The Vindication of Liturgies Proved No Vindication, Introduction · Chapter 10

The Vindication of Liturgies Proved No Vindication · Introduction · Chapter 10

p. 192CHAP. X.

A Reply to the Vindicators 9 Chap. p. 241, &c. The Vindicators Fortification of the 10 Arguments for Forms of Prayer before battered, beaten down, and himſelf proved to have alledged no reaſon in his five Reaſons, cogent for the general uſe and impoſition of Forms.

1. I took notice of Ten Arguments brought for ſuch Forms of Prayer, and ſuch an uſe of them, as I had been ſpeaking about.

The firſt was, becauſe Forms are not by God forbidden. p. 135, I told them, They were forbidden, by the Second Commandment, and three ſorts of Texts more. He tells us, He hath anſwered before all I ſaid to juſtifie this. So I have anſwered now all that he hath ſaid.

2. He Vindicates the Second Argument mentioned by me from my Anſwer to it, in the ſame manner. I in like manner ſay, What he hath ſaid in his Vindication to thoſe purpoſes, I have anſwered before, in this my Reply to his Vindication.

3. To their third Argument from the common Topicks of Order and Decency, I p. 193anſwered Order onelyonly reſpects firſt and laſt: he thinks foreign ſignifieth more. It is hard to prove: but be it ſo; In Divine Worſhip, nothing is Order but what God hath preſcribed in the Law of Nature or his Word. As to Decency, I had told him nothing was Decent, but that whoſe contrary is Indecent: for betwixt Decency and Indecency there is no Medium participationis. He denieth this, and thinks to prove it, becauſe white and black are contraries; yet a white Garment may be Decent, and a black Garment not Indecent. But doth he think that it is good arguing from Accidents to Subſtances, or amongſt Accidents from Quantities to Actions? Surely he ſhould have inſtanced in ſome Actions in Gods Worſhip, which are both Decent and Indecent at the ſame time. He doth not like I ſhould ſay, That Forms are no circumſtances relating to the Action of Prayer, as it is a meer humane Act, becauſe it migh… be performed without them; why? Becauſe ſtanding or any other geſture, is a Circumſtance, and ſome geſture is alwaies neceſſary. So words are neceſſary to all Vocal Prayer, but yet Forms of Words preſcribed by others are not ſo. Though ſtanding or any other geſture be a Circumſtance, yet I hope a particular geſture is no neceſſary Circumſtance of Prayer, conſidered meerly as an humane Act. He tells us again, There can be no publick P…er without any words, nor unleſs the words be determined by ſome. Both theſe things are true, p. 194but nothing to the purpoſe; for our queſtion is about forms of words, prepared by others: and if (as he ſaith truly) there can be no Prayer in Publick without words, then words are a part of that Worſhip (they are the Homage of the Lipps and outward Man) the External Part of that Worſhip, muſt be words, and no part of Worſhip may be preſcribed by man. He ſaith true, the words muſt be determined by ſome body. God hath left them to the liberty of his Miniſters determination, and what God hath ſo left at liberty, is the Miniſters liberty and priviledge. I ſhewed before that Man muſt not determine in the Acts or Parts of Worſhip, what he hath left at liberty; ſo that they may (acceptably to him) do this or that: whether this be trifling, let the Reader judge.

4. He hath ſaid nothing to take off my Argument to the fourth Argument, but what I have before taken off, he is again at it, That no pious man can think that the Will and Pleaſure of God, is, that mens abilities ſhould be exerciſed meerly to ſhew their parts. All the ſtrength lies in meerly, the falſhood and vanity of which ſuggeſtion, I have ſufficiently before ſhewed.

5. I ſhall ſay nothing to what he ſaith to take off my anſwer to the Argument, from the 1 Tim. 1.2. becauſe our Vindicator himſelf will not ſay it is concluſive in the caſe. I do not think it probable, nor the more probable, becauſe of the general uſe p. 195of them in the earlieſt ages of Chriſtianity, which I do not believe either proved, or capable of proof.

6. In his p. 247, 248. he comes to take off what I had ſaid to the 7th Objection, That Superiors may determine us to whatſoever we may determine our ſelves. He will acknowledg this not to be Ʋniverſally true. Two caſes he excepts. 1. When the Superiors commands take away the juſt civil rights and freedoms of the Subjects. Saith he ſo? May not the Superior determine me, in a caſe where I may determine my ſelf, if his determination takes away my Civil Rights? And may he determine me in a caſe, where my Spiritual Rights and Liberties are concerned, and therein may determine my ſelf? Oh how cheap are Mens Spiritual Rights and Liberties in the eyes of ſome, and that in matters, where their Souls are ſo highly concerned in their ſtanding faſt in their liberties? Are Civil Rights more to be contended for then Spiritual Rights? And may they be contended for againſt a Civil Superior (tho they be in matters which are his proper Sphere) and may not Spiritual Liberties be contended for, which we derive immediately from God, and of which no Magiſtrate as to my practice is under God the proximate judge? 2. His other caſe is, Where the thing commanded is againſt the Rules of Conſcience, But ſurely every man in ſuch things is determined, and hath no power to determine p. 194duplicate page p. 195duplicate page p. 196himſelf; but it is true, theſe things are no matte… of a L…w. Th… Queſtion ſtill is, Who as to my practice ſhall be the judge, what is againſt the Rule of Conſcience. If he ſaith my ſelf, he ha…h determined the caſe to my ſenſe. Here he ſpeaks ſomething, if …he Inferior doth not believe …he …hing ſinful but if he doth he hath ſaid nothing at all to the purpoſe; and that every one may eaſily diſcern.

7. It is worth our Readers obſervation, how ingenuouſly this V…ndicator de…leth he ſaith that p. 147. I have told them. That the Author of that Argument, would perſwade us to be Papiſts, in that he would have men to think, That the judgment of Superio…s is better then our own. My words are theſe: It is worth our Readers obſervation how the afore-mentioned Author, and h…t in the purſuit of this Argument, would perſwade us to be Papiſts acting contrary to the ſingular judgment of our own Conſciences, out of an abounding voluntary Humility and judging (and that as to matters of our particular practice) upon which our Eternit depends as the miſcarriage in them may lay the Soul under the Guilt of Sin. That the judgment of our Superiors is beſt, whence he would infer, not only a lawfulneſs, but a neceſſity incumbent upon a reaſonable Soul, which is by its principles obliged to follow that which is beſt to obey men that are our Superiors, contrary p. 197to our own Opinion and Judgment.

What Faithfulneſs, or Ingenuity is to be expected from ſuch a Writer? If he ha…h but ſo quoted the Ancients for Forms of Prayer being generally and univerſally uſed, he may have (after his manner) proved what he would, for ought I know. I ſay it again, That he who perſwades me or any other Chriſtian that it his duty in the things of God, contrar… to the opinon and judgment of his own Conſcience, to obey Superi…rs, becauſe it is beſt, doth a thouſand times more to promove Popery, then if he ſhould perſwade men, to believe T…anſubſtantiation or Purgatory, or any particular Doctrines of Popery; the great Arguments for which are in this Root. And if I could believe, that I ought to do, or believe what the Church or my Superiors believe, becauſe they ſo believe or do, or command me to do ſo, tho I veril… believe it ſinful; I ſhould think it moſt eligible to be of that Church, which pretends to an Infallible head.

7. And I humbly offer it to the Conſideration of thoſe who are, or who are like to be our Legiſlators, whether it be poſſible that that Religion can long be kept out, if men may thus teach Blind Obedience (the very mother of it) and (as others have done) confidently aſſert not only a Real but a Corporeal preſence of Chriſt in the Sacrament, (ſo aſcribing ſuch a body to Chriſt as is no true body, inviſible, illocal, multi preſent, p. 198&c.) yea and Purgatory too, leaving order for Prayers to be made for their Souls departed (as others have done) to inſtance in no more particulars of very many; and when they have defended themſelves, with the moſt nice, unintelligible diſtinctions they can, the beſt of this is but to teach people, Quam prope, ad peccatum ſine peccato licet accede re, which it is a thouſand to one if people (the generality at leaſt) can underſtand.

8. To take off my Anſwer to the 10th Argument (for the 8th and 9th he will not own) he refers to what he ſaid before, concerning the neceſſity of Ʋniformity, which I denyed. I ſhall alſo refer my Reader to what I have before ſaid. I do preſume my inſtance from the Decree of Darius, was good enough to prove, that all Superiors Precepts for Ʋniformity in Worſhip are not lawful.

9. What he ſaith p. 253, upon my quotation of Heb. 5.1. to prove the due notion of a publick Miniſter in the Worſhip of God, He is a perſon taken from amongſt men, and ordained in things pertaining to God, to offer up ſuch ſervices as God had inſtituted; which as to the Jews were Gifts and Sacrifices, as to us are Prayer, Praiſe, Preaching, Adminiſtring the Sacraments. He had no mind to underſtand I deſigned from thence to conclude, that we having twice ten thouſand Chriſtians, that wanted not the Gift of Prayer (bleſſed be God) our p. 199Church could not want ſufficient Miniſters for that work, ſeeing ſhe had ſuch Men, and it was her own fault if she did not call them to it.

10. Our Vindicator comes in the laſt place to reinforce his own 5 Reaſons againſt the Batteries I had given them. His firſt was,p. 253. That a true, right, and well ordered way of Worſhip in addreſs to God, might be beſt ſecured to the Church in the publick Service of God.

To this I replyed, 1. That is onelyonly a right way of Worſhip, which God hath inſtituted. He ſaith God hath not inſtituted the very words we are to uſe, but he hath inſtituted, That we ſhould uſe words in Vocal Prayer, and left the particular words to his Miniſters liberty. Words are an eſſential part of his Worſhip, man cannot inſtitute them, nor determine, what of that Nature God hath left to liberty. I mean no other men beſides he that Miniſtreth in Prayer, which appeareth to be a part of his Inſtitution, becauſe he hath directed no other way. 2. I had told him that the ſecurity he talked of was not poſſible, nor attainable by Forms. He tells me it muſt be ſecured as much as may be (that is his ſenſe) but I hope not by depriving Miniſters of the juſt liberty and rights which Chriſt hath left them, not by making Miniſters, the Miniſters of Men, to read what they have preſcribed, inſtead of the Miniſters of Chriſt, doing his work p. 200by the means he hath in Nature and by Scripture directed. 3. I told him that in Hundreds of Congregations, for twenty years together, the Worſhip of God was in England well, and orderly performed without Forms. I here add, and hath been, and is in Scotland, New England, Holland, ſo as admit what he ſaith were true in the late times of all the Congregations in England, (which it is very far from) yet there is proof enough, ro overthrow his Reaſon.

