All the greater Bodies of those who divide from our Constitutions have some Rituals of their own so the Dispute in this must only be concerning the degrees and extent of this Power For if any Authority is allowed it will not be easy to fix any other Bounds to it but this that it must not invade the Divine Authority nor do any thing beyond the Rules and Limits set in the Scriptures for if there is the least degree of Authority in the Church the grounds upon which it is founded must carry it to every thing that cannot be proved to be unlawful Bare unfitness though it ought to be a Consideration of great weight when such things are deliberated about yet when they are once concluded can be no reason for disobeying them since the fitness of Order and the decency of Unity and Obedience is certainly of much more value than any special unfitness that can be supposed to be in any particular Instance So that one of these two must be admitted either that the Pastors of the Church have no sort of Authority even in the smallest Circumstances but are limited by the Rules of the Scripture and can only execute them strictly and not go beyond them in a title or this Authority must go to every thing that is lawful On that I will dwell no longer here the fuller discussion of this matter belonging to another Discourse It is a natural Consequence of the Authority given to the Pastors of the Church That they having declared and fixed their Doctrine and having setled Rules for their Rituals may excommunicate such as either do not live according to the Rules of their Religion which are a main part of their Doctrine or do not obey the Constitutions of their Society Excommunication in the Strictness of things is only the Churches refusing to receive a person into her Communion now as every Private man is the Master of his own Actions it is clear that every Body of Men must also be the Masters of theirs And thus though Excommunication in some respects is declaratory it being a solemn denunciation of the Judgments of God according to the tenor of the Gospel against persons who live in an open violation of some one or more of its Laws so it is also an authoritative Act by which a Church refuses to communicate with such a Person In this it is true Churches ought to make the terms of Communion with them as large and extensive as may consist with the Rules of Religion and of Order but after all they having a Power over themselves and their own Actions must be supposed to be likewise cloathed with a Power to communicate with other Persons or not to do it as they shall see cause in which great difference is to be made between this Power in it self and the use and management of it for any Abuses whether true or only pretended though they may well be urged to procure a proper Reformation of them yet cannot be alledged against the Power it self which is both just and necessary It is not so very clear to state the Subordination in which the Church is to be put under the Civil Power and how far all Acts of Church Power are subject to the Laws and Policies of those States to which the several Churches do belong It is certain that the Magistrate's being a Christian or not does not at all alter the Case that has only a relation to his own salvation for his Authority is the same whatever his Belief may be in matters of Religion His design to protect or to destroy Religion alters the Case more sensibly for the regards to that Protection and to the Peace and Order that follow upon it together with the Breaches and Disorders that might follow upon an ill understanding between Church and State are matters of Such Consequence that it is not only meer Prudence which may give perhaps too strong a Bias to carnal Fears and Policies but the Rules of Religion which oblige the Church to study to preserve that Order and Protection which is one of the chief Blessings of the Society and a main Instrument of doing much good Great difference is to be made between an Authority that acts with a visible design to destroy Religion and another that intends to protect it but that errs in its conduct and does often restrain the Rules of Order and impose hard and uneasy things Certainly in the latter much is to be born with that may be otherwise uneasy because the main is stil safe and private slips when endured and submitted to can never be compared to those publick disorders that a rigid maintaining of that which is perhaps in it self good must occasion But when the design is plain and that the Conduct of the Civil Powers goes against the Truth of Religion either in whole or in any main Article of it then the Body of the Christians of that State ought to fortify themselves by maintaining their Order and their other Rules in so far as they are necessary to their preservation Upon the whole matter it does not appear that the Church has any Authority to act in opposition to the State but meerly in those things in which the Religion that she professes is plain and positive so that the Question comes to be really this Whether is it better to obey God than Man There the Rule is clear and the Decision is soon made So when the Church acts meerly in obedience to Rules and Laws laid down in Scripture such as in declaring the Doctrine in administring the Sacraments and maintaining the setled Officers of the Church she is upon a sure Bottom and must cast her self upon the Providence of God whatever may happen and still obey God but in all things that have arisen out of ancient Customs and Canons in every thing where she has not a Law of God to support her I do not see any Power she has to act in opposition to Law and to the Supreme Civil Authority In this the constant practice of the Iews is no small Argument whos 's Sanhedrin that was a Civil Court and the Head of their State did give Rules and Orders which their Priests were bound to obey when not contrary to the Law of God We are sure this was the Rule in our Saviour's time and it was never censured nor reproved by him nor by the Apostles The Argument is also strong that is drawn from the constant practice of the Church from the time that she first had the protection of the Civil Authority till the times of the Papal Domination in which we find the Emperours all along making Laws concerning all the Administrations of the Church we find them receiving Appeals in all Church matters which they appointed such Bishops as hapned to be about their Courts to examine This was like our Court of Delegates for the Bishops who judged those matters did not act according to Canon or by the Ecclesiastical
