Supplement to Why Nonconforming Ministers Judge it Sinful, Part

Supplement to Why Nonconforming Ministers Judge it Sinful · Part

p. 70WHen I had finiſhed this diſcourſe, I had an intimation given me of ſomething ſpoken upon this Argument by one Mr. Pelling, Chaplain to his Grace the Duke of Somerſet, in a book called The good old way. Though I was pretty well ſatisfied, that I could find in it nothing new, but words and confidence; yet for the ſatisfaction both of my ſelf and my friend, I procured the book in all haſte, and read it with as much greedineſs, though with no great expectations, as thinking it a barren ſubject, out of which little Reaſon would grow, but what we before had reapt, and proved nothing but fallacy and falſhood, and for which little varniſh of authority could be procured, but what we had waſhed off with a cloth wetted in a very ſmall degree of learning. I read it from the firſt to the laſt line upon this Theme.

I at firſt obſerved, that all which he pretended to, was, That forms have been allowed and uſed, which may be granted, without the leaſt damage to our cauſe, who do not argue all forms unlawful, no nor all forms of prayer unlawful, no nor the uſe of forms of prayer unlawful; nor the uſe of all forms of prayer in praying unlawful; but the uſe of forms of prayer for all men, ordinarily, and that in publick ſolemn p. 71prayer. To prove which, he hath not ſaid a word; but yet ſeeing he will not ſpeak to what he ſhould (if he intended to ſpeak any thing to the purpoſe) let us conſider what he hath ſpoken to his own purpoſe.

He will prove he ſaith, p. 49. That ſet-forms of Divine Service were of uſe amongſt the Jews. 2. That ſet forms of Divine Service were of uſe alſo amongſt the Primitive Chriſtians. 3. That after our bleſſed Lords aſcention, in that Interval betwixt the burial of the Synagogue, and the ſetling of the Chriſtian Church, ſet-forms of Divine Service were allowed alſo, even by the holy Apoſtles. Three great undertakings.—Et quae non viribus iſtis—conveniunt. But if they were all proved, would no more prove, That it is lawful for all men ordinarily to perform their Miniſterial Acts in Prayer, by the preſcribed forms of others, than it would prove, that it were lawful, or not lawful, for all particular men and women, to marry, or not to marry, becauſe marriage was lawful amongſt the Jews, and amongſt the Primitive Chriſtians, and in the interval he talks of; or that it was not lawful for ſome perſons to marry in all thoſe periods; both which Propoſitions are true. But let us ſee how he proves what he propounds to prove, be it what it will.

And here we might have expected a Scriptural proof for the firſt and ſecond of his periods, p. 72and the third too (at leaſt the greater part of it) falleth within the time, of which the holy Scripture giveth us an account. But alas! of this we have very little, and what we have of another nature is Apocryphal, and proves nothing but to ſuch credulous ſouls as will believe any thing which they read in any trifling Author.

1. As to his firſt Period, from the beginning of the world till Chriſts time, I admire at the confidence of the Author, to urge the Jewiſh worſhip as a pattern to Chriſtians, when he knows that Worſhip and Diſcipline were the two things which Chriſt came to alter; and although he retained Prayer and Praiſe (parts of natural worſhip) and Exhortations, which were all uſed amongſt the Jews, yet we find no forms of words in Prayer uſed by the Jews, the retaining of which he directed: Nor did he uſe or retain inſtruments of Muſick in the worſhip of God; nor did the Primitive Chriſtians, for Juſtin Martyr, Qu. & Reſp. 107. tells us, That they looked upon the uſe of muſick as a childiſh ſervice of God; and therefore uſed it not, only plain ſinging.

2. It lies upon him to prove, that no Prieſt, or Levite in the Jewiſh Church, might uſe any forms of prayer, or bleſſing, but thoſe he mentioneth in their ordinary publick Service; and when he hath done that, we will take the ſame argument, p. 73and prove, That neither the Diſciples did, nor any Chriſtians ought to uſe any Prayer but the Lords Prayer; becauſe Chriſt hath ſaid, When you pray, ſay, or pray after this manner.

