Ecclesiastical Authority because they were so wonderfully inspired and guided by the holy Spirit yet if it can be shewed that the Apostles themselves appointed external Rites attendant on the service of God which were of an alterable and mutable nature this will manifest that the use of such things is well consistent with the Gospel worship and thence it will follow that the Christian Church hath liberty as well as the Jewish Church had to determine such observations since God hath give no special command to abridge that liberty Here I shall consider 2. 1 The holy kiss or kiss of Charity It was a common friendly salutation for men to kiss each other both among the Jews and in other Eastern Countries as hath been observed from Xenophon and Herodotus and was also used in the Western parts of the Empire in the time of Tiberius But both S. Paul Rom. 16.16 and and S. Peter 1. Pet. 5.18 required the practice of this holy kiss as a peculiar Christian Rite and observation but when and how it was used we must discover from the relation of the ancient Christian Writers That it was used at their publick Assemblies at the time of their solemn Prayers Grot. in Rom. 16. c. 16. is proved by Grotius from the testimonies of Justin Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian who calleth it signaculum orationis the seal of Prayer and speaking of it as it was their ordinary expressive attestation of Unity Peace Tertul. de Orat. c. 14. and Love he saith Quae oratio cum divortio Sancti sâ—uli integra What Prayer can be perfect which is separated from the holy kiss Cassand Liturg. c. 39. And Cassander hath evidenced from S. Austin Innocent and divers other particular Authors and ancient Offices that it was especially used at the time of the holy Communion sometimes before but for the most part after the Consecration of the elements and before their distribution by which Ceremony Christians expressed their consent to those administrations and their love to each other and of this kiss at the Lords Supper Calvin supposeth S. Paul to speak Calv. in 1 Cor. 16. â—0 when he commandeth the Corinthians to greet one another with an holy kiss Indeed several modern Ritualists being willingly so short sighted as to discern no further than the dusky and false light of the Romish Decretals doth discover do ascribe the use of the kiss 〈◊〉 the Communion to a later original some from Leo the second others from Innocent the first but this appeareth to be a fond and vain imagination because this Custom was not only mentioned by S. Chrysostome but evidently referred to by the Laodicean Council Conc. Laod. Can. 19. Just Mart. Ap. 2. and is also expressed by Jestin Martyr in his Apology written within less than an hundred years after the Apostolical Epistles of S. Paul and S. Peter Yet that this was an external mutable Rite is so far agreed upon and acknowledged as that it is generally disused because through the vanity of mens minds it was discovered at length to promote impurity and obscenity rather than holiness and Christian love And the Romish Custom introduced instead hereof of kissing the tabellam pacis or the Table of Saints Pictures is quite another thing from the Apostolical Rite and cannot be excused from superstition from the relation it beareth to their Doctrine of the Adoration of Saints And if we enquire how this ancient use of the holy kiss was most ordinarily practised it is manifest from the testimony of the Author of the Constitutions Const Apost l. 8. c. 11. concerning the more early times of Christianity and from Amalarius describing its use about 800. Years ago Amalar. de Deccl Offic. l. 3. c. 32. that it was not promiscuously used by men and women towards each other but separately and distinctly by men towards one another and by women among themselves alone 3. 2. Their Agapae or Feasts of Charity which were appointed in part for the relief of the poor Zonar in Conc. Trul. 74. Gang. 11. Chrys in 1 Cor. but especially to express continue and increase Christian love and fellowship which is also one great design of the Lords Supper were in and after the Apostles times used either immediately before as some affirm concerning some Churches or immediately after it as others assert and which was the more general practice and even in the places of publick Assemblies That they were celebrated at the same time and place with the Lords Supper hath been usually observed and collected from 1. Cor. 11.20 23. and from Act. 2.42 46. and from thence appeareth to have been used as an Ecclesiastical Rite The use of these Feasts of Charity was mentioned with approbation by S. Jude v. 12. and according to some Greek Copies by S. Peter 2 Pet. 2.13 and amongst the ancient Writers by Ignatius Ep. ad Smyr Tertullian Apol. c. 39. Clemens Alexand. Paedag l. 2. c. 1. Orig. Cont. Celsum l. 1. Conc. Gangr c. 11. and by S. Chrysostom Augustine and divers others some placing them as the Passover was eaten before the Lords Supper others comparing them to the Jewish Feasts eaten after the Passover But when these Feasts of Charity became greatly abused the Canons both of Provincial and general Councils Conc. Laodic c. 28.3 Carth. 30. Trul. 74. excluded them from the publick places of Church Assemblies and as Baronius observeth they were abolished in Italy by S. Ambroses Authority as they were also not long afterwards in Africa by S. Augustine and the other Bishops of the Carthaginian Province Baron an 377. n. 14 Aug. Ep. 64. and they became generally disused though some appearances thereof may possibly be discerned in later times in the Communion upon Maundy Thursday in divers Churches and in the practice of the Greek Church upon the day of the Resurrection or Easter Day Cassand Liturg. c. 4. when as Cassander relateth after the holy Communion allatis in Ecclesiam epulis communiter convivantur they have a common Banquet brought into the Church of which they all partake 4. But against that part of this observation that the Agapae were anciently joined with the holy Communion it may be objected Albasp Obj. lib. 1. Obj. 18. that Albaspinus doth on purpose undertake to prove that in Tertullians time the Agapae and the Eucharist were not observed together but that the former was celebrated at night from Tertul Apol. c. 39. and the latter in the Morning from Tertul. lib. 2. ad Vxor c. 5. and de Coron Mil. c. 3. But in answer to this we may consider that in that very observation Albaspinus himself admitteth with a Non inficias iverim that the Agapae were in the time of the Apostles celebrated with the Eucharist and concerning the time of Tertullian he neither undertaketh to prove that there were no Agapae in the Morning nor no Communion in the Evening for those very words of Tertullian de
