in Malachi I leave to his perusal the Letter of the Ministers of Old-England to those in New-England p. 14. where that is explained CHAP. III. Publick Liturgies of humane Composure are an innovation and deviation from primitive Antiquity And again Set Forms of Prayer devised by men are an Innovation FOR this he offers several Arguments 1. Saith he Had a Liturgy been needful for the edification of the Church undoubtedly Christ or the Apostles by his direction would have composed one which none of them ever did And therefore these men who take upon them to compose and impose a Liturgy on the Churches assume to themselves more than Apostolical Power Ans I deny his consequence For tho our Saviour and his Apostles did declared and left all things essential to a Church yet there were many things needful to the edification of the Church in future Ages that were not expresly provided for Our Saviour told the Apostles that it should be given to them in that hour what they should speak and they spoke all Languages by present infusion and so were not obliged to think before or study or learn a Language and this was with relation to the present condition of the Church in those times And there are no directions for after Ages to learn Languages c. So there was a miraculous gift of Prayer in the Apostolical times as St. Chrysostom observes Hom. 14. in Rom. 8. and no express directions given about it when that Gift should cease as he saith it did and when by the cessation of it Forms would be necessary Thus faith Capellus Thes Salmur Part. 3. As soon as miraculous Gifts ceased and Hereticks began to trouble the Church there was a necessity for Liturgies And therefore Mr. Ball saith The Christian Churches for the space of this 1400 years at least if not from the Apostles times have had their stinted Liturgies Trial. p. 96 c. So Letter of Min. of Old-England l. 66 c. But this our Author denies and calls it an Innovation And saith 2. The Liturgies father'd on the Apostles and the ancient Writers call'd Fathers Learned men have evinced to be spurious Ans 1. It 's granted that those father'd on the Apostles were so but tho not the Apostles yet many of the Prayers in them were antient and the main of that call'd St. James's was used in the Church at Jerusalem as Dr. Comber Original and Vse of Liturgies p. 97. in Answer to Clarkson has shew'd from Cyril 2. It 's certain there was a Liturgy composed by St. Chrysostom and Basil and a great part of what is so call'd was certainly theirs as the abovesaid Author has shew'd p. 167. 172 209. and of this mind were Mornay and Rivet 3. The leaft that can be observed from these Books is that when those Books were writ then Liturgies were in use so Daille We deny not but many of these Liturgies are ancient and written about the beginning of the Fourth Century tho they were corrupted by Additions and Alterations at several times after their first original 3. He would prove from an obscure Passage in Justin Martyr and Tertullian that there was no Book of Prayer used by Christians 200 years after Christ Ans The Passage in Justin Martyr is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which our Author is forced to corrupt and add to before he can work it to his purpose for thus he translates it according as strength and utterance was afforded to him from Heaven whereas word for word it is in like manner he the President offereth up Prayers to him God as he has Power that is as fervently as he could and so the same Phrase a little before Of this see Dr. Comber p. 33 c. And as little does the Passage in Tertullian make for his purpose which is That the Christians prayed Sine Monitore quia de pectore which surely relates not to the praying extempore for what testimony was that of their Loyalty more than if they prayed by a Form but his plain meaning is they needed no Prompter as the Heathens but prayed heartily for the Emperors c. as their Offices shew'd 4. He saith That there was no Liturgy in some Churches or in general use in the Church for above 400 years is manifest from Socrates who saith There were scarcely two Christians found who used the same words in Prayer l. 5. c. 21. Ans 1. Here he perverts again For 1. Socrates doth not say two Christians but two Churches 2. He doth not say they used the same words but the same manner 2. The Words of Socrates do not infer what he would have for he saith In Summ among all Sects you shall scarcely find two Churches agreeing in the manner of Prayer Which refers not to the Words but the Ways as before described viz. lighting up Candles c. 3. Supposing it was to be understood of the Words what 's that to Extempore Prayer for they may not have the same words when yet they may have Forms The Historian's meaning is That the Churches had different Forms of Prayer as well as different Rites So Mornay speaking of the Liturgies of the Greek and Latin Churches Tho in substance the Service of these Churches do agree yet we must not think there was one and the same Prescript Form observed and kept in them all 5. He saith Some plead that in the Jewish Church of old there were Forms of Prayer besides those of Divine Inspiration but what was not are all late composures Ans 1. If there were Forms of old in the Jewish Church of Divine Inspiration and those Forms to be used as the Scripture shews then it shews that Forms may lawfully be used 2. That the Jews had set-forms of human composure of ancient times Learned men agree So Mornay shews and that the First Christians framed themselves after this manner of Service 3. Nay Learned men observe that Forms were used in our Saviour's time and yet he is so far from condemning them that he attended their Service and composed a form like to theirs So Dr. Lightfoot So that we see he has failed throughout in his attempt of proving Liturgies and set-forms an Innovation But I can tell what is an Innovation and that is To hold Liturgies unlawful CHAP. IV. It 's an Apostacy in this Age of Light to countenance or comply with the Common-Prayer-Book Worship UPON this his chief Topick is That Good and Learned men have born witness against the Corruptions of the English Liturgy and chose to suffer rather than comply with it Ans 1. There have been as Good and Learned men that have shew'd those not to be Corruptions 2. There have been several of his Learned and Good men who he saith chose rather to suffer than sin by complying with the Liturgy that have shew'd those Corruptions not to be a sufficient reason for Separation So Mr. Bradshaw Mr. Nicols c. 3. They were so far from
Heathenish and therefore it is unlawful to joyn with it This will be resolved into two Questions Q. 1. Whether the Common Prayer be taken out of the Mass-Book and be Heathenish as well as Popish Q. 2. Whether the being taken out of the Mass-Book makes it unlawfull to be used or joyned with tho it be good and lawful in it self Q. 1. Whether the Common-Prayer is taken out of the Mass-Book As our Author takes care to represent it one would think there is little of the Roman Service left out in ours The Common-Prayer saith he is in a great measure Popish is taken out of the Popes Mass-Book it cannot be denied it 's derived from thence p. 1. There is very little in the English which is not to be found in the other p. 2. This is matter of Fact and so is not to be determined by Authority He himself makes a fair proposal which I shall accept of viz. Let such as have any hesitancy about this matter compare the Popish Missal c. with the English Liturgy and they will be convinced Of what That he had never read and compared them or is guilty of a notorious Abuse that he puts upon his ignorant Reader that after he pretends to have read and compared shall assert so gross a falshood and say There is very little in the English that is not to be found in the other c. 1. For there is little comparatively in the English which is to be found in the Roman Liturgy and far more is left out than ever was taken thence This is indeed directly contrary to what he affirms and yet let any one compare them and he will be convinced of the truth of it Take that which is called the