which he had first commanded him Yet the two cases as to our purpose are not alike in many respects which I could instance and shall if there be need It remaineth therefore that there was no Divine direction given to David concerning this beside the light of his own Reason the Candle of the Lord the commands of which are the commands of God But that I insist not on here God never commanded any where in the Levitical Law to my best Remembrance that a Temple should be built in future Ages I confesse I read more then once that when the Israelites should be settled in their inheritance there should be a stated place in some of the Tribes where God would be worshipped and where he would place his Name But that might be by settling the Tabernacle there without an house of Wood and Stone In like manner Salomon though indeed God had said he should build the Temple yet stayeth not for a command from God about the form the measure the materials and many other adjuncts of the same though all these things were determined by God himself in the Tabernacle and not left to Humane Prudence Neither doth Salomon in these and many other Points keep to the Pattern of the Tabernacle but follows his own Wisdom Accordingly at the Dedication he kept a Feast and it was an holy Feast For it was kept before the Lord God 1 Kings 8.65 seaven dayes and seven dayes even fourteen dayes a Feast that was never commanded nor kept before and therefore by the reasonings of these men a more monstrous and abominably anomalous holy-day then Christmass it self Other inductions might be made and shall be when there is occasion if this doth not suffice to evince that the forecited Prohibition Thou shalt not add thereto doth not forbid all humane Inventions in the Worship of God 3. The Text under consideration saith Thou shalt not add to it nor diminish from it The Pronoun Relative it doth plainly refer to the Law delivered by Moses in the Wilderness whether Moral Political or Ceremonial And if this Prohibition binds us in the sense which they affix unto it I see not how we can avoid but we must turn Jews If it be replyed that the Ceremonial Laws are abrogated by the coming of Christ and therefore we may do things which are not by them enjoyned and leave undone things that are but yet that there remains the same analogy and Common Reason in respect of the Precepts of the Gospel I answer that the Proportion and Common Reason is not the same in our case till it be proved that God hath by Revelation determined all things in his Worship in the sayings of Christ and his Apostles which are upon Record as perfectly as he did in the Law of Moses wherein not so much as the sâ—uffers and other such Punctilio's are pretermitted It is usually urged that the same Prohibition which now we dispute off doth seal up the whole Canon of Scripture Revel 22. where Saint John concludes If any man add to these things God shall add to him the Plagues c. But if these words in the latitude of their meaning are not to be restrained to the Book of the Revelations which yet is most probable but extended to the whole Body of Scripture Yet they are not to be interpreted as forbidding those actions in Gods Worship that are not prescribed in the Bible For there are other precepts in the Bible beside those which are Directive of Gods Worship as about Good husbandry and Good huswifry in the Proverbs And therefore these Words in the end of the Apocalyps prohibiting with an equall peremptoriness any additions to any Parts of the Bible they must needs condemn humane inventions in good Husbandry as much as in the Worship of God and Mr. Hartlib will be found Popishly affected at the Tribunal of these Expositors SECT III. By the Ministers sense of the Text we are obliged to the observation of the Political Laws of Moses The Answer that we are so to the Reason of them retorted The things meant in that Text are such as were an abomination to God antecedently Their sense of the words not only absurd but exotick 4. IT was as much unlawfull to add to the Political Laws of the Jewish State as to the Ceremonial and Moral or to diminish from them And yet as these men understand the Words add and diminish we do continually add to them and diminish from them and they blame us not For when a Thief is hanged instead of making the assigned restitution here is an addition and when the Dam is taken with her Young ones or an house made without Battlements or a Rebellious Son not stoned to Death here is a diminution The Fifth Monarcy men do more exactly live up or rather down to their Principles then they who taught them I cannot see but according to the forementioned reasons we are bound by the Judicial Laws of Moses If it be said so we are so far as the Reason of the command remains I answer that in such cases it is clear that the command doth not oblige us but the Reason of the command and the same Reason would oblige as much when there is no command which is all I contend for that human Reason may invent new constitutions about the commerce of Men and consequently about the Worship of God with a non-obstante to the Text alledged By these four Reasons it appears to any unprejudiced and considerate Reader that these Words Thou shalt not add to it do not signifie There shall be no humane Inventions in the Worship of God Yea although this should be the most literal and obvious sense of the words The Reason is because of those many plain contradictions and gross absurdities that would necessarily be consequent thereupon as I have already instanced I might add that there were new and difficult cases sometimes contingent in which the Judges could not proceed by the stated Rules of Law but were to make their address to Persons appointed by God and to stand to their sentence Moreover if Thou shalt not add to it did signifie in the place quoted Thou shalt not do what is not commanded yet the context maketh it appear that those things were meant that were an abomination to God antecedently to the giving of his Law or at least by their contrariety to his Law It doth not appear that those things were at all meant which are an abomination only because they are not commanded by his Law if there be any such things as those I deal with suppose To speak more clearly if it may be The Text forbids the adding of such things that are an abomination to the Lord not because they were not prescribed in the Law but because they were condemned by the Law or were condemnable before the giving of the Law This will be evident if we consider the words immediately preceding Deut. 12.30 31. Enquire not saying How did these