Christians to adore as they received it Now in a course of many Ages this difference of several degrees in Prayer and the postures proper to them is quite worn out so that kneeling is become the common posture of all Prayer whatsoever Therefore we receiving in a posture of Prayer do in that follow the constant practice of all Christians in all the best Ages Kneeling is a matter merely ritual and being now grown the common Rite expressing our humility in Prayer we do not depart from the Spirit and Intentions of the Primitive Church since we receive the Eucharist in our posture of prayer as they did in theirs The plausible Exception to all this is That since our Saviour did institute this Sacrament at a Table after Supper it is a needless departing from his Practice and the Pattern that he hath left us to receive it in any other posture If this Objection had any force it should oblige us to receive leaning along according to the posture of sitting at table in those days and if we must adhere to the Circumstances of the Institution the time after Supper and the place an upper room will be as obligatory upon us as the Posture since all these things are of the same order and value But to go to the bottom of this Objection and to shew by a clear parity the just reason of departing from our Saviour's practice in this particular It is to be remembred That when Moses gave out the Institution of the Paschal Festivity he limited that people by express words to a posture They were to eat it with their loins girt and their shoos on their feet with staves in ther hands thus ready to march There is nothing in the Institution that gives the least hint as if this was not meant to be a lasting Precept So here is much more than a bare Example a Precept given in very plain words without any limitation of time And yet when the Israelites were setled in the Land of Canaan at rest and no more obliged to march this change of their Circumstances did from the natural suitableness of things bring on a change in this part of that Festivity They sate about their Tables or rather leaned and so they did eat the Lamb in that lazy posture that expressed the Rest which God had given them And we are sure that in this they committed no error since our Saviour himself justified their practice by conforming to it So here more than a bare practice an express Institution in a ritual matter is changed by a Church that in all such things seems to have been much more tied up to the letter of their Law than the Christian Church is yet a great alteration in their Circumstances made them conclude that this ought to be altered and in that they did right Now if we will apply this to the Christian Passover Christ being in a state of Humiliation and in the form of a Servant institutes it and does it in a familiar posture of Equality with his Disciples at Table but gives no rule how as to that particular it ought to be observed for the future as Moses had done Afterwards a vast change happens in his visible Condition he is raised from the dead and exalted up into Heaven Upon this change therefore with relation to his Human nature that was vastly more important than that which had happenened to the Iews when they were brought into the Land of Promise it seems to have been highly congruous to that practice of the Iews with which the first Christians could not be unacquainted for them to have changed the posture from the appearance of Familiarity to that of Respect and to have brought it to the Posture which they use in Prayer and their other Devotions And this I think is a full answer to every thing that can be objected to our Posture in Receiving Another exception some have to our Administration of this Sacrament That there is no previous examination of those who are admitted to it that a promiscuous multitude comes without any notice given or enquiry made after them tho we are commanded to note such as walk disorderly and to have no fellowship with them that they may be ashamed nay with Brethren that is Christians who live scandalously not so much as to eat To this it is to be answer'd That a great difference is to be made between a Church that lies yet under some defects which she laments and cannot get them to be effectually supplied and a Church that is viciously faulty and blamable in any thing she does If the acts of church-Church-Communion are in themselves lawful and good so that particular persons are obliged to nothing that can be made appear to be unlawful it can be no reason for them to separate from it because other things are not done which perhaps are fitting and may seem necessary But a further distinction is to be made between things commanded by a Divine Precept and such things as are only recommended by the Practice and Rules of the Church St. Paul does only prescribe this That every man examine himself but does not impose it upon any to examine others and the true Importance of the word render'd Examine is Approve that is Let a man