Concerning the Unlawfulness of Common Prayer Worship, Question 1

Concerning the Unlawfulness of Common Prayer Worship · Question 1

p. 2VVhat are the Reasons why you Judge it Ʋnlawfull to be present at, or to partake in the Common-Prayer-VVorship.

Answ. My First Reason is, From the Original of the Common-Prayer Book, which with the Ceremonies and Worship prescribed therein, I find to be in a great measure Popish and Heathenish. Some have causelesly Complained of Non-conformists, because they affirm that the English Liturgy is taken out of the Pope's Mass-book. It's true, that as the Mass-book is taken in a more strict fence, a great part of the English Liturgy is not to be found therein: But as the Missal is put for the whole Roman Liturgy, (and so it many times is, a part being put for the whole) it cannot be denyed but that the Common-Prayer Book is from thence derived: There are things (as Prayers for the Dead, &c.) in the Roman Liturgy which are not Translated into English, but very little is in the English which is not to be found in the other. This is particularly cleared up by the Learned Author of the Book called Altare p. 3Damascenum, which goeth under the Name of Didoclavius, but Mr. David Calderwood was the true Author. Also there are many Treatises in English which may be Consulted concerning this matter, particularly, a Book called A Parallel between the Mass-book and the Liturgy, and the Anatomy of the Service Book, which goeth under the Name of Dwalphintramis: And Mr. John Allin of Dedham in New-England, his Defence of the Nine Positions, p. 63, 66. and a Discourse of Liturgies, by H. D.

If you would have a distinct Account of the Original of the Common Prayer Book, you must know, it was Collected out of three Superstitious Books: The first part of Publick Prayer is borrowed from the Papist's Breviary; that about Sacraments, Matrimony, Burials, &c. is taken out of the Ritual; the Order of Consecration, Epistles, Collects, &c. is gathered out of the Roman Missal.

Hence the English Liturgy has been well approved of by Papists. A Jesuit being asked how he liked the Service at Paul's, gave this Answer, I have nothing against it, but that it is done by your Priests. When Secretary Walsingham had in Policy caused p. 4two Popish Intelligencers then in England to have a View of London and Canterbury-Service, they were Marvellously taken therewith, saying, That the Pope had been misinformed, for their Service was very like his own: And they thereupon Endeavoured that the Pope's Bull might be recalled. Pope Pius the Fifth was willing to ratifie the Common Prayer Book by his Authority, if Queen Elizabeth would have so retained it. Dr. Carriar (a Popish Bigot) speaketh very favourably of the English Liturgy, because he saith, There is nothing in it Expresly contrary to theirs.

It is very Strange that any of our Lyturgical Men should have the face to deny these things; but some of them have Ingenuously acknowledged the Truth of what we assert. He that has Written Mr. George Herbert's Life, declares that he dislikes not the English Liturgy the more for being taken out of the Mass-book, It is (saith he) taken out as Gold from Dross: The wise Reformers knew Rome would cry Schism, Schism, and therefore they kept all they lawfully could keep, being loth to give offence; thus he. To this Objection, That the Form of our Liturgy is taken from Antichrist, p. 5Dr. Covel's Answer is, We are sorry that their Weakness takes Offence at that which we hold as a Virtue in the Church of England; Namely, that we have so sparingly, and as it were unwillingly dissented from the Church of Rome, for surely by Antichrist they mean her, Exam. p. 185. Likewise Dr. Boice and Mr. Wommock, who have Written in defence of the Common Prayer-Book, Confess that 'tis a Daughter of the Roman Catholick; but they say, Why should the Child be beaten for the Parents sake; to whom it has been well replyed, Why should not Hagar and Ishmael be both put out of Doors together. A great Episcopalian owns that the Roman Liturgy is like a Leprous House, only he supposeth that the Compilers of the Common Prayer Book have picked, and scraped, and plaistered the House; but he should have considered that the Rubbish of the Leprous House ought to be cast into an Unclean Place, and that the Leprosie breaks out still, therefore we may have no Communion with it: But enough of these Allegories. I shall further confirm this Argument by two Royal Testimonies. The one is that of King Edward 6. who when the Popish Rebels p. 6in Devonshire took up Arms against the King, because of his establishing the English Liturgy, he wrote thus to them: It seemeth unto you a New Service, but it is indeed no other but the Old; the self-same words in English, which were in Latin, saving a few things taken out, wich were so fond, that it had been a shame for to have them in English. If the Service of the Church was good in Latin, it remains good in English; for nothing is altered, but to speak with Knowledge what was spoken with Ignorance, and to let you understand what is said for you. See Mr. Fox Acts and Monuments. Vol. 2. p. 669.

