together Then Seven more Saints Then all the Bishops and Confessors together Then all the Holy Doctors Then Five more of their own great Saints by Name Then all the Holy Priests and Levites Then all the Holy Monks and Hermites Then Seven She Saints by Name Then all the Holy Virgins and Widows And Lastly All the He and She Saints together But the brevity I am confined to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument of the vast distance between these two Churches in reference to their Publick Prayers and Offices Fourthly We proceed to shew that there is also no small distance between the Church of England and that of Rome in reference to the Books they receive for Canonical This will be Immediately dispatched For no more is to be said upon this subject but that whereas the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into her Canon the Church of England like all other Protestant Churches receives only those Books of the Old and New Testament for Canonical Scripture as she declares in her Sixth Article of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church And she declareth concerning the Apocryphal Books in the same Article citing St. Hierom for her Authority That the Church doth read them for Example of life and Instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to Establish any Doctrine And after the example of the Primitive Church no more doth ours and appoints the reading some of them only upon the foresaid Account In the Fifth and Last place The Church of England is at the greatest distance possible from the Church of Rome in reference to the Authority on which they each found their whole Religion As to the Church of Rome she makes her own Infallibility the Foundation of Faith For 1. Our belief of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures themselves must according to her Doctrine be founded upon her infallible Testimony 2. As to that Prodigious deal which she hath added of her own to the Doctrines and Precepts of the Holy Scriptures and which she makes as necessary to be believed and practised as any matters of Faith and Practice contained in the Scriptures and more necessary too than many of them the Authority of those things is founded upon her unwritten Traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspired by the Holy Ghost than were the Prophets and Apostles themselves But Contrariwise the Church of England doth 1. Build the whole of her Religion upon the Sole Authority of Divine Revelation in the Holy Scriptures And therefore she takes every jot thereof out of the Bible She makes the Scriptures the Complete Rule of her Faith and of her Practice too in all matters necessary to Salvation that is in all the parts or Religion nor is there any Genuine Son of this Church that maketh any thing a part of his Religion that is not plainly contained in the Bible Let us see what our Church declareth to this purpose in her 16 Article viz. That Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation So that as Mr. Chillingworth saith THE BIBLE THE BIBLE IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS So you see the Bible is the Religion of the Protestant Church of England Nor doth she fetch one Tittle of her Religion either out of unwritten Traditions or Decrees of Councils Notwithstanding she hath a great Reverence for those Councils which were not a Company of Bishops and Priests of the Popes packing to serve his purposes and which have best deserved the Name of General Councils especially the Four first yet her Reverence of them consisteth not in any opinion of their Infallibility As appears by Article 14. General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes and when they be gathered together for as much as they be an Assembly of Men whereof all be not Governed with the Spirit and Word of God they may Err and sometimes have Erred even in things pertaining unto God Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared that is manifestly proved that they be taken out of Holy Scripture Let us see again how our Church speaks of the matter in hand Article 20. The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith And yet it is not Lawful for the Church to Ordain any thing that is contrary to Gods Word Written neither may it so Expound one place of Scripture that it be Repugnant to another Wherefore although the Church be a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ that is as the Jewish Church was so of the Canon of the Old Testament by whose Tradition alone it could be known what Books were Canonical and what not so the Catholick Christian Church from Christ and his Apostles downwards is so of the Canon of the New Yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same so besides the same ought it not to inforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation If it be asked who is to Judge what is agreeable or contrary to Holy Writ 't is manifest that Our Church leaves it to every Man to Judge for himself But 't is Objected that 't is to be acknowledged that if the Church only claimed a Power to Decree Rites and Ceremonies that is according to the general Rules of doing all things Decently and Orderly and to Edification which Power all Churches have ever Exercised this may well enough consist with private Persons Liberty to Judge for themselves but 't is also said in the now Cited Article that the Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith and accordingly Our Church hath Publisht 39 Articles and requires of the Clergy c. Subscription to them To this we answer that we shall make one Article Egregiously to Contradict another and one and the same to Contradict it self if we understand by the Authority in Controversies of Faith which Our Church acknowledges all Churches to have any more than Authority to Oblige their Members to outward Submission when their Decisions are such as Contradict not any of the Essentials of our Religion whether they be Articles of Faith or Rules of Life not an Authority to Oblige them to assent to their Decrees as infallibly true But it is necessary to the maintaining of Peace that all Churches should be invested with a Power to bind their Members to outward submission in the Case aforesaid that is when their supposed Errors are not of that Moment as that 't is of more pernicious Consequence to bear with them than to break the Peace of the Church by opposing them And as to the fore-mentioned
allowable but if any man desire further satisfaction as to this point he may have it abundantly in the case of indifferent things to which I refer him it being more my business to shew here that Infant-Baptism is at least a lawful and allowable thing To prove this I need but desire the Reader to reflect upon the State of the two first Questions For if Infants be as capable of Baptism under the Gospel as they were of Circumcision under the Law and if Christ have not excluded them from it neither directly nor consequentially Otherwise if Baptism be an Institution of as great Latitude in its self as Circumcision its Fore-runner was and Christ hath not determined the administration of it to one Age more than one Sex Once more if Children may be taken into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel as well as under the Law and Christ never said nor did any thing which can in reason be interpreted to forbid them to be taken in In a word If they are capable of all the Ends of Baptism now that they were of Circumcision then and of having the Priviledges of Church-Membership and the Blessings of the Covenant consigned unto them and Christ neither by himself nor by his Apostles did forbid the Church to satisfie and fulfil this their capacity Or last of all If Christ hath only appointed Baptism instead of Circumcision but said nothing to determine the Subject of it then it must needs follow that Infant-Baptism must at least be lawful and allowable because it is an indifferent and not a forbidden or sinful thing But upon this supposition that it were left undetermined and indifferent by Christ it might like other indifferent things be lawfully appointed by any Church from which it would be a Sin to separate upon that account For in this case Churches might safely differ in their practice about Infant-Baptism as they do now in the Ceremonies of Baptism and those who lived in a Church which did practice it ought no more to separate from her for appointing of it then those who lived in another Church which did not practise it ought to separate from her for not appointing thereof Thus much I have said I hope with sufficient moderation upon supposition that all I have written upon former Questions doth but satisfactorily prove that Infant-Baptism is only lawful and not highly requisite and necessary but then if it be not only lawful but highly requisite and necessary so that it ought to be appointed then it must needs be much more sinful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized Now as to the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism supposing that my Reader bears in memory that I have said upon the last Question to make it appear with the highest degree of credibility that Christ instituted Baptism for Infants as well as grown Persons and that the Apostles and their Companions Practised Infant-Baptism I must here entreat him further to observe that there is a two-fold necessity in matters of Christian Faith and practice one which proceeds from plain dictates of natural reason or from plain and express words of the Gospel where the sense is so obvious and clear that no sober man can mistake it or doubt of it and another which proceeds from the general Scope and Tenour of the Gospel or from doubtful places in it so or so understood and interpreted by the unanimous voice and practice of the ancient Catholick Church The first degree of necessity is founded on oftensive certainty and demonstration wherein there is no room left for Objection And the Second is founded upon violent presumption where the Objections on one hand are insufficient to move or at least to turn the Ballance if put in the Scale against the other which is weighed down Mole universatis Ecclesiae with the authority of the Universal Church And because this Rule like others is not so intelligible without an Example I will add some Instances of things which are necessary to be believed and practised by every good Christian under both these Notions of necessity that they may be better understood According to the First Notion of it it is necessary to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messias and the Son of God because it is delivered in express words of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe that he is of the same substance with the Father and equal unto him and that there are three distinct and coequal Persons in the God-head which are all but one God because these Doctrines though they are not to be found in express words in the Gospel yet they are to be collected from several places of it which were always so interpreted by that ancient Catholick Church Again according to the First Notion of necessity it is necessary for all Men to believe the Word of God whether spoken or written because natural reason teacheth us so to do And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament to be the Word of God and no other how Divine and Orthodox and Ancient soever they may be because they and they only have been received for such by the ancient Catholick Church In like manner as to matter of Practice by the First sort of Necessity it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God because Reason and Scripture plainly teach them so to do And by the Second sort it is necessary that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week because the Observation of the Lords Day appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament as tehy are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the ancient Catholick Church To proceed according to the First Notion of Necessity Church-Government is necessary because it is enjoyned by the Dictates of Common reason and most express places of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament to be the Word of God and no other how Divine and Orthodox and Ancient soever they may be because they and they only have been received for such by the Ancient Catholick Church In like manner as to matter of Practice by the First sort of Necessity it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God because Reason and Scripture plainly teach them so to do And by the Second sort it is necessary that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week because the Observation of the Lords Day appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament as they are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the Ancient Catholick Church To proceed according to the First Notion of Necessity Church-Governmenr is necessary because it is enjoined by the Dictates of Common reason and
most express places of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary that the Church should be governed by Bishops where they can be had distinct from and Superiour to Presbyters because this Government appears to be instituted by Christ from several Passages of the New Testament as they are explained by the uniform Practice of the Primitive Catholick Church Furthermore according to the first sort of necessity it is necessary to administer the Lords Supper because our Saviour hath commanded it in express words And accordlng to the Second which is also an indispensable degree of Necessity it is necessary to administer it to Women though they never were admitted to the Passover or Paschal Postcaenium which answered unto it because we can prove from some probable places of the New Testament that they were admitted unto it as those places are in equity to be interpreted by the universal Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church To conclude according to the former Notion of Necessity it is necessary to Baptize because our Lord hath commanded it in express words And according to the Second It is in like manner necessary to Baptize Infants because we can prove their Baptism from the Scope and Tenor of the Gospel and from many Passages of it as they are interpreted according to the Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church First From the Scope and Tenour of the Gospel which it is reasonable to presume would extend the Subject of Baptism as far as the Jewish Church extended the Subject both of Circumcision and Baptism And Secondly From many Passages in the Gospel whereof I shall recite some Except a Man be Born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. Suffer the little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 14. The three noted places which inform us that the Apostles baptized whole Housholds as of Stephanas 1 Cor. 1. 16. Lydia Acts 16. 15. and the Jaylor Acts 16. 33. The Unbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the BELIEVING Wife and the unbelieving Wife is Sanctified by the BELIEVING Husband else were your Children Common or Unclean but now they are Holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. And were all Baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10. 2. The requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism may be fairly concluded from these Texts For the First seems to make Purgation by Water and * Alioquin meminerat dominicae desinitionis nisi quis nascatur ex Aquâ Spiritu non introibit in Regnum Dei id est non erit Sanctus ita omnis anima usque eo in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiu recenseatur Tertull. de Animâ cap. 39 40. Pro hoc Ecclesia traditionem suscepit ab Apostolis etiam parvulis Baptismum dare quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent Orig. in Ep. ad Rom. l. 5. in Luc. Hom. 14. Propterea Baptizantur parvuli nisi enim quis renatus c. Omnes venit Christus per semetipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Irenaeâ—s l. 2. c. 39. the Spirit equally necessary for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless one be born again c. From the * * * Tertullian de Bapt. ait quidem dominus nolite prohibere illos ad me venire This he saith by way of Objection which shews that this Text was in his time understood for Infant-Baptism but then because it was his present Opinion that Cunctatio Baptismi praecipue circa parvulos was utilior he answers Veniant dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quò veniant docentur Second it is reasonable to conclude that little Children are capable of Proselytism or entring into the Covenant after the Jewish manner when they are brought unto it by others First Because they are declared a a a Cassandr de Baptism Infant p 730. capable of the Kingdom of God And Secondly Because b b b Dr. Ham. of Infant-Baptism Sect. 22. 