in his Gloss published from Strasburgh 1570. upon those words of the Apostle If any man seem to be contentious we have no such Custom nor the Churches of God write thus The Apostle saith he rejecteth morose and contentious answerers shewing that profitable rites received by grave authority ought by no means to be contemned or plucked in pieces though they be not built on solid demonstrations But if any man will be stiff in his opinion the Apostle will not contend any longer with him but will acquiesce in the Custom of Godly and worthy men and of the Churches of God themselves idemque saith he alios omnes pios facere debere and that all pious men ought to do the same is acknowledged there to be an Apostolical direction by Illyricus when he was out of the heat of contention in a cool and calm temper 4. If we view the pulick writings of the Reformed Churches Conf. Bohem Ars. 15. the Bohemian Confession declareth them to teach that humane Traditions Rites and Customs which do not hinder Piety are to be preserved in the publick Christian Assemblies And in their account of the Discipline and Order of their Churches they divide the matters of Religion into three heads the Essentialia which contain the matters of Faith Love and Hope the Minisierialia which enclude the means of Grace as the word of God Rat. Difc Ord. c. 1. the Sacraments and power of the Keys and the Accidentalia by which they say they mean what others call Adiaphora or external Ceremonies and Rites of Religion In these matters Adiaphorous they say they may have some things in use among them which are different from other Churches and yet are they not willing upon any small occasions to allow any alteration therein neque ob leves causus quicquam mutare aequum putamus nemini apud nos licet insuetas ceremonias inahoare Ibid. c. 2. And in their Ordination both of their Bishop and their Consenior who is designed to represent the Chorepiseopus in some ancient Churches whose Office is like that of our Arch Deacon and their Minister and their Deacon those of the same Order give to the person then ordained their right hand of fellowship and those of the inferiour Order when one is ordained to any of the higher degrees give him their right hand in token of subjection testified and assured by that external Rite 5. The Augustane Confession in several expressions asserteth it lawful for the Bishops or Pastors Conf. August de Eccâ—◠〈◊〉 Artâ—â—â— 21 de descrimine cibor to appoint things for Order in the Church and declareth that they do retain many ancient Rites or Ceremonies though they complain also of the abuse of others in the Romish Church as the Church of England doth and it asserteth also ritus illos servandos esse qui sine peccato servari possunt ad tranquillitatem bonum ordinem Ecclesiae conducunt Conf Saxon de Tradition The Saxon Confession treating of Rites appointed in the Church by humane Authority declareth that nothing ought to be appointed against Gods word or in the way of superstition but that some blameless Rites for good order both ought to be and by them are observed ritus aliquos honestos boni ordinis causa factos servamus servandos esse docemus And the Ceremonies most opposed in the Church of England with more besides them are retained both in that and in other Lutherane Churches Conf. Helv. c. 27. The Helvetick Confession asserteth that the Church hath always used a liberty about Rites as being things of a middle or indifferent nature The French Church alloweth that there be singulis locis peculiaria instituta Conf. Gallic c. 32. prout commodum visum fuerit peculiar Constitutions for several places as it shall appear profitable And the Strasburgh Confession discoursing about humane Traditions or external Rites and Observations which conduce to profit though they be not expressed in the Scriptures Conf. Argent c. 14. saith that many such the Church of God at this day doth rightly observe and as there is occasion doth make new ones adding these sharp words quas qui rejecerit is non hominum sed Dei cujus traditio est quaecunque utilis est authoritatem contemnit that whosoever rejecteth these things doth not contemn the authority of men but of God of whom is every profitable Constituion Wherefore he who will yet disclaim all Ceremonial Rites under Christianity and will esteem them to be a pestilential and dangerous Contagion in the Church must undertake to affix both to the ancient and latter most famous Churches a Miserere nostri SECT V. The ill consequences of denying the lawfulness of all Ecclesiastical Rites and Constitutions in things indifferent observed 1. Though the condemning the practice and rule of the Church in all Ages and even in the time of the holy Apostles and Prophets be inconvenience sufficient for any opinion to stand charged with yet besides this which hath been evidenced in the two former Sections the denying the lawfulness of any external Rites 1. Debarreth the Church of what is really advantagious unto it for some fit external Rites of order and decency provided they be not over-numerous do promise solemnity in the service of God and tend to excite a greater degree of seriousness reverence and attentiveness It was S. Austins observation De Curia pro mortuis c. 5. that in Religion the outward actions of bowing the knee stretching forth the hands and falling on the ground though they be not performed without the preceding actions of the Soul do much encrease the inward affections of the heart In the common affairs of the World the boaring his Ear with an Awle who was willing to undertake a perpetual service the giving possession among the Jews by the pulling of the shoe and amongst us by divers other ways of livery and seisin the delivering some ensign of authority at the enstallment of a Magistrate and the giving the hand as a pledge of fidelity have by the common prudence of men been judged useful Rites to render those undertakings and actions the more solemn and observable Nor can there be any reason why some external actions may not obtain the like effect in matters of Religion especially considering that both Prophets and Apostles in delivering their extraordinary Messages from God thought fit frequently to make use of visible representations that their words might thereby take the deeper impression Thus Ezekiel carried out his stuff in their sight and Isaiah walked naked without his ordinary Garments when they denounced Captivity and Agabus foretelling the imprisonment of S. Paul bound himself with his girdle Act. 13.51 Mar. 6.11 and the Apostles according to the commandment of Christ shook of the dust of their feet as a testimony against those Cities who received them not V. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 10.14 which was a rite