Another Testimony is that of King James of Famous Memory, who in his Speech to a National Assembly, Anno 1590 praiseth GOD that he was King in the Sincerest Church in the World; sincerer than the Church of England, for their Service is an Ill said Mass, sincerer than Geneva it self, for they observe Pasche and Yule. i. e. Easter and Christmass, and what Warrant have they for that?

But what need of words? Let such as have any Haesitancy about this matter, compare the Popish Missal, &c. with the English Liturgy, and they will be convinced: p. 7For my own part I have done it, and am satisfied; now it is a known Maxim, Omnis honor Idoli est Idololatria. He that shall put any respect upon an Idol, cannot be clear from the Sin of Idolatry. But the Mass-Book is an Idol, and he that useth a Prayer, or joyns with a Prayer taken out of that Book, thereby puts Honour upon an Idol. We ought not to name an Idol but with Detestation, much less may we offer it as worship to God, Psal. 16. 4. Exod. 23. 13. Hosea 2. 16, 17.

How then can we joyn in Prayers taken out of the Idolatrous Mass-Book, and offer them to the Holy GOD?

The Bishop of Exeter is too Lavish and Gaudy in his Rhetorick, when he tells us, That if Saint Paul were alive, he would use the English Liturgy; it was Pauls Judgment, that Meat once offered to Idols should not be made use of, 1 Cor. 10. 28. Ergo, a Service-Book offered to Idols ought not to be used, for there is a Parity of Reason. We may here take Old Cyprian's complaint, and say, Ad hoc malorum devoluta est Ecclesia ut id faciunt Christiani, quod Antichristiani faciunt. It must be acknowledged that the Church of England p. 8men as keep to the Thirty nine Articles in matters of Doctrine, are as Orthodox as any Protestants in the World, but as to Worship and Discipline they are extreamly Popish: Which has occasioned Gretzer (de Fest. Lib. 8. c. 2.) to give them the strange Name of Calvino-Papistae: The use of such a Liturgy doth harden the Papists in their Idolatry; yea, and the Jews themselves are scandalized thereby: It's a celebrated saying among them, That Christians have their Tephilloth from Armillus. h. e. Their Prayer-Books from Antichrist. Moreover, that the English Liturgy is originally Heathenish as well as Popish, is manifest, in that the Popes Liturgy from whence ours has been derived, is so. The Principal parts of the Mass-Book were borrowed from Idolatrous Pagans; they came from Numa Pompilius: the Vestments, Holy water, Incense, &c. in the Roman Liturgy, were taken up from the Heathen; the Bishops of Rome thinking thereby to gain Pagans to the Christian Religion, just as the Bishops of England thought to gain Papists to the Protestant Religion, by the use of their Ceremonies.

What vain Repetitions does the Common-Prayer Book abound with?

p. 9In one Service the Worshippers must repeat these words, Good Lord deliver us, eight times over, and We beseech thee to hear us, twenty times over. The Gloria Patri is to be repeated ten times in the same Morning or Evening Service.

That the Heathens were wont to worship their Idols just after the same manner, is clear from those words, Mat. 7. When ye pray use not vain Repetitions, as the Heathens do, for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. When the same words are repeated often over like Battus his Montibus erant & erant in montibus illis, it is vain Repetitions, such Battology is in the old Hymns of the Heathen Greeks. And Beza notes that the Roman Liturgy does abound with them, wherein men are taught to cry Jesu, Jesu, miserere mei, no less than ten times one after another.

Some of the most learned Patrons of Liturgies produce it as an Argument for them, that the Heathen made use of Forms in their Idolatrous Worship. So, Jos. Vicecomes, de Missa Lib. 7. cap. 21. and from him Casaubon: And when Tertullian does declare that the Primitive Christians did pray Sine Monitore, judicious Authors do p. 10conceive, that his meaning is, that they did not as the Heathen were wont to do, Say their Prayers by the help of Forms which others had devised for them, but we are sure that God hath strictly prohibited his People all Symbolizing with the Heathen. He did forbid the Children of Israel some Civil usages, because he would not have them imitate the Heathen. Hence they might not wear a garment of Linnen and Woollen, Lev. 19. 19. the Egyptian Priests did wear such, and the Lords Servants must not follow their Example. Aquinas, Lyranus, Testatus, and some other Pontificians, as well as Protestant Writers take this to be the true Reason of that Prohibition.