28. the Original words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence the Word Proselyte doth come From the Third it is reasonable to conclude That they Baptized the Children upon the Conversion of the Parents after the Custom of the Jewish Church c c c Tertul. de anima c. 39. Hinc enim Apostolus ex Sanctificato alterutro â—exu Sanctos procreari ait tam ex seminis praerogativâ quà m ex institutionis disciplinâ Caterum inquit immundi nascerentur quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios ut hujus spei pignora Matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinaretur Alioqui meminerat From the Fourth it is reasonable to believe That the Foederal Holiness of Believers Children makes them Candidates for Baptism and gives them a right unto it And the Fifth makes it reasonable to conclude from the Type to the Antitype that if the Jews with their Children were umbratically Baptized unto Moses in the one that Christians and their Infants should be really Baptized in the other To all which may be added d d d Rom. 5. Psal 51. 5. Rom. 3. 23 24. Joh. 3. 5 6. 2 Cor. 15. 21 22. 2 Cor. 5 14 15. Job 14 4. Vid Voss hist Pelag. l. 2. part 2. other Texts which have been alledged by the Ancients both * * * Voss hist Pelag p. 1. Thes 6. before and after the Pelagian Controversie to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary to wash away their Original Sin which makes them obnoxious to Eternal Death I say the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism might be fairly concluded from these Texts without the Tradition of the Ancient Church though without it I confess it could not be demonstrated from them as the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of the Holy Ghost may be fairly and sufficiently proved from those Texts which the Orthodox bring for them without Ancient Tradition though without it they could not be demonstrated from them because they do not assert it in express words But then as those Texts in Conjunction with Tradition do put those Doctrines out of all reasonable doubt So do the other which I have cited in Conjunction with the Practice of the Ancient Church put the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism out of Question because the Church in the next Age unto the Apostles practiced Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical Tradition and by consequence as an Institution of Christ In like manner as the Intrinsecal Arguments taken from the Style Sanctity Dignity and Efficacy of the Holy Scriptures and the perpetual Analogy and Conformity of the several Books contained in them are by themselves but
or their great Modesty and Fear of being out as we speak compells them to keep their Eye constantly upon their Notes as they and others have the forenamed advantages by it so no Man can be in the least prejudiced by it who will but turn his Eyes another way and not look upon the Preacher Then the Sermon will sound as well as if it were all pronounced without Book or if this make it unprofitable by the same reason the Holy Scriptures become unprofitable when they are read out of the Bible and they also must be got without Book to make them edifying Nay this exception will lye also against some of your own Preachers of great note who read every word I am sure they did so heretofore and this was then thought no hindrance to your profiting by them or if it were you heard them when you could not profit by them so as you could by those that did not read And so you may do now by our Preachers of this kind nay so you ought to do when you have nothing to say against them but what they are equally chargeable withal whom you highly commend III. But after all I have some reason to fear that when men complain they cannot profit by our Sermons they mean nothing by profiting but that their affections are not moved in the hearing of them so as they are by the Sermons of Nonconformists Unto which I have many things to say if this Paper would contain them but it will be sufficient to touch only upon these three 1. That Men have several Talents both among you and among us which are all very profitable Some for informing the Judgment others for moving the Affections and others which is most desirable for both you are not able to say that all yours move you so as some do and yet you make such account of all that it hath ever been lookt upon as a very disorderly thing among your selves and worse than that I shall prove by and by for People to run from their own Minister to hear some other though of the same way meerly to have the affections more moved Because 2. This alone is so far from profiting by Sermons that it is very great unprofitableness to be moved by a Sermon and do nothing thereupon but only commend it That is to be tickled and pleased a while but not altered nor changed a whit or to be warmed perhaps a little for the present and then left as cold as a stone without any spiritual life or indeavour to be the better 3. But the great thing of all is this that affections raised meerly by the earnestness of the Preacher at present in the hearing of a Sermon and it is well if the affections which some People speak of be not Motions which they feel meerly from the tone of the voice as from a taking phrase a similitude or some such trifle are nothing comparable to those which we raise by Gods blessing upon our own serious consideration when we reflect upon what we have heard which sort of most excellent affections the Sermons that are preached in our Churches cannot fail to produce if you please but to attend to the matter of them and press them upon your Hearts Nay your Judgments being well informed it would not be hard for you if you would but take a little pains with your selves to excite such affections unto that which you know to be your Duty as would abide and remain when the others that were excited in the hearing of a Sermon are gone and quite vanished and can never be recalled but by your own serious Meditation upon those Divine Truths which entred into your Mind and would have touched nay peirced your Hearts if you would have brought them thither and held them close to your Consciences Which ought to be every Christians care more than I doubt it is in order to their profiting by Sermons and that they may not be barren and unfruitful in the Knowledg of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ IV. And now it is time for all those who are concerned in what hath been said to apply it to the present case and going down into themselves to enquire where the fault must necessarily lye if the Sermons preached by our Ministers have proved unprofitable to them which supposeth that they who object this against coming to Church have come heretofore at least to the Sermon but went away and came no more because they reaped no benefit thereby Else how can they pretend that our Sermons are unprofitable if they never heard them Now I have demonstrated that the blame cannot be justly cast upon the Sermons which in themselves are every way fitted to do Men good and therefore we must seek for the cause of this Unprofitableness some where else and where are we so likely to find it as in those that heard the Sermons Whom I beseech in the fear of God by whose Word we must one day be all judged to consider with themselves impartially and to ask their Consciences such Questions as these 1. Quest Had you not some Prejudice in your Mind against the Person of the Minister whom you came to hear either upon the score of his Conformity or of his strictness in it or some other account If you had and carried it along with you there is great Reason to think this made his Pains unprofitable to you because you could not hear him with that indifference which you would have heared another man withal But looking upon him perhaps as a Time-server as the Language of some hath been a Formalist or one who you presumed before-hand had little or nothing of the Spirit in him you minded not so much what was said as who said it and disliked those things which out of another Mouth you would have accepted For if such Prejudices as these be not laid aside they bar the Heart so strongly against the most excellent Instructions that though an Angel from Heaven should deliver to us the most Important Truths yet we taking him for a Minister of Satan it would stop our Ears against him and make his Message ineffectual 2. Quest Or might not this be rhe reason of your reaping no benefit that you came to Church but once or twice and concluded too hastily there was no Good to be got there being willing also perhaps to have this excuse for absenting your self wholly from it whereas if you had constantly attended our Ministry you might have found your selves so much improved thereby as never to have thought of leaving the Church upon this account that you could not profit in it Make a Tryal now for it is not too late I hope if you can shake off all Prejudices and for some time continue diligent Auditors of the Minister of your Parish and that which at first may seem to you dull or hard or obscure will after you are used to it be clear easie and awakning when you are acquainted that
understood of such things as are Adjuncts to Divine Worship that are not used upon the score of any of the reasons aforesaid then we are not to expect a command nor do we Sin if we act without it As for example a Servant is required to go a Mile upon some service and he useth a Coat or a Cloak takes an Horse or goes on Foot puts a string about his Finger to remember him of what he is to do Or if to carry a Message considers what to say and Writes it down that he may be the better fitted to deliver it In such cases his Master would think him impertinent to ask Directions and it 's no Disobedience nor Supererogation to act as he sees fit without them And this is the case with us as I shall afterward shew This said there is way made for the next inference Conclus 3. If things Indifferent are neither commanded Conclus 3 nor forbidden and things are not unlawful because not commanded it follows that it 's no Derogation from the Sufficiency of Scripture to maintain the lawfulness of using such things in Divine Worship as are not therein commanded It 's somewhat a Specious way of arguing which this Author useth the Scriptures have determined whatsoever may make us wise to Salvation perfect p. 2â— throughly furnished to all good Works Now if the Worship of God be a good work and the right doing of it hath any tendency to make us perfect they must have a sufficiency to direct us in that And he concludes If there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the Worship of God except as before excepted c. then the Scriptures are not able to make us wise c. By this way of arguing and a challenge he immediately subjoyns viz. If our Author can shew us any Act of Worship c. It may be thought he is a Champion for the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture and we the derogators from it And that without any more ado he would have brought unanswerable arguments for that kind of Scripture-sufficiency which we deny If saith he our R. Author can shew us any Act of Worship for the Pag. 29. performance of which in such a manner as God will accept we cannot shew him direction of Scripture Well! where is it Scripture with the addition of such circumstances as are naturally necessary to all Humane Actions or evidently convenient for an action of a grave and weighty Nature for the obtaining the ends of it or appearing to any Common Judgment to be so decent that without them the performance would be sordid Scripture with the practice of the first Guides of the Church Scripture with the light of Nature shining out in every reasonable Soul c. Scripture with the exceptions before excepted in his Book pag. 21 Suppose then we put it to the question Is Scripture alone a sufficient Rule for matters to be used in the Worship of God He readily answers Yes If you take in the Nature of the thing the light shining in every reasonable Soul if you take in Common Judgment convenience and decency Lastly if you take in the practice of the first Guides of the Church that is it is and it is not Now how he hath all this while pleaded for that Sufficiency of Scripture which we deny And why he should so loudly exclaim against all Supplements and Additions to that and against pag. 38. Reason and Authority as a Supply or what difference he hath conceived betwixt Authority the Guides of the Church or betwixt Reason and the light of Nature Shining out in every reasonable Soul so as to deny to pag. 29. the one what he grants to the other I am not able to understand Yet for all this there must be a difference betwixt him and us and somewhat shall be said to make it out For the Sufficiency of Scripture is a very great argument And so indeed it is and it has been an old pag. 28. argument against the practices of our Church and is not to be easily parted with But yet what to give and what to take and wherein the difference is betwixt what we hold and he is forced to grant he knows not or has not been so kind as to discover But however when all this is pastover he concludes as to one part we cannot possibly agree with our R. Brother in this thing viz. That we have no such particular directions for Worship under the Gospel as they had under the Law This indeed I touched upon to shew that the Case of indifferent things pag. 30. faithfulness of Christ and sufficiency of Scripture consist not in giving as particular directions for Worship as they had under the Law and in proof of this I set Baptism against Circumcision the Lord's Supper against the Passover and Prayers against Sacrifices Now let us consider what are the reasons why he cannot possibly agree Certainly if ever controversie was like to be ended we may now expect it because it 's about plain matter of Fact But in this case he strangely fails of performance For whereas the deciding the case depends upon the comparison betwixt the Law and the Gospel he doth not so much as offer any thing about the latter But let us consider what he saith of the former and as much as we can make up his defect in the latter First he saith As to Circumcision what particular pag. 31. direction had the Jews Their Rule extended no further than to the Act and the time Here I must confess there is nothing but the time that is determined But since there is nothing of that kind in Baptism prescribed the Law is herein more particular than the Gospel 2ly As to the Passover he acknowledges they had a Rule but then he adds What Rule had they to determine them to a Kid or a Lamb But was not that a Rule to determine them when it must be a Kid or a Lamb and no other Creature and is not Two to all the Beasts in the world a determination as well as one to two But was there nothing else determined as his cautious way of expressing it would imply Let him consult the Text and he will find that the Creature was not only thus to be one Exod. 12. c. out of two but it was to be a Male kept the 14th day and to be killed at even without a bone broken to be roasted to be eaten in the house and with unleavened Bread with bitter Herbs and none left to the morning And they were to eat it standing as our Author acknowledges p. 32. with their loyns girt c. And with several other rites too long to enumerate But in the Lord's Supper there is nothing specified or required but the Elements and the breaking and pouring out nothing said of the kind of the Bread or Wine nothing required of the time or posture or number c.
