contended for amongst us I shall observe that this hath been many ways also grosly abused First it was the ordinary gesture of worship in the Romish Pagan Idolatry The ancient laws of their Pagan worship required ut adoraturi sedeant which as Plutarch affirmeth Plut. in Numa was appointed by Numa Pompilius and Tertullian informeth us that at their Gentile solemnities even in his time they worshipped their images sitting Tertul. de Orat. c. 12. adoratis sigillaribus suis residendo 11. And in the Romish Church it is by some asserted and appeareth very probable that the Pope himself at some solemnities receiveth the Eucharist sitting When the Emperour receiveth his Coronation their Master of Ceremonies telleth us that at the time of Mass the Pope with the Emperour following him in the place of a Sub-Deacon goeth to the Altar whence Pontifex ad sedem eminentem communicaturus revertitur Sacr. Cerem l. 1. Sect. 5. Cap. 3. the Pope who at that time doth himself celebrate goeth to his seat of eminency therein to receive the Communion And a Book called the Quench-Coal written many years since as an Answer to Dr. Heylins Coal from the Altar produceth this testimony from William Thomas in his History of Italy who declared himself an eye witness thereof in the year 1547. that the Altar in the Cathedral Church of Rome Quench Coal p. 12. even in the time of Mass when the Pope received the Sacrament was standing in the midst of the Quire and the Pope sitting in a Chair of State about it And Didoclavius telleth us which is the only instance he produceth out of any History for sitting at the Sacrament and he may be mistaken in that that the Benedictine Monks receive the Sacrament sitting upon the Thursday before Easter Altar Damasc c. 10. and yet I suppose if his observation be true he will not imagine that they receive it with less adoration of the Host than other Papists do 12. And sitting at the Sacrament hath yet been much more abused by the Arians in Poland as their Synods called the Socinians who as denying the Divinity of Christ In Synodis Cracoviens Petricoviens Wlodislav Toruniens in Corp. Confessionum and not giving due reverence to him were the first Authors known to those Churches of this sitting gesture upon which account the Churches both of the Bobaemian Augustan and Helvetick Confessions residing in Poland and Lithuania disclaimed the use of that gesture though they esteemed it lawful in it self as being upon this occasion scandalous Wherefore to assert that every gesture grosly abused by others ought to be utterly relinquished is not only contrary to truth and to the practice of the Church of England but is herein opposite to the use of all the reformed Churches and it would make void Christs institution of the Sacrament by admitting no gesture to be lawful to communicate therein 13. Yet that we may discern the various working of mens minds in their arguments against this kneeling gesture and how copiously every thing affordeth matter to them who will take up with any thing we may observe Div. Right of Ch. Gov. Ch. 2. q. 1. p. 195. that as kneeling is sometimes disliked as having been Idolatrously abused so sitting is sometimes pleaded for as being the gesture practised and allowed by Christ because it was the gesture say they in the Idols Temple Thus Mr. Rutherford in these strange expressions undertaketh to prove that Christ did sit at the Lords Supper because sitting at the Idols Table 1 Cor. 8.10 declareth that in Religious Feasts sitting was ordinary and a sign indicant of honouring the spiritual Lord of the Banquet and a religious Communion with the Lord of the Feast was hence signified 14. Another thing urged against kneeling at the Sacrament Obj. 5. Rutherf Divine Right of Ch. Govern Ch. 1. Qu. 5. Sect. 1 3. which of the others is most strange and uncharitable is this that kneeling at the Sacrament is Idolatry and is parallel with worshipping god by an Image and even with the Pagan Idolatry it self upon this ground Altar Damasc c. 10 p. 801. because to kneel before any Creature as a memorative object of God though there be no intention of giving divine adoration to that Creature is Idolatry in the opinion of some men 15. Ans 1. This rash position tendeth to make the Jews worshipping God before the Ark or mercy Seat and before the Temple at Jerusalem or the Tabernacle in the Wilderness to have been equally Idolatrous with the serving Jeroboams Calves or worshipping Baal which was so far from that great sin that it was then a necessary duty of Religion And the cause of this gross mistake is the want of considering the vast difference of worshipping a false God or making use of a memorative object to represent the likeness of the divine being which is contrary to his nature and forbidden by his Precepts and of using such a memorative object in worship as is to be a memorial of the Covenant and grace of God and Christ and his Communion with us being to that end appointed and instituted as a remembrance of him If these things be not accounted vastly different it must be concluded not very considerable whether we do things appointed of God or forbidden of him and things agreeable to the nature of God or apposite thereto And besides this to worship God alone making use of such memorative objects as an help thereto which do properly call to our minds Gods mighty works and glorious Attributes is far from being either Idolatrous or blameable If a pious man taking a view of the mighty works of Gods Creation or any part thereof should upon this sight be put in mind of the power and wisdom of their Creator and thence should glorify admire and worship not the Creature but God alone such actions are not evil but devout and religious 16. 