CHAP. I. The Interest of Words in Prayer considered, both as to private and publick Prayer; The Necessity of them considered, as the Homage of our Lips, as they restrain mentall extrava­gancies, and are Interpreters of our Conceptions to others: Consequences from this Consideration.

I. SO transcendent is the priviledge of coming to the Holy of Holies, by the new and living way in the most sublime and spiritual duty of Prayer, where the soul talks with its Creator, as it were face to face. Such is the nature of that spiritual perfor­mance, considered in it self, so momentous the Concernes, for which in it we wait upon the Throne of Grace; so many the dire­ctions which our Holy Father hath given us in his Word for the ac­ceptable performance of it, that we must needs be concluded unthank­ful to God, who hath indulged so glorious a Liberty to us, unjust and unreasonable to our selves, who are by the Law of Nature taught to [Page 2] remit or intend our minds in all performances, according to the moment of them, and unfaithful to that Word, which we own as the square of all our Conversations, if we should not warily at­tend our Souls in so Sacred an Homage, in which so much of our Interest lies, not offering a Female, when we have a Male in our Plock; though we knew of no such Malediction as that, Cursed be he that doth the work of the Lord negligently.

II. Whilst we view this sacred thing Prayer, as our Priviledge, we can consider it no otherwise than as a Liberty, to ask of the Father of mercies, what we or others stand in need of, under the encourage­ments of many precious Promises, nor short of his who said, Ask what thou wilt, even to the half of my Kingdom, I will give it thee; yea far beyond; for the Lord will give Grace and [...]lory, Psal. 84. When we respect it as our duty, we find it is expressed in Scripture under the many notions of Seeking God, Calling upon him, wrestling with him, powring out our souls before him, &c. As our view of it in the no­tion of a priviledge, forbids us any limitations, as to the matter of our Prayers, other than what God hath set us; so the latter obligeth us to a performance of it under such Circumstances, as shall neither divert the intention of our mind, nor cool the fervour of our Spirits, which two things are most essentially necessary to the acceptable perfor­mance of our duty in it, and so excellently becomes that most sa­cred performance; and without which our performance is but lip-labour, and lost labour; yea no other than a most gross Hypo­crisie, and mocking of him who cannot be mocked.

III. Prayer being the souls Colloquy with God, who is a Spirit, and our Tongue (which is the Organ of speech) with all the faculty belonging to it, and the issues of it, serving chiefly (if not only) for intercourse with men (Spirit having another way to communi­cate their sense each to other) It is rationally apparent that there is no absolute necessity of any words at all in Prayer. (Haunch can pray acceptably, and yet her voice not be heard, 1 Sam. 1.) for such necessity must either be on the Souls part or on Gods: On the Soul part they are not necessary, for it can long and desire with­out the Tongue; nor yet on Gods part are they so, for he not only knows what things we have need of, but also what we would have before we ask them; how else can he answer before we call, and (as be promiseth) hear before we speak.

IV. But he who made all things for himself, did not in that gene­ral design except the Tongue of man, which being his creature, is [Page 3] naturally obliged, and ex Institute, is otherwise obliged to his Ser­vice, and as his Word hath directed its service in other things, so also in the duty of Prayer, commanding us to take unto us words, and say, &c. And calling to his Spouse, Let me hear thy voice, for it is comely; And his Providence hath for this end (amongst others) disposed reasonable souls into humane bodies, that they should ani­mate the tongues of men to this sacred Service: Besides that, experience teacheth the Sons of men that the use of the lively voice is of excellent use to fix the mind, and to restrain that wild thing from such wanton diversions, as it is most prone to, in its exer­cises upon God: Whence it is that there is not only Mental, but Vocal Prayer, and both the unquestionable duty of Christians; and an use of words in Prayer is, if not at all times, yet at some times, and for all Christians, necessary by a necessity of Precept, and highly expedient generally even in the Souls privatest converses with God.

V. But in Publick Prayer, the use of words is most unquestionably ne­cessary: God hath not only allowed us a liberty to pray for our selves, and in our Closets, but also to pray one with and for another, and also enjoyned us it as our duty, and encouraged us to it by many gracious Promises. It is his revealed will, that in such pub­lick devotions, some particular persons should be the mouth of the rest unto him, whose Prayer (according to divine Institution) is made the common performance of the whole Society (whether it be that of a whole Family, or that of a greater or lesser Congrega­tion) by their concurrence in spirit with him that speaketh, and their rational and fiducial assent to what he speaketh, as well on theirs, as his own behalf. Now there being no other ordinary way of correspondence which God hath allowed rational souls each with other (in their united estate) but by the tongues of men, animated by the souls to that very purpose, that they might be their Interpreters. It is impossible that publick Prayer should be performed without words, and those both audibly and intelligibly pronounced, which is also conformable to the will of God, who hath taught us when we pray, to say Our Father: Whence it appears, that both the silent, mute Meetings of Quakers, and the Latine Service of Papists, and the Prayers of any others said or sang, so that People cannot hear or understand what is said, are all of them abominable in the sight of God, and to be abhorred of every reaso­nable Christian.

[Page 4]VI. But seeing words are no more than the desires of our souls in­terpreted. And there being no further use of them in the duty of Prayer, than that by them we might sacrifice unto God the devo­tion of our hearts by the Calves our lips. 2. And by the help of them we might interpret the (otherwise not intelligible) de­sires of our souls unto others. And 3. Restrain the extravagancies of our own Spirits: A Curiosity of phrase in Prayer, seems nei­ther necessary nor reasonable. Not necessary, because as our holy Father who understands the thoughts of our hearts, before they be brought forth into words, hath no need of well turn'd Language to affect his sacred ears, nor hath required more than according to the ability, which he hath given to several souls: So the plainest phrase is best intelligible to the most of those that hear us, who are to give a rational assent, and say a fiduciary Amen to what we speak.

VII. Nor are the Prayers of the poorest Rustick (who ordina­rily salutes his neighbour and expresseth his mind to him in terms which the Critick cals Nonsence) for their Grammatical incongrui­ties or defects in Rhetorick, less acceptable unto God than the softy strains and luxuriant issue of wanton Rhetorick in the prayers of others are, whose great study possibly is to put their prayers into handsom Language. Who knows not that many Idiomes in other Languages are perfect nonsence in English? Yet who doubts but God accepteth in every Nation pious souls, powring out their hearts unto him in Prayer, by their mouths, according to the Dialects of their several Countries.

VIII. In very deed, the only Nonsence that can attend Prayer, is the incongruity of the tongue of him that speaketh with his mind and heart, or with the understandings of those who joyn with him. Let but the tongue be the true interpreter of the heart towards God, and the expressions of it be commensurate with the capacity and under­standing of those that hear, and the Prayer shall be discharged from any guilt of Nonsence in the sight of God, accruing from a want of Grammatical order in words (unless such want proceed from the Speakers non-attention and carelesseness of his Spirit) Yea the Prayer which the wanton Orator, the curious observer of words, and Pryer into the proprieties of them, may call Non-sense, may be most admi­rable sense in the ears and judgment of God and good men, whose eye is upon higher things in spiritual duties, than a well tuned esse posse videatur.

[Page 5]IX. Yea there may be in him that speaketh, such an affectation of nitid words and curious phrases, such a superlative care, that Noun Substantives and Adjectives may stand in due places, and Verbs be put in right Moods and Tenses, that too many monosillables or pollysil­lables may not hobble or rumble after one another, such a study for paranomasia's and other Fooleries of phrase, as may make the Prayer abominable both to God and to all good men: Whilst not the holy Omniscient God only, but even sober men easily discern the heart of him that speaketh, as to its secret intention, gone a whoring from God (to whom it should be united in Prayer) after that Strumpet Rhetorick in which he never took any delight. Nor is the Prayer (thus patched and painted and disguised by this Taylor-like art of words) understood by those who would better know it, and to whom it would appear far more lovely in the morning-dress, of a homebred, natural inaffected phrase.

X. Yet in regard that it cannot be reasonably presumed, that any publick Congregation should be made up of persons equally in­telligent, in the mysteries of Godliness, nor equally intelligent of words and phrases, nor equally considering that words are but the shell and skin of Prayer. Nor so, but that there will be many a­mongst them of carnal hearts; it is very reasonable that he who speaks in publick Prayer, should so speak, that whilst he humbleth his phrase to the meanest capacity and understanding (that his Prayer may not lose their Amen) he also elevates his words, above the nauseam and just reproach, of the most sqeamishears, even of those who far more regard the starching of the Prayer, that it be pull'd right in every corner, and round about, than the matter of which it is composed, or the fervency of heart with which it is ut­tered.

XI. And doubtless who so in this thing keeps a due mediocrity, in the publick performance of the duty of Prayer, neither by too much curiosity of phrase, and attention to that, diverting his soul from the more serious and fixed contemplation of God, nor by mixing too much of mans d [...]ing, as Luther cals it (alluding to that of Ezechi­el) with spiritual bread, makes the duty a loathing to spiritual souls: Not yet by too much rudeness, and carelesness of phrase, shall either give a just suspition to others, that his heart attends not what his Tongue speaks, or offers a temptation to the more carnal part of his Hearers, to loath and contemn the Service, hath sufficiently discharged his duty, and needs be no further careful of [Page 6] words in Prayer, unless (which it may be is not impossible) he can find out or invent some modes and forms of expressions, which upon the evidence of experience shall appear to be more proper means, than the use of other words, to warm the hearts of those that are to joyn with him, and to boyl them up to a greater degree of fervency in spirit, whilst they are in that duty serving the Lord. To which purpose, handsom cadencies of periods, a lofty rouling stile, affected Paranomasia's, pedantick quiblings of words and phrases, (fine Knacks to please childish ears with) are so far from signify­ing any thing, that they are cusus contrarium's in the business, good for nothing but to loath pious souls. And indeed, those phrases which do this excellent deed, are experimentally found to be such as the inwardly affected heart of the Speaker immediatly dictates to his Tongue. It being most undoubtedly truth, That words coming from the heart of the Speaker, find the nearest and readiest way to the heart of the Hearer; and the Souls of the hea­rers shall acknowledge themselves most affected, when the Spea­ker finds his heart most warmed and enlarged, as if there were a Sympathy of devout Souls, which is indeed from the mighty secret working of the same spirit of Prayer acting both and at the same time preparing the Speakers heart and tongue to dictate and speak, and the Hearers souls to hear, sigh, groan, and to give a fiducial assent, Rom. 8.26.

CHAP. II. The Gift of Prayer is partly Natural, partly by Industry ac­quirable. That it is promised by God, denied to none that will duely use means to attain it; but they may so far attain it, as in publick to pray without forms, so as God shall accept it, and none have just cause of Scandal. That none worthy of the office of the Ministry, need to want it, nor do, but through their own Sin and Negligence.

I. THE Gift and Grace of Prayer are two things: The Grace of Prayer is a spiritual ability in the Soul, from which it is enabled from the Spirit of Adoption to go unto God saying Abba, [Page 7] Father, with an holy boldness, fiducial confidence, fervency of spirit, begging of him things according to his Will: This Nature doth not teach, Industry will not necessarily bring us to; for this God must send forth the spirit of his Son into peoples hearts, crying Abba Father, Gal. 4.6. And none can do this but those who have received the Spirit of Adoption, Rom. 8.15. But the gift of Prayer is nothing else, but an ability of mind to form words, expressive of such desires of our hearts, as are according to the will of God, conjoyned with a facul­ty of memory, and of expression and elocution.

II. Hence it appears, that the gift of Prayer is partly natural; for from nature is the faculty of Meditation and Speech: partly by Industry attainable; For let us duly consider, what he hath to do that prayeth, more than to speak (that is in reference to the ex­ternal part of Prayer, performable by the gift of Prayer) Prayer consisteth of a Confession of all sins, Supplications for supply of wants for our selves and others, and a thanksgiving for Mercies received. Sin is either Original or Actual: Actual sin is a transgression of the Law of God. This Law of God is contained in his Word; all vi­olations of it in thought, word or deed are sins. Supposing a man in a capacity to meditate and speak what is wanting to any, save In­dustry only, why he should not compose a Confession of Sins? If he knows what the Scripture saith of the imputed guilt of Adams sin, of our being conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity. What the Law of God requires and forbids, and considereth his own and other mens words and actions, and his own heart, to which other mens hearts answer in a great measure, why should he not be able to form a Confession in his heart, and (if he have any elocution) to speak it with his Lips? And if he hath any ha­bit of knowledge of the Scriptures as to these things, why should he not be able to speak this Confession to God ex tempore, as well as a Lawyer shall speak in matter of Law, or a knowing Philosopher discourse Philosophical Learning rationally, many times to the admiration of his Hearers?

It is further reasonable, that to a Confession of sins, should be added, an acknowledgment of the Justice of God in case of any Judgments already brought upon us or others, or upon supposition if God should bring upon us any. Surely every Christian know­eth, or should know, that the wages of sin is death, that the least sin exposeth us to the wrath of God here and hereafter, &c. And if he hath a tongue to speak, can say so to God in Prayer. In the [Page 8] supplicatory part of Prayer, we deprecate Judgment, we implore Mer­cy, for our selves, for others, for souls, for bodies, all according to the Will of God; whoso knows he hath a Body and a soul, and knows the wants of both, knows what to ask for; and he that knows the Scriptures, is advantaged in that knowledge, and fur­ther is by them directed, what to ask for absolutely, what conditio­nally, what Promises to urge upon God in Prayer, what Judgments to deprecate, and in what manner: Nor is any so ignorant, as not to know what is good for himself or others in a natural sense; the Scripture tels him what is so spiritually and truly, and if he hath a tongue, he can surely say, O God, I thank thee for, &c. Doth he want Expressions? The Scripture is full of Expressions directive of him.

III. In short, (setting Elocution aside) now that the Word of God is in our own Language, there can be nothing but particu­lar Christians horrible neglect of acquainting themselves with it, or their non-observing their own hearts, or not using themselves to the exercise of Prayer, that can hinder any private Christian from being able to speak unto God in Prayer, fully, profitably accepta­bly, and so as none but prophane hearts shall be scandalized. And this Assertion is demonstrable.

Rom. 8 26. Luke 21. Mark 13.11.IV. Besides this, God hath promised the help of his Spirit as to words and matter (in the use of means) the Spirit shall teach us what to pray for; nor is this beneath the Holy Spirit any more than to give unto suffering Saints what to speak in the very hour they shall be called before men for Christs sake; for which there is a Promise, and they allowed therefore to take no care what to speak before-hand. We acknowledge that the Gift of Prayer is no special distinguishing Gift, but a common Gift; but by no means can allow our selves in the suppressing of it.

V. Hence it is that many a person whose constant employment is not in the work of the Ministry, is able to poure out his soul in Prayer before God, in proper and apt expressions, without any further premeditation than is necessary, to take the noise of his worldly business out of his head, so orderly and methodically, and in such handsom expressions, that any godly sober Divine, though never so Learned, shall approve his performance, and bless God on his behalf.

VI. That any owning the Name of a Minister of the Gospel, should not be so able, is a great reproach to our Church, consider­ing [Page 9] that this disability must proceed, 1. From a want of knowledge in the Scriptures, (which every Minister ought to know exactly.) Or, 2. From a want of a due observance to, and a watchfulness upon his own heart and waies (whereas he ought to excel others in the practical part of Holiness) Or, 3. From want of Elocution or freedom of speech, or such other natural gifts, without which none can judge himself called of God to that holy Employment. Or, 4. From want of exercising himself in the duty of Prayer: All which are lamen­table things for any professing himself a Minister, so much as to be suspected of.

VII. Yet that de facto, there have been such called by the name of Ministers, amongst us, and that there are many such amongst us still, cannot be reasonably denied: But we dare to assert, That all such are either such as for want of Natural Parts, are by all Scriptural Rules determined insufficient, and not fit for the Mi­nistry, or such, as according to all Scriptural and Ecclesiastical Rules ought to be removed from the Ministry, as neglecting to use the Gift of God bestowed on them, or neglecting to study the Scrip­tures, or such as live in open and known courses of Debauchery, or finally, such as have so used themselves to the lazy Devotion of Book Prayers, that they have choaked their abilities, or provoked God in righteous Judgment to deprive them of them.

VIII. It yet remains a most demonstrable truth, that the work of Prayer is not such, as to the use of words in it, but that any Mini­ster of any competent abilities, (as all Ministers ought to be) and who is in any reasonable degree acquainted with the holy Scrip­tures, and with any Christian diligence, either observeth his own heart, or peoples converses, and watcheth over his Flock but with half an eye, may so perform, as neither God shall be offended with his performance, nor any sober Auditor scandalized and made to nau­seate the Duty. And it will (upon experience) be found impossible for any State or Church to maintain (by imposing Forms of Prayer) the credit of any Ministry, whom the people shall discern so woful­ly neglective of their duty, and defective in so noble a performance, in which they are excelled by the meanest of the Vulgar. There being no other way (when all is tried) to maintain the Authority of the Ministry, than the employment of such, and only such persons in that work, who shall evidently appear to People, as to the Gifts and Graces of Gods Spirit bestowed upon them, to be taller by the Head and Shoulders than those are, over whom God hath set [Page 10] them. Other Devices may be tried; this only in the end will be found efficacious.

CHAP. III. The Original of Lyturgical Forms of Prayer. None for 400 years after Christ. None imposed upon any consi­derable Part of the Church, till 800 years after Christ, when all manner of Superstitious Usages had defiled the Church.

I. VVHich being premised, it is no wonder at all, that nei­ther Christ nor his Purer Church ever imposed upon the Church any Books of Lyturgies. Duranti ratio­nale, l. 5. c. 2. Durantus indeed tels us, That Christ himself (who certainly had an infallible Spirit, and a pro­portion of it without measure, if that may be called a proportion) yet used that excellent Form of Prayer, called the Lords Prayer (by which he taught his Disciples to pray; And that the Apostles used the Creed, called (but never yet proved) theirs: But he confesseth, that in Primitivâ Ecclesiâ diversi diversa quis (que) pro suo velle cantabant, dummodo quod cantabant ad Dei Gloriam pertinebat. In the Primitive Church every one sung or prayed (for that he called singing) as they pleased, so what they all did, related to the Glory of God. When Christ sent out his Disciples to preach, he was so particular in directing them, that he takes care to direct them to provide a Purse and a Scrip, but none for a Service-Book: Nor did the Apostle Paul in his particular directions to Timothy or Titus (whether they were Evangelists or Bishops) though he or­dered them to ordain Ministers, and charge them to fulfil their Office, by putting up Prayers and Supplications for all men, &c. so much as mention any Missal or Lyturgy for their directions; which it is strange they should have omitted, had Lyturgies been so necessary, as we are now told they be, that Religion without them cannot be preserved, nor Heresies without them re­strained.

II. Those holy Servants of God knew, that the Spirit of Prayer was powred out in the world, and that the gift of Prayer was one of those gifts, which their Master when he ascended up on high did [Page 11] give unto men; and were tender of delivering ought to the Church, which they had not received from the Lord: And (which Tertul­lian said afterward) were willing that Ministers should pray sine Monitore, quia de pectore, without a Monitor (not a Mummer, as some would have it) because it was their duty to pray from their hearts; they therefore even in the Confession of our Adversaries, and the greatest Masters of the Ceremonies, left no Lyturgies for the Church of God.

III. Indeed Claudius de Sainctes and Pamelius (two Popish Di­vines) have discovered to the world the Terra incognita of certain Lyturgies, fathered upon St. James, St. Peter and St. Mark;De Missae ap­paratu, l. 7. c. 21. which Josephus Vicecomes takes notice of (but doth not think fit to insist upon them.) Cardinal Bellarmine in his Book de Scriptor. Eccles. neither mentions that of Peter nor Mark, but brands all Books (not mentioned by him, attributed to St. Peter) with the names of spurii & supposititii. That of St. James indeed he mentioneth,Bellarm. De Script. Eccl de Jac. Apostol. but tels us that it is so basely augmented, that none can determine what of it was St. James's. But the Learned Mornay hath said e­nough to prove that these pretended Lyturgies of the Apostles were all Fictions, and it will be no hard matter to evince every so­ber Reader the truth of it. Who knows not how hard a thing the Bishops in the Councils of Ephesus and Calcedon found it to find a place or two in the Writings of the Ancients, where the Virgin Mary was called [...]? Where had the difficulty been if these Lyturgies had been in the world, and in Proclus his hand too (who was present in the Council of Ephesus) who they say, transmit­ted that of St. James to the world (for in that Lyturgy it is 5 or 6 times over: Nor certainly would the Members of the Synod of Constantinople have been at a loss to have proved out of this, the cal­ling of the Holy Spirit consubstantial with the Father, had they ever seen this new invented Toy. Both in this, and St. Marks Lyturgy Christ is again and again called [...] with his Father, which certainly would have determined that great Question about that Word in the Nicene and other Councils. Both in St. James's and St. Marks Lyturgies we have the [...] invented by Felix 480. To say nothing of the Notions of Altars, Temples, burning Frankincense, Censers, such as lived in Monasteries, Confessors, the Prayer for the Pope, In St. Marks Lyturgy, the Prayers for Sub-deacons, Readers, Singers. All which things have made them [...]ustly rejected by all sober Writers, and accounted of no better [Page 12] authority than the Epistles of Christ and Abagarus; for the very mention of which, Gelasius of old, called Eusebius his History Apo­chrypal. Nor are those pretended to be St. Peters and St. Mathews of better authority. The same things are to be objected against the first, and surely if St. Peters Vicar thought better of it, the Church of Rome would have used it before that made by Gregory the Pope (which is that they use.) In that pretended to be St. Matthews, there is mention of the Epact & Golden Number (knacks invented long since) Prayers for Popes, Patriarchs, Archbishops, (persons St. Matthew never knew) Nay Basil, Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, the Nicene Council have their honourable mention in it, which were all 3, 4, 5 or 600 years after St. Matthews time. So that Baronius himself is ashamed of all, but that called St. James's, nor doth Sainctes mention more. To say some things might be ad­ded, [...] Pa­ris. 15 [...]0. yet they might make Lyturgies of no value; 'tis that which Bellarm. and Baronius have said, and some Semi-Protestants have taken up after them: For which they have no further proof than the Title of a Book set by a Popish Priest, which proves all as well as some.

IV. Nor is there any thing more clear to us than this, both from that of Tertullian (mentioned before) who lived Anno 200 after Christ, and from that long since quoted by Smectymnuus, out of Eusebius, That Constantine the Emperor made Prayers for his Ar­my, which unquestionably he would not have done, had there been then any Lyturgies (especially any known by the Reverend autho­rities or Names of Matthew, Mark, Peter, or James. Besides that, Bishop Hall could pretend no higher authority than the Ca­non of the Council of Laodicea. (of which more by and by) For any Pretences of any in the Jewish Church, they are perfect Apo­chryphals.Jos. Vicecomes de Missae appas [...]atu, l. 7. c. 21. What truth there may be in what Vicecomes saith, that the Pagans had their Service-Books, to direct them in their idola­trous Service; which he proves out of Cicero, Festus, Clem. Alex­andr. and Lactantius: We are not at leisure to enquire, nor think it much material; for surely Christians are to take no Copies from them.