3. Admit they did not; this will only prove, either that we muſt uſe no other, or that we may uſe forms of prayer directed by God himſelf, or by his holy Prophets, or other Penmen of Scripture. But it will not prove, that all men either muſt uſe, or may uſe forms of prayer never preſcribed by God, nor by any men to whom God had given authority to make forms of prayer or praiſe for his Church. Surely it is no argument. If we muſt, or may uſe a form of prayer or praiſe directed by God, or Chriſt, by David, Aſaph, Moſes, &c. then we muſt, or may uſe forms of prayer made by Pope Gregory, Pope Boniface, or by St. Baſil, or Chryſoſtome; and it is impoſſible but men of learning muſt ſee the inconcluſiveneſs of this Argument, only they muſt ſay ſomething, and ad populum phateras, any thing will ſerve thoſe that underſtand not. None that I have met with will ſay, that we muſt in praying, or bleſſing, uſe the forms of prayer and bleſſing uſed in Scripture, and no other. So then they only ſay we may uſe them. It is granted, and what wonder is it, if we may uſe ſuch forms of words in prayer, as are directed by Chriſt, and thoſe ſervants of his whom he p. 74appointed to write the Holy Scriptures for us, which is the rule of all our Actions, and contain all that we are to believe, to pray for, and to do; though we judg it yet ſinful for all Miniſters to tye themſelves to forms of prayers made by men that could never pretend to ſuch an authority to guide the Church as to what is to be believed, prayed for, or done, but only to rule it, by ſeeing the Laws and Ordinances which Chriſt and his Apoſtles have given, put in execution; eſpecially conſidering, that neither Chriſt, nor his Apoſtles, whoſe proper offices it was to direct all things of lawful and neceſſary uſe in the Church, ever did any ſuch thing. But after this, Pope Gregory comes up, and he (forſooth) thinks it fit to enjoyn ſuch a thing: Or admit it were Baſil or Chryſoſtome 200 years before him (which we do not believe), the caſe is the ſame, though not ſo ſcandalous. I ſhall have done with what our Author ſaith, as to his firſt period; only minding him, this is ſhooting at rovers, and will never hit any mark but that which is in very ignorant and childiſh perſons heads: It is an arrogating the ſame power for the Governours of Churches ſince Chriſts and the Apoſtles times, to ordain in matters of Worſhip, which they had; which is the ſame argument the Papiſts bring for their unwritten Traditions. If I had a mind to diſcover mens infirmities, I could p. 75take notice of many miſtakes of our Author in this Paragraph, but this is not my buſineſs.

2. I proceed to his ſecond Period; where he ſaith, That preſcript forms of worſhip have been eſtabliſhed for above theſe 1200 years laſt paſt, no learned man can deny; he delivereth himſelf in this bold aſſertion, in ſafe terms, Preſcript forms of worſhip: truly that I will not deny. I believe that Chriſt and his Apoſtles ordained, that men ſhould worſhip God by Prayers, Praiſes, Exhortations, and adminiſtring the Sacraments; this form of worſhip, yea, and that they ſhould Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoſt (and were not theſe forms of worſhip?) theſe have been eſtabliſhed 1600 years, he means more, though he either hath not worded it well, or had a mind to ſpeak ſafely, though he did but deceive his Reader, and ſay nothing to the purpoſe. If he means, That forms of words to be ordinarily uſed by all Miniſters ordinarily in their publick Prayers, were eſtabliſhed in the Church, that is, generally uſed, or required to be uſed in the univerſal Church, or any conſiderable part of it theſe 1200 years, though I for once run the hazard of my repute for learning with this great Dictator, I ſhall deny it, yea and further challenge him and all his friends to prove any ſuch thing before Six hundred p. 76years after Chriſt, when Popery came in with a full wind and tide. Let us hear his proof to the contrary of this aſſertion. He tells us,

That it is now 1312 years ſince the Council at Laodicea; and then it was decreed, that the Choriſters ſhould ſing by book, and that the ſame prayers ſhould ſerve for noon, and for Eveningſervice, for every Aſſembly▪ nor ſhould any Prayers be read, but what were received and eſtabliſhed, having been delivered to them by their fore fathers.

Here are three things aſſerted, 1. That this Council of Laodicea was held in the year 368. 2. That they made ſuch a Canon. 3. That this is the ſenſe of that Canon, That all Miniſters ſhould uſe forms of prayer compoſed by others.

The Scripture tells us in St. John's time, (which was more than two hundred years before this) the Church of Laodicea was a very lukewarm Church, neither hot, nor cold, ready to be ſpued out of Gods mouth, wretched, miſerable, poor, blind, naked, and proud, and ignorant, knowing not her own corruptions, Rev. 3. 15, 16, 17. If ſuch a Church as this did make ſuch a Canon (which concerned only their own Province) it hath nothing in it, either of a juſt pattern to imitate, or of a juſt proof. Chytreus tells us, that there was a Council held Anno 364; but there is not the leaſt mention p. 77of it in the Synodicon, publiſhed by Dr. Pappus out of a M. S. wrote before the year 921. which yet giveth us an account of all Synods and Councils held from the Apoſtles time, to the 8th Council held upon the union of Photius and Pope John. Caranza hath it, with 59 Canons it ſhould make; He ſaith there were but 22 Biſhops at it, of which the 18 Canon Caranza gives thus: De eo quod ſemper ſupplicationes Orationum ad horam novam & veſperam oportet celebrari.

