Commissioners Petitioning for Review of Book of Common Prayer, Commentary 2 · Preface · Section 3 – Section 6
Sect. 3.
[As for Original Sin,Ans. though we think it an evil Custom, springing from false Doctrine, to use any such expressions as may lead people to think, that to the persons baptized (in whose persons only our Prayers are offered up) Original Sin is not forgiven in their holy Baptism; yet for that there remains in the Regenerate, some reliques of that, which are to be bewailed; the Church in her Confession acknowledgeth such desires of our own hearts, as render us miserable by following them; That there is no health in us; That without Gods help our frailty cannot but fall; That our mortal nature can do no good thing without him, which is a clear acknowledgement of original sin.]
Repl. 1. He that hath his Original Sin forgiven him,Rep. may well confess, that he was born in Iniquity, and conceived in Sin, and was by nature a Child of Wrath, and that by one man sin entered into the World; and that Judgement came on all men to condemnation, &c. The pardoned may confess what once they were, and from what Rock they were hewn; even actual sins must be confessed after they are forgiven (unless the Antinomians hold the truth against us in such points) 2. All is not false Doctrine that crosseth mens private opinions, which you seem here to obtrude upon us. We know that the Papists (and perhaps some others) hold that all the baptized are delivered from the guilt of Original Sin: But (as they are in the dark, and disagreed in the application of it, so) we have more reason to incline to either of the ordinary opinions of the Protestants, than to this of theirs. 1. Some learned Protestants hold, that visibly all the baptized are Church-Members pardoned and justified; which is, but that they are probably justified indeed, and are to be used by the Church (upon a judgement of Charity) as those that are really justified; but that we have indeed no certainty that they are so, God keeping that as a secret to himself concerning individuals, till by actual Faith and Repentance, it be manifest to themselves. Another opinion of many Protestants is, that all persons that are Children of the Promise, or that have the conditions of pardon and justification in the Covenant mentioned, are to receive that pardon by Baptism: And all such are pardoned, and certainly in a state of justification and salvation thereupon. And that the Promise of pardon is made to the faithful and their Seed, and therefore that all the faithful and their Seed in infancy, have this pardon given them by the promise, and solemnly delivered them, and sealed to them by Baptism, which investeth them in the benefits of the Covenant: but withal, that 1. The professed Infidel and his Seed, as such, are not the Children of the Promise, and therefore if the Parent ludicrously or forcedly, or the Child by error be baptized, they have not thereby the pardon of their sins before God. 2. That the Hypocrite, that is not a true Believer at the heart, though he profess it, hath no pardon by Baptism before God, as being not an Heir of the Promise, nor yet any Infant of his as such: But though such are not pardoned, the Church that judgeth by profession, taking Professors for Believers, must accordingly use them and their Seed. 3. But though the Church judge thus charitably, of each Professor in particular, till his Hypocrisie be detected, yet doth it understand that Hypocrites there are, and still will be in the Church, though we know them not by name; and that therefore there are many externally baptized, and in Communion, that never had the pardon of sin indeed before God, as not having the condition of the Promise of pardon; such as Simon Magus was: We have less reason to take this Doctrine for false, than that which pronounceth certain pardon and salvation to all baptized Infants whatsoever. And were we of their Judgement, we should think it the most charitable act in the world, to take the Infants of Heathens and baptize them; and if any should then dispatch them all to prevent their lapse, they were all certainly saved. We hope by [some Reliques] you mean that which is truly and properly Sin: for our parts, we believe according to the 9th. Article [That Original Sin standeth in the corruption of the nature of every man, whereby man is far gone from original Righteousness, and inclined to evil: And that this infection of nature doth remain in the Regenerate. And though there is no Condemnation against them that believe and are baptized, yet Concupiscense and Lust hath of it self the nature of sin] You say [the Church acknowledgeth such desires, &c.] Devices and desires are Actual sins, and not Original, which consisteth in privation, and corrupt inclination. The next words [There is no Health in us] it seems the Translators that put it into the Lyturgy misunderstood; but however you seem here plainly, by your misinterpretation, to misunderstand it. Nulla salus in nobis, is spoken actively, and not possessively, or passively. The plain sense is, there is no Help, Deliverance, or Salvation in our selves; we cannot help our selves out of this misery, but must have a better Saviour. As Christ is oft called our Salvation, so we are denyed to be our own: So that yet here is no Confession at all of Original Sin, but of the effects. The two next Sentences, confess a debility and privation, but not that it was ab Origine; but may for any thing that's there said be taken to be since contracted. Nor are the words in this Confession, but in some other Collects elsewhere, which proves not that this Confession saith any thing of Original Sin.
