Supplement to Why Nonconforming Ministers Judge it Sinful, Summary

Supplement to Why Nonconforming Ministers Judge it Sinful · Summary

p. 1THE Summary OF THE SUPPLEMENT TO The Reaſonable Account.

SEction 1.

The reaſon of the Supplement. What Mr. Falconer ſaith, little concerneth the Nonconformiſts in the terms he hath expreſſed it.

Sect. 2.

There may be a double ſenſe of Mr. Falconer's aſſertion of God and Chriſt appointing forms of Prayer; in the firſt they are true, and granted by Nonconformiſts; in the ſecond, they are falſe, and denied by them.

p. 2Sect. 3.

God may make things neceſſary by his command, which without it are unlawful.

Sect. 4.

The only medium to prove that forms of Prayer made by men are lawful to be uſed by all Miniſters, propounded, but not proved.

Sect. 5.

An examination of what Mr. Falconer hath ſaid to prove, that God and Chriſt appointed forms of Prayer to be uſed without variation in Devotion. What he ſaith of the Lords-Prayer examined. His reaſons anſwered why he thinks our Saviour gave it as a form. They conclude not. Two great preſumptions to the contrary. The thing admitted, nothing proved by it. His inſtances from the Old Teſtament examined. Five Reaſons making it probable, that thoſe inſtances were never intended by God as Syllabical forms to be uſed without variation. The practice of the Jews in or after Chriſts time invaluable.

Sect 6.

An examination of Mr. Falconer's anſwers to the Nonconformiſts proof from Juſtine Martyr, and Tertullian, that in the firſt 300 years after Chriſt, there were no ſuch Liturgies uſed by Miniſters. A further proof added from Socrates Scholaſticus, extending to more than 400 years after Christ. An anſwer to Mr. Falconer's pretended proof from Juſtine Martyr, Ignatius, Origen, Cyprian; nothing is proved from them as to the firſt 300 years.

Sect. 7.

His proof from Conſtantine's making p. 3prayers for his Army, makes againſt him ſignifying that then there was no publick Liturgies. Conſtantine did nothing but what Nonconformiſts will allow and practice.

Sect. 8.

Nonconformiſts do not grant that forms of Prayer have been of general uſe by all Miniſters, or impoſed upon all, by any Church ſince the year 1300. Neither the Canon of the Council of Laodicea, nor that of Carthage proves it, nor that of the Council at Mela 402, more than as to Miniſters of that Province upon a ſpecial cauſe.

Sect. 9.

It is doubtful whether there was ſuch a third Council at Carthage; Juſtellus ſaith, if there were, they made but 21 Canons; the Canon quoted is 23, foiſted in, being made after. The Canon it ſelf proves there was then no Liturgy of ordinary uſe in the Church, variouſly and fully.

Sect. 10.

The Council of Milevis above 400 years after Chriſt; that Province was overrun with Pelagians; the eight firſt Canons tranſcribed, all againſt Pelagianiſm; thoſe the ground of the Canon; yet that Canon proves nothing, but that if a Miniſter made prayers for himſelf, they muſt be brought to a Council; and there approved before he uſed them.

Sect. 11.

Yet this proved a ſad preſident.

Sect. 12.

An examination of what Mr. Falconer ſaith of the Liturgies father'd upon St. James, p. 4St▪ Mark, and St. Peter. 4. Obſervations upon what he ſaith. An account of what my Lord of Morney hath fully ſaid to prove them all ſuppoſititious.

Sect. 13.

What Mr. Falconer ſaith of the Liturgies aſcribed to Ambroſe, Baſil, Chryſoſtome, is examined. They are abundantly proved ſpurious. 'Tis in vain to ſay they have undergone alterations, but yet they were made by them. If made by them for their own uſe, not for others; if voluntarily uſed by ſome others, it is nothing to the purpoſe. A preſumption againſt their being known in the Church all the time of the Milevitan Council.

Sect. 14.

It was 300 years after this, before any Church impoſed Liturgies, proved from Durandus. It was the year 600; then Gregory required the uſe of his; and in the year 800, when Pope Adrian got Charles the Great by an Edict to enforce the uſe of it. A pleaſant ſtory after this, about it.

Sect. 15.

A further ſtrong preſumption, that no further proof can be produced from the proceedings of the Commiſſioners about the Liturgy 1662. The ſtory of it.

Sect. 16.

Mr. Falconer concluded from the premiſes to have ſpoken at too high a rate. A ſhort account of the ſtate of the Church from 500 and 600 years after Chriſt, to 1500. The ſtate of the Church ſuch for a 1000 of thoſe p. 5years, as all Proteſtants judg: many things unlawful, in that time, believed and uſed. The purer Church from 600 to 1500, only in ſome corners in France, the Principality of Piedmont, ſome parts of Bohemia: no Records of Liturgies impoſed or uſed there.

Sect. 17.

No forms of Prayer but the Lords-Prayer generally uſed or impoſed (except in the Saxon Churches) ſince the Reformation, but in England; not in Switzerland, France, Scotland. The ſhort Hiſtory of the Engliſh Reformation. The oppoſition from the firſt, to forms impoſed for general uſe. The woful extremes run into on both ſides.

Sect. 18.

A Concluſion, challenging any to ſhew that Nonconformiſts in this thing differ from the judgment of Divines in the purer or lately Reformed Churches.

Sect. 19.

A Poſtſcript concerning the judgment of the Reformed Church in Holland.

Section I.

ALthough the former part of our Diſcourſe, giving Arguments which appear very probable to us, and from whence we have formed a practical judgment, That it is contrary to the will of God, that Miniſters of the Goſpel to whom God p. 6hath given the gift of Prayer, or (if that phraſe offendeth) an ability to expreſs their and their peoples cauſes to God in prayer, ſhould perform ordinarily their Miniſterial acts in prayer by the preſcribed Forms of other men; an argument againſt us from example and humane authority can be of little value: Yet in regard ſome of our brethren take advantage from hence invidiouſly to repreſent us as diſſenters from the Church for 1300 years, nay from Chriſts time; and there are too many that believe all ſome men have the confidence to ſay; and conſidering the reverend Author of Libertas Eccleſiaſtica, tell us, Pag. 111, 112. That it muſt be a raſh ſentence to condemn Forms of Prayer as evil and ſinful, which were embraced by the ancient Church whiles it retained its ſoundneſs, and before the corruptions and diſtempers of the Church of Rome took place, and by the Proteſtant Churches ſince their recovery therefrom. And in the determining of what is expedient or inexpedient, he had need have ſtrong foundations to erect his high confidence, who will oppoſe his own judgment, with ſome very few perſons beſides, againſt the concurrent judgment and practice of the Church of Chriſt in ſo many ſeveral ages, and Nations, and againſt the determination of God himſelf under the Old Teſtament, and our bleſſed Saviour under the New.

Leſt ſome leſs judicious perſon meetingwith p. 7this, ſhould think us ſtrange perſons, I have thought it reaſonable to review the premiſes of that Section upon which this concluſion is raiſed. I ſhall only deſire the Reader to conſider, that little of this doth concern the Diſſenters, who are perfectly of the mind expreſſed in our former ſheets.

1. For they do not condemn Forms of Prayer as evil and unlawful, they do believe them good in their kind and uſe; they believe them good to be uſed for the inſtruction of people, and to help them in the acquiſition of the gift; and poſſibly they do think that John might thus teach his diſciples to pray, giving them Forms, from which they might learn the ſum of what they were to ask of God; and many of them will yield, that the Lords-prayer was by Christ given to his Diſciples for the ſame purpoſe, not to be uſed by them all their lives time in ſo many words, but as a Summary of what things they ſhould ask of God, in what words they pleaſed.

2. For Devotion: the Nonconformiſts will grant that men and women, (yea ſuch as the Church (for want of better) may be forced to uſe in the Miniſtry) may pray by the preſcribed Forms of others. They indeed do not think this to be that prayer which God requires of his Miniſters; but they think thus the Miniſter and people too may pray mentally; and thoſe who p. 8join with another perſon miniſtring in prayer, never do more.

§. 2. For what this Author ſaith,—Which were embraced by the ancient Church, whiles it retained its ſoundneſs, and before the corruptions and diſtempers of the Church of Rome took place, and by the Proteſtant Church ſince its recovery there-from.—We will by and by examine how far that is true, and upon what grounds he ſpeaks it.

But what doth he mean by the Determination of God himſelf under the Old Teſtament, and our bleſſed Saviour in the New? If it be any thing to the purpoſe, it is not eaſie to underſtand. Doth he mean that either God under the Old Teſtament, or our bleſſed Saviour under the New, hath determined, that it is lawful for ſome particular men, be they Archbiſhops, or Biſhops, or any other, to compoſe Forms of Prayer to be uſed by all Miniſters in the Church, and that it is lawful for them to uſe them, and to perform their Miniſterial acts in prayer by the uſe of them? ſo one would think the words ſound; but he hath not ſpoken a word to prove this. This indeed would determine the buſineſs. Or doth he mean that God by preſcribing ſome Forms himſelf, or inſpiring ſome Prophets and holy men to do it; or that Chriſt by preſcribing a Form of prayer to be uſed by his Diſciples, hath p. 9determined, That Forms of prayer are not like forms of blaſphemy, which God himſelf cannot make lawful, being in their own nature evil; but ſuch things as his command may make lawful or neceſſary. This none ever denied: The queſtion is, Whether they be not ſuch things as with reference to ſome men in ſome circumſtances, nothing but the command of God can make lawful?

For the ſame things may be ſinful as to ſome men, which may be lawful, yea and neceſſary to others. It is lawful, yea neceſſary, for thoſe who cannot otherwiſe avoid burning with luſt, to marry; it may be ſinful for others who are Eunuchs by nature; and lawful for ſome to make themſelves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of heavens ſake; expedient for others for the preſent neceſſity (as the Apoſtle ſpeaks.) The having, or not having the gift of continence makes the difference; as in the preſent caſe the having, or not having the gift of prayer doth.

§. 3. God or Chriſts immediate command may make things of this nature neceſſary, which have no eſſential and inſeparable evil in them; ſo that whatever is ſaid of Gods preſcribing Forms of prayer ſometimes, and Chriſts preſcribing a Form, ſignifies juſt nothing; nor can poſſibly amount to more than this: Therefore Forms of prayer are not in their own nature conſidered p. 10abſtractly from Gods will revealed in his word, ſinful. Or, therefore God may, or Chriſt may command us Forms of prayer now to be uſed in our Miniſtry; or may commiſſionate others to do it. Now all this will be granted. Only the queſtion is, Where it doth appear that God hath commiſſion'd any thus? what direction is there in any leaf of Scripture for Biſhops or Churches, or any perſons, to compoſe Forms of prayer to be ordinarily uſed by all Miniſters?