That prayers ſhould be made both at 9 in the morning and evening; but whether conceived prayers, or by a form, it ſaith not; how Balſamon reports it, I cannot tell; but it is more than I know, if Caranza is not to be believed as ſoon as Balſamon, and the Synodicon publiſhed by Dr. Pappas before them both. Balſamon dyed 1203, his Works came not out till long after, when the Papiſts publiſhed them, and all Proteſtants know there is no great credit to be given to their Editions of any ancient Authors.

The upſhot then is this.

1. It is very incertain whether there were ever ſuch a Council yea or no.

2. If there were, there were but 22 men at it, and it concerned only a part of Phrygia.

3 It was a Church corrupt enough, and indeed he that reads the pretended Canons, will find it.

p. 784. This Council, according to Caranza, only decreed Prayers morning and evening, but did not preſcribe words.

5. Balſamon ſpeaks any thing which the late Papiſts had a mind to, who made him ſpeak according to the ſenſe of their Father Gregory.

6. However this was 368 years after Chriſt, when the Church had as to worſhip loſt her Purity.

His next proof is the Council of Carthage, which he ſays was 1284 years ago, that made a Canon, That if any man did compoſe any prayers, he ſhould not preſume to uſe them, till he had conſulted the moſt knowing men in the Church.

The intent of which decree (he ſaith) was, That none ſhould have the liberty to uſe what forms of prayer he pleaſed, but that ſuch only ſhould be ſaid, as had been ratified by due authority and ancient cuſtom.

I do not like dictating. How doth this Author know that this Canon was made by a Council at Carthage 1284 years ago? Firſt, if it were ſo, it was 396 years after Chriſts time, when as I ſaid before, the Church was corrupted enough in Rituals. But what will he ſay if that Council never made any ſuch Canon? I can ſhew him a good Author to prove it, that is Juſtellus, who publiſhed the African-Code. In his Preface to it, p. 35. he ſpeaks thus:

p. 79Whereas they ſay, that there was a third Council held at Carthage, when Caeſarius and Atticus were Conſuls; I the leſs refuſe it, becauſe Zonaras and Balſamo atteſt it, and the Africane Collection mentioneth it; but they are miſtaken who aſcribe 50 Canons to it, there are but 21 which were made by it, all the reſt were made 22 years after, in the time of Pope Boniface, in the year 419: and this is proved by the words of the 47 Canon; for Boniface was not Pope when Caeſarius and Atticus were Conſuls, but was ordained 418 when Honorius and Theodoſius was Conſuls.

Now this was Canon 23; ſo as it was not made before the year 419. But as to what this Canon ſaith, it is as material, and nothing to this Authors purpoſe: but for that I refer my Reader to what I have before ſaid in anſwer to Mr. Falconer.

His next proof is from the Canon of the Council of Milevis; as to which, I have fully ſpoken before, and only ſhall add this: That this pretended Canon is not to be found in the African-Code, publiſhed by Juſtellus, where it ought to have been, if any ſuch had been made, and not been a temporary conſtitution. But for a fuller anſwer, I refer my Reader to what is before ſaid, having nothing to add to it. He goes on, and ſays, It was one great p. 80reaſon, amongſt many others, why publick Liturgies were compiled of old, that they might be Repoſitories of ſound Doctrine, and Preſervatives of the Catholick Faith.—Theſe were Antidotes to keep Chriſtians from being poiſoned with erroneous and rotten Principles, as our Engliſh Liturgy is at this day an excellent Amulet againſt the infection from Papiſts, Socinians, Pelagians, and other modern ſeducers, and perhaps this is the Grand reaſon why the Belweathers of faction hate our Common-prayer-book, &c. As is the man, ſo is his truth, ſo is his ſpirit. The Papiſts have had Liturges theſe 1000 years, by this argument, they are the moſt orthodox people; and it would be enquired in England at this day, whether there be more Socinians, Pelagians and Papiſts amongſt thoſe that adore the Liturgy, or amongſt thoſe who have no kindneſs for that or any other. Let but the underſtanding Reader judg of all the reſt he ſaith, by the truth of this.

In the next place he ſaith, it cannot be denied but Liturgies were in uſe in St. Baſils and St. Chryſoſtomes time generally, who were about 380 years after Chriſt: and why cannot this be denied? becauſe he ſaith Liturgies are extant under their names. This learned argument will prove that there were alſo Liturgies in St. Marks, St. Peters, St. James, and St. Andrews time, for there are Liturgies out alſo under their p. 81names; yet this is all this Author hath to ſay why no body ſhould deny what he ſaith, as if there were not 100 books extant under the names of the Ancients, which not only Rivet and Cocus amongſt the Proteſtants, but Poſſevine, Sixtus Senenſis, Eraſmus and Bellarmine amongſt the Papiſts have denied to be theirs, men all as learned as our Author.