2. This assertion is of so dangerous consequence as to disown this holy Sacrament from being an Ordinance of Christian worship and to hinder the principal duties therein to be performed For it is directly contrary to the duties of this Sacrament to condemn the worshipping of Christ as sinful at the view of this memorial of Christs Death in this Sacrament when Christians here ought to magnifie his grace mercy and love to glorifie him for the wonderful Salvation and Atonement effected by his Death to implore his grace and spirit with all the blessings and benefits of the New Testament to acknowledge him and submit to him as our only Soveraign Lord with other such like which are proper actions of our worshipping and inwardly adoring him And it is unreasonable as well as uncharitable where these inward acts of Religion are necessary and a duty to condemn the outward expression thereof as either Idolatrous or any was sinful being directed to him who is Lord both of our Souls and Bodies 17. And though some mens
indifferent and no direct parts of worship because these particular things are only of Ecclesiastical or humane constitution for since all instituted worship is directly appointed for the acceptable service of God which especially considering the fall of man must be in a way of Grace and not of Merit it must be God and not his Creature who must determine what Institutions will be pleasing to him Serm of good works Par. 2 Serm of Prayer Par. 2. And this is the Doctrine of our Homilies and the Book of Common Prayer speaking of Ceremonies expresly declareth that those which remain are for a Godly Discipline and Order which may be altered and changed and therefore are not to be esteemed equal with Gods law And our Articles assert Art 34. that the Church hath authority to change or abolish Ceremonies ordained by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying All which words shew that there is no holiness placed in these things nor are they of themselves made any part of the worship of God in the Church of England 5. Yet even the observation of things indifferent may by a secondary and consequential respect to other commands of God and duties of men though not directly from themselves render our services more acceptable unto God Thus that gesture of body which is not particularly determined as a necessary duty may be pleasing to God as it includeth a religious respect to those duties of glorifying God with our bodies and serving him acceptably with reverence and godly fear and the observing other decent rites may be pleasing to God as it expresseth a reverence of God and his Ordinances and service an obedient respect to that command that all things be done decently and in order a subjection to our Superiours in things lawful and a care of the Churches Peace Upon this account Vrsin truly said Vrsin Explic Catech q 96. Loc. Theol. in 2. Praecep Adiaphorae actiones possunt Deo placere liect aliter quam cuttus Dei proprie dictus that indifferent actions may please God but in a different manner from that which is properly and directly the worship of God To such general ends are those indifferent observations in our Church appointed which are called Ceremonies and hence it is with good reason declared in the Book of Common Prayer that they are as well for a decent Order in the Church as because they pertain to edification For as whatsoever exciteth reverend thoughts of God and his Ordinances is thereby useful for the Churches edifying so the Aposile requireth ruies of Order to be made for edification 1. Cor. 14.26 and S. Chrys in 1 Cor. Ch. 14.40 Chrysostome truly observed that good Order Peace and Love are the most useful things to promote edification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6. But though external rites should be never so innocent in their own nature as being neither Jewish nor owned as parts of Christian Religion nor as operative means in themselves to convey Grace yet the introducing a great and unnecessary number of them would be disadvantageous to Religion by obscuring and darkning the spiritual duties and priviledges thereof by being needlesly burdensom to Christians and by diverting mens minds to attend chiefly unto such external observances Hence S. Aug. Ep. ad Januar c. 19. Augustin in his time as is observed in our Liturgy complained of the excessive number of such rites and the conditions which Protestant Writers require concerning Ceremonies are such as these that