§. 4. I have been amazed, that thoſe who are ſo zealous in this point, have not ſeen that the Reverend Biſhop of Norwich hath fixed upon the only medium in nature to prove this aſſertion, in his Rationale on the Common-Prayer, pag. 8, 9, 10. viz. That God hath commiſſionated ſome to preſcribe a form of the publick Worſhip. Upon which Hypotheſis, what he there ſaith is indiſputably true: That the publick Worſhip of God preſcribed by thoſe to whom he hath given commiſſion, is the only true and right publick Worſhip; and all other Forms and methods offered up inſtead of that, though never ſo exactly drawn, are ſtrange worſhip, becauſe not commanded. The Nonconformiſts moſt freely agree, that whatſoever Worſhip is not commanded by God, or whatſoever Worſhip is offered up to God inſtead of that which he hath commanded, is ſtrange Worſhip. Now for any Forms of prayer p. 11uſed in any Church (ſetting aſide the Scriptural Forms which may make part of them) neither God, nor Chriſt, nor any Prophets, or Apoſtles, by authority from God, have commanded them. So then the ſenſe of this Reverend Prelate muſt be, That God hath commiſſioned the Biſhops, Paſtors, or chief Miniſters of the Church, to preſcribe Forms of Worſhip, publick Worſhip, and univerſally to impoſe them. Admitting this, we agree, all other praying is abomination. God hath commanded another way of praying, by commiſſionating chief Paſtors in his name and ſtead to draw up the only Forms in which Miniſters in publick may ſpeak to him in prayer.

This is the Propoſition which our Brethren ſhould ſpend their pains to prove; and as I ſaid before, I think to be the only Medium on their ſide; if we could apprehend this to be true, or it could be ſo evinced to us, we ſhould never ſpeak a word more about conceived prayer, or praying by our own gifts. We ſhould all ſtrike ſail to a command of God made out to us. If God or Chriſt hath commanded us the conſtant uſe of any form or forms in his Word, if his Prophets or Apoſtles have enjoined us any ſuch, we alſo agree our ſelves bound to uſe them. But we are not patient of theſe trifling arguments: If the uſe of Forms of prayer, preſcribed by God himſelf, or by Chriſt, or by the Prophets and Apoſtles, p. 12either for a time to be uſed, or to be perpetually uſed, be lawful for all; then the uſe of Forms of prayer, neither made by God, nor by Chriſt, nor by his Prophets or Apoſtles, is alſo lawful. 2. If Forms of prayer be lawful, then they are lawful for all under all circumſtances. 3. If they be good for inſtruction, and may be ſo lawfully uſed, then they may be uſed in Devotion, &c. 4. If they may be lawfully uſed even in devotion by ſome, or under ſome circumſtances, then they may be lawfully impoſed on all under any circumſtances.

§. 5. But yet though if it were true, that God by himſelf immediately, or Chriſt, or the Apoſtles, or Prophets, did preſcribe the people of God in the Old Teſtament ſome particular forms, from which they muſt not vary, nothing could be concluded in our caſe; yet for diverſion-ſake let us examine how well our Reverend Biſhop hath proved this: He beginneth pag. 99. with Chriſts preſcription of the Lords prayer; from whence he ſaith, Iſiodor. Hiſpalenſis, thinketh the Church took its pattern for Liturgies. Iſiodorus Hiſpal. lived more than 600 years after Chriſt, about the time Liturgies began to be in common uſe, and 200 years before they were any thing generally impoſed. But the buſineſs is not what the Church in his time did, but upon what ground.

p. 13Admit the Lords-prayer was directed by Chriſt as a Form of prayer; By what authority did the Church after the effuſion of the Spirit, do what Chriſt did? By the ſame authority as I preſume they made ſeven Sacraments, becauſe Chriſt made two.

But our Reverend Brother thinks it wonderful manifeſt, that the Lords-prayer was delivered as a form. 1. Becauſe of the Text, Luk. 11. 2. When you pray, ſay. 2. Becauſe of the ground of the Diſciples requeſt, Teach us to pray, to which this is an anſwer. 3. From the manner of the compoſure. 4. From the ancient Churches acknowledging and uſing it as a form; for which he quoteth Cyprian, Tertullian, and Gregory.

Our Reverend Brother knows that many great Divines have doubted it, and do doubt it, ſome thinking it only a direction for the matter, others for the true method of Prayer. Nor doth any thing our Brother ſaith conclude in the cauſe; he knows that Mat. 6 9. it is only foreign, Pray on this manner; and whereas he ſaith that it ia ſo in the Seventy, Numb. 6. 23. On this manner bleſs you; yet thoſe words have been taken for a conſtant invariable form of bleſſing, and was uſed ſo by Luther, and at Geneva. Who have taken them ſo I cannot tell, but I am ſure it cannot be proved that the Prieſts never varied from that form; p. 14and I do know one or two great Divines that have thought the Prieſts only tyed to the ſenſe, not to thoſe Numerical words or ſyllables. Luther and Calvin's uſe proveth it not, I hope; but yet we think we may lawfully uſe any form of Gods preſcription: the queſtion is, Whether we may uſe no other; nor that, with the leaſt variation.

Our Brother's ſecond argument is yet weaker, The Diſciples ſaid, Lord teach us to pray as John taught his Diſciples. What then? was it not an appoſite anſwer for him to tell them, That now they muſt call God Father, and pray that his Name might be ſanctified, his Kingdom come, his will be done, &c. unleſs he ſet them a form of words to which they might not add, nor diminiſh? The Diſciples did not ſay, Lord tell us what words, and no other, we muſt uſe in prayer.

But thirdly, (ſaith our Brother) our Saviour gives in the phraſe of prayer; but doth this conclude? ſo do we ſometimes give our Children forms which we deſire not they ſhould uſe as forms, but directions to ſpeak to the like purpoſe. For Cyprian, Tertullian and Gregory, who lived 300, 400, 800 years after Chriſt, they were not like to know Chriſts intention in this, more than we; and for their uſe of it as a form, We do not think it unlawful to uſe thoſe intire words and phraſes as a part of our prayers, nor indeed any other Scriptural forms of words p. 15that are proper. But on the other ſide, are they not two great preſumptions that our Saviour never intended it as a form, 1. That we never read in Scripture that it was ſo uſed afterward. 2. That the name of Chriſt, in whoſe name (Joh. 16.) we are commanded to pray, is not in it (unleſs by implication) as it hath been in all prayers of the Church ſince the Aſcenſion of Christ; the prayers concluding for the ſake of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt?

To compremiſe this buſineſs, I believe it was as a form given to the Diſciples, being then but children, and not perfectly inſtructed to the Kingdom of God; and they might or might not uſe it as a form, until they ſhould be more fully inſtructed and inabled, but not with any obligation upon them, or the Church after them, neceſſarily to uſe thoſe numerical words in that order; nay, that after Chriſts Reſurrection it was their duty to add ſomething more to their prayers, asking plainly and expreſly in the name of Jeſus Chriſt: For he tells them, Joh. 16. 24. Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name; how could that be true, if they had uſed the Lords-prayer till then, and the petitions there had been ſo put up in the name of Chriſt, as appears to have been his will now? verſ. 23.

Our Brothers next inſtance is pag. 103, 104, 105. from the example of the Jewiſh Church; p. 16here he tells us, That the Jews did uſe prayers with their ſacrifices; and had their hours of prayer. Theſe things he proveth well from Lev. 1. 10. Act. 3. 1. and that Aaron was to confeſs the ſins of the people over the live-goat, Lev. 16. 21. What is all this to the purpoſe? none doubts but that Prieſts and people prayed under the Old Teſtament as well as the New. But the queſtion is, Whether by ſtated forms or no? 2. He tells us there are evidences in Scripture of ſuch forms, 2 Chron. 29. 30. The King commanded the people to praiſe God with the words of David and Aſaph; That is, with ſuch and ſuch portions of holy writ; do not all men grant that ſome parts of holy Writ may be ſung in publick Worſhip? The Nonconformiſts will allow no other; he inſtanceth in Joel 2. 17. Hoſ. 14. 2. Deut. 21. 8. Deut. 26. 3, 4, 5, 13, 14.

It is true, in all theſe Texts there are ſome ſhort, very ſhort forms of prayer (as they lye before us they are ſo.) But 1. can our Reverend Brother think ſo ſhort phraſes or ſentences as ſome of them are, were ever uſed as the only ſolemn prayer uſed at that time? 2. Is there any Record that they were ever ſyllabically uſed? 3. Is it ſaid, you ſhall uſe theſe words and no other? 4. Is it not ordinary for us in our Sermons, directing people only to what ſenſe to pray, in our Sermons to ſay, Go to God and ſay, &c. and then give them a ſhort prayer, p. 17which we never intend they ſhould uſe as a form. 5. Is it not reaſonable to think this was all intended in theſe paſſages, when we conſider the length and ſolemnity of the Prayers recorded in Scripture of Solomon, Ezra, Daniel, Hezekiah, Jehoſhaphat? For the practice of the Jews in later days,

I ſhall only ſay this: 1. That he knows how little credit is to be given to any teſtimony of the Rabbins, and what time the earlieſt writings of theirs appear'd. 2. How ill their practice can be pleaded, who our Saviour ſaith worſhipped God vainly, teaching for Doctrines the Traditions of men. 3. That I obſerve, Luk. 4. 16. that when our Saviour at Nazareth went into the Synagogue, the Clerk did not bring him any Common-prayer-book, but the book of the Prophet Iſaias, which he made uſe of.

§. 6. Let us now leave theſe pretences of more ancient proof, and come to conſider what hath indeed been the practice of the Church ſince the Apoſtles times; for our Reverend Brother thinks it probable, that while the miraculous gifts of the Spirit continued, Prayer was performed by them. For the time ſucceeding the Apoſtles, it muſt be divided into three periods:

1. The firſt is the purer period of it before the Biſhop of Rome got fully into Saddle; this as to Doctrine held to a great degree for 500 p. 18years; but as to Rites and Ceremonies, ſcarce half ſo long, as we ſhall poſſibly ſhortly ſhew.

2. The ſecond is the depraved period of it, which was for a 1000 years as to Doctrine, 1200 and more as to ſome matters of Rites and Government.

3. The Reformed period of it, which was from the year 1516, and is yet going on.

For the firſt of theſe Periods we have not ſo full and clear an evidence of what was the practice of the Church, as we could deſire.