V. The highest pretended Authority then for publick Lyturgies, is from the 18^th Can. of the Council of Laodicea: What time that Council was celebrated, is not agreed. Caranza saith it was Anno 364. towards the latter end of the time of Liberius the Pope. Longus and Baronius (from whom he had it) dates it 315. under [Page 13] Pope Sylvester; which he proves, because it was before the time of Basil and Theodoret, which are no Arguments (for Basil wrote not till near 380. nor Theodoret till Anno 420.) Balsamon (a man well enough skilled in the Chronology of the Gr. Councils) sets it after the Synod of Antioch, and next before that of Sardis. This Synod decrees [...], (saith Balsamon) that the same Lyturgy of Prayers should be used in the Morning and Evening: Sup­pose his a true Copy, every one knows, that [...] doth not necessarily signifie a Form of words in Prayer, but meerly an Order of Prayers: But besides this, Caranza gives this Canon another title, and phase too: The Title, De Orationibus quotidi­anis. The Canon, De eo quod semper supplicationes orationum, & ad horam nonam & vesperam oportet celebrari. According to him, (in which were but 22 Bishops, Longus saith 32.) This Synod on­ly decreed that there should be constant Prayers at Nine in the Morning and in the Evening; not that they should be the same Forms.

VI. Nor can we believe there were at this time any Forms of Prayer made, for all Ministers to use; because we find the Coun­cil of Carthage only imposing this,Can. 23. That if any Minister made any Prayers for his use, her should not use them, till he had communicated them to his more able Brethren: Whence we gather, that at that time, which was about 395. there were no Forms of Prayer impo­sed upon Ministers.

VII. In which we are the more confirmed by the 12th, Canon of the Council of Mela, (commonly called the Milevitane Council) held in Africa, under Aurelius the Archbishop, where (so far as their Jurisdiction reached) they restrain Ministers, to the use of such Prayers, as should be approved by the Synod, ne forte ali­quid contra fidem, vel per ignorantiam, vel per minus studium sit com­positum: least any thing through ignorance or negligence should be vented against the Faith, the Doctrine of which was then wo­fully shaken by Pelagius, to condemn whose Errours, that Coun­cil (which was but a Provincial Synod of 60 Bishops) were con­vened.

VIII. We are not ignorant of the Lyturgies fathered upon Ba­sil Chrysostome, and Ambrose, a little before this time. Basil was made Bishop about the year 372. Chrysostome about the year 382. Ambrose about 381. But he must have more Faith to spare, than we have, who can either believe, that the Lyturgies published un­der [Page 14] their names, are indeed theirs; or that they indeed imposed any. There are two fathered upon Basil, one printed 1569. tran­slated by Masius. The Greek Copy is far more large than the Latine, and so differing one from another, that 'tis no hard thing to determine of their authority, as the Learned Morney hath done. For that of Ambrose, Morneus de Missa, l. 1. c. 6. we have it not in his workes, Erasmus, Per­kins, and others condemn, those two Prayers (which are found in his works, preparing the Priest to celebrate Mass) as none of his; in which censure, Robertus Cocus, yea and some Papists a­gree with him. What Vouchers therefore the Papists have for that Officium Ambrosianum, which Jacobus de Voragine, in the Golden Legend, and Durantus in his Rationale, tell us a Tale about, we cannot tell. For that fathered upon Chrysostome, there are di­vers Copies of it, scarce any of them agreeing with one another. Let those who can think that so grave a man as Chrysostome could direct the Church to pray for Pope Nicholas who lived almost 500 years after Chrysostome was dead) or for the Victory of Alexius, (which was in a Battel fought 700 years after he was dead) or who can believe that such a confused Fardel of stuffe could be made by so worthy a person, believe it was his if they will. We are the more confirmed in the contrary, by the latter craft of Lyturgy-mongers, in leaving out the Names of Alexius and Nicholas, in their latter printed Latine Copies,Erasm. Epist. in Paraph. in 1 Cor. the Translation of which, they yet unwa­rily father upon Erasmus, who tels us, he did not think it like to be true that ever Chrysostome made it.

IX. To be short, When we find that Josephus Vicecomes (as superstitious as he was) can fetch no higher authority for Lyturgies, than Arnobius, who lived 306. Athanasius who flourished 330. Hierom, who lived 385. Victor Uticensis, who lived 480. nor any plain proof from any of these: Only some of these spoke of Books of the Christians, ubi summons oratur Deus, (so Arnobius) Sacros Scripturarum Libros (so Athanasius) Liber Hymnorum & Myste­riorum, so Hierom. Libros cunctos Domini, (so Uticensis) We can­not but conclude, that at this time there were no Service-Books made, directing Forms of Prayer, though possibly Basil, Chryso­stom, Ambrose, and others might write some Prayers to help some weak Christians which they might transcribe.

Duranti Rati­onale, c. 2. l. 5.X. But what need we any further Testimony than is given, by one as zealous for Lyturgies, Rituals and other Ceremonies, as ever lived in the world? it is that of Durantus in his Rationale Divino­rum [Page 15] Officiorum, l. 5. c. 1. Durantus having ingeniously confessed (what none can without great impudence deny) that neither Christ nor his Apostles used any prescribed Forms but the Lords Prayer and the Creed (nor doth or can he or any other say a word to prove they used them) tels us that in suceeding times because the Church was rent by Heresies, Theodosius (who lived about the year 380) intreated Pope Damasus, ‘That some Ecclesiastical Office (or Lyturgy as we call it) might be made by some Eccelsiastical Catho­lick person, upon which Pope Damasus commanded Hierom, who was then in Bethlehem with Paula Eustochium, and other Virgins, to abide there, and make a Lyturgy for the Churches, because he was well skill'd in Hebrew, Greek, Chaldee and La­tine; which he obediently did. He appointed how much of the Psalmes should be read each day in the week, he also order­ed the reading of the Gaspels and Epistles out of the Old and New Testament: When he had done it, he sent it to Rome; it was approved by Pope Damasus, and made a Rule; and Da­masus had the honour of the work, because it was done at his Command. Gelasius (who lived 490. and was Pope) and Gre­gorius Magnus (who lived 600 years after Christ) added Pray­ers and Songs, the Lessons and the Gospels. Ambrose, Gela­sius and Gregory (saith he) added the Gradualia, Tractus, Alle­lujah, other Doctors of the Church added other parts.’—Thus far Durantus.

XI. He fetcheth the Original of Lyturgies from Theodosius; but how probably, let the Reader judge, who shall consider, that this good Emperor, was Emperor but 17 years; that in that time he convened that great and venerable Council of Constantinople, where were 150 worthy persons: Now let any judge how probable it was that this Emperor should never propose the business to these; (for their Canons are only about grave and necessary things) and send to Pope Damasus about this: He was a man too much ac­quianted with the efficacy of fervent Prayer, to restrain it. Nor indeed doth Durantus say, that he caused any Prayers to be made, all that he saith Hierom did, was the appointing an Order of read­ing the Scriptures.

XII. We must therefore go a little further than Theodosius his time. Nuda ab initio omnia & sompliciter, Mysteria a Christo tra­dita apud Apostolos erant, De Inventor. cerum. l. 5. c. 11. &c. (saith Polydore Virgil) One Pope af­ter this time brought in one piece of the Lyturgy, another brought in [Page 16] another. Coelestinus brought in the Introitus Missa, Damafus the Confession, Gregory the Responds; and indeed till Gregories time there was no considerable use of it, nor any imposing of it. This was near upon 600 years after Christ.

XIII. Pope Gregory is usually said to be the worst of all the Bishops of Rome that preceded him, though the best of those that followed him; a man of no great Learning, for he confesseth himself (in one of his Epistles, that he understood no Greek) not blameless for Morals, (for he was accused before Mauritius the Emperor for the murder of one Malchus) Indeed the Protestant Writers make good use of him, for his Testimony, about some Points, viz. that about the Scriptures, Images, but chiefly in the question about the Head of the Church. Ep. l. 7. c. 194.

XIV. The truth of the Story is, Two great Councils having be­fore determined the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome equal, only allowing to the latter the empty Title of the Bishop of the first Seat. John, Patriarch of Constantinople was not able to endure that, and so upon the Point, though both refused the Title, yet both strove to act the part of an Universal Bishop: The Patriarch had the advantage of Gregory, because (the Em­pire being then in the East) the Emperors Seat was at Constantino­ple:Greg. ep. l 4. Ep. 75.76. which caused divers Epistles between Mauritius and Gregory, (yet extant in Gregories workes) Mauritius in the heat of this Contest, was basely murdered by Phocas (one of his Captains) who was by the Souldiers made Emperor.v. Greg. Epist. l. 11. c. 36, 43, 44. Gregory (tending the Interest of his Sea) writes a most unworthy Letter to the Empress, fawning upon that vile Murderer, and beseeching him to favour Sr. Peters Successor, and to remember who said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: Soon after this, Gregory dies; but before he died, he had made a Lyturgy, (if we may be­lieve Pamelius, he made a Lectionary or Calendar, directing Scrip­tures to be read in order, an Antiphonary, directing the Responds for Priests and People, and an Order for administring the Sacra­ments) Others think the two latter were made after; but howe­ver, these reached no further than Gregories power, the Extent of which was at this time but short and harrow.

15. Sabinianus was Pope immediatly after Gregory, he lived but six Moneths; Boniface succeeded him, he also fell in with Pho­cas, the Murderer of his Master: and the Patriarch of Constantino­ple being now out of favour with Phocas, because he could not flat­ter [Page 17] him in his horrid wickednesses and cruelties, Phocas deserts him, and gives Boniface (what he asked) the Title of Universal Bishop: This was about the year 605. And now he might pretend some authority to impose his Service-Book.

XVI. But yet he did little (exept in Germany) for the Lom­bards continual quarrels with the Emperors, till the year 800. much hindred the Popes power all that time, they lay close at home, all this while encreased in superstition, and the sottishness and ignorance of their Clergy encreased, but in Jurisdiction they did little: Only taking advantages, one while favouring the Empe­rors, other while the Lombards; they added (by the favour of both) to St. Peters Patrimony, by all wicked acts imaginable, to be read at large in Mornayes Mysterium Iniquitatis, and in many other Books.

. XVII. But about the year 800. Charles the Great, being come to the Empire (who was a vertuous and noble Prince, only highly addicted to the Sea of Rome) Adrian was then Pope, the Empe­ror was a great Favourer of him, he confirmed to him all the tem­poral Possessions which the Popes had got either from former Em­perors, or from the Commanders of the Lombards, and added much more, which his Son Ludovicus Pius confirmed. This Emperor also setled the civil difference; which had a long time troubled the Empire, and he had a vast empire; it contained Italy, Germany, Hungary France, and part of Spain.

XVII. Now it grew a seasonable time to impose a Lyturgy; to which purpose, Hadrian the Pope moved Charles the Great, that it might be by his civil authority imposed,Duranti ratio­nale, l. 5. c 2. Mornei Hist. Papatus, p. 141 ▪ Fol. Gregories Lyturgy was it, saith Durantus. Ad quod Carolus Imperator omnes Clericos Minis & Suppliciis per diversas Provincias cogebat Libros Ambrosia­ni Officii comburens, i. e. To which Charles the Great compelled all his Ministers with threats and punishments; and burning those Books that went under the name of St. Ambrose. The Learned Morney saith the same almost, where we only observe, That the first imposing of a Lyturgy was importuned by the Bishop of Rome, and done in favour to him, in Adriani gratiam, (saith Morney) and began with a persecution. but the Universal Bishop must give the Catholick Church a cast of his Office, and impose a Lyturgy as far as he could.

XIX. But after this, there was no small contest; one Eugenius comes and complains to Pope Hadrian, concerning the imposing [Page 18] of Gregories Lyturgy (it seems he liked that of St. Ambrose, i. e. said to be his) better. Durantus saith his importunity caused some Holy Fathers newly broke up from a Council, to meet again, who to determine this difference, reverently and unanimously agreed that both the Service-Book which was made by St. Ambrose, and that also made by Gregory, should be laid on St. Peters Altar, seal­ed up with the Seals of many Bishops, and the Church-doors should be shut, and the Fathers should spend the whole night in It were worth the while to know by what book they prai­ed in the mean time, Jacobus de Vo­rag. Leg. aurea in vita Greg. Durantus ib. Fox Martyrol. Vol. 1. Prayer, desiring God by some sign to determine, which of those Service-Books he would have to be used universally: It was done according­ly. In the Morning they go in, and find that of St. Ambrose ly­ing in its place, that of St. Gregory torn in piece; and scattered all about. (If it be a Lye, Reader, thou hast it as cheap as we, and maiest read it in the Golden Legend, Durantus and Mr. Fox his Martyrology, and doubtless in many other places, but in those three we have read it.)

XX. But now what do the Fathers determine upon this Mira­cle? We should have concluded, That it was the Will of God that Gregories Service-Book being full of all manner of superstitious Trash, should never be used, nor St. Ambrose's imposed, only lie by to be used in that Church of the Parson pleased. But (saith Durantus) they concluded this a sign from Heaven, that Greg. Service-Book or Mis­sal should be scattered abroad, and used in all Churches, and that of St. Ambrose only used in his own Church. (The business was, Gre­gory had been Pope, but Ambrose had not.) Accordingly Pope Hadrian moving the Emperor Charles, Gregories Service-Book was now imposed upon all Churches in France, Hungary, Italy, Ger­many, and in England too, for here 60 years before this, viz. Anno 740. Ina had subjected his Kingdom to Pope Gregory.

XXI. By, or before this time, the whole Fardel of Popish ceremo­nies and superstitions were brought into the Church, nothing want­ing (saith the Learned Morney) but the worshipping of Images, (which Charles the Great alwaies opposed and wrote against, yet this also was about this time decreed by the Second Council of Nice, which Caranza saith, was celebrated, Anno 781. under A­drian and Transubstantiation, for which the way was how prepared too; for at this time the Lords Supper was called the Sacrifice of the Mass, (saith Morney;) And he who reads the Ecclesiastical History of the Magdeburgenser, will find, that all the trash of Ce­remonies and all manner of superstitious usages were now come into [Page 19] the Church. Gregory almost 200 years before had defended Purga­tory, and was indeed (as Alstodius calls him) the Master of the ce­remonies, he who defiled the Church with all manner of gross and abominable Superstition.

XXII. Now from this time, which was about the year 800. till the beginning of Reformation, which was about 1517. in Ger­many did the Church of God lie hid in the wilderness, some wit­nesses to the truths of God there were, but no considerable open Assemblies, the durst oppose the Popes power. The Popish Mass-Books were every where used, and long before the Reformati­on, the Latine-Service was universal; for to that height of folly was the Holy Father come, that he could not think it enough for the Communion of the Church, that they should every where pray for the same things, (which was alwaies done) and in the same words, phrases and forms (which he had brought in) unless they also did it in the same language. And this imposing of Forms, did admirably comport likewise with the ignorance and sottishness of the Clergy in the 6th, and 7th. age, and so downward; all the world knows, in what a pickle Erasmus found the world in as to Learning: Reuchlin, and he did much to amend it.

XXII. As the work of Reformation improved, the Masse-books were thrown our in England, nothing considerable was done until the 2. and 3. of Edward the 6. which was about the year 1549, and 1550. King Edward observing that Divine Service was, through­out his Kingdom, yet used in an unknown tongue, and that in se­veral modes, (here was the Com. Pr. after the use of Sarum, York, Bangor, Lincolne, &c.) appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury, (Cranmer) and several other Bishops and Learned men, to make one convenient order, rite and fashion of Common Prayer for publick use. Which they did, and presented it to the king, and it was imposed by Authority of parliament, in the first year of his Reign.Stat. 1 Ed. 6.1. In this first Book, were many gross remains of Superstition:Stat 5 & 6. Ed. 6. [...].1. [...]. [...] The King therefore causeth it to be revised again, explained and made fully perfect, and this second Form was established by Authority of Parliament, Anno 5. and 6 Ed. 6. and annexed and joyned so ex­plained and perfected, to that Statute, adding also a form and man­ner of consecrating Archbishops, &c.

XXIII. These prudent Reformers, considering they had to do with a people newly come out of the dregs of Popery, did not think sit at once to do all that was to do: In the first Edition of the Com­mon [Page 20] Prayer Book, they left (if we remember right) Prayer for the dead still to be used, gave directions for using the Cross in the ad­ministring the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. In the Second Edi­tion, these and other things were left out; neither did they think fit at the time to make a new Lytugry, (the Common people would have thought it a new Religion) they therefore translate the old Gregorian Missal, leaving out the Prayers for the Pope, and to Saints, and for Saints departed, and a few such things, as could not be used without palpable Idolatry, and translate the other Prayers in the Mass-Book out of Latine into English, and these were some of them established by that Act, 5, 6. Ed. 6. Stat. 1. The truth of this any one that can understand Latine may convince himself of, by comparing the Mass-Book with the Com. Pr. of Edw. 6. Where he will find betwixt 40. and 50. Collects transla­ted verbatim; and if he compares the other parts with the Roman Breviary, the Roman Ritual, and the Pontificale Romanum, he will yet further see the truth of it.

XXIV. Not indeed could it be imagined, that those first Reformers should leave at that time all Ministers at liberty, or to their own conceived Prayers, when most of them were Papists in their hearts & generally so sottishly ignorant, and insufficient, that they could not have done any thing. Which very cause held in Qu. Eliz. time, (where 1 El. c. 2. the Common Prayer was with some further emendations specified in the Statute,5 Eliz c 28. again imposed) In the 5th. year of her Reign, by Act of Parliament, the Common Prayer was ordered to be translated into Welch, and used in Wales. And this is the true Story both of Lyturgies in the General, and the English Lyturgy in special.

XXV. By this time the Reader, who hath not a mind to re­vive Pythagoras his School again, and to sacrifice his Reason to an [...], & believe every thing that is told him, before he hath tried the truth of it, may see reason to desire the present L. Bish. of Exe­ter to tell him (if he can) where those same ancient models of Lytur­gies (not Roman, Bish. Hall Re­monstr. p. 13. but Christian) and contrived by the holy Martyrs and Confessors of the blessed Reformation of Religion, are to be found? The Remonstrant was challenged, to make it good out of ancient Models, but thought fit to wave the business in his Reply. It hath been the old Plea, but let them prove it if they can, (saith Di­doclavius.) Or if his present Lordship of Exeter doth not think fit to answer for another, yet it is reason that he should justifie his [Page 21] own words. He hath told us, in p. 8. of his Considerations touching the Lyturgy, That, ‘The Ancient Churches from the very first Century did use such-publick wholsom Forms of found words in their Sacramental celebrations especially, and afterwards in other holy Administrations or publick duties as made up their solemn, devout and publick Lyturgies, which Patterns, all Modern and Reformed Churches of any Renown, have followed according to the many Scriptural Examples and Expressions in set Forms of Prayer, Psalms, Confessions and Benedictions, commended to us by holy men in all ages, and by Christ himself.’

XXVI. The world is grown too wary to believe any thing of this, because any one saith so; and the Doctor is too wise, to undertake to prove this: Let him prove, That Christ prescribed the Lords Prayer for a Form, or that the Apostles ever used it so. 2. Let him prove, that in any of the four first Centuries there was any Stated Forms of Prayer used in the Church. 3. Let him prove, that any Modern Reformed Churches imposed any Forms of Prayer, so that those and no other might be used. And 4, That they did this after the Pattern of the Ancient Churches from the first Century. All these things are to be proved; nor is it possible to prove them.

XXVII. In the 18th. p. of that Discourse, he tels us, That,Dr. Gaudens Consider. p. 19. ‘It is a Jesuitical Artifice and back-blow used by some to aver, though falsely, That the English Lyturgy was nothing else but the Romish Missal or Mass-book turned into English: 'Tis true, he saith, some things (very scriptural) devout and excellent, which the Roman Missal had taken, and retained after the an­cient Form of Lyturgies of the Church, were severed and taken as Wheat from Chaffe, and Jewels from Dross, by our wise Re­formers, and preserved in the English Lyturgy, conform to pi­ous and unspotted Authority.’ We challenge Dr. Gauden and all others of his mind, to make this good if they can. It is true, there are some things in the English Lyturgy, that are not in the Gregorian Missal. But let any one take Missale Romanum, both the old one, and that established by the Council of Trent: Breviari­um Romanum, Rituale Romanum, and Pontificale Romanum. and compare them all with the printed Com. Prayer-book of 5 & 6 E. 6. and then judge whether he can find a 6th. part of the latter, which is in none of the former. If he finds that there is very little added, let him the learn how to trust men talking after such a magisterial rate, and annexing no proofs of their words.

[Page 22]XXVIII. If the Reader finds it true, that (whatsoever Dr. Gau­den saith) there is in our English Lyturgy, as it is commonly ex­posed to sale, very little but what is to be found in the Mass-book in Latine, let him then go to the Bishop of Exeter, and desire him (for his credit sake) to shew him those ancient Forms of Lyturgy used in the Church, out of which these Forms of Prayer were tran­scribed and taken, which must be immediately after the first Cen­tury; or tell him, what that same pious and unspotted authority is, If he tels him, it is Pope Gregories, (which he must if he speaks truth) let him tell him, that he hath heard, that he was a vile wretch, accused for a Murtherer, the Father of most of the superstiti­ous usages now in the Church of Rome, one who understood not the Greek Tongue, (as himself confesseth) a man of no admirable Judgment (witness his pretented Commentaries upon Job, which might have as well been upon the Revelation) a man very far from being either pious or unspotted, or fit for his Seat, one that defended Purgatory, that fawned upon Phocas the Murderer; in short, one of no deserved Name or Authority in the Church of God.

XXIX. By this Discourse it appears, that there was no Lyturgy directing Forms of Prayers for the Church, till Pope Gregories time Anno 600. nor any imposed till the time of Charles the Great, Anno 800. when all manner of superstitious usages were brought into the Church; nor was it then imposed without a Persecution at­tending it. And this, Reader, is the pious and unspotted Authority, the Bishop tels thee of. From hence thou wilt also conclude, the antiquity of the English Lyturgy, the reason of its first being impo­sed, and no further reformed, either by K. Edw. or by Qu. Elizabeth. In King James his time, it received some additions, what Refor­mation we cannot tell.

XXX. By all this Discourse, it appeareth that there is no divine Prescript, no Apostolical Tradition, no Universal Tradition, no Ex­ample of the Purer Primitive Churches, for more than 400. yea, 700 years after Christ, which can be pleaded for imposed Forms of Pray­er, by any that make any conscience of their words, or will under­take to prove what they say.

CHAP. IV. An Enquiry into the state of those Churches which first com­mended or imposed Lyturgies, at the time when they first made such Impositions.

