were recorded would never the more prove the use unlawful For where do they leave any record of singing Psalms in Rime and Meeter and other forms of worship which yet are thought lawful Indeed this is the Antisabbatarians argument If the seventh day was sanctified from the creation then the celebration and keeping of it by the Patriarchs before the giving of the Law would have been recorded But they have been answered by these Authors Brethren in non-conformity That many things may have been done which are not recorded For all this they add Yet we doubt not but we may use it in the form and so put it to an use for which God never intended it Their Reasons are 1. Because it is holy Scripture But I would fain know a reason why a form of words which are not holy Scripture may not as lawfully be used as those which are 〈…〉 sure all the phrases or forms of speech which are used in extempore Prayers are not holy Scripture 2. Because say they it is so short that we may easily get it by heart and not employ our souls at our eyes by reading while they should be wrestling with God It seems then that whatsoever they said before though there be no precept or pattern in the Word of God yet a man may use a set form of Prayer if it be so short that it may be easily remembred and that one thing which they have against the Common-prayer is that it cannot be remembred but must be read But I answer that the reading of the Common-prayer which they disallow is not such a diversion of the soul from wrestling with God as the remembring of the Lords Prayer the use whereof without book they allow I never knew a man in reading of a Prayer frequently to skip what he intended to say but I have been told of a man and that of very great parts who never offered to say the Lords Prayer in publick but he was out The employing of the soul at the eye in reading is nothing so much as her employment in that part of the brain which is the shop of memory since the characters imprinted on the book are not so easily obliterated and defaced as those instamped on the brain Let any man tell me whether his thoughts be not lesse roving from the subject while he is reading a book which he remembers not then while he is remembring a speech got by heart or whether the soul be not put to more labour by saying it memoriter then by reading it in a plain print 3. They say that they can use the Lords Prayer because the divine authority of it is such as it hath another manner of influence on their spirits in using as all the Scripture hath then can be pretended for any other forms But if they mean by this divine Authority they speak of a divine institution this cannot be pleaded by them except they will grant that Christ appointed us to use these words in prayer which before they denyed and therefore I think that not to be their meaning If by this divine authority they allow to the Lords Prayer they understand only that the form of words came out of the divine Mint not excogitated by man but dictated by the Spirit of God then the same influence may be expected from some other forms being of divine authority as well as the Lords Prayer as those in the Liturgy O Lord open our Lips save thy people blesse thine inheritance But if the Reason wherefore they can lawfully utter the Lord Prayer before God be the divine authority of it then something at least tantamount to divine authority must be found in the Prayers which they invent themselves that they think it lawful to vent them For it seems if the Lords Prayer were not of divine authority they would not use it By the same Reason they would not use their own Prayers if they were not of divine authority or were not endowed with something of an equivalent credit with divine authority But now their own Prayers are not of divine authority therefore without doubt the Authors believe some excellency to be in them which renders them as good and lawful as if they were And what is that but clearly the extempore uttering of them This is laid in the scales with divine authority and out-ballanceth it too as will appear by these two cases compared together These Authors would not use the Lords Prayer so as to utter the expresse words if it were not of divine authority but because it is of divine authority therefore they will In like manner these Authors would not utter those words which usually they do in prayer besides the Lords Prayer if they were not invented extempore but dictated by another or by themselves before-hand but because they are invented extempore therefore they will So that you see extempore invention is as much preferred before divine authority as their own invented prayers are inferiour to the Lords Prayer And now no marvel though men stickle so much for the liberty of the extempore vein for so did Alexander for divine honours How otherwise shall they be deified by the people If you take away the divine authority of their Prayers they may complain with Micah What have we more 4. They give this as their last Reason wherefore though they cannot use other forms yet the Lords Prayer they can Because say they By the length of it we easily understand that it was never intended to be used without any other Prayer But that which they easily understand will not enter into the head of a rigid Non conformist whom I know who while he stayed in his place was wont very often to begin at Church with the Lords Prayer and to joyn no other Prayer with it Yet if they were all of as easie a conception as these Authors and agreed in the premises that the Lords Prayer was never intended to be used alone yet how doth the conclusion follow thence that therefore the Lords Prayer may be used though not the Common Prayer By this Reason they might more lawfully use the Common Prayer if they might be suffered to joyn their extempore Prayers with it But who can conceive that it should be lawful to use a set form so that it be in company with some other Prayers of their own framing and yet it should be unlawful to use it alone For that Prayer which is bad when alone can make no better a sound among a pack of good ones then a Goose among Swans But it seems they compare forms of prayer as the Wag did the Committee men to Fidlers as if they were Rogues when single but in consort with extempore Prayers were Gentlemen-Musicians SECT V. Their pretence that no Forms were in use till four hundred years after Christ answered Their Arguments from the uselesness of Forms from the Heresies Persecutions and separations which they cause and from peoples resting in them considered and retorted THeir
Nations serve their Gods Even so will I do likewise Thou shalt not do so to the Lord thy God For every abomination to the Lord which he hateth have they done to their Gods And then it follows Whatsoever thing I command observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it Now it is granted that such things are not to be added in Gods Worship no nor any where else by humane Invention which are an abomination to the Lord in their own nature or by being contrary to some Divine positive Law and not meerly by being not prescribed in the Law Such as burning of the Children in the fire the instance of the Text For that is the Reason given wherefore the Hebrews should not do as the Gentiles did without Gods command because the Gentiles did such abominations I confess the words also do implicitly and by the mediation of a Rational Inference forbid the doing of such things as are not an abomination out of any emulation or mimical desire to be like the Gentiles Because the doing of such things as are no abomination out of such a disposition would naturally tempt and easily lead the Israelites to imitate the Heathens in such things also which are an abomination But to do those things which the Gentiles did in the Worship of God not out of any value and authority given to their example whose Modes they be but because of any goodness or usefulness apprehended by Reason in the things themselves This I deny to be absolutely forbidden to the Hebrews by vertue of this Text as hath been made to appear by the Example of David in building a Temple after the manner of the Heathens much less are we Englishmen under any such prohibition But so far as this Scripture toucheth the doing of such things in Gods Worship as the Idolaters did it shall be considered afterward with others of the like nature which the Authors cite in their appendix to their Second Reason The result of what hath been said is this that if the sense which they give of the Words were the most literal unconstrained and next at I and Yet being so absurd as I have proved it to be it ought to be rejected But now I go a step higher 5. This sense which they fasten to them Thou shalt not add to it i. e. There shall be no humane Inventions in Gods Worship is very exotick and far fetched The Master bids his servant to be at home at one a clock The servant is at home both at one and at six being not otherwise forbid to be at home at six Doth the servant add to his Masters words because he doth something more then his Master bade him No except he either sayes or thinks that his Master bade him to be at home at both those hours Then indeed he adds to his Words To apply this analogous instance to one of the Points under debate being applicable to them all Christ hath commanded us to baptize in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost The Minister doth so as also he doth afterwards sign the Party with the sign of the Cross in token that he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified and manfully to fight under his banner c. doth the Minister here add to the Words of Christ No except he either sayes or thinks that Christ hath bid him do both I mean by a Particular command for in general he hath as the case may be and is in England since he hath commanded us to obey those that are over us in the Lord and submit our selves then indeed he adds to the words of Christ and not else because he makes Christ to say more then he said And this was the fault of the Scribes and Pharisees that they did teach for divine doctrines the traditions of men clayming that Authority to their own words or those of the Elders which is only due to the Words of God These things which I have alledged being considered I willingly expose my self to be derided after the Bishop of Exceter in pag. 89. of their Book for holding that the Power of Lawfull Rulers to institute such Ceremonies is a principle to death to be asserted For if the Laws of the Land grant such a power God hath nowhere forbad it And this were to dye a Martyr to Justice which is not so small a part of Religion as some make it and so their loud laughter eccho's back upon themselves I have stayed thus long upon their Reason as it is worded in the contents of the eighth chapter because I suppose they would set the best foot formost and because I do not find it in terms of the same import to be the subject of the chapter it self as will appear by the Particulars of that chapter which I now come to examine SECT IV. The Ministers first Reason against conformity viz. that it is not clear to them to be lawfull for all persons at all times to limit themselves by Forms examined 1. We are to obey the Magistrate in some things whose lawfulness we are not clear in 2. The Liturgy doth not limit all men at all times 3. There is a difference betwixt limiting a mans self and being limited That a man may limit himself proved by their own words THey begin that which they call their first Reason thus It is not clear to us that it is lawfull for all Persons and at all times to limit themselves by any stinted Forms of Prayer This stands in the Place of an Argument and therefore requires an answer if a man could but divine whereabouts the Vis arguendi lies in it Let us search it all over according to the Proverb which bids us look where it is not as well as where it is When they say It is not clear to us they must mean if they will shape their Argument for their present use That the Magistrate is not to be obeyed except in such things whose lawfulness is clear to us And when they say At all times their words cannot amount to a Reason proper for the case unless they suppose that the Common prayer cannot be used without limiting themselves at all times by some stinted Forms of Prayer And when they say Limit themselves their words have no shew of an Argument to their purpose except it be implyed that it is all one in the Present case for a person to limit himself or to be limited by the Magistrate For if either that which is not clearly to us lawfull may and ought to be done when commanded or the using of the Common Prayer doth not necessarily infer a mans limiting himself by stinted forms at all times or it be not all one to limit himself and to be limited by the Magistrate if either of these things be so and confessed to be so by the Authors then it is manifest that the words under examination have not the face of an Argument in
