An account of all the proceedings of the commissioners of both persuasions appointedAn accompt of all the proceedings of the commissioners of both persvvasions appointed
An account of all the proceedings of the commissioners of both persuasions appointed by His Sacred Majesty, according to letters patent, for the review of the Book of common prayer, &c.An accompt of all the proceedings of the commissioners of both persvvasions appointed by His Sacred Majesty, according to letters patent, for the review of the Book of common prayer, &c.
Richard Baxter 1615–1691London : s.n., 1661
[8]. 32, [4], 130 p. · 66k words · Wing B1177 · ESTC R34403
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Answ. [Deliver us from evil] These words [for thine is the Kingdom, &c.] are not in St. Luke, nor in the ancient Copies of St. Matthew; never mentioned in the ancient Comments, nor used in the Latin Church, and therefore questioned whether they be part of the Gospel; there is no reason that they should be always used.]
Answ. [Deliver us from evil] These words [for thine is the Kingdom, &c.] are not in St. Luke, nor in the ancient Copies of St. Matthew; never mentioned in the ancient Comments, nor used in the Latine Church, and therefore questioned whether they be part of the Gospel; there is no reason that they should be alwayes used.]
Repl. We shall not be so over-credulous as to believe you, that these ⟨p. 99⟩words are not in the ancient Copies: It is enough that we believe that some few ancient Copies have them not; but that the most (even the Generality, except those few) have them: The judgment of our English Translators, and almost all other Translators of Matthew, and of the R. R. B.•. of Chester among your selves, putting the Copy that hath it in his Bible (as that which is most received and approved by the Church) do show on which side is the chief Authority. If the few Copies that want it; had been thought more authentic and credible, the Church of England, and most other Churches, would not have preferred the Copies that have this Doxology: And why will you in this contradict the later Judgement of the Church, expressed in the Translation allowed and imposed? The Syriac, Ethiopic, and Persian Translations also have it; and if the Syriac be as ancient as you your selves even now asserted, then the Antiquity of the Doxology is there evident: And it is not altogether to be neglected, which by Chemnitius, and others, is conjectured, That Paul's words,
. were spoken as in reference to this Doxology; and as Pareus, and other Protestants conclude, it is more probable the Latins neglected, than that the Greek inserted, of their own heads, this sentence. The Socinians and Arians have as fair a pretence for their Exception against
. Musculus saith, non cogitant vero similius esse, ut Graecorum Ecclesiae, majis quam Latina, quod ab Evangelistis Graece Scriptum est, integrum servavit, nihilque de suo adjecerit, quid de Graeca Ecclesia dico? vidi ipse vetustissimum Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, Codicem, Chalaaeis, & Elementis, & verbis conscriptum, in quo Coronis ista perinde atque in Graecis legebatur. Nec Chaldei solum sed & Arabes Christiani pariformiter cum Grecis orant, Et exemplar Hebraeum a docto & celebri D. Sebast. Munstero vulgatum, hanc ipsum Coronidem habet: Cum ergo consentiant hac in re, Hebraeorum, Chaldaeorum, Arabum, & Graecorum Ecclesiae, valde inconsideratum videtur, quod uni Latinorum Ecclesiae contra omnes reliquas tautum tribuitur authoritatis, ut quod sola diversum legit, ab Evangelistis traditem esse credatur: quod vero reliquae omnes, concorditer habem, & orant, pro a•dititio & peregrino habeatur.
Repl. We shall not be so over-credulous as to believe you, that these ⟨p. 99⟩words are not in the ancient Copies: It is enough that we believe that some few ancient Copies have them not; but that the most (even the Generality, except those few) have them: The judgment of our English Translators, and almost all other Translators of Matthew, and of the R. R. B.•. of Chester among your selves, putting the Copy that hath it in his Bible (as that which is most received and approved by the Church) do shew on which side is the chief Authority. If the few Copies that want it; had been thought more authentick and credible, the Church of England, and most other Churches, would not have preferred the Copies that have this Doxologie: And why will you in this contradict the later Judgement of the Church, expressed in the Translation allowed and imposed? The Syriack, Ethiopick, and Persian Translations also have it; and if the Syriack be as ancient as you your selves even now asserted, then the Antiquity of the Doxologie is there evident: And it is not altogether to be neglected, which by Chemnitius, and others, is conjectured, That Paul's words, 2 Tim. 4. 18. were spoken as in reference to this Doxologie; and as Pareus, and other Protestants conclude, it is more probable the Latines neglected, than that the Greek inserted, of their own heads, this sentence. The Socinians and Arrians have as fair a pretence for their Exception against 1 Joh. 5. 6, 7. Musculus saith, non cogitant vero similius esse, ut Graecorum Ecclesiae, majis quam Latina, quod ab Evangelistis Graece Scriptum est, integrum servavit, nihilque de suo adjecerit, quid de Graeca Ecclesia dico? vidi ipse vetustissimum Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, Codicem, Chalaaeis, & Elementis, & verbis conscriptum, in quo Coronis ista perinde atque in Graecis legebatur. Nec Chaldei solum sed & Arabes Christiani pariformiter cum Grecis orant, Et exemplar Hebraeum a docto & celebri D. Sebast. Munstero vulgatum, hanc ipsum Coronidem habet: Cum ergo consentiant hac in re, Hebraeorum, Chaldaeorum, Arabum, & Graecorum Ecclesiae, valde inconsideratum videtur, quod uni Latinorum Ecclesiae contra omnes reliquas tautum tribuitur authoritatis, ut quod sola diversum legit, ab Evangelistis traditem esse credatur: quod vero reliquae omnes, concorditer habem, & orant, pro a•dititio & peregrino habeatur.
