Section 2

After this overflowing of your gall, you descend to the two main subjects of this quarrel, Liturgy, and Episcopacy. I had truly said that our Liturgy has been hitherto esteemed sacred, reverently used by holy Martyrs, frequented by devout Protestants, as that which has been confirmed by Edicts of religious Princes, and our own Parliamentary Acts. And has it so? say you; From where then proceed so many Additions and Alterations, that have changed the face, and fabric thereof? Additions and Alterations? What in the present Liturgy? where or what? Tell me, I beseech you brethren, are they visible, or are they not? If not, how come you to see them? if so, why cannot we? Perhaps somewhere instead of Priest, there is Minister; perhaps Absolution is interpreted by a Remission; perhaps in private baptism, there is mention of a lawful Minister; perhaps instead of Purification of women, there is Thanksgiving. And can you know the Book when you see it again, after these Alterations, these Additions? Is it not now with this mis-altered Liturgy, as with the disguised Dames, mentioned of old by Doctor Hall, (whom you name, I dare say, for honor's sake) so misshapen by their monstrous fashions, that their revived Grandsires could not now know them? Can you but blush at this envious and groundless suggestion?

And why should not I speak of Martyrs, as the Authors and users of this holy Liturgy? Why should not we glory in their name and Authority? Slight you them as you please, we bless God for such Patrons of our good cause. What a poor return is this? While I tell you what our holy Martyrs did, You tell me what one of our Bishops said; As if we were bound to make good every word that falls from the mouth of every Bishop. Even of the best man we may say as the Psalmist does of Moses, effutiit labiis, he spoke unadvisedly with his lips. As for the words themselves; If a Bishop have said, that our Liturgy has been so wisely and charitably framed, as that the Devotion of it yields no cause of offence to a very Pope's ear, as only aiming at an uncontroversial Piety, I see not what heinous fault can herein be imputed to the speech, or the Author. Would you think it requisite that we should chide, and quarrel when we speak to the God of Peace?

It is no little advantage therefore both to our cause and Piety, that our Liturgy is taught to speak several Languages, both for use and example; and thereby our Church has gained much justification and honor. As for that sharp censure of learned Mr. Calvin's, Tolerabiles ineptiae, however it might well have been forborne by him, In alienâ republicâ; and by you, to press it upon our own; we honor the name of that noble instrument of God's glory in his Church, yet withal, we fear not to say, without any disparagement to his worth, That our Liturgy both in the frame, and survey of it, passed the judgment of no less reverend heads than his own. Neither would you think it could become any of our greatest Divines, to meddle with the wafers, or Lord's-day markets of his charge; let every Church take care of their own affairs.

As for that unparalleled discourse of mine, concerning the Antiquity of Liturgies; Unparalleled, you say, because no man, that you have seen, ever drew the line of Liturgy so high as I have done. I must tell you, that perhaps there may be some things in the world, that may have escaped your not-omniscient eyes, and perhaps this may be one. I cannot help your wonder, but I shall justify my own Assertion. In the meantime, you do almost yield the question, before you argue it. If by Liturgy (you say) this Remonstrant understand an Order observed in Church assemblies, of praying, reading, and expounding the Scriptures, administration of Sacraments, etc. Such a Liturgy we know, and acknowledge, both Jews and Christians have used. This yielded, what do you stick at? That there were prescribed, and set forms composed by particular men in the Church, and imposed upon the rest, this will not go down with you. Wherein I cannot see, how you will avoid your own contradiction; For I demand: Is this order of praying and administration set, or no? If it be not set, how is it an order? And if it be a set order both for matter and form (for you cannot, I suppose, under the name of an order, intend a mere Table, or Rubric) how can it be other, than prescribed? If the forms were merely arbitrary, to what use was the prescription of an Order? And, if they were not arbitrary, certainly they were in some sort set and imposed.

But what a poor exception is this? that they were composed by some particular men. Was it ever heard that a whole Church together framed a form of prayer? Can one uniform expression be the original act of many thousand brains, and tongues? Certainly, some one, or few, must mold that, which all shall both own and use. It is a silly ostentation of Antiquity, that these men bring against these prescribed forms of Liturgy.

