The Harmony Between the Old and Present Non-Conformists, Treatise · Argument 1
Argument I.
I. They are perſwaded that according to the Rubrick, the ſame honour is put on the Apocryphal Books, which is due alone to the Sacred Scriptures. For they are appointed to be read as a part of the Old Teſtament, without any note of difference from the Canonical.
In a diſcourſe before the Common Prayer concerning the Service of the Church, 'tis aſſerted that nothing is ordained to be read, but the very Pure word of God, the Holy Scriptures, or that which is agreable to the ſame, beſide this after the order, how the Pſalter is to be read, 'tis ſaid in the Title, how the reſt of Holy Scripture is to be read, under which Title ſeveral orders are to be found. Namely, 1. The Old Teſtament is appointed for the firſt Leſſons at Morning and Evening Prayer, ſo as the moſt part thereof will be read every year once, and in the 3d. order 'tis ſaid that to know what Leſſons ſhall be read every day, look for the day of the Month in the Kalendar following, and there ye ſhall find the Chapters that ſhall be read for the Leſſons both at Morning and Evening Prayer, and in the Rubrick after the Pſalms are read 'tis order'd, that then ſhall be read diſtinctly with an audible voice, the Firſt Leſſon taken out of the Old Teſtament, as it is appointed in the Kalendar, whereby 'tis evident that what is appointed in the Kalendar to be read, for the Firſt Leſſon, is conſider'd as a part of the Old Teſtament, the Holy Scripture, the pure word of God; But the Apocryphal books are in the Kalendar appointed to be read for Firſt Leſſon for almoſt Two Months together, even from the latter end of September untill November 24th, beſide the Holy dayes, on which theſe books are appointed to be read. To which add that this is done to the conſtant neglect of reading a great part of the Sacred Scriptures, namely the two books of Chronicles. Solomons Song, and a great part of the Revelations.
That 'tis the appointment of the Church to read the Apocryphal books as a part of the Holy Scriptures, is farther confirm'd by Archbiſhop Bancroft, in the conference held at Hampton Court, where (as the abridgment has it,) he tax'd Jerom for calling theſe books Apocrypha, and ſaid he was the firſt that gave them that name, and called his objections againſt them, the old Cavills of the Jews; And the Biſhops of Wincheſter affirm'd at the ſame time, that they muſt needs be held, Canonici ad informandos mores. Canonical for the information of manners. To theſe I'll add, what Mr. Hutton in his anſwer unto the reaſons of the Miniſters of Devon and Cornwall to this very objection. They, are ſaith he, called Holy Scriptures in a ſignification at large, becauſe the ſubject they entreat of, is God, his Love, Power, our Sanctification and Obedience to him. And they may be held Canonical, wholſom Doctrines being thence deduced, though not ſimply of themſelves, yet wherein they agree with the Canon, as alſo becauſe they may ſerve as they alwayes heretofore have done, for a rule to direct and order our Converſation aright.
In this anſwer, though he ſeems without the approbation of the Rubrick, to make a difference between the Sacred Scriptures, and the Apocrypha books, yet at length falls in with the Biſhop of Wincheſter aſſerting, that they are a Canon or Rule to direct our Converſation aright.
But in oppoſition hereunto, 'tis generally by ſound Proteſtants aſſerted. 1. That the Apocryphal books are not a part of the Holy Scriptures, the pure word of God. 2. That there are ſeveral things appointed to be read, which are not agreable to the word of God, nor can be defended by any ſound Proteſtant.
To make this point the more clear, I'll give the Reader an account of what is reply'd to the diſtinction of the Biſhop of Wincheſter about the Canon of Faith, and Manners, and then offer what arguments have been urg'd againſt this practice of the Church.
In the ſecond part of the defence of the reaſons of the Devonſhire and Corniſh Miniſters, 'tis thus reply'd to the aforeſaid diſtinction. But that we may farther ſee how heartleſs and unſound this diſtinction of Canonical for manners, but not for Faith is, let us obſerve how they here make a diſtinction of faith and manners where none is, for all Doctrines of God's word are (in this reſpect) Doctrines of faith, whether they concern matters of believing, or of other Converſation of life, wherefore the Apoſtle hath coupled them together in that place to Timothy, ſaying, all Scripture given by inſpiration of God, &c. ſhewing us thereby, that upon one, and the ſame divine Revelation, our knowledge and practice both muſt be grounded. And I would entreat theſe men that give us this diſtinction, to tell us whether it be not a point of faith, That we muſt worſhip one God, and him after his own manner, reverencing his Name, and keeping his Sabbaths, &c. And whether it be not a point of faith, That we muſt honour our Parents and Superiors, that we muſt not Kill, commit Adultery, Steal, Slander, Covet; And whether our Conſciences be not bound in theſe things by the Divine Teſtimony, as well as in any point of our underſtanding? ſurely (unleſs our Divinity faileth) all the word of God is the object of Faith, that as well which directeth to manners, as that which revealeth myſteries unto us. There is (I confeſs) a diſtinction between Faith and Manners, when we come to ſort and ſever the things contained in the Word, into the kinds of duties impoſed, but when we conſider them in the Rule and Principle of the word it ſelf, from which the Conſcience is certainly inform'd and bound, there is no difference, but they are all of faith alike: even as the ſame ſap, which in the branches diſtinct unto leaves and bloſſomes, was in the Root but one; whence it followes that nothing can be properly Canonical unto manners, but the ſame was firſt Canonical unto faith: for we therefore ſtand undoubtedly perſwaded that thus we ought to do, becauſe we firſt believe that God himſelf would have us to do ſo, and hath reveal'd it to us as his will.