11. His ſecond reaſon was, That needful and comprehenſive Petitions, for all Spiritual and outward wants, with fit Thanksgivings, may not in the publick Supplications of the Church be Omited; when as the tying of all men to the Forms, is the ready way to have them Omitted, as we have had now the experience of two years laſt paſt, for a ſufficient proof; nor are the ordinary and common wants of Chriſtians, proportionable to the particular renewing wants of States and Churches, Congregations, and Perſons.

12. His Third Reaſon was, That the hearts of Pious Men, might be more devout, and better united in the Service of God, by conſidering before-hand what Prayers and Thanksgivings, they are to offer up, and come the more ready to joyn and prepared to joyn in them. And when they come, not hear one word about the particular Sins, they have been thinking to confeſs, but onelyonly ſins in general; nor of their preſent and renewing p. 201wants, nor of their lately received mercies, how great ſoever they be, nor how Univerſal ſoever, for which God certainly expects a particular Recognition and Thanksgiving; but onelyonly words of General Thanksgiving, for all Mercies, and general Confeſſions of all Sins, and general Petitions for all good things.

13. He ſeems diſpleaſed that I should tell him, Forms may be read falſly. This he ſaith is very unlike, but I my ſelf with a hundred more, have heard it more then once; I could name him the particular perſons, times and things, but then I ſhould be exclaimed againſt again for reflecting, yet it is not yet 14 days ſince I heard it from one, who (as one would have thought) read the Forms with great Zeal. But then he ſaith the people may help themſelves, having often heard and joyned in the Form; that is, provided they have the moſt by heart, which not one hath of Ten thouſand; and 2. then not without great diſtraction, for they have great reaſon to believe, their Leader can Read more perfectly then they can remember.

12. His fourth Reaſon was, That ſuch difficult parts of Church Offices as Baptiſm and the Supper of the Lord, the matter of which requires great conſideration, may in compoſing a Form be ſo framed, that men of greateſt underſtandings may with readieſt aſſent, entertain them, and that they might be ſufficiently Vindicated (from the p. 202Calumny I ſuppoſe he means) of the boldeſt Oppoſers. My Anſwer was to that ſenſe, That theſe were the eaſieſt parts of a Miniſters Office, as to External work, for beſides the uſe of his Natural Motions of his his hands, he had nothing to do but to repeat the words of our Saviour, which are very ſhort Forms, of Divine Inſtitution, and to apply the general acts of his Office, Prayer and Exhortation to that Work. This now our Vindicator denieth not, but he would have ſecurity, that men ſhould not Vary. Let him have a Law with all our hearts: But he rhinks that according to mens different Notions, they may vary in their Prayers and Exhortations. So they may in their Sermons, before the Sacrament, and what help for that.

12. His laſt Reaſon was thus delivered, That this may be an Evidence to other Churches in future times, after what way we Worſhip God, and that ſuch a Church is in its meaſure a pure and incorrupt Church. I anſwered where hath God required ſuch an Evidence? He tells me, We need not any ſpecial command for every good thing. Nor need every good thing be brought into Publick Worſhip, and made a part of it. I always took the recital of the Creed to be a good thing, but no Part of Worſhip, and thus himſelf anſwers what I next ſaid. That to this end Forms of Sermons are alſo needful, on this Account. I told him a publick Confeſſion of Faith is a ſufficient Teſtimony. p. 203He tells us it is ſo as to our Doctrine, but not as to our Worſhip: Well let the… be then a Law made with all our hea…s, That none in the publick Worſhip of God, ſhould do any other Act, nor uſe any other mean, but what God in his Word hath eſtabliſhed. We ſhould think this Act as good an Act as ever was made: And this would give a better Evidence to the World then Forms can, how we Worſhip God.

And now I am come to an end of my long journey, where I have not been tyred with the length of my way, but for want of one Stile or Difficulty, to give my hand or pen the leaſt ſtop. I am reſolved (without great reaſon) to tread this path no more, I ſee there is no end of Writing, where Men will take a liberty to repeat what is ſaid, as they pleaſe, and run Vagaries, nothing concerning the matter in hand, onelyonly ſtudying to divert the Reader from underſtanding the truth, and how to expoſe thoſe that will venture to contradict their Sentiments. Let thoſe who have a mind to talk at this rate talk on, for all me, and pleaſe themſelves with the noiſes themſelves make, and with having the laſt word.

FINIS.

p. 205foreign, A REVIEW Of the Third Section of the Third CHAPTER OF THE VINDICATION OF LITURGIES, Beginning Vindicat. p. 136.

1. THoſe who are but meanly verſed in this Controverſie, will eaſily underſtand that our Adverſaries three great Topicks are Ʋnity, Authority, and Antiquity. Themſelves know as well as we, and will ſometimes confeſs, that to argue from the Inſtitution of God, and Chri…, to the Inſtitutions of Men is very weak; and the Pleas from Chriſts uſing the ſame words (as we tranſlate it;) from the Precepts, for ſpeaking the ſame thing, and glorifying God with one Mouth; from the command to Timothy, That Interceſſions, and Prayers, and Supplications, p. 206ſhould be made for all Men; from Pauls order for bringing the Parchments from Troas; are ſuch, as none of them would offer to bring in the Schools, being fit only for a Countrey Auditory. They alſo know, that not one of their pretended Arguments from Reaſon, will conclude either neceſſity or lawfulneſs, but Ʋnity, Obedience to Superiors, and Antiquity, are the three great Bulwarks from which they think to Batter us who are of another mind. Indeed none of all theſe, will conclude the general uſe of ſuch Forms of Prayer as the Queſtion ſpeaks of, either neceſſary or unlawful, nor can have any force upon an Intelligent Soul till the point of Lawfulneſs be determined within it ſelf; for Peace is no further required of us, then as it can be kept, together with our Peace with God; and who ſo perſwades another by Sin to ſeperate himſelf from God, that he may keep an Ʋnion with Men, hath not learned his Doctrine from the Old or New Teſtament, which commands us to follow Peace and Holineſs (which certainly lies in a firſt reſpect to Gods Commands) and no further then as much as in us lyeth, and as far as it is poſſible to have Peace with all Men, which muſt certainly be interpreted not concerning our Natural, but Moral Power; nor are we to obey man, but in Subordination to God: and in my preceding Diſcourſe, I have (I think) made it appear, That no man hath power to appoint an Eſſential part of Worſhip p. 207(which in Vocal Prayer, words muſt be) nor when God hath preſcribed One Mean in Worſhip, to direct another; nor yet when God hath commanded us to ſerve him with the utmoſt Attention and Fervency; and conſequently to uſe all means he hath given us in order to that end, can any command of men, limit us to a Mean, which we upon experience find, hinders our Attention and Fervency; nor yet when he hath in any duty promiſed the influence of his Holy Spirit, can Man command any ſuch mode of performance of that duty, as muſt neceſſarily ſhut it out; which muſt be in the preſent caſe, if any influence of the Holy Spirit upon our Words in Prayer, be any part of his promiſe. And for the Practice, and Examples, or Opinions of good and Holy Men; it is impoſſible they ſhould further lay hold upon our Conſciences in this matter, then to double our thoughts upon the matter in queſtion, to make us ſeriouſly to weigh on what grounds they Act; our ſelves being as likely to be miſtaken as they. This made me paſs over our Vindicators third Section of his Third Chapter, wherein he laboureth to load us, with the prejudice of the Conſtant Practice of the Church againſt our Opinion and Practice; ſomething ſlightly looking upon it but as loſs of time and paper, to reply to an Inconcludent Argument; and ſeeing, that the queſtion being about Sin or Duty, no Practice could conclude on either ſide.

p. 2082. But yet as the moſt of Men, ſo I my ſelf have a great Reverence for things that can be made out to be Ʋniverſal Traditions. Of which nature I hardly know any thing not plainly revealed in Scripture, except the obſervation of the Chriſtian Sabbath, and Infant Baptiſm, neither of which ſtand upon that ſingle foot; much leſs do I think, that there is any ſuch thing to be pleaded, for Miniſters Ʋniverſal porformance of their Miniſterial Acts in Solemn Prayer, by the preſcribed Forms of other Men. Though therefore enough is ſaid, partly in the Reaſonable Account, partly in the Supplement, to anſwer whatſoever hath been ſaid of this nature, yet having my pen yet in my hand, I ſhall add a few lines, to juſtifie what is before ſaid, againſt the Attaques upon it, and to ſhew the weakneſs of what is brought a-new in the Vindication.

3. Only becauſe we are ſo apt to vary from the Queſtion, I deſire the Reader would firſt conſider what we do not deny, and therefore needeth no proof. 1. We deny not but from the beginning Publick Prayers Were made by the Miniſter and Congregation. 2. We alſo believe, That very early the uſe of the Lords Prayer was general in the publick Congregations; tho we find none enjoyned it under Penalties. 3. We do believe, That even from the firſt there were Orders Set for Churches meeting together for Prayers, in certain places, and certain times. 4. Nor do we at all doubt but from the p. 209beginning, many good Men in imitation of John the Baptiſt and of Chriſt, did compoſe Forms of Words, which might inſtruct the weaker in the due Method and Matter of Prayer; which forms alſo ſome particular men (not having attained to an Ability fitly to expreſs their minds to God in Publick) might uſe, or let alone, as they ſaw reaſon. But none of theſe touch the Queſtion, which is, Whether Miniſters who have an Ability fitly to expreſs their mind to God in Prayer, may ordinarily without ſin, uſe the preſcribed Forms of other Men? This our Vindicator muſt prove. In order to the proof of it, he ſuggeſteth, That they have been uſed in all Ages in the Church, and it is unreaſonable therefore to think them not lawful, or that they any way hinder Devotion. Now to make this good, every one ſeeth that (I will not ſay an Univerſal, but) a general uſe of them muſt be proved. For if ſome particular men did uſe ſuch of their own accord, it proveth nothing; we agree they may do ſo ſtill.