I have before ſhewed that the Liturgies going under their names, could not be theirs. The noble and learned Lord of Mornay (whom our Author ſometimes ſpeaks highly of), l. 1. de miſſa, cap. 6. ſaith, Liturgies has omnes falſi poſtulo. I charge all theſe Liturgies as falſe. In both of them, as was ſaid before, is the hymn foreign (which came 200 years after into the Church); in both, Confeſſors are mentioned, whoſe names were not known of many years after); in both, the Virgin Mary is called foreign, a term not admitted in common uſe till after the Council at Epheſus, 436. In both of them there is Incenſing. Many other reaſons the Reader may find in Morney, in the Chapter before quoted, &c. But faith our Author,

Though we do not think that theſe are the very ſame which they uſed, becauſe later ages have defaced them, and foiſted many heterogeneous things into them, yet 'tis Ridiculous to imagine that St. Baſil and St. Chryſoſtome did not compile p. 82any, or that nothing of theſe was of their compoſing.

And what if they did compile ſome? doth it therefore follow, that they required all Miniſters in their Dioceſſes to uſe them? But the truth is, this is a ridiculous argument to prove they compiled any, becauſe ſome go under their names; and a ridiculous anſwer to men, proving the forgery of thoſe pretended Liturgies from the uſe of terms not known in their Ages, of rites mentioned in them, which confeſſedly came not in of hundreds of years after they were dead; and of Prayers found in them for a Pope and an Emperor that lived 500 years after they were dead: I ſay it will appear, to anſwer all this, a moſt ſilly and ridiculous trifling, to tell us, It is true, ſome things are foiſted in ſince, but 'tis manifeſt they made Liturgies, and ſome parts of thoſe Liturgies. How is it manifeſt?

Good Reader, obſerve what poſſibility of proof there is, that theſe men made no ſuch Liturgies; if this will not, it lyes upon them to prove they did make ſome: They produce Copies, divers Copies; we peruſe them, and find, 1. That no two of them agree each with other. 2. That the Doctrine in the Copies, is contrary to the Doctrine of thoſe times. 3. That there is in them Prayers for men that lived 500 years after they were dead. 4. That there are in them many rites and modes of p. 83worſhip, not known of hundreds of years after they were both dead. But yet, ſaith our Author, 'tis. Ridiculous to think theſe Fathers did not make Liturgies, or that nothing of theſe was of their compoſing; yea 'tis ridiculous to aſſert any thing in them was of their compoſing, for what is there to prove it? Thoſe parts which the Papiſts, and ſome Proteſtants ſay, are foiſted in, come to us upon the ſame Tradition that the other parts do. What one thing is there in any of theſe Liturgies, which none but Baſil or Chryſoſtome could be the Author of? If others might be the Authors, and that 500 years after, how doth it appear that Baſil or Chryſoſtome muſt? we are ſure they were no Authors of a great part; what but a fooliſh fancy can make us believe they were the Authors of any part of them. But the truth is, this is the Papiſts anſwer. My Lord of Morney quotes Eſpenceus de miſſa privata, p. 220.

It was (ſaith the Jeſuit) Leo Thuſcus that wrote the Scholion of the Prieſts communicating alone, he lived in the year 1170, and was Secretary to Emanuel the Great, Emperour, and Interpreter to Trithemius—(Did not he make the whole Liturgy?) and had reſpect rather to his own times than Chryſoſtomes?—Which (ſaith he) I mind you of, not that I think that Miſſal unworthy of Chryſoſtome, or the Greek Church, or do otherwiſe p. 84ſuſpect it, but think it began and compoſed by a moſt holy man, and enlarged by putting in many things, according to the variety of times.

As much might be ſaid for the Antiquity of the Alcoran, in which are many things of Primitive truth, though Mahomet hath put in a world of fooleries and wickedneſs; and doubtleſs the whole is of no Primitive authority, though there be much Primitive truth in it.

