But Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate there is no necessity to assign a Metaphysical cause for such an accident as we see obviously effected by the powers of Nature For Schollars experience the same thing in themselves where the Spirit cannot be pretended beginning to read or meditate on a new subject with great intention and fervency but soon calmed and ready to lay it aside till the diversion of a new one hath made the old one new again 3. Nature it self is apt to be more intent and fervent in the exercise of a Gift then in the exercise of a Grace and therefore where there is place for the exercise of both there may probably be more intention and fervour then where there is place only to exercise grace And in this case the less intention is as acceptable to God as the greater For the over-plus may arise from the gift and not from the grace whereas the Lord delighteth not in the legs of a man nor in his wit and tongue neither but his delight is in them that fear him To apply this answer He that reads the Common-Prayer exerciseth no gift in comparison of that which is exercised in extempore Prayes all that is left him to do is to exercise Grace as faith love humility desire But the other exerciseth his memory fancy invention an harder piece of judgement besides method Now since we are most stupid to the best and most spiritual duties and had rather read a book where our parts and gifts are exercised then a plain one though more practical where the exercise of Grace is more purely and singly required it is manifest that caeteriâ— paribus there will be more intention and heat in the use of extempore Prayer which sets so many gifts a work then if the same man should use the Common-prayer which employs little else then his graces And yet this overplus of intention and heat is hardly a better sign to the person in whom it is that he or his Prayer is any whit more acceptable to God then the intention and heat which a school-boy finds in using his invention and making his verses above that which he finds in reading an Author For invention takes up the soul be it in what subject it will And this brings me to a fourth Reason wherefore some men may be more intent and fervent in extempore Prayers then in the Common-prayer 4. Men are naturally more affected with their own inventions then with those of others and therefore extempore Prayers may more affect them then prescribed forms upon no better an account then that of self-love May be some have experienced that they can better joyn with others in an extempore Prayer then in a Form but that may proceed from the first Reason and moreover from this I shall now name That it is natural to be intent and fervent in hearing others to exercise their parts notably and it is no more then we find in reading or hearing any piece of Wit But the Authors have professed that they come not under this Reason being not so much affected with premeditated forms of their own therefore because it reacheth not them though it doth others I will not account it a fourth Reason but substitute another which for ought I know may agree to them It is natural to the mind of man to be impatient of restraint and love to be at its own liberty whence it comes to passe that a plausible fancy doth more prevail then a severe and sullen Argument as Doctor Reynolds now Bishop of Norwich hath excellently noted in his Treatise of the Passions and Faculties of the Soul cap. 4. Now men using their own liberty in extempore Prayers but being limited and tyed up by Forms they may be more intent and fervent in the former then in the latter upon no better principle then that which is most predominant in the most corrupt men which are the most independent and say Let us break their bonds asunder and cast their cords from us 5. In unpremeditated Prayers there is far greater room and scope and opportunity for ostentation and vain glory in the discovery of mens parts and gifts yea as some hearers will interpret of their graces and divine experiences And what can flesh and blood be more intent and earnest about then such an employment And that the intention and fervour of many in their Prayers proceeds from this Reason is evident from hence in that when they pray before others they will weep and make other such signs of intention and fervour but it is not so when others pray before them I have now mentioned the five Reasons I promised which may probably cause the overplus of intention and fervour in these men while they use extempore Prayers above what they find in using of Forms I say not only possibly but probably For seeing the self-same things are prayed for in the Letany which can be the matter of the longest extempore Prayer though not in that novelty variety and elegancy of phrase if the heat and intention they speak of did purely proceed from the strength of their desire to the things themselves it would be equal in both cases But since it is not equal it must needs proceed from some other cause and probably from one or all those I have assigned since it is known that they are apt in their own nature to produce such an inequality It might be further considered that some persons having entertained some private opinions of their own are engaged by them to pray for such things which the Prayers of the Church do not beg of God but rather the contrary as it was in the late wars when the late King thought one Reason of disliking the Common-prayer was that there were so many Petitions put up for him I shall only add a Reason which relates more properly and especially to the fervency spoken of then to the intention of mind And it is this when a man doth strongly bend his wit in study most of all in invention he feels a sensible heat in his body insomuch that I have known some to put a napkin dipped in cold water on their heads Any man I think may experience that in such an employment he doth not breath so freely and frequently as ordinarily he doth which will be most apparent to such as take Tobacco even as a man holds his breath when he is about with all his might to strike a blow And this obstruction of the breath alone is sufficient to effect an extraordinary fervency in the blood and spirits Besides when a man is not only to invent but to invent as fast as the Auditors expect he should utter in case matter comes not fast enough he will be apt to draw out his last words to the great straining of his body and to make up the defect of matter with more then ordinary earnestnesse in the delivery Like him whose notions being out before the glasse lifted up
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
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-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