Cannon of the Mass or Form of Administring the Eucharist and there is no Agreement not one Collect or Prayer the same Go we to Baptism there is not one Prayer belonging to that Office that is in ours And as for the Litany there is not a third part of theirs in ours and much in ours which is not in theirs 2. There is nothing in the Service of the Church of Rome which makes it the Popes Missal and is peculiar to that Church that is in ours that is there is no Popery in our Liturgy This he is in part forced to acknowledge There are saith he things as Prayers for the Dead c. in the Roman Liturgy which are not translated into English His Et cetera if branched into particulars would be very large as he could not but know if he had read and compared them As for Example Where are their Crossings Elevation and Adoration of the Elements Where their Solitary Communion and Communion in one kind Where their frequent Crossings of themselves and of the Book Where their material Crosses and the Adoration of them Where their Prayers for the Dead Where their Intercessors the Virgin Mary and Saints that are to be found in the Cannon of the Mass Where are the many Exorcisms in Baptism the Puffs they blow in the Infant 's face their Conjuration of Salt for a wholesome Sacrament to the driving away of Devils that 's put into the Mouth of the Infant as a propitiation unto Eternal Life Where the Spittle with which the Ears and Nostrils of the Infants are touched with an Ephphatha be opened Where the Oyl of Salvation as it 's call'd wherewith the Priest anoints the Child's Breast and Shoulders in form of a Cross Where the Chrism or Oyntment wherewith he anoints the Crown of the Head in figure of a Cross Where the change of Garments their Purple and White Robe that the Child is to carry unspotted before the Tribunal of our Lord Where the lighted Candle put into the Child's hand that when our Lord shall come to the Wedding he may meet him Where the many Crossings of the Head before Baptism and of the Eyes Ears Nostrils Breast Shoulders Mouth c. to be found in their Ritual and Pastoral Lastly To go no farther Where are the O Holy Mary Mother of God c. pray for us Where are the Angels and Arch-Angels the Patriarchs and Prophets the Apostles and Evangelists the Martyrs Popes and Confessors the Priests and Levites the Monks and Hermits the Virgins and Widows the Forty seven Saints in particular and all Saints in general that are called upon in their Litany Pray for us And if nothing that is truly Popish be to be found in our Liturgy we have so far reason to deny that it 's taken out of the Mass-Book 3. I add That our Service is so far from being taken out of he Missal that whatsoever in it is the same with the Office in the Church of Rome is mostly taken out of the Ancient Offices of the Christian Church And because every one cannot compare it I will produce Impartial Authority for it Thus saith Mr. Ball a Nonconformist of great Note in the last Age The English Liturgy is not a Collection out of the Mass-Book but a refining of the Liturgy which heretofore had been stained with the Mass and is not a Translation of the Mass but a Restitution of the Ancient Liturgies So the Ministers of Old England in a Letter to the Ministers of New England wrote Anno 1637. It 's no hard task to shew that our Service-Book was reformed in most things according to the purest Liturgies which were in use long before the Mass was heard of in the World p 2. To these I will add one more for the Character our Author gives of him viz. Bishop Jewel whom he calls that great Light in the English Church p. 9. Who saith We are come as near as possibly we could to the Church of the Apostles and of the old Catholick Bishops and Fathers And besides we have aimed not only our Doctrine but Sacraments also and Forms of our Publick Prayers after the patern of their Rites and Ordinances To say the truth it 's a very odd thing to represent our Liturgy as Popish when those that composed and used the Liturgy were burnt by the Papists for it and when to this day they will not communicate in it nor with the Church that useth it Our Author saith There have been Jusuits and Popish Intelligencers that approved of our Service and Pope Pius 5 th would have ratified it And is it therefore Popish The Independent allows the Presbyterian Confession of Faith And this Author saith p. 4. It must be acknowledged that such of the Church-of-England men as keep to the 39 Articles in matters of Doctrine are as Orthodox as any Protestants in the world And is therefore the Independent a Presbyterian or this Author a Church-of England-man I trow not All is that they agree in the Common Principles the other receives and yet one is no more the other than if they had no agreement in such Principles And so is it here the English Liturgy has nothing but what is agreeable to the Doctrine
of the Gospel and allowable by the Christian Church and therefore what the Papists will or ought to allow but for all that we are no more Papists nor that any more Popish than the Independent is a Presbyterian or our Author a Church-of England-man It was not then because it was Popish that they approved of our Service but that it was Christian and pure in its Order and Composure neither was it because it was Popish that the Pope would have ratified it but because upon any terms he would have prevailed upon Queen Elizabeth to own his Authority and regain'd her to their Church 4. However I deny not but that the Compilers of the Liturgy did peruse the Popish Offices and take as much from thence as was conformable to the Ancient Offices and was fit to be used and that the rather that they might the more easily satisfie doubting or discontented Minds under the Alterations then made and induce them to comply with them And this was the meaning of King Edward's Proclamation A practice very Christian and commendable and agreeable to the Apostolical prudence which we read of Acts 15. 16. 3. 1 Cor. 9. 19 c. And which the Nation soon felt the happy effects of when by this excellent Conduct it became generally speaking Reformed But yet after all so little was taken out of the Mass-Book c. that they differ'd more than they agreed in and more was left than taken out But our Author stays not here That the English Liturgy saith he is originally Heathenish as well as Popish is manifest 1. In that the Pope's Liturgy from whence ours is deriv'd is so The Principal Parts of the Mass-Book were borrowed from Idolatrous Pagans They came from Numa Pompilius p. 4. Ans It has been sufficiently made out by Protestants that there is a great Affinity and Agreement between the Heathenish and Popish Rites but our Author does an injury to the Argument when affirming that the Principal Parts of the Mass-Book were borrowed from Idolatrous Pagans he goes no further than Vestments Holy Water and Incense as if these were the principal Parts of the Mass-Book and the chief things that that agreed in with the Idolatry of the Heathens But this indeed is not to our purpose Well! suppose there be this Conformity between the Papist and the Pagan what is that to us if we agree with neither but that he attempts to prove For tho he cannot find Incense and Holy Water and his Et caetera among us yet he saith What Vain Repetitions does the Common-Prayer Book abound with In one Service the Worshippers must repeat these words Good Lord deliver us Eight times over And We beseech thee to hear us Twenty times over The Gloria Patri is to be repeated Ten times in the same Morning or Evening Service That the Heathens were wont to Worship their Idols just after the same manner is clear from Matth. 7. c. And Beza notes that the Roman Liturgy does abound with them wherein Men are taught to cry Jesu Jesu miserere mei no less then Ten times one after another For the better Resolution of which I shall proceed in this order 1. We grant that there may be such things as vain Repetitions in Prayers and other Divine Offices for that is a fault our Saviour charges on the Heathens and what we as well as our Author charge on the Church of Rome and is also frequently charged by those that use and plead for Forms on those that use extemporary Prayers 2. We yet do maintain That there are such Repetitions in Divine Worship as are not vain that are neither Heathenish or Popish Such do we read of in the Old Testament as Psalm 57. 