I. THough it may seem absurd to enquire, whether the gray hairs of Lyturgies be found in the way of Righteousness? when we have evinced, that they have no such pretended Anti­quity and Age to glory in, and that the Assertors of such Antiquity for them, do but impose upon the world; yet considering what we remember we have learned out of Aristotle, That there is a youth­fulness in respect of Age, or in respect of Manners and Conditions. It may be worthy of a further enquiry, Whether yet there may not be such a necessity of them, or such a comliness, beauty and gravi­ty in them, as may not only justifie Magistrates in the imposing of them, but oblige every soul that hath ought to do with reason, to fall in with the use of them, yea passionately to desire them (even as much as Rachel did children) which we shall the better determine, by reviewing the first occasions of Lyturgies, and the complexion of the Church in those ages, when they were first made, or most used.

II. I think we may say of Lyturgies, as Christ said of the Bill of Divorce, which Moses allowed; Moses verily for the hardness of your hearts, gave you a Bill of divorce, but from the beginning it was not so. He that had a residue of Spirit (as the Prophet saith) made one for one. The Church played Moses his part in the business of Forms of Prayer. Christ who had a residue of Spirit, the Spirit given him without measure, imposed no Forms of Prayer upon his Ministers, or Church. The Apostles, who had the first and most plentiful powrings out of the Spirit of Grace, imposed no such things. Christ indeed gave a more general direction to his People in Prayer, to ask things according to the Will of God, and in his Name; and more particular directions in that excellent Form, called the Lords Prayer; but that (as Durantus idly saith) either Christ, or his Apo­stles used the Lords Prayer (ordinarily) as a Form of words in Prayer, or that the Apostles used a Form of words to express their [Page 24] Faith, [...]r imposed the Creed (commonly called, but hardly to be proved) theirs (which the same Author asserteth) must certainly be proved out of some such Canonical Writings, as the Epistles of Christ to Abagarus, or to Paul and Peter, for there is no authen­tick Record of any such things; but in process of time indeed the Church began to do some such things.

III. The highest mention we can find, is, that thin Synod of the Church of Laodicea, made up of 32 Bishops; and this (whatever Bishop Hall saith according to Longus) cannot be proved (as we said before) to have been before the year 364. (as to which time Balsamon and Caranza agree it) but truly it had been no great wonder if this Church which many years before was grown neither hot nor cold, Rev. 3.17. but in such a temper, that God was ready to spue it out of his mouth (for which we have an authentick record in the Revela­tion) should long before this time have made such a Salve and prudent Prouision for the Laziness of her Ministers: He that shall read the Canons of that Synod, against the Ministers hanting Taverns, and using Inchantments; as also the other Canons about exor­cising, and the several Officers and Offices of the Church, will see reason enough to conclude, the woful corruption of the Church in those parts, if not to suspect, that it was of a far lower date than is pre­tended.

IV. The Synod of 40 Bishops at Carthage, (which was the 3d. Synod of Carthage) only enjoyned Ministers to communicate to their more able brethren, their Prayers composed for their publick Congregations; this was in the year 397. Yet that the face of the Church at this time, had many spots, and much impurity cleaving to it, may appear by this Synod, by their 6th. Can. against giving the Lords Supper to, or Baptizing such as were dead: by their many Canons, 17, 25.27. against Clergymen hanting Taverns, and keeping scandalous company with women, their 30. Can. against jovial Meet­ings in Churches. their 36 Can. about the Chrisma or the anointing Oyl, which no Presbyters must make. And that this Synod consist­ed not of the most infallibly wise Fathers, appears, by their Learn­ed 29 Canon; where they take pains to decree that every Minister should give the Sacrament of the Altar (so it seems they had learn­ed to call the Lords Supper) fasting. Yet this Synod in the busi­ness of Prayer, did not think fit to restrain every Minister, only ha­ving so loose and insufficient a Clergy, they order the weaker sort, having composed Prayers, to confer their Notes (before they used [Page 25] them) cum fratribus instructioribus, with their more able Bre­thren.

V. After this, the Council of Mela, Anno 416. grew more bold; and ordain (as to their Province, for what authority had they further?) that the Ministers should use no Prayers, but such as that Synod had approved. They might justly expect, that the Churches under their inspection would hardly swallow this new Pill, if it were not lapped up in some good Reason, and there­fore they give their reason for it, lest somthing should be vented against the true Doctrine of Faith, either by some Ministers negligence or igno­rance. The cause of that Synods Meeting, was the censuring of Pelagius, that great enemy of Grace.

The Errors which Pelagius had broached, were these;

1. That Adams should have died though he had never sinned.

2. That Infants were born without Original sin.

3. That there is no need of he assisting Grace of God (sin being once pardoned.)

4. That all the need we have of Grace is, to illuminate us in the know­ledge of Gods Commandments.

5. That the Grace of God only helpeth us to do his will more easily and freely.

6. That the words of St. John, If we say we have no sin, we de­ceive our selves, were only figuratively true, not literally.

7. That the Saints praying, Forgive us our Trespasses, was ap­pointed them in the behalf of others, not themselves.

Or, 8. If for themselves, only as an expression of their humility: not concluding them to have any sins to be forgiven.

Against these Errours that Reverend Synod made their 8 first Canons. Pelagius having used diverse Arts (the story is too long to insert) to secure his Doctrine from a publick Censure, had far diffused the poyson of this Doctrine. This Reverend Synod ob­serving his Errors to be in such things as are the daily matter of Ministers Confessions and Supplications, thought fit for the preventi­on of the diffusing this Venom by Ministers in their publick prayers, as also that the Church might have due confessions made, as well of Original sin as Actual, and due Petitions put up for pardoning and assisting Grace, &c. And considering that the church was so de­bauched now in her Clergy, that some through ignorance could not do it, some through Laziness would neglect a due care in doing that to which they were able. Others possibly (though that be [Page 26] concealed) through a perverse and corrupted Judgment, would not do it, appointed Forms of Prayer to be used, and restraine the liberty of Praying to the Ministers within that Province, obliging them to use the Forms approved by the Synod.

VI. The reason for which (as Durantus tels us) Theodosius much about this time, or a little before, set St. Hierom to com­pose a Calendar, indeed rather than a Lyturgy (for Durantus saith, he did no more than order the Scriptures to be read, though Pame­lius hath transmitted to us an Antiphonary and Sacramental Lytur­gy, as well as a Lectionary of his composing) was in regard of He­resies risen up in the Church. So that hitherto, we have had no other account given us of the composing Forms for publick worship, than 1. The Ignorance of the Ministry which they were forced to employ. Or 2. Their Laziness and Negligence. Or 3. Their, or the Peoples falling into Errors.

VII. But after that the Universal Bishop got up into the Saddle, it was reasonable that he should have a power of Universal command, and to shew his authority, he must impose a compleat Lyturgy (as to all parts) and enjoyn universal conformity, which yet he could never obtain, till he got a great Interest in the Civil Magistrate; who had a civil power over what was then almost the universal Church. Nor must this serve the turn, for this Universal Bishop must have all Churches, not only speak the same words and phrases, but in the same Language too; hence he brings in Latine Service. All which also admirably comported with the sottish ignorance and debauchery of the Clergy, in the 6th. & 7th. Century, and so downward, till the times of Reuchlin and Erasmus, when Reformation began to dawn, and the light began to spring out of darkness. Whether these ends were good and lawful, and the imposing of Forms of publick divine Worship were applied as just means in order to them, viz. either to cure the ignorance or negligence of the Clergy, or to bring the Church to an unity in Doctrine, Worship or Affection, shall be examined: For if either the end or means be proved un­lawful and against the Will of God, they talk vainly for the con­tinuance of them, that urge no more than Humane Prudence, World­ly Wisdom, being no other than perfect Folly, because Enmity to God.

CHAP. V. Universal Conformity of Devotion, as to words and Sylla­bles, no good End. Imposing Forms of Prayer no rea­sonable, just or sufficient Means to prevent Heresies, or to cure the Laziness or Insufficiency of the Church, proved by Reason and by Experience.

I. IT cannot but be confessed, that it is a noble end for any Church to aim at, to take care, that the people may have the truths of God asserted to them; and not through the ignorance or laziness, or perverseness of its Ministers, be served with an Husk in stead of bread, or a Scorpion in stead of a Fish. This end is approveable both from the Word of God, and the light of all Christian Reason. But that there should be an Oneness in the devotion of people, as to Letters and Syllables, and Phrases, and Forms of Sentences, is an end so little, and low and insignificant in it self, that we cannot ex­pect it should be justified from Scripture, which indeed saith not a word to that purpose.

II. And although the prevention of Errors & Heresies, & the poyson­ing of people with them, as also the prevention of the mischief arising to the Church from ignorant and lazy, or erroneous Preachers or Mi­nisters, be (as I said before) a noble end, and well worthy of the Churches care, yet before we can allow the same honour to the imposing of Lyturgies and stinted Forms of Prayer, as means in or­der to those ends, we must both enquire, whether they be lawful means; and also, 2. Whether they be such as Reason will evince, or experience hath proved effectual to the obtaining those ends, and that 3. Without bringing upon the Church a mischief every way as great, as what they are pretended to deliver us from.

III. That when Christ himself appointed no stated Forms of pub­lick Devotion for his Church, to the use of which, and no other they should be tied; nor his Apostles, though guided by an infal­lible Spirit; nor the Purer Church for some hundred years after, it should remain yet lawful for the Church, not content to repress and prevent Errors and Heresies, by such waies and means as the [Page 28] Apostles used, but by this new device, to endeavour it, may be justly a question to all sober Christians.

IV. Especially considering, that as a liberty in coming to the Throne of Grace, and asking there whatsoever we will (provided it be consonant to the Will of God, and begged in the Name of Christ) is one of the great priviledges purchased by Christ for his Church; so the Spirit of Grace and Supplication is eminently and frequently promised for their assistance, and that not only to teach them how to pray, but what to pray for, Rom. 8.26. Nor is this promised only to the Prelates in a Church, but to every individual Christian; and the gift of Prayer, whence flows mens abilities to express themselves by words and phrases, is one of the most excel­lent gifts which we are bound to cover, and to improve. All which being considered, it is far from being clear, that the restrain­ing of Christians, especially of Ministers in the exercise of the no­ble gift of Prayer in the publick Assemblies of the Church, is a lawful means in order to any end, it looking like that quenching of the Spi­rit, which is forbidden to all men by the Apostle, 1 Thes. 5.19. and choaking the coveting of the best gifts, which is commanded all Chri­stians, 1 Cor. 14.1. For to what purpose should those Talents be desired, which man hath authority to command to be laid up in a Napkin? Nay which had far better be laid up in a Napkin, than used, if the Doctrine of some be true, concerning the transcendent excellency of Forms of Prayer, above what are conceived by Mini­sters, according to the gift of God bestowed upon them.

V. Besides, it may be worthy of enquiry, whether it be possi­ble, or at least ordinary with men to read any Prayer, with that fixed and constant intention of mind and fervency of spirit (the two necessary requisites of Prayer) as they may speak unto God from the dictate of their own hearts, while their souls are more abstra­cted from created Objects, than they can possibly be, while it is a great piece of their work to look upon their Books, to see what to say next: For what some pretend, that the diversion is greater in conceived Prayer, by the employment of the mind in prompting the tongue what it should say next; besides that this is a spiritual employment of the mind within it self, neither doth it require any such study, where the heart is right with God, and so acquainted with the Word and Promises of God, as every reasonable Mini­ster ought to be.

[Page 29]VI. Nor is it out of the way to consider whether this method of Book-praying, will not expose the Ministers of the Gospel, to a perfect contempt amongst the people, who will certainly conclude their Parson not able to do what every ordinary Christian doth. Of which contempt we have had a plentiful experience, nor do we believe that any thing hath so contributed to our breed of Lay-preachers as our Stinted forms of prayer; Whilst the people have apprehended their gifts better than their Ministers, an easy temp­tation hath served them to usurp their Office. Nor will any Mini­ster longer keep his authority amongst a knowing people, then by his performances of his Office, they shall be convinced he is higher in gifts than themselves; For rational people will not sa­crifice a blind faith to the Bish. of Exeter magnifying the forms of prayer in the Common-prayer-book beyond all measure, but will be enquiring, wherein their excellency lies. Are they more perfect Summaries of things to be confessed, or to be petitioned for? Is their phrase more scriptural? &c. or if they do see an excellency in them, it will be hard to informe them, that the gift of reading is more admirable in their Minister at Church, then in their servant at home.

VII. Now if the Universal imposing of any forms upon the afore­mentioned considerations, appear unlawfull of it self, or in regard of some necessary or certain consequent, there needs no more be said to prove that men should have made use of some other means in order to those good ends of preventing errors, and the mischiefs arising, or possible to arise from a negligent and ignorant Ministry, to the Church of Christ.

VIII. But suppose the use of this means lawful, yet if Reason might then dictate unto them that applied this means, That it was never like to effect its end; and Experience hath since taught posteritie that upon the experience of 80. years, it hath proved ineffectual, cer­tainly the very light of Nature should have taught the first im­posers, to have used some other means, and will yet direct us (who have the advantage of experience) in this, to excel out Fore-fa­thers.

IX. It may put the rational world into a fit of astonishment to consider that so many Bishops should think that the imposing of formes of prayer, would ever contribute any thing to cure the ignorance or negligence of the Clergy, when in very deed, it was the right way to feed both, and to continue these scabs upon the Church [Page 30] for ever. For a man to be able to compose a prayer fit for a con­gregation, requires no lesse then a very competent skill in the whole body of Divinity, and a very large knowledge of the Scriptures, which would have ingaged Ministers to study the Scriptures, and to stir up their gifts. But when they had once thus provided for them, there needed no more skil for a Parson, then every ordinary per­son had, viz. an ability to read the written prayers. It is true, they had yet some work to do in preaching, but this was soon taken off their shoulders, by adding still formes of prayer, the reading of which should require such a length of time, that no roome was left for Sermons, or it there were, Homilies came quickly after, which would serve the turn: So that these imposed Liturgies, in stead of serving their end, in curing the ignorance or negligence of Minist [...]s, did most wretchedly serve to fill the Church, with ignorant and la­zy persons yea and debaucht too, for now the Ministers work was ready, and he might stay at the Ale-house till Saturday, and yet be as fit for his work, or at least do as much the next day, as was required of him, which was not only miserably exemplified in the Popish Church (til Erasmus his time and the beginnings of refor­mation, when they began by the Protestants opposition to be quickened to a little better attendance to their work) but is at this day sufficiently evident, as to the generality of their Priests, to say nothing of the liberal experience of it, which our own Nati­on hath afforded.

X. Nor certainly could just reason dictate it a proper or adequate means to prevent, or restrain Errors and Heresies: for how should this ever do it? shall preaching by a form imposed be su­peradded to praying? or shall there be forms of prayer imposed for the Pulpit as well as the Desk? These certainly had been too grosse impositions. If not; had not the Ministers as much liberty to vent their Errors in their Pulpit-prayers, as they would have had in the Desk? or in their Sermons as in their prayers? But then people would have apprehended, they say, that they vented their own conceits, not the doctrine of the Church? And would they not far better have apprehended this, if the Minister had only been enjoyned to read a perfect Systeme of the doctrine of Faith summarily drawn up. (Such was the wisdome of the Councel of Nice in the case, though indeed that Creed be far from a perfect Systeme) This no sober Minister would have scrupled. Besides Heresies are commonly the issue of Schismes, and experience hath told the [Page 31] world that nothing ever so contributed to the breeding of Schismes in the Church, as imposed formes of prayer have done: So contrary hath it appeared to the Sensus communis of Christians in all times, that the Ministers of the Gospel should be restrained in the gift of prayer, I say in all times since the Reformation of the Church, nor would the Popish Church have ever been able to have imposed theirs so long upon the people, if besides that Fire and Sword which alwaies at­tends his Holinesse is commands in case of disobedience; they had not wisely kept the people from the sight of the Scriptures, or from the hearing of any Sermons (almost:) For nothing but the peo­ples ignorance, could have secured this devotion so long. And no sooner came the light of knowledge amongst the people, but many of them either saw, or thought they saw, that this kind of Praying was not all that God required of his Ministers. And in those Churches where were forms of prayer (though translated into an intelligible tongue) there were continual Factions and Separa­tions from that which they called the Church, and more in Eng­land then else-where, because no reformed Church had such a Li­turgy, nor so imposed.

XI. But suppose the imposing formes of prayer lawfull, and that it had effected its end, done something to prevent Errors & Heresies, and some mischiefes which from the Ignorance and Negli­gence of Ministers might have come upon the Church. If yet the mis­chief coming by the means used hath been, or is like to be as great, as that which they are designed to prevent, (or though not so great) if there be other more proper and regular means (not subject to the same ill consequences) and more certain to obtain the end which may be used, certainly all prudent men, will conclude that, these old ineffectual mischievous means, should be no longer used, but those far better applyed.

XII. The mischiefs which the imposing forms of prayer have brought upon the Church, have been, 1. The nursing up of a no­toriously ignorant and lazy Clergy, not giving themselves to medita­tion and Prayer (two of those things which Luther thought necessary to make a Divine) 2. Separation from Church Assemblies. 3. Dreadful Persecutions upon Godly Ministers and people, who could not judg their conformity lawful. The Admirers of these forms perswading Princes to establish them by their civill authority, and then suggesting to them, that the Ministers and peoples not complying with them, was out of a principle of disloyalty to their [Page 32] Princes, and disaffection to their authority, and bringing non­conformists under the crime of Laesa Magistatis, evils certainly not much lesse, then what Imposed forms were pretended to pre­vent.

XIII. Yet were the continued use of these means in order to such ends more tolerable, if there were no other to be found most cer­tainly justifiable, far more regular, and more effectual, as to the end. Would the Prelates of the Church prevent the rise and growth of errors & heresies by the Ministers negligence, ignorance, or perverted Judgement? Let them, 1 Take care, that none be admitted into the Ministeral Office or trusted with the charg of Souls, but such as shal be throughly examin'd, as to their knowledg in the body of Divinity, & of whose gift in prayer, they shal have taken an Experiment, and who shal not first by some open Act declare his Assent to the doct­rine of Faith. May they not withstanding this be lazy? or afterwards perverted in judgement? To what purpose serve Synods, Presby­teryes, &c. But to take a constant account of the Ministers of se­veral Parishes? how they use their gifts? discharge their Office? to admonish, the irregular, suspend, deprive them, &c. Certain­ly as this means is more proper and more regular, more rational for the obtaining the aforesaid ends, so the use of it would be far more effectual, and all good people would be satisfied, and rejoyce in it.

XIV. From this discourse it appears, that the pretended necessity of a Liturgy or imposed forms of prayer in any Church, is no other then such as the author of Discoliminium told us merrily, Von Dosme conceived there was, when the fire burnt his Shins, that the Chimny should be pulled down and set farther off, when it had been more easy, and every whit as effectual for him to have re­moved his Shins from the fire; yea such as (the same author tels us) was the necessity which Simon the French Monk saw, that the poor people of a Province of France were under (wanting cloathes) to flea themselves and send their Skins to be tanned, that they might have cloathes for their backs, when as they easily saw, the remedy would be as bad as the disease. In very deed there can be no pre­tence of the necessitie of imposed forms of prayer, for the ob­taining any of the Ends aforesaid, of which assertion we have a demonstration both in the Church of Scotland, and other reformed Churches, where there is no such imposed Liturgies, though pos­sibly [Page 33] most of them have Lyturgies composed, to be used at li­berty.

XV. Nor would any sober persons oppose the composing of a Ly­turgy, for publick Assemblies, which might by way of punishment be enjoyned to those to use, whom the Governours of the Church should suspect perverted by Error, or discern lazy and negligent, as to the stirring up of the Gift of God bestowed upon them. But that such Forms should be imposed upon all, cannot certainly be either lawfully or prudently advised or wished, lest Gods Gifts given to his Ministers, should be smothered, their desires to improve them, (according to Gods Command) quenched, good people scandali­zed, and the most ignorant, negligent, and worst of men en­couraged in the highest Services of God. In fine, lest the hearts of any Subjects by such unwelcome Impositions, should be aliened from their Magistrates, who (except in the matters of their God) desire no other Priviledges or Liberties from them, as the reward of their daily Prayers and Allegiance, than their own goodnes shall prompt them to give them.

CHAP. VI. A particular Examination of the five late Arguments used by the Bishop of Exeter, to evince the Necessity or high Expedience of a Lyturgy.

I. VVE have hitherto considered whatsoever Antiquity could pretend for the usefulness of imposed Forms of Prayer in the Church, and weighed them in the Ballance of Rea­son;Consd p. 9. but the Reverend Bishop of Exeter improves the notion of their usefulness higher, telling us, they have very many great, and good influence, upon true Religion and upon every Church; which he endeavoureth to make good in five Instances, which we shall crave leave modestly to examine.

II. First, He saith, It conduceth much to the more solemn, com­plete, and august and reverent worship of the Divine Majesty, in Chri­stian Congregations, where otherwise the most Sacred and venerable my­steries must be exposed to that rudeness and unpreparedness, that barren­ness [Page 34] and superficialness, that defect and deformity, both in matter, man­ner, judgment and expression, to which every private Minister is daily subject, as late experience hath taught us. It will be very hard to find any thing in this more then words.

1. It will be granted, that the publick Service of God ought to be performed solemnly, reverently and compleatly; for that same august serving of God, we do not well understand the Doctors meaning; if he means outward Pomp and Splendor, in the habits of those that serve at the Altar, or lofty high flown phrases, swel­ling words of vanity, we never read that God either required it, or delighted in it, nor can we from any reason conclude the necessity of it or usefulness of it, as being contrary to all the Copies of Prayers and Sermons set us by Christ or his Apostles, and no way suted to the simplicity and plainness of the Gospel-Devotion: God is unquestionably then served most reverently and solemnly, when the worshippers of him approach him with most fear, and worship him with most affection and fervency of spirit, wrestling with God, (as Jacob did) which the Prophet interprets by weeping and ma­king Supplications.

2. It is true, that Minister sins, who (though ignorance or negligence) expresseth any want of Reverence of God in his heart, by impertinent and rude expressions, (not fitting to be used in civil con­verse with men) or which may make the Service of God contempti­ble to others.

3. But that every minister must needs be thus guilty, (with the Doctors leave) experience hath not taught us, and is very uncha­ritably and falsly asserted. We have not (blessed be God) such a pitiful Church, that there are no Ministers in it, but are liable to the charge of serving God in Prayer with rudeness, unprepared­ness, barreness, superficiality, defect, deformity, and that both in matter, manner, judgment and expression. No Jesuit ever had the confidence so to asperse the Ministry of England, nor could speak more sordidly to their dishonour. Possibly there may be some, (and there have been far more than now are) who may be too lia­ble to this charge. But where's the fault? Is it not in those to whom the trust is committed of taking a due cognisance of such as offer themselves to be ordained, or admitted to the cure of souls? Should not they take care to admit none, but such as are both able to preach and to pray? Do they not discharge their work consci­entiously, while they admit such as are not able to pray, without [Page 35] such rudeness as is here complained of? or make no more consci­ence of it, than to do it unpreparedly, superficially, with so much barrenness, defect and deformity? such as neither have judgment to compose a Prayer, as to matter, nor elocution to pray, as to man­ner, so, but that people shall have just cause to nauseate the Wor­ship of God.