so consider himself as to see whether he is approved of by his own Conscience but this gives no other person an Authority to search into examine or approve such us come to the Sacrament There is therefore no Rule given in the New Testament for any such previous enquiry it was indeed a very Ancient and is upon very many accounts a good and useful practice so to do But how criminal soever a defect in obeying a Divine Law may be it can be no such matter not to observe even the ancientest Rules of the Church that after all do rest only upon a human Authority Those rules concerning scandalous persons belong to the Body in general and if there should be Errors and male-Administrations the Body or rather its Pastors when in a Body are accountable for that and not the the Individuals of the Society who cannot be further concern'd in them than to lament such defects and to use their best endeavours to help them to be redressed so this can never justify a separation because there may be erroneous or scandalous men in a Society who are too much connived at St. Paul finds great fault with many Errors some bad Practices and Scandals among the Corinthians yet tho in one case he thunders a severe Sentence upon a more eminently scandalous man he never so much as insinuates that the rest of the body should separate themselves from those erroneous or irregular men On the contrary he presses the Obligations to Unity most vehemently on the Corinthians tho that was the Church which he charged the most severely of all others both with Errors Disorders in Worship and scandalous Practices It was no wonder If after
do propose him as the proper Object of Adoration at the same time that they commanded the World to renounce all Idolatry and to serve the living God St. Paul gives this Definition of Heathenish Idolatry that it was a worship given to those who by nature were not Gods yet he prays to Christ he prays for Grace Mercy and Peace from him to all the Churches he writes to he gives him Glory for ever and ever a Phrase expressing the highest Act of Adoration he believes in him he serves him he gives Blessing in his Name he says That all in Heaven and Earth must confess him and bow before him a Phrase importing Adoration he says the Angels of God worship him In other Epistles this is also often mention'd and in St. Iohn's Visions all the Hosts above are represented as falling down before him to worship him Now the bare Incurvation does not import Divine Worship but may be made â—o a Creature yet Incurvation join'd with Prayers Acts of Faith and Trust and Praises is certainly Divine Worship Since then our Saviour in his Temptation said to the Devil that according to the Law we must worship the Lord our God and serve him only since also the Angel when he reproved St. Iohn for falling down before him bids him worship God then when these things are laid together and it appears that all the Acts of Adoration by which we worship God are also ascribed to Christ and offered up to him either it must be confess'd that he is truly God or that the Christian Religion sets up Idolatry at the same time that it seems to design the pulling it down every where as if Idolatry had only been to be changed in its object and to be transfered from all others to the Person of our Saviour This point of the worship of Christ is so plainly set forth in the New Testament that the chief Opposers of the Article of his Divinity have asserted it with so much Zeal that they deny that such as refuse to pay it to him deserve to be called Christians and yet there is not any one point that is more fully and frequently condemned through the whole Scriptures than the worshipping a Creature It is also a main part of all the Exhortations of the Apostles Angels were often sent on Divine Deputations as the Instruments of the great God but yet they were never to be worshipped Idolatry is an Evil in it self and is not only the Transgression of a positive precept but it is a transferring of the Honor and Homage due to the Author of our Being and the Fountain of all our Blessings and the ascribing these to a Creature it is a worshipping the Creature besides the Creator And if the same Acts of Prayer and Thanksgiving in the same words can be offered up both to the Creature and the Creator then how can we still think that God is a jealous God and that he will not give his Glory to another In a word this is that which seems so sensible that one does not know what to think of those men's Reasons who cannot bring themselves to believe any thing concerning the Divine Nature which differs from their own Notions and yet can swallow down so vast an Absurdity that is more open to the compass of their Understandings as that the same Acts in which we acknowledge and adore God should be at the same time offered up to a Creature But to urge this a little more closely it is well known how averse the Iews were to all the appearances of Idolatry in our Saviour's time their Zeal against the figures of the Roman Eagles set over the Temple-gates by Herod and against the Statue of Caligula besides many other Instances prove this beyond all question They were much prejudiced against the Apostles as well as they had been against our Saviour and the Apostles do in several passages of their Epistles set down these their prejudices together with their own Answers to them They excepted to the abrogating the Mosaical Ordinances and to their calling in the Gentiles and associating themselves with them but it does not appear that they did ever charge them with Idolatry nor do the Apostles in any hint ever offer to vindicate themselves from that Aspersion Now if Christ had been only a Man Defi'd advanc'd to Divine Honor or if he had been ever so Noble a part and even the first part of