they be in their kind things indifferent in their number sew Kemnit Exam. Conc. Trid. de Tradition 7th genus Vrsin Ex. pl. Catech. ad qu. 103. and in their use godly and profitable for edification Now in our Church besides the use of expedient gestures in the fervice of God there is nothing which in common Custom of speech is called a Ceremony which in any proper part of worship is appointed in our Liturgy to be used by any other person besides the Minister And in our ordinary service the Minister is only required to use the appointed habit which though it be customarily called a Ceremony is no otherwise such than the Church Pulpit and the Vessels for the Communion and the Communion-Cloath are to be so esteemed which are only used in the service of God And in our particular Offices we have only the use of the Cross in the Office of Baptism of imposition of hands in Confirmation and the civil rite of the Ring in Marriage and therefore if the nature of these particular Rites be allowable which in due place will be considered there can be no dammage to Religion nor burden to Christians from the number of them SECT II. The first Argument for the lawfulness of Ecclesiastical Rites from the liberty herein allowed to the Jewish Church 1. Having hitherto endeavoured to prevent mistakes and mis-apprehensions about the subject of my present discourse I shall now lay down such Arguments as will manifest that some decent external observations in the Church though they be not particularly instituted of God are allowably ordered and appointed The first Argument is from the pactice of the Jewish Church which I shall consider in a threefold respect 2. First in their Temple worship For though they might not lawfully appoint any Sacramental Rite which was the the nature of divers of the Temple Rites and though Solomons Temple as well as Moses his Tabernacle 1. Chr. 28.12 19. was built according to the pattern which God directed and divers other external things were determined by divine appointment yet even here were some things left to the liberty and determined by the Authority of the Jewish Church or the Rulers and Governours thereof I shall not here insist upon Solomons offering Burnt-Offerings in the middle of the Court and not only upon the Altar 1. Kin. 8.64 nor upon Hezekiahs proclaiming a general Passover on the second Month 2. Chr. 30.2 because these were extraordinary Cases which were only allowable by the weightiness of the present occasions when Ceremonial Commands of God might be dispensed with in cases of greater concernment upon which account it was also lawful for David and them who were with him to cat the shew bread But it must be acknowledged that such extraordinary Cases are no more a sufficient ground for constant and ordinary Constitutions than the constant keeping a vein open can be concluded allowable because it may be expediently at some times opened for the preserving life or health 3. The first instance of this liberty among the Jews concernâ—th the Passover which was after the building the Tabernacle and Temple a proper Tabernacle or Temple Rite Phil. l. 3. de Vita Mos Lib. de Decalog Lib. de Septen Festis Deut. 16.6 and though Philo Judaeus doth in several places express the Passover to be sacrificed by all the people of Israel and not to be presented to the Priests as other Sacrifices were both the Talmud
Prayer prophesying and singing were frequently thereby performed as is evident from 1. Cor. 14. And I yield it most probable though even Protestant Writers do herein differ that the ancient Roman Jerusalem and Alexandrian Offices were called the Liturgies of S. Peter S. James and S. Mark because of their certain early use in the Churches where they presided though it is not certain that they were composed by them this being mentioned by no ancient Writer of the first Centuries Nor do I doubt but the Liturgy or Anaphora of S. John and that of the twelve Apostles are suppositious which with the former are related by Gabriel Sionita Gab. Sionit de Ritib Maron to be exhibited amongst the Syriack Offices for of these we have no mention in any ancient Ecclesiastical Writer unless the words of Epiphanius Epiph. Haer 79. expressing all the Apostles with S. James the Brother of our Lord to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is chief Dispensers or Stewards of the Christian Mysteries might allowably be racked to speak them all Composers of Liturgical forms Allatius de Liturg. S. Jacob. according to the violence offered to those words by Leo Allatius But if it can yet be proved that at least since the ceasing of the frequent distribution of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit the Church of Christ hath in all Ages used and approved forms this will be as considerable a testimony in behalf of Liturgies as can reasonably be required 9. That forms of Prayer were of use in the Church about 1300 years since is acknowledged by them who plead most against them from Conc. Laod. c. 18.3 Carth. c. 23. and Conc. Mil. c. 12. and that they have continued from that time downward cannot be denied