864 14 Review of the principal fads objeEled to the churches ; and if their difcipline had been eflablifhed, they would no doubt have confined them to their proper bufnefs ; but as mattets flood with the_church of England, they were content to yield this point for the prefent, and accept of a liberty to preach and baptize under fuch a charaéter, rather than forego their miniftry, or be obliged (by taking up the office of a pe ele) to all the parts of parochial fervice. Of the Thar- We come now to the worfhip of the church of England ; which our gy and forms author introduces with a large encomium upon the publickLITURGY,and ofprayer. its preference to the Geneva forms. And hereagain Va.ys he), queen Eli- p. 69, Vie, zabeth is fo unhappy as to incur thisgentleman's dtfpleafure ; though he has not once declared his own fentiments, nor fomuch as commended the Hi4. Pur, puritans for objefting to the liturgy's being taken out of the mafs-book, P. 54. but excufed it from the inadvertency of the compilers, or the neceffity of ,. 236, 595 the times. Mr. N. had allowed, that the puritans did not objeci to pre- fcribedforms ofprayer, provided theymight have been indulged a liberty of p- 76,, Bt. altering or varying f me expre/ions. Upon which our author exclaims, as if the fabrick of the church, and the whole proteftant religion were in danger. " This had been aneffeEtual way (lays he) to throw the wholena- " tion into great confufion, and give the papifts fuch advantage, as would `6 have enabled them to fubvert the proteftant religion. What,! the popes, " lutheranand calviniftic clergy, alter or vary [an expreflion in] the pub- " lick prayers, as any of them thought proper! By this hopeful fcheme, " / when minifters were forbid to preach againfl one another, they had a Pure wayofcontinuing diffentions in their prayers." Wonderful ! And might they not Rill have done this in their conceivedprayers before fer.. L. Parker, mon ? or ought they not, for the fame reafon, to have been forbid preach. P. 84, ing, and confined to reading the homilies, fnce there was as much danger of their preaching, as of their praying againft each other ? It was once re- commended to the difcretion of miniflers, to change the leffons or chap- ters in the publick fervice ; and would the inconvenience have beengreat- er, if fome little latitude had been allowed them in the prayers? Sure I am, it would have been a more catholiek and comprehenfrve fcheme, . which this gentleman, when hecan turn it againft the puritans, is very fond of: But this not beingMr. N.'s hopefulproject, though this writer is p. &n. pleafed to charge it upon him, thehiftorian is not anfwerable for it. Ofthe habits. Our author proceeds next to vindicate the church in retaining the HA- p. 84 87 BITS. Mr. N. had faid, that "queen ELIZABETH'S common- prayer- "; book was hardlyequal to that whichwas Pet out by kingEDWARD, and confirmed, by parliament in the fifth year ofhis reign; for whereas in ' that liturgy all thegarments were laid aide but thefurplice, thequeen now " returned to king EDWARD'S FIRST BOOK, wherein copes and other " garments were ordered to be ufed." And is not this true? Yes, but " it
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=