add to them though they avoid the Popish Rock of conferring Grace which we say no true Sacrament doth ex opere operato But the answer is ready viz. That this Argument makes as much against the Ceremonies annexed to a solemn Oath as against any other significant Ceremonies quatenus significant But indeed it makes against neither the one nor the other For to make a Sacrament as the word is properly and strictly taken it is not enough that there be a sign representing spiritual mysteries I doubt the Authors scorn to learn out of the derided Catechism in the Common Prayer-Book else they might see there that it must be ordained by Christ himself to be a means and a pledge How ever that may convince them that the imposers of those Ceremonies against which they are so querulous never intended them to be Sacraments for they never say that they were ordained by Christ himself to be pledges and means But I hope they have a better value for Mr. Perkins and I am sure when I was a School-boy I learned of him that a Sacrament is not only a sign to represent but also a seal to confirm and consequently implies a Divine institution Humane Authority may appoint our seals by which we have our engagements to God confirmed as the Cross after Baptism but they cannot make Gods seals by which his promises may be confirmed to us for that is proper to him and therefore they can make no new Sacraments But though they can make no new seals yet they may make new signs without making a Sacrament Yea and new seals on our part though not on Gods It is wont to be objected What place can be then left for Superstition if men may add new Ordinances which God hath not declared to be necessary To which I answer that Superstition consists not in using these things as helps to Worship which are only not commanded by God but withall not forbidden But in using them as necessary pieces of Religion sanctified by divine institution when they are not And so there may be as much Superstition in sitting at the Sacrament as in kneeling in wearing other Garments as a Surplis SECT II. The Text Deut. 12.32 doth not forbid all humane inventions in Gods Worship any more then in Civil Government It condemns as much the approved practice of David and Salomon and our present disuse of the Ceremonial Law The seal of the Canon Rev. 22. considered as to this matter I Have heard many more such exceptions made against these humane inventions as they call them But I remember I am not now writing a Treatise but answering a Book and shall only answer the objection which the Authors make from that Scripture which hath the greatest appearance of patronage to their cause of any I know of in the Bible It is Deut. 12.32 What thing soever I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it This they cite to their purpose in the Question under consideration with this Gloss pag. 100. By this Text certainly all humane inventions in the worship of God are forbidden But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an Argument themselves much cry down Therefore let us take the Liberty they give us to examine their interpretation by the Rule of Right Reason by which it will easily appear that their certain truth is a certain falshood For 1. If this Scripture forbids all humane inventions in Gods Worship then all humane inventions in the Civil Government are forbidden also The Consequent is false by their own confession unless they will deny that the Act of Indempnity is either an Humane Invention or a Lawful Act Ergo the Antecedent is false also I prove the Consequence thus Those words which are applyed both to the commands of God about his Worship and to the commands of God about the Civil Policy do as much forbid humane inventions in Civil Policy as in the worship of God But these words Thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it though in the twelfth of Deuteronomy they are indeed applyed to the commands of God concerning his own Worship yet in other places they are applyed to all his commandments in general Ergo They do no more forbid humane inventions in the Worship of God then in Civil Policy The Minor is clear from Deut. 4.1 2. Now therefore Hearken O Israel unto the Statutes and unto the Judgements which I teach you for to do them You shall not add to the word that I command you neither shall you diminish ought from it Now the Laws made to regulate Civil commerce and Judicial proceedings were some of those Statutes and Judgements to which all additions are forbid And therefore if such a Prohibition forbids all humane inventions in the Worship of God it must needs forbid humane inventions in the Civil Government which I hope those I oppose are not so wild as to assert 2. We find good and holy men notwithstanding this Prohibition setting their own Prudence a work to invent new things in the Worship of God which may well serve as an Argument ad homines to