Sect. 4.
[We know not what publick Prayers are wanting,Ans. nor do they tell us: the usual Complaint hath been, that there were too many; neither do we conceive any want of publick thanksgivings, there being in the Lyturgy, Te Deum, Benedictus, Magnificat, Benedicite, Glory be to God on high; therefore with Angels, and Arch-Angels, the Doxology, Glory be to the Father, &c. all peculiar, as they require to Gospel-Worship, and fit to express our thanks and honour to God, upon every particular occasion, and occasional Thanksgivings after the Letany, of the frequency whereof themselves elsewhere complain, who here complain of defect, if there be any Forms wanting, the Church will provide.]
Repl. Rep.We have shewed you in the Forms we offered you, what we judge wanting. The R. Reverend Bishop of Exeter, hath taken notice of the same want, and proposed a supply. Those you name, are either but general Sentences, or extend but to some few particulars, as being suited to the persons, and particular occasions of them, and none save the Te Deum designed to be the distinct Praise of the Church, for the benefits of Redemption, as the suitable and sufficient performance of this great part of the Lyturgy: However it will do you no harm, that your Brethren be gratified with fuller expressions, and variety. They that have complained of too many (because you shred your Petitions into almost as many Prayers, and so the Thanksgivings into such briefs) yet complained not of too much; but that too many, by the multitude of Prefaces and Epilogues, was the cause of too little.
Sect. 5.
[They complain that the Lyturgy contains too many generals,Ans. without mention of the particulars, and the instances are such Petitions as these, [That we may do Gods Will] [To be kept from all Evil] almost the very tearms of the Petitions of the Lords Prayer; so that they must reform that, before they can pretend to mend our Lyturgy in these Petitions.]
Repl. Rep.We complain not that there are Generals, but that there is nothing but Generals in so great a part of your Prayers; and therefore they are very defective. And if really these Generals suffice you, a few lines may serve instead of your whole Book: Instead of all your Confessions, it may serve to say, that [we have greatly sinned] and no more; instead of all your Letany or deprecations, it is enough to say [Deliver us from all Evil] instead of all your Petitions for Grace, Peace, Rain, fair Weather, Health, &c. it is enough to say [Give us the Good we want] Indeed the Lords Prayer hath general Requests, because it is the design of it to be the Rule of Prayer, and so contain but the Heads to which all Prayers are to be reduced. But if therefore you will have no more particulars, why do you use any Prayer but the Lords Prayer? We hope you do not think to supply any defects pretended to be found in its Generals, nor to correct the order of it: If it be but because you would not on every particular occasion be so large, as to say the whole, you may take that Head, which suiteth that occasion; and so [give us this day our daily Bread] may serve instead of all the Collects for temporal Supplies: And all your O…fices may be blotted out, and one of the Petitions of the Lords Prayer placed in the stead of each of them.
Sect. 6.
[We have deferred this to the proper place, Ans.as you might have done.]
Repl. Rep.It was the proper place under the Head of defectiveness, to instance in this as well as other defects.
Sect. 1.