Herodotus tells us, that the Arabians were wont to shave their hair, and to cut the corners of their Beards. They also, and the Syrians and Egyptians made baldness betwixt their eyes; therefore the Children of Israel might not do so, Lev. 19. 27. Deut. 14. 1. They might not sow their ground with divers sorts of seed, nor seeth a Kid in the Mothers milk, because the Heathen did so: But especially they might not imitate them in matters referring to the Worship of p. 11God. Hence they were prohibited going up by steps to the Altar, or to make any Altars of hewn Stone, Exod. 20. 24, 26. The Heathen who fancied an august pompous worship, had such Altars as these prohibited ones, where they had Groves near their Altars: Therefore the Lords People might not plant a Grove near his Altar, Deut. 16. 21. They worshipped with their face towards the East, therefore the Jews might not do so. Ezek. 8. 16.

Reason 2. From the matter of the Common-Prayer Book.

There are many things contained therein which cannot be justified under this Head. It is easie to produce and insist upon many Particulars, which might be improved as so many Arguments, evincing that the English Liturgy is a Book unsuitable, and so unlawful to be made use of in the Worship of GOD.

For,

1. Some things appointed therein are now in the Judgment of Sober and Judicious persons extreamly ridiculous.

How many odd and senceless Translations p. 12of the holy Scripture have been found therein?

Rom 12. 2. is translated thus, Be changed in your Shape, John 2. 10. Thus, when men be drunk. Luke 1. 36. Thus, This is the sixth Month which is called Barren: And Gal. 4. 25. That Ager in Arabia bordereth on Jerusalem; with many more the like Absurdities.

But these things are so gross, that the Bishops in their Debate with Dr. Tuckney, Dr. Manton, &c. have yielded to have them altered; so that the next Edition of the Common-Prayer Book is like to be Reformed. Nevertheless, they will not consent to have the corrupt Translation of the Psalter corrected: Still those words in Psal. 18. 9. are read, Or ever their Pots be made hot with Thorns, so let Indignation vex them, as a thing that is raw. What Nonsence is this!

And in the Liturgy, the writings of the Prophets, and the Acts of the Apostles; yea, and the Book of the Revelation, are called Epistles. Moreover, those broken Responds, and Shreds of Prayer, as Mr. Cartwright calls them, which the Priests and People toss between them like Tennis-Balls, seem extreamly ridiculous p. 13to standers by: Therefore such things ought not to be in the solemn Worship of God, who will not hold them guiltless that take his Name in vain.

2. The Common-Prayer Book is guilty of violating the Sacred Word of God. Sometimes the words of Scripture are thereby obliterated, and others put in their room: e. g. In the Catechism the Authors have changed those words in the fourth Commandment, The Lord blessed the Sabbath day, into the Lord blessed the Seventh day. Sometimes the Liturgy makes bold directly and in terms to contradict the Scripture: For whereas in Psal. 105. 28. it is said, They were not rebellious against his Word, the Common-Prayer Book saith, They were not obedient to his word, which is directly contradictory to the Truth. Dr. Spark, (notwithstanding his affection for the Liturgy) told the then Archbishop of Canterbury, that so to read the words, is to charge Moses and Aaron with falshood. The Liturgy saith, That the Rod of the Wicked shall not come into the lot of the Righteous, whenas David only saith, that it shall not rest there: and sometimes the Common-Prayer Book adds to the Scripture; there are three p. 14whole Verses added to the fourteenth Psalm; And the Gloria Patri is frequently added to Scriptures, as if it were Canonical: Sometimes words are sacrilegiously stollen out of the Bible. e. g. In the Seventy second Psalm, the last verse is omitted: so is the Scriptural Titles of many Psalms; and I know not how often those words, Praise ye the Lord, are left out. Amongst men Clipping and corrupting of Coyn is Treason: And certainly it is a dreadful thing to addd to, or take from the Word of God. Deut. 4. 2. Rev. 22. 19.

3. In the Liturgy The Apochrypha books are made equal with, nay, advanced above the Holy Scripture. In the Preface to the Common-Prayer Book, it is said, That nothing is ordained to be read but the pure Word of God, or that which is evidently grounded on the same. But is the Apochrypha so? Indeed the Liturgy appoints them to be read as Lessons, just as I find it in the Popes Service-book, and in a greater proportion than Scripture; for (as some have observed) of an hundred Seventy two Apochryphal Chapters, but Thirty eight are omitted: So that these Books are equallized with the pure Word of God.

p. 15In the Conference at Hampton Court, the Bishop of Winchester spoke out plainly, and said those Books must needs be held canonici ad informandos mores. Nay, the Liturgy advanceth them above the Scripture, by intimating that they are more Edifying, and can be less spared than many Portions of the Holy Canon; and by ordering them to be read on the highest Holy-days, and many of them twice, some thrice in one Year: And that which adds to this Iniquity, is, That the Lies, and Magical Prescriptions, and most corrupt Doctrine expressed in the Book of Tobit, have been appointed to be read, as if these things were Divine.