4. If the Doctor means (by his phrase of every Minister being subject, &c.) only that 'tis possible that the best Ministers may so be negligent, &c. as to run upon this Rock, that is as true con­cerning reading Prayers: none will deny, but he that can read very well, may read false, and if he keeps not his mind intent, no doubt but he will perform the Service, as rudely and superficially by reading, as by speaking; Instances might be given of this, and shall if need be: And certainly the conceiving of a Prayer will com­mand more attention of mind, than reading can. All therefore said under this Head, is meer air.

III. But Secondly, He tels us, That a Lyturgy is a most excel­lent means to preserve the truth of Christian and Reformed Doctrine, by the consonancy of publick Devotions, Pag. 10. into which otherwise corrupt minds are apt to infuse the sour Leaven of their own corrupt Opinions. Fine words again! But what reason? we have before shewed it to be,

1. Questionable, whether a lawful means or no.

2. If lawful, by no means effectual, except it reach to all Pray­ing and Preaching too.

3. Not the only means, a good Summary of Christian Faith is far more proper and rational.

4. A means bringing a mischief as bad as what it pretends to cure, yea far worse, fit for nothing but to breed rents and separations, the mothers of all Heresies.

5. An Apochryphal means by which men make themselves wiser than Christ and his Apostles, or the Purer Church. We shall on­ly propound this Question upon this suggestion: If this be true, how comes it to pass, that all the Arminians and Popishly affected Clergy-men of England are such Zealots for a lyturgy? The thing is demonstrably true, that it is so; let the Doctor answer this Question by his next.

IV. But Thirdly, A Lyturgy (he saith) is necessary for the holy Harmony and sweet communion of all Christians, as well in National, as Parochial Churches, whilst thereby they are all kept in one mind and [Page 36] Spirit, praying the same things, and chearfully saying Amen to the same Praises and Petitions. Here is the old Fallacy still of Verba elegancia, pro sensu simplici, That all Christians have the same com­mon wants, and ought to pray for the same things in the main, is to be granted, though as particular persons, so particular Churches may have renewing wants, not common to all (for which a Ly­turgy will not serve the turn) But is there any so simple, as not to understand, that the same things may be prayed for in different words and phrases? The Doctor here mistook his Mark, he should have proved, that it is the Will of God that Christians should main­tain their Communion in the use of the same phrases, letters and sylla­bles. And when he had done that, a Popish Priest should have improved his Notion, and concluded that because the one body of Christ should have but one tongue, and since the confusion at Babel, men in several nations have spoke several languages; therefore to the perfection of the Communion of the Church, there is not only a Liturgy necessary, but a Liturgy every where in Latine, that being a Language most universally known. The Churches external Communion lyes in their keeping the same Sabbath, performing the same Acts of worship (of which prayer is one) confession of Original and Actual sins, praying for the same mercies generally, &c. not in their saying all the same words sure.

He tells us (fourthly) That a Liturgical form is not onely of great benefit, and comfort to the more knowing, judicious, and well-bred sort of Christians, but highly to their security, and to the holy and humble composure of their spirit in the worship of God, who otherwise are prone not onely amidst the publique devotions curiously to censure, but scoffingly to despise, (By the way this is no Demonstration, nei­ther of their Christianity, nor of their good breeding) yea many times to laugh at, and at best to pity, or deplore, the evident defects and incongruities which appear in many Ministers odd expressions, and incongruous wayes of officiating, &c.

To reduce these many words to a short sum of reason, the usefulness of imposed Liturgies is here pleaded. 1. For the benefit of the most knowing, judicious, and well-bred sort of Christians. 2. To avoid the censures, scoffs, and jears of others. The Dr. hath not yet told us what benefit accrues to the former from a Liturgy, nor yet what solid grounds of comfort for them to feed upon, the want of which it may be is the reason, that if others guess rightly, that take all the professors of Religion that can but give any under­standing [Page 37] account of the Systeme of Divinity, and live in any so­briety of life and conversation, and number them (taking their judgment as you go along) and in will be found, that ten for one are against any imposed Forms: On the other side, it is certain, that some others make it all their Religion: So it was of old. That Holy and Learned Oeculampadius living in a Noble mans house, who yet was a Protestant, and would seem a forward man in the Reformation, complains of the slender regard the greatest part of the Family gave to him, and to his Ministry, in a Letter to his Friend in these words, ‘Such a man (saith he) sent for me, that I might publickly in the Church instruct his Family in the Christi­an Religion, or rather feed them with the words of Christ, who were initiated already. I counted it my chief duty to make the Evangelical Law known familiar at hand to them, that so after­wards they might of themselves proceed in the true and sincere study of Christianity, Peace, Meekness, Modesty, Charity, Piety, Faith and Confidence in God. All the time of Lent that I was there, nothing hindred, but that I might every day read a piece of the Gospel to them, and expound it, and exhort them out of it to the study of Godliness: But after Easter, it was less conve­nient; for the Family was not at-leisure to spend much time at Church, their business did so call upon them; and there are some that are sick of the Church, if they tarry there never so lit­tle while. pieri (que) ut forme ubi (que) mos est, &c. Most people, as the manner is, amant quotidie audire, imo videre Sacrum; love to hear, yea to see service every day, yea to hear those things mum­bled over, that they understand not, to see the Ceremonies, to be present at the Blessing, to commend themselves perfunctori­ly unto God, and so think they have been religious enough of all conscience in that day wherein they have done this, quod sane exigni fructus est, & credo pleris (que) interim conducibilius esset arare & texere; which truly (saith he) is little worth, and I am perswa­ded it were better for many to have been plowing or weaving,I. 1 Epist Oe­culamp. & Zu­inglii These words may be a Glass for these times. or Riving of Logs, or doing any other work.’ And (if they may be believed, not is it incredible) find more comfort in the Lytur­gy than in all the Promises of the Gospel, the reason is, Missa non mordet. For the Scoffes and Jears of such as are possessed with a Spirit of Prophanesse, 'tis hard to avoid them. Nor are we fur­ther concerned, than not to give just cause to them to prophane the Worship of God; which may be done without a Lyturgy, if [Page 38] the Governors of the Church take due care, that none but persons fit in respect both of Parts and Piety be admitted to, or continu­ed in the exercise of the Office of the Ministry.

V. But it seems this Master of our Lyturgical Feast hath kept his best wine till the last, for he tels us, that a Lyturgy is necessary, or conduceth at least mightily—above all—to the edification and salvation, as well as the unanimity and peace of the meanest sort of People. Salvation and Edification in order to it, are great things, so also are unanimity and peace, and doubtless by all just and lawful means to be endeavoured: But how shall a Lyturgy conduce to these? Certainly the Captain of our Salvation hath directed the best and most proper means for the Salvation and Edification of souls, and we need not devise other than what he hath appointed; yet did he never institute a Lyturgy, nor the Apostles after him. He tels us, That a daily variety of Expressions in Prayer or Sacra­ments, is much at one (to the Vulgar) with Latin Service, little un­derstood, Pag. 11. and less remembred by them; they are still out, and to seek, when a new Minister officiates, yea and when the same, if he affects va­riety ef words, where the duty is the same. For the peoples remem­bring, it were worth the while to examine the Vulgar people, where a Liturgy is constantly used, how much they remember of it? If the Doctor would do this, he might possibly be convinced, that a Lyturgy is not such an effectual means to imprint Divinity no­tions in peoples memories. As to the peoples understanding, the reading of the Lyturgy signifies as little; if the furious Zealots for Lyturgies amongst the Vulgar, were examined of their sense of the several phrases, they would make a wild Interpretation. It is not the using of a Lyturgy, will bring people to such an understand­ing the Body of Divinity as is necessary to him that would under­stand a good Prayer (whether it be a stinted Form, or no) but their understanding of a good Catechisme to be wrought in them by a frequent exercise of Catechizing; and when they once understand the Principles of Religion, they will easily understand a Prayer, (though they do not alwaies hear the same words) where the Mi­nister doth not affect a vanity and singularity of phrase; which if he doth, the Governors of the Church ought to restrain him, by ad­monition and other Censures. This is the way to make people understand Prayers, (whether the Phrase be the same, or diverse) provided it be not phantastick and vain. By this it appears, that the Bishop hath said nothing to convince the world of any necessity [Page 39] of imposed Forms, nor yet of any expediency in them. We have before offered enough against them, so that thus much may suffice to have spoken of Imposed Forms in the general.

CHAP. VII. Supposing Forms of Prayer Lawful, yet every Form is not. What necessary, or reasonable to be found in pub­lick Forms. Doctor Gaudens unhandsom and false Representations of Ministers refusing to use the Com­mon Prayer.

I. FRom our former Discourse, every intelligent Reader will ea­sily conclude, that we have neither asserted it unlawful to compose a Form of Prayer, nor yet to use it, either in private or publick, no nor yet to impose it upon some: All that we have que­stioned, is the lawfulness of imposing Forms of Prayer upon all Ministers; as well those whose gifts are eminently known, and their diligence and conscience in that duty sufficiently experiment­ed, as those who either through Ignorance or Laziness are not fit to be trusted, without such a guide in the publick service of God. Nor do we think it impossible that a Minister of eminent gifts, through some bodily, or spiritual distemper, may possibly be so out of course, that he may lawfully enough help himself with a Form: but because a Staffe may be useful for an old withered body, and for a vegete and lively body, that hath accidentally got some Vertigo in his head, or wound in his foot, it will nor therefore follow, that it is rea­sonable, that it be enacted, that none should walk without it.

II. But certainly in reason, those Forms which should be either publickly or privately used, should be such rare Patterns of Prayer, as might justly commend themselves to all ears, as containing full con­fessions of sin Original and Actual, full Petitions for spiritual and temporal Mercies, for our selves and others, as also proportionable Thanksgivings, and all these expressed in Scripture phrases, so or­dered and couched, that the hearers may be convinced, that there is nothing contrary to the Will of God in them, nor any momen­tous thing, by Gods Will allowed us to ask, which is omitted. It [Page 40] is also reasonable, that such Forms should be so worded, so every way circumstantiated, that no sober ear could be offended at them, all conscientious Christians might say Amen to them, and if any should be needful to plead their cause, he might have more to say, than that jejune commendation, Nothing can be said against them but may be answered, nor found in them but what is capable of a very good sense. These are lamentable commendations for Forms of Prayer to be imposed upon a Church, full of holy, learned and godly Mini­sters and People, who cannot be cheated into a blind Belief, That they are the best, because such a man said so. And no private Mini­ster must presume to rate his private abilities above the Shekel of the Sanctuary: From whence will easily be concluded, that suppo­sing it lawful to use Forms of Prayer in publick, yet it will not fol­low, that it is lawful to use every Form that shall or may be tender­ed to us, but such only as for matter, manner and circumstances, shall appear to us agreeable to the Word of God.

III. We say, 1. It must appear to us that the matter of those Prayers be such as Gods Word allowes us to ask of him; otherwise we ask not according to his Will. 2. That the mode and manner of Pray­ing prescribed, be such as Gods Word alloweth, either by express Letter of Scripture, or just consequent. 3. That no appendant cir­cumstance make the use of them unlawful, which as to the matter and manner are lawful enough. For none is so ignorant, as not to know that in matters of practise a thing may ex accidenti be unlaw­ful, which is not so per se, or of it self.

IV. This now bringeth us from our general Discourse concerning the lawfulness or expedience of any Forms, to a more particular con­sideration of the particular Forms of Prayer in the English Lyturgy, according to the Copies now printed and sold: (For what those were that were established by Acts of Parliament we cannot tell) and therefore must restrain our Discourse to that English Ly­turgy only, which is ordinarily to be had in Stationers shops, and at adventures from thence transmitted to many Churches.

V. And we cannot but take our selves concerned a little to speak in this case, when the Bishop of Exeter thinks fit to brand all those Ministers that are willing to accept his Majesties most Gracious Indulgence, and to forbear the use of the Common Pray­er; as also all those sober persons, that are not so fond as his Lord­ship of it, with restiveness, inexcusable moroseness, an antilyturgical hu­mor, peevishness, ingratitude, schismatical petulancy, pride, such as only [Page 41] fancy they could mend some words & phrases in it, or put some Ali­asses to it, such as sacrifice their judgments to their Credits, yea, and (he had almost said) Consciences too; such as stand in need of it to help their frequent infirmities, restrain their popular and desultory levity, to set bounds of Discretion, Decency, Charity and Piety to their extra­vagancies: and brands their powrings out of their souls to God, (without the Common-Prayer-Book) with the ugly Notions of flat, dull and undevout, deadly tedious, of a confused length, like a Skain of Yarn course and snarled, somtimes so dubious, between wind and wa­ter, sence and Nonsence, faction and sedition, boldness and blasphemy, &c. Is it not time when this Gentleman thinks not fit to speak all this, with much more such stuffe, in the Syriack Tongue, but upon the walls, in the face of all Israel in the English tongue, to make some reply, to let both him and the world know, That though we have not so learned Christ, as to render reviling for reviling, nor dare pretend to an ability to give the Bishop word for word of this nature, but shall willingly allow him proestasie in that Art and Practise; yet we do humbly conceive our selves able to give some reasons of our present forbearance, which may possibly be judged good and sufficient, if the Reformed Churches my be our Judges, and not such of our Brethren at home, whose only desire is to have an occasion against us, and know not how to find it, in those things which concern the Worship of our God.

VI. If, indeed, any of us have heretofore used it, and are still satis­fied in our Consciences both of the lawfulness and expediency of it, yea and were disposed immediatly to have used it, before the Declaration of his Majesty came forth, in case we had been required to it according to Law in force, rather than for default to have been punished (as the Bishop suggests, p. 4. Or if any of us thought the iterated use of the Lords Prayer, the daily repeating of the three Creeds, the ten Com­mandments, the Confession of sins and the Church-Catechism not on­ly wholsom and convenient, but also necessary (as he hints, p. 2.) and that in the Common Prayer-Book, there are only some verbal de­fects, obsolete words, &c. that need emendation, and we have only forborn the use of it, because his Majesty hath had a compassionate eye to some mens infirmity, then indeed the forbearance of it, as to such Ministers, may be judged what doth become judicious, sober men; but not knowing any such, we cannot but look upon these as most false and unworthy suggestions, designed to no other purpose, than to beget in his most Sacred Majesty an ill Opinion of able and con­scientious [Page 42] Ministers, who (as shall God willing hereafter appear) have other more grave and momentous Reasons to assign, why they have forborn the use of it, not only in whole but in part; yea, though possibly they formerly have used it, it not being impossible that either somthing may have intervened since their former use of it, which may have rendred the same practise now in their judg­ments unlawful, or that upon the fuller disquisition of the questi­ons about the use of Imposed Forms in the general, or these in par­ticular, they may be convinced, that their former practise was their errour, not after conviction to be returned to.

VII. We shall therefore speak, that we may both free our selves, and before the world excuse those of our Brethren, who are of the same mind with us, either in whole or in part, leaving what we shall say to be duly considered by all sober Christians, and sub­mitting our selves to the candid judgment of such persons as shall desire to make a judgment of persons and things, according to a Rule of Righteousness and Reason.

CHAP. VIII. The first Reason of divers Ministers not using the Com­mon-Prayer. Their dissatisfaction as to the imposing of any forms universally. Divers reasons of that dissatis­faction.

I. IT is not clear unto us that it is lawful for all persons, and at all times to limit themselves by any stinted forms of prayer. Where God hath given a gift of prayer to his Ministers, we can­not but think it is their duty to improve, and use it, if indeed God hath denied that gift unto any, or by his providence any way hindereth the exercise of it, we (as was said before) do not doubt but such persons, or any persons at such times, may help them­selves by a form;1 Cor. 12.7. but where God hath given any that gift, we conceive it is a manifestation of the Spirit given him to profit others by. and that he is defective to his duty, that doth not use it to that end; we are yet to learn, that it is not as lawful to impose forms of Sermons upon Ministers, as forms of prayer; both of them, are lamentable restraints put upon the gifts of God bestowed upon his [Page 43] Ministers, to that very end, that by the use of them they might be profitable unto his people.

II. We are sure it is the unquestionable duty of every one that prayeth, to do it with the highest intention of mind imaginable, and with the greatest fervency of Spirit, and that it is not lawful for any man in prayer, to allow himself in any thing, which may either divert his mind, from the most fixed contemplation of God, or intention upon his duty, or which may any way cool the heat, and fervency of his Spirit. We cannot be induced to believe that any one can possibly so keep his soul fixed upon God, or so intent up­on God whiles he reads a Prayer, as while he speaks it from his own conception; we find by experience (not to determine posi­tively of the frame of other persons Spirits) a great difference in the intention and fervency in our Spirits, when our words in prayer are directed, and determined, by the inward heat, fervency, and affection of our hearts, from what is, when our words are deter­mined for us, by other men, yea by our selves before the time of prayer, vve humbly conceive, that every Christian stands bound, not onely to look that there be an habit of fervency in his heart, vvhich at all times should dispose it to duties of communion with God, but that a particular fervency should attend the act of Prayer; If we durst boast of the former, yet we find the latter certainly hindered by a prescribed form, and we do believe this may be ex­perienced by any person's speaking to a man for his life; vve do not think it possible for any man to have, or shew the like affection and fervency in reading a Speech which another hath made for him, no not in what he hath made for himself, before that time; as he may by such words as the present sense of his condition in that moment of time shall dictate to him: nor have we ever heard of any malefactor at the bar that brought his Speech for his life in a form, if he did, we believe there was (even by the hearers) dis­cerned a vast difference betwixt such speeches, and such as a per­son speaks at that time, to whom a lively sence of his condition, dictates words in that hour.

III. Nor can we believe, that any Minister praying in any form useth so rational, and experimented a means to affect his hearers hearts, as he who useth none. As in preaching there is a certain lively effi­cacy of the voice which every hearer discerneth, more in the Preachers speaking ex animo, then from his reading a Sermon, which is past denial evidenced, though it be not so easie to say what it is. [Page 44] So that a Sermon, yea an ordinary Oration so spoke, moves and affects the hearers, infinitely more, then a Sermon, or an Oration read out of a paper (though it be never so well starcht up with Ora­tory, and set out with the highest advantage of an Oratorial read­ing tongue) so we believe, and find it in the matter of prayer; and in very deed, the reason of this we conceive lyeth much in this, because the Speaker himself is (discernably) not so much affected in reading, as in speaking. 'Tis one thing for the heart and affecti­ons to precede the action of the tongue, and to see it on work; another thing, for them to follow the tongue, and be commanded by it.

IV. Speaking is an immediate act of the Tongue, but com­manded by the Soul; the Tongue is but the Souls Organ, by which it exerciseth that power vvhich God hath given it, and it cannot be so well performed, as when the Soul that directs, performs its work by dictating immediately to it. So that much of the Spirit and life of prayer is lost, in praying by forms.

V. Nay lastly (to add no more) if there were nothing else in the case, we should think it very disputable, Whether it be lawful for us in the publique worship of God, especially as to the momentous acts, and parts of it, to do that for which we have no command in the Word of God, no president, or example, and we cannot but think, that the holy Psalmist's variety of prayers, and the variety of pray­ers, which we find used by the several Saints, and holy pen-men of Scripture (none of which as to words and phrases agrees per omnia with another) should rather teach us, that when we go unto God in prayer (observing the general rules of prayer laid down in the Scripture) we should take unto us words de novo, as God shall put them into our hearts, then borrow words from others, hardly fitted to our hearts, or present necessities. If any have not ability to do it, we conceive it is his own fault, and it were far more consonant to the rule of Gods Word, that such should be removed from Gods Altar, then that the gifts of God bestowed upon others for the benefit of his Church, should be restrained for their sake, which we think would be something like his act, who cut the man fit for the bed, because the bed way not fit for him. Certainly in all congruity of reason, if the Church be peste­red, and must needs continue so, with a generation of men, who either through ignorance, or through a wofull neglect to stir up the gift of God in them, cannot pray without a book, and for their sake, [Page 45] a Liturgy. or stinted forms in prayer be necessary, yet from hence cannot be concluded any lawfulness, much less necessity, that those, to whom God hath given other abilities, and another spirit, should be obliged to use it, or that it should be imposed upon them.

CHAP. IX. The Ministers second Reason, drawn from the disputableness of the lawfulness of using any Forms of humane composure, formerly defiled, by use in an idolatrous service, con­joined with the scandal of many Christians arising upon that account.

I. BUt suppose we were satisfied, that it were lawful for Mini­sters of the Gospel to use Forms of Prayer, and that at all times, and that this were no stifling of the gift of prayer, no di­version to the intention of our minds, nor abatement to the fervor of our spirits, nor to the affections of our people (to do any thing apertly tending to any of which, is simply unlawful) yet there are particu­lar reasons which appear to us cogent enough, as to the restraint of us from the using of this form.

II. We cannot but have some doubts whether it be lawful for us in the worship of God by an act of ours to offer up any thing to God (of meer humane composition) which hath been once offered in an ido­latrous service, especially when our Brethren say unto us, This hath been so offered; That the worship of the Church of Rome is idolatrous, grosly idolatrous, vve hope no sober Protestants will deny, their Veneration of Images, Adoration of the Eucharists, In­vocation of Saints are all idolatries. Some of these are done as oft as their Mass-book is used; so that their vvorship, toties quoties, as it is performed, is idolatrous, though not in every part, yet in the complex.

III. We do observe how some Prelatists mince this point of the Idolatry of the Church of Rome, they can grant (vvith much ado, vve believe) that the worship of the Church of Rome is in some sense idolatrous; what their sense is vve cannot tell, nor care to inquire, vve believe, that, except some few Pagans vvho might terminatively vvorship the Sun and Moon, as thinking those noble [Page 46] Creatures vvere the very first movers and principles, That never any heathens vvere guilty of more stupid sottish idolary, then the Papists are. For (let vain persons talk vvhat they please) it vvill never enter into our thoughts that either the Jews, Jeroboam, or Michal, thought their Images the first principles of life and being, (such as reason teacheth to all that God must be) nor yet that the Egyptians,

(vvho vvorshipped any plants, or any thing, from vvhich they had good or hurt) thought that those things vvere God. They onely dreamt that God vvas Anima mundi, the Soul of the World, in­forming every living thing, and vvorshipped an unknown God in the creature, or by some created representation, (vvhich is yet gross and accursed idolatry) and such is the Popish vvorship.

IV. VVe are not so filly, as to think, that the holy Scriptures (dictated by the Spirit of God) or any thing else of purely Divine Institution, is capable of corruptions, and therefore cannot but vvith some laughter read the argumentations of them, vvho argue, that if vve reject the Liturgy, V. Dr. Causa­bon on the Lords prayer. because the idolatrous Papists used it, vve must also refuse the Scriptures, and the Lords Prayer; these are but toyes, to blind common people, vvho cannot see to the bottom of an Argument. The holy Scriptures are incapable of pollution by any idolatrous service.

V. Their answer is as filly, vvho tell us, that then vve must use none of our Churches. VVhen vve offer up Churches to God by any rational act vve vvill consider of this frivolous answer, vvhich indeed may concern them that dream of a holiness in them, by reason of dedication or the like: it concerns not us, vvho onely use them as convenient places, in vvhich vve meet to serve God, and believe them no more holy then any other places, though the Law of Nature obligeth us to keep, and use them decently. VVe do so by our parlours vvhere we converse vvith our friends.