the Creation and had been now made the Object of the worship of the Christians let any Man see if it is conceivable that the Iews who were such implacable Enemies to Christianity should not have held to this as their main Strength chief Objection Since as this was a very popular thing in which it was easy to draw in all their Country men so it was the easiest as well as the most important part of their Plea they might have yielded that all the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles were true and yet upon this pretence of Idolatry they had the express words of their Law on their side If there ariseth among you a Prophet or a Dreamer of Dreams and giveth thee a Sign or a Wonder and the Sign or the Wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee saying Let us go after other Gods which thou hast not known and let us serve them Thou shalt not hearken to the words of that Prophet or that Dreamer of Dreams for the Lord your God proveth you to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your Heart and with all your Soul This was such an express and full Decision of the Case that he may imagine any thing that can imagine that they could have past it by and that they should not have objected it or that the Apostles if their Doctrine had been either that of the Arians or of the Socinians should not have either answer'd or prevented the Objection since they dwell long upon things that were much less important Several that join'd themselves to Christianity were scandaliz'd and fell back to the Iews but it does not appear that any of them ever charged them with Idolatry or that the Iews ever reproach'd them with it which yet we cannot think they would not have done if the Christians had offer'd Divine Adoration to a Creature to one that was a meer Man newly dignifi'd or that had been made by God before all his other Works Here a Creature was made a God and the Christians were guilty of serving other gods whom their Fathers had not known This cannot be retorted on us who believe that Christ was God by vertue of the Indwelling of the Eternal Word in him The Iews could make no Objection to this who knew that their Fathers had worshipped the Cloud of Glory because of God's resting upon it So the adoring the Messias upon the supposition of the Godhead's dwelling Bodily in him could bear no debate among the Iews
World in which they should be authoris'd to dissolve the Obligation of the Mosaical Laws and to confirm such parts of them as were Moral and perpetually binding which the Apostles should do with such visible Characters of a Divine Authority empowering and conducting them in it that it should be very evident that what they did on Earth was ratified in Heaven These words thus understood carry in them a plain sense which agrees well with the whole design of the Gospel but whatsoever may be their sense it is plain that there was nothing here peculiarly given to St. Peter As for our Saviour's praying for St. Peter that his faith might not fail and his restoring him to his Apostolate by a threefold charge feed my sheep or lambs it has such a visible relation to his fall and threefold denial that it is not worth the while to enlarge on or to shew that it is capable of no other signification and cannot be carried further And thus I have gone through all that is brought from the Scriptures for asserting the Infallibility of the Church and in particular of the Pope's and have I hope fully shew'd that they cannot bear that sense but that they must genuinely bear a plainly different sense which does no way differ from our Doctrine It was necessary to clear all this for tho as was before made out it is no proper way for them to resolve their Faith by passages out of Scripture yet these are very good objections to us who upon other Reasons do submit to their Authority There remains but one thing now to be clear'd which is this If the Church is not Infallible it does not easily appear what certainty we can have concerning the Scriptures since we believe them upon the Testimony of the Church and we have no other knowledge concerning them but what has been handed down to us by Tradition If therefore this is fallible we may be deceiv'd in our persuasion even concerning them But here a great difference is to be made between the carrying down a Book to us and the Oral Delivering of a Doctrine it being almost as hard to suppose how the one could sail as how the other should not fail The Books being in many hands spread over the whole Churches and read in all their Assemblies makes this to be a very different thing from discourses that are in the Air and to which every man that reports them is apt to give his own Cue A great difference is also to be made between the Testimony of a Witness and the Authority of a Judge If in any Age of the Church Councils had examin'd controverted Writings and had upon that past Sentence this had been in deed a judging the matter but no such thing ever was The Codex of the Scriptures was setled some Ages before any Provincial Council gave out a Catalogue of the Books which they held as Canonical For no ancient General Council ever did it and tho the Canonical Epistles of which there not being such a certain Standard they not being addrest to any particular Body that had preserv'd the Originals were not so early nor so universally receiv'd as the others were yet the matter was setled without any Authoritative Judgment only by examining Originals and such other Methods by which all things of that nature can only be made out But this matter having been so fully consider'd and stated in another Discourse I shall dwell no longer on it in this As for the Authorities which are brought from some of the Ancients in favour of the Authority of the Church and of