[We are now come to the main and principal demand,Ans. N. 18. as is pretended, viz. the abolishing the Laws, which impose any Ceremonies, especially three, the Surplice, the sign of the Cross, and kneeling; these are the yoak, which if removed, there might be peace. It is to be suspected, and there is reason for it, from their own words, that somewhat else pinches, and that if these Ceremonies were laid aside, and these or any other Prayers, strictly enjoyned without them, it would be deemed a burden intollerable; it seems so by N. 7. where they desire, that when the Lyturgy is altered, according to the rest of their Proposals, the Minister may have liberty to add, and leave out, what he pleases; yet because the imposition of these Ceremonies, is pretended to be the insupportable grievance, we must of necessity, either yeeld that demand, or shew them reason why we do not; and that we may proceed the better in this undertaking, we shall reduce the sum of their Complaint, to these several Heads, as we find them in their Papers. The Law for imposing these Ceremonies, they would have abrogated for these Reasons.
Repl. Rep.To what you object (to intimate your suspicion of us) from N. 7. we have before answered: We must profess the abatement of Ceremonies, with the exclusion of all Prayers and Exhortations, besides what's read, will not satisfie us. The Liberty which we desired in all the parts of Worship (not to add to the Lyturgy, or take from it, but to interpose upon just occasion, such words of Prayer or Exhortation as are requisite, and not to be tyed at every time to read the whole) we are assured will do much to preserve the Lyturgy, and bring it into more profitable use, and take off much of mens offence: And pardon us while we tell you this certain truth, that if once it be known, that you have a design to work out all Prayers (even those of the Pulpit) except such as you prescribe, it will make many thousand people fearing God, to be averse to that which else they would have submitted to, and to distaste both your endeavours and ours, as if we were about drawing them into so great a snare: And as the Proverb is, you may as well think to make a Coat for the Moon, as to make a Lyturgy that shall be sufficiently suited to the variety of places, times, subjects, accidents, without the liberty of intermixing such Prayers or Exhortations, as alterations and diversities require.
Sect. 2.
[First, It is doubtful, whether God hath given power to men to impose such siguificant signs,Ans. which though they call them significant, yet have in them no real goodness in the judgement of the imposers themselves, being called by them things indifferent, and therefore fall not under St. Pauls Rule of omnia decenter, Cor. 14.nor are suitable to the simplicity of Gospel-Worship.
Secondly, Because it is a violation of the Royalty of Christ, and an impeachment of his Laws, as unsufficient; and so those that are under the Law of,See Hooker l. 3. sect. 4. Deut. 12. Whatsoever I command you, observe to do, you shall take nothing from it, nor add any thing to it. You do not observe these.
Thirdly, Because sundry Learned, Pious, and Orthodox men, have ever since the Reformation, judged them unwarrantable, and we ought to be as our Lord was, tender of weak Brethren, not to offend his little ones, nor to lay a stumbling-block before a weak Brother.
Fourthly,See Hooker l. 4. sect, 1. Because these Ceremonies have been the Fountain of many evils in this Church and Nation, occasioning sad divisions betwixt Minister and Minister, betwixt Minister and People, exposing many Orthodox Preachers to the displeasure of Rulers, and no other fruits than these can be lookt for, from the retaining of these Ceremonies.]
Repl. Rep.We had rather you had taken our reasons, as we laid them down, than to have so altered them; E. G. having told you, that some hold them unlawful, and others inconvenient, &c. and desired that they may not be imposed on such who judge such impositions, a violation of the Royalty of Christ, &c. you seem to take this as our own sense, and that of all the Ceremonies, of which we there made no mention; You refer us to Hooker, since whose Writings, Ames in his fresh Suit, and Bradshaw, and Parker, and many others have written that against the Ceremonies, that never was answered that we know of, but deserve your Consideration.
Sect. 3.Ans.
[Before we give particular Answers to these several Reasons, it will be not unnecessary to lay down, some certain general Premises, or Rules, which will be useful in our whole discourse. First, That God hath not given a Power onelyonly, but a Command also of imposing whatsoever shall be truely decent, and becoming his Publick Service, 1 Cor. 14. After St. Paul had ordered some particular Rules for Praying, praising, prophesying, &c. he concludes with this general Canon, let all things be done foreign in a fit Scheme, Habit, or Fashion, Decently; and that there may be Uniformity in those Decent performances, let there be a foreign, Rule or Canon for that purpose.]
