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
Remembrancers The same may be said of the usual names of the moneths and dayes of the week which do include the names of heathenish Gods and Goddesses which some have taken much pains to shew and presse for the credit of Mr. Jesse's Almanack But his Almanack would be needlesse except these things were first pressed by such tinkerly Reformers who make work that so they may mend it For who thinks of Venus when he mentions Friday though Frea signifie the same And who thinks of keeping a Feast to Saturn when he celebrates the Nativity of our Saviour or of honouring Flora in a May pole None I dare say or but very few excepting such as have been endroctrinated by the said Reformers No more then a man means to swear by Hercules when he saith or writeth Mehercule which I am sure I have met with in Theological discourses made by Authors never suspected of any good inclination to Popery or other Idolatry In like manner who thinks of the Lady of Loretto or other Popish Idols in reading of the Liturgy Only the discourse I oppose is the direct way to effect that which they pretend to prevent I have argued all this while upon the Authors supposition That the worship of the Church of Rome in the whole complex is idolatrous But they might more properly say that a bushel filled half with wheat and half with rye is a bushel of wheat or that a Sermon is nonsentical in the whole complex if some few phrases of it be non-sense or that a Translation is erroneous in the whole complex if there be some few Errata's in it Whosoever faith a Blackamore is white ih the whole complex according to my Criticks tels a lye though he be white in his teeth I might also add that the Papists in the grossest part of their idolatry in adoration of the bread are justified by a Principle which the Non-conformists or most of them do maintain and their idolatry is but the lawful emprovement of this Principle viz. That Reason is not to judge what points are to be received as articles of faith and what not For this principle being supposed there is no warrant to interpret those words figuratively This is my body since all the warrant which is pretended is that the literal sense is repugnant to Reason which pronounceth it absolutely impossible that one body should be in two places at once But according to this Hypothesis of the exclusion of reason from the judgement seat the Papist might reply Indeed my reason tels me that it is impossible but the Scripture saith This is my body and therefore I ought not to mince the words at the command of reason which hath nothing to do in matters of faith Indeed the Scripture saith the Body of Christ is in heaven but I believe it is on earth too at the Eucharist Nothing but Reason gain-sayes and she hath nothing to do to judge in the case What can a man that goes on this Principle reply to the so much condemned Idolater Out of his own mouth he is confuted He laid down the doctrine and the other makes the natural and genuine use Those therefore which hold this principle cannot judge the action of the Papists in adoring the Bread to be idolatrous without self-contradiction and if they will act according to their light this second Reason signifies nothing to them though it may to others I cannot conclude my notes on their second Reason without reflecting upon another extracted from the same Topick and by what they have said upon this Reason rendered more creditable to the unwary and half observing Reader For they have sprinkled in several pages of their book many shrewd hints as if the Liturgy ushered in the Masse and conformity were a step toward Popery As page 67. We know that those Ministers and people who are most zealous against Popery are most averse to this Liturgy But a zeal for any cause except it be bridled by discretion and attended with an equal pace of strength is not the way to protect it but to betray it We saw lately that the States-men which were most zealous for the good old Cause lost it and the King had not better friends then his most implacable enemies Fury is as bad in a Champion as torpour it is an even temperature of wisdom and valour which doth the execution A sober Protestant though he rageth lesse shall prevail more on a Papist then a mad Fanatick The greatest part of the zeal against Popery which is found among the Non-conformists is like that of one frantick who wounds himself while he would strike his foe They are mad against Popery but they cannot tell why they cannot confute it without condemning themselves as I could prove in many Instances This unguided zeal will be sure to run far enough from Popery and so runs into it as he that sails round the Globe the further he goes after he is half way the nearer he approacheth to the place from whence he set out Thus the Quakers a considerable part of the Non-conformists rayled at Popery till they began to be taken for Jesuites or their disciples I have heard of several Papists that have turned Protestants by the reasonings of men zealous for the Liturgy But I