By this it ſeems evident that the diſtinction between Canon of faith and of manners as us'd by the Biſhops, is idle and impertinent, and that therefore notwithſtanding all has been ſaid by Mr. Hutton, it remains as an undoubted truth, that the Service Book doth conſider the Apocripha as Canonical, as a part of the Holy Scriptures, the pure Word of God, which is no more than what may be inferred from their confounding the Apocriphal with the Canonical books, as may be ſeen in their great Bible Authorized to be read, where dividing the books of the Old Teſtament into Legal, Hiſtorical, Sapiential and Prophetical; In the Hiſtorical they place 19 books, amongſt which they reckon the third and fourth books of Eſdras, the books of Tobith and Judith, the two books of Maccabees, and the reſt of the Chapters of Eſther, making the book of Eſther to conſiſt of 16 Chapters, and then to be part of that book. In the Sapiential they place 5 books, whereof they reckon the books of Wiſdom and Eccleſiaſticus for two, calling the book of Wiſdom the Wiſdom of Solomon. In the Prophetical they place 18 books, of which they reckon Baruch the Prophet, and Suſanna, Bell and the Dragon, making the ſame all one with Daniel, conſiſting of 14 Chapters; What can be more clear than this, ſayes the Defender of the Reaſons? &c. Where to (ſayes the ſame Author) if we add the book of Homilies, how it divers times calleth theſe Apocriphal Books Holy Scriptures, in the ſame ſenſe wherein the Scriptures of the Old and New Teſtament are ſo called, ſaying in the alledging Tobith and Eccleſiaſticus, the Holy Ghoſt ſpeaketh ſo in the Scriptures, thereby giving the ſame Authority and Title with Zechary, Luke 1. and the Author to the Hebrews Ch. 3. 7. give to the Holy Prophets, in their writing of places out of the Old Teſtament.
Thus 'tis evident; That according to the Service Book, and the Sentiments of ſome great Biſhops, the great Bible and Book of Homilies, the Apocripha is conſider'd as a part of the Holy Scriptures. The which truth abides in its ſtrength, notwithſtanding what is argued from the Book of Articles, where 'tis ſufficiently manifeſt, that the Apocripha are no part of the Holy Scriptures, for this doth but diſcover the contradiction there is between the book of Articles and the Service book, &c. whereby the Non-Conformiſts are but ſupply'd with an unanſwerable argument againſt ſubſcription, which I'll give in the words of the Devonſhire Miniſters: viz. That to ſubſcribe to the Service Book is contrary to our Subſcription to the Book of Articles, the 6 Article whereof under the name of Holy Scriptures, underſtanding only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Teſtament, there mentioned, whereof the Apocrypha Books are none, and therefore they conclude they cannot ſafely ſubſcribe, becauſe they ſhall ſubſcribe to two books, one contrary to another.
This being ſo clear, namely, that the Apochripha Books, are appointed to be read as a part of the Holy Scriptures, and as the Canon and Rule of manners, I'll proceed to ſhew what has been objected againſt it; Not that I'll trouble the Reader with all, but onelyonly with two or three particulars.
1. Hereby their error, who account theſe Books Canonical Scripture is confirm'd; This was (ſayes the Lincoln Abridgment) the only reaſon, that moved the third Councill of Carthage to decree, that they ſhould be held Canonical, becauſe they had received from the Fathers, that they were to be read in the Church. And Bellarmine makes this one of his beſt reaſons to prove that the authority of theſe books is Divine and Canonical, becauſe they are now, and have been of old, read by the Church in the publique Aſſemblies; ſo do the Papiſts in that Book they have lately Publiſhed, called the Three Converſions of England; And Gregory Martin reaſoneth thus; "Their own Service book (ſaith he) appointeth theſe books of Toby and Eccleſiaſticus to be read for Holy Scriptures, as the other. Do they read in their Churches Apocryphal and Superſtitious Books for Holy Scriptures? ſo clear it is that the very Papiſts are confirm'd in their error by this practiſe of the Church.