convince those which place so much in Examples as usually the Nonconformists do But that it may be the more easily and universally succesful I shall further demonstrate that these examples were approved by God also We have an instance 2 Sam. 7. David purposed to build God an house The Reason which grounded this Purpose was no command of God but meerly Prudential ver 2. The King said to Nathan the Prophet See now I dwell in an house of Cedar but the Ark of the Lord dwelleth within Curtains The Prophet Nathan approveth the Motion in the next words Go do all that is in thy Heart for the Lord is with thee And though afterward God by Nathan stopped the execution yet it is evident from the divine Oracle that he liked the Intention as he took pleasure in the readiness of Abrahams mind to offer Isaac though he would not have him be actua ly slain This divine approbation of Davids purpose appears from Gods promise made thereupon to build David an house c. And so doth his Son Salomon comment upon the foresaid Oracle in his prayer at the dedication of the Temple 1 Kings 8.18 The Lord said to David my Father Whereas it was in thy Heart to build an house to my Name thou didst well that it was in thy Heart Nevertheless thou shalt not build the House but thy Son If it be said that David had a particular command for it by divine and extraordinary Revelation beyond the Dictates of his sanctified Reason This is said clearly without Book yea and against Book For thus God answereth David 1 Chron. 17.6 Spake I a word to any of the Judges of Israel saying Why have ye not built me an house of Cedars And besides if God commanded David before why did he forbid him afterward For though God did forbid that to Abraham
a Book That is true by the Book mediatly but not immtdiatly as they say The Words are first in the Book but they are conceived by the soul and thence dictated before they be uttered by the tongue Indeed after much study for their meaning I fancy at length that they intend a greater Emphasis in the word directs then I was aware of If so possibly this may be their import That the same person who contrives the form of a Prayer is most likely to utter it to the best advantage which would be true if he could contrive as well while he speaks as before he speaks because himself best knows the weight of his own words but not else SECT IX The fifth branch of their first Argument viz. 'T is disputable whether it be lawful since there is no precept or president for it in the word answered 1. Disputable actions are lawfull when commanded 2. Few Actions are indisputable Non-conformity is not 3. We may do what we have neither precept nor example for 4. There are General commands for the use of Forms and Particular are not necessary proved from the Ministers own words and deeds 5. There are Particular commands and examples of Forms in Scripture Their Objection that the Liturgy is not fitted to their necessities answered Three Reasons for the restraining of those in some cases who can pray otherwise I proceed now to the fifth and last branch of their first reason contained in the eigth chapter of their book The Paragraph begins thus Nay lastly to add no more if there were nothing else in the case we should think it very disputable whether it be lawful for us in the publick worship of God especially as to the momentous acts and parts of it to do that for which we have no command in the Word no President or example To which objection I have ready no lesse then four answers and the Reader may take which he pleaseth for that which will not satisfie one man will another 1. First What though the lawfulness of such actions be disputable they may not therefore be done when commanded I have proved the contrary Sect. 2. Besides what I said there I add now another consideration Such is the diversity of the principles which men go by that there are but few actions that are not disputable By this Reason the Authors have confuted their own non-conformity For it s certainly a a disputable point since many good and learned men have actually disputed it to the satisfaction of many Readers of the same stamp and their Arguments have never been answered by their Adversaries For all they write is no answer till they undertake Hookers Ecclesiastical Polity in the full body and Dr. Sandersons Sermons with the Prefaces thereof 2. Secondly I have already proved that it is lawful in the publick worship of God yea in the momentous acts and parts thereof to do that which we have no command President or example for in Scripture as in an Oath c. 3. Thirdly There is a General command for forms of prayer when they are imposed by the Magistrate For we are enjoyned in Scripture to obey our Rulers when they command such things as Gods word nowhere forbids and such things are Forms in our Case As for a particular command or example in Scripture it is not requisite by the Authors own concessions which they make both in their deeds and words For if you observe their deeds they praise God in prescribed forms made by Hopkins and Stâ—rnhold whereas Praise being a part of Prayer there is the same Reason for extempore Hymns as extempore Petitions Again when they visit the sick they annoint him not with Oil And yet they shall be so far from producing a command for such a visitation in Scripture that they shall find the contrary in Saint James If they say there is not the same Reason for that annointing now which was then I reply Neither is there the same Reason for unpremeditated prayers now as was then For now forms are commanded by the Rulers but according to the Authors opinion they were not then But because it is usual with men to say one thing and do another condemning themselves in that which they allow May be this giving