Rep. Repl.As to your first Rule, we answer. 1. It is one thing to impose in general that all be done Decently, and in Order; This Cod himself hath imposed by his Apostle: And its another thing to impose in particular, that this or that be used as Decent and Orderly. Concerning this we add, It is in the Text said [let it be done:] but not [let it be imposed,] yet from other Scriptures we doubt not but more Circumstances of Decency and Order, as derermined time, place, Utensils, &c. which are common to things Civil, and Sacred, (though not the Symbolical Ceremonies which afterwards we confute) may be imposed, with the necessary cautions, and Limitations afterwards laid down. But 1. That if any Usurpers will pretend a Power from Christ to impose such things on the Church, though the things be lawful, we must take heed how we acknowledge an Usurped Power by formal obedience. 2. A just Power may impose them, but to just ends: as the preservarion, and success of the Modified worship, or Ordinances: And if they really conduce not to those ends they sin in imposing them. 3. Yet the Subjects are bound to obey a true Authority in such impositions, where the matter belongs to the Cognizance and Office of the Ruler; and where the mistake is not so great as to bring greater mischiefs to the Church, then the suspending of our Active obedience would do. 4. But if these things be determined under pretence of Order, and Decency, to the plain destruction of the Ordinances Modified, and of the intended end, they cease to be means, and we must not use them. 5. Or if under the names of things Decent, and of Order, men will meddle with things that belong not to their Office, as to institute a new worship for God, new Sacraments, or any thing forbidden in the General Prohibition of adding, or diminishing; this is an usurpation, and not an Act of Authority, and we are bound in obedience to God, to disobey them. 6. Where Governours may command at set times, and by proportionable penalties enforce, if they command when it will destroy the end, or enforce by such penalties as dest…oy, or crosse it, they greatly sin by such Commands. Thus we have more distinctly given you our sense, about the matter of your first Rule.
Sect. 4.
[Not Inferiours but Superiours must judge what is convenient and decent;Answ. Rule 2. They who must order that all be done decently, must of necessity, first judge what is convenient, and decent to be ordered.]
Repl. Repl.Your second Rule also is too crudely delivered, and therefore we must adde: 1. A Judgement is a Sentence, in order to some Execution; and Judgements are specified from the ends, to which they are such means; When the question is either, [what Law shall be made, or what penalty shall be exercised?] the Magistrate is the only judge, and not the Bishop or other Subject. In the first he exercises his judicium discretionis, in order to a publick Act. In the second he exerciseth a publick Judgement: When the question is, [what order pro tempore is fittest in Circumstantials for this present Congregation?] the proper Presbyters or Pastors of that Congregation, are the Directive Judges, by Gods appointment. 3. The Magistrate is Ruler of these Pastors, as he is of the Physicians, Philosophers, and other Subjects. He may make them such general Rules, especially for restraint, to goe by, as may not destroy the exercise of their own Pastoral power: As he may forbid a Physitian to use some dangerous Medicine on his Subjects, and may punish him when he wilfully killeth any of them: But may not on that pretence appoint him what, and how, and when, and to whom he shall administer, and so become Physician himself alone. 4. When the question is, [Who shal be excluded from the Communion of a particular Church?] The Pastors of that Church (or Congregation) are the first proper Judges. 5. When the question is, [Who shall be excluded from, (or received into) the Communion of all the associated Churches, of which we are naturally capable of Communion?] The associated Pastors or Bishops of these Churches in Synods, are Judges; Beyond this there are no Judges.