As for their Sacrifices he saith the Rule was sufficient pag 32. and perfect we hope though one Jew brought a Bullock another a Goat c. I may confidently say it was not sufficient if so they did for God was pleas'd to require more who is the most competent Judge of the perfection of his own Law For there was a particular prescription not only as to the kinds of the Beasts but as to the disposing and ordering of them in Sacrifice what was to be eaten and what not whether the bloud should be poured out or sprinkled whether upon the Altar or at the bottom of it c one would think that a person that talks so loosely of these things had never read the Book of Leviticus But now as to Prayers in the Christian Church we have only a general Form given us and direction to Pray in the Name of Christ but nothing as to Words Time Posture Company c. So that what can be more manifest then that there is no such particular direction given in Worship as they had under the law And therefore however it comes to pass that this Author hath here so bewildred himself yet it 's what he hath granted before when he was fain to make exceptions as to things naturally necessary c and of which he saith in the beginning of this argument that for such it is impossible there should be a Rule though there I Page 8. conceive he hath as much erred on one side as he did before on the other when he saith it's impossible for then it had not been possible to assign time posture place c under the Law Had he said in some not possible in others not fit he had been much more in the right However to let that pass in either way he grants that there is no expectation of Scripture-Authority for such things nor doth the sufficiency of that or the faithfulness of Christ suffer by such an opinion I suppose I may now close this Argument For as for his Or 's and Alias's which this Author so much depends upon I shall consider them in another place Conclus 4. If things indifferent are neither commanded Conclus 4 nor forbidden and things are not unlawful because not commanded then the doing of such things as are not commanded is not contrary to the second Commandment The contrary to this is maintained by our Author Case examined pag. 27 who saith that the doing of such things in Acts of external Worship as are not commanded is indeed a violation of the second Commandment For which he offers this reason because as in the 6th Commandment it is agreed that all injuries to our neighbour's person is forbidden under the highest species of such Acts and in the 7th all species of uncleanness are so in the 2 d commandment all errors in the matter of external Worship are forbidden under the species of Idolatry The answer to this depends upon the understanding of his phrase Matter of Worship which he hath given us no light in which either signifies parts of Worship and then we yield it that all such instituted by men are forbidden in this commandment for it 's false worship but then we deny that we are concern'd in it or that any thing not commanded and used by us is a part of Worship And if he thinks otherwise he is as upon other reasons also concern'd to take up the cause of Dr. Ames that he saith he is not concern'd in If by matter of Worship he means the administration Pag. 27. and ordering of it then I deny the parallel that all errors in Matter of Worship areas much forbidden in the second commandment as injuries by the 6th c. For injuries are of the same Species with Murder and Acts of uncleanness are of the same kind with Adultery but errors in the administration of Worship are nothing akin to Idolatry 2. I deny that the doing of things not commanded in the Matter of Worship are so much as errors in his sence since forbidden by no Law as I have shewed The Second point undertaken in the Case of Indifferent Sect. 2. Case of Indiff Things p. 4. c. Things was to shew that there are things Indifferent in the Worship of God and that such things though not prescribed may be lawfully used in it Of this saith our reverend Author none that we Case examined p. 19 20. know of ever doubted and again as it 's stated in that Tract none in his wits did ever deny it I do not think my self obliged to answer for some mens understandings but if that be true what must we think of those whom Mr. Baxter writes of that will have a Rule for every thing and adds take heed of Defence of the principles of love part 2. p. 97. them What of such that when they grant Things Indifferent to be neither commanded nor forbidden will yet say that things not commanded are forbidden What of such that when they have granted and so it 's then granted on both sides that there are Things Indifferent in the Worship of God will yet say that the Case examin'd p. 15. Indifferency of actions to be done while they are employ'd in the Worship of God is all the Question Lastly What of those that when they have yielded that things Indifferent though not prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship will have it put to the Question Whether things not necessary to all human actions may be used in it Who they are or how far they are concerned in the foregoing Character I leave to this Reverend persons Consideration But although none in his Wits did ever deny the Question as stated by me yet because it may be of use toward the clearing of the matters hereafter to be discoursed of I will briefly consider the case as it was then stated and that will appear from the things considered in the state of it and the ways taken to prove it 1. It was granted that things naturally necessary to the Action were excluded since generals act but in their particulars and if some of the kind must accompany the Act then this or that particular of the kind is lawful to be used as it is in time place habit This he grants but only adds that Habit surely is not Pag. 7. necessary we read of none before the Fig-leaves were sown together Gen. 3. But 1. We indeed read of no habit before the Fall but is there nothing natural to man since the Fall What doth our Author think of the Apostle's Natural 1. Corinth 15. 44. Body c as opposed to Heavenly or of the description he gives of the state of mankind when he saith we are by Nature Children of Wrath We read of no Eph 2. 3. such Body or state before the time of the Fig-leaves And yet the Apostle makes bold to call them Natural as belonging to man in his present fallen State
was it that our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles did not only frequent the places but the Service as our Saviour's Customary Preaching in them doth shew What is this to the Ritual Observations our Saviour complied with such as the Passover Cup and their posture at it which he shewed his approbation of in his taking the materials of his last Supper from the Rites used in the Passover as learned men have observed of which Casaubon saith Hoc primum observare juvat quomodo Filius Dei umbras Legis ad veritatem traduxerit This he will by no means hear of and therefore useth several evasions for they are no better Thus when it 's recorded that our Saviour told the disciples with desire have I desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer and in prosecution of it that he took the Cup and gave thanks and said Divide it among your selves for I will not Drink of the Fruit of the Vine c. he irreverently represents it as if it was no more than if he drunk only to satisfie Nature For so he saith Before Christ Case examined Pag. 14. did eat the paschal Supper he drank a Cup of Wine and doubtless at it he drank also though it be not recorded People need no Institution to drink while they are eating As if the Evangelist had no more to do than to tell us Christ drank a Cup of Wine with his Meat Surely there is a better account to be given of this matter The Text it self shews it And the Jewish Authors and others that write of their customs do sufficiently inform us In which he must be very ignorant or incredulous that will say as he doth that no more is signified by it than that Case examined Pag. 32. every one might drink as his appetite required and no less irreverent that can think that what is recorded of our Saviour's taking the Cup and blessing and drinking in the Passover was only to serve that end The next thing I insisted upon was our Saviour's compliance with them in the posture us'd by them at the Passover Pag. 3. contrary as he owns to what was used at the first Institution Of this he saith Our Saviour used the Jewish posture in eating the passover being a posture no where that Pag. 84 we know of used by Idolaters nor being any posture of Adoration but their ordinary posture of eating Meat 2. He saith that every one might use the posture which was most convenient for the Nature of the Action and that he doth not see any reason to conclude they would have shut out any that because of the institution desired to eat it with his loyns girt c. 3. That if they did use any uniform posture yet it was because they agreed it among themselves In all which there is hardly any thing said but is full of mistake As 1. He saith the posture used by our Saviour was no where that he knows of used by Idolaters nor was a posture of Adoration I cannot tell how far our Author's Learning may extend in this matter but that the posture of discumbing was used at festival Solemnities from ancient times by the Grecians Medes Persians Indians Romans and Jews c. and from thence translated to their Sacrifical Feasts which the Heathens did very anciently observe (a) (a) (a) Herodotus l. 1. c. 31. is sufficiently known (b) (b) (b) Casab exercit 16. c. 22 insomuch that the whole Solemnity was call'd amongst the Romans Lectisternium (c) (c) (c) Rosini antiq l. 4. c. 15. This is Confirm'd by Scripture So Amos. 2. 8. They lay themselves down upon Clothes laid to pledge by every Altar c. That is the Beds which they used in the Temples of their Gods saith Casaubon (d) (d) (d) Ibid. from the Jews So Ezek. 23. 41. For satisfaction in which I refer this Reverend Author to others (e) (e) (e) Buxtorf Exercit. xxxv xxxviii And whereas he saith this was no posture of Adoration he must needs be mistaken if he grants what they did in those Solemnities in Honour to their Gods to be Adoration And this they did for it was an entertainment made for them the heathens conceiving that the Gods did then feast with them hence the Poets phrase of (f) (f) (f) Horat. l. â— i. ode 37. ornare pulvinar Deorum dapibus So the Apostle calls their Table the Table of Devils (g) (g) (g) 1 Cor. 10. v. 21. and their lying down there an having fellowship with Devils (h) (h) (h) v. 20. Having said thus much I shall not need to proâ—eed and shew how sitting as well as discumbing hath been also used in Idolatrous Service both amongst Heathens of old and Romanists now especially since I have it sufficiently Falkner's Libert Eccles part 2. c. 3. §. 4. n. 10. proved to my hands in a book I suppose our Author well acquainted with As for what he further saith If the Jews did use one uniform posture c. there needs not many words to shew how precarious or false it is For what more precarious than to speak doubtfully If they did of that which yet is clearly evident they did observe Or affirm that if they did it was because they agreed it among themselves which is to suppose the reason of the thing to be certain when the thing it self according to him is uncertain Or what more false since whether it was by agreement among themselves or by the Authority of the Church that there was this Uniformity of posture is not so certain as it is that there was this Uniformity and that they were universally obliged to use and observe it For it was required that discumbiture should be used in all Religious Feasts but especially at the Passover by all without exception in the first part of the Solemnity For which I refer our Author Lightfoot to one well-versed in these matters So little Truth or certainty is there in what our Author asserts that every one might use the posture which was most convenient and that there was no reason to conclude they would have shut out any from their paschal Societies that desired to eat it with his loyns girt c. or standing The next instance produced in the abovesaid Case of Indifferent things and objected against by our Author is the Hours of Prayer which were observ'd amongst the Jews at Morning Noon and Evening Act. 2 15. c. 10. 9. c. 3. 1. Of these our Author gives this account Thus the Apostles Case Examined p. 19. used the hours of Prayer which also they might have changed if they had pleased That the Jews sent any to Goals or excommunicated any for not keeping to those hours we do not find There is nothing of Religion in the time more then in any other part of time Thus St. Paul used Circumcision and Purification Thus How is that Did the Apostles
it But on the other side he hath no Doubt but is very well assured that he may Lawfully let it alone Or on the contrary he is very well satisfied that the Action is Lawful and that he may do it But he doubts whether Gods Law hath not made it a Duty so that he cannot Lawfully omit it This is that which we call a Single Doubt We call that a Double Doubt where a man doubts on both sides of an Action that is to say he doubts on one side whether he be not bound to do this Action Gods Law for any thing he knows made it a Duty But on the other side so is the Action circumstantiated with respect to him or he with respect to it that he doubts whether he be not bound to forbear the Action as it is now presented to him Gods Law having for any thing he knows forbid it So that he is at a loss what to do because he fears he may sin whether he doth the Action or doth it not I say it will be impossible to put any doubtful Case wherein a mans Conscience is concerned which will not fall under one of these two Heads I. Now as to the Case of a Single Doubt we may thus apply the General Rule That when a man doubts only on one side of an Action there it is more Reasonable to chuse that side of the Action concerning which he hath no Doubt than the other concerning which he Doubts supposing all other Considerations be equal And here comes in that famous Maxim which hath obtained both among Christians and Heathens Quod dubitas ne feceris which with the restriction I have now mentioned will for ever be good Advice in all Cases of this Nature It must needs be unreasonable to venture upon any Action where a man hath the least Fear or Suspicion that it is possible he may transgress some Law of God by it when it is in his power to Act without any Fear or Suspicion of that kind supposing all along this Consideration of the possibility of offending by this Action be not over-ballanced and so the Fear of it removed by other Considerations which the Circumstances of the Action do suggest Thus for Instance Here is a Man Doubts whether it be allowable in a Christian to drink a Health or put out Money to Interest or to go to Law as having conversed with such Men or such Books as do condemn these Practices and that not without some Colour from the Word of God The man is not indeed so convinced by their Discourses as to have taken up any Opinion or Perswasion that these Practices are unlawful nor would he censure any man that uses them because he sees there are as Good Men and for any thing he knows as good Arguments for the other side But he is not so clear in his judgment about these Points as to be able to pronounce any thing positively concerning them either way He cannot say that he believes them Lawful though he is not perswaded that they are unlawful which is the true state of a Doubting mind Now in these and all other such like Cases the Rule is plain That while a mans judgment continues thus in suspence it is more Reasonable for him to forbear these Practices For there is no pretence of obligation upon him from Gods Law to engage in any of them and why should he rashly throw himself into danger by venturing upon an Action concerning which he is uncertain whether it be Lawful or no He runs no hazard by forbearing these things but if he practise them he doth Thus far is right But then as I said this is always to be understood with this Proviso Caeteris paribus For if there should happen to be such other Considerations in the Action as have force enough to over-ballance this Consideration of Vncertainty it will then be reasonable to chuse that side of the Action concerning which I did before doubt rather than that of which I had no doubt at all Thus if the Man that makes a Question about any of the three things I before mentioned should light into such Circumstances that for Instance he must either drink such a single Health or a quarrel is like to ensue nay and that perhaps to the danger of some of the Lives of the Company Or again that he has no means of improving his Money in which his whole Fortune consists in any other way but by that of Vsury so that he and his Family must in time starve unless they be maintained by this Course Or lastly if an Orphan be trusted to his Care and the Estate of that Orphan is so entangled that he must be put upon the necessity either of waging a Law Suit for the clearing it or suffering his near Relation committed to his Charge to be defrauded of his Right I say if the Cases happen to be thus circumstantiated he that before doubted in General whether it was Lawful to drink a Health or to put out money to Vsury or to ingage in Law-Suits may I should think certainly satisfie himself that it is not only Lawful but Expedient in this particular Case notwithstanding his General Doubt to do any of these things and if he be a Wise Man he will make no Scruple of Acting accordingly Indeed he cannot be well excused if he do not thus Act. For it will not be sufficient to say I doubt whether these Practices are Lawful or Vnlawful and therefore I dare not ingage in them Why Man if you only Doubt about them you do by this ackonwledge that for any thing you know they may be Lawful as well as that for any thing you know they may be Vnlawful And if you be thus in aequilibrio sure such pressing Considerations as those which are presented in this Case ought to turn the Ballance Otherwise I do not know how you will answer either to your self or the World for the Consequences that may ensue For my part in such Cases as these I should think that nothing less than a Belief or Perswasion that the thing in Question is unlawful will justifie a mans Prudence in Acting on that side which he calls the Safer and which had not these Circumstances happened would really have been so To conclude if a great Good may be compassed or a great Evil may be avoided by doing a thing concerning which we have a General Speculative Doubt whether it be Lawful or no This very Consideration is in Reason sufficient to silence the Doubt That is it is enough to perswade us that it is not only Lawful but Advisable to do that in the present Circumstances which before and out of those Circumstances we Doubted in general whether it was Lawful to be done or no. II. And thus much concerning the Rule by which we are to proceed in the Case of a Single Doubt I now come to consider that which we call a Double Doubt and to shew what is to be