4. Such things are enjoyned in the Common-Prayer Book, as (to my Conscience) cannot be practised without Sin.

To Instance, Ministers are required to give the Holy Communion to all new Married Persons; whenas Marriage Festivals use to be accompanyed with such Divertisements and Merriments, as make Persons altogether unfit for a Present actual Participation at the Holy Table.

Why then does the Common-Prayer Book appoint the Minister to give them the Sacrament on that very day?

p. 16By that Doctrine, all that may marry may come to the Lords Supper, whenas Marriage is an Ordinance, which Men as Men (and not as Christians only) have a right unto: So that by this Prescription many will be put upon making themselves guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, and eat and drink damnation to their own Souls. And this does the Common-Prayer Book compell them unto; notwithstanding in the Articles of the Church of England, it is expresly and orthodoxly declared, that unworthy Receivers purchase to themselves damnation. Artic. 23. & 29.

Again, when any man is buried, the Priest must say at his Grave, Almighty God has taken to himself the Soul of this dear Brother; perhaps the most wicked wretch on the Earth, and that his Body is committed to the ground, in sure and certain hope of a Resurrection to everlasting Life: Though he did never truly, nor so much as visibly to the judgment of Rational Charity, repent of his Sins.

What Minister can do this with a good Conscience?

And there are many Superstitions both recommended and imposed in the Liturgy.

p. 17The putting on of the Ring in Marriage, especially the making of that Ceremony to be an Essential matter, is Superstition: And I do not see how Common-Prayer-Worshippers can clear themseives from all Superstition, when they use those words in the Canticle Benedicite; saying, O Ananias; O Azarias, and Misael, bless the Lord. And when the Priest is appointed to Church Women, and that they must at that time offer their Accustomed Offerings, it is Jewish Superstition. And the Observation of Popish Holy-days, especially such as are dedicated to Saints, I look upon as highly superstitious: The like I believe concerning wearing of a Surplice, as a signification of Purity; when holy Vestments were in use amongst the Jews, they had an Express Commandment from God about them. Should they have made a Mitre or an Ephod, or any other Ecclesiastical Garments of their own heads, they would have sinned greatly; witness Judg. 8. 27. If the Church of old had no power to appoint sacred Vestments, no more has the Church in these days. It is incumbent on them who affirm they have such power, to produce their Charter, which they can ever do. Moreover, p. 18the Surplice is immediately borrowed from Idolatrous Mass-Mongers. In the Roman Liturgy it is ordained that the Priest shall say Service in his Surplice, and has no power to sanctifie Bells, or Water, or any thing else, except his Surplice be on; which made Latimer when the Surplice was pluckt from him in his Degradation, in an holy scorn to say, Now I can make no more Holy Water. Neither can any Priest make his Breaden God except he have it on; see Rhem. Annot. on 1 Cor. 11. 29.

Shall Protestants do thus?

Dr. Abbot (who was no Fanatick) in his Book of Antichrist, Ch. 11. Sect. 26. saith, That all Priestly Garments, whereby Ministers are distinguished from the rest of the Church, are a special part of the Character of the Beast.

And who did the Papists take the Surplice from?

Partly from the Jews indeed, but also from the Heathen of old: There were Vestments for the Worshippers of Baal, 2 Kin. 10. 22. Bishop Jewel (that great Light in the English Church) in the Defence of his Apology, p. 346. quotes and approves these Words out of Nicholaus Leonicenus,

p. 19The Priests of Isis used to wear Linnen Surplices, which seems to be derived from them to our time.

For they that amongst us serve the Holy Altars, may not suffer the hair of their heads, or their beards to grow, and in their Divine Service they use Linnen Garments: Thus he.

Moreover, the greatest of our Protestant Divines have disliked this Superstitious Garment.

So Martyr, Brentius, Bullinger, Gualter, Beza, Zanchy, Hemmingius, Polanus; and many others.

To say no more of this, Mr. Nichols his Argument, which he proposed to the Bishop of Chester, is not easie to be answered; it was this, All Vestments appropriated to the Worship of God, and appointed for the signification of Spiritual Duties by the Will of Man, are unlawful, but the Surplice is so, Ergo.