a laying a burden upon the Churches Act. 15.28 Wherefore when the whole matter of this Decree is in that verse called necessary things we must thereby understand that some things indifferent yea under the Gospel inconvenient in their own nature being judged of use for the avoiding scandal and promoting Peace and Vnity in the Church became necessary to be practised in the Church after that Decree and Injunction And though the end of designing the Unity and encrease of the Church did require that in some things the Gentile Christians should yield a complyance to the Jews yet in what particulars this compliance should consist was determined by the authority of this Apostolical Synod whereby the practice thereof became necessary 3. Obs 2. That Apostolical Decree concerning these matters indifferent was designed to lay an obligation upon the practice of all Gentile Christians in those Apostolical times There are indeed some very learned men who have reputed this Decree to be a local constitution confined to Syria Cilicia and the Territories of Antioch and Jerusalem And if it had extended no further it had been a sufficient instance of an injunction in things indifferent but if it was intended to oblige all the Gentiles it is thereupon to be esteemed a more full and large example Now that this Decree contained in the first Canonical and Apostolical Epistle of the New Testament was of general concernment to the Gentile Christians though its inscription referred 〈◊〉 those places above-mentioned may be concluded because S. James declared it in general to have respect to the believing Gentiles Act. 21.25 because S. Paul Silas and Timotheus delivered this Decree even unto the Cities of Lycaonia Phrygia and Galatia to be observed by them Act. 16.1 3 4 6. and because the Primitive Christians did in all places account themselves bound by this determination of the Apostles to abstain from bloud and things strangled as appeareth from the testimonies of Tertullian Tertul. Apol c. 9. Minut. in Oct. Orig. cont Cels l. 8 Eus Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 1. Minutius Felix Origen the Epistle from France concerning their Martyrs recorded in Eusebius and the Canon of the Greek Code above-mentioned 4. Obs 3. It is acknowledged upon good grounds and granted by the Presbyterians that this Apostolical Sanction doth evidence a power in the Church of enjoining in lawful things what may be conducible to the good and welfare of the Church both because the successive practice of the Church did thence-forward exercise such a power and because though the Apostles might be inspired extraordinarily after they met together in this Synod yet they did not account a particular divine inspiration necessary to make an Ecclesiastical Constitution but in that great question whether and how far the Gentiles should undertake the Law of Moses they came together to consider of this matter Act. 15.5 6. and proceeded therein by way of disputation v. 7. Hence Gillespy in his assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland Gillesp Par. 2. Ch. 4. Ch. 8. concludeth the authority of Synodical Assemblies and that they have a diatactick power to make Decrees The London Ministers in their Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici Part. 2. c. 14. declare this Apostolical Synod to be a pattern and platform for others and thence allow a Synodical power of imposing things on the Church which they assert to be encluded in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 15.28 And the Assemblies Consession doth from hence assert a power in Synods to make Decrees and determinations Conf. c. 31. which ought to be received with reverence as from Gods Ordinance and to set down rules and directions for the better ordering the publick worship of God Yet it may be observed that some of that way have in this particular manifested great partiality as Mr. Rutherford Ruth Introd to Div. Right of Ch. Gov. Sect. 5. p. 81. Disp of Candale Libert qu. 5. when he disputes against our Church and against the lawfulness of external Rites he denyeth any power in the Church to prescribe Laws touching things indifferent Plea for Presbyt Ch. 14. p. 199. but in his Plea for Presbytery he asserteth their Synods to have power to make Ecclesiastical Canons and Decrees which tie and bind particular Congregations to observe and obey them 5. Wherefore if the Apostles did make injunctions concerning things indifferent and imposed them upon all the Churches of the Gentiles and accounted their authority of Ecclesiastical Government guided by prudential consideration to be sufficient without extraordinary inspiration to establish such a Sanction then must this power remain in the Church taking in the Princes supremacy where the Authority of Church Government abideth permanent 6. And if we consider the Church under the General Notion of a Society as it is ordinary in all Societies for the Rulers thereof to exercise a power of making Rules and Constitutions not contradictory to any superiour Government for preserving a due order in that Society so this doth especially take place in the Christian Church where there are special divine Laws which require care to be taken for order and decency and command Christians to obey them who have the rule over them And that those who will enjoy the Communion of any particular Church must submit to the Rules of order appointed therein is but the proper result of orderly Constitution and is of general practice insomuch that the French Reformed Churches as hath been observed by Mr. Durell Durelli Vindic. Eccl. Angl. c. 22. in Praf would not suffer Mr. Welch who came thither from Scotland to continue in administring the Sacrament without using the prescribed form of Prayer and admitting the standing gesture according to the order of that Church but he being enjoined Conformity by the Synod at S. Maixant 1609 left that Church and Realm rather than he would embrace it 7. But it is by some pleaded against the lawfulness of Constitutions Ecclesiastical that these are an infringing of Christian liberty But whereas Ecclesiastical Rites and Constitutions are in themselves lawful as hath been proved prudential determinations about such indifferent things can no more incroach upon Christian liberty than do the political Sanctions of Civil Laws and the Domestick commands of Parents and Masters And surely every mans apprehension must needs acknowledge it a gross mistake to imagine that when the Precepts of Christianity do earnestly enjoin the practice of self-denial meekness submission and obedience to superiours it should be the priviledge of Christian liberty to disoblige men from any or these things which would represent our most excellent Religion as contradicting it self But true Christian liberty conveyeth a priviledge of freedom from that which the Christian Doctrine abolisheth the Mosaical Covenant and Ceremonies of the Law from that which its Precepts prohibit and disclaim the life of sin and bondage to the Devil and being under any other as our Soveraign and supreme