1. 75. 1 4 5. 94. 1. 103. 1 2 22. 107. 8 15 21 31. 136. throughout And thus our Saviour repeated the same words thrice in his Agony in the Garden Matt. 26. 44. and twice on the Cross Matt. 27. 46. And consequently all Repetitions are no more condemned by our Saviour in Matt. 6. 7. than all long Prayers are Matt. 23. 14. So that the vanity of Repetitions does not consist in using the same words eight times or twenty times in Prayer For do we repeat in our Service Good Lord deliver us eight times And Glory be to the Father c. ten times And We beseech thee to hear us good Lord twenty times So we find that they not only had their thrice and their four times but their twenty seven times in every Verse of Psalm 136. His mercy endureth for ever which Psalm was most used on solemn Occasions as we may find it 2 Chron. 5. 13. 7. 3 6. 20. 21. Ezra 3. 11. Jer. 33. 11. So that we may more truly say of the Church of God amongst the Jews than he doth of the Heathens and their Idols that they were wont to Worship God just after the same manner with Repetitions in their Service as we 3. We are to consider wherein the vanity of Repetitions consists so as to be after the manner of the Heathens This admits great variety and just bounds cannot be set so that it 's not to be exactly said Here the vain Repetitions begin But they are such 1. When they that use them think that they shall be heard for their much speaking as our Saviour saith the Hethens did Thus the Priests of Baal did crying out O Baal hear us from Morning till Noon and accordingly Elijah upbraids them 1 Kings 18. 26 27. 2. When it is nothing but Tautology viz. a Repetition of the same words without new Matter or of the same matter but in different words Such were the Verses of Battus the babling Poet. Such were the Hymns used often by the Heathens in the worship of their Gods Such are the Jesu Jesu c. without Intermission sometimes used in the Roman Church But when there are distinct Petitions as when we say We beseech thee to hear us good Lord it 's as lawful to close each after that manner as it is to say Amen which we find to follow every particular Petition and was distinctly repeated for twelve times together after that manner Deut. 27. 15. 3. Vain Repetitions are when the words are thought sufficient tho the Heart be not with them but this may be common to any So that tho there are Repetitions in our Service as there were among the Heathen and are in the Church of Rome yet ours are not vain nor such Repetitions as theirs by reason of the matter only if accompanied with the heart 3. He saith Some of the most Learned Patrons of Liturgies produce it as an Argument for them that the Heathens made use of Forms in their Idolatrous Worship p. 5. And so he makes this the difference between the Heathens and Christians that the first used Forms but the last prayed without them As for the practice of the Christians we shall have occasion to speak of it under another Head neither shall I
afterward expos'd to sale in the Shambles or set upon the Table at an Entertainment because it was thereby restor'd to a common use when yet it was not lawful to sit at Meat in an Idols Temple for that was to have fellowship in the Idolatry Chap. 8. 10 20. It is then no more Idolatry to use a White Garment or a Temple or observe a Day or to use a Prayer that has been used or observ'd in Idolatrous Worship or by an Idolatrous Church than it was to eat Meat that had been offer'd to Idols Purifie the Gold and separate the Dross from it and the Gold is not the worse for the Dross that was before mingled with it Scrape the Walls and cast out the infected materials of it so that the House be freed from the Leprosie and it might have been as well inhabited as if it had never been infected Num. 14. 41. to make use of former Comparisons p. 2 d. and 3 d. and take the things lawful from the things unlawful and they become lawful again and may be lawfully used But saith he The Rubbish of the Leprous house was to be cast into an unclean place And the Leprosie breaks out still therefore we may have no communion with it p. 3. But surely it 's the same thing if we leave the House that is infected as it is to carry away the Rubbish into an unclean place else why doth he talk of leaving the Communion for the sake of the Leprosie of Idolatry We grant the Church we left to be Idolatrous there the Leprosie is and therefore we left it but we left the Idolatry with the Church and let him prove there is any of the Leprosie of Idolatry in what we have taken out of it and then he would say somewhat to the purpose but that he is far from Let us however consider his Arguments relating to the general part 1. We ought saith he not to name an Idol but with detestation much less offer it as worship to God I answer 1 st The naming there forbidden is the naming an Idol with respect and indeed the addressing any Worship to it So Psal 16. 4. Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another God their drink-offering of Blood will I not offer nor take up their name into my Lips That is they might not name them by way of worship nor offer Sacrifice to them 2 d. Where is there such a naming of an Idol amongst us what respect do we give to his Idol the Mass-Book what Saint do we adore But saith he The Prayers are taken out of the Idolatrous Mass-Book But what then if there be nothing of their Idolatry in the Prayers that are taken thence when such are taken thence they are no more Idolatrous than before they were taken into the Mass-Book 2d He saith It was Paul's Judgment that meat once offer'd to Idols should not be made use of 1 Cor. 10. 28. Therefore a Service-Book offer'd to Idols ought not be us'd For there is a parity of Reason I conceive he is much mistaken in the account he gives of the Apostle's Judgment who is so far from maintaining meat offer'd to Idols to be unlawful that he makes it a thing indifferent as before and what a person may with a safe conscience eat of without scruple unless it be with respect to another's conscience that is thereby offended as the Apostle determines it v. 28 29. Now if Meat offered to Idols might be eaten of then a Service-Book that has been used in Idolatrous Worship may be lawfully us'd when the things contain'd in it are otherwise lawful and good For there is a parity of Reason as he argues 3. He saith God hath prohibited his People all Symbolizing with Heathen c. We grant that God did prohibit the Jews all symbolizing and agreement with the Heathens in their Idolatry That is not the Question But 1. Whether an agreement with Idolaters in what was once used by them in Idolatry becomes Idolatry or be unlawful because it has been so used 2. Or whether what was forbidden to the Jews is forbidden to all People And to Christians as well as they These we deny The first we deny as to the Jews that every thing us'd in Idolatrous Service was unlawful to them for he says The Priests of Isis used to wear Linnen Surplices p. 9. and yet such Linnen Garments were the Priests and Levites to officiate in So Circumcision was used among the Egyptians c. and yet continued to be used among the Jews Again we deny that what was in that kind forbidden to the Jews was forbidden and unlawful to all For 1 st A great part of what they were forbidden was with respect to the people that before inhabited the Land with whom they were to make no Covenant but were utterly to destroy them their Altars and Groves c. Exod. 23. 32 33. 34. 12. Deut. 7. 2 3 5. 