or leave out of it till all Parties amongst us are satisfied which indeed can never be effected as it doth consist in our becoming more truly Christian in our Lives and Tempers They are our vicious Dispositions more than our different Apprehensions that keep us at such a distance Let the terms of Communion with the Church be what they will yet as long as Men retain the same quarrelsom Mind and industriously seek for Doubts and Scruples and are glad to find them and prefer their own private Opinion and Judgment before the Wisdom and Authority of all their Governours whether Civil or Ecclesiastical it is plain our Divisions and Animosities will not cannot cease But this leads me to the last thing I design'd to discourse of which was to propound to you the best ways and means by which men may get rid of and ease their Minds of such Scruples where I shall especially consider those that relate to our communicating with our Parish-Churches You must not expect that I should descend to and answer the particular Exceptions which hinder men from constant Communion with us but only in general I shall crave leave to advise some few things which would mightily tend to the removing those Doubts and Scruples that yet detain so many in a state of utter Separation from us or at least discourage their total and hearty joyning with us Which charitable Design and Attempt however unsuccessful I may be in it yet cannot I hope be unacceptable to any whose Consciences are pester'd with such Scruples since I endeavour only to deliver them from those Mistakes which beside the disservice they do to Religion and the Protestant Interest do also expose them to trouble and danger from the Publick Laws and Civil Magistrate Of many Rules that might be given in this case I shall insist only on these following 1. We should take great care to beget and cherish in our Minds the most high and worthy and honourable Thoughts of God Almighty This is the Foundation of all Religion and as our Apprehensions of God are such for the most part will be his Worship and Service Accordingly as we conceive of his Nature so shall we judge what things are most pleasing to him as also what they are that are most offensive and distastful to him Now consider I beseech you Can that Man have becoming and excellent Thoughts of the Divine Nature who imagines that God regards any particular Gestures Habits and Postures so far as that the acceptance of our Service and Worship should depend upon such Circumstances of our Religious Actions When with all Humility and true devotion of Heart a sincere Christian prostrates himself at the Throne of God's Grace and with earnest Desire and Affections begs those good things that are according to Gods Mind and Will can we believe that the Father of our Spirits shall refuse and reject his Petition because it is delivered in a certain prescribed form of Words Shall his importunate renewed Requests fail of Success because he still useth the same Expressions and reads his Prayers out of a Book Is God pleased with variety of Words or the copiousness of our Invention or the elegancy of our Phrase and Stile Is it not the Heart and inward frame of Spirit that God principally respects in all our Prayers Or can we think so meanly of God that he should shut his ears against the united Prayers of his People because offended at the colour of the Garment in which the Minister officiates Suppose two Persons both with equal Preparation with true Repentance and Faith to approach the Lord's Table one of them out of a deep sense of his Unworthiness to receive so great Blessings and out of a grateful acknowledgment of the Benefits therein conferr'd upon him takes the Sacrament upon his Knees in the humblest Posture the other sitting or standing can you think that the Sacrament is effectual or beneficial or that God blesses it only to him that sits or that it would not have been of the same advantage to him if he also had received it kneeling To surmise any such thing is surely to dishonour God as if he were a low poor humoursome Being like a Father that should disinherit his Child tho in all Respects most dutiful to him and every way deserving his greatest Kindness only because he did not like his Complexion or the colour of his Hair The wiser and greater any Person is to whom we address our selves the less he will stand upon little Punctilio's Under the Jewish Law the minutest circumstances of Worship were exactly described and determined by God himself and it was not ordinarily lawful for the Priests at all to vary from them But it was necessary then that it should be thus because the Jewish Worship was typical of what was to come hereafter and those many nice Observances that were appointed were not commanded for themselves as if there were any Excellency in them but they were shadows of things to come which are all now done away by the Gospel and the bringing in of everlasting Righteousness the only thing always pleasing to God and agreeable to his Nature It is a spiritual rational Service God now expects from us and delights in and he must look upon God as a very fond and captious Being who can perswade himself that our Prayers and Thanksgivings and other Acts of Worship tho we be most hearty and devout in them yet shall be rejected by him only because of some particular Habits or Gestures we used which were neither dishonourable to God nor unsutable to the nature of those religious Performances Such mean Thoughts of God are the true ground of all Superstition when we think to court and please him by making great Conscience about little things and so it hath been truly observed that there is far more Superstition in conscientious abstaining from that which God hath no where forbid than there is in doing that which God hath not commanded A man may certainly do what God hath not commanded and yet never think to flatter God by it nor place any Religion in it but he may do it only out of obedience to his Superiours for outward Order and Decency for which end our Ceremonies are appointed and so there is no Superstition in them But now a Man cannot out of Conscience refuse to do what God hath not forbid and is by lawful Authority required of him but he must think to please God by such abstaining and in this conceit of pleasing or humouring God by indifferent things consists the true Spirit of Superstition 2. Lay out your great care and zeal about the necessary and substantial duties of Religion and this will make you less concerned about things of an inferiour and indifferent nature As on the one hand our fierce Disputes and Debates about little things and circumstances are apt to eat out the Heart and Life of Religion so on the other side minding those things most in
do any thing in God's Worship but what is so determined it follows that God cannot be worshipped at all unless we could worship him in no Time Place Habit or Gesture nor indeed can I learn how a Christian can with a good Conscience perform any part of God's Worship if this Principle be admitted for true that whatsoever is not commanded is forbid since the external Circumstances of religious Actions without which they cannot be performed are not prescribed or determined in Scripture and so he must commit a Sin every time he prays or receives the Holy Sacrament Besides this Reason would oblige us to separate from all the Churches that ever were or are in the World there being no constituted Church in which there are not some Orders and Injunctions for the regulating the publick Worship of God no where commanded in Scripture We could never upon this Principle have held Communion with the Primitive Churches which undoubtedly had their instituted significant Ceremonies nor is there any Church at this day that hath not by its own Authority determined some of the Circumstances of Divine Service for the more decent and orderly Performance thereof Nay those very Persons that make this Exception do themselves practise many things in the Worship of God without the least shadow of a Divine Command to which they oblige their Hearers and Communicants for conceived Prayers sitting at the Eucharist sprinkling the Infant at Baptism the Minister's officiating in a black Cloak or Coat are full out as unscriptural humane uncommanded as any Gesture Habit or Form used in our Church 2. That is said to be unlawful which hath been abused to sinful Purposes to Idolatry or Superstition so that nothing ought to be retained in our Worship tho it be not forbid by God which was used in times of Popery Hence the ordinary Objection against our Parish Churches is that they are not sufficiently purged from Popery that our first Reformers were indeed excellent and worthy Persons for the Times they lived in that what they did was very commendable and a good Beginning but they were forced to comply with the necessities of the Age which would not bear a compleat Reformation They left a great deal of Popish Trash in the Church hoping by degrees to reconcile the Papists to it or at least that they might not make the Breach too wide and too much prejudice or estrange them from it But we now live under better means have greater Light and Knowledge and so a further and more perfect Amendment is now necessary Thus the Order of Bishops is decried as Popish and Antichristian our Liturgy as taken out of the Mass Book and our Ceremonies as Relicks of Idolatry But the truth of the case is this We must consider that those of the Church of Rome do hold and maintain all the Essentials of Christianity but then by degrees as they found Opportunity they have added a number of impious and pernicious Doctrines to the Christian Faith the Belief and Profession of which they equally require of all that are in their Communion Besides this they have introduced several idolatrous and superstitious Rites and Practises into the Service of their Church never heard of for the first four hundred Years by which they have miserably defaced and corrupted the Worship of God and made it necessary for all those that love their own Salvation to separate from them Now our first Reformers here in England did not go about to invent a new Species of Government to devise new Rites and Ceremonies and a new form of Worship such as should be least excepted against and then obtrude it upon this Nation as was done at Geneva and some other places but they wisely considered that if they did but reject what the Romanists had added to the Faith and Worship of Christians lay aside their novel Inventions Usurpations and unwritten Traditions there would remain the pure simple Primitive Christianity such as it was before the Roman Church was thus degenerated nor have we any thing of Popery left amongst us but what the Papists had left amongst them of Primitive Religion and Worship As we must not receive the evil for the sake of the good so neither must we reject the good for the sake of the evil In our Church we pray neither to Saints nor Angels nor the Virgin Mary our Liturgy is in a known Tongue we deny the Laity no part of the Sacrament nor the reading of the Scriptures we offer no Mass Sacrifice nor Worship Images or the consecrated Bread We have not one Doctrine or Ceremony in use amongst us that is purely Popish But we must be obliged to part with the most sacred venerable and usefullest things in our Religion if this be a sufficient reason of our forbearing any thing because the Papists abuse it This therefore I conclude to be the best and plainest rule for the governing of our Consciences not wilfully to omit any thing that God hath commanded to avoid to the utmost of our Power what God hath forbid and what ever else we have no particular Divine Law about to guide our selves by the general Rules of Scripture the commands of our Superiours and by the measures of Prudence Peace and Charity This one rule and it cannot but seem a very reasonable one would soon put an end to our squabbles and janglings about Forms and Ceremonies and other indifferent things 5. In order to the bringing men to a complyance with the Laws of our Church we must desire them to consider that there never was nor ever will be any publick Constitution that will be every way unexceptionable The best policy whether Civil or Ecclesiastical that can be established will have some flaws and defects which must be borne and tolerated Some Inconveniences will in process of time arise that never could be foreseen or provided against and to make alteration upon every emergent difficulty may be often of worse consequence than the evil we pretend to cure by it Let the Rules and Modes of Government Discipline publick Worship be most exact and blameless yet there will be faults in Governours and Ministers as long as they are but men We must not expect in this World a Church without Spot or Wrinkle that consists only of Saints in which nothing can be found amiss especially by those who lye at the catch and wait for an advantage against it If men will scruple and reform as long as any thing remaineth which they can object against they must e'en come at last as a Reverend Person of our Church hath observed to the state of that miserable Man who left all humane Society that he might not be defiled with other Mens Sins and at last cut out the Contents of Chapters and Titles of Books out of the Bible because they were humane Inventions added to the pure Word of God Men must be willing if ever they would promote Peace and Unity to put candid Constructions and
