The Vindication of Liturgies Proved No Vindication, Introduction · Chapter 1
CHAP. I.
An Anſwer to the Vindicators Firſt Chapter, concerning the ſtating of the Queſtion.
1. I Am beholden to the Learned Author, for allowing me, or any Noncon. an ability to ſtate a Queſtion, with ſufficient plainneſs and clearneſs; and ſhall requite him, owning that he hath truly repeated my ſtateing of it (a favour not ordinary in this age.) But his Obſervations deduced from my Conceſſions, muſt not paſs wholly unexamined.
2. That our Prayers muſt be directed to God (as he obſerveth) needed not the atteſtation of two of the Fathers. 2. That our general wants (ſuch as Pardon, Sanctification, Daily Bread, &c. I like not ſo well to ſay all our ordinary wants) may be expreſſed in Forms, I doubt not. Nor 3. That a pious Soul, not able to pray from his own Gifts, may truly worſhip God mentally, by reading a Form, I doubt not; but to make this true external worſhip, I think will be required a command from God. It is alſo true, that one difference betwixt Praying with and without a Form, is that in the former way, the ſame words and methods are conſtantly uſed, in the other not ſo. But if by praying we mean the Action of a Man, the main difference contended for, is, That he that prayeth in the uſe of his Gitfs, doth the will of God; whether the other doth ſo, is the very Queſtion.
3. And ſo indeed the Anſwerer tells us, only repreſents it ſomething too invidiouſly; for no man ſaith, That God is pleaſed with our varying of phraſes, or altering our methods; but we are ſure God is pleaſed with our doing of his will, in as little things as thoſe are. It certainly had been vain Philoſophy under the Jewiſh Paedagogy, to have argued that it was not probable that God ſaw any beauty or valuableneſs in the killing of a Beaſt, for he was a Spirit, and true Goodneſs, Piety, and Sincerity are the things which he delighted in. Who knows not all this? But he is pleaſed in obeying his will in the leaſt things. The Queſtion therefore is, What is Gods Will in the caſe.
To obey God is certainly better than Sacrifice, and needs muſt be, becauſe all the value of a Sacrifice lay in the obedience teſtified by it. If it be the will of God that his Miniſters ſhould ſerve him in the uſe of their own Gifts (from whence muſt neceſſarily follow the altering of Phraſes and Methods) though there be no intrinſick value in theſe things, yet they are better then all other Sacrifices.
4. But our Author thinketh not this probable. And why? 1. Becauſe our Saviour rebuked the vanity of them, who think they ſhall be heard by their much ſpeaking; Mat. 6.7. And as a Remedy, taught his Diſciples that comprehenſive Form of Prayer. Auſtine from hence judged ſuperfluity of words needleſs;What he ſaith as to the Lords Prayer, is elſewhere ſpoken to. ſo did Hilary; and it is a piece of Reverence injoyned by Solomon Eccl. 5.2.
5. But what is all this but a waſting of Ink and Paper? May not then a Miniſter pray in the uſe of his own Gifts, unleſs he prayeth to an unreaſonable length? Muſt he needs uſe a ſuperfluity of words, or a multitude of words, becauſe he doth not uſe thoſe words others have prepared for him? Who ſeeth not theſe inconſequences?
6. In the next place, p. 14. he argues, Becauſe under the Law God did not require daily various changes of the real expreſſions of Religious Worſhip and Service, but appointed them to be continually the ſame; Num. 28, 2, 3. which maketh it more than probable that the variety of verbal expreſſions is not requiſite to obtain his acceptance under the Goſpel.