2. They were a People very prone to Idolatry and so were tied up by strict Restraints and Penalties 3. They both came from Egypt where they had long convers'd with Idolatrous Service and afterward border'd upon Nations violently addicted to Idolatry and Sorcery and in such circumstances there were these Checks laid upon them and an assimilation to the Customs of such forbidden And all this was not from the nature of the thing and because all usages of Idolators were unlawful but because of the circumstances of people time and place And if so then we must leave the case of symbolizing and no longer make it a Case of Conscience but of prudence and expediency and so we are left to judge what is fit to be retained and what not what practised and what not And here our Reformers shew'd their Prudence and Moderation by what they chose when the Ceremonies were few and what were the Ceremonies of the Ancient Church rather than the Romish When they chose some that they might not give offence to the Churches of Christ in other parts of the World and yet retain'd no more that they might not burden their own Communion When the Offices they selected were agreeable to the Ancientest Offices of the Church So that there was no Reformation in any place where so much temper was preserv'd and where the purity of Religion and the Simplicity and solemnity of Divine Service were more regarded that what was good was retained what was noxious was purg'd out and even what was superfluous was exscinded But this he will not allow For saith he the use of such a Liturgy doth harden the Papists in their Idolatry p. 4. So the Liturgy came from Rome and will perhaps lead thither again p. 18. But 1. How can such a Liturgy harden them in their Idolatry or lead thither which has none of their Idolatry in it and in which the Papists are expresly charged with Idolatry Vid. Rubrick at the Communion 2. How can this harden them or lead thither which has been the
means of banishing and keeping their Idolatry out of the Kingdom 3. How can this harden them or lead thither when the Papists agree with our Author That it 's unlawful to be present at or partake in the Common-Prayer Worship and are excommunicated if they do 4. How can this harden them or lead thither when there is nothing that the Papists more labour to possess the people with prejudices against But he adds p. 4. The Jews themselves are scandalized by the Liturgy It 's a celebrated Saying among them That the Christians have their Jephilleth from Armillus that is their Prayer-Books from Antichrist At what are the Jews scandalized is it that we have a Liturgy So have they themselves had of latter Ages at least And so the Author saith p. 13. That he had seen Liturgies written in the Hebrew Tongue Is it that we receive our Prayer-Book from Antichrist Yes saith he and for this quotes a Celebrated saying of theirs But is this the truer for their saying so they say it seems that Christians have receiv'd their Prayers from Antichrist but I hope that there are many Christians in the World that have Prayer-Books which they never received from the Antichrist he speaks of So the Greeks and Abyssins c. The whole is at least a sorry Mistake and which for ought I see he understands no more than we do his Jephilleth The case is plainly thus That the Rabbins say that Armillus was to be a person of prodigious form begot of a Marble Statue in Rome and was to be the last Enemy of the Jews and the Leader of the Christian Forces against them that he should kill Messias Ben Ephraim and at last be killed by Messias Ben David That he should give Tephilleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a Law to the Christians which he and they set up in opposition to the Law of Moses So that we see that his Tephilleth is the Law as well as the Prayers of Christians and they make Armillus to be toward the end of the World the last Enemy of the Jews and how could our Liturgy or the Liturgies now used by Christians be the Prayers received from Armillus when Armillus is yet to come according to the Rabinical Notion if the Reader pleases he may have a fuller account of this Jewish Garagantua in Buxtorf's Lexicon Chald. Talmud Rabbin for I am weary of this trifling and unintelligible Jargon CHAP. II. Of the Matter of the Common Prayer-Book BEfore I proceed to the particular consideration of his Objections Relating to this Head let me observe that if we should grant what he finds fault with to be blame-worthy yet it 's not to the purpose and the point he proposed which is to give Reasons why he judges it unlawful to be present at or partake in the Common-Prayer Worship And that for these Reasons For 1. There may be many things that are a reason against Ministerial Conformity which will not be a reason against communion with the Church since there are those things required to the one that are not required to the other Such is the Surplice the Office for Burying the Dead Marrying p. 8. c. which belong to the Minister and not to the People And therefore tho it should be unlawful to wear a Surplice or use these Offices yet since Lay-Communion is not concern'd in them they are no reason for separation 2. Many of his Objections are only directed against the occasional Offices and so can be no reason against constant communion in the Daily office or in those Offices in which they do not occur As supposing what he alledgeth out of the Office of Burial Marriage Baptism c. to be true and sufficient yet tho they may be a reason against being present at the Offices of Burial Baptism and Marriage they are no reason against Communion where those Offices are not concerned 3. Things inconvenient if not unlawful are no reason for a separation because then there could be no Communion with any Church since no Church is without them And if we should grant the reading a worse Translation of Scripture and the Apocrypha in the Church to be things of that nature yet it will be hard to shew them to be unlawful in themselves and so to make it necessary to withdraw from the Church where they are used If these things be consider'd most of what he has said will be prevented but that I may not seem to avoid any thing I shall take notice of the Particulars as they lie in order And his Arguments taken from the Matter of the Service-Book are 1. Some things appointed therein are in the judgment of sober and judicious persons extremely ridiculous As how First saith he How many odd and senseless Translations of the Holy Scripture have been found therein It 's well he said have been found for he is fain to draw all his inferences of that kind but one from the Service-Book as it stood before the last revisal and that is Psal 58. 9. Or ever their pots be made hot with thorns so let indignation vex them as a thing that is raw At which he Triumphs What nonsence is this Now I do not think that to be Nonsence which is not soon understood for then what will he make of the Hebrew in this Verse which has several difficulties in it But I think there is a good account to be given of the sense of this Version and that is E're that the Pots are made hot with the Thorns they shall be severely punished The being made hot with the Thorns sets forth the suddenness and the phrase vexing a thing that is raw denotes the severity of it 2. His next Instance of things extremely ridiculous is that in the Liturgy the Writings of the Prophets Acts and Revelations are called Epistles If these were formerly they are not now so called but of these when read in the place of Epistles it 's said The portion of Scripture for the Epistle That is the Sections of Scripture read in that order are generally Epistles and so as it 's usual in other cases gives the name to all And as it is not now so never was it called the Epistle of the Prophets Acts or Revelations but the Epistle taken out of Isaiah c. 3. He objects against the Responses Those broken Responds saith he and shreds of Prayer as Mr. Cartwright calls them which the Priests and People toss between them like Tennis-Balls seem extremely ridiculous to standers-by Without doubt this is a venture of Wit but I suppose there are standers-by that will call it by another Name and instead of Wit term this scurrility in Conversation and prophaneness in Religion Especially if we consider how many Psalms there are in Holy Writ that are penn'd or supposed at least to be so by Learned men after this way And whatever his Standers-by may think there are Persons of Piety ancient and modern that have thought this way very
