The Grand Debate Between Bishops and Presbyterian Divines, Document 2 · Reply 13 – Section 18
Reply. If we had ſaid, that the Church is contentious, if it adore God in kneeling on the Lords daies, or uſe not the White Garment, Milk and Honey after baptiſm, which had more pretence of Apoſtolical tradition, and were generally uſed more anciently than Lent, would you not have thought we wronged the Church? if the purer times of the Church have one Cuſtome, and later times a contrary, which muſt we follow? or muſt we neceſſarily be contentious for not following both? or rather may we not by the example of the Church that changeth them, be allowed to take ſuch things to be matters of Liberty, and not neceſſity? If we muſt needs conform to the Cuſtome of other Churches in ſuch things, or be contentious, it is either becauſe God hath ſo commanded, or becauſe he hath given thoſe Churches Authority to command it: If the former, then what Churches or what Ages muſt we conforme to? If all muſt concurr to be our patterne, it will be hard for us to be acquainted with them ſo far as to know of ſuch Concurrences: And in our Caſe we know that many do it not; If it muſt be the moſt, we would know where God commandeth us to imitate the greater number, though the worſe; or hath ſecured us that they ſhall not be the worſt? or why we are not tied rather to imitate the purer Ages than the more corrupt? If it be ſaid, that the Church hath Authority to command us, we deſire to know what Church that is, and where to be found, and heard, that may command England, and all the Churches of his Majeſty's Dominions. If it be ſaid to be a General Council; 1. No General Council can pretend to more Authority than that of Nice, whoſe 20th Canon, back'd with Tradition and common pratice, now bindes not us, and was laid by without any Repeal by following Councils. 2. We know of no ſuch things as General Councils, at leaſt that have bound us to the religious obſervation of Lent. The Biſhops of one Empire could not make a General Council. 3. Nor do we know of any ſuch power that they have ever the univerſal Church, there being no viſible head of it, or Governours to make univerſal Laws, but Chriſt, (as Rogers on the 20. Article fore-cited ſhews) our 21. Article ſaith that [General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes] and doubtleſs all the Heathen, and Mahomitans, and all the contending Chriſtian Princes, will never agree together, (nor never did) to let all their Chriſtian Subjects concurre to hold a General Council. It ſaith alſo [and when they be gathered together (foraſmuch as they be an Aſſembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God) they may erre, and ſometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God; therefore things ordained by them, as neceſſary to Salvation, have neither ſtrength nor authority, unleſſe it may be declared that they be taken out of the Holy Scriptures;] And if they may erre in things pertaining unto God, and ordained by them as neceſſary to Salvation] much more in leſſer things. And are we contentious if we erre not with them? Our. 39. Article determineth this Controverſie, ſaying, [It is not neceſſary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and changed according to the diverſity of Countryes, times, and mens manners, ſo that nothing be ordained againſt Gods Word.] And after [every particular, or national Church, hath authority to ordain, change, or aboliſh Ceremonies, or Rites of the Church, ordained only by mans authority, ſo that all things be done to edifying] they that believe not this, ſhould not ſubſcribe it, nor require it of others. As for the Teſtimonies cited by you, they are to little purpoſe: We deny not that the Cuſtom of obſerving Lent, either fewer dayes or more, was as Antient as thoſe Authors. But 1. That Lent was not known or kept in the 2d. or 3d. Ages, you may ſee as followeth, Tertul. de jejun. l. 2. cap. 14. pleading for the Montaniſts, [Si omnem in totum devotionem temporum, & dierum, & menſium, & annorum eraſit Apostolus, cur Paſcha celeramus anno circulo in menſe primo? cur quodragin…a inde diebus in omni exultatione decurrimus? cur ſtationibus quartam & ſextam, ſabbati dicamus? & jejunits Paraſceven? quanquam vos etiam ſabbatum ſi quando continuatis; nunquam riſi in Paſcha jejunandum, &c. And cap. 15. excuſing that rigor of their Faſts [quontula eſt apud ncs interdictio ciborum, duus in anno. Hebdomadas xerophagiarum nec totas; excaptis ſcilicet ſabbatis, & dominicis offerimus Deo; The old general Faſt at that time was only the voluntary unconſtrained faſting on Good Friday, & after that on one or two dayes more, and then on ſix; Iraeneus in a fragment of an Epiſt. in Euſeb. Hiſt. lib. 5. cap. 26. Gr. Lat. 23. ſaith, (the Controverſy is not only of the day of Eaſter, but of the kind of Faſt it ſelf: for ſome think they ſhould