In the fourth Century there is frequent mention in some parcels of Liturgy in the Writings of the Fathers and there are so many testimonies that S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose and S. Basil were framers of Liturgies that I do not see how any can rationally doubt of the truth thereof But that these Liturgies have undergone divers alterations in succeeding Ages is both apparent and is very reasonable to be imagined And he who shall compare the Greek Copy of S. Basils Liturgy with the Syriack or its version both which are represented together by Cassander Cassand Liturgie will find them so vastly different from each other that he must either conclude great alterations to have passed upon them or that they never were originally the same But from these I shall now look back into the more early times of the Christian Church where for the most part I shall only briefly mention the testimonies which have been fully produced by others 10. It is not probable Euseb de Laud. Constant autemed that Constantine the Emperour would have composed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 godly Prayers for the use of his Souldiers if such forms had not then been used in the Christian Church De Vit. Const l. 4. c. 19 20. Eusebius accounting this an admirable thing that the Emperour should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a teacher of the words of Prayer But Eusebius in another place giving a particular account of some expressions suited to the Souldiery in those set forms of Prayer which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the constituted Prayers doth a little before that declare Constantines own practice that he would take Books into his hands either for contemplating the holy Scriptures or for the expressing with his Court 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prayers that were constituted and appointed and this Eusebius there calleth his ordering his Court 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the manner of the Church of God and this is a manifest evidence of forms in the Christian Church in his time Orig. Hom. 11. in Jerom Cont. Celsum l. 6. Origen manifestly citeth a piece of the usual Liturgy an hundred years before Constantine saying Frequenter in oratione dicimus Da omnipotens da nobis partem cum prophetis c. We frequently say in our Prayers Give O Almighty God give us a part with the Prophets c. and in his Books against Celsus he declareth Christians to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prayers which were ordained or constituted S. Cyp. de Orat. Dom. Cyprian sufficiently intimateth the use of some forms in the Carthaginian service in his time by describing the entrance or beginning thereof the Priest saying sursum corda lift up your hearts and the people answering Habemus ad Dominum We lift them up unto the Lord. And the that considereth that Tertullian plainly intimateth a form of abrenunciation in Baptism De Cor. Mil. c. 3. and that they had set Hymns then appointed for particular times and hours upon their stationary days Albasp Observ l. 1 c. 16. as Albaspinus interpreteth him Adv. Psych c. 13. will think it not improbable that what he mentioneth of the particular heads of Prayer in the usual Assemblies of the Christians should have reference to some constant forms by them used Tert. Ap. c. 39. and their use is favoured by the expressions of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Justin Martyr and Ignatius And many have thought V. Dr. Hammond in 1. Tim. 2.1 that the Apostle had a special eye to the composure of such forms of Prayer agreeably to what the Baptist and our Saviour prescribed to their Disciples in commanding Timothy the Governour of the Church that among the things which concerned his behaviour in the Church of God Ch. 3.15 first of all prayers intercessions supplications and giving of thanks be made for all men c. For though the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may either signifie that Prayers be put up to God or that they be composed in this place it may well intend both And it is thought by S. Augustine Aug. Ep. 59. that these various words of the Apostle Prayers Supplications Intercessions and giving of thanks did direct to a comprehensive fulness of all such Prayers in the fixed models of the publick service of the Church when the Communion was administred and that the publick offices of the Church were accordingly composed De Vocat Gentium l. 1. c. 4. and the same sense is also favoured by Prosper 11. Since the reformation the Saxon and other Lutheran Churches have their Liturgies the Bohemian had its Liber Ritualis and the Palatinate it s Agenda as Vrsin stileth it by which the right order of its publick administrations Vrsin Praef. in Apolog. Catechis might be vindicated from the Calumnies of detractors And the Churches of France Holland and others have their forms for the publick service of God And after the Order at Geneva had established a form of publick service for the Lords day with some appearance of a liberty of variation which some relate not to have been so manifest in their practice as in their rule which was Dominico die mane
