as much obliged not to command things indifferent where such a scandal will arise as the inferiours not to do them I answer 1. If the things though indifferent in themselves be necessary to procure a greater good then the scandal which will arise from them be an evil he may and if he thinks that the scandal is not considerable or worthy to be respected he is bound in such a case to command the said things For he must be judge of his own Acts otherwise he is in worse case then a private Christian and must enact nothing as I shewed in my first Chapter 2. For the same Reason and with much more if the Magistrate hath commanded an indifferent thing and the offence be taken after the command he may continue his command For else it were in the power of the Subject to bind the Magistrate at pleasure to repeal all his Laws concerning indifferent things As if he should make a Law that there should be no traffick with a Nation that he is minded to make war with The people misliking the Law might say they are offended therewith and so make it his duty to reverse that Law And this is the case under question For the Authors themselves cannot say that the greatest part of the better sort were offended at the use of the Common-prayer when it was first imposed but on the contrary it was highly liked and approved by all or most except the Papists and therefore a better Reason against the Common-prayer might be drawn from the offence which the Papists took at it because they were offended before it was established by Law But the offence which is pleaded by the Authors is an offence taken since and so it is an offence taken at that which was made necessary in its use before and therefore not to be regarded 3. Though it should be granted that the Magistrate himself is by the Law of God restrained from commanding any thing by which weak Christians may be offended yet that is nothing to the Question controverted For the Question is not what the Magistrate is forbid to do but what the Minister ought to do Now though the Magistrate might not for this Reason impose the Liturgy it doth not from thence follow that the Minister may not use it Indeed in the same place the Authors frame an Argument to prove that a man may not do any thing which shall scandalize his Brother though he be commanded to do it by the Magistrate The Argument is in these following Termes We suppose our Brethren will not say that the Magistrates command can justifie any soul in violating the expresse Law of God And as they themselves would not interpret the Law of God thus Thou shalt not steal that is except thy Superiour command thee or Thou shalt not commit adultery that is except thou beest commanded so they must pardon us if we cannot so interpret the Law of God in the case of scandal To which I answer That those Material Actions which would be transgressions of the Moral Law before they are commanded by the Civil Law are sometimes no such transgressions after they are so commanded And the reason is because these Actions have not the same formality which they had before and consequently many times the change of their Nature is commonly owned and expressed by the change of their denomination which will easily appear by particular Instances For that very Action for the matter of it which would be Theft and a breach of the eighth Commandement before the act of humane Authority commanding it or only permitting it is not theft after such an humane precept or permission nor any breach of the eighth Commandment And the self-same Action for the matter of it which would be Murder before commanded by humane Authority and a violation of the sixth Command is afterward neither Murder nor any breach of that Command And therefore by good proportion I may add that the self-same action which was scandal in property of speech before commanded by humane Authority is no such scandal afterward nor any violation of those precepts of the Apostle which the Authors cite The Reason is because that scandal which is forbid by the Apostle lies in an indifferent action So it might be scandal before commanded by the Magistrate because indifferent but it is not scandal after commanded because made necessary by the divine Law requiring obedience to Rulers which Law binds in particular upon the Emergency of an humane Law To make this answer most plain If I should drive away my neighbours Cattel and convert them to my own use or to another mans this were Theft and a sin against the eighth Commandment But then there comes the command of a lawful Magistrate which makes me a Constable or other Officer and binds me to strain them and convert them to the use he prescribeth this is no theft nor any breach of the eighth Command though the Action be the same materially for I drive away the same Cattel Nay if there be no command but only a Permission the case is the same For if my Neighbours goods be confiscated and given to me I may do the same Action and yet be guiltlesse of theft In like manner for John being a private man wittingly and willingly to kill Thomas or to cause him to be killed this is murder and a sin against the sixth Command But for John being a Sheriff and receiving a humane injunction to kill Thomas so to do is no Murder nor any breach of the sixth Command So then I need not make such a silly interpretation of the Precepts of the Moral Law as the Authors suppose necessary to defend my Cause I need not argue thus The Command saith Thou shalt not steal i. e. unlesse thy Superiour command thee But rather thus Thy Superiour commands thee to do that action which would be stealing otherwise but in that he commands it it is no stealing In this Instance the very Appellation and name is altered with the Nature of the thing meerly by the Magistrates Command nothing else intervening de novo But in other cases also though the name be retained yet the nature of the Action is changed so that whereas before it was contrary to the Moral Law now it is made agreeable to it For examples sake let us read the sixth Commandement as the last Translation hath Englished it Thou shalt not kill The Sheriff doth that Action which is called killing and yet breaks not that Commandment because th s killing which he doth is not of the same kind with that which is forbid in the sixth Command And wherein lyes the difference but in this That the Moral Law forbids a private man to kill without publick Authority But the Sheriff kils by vertue of a power so to do derived to him from humane Laws In the case under hand Do no action saith Saint Paul that may give offence I am commanded by the Magistrate to do an
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
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