professe unfainedly I never heard of one that of late years was won by any Non-conformist excepting by Mr. Baxter And I believe he would have been as unsuccessful as others but that he goes upon more moderate principles Me thinks the example of Doctor Cosens now Bishop of Durham once most suspected of Popery for his zeal for the Liturgy and yet exercising a no lesse couragious then considerate zeal against Popery in the time of his exile methinks I say this example alone were sufficient not only to stop the mouth of calumny in this particular but to non-plus jealousie it self I confesse in some things the Conformists come nearer to the Papists then others but it is as Souldiers make their approaches to the enemy to fight with him and are therefore many times thought to fall away but when they return with their spoils captives and Trophees none is so hard-faced as to maintain the suspition Mr. Baxter himself it is known hath not only been suspected but verily believed to be a Papist and that by some Rabbi's meerly for his conceding some Positions to the Papists which no reasonable and just man can deny them whereby he hath done more to the shaking of the very foundations of the Papal Sea then all the Non-conformists that ever mannaged the Controversie which I ever heard of But I have so much to say upon this subject that it would require a Book by it self Doctor Sanderson in both his Prefaces to his Sermons hath shewed how much service is done to the Pope by the Non-conformists in many particulars where the Reader may be satisfied concerning the falsenesse of that which they affirm page 109. That there is nothing of more
which he had first commanded him Yet the two cases as to our purpose are not alike in many respects which I could instance and shall if there be need It remaineth therefore that there was no Divine direction given to David concerning this beside the light of his own Reason the Candle of the Lord the commands of which are the commands of God But that I insist not on here God never commanded any where in the Levitical Law to my best Remembrance that a Temple should be built in future Ages I confesse I read more then once that when the Israelites should be settled in their inheritance there should be a stated place in some of the Tribes where God would be worshipped and where he would place his Name But that might be by settling the Tabernacle there without an house of Wood and Stone In like manner Salomon though indeed God had said he should build the Temple yet stayeth not for a command from God about the form the measure the materials and many other adjuncts of the same though all these things were determined by God himself in the Tabernacle and not left to Humane Prudence Neither doth Salomon in these and many other Points keep to the Pattern of the Tabernacle but follows his own Wisdom Accordingly at the Dedication he kept a Feast and it was an holy Feast For it was kept before the Lord God 1 Kings 8.65 seaven dayes and seven dayes even fourteen dayes a Feast that was never commanded nor kept before and therefore by the reasonings of these men a more monstrous and abominably anomalous holy-day then Christmass it self Other inductions might be made and shall be when there is occasion if this doth not suffice to evince that the forecited Prohibition Thou shalt not add thereto doth not forbid all humane Inventions in the Worship of God 3. The Text under consideration saith Thou shalt not add to it nor diminish from it The Pronoun Relative it doth plainly refer to the Law delivered by Moses in the Wilderness whether Moral Political or Ceremonial And if this Prohibition binds us in the sense which they affix unto it I see not how we can avoid but we must turn Jews If it be replyed that the Ceremonial Laws are abrogated by the coming of Christ and therefore we may do things which are not by them enjoyned and leave undone things that are but yet that there remains the same analogy and Common Reason in respect of the Precepts of the Gospel I answer that the Proportion and Common Reason is not the same in our case till it be proved that God hath by Revelation determined all things in his Worship in the sayings of Christ and his Apostles which are upon Record as perfectly as he did in the Law of Moses wherein not so much as the sâ—uffers and other such Punctilio's are pretermitted It is usually urged that the same Prohibition which now we dispute off doth seal up the whole Canon of Scripture Revel 22. where Saint John concludes If any man add to these things God shall add to him the Plagues c. But if these words in the latitude of their meaning are not to be restrained to the Book of the Revelations which yet is most probable but extended to the whole Body of Scripture Yet they are not to be interpreted as forbidding those actions in Gods Worship that are not prescribed in the Bible For there are other precepts in the Bible beside those which are Directive of Gods Worship as about Good husbandry and Good huswifry in the Proverbs And therefore these Words in the end of the