4. I cannot ſee how this is capable of proof, for it is very unreaſonable to imagine a general uſe without a general Impoſition. Can any one think, that all, or moſt Miniſters, for more than 300 years after Chriſt, ſhould fall into a Practice, to which neither the light of Nature, nor any Precept in Scripture, or Practice of the Apoſtles, guided them without ſome command from the Governours of the Church? This command muſt either be p. 210from all who were Biſhops over many Churches, or from all the Synods of particular Churches, or from the Fathers in ſome general Council, or from the Magiſtrate. It is certain it was not from the Magiſtrate, for there was no Chriſtian Magiſtrate till more then 300 years after Chriſt. It could be from no general Council, for there was none till 325 years after Chriſt, when the Council of Nice Aſſembled. The next was that Aſſembled at Conſtantinople 380. The next was at Epheſus 431. The fourth at Chalcedon, 451. There is no pretence for any ſuch eſtabliſhment by any general Council, till we come to that of Chalcedon, nor there, but by Implication; and the probability of that I ſhall examine by and by.

5. Beſides the Councils mentioned in Scripture, there are 17 Provincial Synods we read of before the Council of Nice, 36 more betwixt that and the next general Council at Conſtantinople, Anno 380. 17 more, before the General Council at Epheſus, Anno 431. (12 of which were before that of Milevis) 8 more before that of the Council of Chalcedon Anno 451. In all 78 leſſer Synods, and 3 general Councils were before that of Chalcedon. Of all theſe 78, there are but three pretended to have made any Canon in the cauſe. That of Laodicea Anno 364, the third Council of Carthage, and that of Milevis Anno 402; All Provincial Councils, whoſe impoſitions could reach no further then their own Provinces; and I have ſhewed p. 211and ſhall ſhew further, That the firſt decreed no ſuch thing, onelyonly that Prayers ſhould be in their Churches Mornings and Evenings. As to that of Carthage we have ſhewed that it is doubtful, whether there were ever ſuch a Council or no; if there were, it is certain, it made but 21 Canons, this is the 23d. Nor do the words of the pretended Canon prove any ſuch thing, but rather the contrary. That of Milevis indeed is plain, but it was made upon a particular occaſion, and reached no further then Numidia; and by their aſſuming a power to make a Liturgy for that Province, they have told us that there was none made by Peter, James, Mark, Andrew, Clement, &c. nor any then of any general uſe in the Church, for if there had, they could eaſilier have directed the keeping to that alone: and it is plain from the words of that Canon, that till that time there was a liberty of compoſition left to the Miniſters of Churches.

6. I therefore humbly offer it to my ordinary Readers obſervation, how impoſſible a proof they undertake, who undertake to prove a General uſe or impoſition of Forms of Prayers for more then 400 years after Chriſt; being neither able to prove it, from Ʋniverſal Practice of particular Men, nor from more then one of 78 Provincial Synods (and that in a particular caſe of great Exigence) nor from any Canon of any General Council, and I am ſure much leſs from the commands of all particular Biſhops in their Dioceſſes, or p. 212the 40th part of them: indeed I know not of one. And I moſt humbly offer it to our Superiors, whether in a time when they are ſtruggling for the very life of our Religion againſt Popery, they can ſhut out Eminently Learned and Pious Men, becauſe they durſt not ſubmit to this Injunction, which moſt certainly can pretend to nothing of Antiquity, elder then the Council of Chalcedon 451 years after Chriſt, when abundance of Superſtition and Popiſh traſh was crept into the Rituals of the Church. Nay I hope to make it good that no ſuch thing had eſtabliſhment by that Council.

7. I have not the Councils at large, only 2 or 3 abridgments of them. Caranza gives it us in theſe words:

Can. 1. A Sanctis Patribus in unaqua que Synodo, uſque nunc prolatas Regulas tenere ſtatuimus; i. e. We determine to keep the Rules eſtabliſhed in every Synod until this time. Juſtellus in his Code of the Ʋniverſal Church (whom I think we may truſt, and the rather, becauſe our Vindicator hath given us ſuch a warrant) hath it in the ſ me words almoſt, foreign. By this the Canons of all Provincial Councils before that time, were not brought into the anons of the Ʋniverſal Church and eſtabliſhed by it, but only thoſe mentioned in Juſtellus his Code.

8. The Code of the Ʋniverſal Churches Canon, begins with the Council of Nice, p. 213and confirms 79 Canons made by them. It goes on with 25 Canons of the Synod at Antioch, in the year 341; then it confirms 59 Canons of the Synod of Laodicea made 364, and 7 Canons made by the Council at Conſtantinople, made in the year 383, and 8 made in the General Council at Epheſus, in the year 431. Then comes the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451, which made 29 Canons, the firſt of which was confirmative of thoſe before mentioned, and no more. Then comes the Novella Conſtitutio of Juſtinian made about 531, or 532, that is added to Juſtellus his Code, in theſe words, We ordain that the Holy Eccleſiaſtical Canons, which were propounded and confirmed, by the four Holy Councils,V. Juſtelli Codicem Eccleſiae Univerſall, p. 128. viz. that of Nice conſiſting of 308 Holy Fathers; that of the Council of Conſtantinople conſiſting of 150 Holy Fathers. Thoſe of the firſt Council of Epheſus where Neſtorius was condemned, and that of Chalcedon, where both Eutiches and Neſtorius were condemned, ſhall have the Authority of a Law; for we receive the Decrees of the aforeſaid Holy Councils, as Holy Scripture, and obſerve their Canons as Laws. This Conſtitution was made about 541.

p. 2149. But we are yet inquiring what Eccleſiaſtical Sanction Forms of Prayer to be Ʋniverſally uſed by Miniſters, had by the Council of Chalcedon. I obſerve firſt, that the Canons of the Council of Milevis are not in the Code, ſo not confirm d at all by it. The Canon of the Council of Laodicea indeed is. Let us then hear that Canon as Juſtellus hath it, foreign. That is, We ordain, That the ſame Liturgy of Prayers, ſhould be made every where both at Nine of the Clock and at Evenings.

Thus much we agree was confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451.

10. But what is this to the purpoſe? It ſhould have been foreign, the ſame Forms of Prayers, that indeed would have been ſomething. Here s nothing but an idle playing with a modern uſage of the Term Liturgy, which indeed we here in England of late years have appropriated, to Forms of words to be publickly uſed in Prayer, and it may be the Church of Rome before us; but alas the word ſignifieth no ſuch thing. In regard the ſtreſs of ſeveral Arguments from Antiquity lieth upon this poor word, I will once for all diſabuſe my Reader as to the true ſenſe of it; I will do it from a great Authority, that of Melancthon and all the Saxon Divines, who agreed in writing their Apology for their Confeſſion tendred to the Emperour Charles the 5th at p. 215Ausburgh 1530, which was anſwered by the Popiſh Divines Eccius, &c. Eccius and his Aſſociates had catch'd hold of this word, and contended that the Maſs was a Sacrifice, becauſe it is by the Ancients called foreign, a Liturgy. Melancthon in that Apology printed 1535, in the beginning of the Chapter De Vocabulis Miſſae, thus anſwereth, The word Liturgy, ſignifieth only a Publick Miniſtry, and doth fitly ſute, what we hold, That one Miniſter ſhould in the Sacrament conſecrate the Elements, The meaning of the word Liturgy.and give the Body and Blood of Chriſt to the people; as one Miniſter preacheth, and offereth the Goſpel to all the People, according to that of Paul, Let a man ſo judge of us as Stewards of the Myſteries of God; and again We are Embaſſadors of Chriſt; ſo the term Liturgy excellently agreeth to the Miniſtry. For the word is an old word uſed to expreſs publick civil Miniſtries. The Grecians uſed it to expreſs any publick Taxes, Burdens, or Tributes, the Charges of ſetting out Navies, &c. as may appear from the Oration of Demoſthenes foreign; which Oration is wholly ſpent about publick Offices and Immunities from them, where he ſaith, That ſome unworthy men finding themſelves priviledged,In civil Authors. ſtudied, foreign, to decline publick Liturgies, that is Services. p. 214duplicate page p. 215duplicate page p. 216So they ſpake amongſt the Romans, as appeareth by the Reſcript of the Emperour Pertinax F. de Jure immunitatis. Tho (ſaith he) the number of Children doth not free. Men foreign, from all Liturgies, that is publick Services. And the Commentator on Demoſthenes ſaith, Liturgy ſignifies a kind of Tribute to defray the charges of publick Plays, Navies, Schools, and ſuch things as the publick ſtock was concerned in — And (ſaith he) it is plain from the diphthong foreign in it that it is not derived from foreign, which ſignifieth Prayers (from whence the word Litany is derived) but from foreign which ſignifieth publick Goods. Thence foreign ſignifies to take care of publick things, and foreign ſignifieth ſuch an Officer. Thus far they.

From this account of the civil uſage of the word, it may eaſily be in Scripture gathered,In Scripture. what it ſignifies in ſacred things, and proved from Holy Writ. It is uſed, Luk. 1.23. to ſignifie all Zacharies publick Service in the Temple. We there tranſlate it truly Miniſtration. It is uſed to expreſs Pauls publick Service to the Church in ſuffering, 2 Phil. 17. Surely that Text is not to be tranſlated, If I be offered upon the Forms of Prayer of your Faith, but (as we do) upon the ſervice of your Faith. So the Apoſtle ſpeaking of Diſtributions to the poor, he calls it the Adminiſtration of this Liturgy, we tranſlate it Service; ſo Phil. 2.30. to p. 217ſupply your lack of ſervice to me. Gr. Liturgy; he ſpeaks of Timoth's coming to him. Heb. 8.6. Chriſt ſaith the Apoſtle obtained a more excellent Liturgy, we rightly tranſlate it Miniſtry, Heb. 9.21. all the Veſſells of the Liturgy, that is of the Jewiſh Miniſtry; it cannot be of the Jewiſh Forms of Prayer. The Canon of the Council of Laodicea (confirmed as being part of the Code by the 1 Canon of the Council of Chalcedon) decrees, That the ſame Liturgy, that is publick Miniſtry of Prayers, ſhould be performed at Nine in the Morning, and in the Evenings; which I hope might be without Forms of words, of which it ſpeaketh nothing.