VI. Prayer is a piece of Gospel Sacrifice, and by a rational act of our souls to be offered unto God, now vvhether it be lawful for us, vvhen the earth is the Lord and fulness thereof, vvhereas God hath given us an ability, to speak vvords in another form; to take those very forms, and to offer them up to God in true Gospel vvor­ship, vvhich have been offered in an idolatrous service (though [Page 47] the matter of those forms be not idolatrous) is to us a great doubt, nor can vve be satisfied in the lawfulness of it.

VII. The ground of our scruple is in that known Text 1 Cor. 10. where the Apostle treateth concerning the lawfulness of eating meats, that had been once offered to idols. He determines as to a double case. 1. That it is not lawful to eat such meats in an idols Temple. 2. In case it be sold in the shambles, and we know it not, he deter­mines, that we may buy and eat it. But in case our Brother saith un­to us, this hath been offered to an idol, he saith, Eat it not. So that our Brethrens scandal upon such a foundation is to be avoided by us, he gives the reason, because there is other meat to eat. The earth is the Lords, and the fulness thereof.

VIII. For our part, we are not able to fathom a reason, why a form of words fitted up for use in prayer, should not be liable to the same corruption, and pollution that a dish of meat fitted for natu­ral use is: or why it should be unlawful for one to eat the latter, (if once offered in an idolatrous service, our Brother minding us of it) and it yet be lawful to use a form of words in prayer (so formerly used) when our Brother is so scandalized.

IX. We are aware of what the Drs. of Aberdeen said of old to prove that the scandal of brethren, weighs light, when put in the scale with the command of Authority. There may something be said for their Assertion, where the scandal is meerly passive, and hath no foundation in re, only men are offended, because they are offend­ed: but where the scandal is such, as is so far allowed by Scripture, that a Negative precept is given upon it, eat it not, we are not of so easie a faith, as to believe what they say, when Gods word saith do it not. Man cannot oblige our conscience to do it, he may oblige us to suffer, but not to act; and that this is the case is evident. Our Brethren say to us, These Forms have been offered up in an idolatrous service, and we know this is truth.

X. The Bishop of Exeter is mistaken therefore in suggesting, that we forbear the using of the Liturgy out of a little point of reputa­tion, amongst some people (rather weak then wise, and to be pitied more then imitated, and he shews little charity, or candor in saying we sacrifice our judgements (not to say our consciences) to our credits, and out of a fear or lothness to offend some people, whom we might easily convince and satisfie as well by our examples, as by arguments, &c. This is not spoken like a tender and a good Christian. We hope we can say, we value our reputation at a low rate in comparison [Page 48] of our duty. Nor do we think non-conformity the way to credit now, but that our peoples souls (of which we confess we are tender) are more weak then wise, we cannot say. Wisdom lies in avoiding sin, yea the least sin, and all appearances of evil. That here is an appear­ance of evil no reasonable person can deny, it is not so clear that we may do that as to forms of prayer, which the word expresly for­bids us as to a piece of meat, not is it so clear to us, that we may obey man in any case, where the Word of God saith as to the thing commanded, Do it not.

XI. In the mean time we think those are to be pitied, who had rather that their brethren should be all persecuted, imprisoned, ba­nished, together with those thousands of godly people, (who cannot in conscience worship God with these forms) differences in the Church perpetuated, and that so many thousands of sober people, should have such a temptation, to entertain hard thoughts of their Magistrate, &c. In short who had rather confound heaven and earth, and scandalize all Christians in the world, then lay aside forms of prayer of pure humane composition, and that in most corrupt times, and only retained upon the reformation to quiet peoples spirits, and which (in their own confession) have for 6. or 700 years before the reformation, run through the filthy sink of the Romish Synagogue. When God hath himself told them, That the earth is his, and the fulness thereof. And therefore expresly char­ged us not to use a piece of meat once offered to idols, when our brother tells us it hath been so polluted.

XII. But it may be some of our Fathers, or Brethren (what ever a company of us Puritans do) do not think the Church of Rome an idolatrous Church, nor her worship idolatrous, we have heard of diverse that have lately questioned it. We confess for those Protestants that are of that mind, our Argument upon this head signifies little to them, but we are of another mind in the prin­ciple, and therefore 'tis no wonder we have different thoughts of the Consequents. In the mean time, those who believe the Church of Rome idolatrous, have reason to think of this Argu­ment: Those who judge her yet an undefiled Virgin, we suppose may have a desire to be married to her. And we shall hardly be able to forbid the banes.

XIII. VVhen the Bishop of Exeter can satisfie us, That the worship of the Church of Rome in the whole Complex is not idolatrous, Or that it is lawful for us, to take forms of prayer of meer humane [Page 49] composition so used in an idolatrous service, and yet continue them in the true worship of God. Gods VVord saying to us, as to meat so used, Eat it not. Or that it is lawful for us to tell our people (when they come and tell us, Sirs, They say this is taken out of the Mass-book, will you use it?) No brethren 'tis not taken out there, when we know it is. I say, when his Lordship can satisfie us in these things, he may then conclude (which as yet he doth very uncharitably) That we might easily convince and satisfie our people, as well by our Examples as Arguments. Our people are a plain kind of Country people, that are not to be satisfied with a flaunt tant of high words, they have their Bibles, and having so plain a Scri­pture by the end as that of 1 Cor. 10.28. Eat it not, they choke us with such things as these. Is not the Romish Church Idolatrous? have not they used the same forms in their idolatrous devotion? how can you then use them without sin? So that we profess we cannot an­swer them. We desire the Bishop of Exeter would do it plainly and solidly.

CHAP. X. The Ministers third Reason, Because they have sworn to en­deavour a Reformation in worship, and to endeavour to Extirpate Superstition, and what hindereth the power of Godliness.

I. BUt further yet to let the Bishop know, that it is not out of a meer Anti-Liturgical humour that some of us (taking the advantage of his Majesties Declaration, and laying hold of his Grace and Favour in it) do not yet meddle with the Book of Common-prayer. VVe desire his Lordship to consider, That we have taken the Covenant, and are afraid to bring upon us that ven­geance, which we are sure first or last will follow perjury. If his Lordships loosing St. Peters bands, could have loosed our Conscien­ces from that, we had been a step nearer then we are, but we observe no truth of Divinity in the Principles, which his Lordship, and others, have laid down; from which they would conclude, that the bond of that Covenant is dissolved; we also discern, his Lordship, and the others abundantly answered by Mr. Crofton, and Timorcus, and could wish that when any of them write again upon [Page 50] that Subject, they would not onely assert positions, but give their reasons which may evince the truth of them, or else annex some Scriptures to prove them; or at least tell us, what Di­vines were ever of their mind.

II. We have in the Covenant sworn to endeavour a Reforma­tion of the Church of God in England, in worship according to the Word of God, and the example of the best Reformed Churches. VVe think the worship of God in England, is, as to the Rule and Form of it, ex­pressed in the Common-prayer Book, and the Forms of devotion there expressed and imposed: We cannot find that either accord­ing to the Word of God, or the example of the best Reformed Churches, it is lawful for the Ministers of the Gospel to tye up themselves to forms of prayer, nor that such practise is commend­ed to us: nor can we conceive how the use of the same forms of Worship should be a Reformation in Worship. Nor (possibly) is it clear to every one, that there is nothing in those forms of worship savouring of Superstition, or that the use of them is consistent with the promoving of the power of Godliness; at least, that it is a due means to promove it, all which we have solemnly sworn to in­deavour; and surely that indeavouring to which we are sworn, will at least oblige us not to do any thing to the contrary.

III. Into which Covenant many Ministers of the Gospel having entred, since they used the said forms of prayer; something may be said on their behalf, disobliging them from a return to their former practice, though in these last 20 years time they have learn'd nothing from the many books published to the world, exami­ning the said forms in special, of offering arguments against impo­sed forms in the general, convincing them of a former in advised­ness, and error in practice. If they then looked upon the use of those forms as indifferent, surely the Oath they have taken puts it into another capacity. If they now judge the use unlawful, (it is no great wonder considering how much light hath shone upon the world in that space of time, that some of their judgements should be altered) the Bishops charge of Schismatical petulancy, restiveness, morosity, &c. cleaves not to them.

IV. If the Bishop sayes they had before subscribed to use it: According to his Lordships doctrine, and some others of his mind, forced ingagements signifie nothing. It is true the Godly Mini­sters of England are of another mind, they believe, though they were under a force, (either they must subscribe, or loose their [Page 51] livelyhoods, yea loose the exercise of their Ministry) yet they are obliged by their Act, in case it doth not appear to them, That it is sinful for them to do what they inadvisedly set their hands to; but that is the Case. Besides, though they cannot think that any Earth­ly power can discharge them of an Oath made to God, yet they believe that the Parliament of England can discharge them of an Engagement entred to an inferiour Magistrate, and by Oath again bind them to do the contrary; and that's the case again.

V. If any say, That the Ministers of England are bound by the Law of England to use the Common-prayer Book. Besides that it is a great question how far the Laws of a Nation can oblige the con­science in matters of Divine VVorship, and most certain, that they cannot oblige any mans conscience, to do any thing in the worship of God, that is, either directly, or by consequence forbid­den there, we make it a great question whether the Common-prayer Book be established by Law or no, and believe the contrary. That the Common-prayer Book 5. & 6. Edw. 6. with some alterati­ons made 1 Eliz. 2. was so established we know, but what that book was, or where it is, we cannot tell; it is apparent that the books ordinarily walking up and down are not so established.

VI. Suppose it were, we do not think that this is pleadable in the Case, against the Covenant agreed by Lords and Commons le­gally assembled in Parliament, and so far ratified by the King, as unquestionably in conscience would suffice to discharge any that shall keep it; (though contrary to some former Act of Par­liament.)

VII. Nor can it enter into our thoughts, that the Parlia­ment, or any power under Heaven, can by any future Act, dis­charge us from the obligation of an Oath; for out parts, those Divines that talk any such things, seem to us little acquainted, ei­ther with the vvord of God, or with the nature of an Oath. Not with the former, for God expresly Numb. 30. determines the Oath established for ever, if the husband of the wife, or father of the child, either at first consented, or did not presently dissent but hold his peace; nor with the latter, for all Divines determine it, in the power of men to ingage men in an Oath to God, but not in their power to discharge them again, because the Oath makes us debtors to God, and it belongs to God alone to discharge us; which especially holds, where the matter of the Oath is such as Gods Law required, and for which an Oath is onely a security, [Page 52] and certainly such is the matter of Reformation, and the rooting out of Superstition, and the promoving the power of Godliness. The Powers of the world in such a case may contract guilt to themselves by forcing such as fear an Oath, to suffer, because they durst not violate their Oath; but they can never lay hold on mens Consci­ences by any Act of that nature, so as to make them sinners, if they do not actively obey: Nay it is far better in such cases, and in all cases, to obey God rather than men.

CHAP. XI. Other Reasons why divers Ministers are not satisfied, as to the Use of the Book of Common Prayer.

I. CErtainly in reason, if a Lyturgy, or Form of Prayer be com­mended to any Church, it should be such a well composed and compleatly digested Pattern of Prayer, as should contain in it the sum of all things to be ordinarily confessed, or begged, or for which thanks should be given; and this drawn up, in such plain ex­pressions, as should be obvious to every hearer, and yet so hand­somly, as should reconcile the hearers reverence and attention to it. The Confession should be of the guilt of all Original sin, as well originans as originatum; the guilt of Actual sins. The Petitionary part should consist of Petitions, for a sight and sense of sin, Faith, Justification, a sense of it, Regeneration, &c. And all these should be in such a form, as no Hearer should have a reasonable excep­tion to.

II. Thus we are sure it would best fit two (if not the only) ends for which there can be any pretence of the necessity of a Lyturgy. 1. The acquainting of people with the Doctrine of the Church, as to things necessary to be believed, and the prevention of Errours. 2. The helping the weakness of ill accomplished Divines, who are not able ex tempore so to pray in a Congregation, by which means pos­sibly their people never hear a just Confession of sins, nor put up perfect Supplications.

III. Now it is possible that if the Bishop of Exeter (who hath indeed a rare art at words) may have liberty to comment upon our Lyturgy, he may prove, that such as understand as much as [Page 53] himself, may from our Lyturgy, fancy such a perfection of Form, and by Arguments and far-fetched consequences, make out all these; but surely none can say, that take the ordinary Prayers ap­pointed to be read every Morning Prayer, or Evening Prayer, they do contain all things requisite to be confessed or petitioned for, in so plain and familiar expressions, that ordinary people can understand, that in those Prayers we confess the guilt of Adams sin, Original sin, &c. or petition for such things as are absolutely necessary: Nay we believe that if they did, some that are great Zealots for the use of them, would not so well like them.

IV. Besides that the matter of some things in the Lyturgy is not in our judgments so approvable; we do not understand with what truth we can say to God eight daies together that he sent his Son to redeem us, [as on that day] nor yet as to any one particular day. Nor yet how we can pray in Faith to be delivered from Lightning, Tempests and sudden death; we understand how we may pray in Faith to be delivered from the evil of these temporal judgments, and from the judgments themselves (if it be the Lords Will, &c.)

V. We by experience find, that the Form of the Service pre­scribed in the English Lyturgy, is such to which the Spirits of so­ber people are no waies reconcileable; who cannot understand what foundation is either in Scripture or right reason, for the using par­ticular Prayers for each day, or dividing the entire Service of God be­twixt Ministers and People, or for using so many shreds, or ends of Prayer, or repeating the Lords Prayer so often. Nor can we our selves be more satisfied with it. Mr. Sparrowes Rationale in this case to us seems to have as little reason in it as Durantus his Ratio­nale hath for all the superstitious usages of the idolatrous Synagogue of Rome. ‘—Et canpare pares, & respondere parati.’ Neither of the Barrels have in it better Herrings.

VI. Now for us (being so graciously indulged by his Majesty) to scandalize all those people whom we must scandalize, seemeth to us not lawful, considering how tender St. Paul was of giving of­fence to brethren (how light a matter soever be now made of it) especially considering the observation which we make, which we cannot say is universally true, but as to our Congregations is gene­rally true, and that is this; That many of the persons offended at [Page 54] our forbearance of the Lyturgy, are not of the stricter, but the looser sort of Professors, such as his Majesty hath justly stigmatized in his Proclamation, as vicious, prophane and debaucht persons, Drunkards, Tavern-haunters, Health-drinkers, Swearers, not that they are all such, but ten for one we find to be such; and we as generally ob­serve, That those of our Parishioners, who fear an Oath, who live chastly, temperately and soberly, and by any Rule, are generally not desirous of the use of the Lyturgy, where they have a Minister of any abilities: But where we have any persons, that give up them­selves to strict exercises of Religion, that pray in their Families, ex­ercise themselves in the Scripture, and have any great knowledge of them, we find them generally impatient of it: Now we cannot think it lawful for us, to scandalize the far greater number of strict Christians, that we may gratifie a few others, in whose lives we find nothing, but what is a far juster scandal to all good men, than a godly Ministers forbearing the use of the Lyturgy can be to them.

VII. Especially also considering, that we see, that that sort of people who are so zealous for the Lyturgy, so dote upon it, that it is clearly become their Idol, they think there is no serving of God without it, no need of any serving of God but with it: With many people we see it demonstrably true, that if a Minister should never preach the Word of God, yet if he did but read the Common Prayer, it would be enough. The Preacher makes their heads to ake. Now we cannot judge it lawful for us upon this view of the state of our people, to nurse them up in these conceits, which are hardly Christian.

VIII. Yet it might go far with us, if one of fourty of those peo­ple that are so fond of the Lyturgy, could but give us a reasonable account, why they desire we should pray by Forms, rather than without, why by these Forms rather than others. VVe do not think it lawful for us to satisfie the irrational humours of people, contra­ry to our light.

IX. By all this, the Bishop of Exeter may see, that we have somthing to say for our selves, why we do not use the Lyturgy: Not to enter into a particular examination of the parts of it, the woful Translations of Scripture in it, the irrational cutting of verses from verses, Chapters from Chapters, with 1000 other things, would we examine it in parts, which hath been already done by many: We profess our selves for these Reasons to forbear it, [Page 55] and to judge our selves obliged in conscience to forbear it. VVe acknowledge it in his Majesties and Parliaments power to pu­nish us for that forbearance: If they shall think sit to inflict any punishment in that case, we acknowledge it our duty to suffer pa­tiently, comitting our souls unto God as to a faithful Creator: In the mean time, we are humbly thankful to his Majesty for de­claring, that none of us shall be punished for the not using of it, (at least not for a time.) VVe do not forbear because his Majesty gives us leave, but we forbear out of Judgment and Conscience, and bless God, who hath put it into the heart of his Most Excellent Majesty, to forbear punishing of us for Conscience sake, as to his matter of our God. It is therefore a spiteful & odious representation, which Bish. Gauden hath made of us, which hath no foundation of Truth, nor mixture of Charity. God grant him better Interpreters of his Actions, and requite him not according to his dealing with his Brethren, who desire to fear the same God which he professeth to worship, and to walk by the same Rule which he professeth to own. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in what he allows.

We shall shut up this Discourse with a summary Recapitulation of what Reason are scattered in the preceding Sheets, justifying our Practise in the forbearance of the use of the Common Prayer.

CHAP. XII. A Summary Recapitulation of the Ministers Reasons.

I. VVE cannot believe that it is lawful for all of us, at all times, by limiting our selves to a Form of Prayer, to smother the Gift of Prayer, given (we hope) to some of us, or to cool the heat and fervency of our hearts in Prayer, or the Affections of them that hear us.

II. Because we can find no Precept for it is Gods Word, no Pattern of it there, but one (pretended) Form, that made by Christ himself, although we doubt whether ever it were intended for a Form of Prayer or no, and rather think it a direction for the matter of Pray­er; one Evangelist saying no more, than after this manner, Christ and his Apostles leaving no Record of their using of it; my few of [Page 56] the entire phrases in it to be found in other Scriptures. (Dr. Cau­sabon in his late Book, is miserably put to it to parallel the phrases of it, as any indifferent Reader will judge) yet it being holy Scripture, we doubt not but we may use it in the Form, which is so short, as we may easily get it by heart, and not employ our souls (at our eyes in reading) while they should he wrestling with God: And the divine authority of it is such, as it hath ano­ther manner of influence on our Spirits in using (as all the Scrip­ture hath) than can he pretended for any other Forms: And by the length of it, we easily understand, that it was never intended to be used without any other Prayer, to say nothing of many other Arguments might be used for that.

III. Because we cannot find, that there was ever any Forms of Prayer used in the Church, in any part of it till 400 years (or very nigh) after Christ, nor any made (for more than some single Province) till 600 years, and then by that superstitious wretch Pope Gregory, and not imposed till 800 years after Christ, when all manner of Corruption was brought in; and we challenge all our Adversaries, to prove what they say to the contrary of this in any Christian Church: For what Dr. Causabon saith, of Forms of Prayer used by the Heathens to their Idols, and by the Jews in their most cor­rupted, depraved estate, it deserves no Answer.

IV. Because we cannot imagine any use at all of them, or any good they ever did, especially when imposed. They were first invented to cure the negligent and ignorant Clergy, to prevent Heresie and Schism; we have shewed, that in stead of this, they have made an ignorant and negligent Clergy, that they are neither a scriptural, nor rational means to prevent Heresie, that they have been the Mothers of Heresies, causing separations, and constantly brought forth dreadful Persecutions, and will do so still in reason.

V. Because we canot think it lawful in the worship of God, to use forms of Prayer (which are compounds made by men) which have once been offered in an Idolatrous Service (such as is that of the Church of Rome) Dr. Causabon saith nothing, in telling us, the Scriptures are in the Mass-Book, they are no humane Compositions, nor capa­ble of defilement. Though in these Forms there be no Idolatry, yet they have been used in a Service grossely Idolatrous. There the Question lies; not whether we may use nothing which hath been offer­ed to Idols, or in an Idolatrous Service? That's a Foppery to dream: but, Whether it be lawful for Christians in the spiritual Worship of God, [Page 57] by a rational act of theirs, in devotion to offer up what is of pure humane composition, and so may be altered, and which hath been before defiled, by being offered in an Idolatrous Service abhorred of God. Let our Brethren speak to this Question, and leave speaking to other things, as our using the same Scriptures and Temples: For the latter, they know so did the Primitive Churches, which yet never used the Pagan Forms of words. This is not to speak ad idem.

VI. Because we have sworn to endeavour a Reformation in Wor­ship, and the extirpation of Superstition, and what is contrary to, or may hinder the power of Godliness.

VII. Because of the infinite scandal which we must give to some of our Brethren that durst not use it, and to thousands of our most ju­dicious, holy, strictly living Christians; and we durst not offend those little ones, though we dare leave our Ministry, if Authority will command one or the other.

VIII. Because we see the number of those who are judicious, sober Christians who desire it, is very small, but the generality of those given up to all manner of looseness, prophaness, and debauchery, are impatient for it, and rest in it, ('tis as the Papists Beads to them) and they care for no other worship of God, and we con­ceive it far from our duty, to harden any in what we know is their sin and wickedness.

IX. Because we are assured in our Consciences, that very many of those in our ordinary Congregations who are earnest for it, press the use of it, upon no other account, than from a Principle of malice against godly Ministers and People, and desire it for nothing else, but that they may have a weapon to destroy all religious persons by; this is evident by experience, when some Ministers have used some part, they are yet as zealous to turn them out, finding fault, they do not read all; then, he doth not wear the Surplice; he doth not pray the Canon Prayer; he doth not say later Service. Nor can we get of them any reason why they desire we should use it, only 'tis established by Law, (which we cannot believe) If it were, we think in matters of Gods worship somthing else must be considered.

X. Because the Forms appear to us very short of a perfect Mo­del of Prayer, full of obsolete words, dubious phrases, antique responds, and such a Method (through the whole) as is like to none in any Reformed Church in the world, nor any where to be parallel'd, but in the Roman Missal, nor any way suited to the spirits of Chri­stians, [Page 58] nor to the gravity of the duty: We do not say this is so, but to us it appeareth so, and therefore it is [...].

XI. Finally, we do not conceive the Interest and concern of words in Prayer such, that there is any need at all, that Forms should be starcht up for all to use, those being best, which the best affected heart emitteth, and venteth, and which best affect the hearts of others: If all Ministers be not able to pray decently enough, (as to expressions) and sutably enough, as to the Matter, it is because the Governours of the Church take not that due cognisance of Ministers Abili­ties, which they ought to do before they ordain and admit them; Or do not so watch over their Churches as they ought to do. Let then the Errour be mended, by the greater Care and Vigilance of Church-Governours, not by the restraining the Gifts of God bestowed on any, for the sake of some.