Tradition it is to be considered that though the word Tradition as it is now used in Books of Controversy imports a sense opposite to that which is written in the Scripture yet Tradition is of its own signification a general word that imports every thing which is delivered And in this sense the whole Christian Religion as well as the Books in which it is contained was naturally called the Tradition of the Apostles So that a great many things said by Ancients to magnify the Tradition of the Apostles and by way of Appeal to it have no relation to this matter Besides when men were so near the Apostolical Age that they could name the Persons from whom they had such or such hints who had received them from the Apostles or from Apostolical men Tradition was of another sort of Authority and might have been much more safely appealed to than at the distance of so many Ages Therefore if any thing is brought either from Irenaeus or Tertullian that sounds this way here is a plain difference to be observed between their Age and ours which does totally diversify it But to convince the World how early Tradition might either vary or misrepresent matters let the Tradition not only in but before St. Irenaeus's time concerning the observation of Easter be considered which goes up as high as St. Polycarps's time We find that as the several Churches adhered to the practices of those Apostles that founded them so they had quite forgot the grounds on which it seems these various Observations were founded Since though it is very probable that those who kept Easter on the Iewish day did it that by their condescendence to the Iews in that matter they might gain upon them and soften their Prejudices against Christianity yet it does not appear that their Successors thought of that at all for they vouched their Custome and resolved to adhere to it nor is there any thing mentioned on either side that give us the account of those early but different Observations If then Tradition failed so near its Fountain we may easily judge what account we ought to make of it at so great a distance Many things are brought with great pomp out of St. Austin's Writings magnifying the Authority of the Church in terms which after all the allowances that are to be made for his diffuse and African Eloquence can hardly be justified Yet when it is considered that he writ against the Donatists who had broke the Vnity of the Church upon the pretence of a matter of fact concerning the Ordainers of Cecilian which had been as to the point of fact often judged against them And yet as they had distracted the whole African Churches so they were men of fierce and implacable Tempers that broke out daily into acts of great fury and violence and had set up a principle that must for ever break the Peace and Union of the Church which was that the vertue of all the publick Acts of Worship of Sacraments and Ordinances depended upon the personal worth of him that officiated so that his Errors or Vices did make void all that past through his hands Now when so warm a man as St. Austin had so bad a Principle and so ill a disposition of mind in view it is no wonder if he brought out all that he could think on upon the subject so
Authority which had put the Church in a stated line of Subordination according to the division of the Provinces of the Empire They acted only by an Imperial Authority so that though they were Bishops they acted by the Emperor's Commission Such Authorities as these drawn from the practices of the Iewish and the Primitive Church are at least strong Inducements to believe this to be true But the Argument that seems to determine it is That Men cannot be obliged to obey two different Authorities that may happen to contradict one another this were a strange distraction in Mens Thoughts and Consciences and therefore it cannot be supposed that God has put them under such a divided Authority for all Temporals will easily be fetched within an in ordine ad spiritualia Since then every Soul is bound under the hazard of damnation to obey the Supreme Powers we must be bound to obey their Laws in every thing that is not contrary to the Law of God which seems to be the only Limitation that this can admit of That settles this whole matter which otherwise must be ravelled out into vast Intricacies and yet it must be supposed for certain that the Rule for Mens obedience must be distinct and fixed To conclude this whole matter The best and surest way for preserving the Order and Authority of the Church as well as its Peace and Prosperity is for the Clergy to live and labour so to be so humble and modest so self-denied and heavenly-minded that from thence the Laity may be brought to see that whatsoever Power they have will be employed for the Publick good of the whole This will make them to be less jealous and more submissive and this will secure to them most commonly the protection and encouragement which they may expect from the Civil Powers who will be apt to have regard to their Clergy according to the esteem which they observe their other Subjects have for them DISCOURSE IV. Concerning the OBLIGATIONS To continue in the COMMUNION of the CHURCH THERE is nothing that concerns the Peace and Order of Churches and indeed the quiet and good Government of Mankind more than rightly to understand our Obligations to continue in the Communion of that Church in which we were born or which is the main Body of that Society of Christians among whom we live The extreams in this matter are dangerous on both hands A lazy Compliance with every thing that is uppermost because of the Law and Advantages that may be on its side and an implicite believing and receiving of every thing that happens to be proposed to us does on the one hand depress our Faculties render us so easy