of the Question which we find in their deeds will seem to be of less weight see therefore how they grant it in their words too Pag. 73. Sect. 9. where they give more then I ask at this time For I contend only for the lawfulness of doing things which are not particularly commanded but there they grant the lawfulness of imposing such things freely allowing the Magistrate a Power to command us to keep the statutes and commandments of God and besides that to do three things 1. To command as in the circumstances relating to divine Worship to do those things which are generally commanded in the word of God Now a Form of Prayer is doubtless but a circumstance of Prayer and I have proved that if the Magistrate thinks them convenient Forms are generally commanded in Scripture 2. To appoint time and place Now if he can appoint a time which he thinks most convenient though otherwise it would be less convenient and so of place I would fain know a reason why he may not appoint a Form which he thinks most expedient though possibly otherwise it would be lesse expedient And to appoint to begin at such a time or to end at such a time is as really a limitation of the Spirit as to appoint a Form 3. To appoint such circumstances without which the worship of God in the judgement of ordinary reason must be indecently and disorderly performed Now this ordinary Reason which they speak of must be either the reason of the Magistrate or the reason of the people or both or neither of them but that reason which is best whether of the one or the other If they mean the reason of the people then the sense is that the Magistrate hath power to appoint such things as the subjects judge reasonable and we thank them for nothing if both we thank them for as much if they mean that reason which is best without restraining it to any subject I reply That reason in the Idea doth nothing but only as it is some bodies reason The best reason hath influence on no mans actions any further then it is apprehended as best And except the Magistate hath power to command what he apprehendeth most agreeable to the best reason he must command what the subjects apprehend so or else he must command nothing at all Therefore it remaineth that the reason which is to judge what is undecent is the reason of the Magistrate and if he command such things as be undecent so that they be not otherwise unlawful the people must submit by the Authors own concessions 4. Fourthly There are particular commands and examples in Scripture for forms of Prayer For Davids Psalms are Prayers many of them consist
more of Petitions then of Thanksgivings and some of them are expresly called so in their Titles Yet he appoints these Prayers to be uttered by others liâ—â—ting the persons that officiate not only in the sense and matter but in the phrase and form yea not only in the tune but tone prescribing the instruments wherewith they are to be sung Indeed the Authors take notice of this Instance and gather from it a clean contrary conclusion We cannot but think that the holy Psalmists variety of Prayers none of which as to words and phrases agre per omnia with another sheuld rather teach us when we go to God in prayer that we should rather take unto us words de novo as God shall put them into our hearts c. Mark the argumentation the fore-mentioned Prayers were to be prayed over and over again in the same words Ergo we should in every Prayer take words de novo Indeed the variety they speak of shews that they did not use only one form of prayer but the Liturgy is so far from confining us to one that the greatest offence that some take at it is that there are so many Prayers for the same things in divers phrases Thus some will be pleased neither full nor fasting I might add to this Instance of Davids Psalms another in the Propnet Hosea chap. 14. v. 2. Take with you words and turn unto the Lord and say unto him c. and another in Joel 2.17 Let the Priests the Ministers of the Lord weep between the porch and the Altar and let them say Spare thy people O Lord c. It is frivolous to object that this is the old Testaments Directory themselves I believe laugh at such a conceit in the Antinomians Yea they argue for their own purpose from the variety of phrase in these Prayers as hath been noted But if any require a new Testament example or command we probably have both I am sure one For Acts 4.24 we have a president which in probability without any stretching will come home to our case For we find there a whole company of the Primitive Christans in consort with the Apostles themselves lifting up their voyce with one accord and saying a Prayer which is there registered in its terms If it be said that the form was not composed before-hand but that they all lighted upon the same words by inspiration this is more then any man knows however it will justifie the joyning of voyces as well as hearts in prayer Beside this probable example we have a particular precept for the use of one form Luke 11.2 When you pray say Our Father c. as will better appear in its proper place where I shall cite their own words in the 55. page of their book We doubt not but we may use it in the form For bâ— this Reason of theirs under consideration they might not use it except they had a command for it in the Word of God The next thing to be observed is that Periphasis wherewith they would disparge the use of Forms calling it a borrowing of words from others hardly fitted to their hearts or present necessities Whether the Liturgy be fitted to their hearts I cannot tell because I know not their hearts But if their hearts be as they should be the Prayers there cannot but be fitted to their hearts the matter of the petitions being only such things as every Englishman should desire