11. But he tells us the next Canon in Juſtellus proves they underſtood Forms of words in Prayer. I anſwer, that is not ſo: the next Canon indeed, directs an Order of the publick Miniſtry, viz. That after the Miniſters Sermons they ſhould pray a part with the Catechumeni, then with the Penitents, after this thrice; with the Believers once ſilently, twice ſpeaking out, &c. but in that Canon foreign is not uſed, nor any words like it, but foreign and foreign, Prayers and Oblations. But Zonaras and Balſamon ſo interpret the Canon. I doubt it not; but the one lived 600, the other 700 years after that Canon was made, and either of them in ages when Popery had prevailed 4 or 500 years, and they knew no other publick Prayers but by Forms. I doubt not p. 218but in that age 100 more would have ſo interpreted it, to make it juſtifie their Practice; but what is this to the purpoſe? So, many now where they meet with the Terms Liturgy, Prayers, Offices, Litanies, preſently dream of a proof for Forms of Prayer, which none of thoſe words are reſtrained to. Thus we ſee there was no eſtabliſhment of Forms of Prayer by the Council of Chalcedon, 451.

12. We muſt therefore come to Juſtinians Novellae Conſtitutiones. I preſume every one knows that great Emperours, neither uſe to write out Folio's, nor to draw Prefaces to them. The Imperial Law in that Emperors time (ſay the Centuriaters and Moxia) was ſcattered in near 2000 Books (it was time to abridge it) the Emperour Juſtinian employed in it three Lawyers, the principal was one Tribonianus, Sleidan ſaith of him, He was a covetous profane man, and reported for ſumms of money given him, fixiſſe & refixiſſe leges, to have made and unmade Laws at his pleaſure. He drew the Imperial Law into three Books, called after Juſtinians Code, to which were added, the Digeſta, and laſt of all the Novellae conſtitut. the former contained the Laws of all former Emperors; the laſt ſuch as he himſelf, and ſome few Emperors next before him made. Juſtinian confirmed theſe Books, ſo they became the Imperial Law, from the year 542. By the way, tho this Juſtinian did many good things, yet he was an Heretick, p. 219and had many great Vices (It was he who put out the eyes of Beliſarius that great Commander (by whom he indeed did whatſoever he did worthily in his Wars) &c. ſo as he was inforced to begg his bread before he died.

13. Out of the Preface to theſe Novellae, our Vindicator hath taken ſomething he thinks for his purpoſe. If he had given us the words of the Prefacer, for I cannot find them in Gothofred, I could have ſpoken diſtinctly to it, but I ſuppoſe he hath given all that were for his turn. (Speaking of his Monks and Clergy) he ſaith they would have done otherwiſe if they had acquainted themſelves foreign; that is to learn the way of the Holy Miniſtrations; as to what he ſaith, cap. 2, and cap. 6, having not the Book, I can ſay nothing unleſs he had given us the Greek words. I ſuſpect them to be but foreign or foreign, which prove nothing. But it is not worth the while, for admit theſe proofs prove the thing, it proveth no Sanction of Forms of Prayer before 542: So I loſe but 59 years. Nor do I underſtand what need Pope Adrian had 259 years after this, to get a Civil Sanction from Charles the Great; if one were 259 year old made by Juſtinian, and made a part of the Imperial Law.

14. But I cannot but obſerve by the way how our Author fetching his Eccleſiaſtical Sanction but from the Council of Chalcedon 451, and Juſtinians Novellae 541, hath p. 218duplicate page p. 219duplicate page p. 220quite deſtroyed his inſtance out of Euſebius de Vita Conſtantini, c. 17, 19, 20, foreign for if the Engliſh of that be Prayers by Authority appointed, we muſt find an higher Authority conſtituting their uſe, then that of Juſtinian, who did what he did 542; and Conſtantine had been dead 200 years before. Nor was the Council of Chalcedon of 130 years after Conſtantines death, ſo that it ſhould ſeem only the Prayers were conſtituted of which he ſpeaks cap. 17, not the Forms alſo; but I ſhall meet with that anon: beſides this Civil Sanction of Juſtinian being in his Novellae (which contained only his own Laws and ſome Emperors that went immediately before him) it is a certain proof there was no Ancienter Civil Sanction by Conſtantine and Theodoſius, &c. we ſhould then have found it in Juſtinians Code, not in his Novellae; for any Eccleſiaſtical Sanction there is no pretence to any until the Councel of Chalcedon, and I have ſhewed there is no proof to be fetched from thence: beſides the Canon of the Councel of Milevis being not brought into the Code of the Ʋniverſal Church, is a ſufficient Argument, there was no ſuch thing confirmed by the Councel of Chalcedon; for that Canon is the only plain Canon in the caſe.

15. But (Dato non conceſſo as we ſay) admit, That from the year 541, they had been ſo impoſed by Juſtinian, and made a part of the Imperial Law, what then? I had been miſtaken 59 years (which I am far p. 221from believing or ſeeing the leaſt ground for.) Will any one ſay that the practice of a Romane Emperor in that age, or indeed the Church under his Government, was a Copy for any Proteſtant Church in all things to write after? I refer my Reader to the ſad account given by the Centuriators (who were all Learned Proteſtants) of the moſt corrupt ſtate of the Church in this Age; ſee Magdeburg. Centur: Centur. 6. ap. 137, impr. Baſil. I think any one who is a Proteſtant, will be of another mind. The Pope indeed at that time was not well ſet in his Saddle, it was 6 or 7 years after that age, before he got the Title of Ʋniverſal Biſhop, but his foot at this time was in the Stirrop, and the Bridle in his hand.

16. But our Vindicator will go higher with us; he will prove them from the year 400 to the year 500. I hope he means generally uſed in publick Devotion or impoſed for ſuch uſe, or he proveth juſt nothing. To prove this, he again brings in the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon: I have already ſaid enough to that. Next he brings in Proclus Biſhop of Conſtantinople, and he finds his Writings in Bibliotheca Patrum; he tells us he declares Forms of Divine Service, (what is the Greek word?) To have been delivered from St. James, and St. Clement, and to have been ordered by St. Baſil, and St. Chryſoſtome. That there was one Proclus Biſhop of Constantinople ſoon after Chryſoſtome, Euſebius tells us: But that he left p. 222us any Writings muſt be proved from better Auhority then that of Bibliotheca Patrum. However, he ſaith as much for St. James and Clements Forms of Prayer, as he doth for Baſils or Chryſoſtomes, and as to them our Author declares his not giving credit to him, nor is it reaſonable he ſhould; for it is not probable, that had there been any Apoſtolical Liturgies, Chryſoſtome and Baſil would have made any. Nor was Proclus a likely man to impoſe any; for Euſebius l. 7. c. 4. gives us this Character of him:

He vexed no Sect, but preſerved and reſtored to the Church the great Jewel of Meekneſs, which is beſt for the Church; wherein he imitated the Emperor Theodoſius: for as he would not exert his Imperial Power, againſt any accuſed for Religion, ſo neither did Proclus concern himſelf, as to thoſe who held a diverſe Doctrine.

17 Our Vindicator riſeth higher, and will prove ſomething from the year 300 to the year 400; but I obſerve he never tells us what: will he prove the Lords Prayer was uſed? Or that ſome Forms were made by others? Or that ſome men uſed ſome Forms? None denieth all this. But that which he is to prove, is, That ſuch Forms were generally uſed by, or impoſed upon all Miniſters in any conſiderable part of the Church. All his proof is from the Liturgies of Chryſoſtome and Baſil. Julians ſpeaking of foreign, an Order amongſt Chriſtians in Worſhip, p. 223which Sozomen calleth foreign, and Nazianzene Orat. 3. p. 101, 102, calls them foreign; conſidering what himſelf had quoted out of Euſebius, and from the Council of Laodicea, n. 5, 6, 7, 8.

18. What he hath ſaid out of the Council of Laodicea, hath had its full anſwer; what he hath ſaid from Euſebius hath had an Anſwer in part, and anon ſhall have a fuller reply to it: at preſent I will onelyonly concern my ſelf in the other. For the Liturgies of Baſil and Chryſoſtome, admit they did make any, I would fain know what line of proof we have, that made they were not left at liberty; we have before proved there could at this time be no impoſition of them, doth any think there were not many in their Dioceſſes that needed Forms of Prayer both for their Inſtruction, and to help them in their Devotion? How doth it appear that Chryſoſtome or Baſil did themſelves uſe any? 2. This cuts the Throat of all the fictitious Apoſtolical Liturgies. Had there been any ſuch things found out in their times, there is no doubt but they would have rather recommended them then any of their own unto their people. 3. Both theſe great Men flouriſhing in the time of the Milevitane Council, it is not likely had there been known Liturgies by ſo famous Men as Baſil and Chryſoſtome, that they would not without any more ado, have ordered the reading of them, they eſpecially living at p. 224that time or a little before. But 4thly, As I have before ſaid, what imaginable proof can there be more then we have, that thoſe Liturgies were none of theirs. The Copies do not agree, there are Doctrines in them quite contrary to their Doctrines, hymns not uſed in their times, words not then in uſe, Prayers for Perſons living 500, 700 years after their time But there is enough ſaid by my Lord of Morney in the caſe, by Learned Rivet in his Critici Sacri Specimen, in the Reaſonable Account, p. 67. Supplement p. 43, 44.

19 As to our Vindicators Quotation out of Sozomen, concerning Julians deſign …o bring the Pagan Religion in credit, the Reader muſt be wary, for 1ſt. Sozomen tells us the ſumm of what Julian did in his own words, then for the proof of it he referreth to Julians own letter to the Ponteſee of Galatia, which he giveth us at large. The words our Vindicator quotes (as they are in Sozomen) for he doth not love to give us his quotations full) are theſe. (Soz. l. 5. c. 15.)