From hence our Author riſes higher, to tell us of St. James, and St. Marks Liturgies, and Clements Conſtitutions; for the two firſt, I have ſaid enough before. For Clement, chuſe Reader whether thou wilt believe the D. of Somerſets Chaplain, or Euſebius and Hierome, who lived above 400 years after Chriſt, and knew of no ſuch book as Clements Conſtitutions; ſee Euſebius, l. 3. cap. 32. See alſo what Morney ſaith of this, l. 1. de miſſa, p. 46. cap. 2. He that will believe all in Bibliotheca patrum, hath more faith than I have, or any Proteſtant can have. But he will at laſt come to authentick Teſtimonies, that will ſatisfie any indifferent man, p. 56. if compared with the Liturgies (that is, with the forgeries) aforementioned, that ſuch and ſuch forms were uſed by Chriſtians in the firſt ages; and ſo that in all probability they were directed by the Apoſtles, or Apoſtolical men. Ʋſed is not enough, if he could prove it; they muſt be univerſally p. 85uſed, or required to be univerſally uſed. But let us hear what proof he hath.

Cyprian ſpeaks of ſolemn Offices [ſolemnibus adimpletis] that muſt be underſtood of cuſtomary forms of Prayer—and why?—becauſe he elſewhere hath ſurſum corda, Lift up your hearts.—We lift them to the Lord.—In another place he ſaith—they prayed for ſeveral things continually and earneſtly; and theſe he ſaith, no doubt, were charitable forms, uſed in Morning and Evening-Service. Origen ſaith they uſed foreign, appointed Prayers; Origen quotes a form of three lines.—Queſtionleſs this was in the Alexandirian Liturgy Tertullian mentions, Dominica ſolemnia, and tells us of four parts of it, Reading the Scripture, Singing of Pſalms, Prayers and Adlocutions. Theſe he will have to be Biddings of Prayer; the Deacons ſaying, Let us pray; then telling them what they ſhould pray for.

So then, Preaching was no part of the Sabbathdays Service, which I ſhould rather underſtand by Allocutiones, conſidering that there is a book called Dies Dominica, ſo abundantly proves it, and we have ſuch plentiful proof of it from Chryſoſtome, Juſtin Martyr, &c.

But a thing never thought on by Chriſt or his Apoſtles, Bidding of Prayer, that (forſooth) muſt be made one of the parts of the Sabbathſervice. Moſt ridiculous!

p. 86But in all this, good Reader, conſider what little of proof there is, beſides the Authors Queſtionleſs, and without doubt. Cyprian ſpeaks of ſolemn things [Offices he puts in], and are there no ſolemn things but Prayers made by forms? He hath ſurſum corda. And do not thoſe who pray by no forms, ordinarily begin with, Let us lift up our hearts to God.

Cyprian ſaith they pray continually and earneſtly, and might they not do ſo without a book? Origen ſaith they uſed Prayers appointed; but doth he ſay the words they ſhould uſe in thoſe prayers were alſo ſet and appointed them? Origen reciteth a form of three lines, and he might for ought we know, or ſay to the contrary, both make it and uſe it: but is it proved that the Church generally uſed that form? His interpretation of the Petitions mention'd by Tertullian as part of the ſolemn Service of the Sabbath, to be Collects, is a new whimſi of our Authors, and I think his Expoſition of Tertullians ſine Monitore is as new and precacious; for, Tertullian's preces delegatae, they ſignified all the prayers which the Congregation put up to God, by their Miniſters delegated and inſtructed to ſpeak to God in the name of all the people; who upon this account, by Greg. Naz. is ſaid to have had foreign, a kind of Mediatorſhip between God and man, he being the peoples mouth unto God: There p. 87was then in the Church-Meetings but one voice heard, foreign, ſaith Chryſoſtome, Homil. 36. in 1 Cor. That is, There ought never to be but one voice in the Church. He that readeth, readeth alone, and the Biſhop (ſaith he) is in the mean time ſilent. He that ſings, ſings alone; and when all ſing together, 'tis all as one voice, &c. Our Author, in the laſt place, ſpends much Paper upon a quotation from Juſtin Martyr. It is too long to tranſcribe. p. 62. he comes to his Collections from it.

1. He ſaith the Catechumeni were taught to pray, the congregation of believers praying with them; he would have them taught to pray by the Deacons, admoniſhing them to pray. Admoniſhing whom? did they think we admoniſh thoſe not admitted yet into Church, to pray in the ſolemn Aſſembly of the Believers? Surely the latter; and they told them the general matter of Prayer. This certainly concludes they had no ſtated forms of words which they uſed, and might uſe no other. So fair a proof is this.

2. In the next place he collecteth, that the Catechumeni did in a form make confeſſion of their faith. What is this to the purpoſe?