no Living and no body will lend him his Pulpit How doth he use his gift in Publick If it be said he cannot it is true though he hath a natural Power to usurp another mans Pulpit yet he cannot do it of Right Why Because the Laws forbid it For were it not for humane Laws a stranger might use his gift in any Church as well as the Parochial Minister So then the Result is this He cannot use his gift because the Laws forbid him and because he cannot therefore he is excused In like manner he cannot use his gift of prayer in his own Church who is forbid by the Laws and becase he cannot he is guiltless notwithstanding this objection drawn from the use and end of the gift They go on in the same page thus We are yet to learn that it is not as lawfull to impose Forms of Sermons upon Ministers as forms of Prayer Both of them are lamentable restraints put upon the Gifts of God bestowed on his Ministers From which words charity will gather That the Authors of this Book were none of the contrivers or approvers of the Directory For these lamentable restraints both of Prayers and Sermons are to be found there But I cannot conceive them so unlearned as to be yet to learn why Forms of Sermons should not be imposed as well as forms of Prayer A mans Mother wit without the help of much learning will prompt him easily with two Reasons 1. Because in the Sermon the Minister speaks what he thinks is the Truth and if it appear otherwise they may reject it But in prayer the Minister in the name of the people for he saith not I but We presenteth desires to God which sometimes happen to be quite contrary to the desires of some of the People yea of all the People it may possibly fall out that the people can joyn with him not in one expression whereby it comes to pass both that the Ministers prayer is a falshood and that the people being in a praying posture do make a kind of profession that they say Amen to those Petitions which their souls abominate which makes it appear why there is more reason the people should know before hand what shall be prayed then what shall be preached which fore-knowledge is the effect of Forms 2. Because the Minister in his preaching is to expound confirm and apply to his people all the Articles of Faith as shall be occasion a work which will require many dayes if not years It would be endless to comprise the subjects of all Sermons in forms But we pray for the same things continually and therefore the directory saw reason to put down the sense and Matter of Prayer though not of Sermons But this is so eccentrical to the Question I am sorry I have said so much of it For if it were granted that both forms of Prayer and Sermons were miserable restraints Yet the gifts of many an honest Prisoner have been under miserable Restraints and yet he never the less honest for that SECT VI. Another of their Arguments That a man must pray with the greatest intention and fervour which is abated by Forms answered No man is bound to a greater intention then may be procured by lawfull means In some cases a man may lawfully do that which naturally will remit his fervour Their own experience proves not that a man may not be as fervent with a form as without it This kind of Fervour argues not the excellency of those Prayers in which it is most procured It being often the Result of meer natural and animal forces I Proceed to the next words because they have some shew of an Argument The Major Proposition whereof is this We are sure it is the unquestionable duty of every one that prayeth to do it with the highest intention of mind imaginable and with the greatest fervency of Spirit And that it is not lawfull for any man in Prayer to allow himself in any thing which may either divert his mind from the most fixed contemplation of God or intention upon his duty or which may any way cool the Heat and Fervency of his Spirit I answer to this Proposition by a distinction thus True Every man is bound to pray with the highest intention of Mind and with the greatest fervency of Spirit that can be obtained by the use of just means But no man is to use unjust means to procure that intention and fervency And again True it is not lawfull for any man to allow himself in any thing that may hinder the foresaid intention and fervency if the phrase allow signifies only to approve and like such an impediment or such a condition as is necessarily exposed to it But if allowing signifies not accusing himself or the vindication of himself from the accusations of others that impute sin to him for praying while he labours under such an impediment then I say a man may allow himself in something that may hinder the intention of his mind and fervency of his spirit in Prayer If He or they that made this book take their Proposition in that sense wherein I grant it it is nothing to the purpose For a man may use the Common Prayer and yet wish he might be at his Liberty if the Magistrate thought good Therefore the Proposition must needs be taken in the sense wherein I deny it and the Reason of my denyal is evident from the forementioned Instance He that is forbid by the Magistrate to go to the next Church and therefore is necessitated to go to one more remote must needs be more indisposed to Prayer by his long journey except some men of a temper by themselves so that he shall not perform that duty with so high an Intention of mind or with so great a fervency of Spirit as might probably be experienced in case he came into the Church less weary and weather-beaten But yet such a man may lawfully go to the furthest Church and pray there though these hinderances of intention and fervour be consequent thereupon The Reason is Because they are necessary and not voluntary He wisheth the case were otherwise with him but as things stand if he should go to the next Church contrary to the Magistrates prohibition he should sin and Evil is not to be done that good may come of it especially when a greater evil would come of it then the good aimed at as it is in this case And consequently he may allow himself that is not accuse himself for praying under such clogs and remora's of his devotion By the same Reason though it were granted that the use of the Common Prayer did hinder that height of Intention and fervour of spirit they speak off yet the not using it being forbid by the Magistrate a man may use it and allow himself in the use For it is clear that these inconveniences render it only inexpedient but not unlawfull Indeed p. 90. they urge that things which though
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
book and afterward having exercised himself alone in reading and meditating of deep points rather then abroad in hearing popular harangues prayers and preachments or lastly living among a people which are more affected and edified by the prayers of the Church and so giving no encouragement to labour for the extempore faculty comes to have but little of it yet is as needful an Officer as the other more able to oppose gain-sayers to regulate Church affairs and to make a speech to the people on any occcasion if you give him time to contrive and to commit to memory what he hath so contrived Should this lattter Minister be rendered contemptible and so far uselesse in his place by anothers liberty to use his extempore gift But that the latter by this means is in danger to become contemptible among silly and self-conceited people is plain by experience and asserted many times by the Authors in their book And much more would it be so if he should be publickly prohibited and others allowed And so much for the Authors first Reason in their eighth Chapter which is levelled against stinted forms in general CHAP. II. SECT I. The Ministers second Reason that these Forms have been defiled by having been used in an Idolatrous service eventilated A man may do that about and in the worship of God which hath been done in an Idolatrous worship proved The gross Idolatry of certain Non-conformists pollutes not their extemporary expressions THe ninth Chapter contain their second Reason which goes on supposition that it is lawful to use some forms of Prayer but denies it of the English Liturgy It is drawn as the Title of the Chapter tells us from the disputableness of the lawfulness of using any forms of humane composure formerly defiled by use in an Idolatrous service conjoyned with the scandal of many Christians arising upon that account But that I may not conceal the strength of their Argument but bring it into view in the full body before I oppose it I shall put it down first as it is worded not only in the title but in the Chapter it self Their termes are these We cannot but have some doubts whether it be lawfull for us in the worship of God by an act of ours to offer up any thing to God of meer humane composition which hath been once offered in an Idolatrous service especially when our Brethren say unto us This hath been so offered That the worship of the Church of Rome is idolatrous we hope no sober Protestant will deny Their veneration of Images adoration of the Eucharist invocation of the Saints are all idolatrous Some of these are done as oft as their Mass-book is used so that their worship toties quoties as it is performed is idolatrous though not in every part yet in the complex To make up the Argument it must be supposed that some of the Prayers in the Liturgy are taken out or the Mass-book which may be true for ought I know and therefore I shall answer on that supposition 1. I wonder wherefore that Parenthesis is cram'd in of meer humane composition For when they come to give an instance out of Scripture they make it in Flesh offered to Idols Now I never heard that flesh was of meer humane composition If the Authors have an art to make flesh by meer humane power they have more then the Transubstantiating Masse-Priest pretends to and would do well to teach it the world against a Famine 2. They say only that they have some doubts about the Question but I have proved already that a meer doubt is to be over-born by the certain in junctions of lawful Authority And besides that which here they doubt themselves affirm elsewhere if they know the meaning of their own words As page 63. The reverend Persons which had an hand in composing the Liturgy did worthily in their Generation I wonder how they can be said to do worthily in imposing this Liturgy if it be unlawful unlesse they mean only that they did not all out so wickedly as their Predecessors which imposed the Masse But by that reason he that murders a stranger doth worthily because others murder their Parents The same confession is made by them page 65. Certainly those first Reformers did like wise and pious men It is true they put in With respect to their age But is it the part of a wise and pious man in any age to impose such actions as are unlawful Again in the same page Their judgement was excellent as to those times So it seems by what they say in both places that it is a piece of an excellent judgement in some times to command men to sin But 3. To let this passe and proceed to the main strength of their Reason Their Criticisme about the term to offer shall be considered in its place In the mean time I will suppose the sense of their words to be this That a man may not do such things relating to the worship of God as means instruments modes or formes which have been so done in an idolatrous worship i. e. a worship whereof some parts are idolatrously performed This I deny and I give instances of my denyal The love of money is idolatry and the covetous actions done out of love to it and to procure its assistance are not only mixed with idolatrous actions as in the present case but themselves are idolatrous Yet we may do such actions to testifie our respects to God and to win his presence at covetous men do out of their honour to Mammon and to procure his presence That is we may fast we may watch we may go to Church as duly as they to the Exchange we may think of God and talk of him as they do of their money we may say that he answereth all things we may lay out upon charitable works as they do on a good bargain Yea to prevent an Objection these things we might do if God did never command them For what can be said against them Are they not good have they not a natural tendency to expresse our love to God and to procure his gracious presence with us What though these actions were done to a false God to whom they were not due may they not be done to a true God to whom they are due And for the Ferm of those actions we may use that which we think best though used by the said Idolaters as to fast from dinner or supper to rise early or go to bed late to lay out our stock in alms in money or mony worth In like manner look what actions the Glutton doth in the service of his god which is his belly many of the like actions we may do in the service of the true God Again there be others which do not indeed worship the true God before an Image as the Papists but they worship an Image it self of their own framing and that a most deformed one and not so like God at a piece