But if they would have every man utter that in prayer which is set upon his own heart as the phrase is whether reasonably or unreasonably there would be mad work And I wonder how the said Prayers should not be fitted to their necessities since they ask all good things Indeed some men have more necessities then others and the Liturgy will not fit them which no doubt did much help to bring it into discredit because it would not serve on fast-dayes in the late wars to beg those victories which were accounted the one thing necessary by some men And yet were it granted that it did not fit the heart and necessities of the Minister so well as a Prayer of his own invention yet possibly it may better fit the peoples and a Minister is to accommodate both his Prayers and Sermons rather to his peoples hearts and necessities then his own For unlesse he be like one of Jeroboams Priests if he should preach upon those points which sometimes are most material to be pressed on himself and in that way which is most effectual and prevalent upon his own more learned Soul it would have but small successe among the most of his hearers They conclude the Chapter to this purpose in many words too long to be here inserted That if stinted forms be allowed for some that canneâ— pray otherwise yet it is not lawful much lesse necessary for their sakes to restrain the abilities of those others that can As for the lawfulnesse of restraining a gift when such a restraint is judged useful I have proved it before As for the necessity of it to some end intended it will appear in three cases 1. In case uniformity is aimed at If the Captain will have his Souldiers keep their ranks he must forbid the sound to out-march the lame 2. In case liberty granted to some to do that which they have a gift for will provoke others which have it not to imitate them beyond their ability Thus the way to make mean men not to wear gold lace to the empoverishing of their estates is for great men to leave it of And thus the way to keep weak Ministers from extemporising beyond their power is for more able men to use the Common-prayer For if the denyal of liberty to some who have the gift for the sakes of those their brethren which have it not be to cut the man fit for the bed the granting such a liberty will be to stretch a man fit for the bed that I may retort the Authors similitude Now since both will needs lie together it is more equitable that the tall man pull up his legs then that the low man be put on the Rack 3. In case liberty given to an Officer to do something he hath a gift for and the denial of that liberty to another Officer of the same society which hath no such ability but cannot be spared any more then the former would make the weaker Officer contemptible and uselesse especially if he be the weaker only in that particular but the stronger in others In our case one Minister having spent more time in hearing the Sermons and Prayers of others or brought up from his childhood to make his Prayers himself or living among people which applaud extempore Prayers and so excite his invention hath got the knack of such Prayers but by this reason is not so well studied so solid and judicious nor so able to contrive a discourse upon premeditation Another having been taught from his childhood to pray by a
to an excellent end And the Authors themselves tell us pag. 67. that Baali was a name applied to the true God by himself Isa 54.5 Yet this word was polluted by abusing it to a bad end and by a positive command not to use it Hos 2.16 Thou shalt call me no more Baali so that forms of Scripture are capable of corruption and pollution as well as forms of humane invention and therefore the Authors distinction hinders not the Argument which they thought to have avoided by it from returning again upon them in its full strength If they mean some other kind of pollution which I cannt conjecture a kind by it self which contrary to the method and course of its fellows chuseth not to infect the most refined and delicate but rather the more gross and feculent constitutions I can say nothing of it till they tell me what that strange pollution is For my part I can at present imagine no other pollutions which words that are true and good are capable of besides those which I have named to which the phrases of Scripture have been shewn obnoxious as well as others I know good speeches have been rendered nauseous by a bad speaker and therefore they have been sometimes put into a good mans mouth to make them more acceptable But the disliking of good sayings when uttered by bad men is not grounded upon reason but weakness For in truth they are worthy of the more acceptation upon that account as when the Devil confessed our Saviour since that is a most evident truth which extorts a confession from the Adversarie I remember what the Apostle saith That to the pure all things are pure and Every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused The Papists might if they would spoil all the quaint and trite phrases of extempore Prayers if their use of them rendred them impure and to be refused If when the Authors say that words are polluted they mean only that they are rendred unlawful to be used then they beg the Question in their Reason dispute in a circle and their Argument runs round The Liturgy may not be used because it is polluted i. e. because it may not be used Therefore I conceive that they mean such a pollution as I have granted competible to words But then they are out in affirming that Scripture cannot be so polluted And the Lords Prayer wil come into the same condemnation which is by name exempted by them from the said pollution Yea though it were granted that the Scripture could not be polluted yet the use of the Lords