that while the Authors labour to extricate themselves out of the stringent nooses of their Opposites retortion they have only more intricatly involved and entangled themselves It is time now to proceed in my animadversions to the next Paragraph of their Chapter under debate in which they explain their fore-cited Reason in other words and enlarge it with one consideration not hinted by them before viz that there be other forms of prayer to be had beside those used by Idolaters Their words are these exactly Prayer is a piece of Gospel-sacrifice and by a Rational act of our souls to be offered to God Now whether it be lawful for us when the earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof whereas God hath given us an ability to speak words in another form to take-those very forms and to offer them up to God in true Gospel-worship which have been offered in an idolatrous service though the matter of those forms be not idolatrous is to us a great doubt nor can we be satisfied in the lawfulness of it This affectation of using diversity of phrase from the Papists I never saw pleaded for before but have often observed to be practised to my sorrow For some men labouring to get far enough from the Papists in their Dialect have spoken like Turks in point of mans will and like Gnosticks and Libertines in point of good works But the true Catholick Christian can approve a good saying whoever be the speaker and will behave himself to the Papists as Seneca to the Epicureans who though he was a Stoick confesseth he borrowed many things from Epicurus and gives this reason because he could call truth his own though he found it in the enemies camp and under the enemies colours The true Shibboleth which must distinguish a true Catholick from a Papist and all other Hereticks is not words and phrases tones countenances habits and gestures by which characters Popery is usually defined and distinguished among us but it is a greater Humility Charity and Freedom of spirit And that the Papists and other Hereticks may see that we differ from them and place the difference of our Religion in these excellent uncontrovertible and most material points I with with all my heart that our language and phrase were as like to theirs as truly and lawfully may be provided we still retain our Christian liberty of varying from them For if the words and forms of prayer which they use be in themselves true and good it is not their using them which can make them unlawful notwithstanding what I have newly quoted to the contrary For what though prayer be a piece of Gospel sacrifice c. so are our bodies so are our estates and both to be offered to God by a rational act of our souls Suppose then that my right knee hath bowed to an Idol upon my conversion must not I bow to the true God with that knee seeing I have another but only with my left Surely I should use that knee to chuse in Gods worship which had been defiled in the service of Idols Again in point of Alms which is no lesse a piece of Gospel-sacrifice to be offered to God by a rational act of our souls then prayer is may not a man give that money to the poor which he knoweth hath been offered to a false God or to the true God in an idolatrous service When the Temples of the Pagans were in many places demolished might not the Emperour as well yea much better have given the gold and silver that was found there consecrated to Idols unto the poor then have employed it about the use of his Pallace or the affairs of State But since I see this Reason on foot I lesse wonder that those who had the Revenues of the Church so long in their hands did so little good with them May be they thought that they had been offered to an Idol before and therefore ought not to be given to the true God but to be called Nehushtan and condemned to the base service of their belly I shall conclude my notes on the last quoted passage with one more Instance of common practice which I hope the Authors themselves allow of though it be vertually condemned by the Reason which they alledge Who the Authors of the Book are I know not nor what their way is But I am sure others of their mind in point of non-conformity will use some sentences of the Common-prayer in their extempore Prayers as â—hat Gods service is perfect freedom and the like Now if a whole Prayer be defiled by the Papists use of it every part of it must be so defiled If they say that they use no Sentences in their prayers which have been used by Idolaters in theirs excepting such as are agreeable to the Scriptures I must require them to shew what sentence of a Prayer in the Liturgy is not agreeable to the Scriptures and when they have shewn that I yield them the cause But their present reason argues against the lawfulnesse of using such forms of words which themselves confesse are for the matter of them true and agreeable to the Scriptures SECT V. Their Argument from 1 Cor. 10. about Meats offered to Idols answered Several Reasons why Forms of prayer cannot be liable to those pollutions which those meats were THese confessed absurdities following from their assertion let us now see upon what grounds it is built to which end I shall here transcribe their next words The ground of our scruple is in that known Text 1 Cor. 10. where the Apostle treateth concerning the lawfulnesse of eating meats that had been once offered to Idols He determines as to a double case 1. That it is not lawful to eat such meats in an Idols Temple 2. In case it be sold in the shambles and we know it not he determines that we may buy and eat it But in case our Brother saith unto us This hath been offered to an Idol he saith eat it not so that our Brothers scandal upon such a foundation is to be avoided by us He gives the Reason because there is other meat to eat The earth is the Lords and the fulnesse thereof Here they interweave an Argument from scandal with that they have been so long upon drawn from the unlawfulnesse of offering that to God which had been offered to Idols I shall consider the case of scandal by it self in the next Chapter For they are two Arguments though the Authors observing its likely the weaknesse of each of them confound them together in these words But I shall distinguish them in my answer since if neither of them is of force singly they cannot be of force conjunctly For if the Common-prayer may not be used because it hath been polluted by the known use of it in an idolatrous service as they have spent a whole leaf to prove already without mentioning scandal then it were a sin to use it though no man took offence at it and to
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-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