant by passing them by The Phrase is such c. The Church in her Prayers uses no more offensive Phrase then Saint Paul uses when he writes to the Corinthians Galatians and others calling them in general the Churches of God sanctified in Christ Jesus by vocation Saints amongst whom notwithstanding there were many who by their known sins which the Apostle endeavoured to amend in them were not properly such yet he gives the denomiation to the whole from the greater part to whom in Charity it was due and puts the rest in minde what they have by their Baptisme undertaken to be and what they professe themselves to be and our Prayers and the Phrase of them surely supposes no more then that they are Saints by calling sanctified in Christ Jesus by their Baptisme admitted into Christs Congregation and so to be reckoned Members of that Society till either they shall separate themselves by wilful Schisme or be separated by Legal Excommunication which they seem earnestly to desire and so do we Repl. But is there not a very great difference between the Titles given to the whole Church as you say from the greater part as the truth is from the better part though it were the lesse and the Titles given to individual members where there is no such reason We will call the Field a Corn-field though their be much Tares in it because of the better part which denominateth But we will not call every one of these Tares by the name of Corn. When we speak of the Church we will call it holy as Paul doth but when we speak to Simon Magus we will not call him holy but say Thou art in the Gall of bitterness and the bond of Iniquity and hast no part or lot in this matter c. we will not perswade the People that every notorious Drunkard Fornicator Worldling c. that is buryed is a Brother of whose Resurrection to Life Eternal we have sure and certain hope and all because you will not Excommunicate them We are glad to hear of your desire of such Discipline But when shall we see more then desire and the Edge of it be turned from those that fear sinning to those that fear it not Sect. 1. The Connexion of the parts of our Lyturgy is conformable to the example of the Churches of God before us and have as much dependance as is usually to be seen in many Petitions of the same Psalm And we conceive the Order and Method to be excellent and must do so till they tell us what that Order is which Prayers ought to have which is not done here Repl. There are two Rules of Prayer one is the Nature of the things compared in matter and order with nature and necessity The other is the revealed Will of God in his Word in General the holy Scripture more Especially the Lords Prayer The Lyturgy for the greatest part of the Prayers for dayly use is confused by which soever of these you measure it You seem much to honour the Lords Prayer by your frequent use of it or part of it we beseech you dishonour it not Practically by denying it for matter and order to be the onely ordinary and perfect Rule we know about particular Administrations where it is but certain Select Requests that we are to put up suited to the particular subject and occasion we cannot follow the whole Method of the Lords Prayer which containeth the heads of all the parts where we are not to take in all the parts we cannot take them in that order But that none of all your Prayers should be formed to that perfect Rule that your Letany which is the comprehensive
or become theirs He speaks also of what may be done de eo qui fieri non posse arbitratur But our question is what is done and not what God can do Our great question is what Children they be that Baptism belongeth to After the Catechism we conceive that it is not a sufficient qualification c. â— we conceive that this qualification is required rather as necessary then as sufficient and therefore it is the duty of the Minister of the place Can. 61. to prepare Children in the best manner to be presented to the Bishop for confirmation and to inform the Bishop of their fitness but submitting the judgement to the Bishop both of this and other qualifications and not that the Bishop should be tyed to the Ministers consent compare this Rubrick to the seâ—ond Rubrick before the Catechism and there is required what is further necessary and sufficient Repl. 1. If we have all necessary ordinarily we have that which is sufficient ad esse there is more ordinarily necessary then to say those words 2. Do you owe the King no more obedience Already do you contradict his Declaration which saith Confirmation shall be performed by the information and with the consent of the Minister of the place But if the Ministers consent shall not be necessary take all the charge upon your own souls and let your souls be answerable for all They see no need of Godf. Here the Compilers of the Liturgy did and so doth the Church that there may be a witness of the Confirmation Repl. It is like to be your own Work as you will use it and we cannot hinder you from doing it in your own way But are Godfathers no more than