Prayer as a Form of words and not meerly of sense would be polluted by their Reason For though the Lords Prayer be a part of Scripture yet since they will not grant that it was appointed by the Scripture to be used as a Form of words in Prayer it must needs follow by their Reason that we may not use it as a Form because the Papists did so For though the form of words be not polluted yet the use of them as a form of Prayer must be polluted according to their opinions as much as the sign of the cross Again that I may overthrow their Reply to Dr. Causabon another way since the deceit which lurks in generals is discovered in particulars let us put a case The Scripture saith God is rich to all that call upon him If the Mass-book had this Prayer Be thou Lord rich to all that call upon thee I ask whether this Prayer be polluted by being in the Mass book When they say it is polluted I must deal with them another way in the mean time let us charitably suppose that they are not so absurd but will grant that this prayer is not polluted thought it were in the Mass book and that their Reason is because this prayer consists of Scripture Phrase This answer being supposed I reply thus Indeed some of the single terms of the Proposition are in the Scripture I quoted before But the words so put together in this form are not For in Scripture the Verb substantive is of the Indicative Mood in the prayer of the Imperative In the Scripture it is of the third Person in the Prayer of the second Now if the mass-Mass-book defiles not a sentence in which the single words which are the Elements of a sentence are so joyned together as nowhere in Scripture why should any man imagine that the mass-Mass-book can defile a word wherein the Syllables and Letters which are the Elements of a word are so put together as they are nowhere in Scripture Besides if they say it is sufficient to keep a Petition from the pollution of the Mass that the words be Scripture-words though found together nowhere in Scripture in that form of construction wherein they stand in the Petition I answer that in saying so they justifie the Liturgy For I do not think there is a prayer there the single terms whereof and sometimes whole enunciations are not to be found in Scripture excepting when some particular Persons or Offices are prayed for And yet sure a man might pray for the said persons and offices by the same names though they were so termed in the Mass book Once more This Petition Forgive us our trespasses is Scripture not only in the simple terms but also in the form of the Proposition and therefore if there be any sentences which can escape the profanation of the Mass-book this must be one by their Reason But I challenge any man to give a satisfactory Reason wherefore the said Proposition cannot be polluted by the mass-Mass-book as easily as any of these I shall name Let our iniquities be pardoned by thee or acquit us from the guilt of our transgressions or condemn us not for our sins or any other the like which speak the same sense though they be not found word for word in Scripture I conclude therefore since the Authors confess that the Scriptures cannot be polluted by mens using them in an Idolatrous service and since I have proved that such Prayers whose sense keeps an harmony with that of Scripture are as uncapable of pollution as the Scriptures themselves if it be but further granted that the Prayers of the Liturgy in their sense do agree with the Scriptures which I here affirm and shall make good when called thereto it must needs follow that the prayers of the Liturgy remain unpolluted though they had been used in an Idolatrous worship and consequently may be lawfully used in the service of the true God which will further appear in the next Section SECT III. Vpon the Ministers Reason its unlawful to use Churches for divine worship built in time of Popery The impertinency of their Answer that Churches are not offered up to God Churches are offered as truly as Words Yea upon their Reason Churches may be put to no use at all proved by the case of Meats offered to Idols I Have shewed how ill they can justifie the
come afterward with the consideration of scandal doth not help on the proof that it is a sin but only makes it a double one And again on the other hand if there were more and more weighty scandal taken at the use of the Common-prayer then at the non-use in such a case a man were bound not to use it supposing it were everywhit as indifferent as the chusing a piece of meat in the shambles though it had never been used in an idolatrous service And indeed it doth not appear to me that the Apostle saith Eat not meerly to avoid scandal For I doubt whether the case would not have been the same if the person had seen it offered to Idols himself or if not a brother but an Infidel had told him or if he had bought it in a disguise that no body knew of it I am sure the Apostle argues from a more intrinsecal Topick then the scandal of the spectator viz. that by eating meats offered to Idols they were in danger to have fellowship with devils since those that eat of the sacrifices are partakers of the Altar Indeed the men I deal with seem to restrain those words to eating in the Idols Temple but I know not upon what Reason for whosoever shall read the eighth Chapter shall find that the Apostle makes eating the said flesh in the Idols Temple to be no worse then eating it in a private house at an invitation for there is no worse said of the one then of the other By this which hath been said the Reader will easily see a way made to the discovery of a wide difference between the case of flesh offered to Idols and the Liturgy except he be one of those which are wont to blaspheme it with the Nick-name of Porridge