Deacons therefore to the intent these Orders should be continued and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England it is requisite that no Man shall execute any of them excep the be called tryed examined and admitted according to the Form hereafter following and I hope it is evident from that form that a Bishop is necessary to Ordination He goes on and affirms That the French Belgick and Helvetick Churches besides many others are of his Judgment All the other Protestant Churches excepting only Geneva have Episoopal Government and that they allow Ordination by Presbyters in opposition to it is an Assertion that may well be thought incredible till it be sufficiently proved and as for the Churches he mentions their Divines account the Non-Conformists Ordinations Schismatical and the best defence of their own is necessity But he needs not name the Church of Scotland for Scotland says he hath justified all our Non-Conformity By Scotland he means the Presbyterian party of that Kingdom * See the Letters about the Persecution Scotland p. 58. the lesser part for the whole but however if Scotland justifies them it is the only Church in the world that do so Lastly He adds our Diocesan Bishops may glory over us as the Kings Bishops or Bishops of the State which is just the Raillery of the Papists Parliament Bishops and Nags-head Bishops But are our Bishops ordained by the King and State are they not Christ's Bishops and Scripture Bishops No for this new Apostle of Patmos does Peremptorily tell them that they must not pretend to be so near in Blood to the Scripture Bishops of the first Two hundred years as the Pastors of single Congregations But with Submission to his Apostleship I reply that the * Jus Divin Minis Aug. 71. Presbyterian Assembly have granted that Timothy and Titus had super out Authority over Presbyters and therefore our Bishops having the same Authority may pretend to Kindred with them 2. * Ibid. p. 140. They acknowledge also after Blondel that above 140 years after Christ Bishops were set over Presbyters so that they grant them to be introduced within 40 or 50 years after the decease of all the Apostles 3. The Epistles of Ignatius who was Contemporary with the Apostles and suffered Martyrdom within nine years after the decease of St. John do manifestly shew that the superiour Authority of Bishops was then established in the Church and therefore certainly by Apostolical Institution And the Authority of these Epistles has been so demonstratively cleared from all Exceptions by Bishop Pearson that there is now no Contreversie about it 4. Mr. Chillingworth at the end of his Book has plainly demonstrated the Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy and he Sums up his Demonstration in these Words Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been received universally in the Church presently after the Apostles times Between the Apostles times and this presently after there was not time enough for nor possibility of so great an Alteration And therefore there was no such Alterat on as is pretended And therefore Episcopacy being * By Peter du Moulin Beza Chamier Nic. vedetius whom he cites as Confessing it confessed to be so Antient and Catholick must be granted also to be Apostolick Quod erat Demonstrandum And I hope this Minister will condescend to answer this Demonstration when he writes again or however be so modest as not to conclude so confidently when he has proved nothing But behold the Chair of Infallibility Wherefore I say that Ordination by the hands of the Pastors of Churches filled with the Holy Ghost is much more elegible than by Diocesan Bishops a very peremptory Decree but we must not question it for Pythagoras hath said so yet thus much I presume to Answer that Diocesan Bishops are filled with the Holy Ghost as well as parochal Pastors and that Schismaticks have no Title to it We come now to his Third Reason of Non-Conformity the Declaration of Assent and Consent required in the Act of Vniformity to the Book of Common-Prayes And 〈◊〉 He can't Assent to that passage in the Athanasian Creed where it is said that every one that doth not keep that Faith whole shall without doubt perish Everlastingly Now it is certain the Athanasian Creed is entirely * The Judgment of Foreign Reformed Churches p. 32 33. received and approved by all the protestant Churches in the World excepting only the Antitrinitarians as hath been lately observed and therefore this Minister is herein a Non-Conformist to all Protestant Churches as well as to the Church of England and they are all Condemned together as practising a point of Popery in damning all that differ from them Let us see now the Reason upon which all Protestant Churches are condemned by him One Article says he of that Creed is about the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which the Greek Churches did not believe nor receive and supposing them in an Error he adds I must be very bold if I leap into the Throne of Judgment and pronounce them damned I am as much afraid as he is of invading Christ's Tribunal and pronouncing any one damned much more a whole Church and such a Church as comprehends so many Millions of Christians But 1. The Differences between the Greek and Latine Church about the Article of Procession is by Mr. Field of the Church lib. 3. c. 1. Loads Conf. p. 16. Pearson on the Creed p. 324. Learned men affirmed to be only verbal because the Greeks acknowledged under another Scripture Expression in the same thing which the Latines understand by Procession viz. that the Spirit is of or from the Son as he is of and from the Father That as the Son is God of God by being of the Father so the Holy Ghost is God of God by being of the Father and the Son as receiving that infinite and eternal Essence from them both Thus Bishop Pearson upon the Article and if so it be then there is no difference about the Doctrine it self but only about the word Procession But says this Minister The Procession of the Holy 〈◊〉 Ghost is a most profound Mystery and very much obscured by bringing in word Procession and is not this a most profound Objection Is it not rather profound Non Sense to say that the Procession is obscured by the word Procession And how does the expressing that Mystery by Procession any more obscure it than the infinite Duration of God is obscured by calling it Eternity But the Scripture on that occasion never uses the word In relation to the Father it is used * John 15.26 expresly and in Relation to the Son it is contained virtually in Scripture where the Holy Ghost is often said to be the Spirit of the Son and that is all which is understood by proceeding from him and if no words are to be admitted that are not found in Scripture the old-Subtersuge of the Arrians we
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