He (ſaith he, that is Julian) determined to adorn the Gentiles Temples, both with utenſils and furniture (Apparatu ſaith the Latin Tranſlator) and the order (foreign) of the Chriſtian Religion; and beſides with Seats and Pews for the Teachers and Lecturers of the Pagan Doctrine, and Exhortations, and with Prayers preſcribed for certain days, and hours, and Monaſteries. — Then he referreth for the proof to Julians p. 225own Letter, where is not a word of Prayers. — What is there in this, to prove the Chriſtians had at that time Forms of Prayer in the Church. Becauſe they had foreign an Order in Worſhip, and becauſe the had ſome ſet days for Prayer, they ordered Prayers on certain days, and hours, muſt they needs be Forms? Nor do I believe was the Common Prayer Book of Julian made for the Heathen, ever yet ſeen by any learned man, at leaſt, I never heard of it. But what our Vindicator means by his next words [which Nazianzene calls foreign, which (with all ſubmiſſion to his skill in Critical Learning) I think is better tranlated partly a Form of Prayers, then as he doth Forms of Prayers in parts I cannot Divine. Doth he mean that Naz. expounded Sozomens foreign That could not be, without a Reſurrection, for Nazianzen died 389, which was above 50 years before Sozomen wrote, (was not this as great a miracle as Gregorius Magnus, his living 200 years?) What then? Did Nazianzen expound Lucians words? There is no Evidence he ever ſpake any ſuch, only Sozomen ſo phraſeth what he did, but Lucian in his Epiſtle ſaith no ſuch things, or at leaſt hath no ſuch words. Indeed foreign is more properly expreſſive of the thing in Queſtion, Forms of Prayer, then foreign or foreign. But Nazianz. is not by our Author quoted to have ſaid any ſuch thing was eſtabliſhed, only to expound the words p. 226of another Author who wrote 50 years after he was dead, or Julians who never appears to have uſed ſuch words. So he… is a fine flouriſh of words to no purpoſe, but to delude the Reader.

20. Our Vindicator is now come to his proof from the year 200 to the year 300, where he refers to his proof in Libertas Eccleſ. from what he had of Origen and Cyprian, and I refer to my anſwer, in my Supplement, p. 21. 22, only minding our Vindicator that there is a great deal of difference betwixt foreign and foreign: Prayers appointed, and Forms of Prayers appointed. The latter is not in Origen, but the former, which proves no appointment of Forms; but that there ſhould be Prayers at ſuch times.

21. For what he addeth out of Tertullian, of their having a Form of Renuntiation in Baptiſm, and H mns, and the Council of Antioch cenſuring Paulus Samoſetanus, for diſuſing the Hymns: It had been proper to have told us the Nicene Council alſo eſtabliſhed a Form of Confeſſion of Faith. Are we arguing about Hymns, Forms of Confeſſion of Faith, and Abrenuntiation of Idolatry, or about Forms of Prayer to be uſed in Devotion? Were the other Acts of Worſhip, as Prayer is (I mean the two firſt, for ſinging indeed was) from the inſtance of the Ennuch and Philip, Acts 8. it ſeems to be an appendant to the Ordinance of Baptiſm, that grown perſons offering themſelves p. 227to Baptiſm, ſhould profeſs their Faith in Chriſt, which could not be without a Renunciation of Idolatry. But ſurely thoſe were no Acts of Adoration or Devotion: So as theſe inſtances are meer Tranſitions, from things of one kind to things of another; from whence no proper concluſions can be.

22. The Argument from Singing by Forms is as improper, for a Form is neceſſary there, how elſe can a whole Congregation ſing the ſame thing? But it is not neceſſary in publick Prayer, by any neceſſity of Nature or Divine Precept. Now it is wide Arguing, to conclude from the uſe of Forms in an Act of Worſhip which cannot be performed without Forms; to the lawfulneſs of them in another Act of Worſhip, which may be performed without them.

23. I muſt confeſs, I never was for Singing any Hymns or Pſalms or Spiritual Songs in Publick Worſhip, but what were Scriptural. My reaſons are, 1. Becauſe I take ſinging to have a cognation with Reading, only with a Tuneable Voice, now I know nothing but the Holy Scriptures, which can be read as an Act of Homage to God. 2. Becauſe it is needleſs, we have Scriptural Hymns, Pſalms, and Spiritual ſongs enough. 3. Becauſe I know none ſpecially commiſſionated to compoſe them, and Pſalmiſtry is no ordinary gift. 4. Becauſe it hath proved and may prove of very dangerous conſequence, and I am much miſtaken if I have not read p. 228ſome Ancient Canon prohibiting it, tho I know it hath been ſince admitted in ſome Churches by Canons.

24. For the firſt 200 years after Chriſt, he ſpeaketh faintly, ſaying only that Juſtine Martyr and Ignatius have two expreſſions which ſeem to favour it. He only further mentions Hymns, and proveth the uſe of Hymns of Eccleſiaſtical compoſition from Pliny and Lucian, no very competent Witneſſes of the Chriſtian Churches affairs. The early uſe of the Lords Prayer is eaſily yielded him, but it is a ſtrange proof of a Form of Prayers compoſed by other Men, and generally uſed, or impoſed, to prove (as p. 158) That they began in ſome Churches with the Lords Prayer, and ended with the Hymns of many names, which Mr. Gregory thought was the clauſe at the end of the Lords Prayer, and he doth but gueſs it ſome other. The Lords Prayer cometh not within our queſtion, be it a Form or not a Form.

25. Whatſoever he ſaith à p. 160. ad p. 164. is rather ad pompam then ad pugnam, it all referreth to the uſe of Forms of Prayers in the Jewiſh Church. To it all, I ſhall only add 2 things.

1. It is very improbable, and will appear ſo to every conſiderate Chriſtian, that we ſhould have in Scripture a full account of the Jewiſh Church from its Cradle to its Tomb, and ſo particular an Account of the way of Worſhip which God eſtabliſhed amongſt them, from which they might not p. 229vary; and they ſhould have Forms of Prayers eſtabliſhed for ordinary uſe, and the Scripture not mention any thing of them: we read in Scripture of other Books they had, ſome of which are periſhed, ſome preſerved for our Inſtruction, and Guidance. We read of the Book of the Law many times, but never of their Common Prayer Book, nor of any perſon that uſed the 18 Prayers. We read Nehemiah 8. That in a ſolemn day of Worſhip, the whole Congregation met, and called to Ezra for the Book of the Law, he brings it, they read in it from the Morning to Mid-day, v. 1, 2. After this we read of many Prieſts and Levites who read in the Book of the Law, diſtinctly, and gave the People the ſenſe of it, and made them to underſtand the reading thereof; but we read not a word of their Book of Prayers, either there, or in any other part of Scripture: We read in Luke that when our Saviour came into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day, they brought him the Book of the Prophet Iſaiah, he read in it and preached out of it, but neither there do we read of the Book of 18 Prayers brought forth. I muſt confeſs that in ordinary caſes it is not a good Argument, That this, or that thing was not in being or in uſe, becauſe there is no Sacred Record of the being or uſe of it: But certainly concerning Gods Worſhip amongſt the Jews, it is a good Argument, to prove there was no ſuch thing eſtabliſhed in their Worſhip, becauſe in the Holy Scriptures, p. 230where we have the full ſtory of that Church, a full account of their Worſhip, either by Moſes, or David, ſo many charges to them not to add thereto, nor to diminiſh there-from, there is not any mention of a Book of publick Prayers, which God directed for that Church: we read only of a bleſſing which looketh like a Form (tho ſome have been of another mind) of Gods own directing, tho we often read of the Book of the Law, called for, brought, read in, and often read of the Servants of God Praying publickly, yet not the leaſt mention is made of a Book, or Forms by which they prayed. Admit they had had Forms, if God had preſcribed them, it had been out of our queſtion, who will freely allow God to preſcribe his own Homage and Worſhip; but to think that any of the Jews, or the whole Sanhedrim, had Authori…y to make any for univerſal uſe, when God gave ſuch punctual directions both to Moſes for the Service of the Taberncale, and all things therein, and to David for the Service of the Temple, that it is expreſly ſaid Exod. 39.42. 3. That the very ſtructure of the Tabernacle was according to all that the Lord commanded Moſes, and Deut. 4.2. there is ſo expreſs a command: You ſhall not add to the word, which I command you, nor ſhall you diminiſh from it; which is repeated, Deut. 12.32. and David ſaith, 1 Chron. 28.11, 12, 13, 19. All this the Lord made me to underſtand in Writing by his hand upon me, p. 231v. 12. the pattern of all that he had by the Spirit. When we read of Nadab and Abihu, being ſtruck dead, Levit. 10. for but uſing ordinary fire in a Sacrifice, and of Ʋzzah being ſtruck dead for but touching the Ark when it ſhook in the New Cart, it being Gods preſcript that that Family of the Levites, ſhould carry the Ark on their ſhoulders, Num. 4.15, 7, 9. I ſay after all this, for any to go about to prove that the Jews in their Worſhip had Forms of Prayer not preſcribed of God, which their Miniſters were bound to uſe, and of which is no mention in Scripture, is an undertaking fit for none but thoſe who think they can prove Quidlibet e quolibet; nor to be believed by any, but ſuch as are very credulous. Our Vindicator ſaith their very Sacrifices were Rites of Supplications, and as to them they were limited, and uſed no ſuch Variety. Rites of Supplication, and Supplications are two things, and theſe Rites were limited by God, not by the Sanhedrim, I hope, nor were they without ſome variety in them. For his inſtance 2 Chron. 29.30. It is ſaid, They praiſed God with the Words of David, and Aſaph the Seer. Aſaph was a Prophet, David told us, he ordered nothing but by the Spirit of God, what he underſtood by the hand of the Lord in writing upon him. For Joel 2.17. which he quoteth, ſurely Joel was divinely inſpired, nor is that Prayer ſurely of length enough for a whole Office, nor was it more then a general direction for p. 232matter to be inlarged in words, as the Jewiſh Miniſter thought fit. For what Dr. Lightfoot, Dr. Outram, Scaliger, Buxtorf, Ainſworth, tell us, they have had their Intilligence from the Rabbies, the eldeſt of which (of whom we have any Record) was (ſaith Alſtedius) after the world was 3380 years old. The Hieruſalem Talmud was finiſhed by R. Jochanan 250 years after Chriſt, the Babilonian Talmud not till 500. The moſt of the Writings of their Rabbins, ſaith Alſted, appeared not to the World till 1000 years after Chriſt. Now how competent Witneſſes theſe are (whoſe Books alſo are as full of Fables as leaves) of the practice of the Jewiſh Church before Chriſt, or in its incorrupt ſtate; let any judge who are men of ſenſe.