Witnesses c. This supposeth that all children c. It supposeth and that truly that all Children were at their Baptism by water and the Holy Ghost and had given unto them the forgiveness of all their sins and it is uncharitably presumed that notwithstanding the frailties and slips of their Childhood they have not totally lost what was in Baptism conferred upon them and therefore adds Strengthen them we beseech thee O Lord with the Holy Ghost the Comfortes and daily increase in them their manifold gifts of grace c. None that lives in open sin ought to be confirmed Repl. 1. Children baptized without right cannot be presumed to be really regenerate and pardoned 2. We speak onely of those that by living in open sin do shew themselves to be unjustified these you confess should not be confirmed O that you would but practise that If not this Confession will witness against you Before the Imposition of hands c. Confirmation is reserved to the Bishop in honorem ordinis to bless being an act of Authority so was it of old St. Hierome Dialog adv Lucifer says it was Totius-Orbis-consentio in hanc partem and St. Cyprian to the same purpose Ep. 73. and our Church doth every where profess as she ought to conform to the Catholick usages of the Primitive times from which causlesly to depart argues rather love of contention than of peace The reserving of Confirmation to the Bishop doth argue the Dignity of the Bishop above Presbyters who are not allowed to Confirm but does not argue any excellency in Confirmation above the Sacraments St. Hierome argues the quite contrary ad Lucif Cap. 4. That because Baptism was allowed to be performed by a Deacon but Confirmation onely by a Bishop therefore Baptism was most necessary and of greatest value the mercy of God allowing the most necessary means of Salvation to be administred by inferior orders and restraining the less necessary to the higher for the honour of their order Repl. O that we had the Primitive Episcopacy and that Bishops had no more Churches to over-see than in the Primitive times they had and then we would never speak against this reservation of Confirmation to the honor of the Bishop but when that Bishop of one Church is turned into that Bishop of many hundred Churches and when he is now a Bishop of the lowest rank that was an Arch-bishop when Archbishops first came up and so we have not really existent any meer Bishops such as the Antients knew at all but onely Archbishops and their Curates marvel not if we would not have Confirmation proper to Archbishops no one man undertake more than an hundred can perform but if they will do it there is no remedy we have acquit our selves Prayer after the Imposition of hands is grounded upon the practice of the Apostles Heb 62. Acts 8. 17 nor doth 25 Article say that Confirmation is a corrupt imitation of the Apostles practice but that the 5 commonly called Sacraments have ground partly of the corrupt following the Apostles c. which may be applied to some other of these 5. but cannot be applied to Confirmation unless we make the Church speak Contradictions Rep. But the question is not of imposition of hands in general but this imposition in particular And you have never proved that this sort of imposition called Confirmation is mentioned in those Texts And the 25 Article cannot more probably be thought to speak of any one of the 5. as proceeding from the corrupt imitation of the Apostles then of Confirmation as a supposed Sacrament We know no harm in speaking the language of holy Scriptures Acts 8. 15. they laid their hands upon them and they received the holy Ghost and though imposition of hands be not a Sacrament yet it is a very fit sign to certifie the persons what is then done for them as the Prayer speaks Rep. It is fit to speak the Scriptures Language in Scripture-sense but if those that have no such power to give the holy Ghost wil say receive the Holy Ghost it were better for them to abuse other Language than Scripture-language After Confirmation THere is no inconvenience that Confirmation should be required before the Communion when it may be ordinarily obtained that which you here fault you elsewhere desire Rep. We desire that the credible approved profession of Faith and Repentance be made necessaries But not that all the thousands in England that never came under the Bishops hands as not one of many ever did even when they were at the highest may be kept from the Lords Supper for some cannot have that imposition and others will not that yet are fit for communion with the Church The Ring is a significant sign onely of humane institution and was always given as a pledge of fidelity and constant love and here is no reason given why it should be taken away nor are the reasons mentioned in the Roman Ritualits given in our Common-Prayer-Book Rep. We crave not your own forbearance of the Ring but the indifferency in our use of a thing so mis-used and unnecessary These words In the Name of the Father Son and holy Ghost if they seem te make Matrimony a