Catholic Communion Doubly Defended by Dr Owen, Section 5
SECT. 5. A Comparison of the use of a faulty Translation of the Scripture, and a faulty Lyturgy.
IN Queen Elizabeths days the Bishops Translation of the Bible, and that called the Old one being faulty, were only in use. King James procured a better, but the Lyturgy still retained, the Old one. Suppose a Law were made that only the Old faulty Translation be used; many refuse it, and suffer for it; the Parliament cometh and establisheth the New Translation, and swear all men to promote it as a part of Reformation; we are in possession of it for sixteen years: then a Law is made that all shall go to Prison that use any but the Old; two thousand break this Law, and use the New, and suffer part of the penalty, and shift from the rest as long as they can. At last the State is resolved to suffer them no longer, but, in Prison they shall lie: Hereupon many suffer Imprisonment, many die there. Some few in London keep up secret Worship with the New Translation, and others go to the Churches▪ where the Old is used. In the Countries there is not past one Minister in twelve or twenty Miles that keeps up a Meeting in the use of the New one. The few that yet do, say, that [to use the Old one, or joyn with such as do, is Covenant-breaking, and false Worship, and unlawful, and a going back from Reformation.] Some that live in Countries where none in twenty Miles openly use the New one, come to R. B. for counsel; he desireth them to bring one of the contrary Judgment, and judge when they hear both: He tells them, that, 1. They should keep up the New Translation as far as they can in Gods Publick Worship, while the hurt will not be greater than the benefit. 2. That when they have no Publick Church or Worship to joyn with, but what useth the Old one, they should rather joyn with such than none▪ As also when they cannot have the New one without more hurt than benefit. 3. And that while they can have the New one, they should not renounce Communion with the Churches that use the Old one, as separating from it as unlawful, but only disown the faults of the Old one, while they disown not the Communion of the Churches in the use of it.
The other say… 1. That it is a cursed thing to offer God a worse, while we have better. 2. That we are sworn against it. 3. That it is false Worship, and obeying man before God. 4. That we do but keep our possession, which they would put us out of, and it's▪ they that separate from us, and not we from them. 5. That we keep to Gods Word, which is the only Rule. And therefore Communion with the Old Translation is unlawful, and we should rather suffer death.
R. B. answereth, I. 1. That it is a cursed thing to give God no Publick Worship, because we cannot have the New▪ Translation, and to live like Atheists▪ if we cannot have what we would. None▪ is worse than the Old. Family VVorship without Church VVorship, is worse than an Old Translation▪ 2. And that it is not we that offer God▪ the worse before the better; it is they that exclude the better, which we protest against, having not our choice.
II. That he that sware to give over all Church VVorship, unless he have the New Translation, swore wickedly li…e an Atheist; and he that swore to communicate with no▪ Church that used the Old Translation, swore wickedly like a Schismatick; and he that swore that Gods Providence should never return him to a necessity of using the Old▪ swore blasphemously▪ as if he could have governed the World against God.
III. That all Worship is so far false as it is faulty; That to forsake all Publick Worship when we cannot have the better Translation, is to be righteous unrighteously, over much, and too little, and to disobey both God and man.
IV. Keep your Possession as long as you can without more hurt than good. I am not one that ever strove to take it from you. But do your Brethren in Prison enjoy Publick Worship? You'l say, they do better. It's easier bearing their Imprisonment, Poverty and Death, than your own. But what shall ten parts of the Kingdom do, that must have the Old Translation or none? You'l say, I suppose, They may give over all Church Worship as impossible, and take up with Family Worship.
But stay, 1. Must you not first prove the Old so bad, as that no-Church Worship is better? Have you proved this? 2. Will not your Reason prove, that we must also separate from you? Have not weak Ministers as bad faults as a weak Translation? 3. What's become then of your saying, We had Possession? Have they Possession of better that have none at all? Or, will you be without all, because you had once Possession of better? And will it excuse your ungodliness, that you can lay the blame on them that dipossest you? Or if they be Schismaticks for so using you, doth it follow that you are none, if you persuade all to separate from all Gods Church Worship rather than joyn where the Old Translation is used.
V. Gods Word is the Rule; but only a general Rule for words, modes and circumstances. To love God and our Neighbour, and the Unity of the Church, are his greatest Commands. Go learn what these mean: To violate these, and forsake all Church Worship, if you cannot have the best Translation, is not to keep to the Rule, but most grosly to violate it in the greatest Commands against many Scripture Admonitions, which vehemently urge you to Love and Unity.
But, good friend, if really Christ and Scripture be your Guide, I desire no more; tell me, and lay by partiality; Did not Christ and his Apostles use both in the Synagogues, Church. Meetings, and Writings a faulty Translation of the Old Testament, and as bad as ours▪ Deny it if you can for shame. Though sometimes they varyed, they mostly used the Septuagint, according to which our faulty▪ Translation of the Old Testament is made, as it differs from the Hebrew. Is this no Consutation of you? Yea, Christ and the Apostles used it the rather▪ because it was in common use. 2. And are you sure that among so many Greek differing Copies as we have of the New Testament, that you use and follow none but the best.