For though it was after the year 600 that the Biſhop of Rome got the Title of Ʋniverſal Biſhop; and ſome years after that, before the Church of Rome was furniſhed with all her preſent accoutrements, and 1200 before Tranſubſtantiation was ſetled: Yet betwixt that and 1500 they had time enough to burn all the Writings of the Ancients, from which the practice of the Primitive Church might appear to us; or ſo to correct them and interpolate, that we might ſee little or nothing that could be made uſe of to ſhew the Novelties of their Doctrine and practice; yet Bernardus non vidit omnia; ſome things ſcaped their eye or correction, of which our Divines make good uſe. Let us ſee what our Reverend Brother produceth for the firſt 300 years, which all Divines ſay was the moſt pure times of the Church.

p. 19It is not our part to prove the Negative; it lyeth upon our Brethren to prove that there were forms univerſally impoſed on all Miniſters. There might be forms for inſtruction; ſome men might at their pleaſure compoſe forms for their own devotion and uſe them; but that the governing part of the Church did in thoſe years make forms, and require all men to uſe them, and Miniſters and Chriſtians then generally thought it lawful; this is to be proved: for we will yet allow a lawful uſe of forms of prayer for inſtruction, and in ſome caſes for devotion, and if they did no more, we agree with them.

Our Reverend Brother hath, pag. 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118. taken notice of ſome proofs brought by Divines of our mind, to make it very probable that in thoſe years there were no ſuch forms made for general uſe, no ſuch forms generally uſed, much leſs enjoined to all to be by them uſed.

The firſt is that of Juſtine Martyr, who flouriſhed about the year 160, who ſays the Miniſter ſent forth prayers foreign, our Brethren tranſlate it, [as they were able,] this Reverend Author will have the ſenſe to be with all his might. I do not think that any thing can be infallibly concluded on either ſide from it; the words may ſignifie either, or both; and ſo one thing in one part, another thing in another p. 20part of the ſame Apology, ſo as that debate is never like to be ended.

The next is that of Tertullian, who lived about 200 years after Chriſt, who ſaith the Chriſtians did pray Sine monitore quia de pectore, without a monitor, becauſe from their heart. Our Reverend Brother thinks ſine monitore can in no propriety of ſpeech be underſtood of a form; and why? becauſe a form muſt be a perſon. And was not that other perſon who compoſed the form a perſon, think we? and his monitor who prayeth by his form? nay are there not mute as well as vocal monitors? May not the bell which calls us to a publick aſſembly, be called our monitor, becauſe it is no perſon? Is it ſo unuſual a figure to give the name of the office of a perſon to the thing that doth that work as effectually? for his peculiar ſenſe of that Text, I ſee no need of it, but leave it to criticks. Beſides, the words are not cum pectore, but de pectore; the words of the Chriſtians prayers flowed from the heart, conceived there.

He takes notice of no more brought on our ſide within the firſt 300 years. But I ſhall mind him of another, and that a ſhrewd one, the Reader ſhall find it in Socrates Scholaſticus, Hiſtor. l. 5 cap. 21. in theſe words,—foreign. Every where and in all worſhips of Prayers, there p. 21are not two to be found that ſpeak the ſame thing. This cannot be underſtood as to matter, but as to words, which could not be if they prayed in all Churches by the ſame forms of words. As to matter, it is unqueſtionable falſe. It is true, Socrates lived in the fifth Century; but he relates the Hiſtory of the Centuries before him as well as his own; what need we any further witneſs for near 500 years after Chriſt? Let us now hear what our Reverend Brother hath to ſay in proof of his aſſertion.

He produceth in the ſecond Century, Ignatius and Juſtine Martyr; but what ſay they? one of them ſpeaks of foreign, the other of foreign, that is, Common-prayer. But muſt the Miniſter himſelf needs uſe a preſcribed form, becauſe his Prayer is common to the people? I wonder how a Miniſter can in a Congregation make any other prayers than foreign, Common prayers. Surely the term of Commonprayer is too much an Angliciſm to be expreſſed, eſpecially in Greek in that manner.

In the third Century our Reverend Brother produceth Origen and Cyprian. What ſay they? Origen ſaith they often ſaid in their prayers, O Almighty God, give us a part with thy Prophets: and doth not many a Miniſter who uſeth no form ordinarily, ſay in his Prayers, O Lord, forgive us our ſins; and, O Lord bring us to thy everlaſting Kingdom. Shall theſe common Petitions p. 22prove a hundred years hence, that theſe men prayed by ſet-forms? For his other paſſage out of Origen, I have not the Book to weigh it; but am ſure thoſe words, foreign, is not ſo much as a good Top…ck, much leſs of a Demonſtration of Liturgies.

What ſaith Cyprian? he teſtifieth, That they uſed to ſay, Surſum corda, lift up your hearts; and the people ſaid, Habemus ad Dominum, we lift them up to the Lord. So many a Miniſter that prayeth by no forms, begins his Prayer with Let us pray. Let us lift up our hearts to the Lord, &c.

This is all the proof this Reverend Author brings for 300 years after Chriſt; let any fair Reader judg the force of it, and whether the proofs of the Negative be not more probable and ſtrong, eſpecially when we are aſſured by Socrates 150 years after this, That there were not two to be ſound that uſed the ſame words in prayer. And truly what proof he can bring after 300 years, is not much valuable; for I ſhall ſhew that in thoſe ages, worſer things than Liturgies were crept into the Rituals of the Church.

§. 7. His next inſtance is that of Conſtantine, which muſt be betwixt the year 306 and 324; Euſebius ſaith, That he made godly prayers for the uſe of his Soldiers; and Euſebius accounteth p. 23this a very admirable thing in him. Certainly if true, ſo it was. But doth not this argue that there was then no publick Liturgy? for certainly if there had, his Chaplains would have uſed it, as now our Chaplains do to Regiments and Ships? Euſebius calleth theſe conſtituted prayers; But by whom? by Conſtantine: For whom? for his Soldiers▪ not for his Miniſters. Doth any one think Conſtantine's Soldiers had generally the gift of prayer, and were able to expreſs themſelves properly to the preſent caſe of his army? This argues that Conſtantine did not think fit his Legions ſhould be without all Worſhip of God; nor did he think forms unlawful for thoſe who could not pray without them; he therefore wrote down ſome prayers in a Book, ordered them to be read to them; and himſelf ſometimes read them, or pronounced them. What is all this to our purpoſe? we adviſe the like to all Houſholders, who have not ability of themſelves to pray in their families: For Euſebius his ſaying this was after the manner of the Church. If it be underſtood for the Miniſter of the Congregation to make prayers for his own Church, it is what we plead for; if it be meant that he kept a courſe of prayer in his army as is in the Church, it proves nothing for forms, unleſs it could be done no otherwiſe.

p. 24§. 8. For what our Reverend Author ſaith next (for I take his Quotations as they reſpect order of time, not as they lye in his Book) p. 106. he ſeems to me as if he would a little impoſe upon us: for he tells us▪—That forms of prayer were of uſe in the Church about 1300 years ſince is acknowledged by them who plead moſt againſt them, from Concil. Laod. cap. 18. 3 Carthag. c. 23. Concil. Milevit. cap. 12. and that they have continued from that time downward cannot be denied.

That there were forms of prayer before this, we will not deny; that ſome particular perſons might uſe ſome, we will not deny: But that they were univerſally impoſed upon any conſiderable part of the Church for more than 400 years after this, we will deny. Nor do the Canons mentioned prove any ſuch thing. Let us try if we cannot prove it.

The Council of Laodicea was in the year 364, ſome ſay 315. All that this Synod decreed was, that the ſame order of Prayers ſhould be uſed morning and evening; for foreign doth not neceſſarily ſignifie form; beſides, in Liturgies, Mattens and Evenſong uſe to differ. And Caranza makes the title of the Canon only concerning daily prayers, and the ſubſtance of it, That prayers ſhould be made in the Church morning and evening; beſides, this was a very ſmall part of the Church; Caranza ſaith there were but 22 Biſhops there.

p. 25The Council of Carthage rather determines the contrary; for it decreeth, That if any Miniſter compoſed any prayers for his own uſe, he ſhould not uſe them till he communicated them with his abler Brethren. So then he might compoſe prayers by his own gifts. This was 395.

Indeed the Canon of the Council of Mela is plainly reſtrictive of Miniſters liberty; but it was made upon a ſpecial occaſion, upon the woful prevailing of the Pelagian Doctrine in that Province, and reached no further. And they in their Canon plainly ſet down the reaſon of it, Leſt (Pelagianiſm being ſo rampant there) ſome phraſes through careleſneſs or ignorance ſhould be put in contrary to the faith.

§. 9. And now we are come to 400 years and more after Chriſt.

But I muſt not paſs over here what our Reverend Brother ſaith, p. 118, 119, 120, where he telleth us, that theſe Councils did not give the original to ſet forms of Prayer, but only eſtabliſhed ſome ſanctions about them. We are not enquiring about the original of forms of prayer, nor do believe that theſe Councils gave the original to them; but we are enquiring into the original of Biſhops, or Church-officers commanding the ſame forms of prayer to be uſed by all Miniſters ſubject to their juriſdiction; and commanding Miniſters to perform their p. 26Miniſterial acts of Prayer, either wholly, or in the greateſt part, not by their own gifts, but by forms which others had made for them; and we ſay, the Council of Mela in St. Auguſtines time was the firſt record we have of that, and that but in that Province, and upon a particular occaſion.

The third Council of Carthage is mentioned by Caranza, and by Chytraeus, but it is not to be found in the ancient account of Councils wrote before the year 900 in Greek, and Tranſlated by Dr. Pappas, and printed at Straſburgh, 1621.

Juſtellus in his African Code hath no ſuch Canon as this is. Juſtellus in his Notes, Praef▪ p. 35. will not deny but that there was ſuch a third Council of Carthage, as Caranza gives us an account of; becauſe Zonaras and Balſamon, and his own Collection (which was, he ſaith, a moſt ancient Manuſcript of Nic. Faber) mentions ſuch a Synod, but he ſaith it made but 21 Canons, not 50; and the other Canons aſcribed to that Council, the reſt belong to a Council held at Carthage, 419, in the time of Pope Boniface; which he ſaith is evident from the Acts of the Synod. For Boniface was not Biſhop when Caeſarius and Atticus were Conſuls. We are therefore come to the year 419, when it is ſaid, but with no great certainty, that there was a Council at Carthage, where were 44 Biſhops p. 27who made this Canon, That none in their prayers ſhould name the Father for the Son, nor the Son for the Father. [How could they do that, if the Church had ſet them their form?] And when they miniſtred at the altar, their prayers ſhould be directed to the Father, [what needed this, if their form were ſet them?] and whatſoever prayers any made for himſelf, he ſhould not uſe them before he had communicated them to his more skilful brethren.