XII. This is the Summe of our Apology; which we humbly submit to the Judgment of all that are concerned in the great Af­fairs of the Church; alwaies reserving to our selves further Li­berty of adding any further Arguments or Exceptions, professing our selves most heartily willing to hear any Arguments of our Bre­thren, either for Forms of Prayer, to be universally imposed, or for these Forms in particular, to which we shall give a reasonable Answer, or yield our Cause. In the mean time, we protest a­gainst Dr. Causabons uncharitable Judgment of us, That we do it to oppose our Brethren. We can, we dare do nothing against the Truth, but are ready to do all for it. But we dare not resist the Light of our Consciences. And if it be the Will of God, that for our Conscience sake in this thing, we be laid aside as useless Vessels, we humbly submit to his pleasure, who is able of stones to raise up Children to Abraham; and we shall pray that our Brethren may have nothing on our behalf charged upon their souls in the day of Christ. In the mean time, what Dr. Gauden hath said, we will further consider in a few words in the following Chapters.

CHAP. XIII. The most of Bishop Gaudens Arguments for the use of the Ly­turgy, examined, and shortly answered: Some of them retorted, proving Violentum's in Logick.

I. DR. Gauden hath so perplexed his Discourse with words, and been so careless of Method, that we have found it no easie thing to pick out his Arguments; we could have wished, that like a Logician and Divine, he had proposed his Arguments strictly, and followed them closely, that we might have judged that his De­sign was with a strength of Argument, in the Spirit of Meekness, to convince us, over whom he so provocatively, insults, not meerly to confound his Reader with a non-significant Rhodomantado of Phrase.

II. So far as we can gather, he one while argues for a Lyturgy, by and by for this Lyturgy, and no other; for which he one while argues, from the Obligation of the Law, another while, from the Obligation of the Example of the Primitive Churches, or of some Persons now living: By and by he urgeth the use of it from Grati­tude to his Majesty, and from the contrary Evidence of Ingratitude, Morosity, Peevishness, &c. in case of Refusal. One while he pretends an incomparable excellency in it, another while, the un­blameableness of it: Anon he runs a descant upon the Confusions of our Church since it was neglected. After this, he tels us of the Ne­cessity of it, the necessity of a Lyturgy for the planting of any Church, this Lyturgy, for the defending of our Church against Popery. One while he urgeth it, that we might be conformable to our Prince, ano­ther while, that we may be Loyal. He tels us of the Authority of the Church, as to Lyturgy, Ceremonies, what not? He justifies, not only the Forms of Prayer, but also the Method, the Responds, yea, the Musick, the Ceremonies, the Catechism in the Common Prayer-Book: One while he tels us, that men have served God day and night in the use of the Lyturgy, yea, that he is perswaded St. Paul himself (had he been alive) would have used it; another while, he tels us, how some Ministers and people have bewailed the neglect of it. ‘[Page 60]O quo te teneam mutantem Protea vultu?’ The Dr. had made our work shorter and more methodical if he had told us, which of these he accounts arguments in the case, and which he looked upon as strains of Rhetorick, onely as to which we needed not have troubled our selves with an answer; he not doing this, we must examine them all, supposing that the Dr. took all these for conclusive Arguments, in the case able to com­mand reasonable, and religious souls to this conformity.

III. For the pretended Antiquity of Liturgies, his Lordship may gather from what is already said, that we do not believe any such thing, nor hath he spoke one word to prove it, we living not in Pithagoras his School, have not learned to submit to an [...] we desire him to shew us any authority for a Liturgie within the first three Centuries.

IV. As to what he saith p. 2. That his most Sacred Majesty in his Gracious Declaration hath not dispensed with the legal, morall, obediential, obligation. We conceive he means the obligation which lies upon mens consciences to observe the Civil Laws of the Na­tion, we do not else understand his meaning.

If this be it, the Dr. hath two things to do; 1. To prove that the Common-prayer-Book (vulgarly to be had) is established by any Law of England. (we heard it was openly denied in the house of Commons in the last Parliament, and we cannot find any Law to that purpose, the Laws 1 Ed. 5 & 6. Ed. 6. & 1 El. are such, that our consciences tell us, they daily violate the Law that read these books.) In the mean time we ingenuously confess, That his Majesties Declaration, as it cannot make an obliging Law, so it can­not dissolve the obligation of it: but where is the Law? 2. If it could be found, how far doth it oblige any mans conscience? cer­tainly not to any act of sin; if we thought we could use these forms without sin, we should never dispute the Law in the case, but freely obey the least intimation of his Sacred Majesties plea­sure.

V. For what he tells us p. 8. of the example of the Church since the first Century, we can find no such thing. VVe have said enough to that c. 3. It is an empty unproved Assertion, though we know nothing but Gods Word obliging our consciences, and are to learn that any examples oblige us (but those of Christ and his Apostles) and therefore for what he tells us p. 3. of some Ministers that have all this time used the Liturgy: Others that lately have reassumed the [Page 61] use of it: it signifies nothing to us who live by the unerring rule of Scripture precepts and presidents. If others will sin, surely it obli­geth not us to do so too: Though we dare not say they did, or do sin in it.

VI. He urgeth it upon us next from an ingenuous Argument, viz. Gratitude to his Majesty for his indulgence. To which we an­swer, That we with all humility acknowledge His Most Excellent Majesties gracious indulgence in it. And in point of gratitude, are willing to serve his Majesty vvith all that is dear unto us (our souls only excepted vvhich we know he desireth not) in token of thank­fulness to his Majesty, we are ready to part with any part of our livelyhoods, and shall in that vye with those who pretend most to his Majesties service, (though many of us in several places have no benefit by his Majesties Declaration, whiles some eager Law­yers and Justices, still give the Statutes in charge against us, and cause us to be indicted and prosecuted, openly telling the people that the Kings Declaration is no Law, though they also know that there is no Law for the Common-prayer) yet we have an experiment of his gracious Majesties good will to us his poor Subjects; and shall be vvilling by any vvay, which our consciences tell us would not be sin to us, to let his Majesty know our gratitude. But vve are sure that his Majesty is more charitable to his peoples souls, then to desire that to express their thankfulness to him they should commit the least sin against God. And this is enough to excuse us from the Bishops rash charging us with Morosity, Restiveness, Peevishness, Schismatical petulancy, &c. with none of which men can be charged for any action which they do, or neglect, that they may avoid the guilt of Sin before God, whether their conscien­ces inform them rightly or no.

VII. For the many Splendid words, which the Bishop useth p. 23.31. to dazle peoples eyes at the apprehension of the Excel­lency of the Liturgy, they are of no use at all, for besides that if he would have made his words good, he must have proved 1. That the Common-prayer hath in it a perfect Confession of such sins as all are guilty of. Original, Actual, of Omission, Commission, a perfect summary of things necessary to be begged of God for all: and a perfect form of thanksgiving for mercies received, and all this expressed in most Significant Scriptural Language, plain, and affective expressi­ons, and cast into a lovely, and usual method, I say besides this, the Excellency of no form of words in prayer, can commend it to [Page 62] be imposed universally, if such imposing be not lawful. But in stead of this the Bishop gives us a parcel of fine words without a tittle of proof, and contrary to the general apprehension of all Reformed Churches, (who never spake it more then tolerable) and to the judgement of discretion; which the Protestant Religion allows to all private persons: so that this is but [...] one Drs. opinion, which to us Protestants is not enough to make what he sayes, a probable Doctrine.

VIII. What he argues for it, from the invalidity of the excepti­ons taken to it, and the supposed unblameableness of it, signifies as little, for it is blameable enough, as a form universally imposed. 2. As formerly used in an idolatrous service; and for many things which he never so much as indeavours to vindicate it from, though told him of old by Mr. Cartwright, V. The Com­mon-prayer book unmaskt. the Abridgment; more lately by the book called Necessity of Reformation, by Vavasor Powel, &c. besides for what he speaks to, as to the point of Baptismal regenera­tion, it is so without foundation in Scripture. (for all know those two Texts 3 Jo. 5. and in Titus have other and better senses,V. The Paralel between the Mass-book and the Liturgie.) So contrary to the Analogy of Faith in the point of Justification, Perseverance in grace, &c. and the Dr. hath said so little to [...]lear it, that those Exceptions will yet stand good, so will that as to the translation of the Text in Ezech. for none is so simple to assert, that we can as infallibly give the sense of a Text, and put it in other words with our additions, as Christ and his Apostles; and sure we are, the Text in Ezech. in the letter of it speaks no such thing as our Liturgy makes it to speak.

IX. For what he urgeth as to the disorders, and confusions in our Church since the disuse of the Liturgie, which he much comments upon p. 7, 18, 40. It is no argument to evince the necessity or expedience of bringing back the Liturgie again, because not the want of it, but rather the too long having of it, was the cause in a great measure. For 1. In what Congregations were these confusions most ordinary? was it in those Congregations where the Liturgie was out of choice laid aside? which were furnished with Godly Learned Ministers? we appeal to the Citizens of London whether they took notice of any such extravagancies in their Ministers? nor can malice it self so charge them. But there were two other sorts of Preachers: 1. There was an old Sect who had so used them­selves to the Liturgie, that they had lost all their gifts, and being restrained in the use of those forms, and not having a spirit or [Page 63] heart suted to their work could do just nothing. 2. There was an­other Set of Lay-preachers, and raw young Students got into livings, many of whom were also corrupted in their judgements, and it is no great wonder some of them should be justly chargeable. The question is, what such confusions there would have been, had none been admitted into livings but such as were duly qualified.

X. Above all things we wonder, why a form of words in prayer at the administration of the Sacraments, should be judged so highly necessary to be prescribed; for the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as it is an Ordinance which requires the greatest prepara­tion, both as to him that administers, and those that receive: so we cannot but think it very hard that any diversion should be offered to the Ministers soul in prayer there, and unreasonable that he should do any thing which might either abate the fervor of his own spirit, or be less affective of his peoples hearts. For the forms of words in Consecration and Administration, we think it no way fit the Mini­ster should vary a tittle from the institution, where Christ hath left us words sufficient. Nor can we allow the Liturgie's turning the words to be spoken at the delivery of the Sacrament into a prayer, being no wayes agreeable to the Institution. The same is to be said as to the other Sacrament, onely if an explicit enumeration of the chief heads of the Doctrine of Faith, (to which the Parents assent is required) be judged necessary, we think it warrantable, and should freely allow the Church to prescribe a form there, and to enjoyn the observation of the Scriptural form of words in both administrations to be used, and no other.

XI. As to the desires of the most Learned and Judicious, and Godly of the people, which the Dr. mentions p. 7. we see no such thing, but the quite contrary, and dare almost venture it up­on the vote of such in our Parishes, as are not guilty of noted de­bauchery, and have any form of Religion in their families, and can give us a rational answer why they desire it.

XII. We do freely allow that no Minister ought to oppose his private Spirit to the Spirit of the Prophets united: but yet must maintain for every Minister a judgement of discretion, (which vvhen vve have once disputed out of the world, Popery will imme­diately succeed, & nothing remains but blind obedience) wet do allow a due honour to some of those Reverend persons that had an hand in composing the Liturgie, and do think they did worthily in their generation, according to that twilight of Gospel light, which im­mediately [Page 64] after a midnight of Popish darkness shone out upon them: we do allow them to have done prudently, respecting the State of the English Nation at that time, (Rome could not be pul­led down in a day) but we also know, how imperfect their attain­ments were, and how gradually they reformed their own judge­ments. It is sufficiently known that one of the most Eminent of them, (holy Cranmer) was one of them, who (at that time him­self being a professed Protestant) condemned that rare Martyr Lambert, for denying the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. In the witness of which truth in Queen Maries dayes himself (upon fur­ther light) suffered Martyrdom. We believe he did both in the sincerity of his heart, and onely mention this to shew, that those Eminent lights were not fitted to set a standing and perpetual rule to the Church in so great an affair as this is.

XIII. But if as the Bishop saith p. 3. Neither piety nor policy, will allow the discomposing or dissolving the whole frame of the Li­turgy. And if as he tells us p. 12. The Reformed part of Religion cannot be well preserved in England to any flourishing and uniform State, unless such Liturgy be authoritatively injoined, and constantly maintained. Then unquestionably it ought to be as he dictateth. And if as he tells us p. 23. The Liturgy of England as to the main essentials of it in Doctrine, Devotion, Consecration, and Celebration, for matter, order and method, be such as may not be maimed. If (as p. 31.) nothing can ever be seen comparable to this Liturgie, if it be nulled and destroyed, and if after it be reviewed, it be not by Law, reestablished and authoritatively enjoined, Truth and peace can never be established; there's all the reason in the world that we should have it, better that those thousands of Godly Ministers and peo­ple, who cannot submit to it, should be banished the Land, then such evils come by hearkening to them, or such good things be hindred by their non-conformity. But let us search the bottom of this heap of words, & see what strength of Reason there is in them.

XIV. He gives three reasons for his former assertion, That it is against piety and policy to alter it.

1. It would reproach the wisdom, and blemish the piety of the first composers of it.

2. It would imprudently disparage the judgement and devotion of the whole Church of England.

3. It would much damp and discourage the present zeal and devoti­on of the greatest and chiefest part of this Nation, who are much pleased and profited by the use of it.

[Page 65] Ergo, The alteration is against Piety and Policy.

XV. For the first, We would be loath either to reproach the Piety, or blemish the wisdom of the first Reformers; but we can­not understand how the one or the other should be reproached, by not imposing a Lyturgy, or not imposing this Lyturgy. Was the Wisdom of God reproached by the disuse of the Ceremonial Law, which yet was an excellent Schoolmaster to bring the Jews to Christ? Or is the wisdom or prudence of William Lilly or any other Master of Grammar reproached, because when the Boy comes to be Master of Arts, he no longer makes Latine by Grammar Rules, nor further useth it than at a pinch now and then? Certainly those first Re­formers did like wise and pious men, with respect to their age, the complexion of the People, the abilities of the then-Ministers. But if that we have not improved both in Reformation and in all Gifts, very much since that time (now 100 years) we have wofully abu­sed our mercies. And it is the honour of our first Reformers, that by their means who first translated the Service-Book into English, &c. there are so many thousand Ministers to be found now in England, who are able to speak unto God before people, as well and order­ly, as if they did read those Forms. Is it not so to the Schoolmaster, who by dictating Forms of Theams and Epistles, and Orations, teach­eth his Boyes to make as good, and better than his were, in 9 or 10 years time? Surely it were rather a reproach to the Schoolmaster, so to inure his Boyes to Forms, that when they are Masters of Art, they must still have Forms dictated to them, without which they can do nothing.

XVI. Nor would the alteration of this Lyturgy, and not imposing any, blemish the Judgment of our whole Church, our Kings, Princes, & Parliaments, &c. Their Judgment was excellent as to those times. In King Edward his time, the Clergy were generally Popish, and had they been left to Liberty, would certainly have used the Mass, or else such persons as were of mean parts, most of them Anglice docti, such as the necessity of those times required, because better could not be had. In Qu. Elizabeths time, the state of the Nati­on (at least in the beginning of her Reign) was little better; wit­ness the Record which Archbishop Parker left, (and is yet to be seen in the Library of Corpus Christi Colledge in Cambridge) of all the Ministers in his Province, and their several abilities, where are 20 Anglice docti, such as understood no Latine, for one that hath a Character for any Learning see upon him; this man was [Page 66] Archbishop in the Second year of Qu. Elizabeth. Undoubtedly it was an Act of rare Judgment for the Parliament then to impose Forms of Prayer, nor was it likely that suddenly the whole Nation would be reformed so well, that with any security or prudence, the Ministers could be left at liberty. Since the time of Qu. Elizabeth no Parliament medled with it: King James indeed reformed it in part, and declared his Judgment for it. King Charles (of Glo­rious Memory) in his Meditation upon the Lyturgy, (though in­deed he judgeth an imposed Lyturgy lawful, and this as to the main very good) yet declareth his readiness to have consented to amend what upon free and publick advice, might seem to sober men in­convenient as to matter or manner; by which it appears, that his Ma­jesty judged incapable of amendment both as to Matter and Man­ner.

XVII. But it is a great Riddle to us, how the amending of the Ly­turgy, and not imposing any universally, should damp and discourage the zeal of the greatest and chiefest part of the Nation, who find much pleasure and profit in the use of it. For if it be still left at liberty to them, if they please to use the old Forms, how is their Zeal damp­ed or discouraged, by the liberty which others take? It is a fiery Zeal in men certainly, that must needs have all others to be of their humour, as to the use of Forms of words in Prayer. If by zeal, the Bishop means the Fury of people against those who durst not use those Forms, the God of Heaven more damp and discourage that zeal, which we are sure is not according to knowledge. If the greatest and chiefest part of the Nation be so zealous in this case, doubtless if they be left to liberty, people will generally fill in with those Ministers that do use it, and there will be an ingenuous conformity, which is alwaies best; for a little experience will convince the furi­ous ones of this age, that Religion is a thing that must instillari, not intrudi (as Beza somtimes said) a thing to be gently instilled and commended, not bluntly and forcibly intruded and compelled. Our Bishops in this point may give counsel effectual to the filling of Goals, undoing of many thousands, and procuring their cries unto God against them, but never effectual to accomplish their de­signs, if indeed their designs be to bring all to an uniformity in this thing. But they very well know, that if it be left to liberty to Mini­sters, to use or not use the Lyturgy, that experience will quickly make it appear, that the greater part of more knowing and zealous peo­ple are not so enamoured upon it, as they proclaim them to the world to be.

[Page 67]XVIII. In the next place, he tels us, The Reformed part of Re­ligion cannot be well preserved in England without it, to any flourishing and uniform estate. Immediatly before, he told us, Religion could not any where be planted without a Lyturgy: Both of them, Proposi­tions of equal truth. If Religion could not be planted without a Common Prayer-Book, it is a wonder that the Apostles and Pastors of the Primitive Churches missed this only means: For what Ly­turgy was ever heard of in the Church for 400 years after Christ? (the great planting time) if the Reformation of Religion cannot be preserved without a Lyturgy imposed, or this Lyturgy, alas for the Churches of God in Scotland, Holland, France, Genevah! If they have a Lyturgy, how unlike is it to this? Nor is it imposed, nor the use of it, by penalties compelled; yet blessed be God, the Reformation in those Churches is not less perfect than ours, not less firmly preserved: Let their Confessions of Faith be read, or their printed Books against the Papists be read, and compared with ours, and let all judge: What singular thing then is there in the Constitution of men and women in England, that Religion in its Reformed part cannot subsist without the authoritative imposing of a Lyturgy, taken out of the Roman Missal (as to the far greater part?) Surely none will say, it is because the Reformed Party of England, have a more reverend opinion of Pope Gregory and the present Church of Rome, than the Reformed Party in other Nations hath: This indeed were a shameful reproach to the Church of England. Let her Enemies lay it to her charge; but let her true Sons spend their time in covering such nakedness. VVe must know the Bi­shop's Reasons, before we can believe any truth in this, especially when we know that those Ministers and people, who are most zea­lous against Popery, are most averse to this Lyturgy.

XIX. The Bishop instanceth in the matter of the Sacrament, telling us, Popery can never come in while the Form of Consecra­tion prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, which is most ancient and excellent is used. We must ingenuously confess, that some Forms of Prayer prescribed to be read at the administration of the Lords Supper, are very good and pious; but we are much of his mind, who said, Nihil ego puto a quovis praescriptum tam exacte▪ quin addi aliquid possit, aut perfectius reddi, a quovis qui ministerio dignus, Altare Damasc. P. 6, 13. ad docendum vel movendum affectus, nam facile est addere inventis & praescriptis, & licet forte nihil exactius dari posset, tamen languet oratio, ubi non est verborum varietas, nec prorumpunt affectus interiores orantis [Page 68] aut exhortantis liberè in verba. Nam ut assiciat auditores, oportet ip­sum assici, non autem afficitur ut debet, qui semper eisdem verbis orat, aut exhortatur. It is an usual saying, and may be true enough, Op­timus Orator non nondum nascitur. To say that either for matter or phrase there was never any Prayers made like to those, and that no such can be made, are strange, extravagant, and hyperbolical ex­pressions, by no means either to be justified or demonstrated. In short, those Forms of words in Prayer are undoubtedly best for the Speakers use, which come most from the intention of his mind and fer­vency of his Spirit. As to others joyning with him, those are best, which most affect the Hearers hearts. That these, or any Forms upon this account do so, is not demonstrable. For the Form of Consecration of the Lords Supper in the English Lyturgy, we cannot find any Form for it (which we think an high Omission) we do con­ceive, that the Consecration should be by reading the words of In­stitution, taking, and breaking the Bread, and then blessing it: We find only a Form of Prayer for a Blessing upon the Elements, and not so much as a Rubrick directing the Minister at that time to read the words of Institution, or to take and break the Bread. As for the words used in the delivery of the Sacrament, we find them (without any warrant from Gods Word) turned into Prayers: So that the Bishop might have spared the commending of this Part of the Lyturgy, where we think is a more considerable Omission of what should be there, than he can instance in, in our administrations, or then the omission of those words, Receive the Holy Ghost in Ordination is, especially when we know no such power any Ministers have now to give the Holy Ghost, as the Apo­stles had, and can easily distinguish betwixt the Apostles ordinary Act in Ordination, and their extraordinary Act in giving the Holy Ghost; to the latter of which, none can now pretend. For the Ancientry of these Forms, we have shewed it before, they are not of age enough to speak for themselves, and to plead their gray hairs for their continuance.

XX. To say, That without the authoritative imposing of this, or any other Lyturgy, Truth and Peace can never be established, is irrational­ly guessed, nor can there he any pretence for it: Certainly truth is far better preserved by a full and sound Confession of Faith, in a Form of sound words, in which all are agreed, and we should be content to read a short summary of it every Lords day, to sub­scribe, own, defend it; that it should be subscribed and sworn by [Page 69] all Commencers in Universities, by all to be ordained, or admitted into livings, by all admitted to Sacraments; how an imposed Liturgie should do half so much, nay how it should do any thing at all to preserve Truth, we cannot guess.

XXI. For Peace, we have had the experience of an 100. years to prove the contrary; sure we are that we may thank the Impo­sing of the Liturgie in former times, for all our Brownists, Anaba­ptists, Quakers, Familists, Sectaries of all sorts. Their Leaders first separated from the Church for the Common-prayer Book and Ceremonies, then set up for themselves, and being themselves unskilful in the Word of Righteousness, easily perverted others. And we are sure that there are now 100. for every one that distasted these things in 1640. both Ministers and people; how the reimpo­sing should bring us to Peace poseth us to prophecy. It may bring many thousands of persons to ruine, for not conforming, driving them into other lands, giving their malitious adversaries advan­tages to fill prisons with them; but Peace it can never bring.

XXII. We observe that all Reformed Churches, where are no such imposings of Liturgies, have more plenty of able Divines, (considering the proportion of their ground,) more zealous de­fenders of Truth, fewer Hereticks, and Schismaticks, then ever England had at any time when the Liturgie was most rigorously imposed. Nor is it reasonable to imagine that we should ever have any peace in the Church, if the former Liturgie be imposed, but continual separations from the Church, and violent prosecuti­ons of those whole consciences for the reasons aforesaid, will ne­ver allow them to use it.