also from sin and their whole man from destruction And in this sense if this Petition should be supposed to enclude which in the proper sense of the words it doth not even Traitors and Robbers can we be blamed to pray even for them that God would preserve them from further sin and so keep them that they may have time and grace for repentance and that thereby they may be preserved from eternal destruction according to Mat. 5.44 12. That Petition that God would have mercy upon all men is condemned by some but is certainly commanded by S. Paul requiring us to make Prayers for all men for nothing can be prayed for which doth not enclude Gods mercy But such light objections which are easily made against the best words that the wisdom and piety of man can devise I think not worthy the further naming but shall now proceed to some other matters of greater moment SECT V. Considerations concerning the publick reading Apocryphal Chapters 1. The reading the Apocryphal Chapters in our Church hath been severely censured as if it was a forsaking the holy Scriptures which are the waters of life to drink of other unwholsom streams but that this matter may be rightly understood without prejudice or mistake it will be requistie to take notice of these following considerations 2. Cons 1. The excellent authority of the Canonical Books of Holy Scripture as they are distinguished from the Apocryphal is fully and clearly acknowledged by this Church in her Articles Art 6. where it declareth concerning the Apocryphal Books that the Church as S. Hierome saith doth read them for example of life and instruction of manners but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine which Article plainly disclaimeth them from being accounted Canonical Books of the Holy Scripture That the Jews do not owne these Books as any part of the Old Testament is manifest from their Bibles which contain them not and the particular evidences from the Jewish Rabbins against every one of those seven Books of the Apocrypha which are forged to be Canonical by the Council of Trent are some of them exhibited by Hollinger Thes Phil. l. 2. c. 2. Sect. 1. And that neither the ancient Church of the Jews before the destruction of Jerusalem nor Christ and his Apostles nor the several Ages of the Christian Church till some late Romish Councils did acknowledge or make use of these Books as Canonical is solidly and learnedly evidenced by the Bishop of Durham Schol. Hist of Can. of Scripture throughout with reference to the sixth Article of this Church Wherefore though it would be injurious to the holy Scriptures that any other Books which are not of divine inspiration should be accounted of equal authority with them yet it is far from being a dishonour either to them or to they holy Spirit who indited them if either these Apocryphal or any other good Books be esteemed useful and profitable and acknowledged to contain things that are true and good 3. Cons 2. It was can usual practice in the ancient Christian Church that some of these Apocryphal Books and other good writings besides the holy Scriptures were publickly read as instructive Lessons in their Assemblies but with such variation as the prudence of every Church thought meet In the second Century both the Fpistle of Clemens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the then ancient Custom In Eus Hist l. 4. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and some other Ecclesiastical Epistles were publickly read even on the Lords days for their instruction as Dionysius of Corinth testifieth And in Euscbius his time as well as before it Ibid. l. 3. c. 15. was the Epistle of Clemens publickly read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the greatest number of Churches Aug. de Civ Dei l. 22. c. 8. Hom. de Sanct. de S. Steph. Ser. 7. In the African Church in S. Augustins time the Histories of the passions of Martyrs v. Hom. 26. inter 50. and accounts of miraculous works by the efficacy of Christian Prayer were read in their Churches which Custom though it was very pious in the beginning was at last intolerably abused to the bringing in legend stories And more particularly the publick reading several Apocryphal Books as Wisdom Ecclesiasticus Tobit Judith and the Maccabees was ordered in one of the Carthaginian Councils in S. Augustins time 3. Carth. c. 47. Cont. Carth. c. 27. and that Canon was taken into their Code and besides what S. Hierom oft speaketh of these Books being read in the Church but distinguished from their Canon Ruffinus his contemporary who was first his friend and then his adversary having given first an acount of the Canonical Books proceedeth to these Books which he saith are not Canonical but Ecclesiastical Ruff. in Symb. as Ecclesiasticus Wisdom Tobit Judith c. and declareth the judgment of the ancient Fathers before his time concerning them quae omnia legi quidem in Ecclesiis voluerunt sed non proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam that they would have them all to be