I cannot underſtand ſenſe, if this Canon doth not prove, that Miniſters were at this time at liberty publickly to pray by the uſe of their own gifts; for if they were tyed to a certain form made by others, there was no fear of their uſing the name of the Father for the Son, or the name of the Son for the Father; or that they ſhould not direct their prayers to the Father, that being the ſenſe of the Church, whoſe forms they were tyed to; to ſay nothing of the latter part of the Canon, which apparently giveth Miniſters liberty to make prayers for their uſe, only obligeth them to take the advice of their more experienced brethren (in that erroneous and moſt dangerous time) before they publickly uſed them. So that I conclude, this Canon is a full proof, there were no ſtated forms at this time, which was 419 years after Chriſt, uſed or injoined in the African Church. Whereas our Brother ſaith, (very p. 28critically) That tranſcribing (properly here intended) ſuppoſeth a form. I anſwer, the words are deſcribit ſibi in Caranza. Our Author knows that deſcribo, in a hundred inſtances might be given him, ſignifies no more than to write down. Hoc quam vehementer ad me pertineat in iis quas tibi illi reddent literis deſcripſi, ſaith Tully, who did not uſe to tranſcribe his Letters out of other mens copies. Beſides, admitting our Brothers criticiſm, yet the form might be his own, and he only write a fair, out of a foul copy. What he ſaith further about the words in the former part of the Canon, from which we conclude no form was then in uſe, at leaſt not enjoined, he yields the caſe, in ſaying, That there were various forms then uſed in that Church, ſome made by hereticks. Then there was no one form enjoined and uſed; nor doth the Canon ſay they ſhould uſe none but the ſtated forms appointed by that Church; it only ſaith, That in their prayers they ſhould not name the Father for the Son, nor the Son for the Father; and that all prayers (which was the will of Chriſt) ſhould be directed to the firſt perſon in the Trinity, to the Father.

§. 10. Our Author triumpheth in the Council of Mela, or Milevis (as he calls it) that▪ he ſaith, declared againſt the uſe of any other forms than thoſe eſtabliſhed by the Council. p. 29It doth ſo indeed, but not then thoſe eſtabliſhed by the Church. That Council conſidering the ſtate of their Province at that time, thought fit to order ſome forms, and ſeems to tye up the Miniſters of that Province at that time to the uſe of them, and no other ſo much is granted: but whereas our Author ſaith, That we may as well conclude from our Act of Ʋniformity, as from theſe Councils, that they gave the firſt original to forms of Prayer, becauſe they are thereby eſtabliſhed. We anſwer,

If in England we had not had the uſe of forms of Prayer eſtabliſhed by the Canon-law in times of Popery, and by Acts of Parliament in the time of Edw. 6. and Q. Elizabeth, under favour we think we might have concluded, that the Act of Ʋniformity 1662, had given the firſt original to ſuch an impoſition or uſe. And till our Author (which he hath not yet done) can bring us any Canon of ancient date that commands ſuch an univerſal uſe of forms of Prayer in any conſiderable part of the Church, we hope we may conclude, that this was the original of ſuch commands or uſage; and this was in the fifth Century when the truths in matter of Doctrine, as well as Rites, were in a great meaſure corrupred, as I may poſſibly ſhew hereafter. But for this Council too,

It is true, there was a Council held at Mela 402 years after Chriſt in the time of Pope Innocent p. 30the firſt; if we may believe Caranza, Chytraeus, and others, it was held when Arcadius and Honorius were Emperours. That Province was (as to the Miniſtry) unmeaſurably tainted with Pelagianiſm; their eight firſt Canons are againſt his Doctrine; it will not be amiſs to give the Reader the ſum of thoſe Canons, from whence he may judg, That it was reaſonable, that until the Church could be purged of that leaven, conſidering the great corruption of the Miniſters, ſuch a reſtriction ſhould be put upon the Miniſters of that Province as to their publick prayers.

Can. 1. It pleaſed all the Biſhops met together in this Synod to ordain what things were defined in this Synod, That whoſoever ſhall ſay that the firſt man Adam was made mortal, ſo as whether he ſinned or no, he ſhould die, not becauſe of the merit of ſin, but from a neceſſity of nature, Let him be Anathema.

Can. 2. It alſo pleaſed them, That if any ſhall deny that young Infants are to be baptized, or ſhall ſay that they are baptized for the remiſſion of ſins, but they draw no ſuch original ſin from Adam which ſhould be waſhed away in the laver of Baptiſm, from whence it followeth that in them the form of Baptiſm [for the remiſſion of ſin] is not tru', but falſe, Let him be Anathema. Becauſe what the Apoſtle ſaith can be no otherwiſe underſtood, than as the Church hath always underſtood p. 31it: Rom. 5. By one man ſin entred into the world, and death by▪ ſin, and ſo death paſſed over all men becauſe all had ſinned. For by reaſon of this rule of faith, little ones who have actually committed no ſin, are therefore truly baptized for the remiſſion of ſins, that the filth contracted by Generation, may be cleanſed away by Regeneration.

Can. 3. It alſo pleaſed them, &c. That if any one ſay that the Grace of God by which we are juſtified by Jeſus Chriſt our Lord, was only of force for remiſſion of ſins which are committed, and not alſo for our aſſiſtance againſt future commiſſions, he ſhould be Anathema.

Can. 4. If any one ſhall ſay, That the grace of God through Jeſus Chriſt doth no further help us againſt ſinning, than as it revealeth to us, and openeth our underſtanding to underſtand the commandments of God, that we may know what to deſire and to avoid; and that it is no effect of grace to enable us to love, and to do what we know we ought to do, let him be Anathema. For whereas the Apoſtle ſaith, Knowledg puffeth up, Charity edifieth, It is impious to believe that there is a word of the grace of God for that which puffeth up, and none for that which edifieth, both being the gift of God, both to know what we ought to do, and to love to do it, that through the edifying of love our knowledg may …t puff us up. As it is written concerning God, That he teacheth man p. 32knowledg; ſo it is alſo written, Love is from God.

Can. 5. It alſo pleaſed them to Decree, That if any ſhall ſay that we are therefore juſtified by Grace, that we may more eaſily by Grace fulfil what we are commanded to do by the power of our own will; although if grace were not given, though it would not be eaſie, yet it would be poſſible to fulfil the commands of God, let him be Anathema. For our Lord ſpeaketh concerning obedience to Gods commandments, when he ſaith, Without me you can do nothing: He doth not ſay, Without me you cannot without difficulty do any thing.

Can. 6. It alſo pleaſed them, &c. That whereas St. John ſaith, If we ſay we have no ſin, we deceive our ſelves, and the truth is not in us; whoſoever ſhall ſay this is the ſenſe, That out of humility we ought to ſay we have no ſin, Let him be Anathema. For it followeth, and is added by the Apoſtle, But if we confeſs our ſins, he is juſt and righteous to forgive them, and to purge us from all iniquity. From whence it is plain, that the Apoſtle ſpeaks not of ſpeaking in humility, but ſpeaking in truth. For the Apoſtle might have ſaid, If we ſay we have no ſin, we extol our ſelves, and there is no humility in us. But he ſaying, We deceive our ſelves, and there is no truth in us; he plaine… ſheweth, that he who ſaith he hath no ſin, did not ſpeak truth, but what was falſe.

p. 33Can. 7. It alſo pleaſed them, &c. That whoſoever ſhould ſay that the Saints in the Lords-Prayer praying, Forgive us our ſins, do not ſpeak it for them, for it is not for them neceſſary, but for other ſinners in the congregation; and therefore the ſeveral Saints do not ſay, Forgive me my ſins, but forgive us our ſins, that the righteous man might be underſtood not to put up that petition ſo much for himſelf as for others, Let him be Anathema. For St. James was holy and righteous, when he ſaid, In many things we offend all. Why doth he ſay all, but that his ſentence might agree with that in the Pſalm, Enter not into judgment with thy ſervant, O Lord, becauſe in thy ſight ſhall no fleſh be juſtified. And that in Solomon's Prayer▪ There is none that liveth and ſinneth not. And that in Job, He ſealeth up the head of all men, that every man might know his infirmity. Ʋpon which holy and righteous Daniel ſpeaking in his Prayer in the Plural Number ſaith, We have ſinned, we have done wickedly, &c. What he ſpeaketh there, he ſpeaketh both truly and humbly; and that none might think as ſome now do, that he did not ſpeak of his own but of his peoples ſins, he afterwards ſaith, When I pray'd, and confeſſed my ſins, and the ſins of my people▪ unto the Lord our God: He would not ſay, our ſins, but my ſins, and the ſins of my people, as a Prophet foreſeeing, there would be ſome ariſe as now, who would ill underſtand it.

p. 34Can. 8. It alſo pleaſed them, &c. That if any ſhould ſay, That the words of the Lords Prayer, Forgive us our debts, are only uſed by the Saints to ſignifie their humility, not to expreſs a truth, Let him be Anathema. For how can one be induced in prayer to lye, and that not to men, but to God, with his lips deſiring that his ſins might be forgiven him, when in heart he thought he had no ſins to be forgiven?

I have been a little more large in this ſtory, becauſe I am pretty confident and dare challenge all our adverſaries to give us but one proof, that any part of the Church before this time aſſembled in any Council, took upon them to impoſe Forms of Prayer to be uſed by all Miniſters within their Juriſdiction. If ſome men made themſelves Forms, and uſed them, they yet ſerved God in their Miniſtry in the uſe of their own gifts; this ſignifieth juſt nothing to our caſe, who have known divers worthy men do the like.

We have now the caſe; here was a Council of worthy men, all relating to the Province of Numidia, who met at Mela. The occaſion of their meeting was the woful ſpreading of the Doctrine of Pelagius, who denied Original Sin, Aſſiſting Grace; or that juſtified perſons could ſin, or need beg the pardon of ſin. Many, if not the greateſt part of their Miniſters were tainted p. 35with theſe Opinions. In this diſtreſs to ſtop the diffuſing this venom, and that the people through the error, ignorance, or careleſneſs of their Miniſtry, might not be without any to go before them in publick prayers, who could or would put up due confeſſions or neceſſary petitions for them; having firſt in eight Canons condemned the Doctrines of Pelagius, they make their twelfth Canon in theſe terms:

It alſo pleaſed them▪ &c. That thoſe prayers, or Maſſes, or Prefaces, or Commendations, or Impoſitions of hands, which ſhall be approved in the Council, be uſed of all; and that no other be uſed in the Church, but what ſhall be treated on, and approved in a Synod, leſt perhaps ſomething ſhould be compoſed contrary to the true faith, either through ignorance or careleſneſs.

