880. JUXON, ministers' paper requires, the generality of the soberest and Abp. Cant. best members of the Church of England would have just cause of disgust for that such an alteration would imply a concession that this liturgy was an intolerable burthen upon tender consciences, and an usage plainly superstitious: for these are the pretences suggested for an alteration. Now, the granting all this must infer the justifying those who have separated from it, and the condemning all those who have adhered to it with the hazard and loss of lives and fortunes." After this introduction, they proceed to give an answer to the first general proposal, and affirm, "that the English reformers had been careful to put nothing into the liturgy but what is either evidently the Word of God, or has been generally received by the Catholic Church." To the next proposal they answer, "that great care must be taken to suppress private conception of prayer, both before and after sermon; that, otherwise, private opinions will be brought into pulpit-prayers. For what else can be expected, if private persons may have the liberty of making public devotions?" Their an swer to the Presbyterians first proposal. To that part of the proposal, that prayers may consist of nothing" doubtful or questioned by pious, learned, and orthodox persons," the episcopal divines reply, "that, since it is not defined and ascertained who those orthodox persons are, they must either take all those for orthodox persons who have the assurance to affirm themselves such; and, if so, the demand is unreasonable for some, who deny the divinity of the Son of God, will style themselves orthodox; and yet there is no reason we should part with an article of our Creed for their satisfaction. Besides, the proposal requires an impossibility: for there never was, nor ever will be, any prayers couched in such a manner as not to be questioned by some people who call themselves pious, learned, and orthodox. But if by 'orthodox' is meant only those who adhere to Scripture and the Catholic consent of antiquity, they are not of opinion that any part of the English liturgy has been questioned by such." To the general objection, of "the English service being loaded with church-pomp, imagery, many superfluities, and reviving obsolete customs,"-to this they answer, that, if these generals are intended to be applied to the liturgy, they are gross calumnies, and a contradiction to the confession of II. these very ministers, in the latter part of their exceptions. CHARLES But, if no application is intended, they are foreign to the purpose; and, therefore, it had been more prudence and candour not to have mentioned them." To go on with the Church commissioners, who need not be mentioned at every article : "It was the wisdom of our reformers," say they, "to draw up such a liturgy as neither Romanists nor Protestants could justly except against: and therefore, as the first never charged it with any positive errors, but only with the want of something they conceived necessary; so was it never found fault with by those properly distinguished by the name of Protestants,that is, those of the Augustine confession. And as for others, who have brought the Church-service into dislike with some people, this practice of theirs has been their fault and their sin; so that, to urge the present state of affairs as an argument why the book should be altered, is by no means reasonable. To do this would be to gratify these men in an error, and make their own unwarrantable conduct of advantage to them. and fourth "The third and fourth proposals may go together, the The answer demand in both being against responsals and alternate read- to the third ings in hymns, psalms, &c.; and that upon such a motive proposals. as really rather proves the necessity of continuing them in their present condition. They would take these usages away 'because they do not edify. Now, for this very reason, they ought to be kept on: for, that they do edify, is plain; if not by informing our understandings, (the prayers and hymns being never made for a catechism,) yet by quickening, keeping up, and uniting our devotion, which is apt to sleep or grow languid in a long-continued prayer. Our edification, therefore, is best consulted by being called on and awakened by frequent amens;' by being excited by mutual exultations, petitions, and holy emulations, which of us shall go farthest in showing his own zeal for the glory of God, or contribute most to that of others. For this purpose, alternate reading, repeti- Chron. tions, and responses, are far more serviceable than a long Ezra iii. tedious prayer. Nor is this our opinion only, but the judg- Socrat. lib.6. ment of former ages, as appears by the practice of the Jewish cap. 8. and ancient Christian Churches. 6 vii. 1. 11. Theod. lib.2. cap. 24. JUXON, Abp. Cant. Answer to the fifth objection. Chrysost. Hom. 11. in "But these demandants object this custom clashes with the Scripture that these inspired writings declare the minister's being appointed for the congregation in public prayers: that the people's part is only to attend with silence, and signify their assent by saying amen. Now if these gentlemen mean that the people in public services must only say the word amen, they have no text to prove their assertion. Besides, they themselves practise the direct contrary in one of their principal parts of worship; we mean their singing of psalms, where the people have as great a part as the minister. Now if this may be done in Hopkins', why not in David's psalms? If in metre, why not in prose? If in a psalm, why not in a litany? 