read in the Churches but not to be produced as of authority to confirm any matters of Faith And that in after Ages these Books were read in the Church Isid de Eccl off l. 1. c. 11 12. Rab. de Inst Cler. l. 2. c. 53. is evident from Isidonss Hispalensis and in the very same words from Rabanus Maurus and might be shewed from very many others if that was needful 4. Cons 3. These Books called the Apocrypha have been greatly esteemed both in the ancient Church and by the chief Protestant Writers as very useful though not divine writings Divers of the ancients have cited them under the title of the holy Scripture using that Phrase in so great a latitude as to signifie only holy writings though not divinely inspired The Council of Carthage above-named doth there call them Canenical Books as doth also S. Augustin who was in that Council De Doct. Christ lib. 2. c. 8. using the word Canonical in a large sense for it is manifest from that and divers places of S. Aug. that they were not esteemed of equal authority with those Books properly called Canonical And therefore Cajetan for the interpretation of the right sense of there words Caj Com. in Esth in fin hath well declared concerning these Books Non sunt Canonici i. e. regulares ad firmandum ea quae sunt fidei possunt tamen dici Canonici hoc est regulares ad aedificationem fidelium or they are not Canonical as containing a rule to direct our faith an belief though they may sometimes be called Canonical as containing rules to better our lives In the Greek Church where they were not at least so much publickly read as in the Latin they were accounted useful for instruction as appeareth besides the Citations of the Greek Fathers from that very Epistle of Athanasius Fragm Epist 39. in
Tom. 2. Athanas where he purposely declareth them to be no part of the Canon of Scripture And amongst the Protestants Dr. Reinolds who wrote so largely against the authority of the Apocrypha Books Censura de Lib. Apocr Prael 7. in his Censura yet in one of his Praetections declareth of some of them chiefly Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom valde bonos utiles esse omnibus tractationibus praeferendos that they are exceeding good and profitable and to be preferred before all Treatises of other Writers Prael 74. and in another Praelection expressing his judgment of the same Books saith proximum illis locum deberi post scripturam sacram that they ought to have the next place after the holy Scripture in the former of which expressions he followeth the steps of S. Aug. de praedestin Sanctorum Exam. post 1. de Scrip. Can. And Chemnititus alloweth them to be Books quae à fidelibus in Ecclesiis leguntur Which are read in the Churches by the faithful and non esse abjectos damnatos that they are not condemned writings and off-casts but may be received in the number of the holy writings or sacrae scripturae sobeit they be not reputed the Canon of Faith and this saith he we willingly both yield and teach 5. Cons 4. And it is in this Case especially to be considered that in our Church no Apocryphal Chapter is appointed for any Lords Day throughout the Year not is any directed for any Holy-day but only out of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus which are Books of great esteem with all those who have well considered them And also upon those Week-days when some Apocryphal Chapters are read there are always other Canonical Scriptures read likewise Directory of reading the holy Script whereas they who do oppose Conformity so far as we may take the Directory for their rule did never appoint or direct any Scriptures to be ordinarily and publickly read upon any of these week days but ordered that where the reading on either Testament endeth on one Lords day it should begin on the next Wherefore it is to be well noted and observed that our Church doth not herein differ from the dissenters as if they did require the Canonical Scriptures to be more frequently read in publick than our Kalendar appointeth but our Kalendar requireth the Holy Scriptures to be much more frequently read in publick almost six Chapters for one besides the Epistles and Gospels than the Directory did and besides them these Apocryphal Lessons for profitable instruction 6. But if any persons shall decry in the general the hearing any thing in the Church besides the holy Scriptures of immediate infallible inspiration this would either from unadvisedness or from what is worse reject and disown to the great disadvantage of Religion the use of Sermons Exhortations and Catechism Nor is it any sufficient cause to condemn the reading Apocryphal Chapters because they are read as one of the Lessons For our Church manifestly declareth these Lessons not to be Canonical Scripture nor can any command of God be produced which either directly or by consequence requireth that in every daily Assembly of Christians there must be two Lessons read out of the Canonical Scripture or that none may be taken out of any other approved Book And it is manifest that the censuring this practice condemneth divers if not all the ancient Churches