HO' log ofthePuritans, examin'd 2 33 Surely, fays the Bithop, [Humble Reman- e France, p. Io.] our Saviour, and his gracious Forerunner, were fo far from this new Divinity, as they plainly taught that, which thefe Men gain- ' fay ; a dire& Form of Prayer, and full, as that part of the Frame prefcribed by our Saviour, was compofed of thofe Forms ofDevotion, which have been fince ufual with the yews.' Neal, p. 399. Sme&ymnuus replies, That there were none [viz. Liturgies] in the Chr/ian Church, is evident from Tertullian, in his Apol. cap. 3o. where he Pays, the Chriftians in thofe Times, in their publick Affemblies, prayed, fine monitore, quia de `pe&ore, without any Prompter, but their own Heart. This is fully anfwered by the Bithop, in his be- fence of the Humble Remonfirance, p. 13, 14. Neal, ibid. Nor was this Liberty taken away, [and fet Forms impofed and introduced. Omitted by Mr. Neal] till the Arian and Pelagian Herefies did invade the Church. It is fomewhat magifterially faid, (fays Bi- limp Hall, in his Defence of the Humble Rernan- ( trance, p. 14.) that fet and impofed Forms were not introduced till the Arian and Pelagian Here- fies did invade the Church; and as Clerkly do they immediately confute themfelves, by their own Teftimonies cited out of the Council of Lao- dicea,which was before their limited time, as being before the Nicene, and betwixt that and the Neo- ' cefarea.n. Nothing can be more full than the Ca- non of that ancient Synod, that the fame Liturgy c of Prayers fhould be always ufed, both in the Morning and Evening.' Neal, p. 401. From the. Antiquity of Liturgies in general, the Bafhop deli-ends to a more particular Com- mendationof that, which was eftabl/ed in the Church of England ; as that it was drawn zip by wife and good Men, withgreat ,Deliberation; that it had been feal'd
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=