The Vindication of Liturgies Proved No Vindication, Introduction
THE INTRODUCTION.
The Vindicator's Title not proper to his Work, nor juſtly proportioned to the Title or Matter of the Book he pretendeth to anſwer. The Author of the Reaſonable Account, pretends to no Oracular infallibilities, onelyonly to Reaſon, working on Scriptural Principles. The deſign of his Book. The Vindicator's falſe account of it in his Epiſtle Dedicatory. His ſlighty apprehenſions of it. The Policy of that. The Undertaking not ſo ſtrange as the Vindicator would make it. The reaſon why the Arguments may appear to have no weight to the Vindicator, yet may not be ſo light. The Vindicator's unkind reflection upon the Author, for his want of skill in Chronology, as to the times of Gregory the Great and Charles the Great, ſhewed to be only produced for ſport, and to have nothing of charge in it; but the Vindicator himſelf hath commited a greater Error about Gregory the Great, making him to have died F…fteen years before Platina ſaith he was Pope. The Vindicator's declining Syllogiſtical Arguing. The ſeaſonableneſs of the coming out of the Reaſonable Account (through the intervention of Gods Providence) tho the Author at the writing of it had no proſpect of any ſuch thing. The Concluſion of the Anſwer to his Epiſtle Dedicatory, and Introduction.
1. THE Author hath intituled his Book, A Vindication of Liturgies [that is, of what ſtrictly taken, none of any ſound mind, ever found fault with] for a Liturgy (it ought to be wrote Liturgy, tho it be by vulgarer ror neglected) fignifies nothing, either according to the notation of the word (coming from foreign) or the Scriptural uſage of it, or the uſage of it in the ancienteſt Writers in Philology; or in ancient Eccleſiaſtical Writers (without an addition to it foreign, or the like) but a Publick Service or Miniſtry; but he, by and by adds, Shewing the Lawfulneſs, Ʋſefulneſs and Antiquity of performing the Publick Worſhip of God by Set Forms of Prayer. Nor hath any that I know denied this. It is onelyonly the Lawfulneſs of an Ʋniverſal Ʋſe or Impoſition of Set Forms, and thoſe too preſcribed by other men, and impoſed on all men, that is the matter in queſtion, which by the Title of his Book it ſeems the Author had no mind to vindicate.
2. He goes on, In anſwer to a late Book intituled, A Reaſonable Account why ſome pious Noncon. Miniſters judge it ſinful for them to perform their Miniſterial Acts in Publick Solemn Prayer, by the preſcribed Forms of others. But how ſhall a Vindication of Liturgies, ſhewing the Lawfulneſs, Ʋſefulneſs, and Antiquity, of performing the Publick Worſhip of God by Set Forms; ever anſwer that Book which meddles not with the Lawfulneſs of Liturgies, but Forms of Prayer onelyonly compoſed by thoſe who do not uſe them, and impoſed on them? Nor doth it ſay they are unlawful, only ſhews the reaſons of ſome perſons why they cannot judge that it is lawful for them to uſe them.
3. Neither the Author of that Book nor his Friends, pretend to have the Propoſitions they delivered, ſuggeſted to them by the Roman King's Goddeſs Aegeria; nor yet whiſpered to them by Mahomets Pigeon, nor yet impreſſed upon them, as John of Leyden pretended at Munſter, that his were; nor yet to have had them from the Poſſeſſor of any infallible Chair; they pretend to no more than that Light which enlighteneth every man that comes into the World. They think, There is a Spirit in Man, and the Almighty hath given him Ʋnderſtanding; that God hath given all men a Principle inabling men to diſ-Courſe concluſions from Principles (which we call Reaſon.) That theſe Principles are partly connate and natural, partly revealed in Holy Writ; that in matter of Gods Worſhip their Reaſon is to work not ſo much upon the firſt, as ſecond ſort of theſe Principles; hence they form Concluſions, from comparing Scripture with Scripture, in the light of which they walk. And even in this ratiocination they do think Optimus Philoſophus non naſcitur, and therefore judge none, but walk in their own Light, making no Mens Dictates or Decrees, the Rule of their Practice in the things of God, but crying out, To the Law and to the Teſtimony, and for the determination of the ſenſe of that (as to their own practice) finally reſting in the practical judgment of their own conſciences. If any repreſent them to the World as Dunces, Men that have nothing to ſay for their diſſent from others, but doing what they do, out of meer Faction, Rebellion, Diſobedience to Rulers: They are ready to give a reaſonable account of their Actions.