2. But admit it were a thing capable of proof, that the Jews in their incorrupt times, and that by Gods command, ordinarily uſed Forms of Prayer in their Worſhip, and that ſuch as were neither preſcribed by God nor any Prophet, or Penman of Holy Writ, or that in and about, and ſince Chriſts time, they have uſed ſuch Forms of Prayer ought this to guide the Practice of the Chriſtian Church? Or will it prove that the ſame thing is lawful in the Chriſtian Church? I judge not: For the Jews had by Gods preſcription a Worldly Sanctuary, and as ſome Typical ſo many Carnal Ordinances (as the Apoſtle ſpeaks) which are to continue but till the time of Reformation. Muſick, p. 233which was one of the things directed by David, by the Spirit of God upon him, to be uſed by the Jewiſh Church, was no Typical Ordinance, but it was a Carnal Ordinance, upon which the primitive Church diſuſed it, retaining ſinging only as Juſtin Martyr tells us Quaeſt & Reſp. 107. where he calleth it a Service foreign for Children (with alluſion to the Apoſtle, who compareth the ſtate of that Church, to the ſtate of Children under age) therefore the Goſpel Church threw it out; but he tells us that foreign plain ſinging was not ſo; and it was therefore retained: beſides it was juſtified by our Saviour, commanded by the Apoſtle, &c. In that very Chap. Joel 2. where at the 17. v. Our Vindicator thinks he hath found a Collect to be uſed in the Jewiſh Worſhip, he might have alſo found a Promiſe at v. 28. relating to the days of Pentecoſt, (as appears by Acts. 2.17. I will power out my Spirit on all fleſh, and this Spirit Zech. 12.10. is a Spirit of Supplication, a Spirit of Adoption, teaching us to cry Abba Father; and becauſe we know not what to pray for, helping our Infirmities with ſtrong cries and groans which cannot be uttered, Rom. 8. It is therefore very ill arguing, to argue Divine Inſtitutions under the Goſpel, and the modes or means of them, from the Inſtitutions under the Law. But far worſe, to argue not from the Inſtitutions of God, but the Traditions and Practices of Men in the Jewiſh Church. Are we then p. 234ignorant how ſeverely Chriſt taxed the Traditions of that Church in his time? Telling them they had by them made the Law of God of no effect. For which tho our Saviour did not wholly deſert their Church, but was often with them, heartily joyning with them in his Fathers Inſtitutions, yet he doubtleſs never approved nor joyned with them, in ſuch Traditions as he had ſo declared againſt.

26. Our Vindicator in the cloſe of this Section hath a paſſage out of Melancthon, from whence he would make us believe, that Melancthon judged that Forms of Prayer were always uſed and commanded in the Church: I ſhall the more diligently examine this, to learn my Reader not over much to truſt the Vindicator, without looking himſelf into the Authors he citeth, and becauſe it hath had ſo contrary an influence on me: That whereas before I was ſomething doubtful, whether the Saxon Churches (ſince the Reformation) had not an univerſally impoſed Liturgy, knowing that Luther did at the beginning reform a Miſſal for them, upon reading the common place of Melancthon from whence our Vindicator takes his quotation; I begin to be of another mind, and to think that even thoſe Churches (tho of all other moſt imperfectly Reformed) had no other then a Book of Prayers compoſed, and left at liberty. The place he quoteth is in Melancthons common place, De Precatione. The words of our Vindicator are theſe: p. 235And upon a view of what I have now produced in this Section, the Reader may ſee reaſon to believe the truth of what was aſſerted by Melancthon concerning Forms of Prayer.In loc. Theol. de Precat. Eccleſia ſemper eas propoſuit, & publice & private in eas exerceri jubet. The Church of God hath always propoſed them, and thought them fit to be uſed both publickly and privately.

27. Melancthon was a great Light, and one of the firſt threes in the Reformation of Germany from Popery, of the perſwaſion of Luther and the Saxon Divines, who differed much, both from the Suitzerland Churches, and the five Imperial Cities, and many others, both as to the indifferency of Rites and Ceremonies, which had been uſed in Popery, and in the great point of the True Corporeal preſence of Chriſt in the Lords Supper. This is manifeſt in the whole Hiſtory of thoſe times, wrote by Scultetus, Hoſpinian, and Sleidan. He publiſhed two Editions of ſhort Com. Places, the one 1535, which he dedicated to Hen. VIII. King of England, the other largely printed 1543. In both which is a common place about Prayer, but in the firſt no ſuch paſſage as our Vindicator quoteth. In the latter I find ſomething like it, p. 558. In theſe words.

Sed quia difficilis eſt Attentio, in recitatione p. 236ideo ignavi fugiunt recitationes: At Eccleſia ſemper eas propoſuit, et publice et privatim eas exercere jubet: Ideo Pſalmitraditi ſunt, ſummo concilio compoſiti & Chriſtus ipſe formam precandi proponit, ac nominatim inquit; Luc. 11. Cum Oratis Dicite: verba, et Recitationem certam preſcribit ut antea praeſcripſerat Johannes. Teneamus Ergo et recitemus formam Divino conſilio traditam. In Engliſh:

But becauſe in recitation attention is difficult, therefore lazy perſons decline Recitations, but the Church always propoſed them and commanded them to be uſed both in publick and private. The Pſalms were therefore compoſed with the greateſt wiſdome, and Chriſt himſelf propoſeth a Form of Prayer, and particularly ſaith, Lu. 11. When you pray ſay. He both preſcribeth words, and a certain Recital, as before John had done. Let us hold, and recite that Form which our Lord hath given us. — Then he largely expounds the Lords Prayer.

28. It is manifeſt that Melancthon here ſpeaketh not one word of ſuch Forms of Prayer as are within our queſtion, which are Forms compoſed, and preſcribed by other Men not divinely inſpired, or commiſſionated by God, to order things in his Worſhip. He neither here, nor (that I can find) in any part of this common place, mentions any p. 237but the Lords Prayer, the Pſalms of David, or ſome other parts of Holy Writ, the uſe of which we moſt freely allow even to the beſt of Miniſters, tho it may be we have no ſuch opinion of the neceſſity of the uſe of the ſame words and ſyllables, as ſome others have had, or have.

29. Neither doth he by Recitations (which he ſaith the Church always commanded) mean Forms of Prayer (as our Author ſuggeſteth) it is a moſt unaccountable thing why lazy perſons ſhould (as he ſaith) decline Forms. But the thing he is ſpeaking of is Vocal Prayer, in oppoſition to the Popiſh Practices of Prieſts in Publick Worſhip, Muttering Prayers in ſecreto, making the people believe that whether they heard what was ſaid or no, joyned in one Petition or no, yet they were the Prayers of the Church, and upon that account heard for them. This is it he oppoſeth, and ſaith the contrary was always ordered and commanded by the Church. That Chriſt ordered it otherwiſe, he bids them in Praying ſay, not mutter to themſelves only; and that the Pſalms were made to be ſang out, not mumbled over in ſecreto; and this is all can be made of that Paragraph.

30. From the whole method and ſtructure, and matter of that common place it appears plainly that Melancthon did think All Miniſters might not perform ordinarily their Miniſterial and Family Acts of Prayer, p. 238by the preſcribed Forms of other Men, for his whole buſineſs is to inſtruct Students for the Miniſtry in the true nature of Prayer, the parts and methods of it, the underſtanding of the Lords Prayers, &c. He firſt determines, Supplications and Thanksgivings the two great parts or ſpecies of Prayer; then p. 532, 533, he goes on, ſhewing the difference betwixt the Prayers of Chriſtians, and thoſe of Pagans, Jews, and Mahumetans, directing the firſt to diſtinguiſh themſelves, by praying in the Name and Mediation of Jeſus Chriſt. After this he caſts his diſcourſe under 5 heads, of all which he diſcourſeth ſeverally. 1. In order to a due Compellation of God he adviſeth a Premeditation, what God is, who Chriſt was, what he hath done, &c. 2. He adviſeth a Meditation concerning the Precepts enjoyning Prayer, ſeveral of which he mentioneth. 3. He adviſeth the conſideration of the Promiſes, for this life, and that which is to come, and inſtanceth in many, p. 536, 537. 4. He ſheweth the neceſſity of the exerciſe of Faith in Prayer, and directeth the different exerciſe of it in Petitions for Temporal and Spiritual, and Eternal good things, 538, 539, 540, 541. Then he comes and directs men what to pray for others, and how. 5. He directs that the matter of Prayer, Cogitetur ac Ricitetur, ſhould not only be Endited in and by the Heart, but Recited by the Lipps. He again repeateth the Matter, and Order, and Method, and juſtifieth the lawfulneſs of p. 239begging Temporal good things, and giveth reaſons for it, anſwering the Arguments of ſome againſt Praying for Temporal good things, to p. 555, and 556. He tells us there may be Prayer Gemitu by a ſigh; but it is profitable both for the Younger and Elder to keep a well ordered Form in Compellation of the true God, that they may diſtinguiſh true Chriſtian Prayers from thoſe of Jews, Turks, and Pagans, minding us of the Divine Promiſes, and comprehending the certain matter of Prayer. Such he ſaith were Jacobs Prayers, and many others Recorded in the Prophets: p. 557, he ſaith let us therefore accuſtom our ſelves to Recital, and we may uſe well compoſed Forms without Superſtition or Magick (that is provided thoſe Forms have no Superſtition in them, nor are thought to have a Magical Vertue or Operation from the meer ſound of ſuch and ſuch words rather than other, for which no reaſon can be given.) Let us not (ſaith he) recite the Hymns of Homer, Orpheus, or Callimachus, but let our Souls move towards God, with a confidence in Chriſt revealed. He adds in the ſame page many Lazy, Drunken, Careleſs perſons contemn Recital in Prayer, but (ſaith he) let good Men be perſwaded to accuſtome themſelves to others, for which he giveth Reaſons; after which come in the words at firſt cited. I can underſtand nothing by this, but that many Lazy, Drunken, Careleſs Papiſts, both Prieſts and others, deſpiſed Vocal p. 240Praying, ſome of them pretending they prayed in heart, others perſwading the people that if the Prieſts muttered over the Church Prayers, tho the People heard not a Petition, nor underſtood none of them, yet it was well enough, the Church Prayers were ſaid, and they were of avail enough for them.