as Expositors generally interpret it thou shalt utter Spiritual Psalms and Hymns by immediate inspiration on the place and to the same purpose is the word used Numb 11. 25. 1 Chron. 25. 1. and accordingly in the New Testament it is said of Zacharias that he was filled with the Holy Ghost and prophesied saying blessed be the Lord God of Israel c. The matter of all which Prayers and Praises together with those in the Book of Psalms and sundry others recorded in Scripture was immediately dictated to those inspir'd persons by the Holy Ghost and deliver'd by them without any recourse to their own invention or consideration though as to the words of them it may be justly question'd whether they were not left to their own composure as it seems very probable the words of all other inspirations were for considering how the inspired persons differ'd in their stile according as they differ'd in their education in their natural parts and intellectual improvements it is very likely they themselves composed and worded their own inspirations the Spirit of God taking care only so to oversee and direct them that their words might not misrepresent their matter and if so how much less reason have we to suppose that the Spirit inspires the words of our Prayers but this I shall not insist on However after that great descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost wherein the gift of Tongues was communicated to enable the first Planters of the Gospel to propagate it through the World it 's certain that not only the Matter of their Prayers but even the very Language too in which they express them was immediately inspired insomuch that they were not only inabled to Pray upon the place in apt and fluent Expressions but also to Pray in Languages which they never understood before and which even then they understood but very imperfectly and also to interpret those Prayers into the vulgar Language which themselves or others had utter'd in unknown Tongues and this among others the Apostle calls a Spiritual Gift 1 Cor. 12. 1. which as I remember is the only place where the Gift of Prayer is mention'd in Scripture and in 1 Cor. 14. 14. it is also call'd a Spirit where he gives us an account at large of this miraculous way of praying Now that this miraculous Gift of praying in and interpreting Prayers out of unknown Tongues was extraordinary and temporary and peculiar to the Primitive Ages of Christianity is evident because the design of it was not only to enable the first Planters of the Gospel to perform their Ministerial Office in the vulgar Languages of the several Nations they were sent to but also to be a sign from God as all other Miracles were for the confirmation of the Gospel for so the Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 14. 22. That Tongues were for a sign not to them that believe but to them that believe not and therefore since it 's granted of all hands that the gift of Miracles was extraordinary and intended only for a demonstration of the Gospel to the Infidel World and after that to cease there can be no doubt but this miraculous Gift of Prayer was so too But that the Spirit 's inditing the Matter and if you will the words of those inspired Prayers was also extraordinary will require a larger proof because it is look'd upon by many of our dissenting Brethren as an ordinary and standing Gift which the Spirit doth and will communicate to all successive Ages of the World Against this Opinion of theirs therefore I shall briefly offer these following Reasons to their consideration 1. That there is no promise of any such Gift and therefore no reason to expect the continuance of it For whatsoever standing and ordinary benefits we receive from God we receive them by vertue of the New Covenant in which he hath promised to us all those good things which we can reasonably expect at his hands and the promise of God being the only foundation of our hope it is presumption to promise our selves what he hath not promised us but now in all the New Covenant we have not the least intimation of any such promise viz. That the Spirit will immediately indite to us the Matter and Expressions of our Prayers For as for that of Zachary 12. 10. which is the only promise that is pretended in the case it 's evident at first sight that it 's nothing to the purpose I will pour out upon the Inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of Grace and Supplications and they shall look upon me whom they have pierc'd and they shall mourn What is all this to the immediate inspiration of the Matter and Expressions of our Prayer when it 's plain that the Spirit of Supplication here is the same with the Spirit of Grace or of inward Piety and Devotion even as the following words imply and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced and mourn that is for their horrid sin of crucifying me But that there is no such promise in the New Covenant is evident from what is acknowledged of all hands viz. That there are many good Christians who could never pretend to any such inspiration who are some of them fain to be beholding to their own recollection and invention for the Matter and Words of their Prayers and others for want of a sufficient quickness of invention to be beholding to Forms of Prayer of other mens composure neither of which they need were they immediately inspir'd And I am very confident 't would be look'd upon by all sober Dissenters as a very rash and unjust censure to affirm that a man cannot be a good Christian who doth not pray by immediate inspiration but is always fain to depend either on his own invention or a Form of Prayer for the Matter and Expressions of his Devotions and if so how can this consist with a standing promise of immediate inspiration of Prayer in the New Covenant unless we will suppose that there are Blessings promised in the New Covenant to which good Christians may have no right or title and of which they may never actually partake which is utterly to destroy the nature of the Covenant which extends to all who perform the conditions of it and to cut off all our dependance upon it 2. That as there is no promise so there is no need of any such immediate inspiration 'T is true Christ hath promised by his Spirit to be with us to the end of the World and assur'd us that he will give his Spirit unto every one that asks and to what end hath he promised this but only to supply our Necessities and inable us to perform those Duties which through our own impotency we cannot perform without him for so he argues from the readiness of Parents to supply their Children with what is necessary to their bodily life and subsistence to the readiness of God to bestow his Spirit that is to all the purposes that
Prayer and since in fact there is another means of Prayer besides this of praying in our own words viz. praying in the words of others which God hath left as free to us as the former it plainly follows from the whole that to omit the use of our own Gift and in the stead of it to use that other Gift of praying in the words of others is not in it self any way sinful or unlawful Case III. Whether the Vse of Publick Forms of Prayer doth not deaden the Devotion of Prayer For thus our Brethren argue that by the command of God we are obliged not only to pray but to pray with the utmost devotion we are able and accordingly to use such means of Prayer as are most apt to heighten and intend our devotion and thus far we agree with them if therefore Forms are in themselves and not through our fault and erroneous prejudice less apt to quicken and raise devotion than conceiv'd Prayers it will be granted of all hands that this is a good Argument against the use of them This therefore is the case wherein we differ our Brethren say that Forms of Publick Worship for 't is that we are now discoursing of are in themselves apt to dispirit and deaden the Devotions of those that use them we say the contrary viz. that publick Forms are in themselves more apt to improve and quicken the common Devotions than Extemporary Prayers of the Ministers own conceiving In order therefore to the clearing and full resolution of this Case we will briefly enquire into these three things 1. What these advantages to Publick Devotion are which conceived or extemporary Prayers pretend to 2. Whether these Advantages are not for the most part fantastical and imaginary and whether so far as they are real they are not much more peculiar to Forms than to extempore Prayer 3. Whether besides these common advantages publick Forms have not peculiar advantages which conceiv'd Prayers cannot pretend to 1. We will enquire what those advantages to the publick Devotions are which conceiv'd or extemporary Prayers pretend to in short it is pretended in the behalf of conceiv'd Prayers that they do much more fix the attention and raise the intention of the Peoples minds in Prayer than publick Forms that is that they do more confine the rovings of mens thoughts in Prayer and keep their minds more attentive to it and that they do much more warm and enliven their affections in it for say our Brethren the Devotions of the people are very much rais'd or deaden'd by the performance of the Minister according as he is more or less devout in it and as for the Minister he must needs be much more devout in a Prayer of his own conceiving than in the use of a publick Form because first say they 't is impossible for him to keep his mind so attentive in reading a Prayer as in conceiving one in his own mind and speaking it from his own conceptions the care of performing which naturally bounds the wanderings of his thoughts and keeps them more fixt and attentive and secondly because when he utters his words immediately from his affections his thoughts have not that scope to wander as when he reads them out of a Book And as conceived Prayer doth more fix the attention of the Minister so it doth also more raise his intention or in other words more warm and inflame his affections for first whereas in reading a Form his affections follow his words and are raised and excited by them in conceived Prayer his words follow his affections and are immediately utter'd from and indited by them and secondly How is it possible say they that the words of another which he reads out of a Form should so well express his affections as his own besides thirdly that while he is reading his Form his soul is so intent in directing his eye to read that it cannot direct its affections to God with that fervour and intention as it might do in conceiv'd Prayer These are the supposed helps which the Ministers devotion and from his the Peoples receive from conceiv'd Prayers above what Forms of Prayer can afford and as conceiv'd Prayer hath these peculiar advantages to raise the Ministers devotion and by his the Peoples so it hath another advantage by which it more immediately influences the devotion of the People viz. that the matter of it is still exprest in new words which must needs much more affect the attention of the People than when it is always exprest in the same words without any variation And this so far as I can gather from the Writings of our Brethren is the sum of what they plead in behalf of conceiv'd Prayer as to its peculiar advantageousness to publick Devotion above stated Forms 2. Therefore we will inquire whether these Advantages are not in a great measure imaginary and whether so far as they are real they are not much more peculiar to Forms than to conceiv'd Prayer And here I will readily grant that by expressing a serious and devout affection the Minister doth really advantage the Devotion of the Congregation even as by his good example in all other things he excites the people to a pious and virtuous imitation in whose eyes devotion never looks so amiable as when 't is exprest in serious and well compos'd words accompanied with a devout a sober and affectionate behaviour both which are equally necessary to excite the devotion of the People if therefore it be really true that the use of conceived or extempore Prayer is in its own nature most apt to fix the attention and excite the intention of the Minister in Prayer it must be confest that herein it hath the advantage of Forms 1. Therefore we will inquire whether these advantages it pretends to as to the exciting the Ministers attention in Prayer be real or no The first advantage is that the very conceiving the matter of his Prayer and speaking it from his own conceptions doth naturally more bind his attention than the reading it out of a Form but I beseech you what doth it more bind him to attend to is it to attend to the words and phrases if so then 't is not to attend to the acts of Prayer or is it to attend to those acts which are the proper business of Prayer that is to be asham'd of sin and to bewail it in confession to be sensible of the common wants and common dependancies upon God for supply in petition to admire God's perfections and gratefully commemorate his goodness in praise and thanksgiving for in these things the true devotion both of Minister and People consists and 't is only by being an example of these in his Prayer that the Minister excites the devotion of his people 't is by confessing sin as if he were asham'd of and sorry for it that he excites their shame and sorrow by petitioning for mercy as if he were sensible of the want of it and did
heartily desire it and depended upon God for it that he excites their sense of need and their desire and hope of relief and supply by praising and thanking God as if he heartily admired his excellencies and gratefully resented his goodness that he excites their admiration and gratitude that mode of Prayer therefore which is most apt to fix the Ministers attention to these acts of devotion must needs be most apt to excite the devotions of the people Now as for the mode of praying from his own conceptions I really think that it is much more apt to unfix the Ministers attention to these acts than that of praying by a Form because it forces him to attend to other things at the same time viz. the recollection of matter and invention of sutable expressions which must more or less divert him from attending to the inward acts of devotion according as his fancy and tongue are more or less pregnant and voluble it being impossible for him to attend at the same time to several things as closely as he may to one but when he prays by a Form his matter and words are ready before him and so he hath nothing else to do but to attend to his devotion and certainly when a man hath but one thing to do in Prayer he may attend to that more fixedly and closely than when he hath two or three 't is true by being released from attending to the invention of his matter and words his mind is more at leisure to wander and instead of attending as he ought more closely to the acts of devotion by imploying those thoughts which in conceiv'd Prayer he imploys in invention in a closer attention to the acts of devotion he may if he please permit them to rove abroad but if he doth the fault is in himself and not in the Form he prays by the design of his Form is to release his mind from all other business in Prayer but only that of inward devotion which is the life of Prayer that so it may be the more attentive to it but if instead of applying his mind to this design he suffers it to wander abroad he makes an ill use of a good thing and converts that which is in it self a help to devotion into an occasion of indevotion But 't is objected that while his thoughts are imployed in inventing the matter and words of his Prayer they are attending to the duty of Prayer and while they are so they are well imploy'd though they should not be so attentively fixt upon the inward devotion of Prayer as they might be in the use of a Form to which in short I answer That to invent the matter and words of Prayer is not to pray but to study a Prayer and till our Brethren have proved that our inventing the matter and words is a part of our duty of Prayer which is the Question in debate between us we can by no means grant that our attention to it is attending to the duty of Prayer we believe that when we pray devoutly by a Form we discharge the whole duty of Prayer though we do not invent the matter and words our selves and when we see the contrary proved we will not only yield that to attend to inventing is to attend to the duty of Prayer but that it is unlawful to pray by a Form but in the mean time we can yield neither one nor t'other Seeing then that Forms are in themselves more apt to fix the Ministers attention to the inward acts of devotion and seeing that 't is by attending to these acts or at least by seeming to do so that he influences the attention of the people it necessarily follows that in this respect Forms are more advantageous to publick devotion than conceiv'd or extemporary Prayer But then 2. It is pretended that conceiv'd Prayer is in it self more apt to fix the Ministers attention in Prayer than Forms because in conceiv'd Prayer he utters his words immediately from his affections by reason of which his thoughts have not that scope to wander as when he reads them out of a Book to which in short I answer That if he hath devout affections he may utter his words as immediately from his affections in a Form as in a conceiv'd Prayer and therefore this pretence is altogether insignificant for his own invention is as much a medium between his affections and utterance in Praying extempore as the Book in praying by a Form as for instance suppose that in confessing sin he be affected with shame and sorrow he cannot express it in words but by using his own invention or a Form and whether he uses one or t'other he uses a medium to express it and why those words which he reads should not be as immediate to his affections as those which he invents provided they do as fully express them I am not able to apprehend in short therefore if he hath devout affections they will at least as much confine his thoughts from wandering when he prays by Form as when he prays Extempore if he hath not he cannot utter his words from his affections either in the one or t'other 2. We will inquire whether those advantages which our Brethren ascribe to conceiv'd Prayer above Forms as to the raising the Ministers intention in Prayer be real or no first they pretend that in reading a Form his affections follow his words and are raised and excited by them whereas in praying extempore his words follow his affections This I confess is a very curious distinction but I am not able to apprehend either what foundation there is for it or how it is applicable to the matter for first what necessity is there either that his affections should follow his words in a Form more than in a conceiv'd Prayer or that his words should follow his affections in a conceiv'd Prayer more than in a Form why may not a man be devoutly affected with the matter he prays for before he expresses it in a Form of words as well as before he expresses it extempore since if he be acquainted with the Form he cannot but know before-hand what he is to pray for in it and therefore if he be truly devout cannot but be affected with it before he prays for it and so on the other hand why may not a man as well be unaffected with the matter he prays for in conceiv'd Prayer till he hath exprest it as with the matter he prays for in a Form or what reason can be assign'd why the affection may not follow the words and be excited by them in the one as well as in the other may not a man pray inconsiderately and suffer his tongue to run before his heart in both and may not his affections which were before asleep be awakened by the sound of his words in either In short therefore since in praying by a Form a man may know as well at least and hath as much time to consider the