3. This was the apparent deſign of that Book, compoſed immediately upon the coming out of the Vindicators Libertas Eccleſiaſtica, and more than two years ſince given to a friend, after which the Author never ſaw it till he ſaw it in print, and (abating the Errors of the Preſs) the Author ſees no cauſe to put it into his Retractations, nor doth believe that one leaf of it will be a grief of heart to him when he comes to die, nor be charged upon him as guilt (with reference to the main matter of it) in the day of Judgment.
But becauſe we will not believe, becauſe the Church (that is ſome who call themſelves ſo) believe that Faith and Fervency are the gift of Vocal Miniſterial Pr…yer (which is no better than Nonſenſe) and that there is a Natural, Eternal, Order and Decency (left to the liberty of Rulers to ſpecifie in particulars) antecedent to the will of God concerning external Worſhip, to which the plain precepts of God for attention and fervency in Prayer muſt give place, and be by it regulated; or that words are no eſſential part of Miniſterial Publick Prayer, and ſome other ſuch like unintelligible things; and as unſcriptural, we muſt be expoſed at this rate for moſt unparallell'd Dunces, and Rebels to Authority, and perſons, who (to uſe our Vindicators words in the cloſe of his Introduction) vent Notions to widen our Breaches, and ſuch as are inconſiſtent with the publick eſtabliſhment of a Church, and which put advantages into the hands of other Enemies; the drift whereof tends to confuſion, and the matter of them is unſound and untrue: when as in truth the impoſition of Forms of Prayer on all Miniſters, and inforcing them to uſe, and all the people to hear them, hath been the ſource of all our Breaches; and moſt if not all, and thoſe the pureſt Churches, are eſtabliſhed without any ſuch impoſition: and they are only uſed amongſt our greateſt adverſaries, from whom it is that we are reformed (as all men know) ſuch miſteries of ſenſe ſome men ſpeak in their paſſion.
4. From hence may appear how truly the Vindicator tells his Reverend Dioceſan in the Epiſtle Dedic. That for juſtifying our Seperation, I have adventured ſo far as to charge the general uſe of Forms of Prayer to be ſinful, which (if it were true) would indeed be a high accuſation againſt our Publick Worſhip.
The matter is neither ſo, nor ſo, if the Vindicator doth not judge this good Logick. What ſome pious men judge as to themſelves unlawful, is certainly and abſolutely ſo; which is ſo weak, as every one will ſee the inconſequence of it. Our Vindicator will hardly be pleaſed to hear me tell my Reader, That there is not much truth to be expected from him who ſo manifeſtly prevaricates in the firſt leaves, nor conſiſtency from him; the ſecond p. of whoſe Epiſtle Dedicatory agreeth no better with his Title page; tho p. 138, he minds his Reader, That he may not rea…onably expect any accuracy in the right computation for the birth, and firſt product of Liturgies, from me who talks ſo looſely and falſly about the Age wherein Gregory the Great lived; when yet the miſtake was his own, not mine, as I ſhall hereafter fully ſhew.
5. I am beholden to the Vindicator, for allowing me both in his Epiſtle Ded. (and elſe where) to have ſtated my Queſtion plainly, and then produced my Arguments, but I am not ſo far engaged to him, for owning no more in my Book, than ſlender and weak appearances of Reaſon, and what was not like to prevail much with underſtanding men — wanting ſtrength of Argument. But theſe things being yet in Iſſue, I ſhall ſay nothing to them, ſave only this, That in ſome cauſes it is neceſſary to fore ſpeak Readers, and more politick to prejudice them, then to leave them to their own judgments; for the ſtrength of the Argument I ſhall once more try that with them, and examine whether he indeed hath as he ſaith, This great advantage to have manifeſt truth on his ſide.