6. When the question is, [Whether the Laws of Magistrates, or Canons of Bishops, are agreeable or not to the Word of God, and so the obedience is lawful or unlawful?] the Consciences of each individual Subject is the Judge, per judicium discretionis, as to his own practice; And if men had not this judgement of discerning, but must act upon absolute implicite obedience; then first, man were ruled as unreasonable; Secondly the Magistrate were made a God, or such a Leviathan, as Hobbs describeth him; Thirdly, And then all sin might lawfully be committed, if commanded: But we are assured none of this is your sense.
Sect. 5.
[These Rules and Canons for decency made and urged by Superiours;Answ. Rule 3. Heb. 13. 17. Rom. 13 are to be obeyed by Inferiours, till it be made as clear, that now they are not bound to obey, as it is evident in general, that they ought to obey Superiours; for if the exemption from obedience be not as evident as the Command to obey, it must needs be sin not to obey.]
Repl. Repl.To your third Rule we adde; It is first considerable, what the thing is? and then, how it is apprehended? if it be really lawful, and well commanded, and to be obeyed, it is no ignorance, doubt or errour of the Subject, that can exempt him from the duty of obeying; But it may ensnare him in a certainty of sinning, whether he obey, or disobey: For as God commandeth him to obey, and also not to do that which man commandeth, when God forbiddeth it; So he obligeth the erronious, first to lay down his errors, and so to obey. But if a thing be forbidden of God, and commanded of man, and one man erroniously thinks it lawful, and that he should obey, and another is in doubt between both, it is neither a duty, nor lawful for either of them here to obey: For mans errour changeth not Gods Laws, nor disobligeth himself from obedience; But this mans duty is both, to lay by that errour, and to refuse obedience: But if the question be only of the order of such a persons duty: We answer; If the thing be really lawful, and obedience a duty, then he that doubteth or erreth, should if possible suddenly lay by his errours or doubt, and so obey: But if that cannot be, he should first goe about the fittest means, for his better information till he be resolved, and so obey. And so on the contrary, if really the thing commanded be unlawful, if he be sure of it, he must resolve against it; if he hesitate, he is not therefore allowed to do a thing forbidden, because he is ignorant: For his ignorance is supposed culpable it self; but he is first to consult and use the best means, for his Instruction, till he know the truth, and in the mean time to suspend his Act. But yet because of humane frailty, between several faults, we must consider when we cannot avoid all as we would, in what order most safely to watch and to avoid them. And so when I have done my best, and cannot discern whether a Command be just, and the thing lawful or not; If it hath the face of Idolatry, Blasphemy, or some h…inous Sin, that is commanded; and our disobedience have the appearance, but of an effect of involuntary Ignorance, it is more excusable in us to fear the greater sin, and so to suspend till we are better satisfied, than to do that which we suspect, to be so hainous a Sin, though indeed it prove no sin; So on the contrary, if our obedience be like to bring Infamy or Calamity on the Church, and our Obedience appear to be but about a very small sin, if we doubt of it, it is more excuseable to obey, than to disobey, though both be faulty, supposing the thing to be indeed unlawful, and we discerne it not. So that your Rule of obeying, where you are not as sure, &c. Is an unsure Rule, unless as we have fullier cautioned it.
Sect. 6.
[Pretence of Conscience is no exemption from obedience,A…sw. Rule 4. for the Law as long as it is a Law, certainly binds to obedience; Rom. 13. Ye must needs be subject; and this pretence of a tender or gainsaying Conscience cannot abrogate the Law, since it can neither take away the Authority of the Law-maker, nor make the matter of the Law in it self unlawful; Besides if pretence of Conscience did exempt from obedience, Laws were useless, whosoever had not list to obey might pretend tenderness of Conscience, and be thereby set at liberty, which if once granted, Anarchy and Confusion must needs follow.]
Repl. Repl.To Rule 4. Neither pretence of Conscience, nor real Errour of Conscience exempteth from the Obligation to obey: though sometime it may so ensnare, as that obeying shall become of the two, the greater sin; so also real Errour, or pretence of Conscience will justifie no man for obeying, when it is by God forbidden.