And that Luke hath it not, will no more prove that it was not a part of the Lords Prayer, than all other omissions of one Evangelist will prove, that such words are Corruptions in the other that have them. All set together give us the Gospel fully; and from all we must gather it.
Answ. [It is used but twice in the Morning, and twice in the Evening Service, and twice cannot be called often, much less so often.] For the Litany, Communion, Baptism, &c. they are Offices distinct from Morning and Evening Prayer, and it is not fit that any of them should want the Lords Prayer.] ⟨p. 98⟩[…] ⟨p. 99⟩[…]
Answ. [It is used but twice in the Morning, and twice in the Evening Service, and twice cannot be called often, much lesse so often.] For the Letany, Communion, Baptism, &c. they are Offices distinct from Morning and Evening Prayer, and it is not fit that any of them should want the Lords Prayer.] ⟨p. 98⟩〈…〉⟨p. 99⟩〈…〉
Repl. We may better say we are required to use it six times every morning, than but twice: for it is twice in the Common Morning Prayer, and once in the Litany, and once in the Communion Service, and once at Baptism, (which in great Parishes is usually every day) and once to be used by the Preacher in the Pulpit: and if you call these distinct Offices, that maketh not the Lords Prayer the seldomer used: Sure we are the Apostles thought it fit, that many of their Prayers should be without the Lords Prayer.
Repl. We may better say we are required to use it six times every morning, than but twice: for it is twice in the Common Morning Prayer, and once in the Letany, and once in the Communion Service, and once at Baptism, (which in great Parishes is usually every day) and once to be used by the Preacher in the Pulpit: and if you call these distinct Offices, that maketh not the Lords Prayer the seldomer used: Sure we are the Apostles thought it fit, that many of their Prayers should be without the Lords Prayer.
Answ. [This Doxology being a solemn Confession of the blessed Trinity, should not be thought a burden to any Christian Liturgy, especially being so short as it is: neither is the repetition of it, to be thought a vain repetition, more than [his mercy endureth for ever] so often repeated, Psal. 136. we cannot give God too much Glory, that being the end of our Creation, and should be the end of all our Services.]
Answ. [This Doxology being a solemn Confession of the blessed Trinity, should not be thought a burden to any Christian Lyturgy, especially being so short as it is: neither is the repetition of it, to be thought a vain repetition, more than [his mercy endureth for ever] so often repeated, Psal. 136. we cannot give God too much Glory, that being the end of our Creation, and should be the end of all our Services.]
Repl. Though we cannot give God too much Glory, we may too often repeat a form of words, wherein his Name and Glory is mentioned: There is great difference between a Psalm of Praise, and the praise in our ordinary prayers; more liberty of repetition may be taken in Psalms, and be an Ornament: And there's difference between that which is unusual (in one Psalm of 150) and that which is our daily course of Worship: When you have well proved that Christ's prohibition of battology extendeth not to this (Matth. 6.) we shall acquiesce.
Repl. Though we cannot give God too much Glory, we may too often repeat a form of words, wherein his Name and Glory is mentioned: There is great difference between a Psalm of Praise, and the praise in our ordinary prayers; more liberty of repetition may be taken in Psalms, and be an Ornament: And there's difference between that which is unusual (in one Psalm of 150) and that which is our daily course of Worship: When you have well proved that Christ's prohibition of battologie extendeth not to this (Matth. 6.) we shall acquiesce.
Answ. [In such places where they do sing, &c.] The Rubr. directs only such singing, as is after the manner of distinct reading, and we never heard of any inconvenience thereby, and therefore conceive this demand to be needless.]
Repl. It tempteth men to think they should read in a singing tone, and to turn reading Scripture into singing, hath the inconveniences of turning the edifying simplicity and plainness of God's Service, into such affected unnatural strains and tones, as is used by the Mimical and Ludicrous; or such as feign themselves in Raptures: And the highest things (such as words and modes that signify Raptures) are most loathsome, when forced, feigned and hypocritically affected; and therefore not fit for Congregations, that cannot be supposed to be in such Raptures. This we apply also to the sententious mode of Prayers.
Repl. It tempteth men to think they should read in a singing tone, and to turn reading Scripture into singing, hath the inconveniences of turning the edifying simplicity and plainness of God's Service, into such affected unnatural strains and tones, as is used by the Mimical and Ludicrous; or such as feign themselves in Raptures: And the highest things (such as words and modes that signifie Raptures) are most loathsom, when forced, feigned and hypocritically affected; and therefore not fit for Congregations, that cannot be supposed to be in such Raptures. This we apply also to the sententious mode of Prayers.
Ans. [This Hymn was used all the Church over, Conc. Tolet. Can. 13. and therefore should be continued still, as well as Te Deum, (Ruffin. Apol. cont. Hieron.) or, Veni Creator, which they do not object against us as Apocryphal.]
Ans. [This Hymn was used all the Church over, Conc. Tolet. Can. 13. and therefore should be continued still, as well as Te Deum, (Ruffin. Apol. cont. Hieron.) or, Veni Creator, which they do not object against us as Apocriphal.]