6. In his Introduction, p. 1, 2. He tells us he thought my Ʋndertaking ſtrange, and that in my Book he found nothing of any great weight. I am not much concerned at his thinking my Undertaking ſtrange (nothing freer then thoughts.) But why ſtrange? Was it not the contrary Opinion that broke the Church at Frankfort in the beginning of our Reformation? Was it not 100 years ſince diſputed in Latine betwixt one Carpenter, and an Engliſh Miniſter fled into Holland? My ſelf hath the printed Copy of it; hath not Mr Cotton long ſince declared his judgment againſt the lawfulneſs (a Prophet without Honour from a party in his own Countrey) but whoſe name is not only very honourable to multitudes at this day in England, but over all the World where the Goſpel is Preached. Hath not the judgment of the Churches in New-England, been the ſame, if not more rigid then mine? Hath it not been the judgment of the Church of Scotland ever ſince the Reformation? Nay is it not the judgment of all Reformed Churches at this day, where Liturgies are only preſcribed, and left at liberty? Why then ſhould this undertaking be ſo ſtrange? Eſpecially conſidering, that himſelf tells us in his Epiſtle Dedica. That the Genius of the Non-con. Party is much ſet againſt them, and in their Practice they generally reject them eagerly.
3. Tho indeed he ſaith in his Epiſtle, That the more cautious and wary Men amongſt us diſſenters will not Affirm the conſtant uſe of Forms Sinful, becauſe they think ſu…h a Poſition not defenſible. But the queſtion is, Whether thoſe Cautious, Wary Men, will not affirm. The Ʋniverſal uſe and impoſition of Forms of Prayer in Publick Worſhip, and ſuch Forms too, as were never preſcribed by God, or Chriſt, or any Prophets or Apoſtles unlawful. I never yet met with one ſuch Diſſenter, tho never ſo Wary and Cautious; and thus much I dare ſay, That in the whole County where our Vindicator lives, there is not one ſingle Diſſenting Miniſter would take up a Living upon that ſingle Term, tho many of them indure hardſhip enough. But this is a trick uſed to perſwade our Rulers, that that is a point of difference betwixt very few Diſſenters and them, whereas they know the contrary; and as to our Brethren of the Congregational Perſwaſion, and the Anabaptiſts, they cannot but know that there is not a man of them judgeth Forms of Prayer generally uſed or impoſed, lawful; and I dare aſſure him, that of the Presbyterians, there is not one of forty ſo judgeth them.
7. But I am more concerned to inquire whether there be nothing in my Book of any great w…ight &c. I have obſerved in Sho…s, that the judgment of the Weight of Wares hath much depended upon the Scales and Weights uſed, and the hand of him that pretends to ſet the Ballance even; an Ʋnrigh…s Thumb and Finger, often makes a Commodity appear light, which hath weight enough. I muſt therefore crave leave to examine the Scales and Weights, by which our Vindicator hath taken his Meaſures, and ſee whether ſome unlucky Thumb and Finger of Prejudice, or Paſſion, hath not cauſed my Ware to be prenounced ſo l ght, and intreat my Reader to weigh it over again in the Ballance of the Sanctuary, with the Sealed Weights of Scripture and Right Reaſon, and then to paſs a deliberate Judgment; and ſhall onelyonly tell our Vindicator, that it was no good Logick, to put the ergo before the Premiſes: he ſhould firſt have ſhewed the Weakneſs and Lightneſs of them, and have left theſe expreſſions for his Concluſion, others (and thoſe learned Men) are not all of his mind; and becauſe he is ſo confident, upon me let it reſt to juſtify their Weight, and further to prove that he hath been ſo far from proving any Antiquity for any general uſe, or Impoſitions of Forms of Prayers to be uſed by all Miniſters in their publick Miniſtrations for 600 years after Chriſt, that it is a thing not proveable, and which no wiſe and learned man can undertakē the proof of, only Aliquid dicendum, in nihil dicant; and what is wanting in juſt matter, muſt be made up with many and big words.
8. He ſaith right, That the deſign of his former Book is made void by my undertaking (if what I ſay be true) which I very well knew, Es fruſtra fit perplura, &c. be the particular Forms uſed in our Church, as good as they will, it is nothing to us, who would never have entred the Miniſtry, if we had not thought we had, and been judged by thoſe who ſet us apart to the work, to have had ſome ability to Pray as well as Preach, and having ſo, judg it Sinful not to perform our Miniſterial Acts in the uſe of that gift.