of bread wood or stone or a glorified Saint the objects of Popish worship The God of some men is a cruel unnatural thing like Saturn who devoured his own children only herein more ugly that he begets them on purpose to devoure them The God of others yea of many the same is a fond thing like Cupid taking no notice of the sins of his darlings The God of others yea of many the same is a wicked thing infallibly necessitating by his Decree and powerfully instigating them by his concourse to the lewdest actions The God of others yea of many the same is a false thing making great and precious promises but maintaining an infinite malice and hatred in his heart Now these Idolaters the grossest that ever I read of have many times pretty phrases in their Prayers yet some who would bring the like Argument with the Authors against the Liturgy are so far from abominating those phrases upon this account that they affect them they are worn thred-bare in every Pulpit Notior in coelis fabula nulla fuit And I doubt not but it is very lawful to use some of those forms of words in prayer to the true God which these Idolaters use to their false Gods Indâ—â—â— I beleive these men do not think themselves Idolaters no more do the Papists But supposing the opinions of them both that which they both do is consequentially idolatrous They both do disown the idolatry which is consequent upon their doctrines but they both maintain their own opinions which infer the idolatry The worst opinion which the Papists are said to hold in reference to idolatry is that Bread is God and therefore to be worshipped And the others are said to hold that something worse then the most course or mouldy bread is God and therefore to be worshipped And in truth the Papists opinion and consequently their practice thereupon is much more tolerable of the two For they cannot have an higher opinion of the bread then of the humane nature of Christ in the concrete which though God he predicated of it by vertue of the hypostatical union yet is but a means to bring us to God that God may be all in all and therefore cannot terminate our worship But now the worship of the others is terminated ultimately and lastly upon that monstrous Image which they call God Which things and many more that might be alledged being considered I cannot much wonder that though the worship of the Church of England be cryed down as idolatrous and superstitions yet some give this Reason wherefore their judgements cannot side with the opposite party namely because of the superstition and idolatry which abounds among them For that it is among some of them I am as confident as I am that it is among the Papists SECT II. By their Reason the Scriptures would be defiled and the Papists might pollute the most darling phrases of unprepared Prayers The Lords Prayer as much polluted by Idolaters as the Common-prayer Such Prayers as are not contrary to the Scriptures are as incapable of defilement as the Scriptures themselves and such are those of the Liturgy THey next go about to answer an Objection against this conceit of theirs which they quote from Doctor Causabon on the Lords Prayer Their words are these We are not so silly us to think that the holy Scriptures dictated by the Spirit of God or any thing else of purely divine institution is capable of corruptions and therefore cannot but with some laughter read the Argumentations of them who argue that if we reject the Liturgy because the idolatrous Papists used it we must also refuse the Scriptures and the Lords Prayer These are but toyes to blind common people c. The holy Scriptures are uncapable of pollution by any idolatrous service By this it appears that it is not the meer using of a form of words in an idolatrous service which makes it unlawful to be used in the service of God because the Authors except the Scriptures otherwise they know A quatenus ad de omni valeret consequentia I say if a man may understand their mind by their words they mean not that such an use renders it unlawful but that corruption and pollution which is contracted by such an use to phrases of humane invention though not to Scripture phrases And now they had done their work if they had but proved that a true proposition if not in Scripture is polluted by using it in idolatrous services any more then a proposition of like truth in Scripture or that Churches Bels Fonts Pews praying with a book and preaching without book are any more polluted by such an usage then the Lords Prayer Baptisme or the Eucharist It will I believe be beyond their power to prove such a vast difference between things of divine institution and humane I am sure that though the Temple was of divine institution yet it might have been defiled by bringing an Idol into it much more then the cart could on which the Idol was brought which could pretend to no more divine institution then that of the wheelwright In like manner if a man should take the consecrated wine of the Communion carry it into the Ale-house there make himself drunk with it the wine which is of divine institution is one would think more but at least as much polluted by the said drunkennesse as the Ale-house can be yea as much as other wine not consecrated could be In some cases things of divine Institution are so far from being priviledged from pollution above things of humane institution that indeed the priviledge lies more on the other side as the purest white is capable of most fouling and as that which pollutes a Minister pollutes not another man The Authors should have told us what they mean by that pollution of words and phrases which they say is effected by using them in an Idolatrous service though they were otherwise never so good Do they mean such a pollution as is described in the Levitical Law No sure For they never read there that he who hath spoken any words used by Idolaters in their worship should wash his tongue and be unclean till the Even What pollution is it then that by a kind of Theomagical contagion is contracted by good words and sentences from the Idolatrous services wherein they were used when in the mean time the words of Scripture having been in the same infected house escape sound entire and untainted Indeed if words be abused to a bad end or if they should chance to be forbid to be used to some persons by a positive command in both these cases I could allow to call them figuratively corrupted and polluted But this pollution is no such pollution as makes the use of those words unlawful to all persons For the Scriptures themselves are sometimes thus polluted both these ways It s as certain that they are sometimes abused to a bad end as that they may be used
Qualifications of the Champions or Assertors are but a deceitful Rule to try a cause by For sometimes good men may have a private interest against a duty and bad men none Sometimes those who are under an habit of general vitiousnesse may do something right yea Herod did many things And on the other hand a sanctified person may do something wrong If we should judge of a cause by the Adherents Christ himself should be condemned since owned by the Devil and denied by Peter The receiving of the Sacrament at night should be the most approvable celebration since practised by the Anabaptists and not by the Papists except these Ministers prefer a Papist before an Anabaptist There are many high and Heroick pieces of justice clemency and fidelity acted by the Heathens which many that have the name of precious Christians are impatient of Are these things the worse for that In like manner if the foresaid stigmatized persons yeild a better obedience to the Magistrate then others of a contrary quality the difference of the persons is impertinent to the Question The Authors should Parcere person is dicere de vitiis not speak of the vitiousnesse of the persons which are for the Common-prayer but whether it be a vice to be for it nor of the vertues of those which are against it but whether that opposition be any of their vertues 2. Desinant maledicere malefacta ne noscant sua They say that many who are for the Liturgy are Drunkards c. and so are many which are offended at the use of it and some such as curse and swear against it in the open Church 3. A very great if not the greatest part which are against it if they are not drunkards c. yet they are much worse and such as blaspheme their vertues by entertaining them in a den of most beastly vices of whom I may say Horum temperantia male habitat Persons which are notoriously malicious and envious and seditious traytours heady high minded Quakers Ranters and the like it is these mens cause which this book patronizeth I will not add into the catalogue the Anabaptists and Independents though some of the Presbyterian Brethren have publickly charged the more sober Sect of the two to have done more hurt then all the Drunkards and debaucht persons in the Land But methinks this Argument of theirs was sufficiently retorted by that horrible Insurrection which was made at London last Christmas For if it be asked Who were those inhumane and diabolical persons who rose up to murder man woman and child in such a manner that no ink is black enough to represent it the answer must be that these were some of those which are so impatient of the Common-prayer 4. Let those which are for the Liturgy be never so bad and their opposites never so good yet since the use of it upon the command of the Magistrate is a necessary duty it ought not to be forborn out of fear of offending no not the better sort as hath been sufficiently evinced And therefore this conclusion of theirs is a very frivolous one viz We cannot think it lawful for us to scandalize the far greater number of strict Christians that we may gratifie a few others c. For it is not to gratifie others but the Magistrate and the Laws or rather to gratifie right reason and conscience in complyance with that plain Command of God Obey those that rule over you in the Lord and submit your selves 5. They add another consideration to the like purpose That that sort of people who are most zealous for the Liturgy do so dote upon it that it is clearly become their Idol Possibly it may be so with some For every one is for their own form and way of worship and need the counsel of Saint Ambrose to Monica to follow the custome of the Church she comes to But are not the Non-conformists as much for their way and make as much an Idol of extempore Prayers many of them thinking a mans prayers cannot be accepted unlesse not premeditated yea and with much lesse reason since those Prayers are sometimes forbidden but the Liturgy is sometimes commanded But I cannot believe what they subjoyn since