And the Sign of the Cross in Baptism is as bad as this: That I confess was an old Superstion, it crept early into the Church; but the first Users of it (so far as I am able to learn) were bad Men, and gross Hereticks, viz. Valentin and Montanus. Mr. Robert Parker in his Elaborate Discourse about the Cross, proveth, that p. 20it is a Sin against all the Ten Commandments, and a breach of the very Letter of the Second Commandment. For Men to appoint a Religious Ceremony, is a direct violation of the Second Commandment, which forbids all humane Inventions in Divine Worship, as any part thereof: And the Arguments which are brought against the Use of Oyl, Cream, Salt, Spittle in Baptism, (practised by the Papists) hold as well against the Cross. The Priest may as well take a Thorn, and prick the Child's Forehead with it, to put in mind that Christ was crowned with Thorns, and that Christians must suffer, as to Cross him with any such signification.

Hereby too great a respect is put upon that which was the Cursed Instrument of Christ's Death. Suppose a Man should honour one of the Nails which fastned Christ to the Cross, (as some Fable that Constantine did) or the Spear that pierced Him, or the Whip wherewith Pilate caused Him to be Scourged, would it not be horrid Superstition? Judicious and Holy Men have argued thus, if a Child should Worship the Gallows on which his Father was hanged, that would manifest him to be ungracious and unnatural; and the Papists p. 21in adoring the Cross do as bad. It's true, that the Scripture speaks honourably of the Cross of Christ, whereby we are crucified to the World, Gal. 6. 14. But that is not to be understood of the Cross of Wood, nor yet of an Airy or Watery Cross, but of the Death of that Jesus who suffered on the Cross. In a word, Mr. Parker sheweth, That the Cross is the greatest Devil amongst all the Idols of Rome. This Superstition hath been testified against by Zegedinus, Zepperus, Goulartius, Bucanus, Dr. Fulk, Dr. Rainolds, and innumerable other Learned Protestant Writers: Nay, some Praelatical Men, who could comply with all the other Ceremonies, have scrupled this of the Cross in Baptism. Dr. Tailor Confesseth, that they have in respect of the Cross retained an uninstituted Ceremony as a part of External Worship.

I shall here take Notice of but one Superstition more, enjoyned by the Common-Prayer-Book, viz. That of Kneeling at the Sacrament. Men pretend that they Kneel out of Reverence to Christ, but Christ himself was personally present, when his Disciples did partake of the Lord's Supper, yet they did not kneel, p. 22but used the Table gesture then customary amongst the Jews. Good and wise Men have chosen great Sufferings rather than to comply with this Invention.

Mr. Cotton (see his Answer to Bailie, p. 19.) was proffered not only the Liberty of his Ministry, but great Preferments, on Condition he would but for one time Kneel in the Act of receiving the sacramental Bread and Wine: But he Objected this Argument, Non-instituted Worship is unacceptable to God: Kneeling in the Act of receiving is Non-instituted. Worship, Ergo, It is unacceptable to God. So did that Holy and Learned Man choose rather to lose his Preferments and his Livelyhood too, than to be guilty of such a Superstition.

Mr. Dyton and Mr. Ware, (worthy Men both of them) dyed in Prison, because they durst not Kneel at the Sacrament.

It is certain, that in the Primitive Times Christians did not Kneel in the Participation of the Eucharist. In the Nicene Council, An. 325. there was a Decree against Kneeling in the Church on the Lord's-day: So that either there was no Sacrament administred on the Lords-Day, p. 23(which to suppose is irrational) or there was no kneeling at it.

This is also to be seen in the sixth Council held at Constantinople.

Kneeling was first enjoyned (so far as I can understand) in the year 1226, by Pope Honorius, being fitted to the Idolatry of Transubstantiation. Some Popish Writers confess, that if the substance of the Bread remain after the Consecration; they by kneeling before the Bread should be guilty of as vile Idolatry, as ever the Egpptians were guilty of when they worshiped every kind of Creature.

Costerus (the Jesuit) professeth that he would be torn in pieces by wild Horses, rather then he would kneel at the Sacrament, did he not believe the bodily Presence.

So that Kneelers do dangerously symbolize with the Papists in their worshipping of their breaden god.

That Religious worship which is before a Creature, and with respect to it, having no allowance from God, is against the Commandment: but so is Kneeling before the Bread and Wine.

These things then prove that the English Liturgy is very corrupt. Now to p. 24offer to the Lord a corrupt thing, or that which is Lame and Sick, is evil, Mal. 1. 13, 14.

It is in vain for men to please themselves, that though they joyn in Common-Prayer-Worship, they do not approve thereof.

Mr. Cotton in his Book against set Forms of Prayer, does truly and judiciously observe, that Paul in practising a few Ceremonies out of the Book of the Law, did thereby declare his subjection to the whole order of Worship, prescribed by the Authority of that Law; Acts 21. 24. 26. in doing of which, undoubtedly he had sinned, if God had not warranted the continuance of that Worship for a Season.