becoming and of excellent use to quicken Devotion and excite attention What may not be said in any case by such persons as these that call this way of Devotion as he doth a taking God's Name in vain And what occasion may others take after the same manner to treat their long Prayers that are often nauseous to standers-by for their affected length and tedious enlargements and forced Repetitions 2. He objects The Common-Prayer Book is guilty of violating the sacred Word of God And here he charges it with no less than obliterating contradicting adding to it and detracting from it and then concludes Amongst men clipping and corrupting if Coin is Treason and certainly it 's a dreadful thing to add to or take from the Word of God Dent. 4. 2. Rev. 22. 19. And it 's certainly a dreadful thing and wo to them that are guilty Here I should have expected a rounder Charge by one that had so exactly read the Liturgy and that he would have told the World that we take whole Chapters from the Word of God and which have no place in our Kalendar nor are read publickly in the Church as I do acknowledge And surely if the omission of one Verse in a Psalm and of Hallelujah in others be a taking from the Word of God then much more is the omission of whole Chapters nay of three whole Books But he durst not press that too far for if he had it would have fallen hard upon such as never have the Scriptures read in their Congregations tho that was a solemn part of Divine Worship in the Churches of God as the Scripture informs us Acts 15. 21 c. And if the Church of Rome is so deservedly blamed for reading the Scriptures in an unknown tongue what do they not deserve that never read them at all in their Congregations Surely if they had according to our Saviour's advice considered the Beam in their own eye they would not have thus magnified the Mote in their Brother's eye I remember a Question in a Book of the same kind with our Author's Whether Protestants do not sin in defrauding the people of some Books and Chapters of Scripture as well as Papists in defrauding them of all And then what sort of Protestants are they that with the Church of Rome defraud the people of all so far as the Publick Service of God is concern'd But to return Before I shall consider his few Instances that he would make good this Bloody Charge by I shall premise a few things 1. That the Instances he offers are at the worst Mistranslations Slips and Errors and not chargeable with Perverseness according to what we charge upon the Church of Rome For here is no interest to be served For what is our Church concern'd whether it be read as the Liturgical Translation has it the 7 th Day or as the Common Translation The Sabbath whether as that they were not obedient to his word or as this they rebelled not against his word whether as that The rod of the wicked cometh not into the lot of the righteous or as this resteth not Whether as in that the Titles of some Psalms and Hallelujahs are omitted or as in this they are inserted Surely here is no interest visible in this that should incline our Translators of the Psalter to pick out these Texts above all others to make bold with 2. Mistranslations and Errors of this kind are no sufficient reason for not using such a Translation and much less for separating from a Church where they are used for then no Translation could be us'd or no Church communicated with because no Church is without such Translations and no Translation without such Errors Thus it was in the Church of the Jews when the Septuagint was used in publick Which doth often alter and add to the original Hebrew and yet was not only used but is quoted by the Divine Writers even in many places where those Alterations and Additions are So it alters Heb 10. 5. 11. 21. Rom. 10. 18. Act. 7. 8. It adds as Luk. 3. 36 37. Act. 7. 14 Then also must not our common Translation be used which besides the mistakes allowed to be in it does add in many places and particularly half a Verse 1 John 2. 23. So it adds the Dates and Subscriptions to the Epistles Chapters Verses and Arguments throughout the whole as if Canonical And of this kind are all his Instances As 1. He saith The Common-Prayer-Book violates the word of God as sometimes the words of Scripture are obliterated and others put in their room Thus in the Catechism they have changed those words in the Fourth Commandment the Lord blessed the sabbath-day into the Seventh day A. We grant it is so but it 's to be remember'd that it 's not so in the 20th of Exodus but in the Liturgy and if the Liturgy differs from Exodus it 's a difference without a distinction since the Seventh day and Sabbath are all one and if it differs from Exodus it agrees with the first Institution Gen. 2. 3. where it 's said God rested on the seventh day and God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it 2. He saith Sometimes the Liturgy makes bold directly and in terms to contradict the Scripture so Psalm 105. 28. it 's said they were not rebellious but the Common-Prayer-Book saith they were not obedient and so Psal 125. 3. We grant That there is a seeming contradiction in words but not in the meaning of it for the relative they being undetermined and indifferently to be applied to Moses and Aaron or to the Egyptians accordingly is this place to be interpreted if understood of the former it 's to be read in the common Translation they were not rebellious if of the latter it 's to be read in the Translation of the Liturgy they were not obedient And this last reading is according to the present reading of the Septuagint and some other Translations that follow that And yet that Translation was generally used by the Primitive Christians and was worse than any ever used by us As for Psal 125. 3. The rod of the wicked shall not come c. that is so as to rest there and so as to tempt them beyond what they are able 3. He saith Sometimes the Common-Prayer-Book adds to the Scripture there are three whole Verses added to the 14th Psalm And the Gloria Patri is frequently added to Scripture as if it were Canonical Ans When he saith That it is a dreadful thing to add to the word of God and charges our Church with it we might expect some very criminal instances to make it good and when he saith three whole Verses are added one would think that this was somewhat invented and herein inserted by the Church upon some wicked selfish design But 1. tho we allow that such Verses are added yet it 's not an addition to Scripture for tho not found in this place yet they are in another
saith This is agreeable to Scripture c. 24. 5. The Observation of Popish Holy-days especially such as are dedicated to Saints I look upon as highly Superstitious A. 1. He looks upon them as such but how far soever his Opinion may pass with his own Disciples yet others expect somewhat more 2. Why doth he add Popish Surely he that has read and compared the Popish Liturgy with ours must needs know that we have no Holy-days for Popish Saints in our Liturgy As to which I shall refer our Author to Mr. Perkins on Gal. 4. 10. 6. Of the Surplice he saith It 's highly Superstitious When Holy Vestments were in use among the Jews they had an express Command for them Should they have made a Mitre or Ephod or other Ecclesiastical Garment of their own heads they would have sinned greatly Witness Judg. 8. 27. If then the Church of God had no power to appoint Sacred Vestments no more has the Church in these days Moreover the Surplice is immediately borrowed from Idolatrous Mass-mongers Dr. Abbot who was no Fanatick saith That all Priestly Garments whereby Ministers are distinguished from the rest of the Church are a special part of the Character of the Beast The Papists take the Surplice from Jews and Heathens There were Vestments for the Worshippers of Baal 2 Kings 10. 