Commissioners Petitioning for Review of Book of Common Prayer, Commentary 2 · Preface · Section 5 – Section 1
Sect. 5.
[To prevent which mischiefs,Ans. the former Ages knew no better way, than to forbid any Prayers in publick, but such as were prescribed by publick Authority. Con. Carthag. Can. 106. Milen. Can. 12.]
Repl. To what you alledge out of two Councils,Rep. we answer, 1. The acts of more venerable Councils are not now at all observed, (as Nice 1. Can. ult. &c.) nor many of these same which you Cite. 2. The Scripture, and the constant practice of the more antient Church allowed what they forbid. 3. Even these Canons shew that then the Churches thought not our Lyturgy to be necessary to their Concord; nor indeed had then any such form imposed on all, or many Churches to that end; for the Can. of Coun. Carthag. (we suppose you meant Coun. 3. Can. 23.) mentioneth Prayers even at the Altar, and alloweth any man to describe and use his own Prayers, so he but first cum instructioribus Fratribus eas conferre, take advice about them with the 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,N. 8. 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,N. 9. Ans. 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,Rep. 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 Boo…; 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,N. 10. Ans. 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,Rep. 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly used in the Liturgy:N. 11. Ans. 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, Repl.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 onelyonly 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, N. 12. Ans.and so no part of our Commission.]
Repl. If the word Lyturgy signifie the publick worship,Rep. 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,N. 15. Ans. &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,N. 16. 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;Rep. 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 onelyonly 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 Prayer, and that the body of your dayly Prayers (broken into severy Collects) should not (as set together) have any considerable respect unto that order, nor yet to the order which reason, and the nature of the thing requireth, (which is observed in all things else) and yet that you should so admire this, and be so tenatious of that, which in conceived Prayer you would call by worse names then Confusions, this sheweth us the power of prejudice: We were thus brief in this Exception, lest we should offend by instances: But seeing you conceive the Order and Method to be excellent, and to be willing to hear more as to this, and the following Exception, we shall, when you desire it, give you a Catalogue of Defects, and Disorders, which we before forbore to give you. The Psalms have ordinarily an observable Method: If you find any whole parts you cannot so well set together, as to see the Beauty of Method, will you turn your eye from the rest, and from the Lords Prayer, and choose that one for your President? or excuse disorder on that pretence?
Sect. 2.
[The Collects are made short,Ans. as being best for Devotion, as we observed before, and cannot be accounted faulty, for being like those short, but prevalent Prayers in Scripture; Lord be merciful to me a Sinner. Son of David, have mercy on us. Lord increase our Faith.]
Repl. We do in common speech call that a Prayer, Rep.which containeth all the substance of what in that business, and addresse we have to say unto God: And that a Petition, which containeth one single request: usually a Prayer, hath many Petitions. Now if you intend in your addresse unto God, to do no more then speak a transient request, or Ejaculation (which we may do in the midst of other business) then indeed your instances are pertinent; but why then do you not give over when you seem to have done, but come again, and again, and offer as many Prayers almost as Petitions. This is to make the Prayer short, (as a Sermon is, that is cut into single sentences, every Sentence having an Exordium, and Epilogue as a Sermon) but it is to make the Prayers much longer, then is needful or sutable to the matter. Do you find this the way of the Saints in Scripture? indeed Abraham did so, when Gods Interlocution answering the first Prayer, called him to vary his request, Gen. 18. but that's not our Case. The P…alms, and Prayers of David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Asa, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and the other Prophets; of Christ, John 17. are usually one continued Speech, and not like yours (as we said before.)
Sect. 3.
[Why the repeated mention of the Name and Attributes of God,Ans. should not be most pleasing to any godly Person we cannot imagine; or what burden it should seem, when David magnified one Attribute of Gods mercy 26. times together; Psalm 36. Nor can we conceive, why the Name and Merits of Jesus, with which all our Prayers should end, should not be as sweet to us as to former Saints, and Martyrs, with which here they complain our Prayers, do so frequently end; since the Attributes of God, are the ground of our hope of obtaining all our Petitions, such Prefaces of Prayers as are taken from them, though they have no special respect to the Petitions as following, are not to be termed unsutable, or said to have fallen rather casually then orderly.]
Repl. As we took it to be no controversie between us,Rep. whether the mention of Gods Name is deservedly sweet to all his servants, so we thought it was none, that this reverent Name is reverently to be used, and not too lightly; and therefore not with a causeless frequency tossed in mens mouths, even in Prayer it self: and that Tautologies and vain repetitions, are not the better, but the worse, because Gods Name is made the matter of them: Is it not you that have expressed your offence (as well as we) against those weak Ministers that repeat too frequently the Name and Attributes of God, in their extemporary Prayers? and is it ill in them? and is the same, and much more, well in the Common Prayer? Oh, have not the Faith of Worship of our Glorious God, in respect of Persons. Let not that be called rediculous, idle, impertinent, or worse in one, which is accounted commendable in others. Do you think it were not a faulty crossing of the mind, and Method of Jesus Christ, if you should make six Prayers of the six Petitions of the Lords Prayer, and set the Preface and Conclusion unto each. As, [Our Father which art in Heaven, hallowed be thy Name, for thine is the Kingdom, &c.] and so on all the rest. Yet we know that the same words may be oft repeated (as David doth Gods enduring mercy) without such Tautological vanity, when it is not from emptiness, or neglect of order, or affectation; But in Psalms, or Hymnes, where affections are to be elevated by such Figurative Elegancies, and strains, as are best beseeming Poetry or rapture, we are not against such Repetitions. But if we may (according to the Common Prayer Book) begin, and end, and begin, and seem to withdraw again, and make a Prayer of every Petition or two, and begin and end every such Petition, with Gods Name, and Christs Merits, as making up half the Form, or neer; nothing is an affected, empty tossing of Gods Name in Prayer, if this be not? We are perswaded if you should hear a man in a known extemporary Prayer do thus, it would seem strange and harsh, even to your selves.
Sect. 1.N. 17. Exc. 1. Ans.
[There are besides a preparative exhortation, several preparatory Prayers. Despise not, O Lord, humble and contrite hearts, which is one of the Sentences in the Preface; And this, That those things may please him, which we do at this present; at the end of the Absolution: and again immediately after the Lords Prayer before the Psalmody, Oh Lord open thou our Lips, &c.]
Repl. [Despise not O Lord humble, Rep.and contrite hearts] is no Prayer for assistance, and acceptance in that worship, suited to the duty of a People addressing themselves to God: But it is recited, as a Scripture invitation to Repentance. And [that those things may please him which we do at this present] are no words of Prayer, but part of an exhortation to the People: And [O Lord open thou our lips] comes after the Exhortation, Confession, Absolution and Lords Prayer, and (ergo) is not in the place of such an address as we are speaking of. What will not serve to justifie that which we have a mind to justifie, and to condemn that which we have a mind to condemn?