this Apostolical Decree together with other Christian Precepts did bind the Gentile Christians to all the same observations And it might also have been said that the forbidding bloud seemed a Rite peculiarl typical of Christ to come it being forbidden to the Jews upon this account because God had then appointed it to be the means of making an atonement upon the Altar Lev. 17.10 11 12. But notwithstanding these things which are far from solid arguments and yet to an indifferent person may possibly seem as plausible as many exceptions used by some men in other Cases that Apostolical Sanction was both lawful and honourable yea though it concerned things indifferent and was established as many think by that Ecclesiastical authority which they committed to their Successors in the Church 15. Arg. 3. Because there are many Cases where somewhat is necessary in genere to be determined and yet every particular under that general is lyable to the like inconvenience of opposition Here I shall chuse to give a Foreign instance of that great unnecessary dispute about the use of leavened or unleavened bread at the Eucharist where the one sort is necessary to be determined before the administration or otherwise the Ordinance it self must be omitted This hath occasioned so great contest between the Greek Church who with the Ruthenick or Russian contend for Leavened bread and the Latin who would allow none other but unleavened bread Maxim Margunius in Dialogâ— adv Lat. Humbertus in Baron Tom. 11. in Appendice Rup Tuitien de Div. Offic. l. 1. c. 22. that they of the Greek Church have nick named the Latines Azymitas and give this difference as one account why they refused Communion with them and did at Constantinople denounce an Anathema upon the use of Unleavened bread The Latin Church did give many testimonies of its like fierceness for the use of Unleavened Bread only so far that Leo the Ninth undertook in this quarrel to excommunicale Michael the Patriarck of Constantinople The main grounds of this controversie waving some frivolous things mentioned in Gemma Animae Rupertus Tiâ—tiensis Durandux Casaub in Baron Exerc 16. and other Ritualists are these 1. The Greek Church in a peculiar notion as Casaubon relateth their opinion from Cedrenus and Xanthopulus think that Christ did eat the Passover and institute the Lords Supper the day before the Jews kept their Passover Durand Ration l. 4. c. 41. n. 10. and therefore they suppose he used leavened bread But though divers Christian Writers as Scaliger Casauhon Grotius Hospinian Kellet and others both ancient and modern referred to by them Hieroz P. 1. lib. 2. â— 50. have thought that Christ did not eat the Passover the same day with the Jews yet even that opinion is opposed by many others and the arguments for it are fully answered by Bocharius And however the strict prohibitions both of the Law Ex. 12.18 Num. 9.11 Maccoth c. 3. Sect. 2. Deut. 16.3 and of the Talmud against eating the Passover at any time with leavened bread are evidences sufficient that this sort of bread was not used by our Saviour 2. The Greek Church also urgeth that unleavened bread was one of the Ceremonial institutions of the Law of Moses Can. Ap. 70. Conc. Laod. c. 38. Con. Trul. c. 11. and several ancient Canons of the Greek Church have forbidden them to have so much Communion with the Jews as to eat of their unleavened bread as a Jewish Rite and Maximus Margunius a late Writer and Bishop of that Church out of a strange disgust supposeth that he smelleth the savour of many ancient Heresies in Vnleavened bread 16. So that here is a Case where some determination is necessary to the due order and the regular administration of Gods Ordinance where either leavened or unleavened Bread must be received both these have been hotly opposed the one side seeming to be favoured by the institution of Christ and the other by the abrogation of the law but neither of their arguments are conclusive against the lawfulness of the others practice In like manner to administer the Sacraments and other publick Offices with a form of Prayer may be opposed and scrupled by some and to perform this without a form may as reasonably be disliked by others And an Unform appointed gesture at the Sacrament and a decent fixed habit for Ministers may be suspected by some who are ready to take all occasions for suspition and the want of these things are deemed irreverent and disorderly and therefore unlawful by others Both the French and Dutch as well as other Protestant Churches have these things determined though both in the habit and gesture they differ from us and from each other and yet there may be objections and pretences of dislike raised against those particular habits and gestures as well as against ours as may in another place be shewed Wherefore either some things which may become or have been matters of dispute may lawfully be ordered by Ecclesiastical Authority or else there can be no security for the orderly exercise of Religion 17. To these arguments it may be added that the prudence of the Church would appear very contemptible to its adversaries if either its rules or practices about matters of order should be as mutable and various as the uncertain and different thoughts of suspicious or scrupulous persons 18. And the practice of all the Protestant Churches who defended their established Orders both against Anabaptists and other opposers thereof do manifest their general judgment in this particular And amongst other Churches when divers persons especially the Flacians raised vehement disputes and contentions both against the Doctrine and the Ecclesiastical Ordinations or as Reuterus expresseth it Quirin Reuterus in Praefat. praefix Vrsini Oper. de rebus quibusdam externis received in the Reformation of the Palatinate Frideric the third in his Confessession of Faith contained in his last Will and Testament and received among the Corpus or Syntagma Confessionum declareth how he had with good success withstood these oppositions and maketh it in that his last Testament his principal admonition to his Sons after him to beware of such persons Casimir in Praef. Conf in Corp Conf. in Vrsin Vol. 3. in fol. with other earnest expressions both of his and of his Son Casimire 19. And besides all this this position that nothing may be established or imposed about which any persons pretend scruple is destructive of it self or inconsistent with it self For as its natural result tendeth to promote an Vniversal toleration of all practices and opinions about which any persons may pretend Conscience which would enclude all manner of Sects and Heresies so the urging such a toleration where Governours either of Church or state judge as they have reason to do that it would be sinful in them to admit it and countenance it is not only to undertake to impose upon their Governours what is scrupled and opposed by