I do not wonder that our Author at firſt (though of Learning enough to make them, and anſwer Arguments in that Form) declared his diſlike of the uſe of Sylogiſms; for if ſuch Arguments as this be put into thoſe Forms, they would be too much expoſed. Is there the ſame reaſon for the Service of God under the Goſpel, as under the Law? becauſe Typical Services prefiguring one Chriſt, were invariable; muſt therefore Spiritual Services under the Goſpel be ſo too? conſider then why the Miniſter doth not always preach the ſame Sermons, becauſe the Jews were to offer Morning and Evening Sacrifices, and we under the Goſpel are alſo bound to pray in all parts of time; muſt therefore the Will of God be that in all things elſe they ſhould agree? Is there the ſame reaſon for the performance of Acts of Worſhip, after the plentiful effuſion of the Spirit in the days of Pentecoſt as before? Nay, is our Author ſure, that in the Jewiſh Worſhip they all uſed the ſame Prayers and Exhortations, becauſe they always killed the ſame ſpecifical Beaſts for Sacrifices? In their very Sacrifices there was a great variety, and they agreed in nothing, but that they all were what God preſcribed.
7. What he ſaith in p. 15. is granted him, nothing but the will of God is worth naming in the cauſe, words in themſelves are nor valuable, but obedience is. What makes then this trifling about the Opinions of Heathens, the invaluableneſs of words in themſelves, the way of Worſhip under the Law, &c. What is all this to any purpoſe, but to prepoſſeſs the unwary Reader?
8. His next obſervation is, That the Author doth not account himſelf certain of the truth of this Poſition. What doth he mean by certain? The Author is none of the Infallibles of our Age, and hath more modeſty than to dictate to all the World, and pretend Demonſtrations of a thing that it may be is not capable of it: But he is morally certain, certain, as far as probable Arguments can make him. But what then? Therefore it appears not to him unlawful? Will any weighed Divine in the World ſay. That a thing is not unlawful to him, that upon Arguments, which to him appeareth highly probable, appears unlawful? Let the Author anſwer a Book called, foreign, wrote on this very Argument.
9. The Author values not a ruſh, whether the Anſwerer blames, or not blames him, for the thing, ſome perſons in this Age calls Separation. He falls not by Mans Judgment. There was in Apoſtacy which Luther gloryed in; and there is a Separation which a good Chriſtian may glory in; 1 Cor. 6.17. The Queſtion is, Whether the Nonconf. be guilty of a ſinful Separation? That Nonconf. are guilty of that, here is no Argument to prove; but the Author accounting himſelf certain, mentioned p. 21. which is a new Topick; for I hope it is no Demonſtration.
10. The Vindicator, p. 22. in the next place, comes to tell us of conſiderable prejudices againſt the truth of my Aſſertion. 1. That it is againſt the Opinion of the Church of England, and the moſt famous Churches in the Primitive times. But to the latter part of this he very honeſtly adds — a Quod eſt Demonſtrandum; referring it to be afterwards proved. And againſt the conſtitution of many eminent Churches abroad. This he ſaith he before obſerved; and I do not deny, obſerve good Reader how I have not denyed it, …69p.
An impoſed Liturgy, unleſs in a particular Province, for a time, in a particular caſe, ſuch as was that of the ſpreading of Pelagianiſm, we can not find. And for a Liturgy to be propoſed onelyonly, and left at liberty, we know moſt Reformed Churches have ſuch a one, and we have before declared our judgements for the reaſonableneſs of it.
It is true which I alſo ſaid, That the continuance of Liturgyes, owes it ſelf, in a great meaſure, to Churches not having Men enough able pray without Forms. But what is this to the purpoſe of Univerſally Impoſed Liturgies? From this appeareth the exceeding vanity of what the Anſwerer addeth, p. 23. The Author condemned none of the firſt Reformers of Sin, nor hath reaſon to believe that all of them uſed any ſuch thing, if they had he condemneth them not.
11. But the Author (and thoſe of his mind,p. 23. are ſuch pitiful men, as determine in theſe weighty things, according to their preſent humour. For one while he ſaith, Authority or Practice is a lamentable Argument. His words are theſe:
While we are diſputing about what is lawful, or unlawful, Authority or Practice, is a lamentable Argument. They muſt be lamentable Divines that will ſay otherwiſe. That the Practice of Men ſhould determine to us the will of God.
