The Grand Debate Between Bishops and Presbyterian Divines, Document 2 · Reply 12 – Section 12
Reply. What is moſt for edification, is beſt known by experience, and by the reaſon of the thing; For the former, you are not the Maſters of all mens experience, but of your own, and others that have acquainted you with the ſame, as theirs: We alſo may warrantably profeſſe in the name of our ſelves, and many thouſands of ſober pious perſons, that we experience that theſe things are againſt our edification, and we beſeech you do not by us, what you would not do by the poor labouring ſervants of your family, to meaſure them all their dyet for quality or quantity, according to your own appetites, which they think are diſeaſed, and would be better, if you work'd as hard as they; And we gave you ſome of the reaſons of our judgment. 1. Though we have not ſaid that the people may not in pſalmes to God concur in voice, (we ſpeak of prayer which you ſhould have obſerved) and though we only concluded it agreeable to the Scripture practice, for the people in prayer to ſay but their Amen, yet knowing not from whom to underſtand the will of God, and what is pleaſing to him, better than from himſelf, we conſidered what the Scripture ſaith of the ordinary way of publick worſhip; and finding ordinarily that the people ſpoke no more in prayer (as diſtinct from Pſalmes and praiſe) than their Amen, or meer conſent, we deſired to imitate the ſureſt pattern. 2. As we find that the Miniſter is the mouth of the people to God in publick (which Scripture, and the neceſſity of order, do require) ſo we were loath to countenance the peoples invading of that Sacred Office, ſo far as they ſeem to us to do; 1. By reading half the Pſalmes and Hymnes; 2. By ſaying half the Prayers, as the Miniſter doth the other half; 3. By being one of them the mouth of all the reſt in the Confeſſion at the Lords Supper; 4. By being the only Petitioners, in the far greateſt part of all the Letanie, by their [good Lord deliver us] and [we beſeech thee to hear us good Lord] while the Miniſter only reciteth the matter of the prayer, and maketh none of the Requeſt at all, we fear leſt by parity of reaſon, the people will claim the work of preaching, and other parts of the Miniſterial Office; 3. And we mentioned that which all our ears are witneſſes of, that while half the Pſalmes, and Hymnes, &c. are ſaid by ſuch of the people as can ſay them, the murmure of their voices in moſt Congregations, is ſo intelligible and confuſed, as muſt hinder the edification of all the reſt; For who is edified by that which he cannot underſtand? we know not what you mean by citing 2 Chron. 7. 1, 4. Ezra 3. 11. where there is not a word of publick prayer, but in one place of an Acclamation, upon an extraordinary ſight of the Glory of the Lord, which made them praiſe the Lord, and ſay, [He is good, for his Mercy is for ever] When the prayer that went before was ſuch as you call [a long tedious prayer] uttered by Solomon alone without ſuch breaks, and diſcants; And in the other places is no mention of prayer at all, but of ſinging praiſe, and that not by the people, but by the Prieſts, and Levites, ſaying the ſame words [for he is good, for his Mercy endures for ever towards Iſrael.] The people are ſaid to do no more than ſhout with a great ſhout, becauſe the foundation of the houſe was laid: and if ſhouting be it that you would prove, it's not the thing in queſtion. Let the ordinary mode of praying in Scripture be obſerved, in the Prayers of David, Solomon, Ezra, Daniel, or any other, and if they were by breaks, and frequent beginnings and endings, and alternate interlocutions of the people, as yours are, then we will conform to your mode, which now offends us; But if they were not, we beſeech you reduce yours to the examples in the Scripture: we deſire no other rule to decide the Controverſie by. As to your Citation, 1 Socrat. there tells us of the alternate ſinging of the Aruians in the reproach of the Orthodox, and that Chryſoſtome (not a Synod) compiled Hymnes to be ſung in oppoſition to them in the ſtreets, which came in the end to a Tumult and Bloodſhed. And hereupon he tells us of the original of alternate ſinging. viz. a pretended viſion of Ignatius, that heard Angels ſing in that order. And what is all this to alternate reading, and praying, or to a Divine Inſtitution, when here is no mention of reading, or praying, but of ſinging Hymnes? And that not upon pretence of Apoſtolical Tradition, but a viſion of uncertain credit. Theodor. alſo ſpeaketh only of ſinging Pſalmes alternately, and not a word of reading or praying ſo; And he fetcheth that way of ſinging alſo as Socrat. doth, but from the Church at Antioch, and not from any pretended doctrine, or practiſe of the Apoſtles; And neither of them ſpeaks a word of the neceſſitie of it, or of forcing any to it, ſo that all theſe your Citations, ſpeaking not a word ſo much as of the very Subjects in queſtion, are marvellouſly impertinent. The words [their Worſhip] ſeem to intimate, that ſinging Pſalms is part (of our Worſhip) and not of yours, we hope you diſown it not; for our parts we are not aſhamed of it, your diſtinction between Hopkin's and David's Pſalms, as if the Meetre allowed by Authority to be ſung in Churches made them to be no more David's Pſalms, ſeemeth to us a very hard ſaying. If it be becauſe it is a Tranſlation, then the Proſe ſhould be none of David's Pſalms neither, nor any Tranſlation be the Scripture. If it be becauſe it is in Meetre, then the exacteſt Tranſlation in Meetre ſhould be none of the Scripture. If becauſe it's done imperfectly, then the old Tranſlation of the Bible, uſed by the Common-Prayer-book, ſhould not be Scripture. As to your reaſon for the ſuppoſed priority, 1. Scripture examples telling us, that the People had more part in the Pſalms, than in the Prayers or Readings, ſatisfie us, that God and his Church then ſaw a diſparity of Reaſon. 2. Common obſervation tells us, that there is more Order and leſs hindrance of Edification in the Peoples ſinging, than in their Reading, and Praying together vocally.
[It is deſired that nothing ſhould be in the Liturgy, which ſo much N. 5. Sect. 1.us ſeems to countenance the obſervation of Lent as a religious Faſt, and this as an expedient to Peace, which is in effect to deſire, that this our Church may be contentious for Peace ſake, and to divide from the Church Catholick, that we may live at unity among our ſelves: For Saint Paul reckons them amongſt the lovers of Contention, who ſhall oppoſe themſelves againſt the Cuſtome of the Churches of God; that the religious obſervation of Lent was a Cuſtome of the Churches of God, appeares by the Teſtimonies following, Chryſoſt. Ser. 11. in Heb. 10. Cyrill. Catec. myſt. 5. St. Auguſt. Ep. 119. ut 40. dies ante Paſcha obſervetur, Eccleſiae conſuetudo roboravit: and St. Hierom ad Marcell, ſaies, it was ſecundum traditionem Apoſtolorum; This Demand then tends not to Peace, but Diſſention. The faſting Forty daies may be in imitation of our Saviour, for all that is here ſaid to the contrary; for though we cannot arrive to his perfection, abſtaining wholly from meat ſo long, yet we may faſt forty daies together, either Cornelius his Faſt, till three of the Clock afternoon, or Saint Peter's faſt till noon, or at leaſt Daniel's faſt, abſtaining from Meats and Drinks of delight, and thus far imitate our Lord.]