Script Angl. They who entred into the Ministry at Strasburgh after its first reformation did by Oath undertake to keep in the Communion and obedience of the Church and its Governours according to the law of God and their Canons Statutes and Ordinances And it is related from the laws of Geneva where an established Liturgy is one of their Constitutions that all they who were there received to the Ministry must oblige themselves by Oath to observe the Ecclesiastical Ordinances ordained by the Councils of that City In the Hungarian reformed Church they who enter the Ministry do by a very solemn Oath oblige themselves to the observations of the Ecclesiastical Canons Eccles Augl Vindic cap. 31. in fin and to the performing due obedience to the Bishop and other Superiours in the Church as may be seen in their Oath as it is fully exhibited by Mr. Durell from their Synodical Constitutions 5. The Subscriptions or Declarations required amongst us besides what for the present concerneth the Covenant are an acknowledgment of the Kings just authority to secure the Government of the Articles of Religion to preserve truth of Doctrine and of the Liturgy and Book of Ordination to maintain order and Uniformity to which end also tendeth the Oath of Canonical obedience wherein such obedience to the Bishop and his Successors is engaged in all lawful and honest things which must needs be blameless unless it could be accounted a sin to resolve to do good and honest things in a way of order Of these I shall in this discourse treat of what concerneth the Liturgy which is chiefly opugned and therefore requireth the principal consideration for the vindicating our Communion in the worship of God and the manifesting the unlawfulness of the breach thereof 6. Some declared allowance of the Liturgy hath since the reformation been ordinarily required in this Church Art 35. The Articles in the time of King Edward the Sixth contained an approbation both of the Book of Common Prayer and of Ordination In Queen Elizabeths time the allowance of the use and the Subscription to the Book of Common-Prayer was required by the Advertisements Advertism 7. Eliz Can. 1571. c. concionatores Tract 21. c. 1. and Canons and defended by Bishop Whitgift Since Queen Elizabeth the same hath been performed in the Subscription according to the 36th Canon and in the Declaration and Acknowledgment in the Act of Uniformity which in seense much agreeth therewith 7. The subscription required by the thirty sixth Canon is grounded upon the Constitutions of the Convocation confirmed by the authority of the Kings broad Seal according to his supream authority in causes Ecclesiastical and according to the Statute 25. Henr. 8. And so the Canons of the Church did of old frequently receive a confirmation by the Emperours sanction under his Sea which is a thing of so great antiquity that Eusebius relateth concerning Constantine the first Christian Emperour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that by his Seal Eus de Vit. Const l. 4. c. 27. he ratisied the determinations made by the Bishops in their Synods 8. That Article in this Canon which referreth to the Book of Common-Prayer doth enclude an acknowledging three things First that that Book containeth nothing contrary to the word of God which is intended to be manifested in the following Chapters touching the things chiefly opposed The second will be consequent thereupon viz. that it may lawfully be so used The third and last clause is a promise to use the form prescribed in that Book in publick Prayer and administration of the Sacraments and none other the lawfulness of which promise doth evidently follow from the former clause and its sense is of the same import with those words of the acknowledgment required in the Act of Uniformity viz. I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now established 9. But some especial doubts have been peculiarly entertained concerning the sense of the Declaration in the Act of Uniformity in giving unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-Prayer c. But while our Government doth require the use of this form both the intended sense being the same with that of the two former clauses concerning the Liturgy in the Canon above-mentioned and the expression thereof may upon equitable and impartial consideration appear clearly and fairly justifiable To which purpose the true sense of assenting and consenting and the things to which this hath respect is to be enquired after 10. Wherefore it is first to be considered that as to assent when referred to things asserted is to owne the truth of them so when referred to things to be done ordered or used it is to allow that they should be put in practice in which latter sense assenting is one and the same with consenting Now the Act of Uniformity both immediately before this Declaration and in divers other places referreth this unfeigned assent and consent to the use of the things in that Book contained and prescribed and thereby directeth us to this ordinary sense of the word Assent as doth also the nature of the things to be assented to which for the main part are Prayers Thanksgivings and Rubricks which being no assertions or propositions are to be used but not properly to be believed This notion of assenting in the same signification with consenting is according to the frequent use of assensus in the Latin as when things are agreed unanimi assensu consensu and the marriage of Children is declared Littleton C. of Tenaunt in Dower that it should be de assensu consensu parentum and we read of dower de assensu patris in our English Law-Books and the same might be evidenced by various English Examples But this Declaration being required by our Statute Laws it may be sufficient to observe that this is a very common sense of the word assent in our English Statutes 11. 25. Ed. 1. c. 1 Pref. to 18. Ed. 3. to 2. Ric. 2. passim Thus from King Edw. I. will King Henry the seventh and sometimes after our Statute Laws are oft declared to be assented unto or to be made with the assent of the Lords c. But from Queen Elizabeths time downwards the Laws are oft expressed to be enacted by the King or Queen with the consent of the Lords c. and sometimes with their assent and consent as 1. Jac. 2. 21. Jac. 2. In the same sense par assent assensus and such like expressions are frequently used in our most ancient Statutes in their Latin and Frence Originals As in St. de Carl. Ordinat Forest c. 6. St. Lincoln Westm 4. Exilium Hug. le despenser Ordin pro ter Hib. And about common assaâ—s the word assent is three times in one paragraph used in this sense concerning the recovery of any land 14 Eliz. 8. by the assent and agreement of the persons to