12. Bishop Jewel saith The Priests of Isis used to wear Linnen Surplices Moreover the greatest part of our Protestant Divines have disliked this Superstitious Garment So Martyr c. 1. His Argument is the Jews had express Command for their Garments c. A. 1. Had the Jews no Power to appoint or observe any thing relating to Worship without express Command How then came the Feasts of Purim and Dedication the Places and Houses of Prayer Nay whence came the alteration of the posture at the Passover which our Saviour complied with contrary to the first institution And surely Vestments are much of the same nature with Times and Places c. 2. Supposing the Jews might not what is that to us Yes saith he no more can we Why so The Apostle shews we have a Liberty they had not and we may as well do what they could not as forbear what they might not They had not a liberty as we because under a Schoolmaster and of a Temper that needed it and whose Service was Typical And yet notwithstanding this they had a liberty which they might use and much more then have we 2. The Surplice he saith is immediately borrowed from Idolatrous Mass-mongers A. 1. What is that if there be no Idolatry borrowed with it Do we use it to sanctify Holy-water Bells c 2. As for his Quotation from Dr. Abbot it 's a gross mistake at least all he saith is That the Buyers and Sellers Rev. 13. 16. are the Bishops Priests and Monks that expose to sale Masses and Indulgences c. that bind themselves by Oath to the Bishop of Rome and in testimony of it are divided from the rest of the Church by Rites Vows Vnctions Tonsures Garments Where he speaks of Garments in general and no more of Surplices than Gowns and of Garments they ordinarily wear such as belong to Monastick Orders c. But if he had spoke of all Garments that distinguish the Clergy from the Laity Dr. Abbot had been in that a Fanatick and not Dr. Abbot who himself wore such Garments and surely did not think by that he had a special Character of the Beast upon him What he quotes from Bishop Jewel is not in that place if any where he refers to neither in the English or Latin Volume 3. The Papists take the Surplice from Jews and Heathens and for this latter quotes the Priests of Baal A. But the Text doth not say they were any more White than Blue or Black and he might as well have prov'd our Gowns we ordinarily wear or others prove their Cloaks to be such as well as he prove our Surplices Heathenish from that Text. 4. He saith The greatest part of our Protestant Divines have disliked it A. 1. What saith he to the Lutherans who all use the like Are not they Protestants 2. Do any he names dislike it so as to think it unlawful 3. Do they dislike it so as to make a Schism in the Church or for it Separate from a Church I am certain these he produces do declare just contrary Thus Pet. Mart. Epist Amico Hoopero c. Beza Epist Grindallo Zanchy Confes c 25. § 30. Hemingius in 4 Leg. Decal § 29. c. Enchir. tit Adiaph c. 16. Polanus in Ezek. 44. And Zanchy chuses the Linnen before the Woollen Garment for Divine Offices as a Sign of Innocence and Holiness de Redempt c. 16. I could much enlarge the Catalogue of such Testimonies if it were necessary So little did these Learned Men think Mr. Nichol's Argument of any force which our Author proposes viz. That all Vestments appropriated to the Worship of God and appointed for the Signification of Spiritual Duties by the will of Man are unlawful But the Surplice is so This our Author saith is Not easy to be answer'd But if it be to be answer'd no matter whether it 's not easy in his Opinion From hence arise two Questions Q. 1. Whether it 's unlawful to use any thing appropriated to the Worship of God by the Will of Man Q. 2. Whether it 's unlawful to use any thing in the Worship of God that is appointed for the signification of Spiritual Duties by the Will of man By the first it 's unlawful for men to appropriate places or times or postures to the Worship of God And so it 's necessary to avoid this Superstition to make all the Meeting-places to be houses of Merchandise and to be equally divided between Religious and Common Uses By the 2d any thing that has such a Signification applied to it is made unlawful by Vertue of such Signification and which without such Signification would have been lawful So a Surplice would have been a lawful Garment if not appropriated and without Signification and might have been in its self worn as well as a Cloak since Custom and Use only makes the difference but appropriate it and clap a signification upon it it 's unlawful And so a Cloak may be turn'd out of Service by the same way So it 's in posture kneeling and standing are indifferent but once appropriate kneeling to Prayer and make it significative and to be a posture of reverence and it becomes unlawful And so without end So much for Mr. Nichol's Argument and it's difficulty 7. Come we now to the Cross the greatest Devil amongst all the Idols of Rome as he tells us Mr. Parker sheweth He saith 1. The first users of it were the Hereticks Valentinus and Montanus A. That seems hard when those that wrote against them used it as Origen Irenaeus Tertullian and Epiphanius did against the former and several others against the latter We find it as
ancient as Tertullian Cyprian c. 2. He saith Mr. Parker proveth it a sin against all the Commandments and a breach of the Letter of the second for men to appoint a Religious Ceremony is a direct violation of the 2d Commandment which forbids all human Inventions in Divine Worship as any part thereof A. There is a way of proving too much and that any one that reads Mr. Parker will soon perceive he doth And of this I take this Instance of the 2d Commandment to be one of the letter of which the Author saith the Cross is a breach Now the Letter of the Command respects two things 1. Not to make any Graven Image for Religious Worship 2. Not to bow down to any such Object Now the Cross used in Baptism is an Aerial Cross as he calls it and where is the Object or the Worship But our Author goes on to prove it after this manner for men to appoint c. Here we grant the Proposition to be true because God only is to appoint his own Worship and so it 's not in the power of man to appoint any part of it But now if Religious Ceremonies may be and yet not be part of Divine Worship then they are no such human Inventions as are forbidden and no direct or indirect violation of the 2d Commandment Therefore it remains upon him to prove the Cross a part of Divine Worship For we say it 's only an adjunct and is no more a part of Worship than the striking the Blood upon the Door-posts was to make use of Zepperus his Similitude or sitting or kneeling at the Sacrament 3. He saith The Arguments which are brought against the use of Oyl Cream Salt Spittle in Baptism practised by the Papists hold as well against the Cross Ans This I deny for the Scripture speaks honourably of the Cross of Christ which this refers to but not at all of the rest Again the Cross was traduced and reproached by the Heathens which gave occasion to the use of it and so were not the rest So that this was used with reason those without it His instance of the Gallows looks so prophanely that I shall rather pass it by than correct it 4. He saith The Papists adore the Cross and it 's an Idol c. Ans But do they adore the Aerial Cross But what is their Adoration if it were to us that do not adore it 5. This hath been testified against by Zegedinus Lepperus it should be Zepperus Goulartius c. Ans The Lutheran Churches use it See Hemingius c. Bucer accounts it neither indecent nor unprofitable but a Ceremony of much simplicity and of present admonition of the Cross of Christ Script Angl. censur c. 12. And generally they account it lawful and not a sufficient reason for separation but to be used so it be without Superstition So Goulartius in Cypr. lib. ad Demetr c. 9. 