Well, But he ſaith in another place,
The Senſus piorum, neither is nor ever was judged light, by perſons of ſobriety and worth, for the truth of a propoſition, eſpecially a practical propoſition, not plainly determined in Holy Writ.
Is then the Authority and Practice of particular men, that have the good hap to get into a Chair of Government in the Church; and the Senſus piorum, the ſame thing think we? I beg the Anſwerers favour if I do not believe it; but believe there muſt be, to ſay no more, the odds of 200 to one. The Senſus piorum is the general ſenſe of perſons in ſuch or ſuch a place, minding the things of God, and regulating their lives in a conformity to his will: I take this in practical matters, to be a thouſand times more probable Argument, then ſome particular perſons (tho Governours) Authority and Practice.
12. But it ſeems I ſo ſtated my Queſtion, p. 24.as to overthrow the main foundation and the chief Arguments of my Diſcourſe. That indeed is great weakneſs. But I pray how doth this appear to be any thing but a moſt falſe calumny.
I granted, That Forms of Prayer by God commanded in Scripture, muſt be uſed, and other Scriptural Forms may be uſed as part of our Prayer; yet I declare, it ſinful for ſuch Miniſters as can pray otherwiſe to pray by Forms: From the duty of uſing their own Gifts. And 2. From the hinderance of pious Diſpoſition, Attention, or Fervency, from the uſe of a Form of words in Prayer.
Do I ſo? Judge good Reader. The Minor of my firſt Argument is this:
But for a Miniſter having the gift of Prayer,Reaſonable Account p. 6. ordinarily to perform his Miniſterial Act in Prayer, by reading or reciting Forms of Prayer compoſed by others, confeſſedly not divinely inſpired; is for him to omit a natural and proper means, given him by God, &c. It is true, in my Second Argument, p. 23. all theſe words are by the Printers careleſsneſs left out [by Forms of Prayer compoſed by others, confeſſedly not divinely inſpired] nor could I help it; but a man of any ordinary candor would have ſupplied them, from the ſtate of the Queſtion, and from the preceding Argument; which will make it appear, that I never ſaid that it was unlawful to perform our Miniſterial Act in Prayer, by Forms, but by Forms compoſed by others, who confeſſedly are not divinely inſpired. I never was ſo ſimple as not to allow God to diſpenſe with his own Law, upon which ground any Forms commanded by God muſt be lawful; nor yet to think we might not uſe Scriptural phraſes, in any part of worſhip, and yet uſe our own gifts at the ſame time time too.
13. For to pray nothing elſe, but uſing a Scriptural Form, I believe we muſt have a ſpecial Command of God to make that lawful to us.
Beſides, I doubt not but the Anſwere… ſaw what I wrote, p. 51. That there is a vaſt difference between the pure words of God (for the which God both hath and ever will ſecure a Reverence in all Religious Souls, and Forms compoſed by fallible men without any direction from God. Let any Chriſtian experience whether it be poſſible for him, to read any Book of mans making a thouſand times, with that Gift and holy Reverence, and with ſo little taedium, as he may ſo read the Books and Chapters of Holy Writ. So as all he ſaith is juſt nothing to the purpoſe, the Author at firſt reſtraining his Queſtion to Forms compoſed by Men, that are confeſſedly no part of Holy Writ. For Forms, that are part of Holy Writ, they are throughout his Book excepted, nor doth he any where conclude they hinder pious Diſpoſitions, or that they may not be uſed as part of the exerciſe of the Miniſterial Gift. But ſomething muſt be ſaid to expoſe Authors inſtead of anſwering him.