faſt one day, ſome two, others more, ſome meaſure their day by 40. hours of day and night; and this variety of thoſe that obſerve theſe Faſts began not now in our Age, but long before us with our Anceſtors, who as is moſt like, propagated to poſterity the Cuſtom which they retein, as brought in by a certain ſimplicity, and private will; And yet all theſe lived peaceably among themſelves, and we keep peace among our ſelves, and the difference of Faſting is ſo far from violating the conſonancy of Faith, as that it even commendeth it.] Thus Iraeneus, (read the reſt of the Chapter) thus is the true reading confeſſed by Bellarmine, Rigaltius, &c. and Dioniſ. Alexand. Ep. Can. ad Baſil. pag. 881. Balſam. ſaith, [nor do all equally and alike ſuſtain thoſe ſix dayes of Faſting; but ſome paſſe them all Faſting, ſome two, ſomethree, ſome four, ſome more;] And the Catholicks in Tert. de jejun, cap. 2. ſay, neque de caetero differentur jejunandum, ex arbitrio, non ex imperio nova diſciplinae, pro temporibus & cauſis uniuſcujuſque ſic & Apostolos obſervaſse, nullum aliud imponentes jugum certorum, & in commune omnibus obeundorum jejuniorum; And Socrat. admireth at many Countries, that all differed about the number of dayes, and yet all called it Quadrageſima, lib. 5. c. 22. Eat. Gr. 21. So Sozomen lib. 7. c. 19. Gr. & Niceph. lib. 12. cap. 34. which may help you to expound Hierom, and the reſt cited by you, as Rigalitus doth ad Tertul. de jejun. 128. as ſhewing that they did it with reſpect to Chriſts 40. dayes faſt, but not as intending any ſuch thing themſelves as any faſt of 40. dayes. It is againſt the Montaniſts, that the Quadrageſ. was but once a year that Hierom uſeth the title of Apoſtolick tradition. And how to expound him, ſee Epiſt. ad Lucin. [u…aqueque provincia abundet in ſuo ſenſu, & precepta Majorum leges Apoſtolicus arbitictur;] But ſaith Auguſt. ad Caſulan. Ep. 86. [In Evangelicis & Apostolicis literis, totoque Inſtrumento quod appellatur Teſtamentum Novum, animo id revolens video preceptum eſse jejunium: quibus autem diebus non oportet jejunare, & quibus oporteas, precepto Domini vel Apoſtolorum non invenio definitum.] And that Chriſt ans abſtinance in Lent was voluntary [quanto magis quiſque vel minus voluerit, vel potuerit.] Auguſt. affirmeth, cont. Fauſtum Manich. lib. 30. cap. 5. And Soerat. ubi ſupr. ſaith. [ac quontam nemo de eâre praeceptum literarum monumentis proditam poteſt ostendete, perſpicuum eſt Apostolos liberam poteſtatem in eadem cujuſque menti, ac arbitrio permiſſiſſe: ut quiſque nec metu, nec neceſſitate inductus quod bonum ſit ageret.] And Proſper de vit. Contempl. li. 2. C. 24 veruntamen ſic jejunare, vel abstinere debemus ut nos non jejunandi, vel abſtinendi neceſſitate ſubdamus, ne jam deveti, ſed inviti, rem voluntariam faciamus.] And Coſſianus, lib. 2. col. 21. cap. 30. ſaith in primitivâ eccleſiâ equale fuiſſe jejunium per totum annum: Ac frigeſcente devotione, cum negligerentur jejunia inductum Quadragiâ Sacer dotibus. But when you come to deſcribe your faſt, you make amends for the length, by making it indeed no faſt; To abſtain from meats and drinks of delight,] where neither the thing, not the delight, is profitable to further us in our duty to God, is that which we take to be the duty of every Chriſtian all the year, as being a part of our mortification, and ſelf denyal, who are commanded to Crucifie the fleſh, and to make no proviſion to ſatisfie the luſts of it, and to ſubdue our bodies; But when thoſe meats and drinks, do more help than hinder us in the ſervice of God, we take it to be our duty to uſe them, unleſs when ſome other accident forbids it, that would make it otherwiſe more hurtful; And for faſting till noon, we ſuppoſe it is the ordinary way of dyet to multitudes of Sedentary perſons, both Students, and Tradeſmen, that find one meal a day ſufficient for nature: If you call this faſting, your poor Brethren faſt all their life time, and never knew that it was faſting; But to command hard Labourers to do ſo, is but to make it a fault to have health, or to do their neceſſary work. We beſeech you bring not the Clergy under the ſuſpition of Gluttony, by calling our ordinary wholeſome temperance by the name of faſting: ſure Princes may feed as fully and delightfully as we; yet Solomon ſaith [woe to thee O Land when thy King is a Child, and thy Princes eat in the morning; Bleſſed art thou O Land when thy King is the Son of Nobles, and thy Princes eat in due ſeaſon, for ſtrength, & not for drunkeneſſe: For meer ſenſual delight it is never lawful; And when it is for ſtrength it is not to be forbidden, unleſs when by accident it will infer a greater good to abſtain, Eccl. 20. 16. 17. ſo Prov. 31. 4. 6. It is not for Kings to drink wine, not for Princes ſtrong drink; give ſtrong drink to him that is ready to periſh, and wine to thoſe that be of heavy hearts.]