the Ministers pray'd by their own Gifts and Abilities But this hath been so fully answer'd by our learned Doctor Faulkner (b) (b) (b) Libert Eccles 113. that I am apt to think 't will hardly be objected any more for he hath prov'd at large that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie with all his might i. e. with his utmost intention and fervency for so as he shews it must necessarily signifie in another place of his Apology (c) (c) (c) Apol. 2. p. 60. where speaking of the praying of Christians in general at the Eucharist he tells us that they did praise God with Prayers and Thanksgivings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is with all their might which cannot signifie according to their Gifts and Abilities Since whatsoever the Minister might do it 's certain the People did not compose their own Prayers at the Eucharist and therefore it must signifie with their utmost fervour and intention in which sence as he shews the same phrase is used by Nazianzen (d) (d) (d) Nazian Orat. 3. Another Testimony they object against the use of Forms is that of Tertullian who affirms (e) (e) (e) Sine Monitore quia de pectore Oremus Tertul. Apolog. That the Christians did pray without a Monitor or Prompter because they pray'd from their hearts in which words say they he plainly alludes to a Custom of the Heathen who in their publick Worship had a Monitor to direct them in what words and to what God they were to offer up their Prayers When therefore he says that they pray'd without a Monitor his meaning must be say they that they pray'd without any one to direct them what Form of words they were to pray in To which I answer first That supposing he here speaks of the publick Worship as it seems most probable it 's evident that by this phrase without a Monitor he cannot mean without any one to dictate or prescribe a Form of words to them for in their ordinary publick Prayers their Minister was the Mouth of the Congregation and whether he pray'd by Form or Extempore his words were a Form of words to them in which they were obliged to frame and express their Devotions so that either this phrase without a Monitor must import that they had none to dictate and minister to them in their publick Prayers or it cannot import that they had no publick Forms to pray by because if they had any to dictate to them his extempore Prayer would have been as much a Monitor to direct them what words to pray in as if it had been a stated Form of Liturgy Whatever therefore this obscure phrase means it 's certain it cannot mean without a Form unless it be allowed to mean without a Minister too But then 2ly not to take notice of the various guesses which learned men make at the meaning of it and by which it is sufficiently vindicated from meaning without a Form of Prayer it seems to me most probable that without a Monitor here is meant without any one to correct them when either they repeated or the Minister recited the publick Prayers falsly for the Gods of the Heathen being various and having each their various Offices and Provinces allotted them it was the manner of their Priests to begin their publick Sacrifices with a Form of Prayer (f) (f) (f) A. Gellins Noct. Attic. l. 13. c. 21. which began with an Invocation of Janus and Vesta and proceeded with various Invocations of all the greater Deities by name (g) (g) (g) Rosm Antiq Rom. l. 3. c. 33. in which they implored such favours of each Deity as lay within their particular Province to bestow thus for instance when they invocated Bacchus they began thus O Bacchus Son of Semele the bestower of Riches (h) (h) (h) Casaub in Ann. Eccl. Exercit 16. N. 42. when they offer'd the Cake to Janus O Father Janus with this I offer thee my good Prayers that thou wouldest be propitious to me c. (i) (i) (i) Festus in verbor signif So for Jupiter Dapalis With this Cake O Jupiter I offer thee my good Prayers that thou wouldest have mercy on me my House and Family (k) (k) (k) Cato de re Rustic c. 134. and so for Mars I pray thee O Mars to be propitious to me my Field and Corn and Wine and Cattel (l) (l) (l) Ibid. 141. Which several Invocations that there might be none of the names of their greater Gods pretermitted nor none of the Prayers falsly or disorderly recited or repeated were with great care recited by a Priest out of the Ritual and repeated after him by the People (m) (m) (m) Brison de formal l. 1. p. 61. there being another Priest appointed for a publick Monitor for so Pliny tells us (n) (n) (n) Plin. l. 28. cap. 2. Vidimus certis precationibus obsecrasse summos Magistratus ut nequid verborum praetermitatur aut praeposterum dicatur de scripto praeire aliquem rursusque alium custodem dari qui attendat When any of the Chief Magistrates offer certain Prayers lest any of the Sacred Words should be omitted or preposterously pronounc'd they have one to dictate them to them out of a Book and another who is Overseer diligently to attend And accordingly Livy observes (o) (o) (o) Liv. l. 4. Obsecratio itaque a populo duumviris praeeuntibus est facta That Prayer was made by the People two men going before or dictating to them now that this latter of the two whom Pliny calls the Custos or Overseer was the Monitor whom Tertullian alludes to seâ—ms very probable because as Livy observes his business was proeire populo i. e. to dictate to the People after him who according to Pliny's account did de scripto praeire i. e. dictate to them out of the Book and to what other purpose should he dictate to them what had been dictated before but onely to admonish and correct them when they repeated falsly or disorderly especially considering that the reason which Pliny assigns why this Custos was appointed was lest any of the Sacred Words should be omitted or preposterously repeated which was look'd upon as a very ill Omen But how could he prevent this unless it were his Office to admonish and correct either the Priest or People or both when he read or they repeated them falsly This Monitor therefore was not he who read the Prayers or dictated them to the People out of the Book but he whose Office 't was to oversee either that they were rightly dictated or rightly repeated or both and indeed there was more need that he should oversee that they were rightly repeated than that they were rightly dictated because they were dictated out of a Book and so could not be so easily dictated as repeated falsly But suppose his Office were to oversee both yet since they were dictated in order to their being repeated he
onely oversaw their being dictated rightly in order to their being repeated rightly When therefore Tertullian saith We pray without a Monitor his meaning is not that we pray without a Priest to dictate our Prayers to us whether it were out of a Book or extempore but that we pray without a Custos or Overseer either to admonish our People of their repeating the Prayers falsly or to admonish our Priests of their dictating them falsly in order to the Peoples repeating them rightly Because saith he we pray from our hearts which words may admit of a twofold interpretation first because we do not vocally repeat our Prayers after our Priest but onely joyn our affections with them and send up our hearts and desires after them or 2ly because we can say our Prayers by heart and so are in no great danger of repeating them falsly and consequently have no such need of a Monitor to observe and correct us for it is well known how much Tertullian in all his Writings affects to imitate and express the Greek which renders him oftentimes so very obscure and therefore it 's probable enough as hath been observ'd (p) (p) (p) Thornd Relig. Assem p. 237. that his de pectore here or from the heart may be onely a translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to say by heart according to which account these words of Tertullian are so far from testifying against the use of Forms that they rather argue the use of them for since he onely denies their having a Monitor he doth in effect grant their having a Priest to read the publick Prayers to them as well as the Heathen and if from the heart be in Tertullian's Language the same with by heart it 's a plain case that they used Forms for otherwise how could they have them by heart That this is the true account of this difficult phrase I will not confidently affirm because it is onely my own single guess but whether it be or no it 's certain it can no more signifie without a Form of Prayer than without a Minister to pray extempore the one being as much a Monitor to the People as the other The last Testimony which our Brethren urge against the Antiquity of Forms of Prayer is that of Sucrates Scholasticus (q) (q) (q) Soc. Hist l. 5. c. 21. whose words they thus translate Everywhere and in all Worships of Prayer there are not two to be found that speak the same words and therefore say they it 's very unlikely they should pray by receiv'd Forms But how far this is from the sence of the Author will evidently appear by considering what he had been before discoursing of In short therefore he had been just before relating the different Customs that were used in several Churches and among the rest he tells us that in Hellas Jerusalem and Thessalia the Prayers were made whilst the Candles were lighting according to the manner of the Novatians at Constantinople and that in Caesarea of Cappadocia and Cyprus the Presbyters and Bishops always interpreted the Scripture on the Saturday and Lord's-day in the evening the Candles being lighted that the Novatians in the Hellespont did not observe the same manner of praying with those of Constantinople but that for the most part they followed the Customs of the chief Churches among them and then he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. upon the whole every where and among all the Worships of Prayer there are not two to be found that agree in the same thing where by Worships of Prayer it 's plain he means the Ceremonies and Rites of Prayer that were used in several Churches for 't was of these he had been immediately before discoursing and therefore his meaning can be no more than this that among all the constituted Rites and Ceremonies of Prayer that were used in the several Churches there were not two to be found that agreed in the same and how doth it follow that because they did not use the same Rites and Ceremonies of Prayer therefore they did not use Forms of Prayer for even now we see there are different Rites of Prayer among those Churches which do yet agree in using Forms of Prayer And now I proceed to the second thing proposed which was to prove the use of Forms of Prayer in the primitive Ages by a short Historical Account of the Matter of Fact That in the first Age there was a Gift of praying extempore by immediate inspiration seems highly probable both from what the Apostle discourses of praying in unknown Languages 1 Cor. 14. and from what St. Chrysostom asserts concerning it (r) (r) (r) Chrys in Rom. 8. 26. viz. That together with those miraculous Gifts which were then poured out there was a Gift of Praying which was called by the Apostle a Spirit by which he who was endued with it poured out Prayers for all the People and while this Gift continued perhaps which how long it was is very uncertain there might no other Form be used in publick Worship in those places especially where it abounded but onely that of the Lord's Prayer and it may be in imitation of this Gift upon which even in the Apostles time the Christians were apt to over-value themselves some might affect to pray extempore after it was wholly expired but it is highly probable that upon the ceasing or abatement of it it was in most places immediately supplied by Forms of Prayer which were composed either of the words or according to the method and manner of those inspired Prayers by Apostolical persons that heard and remembred them for so as the same St. Chrysostom goes on (s) (s) (s) Chrys ibid. For we being ignorant of many things which are profitable for us do ask many things which are unprofitable and therefore this Gift of Prayer was given to some one person that was there i. e. in the Congregation who ask'd for all that which was profitable for the universal Church and taught others to do so that is to form Prayers according to those inspired Models for though I do not pretend that there were no other Prayers used in publick but onely Forms either in or presently after the Age of the Apostles yet it seems most probable that even from the Apostolical Age some part at least of the publick Worship was perform'd in Forms of Prayer and if so we have all the reason in the world to conclude that these Forms were composed according to the Pattern of those primitive inspired Prayers Now that there were Forms from the Apostolical Age seems highly probable because so far as we can find there never was any dispute among Christians concerning the lawfulness of praying by a Form Had this way of praying been introduc'd after the Primitive Ages it would have been a most observable innovation upon the Primitive Christianity and that in such a publick matter of fact that every Christian could not but take notice
that the Minister should read all as he does other parts of the Scripture but that the People should recite the Psalms and other Godly Hymns with the Minister by way of Answering in turns as the Custom is with us more or less in most Places For when the People rise up to do this in order to the Solemn Praising of God this is much nearer to singing wherein the People are allowed to bear a part in God's Vocal Praise than the Ministers reciting all himself and shutting out the People from any part thereof But it is Objected particularly against the reciting of one Verse of the Psalms by the Minister and another by the People that the Peoples Verse is in a manner lost to some of the Congregation since in the confused murmur of so many Voices nothing can be distinctly heard Now if our Brethren should admit of what has been already said in Vindication of these Responsals I hope this Objection will not be insisted upon I grant that which is uttered in the Congregation ought to be understood But then those Verses of the Psalms which are uttered by the Congregation may be well enough understood by every one that has a Book or who is acquainted competently well with the Psalms themselves I need not say much in answer to this Objection because it may be removed by every one that makes it if he can read and will bring a Book along with him And as for those that cannot I must needs say that it is not so hard as is pretended for them also to take those Verses which are uttered by those that are near them if they will carefully attend And I have been credibly informed that some devout People that could never read have attained to an ability of reciting most of the Psalms without Book by often hearing them in those Churches where they are alternately recited which shews that the Murmur is not so confused but that the Words may be heard ditinctly enough to be understood if one has a mind to it And then they that cannot read may by this means be more quickned than otherwise they would be to learn to read however to attend and to learn the Psalms without Book that they also may bear their part Vocally with the Congregation in God's Praises I shall add That for the most part the Psalms are recited alternately in those Churches only where it may be reasonably presumed that the whole Congregation can read very few excepted For by the way this Method of reading the Psalms is not Commanded but every Parish Church is left at liberty to observe her own Custom about it In the Country Parishes the Minister generally recites all which way I do not think so convenient as that of Responsals for the Reason I gave before But there ought to be no breach amongst us about things of this Nature in which one way may perhaps be more convenient in one respect and the contrary more convenient in another and then we should not altogether dwell upon Considerations that favour our own opinion but attend also to those that may be offered for another and put the best construction upon it especially in favour of a Publick Rule or a received Custom This is more Christian-like and will be more for the honour of Religion and the good of other Mens Souls and for our own Comfort at last than to strain our utmost Wit to find faults with and to aggravate Inconveniences against the Laws or Usages of the Church where we live This that I am now speaking of is not a Law imposed on all the Churches of our National Communion but a Custom of some of them which I thought good to