3. In the third place he gathers from Juſtin Martyr, that the Catechumeni were brought from the water to the congregatiou; and Sermon ended, they went jointly to prayer. So then they had a Sermon, and prayers after it; but how p. 88doth it appear this was by a form of words from which they might not vary? Queſtionleſs, ſaith our Author: it is pretty that he ſhould think his Queſtionleſs ſhould make a good argument. But he hath found the form in Clements Conſtitutions, a book not heard of 300 years after Clements death, out of what hole ſoever it is now come. All he ſaith elſe, is no more to the purpoſe, than that Prayers being ended, they ſaluted one another with an holy kiſs, they received the Sacrament, and prayed again, and praiſed God in a copious and large manner (by their Miniſter). And theſe prayers being concluded, the people jointly cryed out, Amen. What proof there is for forms of prayer, comes out of the forged Conſtitutions of Clement, and this Authors ſtrong fancy, not out of Juſtin Martyr: and our Author p. 62. confeſſeth Juſtin Martyr tells us no ſuch things; but yet he ſaith, They did it, foreign. The Cyril he talks of as ſo ancient, was an Author lived near 500 years after Chriſt, and was not like to know ſo exactly what was done in Juſtin Martyrs time. Any writer now would be lookt on to give a very incertain account of what was done in England Anno 1200. nor would any give much credit to what he ſhould write.

It is a great vanity men have, when they are eager of a thing, to fancy all they meet with to look that way, if they do but ſee a word, or a p. 89letter or two of that nature. I knew a Dignitary of our Church, who was ſtrongly conceited againſt the Morality of the Sabbath, and therefore was engaged to put another ſenſe upon the fourth Commandment, or to leave us but Nine Moral Precepts in the Decalogue. He at laſt finds in Origen and Epiphanius, a place or two where Chriſt was call'd, The great Sabbath; and preſently writes a book about a new foreign, mightily triumphing, That he had found out Goſpel in the midſt of the law. The ſenſe of that Commandment was nothing elſe, but remember to ſanctifie the Name of Jeſus Chriſt. When, alas, the old Fathers meant no more, than that Chriſt in whom alone is reſt for our ſouls, was typified by the holy day of reſt appointed by the law; and though Chriſt be our reſt, our great reſt, yet he is not a day of reſt, which is that which the Commandment only ſpeaketh of. Juſt ſo I obſerve it is in this Controverſie.

Some men are ſo mightily zealous for ſtated and univerſally impoſed forms of prayer; that where-ever in any of the Ancients they meet with the words Liturgy, Offices, Common-prayers, Prayers, ſolemn Services; they preſently think they have a full proof for forms of prayer, compoſed by others to be uſed by all Miniſters. When as, alas, there's nothing more weak and ridiculous, and theſe arguments ſpeak nothing p. 90of reaſon, but only a fancy diſturb'd by unreaſonable paſſion.

A Liturgy ſignifies nothing but an order of Miniſtration in holy things, which may be without one form of prayer, only directing the time, or times when the Miniſters ſhall pray. Offices, in the ancients, ſignifies no more than Duties: The approbation of the term Offices, to forms of prayer to be uſed at Burials Chriſtnings, &c. is but a very modern Popiſh Device to ſuggeſt to ſilly ſouls, that Miniſters did not do their duties, if they did not uſe their Miſſals and Rituals, &c. and ſurely Prayers and ſolemn Services may be without forms, and ſo may Common prayers too.

I am the more confirmed in this by what our Author ſaith next, wherein he undertakes a thing beyond all men▪ viz. to prove, That in the Apoſtles times, and in the interval betwixt the burial of the Jewiſh Synagogue, and the ſetting up of the Chriſtian Church ſet-forms of Divine Service (he ſhould have ſaid of Prayers for all Miniſters) were allowed alſo.

Aude aliquid brevibus gyni & carcere dignum; Si vis eſſe aliquis—

I know none hath undertaken this, neither Dr. Hammond nor Mr. Faulconer; this Notion is but a Probationer to the world. Let us p. 91examine what Arguments he hath. 1. His firſt proof is from the Apoſtles going to the Temple to worſhip and pray, Acts 2. 46. Acts 3. 2. and (2.) the Apoſtles juſtifying themſelves, Acts 25. 8. 24. 12. 28. 17. that they had nothing againſt the temple, or the law: and 3. the Jews tenaciouſneſs of their Rituals: all which are proved well enough, p. 63, 64. But how will our Author prove that the Jewiſh Miniſters in their Temple-ſervice uſed any preſcribed forms of prayer which others had made for them, and enjoyned them, who were no inſpired Prophets, or Penmen of holy Writ? He hath not yet proved this.