to every Form in Religion that we become at last indifferent to all and concerned in none it makes way for tyranny in those that govern and sinks those that are governed into a sottish stupidity On the other hand a wanton cavilling at every thing thebreaking of an Established Order the making Divisions and the drawing of Parties the quarrelling about nicer points of speculation or some lesser matters in Rituals do occasion much passion and animosity they take men much off from the great ends of Religion they divide Christians from one another and sharpen them against one another all which are Evils of so high a nature in themselves and in their Consequences that it will be of great advantage to find so true a mean in this matter that in it we may avoid the mischiefs of both extreams The foundation then to be laid here is first to consider the natural obligation that all men who are united by any common Bond come under to maintain a cordial affection and a mutual good understanding among themselves both as it is an instrument to preserve and strengthen their Body and as it makes such a Body of men easy and happy But this that is a consideration common to all joint Bodies of men becomes much stronger in the Christian Religion one of its main designs being to knit mens hearts to one another by a tenderness of brotherly kindness and charity our Saviour having made this the distinction by which all the world might know who were his disciples and who were not so And all his Apostles have in every one of their Epistles not excepting the shortest prest this in such a variety of copious and most earnest Directions that whosoever reads the New Testament carefully must see that this is enlarged on beyond all the other Duties of our Religion and prest in the most comprehensive words and with the most enforcing considerations possible the chief of all being the love which our Saviour himself bare to us in imitation of which he has required us to love one another to love enemies to pass by and to forgive injuries doing good for evil to relieve the necessitous and have bowels of compassion for all men This is a main part of the glory as well as of the duties of our Religon To advance this and to endear us to one another we are obliged to pray with and for one another we are bound to assemble our selves together that by our seeing of one another and meeting in the same Acts and Duties of Religion our love and union may become stronger and more firmly cemented Sacraments are sacred Rites instituted not only to maintain our Devotion towards God as Acts of Homage and Solemn Vows made to him but likewise as Bonds to knit us together as well as to unite us to our Head And it is no small confirmation of all this that our Saviour in his last and longest Prayer to the Father when he was interceding for his Church has repeated this Prayer so often no less than five times in no very long Prayer that they might be one and be kept and made perfect in one and the Unity prayed for is so sublime that it is compared to that unconceivable Unity or Union that was between the Father and the Son and by this the world was to be convinced of the truth of his Religion That the world might believe that the Father had sent him More needs not be said upon this Head to make it evident that it is of the greatest importance to the Christian Religion to maintain an entire union among its Members and that the chief mean of doing this is their uniting themselves in the same Acts of Worship Now the only Question that will remain will be How far must this go and the only Answer that can be made to it is That it must go till the Body in which we happen to be engaged imposes unlawful terms of Communion on its Members In that case we must remember that it is better to obey God than man and that we must seek peace and truth since an Union on unlawful terms is a combination against God and his Truth and is no piece of Christian Charity This will be agreed to on all hands in the general So I will go
next to examine the Pretences for disjointing this Union among our selves and see whether the main Body among us I mean our Church has imposed unlawful terms of Communion on her Members for if that is true we by so doing have broke this Union or whether any who have separated from us have not done it upon less binding Considerations for then they have broken the Union This I will manage with all possible fairness and without the least reflection on Persons and Parties I will state their grounds and put their Arguments with the utmost force that I can apprehend belongs to them and when I have weighed them I will leave the whole matter to an Impartial consideration The first point in which every man must fix his thoughts is that it is not free to him to chuse to which Body he will join himself as it is free to him to chuse in which Parish he will settle himself for since all Parishes make but one Communion and Church the one cannot be compared to the other And if all that was said before is true then certainly it is not lawful for any man to break the Union of the Body unless he is persuaded that it cannot be maintained but upon unlawful terms Therefore except a man is under this persuasion he sins if he departs from the Union of the Body But since Conscience is a word that may be used in the following part of this Discourse its true notion ought to be well setled which is according to the natural signification of the word in all Languages an inward persuasion founded upon some reason apprehended to be true concerning the lawfulness or unlawfulness of a thing By this it will appear that a bare aversion or dislike to a thing without any reason on which that dislike is grounded cannot be called Conscience since things with which we are not acquainted