desend that they who think not so highly well of it as I do may not yet break Communion with those that use it And I hope our Brethren who grant the People are not to be excluded from Vocal Praise will consider that there is no inconvenience in uttering the Psalms by Responsals but that which is pretended concerning the difficulty to understand what is said And that there is very little reason for this pretence seeing the Psalms are the most known parts in the Bible and that if those few who cannot read will be careful they may reap great benefit by attending to the Congregation as some have done till themselves have been able to recite the Psalms 2. If they grant it Lawful and Expedient that the People should joyn in Vocal Praise I cannot see how they can Dispute the lawfulness or expedience of their joyning with the Minister sometimes in Vocal Prayer It will not be easie to shew a Reason why this should be disallowed if that be allowed If it be said there is some Example and Warrant in the Scripture for the one but not for the other it seems to be a good answer that there is such a parity of reason as that the express warrant of the Scripture for one is an implied warrant for the other Unless a Man will say that Nothing must be done in Gods Worship for which there is not express and particular Warrant which though a Man may say when he is opposing a way of Worship which he likes not yet he will not say it when he comes to defend his own It is a Principle that no Man will stand by though sometimes he may take it up to serve a turn The truth is the Scripture does not pretend to give us a perfect account of the Order and Manner of the Solemn Worship of God either in the Synagogues of the Jews or in the Churches of Christians nor to prescribe a Form for the Service of God by the Church in after times Several things were done in the Religious Assemblies of Christians first of all that were peculiar to the extraordinary effusion of the Spirit in those times and several that were fit enough for the conduct of God's Service when Miracles should cease and of both sorts some are intimated in St. Paul's two Epistles to the Corinthians but no Man that understands these things will say that they are all intimated there or any where else in the New Testament And therefore it does not follow that they did not observe in their Worship this or that Custom from hence that we do not find it written that they observed it We do not read that the Lords Prayer was used in the time of the Apostles but I suppose they are very few who will therefore make a question whether it was used or not We are able to shew that the Peoples joyning in Vocal Prayer with the Minister was very anciently practised In imitation of the way of the Christians Julian the Apostate appointed a Form of Prayer for the Heathen to be recited in Parts which shews that this was a known Custom Naz. Orat. 3. of the Church in those days and that it had been generally practised before And if this was the Primitive way it is more probable that it
also to be observed that the Chapters omitted are those of the Old Testament which either recite Genealogies or the Rules of the Levitical Service or which relate matters of Fact delivered also in other Chapters that are read or which are hard to be understood This seems to Apologise for the Churches leaving those to be considered at home by them that have ability so to do and appointing some Apocryphal Chapters to be read which are more plain and in that respect more profitable for the Common People Unless a Man will say that because the Scripture is all of Divine Authority it must be always more profitable to read any part of that to the people than to use any other Exhortation or read any other good Lesson And then I do not know what place will be left for Sermons since as I said before they are no more of Divine Authority than the Apocryphal Lessons 3. If it be said that the reading of these as Lessons is a prevailing Temptation to the Vulgar to take them for God's Word or to think them equal to the Writings of the Old and New Testament I believe there is no sufficient ground for this I never heard of any of our Communion that were led into that mistake It is certain that our Church declareth those Lessons to be no part of Canonical Scripture and in the 6th Article saith That they are read for example of Life and instruction of Manners but that it doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine And herein she follows the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church which distinguisheth between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books esteeming those to be of Divine Authority these not so but indeed Godly Writings profitable to be publickly read And why the same use of them may not be retained with the same distinction I can see no good Reason For the Church of Romes receiving the Apocryphal Books into her Canon is not likely to mislead any of our Communion since we are not so forward to take their Opinion in any Matter of Religion But in the last place There is no Apocryphal Lesson read in our Churches upon any Lords day in the year and so there is not this pretence against Communion with us upon the Lords days when it is that we do so earnestly desire the Communion of those that have separated from us And therefore I shall at present say nothing to those Exceptions which are taken from the Matter of some of the Apocryphal Books as that some Relations are pretended to be Fabulous c. For this would engage me to a greater length than I intend But whoever thinks himself capable to judge of this Controversie may receive satisfaction from what Dr. Falkner has said upon it in his Libertas Ecclesiast p. 164 c. To proceed Although the Communion Service for the Gravity and Holiness thereof is preferred by the Dissenters before all other Offices in the Common-Prayer-Book yet that has not past free from Exception The Passages that seem to be disliked are two 1. That Petition in the Prayer before Consecration That our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his Body and our Souls washed by his most precious Blood Here they say a distinct efficacy of cleansing and a greater efficacy is attributed to the Blood of Christ than to his Body inasmuch as the cleansing of our Souls is attributed to the Blood of Christ whereas our Bodies are said only to be cleansed by his Body Now in answer to this I suppose it is plain from those Words at the delivery of the Bread and Wine The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy Body and Soul unto everlasting life And the Blood of our Lord c. It is I say plain from hence that our Church teaches the Sanctification and Salvation of our Souls and Bodies to flow from the Body as well as the Blood of Christ And therefore that former Passage is not to be Interpreted as if our Souls were not cleansed by the Body of Christ because they are said to be washed by his Blood For the saying of this does not exclude the other When the Apostle said We being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread 1 Cor. 10. 17. Though he exprest only the Bread of the Eucharist yet no man will say he meant to exclude the Cup as if the Unity of the Church would be argued only from their partaking in that one kind And when he said that we have been all made to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12. 13. he meant not to exclude the Participation of the Bread as if that one Spirit which animated the Church was signified only by partaking of the Cup. Nor will any Man argue from hence that he attributes a distinct efficacy to the Bread to prove the Unity of the Body and to the Cup to prove the Unity of the Spirit I must needs say that this Exception was sought but never offered it self 2. The Ministers delivering the Elements into every Communicants hands with a Form of Words recited to every one of them at the Distribution is blamed also as being thought a departure from the Practice of Christ at the first Institution of this Sacrament For they say our Lord's Words were Take ye Eat ye Drink ye all of this and therefore the People are not to take the Elements one by one out of the Ministers hand nor ought any Form of Words to be used particularly to every one that receives To this I answer 1. That it does not appear from those Words Take ye c. which are spoken in the Plural Number that our Saviour did not speak particularly to every one of his Apostles when they received or that he did not deliver the Elements into every particular Mans hand For the Evangelists may well be supposed to give a short account of the Institution of Christ not of every Word he then said but what was necessary to be related And then what might be particularly said or done to every one would be sufficiently related in being related as spoken or done Generally to all That is if Christ had said Take thou Eat thou to every one of them this were truly related by the Evangelists who tell us that he had said to all Take Eat c. And therefore I do not see how it can be proved that our Practice varies from this Circumstance of the Institution Tho if it did I suppose it might be as easily defended as the Celebration of the Eucharist about Dinner time and not at Supper which the Dissenters themselves scruple not But he that thinks not this Answer sufficient let him consult the aforesaid excellent Book of Dr. Falkner p. 218 c. where he shall find that it is indeed more probable that our way is agreeable to the way of the First Institution in this Matter than that which the Dissenters would have instead
of it But for their sakes who may not have that Book by them I shall add out of it another answer which I think may satisfie a Reasonable Man Supposing then that the Evangelists did not relate the Matter Summarily but as distinctly as the Words were spoken by our Saviour Yet 2. Our Saviour also Commanded his Disciples Mat. 28. 19. to teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost But will any Christian think it hence deducible That where divers Persons or great numbers are to be Baptized together the Solemn Words of Baptizing them in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost may not lawfully be expressed severally to every Person And if the Baptismal Form of Words may be Solemnly and Suitably to that Sacrament applied to every Person Baptized by the General acknowledgment of all Christians there can be no Reason why the like may not be allowed in the Lord's Supper Wherefore the Practice of our Church herein is no way unsuitable to the Institution of Christ or the Nature of the Sacrament and the Alteration of it would be for the worse and to the abating the Solemnity of its Administration Lib. Eccl. p. 224. There remains but two more particular Exceptions which I think needful to take notice of and those are in the Office of Baptism And the first I mean is 1. That all Baptized Infants are supposed to be Regenerated of which as some say we cannot be certain But I desire those that say so to consider if the Scripture does not attribute to Baptism as much as the Liturgie does We are said by Baptism to be made Members of Christ's Body By one Spirit we are all Baptized into one Body 1 Cor. 12. 13. And to be Baptized into Christ and to put on Christ Gal. 3. 27. and he that is in Christ is a new creature And to be Baptized for the Remission of sins Acts 2. 38. Baptism is also called the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. Now if it be made a Question Whether Infants are Regenerated in Baptism the Question at last must come to this Whether they are Qualified to become Members of Christs Body to be admitted into God's Covenant to receive Pardon of Original Sin and to become New Creatures gaining that State by Grace which they could not have by Nature And I do not see that any but Anabaptists can deny this For they that contend as we do that Infants are capable of Baptism must not deny them to be qualified for this Grace of Baptism unless they will make the Ordinance and Promises of God to be of none effect towards them Now if Infants do by Baptism gain Remission of Sin and are made Members of Christ they are Regenerated and Born anew If they do not gain this by it what does their Baptism signifie Or what benefit can they be supposed to have by it if they die in their Infancy more than if they had not been Baptiz'd at all This is the only means of Salvation they can have And those expressions of the Scripture above recited with many more will justifie our Church which supposes that this means will be effectual so long as they are capable of none other and therefore ought to be considered by those that make it to be of none effect I shall only add That this had been thought a strange Question in the Ancient Church Whether Infants were Regenerated by Baptism when the Pelagians whose cause led them to deny it yet durst not do it directly because they knew it would not be endured and therefore they confessed that Infants were to be Baptiz'd to qualifie them for the Kingdom of Heaven but not for the Remission of Sin So that they themselves seemed to acknowledge the saving effect of Baptism to Infants though as St. Austin often shewed them they contradicted themselves by so doing But they durst do no otherwise because the Doctrine of the Church was so plainly against them in this matter and every Believer was so settled in it that I remember St. Austin somewhere speaks to this purpose that the Pelagians would have come to the point and denied that the Baptism of Infants signified any thing at all to their Salvation and therefore might be as well let alone but that they were afraid the Mothers themselves of those Children would every where reproach them for it The other Objection against the Office of Baptism is this That the Godfathers and Godmothers that answer for Infants are not their Parents or Guardians but others who have they say no Authority to Covenant or Act in their Names In answer to whih I shall omit several things that might be said and content my self with these two things which I think may be sufficient 1. That in all cases where the Sureties are procured by the Parents there they have Authority to Covenant in behalf of the Infant and this the Objectors must grant I think upon their own Principles since they contend that Parents or Pro-parents are fittest to act in behalf of the Baptized Infants as having Authority so to do since they have the Power to dispose of their Education afterward For then the Sureties which are by them prevailed with to stand for their Children have at least all that Authority which the Parents can give them And this is sufficiently known to be the case with us And this is that which the Church might well suppose viz. that the Sureties which contract with the Church in the Infants Name would be procured by the Parents so that the Parents Contracting in behalf of the Infant is included in the Undertaking of the Sureties who although they are required by the Church to answer for the Infant yet are they supposed to be Authoriz'd by its Parents also so to do 2. The good Design of this Order and Appointment in the Church ought to be considered which is not the less for the fault of Men and the looseness of these times does often defeat it For hereby the Church taketh greater security that the Infant shall be brought up in the Knowledge and Practice of that Holy Covenant into which it is Baptiz'd In as much as besides the care of the Parents which is in effect promised and may be more reasonably rely'd upon without their own Solemn Act upon the account of that Natural Affection which makes them particularly concerned besides this I say there is a Particular Obligation laid upon others also to see that the Infant be so Educated as much as in them lies In case the Parents should die before the Child is grown to years of Discretion the Sureties are then more Particularly Obliged to look to their Godchild that he be put into a way of learning and doing his Duty If they should not die before but be remiss the Sureties have Authority to come to them and Admonish them of their Duty and to let them know