[Nor does the Act of Parliament 5 Elizab. forbid it, we dare not think a Parliament did intend to forbid that which Chriſt his Church hath commanded; Nor does the Act determine any thing about Lent Faſt, but only provide for the maintenance of the Navy, and of Fiſhing in order thereunto, as is plain by the Act. Beſides we conceive that we must not ſo interpret, one Act, as to contradict another, being ſtill in force and unrepealed. Now the Act of 1 Eliz. confirmes the whole Liturgy, and in that the religious keeping of Lent, with a ſevere penalty upon all thoſe, who ſhall by open words speak any thing in derogation of any part thereof, and therefore that other Act of 5 Elizab. muſt not be interpreted to forbid the religious keeping of Lent.]
Reply. If when the expreſſe words of a Statute are cited, you can ſo eaſily put it off, by ſaying (it does not forbid it,) and you dare not think that a Parliament did intend to forbid that which Chriſt his Church hath commanded,) and (you muſt not interpret it as contradicting that Act which confirms the Liturgy,) we muſt think that indeed we are no leſſe regardful of the Laws of the Governours than you; But firſt, we underſtand not what Authority this is that you ſet againſt the King and Parliament, as ſuppoſing they will not forbid what it commands? You call it Chriſts Church, we ſuppoſe you mean not Chriſt himſelf, by his Apoſtles infallibly directed and inſpired: If it be the National Church of England, they are the Kings Subjects; and why may he not forbid a Ceremony which they command; or why ſhould they command it if he forbid it? If it be any Foreign Church, ther's none hath power over us. If it be any pretended head of the Church univerſal, whether Pope or general Council, having power to make Laws that bind the whole Church, it is a thing ſo copiouſly diſproved by Proteſtants againſt both the Italian and French Papiſts, that we think it needleſſe to confute it, nor indeed dare imagine that you intend it. We know not the refore what you mean; But whatever you mean you ſeem to contradict the forecited Article of the Church of England, that makes all humane Laws about Rites and Ceremonies of the Church to be unchangeable, by each particular National Church; And that it is not neceſſary that Ceremonies or Traditions be in all places one, or utterly like▪ we moſt earneſtly beſeech you be cautious how you obtrude upon us a Foreign Power, under the name of Chriſts Church, that may command Ceremonies which King and Parliament may not forbid, whether it be one man or a thouſand, we fear it is againſt our Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy, for us do own any ſuch Power. And (not preſuming upon any immodeſt challenge) we are ready in the defence of thoſe Oathes, and the Proteſtant Religion, to prove againſt any in an equal conference, that there is no ſuch Power, and for the Statute, let the words themſelves decide the Controverſy, which are theſe [Be it Enacted that who ſoever ſhall by Preaching, Teaching, Writing, or open ſpeech, notifie that any eating of Fiſh, or forbearing of Fleſh, mentioned in this Statuie, is of any neceſſity for the ſaving of the Soul of man, or that it is the Service of God, otherwiſe than as other Politick Laws are, and be, that than ſuch perſons are and ſhall be puniſhed, as the ſpreaders of falſe news are, and ought to be.] And whereas you ſay the Act determines not any thing about Lent Faſt, it ſpeaks againſt eating Fleſh, (on any days now uſually obſerved as Fiſh days: and Lent is ſuch, and the ſenfe of the Act for the Lituigy may better be tryed by this, which is plain, than thus reduced to that which is more obſcure.
[The obſervation of Saints dayes, is not as of Divine, but Eccleſiaſtical Inſtitution, and therefore it is not neceſſary that they ſhould have N. 6.any other ground in Scripture, than all other Inſtitutions of the ſame nature, ſo that they be agreeable to the Scriptare in the general end, for the promoting piety, and the obſervation of them was antient, as appears by the Rituals, and Liturgies, and by the joynt conſent of Antiquity, and by the antient tranſlation of the Bible, as the Syriack and Ethiopick, where the Leſſons appointed for Holydayes, are noted and ſet down, the former of which was made near the Apoſtles times, Beſides our Saviour himſelf, kept a Feaſt of the Churches Inſtitution, viz. the Feast of the Dedication, S. Jo. 12. 22. The choice end of theſe dayes being not feaſting, but the exerciſe of Holy Duties, they are fitter called Holydayes, than Feſtivals, and though they be all of like nature, it doth not follow that they are equal; The people may be diſpenſed with for their work, after the Service, as Authority pleaſeth, The other names are left in the Calender, not that they ſhould be ſo kept as Holydayes, but they are uſeful for the preſervation of their memories, and for other reaſons, as for Leaſes, Law-dayes, &c.]