I obſerve, 1. That this Canon extends to all Miniſterial ſervices, not to prayers only; as to all, they were limited to forms.

2. That it was not to any forms that before this time had been enjoined or uſed in this or in any other Church, but ſuch as ſhould firſt be treated of and approved in a Synod or Council.

3. That it was done in a caſe of woful diſtreſs, when the Miniſters were known to be ſo corrupted in their judgments, that they could neither put up ſuch confeſſions, or ſupplications as they ought, they could not confeſs original p. 36ſin, nor pray for aſſiſting grace, nor for pardon of ſins, renewing after Juſtification.

4. I obſerve, this was in the fifth Century; and if we will believe Voſſius, it muſt be after 505, for he ſaith, Hiſtor. Pelag. l. 1. c. 3. that in that year (Chryſoſtome being in baniſhment, and near his death) he firſt ſpread his Doctrines. Others make it 402. It muſt be in the Popedom of Innocent 1. (who was not Pope 18 months) for Aurelius was Preſident there in the notion of his Legate.

Take this ſtory in its circumſtances, it's far from a juſtifiable authority to maintain that it was the judgment of the Church in the purer ages, That forms of prayer might be lawfully enjoined all Miniſters, whether under ſuch circumſtances or no.

Their ends were, that the poor people might have due prayers put up for them, and be taught the Doctrine of Original ſin, the impotency of mans will to what was ſpiritually good; the need of aſſiſting grace; that they ſin ſeven times a day, and had need beg pardon. That original ſin might in prayer be confeſſed, and the impotency of human nature to that which is truly good, with their daily renewing ſins, that ſo pardon might be beg'd for them, and aſſiſtance of Divine grace againſt them, and unto ſpiritual duty. How ſhould this end have been obtained in that corrupted ſtate, but by ſet-forms of Prayers and Sermons p. 37too? Should they on the ſudden have turned out all theſe Miniſters, it is not probable, they on the ſudden could have found enough fitted for the work. Becauſe in this exigent this Council judged it lawful, ſhall it therefore be concluded to b… the judgment even of thoſe few Biſhops in that Council, That it is lawful for any in any ſtate of a Church to do the like? Beſides, what hindred but that according to this Canon every Miniſter might compoſe his own prayers, and bring them to be approved in a Council.

§. 11. The truth is, this proved a ſad preſident; all know how long Peldgius his Doctrine ſpread a very great part of the Church, how many Councils aſſembled againſt it. 'Tis very probable other Churches followed this Canon not in force of it, for it could oblige none but the Province of Numidia; but as thinking it lawful: till at length, as the Grandieur of the Romiſh Biſhops required a pack of ignorant and ſottiſh Miniſters, of which there was a remarkable plenty in the ſixth and ſeventh age, it crept into a cuſtom, and a piece of Eccleſiaſtical Common Law. But we ſhall hereafter ſhew that the practice of the viſible Church after 400 years in Rituals, is not very imitable by thoſe that will make the word of God a light to their feet; but we muſt go back a little to p. 38conſider what our Author inſinuates, p. 105. of the Liturgies which the Papiſts have invented, (in all probability) and intituled St. Peter, St. James, and St. Mark, and St. John too; as alſo thoſe which they have intituled, St. Chryſoſtome, St. Baſil, and St. Ambroſe to….

§. 12. For the former, our Reverend Brother ſpeaketh thus, pag. 105. And I yield it moſt probable (though even Proteſtant writers herein differ) that the ancient Roman, Jeruſalem and Alexandrian Offices, were called the Liturgies of St. Peter, St. James, and St. Mark, becauſe of their certain early uſe in the Churches where they preſided, though it is not certain they were compoſed by them; this being mentioned by no ancient writer of the firſt Centuries. Nor do I doubt but the Liturgy or Anaphoca of St. John, and that of the twelve Apoſtles, are ſuppoſititious.

From which I obſerve, 1. That if during the time that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghoſt laſted, the Miniſterial Services were by the Apoſtles performed by them, it is very abſurd to ſay Peter, James, Mark and John, who all were poſſeſſed of them, prayed by preſcribed forms.

2. I obſerve, our Reverend Brother (I hope unadviſedly) hath granted here the Papiſts a great p. 39point, That Peter was the firſt Biſhop of Rome; for he calls Rome the Church where he reſided (for we know James reſided at Hieruſalem, Mark at Alexandria) this is both a liberal and groundleſs grant—Magni hoc mercentur Achivi.

3. Did Saint Peter, James, and Mark, themſelves uſe them? No, ſaith our Author, that is incertain; it is falſe, and our Author yields it, in ſaying they miniſtred by their extraordinary gifts. Now we read of no Liturgy came down in the days of Pentecoſt; was it by others that came after them? who, or how long after? becauſe he ſaith they were of certain early uſe in thoſe Churches; how doth that appear? doth he account 450 years after (when Socrates tells us there were not two to be found ſpeaking the ſame things in their prayers) early?

4. He acknowledgeth he ſpeaks without proof, and by gueſs, for he hath no writer in the firſt Centuries that mentions them.

But ſeeing this Reverend Author can ſay no more for them, let us ſee if nothing can be ſaid againſt them: That of St. Mark, and St. Peter, the Papiſts (and they know beſt I believe) make to be both the ſame; if they be, the learned Morney hath ſupplied us with enough to ſay againſt them.

p. 401. The foreign, and the word foreign, are found often enough in that Liturgy, which argues it to be made more than 300 years after St. Peter and St. Mark were in Heaven, or elſe there had been no reaſon for ſo long a conreſt as was in the Church about thoſe things; St. Peter's and St. Mark's Liturgy had in a minute determined the buſineſs.

2. In that Liturgy are ſeveral prayers for Monks and Monaſteries, perſons and things never thought of till ſome hundreds of years after Chriſt.

3. There is alſo mention of Temples, Altars, Incenſings for remiſſion of ſins; did St. Peter / or St. Mark (think we) know many ſuch things?

4. There are prayers for the Pope, who commenced 800 years after Peter and Mark, were dead.

5. There is alſo in St. Mark's prayers for Subdeacons, Readers, Singers; nay Mark is made to pray that God would ſave the City of Alexandria for the ſake of his Martyr S Mark. Can our Reverend Brother think theſe things were of any early uſe at Alexandria? how are our judgments oft-times bribed by our paſſions?

For St. James his Liturgy: 1. How often is the Virgin in it called foreign, the Mother of God; when in the Synod of Epheſus and Chalcedon againſt Neſtorius and Eutyches, the Fathers p. 41had much ado to find one or two places where ſhe was ſo called in Origen and Euſebius; yet the latter lived 400 years after Chriſt.

All know what a ſtir was 300 years after Chriſt to get Chriſt agreed equal with his Father in eſſence. This Liturgy, had it been known then, had prevented all that; for He and his Father are every where called foreign. The Hymn called foreign, which was not compoſed till 400 years after. Here are alſo prayers for Monaſteries, unknown for more than 300 years after. In it there is a prayer that we might find grace with confeſſion; a name, and a prayer not known long after. There is in it mention made of Temples and Altars, (which Chriſtians had none of for 300 years) of offering incenſe for remiſſion of ſins, &c. not like St. James his Doctrine. There are in it prayers for the dead, to the Virgin Mary, which James never made; and the Doxology, Glory be to the Father, &c. and the Hymn, Glory to God in the higheſt, &c. are in it too, brought into uſe in the Church-Liturgies many hundreds of years after St. James his time. Yet we muſt believe that theſe Liturgies were of early uſe, and theſe were but additions ſince; though foreign be woven into the beſt part, Quod volumus facile credimus. The Reader may read much more in the incomparably learned Lord of Morney's book de Miſſa, l, 1. cap. 2. from whence what we have here p. 42ſaid is taken. Nor do I ſee how it can be avoided but if Peter, Mark and James were the Authors of theſe pretended Liturgies, they muſt be of equal authority with the Scriptures, as that Noble Lord ſaith. And being things of no better reputation than they are, though our Reverend Brother hath ſaid little for them, yet he hath ſaid a great deal too much for a perſon of ſo valuable a judgment, and learning, and ſobriety, to ſpeak.

§. 13. We ſhall come now to hear what he ſaith to the pretended Liturgies of St. Ambroſe, St. Chryſoſtome, and St. Baſil. They all flouriſhriſhed above 350 years after Chriſt; Baſil in the year 370, Ambroſe about the year 374, Chryſoſtome about the year 398; Baſil died 379, Chryſoſtome 407, Ambroſe 397; all theſe are ſaid to have had Liturgies, or Forms of prayers; and the Papiſts can ſhew us the copies of them, they ſay. But this is nothing to us, unleſs it can be proved that they were uſed by any but themſelves, yea and that not voluntarily (that might be out of ſome Miniſters ſenſe that they had not gifts fit to pray with) but at the command of ſome Council, or of theſe Biſhops. But let us hear what our Author ſaith in Libertas Eccleſiaſtica, pag. 106, 107.

There are ſo many Teſtimonies, that St. Chryſoſtome, St. Ambroſe, and St. Baſil, were framers p. 43of Liturgses, that I do not ſee how any can rationally doubt thereof; but that theſe Liturgies have undergone divers alterations is both apparent, and is very reaſonable to be imagined. And he who ſhall compare the Greek copy of St. Baſil's Liturgy with the Syriack, or its Verſion, both which are repreſented together by Caſſander, will find them ſo vaſtly different from each other, that he muſt either conclude great alterations to have paſt upon them, or that they never were originally the ſame.