Thus he that shall joyn with a few Prayers in the Common-Prayer Book, does really profess his subjection to the whole order of Worship prescribed in that Book.

Reason 3. Because publick Liturgies of humane composure, are an Innovation and Deviation from primitive purity.

The Common-Prayer Worshippers are wont to urge and argue from the Antiquity of Liturgies, but I turn that weapon p. 25against them. Let not any quibble with the Notation of the word Liturgy, which is as much as to say, foreign, Opus publicum, or of the word Litany, which cometh from the Greek, foreign, Precor; under these notions and acceptaons of the words, who ever denyed that the Church of God has always had a Liturgy, h. e. a Service of his own Institution? but set Forms of Prayer devised by Men are an Innovation. Had a Liturgy been needful for the Edification of the Church, undoubtedly the Lord Christ, or the Apostles by His direction, would have composed one, which none of them ever did.

And therefore those Men who take upon them to compose and impose a Liturgy on the Churches, assume to themselves more than Apostolical Power.

I am surpized with wonderment, that in the late grand Debate, p. 110. between twelve Bishops and others, with some learned men amongst the Nonconformists, these words are found as proceeding from our Prelates, That there were ancient Liturgies in the Church, is evident. St. Chrysostom, St. Basil, and others, and the Greek tell us of St. James his, elder than they.

p. 26This very Passage alone, is enough to convince me, that the Bishops have a desperate cause. I marvel not that Pontificians, such as Xaintesius, Possevinus, Lindanus, and others, professed Papists, speak after this rate; and yet the more ingenious amongst them confess the Liturgies mentioned to be spurious.

Durandus in his Rationale, lib. 5. cap. 2. honestly confesseth the Truth: That in the Primitive Times there was no Liturgy used in the Church.

As for those fathered on the Apostles, and the Ancient Writers (called Fathers) after their days, many Learned men, but especially Peter Martyr, Morney, Rivet, Cocus, Rainold, Voetius, &c. have by irrefragable Arguments, evinced them to be Supposititious and Spurious things. In that said to be Chrysostoms, the Church is directed to pray for Pope Nicholas, who lived not till five hundred years after Chrysostom was dead: As for St. James's Liturgy, it is so unlike an Apostle, as that Bellarmin himself judgeth it to be either wholly Spurious, or that others have added to it what they pleased; it mentions the Anchorets, and has other words in it, not known in the Apostles days.

p. 37Of the like Authority are the Liturgies Fathered on Peter, Mark, and Matthew, in which there are Prayers for Popes, Patriarchs, and Archbishops, Creatures not known in the World, till long after the Apostles were dead.

It is clear from the words of Justin Martyr, (in Orat. Apol.) who lived 160 years after Christ, that then there was no Book of Prayer used by Christians; for he saith, That the Minister did pour out his Prayers, foreign, according as strength and utterance was afforded to him from Heaven: It is as clear that in Tertullians time, (who lived 200 years after Christ) there was no Church-Liturgy; for he (Apol. Cap. 2.) declares, that Christians in those days prayed Sine Monitore quia de pectore, without the help of a prompted Form, because from their Hearts.

And that there was no Liturgy in some Churches, or of general use in the Church for above four hundred years, is manifest from the words of Socrates, (who lived Anno 430.) he saith, There were scarce two Christians found, who used the same words in Prayer. Hist. l. 5. cap. 21. It is true, that about the year 350. (plus p. 28minus,) some Churches in Africa begun to use stinted Liturgies, which was occasioned by the gross Ignorance and Heterodoxy that many of the Clergy were then found guilty of: So that the Council of Carthage, Anno 395. ordered that Ministers should not use Prayers composed by themselves, without consulting their more able Brethren. Hence also came in Homilies, because many Ministers were as unable to preach, as they were unfit to pray. In the declining Ages of the Church, many Liturgical Books were composed, Sed ab initio non fuit sic: There are the Prayer Books of Isidorus, Flaccus, Strabo, Maurus, Berno, Hildebertus, and others; as whoso pleaseth to consult Cassanders Liturgica, will see, these things if searched into will be found the Truth. There are who plead, that in the Jewish Church of old, there were Forms Prayer used besides those which were of Divine Inspiration.

Credat Judaeus Apella.