from Suetonius Sueton. in Tiberio n. 36. who declareth that Tiberius commanding all Jews to depart from Rome forced them Religiosas vestes comburere to burn their garments which they used in their Religious services which at Rome could be none other than their Synagogue Worship or School Assemblies Phil. de Cherubim and Philo Judaeus speaketh of their attendance thereupon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arrayed in white apparel Phil. de Vit. Contempl And declareth the same concerning their Religious Feasts 12. A third instance is their practices and injunctions of decent gestures in their Religious Assemblies At the reading of the Law Neh. 8.5 Ezra opened the Book in the sight of all the people and when he opened it all the people stood up And when they praised and gave glory to God the Levites commanded the people Neh. 9.5 stand up and bless the Lord your God for ever and ever 13. A last instance I shall here give is in the admission of their chief Proselytes or Members of the Jewish Church from amongst the Gentiles where besides Circumcision which God particularly enjoined in this very Gase Ex. 12.48 and Sacrifice whereby they declared themselves professedly to communicate with the Temple Service and to be partakers of the Altar Selden de Syn. l. 1. c. 3. they also made use of washing or a kind of Baptism in initiating these Proselytes Hor. Hebr. Mat. 3.6 of which we have a large account in divers modern Authors This rite among the ancient Jews did principally express the defilement and pollution of the Gentile World which could alone be cleansed by undertaking the true Religion and the right service of God And though there might be some rational ground for the expediency of this practice because washing was under the law of frequent use in many particular Cases of uncleanness as being a means appointed for their cleansing yet neither from hence nor from Moses sprinkling the Israelites to confirm Gods Covenant to them Ex. 24.8 which place the Jewish Writers do much urge though that action was not performed with water but with the bloud of the Covenant which had water mixed therewith Heb. 9.19 do contain any special command of God that washing the Proselytes should be a rite attending their Circumcision nor do we find that when Abraham and his Family received Circumcision that any such Attendant rite was joined therewith And yet it hath been frequently acknowledged that our Saviour chusing washing or Baptism to be the initiative rite under the Gospel did shew thereby some allowance and approbation of this way of admission under the Law 14. Buxt Syn. Jud. c 5. c. And it is manifest from Buxtorf Synagoga Judaica that the Jewish practice did receive divers other Synagogal Rites even such whereof some were questionable and doubtful and other manifestly vain and ridiculous But even these miscarriages under the degeneracy of their Religion cannot render those other observances unallowable which have so considerable testimonies of their approbation in the holy Scriptures And thus in their Synagogue Worship from the instances I have mentioned to which more might be added we have evidence of the lawful use of external Rites which may conduce to preserve the order of Church Society to the distinction and Ornament of Ministers reverend behaviour in the service of God and some expression of solemnity in the sacramental admission into the Church 15. Thirdly We may consider the natural worship among the Jews or Hebrews or their general Religious profession which was neither appropriated to their Synagogues or Schools Bux Syn. Jud. c. 2. where they were ordinarily Circumcised as Buxtorf observeth nor to their publick Ceremonial or Temple worship where divers instances may be produced 16. First in the taking an Oath Abrahams Servant used the Rite of putting his hand under his Masters thigh which Aben Ezra observed to be also a Custom among the Indians Nehemiah upon the like occasion did shake his lap desiring God so to shake out every man from his house and his labour who performed not that promise Petit. Var. lect l. 1. c. 16. Fag in Gh. Par. Ex. 23.1 Exceptâ—ex Hom. Chrys de Juram Tom. 6. Fr. Duc. Neh. 5.12 13. At other times lifting up the hand was used in that solemn and Religious invocation Gen. 14.22 And it hath been observed that it was an ordinary Rite among the Jews in taking an Oath to lay their hand upon the Book of the Law as the ancient Christians even in S. Chrysostomes time laid their hand upon the Book of the Gospel But he must be satisfied with very little evidences who thinketh that he hath found a divine institution for these observations which are only outward signs of Religious invocation as our words are and therefore such expressive signs so far as expediency and due solemnity shall require may be lawfully used though they be not particularly determined by a Divine commmand 17. Secondly we may observe Rites of Memorial Thus we not only read of Samuel setting up a stone as a Monument of Gods praise and a token of remembrance that he had helped them 1. Sam. 7.12 but Laban and Jacob erected a heap to be a solemn memorial and testimony of their Oath Gen. 31.46 47. and when Joshua made a Covenant with the people of Israel to serve the Lord he set up a stone under the Oak by the Sanctuary of the Lord to be a witness and memorial of their duty and engagement Jos 24.26 27. 18. To these might be added the use of sackcloath and ashes as a testimony of humiliation and repentance the use of imposition of hands in their ordinary benediction which also our Saviour practised and I shall in another Chapter shew that the Ring in the contract of Marriage was used among the Jews And yet none of these things were enjoined in the Law of Moses further than what concerneth the Priestly benediction of Aaron with hands lifted up which some conceive to be a rite appointed in the Law 19. And from what I have hitherto observed it may be reasonably concluded that it is no encroaching upon or opposing the Authority of God if some indifferent and expedient things be determined and received in the Church as things useful but not as Divine Sanctions And he who will deny the lawfulness hereof in the Christian Church must also assert and prove that the coming of Christ hath deprived his Church of a very considerable part of that liberty and authority which the Jewish Church always possessed But against the rashness of any such positions the following Sections will be a sufficient defence SECT III. Shewing Ecclesiastical Constitutions particularly concerning Ceremonial Rites to be warranted by the Apostolical Doctrine and practice 1. The second main argument is deduced from the Apostles practice and doctrine Now though what they appointed in the Church about any matters external cannot be easily proved to be determined by humane prudence and