both my observation and reason evidence the contrary viz. With many people we see it demonstrably true that if a Minister did never preach the Word of God yet if he did but read the Common-prayer it would be enough My reason wherefore I believe not this testimony to say nothing of my experience which is quite contrary is this because the Liturgy prescribes Sermons and therefore whosoever hath an high esteem of the Liturgy must needs care for Sermons But however it be with many people in that respect what doth the Minister contribute to all this by reading the Common-prayer which is the thing they should have demonstrated Certainly no more then he who sets two dishes of wholesome meat before a man that likes one better is the Reason why the other is neglected or possibly not touched I would fain know how the joyning of Prayer with Preaching according to the Liturgy doth nurse the people up in this conceit that preaching is needlesse SECT IV. Both Precept and Example are alledged for Forms though neither is necessary Their Reasons wherefore it s lawful to use the Lords Prayer and yet not the common-Common-prayer refelled I Now proceed to the twelfth Chapter entituled A summary recapitulation of the Ministers Reasons where they argue against limiting our selves to a form of Prayer because they can find no precept for it in the word of God But that is notoriously false For the Prophet saith Take unto you words and return unto the Lord and say unto him Take away iniquity c. And I have already proved the same from the titles of Davids Prayers which clearly speak them appointed for the use of others Yea I have proved also that if the use of a Form be not forbid in Scripture it is lawful though there were no precept for it nor example neither But I must needs deny what follows That there is no pattern of it in Scripture but the Lords Prayer For I have already produced a Form used by the Primitive Disciples As for the Lords Prayer they say that they doubt whether it were intended for a form of Prayer or no and rather think it a Direction for the matter of Prayer one Evangelist saying no more then After this manner But that hinders not but that it might be intended to be said in termes For he that saith the expresse words saith After this manner though he that saith after this manner doth not alway say the same words So then he that saith the words hath both Evangelists to warrant him he that doth not hath but one And what though Christ and his Apostles leave no record of their using of this form which is another thing they urge where do they leave record of their not using it which if it
the porch into the discourse it self but that thou mayst the better judge concerning the sufficiency of the following Answer I beg thy further notice of a few Advertisements My design is only to shew the weakness of those Reasons which are pretended to justifie those Ministers who forbear to use the Common-prayer not that I may render their persons more odious and obnoxious but rather that I might perswade them to walk in the wayes of Peace or at least disswade others from following so bad an example upon such unconclusive inducements as the Book I oppose presents them with I say my only end in this undertaking is Peace and the fruits of Peace For though they say page 69. of that Book that it poseth them to prophecy how the reimposing of the Liturgy should bring us to Peace yet it needs not an Oedipus to aread how submission to those impositions should conduce thereto which is the only thing I drive at in this discourse Indeed they affirm again and again that the Common-prayer is not established by Law and therefore it would be requisite to my purpose to prove such an establishment were it not that they have saved me the labour by professing that they would never the more conform if it were established For these are their words page 60. If we thought we could use these forms without sin we should never dispute the Law in the case So that the Question betwixt them and me is to be stated thus Whether they ought to conform upon supposition that it were established by Law For the same reason they have also excused me from taking pains to disprove what they alledge against the Antiquity of Liturgies in these words page 94 We have no great value for any Arguments they bring us meerly from antiquity as to matters that concern the worship of God because we think the Word of God a perfect and sufficient rule in the case and we want Vouchers to prove those pretended pieces of antiquity which they produce c. Lastly I meddle not with their Reply to the Bishop of Exceters Considerations concerning the excellency of the Liturgy because if his Lordship thinks it worthy an Animadversion he will doubtlesse make it with his own or some other more able hand then mine is And besides such a presumption in me would not have helped my cause in the way that I take to maintain it who hold that a lesse excellent Liturgy when imposed by lawful Authority is rather to be used then a more excellent me when standing in opposition So that all which I have to do agreeably to my scope is to maintain this Proposition That there is no reason to warrant any Ministers forbearance to use the Common-prayer upon supposition that it is established by Law And now Reader judge without prejudice of their Reasons which are contained without any method in the eighth ninth tenth eleventh twelfth Chapters of the fore-mentioned Book and scattered up and down in other pages the same over and over again and therefore I deserve pardon if I am forced to repeat the same Answers to the great tryal not only of the Readers Patience but also of my own ERRATA PAge 13. line 7. for land r. hand p. 33. l. 24. for they may not r. may they not p. 36. l. 35. for Periphasis r. Periphrasis p. 46. l. 11. for thought r. though p. 49. l. 36. for his kind r. its kind p. 58. l. 26. for are not so r. are so p. 81. l 24. for I know what r. I know not what p. 82. l. 4. for examination r. examâ—â—â— â— The Reasonableness of Divine Service CHAP. I. SECT I. The Ministers are not discharged from conformity by their dissatisfaction as to the imposing of any Forms Vniversally That may be lawfully used which is unlawfully imposed Proved by divers instances That lawfull Authority may impose significative Ceremonies in divine Worship inferred from their own Concessions Yet it will not hence follow that any but God may institute Sacraments The right notion of Superstition THE title of the eighth Chapter begins thus The first Reason of divers Ministers not using the Common Prayer Their dissatisfaction as to the imposing of any Forms universally Answer 1. Wherein lyes the reason of this consequence yea though the Antecedent be put in more advantagious terms for their purpose then they have put it No forms ought to be imposed universally Ergo We ought not to use the Common Prayer The most that can follow from thence is but this That the Common Prayer ought not to be universally imposed But they pretend to bring a Reason wherefore it should not be used But may be they think it all one to say it ought not to be imposed and it ought not to be used But how absurd is such a thought Since I could instance in hundreds of things which ought not to be commanded and yet ought to be done when commanded Suppose the Magistrate command me to go three miles to Church when there is as good a Minister in every respect within a mile This command hinders the exercise of my devotion not a little and therefore it ought not to have been imposed Yet for all that it must be obeyed If it be replyed that every man is bound to take the course which tends most to his edification in it self though it be forbidden by Authority and consequently that in such a case I should go to the nearest Church and make use of extempore prayers rather then prescribed ones I answer that by this Rule every houshold-servant should leave all attendance on his Master on Sundays and go into his Closet that way tending most directly in it self to his edification But the servant should wisely consider If I disobey my Master that I may have a better opportunity and help for my devotion now I shall be outed of his family and put into a condition attended with far more distractions at other times And the wise Christian subject will argue in like manner If I disobey the Magistrate in going to the next Church or not using the Common Prayer and many others do as I do the Laws being exposed to contempt wars and confusions will arise in the Kingdom or if the Laws are vindicated I who break them must be under restraint and both these wayes I shall have worse advantages of edification afterward for using those which I thought absolutely best against the will of my Rulers So then though it were unlawfull to impose the use of the Common Prayer yet the use is not for that reason unlawful but is notwithstanding a necessary duty And that similitude they use page 39. runs on four legs on my Errand as well as theirs It is true the Magistrate should not make a Law that sound men must use a staff because it is needful for lame men But in case there should be such a Law he that remembers not for wrath but conscience sake will carry his staff and not
their own eyes Therefore that we may put it into the best Posture of Strength we must needs suppose that it implyes the truth of the three mentioned Positions all which will be found too light 1. The lightness of the first I demonstrate thus The Lawfulness of an action is not clear to that man who doubteth of the Lawfulness not being certain that the action is lawfull nor yet certain that it is unlawfull But yet such a man is bound to do that action when it is commanded by the Magistrate The Reason is because it is certain the Magistrate is to be obeyed commanding Lawfull things but it is uncertain whether the thing commanded be unlawfull From whence it follows that the Person so doubting sins more hainously in not doing that action then in doing it And since he must needs venture one of the two wayes he should choose to venture the safer Now it is safer to obey doubtingly then to disobey doubtingly For if the action be lawfull the omitting of it besides the injury done to the Magistrate is of evil consequence to the publick by the violation of the Laws But if it be unlawfull the bad influence of the action is much more private The Authors will give me occasion afterward to resume this case and therefore now I dismiss it with with a saying of that excellent Casuist Dr. Sanderson now Bishop of Lincoln who hath fully resolved this Question in his fourth Sermon Ad Clerum Surely when things hang thus even if the weight of Authority will not cast the Scale either way we may well suppose that either the Authority is made very light or else there is a great fault in the Beam 2. Neither is the second Thesis any whit sounder which must be supposed to make good their Argument viz. that the use of the Common Prayer doth infer a limiting themselves to stinted Forms of Prayer at all times I cannot find any such limitation in the Liturgy nor in the Act which authoriseth the same But if the Minister useth it at the times appointed he is left to his Liberty to pray otherwise at other times if not in publick at least in private 3. Of the same validity is their Third Supposition That it is all one for a man so to limit himself or to be limited by the Magistrate For how can an Action and a Passion fall under the same Category It is lawfull to any one to be injured to put the case to their best advantage and yet it is not lawfull to him to injure himself Even so if it were not lawfull for a man to limit himself to stinted Forms Yet it might be lawfull to him to be limited Indeed if it were a thing unlawfull in it self and to be done in no case their Reason would hold because the Magistrate cannot limit us that is we ought not to be limited by him where submission to such limitations is unlawfull But that is not granted and is under present disputation They themselves grant in the next words that those which have not the gift may help themselves by forms Now that which is lawfull in any case that may fall out is not unlawfull in it self And why is not the Magistrates Prohibition as