2. The reading theſe books, though but as the Canon and Rule manners tends ſo very much to the corrupting the manners of men in ſome things, that the Diſſenters can in no way approve of it.
In the defence of the Devonſhire and Corniſh Miniſters reaſons, 'tis thus argued. If the Apocriphal Books be Canonical as teaching manners, then whatſoever point of manners thoſe books do commend unto us, either by Precept or allowed Example, we not only may but muſt obſerve it for Conſcience ſake, as a divine Rule or Canon.
'Tis true hereby a late Order, which was that the wicked Diſſenters, if poor receive not Almes, will be defended, for 'tis but according to the command in Eccleſiaſticus 12. 5. where 'tis expreſly ſaid; Give not to the Ʋngodly, hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him: leaſt he over-maſter thee thereby. But how agreable this Precept is unto the pure word of God, or the light of nature, let a common capacity judge, but though this practice is enjoyn'd to the defence of that but now mention'd order, yet there are other allowed, and highly approv'd practiſes, which are moſt odious in the apprehenſion of the Diſſenter, and are really abhor'd by all but bloody Papiſts. For Judiths tricking up her ſelf on purpoſe to tempt and enſnare the heart of Holofernes to uncleanneſs, her compaſſing an Irreligious Governour by fraud, by lies, by oaths and proteſtations in the name of God, to the end ſhe might the more aſſuredly murder him, is not only an allowed, but a practice highly approv'd of by the book of Judith, that is appointed to be read in October.
The children of Iſrael, though now return'd from the Babylonian Captivity, yet to the very time Holofernes was murdered by Judith, they remained under the Government of the Emperour. The Emperour though an Idolater, yet their Lawfull Governour, whoſe Government they ſhould not have ſhaked off by frauds, by lies, equivocations, and other ſinfull practices, which yet Judith did to the gaining the greateſt applauſe and commendation; The which is read in the Church as the Rule of manners, whereas in truth, 'tis meet only for the countenancing the unjuſtifiable treaſons of the Papiſts, to which purpoſe it has been improv'd by Saunders de ſchiſmate, who inciting the Engliſh Ladies, profeſſing the Popiſh Religion to murder Queen Elizabeth, and all her Favourers, calling her Holofernes, the Heretical Prince, did prove from this example of Judith, that they might do it, without any the leaſt ſtain or blot to their Religion.
This is urg'd in the defence of the reaſon of the Devonſhire and Corniſh Miniſters, from whence I would query, whether a perſon fully convinc'd of that, if the book of Judith muſt be read as the Rule of manners, this allowed practice of Judith muſt be in the like caſe imitated, ought not rather to abandon the reading or hearing of theſe books, then preſume to enter on the practiſes of murdering by lies, deceits. &c. I verily believe, that the Non-Conformiſts rather than that they would imitate Judith in theſe things, would rather be expoſ'd to the worſt of miſeries, whereby they would more effectually demonſtrate to the World the Loyalty of their Principles, than by their Conformity.
There are ſeveral other things that muſt be practiſed; if the Apocriphal Books be embrac'd as the Rule of manners, unto which the Diſſenters cannot conform. But deſigning to be ſhort, I will at this time wave the conſidering them, and proceed to ſhew the ſenſe, ſome of the Old Church of England Proteſtants had of theſe books, as I find it in the Abridgment.
3. The Old Church of the Jewes, (ſaith Dr. Whitaker) never vouchſafed the Apocriphal Books ſo much honour as to read 'em publiquely, which alſo the Learned hold to be a good preſident for us to follow—The Council of Hippo (ſayes Biſhop Jewell) ſpeaking of the Canonical Scriptures, decreed that beſides them nothing might be read in the Church. The Council held at Laodicea decreed, on the Sabbath we may not read any books, that be without the Canon, but only the Canonical books of the Old and New Teſtament. To the like effect Chryſoſtom ſpeaks, (ſayes the ſame Jewell,) and as Biſhop Jewell, ſo Biſhop Horn, and Biſhop Pilkinton aſſerts, the French Church by the conſtitutions of Lewes and Charles, were againſt the reading of the Apocrypha. Whoever will diligently compare what Proteſtant writers offer againſt Apocryphal books, with the books themſelves will find ſo many idle ſtories and fables, ſo many errors and ill preſidents in it, that they cannot but conclude with Dr. Sutcliff. That it is impudence in the Papiſts, that they match Apocryphal books and Legends, with the Scriptures, or at leaſt read them in the Churches, together with the Scriptures.
From the whole hath been ſaid on this particular, I inferr that 'tis but charity to conclude that ſome Diſſenters may receive ſuch ſtrong convictions concerning the unlawfulneſs of conforming to this part of the Liturgy, that their Non-conformity may be more juſtly eſteemed the product of Conſcience, than the Off-ſpring of obſtinacy, and an unreaſonable Humour.