This is all that he ſaith of them. That Ambroſe, Baſil, Chryſoſtome, and others, might ſet themſelves in order for reading the Scriptures, and compoſe prayers for their perſonal uſe, may be true for ought any body can tell. Divers Divines that we have known have done the like. That divers Miniſters might out of a reverence to theſe perſons, and diſtruſting their own gifts, uſe the forms which they had made, may be true too. We have ſeen Mr. Shutes, Dr. Holdſworths, and many others forms of prayer which they ordinarily uſed before their Sermons. And poſſibly ſome out of reſpect to them may have made uſe of them; whether they did what they ought, is the queſtion, That the Liturgies now extant, and that go under their name, as they now are to be ſeen, were none of theirs, is out of queſtion.

p. 44Liturgias has ownes falſi poſtulo, ſaith the moſt learned Lord of Morney, de l. Miſſa, cap. 6. Nor was he a perſon uſed to ſpeak raſhly. He chargeth them all for counterfeits, and ſufficiently proves it. He ſhews that in thoſe Liturgies there were prayers for the dead, prayers to the Virgin Mary. There is the Hymn called foreign, not known in the Church till more than an hundred years after their time. In Chryſoſtome's, the Prieſt is brought in worſhipping the Crucifix and the Virgin Mary, (all know the worſhipping Images came in long after), Chryſoſtome and many other Saints are invoked in his Liturgy, who lived many years after Chryſoſtome was dead. There is in it a prayer for the Emperor Alexius, and the Oecumenical Biſhop Pope Nicholas, who both lived 700 years after Chryſoſtome was dead. It is true, the Papiſts adoring theſe Liturgies, we make uſe of them againſt them to prove that the Sacrament was uſed to be given in both kinds, and that there were no private Maſſes; but theſe pretended Liturgies were moſt certainly made many hundreds of years after their times who are made the Authors. If they were not, the Papiſts have more to ſay for their Holy-water, their Paganiſh Incenſings, and Wax-candles burning at noon-day, their Croſſings and Crucifixes, their Invocation of the Virgin Mary and Saints, than Proteſtants ever thought they had.

p. 45But our Author will allow them to have undergone divers alterations. We thank him for that; but how ſhall it appear to us that they were not intire new compoſitions made a thouſand years after Chriſt, that by them the Papiſts might juſtifie their Maſs-book, their Doctrine and Ceremonies? Or how ſhall it appear that any Miniſters in Chryſoſtome's, Ambroſe's, or Baſil's Dioceſſes, were required by them to perform their Miniſterial acts in prayer? We challenge any one to make that good. And the making of forms, of the particular uſe of them by thoſe that made them, or the voluntary uſe of them by other Miniſters who diſtruſted their own abilities, or the requiring of the uſe of them in a time of general corruption of the Miniſters, will not prove the lawfulneſs of the uſe of them by all Miniſters under no ſuch circumſtances.

Beſides, the Canon of the Council of Mela, limiting their Miniſters to ſuch prayers as ſhould firſt be approved in ſome Synod, is a ſtrong preſumption, that they knew of no Liturgies of St. Mathew, St. Mark, St. James, St. John, St. Peter, St. Ambroſe, St. Baſil, St. Chryſoſtome; for they would then have named ſome of them, and reſtrained their Miniſters to the uſe of them, or ſome of them; and not ſtill have ordered the making of more; or rather given their Miniſters liberty to make p. 46their prayers themſelves, but not to uſe them till they had been debated and agreed in ſome Synod (which I take to be the trueſt ſenſe of that Canon) nor needed the Council of Carthage to have ordered their Miniſters to confer about their prayers with their more experienced brethren, if ſeven or eight Liturgies had been then known, and ſo authentick.

§. 14. But yet we muſt find it more than 300 years after this before any Church or Magiſtrate took upon them under penalties to command Miniſters to miniſter not by the uſe of their own gifts, but by the preſcribed forms of others. Let us but in the caſe hear Durandus, a Papiſt high enough, ſpeak, and that in a book which he called, A Rationale of Divine Offices, l. 5. cap. 2. his words are theſe:

Theodoſius (who by the way lived 380) intreated Pope Damaſus, that ſome Eccleſiaſtical office might be made by ſome Eccleſiaſtical Catholick perſon; upon which Damaſus commanded Saint Hierome who was then in Bethlehem with Paula Euſtochium, and ſome other Virgins, to abide there and to make a Liturgy for the Churches, becauſe he was well skilled in Hebrew, Greek, Chaldee, and Latin, which he obediently did; appointing how much of the Pſalms ſhould be read each day of the week; and ordering the reading of the Goſpels and the Epiſtles out of the Old and p. 47New Teſtament. [Where note, this is all that moſt ſuperſtitious Ritualiſt could find that Saint Hierome did.] It was approved by Pope Damaſus, and made a rule. Gelaſius (who was Pope, and lived 400), and Gregory the Great (who lived 600 years after Chriſt) added Prayers and Hymns, the Leſſons and the Goſpels; Ambroſe, Gelaſius and Gregory, ſaith he, added the Gradualia, Tractus Hallelujah, other Doctors of the Church added other parts. Thus far Durandus.

This ſeemeth to be much of the truth. Platina in the life of Damaſus tells us, that he firſt ordered Hierome's Tranſlation to be read in the Churches. That the Pſalms ſhould be read alternalim, part by the Miniſter, part by the people. That Glory be to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghoſt, ſhould be repeated at the end of every Pſalm; and the Confeſſion at the beginning of the celebration of the Maſs was alſo ordered by him. Now when was this? It was above 380 years after Chriſt. Nor have we yet any record of a Liturgy, but an order by Hierome preſcribed for reading the Scripture, and a Confeſſion before the Sacrament, made by Pope Damaſus, and Gloria Pater by him added to every Pſalm. The next Pope to him was Siricius, (that learned man, who in great paſſion urged, That Prieſts might not marry, becauſe the Apoſtle Paul tells us. Thoſe that are in the fleſh cannot pleaſe God.) The next to him was Anaſtaſius, p. 48he (ſaith Platina) ordained the Prieſts ſtanding up at the Goſpel. Innocent the firſt ſucceeded him, who ſpent his time about preſerving the Faith againſt Pelagius. I do not find that Soſemus the next Pope added much, but he ſent Fauſtenus and two Presbyters to the Council of Carthage to let them know they ought to do nothing without the conſent of the Biſhop of Rome (ſaith Platina). Boniface after him did little: the next, which was Coeleſtinus, ordered Davids Pſalms to be ſung by turns before the Sacrifice, (ſo was the Lords Supper now called). The next Succeſſor Sixtus 1. his ſuperſtition evaporated in buildings, and adorning them. I find not that the four next Succeſſors, Leo, Simplicius, Hilary or Faelix did any thing as to the Liturgy, nor indeed is much ſaid of any till we come to Gregory Anno 600; Pamelius ſaith, he made a Lectionary, directing the order for the Scripture to be read an Antiphonary; directing ſome Reſponds, and an order for adminiſtring the Sacraments; but he could command no further than his own Church: for it was five or ſix years after this before the Pope of Rome was ſet up as Ʋniverſal Biſhop (a title which Gregory refuſed) by Phocas, who killing his Maſter had uſurped the Empire. Yet little was done for almoſt 200 years after this; the continual ſtirs cauſed by the Lombards, giving the Emperour no reſt.

p. 49About the year 800, Charles the Great being Emperour, Pope Adrian moveth him to eſtabliſh a Liturgy by a Civil Edict, and obtained it; and Durandus telleth us that Pope Gregories Liturgy was it.

To which Charles the Great compelled all Miniſters by threatnings and puniſhments; and this is the firſt authority we have for any thing of this nature: From whence we obſerve, That the firſt impoſing of a Common-Prayer Book was in favour to Pope Adrian, and began with a perſecution.

Nor after this was it glibly ſwallowed; for Mr. Fox amongſt the Proteſtants, and Durandus amongſt the Papiſts, tell us a pleaſant ſtory of one Eugenius complaining to Pope Adrian at the impoſing of Gregory's Common-Prayer Book, (it ſhould ſeem he liked ſome other, poſſibly that which went about for St. Ambroſes, better) but it ſeems the complaint ran ſo high, that ſome Fathers juſt come from a Council met again to decide the matter, ſpent a night in prayer (having firſt laid both the Common-prayer Books, that of Ambroſe, and that of Gregory on St. Peter's Altar) to deſire of God by ſome ſign to ſhew which of thoſe Liturgies he would have univerſally uſed. In the morning they went in and found that of St. Ambroſe lying in his place, that of Gregory torn in pieces, and ſcattered up and down. From whence they p. 50concluded that it was the will of God that St. Ambroſe his Office ſhould lye ſtill, and be uſed only in his own Church, Gregories ſhould be ſcattered over the world. And thus the Roman Maſs-book (which is one point in which we differ from the Papiſts) was confirmed by a miracle too.

He that asked the queſtion, By what Commonprayer book the Fathers prayed that night when both their books were lockt up? Might have remembred that we have heard of a Liturgy of St. Peter's, only one would think that if he had been Biſhop of Rome he might have been angry to have ſeen his Liturgy thrown out, and one brought in patcht up by ſo many hundred years his Juniors, eſpecially having ſo much ſuperſtitious ſtuff in it, which he never owned. It may be it was for this he cauſed it to be torn ſo that night, not enduring ſuch traſh ſhould lye upon his Altar; but then the Fathers were miſerably out in their judgments upon the cauſe. This is the truth as to the pretended antiquity of Liturgies, and as to the impoſition of them, by Canon-law from 600 to 800; by Canon and Civil Laws 800 years after Chriſt.

§. 15. In further proof of this, I ſhall but offer what the Reader may ſee in Print, and what I know to be true.

It pleaſed his moſt Excellent Majeſty to p. 51grant his Commiſſion out under the Broad Seal, dated 25 March, in the 13th year of his Reign, to 12 Biſhops, and to divers others; requiring them amongſt other things—to adviſe upon, and review the Book of Common Prayer; comparing the ſame with the moſt ancient Liturgies which have been uſed in the Church in the primitive and pureſt times, &c. The aforeſaid Commiſſioners did ſo, and being divided into two Parties: the party which in ſome things diſſented, made this reply to that paſſage, (It is to be found p. 11. of the Printed account of their Proceedings) Prop. 19.

As to that paſſage in his Majeſties Commiſſion, wherein we are authorized and required to compare the preſent Liturgy with the moſt ancient Liturgies which have been uſed in the Church, in the pureſt, and moſt Primitive times: We have in obedience to his Majeſties Commiſſion, made enquiry, but cannot find any Records of known credit, concerning any entire forms of Liturgies within the firſt 300 years, which are confeſſed to be, as the moſt Primitive, ſo the pureſt ages of the Church nor any Impoſition of Liturgies for ſome hundreds of years after. We find indeed ſome Liturgical - forms fathered upon St. Baſil, St. Chryſoſtome, St. Ambroſe; but we have not ſeen any Copies of them, but ſuch as give ſufficient evidence to us, to conclude p. 52them either wholly ſpurious, or ſo interpotlated, that we cannot make a judgment wha in them hath any Primitive authority.

This Propoſition was given in with the reſt, by theſe Divines, to the reſt of the Reverend Biſhops and Doctors of Divinity, who made the oppoſite party; and it was not only ſigned by Dr. Manton, Dr. Jacomb, Mr. Calamy, and many others, but by the moſt Reverend and Learned Dr. Reynolds, at that time Biſhop of Norwich. Here (if ever) the proof ſhould have been produced of Liturgies generally uſed, and enjoyned in the Church in the pureſt and moſt Primitive times. Let us now ſee what Reply was made; the Reader ſhall find it in p. 75. of the Printed account. It is the 16 Section of the oppoſite Commiſſioners Reply in theſe words.