considerable a case as want of a Gift Id possumus quod jure possumus There is a Civel Faculty and Licence as well as a Natural one And both are required in Persons under Government to the doing of an Action well Doth the acquiring of a Gift make that unlawfull which was lawfull before in every case I know in some cases it doth because God requireth that of him who hath a gift which he doth not of others But if the case under question be such the Authors should shew where God hath commanded those that have the Gift alway to pray ex tempore and not argue meerly from the Gift it self For it is most certain that it is most lawfull not to do many things which a man hath a Gift to do Otherwise a man that hath a Gift to drink his Beer cold sinneth in drinking it warm though prescribed by the Physitian And a School-boy that can make a speech extempore to salute a stranger sinneth in taking time and consulting his Phrasiology at the injunction of the Schoolmaster Besides who shall judge of the sufficiency of the Gift The Physitian or the Patient The Master or the Scholer The Magistrate or the Subject The Authors grant in their general discourse about the use of Words in Prayer that many a Private Christian hath an excellent degree of this extempore vein By their Reason he should use it in the Publick and at the time appointed for the Common Prayer for that use of it is only restrained by the Liturgy If the non-ordination of the private man be pretended to diversifie his case from that of the Ministers I reply That those which be ordained are ordained to exercise their gifts in a Lawfull way only and not contrary to the Rules prescribed them by their Superiours as an University Orator is chosen to use his Rhetorical Gift but not contrary to the will of the University if they make known their will to him and if they will have him at some times to put into his Letter the very words which they dictate to him he is bound to do it though he be ordained to exercise his Gift SECT V. Some things premised to the answer of their Argument from a mans obligation to use his gift The 1. Answer A man may use his gift otherwayes both 1. In Gods Service and 2. Out of it 2. A man is not bound to use his gift when the use of it would hinder another It is no sin when hindered by Providence applyed to the present case A double reason why Forms of Sermons might not as well be imposed AND now way is made to answer the Reason they bring in the next words wherefore a Minister that hath the Gift of extempore Prayer is bound to use it in Publick It is in these words Where God hath given any that Gift we conceive it is a manifestation of the Spirit given him to profit others by and that he is defective to his duty that doth not use it to this end They press the same Argument in other terms pag. 28. of their Book thus The restraining of Christians especially of Ministers in the exercise of the gift of Prayer in the publick Assemblies of the Church looks like that quenching of the Spirit which is forbid to all men by the Apostle and the choaking the coveting of the best gifts which is commanded all Christians For to what purpose should those Talents be desired which man hath Authority to command to be laid up in a Napkin Before I give my answer to this Argument it will be seasonable to take notice of some expressions of Moment in the last clause which are not in the First For there they speak of restraining not only Ministers but
otherwise lawfull are inexpedient ought not to be done I say so too if a man be left to the liberty of action and be not otherwise restrained by a Natural or Political necessity For if the Law restrains a man from that which otherwise were more expedient then that which was more expedient becomes less expedient Not only because it is made unlawfull but also because in such a case all things considered it hath no tendency or instrumentality to that end whereto it was conducible before but rather to the contrary Such Actions as before the Prohibition would have a good effect after the prohibition will have a bad one supposing that before the prohibition they were meerly and purely lawfull and expedient and not also otherwise necessary which only are the subject of the present debate To bring down my Answer again to the Hypothesis If it should be granted that extempore Prayers are most expedient to procure the highest intention and greatest fervency in Prayer Yet being forbid by the Law they are most inexpedient to such an end all things considered and that for the Reason I have already propounded viz. Because if this violation of the Law escape that penal animadversion which is due to it by the Law then Seditions and Wars must needs ensue thereupon which rough weather is no fit season for the fruits of Righteousness which are sown in peace But if the Authority of the Law be asserted by exemplary punishments then the transgressours in the case must lose the publick exercise of their Ministry which will be much more incommodious and inexpedient to the foresaid intention and fervour in publick Prayers since they will be suffered to pray none in publick at all The Major Proposition being thus proved either false or impertitinent false in that sense I take it in and impertinent in any other Their Argument must needs fall without any more ado since no Argument can stand on one Legg But much more if the Minor also be found exceeding doubtfull as will be found when we have rehearsed it in its terms which are these We cannot be induced to believe that any one can possibly so keep his soul fixed upon God or so intent upon God while he reads a Prayer as whiles he speaks it from his own conception To which I answer That he who rationally believes any thing impossible in the series of moral effects where temper education custom and the influence of private affections doth so commonly intend and remit the Power of the Agent must have more to propound then the meer experience of the Non-event But the producers of this Argument plead nothing to prove it not possible but only experience and that not universal but their own not daring to deny but that others may experience the contrary as may be seen in their next words We find by experience not to determine positively of the frame of other persons spirits a great difference in the intention and fervency of our spirits when our words in prayer are directed and determined by the inward heat fervency and affection of our hearts from what is when our words are determined for us by other men yea by our selves before the time of Prayer Thus the Authors say for themselves But if others may be admitted to tell their Experiences they will say the quite contrary for themselves And though the Authors find it thus as they express Yet may be the intention and fervour is such as argueth not the excellency of ex tempore Prayers above others being no excellent symptom it self but possibly being the result of the meer natural and animal forces or worse as will appear by five Instances I shall immediately produce and if the Authors impartially search themselves they may possibly find a sixth SECT VII Five sorry causes assign'd wherefore some men may be more fervent in extempore Prayers then in Forms 1. An Antipathy against the one and a perswasion that the other is a mark of Grace 2. The Novelty which extemporary Prayers give scope for 3. Nature is more intent in the exercise of gifts then of Graces 4. Self-love mens natural affection to their own Inventions and impatience of Restraints 5. In extempore Prayers there is room for Ostentation of Parts and as some will interpret it of divine experiences Two other causes of this Fervour 1. SOme men by their education have received an Antipathy against forms having been taught that to pray by a Form is no prayer and on the contrary it is a sign of grace to pray without one This opinion hath so prevailed that many men have gained a great name and repute of Religion meerly by their prayers among some well-meaning but simple people who undertook to be as skilful as the tryers who could taste mens spirits by their tones and phrases Now it is no wonder that he can have but little intention or fervour in reading a form of Prayer who hath a deep rooted antipathy against it as he will but coldly recite a Poem who nauseates it He may well be struck cold in reading a Form who either believes he sins in doing it or scruples whether he sin or no. And on the other hand no marvel though he be intent and fervent in making an extempore Prayer who judgeth in any measure of the sincerity of his heart either by the copia verborum which some call enlargements or by the sudden and easie suggestion of pertinent places of Scripture or experience to serve as arguments in his Petitions But that those which have the gift do too much thus judge of their grace by it is evident in that often if they be straitened they let down their crist and question their estate though before they had a full plerophory bred in them by some precedent enlargements and though they are conscious to themselves of no new sin or neglect that might have altered the case 2. Some men may be more intent and fervent in extempore Prayers because there is so much place for novelty which is so taking with the nature of mans mind This is so prevalent that some have confessed that whereas at one time a Scripture hath been set on their hearts in prayer to the powerful actuation and accension of their spirits and hath continued in proportionable force for some time yet by degrees it grows stale and out of date So that when the same Scripture-expression is used by them though not industriously but fortuitously and without study it hath lost its sting and Energy it hath no more savour then the old Mumpsimus of Common-Prayer to their variable Gusto And then a new phrase comes upon the stage and acts its part with like vigour for a time and Exit till at length by difuse the old one hath recovered its edge again I know some will solve this Phenomenon by supposing the diversity of the Spirits impressions sometimes bringing one expression into the mind and working it on the affections and sometimes another
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
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-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-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-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