Or how will he prove that the Apoſtles themſelves in the Temples or Synagogues miniſtred at any time by ſuch forms: we will prove they ſometimes preached there, but it lyes upon our Author to prove they read prayers, for that we find not; and we grant they may hear prayers that are forms, if the matter be good. It is a ſign of an ill cauſe, or a weak Diſputant, to pack on proof where none needed, but bring none where all the pinch and ſtreſs lay. Our Author here takes it for granted, what is moſt notoriouſly falſe, That the Apoſtles conſtantly attended the Jewiſh Service both in the Temple and Synagognes, only met together in other places, for the Sacrament, and ſuch ſervice as they could not joyn with the Jews in; but that p. 92is not to our purpoſe, nor yet to examine how well by his Dial he hath rectified the Sun, tranſlating foreign, Acts 2. 46. in the houſe, not from houſe to houſe, nor at home (as Beza).

But he is not ſatisfied that in the Chriſtian Aſſemblies, in the Apoſtles times there were no manner of forms. Who ſays there were not? There was a form of ſound Doctrine (which the Apoſtle tells us of), there were Pſalms, Hymns, and ſpiritual Songs in forms, they are the three titles of Davids Pſalms; we have nothing to do with any thing but forms of prayer, made by ſome particular Miniſters, or Church Officers, to be uſed by all other Miniſters.

He comes a little to the point, p. 67. His firſt pretended proof, is what divers have touched upon before him, 1 Tim. 2. 12. we grant him from that Text,

1. That the ſeveral ſorts of prayers are there mentioned. 2. That theſe ſeveral duties were to be done, prayers of theſe ſeveral ſorts to be made (for offices obſerved, that term ſeems to ſuggeſt ſomething elſe not in the Text). But whereas he goes on, and tells us in the third place, p 68. That it is as clear, that the whole Church of Chriſt hath conceived, and taken it for granted in all ages, that the Apoſtle in this place did intend to fix a rule of Devotion, and did order a Platform and Model to be obſerved in all publick Services, and eſpecially at the celebration p. 93of the holy Communion; if he means a platform of words and phraſes not to be varied from; It is ſo far from being clear, that no proof can be brought of it, nor do (as himſelf confeſſeth) the Apoſtles words inforce any ſuch belief, nor his following quotations out of Chryſoſtome, Ambroſe, or Auguſtine prove the leaſt of it. All reſts upon the practice of the Church ſince, for which indeed much may be ſaid, after 600 years after Chriſt, but nothing of any weight or moment before that time. And for the Churches judgment in Pope Gregory's time as to Rituals, it is a very ill proof of what was done in the Apoſtles time in all Proteſtants judgments.

Our Author goes on ſtill, and will not ſay it is demonſtrable; but he tells us it ſeems very probable, that the Apoſtles themſelves did in their ordinary Miniſtrations obſerve forms of prayer, notwithſtanding thoſe extraordinary aſſiſtances of the ſpirit which they were bleſt with▪ Strange! the Apoſtles! what men that received not their Miniſtry of men, nor by men, but immediately from Chriſt (then he muſt give them their forms)! men that hath thoſe extraordinary effuſions of the ſpirit! Surely there is foreign ſome Divine thing in preſcribed forms; or thoſe that ſpeak thus, muſt uſe the ſame Art with us, to perſwade us to their Lure, that Romulus uſed with his ſilly Romans; who to perſwade them p. 94to accept his Laws, made them believe that he had them from the Goddeſs Ageria; Well, but our Author doth not believe they uſed a book, (we thank him for that (the Parchments that St. Paul left at Troas, then ſhall not riſe up in judgment againſt us, though his Cloak may), nor doth he think they tyed themſelves to words, (but this they muſt, if they uſed forms of words); all that he will aſſert, that they uſed a certain method, and the matter and ſubſtance of their ordinary ſervices, was for the moſt part the ſame. We thank him for nothing; then Nonconformiſts uſe forms of prayer, as well as Conformists; we ſhall never need examine his reaſons, when we grant the thing; for if they be ſtrong, it is but to confirm what none doubteth; if weak, it would be but to expoſe an Author, whoſe book ſeems to be calculated for his reputation.

Thus far I have examined all the pretended proof from Antiquity, rather ex abundanti, and to ſatisfie ſome peoples curioſity, than for any other reaſon. And in the cloſe let me give my Reader a caution againſt this kind of arguing, which I doubt not but will appear very reaſonable.

1. The Reader muſt know, that Printing hath not been known in the world yet 200 years; before that time, all was in Manuſcripts.

p. 952. The moſt of the Manuſcripts were in Papiſts hands▪ and from them it is that the Copies came which were printed; indeed, the Bible was in the Jews hands (as to the Old Teſtament) we were infinitely acurate in preſerving the purity of it, keeping account both of the numbers of lines in pages, and how often the ſame letter was uſed in each line; the New Teſtament was in the hands of the Greek Churches as well as the Papiſts, ſo that they could not well deprave that.

3. That as the Church was debauching in ſome rituals before 300 years after Chriſt was expired; ſo ever ſince 600 it hath been debauched, much in Doctrine, more in matters of Worſhip, Rites, Ceremonies and Government.