66 Farther, it is desired that nothing should be in the liturgy which so much as seems to countenance the observation of Lent as a religious fast: this is requested as an expedient for peace, and is in effect to desire our Church may shew herself contentious for the sake of peace, and divide from the Catholic Church, that we may correspond the closer at home, and live at unity among ourselves. But St. Paul reckons those contentious who oppose the custom of the Churches of God. Now that the religious observation of Lent was a custom of the Churches of God appears by the testimonies of the fathers. This demand therefore has no tendency to peace, but dissenCyril, Catec. myst. 5. St. sion. And here the fasting forty days may be practised in August. Ep. imitation of our Saviour, notwithstanding what is objected to the contrary for though we cannot reach up to his divinity, servetur, follow him passibus æquis, and abstain wholly from meat for so long a time, yet we may fast forty days together, either as Cornelius did, till three o'clock in the afternoon, or till noon, Jerome, Ep. as St. Peter did, or at least we may come up to Daniel's fast, ad Marcel., and forbear entertaining our palate: and thus far, without question, it is possible for us to imitate our Lord. Nor does the act of parliament, 5 Eliz. forbid fasting in this manner, or upon the view above mentioned: we dare not suppose the parliament had any intention to prohibit a custom commanded by the Church of Christ: neither does the act determine any Lenten fast, but only provides for the increase of the navy, and encouraging the fishery upon that score. Besides, we must not interpret one statute so as to make it clash with 119. ut 40. dies ante pascha ob ecclesiæ con suetudo ro boravit. And St. says it was secundum traditionem Apostolo rum. 881. II. another. Now the 1 Eliz. cap. 2, still in force, confirms the CHARLES whole liturgy, and by consequence the religious keeping of Lent; and this with a severe penalty upon all those who speak in derogation of any part of the Common Prayer. And therefore that other act of 5 Eliz. cap. 5, must not be interpreted to a counter sense, and as if it prohibited the religious keeping of Lent. the sixth pro "The observing saints' days is not enjoined as of divine, but Answer to of ecclesiastical institution: that therefore it is not necessary posul. they should have any particular appointment in Scripture: their being useful for the promoting piety, and serviceable to the general end recommended in holy writ, is sufficient for this purpose. That the observation of these solemnities was a primitive custom, appears by the rituals and liturgies, by the consentient testimony of antiquity, and by the ancient translations of the Bible: for instance, by the Syriac and Ethiopic versions, where the lessons appointed for holy days are particularly marked. Now the former of these translations comes near the apostolic age. Farther, our Saviour himself kept the feast of the dedication, which was a solemnity John x. 22. of the Church's institution. And the chief business of these days, being not for feasting, not for entertainment and diversion, but the exercise of holy duties, they are more properly called holy days than festivals: and though they are all of a resembling nature, it cannot be inferred they all require an equal regard. As for the people, they may be indulged working after evening service, if authority shall think fit. The other names excepted against, stand in the calendar, not that they should be kept as holy days, but upon the score of their being useful for preserving the memories of some eminent persons: they are likewise serviceable for leases, law days, &c. the seventh "Their proposal touching the gift of prayer, makes the Answer to liturgy, in effect, wholly insignificant: for what else can be proposal. the consequence, if every minister may put in and leave out at discretion? As for the gift, or rather the spirit of prayer, it consists in the inward graces of the Holy Spirit, and not in extemporary expressions: such unpremeditated effusions are only the effects of natural parts, of a voluble tongue and uncommon assurance. But if there is any such gift as is really pretended, this extraordinary qualification must be subject to the prophets and the order of the Church. 1 Cor. xiv. JUXON, Considering the mischiefs coming by impertinent, ridiAbp. Cant. culous, and sometimes seditious, wicked, and blasphemous expressions, under pretence of giving liberty for exercising the gift of prayer; considering the honour of God is so highly injured, and religion suffers so much this way, it is reasonable those who desire such an indulgence in public devotions, should first give the Church security, that no private opinions should be put into their prayers: and that nothing contrary to the faith should be uttered before God, or offered up to him in the Church. To prevent which mischiefs, the former ages knew no better way than forbidding the use of any prayers in public, excepting such as were prescribed by public authority. Concil. Carthag. can. 106. Concil. Milev. can. 12. Answer to the ninth proposal. Answer to the tenth proposal. "The Presbyterians' objections against the obsolete language, and mistaken sense in the translation used in the liturgy, are all true, and all amended." The Church commissioners proceed to consider their exceptions against reading Apocryphal lessons in the Church. And here they observe, "the Presbyterians demand an alteration upon such grounds as would exclude all sermons as well as the Apocrypha. Their argument is, the holy Scriptures contain all things necessary with reference both to belief and practice. This plea is returned upon them with a dilemma: If the inspired writings, say the Church commissioners, are so comprehensive, to what purpose are there so many unnecessary sermons? Why have we any thing more than the reading of holy Scriptures? But if notwithstanding the sufficiency of the Old and New Testament, sermons are necessary, there is no reason why these Apocryphal chapters should not be reckoned equally useful: for most of them deliver excellent discourses and precepts of morality: and it is much to be wished the sermons of these ministers were no worse: if they are afraid these books may by this regard come up to an equal authority with the canon; the Church has secured them against this apprehension, by calling them Apocryphal: now it is the Church's testimony which teaches us to make this distinction. And lastly, to leave out these Apocryphal lessons, were to cross upon the practice of former ages. "That the minister should not read the communion service at the communion table, is not reasonable to demand, since it was the practice of all the primitive Church and if we do not govern ourselves by that golden rule of the council of : |