Melancthon doth indeed ſay (but it is three ſides before in my book) That a well ordered Form may be uſeful both for young and old, provided men did not uſe it Supe…ſtitiouſly (which they muſt do who judge it Univerſally neceſſary) nor have any Magical Conceit of it, as if the very words in it were acceptable to God, tho no reaſon could be given why thoſe words more then others, expreſſing the ſame mat…er ſhould be ſo. But his immediate opoſing that to that Prayer, which he ſaith may be by a meer ſigh, and oppoſing Cogitetur and Recitetur, makes it apparent that he meaneth no more then a Vocal Prayer oppoſed to what is meerly Mental, and as may be ſeen by what there followeth, he chiefly referreth in that place to a Form of Compellation of God, whether Scriptural, or according to the ſenſe of Scripture. This was to bring off ſuch as were newly converted from Popery, from Prayers to the Virgin Mary and other Saints. Yet Melancthon afterward doth indeed direct the uſe of the Lords Prayer, (which he largely openeth) but ſaith nothing of any Forms but thoſe upon a Scriptural Record, p. 241and commendation; not a word of St. Peter's, St. James's, St. Marks, St. Andrews, St. Cl…ments, St. Ambroſe, St. Baſils, or St. Chryſoſtomes or Gregory's Liturgies. Yet indeed in that State of the Church the Propoſal of ſome Forms of Prayer compoſed by men was neceſſary in Publick Service, tho not for all Miniſters; they were newly come, and ſtill coming off from Popery, where in their Publick Worſhip they had no other Prayers, nor any liberty for others, and the generality of their Prieſts were very unfit for any thing but Reading a Prayer. In this caſe what is neceſſary is lawful, tho not the full duty of Miniſters in Prayer, nor to be reſted in, and tranſmitted as the only way of Worſhip from age to age.

32. Which Melancthon was manifeſtly far from, for it is his whole buſineſs in that common place to fit Miniſters and Chriſtians for Prayer, by inſtructing th…m in the Nature, Parts, Matter, Method of it, giving them Copies of Forms to imitate, largely giving them the ſenſe of every Petition in the Lords Prayer. This (as I ſaid at firſt) confirms to me, that tho Luther made a Miſſal at firſt for the Reformed Churches in Saxony, yet it was left at liberty (nor did other Reformed Divines ſo well like it when it was firſt made, as all to write after his Copy.) Yet I will not be too confident of it. But Melancthon ſpeaketh of no Forms which the Church propoſed and willed to be uſed both publickly and privately, but the Lords Prayer.

p. 24233. Now I ſhould have done with the Vindicator, but that I remember p. 152, 153, he heavily complained, that I took but a ſlighty notice of his weighty Evidence for proof of Forms of Prayer in the times of Conſtantine, for which he quoteth Euſebius de Vita Conſtantini, Cap. 17, 19, 20. He ſhall complain no more, I will be at the pains to tranſcribe all the 3 Chapters and to leave it to the Reader to judge what he can make out of them, for the Vindicators purpoſe.

But you may ſee much more noble things then theſe, If you conſider how he ordered his Court, like unto a Church. Euſebius de Vita Conſtantini Cap. 17.Himſelf when the reſt were aſſembled beginning, He took the Books into his hands, and either applyed his mind to Meditate on the Scriptures, or prayed foreign, with the whole Church.

He diligently alſo taught his whole Army to reverence the day which we call the Suns day, Ibid cap. 19.or the Day of Light. For thoſe in his Army who were Chriſtians, he gave them a free liberty to go to Church and to pray without let. For the others, who were no Chriſtians, he ordered they ſhould be drawn out into the fields, in the Suburbs, and there one calling them together by a ſign, they ſhould all uſe the ſame p. 243Prayer; for he ſaid, they ought not to uſe their Spears, and to place all their hope in their Arms, and in their own Strength, but ſpreading out their hands, and lifting up their hearts to the King of Heaven, they ought to render him Prayers ordained, and thereby recognize him who is the God of the World, as the Author of all good things, and even of Victories themſelves, and by Prayer to implore him, who beſtoweth Victories on us, who is our Preſerver, Keeper, and Helper; and himſelf commanded a ſhort Form of Prayer to be by them uſed in the Latine Tongue.

We acknowledge thee O God alone, and own thee as our King and we invoke thee as our Helper:Ibid cap. 20. By thee we have gained Victories; By thee we have overcome our Enemies; we confeſs that by thee we have obtained our preſent good Eſtate, and hope to obtain future happineſs. We all beſeech and begg of thee to preſerve our Emperor Conſtantine with his Pious Children in Health, and as a Conqueror.— He generally (ſaith Euſebius) made ſuch Edicts, and commanded his Souldiers to pray in ſuch like words.

34. Mr. Falkner in his Libertas Eccleſ. had brought this as a Weighty Proof, to prove the general uſe and impoſition of Forms of p. 242duplicate page p. 243duplicate page p. 244Prayer, as he doth here p. 152. I have replyed ſhortly to it in my Reaſonable Account p. 67, and more largely in my Supplement to it, p. 22. The ſumm of what I ſaid was, That this was a good Argument to prove that at that time there were no Stated Forms in the Church, for then Conſtantine needed not to have made any. In my Supplement I repeated this, and further added, That had there been Stated Forms, the Chaplains of his Regiments ſurely would have uſed them, and thought it piacular to uſe others; (as ours do now.) 2. That theſe Prayers were not by Conſtantine made for his Chriſtian Miniſters but for his Pagan Souldiers, who could not be preſumed to have an Ability fitly to expreſs their Wants to God in Prayer. So that this was nothing to our purpoſe, which only is about the lawfulneſs of the uſe of Forms made by other Men for thoſe Miniſters who have an Ability fitly to expreſs their Minds to God in Prayer. To inſtance thus, is perfectly foreign.

35. I muſt confeſs I did not look into Euſebius to examine this Quotation, partly becauſe I had him not in Greek, partly becauſe both Helvicus and Alſtedius and others aſſure us Euſebius was an Arrian Biſhop, and ſo no very fit man to give us a good account of the practice of the ſound part of the Chriſtian Church. Alſted ſaith St. Hierome ſaith he was the very Principal and Standard bearer of the Arrians 3. Becauſe he is noted by Dr. Rivet and others, as a moſt p. 245Hyperbolical Flatterer of Conſtantine, who tho he was an Excellent Emperor, yet had his great Errors. 4. Becauſe I know his ſtory is by ſober men concluded to be full of Fables, and not wrote till 300 years after Chriſt and upward. 5. And Principally, becauſe his deſign in that Chapter is not to ſhew us what Prayers the Church uſed, but how Conſtantine was as to his Domeſtick Devotion. Now men uſe to be very careleſs of words they uſe, that do not ſtrictly relate to the thing they have in hand: Euſebius his deſign was to tell us how Conſtantine behaved himſelf in his Chappel, joining with the Church in Prayers; not to tell us whether the Miniſters Prayed by Forms or no. But conſidering that Euſebius lived in the time of Conſtantine, ſome may cry him up for a pretty competent Witneſs in matter of Fact, and ſo we will allow him, as to what he deſign'd to ſpeak to, Viz. That the Emperor was very devout in his Chappel, ſpending all his time (when there) either in private Meditations, and Reading the Scriptures, or injoyning with the Church when Praying.

36. Euſebius ſaith, That when Conſtantine was abroad with his Army, part of which were Chriſtians, part Heathens; He was wont on the Lords-days to give order the Chriſtians ſhould go to the Publick Congregations of Chriſtians: For the Heathens (who could not be admitted there) he himſelf made a Prayer (of which cap. 20. is a Copy) and ordered thoſe Souldiers by p. 246beat of Drum or ſound of Trumpet or ſome ſuch (probably Military) ſign, to be call'd together, and one to read the Prayer to them, which Conſtantine had made for them who were not able to pray for themſelves. What is this to the purpoſe?

This (as Euſebius ſaith) was admirably done, and no more then we do for our Children, or Neighbours (who have not Ability to pray without a Form) and allow to be done for any ſuch who in the preſent State of any Church are to be allowed as Miniſters, tho they are deficient in Miniſterial Gifts. Only one Queſtion cometh into my mind. Suppoſe there were Publick Forms then uſed in the Churches thereabouts: Was there a Collect for Conſtantines ſucceſs in his Wars at that time, or in general, and a proportionable thanksgiving yea or no? If not, then ſurely Forms are not ſo comprehenſive as Prayers in a Publick Service of God ſhould be. If there were any ſuch Collect, why doth Conſtantine make another and not take that? It is a great Preſumption that in that age there were none, and Miniſters being left to their Abilities to pray in the Chriſtian Congregations; there was gteat reaſon Conſtantine ſhould otherwiſe provide for thoſe that might not come in the Chriſtian Aſſemblies. Let the Vindicator take which tine of the Fork he pleaſeth, it killeth, inſtead of helping him in the caſe of Set Forms.

37. For what Euſebius ſaith cap. 17. That Conſtantine p. 247ordered his Court like unto a Church, neither will that help. For if Conſtantine made the Prayers which were there uſed, it is what we plead for; That Miniſters may mak… their own Prayers. If the meaning be no more, than that he kept foreign, a Miniſtry or Order of Prayer, this proves nothing for Forms, for a Miniſtry of Prayer might have been as well without Forms as with them. The upſhot of this Weighty Evidence is, here is not in it one Tittle of pretended Proof for the matter in Queſtion, unleſs it be in the word foreign Now if that can be evinced to ſignifie nothing but Ordained by Publick Authority, it will prove what none denies, That the Church in obedience to Gods command had ordered Publick Prayers to be offered up to him, but not that it had ordained foreign, Forms of Prayer: for Prayers and Forms of Prayer are not convertible terms ſure. Beſides, I have before proved, that there is no evidence that at this time, (which was betwixt 306 and 335) there were any Forms of Prayer conſtituted, either by any Imperial Law, or by any General Councel, or by any Provincial Council The firſt Provincial Council that did any ſuch thing, was that of Milevis, more then 60 years after this: that ſuppoſed one of Carthage was above 30 years after: That of Laodicea (pretended) 30 years after: the General Council of Chalcedon more then 200 years after. Juſtinians Imperial Law 200 years after. So that if any in Conſtantines time p. 248ordered any, it was himſelf for his Family, which is nothing to our purpoſe, admitting it were true; for we will allow any maſter of a Family or any Miniſter apprehending that he or others are not able, fitly to expreſs their own, or o…ers wants and deſires to God in Prayer, to compoſe a Form or Forms for themſelves or others to be uſed, by him or them until they ſhall have attained to ſuch an Ability. God forbid perſons ſhould not pray as well as they can, becauſe they at preſent cannot pray ſo perfectly as they ought to do and to ſtrive after.