XXIII. So that we humbly crave leave to retort this as an Ar­gument against the Imposing, either this, or any other Liturgie, Its being inconsistent with the peace of this Church. And we most humbly beseech His most Excellent Majesty, the Noble Lords, and the Gentlemen of England, seriously to consider, Whether there being no command in Scripture, nor particular warrant for any imposings of this nature, no president of the primitive Church in any part for 400 years after Christ; there being also such a plenty of Godly able Ministers in England; So many times ten thousand of Godly Christians, who cannot allow themselves in the worship of God by forms of prayer; and who have taken so great a scandal at these forms in particular, and that for reasons above mentioned: It can consist either with Piety in them to enjoyn [Page 70] what is so highly offensive, (when St. Paul professeth so much tenderness to his weak brethren) or with Policy, to enjoyn that in which they cannot but know that many thousands will be found who durst not actively Obey, but will think themselves bound to suffer? So that they will be constrained in pursuance of their ho­nour (commanding such things) to erect Courts, direct prosecutions of persons, only blameable in this matter of their God, and such who are ready by any Act or Oath to secure their Allegiance to his Majesty, by any Action to express it, paying tributes, and customes for conscience sake; daily praying for all the blessings of heaven and earth for his Majesty, and this with far more cordiality then others drink His healths. Or whether such proceedings be like to produce Peace in the Church, or rather everlasting divisions, ani­mosities, and constant prosecutions of sober Christians, concerning the equity of which the Just Judge of the whole earth must one day enquire? And in the mean time these Impositions to be of no fur­ther considerable use, then to help ignorant persons unfit for the Ministry, and such as are lazy and negligent, and make no conscience to stir up the gift of God in them. We humbly leave this to our Superiours to determine.

XXIV. The questions as to piety are, 1. Whether pious Magi­strates, can according to principles of piety, command and enforce those things, which Gods Word doth not command in his worship, being openly offensive to multitudes of Godly people? 2. Whether they can ac­quit their soules to God in making Laws, to fine, disturb, imprison, banish, &c. multitudes of their Subjects for no other crime then this, that they cannot limit themselves to forms of prayer in Gods Worship? And suppose these two things were consistent with Piety, yet whether Policy would direct it? is another question; why should so many good Subjects be lost to a Nation? why should they have temptations to estrange their hearts from the ancient and excellent government thereof? But matters of policy, we most humbly leave to the grave wisdom and deliberations of His Sacred Ma­jesty and His Parliaments. Onely we must add a word to one or two Suggestions more, which the Bishop hath for the imposing of the Liturgy.

CHAP. XIV. Bishop Gaudens two Arguments, from the Authority of the Church, the influence of Subjects Conformity, in devo­tion, to their Prince, considered. No necessity of using the Liturgy upon these accounts.

I. THe truth is in other parts of his Book, the Bishop did but like the Lapwing fly far about from his main design and argument, which p. 27. he toucheth, and yet but very tenderly. The Authority of the Church must not be baffled. Here indeed is the bottom of all, we must have Liturgies and Ceremonies im­posed, to maintain the Authority and pomp, and grandieur of what they call the Church.

II. The name of the Church is a reverend name, and her Au­thority is reverend, and by no means to be baffled, for Christ is in her. But, as the Name and Authority of a rightful King, is reve­rend, so both the name and authority of an Usurper is justly abo­minable. And as no Magistrates command is to be obeyed where he hath no right to command, so neither is any Church; nor is denial of obedience in that case any contempt of the Authority, either of the Magistrate or of the Church; we must therefore enquire strictly what Church this is which is clothed with Authority, and what power she hath in the things we dispute about?

III. The Church is either Triumphant or Militant. The Mi­litant Church is visible or invisible. It must be the Militant visible Church; this also is an homonimous term, and either signifies the universality of the people, or the messengers of the people. The Uni­versality of people baptized into the name of Christ over all the world, make up the Catholike visible Church. The whole Com­pany of them in this of that Province, Nation, City, Parish, make such a National, Provincial, or Parochial Church. But we do not think this is the Church clothed with Authority: We understand by a Church in that sense, The Officers of such a Church constituted according to Gods Word, whether they be the Officers of a particular Church, or the messengers of the particular Churches, in a Lugentile Synod, a National or Provincial Synod, or (if it were, possible in an Oecumenical Synod. To Churches in all these political senses vve [Page 72] ow great reverence, and acknowledge that to their several capa­cities, several degrees of authority, to admonish, suspend, excommu­nicate, deprive, declare the doctrine of saith in doubtful cases, ap­point some things truly and properly relating to decency or order, &c.

IV. But it is more then we know that any such Church as this, ever established a Liturgie in England. The Papists have de­vised a new notion of a Church, to them the Pope and his Cardi­nals make the Church; but that any such notion of Church is justi­fiable from Scriptures, Protestants deny.

V. Our State hath been pleased in some Acts of Parliament to take Church in another notion, and to call the Prelacy of England, the Church of England. That this application of the term Church is not to be justified from Scripture or Reason, is plain; nor is it needful: they may if they please, call the Prelacy of England the Parliament; or by what other name they please, what should hin­der? But they cannot give them that Authority, which the word of God allows onely to a Church in another notion; but may cloath them with vvhat civil power they please.

VI. Hence it appears, that it is all one vvith us in England to baffle or despise the Church and State; for that company of men whom vve call the Church of England (by a new civil application of the term) is nothing else, Then a company of men by a Civil Power made Bishops, and called to advise the State, in things concern­ing Religion; who have no more Authority then they derive from the King or Parliament, for whence should they have it? Not from Nature; Surely no Ecclesiastical power is derived from thence; Not from Scripture upon any pretence, for if vvhen Christ gave the Keyes to Peter, he intended his single person as the Papists vvould have it; then St. Peter's successor only can pretend to them, if he gave them to Peter, as an Officer of the Church; then there must be either a full Convention of such Officers, or some per­sons chosen by them to use them: If to Peter as a Christian, then the Authority is in the Community.

VII. It remains, that according to the Constitution of En­glish Synods, the Churches Authority is but derivative from the Civil State; and to disobey them, is no sin, further then it is a dis­obedience to the lawful Civil Magistrate, to vvhom vve freely grant an authority, so far as Gods vvord allows us, and such an au­thority as none ought to resist or baffle, (as the Bishop sayes.) The [Page 73] Church of England, which we so often hear of, is a Civil Church, not an authoritative Church in a Scriptural notion.

VIII. We again say, Far be it from us to oppose Civil Autho­rity, either exercised by Lay persons, or Ecclesiastical persons. We acknowledge it our duty to render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesars. We further say, vve are bound to obey the Civil Magi­strate in all things, in things lawful, Actively; in things unlawful in themselves, or vvhich appear so to us by suffering their vvill, and pleasure, quietly and patiently. That vvhich vve insist upon, is onely a lawful means in order to our own preservation: i. e. humbly desiring the Civil Magistrate, to forbear imposing upon us in the tender things of God.

IX. VVe freely allow to the Civil Magistrate a power to com­mand us in all civil things, and shall chearfully obey him. 2. To command us to keep the Statutes, and Commandments of God. 3. To command us in the Circumstances relating to Divine Worship, to do those things, vvhich are generally commanded us in the vvord to appoint time and place, and such circumstances vvithout vvhich the vvorship of God, in the judgement of ordinary reason, must be indecently and disorderly performed.

X. For his power in imposing Forms of prayer, significant cere­monies, &c. vve do not dispute it, but vve humbly crave leave to dissent in this, and to have liberty to suffer his pleasure as be­comes Christians, rather then do those things vvhich our con­sciences vvould condemn us for. And in this vve appeal to all so­ber Divines, and all rational Christians, vvhether vve speak not as becomes sober Christians.

XI. VVe cannot vvithout some passion read vvhat the Bishop sayes p. 28. ‘Doubtless Subjects cannot be so tite and firm, or so zealous and firm, or so chearful and constant in their Loyalty, love, and duty to their Soveraign, if they either think them­selves commanded to serve God in a vvay vvorse then their Prin­ces use, or that their Soveraign and Prince serve God worse and less acceptably then they do; certainly the greatest ho­nour, love and safety of Kings, is from the sameness of true Re­ligion vvith their Subjects, as to the main.’

XII. VVhat an excellent Doctrine this is, if it were true, to engage the King of France against all his Protestant Subjects from whom he differs as to Religion in the main? yet are they as loyal to him as any other; doth the Protestant Religion teach disloyalty [Page 74] towards Princes, differing from their Subjects in the main of Reli­gion? We defie such Doctrine, and all the Assertors of it.

XIII. Doth it infer a difference in the main of Religion, be­cause our Soveraign thinks fit to use Forms of Prayer, and we use none? Is this a Language worthy of a Divine? Is the Mode of Worship, and the Main of Religion the same thing?

XIV. How shall they think themselves commanded to use a better or worse Religion, upon whom nothing is imposed at all? which is all we beg; and against which the Doctor argues.

XV. How doth the Prince and his Subjects in this case (the first using Forms of Prayer in publick Devotion, the latter none) more differ in the main of Religion, than the Christians of two Fami­lies in a Parish do, where the housholders so far differ each from other? Or how shall they differ more upon this liberty, than Dr. Gauden himself allowes, who would not have all persons in their Family-duties, tyed up to these Forms, which yet are the Kings daily Service in his Houshold.

XVI. To be short, these Discourses are but ad populum phalera, Pretensions in which all the judicious world sees there is nothing of Reason or Argument. Qui vult decipi, decipiatur, If God hath so far given up men, that they cannot see it. But notwithstand­ing all that is, or can be said, the Servants of God who differ from their Brethren in this thing must be brought into a suffering estate: The Lord grant them Wisdom, and Faith and Patience, and provide for his people, more able and faithful guides, than we have approved our selves, while we had a liberty to work in his Vineyard; and if it be a sin in any for this reason to forbid us to speak to poor pe­rishing souls that they might be saved, we shall be so charitable, as to beg of God, that it may not be laid to their charge: But we hope, and pray for better things for the poor souls over whom God hath set us.

CHAP. XV. Bishop Gaudens Arguments for Church-Musick examined. The Novelty of Musick in Churches evinced. Not in the Primitive Church. Not in any Reformed Church Con­demned by Aquinas, Erasmus, and by the Generality of Protestant Writers. The Jews no Pattern for Christians in it.

I. THe Bishop having spent himself much in devising reproach­ful terms, for such as are not satisfied in their Consciences as to the use of the Lyturgy, and arguing for the use of the Forms of Prayer, (that he might leave no part of his work undone) comes to vindicate the Quiristers, Singing men and boies, and the use of Musick also in the worship of God. It is only fit (he saies) for those mens rudeness to abandon Church-Musick, who intended to fill all things with the Alarms of war, and Cries of Confusion: How charitably this is spoken, with reference either to the Purer Primitive Church, or the lately Reformed Churches, or many of his Brethren, the sequent Discourse will evince. We durst not tender reviling for reviling, but commit our case to him that judges righteously; and offer our thoughts in this thing to all sober Readers, who un­derstand ought of Ecclesiastical Story, or right Reason.

II. But by what Topicks will this great person prove the Lawful­ness of Church-Musick?Just. Martyr, Qu. & Resp. Resp. 107. Did this also come from the first Centu­ry? Surely no. For Justin Martyr (who lived in the Second Century) lets us know, that the Church then judged it a childish Serving of God, and that it was not received in the Church in his time: His words are these;

[...]. In his time there was only plain simple singing used in the Church, and more than that, viz. with instruments of Musick, they looked upon as a puerile, carnal Service.

III. Indeed the Bishop fetcheth it high enough; for he agrees [Page 76] with Durantus, in making David the Author of Organs, nor pre­tendeth he any authority but that of the Jewish Church. That there was (even by Gods Institution) musical Instruments used in the Jewish Church, is not to be denied, whether in the Synagogues, or only in the Temple, is doubted, the latter believed. But what kind of Musick, Pol. Virgil l. 1. de inv [...]rer. c. 15. Hospin de Ong. Templ. is not certain: Both Polydore Virgil, Hospinian, and many others agree, our Organs were not then known in the world. When they first were found out, Polydore saies is uncer­tain; and in his 3 Book, reckons them amongst those things, whose first Inventers are not known. Sure we are Davids Instruments were stringed Organs, i.e. Instruments, not such as we call Or­gans.

IV. But may we then agree, that what David used in the wor­ship of God, we may? Else the Bishops Argument from Davids use of Instruments, proves nothing: Let us then have Altars and Frank­incense, Calvin, Psal. 37. (which saith Mr. Calvin, are every whit as lawful, as Mu­sical Instruments in Gods worship.) But surely nothing which was figurative and typical in the Jewish Service, ought to be continued by us, which their Instruments of Musick were; they prefigured our spiritual melody to be made in our hearts to the Lord; the sweet Musick also of a Conscience justified by Faith, and at peace with God, saith Dr. Willet, and so Zepperus and others agree. But who knows not,Willets Synops. p. 593. Quaere 2 Sam. im ch. 6. v. 9. that the Jews had carnal Ordinances, (as the Apostle cals them) which we must not imitate them in, who John 4.24. are obliged to worship God in Spirit and Truth.

V. It is as uncertain when Organs were first brought into Chur­ches, as when they were first devised. Marianus Scotus tel sus, that they were first sent of a Token to King Pepin in France, in which Aventinus agrees, but adds, that they came not into any Church in France, till the year 828, when by the industry of a Venetian Priest (Ludovicus then King, and willing to be at the charge) they were there set up. Balaeus tels us, Vitellianus brought them in, Anno 660. Bellarmine saith, it was very late. What Balaeus and Platina say,22ae Aq. fum. q. 91. art 2. resp. ad 3. & 4. arg. that Vitellianus brought them in, cannot be true: No, nor what Almonius saith, who saith, that Ludovi­cus Pius brought them in, for it is plain by Aquinas his determina­tion, (against the use of any Musick in Churches, as Judaical and carnal) that they were not come into the Church in his time, As both Ca­jetan & Greg. de valentia ac­knowledge. which was about 1260 years after Christ (which is also well ob­served by Cajetan upon Aqu. and by Navarrus, in his Manu­al, &c.

[Page 77]VI. For the Reformed Churches, they have no Musick in the worship of God: In some of their Churches, (as Zepperus notes) they have Organs, to delight people with at ordinary times, when the worship of God is not performed. The Bishop might have been more charitable, both to the Apostolical Church, and the pu­rer Primitive Churches, and all late reformed Churches, than to have determined them guilty of rudeness, and a design to fill all things with the Alarms of war and Cries of Confusion.

VII. Having no Scripture, no Apostolical or Ecclesiastical Tra­dition (as they pretend for Bishops and Lyturgies) to pretend for Church-Musick, the Bishop is forced to make use of his Reason here, the depth of which, as also its Symphony with that of the an­cient Fathers, or latter Divines, cometh next to be examined.

VIII. We can find but five pieces of seeming Reason in the Bi­shops Discourse.

1. The Angels began the Quire at Christs Nativity: He is not in good earnest sure to suggest to the world, that the Angels brought any Musical Instruments down with them from Heaven: If not, his Argument must be; That it is as lawful for us to praise God in publick Acts of worship, with Instruments of Musick, as for the Angels to rejoyce. But now shall that appear? We be­lieve no more that the Angels taught men (by that jubilation) the use of Church-Musick, than the idle story Socrates tels us, of Ig­natius his learning the Method of Responds, by a Vision of An­gels, answering one another, like so many Quiristers; which as Hospinian, and others say, was not surely such a momentous piece of Worship, as that God should send Angels down to exempli­fie it.

IX. But the Bishop tels us, we have as much cause to rejoyce, as the Jews had: True. And God forbid but we should rejoyce with equal joy: But must it be in the same carnal manner too? Have we had any Command of God (as they had) for any such Service? Why should we not have Trumpets, and blow with them, as they did too? Yea, and have Altars, and Censers, and Incense, and Thank-Offerings as they had? Who is so blind, as not to see through these Paper-Arguments?

X. Thirdly, The Bishop tels us, Musick is a Gift of God, The Gift of conceived Prayer is a gift of God. Ergo, &c. and it is fit, God (in his Service) and Church should have the use of so Orient a Pearl. That Musick is the gift of God, none can deny, nor yet, that God ought to be served with all his Gifts; But is [Page 78] there no way to serve God with the use of this his Gift, but to use it in his worship? Are there not 100 other things that are the Gifts of God, of which yet there is no use in the Worship of God? The Bishop will say (it may be) if we may serve God with it, why not use it in his Worship? We answer, because God hath not commanded it. And it is to set up our posts by Gods posts, and our Thresholds by his thre­sholds. This is enough, but much more might be said, and shall be said by and by.

XI. Ah! But he tels us, Fourthly, It is an exercise that fits the duty of Praise and fitteth mens Spirits in it: We think, it fitteth some, far better than others, and the carnal part of any, better than their spiritual part. But we think we shall never have done, if we stand disputing (after our Saviours perfect Rule given in the Gospel) what is sitting for his House. Our Saviour knew, that Musick was a Gift of God, and fit to exhilerate persons. And surely when one is dead, his or her relations had need of somthing to chear their spi­rits: Yet we find, our Saviour gives no great countenance to the Musitians, nor doth any Miracle till they be gone; nor do we find him in the least apointing or countenancing Musick in any act of Worship: How well it fitteth mens Spirits, we shall hear some­thing by and by, from the observation of others.

XII. But he tels us, that the use of Musick in Gods worship, is as lawful as singing by Meeter & Tunes, as any Psalmody, or Hymno­logy: We shall believe this at leisure, because we read of Christs singing an Hymn, and of the Apostles directions and Command, Eph. 5.19. by which we are obliged to sing Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, making Melody in our hearts to the Lord. But never of any Command or Direction for Musical Instruments. We are mistaken if those words, Psalms, Hymns, Songs do not imply words cast into a metrical order. Tunes are necessary, as circumstances, without which, nature it self would teach us, that the performance is undecent and disorderly, and apparently so to all that should hear.

XIII. But it will not be amiss to take a view of the Judgment of Divines in all times, concerning the use of Musick in Churches; by which it will appear, what devout, holy and good men have judg­ed of it, or have by experience found true concerning the use of it.

XIV. We shewed before, that Justin Martyr, and the Church in his time, judged it a puerile Service, and upon that account, al­lowed it not in the Church; nor can any reasonably expect, that any of the Ancients should explicitly declare themselves, against the use of Musick in Churches, when it is apparent, that for 900 [Page 79] years after Christ there was no such practice, yet much may be found in them; from which we may judge what (had it then been come into Churches) would have been their sense of it.

XV. Lactantius falls very foully upon the heathen, for belie­ving, That their Gods did love what they affected, Institut. l. 2. cap. 7. and for coming to the worship of God to look upon the Gold of the Temple, the fine Marble and Ivory, the brave Stones, and fine Habits, and for be­lieving that their Temples had so much the more Majesty, by how much they were more gay, and adorned. So that (saith he) Religi­on is nothing else but Cupiditas humana, [mens lust.] men think that must needs please God, which pleaseth them.

XVI. It is true, Singing was early in the Eastern Church, as we learn by the account of the Christians behaviour, which Pliny gives to Trajan. But the Western Church received singing very late, Ambrose is said first to have used it at Millan, when with his Congregation he kept the Church against the Arrians, that the night-watchings might be less tedious.

XVII. Let us hear St. Augustine speaking, from whence it will not be hard to judge vvhat that Reverend person's opinion was about the singing then used, and its fittedness to the duty of Chri­stians in praising God; it is in his 10th. book of Confessions cap. 33, vve will translate it for the Reader.

‘The pleasures of the ear had entangled, and captivated me, but thou (O Lord) hast loosed and delivered me: now I con­fess, I do acquiesce in those sounds, which thy Oracles enliven, vvhen they are sang with a sweet artificial voice. Not so as that I stick here, but so as I may rise, vvhen I vvill. But vvhen they come unto me in the very phrases, wherein they live, they seek in my heart a place of dignity, and I can scarce afford them one fitting for them. For sometimes I seem to my self to give more honour to them (i.e. so sang) then I ought to do, while I discern my heart to be more kindled into a flame of piety, when those vvords are sang, then if they vvere not sang. — &c. But the delight of my flesh, to which I ought not to give up my mind to be enervated, doth often cheat me, while it doth not so accompany my reason, that it will be patient to come behind it; but because it is admitted for that it endeavours to run be­fore it, and to lead that. Thus in these things, I sin, not per­ceiving it, but aftervvards I do perceive it. Sometimes more immoderately taking heed of this cheat; I erre, (but very sel­dom) [Page 80] with too much severity on the other hand, I would have all the melody of those sweet songs with vvhich David's Psaltery is full, removed from mine and the Churches e [...]es, and what I remember I have often heard told me of Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, who commanded him (in his Church) that sang the Psalm, so to sing, that he should rather appear to read then sing, seems safe to me. But vvhen I again remember the rears I powred out (at my conversion) at the Singing of the Church, and how I am still affected, not with the singing, but vvith the things that are sang, vvith a clear distinct voice, and a conveni­ent tuning: I again acknowledge the great profit of this In­stitution i.e. Singing. I am thus divided betwixt the danger of pleasure, and my experiment of wholesomeness, and rather in­cline (yet not pronouncing an irrevocable sentence) to the ap­probation of the practice of singing in the Church, that weaker Souls may by the delight of the ears, be raised up in pious affe­ction. Yet when it so falleth out that the Singing doth more affect me then the matter sang, I do confess that I dangerously sin, and had rather not hear those that sing.’

XVIII. See how jealous this good man was of his own, and others hearts, lest the melody of an innocent tune should intice his heart too much from considering the spiritual matter sang; what would he have thought if Church musick had been then in date, where he should have heard nothing but a carnal sensual-delighting noise?

XIX. In the next place let us hear St. Hierom, (or whoever he was that wrote those Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul, bound up with St. Hierome; Bellarmine, and Catharinus, think Pe­lagius was the author, Sixtus Senensis and Victorius think it was at least a Pelagian) whoever he was, we may learn the sense of the Church about that time. In those Commentaries on Eph. 5.19.D. Hieron. in Epist. ad Ephes. cap. 5. v. 19. — Let those youths and such as sing in the Church (saith he) hear this, That we must not sing unto God with the voice, but with the heart; nor must the jawes and throats of men be pleased with a sweet noise after the fashion of Tragoedians theatrical tunes, and songs must not be sang in the Church, but we must sing there in timore in opere, in scientia scripturarum, &c. ——Let the servant of Christ so sing that the words which are read, may please not the singer's tone. That the evil spirit which was in Saul, may in like manner now be cast out of them possessed with it, not brought into them, who make a stage [Page 81] of the house of God. What would this author have said had he lived in our age? and known our Cathedrals?

XX. Bernard confesseth it as his sin that he often broke his voice to sing more loud, and was more delighted with the tune he sang, Bernardi med. cap. 11. then regarded any cordial compunction.

XXI. Pope Gregory saw the abuses of singing crept in early,Greg. dec. dist. 92. and anathematized Deacons that should leave their office in preach­ing or distributing alms, to turn singing men.