before the decaying and degeneracy of the Christian Profession V. Bishop Durhams Schol. Hist of Can. of Scrip. Sect. 60. For though it be admitted that the Laodicean Council did appoint that none but the Canonical Books should be read in the Church and that Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy there mentioned are intended for parts of the Prophecy of Jeremy yet long before that did even the Greek Church read the Epistles of Clemens c. above mentioned and the Book of Hermas And it is not to be wondered that there should be different practices observed in the Church in matters of order and liberty 7. Cons 5. Whereas this Church is the more blamed for using some Apocryphal Chapters while some others acknowledged to be Canonical Scripture are not appointed to be read by the Kalendar which are mostly either some Prophecies hard to be understood or matters of Genealogy or Jewish Observations or some Histories for the mostpart expressed in other Scriptures appointed to be read it must be considered that even hence it is evident that the Kalendar was never intended to be a Determination or Declaration of what is Canonical Scripture and of certain divine authority but only a direction for useful and profitable reading Nor was it the Custom of the ancient Christian Church Conc. Laod. c. 60. that the Canon of the Scripture should be described by what was publickly read the rule of the Laodicean Council which cometh nearest thereto did not direct the Revelation to be read The ancient Jews who divided the Old Testament into the Law the Prophets and the Hagiographa Bux Syn. Jud. c. 11. Salian Annal Eccl. A. M. 3447. n. 16. did for a long time only read the Law in the Synagogues after which only a Section of the Prophets was added but that the Hagiographâ—a which included all the Books from the beginning of the Chronicles to the end of the Canticles besides Ruth Lamentations and Daniel were not read in the Jewish Synagogues Hor. Heb. in Joh. 4.15 hath been observed from the Talmudists and this is agreeable to divers passages of the New Testament Luk. 4.16 Act. 13.15 27 Act. 15.21 Yet Christ and his Apostles blamed not the Jews but joined with them in this service 8. Cons 6. That which is objected from the matter of these Apocryphal Chapters which are appointed to be read is not sufficient either to prove them hurtful or not useful as will appear from the following Section SECT VI. The Objections from the matter of the Apocrypha disoussed 1. Among the particular Objections from the matter of these books Obj. 1. Judith Susanna Bel and the Dragon are thought to be sabulous because no certain time can be easily fixed for Judith S. Hierome calleth the other susannae Belis Draconis fabulas Prol. in Dan. Com. in Dan. 13. 14. and Josephus maketh no mention of them But first if these Books should be admitted to be parabolical discourses to express the great opposition of many wicked men against God and his Worship the Vanity and Folly of their Pride and evil designs and the mighty protection that God can give to his people by his Almighty Power they might still be allowed to be of very considerable use The frequent use of Parabolical Instructions among the Jews is both manifest from their Talmudical Writers and allowed by the practice of our Saviur And besides this they had another Custom of Clothing real Histories under different names which expressed a resemblance of the things intended Targ. in Cant. c. 6. v. 7
to build a Temple contrary to any command of God but was only a determination of 2omewhat external relating to the Service of God to express his higher honour and reverence of God and Religion which was therefore approved of God though it was not particularly commanded by him Seder Olam Rab. c. 11. And if we may herein credit the Jewish Chronicle when the house of God was set up at Shiloh there was a soundation laid of stone which God had not enjoyned nor forbidden upon which the Tabernacle made of Boards Curtains and Skins was erected 7. I know that the Jewish Writers do assert that the Law of Moses did command the building the Temple by which I here understand a house of stone and Cedar as distinguished from the Tabernacle this seemeth to be affirmed by Maimonides Maim in Praec affirm 20. Gemar in San. hedr. c. 2. Sect. 6. Joseph Ant. Jud. l. 7. c. 4. and is asserted by the Talmud and Josephus saith David designed to build a Temple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Moses had foretold But this is not agreeable to what God himself declareth to the contrary 2 Sam. 7.7 Spake I a word with any of the Judges of Israel whom I commanded to feed my people Israel saying Why build ye not me an house of Cedar and the ground upon which these Jewish Writers build is mistaken For 1. that place which the Gemara insisteth upon Deut. 12.10 11. concerning the place which God should chuse only enjoyneth a fixed place for the Tabernacle of God and his Service where he should chuse it after he had placed them in Canaan as may appear by comparing Deut. 12.1 5 11 12. Josh 18.1 Jer. 7.12 and the Tabernacle is