Tertullian in his Apology, Chapter 30, says, The Christians of those times did in their Assemblies pray for the Emperor, Sine monitore, quia de pectore; that is, not being urged by any superior injunction, but freely out of the loyal inclination of their own hearts. (You mistranslate it, Without any prompter but their own hearts.) What is this to a prescribed form? Or if they will needs so take it, why do they not as well argue, That because our Ministers do ordinarily in their Pulpits pray for the King in their own expressions, therefore there is no form of Liturgy enjoined? As for their other testimony, it is less to the purpose. Who ever denied that some things are to be asked according to every man's occasion? Do we abridge this liberty by ordaining a public form? And if the Lord's Prayer be yielded for an ordinary and set form, why not others? Since the opposers of set forms, do, upon the same grounds, decry that also. Saint Augustine says, it is free to ask the same things that are desired in the Lord's Prayer, aliis atque aliis verbis, (in other ways of expression) who ever doubted of it? Yet themselves will not dare to hold, that in Saint Augustine's time, there was no public Liturgy; this is but to mock the Reader.

If Justin Martyr said, that [in non-Latin alphabet] (whom they somewhat guiltily translate, The Instructor of the people) prayed (as they falsely turn it) according to his ability: It is true. So do ours, and yet God be thanked we have a Liturgy, and so had they. Neither is this liberty of pouring out ourselves in our prayers ever the more impeached by a public form, since both those may, and do well stand together.

It is somewhat magisterially said by these men, that set and imposed forms were not introduced, till the Arian and Pelagian heresies did invade the Church; and as Clerkly do they immediately confute themselves, by their own testimonies cited out of the Council of Laodicea, which was before their limited time, as being before the Nicene: and between that and the Neocesarean. Nothing can be more full than the Canon of that ancient Synod, that the same Liturgy of prayers should be always used both in morning and evening. Yet to mend the matter, this (say they) was a form of a man's own prescribing: were it so, wherein is that the better? But how appears it? By another Canon in a following Council, which was the third Council of Carthage, cap. 23. As if Carthage meant to tell what was before done at Laodicea. And what say the Fathers at Carthage? That in assisting at the Altar (so are their words) the Prayer should be directed to the Father, & quicunque sibi preces aliunde describit: that is, whoever shall offer to make use of any other form than is prescribed, should first confer with his more learned brethren: plainly implying the contrary to that, for which the Answerers allege it, that the usual and allowed form was not of his own composing; and his own must not be at his own choice. That of the Milevitane Council is shuffled up by the Answerers, not with too much fidelity, for where they pretend the only drift of the Council to be, that none should use set prayers, but such as were approved of in the Synod, the words of the Council are full and affirmative, Placuit ut preces, it is ordered that the prayers or orisons which are allowed in the Synod, &c. shall be used or celebrated by all men; nec aliae omnino dicantur, and that no other shall be used in the Church, than those, &c. approved in a Synod; adding a sound reason, ne forte aliquid, &c. lest perhaps something may be composed by them, through ignorance, or want of care, contrary to the Faith.

Nothing can be more plain than that our Saviour prescribed to his Disciples (besides the rules) a direct form of Prayer, while he says, Pray thus: much of which form I find cited, as of ancient use, out of the Seder Tephilloth of the Jews of Portugal, the antiquity of which, as not knowing how I might avow, I expressed myself (within three days of the first impression) in the safe terms of the immediate edition; which these men will not be pleased to take notice of, lest they should find their mouths to be stopped before-hand; and so they should have lost their dear quarrel. However, that it may not seem too strange, that our Saviour should take up the forms, and usages, that had formerly obtained; surely, that he was pleased to make use, in the celebration of his last, and [reconstructed: heavenly] banquet, of both the fashions, and words which were usual in the Jewish feasts, Cassander has well shown in his Liturgica.

The set forms of prayer, that were used at the Mincha, and other the several occasions of the Jewish sacrifices, I find specified by learned Capellus in his Spicilegium, to whom I refer the reader.