XXII. Daneus saith,Danei Isag. p. 4. l. 4. cap. 16. P. Mart. in 1 Cor. 14. Tilen. Syntag. p. 1. dis. 49. th. 47, 48, 49. Our singing is a meer corruption of an Ordinance of God, and which hath in it nothing of piety, nor serves for any thing but to tickle the ears. Peter Martyr saith, he cannot see how it can be tolerated. Tilenus sharply damneth it. Aquinas (though a Papist) saith, the Jews Musick was figurative and carnal, and that Musick serves onely for sensual delight, Aq. Sum. 22ae. q. 91. art. 2. ad 3. Tilenus saith of it, what we will not English, Illis arrideat qui magna meretrici supparasitari potius quam Christi­anae simplicitati studere malint. Pareus condemns it in his Com­mentary on 1 Cor. 14.7. And so indeed do the generality of Pro­testant Divines. But least they should be thought too much par­ties; we will conclude with one who vvas no Puritan, for vve think he lived, and died a Papist, though not resolved to ap­prove all he saw and heard in the Romish Synagogue, without any further account; vve vvill take pains to translate what he saith on 1 Cor. 14.

XXIII. Upon the 1 Cor. 14.7. I had rather speak five words, &c. he thus notes.

‘In this business 'tis admirable how the custom of the Church is altered; St. Paul had rather speak five words to be under­stood, then ten thousand [in spiratu] not to be understood. But now in some Countries they sing all day in spirit (i. e. so as none understands them) there's neither measure nor end of singing, vvhen as scarcely in 6. moneths a good Sermon is heard, perswading to true piety (that St. Paul calls speaking in understanding) to say nothing, that in the mean time a kind of Musick is brought in too, to the worship of God, that none can clearly understand any voice. Nor have they that sing any leisure to attend to what they sing. Onely a noise of voices strikes their ears, and pleaseth them with a momentany delight. And this might be born, but that the rout of Priests and Monks place all piety in this, vvonderfully differing from St. Paul; why [Page 82] doth the Church doubt to follow so great an Author? yea, how dare it dissent from him? what else is heard in Colledges, Mo­nasteries, Churches, but a roaring of voices? But in Paul's time there was no singing but pronuntiation meerly. Singing after­wards vvas entertained, but such as was nothing else but a tu­nable and distinct pronouncing of the words. Such as vve use in rehearsing the Lords prayer, and the common people too, under­stood the Language used: now what doth the common people understand but noises signifying nothing? onely a sound strikes their ears? And these things being first received under a species or shew of piety, by degrees came to that, that there was nei­ther end, nor measure of Psalms, Songs, Anthemes, Dirges, &c. that we might see they made proficiency. And which is yet more grievous, Priests are more strictly tied to these things then to the commands of Christ. To hear this the people must be constrained to leave their labour, with vvhich they must main­tain their wives and children (what can be more sacred?) Let Churches have their solemn singings, but moderate. But we that are imployed in private affairs, must be also compelled to these things, and carry about a quire with us in Ships, Coaches, &c. And from the observation of these, or the neglect of them, we are judged godly, or ungodly. Let a man be a greater world­ling then Crassus, a greater reviler then Zoilus, yet is he ac­counted a devout man, because he sings service well, although he understands nothing of it. I beseech you vvhat do these men think of Christ, who think he is pleased with such roarings of voice? Nor are they content with this, but we have also brought into Churches, a laborious, and theatrical musick, a tumultuous pratling of divers voices, such a one as I think was never heard upon any stage amongst the Graecians or Romanes. All places roar with Trumpets, Pipes, Cornets, Dulcimers, and with these mens voices are mixed; Love songs, and other filthy songs, (to which vvhores and mimicks dance) are heard. People run to Church as to a stage to tickle their ears; and for this use are bred Organists, and Choristers, and maintained at great charge: children's age is spent in learning such pratling, while in the mean time they learn nothing that good is. A rabble of sorbid and light persons is bred, and the Church is loaded with the maintenance of them, and that too for a pesti­lent imployment. I beseech you, do but count how many poor [Page 83] people ready to famish, might be maintained with the salaries of these Singing-men? These things do so please them, that among the Brittains (especially) the Monks do nothing else. Those vvhose singing should be mourning, think God is ap­peased with their lascivious neighings and moveable throats. For this purpose also, boyes, and striplings, and Artists in sing­ing are bred up amongst the Brittains, for the nonce (forsooth) to sing a fine-tuned Song, and so play a lesson on the Organs to the holy Virgin-Mother. And the Bishops are constrained at their houses to breed up and maintain such Choristers, And [the Monks] wholly taken up with these things, never understand any learning, nor any thing in which true Religion consisteth. Now those that have thick-pates, and cannot learn Musick, think they do not do their duty on an holy-day, if they do not use a scurvy kind of singing, which they call Jauburdum, that neither recites any thing prescribed, nor keeps any harmony of Art. Add to this, that whereas sober Musick was brought into the Church, that the thing Sang might more affect the hearers mind, they think it a brave thing, if one or other of them, can roar, or bellow so loud, that none can hear a word. In this they indulge fools affections, and provide for their own bellies, Why should these things onely please us? which Paul would have sparingly used (according to the fancy of little ones) yea, which St. Paul would never have indured? he speaks of Sacred reading, not of Stage-play-singing. Let us sing in the spirit, but let us sing Christian-like, let us sing sparingly, rather let us sing with the heart, let us speak with tongues, but seldom, let us prophecy more studiously. Let rather be heard the voice of the Preacher, reproving the conscience, comforting the dejected, quickning drousie souls, opening the Sacred Spirits mysteries, and let tender age be rather spent in these things.’

Thus far that learned man, though a professed Papist, concern­ing the usefulness of our Cathedral Musick and singing, after he had had a large experiment of it.

XXIV. To shut up this Discourse, We say, That Musick is an excellent Gift of God, that God under the old dispensation of the New Covenant, appointed it to be used in his worship, as prefigura­tive (saith Aquinas, Willet, Zepperus) of our making Melody in our hearts to the Lord under the Gospel, or of that sweet peace of Conscience which flows to the Soul, upon the exercise of Faith in [Page 84] Christ. Or rather, as one of those Carnal Ordinances, which the Apostle saith the first Temple had, Heb. 9. as they also had ter­rene and earthly Promises (as Aquinas saith.) In the time of Refor­mation by Christ, neither he nor his Apostles used or appointed any; nor did the Primitive Church: Justin Martyr in his time accounted it Judaizing, so did Aquinas, within these 500 years: So that it is a perfect Innovation, without any pretence of Institu­tion, or any ancient Tradition, grossely abused to wantonness and Superstition. The Magdeburgenses tell us, Ambrose was against all Musick any where, pudicitia gratiâ, because he saw it served for lust, for the most part. To maintain the use of it, the Church reve­nue; were consumed, in nourishing singing Boyes and singing men, Choristers, Masters of Musick, Organists, and many of these were, and are prophine, beastly persons, and no profit at all arose from it, but the peoples understanding confounded, with insigni­ficant noises, and their ears only tickled with air. People came to Church, saith Erasmus, as to a Stage-play, and went away (or­dinarily) saith Hospinian, assoon as the Musick (for which alone they came) was over. Infinite Sums of money were spent about Organs. Zonaras tels us, that Michael, Emperor of Constantino­ple, made Organs of Gold; and Bruschius in his Discourses of the Monasteries of Germany, tels us of an Abbot that made a pair of Organs, whose greatest Pipe was 28 Foot long, and 4 Spans about. Upon all these considerations, and after all this experience, and the joynt Suffrage of all Protestants, and many sober Papists, in condemning this course, what shall we say, to hear a Protestant Bi­shop pleading for them, and fastning such a charge as he doth, upon all those that would have them removed out of the Church? VVe can say nothing, but, The Lord lay it not to his charge.

Chrastonius Polonus, in proxi de Cerem. & car. Missa thef. 41.42.XXV. Andreus Chrastonius, a Polonian, (who is cited by Di­doclavius in Alt. Damasc. c. 8.) thus determines in this case; ‘It ordinarily comes to pass, that peoples ears (once accustomed to this Musick) disdain to hear the Word of God, and those things which the Church ought to have repeated with the mouth for a testimony of her Faith, and for Edification, are commit­ted to dumb and irrational Organ-pipes. With the Mouth, not with Trumpets: &c. is Confession made to salvation. Whence it is that Divines teach, that these things hinder, not profit Priests according to the Order of Melchisedech. That they are more fit for the Aaronical Order, the time it self sheweth, where­in [Page 85] they first began to be used in Sacred Offices: For Bellarmine himself confesseth, that they first began to be used in the time of Pope Vitalian, but he brings no reason why none of them were used either in the Apostles, or in Constantines time: For if they began to be used after the year 660. or 820. we must be­lieve, that humane nature had a great wrong, in that for so ma­ny years it did not apply this Faculty to the praise of God. For we believe the Apostles loved Christ with all their hearts. The former and more religious ages had weak ones too, though no Organs were used to help them. I know not whether they en­crease or diminish tediousness: For men seldom see those Mu­sical Masters godly, and those Instruments with their length, are troublesom to such as sing with the voice. Let the matter be as it will, I affirm, that Bellar▪ with his distinction of Ceremonies, could not answer P. Martyrs reason against these. For as the offering of bloudy Sacrifices, though common both to the Jews and Hea­thens, was taken away by Christs Bloud on the Cross, as unsui­table to the Priesthood after the Order of Melchizedech; so though the Heathens used these Instruments in the Solemnities of their Idols (as Nebuchadnezzar in the Dedication of his Image) yet these were convenient only for the Jewish, Ceremonial wor­ship, &c.’

XXVI. But the truth is, all that can be pretended for Church-Musick, is the Authority of the Church, to add what Ceremonies she pleaseth to the worship of God; which we must speak som­thing to in the next Chapter: Though neither can Church-Musick come under that Notion, for it is a perfect Service of it self, not alwaies appendant to singing, and is so used, a perfect Post set up by Gods Posts; an Ordinance of mans added to the Ordinances of God for his Worship, which our souls shall desire to take heed of.

CHAP. XVI. The Bishops Reasons for the English Ceremonies, considered. The Churches Power about Ceremonies, examined. No Principle to be maintained to death. Archbishop Parkers Opinion of humane Ceremonies. Reasons against them.

I. VVE are come to the last thing which we shall take no­tice of in the Bishops Book; and that is his zealous Assertion of the Churches power in appointing Ceremonies and Cir­cumstances of Divine Worship: This is indeed the root of all, the Pandora's Box, the very Fountain head of all those Impositions, which have bred so much trouble, disturbance and persecutions in the Church of God. Let us first see how the Bishop asserts it.

II. He tels us, That the last shock of popular envy which the in­nocent and excellent Lyturgy of England was wont to bear, was from the Ceremonies. For which, the summe of his Plea is this;

1. That they are few.

2. Retained as signal marks of Faith, or Humility, or Purity, or Courage, or Constancy.

3. Not as Sacramental Signs conferring Grace, but meerly as vi­sible Tokens, apt by a sensible sign to affect the understanding with som­thing worthy of its thoughts, as signified thereby.

4. St. Augustine was no enemy to them.

5. They are established by the Lawes of Church and State.

6. They fall not under the Second, but the Third, Fourth and Fifth Command.

7. They are like Cloaths, fitted to our Bodies, and Perwicks to our Head, and Tunes to our Pslams.

8. They do not burden any Conscience.

9. It is most true, and undeniably to be maintained, even unto the death. That this National Church, as well others, hath from the Word of God Liberty, Power and Authority, within its own Polity and Bounds to judge of what seemeth to it most orderly and decent, as to any Ceremony or Circumstance in the Worship of God, which the Lord hath [Page 87] left unconfined, free, and indifferent in its own nature, and only to be confined, or regulated, by every such Ecclesiastical polity within it self, &c.

III. We must in our examination of this Harangue of discourse, crave leave to alter his Lordships method, and to begin with the last thing first; for if the Lord hath left to the Church or State, no such power at large, or if it be bounded by some general rules to be observed in the exercise, which are not observed in some particular impositions, all the former pleas, that they are few, sig­nal marks, &c. not Sacramental sign, &c. come to just nothing. Yet we cannot but observe, how the Bishop hath provided a way to light upon his legs (say what we will.) For it cannot be denied but the Church hath a full power from the Word of God, within its own polity and bounds, to judge of what seemeth to it most orderly and decent, as to any circumstance in the worship of God, which the Lord hath left unconfined, free and indifferent in its own nature. And only to be confined or regulated by every such Ecclesiastical Polity within it self. i.e. The Lord hath left that to be regulated by the Church, which he hath left to be regulated by the Church. A most mo­mentous, and undoubted truth! never denied by any. But that is not the question: This is the question; Whether it be the will of God, that the Church should regulate and determine, all things which the Word of God hath left indifferent as to his worship; or, whether God by leaving them indifferent, hath not declared his will that the Church should so leave them too?

IV. Yet were the first part determined affirmatively, it would not reach the mark, for it would then be queried, Whether the particular Ceremonies appointed for us, be such, considering the let­ter of the Scripture, or the circumstances of those Ceremonies, with the reason, and consequents of Scripture Text, that they (under those circumstances considered) can be lookt upon as indifferent yea or no.

V. The Bishop is yet confounding us with the complicated notion of the Authority of the Church and State. In England there are no Ceremonies established by any other authority then that of the State, w^ch having called together some Ecclesiastical persons, heard their advice, and by a Law established some Rites and Ceremonies, to which no soul is otherwise obliged, then to a State-constitution.

VI. That the Word of God hath left many things (not pos­sible to be determined by it) to the Authority of the Christian Magistrate, cannot be denied; whether any Ceremonies or no, is [Page 88] a question, diverse circumstances relating to the worship of God, are undoubtedly so left. These are such as relate to order and decency, i. e. without which the worship of God cannot be orderly and decently performed, and do chiefly relate to time and place, (the ordinary adjuncts of humane actions.) Thus we freely grant that the Civil power, or the Church (orderly assembled) may determine, at what hours on the Lords day, the Congregation shall meet, as also it shall determine particular times for fasting or thanksgiving, as Gods providence shall administer occasions; that places of publique worship, shall be erected, frequented, kept decent, and an hundred things of that nature, which even reason and nature it self teacheth all sober persons to be such, as that without some order to be observed in them, the worship of God, either would not be performed, or would be undecently performed.

VII. But that either any Church or Civil Authority, shall be absolute judges of order, and decency, and that whatsoever of this nature shall be commanded by them, shall therefore be judged decent, and orderly, because they say so; and their commands shall oblige mens consciences in things of this nature, where the word of God is silent, will want some proof before it be credited.

VIII. Or, that they have power, to command and impose such things, under the notion of order and decency, which have been grosly abused to idolatry and superstition, or at which pious people have for a long time declared themselves scandalized, or which have any remarkable appearance of evil in them; is so grosly false, that it needs no confutation, for they themselves are command­ed, To abstain from all appearance of evil, to give no offence either to Jew or Gentile.

IX. Nor is it true, that they have any authority to appoint significative Ceremonies, where are sensible signs to affect the under­standing. This is to give them authority to institute Sacraments, God hath appointed us Ordinances, where by sensible signs, spiritual mysteries are represented to us. These are his Sacraments, we know no authority men have to add to them, though they avoid the Po­pish rock, of their conferring grace, which we say no true Sacrament doth ex opere operato.

X. Now for any such Ceremonies as these, we crave leave to dissent from the Bishop, let them be never so few, imposed under what specious pretence they will, let who will be for them, and let them be established how they will, we believe them reduci­ble [Page 89] to no command, but certainly and justly burthensom to any tender conscience. No vvayes like clothes fitted to our bodies, (because not any way necessary) not like tunes for Pslams, because the worship of God might be decently enough performed without them. They may for ought we know be as good as perukes, [or pe­riwigs] to make a specious shew of devotion for them, the bald­ness of whose hearts stands in need of such things to dissemble them to the world.

XI. If the Bishop thinks that the Churches power to establish such Ceremonies, be a principle to death to be asserted. We dare say he is the first Confessor that Doctrine ever had, and (which God forbid) should he ever seal such a cause with his blood, we should think he deserved no better Epitaph, then, Hic jacet, Protomartyr Gregorianus, cui parem Ecclesia Christiana nunquam prius habuit, nec posthac unquam habeat. Was there ever heard of any yet that died in the defence of a Churches right to institute in the Church what it pleased, so as it was such as Gods Word did not forbid? Tell it not in Gath, O publish it not in the tent of Askelon.

XII. Let us hear Arch-Bishop Parkers opinion in this case, he lived in darker times, then ours are, but yet is seems had more Gospel-light, or a more Gospel Spirit; he was consecrated 1559.

Having told us of Augustine the Monk's eagerness (even beyond his Mr. Pope Grogories directions) to bring in the Romish Liturgy and Ceremonies in England, which yet he could not do,Antiq. Ecclas. Britan. cap. 17. (without the blood of 1200 Monks that opposed him.) He thus bewailes that first Prelates fury.

‘And truly (saith he) that contention then stirred up by Au­gustine, about bringing in the Popish Ceremonies or Rites, which could not then be appeased, without the blood and slaughter of many innocent Brittains, hath reached unto our times, with the like destruction and slaughter of Christians. For when men by those pompous Ceremonies departed from the pure simplicity of the primitive Church, they took no great care for holiness of life, for the preaching of the Gospel, for the comforts and efficacy of the holy Spirit, but they raised new contentions every day, about new Ceremonies added by several Popes, who thought none worthy of any great place, who did not bring in some new Ceremonious, (that I may not say) monstrous, unheard of, and unusual thing, and so they fil­led both Schools, and Pulpits with tales, and brablings: The [Page 90] primitive Church was more simple, and white, with the intire and inward worship of God, prescribed in his word; she was not splendid with garments, nor adorned with magnificent buildings, nor shining with gold, silver, and precious stones.’ —‘But the Romish Church, even in that great St. Augustines time, was so overgrown with Ceremonies, that he complained, that the condition of Christians, in respect of the multitude of Rites, and Ceremonies, was vvorse then that of the Jews, who though they acknowledged not their time of liberty, yet vvere subjected only to Rites appointed by Gods Law, not to humane presumptions, for they used fewer Ceremonies, then the Chri­stians in Gods worship. But had he perceived vvhat heapes vvere after added by several Popes, I believe that he, vvho then saw the evil of them in the Church, vvould have set some Chri­stian bound to them. For vve see that the Church is nor yet free from that contention about Ceremonies; but men otherwise learned, and pious, contend and quarrel about Vestments and such trifles, in a more brawling, and military, then Philosophi­cal, or Christian manner.’ This vvorthy person vvould hardly have died in defence of a power to appoint Ceremonies.

XIII. But suppose it vvere not per se, unlawful for the State, or Church, to appoint some mystical and significant Ceremonies: yet may all such things be done without any regard at all to cir­cumstances? St. Paul saith, All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient, all things are lawful, but all things edifie not. And we have heard such a maxime, as, Quicquid non expedit, in quantum non expedit, non licet. Every thing that is not expedient, so far as 'tis inexpedient, is unlawful. St. Paul determined the eating of flesh, and many other things inexpedient, by reason of the offence, and the scandal those things would have given, supposing any Ceremonies to have been used by idolaters; and that the former use of them hath proved a continual scandal to many good Chri­stians, and bred a continual division in the Church, and if re­stored, that the scandal will be ten times greater then ever, and the sufferings of innocent souls for non-conformity to them, an hundred times more than ever:Quaeritis quo­modo vincun­tur Pagani [...] de­scrite eorum ritus, &c. are they yet lawful? or desirable? or is it worth the dying to maintain the Churches power as to the establishing such Ceremonies? The Father of old we know thought the best way to convert the heathens, was to have nothing to do with their Rites, &c. And is not this the likeliest way to convince the [Page 91] Romish idolaters? at least to keep our souls clear of their guilt?

XIV. 'Tis true; The number of Ceremonies retained in our Church, pretending to any legal authority, is but small: The Surplis, the Cross, and kneeling at Sacrament, are (we think) all;See more of this point a­bout Ceremo­nies in Altare Damascenum. A dispute a­bout the En­glish Popish Ceremonies. Dr. Ames his fresh suit a­gainst Cere­monies, in all which this point about Ceremonies is execellently handled. but we know how grosly all these are abused by the Papists, that none of them have any footing in Scripture; that kneeling as Sa­crament was never heard of in the Church till 1226. in Pope Ho­norius his time, admirably fitted to their idolatry of Transubstan­tiation. That they grosly make the Cross an Idol. That the Surplis is made significant of many things, for which we can see no ground at all; that all these have been strenuously opposed, by as holy and learned men as any our Church hath bred: That the patern of all Synods Acts 15. thought fit to impose only some few necessary things for the state of the Church at that time. That the urging of these Ceremonies, hath been the cause of sad separati­ons, the loss of diverse learned and holy mens ministry: The of­fence of the generality of pious people. That the imployment of the Ecclesiastical Courts, was almost wholly taken up about Mini­sters and people not conforming to these, instead of admonish­ing, suspending, excommunicating, scandalous and debaucht Mi­nisters and people, &c.

XV. We know further, that though there be no more Ceremonies established by Law as yet, yet there are many probationers, such as bowing at the Name of Jesus, bowing to the Altar, saying second Service, (much like the Popish in Secreto's, which the people must not hear) and what not almost? And we can see no reason, but the Churches power, if allowed to appoint any (save only such with­out which the Service of God, would apparently to all rational men, be performed indecently & disorderly) may appoint hundreds.

XVI. Nor is it prudence (could such a power he allowed to State or Church) for either of them in such cases, to do all that they may in strictness be proved to have a power to do. Many men think that the State hath power in any civil things by Laws, to oblige the consciences of Subjects to do any things not forbidden in Gods Word: and doubtless the States power, in such kind of Laws▪ is far less disputable, then in the case of Ceremonies relating to the worship of God. Yet the wisdom of all States, restrains them from enjoyning people by their Laws, to do such kind of things, for the doing of which, rational persons may not see a just reason of the Law, as either urging some Law of God, or tending to a [Page 92] manifest publique, or private good. No State yet ever busied themselves, or tied their Subjects by making Laws, to command all their Subjects to wear Turbants, or a thousand such things, which would apparently signifie nothing of profit or advantage to the State, nor yet to particular persons, it where the way to bring their authority into contempt.

XVII. We would fain know, of what use, or profit, any of these Ceremonies are, we look upon them as things that perish with the using, and upon that account by no means reasonable (if other­wise lawful) for the grave Authority of a Church, or State to inter­pose in. And we hope God will thus far convince the Authority un­der which we are, that they will not for these husks of Ceremonies, destroy those many thousand Souls in England (who cannot conform to them) for whom yet Christ died. And we are most humbly thankful to His most-Excellent Majesty. for the indulgence, as to them, which he hath granted to us, through which, we can yet speak to our people that they may be saved: how long we shall enjoy this breathing time; the only all-knowing God can tell. We are sensible enough how much others envy it; we shall onely say (as Calvin once of Luther) We wish they would use their heat against the known enemies of God (such as are drunkards, blasphemers, unclean persons, cursers, swearers, &c.) rather then against the servants of the living God, who shall one day judge betwixt them and us; and who (as it is very probable) would more approve that zeal, then this fury.