8. His last Instance of Superstition is kneeling at the Sacrament Let us consider what he has to say against it 1. He saith Men pretend in it reverence to Christ but Christ himself was personally present when his Disciples partook of the Lord's Supper yet they did not kneel but used the Table-gesture then customary among the Jews Ans 1. How is he certain the Disciples did not kneel but used the customary Posture in receiving For the Jews in the Passover changed Postures and did not throughout keep to that of discumbency See D. Lightfoot 2. The Question is not what they did but what may lawfully be done and then the Question is whether kneeling be unlawful 3. They themselves no more observe our Saviour's Posture than the Jews did that required at the first institution Our Author words it cautiously when he saith the Disciples used the Table-gesture then customary for he well knew it was not sitting but leaning or lying along and that they used this by way of signification 4. If the Table be the Rule to guide us then to put on our Hats is suitable as he knows who reasons 2. He saith Good and Wise men have chosen great sufferings rather than comply with this Invention Ans And there were good and wise men that compiled the Liturgy and used and enjoined this posture which is an argument he seeks to overthrow p. 16. And as Good and wise men have allowed and approved it and thought it by no means allowable to separate and break Communion for it Such as P. Martyr Zanchy Beza Zepperus c. Bains Noyes Ames Cartwright c. 3. In Primitive times Christians did not kneel in the participation of the Eucharist Ans 1. It 's certain they did not sit for they had no Notion at all of a Table-gesture as appears by the use of the Word Altar and that they counted that a posture of irreverence 2. If they stood as he saith on the Lord's-days their standing was a posture of adoration to be sure when they received So St. Cyril expresly Catech. 5. 3. It 's probable that on other days when not obliged to stand that they kneeled and since they received every day on six Days they kneel'd So Just Mart. Respons ad quest 115. and that more especially because they had a Prayer at receiving as we have 4. He saith It was enjoyned by Pope Honorius being fitted to the Idolatry of Transubstantiation c. Ans This is a mistake for Honorius did first indeed decree Adoration to the Host but not kneeling at it For that is a posture no where enjoyn'd in the Church of Rome and some of them say it ought to be received standing but which way whether â—â—â—…ing standing or lying or kneeling is not material say others as the Pope himself ordinarily receives sitting unless he celebrates and then as all Priests then do he receives standing And all adore not at the receiving but at the elevation of the Host 5. He saith That Religious Worship which is before a Creature and with respect to it having no allowance from God is against the Commandment but so is kneeling before the Bread and Wine Ans 1. I question whether God ever allow'd any Religious Worship before a Creature and with respect to a Creature for that is Idolatry and no allowance from God can be supposed to Justifie or require Idolatry 2. I deny that there is any Religious Worship with respect to the Bread and Wine For that saith our Rubrick were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians But it 's only as it 's there said for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the Benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers 6. He draws a Conclusion from the whole The English Liturgy is very Corrupt now to offer to the Lord a Corrupt thing is evil Mal. 1. 13. Ans A corrupt thing there is what is plainly prohibited Now let him prove the things before disputed to be such As for example that kneeling is forbidden As for that place
refusing Communion for them that the Old Nonconformists ordinarily and constantly used the Common-Prayer-Book in their publick Ministrations as Mr. Ball one of them declares Tryal p. 121 155. 4. All of them testified against the Brownists and against a separation from the Church It was saith Mr. Baxter the Parish-Churches that had the Liturgy which Mr. Jacob the Father of the Congregational Party wrote for communion with The same I may say of Mr. Bradshaw Dr. Ames and other Nonconformists whom the Congregational Brethren think more favourable to their way In the close our Author offers some farther Objections from the false and corrupt Doctrine he pretends to find in the Liturgy 1. As that it 's certain by God's word that Children Baptized dying before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved This saith he savours of Pelagianism Ans I don't understand the falseness or Pelagianism of it It 's certain by God's Word that of such is the Kingdom of God and so they must be capable of it If capable of it it must be upon Gospel terms but what terms they are capable of but Baptism I understand not 2. That there are two Sacraments necessary to Salvation which implies a double Error viz. that the Sacraments are necessary to Salvation and that there are more Sacraments of the New-Testament than two Ans I don't see wherein is the first Error if he had truly represented it for it 's said in the Catechism two Sacraments generally necessary that is that they are a Duty belonging to all persons that are capable of it where there are persons to baptize and a Congregation to communicate with and therefore it 's not said absolutely but generally necessary As for the latter a Sacrament is not a Scripture-word but a Term of Art and so hath been variously used and applied and therefore to set out what it means the Church has defined what a Sacrament is and then shew'd there are but two and so this Phrase is used to distinguish it from any other so called and that then none but these two are generally necessary to all Christians 3. The Book saith Some Sins are deadly as if the Popish distinction of sins into Mortal and Venial were a sound distinction Ans How can that be when Fornication which is called deadly in the Liturgy in the Church of Rome is ordinarily accounted a Venial Sin and when the distinction between Mortal and Venial as used in the Church of Rome is so contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England It 's plain that our Church means thereby no other than heinous 4. It 's said Christ has redeemed all mankind Ans The Scripture saith God will have all men to be saved and that Christ died for all c. 2. He argues farther That A stinted Liturgy is opposite to the Spirit of Prayer Eph. 6. 18. Ans 1. If so then the Spirit will not communicate it self in a Liturgy or stinted Form of Prayer contrary to the sense of all sober Divines So Dr. Owen Supposing saith he those who make use of and plead for Forms of Prayer especially in publick do in a due manner prepare themselves for it by holy meditation c. I do not judge that there is any such evil in them as that God will not communicate his Spirit to any in the use of them 2. If so then almost all Churches in the world for these 1300 years at least to this day as Mr. Baxter allows have been without the Spirit of Prayer 3. If so then we cannot lawfully communicate in or with a stinted Liturgy which has yet been approved by all Reformed Churches as Mr. Ball saith and Mr. Norton saith it's lawful to embrace Communion with Churches where such Forms in Publick worship are in use 4. As for Eph. 6. 18. that we are to pray with all Prayer why is that not possible by a Liturgy when there are in it Supplications Prayers and giving of thanks 3. He le ts pass the Argument from the mischief of a prescript Liturgy and so will I pass what follows from the trivial unintelligible and dirty Reflections of it For he knows we can match his Fidler with Stories of some of those that have been Eminent the other way and could argue upon the sinfulness of unpremeditated and conceived Prayer 3. He saith Mr. Cotton speaketh weightily in saying It 's unlawful to bring ordinarily any other Book into the Publick Worship of God besides the Book of God A. I know no difference between Reading and Reciting in this case and I have heard Mr. Cotton used a Form of Prayer in the Pulpit If he did not yet all the Nonconformists in former times did as far as ever I could learn To close all he undertakes to Answer an Objection That Good men were the first Collectors and Publishers of the Liturgy and died Martyrs This he endeavours to answer and yet when it 's to serve his own Cause it 's a considerable Argument Thus saith he before The Corruptions of the Liturgy have been born witness against by good Men and his Father a Holy Man suffered much for his Nonconformity and what not Now surely if this sort of arguing