The Grand Debate Between Bishops and Presbyterian Divines, Document 2 · Reply 2 – Section 2
Reply. If you look to the time paſt, by our Duties we ſuppoſe you mean our Faults; For it is not Duty when it's paſt: If you in theſe words reſpect only the time preſent and to come, we Reply, 1. The Liturgy we are aſſured will not be a leſs, but a more probable means of Concord after the deſired Reformation than before; the defects and inconveniencies make it leſs fit to attain the end. 2ly. Whether the Apoſtle by ſpeaking the ſame thing did mean either (all uſing this Liturgy of ours) or [all uſing any one form of Liturgy as to the words] may eaſily be determined. This is of much later date, unleſs you will denominate the whole form of the Lords Prayer, and ſome little parts. And thoſe that affirm, that the Apoſtles then had any other, muſt undertake the task of proving it, and excuſing the Churches for loſing and diſ-uſing ſo precious a Relict; which if preſerved would have prevented all our ſtrifes about theſe things. And in the mean time they muſt ſatisfie our Arguments for the Negative: As 1. If a Liturgy had been indited by the Apoſtles for the Churches, being by univerſal Officers inſpired by the Holy Ghoſt, and ſo of univerſal uſe, it would have been uſed and preſerved by the Church as the Holy Scriptures were. But ſo it was not. Ergo no ſuch Liturgy, was indited by them for the Churches. 2ly. If a preſcript form of words had been delivered them, there would have been no ſuch need of exhorting them to ſpeak the ſame thing, for the Liturgy would have held them cloſe enough to that. And if the meaning had been (ſee that you uſe the ſame Liturgy) ſome word or other to ſome of the Churches would have acquainted us with the exiſtence of ſuch a thing, and ſome Reproofs we ſhould have found of thoſe that uſed various Liturgies, or formed Liturgies of their own, or uſed extemporary prayers: and ſome expreſs exhortations to uſe the ſame Liturgie or Forms: But the holy Scripture is ſilent in all thoſe matters: It is apparent therefore that the Churches then had no Liturgy, but took liberty of extemporate expreſſions, and ſpoke in the things of God, as men do in other matters, with a natural plaineſs and ſeriouſneſs, ſuiting their expreſſions to the ſubjects and occaſions. And though Diviſions began to diſturb their Peace and holy Orders, the Apoſtle inſtead of preſcribing them a Form of Divine Services for their Unity and Concord, do exhort them to uſe their Gifts and liberties aright, and ſpeake the ſame thing for matter, avoiding Diſagreements, though they uſed not the ſame words. 3. Juſt. Martyr, Tertull. and others ſufficiently intimate to us, that the Churches quickly after the Apoſtles did uſe the perſonal Abilities of their Paſtors in prayer, and give us no hint of any ſuch Liturgy of Apoſtolical fabrication and impoſition, and therefore doubtleſſe there was nothing, for it could not have been ſo ſoon loſt or neglected. 4. It is ordinary with thoſe of the contrary judgment, to tell us that the extraordinary Gifts of the Primitive Chriſtians, were the reaſon why there were no preſcribed forms in thoſe times, and that ſuch Liturgies came in upon the ceaſing of thoſe Gifts: And 1 Cor. 14. deſcribeth a way of publick worſhiping, unlike to preſcript forms of Liturgy: So that the matter of Fact is proved and confeſſed. And then how fairly the words of the Apoſtles, exhorting them (to ſpeake the ſame thing) are uſed to prove that he would have them uſe the ſame forms or Liturgy; we ſhall not tell you by any provoking aggravations of ſuch abuſe of Scripture. And indeed for all the miraculous Gifts of thoſe times, if preſcript forms had been judged by the Apoſtles to be the fitteſt means for the Concord of the Churches, it is moſt probable they would have preſcribed ſuch: Conſidering 1. That the ſaid miraculous Gifts were extraordinary, and belonged not to all, nor to any at all times, and therefore could not ſuffice for the ordinary publick Worſhip. 2. And thoſe Gifts began even betimes to be abuſed, and need the Apoſtles Canons for their regulation, which he giveth them in that 1 Cor. 14. without a preſcript Liturgy. 