Nor can I poſſibly underſtand by what Authority, our Vindicator interpreteth foreign: Prayers which had received Authoritative Sanction, as he doth p. 152, and unleſs it be neceſſarily to be ſo tranſlated, the Weight of this Weighty Evidence he ſpeaks of n. 18, is not above the Weight of a feather: Every body knows that foreign is but a compound of foreign and foreign, and can ſignifie no more then lawful or within a Law, and ſo all the Lexicographers (which indeed are but 3 or 4) which I have, tranſlate it. They make foreign & foreign, all to be Synonymous. Only they ſeem a little to differ in the Etymology of foreign ſome making foreign to be equipollent to foreign, laws given: others, to foreign Divine Laws. Any Child that looks into Scapula will find that he expounds the word of any Laws whether they were vvrote in Mens Hearts, or in p. 249Tables, or confirmed by Cuſtom, that Plutarch in Romulus hath foreign, Sacred Laws, and Xenophon foreign; Divine Laws, and Heſychius again and again expounds foreign by foreign; Divine Laws (and all know Heſychius is no invaluable Author for giving the true ſenſe of Greek words.) Conſtantine ordered his Court like a Church; he had in it, conſtant Reading of the Scripture and Prayers: Himſelf was preſent at the Worſhip of his Family; and being there he ſpent his time either in Reading the Scripture or Praying as God had appointed. What is all this to prove that Forms of Prayer were uſed or appointed? This is the utmoſt of this Weighty Evidence, which ſurely would not have been called ſo, had not the Vindicator ſuſpected all his Evidence to be very light.

39. The Caſe is now tryed, I will but ſumm up the Evidence, and leave the judgment to the whole Intelligent World as the Jury. The Queſtion is, Whether the Nonconformiſts have not probablet Arguments on their ſide to induce them to judge, that the Church of God for ſix hundred years after Chriſt, never by their general Practice of its Miniſters, nor any general Impoſitions upon its Miniſters, judged it lawful for all Miniſters, ordinarily to perform their Miniſterial Acts in Publick Solemn Prayer, by the Preſcribed Forms of other Men, not directed in Holy p. 250Writ. They think they have; the Vindicator thinks the contrary. The Evidence on the Nonconformiſts ſide is this.

Within the firſt 200 years after Chriſt. 1. They find no Forms left them by Chriſt or the Apoſtles (the Lords Prayer only excepted, if that were ſo intended to be uſed after Chriſts Reſurrection:) But on the contrary they find that Justin Martyr ſaith that in the Chriſtian Aſſemblies the Miniſter prayed foreign, which they tranſlate, [as he was able:] The Vindicator, [wi h all his might.] They are ſure it is truly tranſlated ſo. The Vindicator is not Infallible, aſſertin… it muſt be tranſlated with all his might. The Non-conf. alſo have Tertullian telling them that in thoſe days, they prayed without a Monitor; becauſe from their hearts. The Vindicator ſaith, without a Monitor cannot be without a Form, becauſe a Monitor is a perſon: They conceive thoſe that make Forms are Perſons, and that mute things are very ordinarily called Monitors, doing the things which perſons that are Monitors do. The Vindicator thinks he hath ſome advantage from Ignatius and Juſtine Martyr, telling us the Chriſtians made foreign and foreign, the Non conformiſts ſay, The Supplications and Petitions are common in a Congregation when the People make uſe of the words of one that miniſtreth, whether, he ſpeaketh from a Form or no.

In the next 200 Years, The Vindicator tells p. 251us. That he finds in Cyprian, Lift up your Hearts, We lift them up to the Lord. That Origen ſpeaks of Prayers Ordained, and quotes an uſual expreſſion in their Prayers — Almighty God give us a part with thy Prophets, and that they ſang by Set Hymns; the Non-con. anſwer, That this will no more prove the Miniſters Prayed by Forms, then it will prove that we do ſo; who ordinarily begin our Prayers, with, Let us Pray, Let us lift up our Hearts to the Lord; and uſually in our Prayer, ſay, Lord forgive us our Sins, and uſe ſeveral ſuch general Petitions conſtantly. They ſay it is impoſſible without Forms of Pſalmes or Hymns for any Congregation to Sing, but they ought to keep only to Scriptural Forms left us on Sacred Record for that purpoſe.

From the Year 300 to 400. the Vindicators proof is from Liturgies pretended to be made by Baſil and Chryſoſtome, from the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage. The Non-con. ſay, That Baſil and Chryſoſtomes making Forms, prove nothing unleſs it can be proved they were by them impoſed, or uſed by all Miniſters. 2. That very learned Men have denied the Liturgies going under their names to be theirs; and the Vindicator himſelf will grant, That the Liturgies we have, could not be theirs. only he thinks they made ſome, tho much hath been foiſted into them ſince, which is impoſſible to be proved, the corruptions come to us on the ſame credit, the whole p. 252comes. The Non-conformiſts prove that the Council of Laodicea onelyonly ordered Prayers not Forms of Prayer to be Morning and Evening: Either there was no ſuch Council of Carthage in this age, or they made no ſuch Canon, ſaith Juſtellus, nor is it brought into the Code of the Ʋ …iverſal Church, ſo could concern one Province only; nor doth the Canon eſtabliſh Forms of Prayer. The Vindicator ſaith, Conſtantine in this age made a Prayer for his Pagan Souldiers, who were not able to Pray for themſelves, nor might joyn with Chriſtian Congregations. And that he Prayed in his Family. The Non-conformiſts ſay, They allow thoſe may uſe Forms to guide their Mental Prayers, who cannot Pray Vocally, therefore Conſtantine did well to make a Form for ſuch; and tho Euſebius ſaith Conſtantine in his Family Prayed, yet it cannot be proved it was by Forms not of D…vine Inſtitution. Prayers were appointed, but not Forms of Prayer. He quotes a ſpeech of Sozomen relating to this Century, and a Phraſe of Nazianzen which he maketh expoſitory of Sozomen or Julian but the Non-conformiſts ſay, Nazianzen was dead many years before that Sozomen wrote, and ſo could not expound his words.

From the year 400 to the year 500. He quotes the general Council of Chalcedon 451, confirming the Canon of Laodicea 364; but the Nonconf. ſay that the Canon of the Council of Laodicea (as appears by the words) ordered not Forms of Prayer, only a Publick p. 253Miniſtry of Prayers Morning and Night. He quotes Proclus alſo, aſſerting Liturgies delivered by James and Clement, Baſil and Chryſoſtome. The Nonconformiſts ſay the Vindicator himſelf rejects the Authority of Proclus, for St. James and Clement, and they may as well do it as to the other; and that the pretended Writings of Proclus are of no Authority. On the contrary the Nonconformiſts ſay, That in this Century Sozomen ſaith there were no two Churches to be found which ſpake the ſame words in Prayer.

From the year 500 to 600, he quotes Juſtinians Novellae confirming the Canons, of Chalcedon: But the Nonconformiſts ſay, They have proved that Council eſtabliſhed no Forms. He quoted indeed before this the Council of Milevis, but the Nonconformiſts ſay, It was a particular caſe of a particular Province infected notoriouſly with Pelagianiſm, nor was that Canon by the Council of Chalcedon 451, taken into the Code.

After the year 600, the Noncon. wil agree that Gregory by his Canon Law eſtabliſhed Forms of Prayer, as far as his Authority went, but with ſo bad ſucceſs that if Adrian the Pope 200 years after had not obtained of Charles the Great to protect his Canon by a Civil Sanction, and by an horrible Perſecution to inforce it, it had never obtained amongſt Chriſtians. But they ſay at this time the true Chriſtians were fled into France, the Vallies of Piedmont, Alſatia, and Bohemia, where we read not that p. 254their Miniſters generally prayed by Forms.

Now upon this Evidence, let all the Conſciencious and Intelligent World judge and bring in their Verdict as they pleaſe, whether this Queſtion can be determined againſt us by any valuable Practice of the Church in the purer primitive times, and whether Our Reaſons be not much more valuable to prove the Ʋnlawfulneſs, Viz.

1. Becauſe we that are Miniſters cannot do it, without omitting a mean God hath given us for the Action, and uſing one under no ſpecial divine Preſcription.

2. Becauſe in doing it we cannot pray with the like Attention and Intention of heart and Fervent affections.

3. Becauſe we judge words an Eſſential part of Vocal prayer, and theſe or theſe words an Eſſential part of this or that Vocal Prayer.

4. Becauſe in an Act or Part of Worſhip, where God hath left a liberty to Miniſters or Chriſtians, other Men cannot determine them.

5. Becauſe in doing it we muſt grant a principle improveable to the total Suppreſſion of Miniſterial Gifts.

6. Becauſe the Holy Spirit hath or may have, an influence on our words as well in Prayer, as in Preaching, or Confeſſion; and it ought not to be ſhut out unneceſſarily.

7. Becauſe we cannot underſtand why p. 255the precepts for Prayer, ſhould be interpreted differently from the Precept for Preaching, which was never by the Church expounded. — Go read another Mans Forms.

8. Becauſe it transforms Miniſters, from Miniſters of Chriſt, to meer Miniſters of Men.

9. Becauſe it makes the higheſt performances of Miniſters, to be ſuch as ordinary people may do, ſo as there were no need of ſuch an order of perſons.

10. Becauſe by Experience we ſee, That many idolize Forms of Prayer, and think there is no other right Praying to God; which is an horrid Error not fit for us to give the leaſt countenance to.

This is the Summ of all. Let the Reader, read and judge, and we truſt, he will be ſo candid as to think we have ſomething to ſay for our Diſſent in this Cauſe.