is good for them it 's good for us But he Replies further 1. All Persons employed in it were not good Men as Day Bishop of Chichester He was a dissembling Hypocrite pretending to be a Protestant but afterwards shew'd himself to be a Papist A. Here he betrays gross ignorance or somewhat worse For tho Day was one of the 18 Bishops imployed for compiling the Service-Book at first Anno 1548. yet at that time he was for Transubstantiation and Solitary Masses and against having the Service in the Vulgar Tongue And when the next Review was which was 1550. when Cranmer wrote to Bucer about it it does not appear that Day was concerned nay rather that he was against it for he refused to set his hand to the Book before it was enacted by a Law and was afterward turn'd out of his Bishoprick and depriv'd But to say all in a word What was this dissembling Hypocrite to those who were truly Pious Men and acted faithfully according to the Light they had as our Author acknowledgeth 2. He saith Good men chang'd their minds so did Ridley and Cranmer A. Both gross mistakes For Archbishop Cranmer took upon him to defend the Common-Prayer Ministration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies when in Prison And Bishop Ridley a little before his Martyrdom in a Letter to his Friend saith This Church had of late the whole Divine Service all Common and Publick Prayers framed to the true vein of Holy Scripture And again after his condemnation writing an Answer to Grindal concerning Knox's peremptory Exceptions against the Service-Book I grant saith he a Man as he is of Wit and Learning may find apparent reasons yet I suppose he cannot soundly by the Word of God so
disprove any thing in it 3. He saith Others were much troubled at the Service-Book as Bishop Hooper and Mr. Rogers at home and Calvin Bucer Martyr Bullinger c. abroad So Alasco and Knox and the first Reformers in Scotland A. As for Hooper's dissatisfaction it was not at the Liturgy but the Episcopal Vestments in which also he at last complied And as for Bucer's mind and Pet. Martyr's the English Reader will find it in the History of the Reformation p. 154 155. And Calvin to the English Exiles at Frankford declares against a rigorous Opposition and was pleased that he retained Moderation in this Case As for Alasco and Knox whatever they objected against the Liturgy yet both had their Publick Offices and Forms of Prayer 4. He saith In Queen Elizabeth's time the Bishops made the Common-Prayer-Book in several things worse and more intollerable than it was in the days of King Edward 6. A. 1. And I hope he will confess in many things better 2. Why those Prayers c. were left out he may see in the History of the Reformation p. 77 170 392. The reason of which has been before justified 3. There could be no great alteration to the worse if that was all that he mentions and however is nothing to us when the Rubrick of the Communion is restored And now that he may end as he begun as he would have our Service-Book come from Popery so he will have it That time will discover that some who pretend Zeal for the Common-Prayer-Book are carrying on a design for Rome And time has discovered that some of those who pretended Zeal against the Common-Prayer carried on a design for Rome and helped them forward in it or stood as it were Neuters and that the Liturgy has not so much a tendency that way as Separation The World saw it in the late Reign and found that the Church that uses the Liturgy was a Bulwark against Popery and when those that were against the Liturgy either basely complied fawn'd upon it or cowardly were silent THe Second Question Q. 2. What reason have you to scruple the lawfulness of laying the Hand on the Book and Kissing the Book in Swearing To this he Answers 1. We do not find in the Scripture the Lord's Servants were wont to swear after this manner we read of lifting up the hand c. which is a natural sign of Worship A. 1. We find in Scripture that they were wont to put the hand under the Thigh in swearing And thus the same Abraham that lift up his hand required his Servant to swear by putting his hand under his Thigh Gen. 24. 2. and so Jacob made his Son Joseph to use the same Ceremony when he swore Gen. 47. 29. Now what natural Sign of Worship was in this Rite 2. Since we find different Rites us'd it 's a sign that practice of the Lord's Servants is to be no Rule to us in this matter but that we are to govern our selves by the Custom of the place where and the People among whom we live if there be nothing in it self unlawful 3. He saith and seems to allow it That the Romans of old and Italians and Spaniards use to lift up the Finger when they swear solemnly Now I conceive lifting up the Finger is no natural Sign of Worship And if it had any signification I know no reason why the Germans may not lift up three Fingers to intimate they invoke the Sacred Trinity which he saith he cannot justify Nor why we may not lay the Hand upon and Kiss the Book in token of belief of it and of our acting according to it and of our being judged according to it For the Word of God doth not prescribe in such cases 2. He answers Laying the Hand on the Book is a symbolizing with Popish Idolaters and Superstitious Jews A. 1. It 's not a symbolizing with Papists as such since there are Papists that use other Ceremonies in swearing as he saith The Italians Spaniards and Germans do And therefore if this be a reason as we must not lift up the Fingers because they do so so we must not lift up the Hand because that is not to be done but we must lift up the Fingers too 2. If it was customary among the Jews to produce the Law in giving an Oath I see no reason to condemn it and so know no hurt to observe it They used also to adjure Persons and our Saviour readily answers to it when thus call'd upon 3. He replies Kissing in a Religious way is a gesture of Adoration And he closes it This is clearly to Worship a Book and so to give unto a Creature that Honour which is due to God alone And before he saith So help you and the Contents of this Book is not much better than when the Papists say So help me God and these Holy Evangelists which is gross Idolatry A. That Kissing may be a Token of Adoration when the thing kiss'd is an Object of Adoration is acknowledged But it 's not a token of Adoration when the thing kissed is not an Object of Adoration Thus kissing the Calves and an Image is an act of Adoration because the Object is an Object of Adoration but kissing the Book is not because a Book is no Object of Adoration If it be asked Why then is the Book kissed I say it 's in token of Reverence as it 's the Book of God and which if I so kiss every time I read it it 's surely far from being Idolatry And that it is so appears from what follows So help me God and the Contents of this Book which is in different ways God by his Grace and the Contents of this Book by their Instruction the one as the efficient the other the Instrumental cause And thus without doubt it 's meant in the old Form So help me God and these Holy Evangelists that is the Gospel wrote by them as the name of Moses is given in Scripture to his Writings So that in this sence it 's neither Idolatry in them nor any thing like it in us And we may as lawfully kiss the Book as lift up the Hand since neither of them are prohibited by God's Law and so being indifferent in themselves we may act as the case requires FINIS History of Antinomians in the Preface Trial of the Grounds of Separ ◠8. p. 152. 1 Cor. 10. 25 26. A Survey of the Book of Common-Prayer An. 1610. p. 26. Espenceus de adorat Eucha l. 2. c. 16. * Of the Mass l. 1. c. 6. †Censur 9. 10. De cultu Lat. l. 3. c. 13. Mass l. 1. c. 6. So Mornay Mass l. 1. p. 19. Vol. 1. 157 158 161. Discourse of prayer p. 31. Sacrileg desert p. 102 c. Apol. ◠13. See Clerk◠Collect. of Lives p. 38. Burnet's Reformat Part 2. p. 62. and Num. 25. Ibid. p. 163 p. 203. Fox's Acts and Monuments Fol. 1465. Fox's Acts and Monuments Vol. 2. p. 1940. Vide Dr. Taylor Fox Martyr p. 1521. Vide Burnet p. 125 c. 166. Epist 200 and 206. and 228. That of Alasco printed Anno 1550. And that of Knox at Middelb 1594.