3. Becauſe even then diviſions had made not only an entrance, but an unhappy progreſs in the Churches, to cure which the Apoſtle exhorts them oft to Unanimity and Concord, without exhorting them to read the ſame or any Common-Prayer-book. 4. Becauſe that the Apoſtles knew that perillous times would come, in which men would have itching ears, and would have heaps of Teachers, and would be ſelf-willed, and unruly, and diviſions, and offences, and hereſies would encreaſe: And Ergo, as upon ſuch fore-ſight they indited the holy Scriptures to keep the Church in all generations, from error and diviſions in points of Doctrine, ſo the ſame reaſon and care would have moved them to do the ſame to keep the Churches in unity in point of Worſhip, if indeed they had taken preſcribed forms to be needfull to ſuch an unity: they knew that after departure the Church would never have the like advantage, infallible, authorized, and enabled for delivering the univerſal Laws of Chriſt: And ſeeing in thoſe parts of worſhip, which are of ſtated uſe, and ſtill the ſame forms might have ſuited all ages as this age, and all Countries as this Country: (in the ſubſtance) there can no reaſon be given, why the Apoſtles ſhould leave this undone, and not have performed it themſelves, if they had judged ſuch forms to be neceſſary, or the moſt deſirable means of unity. If they had preſcribed them, 1. The Church had been ſecured from error in them. 2. Believers had been preſerved from diviſions, about the lawfulneſſe and fitneſſe of them, as receiving them from God. 3. All Churches and Countries might had one Liturgy, as they have one Scripture, and ſo have all ſpoke the ſame things. 4. All ages would have had the ſame without innovation, (in all the parts that require not alteration) whereas now on the contrary, 1. Our Liturgies being the writings of fallible men, are lyable to error, and we have cauſe to fear ſubſcribing to them, as having nothing contrary to the word of God. 2. And matters of Humane inſtitution have become the matter of ſcruple, and contention. 3. And the Churches have had great diverſity of Liturgies. 4. And one age hath been mending what they ſuppoſed they received from the former faulty, and imperfect: So that our own which you are ſo loath to Change, hath not continued yet three Generations. And it is moſt evident that the Apoſtles being entruſted with the delivery of the entire rule of Faith and worſhip, and having ſuch great advantages for our unity and peace, would never have omited the forming of a Liturgy of univerſal uſefulneſſe, to avoid all the foreſaid inconveniences, if they had taken this courſe of unity to be ſo needfull, or deſirable as you ſeem to do. Whereas therefore you ſay you know no better or more efficatious way than our Liturgy, &c. We reply, 1. The Apoſtles knew the beſt way of unity, and of ſpeaking the ſame thing in the matters of God: But the Apoſtles knew not our Liturgy, (nor any Common-Prayer-book, for ought hath yet been proved) Ergo the ſaid Liturgy is not the beſt way of unity, or ſpeaking the ſame thing, &c. 2. The Primitive Church in the next ages after the Apoſtles, knew the beſt way of unity, &c. But they knew not our Liturgy, Ergo our Liturgy (not known till lately) is not the beſt way …. If it be ſaid that our Liturgy is antient, becauſe the Surſum Corda, the Gloria Patri &c. are antient. We anſwer, if indeed it be thoſe ancient Sentences that denominate our Liturgy, we crave the juſtice to be eſteemed uſers of the Liturgy, and not to ſuffer as refuſers of it, as long as we uſe all that is found in it of ſuch true antiquity.
[This experience of former and latter times hath taught us, when the Sect. 3.Liturgy was duly obſerved, we lived in peace, ſince that was layd aſide, there hath been as many modes and faſhions of publick Worſhip, as fancies, we have had continual diſſention, which vaeriety of Services muſt needs produce, whileſt every one naturally deſires and endeavours not only to maintain, but to prefer his own way before all others; whence we conceive there is no ſuch way to the preſervation of peace, as for all to return to the ſtrict uſe and practiſe of the form.]