use of Scripture-phrases themselves in prayer if that phrases of humane composition are so polluted by the Papists use of them that a Protestant may not use them The same may be easily demonstrated concerning the use of such Churches as were dedicated in the Raign of Popery and then used not only in the pure parts of that worship which the Authors by the Verdict of a most partial Synecdoche call idolatrous in the complex which yet is the worst that they say against the Liturgy but even in the very Idolatrous parts themselves yea some of them in the celebration of the Ethnick Mysteries before Christianity visited our Iland Let us hear now how they can use these Churches in the reformed worship of the true God while they stand upon the grounds they have laid down in this Chapter That which they say upon this point is word for word as followeth Their Answer is silly who tell us that then we must use none of our Churches When we offer up Churches to God by any rational act we will consider of this frivolous answer which indeed may concern them which dream of an holiness in them by reason of dedication or the like It concerns not us which only use them as convenient places in which we meet to serve God c. The sum of this answer is clearly this that the Authors do not offer Churches to God as they should do words if they used the Common-prayer and that they account no holiness to be in Churches as they account in the words wherewith they utter their Prayers And so the Answer implies also that what things have been offered in idolatrous worship may be used in right worship but not offered to God But I wonder how the words that are used in vocal Prayer are offered to God any more then Churches It is our affections and more directly our desires that are offered to God in Prayer The words are only means and instruments to signifie these desires before men or to excite them to concur in the same desires And the fittest and best words are but the fittest and best means and instruments and so the words are rather the censers then the incense If we can be said properly to offer words to God we must offer him the Air or else we only offer a bodily quality without the subject a meer articulate motion of the Air. But if words are said to be offered because they are means and instruments used about the offering then Churches may be said to be offered too being likewise fit means and instruments to the same purpose though another way For doth not the builder of Churches signifie his desire that God may be worshipped And is not a Church when built a means to unite many in the same desires And is not the most fit and convenient Church the most fit and convenient means as I said before of words And why are not Churches holy as much as phrases and forms of words that are used in prayer Is not holinesse a separation from a common use to a sacred and religious use And are not Churches as much set apart for prayer as words be If not the more is the pity and shame But whether the Authors dedicate offer or place any holiness in Churches or no it is nothing to the purpose though they think the Argument concerns not them till they do For whosoever shall consider their second Reason as it is explained paralleld and proved in this Chapter will easily discern that by that by that Reason it is unlawful for them not only to offer dedicate or place holinesse in them but even to make use of them to those ends for which they have a fitnesse either of their own nature or by institution so that they may not pray or preach in them yea they may not convert them into stables or prisons which the Authors make more tolerable then to dedicate them to God Now that their reason forbids them as much to make a common and natural use of Churches as sacred it appears by that case put by St. Paul which they imagine to be parallel to theirs He resolves that the meat which a man was told was offered to Idols should not be eaten The Authors think the Analogy of his determination makes it unlawful to pray to God with such forms of words that were used in an idolatrous service Their Opposites to drive them from this absurdity put another case as like to the first as the second is and more too and say that by the same reason it were unlawful to use Churches that have been used in an idolatrous service The Authors reply that the second and third case are not alike for they offer words in prayer but they do not offer Churches to God Now let it be granted them that the third case is not like the second that is not material Is not the third as like the first as the second is Yea the case of Churches is more like to the case of meats offered to Idols which is the first and ruling case put by Saint Paul then the case of the Liturgy is They say the proportion fails because they offer words to God but not Churches Let it be granted Yet on which side doth the proportion fail Not in the case of Churches but of words The Authors say they offer words to God and therefore what hath that case to do with Saint Pauls in which it is not questioned whether meat offered to Idols might be offered to God but whether it might be naturally and commonly used and eaten for a mans dinner But now the case of Churches is more exactly like to that of St. Pauls For he speaks not of offering meat to God but of using it according to his kind and therefore by the Authors reason it should forbid not only the offering of the said Churches to God but the using them according to their kind Therefore it is impertinent to dispute whether Churches are offered to God by the Authors as much as Prayers We are only to consider whether Churches were offered to God by the said Idolaters as much as Prayers that is the words used in prayer And we shall find that Churches were more consecrated to God by the said idolatrous worshippers then the words of their Prayers For they accounted it sacriledge to take away the least part of a Church and to divert it to a common use but themselves used many of those words about their common businesses which they used in their Prayers SECT IV. Another consideration of theirs viz. That we might provide other forms not used by Idolaters answered The mischiefs of an affected running from the Papists What distinguisheth a true Catholick from a Papist Not phrases tones habits and gesture but a greater Humility Charity and Freedom of spirit No reason but a man may offer the same to God which had been offered to an Idol IN the two immediately foregoing Sections I have made it appear
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-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
Opponents do themselves suppose in this argument And there is a third alteration of the case 4. The Authors give this Reason wherefore meats offered to Idols might not be eaten as may be seen in their words cited already viz. because there was other meat to eat The earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof which implies that it was lawful to eat such meats in case none other could be had Now this is our case in respect of the Liturgy supposing it to be established by Law At such times as are appointed for the use of the Liturgy there are no other prayers to be had I know a man hath a natural power to put up other prayers and so if a Corinthian could by buying or begging or other lawful means procure no meat but what had been offered to Idols yet he had a natural power to steal some But doubtlesse he should rather eat meat offered to Idols then take those meats which were another mans propriety by the Laws of Corinth and consequently such as he had no right to And doubtlesse an English Minister should rather use the prayers of the Liturgy though they had been offered in an idolatrous service then those which the Laws of England forbid him to meddle with at such a time But that so many do otherwise it may well proceed from the sweetnesse of stollen waters But besides this restraint of the Laws which allow us no other words to use most men are further restrained by the nature of the thing except they have ready at hand as rich a Sylva of Synonimous words as there is a variety of meats in natures cornucopia For a man can hardly put up a petition without using some words that are used in the Mass And so by this Reason we should not pray at at all with vocal prayer I might bring the Authors to another absurdity by arguing that their Reason makes it unlawful to use the Creed as a publick profession of Faith since the Papists use it and the Authors will not allow it to be of the Apostles making But I fear they will grant the absurdity and therefore I dare not tempt them SECT VI. The Scripttures that they bring which forbade the Jews to use such words gestures and actions as Idolaters did signifie nothing to their purpose Their Argument from Hos 2.15 16. and Zech. 13.2 considered Popish Idolatry is but an improvement of the Non-conformists principles Their Pretence that conformity is a step to Popery confuted and returned upon themselves who cannot confute a Papist but by quitting their own Principles I Have now produced the Ministers second Reason with all the forces which they have assigned for its defence in their ninth chapter and have I think manifested the very strength of it to be weaknesse But they come up with a reserve in the Postscript where they cite multitudes of Scriptures which forbid the Hebrews to use such words gestures and actions that Idolaters did as to wear Linsie-woolsie garments to let cattel engender with a diverse kind to sow a field with mingled seed to call God by the name of Baali But I suppose the Authors can lawfully do these things themselves Therefore I ask them if these Prohibitions bind us Englishmen If they say they do let them give a Reason why they transgresse them and it will serve their brethren If they say that such prohibitions bind us not to forbear the actions which are named there in terminis but other actions of the like Reason as having been done by Idolaters as using the forms of prayer that were used by the Papists then they make themselves ridiculous For how can a Law be supposed to forbid only those things which are not named because they bear analogy and proportion to the things which are named when the things themselves which are named expressly in the Law are not forbidden If they interpret those prohibitions as forbidding us to do such things as Idolaters did not in civil usages but only in divine worship as somewhere they make the distinction then we are to labour in all words actions and gestures in which we are left to our Liberty to go contrary to the said Idolaters and consequently if they have the Sacrament at Noon we should have it at Midnight if they worship toward the East we should worship toward the West as the Authors say the Jews were commanded to do for the same Reason if their Churches stand East and West ours should be situate North and South if they preach out of a Pulpit we should preach out of a pew if their heads are bare in prayers ours should be covered if their Communion-table stands in the chancel ours should stand in the bell-fry In all which respects I believe the Authors themselves think it not unlawful to be like the Papists so that I wonder what they mean to quote so many Texts forbidding the Jews to be like the Idolaters not only in such circumstances of Worship as I have named but even in some punctilio's much more trivial and inconsiderable and some of them not at all concerning the Worship of God as sowing a Field with two sorts of seed There is more shew of strength in a Marginal note which they put down pag. 97. in these words Note that both in Hos 2.15 16. and in Zech. 13.2 two Texts plainly relating to the times of the Gospel God forbids all mention of Idolatry and declares his will that it should not be so much as remembred Now we cannot see how we should obey those precepts in keeping their very rites modes and methods of Worship But I would fain know a Reason why they break these Precepts or rather Prophecies by using such Rites and Modes of Worship as Idolaters have used so that no Idolatry be committed in the using of them any more then by remembring and using the names of false gods which are the things specified in both those Texts which certes are not so to be expounded that Saint Luke may not be found a transgressor in putting down the names of Castor and Pollux in the Bible it self or if he be priviledged by inspiration that the Authors may not condemn their Brethren that in the cause of Non-conformity have sometimes left reading the Scriptures to their Parishioners to read Ovids Metamorphosis to their Scholars I can conceive how Saint Luke and the said Schoolmasters may be said to mention and remember the name of Idols but I cannot imagine how I remember the name of Idols by saying O God the Father of heaven have mercy on us or any other prayer of the Liturgy Those who in their Books Sermons yea and in their very Prayers tell the people that the said forms are taken out of the Masse-bookâ— which for my part I professe to be more then I know these are they which keep up the names of Idols The greatest part of the people would not think of them but that their Ministers are their instant