14. In his 25 page, to raiſe up a prejudice againſt the Author, he very learnedly paſſeth from Prayer of one kind to Prayer of another kind, and concludeth; That becauſe he ſinneth not, who joyneth with another miniſtring in Prayer, when it is apparent by all Scripture, that he is not to pray vocally, but onelyonly to pray in his heart: Therefore he ſinneth not who doth it miniſtring in Prayer, when he is to pray vocally not mentally onelyonly. It is eaſie to raiſe ſuch prejudices, and for ordinary Readers to ſee through them.
15. Our Authors laſt prejudice mentioned againſt the Authors Opinion [That a great part, and he thinks the greater part of the Nonconformiſts, will not own his Notion] I fear will appear an haſty prejudging the Nonconformiſts.
16. Though the Anſwerer ſpeaks warily in the caſe of the Commiſſioners appointed, 1662 (for he onelyonly ſaith, They made this no part of their Objections) yet he would plainly ſuggeſt they (who by the way, except the Epiſcopal men, were all Presbyterians) were of another mind. What to ſay for thoſe who attended not the Commiſſion, I cannot tell, but for thoſe who appeared, and daily met, till they had wholly drawn up what they intended to propoſe to my Lords the Biſhops, I can tell. The Biſhops deſired them to meet by themſelves, which they did at Mr. Calamy's Houſe, till they had agreed all, which afterward they offered at the Savoy to the Biſhops. What they agreed in this point may be read in theſe words in their Seven General Propoſals:
That the Gift of Prayer being one ſpecial qualification for the work of the Miniſtry beſtowed by Chriſt in order to the Edification of his Church, and to be exerciſed for the profit and benefit thereof, according to its various and emergent, neceſſities, It is deſired that there may be no ſuch Impoſition of the Liturgy, as that the Exerciſe of that Gift be totally excluded in any part of Publick Worſhip.
17. That Men may not pleaſe themſelves with Dreams, and think thoſe laſt were meer completory words, upon which no ſtreſs was laid, I will aſſure them, that that Propoſal had never been agreed without them; they being brought in by the Reverend Mr. Mat. Newcomb, after (as I remember) three days ſpent in debates about that Propoſal. I do know but three Men of thoſe who appeared and would declare their minds, who would hear of any Liturgy Ʋniverſally, Impoſed. Thoſe three indeed were great Men. The moſt Reverend Biſhop Reinolds was one, Mr. Calamy was another, the third yet living I ſhall not name. Mr. Calamy often urged, That if forms of Prayer were lawful, the Impoſing of them did not make them unlawful.
It was anſwered, If forms of Prayer were Ʋniverſally lawful, Impoſing could not make them unlawful: but it was denied, That they were, as to uſe in publick Devotion, Ʋniverſally lawful.
18. The debate of the 19 General Propoſals, was the ordinary work of the Commiſſioners met together. In the mean time they had, according to the Inſtructions of their Commiſſion, committed the ſeveral Offices of the old Liturgy to ſeveral Brethren, to be reviewed, that they might ſee what exceptions were reaſonable to be offered. The drawing up a New Form was committed to another. Theſe in their Seaſons were brought in and read. But the far Major part of the Commiſſioners preſent, having obtained the 7th Propoſal, and in that a perfect liberty of the uſe or not uſe of any, were very incurious, as to thoſe things, onelyonly liſtned ſo far to them, as to ſee there was nothing but what they might own. This is the truth of that ſtory, ſo far as it paſſed, before they came to give in what they agreed, to receive the Biſhops Anſwer, and to make their Reply, What was then done, the Printed Account fully tells us.
19. This is enough to have ſpoken to this Chapter of the Reverend Doctors; only I muſt requite him, with thanks for his Complement, the good Milk wherewith he ſuckles me, and tho he preſently with an oblique ſtroak of his heel throws it down again, yet I have ſuch a value for it, as in the following Chapters I ſhall endeavour to gather it up, and (if ſuch a thing be poſſible for a Non-Con.) redeem my reputation, from ſuch an ugly imputation as the writing of foreign, inconſiſtencies.