I know that some Jewish Doctors tell us, That Ezra and the Men of the great Synagogue, p. 29appointed eighteen Benedictions, yea, and that David appointed an hundred Benedictions. Vide Buxtorf. Synagog. Cap. 5. In fine Drusii Praeterit. ad Acts 3. & 10. Schindler Pentaglot. in voce Manach. And I have seen Liturgies written in the Hebrew Tongue, but it is easie to perceive that they are late Composures. They that think to find any such compiled before the Church of the Jews was degenerated into its present woful estate, will find themselves disappointed, as Bishop Andrews was, when he caused a Jewish Liturgy to be translated out of the Hebrew into the Latin Tongue, hoping that he should have found something therein to countenance the English Liturgy. Genebrard has emitted a Jewish Common-Prayer Book, wherein are Prayers for the Dead, a Superstitious Commemoration of Saints: of so little weight is the Argument taken from the Jews Liturgies.

Reason 4. In this Age of Light, it would in me, (and in all others so Educated and Instructed as I have been) appear to be a great Apostacy, should I in the least countenance or comply with the Common-Prayer-Worship.

p. 30The Corruptions of the English Liturgy have been abundantly discovered and born witness against by many Learned and worthy Men, whom God has raised up and enabled to do that Service for his Name and Truth.

The Books of the Famous Cartwright were long since Published, and since that a Treatise called, A Survey of the Common-Prayer, and the Exceptions of the London Ministers, which caused them to refuse Subscription to the Liturgy, and the Apology of the Non-conformists in Lincolnshire, and the Reasons of those in Cornwall, and Devon, and the Defence of those Reasons, in three parts; besides many other Tracts emitted very lately; by all which the Light is convincingly manifested before the World.

Yea, and there have been many, and those too, not of wilfull Tempers, but very humble and conscientious; nor of weak parts, but as Eminent for Learning and Judgment, as any in the World, who have chosen to suffer, rather than to sin in complying with the Liturgy. Amongst these, I might mention Dr. John Rainold, Dr. Ames, and Mr. Robert Parker, (a Man of vast Reading and Abilities,) p. 31Mr. Dod, (whom Mr. Burroughs has fitly styled the Moses of his Time,) Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Nichols, not to speak of others.

Only I would not forget those Eminent and Faithful Ministers of Christ, who were driven into an American Desart, the principal Cause of whose Exile and Sufferings, was, because they durst not touch with the Common-Prayer Book; and since their being in New-England, some of them have by their Writings testified against it. The nine Positions (though written by Mr. Davenport, had the Approbation of the rest of the Elders in New-England, and therein Reasons are given, why it is unlawfull to be present at the Common Prayer-Worship, or any part thereof.

Mr. John Cotton of Boston, (a Man deservedly Famous in both Englands) has done the like: And Mr. John Allen of Dedham in New-England, (Mr. Shepherd of Cambridge joyning with him) in his defence of the nine Positions, has expresly declared the Unlawfulness of being present at the Common-Prayer-Worship.

As for me, your self knoweth what my Education has been. My Father was on Holy and a Learned Man, and one that suffered much for his Non-conformity; p. 32should I once go to hear Common-Prayer, I seriously profess, I know not how I should be able to look my Father in the Face in the other World; much less how I should answer Christ at the great Day for my Apostacy from those Principles of Truth which my Father has instructed me in, both by Word and Example; Gal. 2. 18. is of weight with me.

These, Sir, are some of the Reasons why I judge it would be sin in me to own the Common-Prayer-Worship: I have omitted the mentioning of many particulars contained in the Liturgy, which as to the Doctrine of them are false and corrupt. e. g. It is there affirmed, that Children Baptized have all things necessary to Salvation, and are undoubtedly saved: Yea, that it is certain from Gods Word, that if a baptized Child dye before actual Sin, 'tis saved: this savours of Pelagianism: And that there are only two Sacraments necessary to Salvation, which implies a double Error, viz. that the Sacraments are necessary to Salvation; and that there are more Sacraments of the New Testament than two: And the Book saith that some sins are deadly, as if the Popish distinction of sins into Mortal and Venial were a sound distinction, p. 33and that Christ has Redeemed all Mankind.

I might here also have added, that a stinted Liturgy is opposite to the Spirit of Prayer. The Scripture teacheth, That Christians should pray with all Prayer and Supplications in the Spirit. Ephes. 6. 18. which they cannot do, if they tye themselves up to a set Form never to be varied from: I let pass that Argument, from the Mischief of a Prescript Liturgy; it is the Instrument of a foolish Shepherd: An Idol and a dumb Ministry is thereby continued in the Church.

It is well known, that in a place in Kent, a common Fidler read Service for 12 d. per week; and perhaps that was more than he deserved: But let me seriously add this further, That a prescribed Book is an Image or Help to Prayer devised by Men, but not ordained by God, and therefore forbidden in the second Commandment.