9. The Author of the Reaſonable Account, &c. did not ſet his name, not deſiring that his Arguments ſhould derive any Repute, or Diſrepute from him: What matters it whether the Author be a wiſe Man or a Fool, the queſtion is, What his Arguments in the Caſe are, Saepe etiam tolitor eſt opportuno locutor. But he chargeth me deeply, when he ſays p. 3. That it is obſervable, that when I write concerning the Ancient Practice of the Church after the Apoſtles times, or any thing written in thoſe days, it is generally done ſo looſely, and ſomtimes with ſuch wonderful extravagancy, as may ſurprize an intelligent Reader, with ſome kind of Admiration. Says he ſo? Wherein? He will give but one inſtance, which he ſaith is in my 68, 69 pages, ſpeaking of the Original of Liturgies, I ſay,
We do believe, that Gregory the Great, under the Protection of Charles the Great, was the Father of all thoſe that dwell in theſe Tents, and that 800 or a 1000 years after Chriſt. My words in that place are theſe,
To bring this point to an Iſſue, there was a Book publiſhed 1662, called, A ſober and temperate Diſcourſe concerning the Intereſt of words in Prayer. The Reader may there at large ſee what we judg concerning the Original of Liturgies, when our Reverend Brother, or any for him, ſhall have given a ſtrict Reply to the 3. and 4. Chapters in that Book, we ſhall think they have more to ſay for their Antiquity, then we have yet ſeen. In the mean time we do believe that Gregory the Great (uſually ſaid to be the worſt of all Popes that went before him) under the Protection of Charles the Great was the Father of all thoſe who dwell in theſe Tents, and that 800 or 1000 years after Chriſt. He leaves out the firſt part, and the reference to the other Book.
The truth is, it was too Elliptically expreſſed, towards a Perſon that ſought an occaſion to Carp and Reflect; which that our Vindicator did too much appears from his taking notice of what was p. 68, 69. of a book which had not above 180. pages in it, or thereabouts. In the 4 p. of his Anſwer, and then again in p. 138. of his Anſwer, in both which places, he makes ſport with it, at ſuch a rate as were unpardonable, but that it was juſt about Prevarication time at Cambridge, and indeed it was a thing fitter to make ſport for boys then men, who underſtand any thing of Senſe, and have any judgment.
10. He comes upon it with a Firſtly, Secondly, Thirdly, then makes Application ſuitably, which he purſueth p. 138. and amplifies with a Rabbinical Story, and ſhuts up his Reflection with a very pretty Jeſt. His words are theſe,
To ſpeak of Gregory the great 800 or 1000 years after Chriſt, is far enough from truth, when he dyed about the year 1604; and Secondly that Gregory the great ſhould be under the Protection of Charles the great, is impoſſible, when he was dead about 200 years before Charles the great began his Reign. And 3ly. It is altogether as inaccountable that Liturgies had their Original, either in the time of Gregory or Charles the great, when they were in uſe many 100 years before them both, Quod eſt demonſtrandum. Then he comes to Application. This miſtake concerning theſe Perſons, whoſe Names are ſo famous in Hiſtory, that a Man of ordinary reading could not be unacquainted with them, is, as if any perſon ſhould preſume to give account of the Church of the Iſraelites and ſhould aſſert that the offering of Sacrifices under the Moſaicai Law, had its beginning in the days of Eli the Prieſt, in the Reign of K. Jehoſophat, 600 or 800 years after the Iſraelites came out of Egypt. This is a great piece of ignorance and error: That's the firſt uſe. Surely it is a ſtrange confidence for any perſon to vent ſuch things and to write poſitively what he no better underſtandeth. The Author therefore of the Reaſonable Account, is an ignorant confident perſon. That is the 2d. uſe, p. 138. Therefore we muſt not reaſonably expect any accuracy in the right computation of the time of the birth and firſt production of Liturgies from him who talks ſo looſly and falſly, about the Age in which Gregory the great lived; whom he would make the Father of them. Therefore Sirs you are not to believe any thing this Author ſaith on this Argument. That is the 3d, and main uſe. And it is ſpeaking enough at random, to fix their Original now at 600 after at 800, then at a 10000 years after Chriſt; for the Author contradicts himſelf, and cannot tell whether it was at 6 or 800, or 1000 years after Chriſt (that is the Engliſh of this, and inforceth the laſt branch of Application) I ſhall repeat our Vindicators words no further, let him pleaſe himſelf and ſuch Readers (as ſuch trifles will pleaſe) with his Rabbinical Tradition about Phinehas, and his fancy (to reconcile my words to truth) that Gregory might live 400 years, and then have need of Charles the great to govern him in his dottage: I ſhall reconcile what I ſaid, to truth and ſenſe, at a more intelligible rate.