When it is proved that the Common Prayer is flesh offered to Devils and so brings us into danger of having fellowship with devils then somthing is done to make good the Reason and not till then The most which the Authors say to this purpose is in the next words For our part we are not able to fathom a Reason why a form of words fitted up for use in prayer should not be liable to the same corruption and pollution which a dish of meat fitted for natural use is But I can quickly tell them more reasons then one wherefore some dishes of meat namely such as Saint Paul speaks of offered to Idols should be more polluted as they word it I mean more unlawful to be used then some forms of words can be and in particular those which are in the Liturgy notwithstanding the fore-mentioned use of them in time of Popery 1. The said Flesh was offered to an Idol but the prayers of the Liturgy were offered to the true God while used by the Papists For the God to whom they prayed hath the same Attributes with the God which we pray to What though they think that bread in the Sacrament is turned into the flesh of Christ consequently hypostatically united to the Godhead I do not believe that they think the bread is God And they have a Scripture which if taken litterally would warrant their adoration of the bread which the Pagans have not for their Idols However none of the prayers in the Liturgy were made to this breaden God If it be said that though the prayers were not made to an Idol yet the putting up of these prayers was joyned with other acts of Idolatrous worship I answer that still they have not left the case in the same state with that which Saint Paul tteats of For those meats were offered to false Gods Therefore to make the cases alike we must suppose the Heathens to offer flesh to a false God and at the same Assembly either before or after to offer other flesh to the true God The Question is whether it were not lawful to eat the one though not the other I must see the one forbid as clearly as the other before I can doubt of the difference I might add that if the Papists apprehend the Bread to be God or if they worship it with divine worship yet they do not apprehend it to be Mars or Venus or other false gods neither do they intend to worship any such God but they intend to worship the true God the same whom the Protestants worship But the meats which Saint Paul speaks of were offered to other Gods then that which the Christians worship The Scripture saith they worshipped Devils and that they did intentionally calling them by that name themselves And this is one and that no inconsiderable alteration of the case 2. The Apostle only forbids the eating of the same numerical flesh which was offered to Idols not the same specifically Though flesh was offered to Idols yet a man might eat flesh and though Mutton or Beef was offered to Idols yet a man might eat Mutton or Beef so that it were not that same individual Flesh Mutton or Beef that was offered to Idols But now the words sentences and orations which are in the Common prayer-prayer-book are not the same numerically with those in the masse-Masse-book Latine and English differ certainly as much as Male and Female if not as green and blew Therefore when a Minister reads the Liturgy he doth not speak one word which is numerically the same with those which the Popish Priest speaks while he says Masse As to instance The Protestant Reader says Grant us thy peace But the Popish Reader offers not these words to God in his Idolatrous service May be he saith Da nobis pacem tuam But the word Dae is not the same numerically with the word Grant Yea the Ear discerns as great a difference between them as the Eye doth between red and yellow The Genus of every word spoken is a sound and if the sound be not the same the word is not the same Nay if the Popish Priest should read in English grant us thy peace the sound which he makes is not the same numerically with that which the protestant makes For the same numericall accident cannot be in two subjects And there is another plain alteration of the case 3. By eating meats offered to devils the Corinthians would be in danger of having fellowship with Devils as the Apostle saith and may be seen in the writings of those that relate the Pagan rites and Ceremonies in their mysteries and how the Devils were attracted by them Thus to this day those which use charms amulets or the like do many times come under the power of the Devil in their bodies or estates and are said by Divines to make an implicite though not an explicite contract with him But no such danger of having fellowship with Devils can be pretended in using those words in our prayers to God which were used to the same God though in a service performed to the same God after a false manner supposing that the said words are otherwise true and good which my
action which is otherwise lawful but giveth offence I do the action and yet I break not the Apostles precept because it is not such an offence as he means though it go under the same general name as the Act of the Sheriff and of the private man doe For Saint Paul means as the Authors Confesse an offence taken from an action which in other respects and antecedently to the offence I might do or not do But in this case my action is no such it is not an action which I might either do or leave undone antecedently to the offence but I was bound in conscience to do it if no offence had been taken and that by the Command of God requiring obedience to the Magistrate and therefore the duty being necessary antecedently to the offence in order of nature yea and in order of time too the falling out of the offence cannot warrant the omission of it much lesse oblige to the said omission SECT