Sect. 16. That there were ancient Liturgies in the Church, is evident, St. Chryſoſtoms, St. Baſils, and others; and the Greeks tell us of St. James, much elder than they; and we find not in all ages, whole Liturgies; yet it is certain that there were ſuch in eldeſt times, by thoſe parts which are extant. Surſum Corda, &c. Gloria Patri, &c. Benedicte, Hymnus, Cherubinus vere dignum eſt & juſtum, &c. Dominus vobiſcum, & cum ſpiritu tuo, with divers others. Though p. 53thoſe that are extant may be interpolated, yet ſuch things as are found in them all, cenſiſtent to Catholick and Primitive Doctrine, may well be preſumed to have been from the firſt, eſpecially ſince we find no Originals of thoſe Liturgies from ancient Councils. This is all they ſay.

What was replyed to this, is too large to tranſcribe, the Reader may read it in the aforementioned Printed Account of the Proceedings, p. 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83. But becauſe every Reader may not have that book at hand, I ſhall add a few words.

We know none will deny, but that particular men might even from Chriſt's time have by them forms of Prayer, either of their own compoſure, or other mens; but that from the beginning all Miniſters in any Church were tyed to them, that we deny, nor can it be proved. It cannot be proved, that in the firſt 400 years there were any entire forms of Liturgy; that the Miniſters might before they began to pray, ſay, Surſum Corda, Lift up your hearts; or Dominus Vobiſcum, The Lord be with you; and the people of courſe ſay, And with thy Spirit; are far from proving, that there were any books directing them ſo to do. It is known that the Doxology, Glory be to the Father, Son and Holy Ghoſt, was not in any general uſe for more than 300 years after Chriſt; In the whole Anſwer p. 54there is nothing to prove, that for 500 years after Chriſt, there were any ſuch forms as all Miniſters in any one Church or Province, were commanded to uſe, and to perform their Miniſtry in prayer by, without varying from it. But the Reader may at his leaſure read much more in the Judicious Reply made by the Commiſſioners on the other ſide. And if more could have been ſaid upon this argument, for the Antiquity of Liturgies, it is not probable it would have been omitted by 12 Biſhops, and ſo many learned men beſides, ſeveral of which have ſince that time been made Biſhops, and ſome of them are ſo at this day.

§. 16. Our Reverend Brother talks therefore at a great deal too high a rate, when he tells us p. 110. of Forms of prayer embraced by the ancient Church, whiles it retained its ſoundneſs, and before the corruptions and diſtempers of the Church of Rome took place; if by embraced, he means uſed generally by all Miniſters, or commanded ſo to be uſed—and of our oppoſing our judgment againſt the concurrent judgment and practice of the Church of Chriſt, in ſo many ſeveral Ages and Nations, and againſt the determination of God himſelf under the Old Teſtament, and our bleſſed Saviour under the New. Theſe words are not the words of Truth and Soberneſs, nor do they ſavour of that ſpirit of Truth and Love p. 55which we always had thought did dwell in our Brother; For if he means that the Miniſters and Chriſtians of all ages have thought it lawful and expedient to draw up forms of Prayer, that by them the weaker might be taught to pray; nay, that thoſe Miniſters or People who have not attained that gift, may uſe them (ſtill coveting and labouring for that gift) until they have attained it; none will deny it. But all this is nothing to the purpoſe; I know no Nonconformiſt will deny it, but ſay, Let them be in the Church, and for that uſe ſtill. The Nonconformiſts in their Debates upon his Majeſties Commiſſion, would never have tendred ſome Emendations of our Liturgy to the Biſhops, much leſs a new Liturgy or form, if they had been of this mind. But if our Reverend Brother means that they have been in the Church required to be uſed by all the Miniſters in their publick Miniſtration, in all ages, or in thoſe ages before the Corruptions, Idolatry and Superſtition of the Papiſts crept in; there is not the leaſt proof made, either by our Reverend Brother, or any elſe that we could ever ſee, of a word of truth in the aſſertion.

§. 17. Let us now take a view of the State of the Church, from the year 500, to the year 1500; and ſee whether the Church was then in ſuch a State, that we may conclude all lawful p. 56that was, during that time, admitted in practice. All Proteſtants will deny it, eſpecially from the year 700. But let us examine a little.

In the 5th Century, they had got Images into Churches at Conſtantīnople: The Image of the Manger (which Chryſoſtome complains of) and of the Virgin Mary (ſaith Nicephorus): they had got Altars alſo (Auguſtine, Chryſoſtome and Salvian often mention them); they had alſo got in Candles; uſing holy Water in Baptiſm; they had alſo got in Ʋnction, and the cuſtom of giving the Lords Supper to children after Baptiſm; together with the wearing of a white garment after that Sacrament. They in many places mingled water with the wine in the Supper. Exorciſms were alſo crept in, as Auguſtin tells us, lib. 20. de Civ. Dei. Lent alſo crept in, in this age, as we learn from Auguſtine, Cyril, Chryſoſtome and Maximus. Nicephorus tells us alſo of abundance of Reliques now in faſhion. Monks and Monasteries began in this age to be very thick. The Doctrine of the Church was miſerably invaded by Pelagius. They began in this age to put only ſingle perſons into Miniſtry in the Latin Church, as we may learn from the Council of Toledo, from Augustine and Leo. They had now alſo brought in many new orders of Miniſters, Acolecthi, Exorcists, Subdeacons, &c.

p. 57From the year 500, to the year 600, we ſhall yet find a ſtranger face of the Church; the Doctrines of Freewill, Justification by works, Prayers to the dead, Satisfactions for ſin, Purgatory, &c. were in this age preached. In this age came in the Dedications and Conſecrations of Churches; the Conſecration of Wells for Baptiſm, the Oyl and Chryſm; the Conſecrations of Altars, Cups, Corporals; the Maſs, offerings for the dead; the ſeven Letanies, Rogations; the ſeven Canonical hours; In ſhort, almoſt the whole fardel of the Popiſh Superſtitions.

It is no great charge to any conſcientious man, to ſay he differs in ſome things from the Ruling part of the Church 5 or 600 years after Chriſt, and that he judgeth it both inexpedient and unlawful for him to do what they did in 40 particulars. We muſt now take our leave of the Romiſh Synagouge, from whoſe practices at this time, all Proteſtants in the world differ in a multitude of things, both as to Doctrine, Worſhip and Diſcipline; we muſt go ſeek for the true Church the next 1000 years in the Valleys of Piedmont, in France, in the Provinces of Languedec, Provence and Dauphiny, amongſt the Albigenſes, the poor people of Lions, and the Waldenſes; indeed moſtly in the Valleys of Piedmont, where we ſhall find them coopt up in the time of Innocent the Third, after St. Dominick had fired him to engage Simon Montford, p. 58with the French Kings leave, to deſtroy ſome hundred thouſands of them; thoſe that eſcaped, went to their Brethren in the Valleys of Piedmont; ſome of them, poſſibly, got into Bohemia, amongſt the Taborites, Piccards, &c. Nor could I ever meet with any that could give me account of any Liturgies they uſed, or which were impoſed on them, or by them; nor do I remember that the Piccards, when they came to Luther about 1520, or the Deputies of thoſe of Piedmont, when they came to adviſe with Oecolampadius 1530; though they gave him an account of their Faith, Rites, and Order, yet ever mentioned any thing of Liturgy; yet theſe two bodies of people are the only viſible Church we can give any account of, retaining any Degrees of Purity in Doctrine, Worſhip or Diſcipline for a thouſand years, which is double the time that the Church kept any degrees of Purity after Chriſt. We will freely grant, that after the year 600, the Maſs-book was (Canonically) impoſed by Pope Gregory, and within 200 years more by Charles the Great; and except in the Valleys of Piedmont, and in Bohemia, the Prieſts generally both uſed that, and after 1200, made their Maker, worſhipped Images, prayed for the Dead, and prayed to Saints, ſaid their Service in Latin. But I hope it is no prejudice to any Proteſtant, that he owns no relation to the Church that did ſo for a thouſand p. 59years together, and doth ſo ſtill. And now our Reverend Brother ſees what his concurrent teſtimony of the Church in all ages comes to, till the year 1520, or thereabouts; for ten of thoſe fifteen ages we hope our Reverend Brother agreeth with them no better than we; and if he will leave Rome, and follow the Woman into the Wilderneſs, where God hid her for 1260 days, he will find no Liturgy ſhe carried with her, or commanded all her Miniſters there to uſe.

If our Brother will reſolve to abide with the Red Dragon, that hath ſeven heads, and ten horns, and ſeven crowns, after he hath with his tail drawn down the third part of the Stars of Heaven; we mean no more than keep his eye only upon the ſtately company at Rome, that after the year 600, call'd themſelves falſly the true Church, the only Catholick Church; we cannnot help it. We believe, that all along God had his number of hidden ones, within the challenged Juriſdiction of that Church; but for the viſible governing part of them, we leave them ſoon after Gregory's time, believing them far more like a Synagogue of Satan, than a Church of God, whoſe practice ſhould be any thing of a law or preſident to us.

Thus far we have delivered our ſelves from the vulgar, and indeed no other than a poor popular prejudice of a diſſent from the concurrent judgment of the Church in all ages. We p. 60conſent with the five firſt ages, and for the ten latter, we alſo agree with the pure Church of God in Bohemia, and the Valleys of Piedmont for ought we could ever hear proved, relating to their practice. For other Churches; no reformed Churches this day in the world, but thinks twenty things unlawful, which both the Greek and Latin Churches in thoſe ages practiſed.

§. 17. We have but one prejudice more to deliver our ſelves from, and that is the Judgment of the Reformed Churches ſince the Reformation. To try which, let us but again repeat what we ſay.

We ſay Forms of Prayer are in themſelves good and lawful, Good as means of Inſtruction, and lawful to be ſo uſed; yea, and alſo for Devotion, until men have obtained an ability without them fitly to expreſs their minds to God in Prayer; or when though they have that gift, yet, through the hand of God, in ſome natural inability they are hindred from the uſe of it.

We ſay alſo, that where in a Nation or Church there is a multitude of Miniſters needful, ſo that it cannot be expected that a ſufficient number ſhould be found ſo competently qualified as they ſhould be; it is reaſonable there ſhould be forms made, which Miniſters may uſe, or not uſe, according as they find their abilities.

p. 61But we ſay it appeareth to us unlawful for thoſe to uſe them, to whom God hath given ſuch an ability, for the reaſons before mentioned. Now let us ſee how much in this we in judgment differ from any Reformed Churches.