11. What a Magnus conatus, here is Nugas agere! 1. In the firſt place every Scholar knows, that in matters of Chronology; it is our Cuſtom to conſult ſome Chronologer or other Pro re nata, and that it is no piece of Learning to carry in Memory the Years of Mens Births or Deaths (Reaſon being not at all concerned in the caſe) but when we have occaſion to take notice of any ſuch thing, we uſe to look into them; and Dr. Cave's Tables are continually in mine eye while I am in my Study, and Helvicus within a reach; the one of which preſently telleth me Gregory the greats time, and the other Charles the greats; ſo as the Vindicator hath not ſhewn much of his own Judgment or Ingenuity, in making one ſo mightily defective in learning, meerly for miſtaking the time of a Pope or Emperors Reign: and as confident as himſelf is that Gregory dyed 604,
I am ſure Platina ſaith, he entred his Popedom 610, which (according to our Vindicator (who is ſo ſevere a Critick in Chronology) was ſix years after he was dead; which would make a better Argument than any of the Papiſts have, to prove Gregory a moſt Holy Father, having ſpent ſix years in Heaven, and received a better Canonization than the Church of Rome could give him, and then came down (not without Gods leave ſure, to be his Sons Vicar, and to rule his Church on Earth. Now who ſo conſiders, that Platina was a later Popes Secretary, and ſo had doubtleſs the command of their Archives, and Abbreviator Apoſtolicus; ſo as it was his buſineſs to ſearch into the things of that Church, may reaſonably think he much better knew than our Vindicator could, his Chronology, yea, or than any other Monk, or more ordinary Religioſo; and to correct Platina by any of them, is much like ſetting the Sun by ones Watch. Qui alterum incuſat probri ipſum ſe intueri oportet. If any one object that my ſelf ſays, Gregory was not Pope till about 600 (as I believe I have ſaid more than once in this Diſcourſe) or that he lived Anno 600, every one will underſtand me as expreſſing Numerum Rotundum, the number of the age only, not the particular year; and that my meaning was at the cloſe of the 6th, or beginning of the 7th Age; but if one will pretend to the very year of his death, and ſay he died 604, he is tied to more exactneſs, for fear a Reſurrection be proved upon the Aſſertor, admitting his Aſſertion.
12. But this being premiſed, let us more ſtrictly inquire, Whether there was ſuch a miſtake or no? In very deed there was none' and all this noiſe is cauſed from our Vindicators applying that to perſons which I never intended but of the practice and uſage; for what elſe could I underſtand by the Father of all theſe that dwell in theſe Tents? but the Father of thoſe who have introduced into the Church, the general uſe and impoſition of Forms of Prayers to be uſed by all Miniſters, in their Publick Solemn Prayers?