them but even to urge them to approve and allow what is really sinful and is rightly so esteemed by them 20. But the main objection to be here considered is that S. Paul Rom. 14.1 c. commandeth to receive them who are weak in the Faith but not to doubtful disputations Commiss Papers p. 70. and alloweth no judging or despising one another for eating or not eating meats and for observing or not observing days and hence it is urged that no such things indifferent ought to be imposed but to be made the matter of mutual forbearance Now it must be granted that Christian Charity requireth a hearty and tender respect to be had to every truly conscientious person so far as it may consist with the more general interest of the Church of God yet it is manifest that the Apostle is not in this Chapter treating about and therefore not against the rules of order in the service of God But in order to a right understanding of this place I shall note three things 21. First that these directions given by the Apostle in the beginning of this Chapter so far as they give allowance to the different practices therein mentioned have a peculiar respect to those times only of the first dawning of Christianity when most of the Jews who believed in Christ did as yet zealously retain the Mosaical Rites abstaining from certain meats as judging them unlawful and unclean Rom. 14.2 14. and observing Jewish days and times out of a peculiar esteem for them v. 5. and yet this for a time was in this Chapter allowed and indulged by the Apostle But afterwards the Rules and Canons of the Church severely condemned all Christians whether of Jews or Gentiles August Ep. 19. Conc. Gangr c. 2. Conc. Laod. c. 29. who observed the Mosaical Law and the Rites and distinction of meats contained therein out of Conscience thereunto yea S. Paul himself vehemently condemned the Galatians who were Gentiles for observing such distinctions of days out of Conscience to the Law Gal. 4.10 11. and passeth the like censure upon the Colossians who distinguished meats upon the same account Col. 2.20 21 22. Wherefore we must further observe that in the Apostles times and according to the Rules they delivered to the Church The Gentile Christians were in these things with others prohibited the observation of the Law of Moses and its Ceremonies though many of them as the Galatians and Colossians were prone to judge this to be their necessary duty Act. 21.25 Gal. 5.2 The Jews among the Gentiles who did not yet understand that the Law of Moses was abrogated were allowed to observe its Rites and to practise according to the Jewish Customs Act. 21.21 24. Gal. 2.12 13. Act. 16.3 But the Jews who lived in Judea and S. Paul himself when he was there were obliged or enjoined to observe the Mosaical Rites though they were satisfied that the binding power of the Law was abrogated Act. 21.24 Gal. 2.12 Now in these different practices allowed determined and ordered by the directions and rules given by the Apostles as temporary provisions for the several sorts or different Churches of Christians the Apostle requireth the Romans to receive and not to judge one another 22. 2. When the Apostle commandeth them to receive them who are weak in the Faith he thereby intendeth that they ought to be owned judged as Christians notwithstanding these different Observations v. 1. And when he commandeth that he that eateth should not despise him that eateth not and that he that eateth not should not judge him that cateth v. 3. he forbiddeth the weaker Jews to condemn the other Jews or Gentiles as if they were not possessed with the fear of God because they observed not the Law of Moses and prohibiteth those others from despising or disowning these weaker Jews as not having embraced Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 3. signifying here so to despise as withal to reject and disclaim as Mar. 9.12 Act. 4.11 1 Cor. 1.28 because they observed the Rites of Judaism And to this sense are manifestly designed the Apostles Arguments whereby he enforceth these Precepts V. 3. For God hath received him v. 4. to his own Master he standeth or falleth for God is able to make him stand v. 6. he acteth with Conscience to God and v. 10. Why dost thou judge thy Brother or why dost thou set at naught thy Brother We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ So that the main design of this part of this Chapter is this To condemn them who press their own practices or judgments in things unnecessary as being the essential and necessary points of Religion and Christianity and thereupon do undertake to censure all those who differ from them in such lesser things as having no true Religion or inward relation to or Communion with Jesus Christ though they live never so conscientiously and act according to the best apprehensions they can attain Aug. Exp. prop. 78. ad Rom. To this purpose S. Austen expounded these words Non ferre audeamus sententiam de alieno corde quod non videmus Beza in Loc. and Beza saith upon them Rudes non debent ut extra salutis spem positi damnari And this which is the true intent and scope of the Apostle in that place doth in no wise impugn the use of Ecclesiastical Authority in appointing what is orderly and expedient about things indifferent but he will by no means allow that lesser things should be esteemed the main matters of Religion and Christianity to which purpose he layeth down that excellent Rule in v. 17. The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Ghost 23. 3. The considering the Apostolical practice in making Decrees at the Council of Jerusalem in S. Pauls setting orderly bounds to the use of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit in the Church of Corinth or limiting the exercise thereof to avoid confusion and his not allowing S. Peter Barnabas and other Jews to practise without controul what agreed with their present apprehensions under those circumstances but was the way to disadvantage the peace and welfare of the Church and his giving commands for order and decency with things of like nature do evidence that it is a great misunderstanding of the Apostles Doctrine in this place to conceive that he condemneth the establishing useful rules for the order and edification of the Church though they do not always comply with every particular persons apprehension 24. But if it be further objected that if those things may be commanded or enjoined which some persons though through mistake judge unlawful either they must practise against their own judgments which would be sinful or their being conscientious will be their disadvantage which is not desireable To which I answer 1. That if in some particular things certain persons through meer mistake accompanied with humility and designs of peace should judge things