In the mean while, since they make such wonder of a set form, used by God's people, ever since Moses his time, I shall give them such a hint thereof, as perhaps they have not heard of before: in the Samaritan Chronicle, now in the hands of the incomparable Primate of Ireland, the Lord Archbishop of Armagh, by him procured out of the Library of the famously learned Jos. Scaliger, thus they shall find, after relation of the death of Adrian the Emperor (whom these Jews curse with a Deus conterat ejus ossa) which in their computation falls upon the year 4513 from Adam; Quo tempore abstulit, &c. At which time say they, he took away that most excellent book which was in their hands, ever since the calm and peaceable times of the Israelites, which contained those songs, and prayers, which were ever used before their sacrifices; for before every of their several sacrifices; they had their several songs, still used in those times of peace; all which accurately written, were transmitted to the subsequent generations, from the time of Moses, (the Legat) to this day, by the ministry of the high Priest. This Book, did that high Priest embezzle, wherein was contained their Genealogies, to the days of Phinehas, together with a historical narration of the years of their generation, and life; than which book, there is no history besides the Books of Moses, found more ancient. Thus that ancient Record.

That there were such forms in the Jewish Church we doubt not, but that they should be deduced to the use of the Evangelical Church, to save the labour of their devotions, is but a poor and groundless requisition.

Those forms which we have under the names of St. James, (who was, as Egesippus tells us, the first Bishop and Liturgus of Jerusalem) of Basil, and Chrysostom, though they have some intersertions which are plainly spurious, yet the substance of them cannot be taxed for other than holy, and ancient: and the implication of the ancient Council of Ancyra is worthy of observation, which forbids those Presbyters that had once sacrificed, [in non-Latin alphabet] to offer, or to preach, or to serve in the holy Liturgies, or administrations. However, I persuade myself every candid reader finds reason and authority enough in this undeniable practice of antiquity, to out-face an upstart conceit, of some giddy heads, that condemn all forms of prayer, (be they never so holy) because such.

Now what should a man do with such sullen and crabbed pieces as these? If he crosses them in plain terms, he is false? If he complies with them in good words, he rhetorically postures? What have I professed concerning conceived prayers, but that which I ever allowed, ever practiced, both in private, and public? God is a free Spirit, and so should ours be in pouring out our voluntary devotions, upon all occasions; nothing hinders, but that this liberty, and a public Liturgy should be good friends, and may go hand in hand together; and whoever would forcibly sever them, let them bear their own blame. I perceive, this is it which these touchy men quarrel, and dislike, that I make the applause of conceived prayer, but a vantage-ground to lift up the public form of our sacred Church Liturgy the higher; which they are indeed loath should stand upon even terms, indeed above ground, professedly wrangling, first, at the original, then the confirmation of it. For the first, I had said our Liturgy was selected out of ancient models; including in a parenthesis, [not Roman, but Christian] and thereby signifying (as any ingenuous reader would construe it) that our said Liturgy had no relation either to the place, or religion of Rome, but only to the Christian and holy matter of those godly prayers. Now these charitable men fly out into high terms, and beseech your Honors to consider, how you may trust these men, who sometimes speaking, and writing of the Roman Church, proclaim it a true Church of Christ, and yet here, Roman and Christian stand in opposition — ignorantly, or maliciously? When any man may see here is not an opposition meant, but a different modification: as when the Prophet says, I am a worm, and no man, or the Apostle, It is no more I, but sin, or I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me: neither is any phrase more common in our usual speech. In what sense we hold the Roman, a true Church, is so cleared by the unanimous suffragies of unquestionable divines, that this iron is too hot for their fingers. Being then thus qualified, our Liturgy needs not be either ashamed of its original, (published in King Edward's proclamation) or blanked with their unjust aggravation.

The composers of it we still glory to say, were holy Martyrs, and Confessors of the blessed Reformation of Religion; and if any rude hand have dared to cast a foul aspersion on any of them, he is none of the tribe I plead for, I leave him to the reward of his own merits. Thus composed, and thus confirmed by the recommendation of four most religious Princes, and our own Parliamentary Acts, they dare not absolutely discharge it; but they do as they may, nibble at it in a double exception. The one of the over-rigorous pressing of it, to the jostling out of Preaching, and conceived Prayer, which was never intended either by the law-makers, or moderate governors of the Church. The other, that neither our own laws, nor King James his proclamation are so unalterable as the laws of the Medes and Persians. Which bold affront, how well it becomes their gravity, and pretended obedience, we leave at either bar.