4. That from the year 600, to 1516, the generality of all ancient Manuſcripts being in their hands, and that Church all along growing worſe and worſe, more ſottiſhly idolatrous, ſuperſtitious and ignorant (as to the generality of their Miniſters), they made it their buſineſs to put out, and put in to the Writings of the ancients what they pleaſed, to forge Writings to be theirs, which were not ſo, and ſuppreſs others that were ſo, which is evident from the Writings of Papiſts, as well as Proteſtants. Sixtus Senenſis, Poſſevine, Bellarmine, were all Papiſts; ſo was Eraſmus. Rivet and Cocus were Proteſtants, they have all books extant to teach p. 96us to diſtinguiſh betwixt the true Writings of the Ancients, and thoſe pretended to be theirs, but not ſo. And there is no doubt, but it was through meer careleſneſs, if they left a word or line in the ancients, againſt any point of Doctrine, any way of Worſhip, any Rite or Ceremony, in credit at Rome, or uſed in their Church.

5. From them came Juſtin Martyr, Ignatius, Clement, Tertullian, Ambroſe, Auguſtine; in ſhort, all the Writings of the Fathers we have, (except poſſibly ſome two or three of the Greek Fathers); yet the moſt famous and common Editions of them, are all Popiſh, and come out to us with their puttings out, and puttings in what they pleaſed.

6. From hence will appear, what little credit is to be given to any thing, in any of the books publiſhed under their names, any further than it is agreeable with the Scripture, and bottomed there.

7. Allow me the Editions of the Fathers and Councils, which the Papiſts have let us have, I hardly know one Doctrine of Popery, or one Idolatrous or Superſtitious Practice, Rite or Ceremony at Rome, but I will bring as good proof for, as either Mr. Faulconer or Mr. Pelling have brought for the Antiquity of forms of prayer generally uſed.

8. From hence it follows, that thoſe who lay ſuch ſtreſs on this point of Antiquity in the caſe, p. 97are but doing the Papiſts work, laying a foundation for the Papiſts to build all their abominable Doctrines, Idolatries, and Practices upon, and he is half a Papiſt that is reſolved to believe all thoſe things true which may be found in the ancient Writings, as we have them. We have ſo much charity for thoſe great and holy men, as to believe they never wrote any ſuch things, though ſome Popiſh Monks and Fryers have fathered them upon them.

9. If any will yet believe what they find in their Works, as we now have them, he ſtands obliged not to do it raſhly, but to read, 1. what both Papiſts and Proteſtants have wrote, as to that book of theirs out of which the Quotation is. 2. Then to conſider what was the ſignification of the words, Liturgy, Merit, Offices, and an 100 more in that age; and whether we have not put a new ſenſe upon them, not known in their times. 3. To conſider how far in the judgment of Proteſtants the Church was corrupted in the times when thoſe Fathers wrote.

10. This I take to be a tedious work; the Prophet, Iſa. 8. 20. hath taught me a nearer and ſafer courſe: To the law, and to the teſtimony: if they ſpeak not according to this word, it is becauſe there is no light in them. Does any ſay, but how will you know the ſenſe of the Scriptures? I anſwer from my own conſcience and reaſon, comparing things ſpiritual, with things ſpiritual, and p. 98hearing the judgments of others, before I determine. Will they ſay, but you may be deceived? it is true, ſo might the Fathers: but in things neceſſary, if I uſe prayer, I have a promiſe, The Spirit ſhall lead you into all truth. I am ſure I can from Scripture be as certain of the Will of God in any caſe, as I can be, that any one leaf of the Fathers were ever written by them; and if it were, I am ſure they were fallible men as well as I, and in many things did err. The preſſing and laying ſo much ſtreſs as men do (ſome men) on authority and antiquity, is in truth nothing but a mighty facturing for Popery, and it is impoſſible but learned men muſt underſtand ſo much. Beſides, not one, often, who talks ſo much of the Fathers, and antiquity, regards what Edition he quotes, or makes uſe of; and all know, that where there is one of the Ancients to be got, ſo much as of Eraſmus his Edition (who was a Papiſt▪ but ſeemeth juſt and honeſt), there are ten of filthy and moſt corrupt Popiſh Editions, where the Reader can ſafely truſt nothing. And thus much ſhall ſerve for Mr. Pelling, for I am not concerned as to what he ſaith for the Engliſh Liturgy, let it be as fine a thing as it will; if it be unlawful for me to uſe any in my Miniſtration in prayer, it is moſt certainly unlawful for me to uſe that, and at that boundary I ſtick, till better reaſon than I have yet met with, removes me from it.

FINIS.