Apocalyps prohibiting with an equall peremptoriness any additions to any Parts of the Bible they must needs condemn humane inventions in good Husbandry as much as in the Worship of God and Mr. Hartlib will be found Popishly affected at the Tribunal of these Expositors SECT III. By the Ministers sense of the Text we are obliged to the observation of the Political Laws of Moses The Answer that we are so to the Reason of them retorted The things meant in that Text are such as were an abomination to God antecedently Their sense of the words not only absurd but exotick 4. IT was as much unlawfull to add to the Political Laws of the Jewish State as to the Ceremonial and Moral or to diminish from them And yet as these men understand the Words add and diminish we do continually add to them and diminish from them and they blame us not For when a Thief is hanged instead of making the assigned restitution here is an addition and when the Dam is taken with her Young ones or an house made without Battlements or a Rebellious Son not stoned to Death here is a diminution The Fifth Monarcy men do more exactly live up or rather down to their Principles then they who taught them I cannot see but according to the forementioned reasons we are bound by the Judicial Laws of Moses If it be said so we are so far as the Reason of the command remains I answer that in such cases it is clear that the command doth not oblige us but the Reason of the command and the same Reason would oblige as much when there is no command which is all I contend for that human Reason may invent new constitutions about the commerce of Men and consequently about the Worship of God with a non-obstante to the Text alledged By these four Reasons it appears to any unprejudiced and considerate Reader that these Words Thou shalt not add to it do not signifie There shall be no humane Inventions in the Worship of God Yea although this should be the most literal and obvious sense of the words The Reason is because of those many plain contradictions and gross absurdities that would necessarily be consequent thereupon as I have already instanced I might add that there were new and difficult cases sometimes contingent in which the Judges could not proceed by the stated Rules of Law but were to make their address to Persons appointed by God and to stand to their sentence Moreover if Thou shalt not add to it did signifie in the place quoted Thou shalt not do what is not commanded yet the context maketh it appear that those things were meant that were an abomination to God antecedently to the giving of his Law or at least by their contrariety to his Law It doth not appear that those things were at all meant which are an abomination only because they are not commanded by his Law if there be any such things as those I deal with suppose To speak more clearly if it may be The Text forbids the adding of such things that are an abomination to the Lord not because they were not prescribed in the Law but because they were condemned by the Law or were condemnable before the giving of the Law This will be evident if we consider the words immediately preceding Deut. 12.30 31. Enquire not saying How did these
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
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
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
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
tendency to confirm the Papists in their way of worship then for them to see us keep much the same Indeed they may be confirmed in the good parts of their worship by seeing us do the same and all the better it is better they were Papists then Atheists But how can they be confirmed in the bad parts of their worship by seeing us to use the good and refuse the bad They are rather confirmed by such as refuse the whole For then they will think all to be refused out of humour since some apparently is and that we have no more reason against the bad then against the good since we carry our selves with the same aversation to both So that the experiment they relate in the same page How some forreign Papists listening at the doors where they have heard Service read and sung cryed out This is the same with ours This experiment I say is for the credit of the Liturgy as more facilitating the Papists coming over to us and being a more easie stride then extempore Prayers The Authors tell me very good news and I am heartily glad to hear that the Papists begin to like that service which heretofore they persecuted with fire and faggot And so much for the Ministers second Reason contained in their ninth Chapter CHAP. III. SECT I. Their third reason from scandal considered 1. No scandall hath any foundation in re 2. No scandal is allow'd in Scripture 3. It is but juggling for those to plead scandal who hold the things unlawful Or 4. who endeavour not to convince the scandalized of their errour but do themselves most confirm them in it 5. The command of Authority out-weighs scandal and alters the case from that in St. Pauls dayes 6. Their Argument stands charged