I would add a similitude, supposing that we had just possession of the Publick Church-place… & Tythes, & they are taken from us, & we can blame them that did it, and say over and over, We had Possession, and therefore it is unlawful to meet in worse Rooms, for God must have the best; will this hold when you cannot keep possession? ▪Will you rather worship no where? This is no better than if you would tell all men, they should die rather than eat Brown Bread, if force take all other from them, because it is unjustly done, and they had possession of better. Good friends, keep your possession for me; but I own not the famishing of all that are dispos…e…sed. If you do, I do not.
Obj. But this case is unlike to that of Lyturgies.
Answ. 1. The Scripture is Gods own Word: A mis-translation maketh that to be his word that is not; which sure is a tenderer matter than in what words we speak our own minds to God. …ure a depravation of Scripture is more than a Ceremony: Were Lyturgies such an alteration of Gods own words, you would more plausibly accuse them. One that said, God said this or that, which he said not, was worse tha… one that spake his own words undecently to God. To say, this is Gods word, which i… not, is indeed adding to it; but so it is not to speak words as our own. How much the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew, how many Verses it leaveth out, how many additions and alterations it maketh, is commonly known. Christs and the Apostles use of this, was no approbation of its faults, much less their presence in the Synagogues▪ when others read Moses and the Prophets in them. And the Psalms in the Septuagint▪ Translation were part of their Lyturgy. For man to speak faultily is no wonder: It hath a more plausible pretence for Separation, to say that men corrupt the word of God. And yet when it is but such an Effect of Humane Imperfection, it is no just pretence.
But yet a word more; Qu. 1. Do you think that the Pharisees and Scribes had so much of the gift of Extemporate Prayer, that they could, and did use to make long Prayers, as if it were by the Spirit Extempore? Say so, and you will disgrace the Doctors Arguments, that lay so much on this manner of praying. No doubt but it was Forms and Lyturgies that they used; yet when Christ condemneth them for praying in the streets to be seen, and using long prayer for a pretence to devour Widdows houses; Qu. 2. Did Christ speak one word against them as Forms or Lyturgies? Did he want Zeal or Knowledge? Q. 3. Had they not been good in themselves, what cloak could they have made for so great evil? Qu. 4. Did Christ or his Apostles ever forbear the Synagogues for the sake of these long Lyturgies? Come friends, there is no end, nor much hope in disputing against fixed prejudice, and wrong confident Conceits, how clear soever the Light be against it. Hold your Judgment, and I shall hold mine, till God irresistibly reconcile us; and if you cannot forgive me, I can forgive you, but not own the guilt of your mistakes, and the Effects. I have too much already of my own, I had rather you accused me, than Conscience, for wilful contracting any more. The Lord save us from our Enemies, but more especially from our Friends, and all their Temptations, and above all, from our selves.
It amazeth me to hear wise and godly men say, [It is Popery that is coming in upon us; Ergo, Let us all forsake the Parish-Churches, Quasi die. The Enemy will take the City within these few years; Ergo, Let us all go out of it to day. Like him that killed himself for fear of dying some years hence. Dementation goeth before Perdition. Who knoweth not that the Religion of the Parish-Churches is like to be the National Religion? And shall we persuade Protestants to leave them all? Passion provoked by some mens badness, hath too much conquered Love to Conformists in some mens minds, so that they scruple not too uncharitable opinions and words of them. This is contrary to Christian Love. I doubt not but there are hundreds of godly Conformable Ministers in England, On Aug. 24. 1662. Seven thousand or more did Conform, that had been kept in, in the Parliaments time; were all those seven thousand tolerable the year before, and ungodly the next year? Many Conformists now in London were taken for very good men in 1659. At once the other extream, most study to get them out; and shall we also call all men on pain of hazarding their Souls to forsake them? A very great Church-man above 40 years ago was heard say to his Brethren; The Non-conformable Puritans are Snakes: We have the Law against them, and can tread them down when we will: But it is the Conformable Puritan that is the Devil of England, to be cast out: And shall we second this, and that as in opposition to it? Grace is lost as far as Christian impartial Love is lost. And they that lose Religion themselves, which lyeth in Love, are like to be no good Keepers of it in the Church. If a good Man that we value become a danger to the truth, we are angry if his Errour be but contradicted, lest his Name be blemished: But some dare say the Conformists are all false, ready to betray the Church to Papists: who nowdo far more to keep them out then we do. This is against Iam. 3. 17. If there be any such Conformists high or low, I am none of their Advocate; God will find them out, and judge them: But I am confident that it is also Conformists (by the advantage of their Possession) that will do more to stop their desired success, than Nonconformists can do. I am sure Bishop Iewel, Usher, Morton, Hall, Downame, Davenant, &c. were far from Popery. And what man living hath written stronglier against it, than Dr. Isaac Barrow, (against whose Book a Doctor hath newly dasht his Reputation, as a bubble against a Rock: And what the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of Hereford, Dr. Peter Moulin, Dr. Stillingfleet, and many more have done, is known.
Your Mr. Mat. M…ad once commended a Conformist for a Benefice to me, with these words, [I take him to be the holiest Man I know,] I have loved him the better ever since for his Candor, Charity, and Impartiality.