or that are uncouth to us which we have often heard spoken against are disliked by us through a habit or prejudice conceived against them but unless this is founded upon some reason that appears to us true drawn either from the nature of things or from the Scriptures it is not Conscience I do not say that every man under these Convictions must be able to maintain those his Reasons to others to be just and good for then a better Arguer who can silence him should be able to alter his Conscience But though he cannot answer Objections yet as long as his Persuasion appears to be well grounded to himself such a man is still under the bonds of his Conscience I am not now to examine how far an erring Conscience obliges or at least excuses it is enough to have stated in general the true Notion of Conscience by which every man that does not intend to deceive himself may certainly know whether he is really under the persuasions of Conscience or if he is only guided by Humour Conceit or the power of Education and Prejudice The main Foundation out of which most of the Objections against some of the Terms of our Communion are rais'd is this That the Church is only empower'd to execute those Rules and Orders that are set Christians in the Scriptures That the pretending to add to these is to accuse the Scripture as defective That all Additions to those Rules set us in Scripture are Superstitious Usages That they impose a yoke upon us and so deprive us of our Christian Liberty That if some Rites may be added others upon the like reasons may be also added to these and so on without bounds as in Fact it appears That when the Church went once off from the first simplicity in which the Apostles deliver'd the Christian Religion to the World and that new Rites were invented to beautify the Worship these Additions did at last swell up to that intolerable height in which they are now in the Church of Rome In Religious Matters it is not enough according to St. Paul's Rule that a thing is lawful it must also be expedient But for that pretended expediency which is alledged for some Rites that they are expressive and significant it is rather an Argument against them for a significant Ceremony is of the nature of a Sacrament the common definition of which that it is a visible sign of an invisible Grace agreeing to it and certainly the appointing Sacraments is above the power of the Church and can belong only to Iesus Christ who is its Head and Founder But all this is in appearance the stronger if Rites so enjoin'd have been abus'd to Idolatry and are parts of an Idolatrous Worship To retain these is to conform our selves to it tho the Scriptures command us to come out from among all such and not to be conformable to them Hezekiâ— broke the Brazen Serpent tho a Memorial of a signal Miracle in which it had been in some sort an Instrument yet when even that was abus'd to Idolatry a good King broke it to pieces This will hold stronger against things that are but of human Institution That they ought to be taken away how innocent soever they may be in themselves after they are grosly abus'd To keep up the use of such things is to scandalize and offend the weaker Christians tho St. Paul lays great weight upon this and charges all Christians not to lay a stumbling-block in one anothers way he calls the doing otherwise the destroying a weak Brother and in conclusion since St. Paul said whatsoever is not of faith is sin these Rites therefore not being warranted from Scripture cannot be of Faith the Object of which is a Divine Revelation they must therefore be sinful And thus I have set down all the Branches of the Plea against Ceremonies with as much advantage as I can imagine belongs to them I go therefore in the next place to take it to pieces and to examine the strength of the whole and of every part of this Reasoning that as must be acknowledg'd wants not fair and specious colours The main stress lies upon this Whether the Church in her Rituals is so limited to the Scriptures that she has no power to add any thing to what is prescribed in them Great difference is to be made between matters of Doctrine Rules of Life Foederal Acts together with the other Acts of Worship which are parts of the New Covenant or conditions of it and some Ritual Appointments such as the Circumstances of those Instituted Acts the forms for the Solemn Acts of Worship together with some other Institutions which are helps to Devotion and do fix or raise the attention For the former sort it is confess'd That Christ and his Apostles having deliver'd this Religion to the World it must continue in the same state in which they setled it without additions or variations but since all instituted Actions must be determined by the Circumstances of persons places times words and postures these must be all manag'd with such
personal and cannot be derived or descend The only Holiness that he could derive was a right to consecrate the common Issue to God which is in some sort a Sanctifying of one another This is a plain and natural meaning of these words and tho they should not seem to imâ—port it so necessarily but that other glosses might be put upon them yet the early practice of the Church mention'd by Irenaeus Tertullian and most copiously by St. Cyprian seems to be a sure Commentary upon them this being a ritual and visible thing in which we may much more safely have recourse to Tradition than in matters of Doctrine it being here remembred That a Practice without warrant in Scripture is not to be so regarded as a Practice that seems to have favourable if not clear warrants for it in Scripture This also agrees with the natural Order of the World Children being put in the power of their Parents by the Laws of Nature who considering their Incapacity must