The firſt Reformed Churches were in Germany and Switzerland; whether thoſe to whom Zuinglius was the head, or the Lutherans, were the firſt, is hard to ſay: They by degrees aboliſhed the Maſs: they would have done it at firſt if they could. But alas! their people were newly come out of Popery, and they muſt drive the pace they would go.

Let our Author, if he can, ſhew us that any of the Churches adhering to Zuinglius (whoſe Reformation was the pureſt) had any ſuch form of Prayers, as no Miniſters might vary from, or was enjoyned to uſe under a penalty. The Liber Ritualis he ſpeaks of in Bohemia, and the Agenda in the Palatinate, he will find to be no more than a general Directory and Order, no preſcription of words and phraſes. Let any one read Scultetus his Annales Rerun Evangelicarum, he will find the Agenda of the Churches of Nordlingen, Walſhat, Strasburgh, Zurich; let him ſee if he can find any thing of a form of Prayer, excepting the Lords Prayer; nor that impoſed, but ordinarily uſed.

It is true, Luther and his party were a little laxer, and Luther made a Maſs-book, correcting p. 62much in the Popiſh Miſſal, but leaving in too much, to the great offence of his Brethren, as may be learned from another place of Scultetus. I know not but they might impoſe (for Luther, (though a great man) yet was too much of a Dictator, and for every one to conform to his humors); but yet I no-where have read that he did command his Miſſal to be read by all Miniſters that adhered to him. And for what he did as to his compoſition of a Miſſal, it was rather judged to croſs Caroloſtadius, and others, and uphold his notion of the Corporal preſence of Chriſt, than for any other reaſon. Next to this was the Reformation of Geneva and England. For Geneva, what Mr. Calvin's judgment was, I cannot tell (I have not his Epiſtles by me to examine Mr. F's Quotation); but however he was but one man, though a great one, it ſhould ſeem by the ſettlement there; if it were his judgment when he wrote to the Protector, it is like it was altered, or his Colleagues were of another mind, or he only approved it for a time, in regard of the State of the Church, being newly crept out of Popery; for in the French Liturgy there is no tying up Miniſters to the uſe of their forms, though indeed they propoſe and commend ſome forms; it ſaith—The Miniſter ſhall make ſuch prayers as ſeem good to him, fitting for the time and matter he is in his Sermon to treat of. In another place—The form is according to the p. 63diſcretion of the Miniſter.—In a third place, They uſe this, or ſome like it. In a fourth place, He prayeth after this manner. What their practice is, I cannot tell.

The work of our Reformation was ſlow, ſo as Scotland got the ſtart of us, though we ſet out firſt. Dioclavius tells us, Alt. Damaſc. p. 613.

We have indeed in our Church Agenda, and an Order to be obſerved in our publick Devotion, but none is tyed either to the Prayers or Exhortations in our Liturgy; they are propoſed for Examples, &c. In all the 13 years (ſaith he) that I exerciſed the Miniſtry in that Church, I never, neither at Sacrament, nor in other parts of my Religious Serivce, uſed either the Prayers or Exhortations in our book, nor did many more; every one was at liberty; and it ſeems child-like to me to do otherwiſe.

In England we uſed onother method, more conformable to the Saxon Reformation, than to that of Switzerland, Strasburgh, France or Scotland, or what was afterwards in Holland.

Our Countrey was wholly Popiſh, our Prieſts zealous for them; our common people ſo ignorant, that their Prieſts might have perſwaded them, that it was their duty to eat Hay with an Horſe; not an Engliſh Bible to be found in the Nation, until the middle of King Henry 8. p. 64Reign. The Reformation went on under the Conduct of a Popiſh King till Edward the 6th came to the Crown. Our Reformers did not think fit at once to aboliſh all the Popiſh traſh; Though therefore they firſt turned much of the Popiſh Maſs-book into Engliſh, leaving out much Idolatrous and Superſtitious ſtuff, yet they left in it too much, which cauſed a ſecond Common-Prayer-book to be made in the time of Edward the 6. though his whole Reign was but ſeven years; then came Queen Mary, and deſtroyed all; and the zealous Proteſtants went out of the Nation, fixing ſome at Frankfort, ſome at Baſil, &c. At Frankfort the Miniſters that firſt fixed there, uſed no preſcribed forms in their publick worſhip, till at length Dr. Cox came amongſt them with the Common-Prayer book, made in Edw. 6. time, which made that woful ſtir, of which we have an account in the book called, the Troubles of Frankfort. In ſhort, Dr. Cox got the Magiſtrate on his ſide, and forced the reſt away to Geneva, and other places. When Queen Elizabeth came to the Throne, all know how great a man Dr. Cox proved. By his means, and ſome of his ſtamp, the Common-Prayer-book was again reviſed, and publiſhed; all Miniſters enjoyned to uſe it: but what a diſſent was from it, both all her Reign, and after that, all King James his Reign, is too ſad a ſtory to repeat. Whereas had it pleaſed God p. 65ſo to have moderated the ſpirits of our Biſhops in the beginning of her Reign, that they had only compoſed a Liturgy, and left Miniſters to a liberty (as in all other Reformed Churches it is) all had been quiet. It is very like that the moſt of the Miniſters at that time being very little practiced in Praying, or in Preaching, would have uſed, and been ſtudying to pray without it; and long ere this we might have had flouriſhing Church ſhining in every corner with a Miniſtry that needed no book to have told them the words and ſyllables they muſt put up their prayers to God in. When, on the other ſide, theſe conteſts about this thing have carried ſome few into great extremes on both ſides. Some on one ſide thinking that there is no true Prayer, but by the Liturgy, at which they are very devout; but ſtudying to ſhew all manner of ſlight and irreverence at other prayers (believing them no true worſhip of God), no whole-faced Son of the Church muſt uſe any prayer in his family; no Lady or Gentlewoman any other prayer in her Cloſet, but this Common-prayer. It was a great objection againſt a perſon of great Honour and Piety, appearing for Knight of the Shire in his County, though he conſtantly attended publick prayers, and received the Sacrament as conſtantly, that he uſed fanatick Prayers in his family, that is, his Chaplain there prayed not by the publick p. 66forms at all times. This madneſs (not to ſay profaneneſs) by the way is to us a ſufficient argument againſt our uſe of any ſet publick forms in our Devotion; we ought not to nurſe up people in theſe moſt erroneous conceptions, to ſpeak no worſe of them. If people will adore humane conſtitutions at this rate, they muſt be to us Nehuſhtan. On the other ſide, this madneſs hath run ſome to that exceſs, that they will allow no forms to be lawful of any uſe, in any time, for any perſons; their children muſt not learn the Lords Prayer, nor a form of Catechiſm; none muſt hear a form, &c. But the number of theſe is very ſmall, and their judgment is as invaluable: Forms of prayer are lawful, uſeful, many a good man learns to pray by a form, as Scholars learn to write by their Maſters firſt guidance of them, and holding their hand: They are uſeful and lawful for Devotion, for perſons that have not an ability, yea for Miniſters in that caſe. The people always pray by the form of him that miniſtreth. The Miniſter doth well, if he can do no better; he conducts the people that they may in faith ſay, Amen; he guides himſelf. But if he have an ability otherwiſe to do, we cannot think he doth his duty; and we are ſure every Miniſter ſhould have an ability from himſelf both to pray and preach. How hard it is to keep out of extremes! I challenge any to ſhew me how our judgment p. 67thus ſtated and opened, diſſents from the Revelation of the Will of God in Scripture, or of any valuable perſons in the Church of God in any age.

§. 18. It is an eaſie thing for men to talk of all the Fathers, and the Church in all ages; but it is an hard thing for thoſe that talk at this rate, to prove what they ſay in any tolerable meaſure. A man is right in his own cauſe, until his neighbour cometh and ſearcheth him out. When men have worn out their tongues and pens in writing and ſpeaking vain words, they will be found to have ſpoken foreign, the words of men puft up with a deſire to prove ſome unproveable thing, or with an opinion. We will not ſay our opinion is infallible, but we will in ſincerity ſay, it is what we cannot diſpoſſeſs our ſelves of, by any ratiocination within our ſelves, or with others. Some will ſay we have a liberty to uſe our gifts before Sermons, in our Families, in our Cloſets; the Vanity of that is ſhewed: But is not the Adminiſtration of the Sacraments a great piece of our Miniſtry? what liberty is left us as to that? or by what rule are we reſtrained in any part of our Miniſtry? or how long ſhall we have it in any, allowing this principle? We owe no ſuch Idolatrous Reverence to any Father, or Perſon, or Church, as to take their judgment p. 68againſt the plainer letter, or Reaſon of Scripture, this were to ſet up one higher than the higheſt; no, nor to practice any thing upon the recommendation of men, or in obedience to them contrary to what our conſciences tell us is the Will of God in Scripture. This were not to ſet up man above God poſſibly, but above Gods Deputy in our ſouls. All the Reverence we can owe to man in that cauſe, is to examine our opinion to the utmoſt, again and again, to compare things ſpiritual with things ſpiritual: But if after all our Conſciences ſay, It is not lawful to the utmoſt we can diſcern, it is not lawful: Though as to the reality of the truth of the notion, it is not all one; yet as to our practice, it muſt be all one; as if God ſaid from Heaven, It is not lawful for you. But in the preſent caſe, there is no other prejudice appears againſt us from the judgment of the Church in former ages, than what was againſt the whole Proteſtant Religion objected by Harding. [It is not probable that God would leave his Church in Errors a thouſand years]. We confeſs the judgment of what the Papiſt calls the Church for a thouſand years, is in a great meaſure againſt us. But ſo it was againſt many points of the Proteſtant Religion. Biſhop Jewell durſt not make his challenge for more than the firſt 500 years to them, to ſhew any one point of their new Creed maintained p. 69in. We make the like challenge as to this point of the lawfulneſs of forms of prayer to be univerſally uſed by Miniſters, or impoſed upon them. It certainly robbeth God of the moſt natural, proper Calves of our lips, and makes our lips but Miniſters to offer up others ſacrifices, when we have a male in our own flock.

§. 20. I ſhall conclude with the Reformed Church in Holland; I have not ſeen their Agenda, but I am aſſured by a Reverend Divine, Paſtor of one of thoſe Churches in England, that they are not ſo tyed up, but that they have a liberty in all parts of their publick worſhip, to uſe their own prayers; and do accordingly uſe it. And this I take to be enough to have ſpoken on this Argument, until I hear what will be ſaid againſt any thing here ſpoken.