After an over-comprehensive recapitulation of their exploits in this mighty section, they descend to two main questions, whereof the first is, whether it be not fit to consider of the alteration of the present Liturgy; intimating herein, not an alteration in some few expressions, excepted against, but a total alteration in the very frame of it, as their reasons import. Yes doubtless, sirs, you may consider of it; it is none of the laws of the Medes and Persians. What if the weak judgment of King James, upon some pretended reasons, decreed all forbearance of any further change? What if that silly and ignorant Martyr, Doctor Taylor, could magnify it to Bishop Gardner, and others, as complete? What if great eulogies and apologies have been cast away upon it, by learned men, since that time? What if innovations in religion be cried out of, as not to be endured? Yet consider of the alteration — neither need you to doubt but that this will be considered by wiser heads than your own — and whatever shall be found in the manner of the expressions fit to be changed, will doubtless be altered accordingly; but the main fabric of it, which your reasons drive at, my hope is we shall never see to undergo an alteration. Yet still do you consider of this your projected alteration, while I consider shortly of the great reasons of your consideration.

First, it symbolizes much with the Popish Mass — surely neither as Mass, nor as Popish. If a holy prayer be found in a Roman Portuise, shall I hate it for the place? If I find gold in the channel, shall I throw it away because it was ill laid? If the devils confessed Christ the Son of God, shall I disclaim that truth, because it passed through a damned mouth? Why should we not rather allow those good prayers, which symbolize with all Christian piety, than reject those which dwell among some superstitious neighbors?

It was composed, you say, into this frame, on purpose to bring Papists to our churches. Well, had it been so, the project had been charitable, and gracious. What can be more thankworthy, than to reclaim erring souls? But it failed in the success. Pardon me, brethren; if it had done so, it was neither the fault of the matter, or of the men; but it did not. Sir Edward Coke can tell you, that till the eleventh year of Queen Elizabeth, all came to church: those times knew no Recusant then. At last, the Jesuitish casuists, finding their great disadvantage by the inoffensive use of our Liturgy, determined it utterly unlawful to join in church-service with heretics. Hence came this alienation, hence this distraction, that we have not won more; it is not the fault of our public devotion, why do you not impute it to the want, or weakness in preaching rather? But that our Liturgy has lost any to the Popish part, it is not more paradox than slander.

Those stumbling blocks which you say our Liturgy lays before the feet of many, are by many removed, and among the rest, by a blind man, whose eyeless head directed how to avoid those blocks, which these quick-sights will needs see how to stumble at. But if there be found anything that may endanger a scandal, it is under careful hands to remove it.

It is idolized, they say, in England; they mean at Amsterdam; some Separatists have made it such; never any just Protestant. Others say rather that too many do injuriously make an idol of preaching; shall we therefore consider of abandoning it? And if some one have passed a hyperbolic praise of it, must it therefore be marred in mending?

Multitudes of people (they say) distaste it; more shame for those that have so mistaught them; (would God too much multitude did not, through ill teaching, distaste the truth of wholesome doctrine, and abhor communion with the true Church of Christ) shall we to humor them, abandon both?

There is a vast difference, (they say) between it and the liturgies of all other reformed churches. A difference? Wherein? Not in the essential points, but in some accidents, and outward formalities; whose fault is that? Ours was before theirs; why did not they conform to us, rather than we come back to them? I may boldly say, ours was, and is the more noble church; and therefore more fit to lead, than to follow. But indeed since our languages, and regions are different; what need is there, our liturgies should be one? And why should we be more tied to their forms, than those of all other Christians, Greeks, Armenians, Copts, Abyssinians, Arabians, Egyptians? All which differ in no less from each other, than we from them. Consider now, brethren, whether these reasons of a change be worthy of any consideration.

The second question is so weak, that I wonder it could fall from the pens of wise men; whether the first reformer of religion did ever intend the use of a liturgy, further than to be a help in the want, and to the weakness of the minister. Brethren, can you think that our reformers had any other intentions than all other the founders of liturgies, through the whole Christian, yes and Jewish church? The least part of whose care was the help of the minister's weakness, and their main purpose the help of the people's devotion, that they knowing beforehand the matter that should be prayed for, and the words with which it should be clothed, might be the more prepared to join their hearts to the minister's tongue, and be so much more intent upon their devotion, as they had less need to be distracted with the doubtful expectation of the matter, or words to be delivered.