IV. Conformity is not in its own Nature so scandalous as Difformity both in provoking Distast and in laying stumbling-blocks in the way of the weak The Ministers Reasons make as much against the Oath of Allegiance as the Common-prayer It is absurd to offend the Magistrate that they may avoid the offence of private men Their Reply to this is but a meer begging of the Question and betraying their cause IN the next place they describe the scandal which they say would be taken at their reading of the Common-Prayer and make it consist in two particulars 1. That people would scorn and vilifie them and withdraw themselves from communion with them And 2. That they would be encouraged by the examples of these Ministers to do the like although not convinced of the lawfulnesse of so doing and so sin against their own consciences But I reply to them thus As for the first part of the scandal supposing that you are satisfied of the lawfulnesse of using the Common-prayer and have nothing to say against it but the scandal as the supposition is made by your selves upon this Argument I say supposing your selves thus satisfied then the people have more cause to vilifie you and withdraw themselves from your communion on the other hand for disobeying those to whom God hath commanded you to submit your selves This hath evidently more appearance of evil in it then the other I mean disobedience hath much more appearance of evil in it then obedience and consequently is much more scandalous in its natural tendency and more apt to give offence of this first kind that is to procure a disrepute and contempt among men who stand not on their heads and have not their Opticks inverted May be men will take a pretence from your conformity to call you Time-servers Men pleasers and the like But they may much more reasonably take an occasion from your Non-conformity supposing your selves are satisfied of the lawfulnesse of conformity were it not for the scorn which attends it to accuse you of a far greater sin which the Scripture parallels with that of Witchcraft If therefore you stick on your credit you should rather fear a greater reproach to which you give not only a greater pretext but also a real cause then a lesse reproach to which you yield a lesse pretence and no real cause at all For though people at least those whose votes you most regard are more apt to vilifie where there is lesse cause then where there is more yet you ought more to fear the giving cause of reproach then to be reproached And besides who knows how soon their minds may be turned For we see how men alter in their opinions about Religion and then may be they will reproach you for omitting of that which now they would reproach you for doing And as for the second part of the scandal you may by your example as much encourage some to sin against their consciences by not using of the Common Prayer as by using it For why may they not be as well-emboldned to Non conformity with a doubting conscience by your example as you think others will be encouraged to Conformity by the same example In case they be you lead them into a far greater sin For to conform purely in imitation of you is their sin only because they do it with a doubting conscience But the contrary is a sin without any respect to the said doubts If it be said that there are none or but a few of such Persons whom these Ministers ought to regard that scruple the Lawfulnesse of Non-conformity and therefore that there is no danger they should be led into sin that way I answer that the Peoples Non-conformity is a sin whether they do it doubtingly or no and the Ministers practice doth confirm them in this sin and hinder them from doubting of it that so they might leave it Yea though the People think it lawful to disobey the Act for the Common Prayer yet they are very wild indeed if they think without any scruple that they may violate other Acts But now seeing their Ministers to break one act as well as themselves they will the more easily be carried on in their Error till they come to think they may break others also And how the contempt of Laws hath proceeded by degrees from one to another till the most fundamental Laws were overturned we have seen by late and lamentable experience And it is no wonder For the very same Arguments which are brought against the use of Common Prayer do serve as much against the taking of the Oath of Allegiance For a Form of words in Prayer is there imposed since an oath is an invocation of God and so are significative ceremonies which the first Argument of this book which I oppose pronounceth unlawful Again such words actions and gestures are there used in divine worship for such is an oath which were used by Idolaters and this is pronounced unlawful by their second Argument And lastly to take the Oath of Allegiance is scandalous and offensive to many of the weak Brethren which are offended at the Common Prayer and therefore it ought not to be taken if the third Reason was of any force which is under my present examen And I cannot let this passe without putting this question Should a man refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance when required thereto because others are offended at it I hope the Authors will allow such an offence how many or how good soever the Persons are that are offended to be inconsiderable And yet it cannot be denied that the thing is indifferent in it self and only made necessary by humane Laws For till the Law was made no man was bound to take that Oath Therefore since humane Laws have force in this case to make that action lawful which many are offended with they must needs have the like force in the case of the common Prayer supposing it to be indifferent save only for the scandal which the Authors