Reply. The antiquity of the Tranſlations mentioned is far from being of determinate certainty: we rather wiſh than hope that the Syriack could be proved to be made near the Apoſtles times; But however, the things being confeſſed of humane Inſtitution, and no Forreign Power having any Authority to command his Majeſties Subjects, and ſo the impoſition being only by our own Governours, we humbly crave that they may be left indifferent, and the unity or peace of the Church, or Liberty of the Miniſters not laid upon them.
[This makes the Liturgy void, if every, Miniſter may put in, and N. 7. S. 1.leave out all at his diſcretion.]
Repl. You miſtake us: we ſpeak not of putting in, and leaving out, of the Liturgy, but of having leave to intermix ſome exhortations or prayers beſides, to take off the deadneſſe which will follow, if there be nothing but the ſtinted Forms; we would avoid both the extreme that would have no forms, and the contrary extremes that would have nothing but forms; But if we can have nothing but extremes, there's no remedy, its not our fault. And this moderation and mixture which we move for, is ſo far from making all the Liturgy void, that it will do very much to make it attain its end, and would heal much of the diſtemper which it occaſioneth, and conſequently would do much to preſerve the reputation of it. As for inſtance, it beſides the Forms in the Liturgy, the Miniſter might at Baptiſm, the Lords Supper, Marriage, &c. interpoſe ſome ſuitable exhortation or prayer upon ſpecial occaſion when he finds it needful. Should you deny this at the viſitation of the Sick, it would ſeem ſtrange, and why may it not be granted at other times: It is a matter of far greater trouble to us, that you would deny us and all Miniſters the Liberty of uſing any other Prayers beſides the Liturgy then that you impoſe theſe
[The gift or rather spirit of Prayer conſiſts in the inward graces of the ſpirit, not in ex tempore expreſſions, which any man of natural S. 2.parts, having a voluable tongue, and audacity, may attain to without any ſpecial gift.]
Repl. All inward Graces of the ſpirit, are not properly called the ſpirit of Prayer, nor is the ſpirit of Prayer that gift of Prayer which we ſpeak of; Nor did we call it by the name of a ſpecial gift,) nor did we deny that ordinary men of natural parts and voluable tongues may attain it; But yet we humbly conceive that as there is a gift of Preaching, ſo alſo of Prayer, which God beſtows in the uſe of means, diverſified much according to mens natural parts, & their diligence, as other acquired abilities are, but alſo much depending on that grace that is indeed ſpecial, which maketh men love and reliſh the holy ſubjects of ſuch ſpiritual ſtudies, and the holy exerciſe of thoſe Graces that are the ſoul of Prayer, and conſequently making men follow on ſuch exerciſes with delight and diligence, and therefore with ſucceſs; And alſo God is free in giving, or denying his bleſſing to mans endeavours. If you think there be no Gift of Preaching, you will too diſhonourably level the Miniſtry: If Reading be all the Gift of Prayer or Preaching, there needs no great underſtanding or learning to it. Nor ſhould Cobblers and Tinkers be ſo unfit men for Miniſters as they are thought; Nor would the reaſon be very apparent, why a Woman might not ſpeak by Preaching, or praying in the Church.
[But if there be any ſuch Gift as is pretended, it is to be ſubject to 4. 3.the Prophets, and to the Order of the Church.]
Repl. The Text ſpeaks (as Dr. Hammond well ſhews) of a ſubjection to that Prophet himſelf, who was the Speaker; Inſpiration excluded not the prudent exerciſe of Reaſon; But it is a ſtrange ordering, that totally excludeth the thing ordered. The Gift of Preaching (as diſtinct from reading) is to be orderly and with due ſubjection exerciſed; But not to be on that pretence extinguiſhed and caſt out of the Church: And indeed if you ſhould command it, you are not to be obeyed, whatever we ſuffer; And why then ſhould the Gift of Prayer (diſtinct from reading) be caſt out.
[The miſchiefs that come by Idle, Impertinent, Ridiculous, ſometimes §. 4.Seditious, Impious, and Blasphemous expreſſions under pretence of the Gift, to the diſhonour of God, and ſcorn of Religion, being far greater than the pretended good of exerciſing the Gift: It is fit that they who deſire ſuch liberty in publike devotions, ſhould first give the Church ſecurity, that no private opinions; ſhould be put into their Prayers, as is deſired in the first Propoſal, and that nothing contrary to the Faith ſhould be uttered before God, or offered up to him in the Church.]