Prayer under question should be laid aside If there were any such Persons I know not but others may be more blame-worthy who had rather provoke those persecutions and pull them down on their own heads besides the scandalizing of a far greater part of the Christian World then that that the said forms of Prayer should be used But indeed I know no such Persons as those whom they stigmatize with this description For neither are all the Christians in the world scandalized with the Prayers neither do I know any that had rather their Brethren should be persecuted then the Prayers laid aside the laying of them aside being singly considered in the comparison and with abstraction from those things which are pretended as a Reason why they should be laid aside or would follow there-from The exacters of conformity exact their due give them their due then you may expect a dispensation otherwise the comparison is unjustly made betwixt the sufferings of those which submit not and the keeping up of the forms The comparison should be made betwixt the said sufferings and the keeping up of the Credit and Authority of the Laws It were surely better that the Magistrate should keep them up then that the contempt of his Authority being grown so insolent and mighty that he cannot master it should force them to lay them down For the keeping them up notwithstanding the sufferings which by accident of humane corruption are consequent thereto can prove only to the prejudice of some particular Persons who while the Law is in force deserve to incur it by their own Act But the laying them down upon such an account would be dangerous to the whole Church and Kingdom by submitting the discipline of both to the head-strong outrage of the Subject Suppose a Master command his servant some light matter upon pain of suffering It is not indeed better that the servant should suffer then that the commandment should be revoked the terms of the comparison being simply and abstractly considered But it is better that the commandment should not be revoked then that the servant should get head over his Master Let the servant shew his willingnesse and thâ—n he may expect his Masters indulgence in remitting the command Let the prescriptions of the Liturgy be never so light matters yet certainly obedience is a matter of importance and that is it which is contended for and it were better that the Subject should suffer then that obedience should be denied By which note I may also answer another Argument which they bring in the 90. page of their Book viz. That though the ceremonies were lawful yet they are not expedient because they will bring so many scandals and sufferings and every thing which is not expedient so far as it is not expedient is not lawful To which I answer 1. A private mans using of these ceremonies cannot be inexpedient in neither of those respect neither in respect of scandal nor in respect of sufferings For as for the former respect The good of obedience doth overpoise the evil of scandal And as for the latter The use of them brings no sufferings on him that useth them neither doth his using them make another suffer who useth them not but only as he who doth his duty by accident aggravateth the case of him who omits it 2. Suppose that the ceremonies were too light and inconsiderable to be imposed by such penal Laws and consequently that the making of the Law was inexpedient though the keeping of it be not yet if the Magistrate judge it expedient he is bound to make it and much more may he look for obedience to it when it is already made until it be repealed yea though he judged it inexpedient Nay furthermore the case may be that the same Law which was once inexpedient to make it may be no lesse inexpedient to repeal as I instanced before when the repealing of it shall let loose the reins to popular insolency and shall be interpreted as done out of fear of a mutiny and insurrection To conclude the sufferings which are pretended can at most be only an Argument to the Magistrate to alter the Law but this can be no reason wherefore a Minister should not keep the Law while it is in force which is the end it is alledged for in the Book There is no man can be more against placing much moment in the light appurtenances of Religion then I am or for Liberty to vary so it be extra casum contemptus But to see men take this Liberty because the Magistrate thinks not fit to give it and while they expect his indulgence in things which they scruple not to obey him so far as they can without scruple and lastly to see those claiming that liberty as a due which they would not grant to others as a Largesse if they were in power but would forbid things under as great pains as they are now commanded I will say no more but Quis tulerit For that these rigid exactions of such things as the Authors call light and frivolous is not the only fault of the Conformists appears from hence That when they had lost their power men were as severely dealt with for not taking the Covenant or for saying Gloria Patri or the Creed in their Churches Therefore I can say an hearty Amen to the Authors wish That men would use their heat against the known enemies of God such as drunkards blasphemers unclean persons cursers and swearers or rather against their vices then against the Servants of the living God But here I find the Non-conformists most at a fault who to my observation preach least against these vices which makes their Auditors usually to call such a Minister as bends his strength against them a meer moral Preacher and to account that the most Gospel-preaching which declaims more against the supposed faults of the Magistrate then the real ones of the People more against Bishops Ceremonies Common-Prayer and the like then any of the vices fore-mentioned SECT III. Their Question answered Whether the Magistrate may command such things as are matter of scandal 1. He may if the good to be procured by them be greater then the evil of scandal 2. If the offence be taken after the Command he may continue it This Question is quite beside the Question Their pretence that the Magistrates command cannot justifie any man in breaking Gods Command answered That which was scandal before the Command is none after As that which is murder in a private man is not so in a commissioned Officer THis Reason as I said before is most largely insisted on in their Postscript where having quoted a multitude of Precepts which forbid offending the weak Brethren they take notice of an Answer which is usually given viz. That these Precepts only concern us where the command of our Superiors doth not make the thing necessary Whereto they reply thus We would gladly know whether the Magistrate be not
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
next Argument against the common-Common-prayer is this Because we cannot find that there was ever any Forms of prayer used in the Church till four hundred years or very nigh after Christ But 1. they must needs except the Lords Prayer and many other Scripture Forms 2. As for other formes I have noted at first that it were needlesse to rake into Antiquity for a Solution of this Question since they will not stand to the judgement of Antiquity And therefore I thought it fitter to argue with them upon common and agreed Principles then upon an Authority which must be demonstrated to them They argue thus in their following Section Because we cannot imagine any use at all of them or any good they ever did especially when imposed This Argumentation is frequently inculcated We see no need What good do they What use is there and the like But take this Argument singly as it is placed in their Book and it sounds nothing For this Argument cannot prove that a Minister ought not to use the Common-prayer except it be supposed that he must do nothing though otherwise lawful but what himself seeth to be useful and necessary and by consequence he ought not to conform to the Directory except he should see the usefulnesse of the several Directions and so it seems that the Directory bound men not only to a conformity of practice but also of judgement which is a much more Tyrannical imposition then that which these Authors so much complain of But I wonder to see that those who would be left to the liberty of Practice to do what themselves think best will not allow others the liberty of their consciences but would have all men not only to act like them in things lawful but also to think like them touching the expediency of lawful things A man knowing it lawful to conform to the Liturgy may do it and yet keep his judgement free thinking that it might be much bettered and mended so that though he be bound in his practice he is left to the liberty of his thoughts But when a man is required to subscribe the long Confession made by the Assembly of Divines he is bound not only to do what he thinks might better be undone but to think that to be true which he thinks to be false There is no comparison betwixt the imposing of Ceremonies and the imposing of a Confession of Faith A man may dislike the Ceremonies and yet use them as he that said he would preach with a pair of horns on his head rather then not at all But a man that subscribes a Confession of Faith is at no liberty to dislike it Now my Observation is this That those men who are most against the imposing of Ceremonies are most for the imposition of Confessions of Faith and complain against the Articles of our Church because there is not enough cramd into them to choak the swallow of an Arminian Those who think themselves highly injured when they are required to wear such a white Garment as others do in the mean time have the conscience to expect that all men should be of the same mind that they are of But to return to what I said at first A Minister may lawfully do some things which he knows no use of were it only to conform to custom or to gratifie some private persons supposing that as he knows no good it doth so he knows no hurt by it neither But now when a thing of an innocent quality is commanded there is this Vse of it if there were none else that by doing this thing we render obedience to our Rulers which is an high part of our Religion It is for them to judge what use and need there is of it and what good it doth It belongs to us to enquire only whether it be lawful He is a naughty Son or Servant who will not do a lawful thing commanded by his Father or Master except himself be informed what good it will do or what use there be thereof The Question is what hurt the use of Liturgies hath done or is likely to do And indeed in that place I am now upon the Authors speak something to this pertinent point asserting that Liturgies have been the Mothers of Heresies causing separations and dreadfull persecutions and will do so still in Reason But 1. How have they caused separations any more then Christ if you understand it of Liturgies in the general and not only of naughty ones only by accident They should prove that there is in a Liturgy quatenus a Liturgy a natural and proper tendency of it self to cause separations and Heresies or else they do nothing but accuse the Gospel it self Who have made the greatest Separations and Heresies among us those who used the Liturgy or they who forsook it Ask the Quakers and Ranters where they began and they will tell you 2. As for Persecutions what the imposing of Liturgies hath done to raise them is nothing to the Question For the Authors pretend to give Reasons wherefore a Minister may not use them when imposed not wherefore Rulers may not impose them Now a Minister may use that which a Magistrate may not impose as I have shewed already could do it in an hundred undeniable instances It is most certain indeed that some men have been persecuted for the use of the Liturgy but without their fault and only by men of the same mind with the Authors If any others have been persecuted for not using it such instances assist not this their Argument but make against it For they should shew how the using of it and not how the not using of it doth raise persecutions But for my part I cannot see how such Persons who use it not can be said to be persecuted while no other Mulcts are inflicted on them then what are established by the sanction of the Laws unlesse by Persecution we understand Prosecution For so I confesse not only they but many a Thief and other Law-breakers have been persecuted The next Argument which hath not been already fully answered is in their eighth Section Because the Generality of those given up to all manner of loosness are impatient for it and rest in it it is as the Papists beads to them and they care for no other worship of God and we conceive it far from our duty to harden any in what we know is their sin and wickedness To which I answer That any persons care for no other worship of God then what is prescribed in the Common-prayer-Book it is no wonder since all is there prescribed Prayer Reading Singing Preaching Sacraments If they mean that they care only for the Prayers and not for the preaching what they say cannot enter into my faith no not in a dream and I have given the Reason of my disbelief already If any rest in the common prayer they should be taught better as those which rest in afternoon Sermons or extempore prayers who