I ſaid and I ſay it again, That Gregory the Great was the Father of theſe men; he firſt made a Canon in the caſe. I mean a Rule or Decree; I think Durandus or Platina, uſe the term Redegit in Canonem. This Canon was charged but with Powder, and did no great execution, till Charles the Great, near 200 years after that, added a Bullet to Gregorys Powder; this did great Execution, for he enforced all men with Fire and Sword; and this I think was a great protection of Gregory the Greats Canonical Sanction. Charles his Empire was large, and we muſt imagine that a year or two, or twenty, would not perfect ſo great an alteration, no not in the Roman Empire (which was not all the Chriſtian World) ſo as I do think that it is no large conjecture, to gueſs it might be 1000 years before this practice got any general uſage. This Cubb was whelped by Gregory the Great, but all his Authority and Canons, &c. could not lick it into a juſt form, till Charles the Great put his Mouth to it, and his Hand and Sword alſo; which muſt be in the Ninth Century, and cannot well be imagined to have been perfected in a ſmall time. I believe when I come to our Vindicators p 156, 157. I ſhall find (if not a deſigned Cheat) a groſſer Error in Chronology than this amounts to; for this indeed is none. The Vindicator might have ſeen in the Book to which I referred in that Paragraph, that I did know, or might have read there (and I will aſſure him I read it once or twice) what time Gregory the Great lived, and at what diſtance from Charles the Great. And the World may ſee by a Supplement to the Reaſonable Account, which came out the very ſame week with this Vindication of Liturgies, and is wholly about the pretended Antiquity of Liturgies; that I was not ignorant of this abſtruſe and mighty piece of Learning, and needed not his Inſtruction in it.
13. Our Vindicator in the next place (Introd. p. 5.) declareth againſt his meddling with any part of the Reaſonable Account, wherein I anſwered others, which I am well content with, and ſhall likewiſe deſire my Reader, not to expect I ſhould ſtrictly follow him in his large Digreſſions, wherein he ſpeaketh nothing to my Arguments. But he further tells us, That he ſhall wave the Repetition of my long Syllogiſms, which is a tedious way of proceeding, and in rational diſcourſes of this nature is acceptable to few others, than thoſe who may admire the Art of making a Syllogiſm; but I ſhall give a faithful account of the ſubſtance of his Arguments, &c.
14. I muſt confeſs I never thought it much material, whether a Syllogiſm were in Ceſare, or Darapte, or Jeriſon, nor thought it worth the while to diſpute the myſteries of the ſtructure of a Syllogiſm; but I am to learn that a Syllogiſtical diſputing is more tedious than that more ungirt way, which it ſeems pleaſeth our Author better. A Proſyllogiſm I always thought very proper, and I have troubled him with no more in any Argument. But Latet anguis in herba (I fear) had our Vindicator tied up himſelf to Syllogiſms, he would hardly have been able to have crouded in this momentous Propoſition — The Author of the Reaſonable Account, did not know what time Gregory the Great or Charles the Great lived. Nor got in this concluſion. Ergo, He was an ignorant man, defective in learning, very confident, from whom no accuracy is to be expected. But let him run his looſer method (for certainly Logick and Syllogiſtical arguing, is the Palma contracta) if he ſo diſcourſeth that I can but underſtand, whether he denys the Major or the Minor, or the Concluſion onelyonly, it ſhall be enough for my purpoſe.
15. For what follows, I have ſaid enough before to excuſe me from any imputation; as to the time of my Book coming out, which was in 1679, about Mich. it was printed beyond Sea ſix moneths before; I had no concern in it, nor ſeen it ſince April 1677, when I gave it to a friend, who begg'd it of me.
But ſo various are our Apprehenſions, that my opinion is, it could never have come out in a more ſeaſonable time; when it is in the heart of our Rulers to unite all Proteſtants, which I am ſure cannot be, while the Impoſition of Forms of Prayer on all Miniſters, in their publick Miniſterial Service in Prayer holds. But may eaſily be, by leaving ſuch Forms to liberty. I do very well know what a clamour ſome make for Impoſed Forms; and therefore think it is highly neceſſary we ſhould tell them why we judge them (as to our practice) unlawful, that our Rulers and People may judge, whether we be ſuch illiterate, nonſenſical, irrational, perſons, ſuch ſtrange undertakers, and meer confident men, as we are repreſented to the World to be: Or whether theſe Clamours be meerly Crys of Intereſt, like that of old, Great is Diana of the Epheſians. So I have done with our Vindicators Introduction. Only deſiring my Reader may know that I am not arguing Forms of Prayer (now moſt generally uſed and impoſed) unlawful; but juſtifying the Reaſons which I have formerly given, why we cannot judge them, as to our practice, lawful, let them be in themſelves what they ſhall be evinced to be. If our Vindicator can quit himſelf of the Arguments I have brought, I I have no more at preſent to ſay.