sitting 2. That if this supposed gesture used at the institution was essential or of necessity to the Sacrament they who undertake to change discumbing into sitting upon pretence that that is the ordinary Table gesture in these Countries must undertake to assert that the introducing new Customs among men-may have power to alter the necessary and essential duties of Gods Ordinances which is a position destructive to Religion and Christianity for if any Company of men should enure themselves to a diet wherein they ordinarily allow themselves neither Bread nor Wine this will in no wise warrant their undertaking to celebrate this Sacrament in any other Elements where these Elements may be as easily had and used as men may compose themselves to a reclining or discumbing gesture 7. Wherefore he who urgeth the necessity of any gesture at this Sacrament upon pretence that it was used by Christ and his Apostles doth declare that for a duty which is none and pretendeth to follow their example where probably he may be mistaken in it but he who conformeth to that gesture which is by authority established Dr. Kellets Tricaen l. 3. c. 5. Sect. 3 6. Ch. 7. Sect. 1. though it were certainly different from the gesture at the institution which yet some have conjectured to have been a kneeling gesture doth manifestly follow the example of Christ and his Apostles who did embrace that Passover gesture which was at that time of common practice among the Jews but could not be pretended to be the gesture at the first celebration thereof SECT IV. Of the Communion gesture observed in the Christian Church both in the purer and the more degenerate times thereof 1. Obj. 3. It is urged by some Non-Conformists that the Universal Church in the Primitive times used sitting and not kneeling Holy Table Ch. 5. p. 134. and that the holy Communion was then received sitting is thought not improbable by some others Of Relig Assemb c. 4. Now though this if it were true would not prove our gesture unlawful because the Church is not bound to observe always the same indifferent rites and gestures for though Christ and his Apostles after his Ascension sate when they taught the people Act. 16.13 all Ministers are not thereby obliged to the same gesture Yet I further assert 1. There is no evidence that ever the Primitive Church used any ordinary Table gesture at the receiving the Lords Supper but considerable proof may be made of the contrary We read indeed of the seats for the Bishop and Presbyters in the Christian Assemblies but as this cannot respect the whole Assembly so it giveth no more evidence of their gesture at the Communion than the same thing with us doth of our gesture Apol. c. 39. That place of Tertullian which Rhenanus sometime understood of the Eucharist Non prius discumbitur quam oratio ad Deum praegustetur c. that they do not discumb V. Pamel ibid. or use the reclining gesture till they have first prayed doth manifestly refer to their love feast only whereas it followeth in Tertullian they eat as much as satisfieth hunger and drink as much as becometh sober persons Cyp. Ep 42. When Cyprian writeth to Cornelius that he would not allow the Letters of the Novatian party to be read considentibus sacerdotibus Dei altari posito while the Priests of God were sate together and the Altar prepared he doth not express their usual gesture at the Lords Table but the manner of their holding Synods as may be collected from that and the foregoing Epistle Ep. 41. Petit. Var. Lect. l. 3. c. 4. And it is well observed by Petitus that the Canons and practice of the ancient Church required their annual Synods to assemble upon the stationary days at the close of which stations they always received the Communion 2. But that the Primitive gesture at the Communion was not such as they used at their ordinary Tables may be partly collected from Tertullian Tertul. Apol. c. 8. who relating and refelling the impudent slander of the Gentiles occasioned as Eusebius saith by the Gnosticks first against the Eucharist Eus Hist Eccl. l. 4. c. 7. and then against the Love Feasts as is manifest by comparing this with Cap. 7. and with Minucius Felix he proceedeth from the former to the latter saying Minuc Fel. edit Oxon. p. 26 98 c. interea discumbens c. or then falling to a Table gesture c. which sheweth that such a gesture was used at their Love Feasts but not at the holy Communion This is also expressed by Justin Martyr Just Mart. Ap. 2. who declareth that after the end of their Sermon or Exhortation they all rise up and give thanks and receive the holy Sacrament which words shew that though they sate before at the time of the Sermon they changed that gesture on purpose when they came to attend the receiving the holy Communion 3. I assert 2. The Primitive Church did practise and require at the receiving the Communion such a gesture as was usual to express humility and reverence and worship towards God Cyr. Hieros Cat. Myst 5. Cyrill directeth the Communicant to take the Cup 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bowing down after the manner of worshipping and adoring Chrys Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Chrysostome required more worship and reverence to be expressed towards Christ at the receiving the Sacrament than the wise men of the East shewed to him when they fell down and worshipped him with fear and trembling A humble frame and behaviour was thought so agreeable to this Ordinance by Origen Orig. in Divers Hom. 5. if that Homily be his and not some other ancient Writers that he exhorteth the Communicant to imitate the humility of the Centurion who said Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof And that the Christians usually expressed adoration at the receiving this Sacrament is manifest from S. Augustines Aug. in Ps 98. Ep. 120. c. 27. Amb. de Sp. Sanc. l. 3. c. 12. Nemo manducat nisi prius adoraverit and from other like expressions both of his and S. Ambroses 4. Now whereas the twentieth Canon of Nice according to a more ancient Custom enjoined all Prayers upon the Lords days and from Easter to Whitsunday to be performed in a standing gesture which 8. Augustin saith was the general practice upon those days at the Eucharistical Aug. Ep. 119. c. 15. or Communion Prayers it is not to be doubted but that their gesture of reverence used upon those days at this Sacrament was a standing gesture especially since Tertullian earnestly declareth against the use of a sitting posture in adoration Tertul. de Orat. c. 12. as being irreverent and also acquainteth us that it was not allowed in those times DeCor Milit c. 3. de geniculis adorare to perform any adoration kneeling upon the Lords days Wherefore when