place their Religion in them and think that a man cannot pray in the spirit if he pray by a Form Why do not the Authors fear to harden such Persons in their sin by their example Certainly those which think the common-Common-prayer may lawfully be used saving for fear of scandal ought sometimes to use it were it only for this Reason that their Example might not tempt weak Christians to think Religion consists in Non-conformity as many do restraining the name of Christians the Godly the Brethren to the Non-conformists For such an opinion wrought or confirmed by such an Example would prove by much a more grievous scandal then that which the Authors pretend to be so tender of since there is more Reason for a man to rest in conformity then in Non-conformity For the former is a piece of obedience performed to the Moral Law Honour thy Father but the latter is disobedience thereto SECT VI. The impertinency of pleading that the Liturgy is pressed on them out of Malice Such a supposition makes rather for Conformity Their scruple at the obsolete words dubious phrases and antique Responds answered Their Conclusion and mine THey produce another Reason wherefore they cannot use the Common Prayer in the next Section in these words Because we are assured in our consciences that very many of those who are earnest for it presse the use of it upon no other account then from a principle of Malice against Gods Ministers and People But I think there was never seen a more feeble objection brought in a case of so much moment For may not good and necessary duties be pressed out of Malice Was not the solemn League and Covenant accounted a good and necessary duty and yet upon many a man was it pressed out of Malice by those who thought he would not take it and so they should have advantage against him Is not the taking of the Oath of Allegiance a good and necessary duty and yet possibly it may be pressed upon some out of Malice The truth is this Argument taken from Malice is so far from making against conformity that it makes strongly for it For by how much the more the Enemies of these Ministers watch for their fall and desire a just occasion against them so much the more careful they should be to give them none but conform to the Laws and stop the mouths of their ill-willers by an orderly and peaceable conversation In their next Section they say they cannot use the Common Prayer because it is full of obsolete words dubious phrases antick Responds But 1. As for the Obsolete words I have heard that there is an intention of reforming them However there are the like in Sternholds and Hopkins translation and yet probably these Authors do sing them with their People Besides these obsolete words are not so hard to be understood as many which the Assembly hath put down in their childrens Catechism and may be all interpreted to the meanest capacity in one Sermon and the hour better spent then often it is And so may 2. The Dubious phrases though I believe there is hardly made an extempore prayer which for the length of it hath not as many dubious phrases especially if captiously examined as long as our Liturgy hath been 3. If by Antick Responds they mean Ancient what hurt is there in that Can these Authors use nothing that is ancient why then do they quarrel at Innovations If by Antick they mean foolish and ridiculous they should remember that it is with modes forms fashions and ceremonies as it is with other things secundum modum Recipientis salves all That which is foolish and ridiculous to one is grave and wise to another Broad-brim'd Hats are ridiculous generally when out of fashion and so are narrow ones when the others have been used awhile If the Authors and the rest of their minds would but unanimously use these Responds the seeming antickness and ridiculousnesse in the Eyes of some at present would quickly be worn out But therefore men think the fashion ridiculous because it is not worn by such Persons as they most esteem The Authors add in the same Section that the Method of the Common Prayer through the whole is like to none in any reformed Church in the World But I wonder that the Church of England should be so inconsiderable a part of the Christian world that she must go to other Churches and not they rather come to her I am sorry that Divines of several forraign Churches have spoken much more reverently of our Liturgy then the Authors They conclude This is the sum of our Apology alway reserving to our selves further liberty of adding any further Arguments or Exceptions Indeed they had need to reserve that liberty otherwise they have left their cause in a very poor condition But we may easily see that they are so far from seeking satisfaction in these disputes to their present doubts and scruples that they are purposed to study and devise new Cavils when these are answer'd And therefore I sadly prognosticate that neither this of mine nor any other more able attempt will prevail with many such persons that are rather active then passive in their doubts and that study more how to fortifie their own Objections then how to confute them But if this undertaking may be but so successful as to preserve other more indifferent Readers fiâ—â—â— being misled by the Reasons whose sophistry I have detected I am infinitely recompenced for my pains and can contentedly wait on the divine Suada to give a satisfactory answer to the Rest FINIS
conformity then it would be for a child which comes not when called by his Father to say the dores were locked when he had locked them himself 5. A man is to forbear many things that he may nor give offence to others in case he is left to his liberty which yet he is bound not to forbear but to do in case he be commanded by Authority which is the case in hand 6. This Argument if it were of force would evince it unlawful to use the Directory as well as the Liturgy For there was never Liturgy or Directory made nor can any be made as things stand but some will be offended at it Therefore other circumstances are to be considered which have a power to render the offence in considerable of which hereafter SECT II. 7. The several Sects of Non-conformists make nothing of offending one another An Instance in taking the Scandalous Tithes 8. An unanimous Essay of these Ministers might remove the Scandal What they count scandal is losse of Reputation Vpon what account it is better that some suffer then that Forms should be laid aside Persecution lies at their own dores Their little engaging against the known enemies of God mens vices 7. THe several Sects of Non-conformists make nothing to offend one another The Presbyterians the Independents and they the Anabaptists and they the Quakers and so vice versâ while every one of them doth what seems good in their own eyes Why then do they scruple it in using a prescribed Form of worship May they offend the Brethren on their own heads but not when commanded by Authority If they answer that those things wherein they offend one another are by each party counted necessarily good but the use of the Liturgy they account a thing indifferent for so we must suppose them to speak if they argue upon scandal and therefore though they boldly offend one another in the former actions they dare not in the latter I reply that they ought to account conformity necessarily good so long as it is required by Authority and they ought not to account those actions necessarily good by which they offend one another As to instance how many were offended at the Ministers for taking Tithes Yet I never knew any man who feared to give the offence though it was not a necessary duty to take them For why might not the Minister remit the Tithes of his Parish as well as Saint Paul did remit the contributions of the Corinthians Nothing can be said for taking Tithes notwithstanding the offence taken thereat but the same may be said in the defence of Conformity for all the offence which is taken at it Yea and that which makes the case worse Tithes were as really offered to God in times of Idolatry as the Prayers of the Liturgy and their offended Brethren usually called them Antichristian Tithes for the same reason But may be the Authors make light of offending other Sects beside their own May be they would use the Common Prayer if only other Parties were offended but they dare not offend their own Party Therefore I answer 8. Lastly That there is no fear but that the Ministers whose case is here pleaded have so much Authority and influence upon their own party whom I have found more submissive to one sentence quoted from their own Teachers then to an hundred Reasons in this case that if they would they might easily change the Peoples minds especially if they were unanimously resolved on the Essay as they seem to be on the quite contrary Yea those who had so much power to bring them into the Error cannot have much lesse to bring them out and they are the more bound to endeavour it But in that they do not so much as attempt it it is very probable even to the Judgment of charity it self that what they call scandal of the Brethren is losse of Reputation among their own Sect and the Bishop of Exceters censure is easily reconcilable with that Charity and Candor which the Authors misse in the same and complain thereof in these words The Bishop of Exceter is mistaken therefore in suggesting that we forbear the using of the Liturgy out of a little point of Reputation amongst some People rather weak then wise and to be pittied more then imitated and he shews little candor or charity in saying we sacrifice our Judgements to our credits and out of a fear and lothness to offend some people whom we may easily convince and satisfie as well by our examples as Arguments c. This is not spoken like a tender and good Christian Why not For if the People are in an Error and that such an one which hath already done much mischief in Church and State and is likely to do the like again except Gods great mercy prevent and the Ministers know it is an Error for that must be supposed if they expect the benefit of this Argument and yet will not labour to undeceive their People especially if they have been means of bringing them into this Error themselves can Charity it self imagine otherwise but that this tendernesse proceeds only out of a point of Reputation Whether it be so God only knows to their own Master they must stand or fall But so it appears For though they oppose to this censure a profession that they do not think Non-conformity to be now the way to credit yet they must certainly mean only a Credit with some Persons whom they care not for But that Non-conformity is the way to get Credit with other Persons it is manifest by that which the Authors say in their Postscript of their own observation viz. That those who have returned to the use of the Common Prayer have made themselves the scorn of some and the grief of others There is no such Reputation to be gained by a Divine as to preach against that which is established by Law and to be the Head of a discontented Faction For that cause which hath least of the civil Power to maintain it stands in most need of wit and abilities to defend it And the abilities which are so used shall be taken notice of and admired when those which defend the opposite cause shall be over-looked as needlesse Beside that it is glorious in the Eyes of the vulgar to out-face Authority to go in a singular way and for a man by his irregular actions to censure his Superiors as if he were above them Upon which account the Cynicks of old and the Quakers now for all their pretences to humility have deservedly obtained from wise men the name of the proudest and most ambitious Sects that ever were The Authors stay most upon this Argument in their Postscript and therefore thither I must follow them when I have first left an animadversion upon the exclamation they make in this chapter aganist certain persons who they say had rather their Brethren should be persecuted and all the Christian World scandalized then that the forms of