expresly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the house of choice in the Seder Olam Seder Olam Rab. ubysupra And those words Exod. 15.2 I will prepare him an habitation being spoken before the building of the Tabernacle do refer thereto and the Tabernacle is expresly called his habitation 1 Sam. 2.29 2 Sam. 15.25 and in divers other places as it was also very frequently called by the name of the Temple both in the Psalms and in the Books of Samuel and the Sanctuary in the place produced by Maimonides Exod. 25.8 and in many others 8. Thus I have now shewed that even in the Temple Worship of the Jews some external Rites not appointed by God were lawfully practised and amongst others a Sacramental gesture which was not used in the institution of the Sacrament a decent Vesture of white Linen for them who attended the Service of God therein and a memorative and ingaging sign of the Altar of Witness or the Altar Ed. and the Reader will easily conceive how nearly the nature of these three things resemble and justifie our gesture at the Communion the use of the Surpless and the Cross at Baptism 9. Secondly I shall consider the Synagogue Worship of the Jews which hath a nearer alliance to the Christian Worship In their Synagogues they assembled to profess and owne God and his Law to hear his Word to praise his Name and call upon him and to perform other such like Duties And this was not chiefly a Ceremonial Worship as that of the Temple was but a Moral Worship or such a Worship as consisted of Duties which in the general nature of them are perpetually obligatory upon all the Servants of God in this World and not upon the Jews only nor were they peculiar to the Mosaical Constitutions And concerning this which was their ordinary weekly and indeed a principal Worship of God it is truly observed by Mr. Thorndike Of Religious Assemblies c. 2. that there was very little established by God in the Book of the Law And they were also in some particulars left to their own prudential determinations where the Christian Church is not 10. A first instance I here give of the liberty of the Jewish Church making determinations concerning things external velating to Religion is touching the Ordination of the Ecclesiastical Officers of the Synagogal Assemblies by Imposition of Hands The Officers Ecclesiastical in these Assemblies were those who were anciently called the Sons of the Prophets or their Elders Scribes Rabbins and Doctors of the Law Neither the nature of their Office and Authority nor especially the manner of their Admission thereto is any where determined in the Law of God but depended upon the Churches Constitutions for the preserving order and authority in its Assemblies And yet that all who were the Synagogal Officers or who were admitted to teach there except the extraordinary case of Prophets were ordained thereto by Imposition of Hands and what their different manners of Ordination were according as they committed to them different power or authority of teaching or judging is sufficiently from the Jewish Forms declared by Mr. Selden De Syned l. 1. c. 7. Sect. 2 4. And this authority of Ordination was so far approved by our Blessed Saviour that he declared concerning the Scribes and Pharisees Mat. 23.2 3. That they sit in Moses seat all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do But though this Ordination of Elders or Rabbies among the Jews was founded upon no Divine Institution as is truly asserted by Mr. Selden Seld. ibidem the state of the Christian Church is herein under the determination of Divine and Apostolical Constitutions 11. A second instance is concerning the Habit of the Prophets and the Sons of the Prophets That the Prophets used a rough or hairy garment or Mantle which was peculiar to them may be collected by the practice of Elijah who was known by his hairy garment and whose Mantle fell from him when he was taken into Heaven 1 King 1.8 Chap. 2.13 and from the appearance of Samuel in his Mantle 1 Sam. 28 14. And even the Annotations composed by the Members of the Assembly do probably assert that when Isaiah is said to go naked Annot. in Is 20.2 Isa 20.2 no more is intended but that he put off his Prophetical Robe or Mantle such as fell from Elias It is also generally acknowledged that the Prophet Zechary speaking of wearing a rough garment to deceive Zech. 13.4 doth thereby intend the ordinary Prophetical garment so Munster Vatablus Castalio Clarius Drusius and Grotius do assert and Calvin calleth that garment habitum Propheticum Junius stileth it communem amictum prophetarum and Bochartus thinketh that it was vestis prophetarum propria Bochart Hieroz l. 1. c. 2. That the Sons of the Prophets used a particular habit by which they were easily discernable from other men may be probably collected from 2. Kin. 9.5 6 11 12. and is more manifest from 1. Kin. 20.35 41. And besides these habits which were of ordinary use in their converse there may some particular evidence be given of garments peculiarly used in their Synagogal Assemblies that such was their practice about our Saviours time may appear