equally against the Directory as the Liturgy THe Authors finding their Reason drawn from the usage of the Liturgy in times of Popery to be too light and the other taken from the scandal of Brethren that are offended therewith to be no more solid and weighty have sophistically joyned them both in one in the ninth Chapter that their Respondent might be as much cumbered in the defence of his cause as a man that fights with two at once For one Answer will not serve for these two Arguments which they have confounded together But I have manifested already that they are two distinct Arguments since neither of them is rendered more accomplished for the purpose by the accession of its fellow and the Authors themselves acknowledge the distinction as by the many words they spend to prove the unlawfulnesse of offering that to God which hath been offered in an idolatrous service without mentioning the case of scandal so also in the Title of their Postscript where they plainly say that the latter is another Reason from the former Therefore having answered the former it is very reasonable according to the laws of Method that I make the examination of the latter taken from the scandal of brethren to be the proper subject of this present Chapter In the fortification of which the first thing they do after the naked proposition of it is to prevent an answer The Prolepsis is in these words We are aware what the Doctors of Aberdeen said of old to prove that the scandal of Brethren weighs light when put in the scale with the command of Authority There may something be said for their Assertion where the scandal is meerly passive and hath no foundation in re only men are offended because they are offended But where the scandal is such as is so far allowed by Scripture that a negative precept is given upon it Eat it not we are not of so easie a faith as to believe what they say when Gods Word saith Do it not To this I reply 1. That no scandal hath a foundation in re The foundation of scandal is the errour and weaknesse of the Person scandalized And we ought to be so far from respecting least such offended persons that seem to labour under the greatest weaknesse that we are to respect them most For to offend the little ones is worse then to offend the Pharisees Doctors and Rabbies But now generally those which are offended at the Liturgy as they do think themselves the most able men and women and accordingly declaim against the grosse ignorance of others yea even of the Clergy making it their recreation to scoffe and scorn at them and to contrive and tell ridiculous fables of them so by the Authors themselves they are many times acknowledged to be the ablest sort of Christians and Ministers and therefore they ought not to abstain from conformity for fear of offending them whose offence is rather counterfeit then real having no foundation in re that is in weaknesse nor in any errour which is not easily vincible if they are of so great gifts as they have the credit of 2. Whereas they say that the scandal alledged is such and so far allowed in Scripture that a negative Precept is given upon it Eat it not I answer that no scandal is allowed in Scripture and no Sctipture doth so far allow a respect to the scandal taken at the Common-Prayer as to say use it not especially when the Laws both Ecclesiastical and Civil say use it For I have demonstrated in the Chapter fore-going a vast difference between the case of meats offered to Idols and the Liturgy 3. It is but juggling for those persons to use an Argument drawn from scandal who believe the thing unlawful though no offence were taken For whosoever saith he he doth not an action because people are offended doth thereby confesse that he thinks it an indifferent thing As if a man should say I commit not adultery because if I did I should offend the Brethren The hearer would conclude that the speaker either thinks that adultery is otherwise lawful or else doth hugely prevaricate Therefore seeing the Authors do think the use of the Common-prayer unlawful though no body took offence at it they should have done ingenuously to cut short the controversie and not mention scandal that a speedy issue might be procured For I cannot see how I can argue with them upon the point of scandal but by supposing that the persons who fear to give scandal by doing the action grant the action to be lawful though they whom they fear to scandalize judge it unlawful And therefore I am forced to proceed here on that supposition 4. Such Persons cannot reasonably pretend the scandal of their Brethren as a Reason of their Non conformity till they have used all means within their power to convince the scandalized Brethren that their offence is canselesse and the thing is lawful But if they on the contrary by their actions sermons and familiar conferences beside their writings do labour to confirm them in that weaknesse and errour which causeth the scandal as usually they do then this scandal is no more excuse for their forbearance of
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