It is no less boldly than untruly said, that all other churches reformed, though they use liturgies, do not bind their ministers to the use of them. [Binding] is an ambiguous word; I am sure both the French, and Dutch, churches (in both which I have been present) require their prescribed forms, to be used both in baptism, and in celebration of the Lord's Supper, and in solemnization of matrimony. And in what rank will they place the Lutheran churches? And if the reformed churches use this liberty, what a poor handful are they to that world of Christian churches abroad, which do both use and enjoin their liturgy, in that first form we have seen urged in the Milevan Council?

The rubric in King Edward's book is misconstrued, which only out of respect to the people's ease, and their more willing dedication to the hearing of sermons, (which were then so much more long as they were more rare) gave that liberty to ministers in the use of the liturgy, which various bishops at this day (upon my certain knowledge) have often yielded to. That rubric imports no more than our practice; neither of them disparages our liturgy.

The homilies are left free (they say) to be read or not, by preaching ministers; why not then the liturgy? And if it can be thought no less than sacrilege to rob the people of the minister's gift in preaching, and to tie him to homilies, it can be no less to deprive them of their gift in prayer. Did we utterly abridge all ministers of the public use of any extemporaneous prayer, on what occasion soever, the argument might hold force against us; but, that being yielded, our liturgy is untouched. Neither were it a lesser sacrilege to rob the people of a set form, by the liberty of a free expression. And how does this argument strike us more than all the churches of the Christian world, whose preaching is out of their conception, while their liturgy is enjoined?

It is a false ground, that the imposing of the book ties godly men from exercising their gift in prayer. An enjoined liturgy may well stand with the freedom of an extemporaneous prayer. The desk is no hindrance to the pulpit. He is wanting in his duty, that slackens either service.

Much less can this be any reason to keep men from their presence at our church service, that a Liturgy is imposed. Tell me, is this Liturgy good or evil? If it be evil, it is unlawful to be used; if good, it is not unlawful to be imposed: and were the imposition amiss, what is that to the people? It is imposed upon the minister; that whether act, or passion rests in him, the people are no more concerned in it, than if a minister should tie himself to the use of a prayer of his own making, (as I have known some of the most famous divines of this Kingdom constantly do:) if then there be no way left to recover the people to a prescribed prayer but by leaving it free to use, or not to use, O miserably misled people, whom nothing it seems can reclaim, (after such doctrine instilled) but a professed confusion! Well may they object to themselves in this way, divisions and disturbances, following upon a perfect deformity; and sooner may they object than avoid them. But why more here (they say) than in other Reformed Churches? The difference is evident: our churches have never been but used to a settled Liturgy, which the ears and hearts of our people look for; theirs, perhaps, began without it: yet so, as I doubt not but if any man should now refuse to conform to their established forms, he should soon feel the force of their censures. The like answer serves for their objected homilies; surely were they enjoined to all, by lawful authority, and made so familiar to the ears of every congregation, as the Liturgy is, some few could not forbear them without offence; while also, they should be allowed the helps of preaching: as in this case it is done, the use of the set Liturgy being seconded by prayers conceived. But the project is singular, that if any ministers should prove insufficient to discharge the duty of prayer in a conceived way, it may be imposed upon him as a punishment to use set forms, and no other. Never confessor enjoined such a penance; never lawmaker imposed such a penalty: certainly it were a more just and needful motion, that many who take upon them to preach, (with so small abuse of God's sacred Word) might (as in way of correction) be enjoined only to read homilies: but who sees not in this overture, an utter cancellation of that Liturgy which is pretended to be left free? For if the freedom of a sole conceived prayer shall depend upon the supposed sufficiency of the minister, show me the man among five hundred of the forward artisans, that will confess, or think himself insufficient for the act, or unfurnished with the gifts of prayer. Away then with the book, while it may be supplied with a more profitable nonsense. Surely, where God has bestowed gifts, it is fit they should be employed, and improved to the best advantage of his people: but where there is nothing but an empty overweening, and proud ignorance, there is great reason for a just restraint.