Mr. Cotton speaketh weightily, in saying, It is unlawful to bring in ordinarily any other Book into the publick Worship of God, beside the Book of God. To bring in another Book, is like bringing in of another Altar into the Temple besides the Lords p. 34Altar. If it be a sin to set up a Post by God's Post, and a Threshold by his Threshold, Ezek. 42. 8. then it is a sin to set up a Book by Gods Book; and consequently it is a sin to joyn with, or to countenance them that do so.

But before I proceed to your next Question, give me leave to speak a few words in answer to that which some take to be a sufficient justification of the Liturgy, or at leastwise of their partaking in that Worship, viz. In that the first Collectors and Publishers of it were good men, and divers of them died Martyrs. Answer. Are not good Men, especially in times of Darkness fallible, and their Example not to be followed, wherein they have fallen short of the Rule. In some Ages good Men may do that, which if their Successors having greater light should follow them in, they would not be good; witness the Polygamy of the Fathers, not to mention other Errors: But as to the matter before us, thus it hath been. The whole Liturgy was said or sung in Latin in the Reign of King Henry 8. untill the year 1545, and then the Litany and no other part of the Liturgy was permitted in English; and that was the furthest p. 35pace the Reformation stept in that Kings Reign. See Fuller Church-History. Book 7. p. 386. In Anno 1548. came forth the first Edition of the Common-Prayer Book in King Edward the Sixth's time.

There is no rule of Charity that does require us to believe that all the Persons employed thereabout were good Men: For one of them was George Day the Bishop of Chichester, he was a dissembling Hypocrite, pretending to be a Protestant, but afterwards shew'd himself to be a Papist: Yet many set awork about that affair, were truly Pious Men, who acted faithfully, according to the Light they had received in those dawnings of Reformation out of Popish Darkness in England. Bishop Ridley had an hand in that first English Liturgy, being the hottest Stickler for Conformity in those days, but GOD gave him to see his Error before his Martyrdom, as is clear from his Letter to Mr. Hooper, published by Mr. Fox. Vol. 3. p. 146, 147.

Archbishop Cranmer was another, and the most Eminent amongst the Compilers of the English Liturgy: But it is related in the History of the Troubles at Franckford, p. 42. That Cranmer had drawn p. 36up a Book of Prayers far more perfect than that which now we have, and that it could not take place, because he was Matched with, and overpowred by a Popish and a Wicked Clergy.

So that the Common Prayer Book came forth no better than now we see it. Nevertheless, Eminent Divines did then testifie against those Remainders of Popery which it does abound with.

Mr. Rogers (the Protomartyr in Queen Mary's Reign) and Mr. Hooper, (who dyed a Martyr also) were much troubled at the Service-Book. Moreover, great and learned Men of other Nations found fault with it; so did Calvin, and Bucer, and at last Peter Martyr: And Bullinger declared that he should be loth to make use of it in his Church. Likewise John â Lasco (that famous and noble Reformer) expressed great dissatisfaction at the English Liturgy. That Mr. Knox and the Chief Reformers in Scotland were offended at it, every Body knoweth.

In Queen Elizabeth's Reign, the Bishops made the Common Prayer Book to be in several things worse and more intolerable than it was in the Dayes of King Edward: For in his time it was left free p. 37what to be read, nor were some Superstitious Ceremonies then Imposed upon the Consciences of such as could not comply with them.

No less than Twenty six Lessons of Canonical Scripture, appointed to be read in King Edward's Kalender, are Sacrilegiously blotted out of the latter Common Prayer Book. Also the Bishops have Expunged a Prayer against the Pope of Rome and his detestable Enormities, which was in King Edward's Book; and that Express Declaration against the Corporeal Presence is in the Liturgy Published Anno 1559. left out, in Compliance with the Papists.

This was the very Reason why the Clergy-men were so inflexible in their adherence to the Liturgy, and the Worship prescribed thereby; it was because they resolved to go no farther from Rome than needs they must, and from a vain Perswasion that they should thereby gain Papists over to their Communion.

But the Learned Primate of Ireland does observe, and ingeniously acknowledge, that Experience has manifested that the Papists are not won, but rather hardned in their Superstitions, by such Methods.

p. 38It may be time will discover, that some who pretend Zeal for the Common-Prayer Book, are carrying on a design for Rome: The Liturgy came from thence, and will perhaps lead thither again.

The Riddle of the Snow and the Water may be applyed here,

Mater me genuit, Mater quoque gignitur ex me.

Not but that some who Comply with the Service-Book are true Protestants, and would suffer with their Non-conformable Brethren (who cannot go so far as they) rather than Embrace Popery.

Nevertheless, the Liturgy has in it self a tendency that way, and will by such as are not hearty Protestants be Improved accordingly.