act in their Name and may both procure Rights and Priviledges to them and also lay ties and engagements upon them It is then suitable to the extent of the mercy of God in the Gospel that Parents may offer up their Children to Christ that they may be tied by them to his Religion and received into the blessings and privileges of it When this whole matter is thus laid together I doubt not but the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism will evidently appear and if it is Lawful then according to what was at first made out the Church may oblige all her Members to it The Practice of having Sponsors being but an increase of the security given for the Person 's Education in Christianity the care of the Parents being supposed as already bound upon them by their natural Relation to their Children and it being a great mean if well managed of knitting Neighbours together in new and Christian Bonds all Exceptions to such a Custom seem very ill-grounded and their answering so positively in the Name of the Child does according to the nature of all Acts in the Name of Infants import only that as far as in them lies care shall be taken that the Infant shall make good those engagements in due time Our affirming so positively That all Children who are Baptized and die before they grow to be capable of committing any actual Sin are certainly saved does not only agree with the Idea's of the infinite goodness of God but also with this declaration That the Promises of the Gospel are made to all Christians and to their Children The most general Scruple against our Form in Baptism remains yet to be discussed That we have added to it the Sign of the Cross which is a piece of Popish Superstition Indeed if we use it as was formerly observed as they do with an adjuration of the Devil to go out and not to presume to violate the Sign of the Cross if we breathed cross-ways and pretended by that to infuse Divine Virtues and Blessings here were just objections for in so doing we should assume a power to make Sacraments and to affix Divine Powers to Institutions of our own Therefore nothing of this being retained among us all the Papistical and Superstitious use of the Cross in Baptism is thrown out But since the Primitive Christians did so glory in the Cross that in stead of being ashamed of the Reproach of it they used it upon most occasions Our Reformers designing to restore Primitive Christianity thought that though the abuse of this to so much Superstition made them supercede the frequent practice of it yet in this first initiation to Christianity it was reasonable to use it once for all but with words that shewed they retained none of the Superstitious Conceits of Popery and meant only thereby to own the receiving all Christians into the Doctrine of the Cross and to an obligation to follow Christ bearing his Cross. And thus it is plain that this practice is in it self not only innocent but decent and that there were very plausible Reasons to say no more for enjoining it so that the not using it is the disobeying a just Authority in a lawful Injunction Kneeling in the Eucharist seems not only liable to an imputation of Idolatry but is also under this further prejudice that it is in none of the Ancient Rituals On the contrary we have all reason to believe that for many Ages they did communicate standing since all kneeling in Churches on Sundays or in the time between Easter and Whitsunday was esteemed a crime in Tertullian's time and was forbidded by a Canon of the Council of Nice This Being that of all the Objections raised against us that touches in the tenderest part since this is the great Symbole of the Union of Christians and that in which most formally the Communion of the Church consists it will be necessary to examine it very narrowly It is then first to be considered that outward Actions do signify only that which by a general consent or an express declaration is agreed on as their sense and importance Kneeling to Kings is understood to be only the highest Act of Civil Respect and therefore it is liable to no imputation of Idolatry Therefore if there is an express declaration made of the importance of this Action that it is neither an Adoration of the Bread and Wine nor of the Person of Christ as supposed Corporally present but only a worshipping of God in the acknowledgment of the great Blessings there exibited to us then this Posture cannot be stretched beyond this express Declaration nor is this that kneeling which is enjoined by the Church of Rome for that is only a falling down at the Elevation in acknowledgment of the miraculous change then made Whereas ours is a continued posture of Prayer in which we continue during the whole Office So that Kneeling as used by us does in many respects differ from the Knoeling used in the Church of Rome As for that specious Pretence That in the Primitive times they did not kneel at the receiving the Sacrament it is only an appearance of a Reason In the Primitive times they had a notion of Kneeling as an abject Posture which only became Penitents or the times of fasting They thought that upon other occasions standing in Prayer had an appearance of faith and confidence in God and agreed with those comfortable assurances and that joy to which we are called in the Gospel And therefore those who were in the full peace of the Church were to stand up at Prayers which was most indispensably observed on Sundays and the Fifty days from Easter to Pentecost But standing was then their posture of Prayer so they received the Sacrament in the posture appropriated to Prayer and it were easy to shew from those wery Fathers who mention standing as the posture in which the Eucharist was received that they did consider it as a posture of Adoration and so required all