of Rome Our Church having renounced all Communion with the Church of Rome this speaks the greatest distance in the general betwixt the two Churches And as their distance particularly in Government is manifest to all from our Churches having utterly cast off the Jurisdiction of the Papacy so it is easie to shew that there is likewise a mighty distance betwixt them in Doctrine Worship and Discipline But we shall not stand to shew this in each of these distinctly but rather make choice of this Method viz. to shew that our Church is most distant from and opposite to the Church of Rome 1. In all those Doctrines and Practices whereby this Church deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them 2. In all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly Charged with plainly Contradicting the Holy Scriptures 3. In each of their publick Prayers and Offices 4. In the Books they each receive for Canonical 5. In the Authority on which they each of them found their whole Religion First Our Church is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices by which she deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them For instance 1. This Church denieth her Members all Judgment of discretion in matters of Religion She obligeth them to follow her blindfold and to resolve both their Faith and Judgment into hers as assuming infallibility to her self and binding all under pain of Damnation to believe her Infallible But our Church permits us the full enjoyment of our due Liberty in believing and judging and we Act not like Members of the Church of England if according to St. Pauls injunction we prove not all things that we may hold fast that which is good if we believe every Spirit which St. John cautions us against and do not try the Spirits whether they be of God which he requires us to do 'T is impossible that our Church should oblige us to an implicite Faith in herself because she disclaimeth all pretence to infallibility Our Church tells us in her 19th Article that As the Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria and Antioch have erred so also the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their Living and manner of Ceremonies but also in matters of Faith And our Churches acknowledgment is plainly implyed in asserting the most famous Churches in the World to have erred from the Faith that she her self must needs be Obnoxious to Errour in matters of Faith and that she would be guilty of the highest impudence in denying it 2. The Church of Rome imposeth a deal of most slavish Drudgery in the vast multitude of her Rites and Ceremonies and unreasonably severe Tasks and cruel Penances As to her Ceremonies they are so vast a number as are enough to take up as Sir Edwyn Sandys hath observed a great part of a mans life merely to gaze on And abundance of them are so vain and Childish so marvellously odd and uncouth as that they can naturally bring to use that Gentlemans words who was a curious observer of them in the Popish Countries no other than disgrace and contempt to those exercises of Religion wherein they are stirring In viewing only those that are injoyned in the Common Ritual one would bless ones self to think how it should enter into the minds of Men and much more of Christians to invent such things And the like may be said of the Popish Tasks and Penances in imposing of which the Priests are Arbitrary and ordinarily lay the most Severe and Cruel ones on the lightest offenders when the most Leud and Scandalous come off with a bare saying of their Beads thrice over or some such insignificant and idle business But the Church of England imposeth nothing of that Drudgery which makes such Vassals of the poor Papists Her Rites are exceeding few and those plain and easie grave and manly founded on the Practice of the Church long before Popery appeared upon the Stage of the World Our Church hath abandon'd the five Popish Sacraments and contents her self with those two which Christ hath ordained As is to be seen in her 25th Article where she declares that There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel that is to say Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments that is to say Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and Extreme Vnxion are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel being such as have grown partly of the Corrupt following of the Apostles partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures But yet have not like Nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lords Supper For that they have not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about c. And in saying that our Church owns not the fore-mentioned Popish Sacraments is implied that she hath nothing to do with any of those very many Superstitious Fopperies which are injoyned in the Offices appointed for the Administration of those Sacraments Again Our Church no whit more imitates that of Rome in her Cruel Tasks and Penances than in her Ceremonies as is needless to be shewed In short in our Churches few Rites she hath used no other Liberty but what she judgeth agreeable to those Apostolical Rules of Doing all things decently and in order and Doing all things to Edification And she imposeth her Rites not as the Church of Rome doth hers as necessary and as parts of Religion but as meerly indifferent and changeable things as we find in her 34th Article where she declares that Every Particular or National Church hath Authority to Ordain Change and Abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained onely by Mans Authority so that all things be done to Edifying And this Article begins thus It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like for at all times they have been divers and may be changed according to the diversities of Countrys Times and Manners so that nothing be Ordained against Gods Word 2. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to inslaving Passions For instance that of Purgatory makes them all their life-time subject to the bondages of Fear at least those of them who are so sollicitous about the life to come as to entertain any mistrust or doubting as it 's strange if the most Credulous of them do not concerning the Efficacy of Penances and Indulgences Her Doctrine of Auricular Confession subjects all that are not forsaken of all Modesty to the passion of Shame Her Doctrine of the Dependance of the Efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priests intention must needs expose all considerative people and those who have any serious concern about their state hereafter to great Anxiety and Solicitude But these Doctrines are all rejected by the Church of England That of Purgatory she
declares against in these Words Article 22 d. The Romish Doctrine of Purgatory is a vain thing fondly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the Word of God As to that of Auricular Confession nothing like it is taught or practised in our Church Her Members are obliged onely to Confess their Sins to God except when 't is necessary to Confess them to Men for the relieving of their Consciences and their obtaining the Prayers of others or in order to the righting of those they have wronged when due satisfaction can't otherwise be made or in order to their giving Glory to God when they are justly accused and their guilt proved in which cases and such like 't is without dispute our duty to confess to Men. Nor have we any such Doctrine in our Church as that of the Dependence of the Efficacy of the Sacraments on the Priests intention but the contrary is sufficiently declared Article 26th viz. that The Efficacy of Christs Ordinance is not taken away by the Wickedness of those that Minister 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by not a few of her Doctrines and Practices to Vile Affections and Vices of all sorts As might be largely shewed See Libertas Evangelica Chap. 17. and will be in part under the next Head of discourse But our Church neither maintains any Licentious Principle nor gives Countenance to any such Practice our Adversaries themselves being Judges Secondly The Church of England is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly charged with plainly contradicting the Holy Scripture For instance not to repeat any of those ranked under the foregoing head several of which may also fall under this Her Doctrines of Image-Worship of Invocation of Saints with her gross practising upon them of Transubstantiation of Pardons and Indulgencies of the Sacrifice of the Mass wherein Christ is pretended to be still offered up afresh for the quick and dead Her keeping the Holy Scriptures from the Vulgar and making it so hainous a crime to read the Bible because by this means her foul Errours will be in such danger of being discovered and the People of not continuing implicite believers Her injoyning the saying of Prayers and the Administration of the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue Her Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper Her prohibiting Marriage to Priests Her Doctrines of Merit and works of Supererogation Her making simple Fornication a mere Venial sin Her damning all that are not of her Communion Her most devilish cruelties towards those whom she is pleased to pronounce Hereticks Her darling Sons Doctrines of Equivocation and Mental Reservations of the Popes power of dispensing with the most Solemn Oaths and of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance to their Lawful Princes with many others not now to be reckoned up But the Church of England Abominates these and the like Principles and Practices As to the instances of Image-Worship Invocation of Saints and Pardons and Indulgences what our Church declareth concerning Purgatory she adds concerning these things too Article 22 d. viz. That the Romish Doctrine concerning Pardons Worship and Adoration as well of Images as of Relicks as also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the Word of God And as there is no such Practice as Worshipping of Images in our Church so all are destroyed which Popery had Erected among us Nor have we in our Church any Co-Mediators with Jesus Christ we Worship only one God by one only Mediator the Man Christ Jesus And the now-mentioned Practices our Church doth not only declare to be Repugnant to the Holy Scriptures but to be likewise most grosly Idolatrous viz. in the Homilies As to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation our Church declareth her sense thereof Article 28th in these Words Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ but it is repugnant to the plain terms of Scripture overthroweth the Nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lords Supper only after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not by Christs Ordinance reserved carried about lifted up or Worshipped As to the Sacrifice of the Mass see what our Church saith of it Article 31st viz. That the offering of Christ once made is that perfect Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World both Original and Actual and there is none other Satisfaction for sins but that alone Wherefore the Sacrifices of Masses in the which it was commonly said that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have Remission of pain or guilt were Blasphemous Fables and dangerous deceits As to the Church of Romes locking up the Scriptures and prohibiting the reading of them Our Church hath not only more than once caused them to be Translated into our Mother-Tongue but also as I need not shew gives as free Liberty to the reading of the Bible as of any other Book nor is any duty in our Church esteemed more necessary than that of Reading the Scriptures and Hearing them read As to Praying and Administring the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue as this is contrary to the Practice of the Church of England so is it to her Declaration also Article 24th viz. That it is a thing plainly Repugnant to the Word of God and the Custom of the Primitive Church to have publick Prayers in the Church or to Administer Sacraments in a Tongue not understanded of the People As to Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper in Our Church they may not receive the Bread if they refuse the Cup. And Article 30. tells us That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Laity for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be Administred to all Christians alike As to prohibiting Marriage to Priests this is declared against Article 32. Bishops Priests and Deacons are not Commanded by Gods Law either to vow the Estate of single Life or to abstain from Marriage therefore it is Lawful for them as for all other Christian Men to Marry at their own discretion as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness As to the Popish Doctrine of Merit Our Church declares against this Article 11. We are accounted righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own Works or Deservings Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only viz. such a Faith as purifies the Heart and works by Love is a most wholsome Doctrine and very
Subscription that is required to the 39 Articles it is very Consistent with Our Churches giving all Men Liberty to Judge for themselves and not Exercising Authority as the Romish Church doth over our Faith for she requires no Man to believe those Articles but at worst only thinks it Convenient that none should receive Orders or be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and requires Subscription to them as a Test whereby to Judge who doth so believe them But the Church of Rome requires all under Pain of Damnation to believe all her long Bed-roul of Doctrines which have only the Stamp of her Authority and to believe them too as Articles of Faith or to believe them with the same Divine Faith that we do the indisputable Doctrines of our Saviour and his Apostles For a proof hereof the Reader may consult the Bull of Pope Pius the Fourth which is to be found at the End of the Council of Trent Herein it is Ordained that Profession of Faith shall be made and sworn by all Dignitaries Prebendaries and such as have Benefices with Cure Military Officers c. in the Form following IN. Do believe with a firm Faith and do profess all and every thing contained in the Confession of Faith which is used by the Holy Roman Church viz. I believe in one God the Father Almighty and so to the end of the Nicene Creed I most firmly admit and embrace the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and the other Observances and Constitutions of the said Church Also the Holy Scriptures according to the Sense which our Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold c. I profess also that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and necessary to the Salvation of Mankind although all are not necessary to every individual Person c. I also admit and receive the Received and approved Rites of the Catholick Church in the Solemn Administration of all the foresaid Sacraments of which I have given the Reader a taste I Embrace and Receive all and every thing which hath been declared and defined concerning Original Sin and Justification in the Holy Synod of Trent I likewise profess that in the Mass a True Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice is Offered to God for the quick and dead And that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly really and substantially in the most Holy Eucharist c. I also Confess that whole and intire Christ and the true Sacrament is received under one of the kinds only I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are relieved by the Prayers of the Faithful And in like manner that the Saints Reigning with Christ are to be Worshipped and Invoked c. And that their Relicks are to be Worshipped I most firmly assert that the Images of Christ and of the Mother of God always a Virgin and of the other Saints are to be had and kept and that due Honour and Worship is to be given to them I Affirm also that the power of Indulgences is left by Christ in his Church and that the use of them is very Salutiferous to Christian People I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and I Profess and Swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ Also all the other things delivered decreed and declared by the Holy Canons and Oecumenical Councils and especially by the Holy Synod of Trent I undoubtedly receive and profess As also all things contrary to these and all Heresies Condemned Rejected and Anathematized by the Church I in like manner Condemns Reject and Anathematize This true Catholick Faith viz. all this Stuff of their own together with the Articles of the Creed without which no Man can be Saved which at this present I truly profess and sincerely hold I will God Assisting me most constantly Retain and Confess intire and inviolate and as much as in me lies will take Care that it be held taught and declared by those that are under me or the Care of whom shall be committed to me I the same N. do Profess Vow and Swear So help me God and the Holy Gospels of God Who when he Reads this can forbear pronouncing the Reformation of the Church of England a most Glorious Reformation 2. As to the Motives our Church proposeth for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures viz. that that Doctrine is of Divine Revelation they are no other than such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the Excellency thereof which consists in its being wholly adapted to the reforming of mens Lives and renewing their Natures after the Image of God and the Miracles by which it is confirmed And as to the Evidence of the truth of the matters of Fact viz. that there were such Persons as the Scriptures declare to have revealed Gods will to the World such as Moses our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and that these Persons delivered such Doctrine and Confirmed it by such Miracles and that the Books of Scripture were written by those whose Names they bear I say as to the Evidence of the truth of these matters of Fact our Church placeth it not in her own Testimony or in the Testimony of any Particular Church and much less that of Rome but in the Testimony of the whole Catholick Church down to us from the time of the Apostles and of Vniversal Tradition taking in that of Strangers and Enemies as well as Friends of Jews and Pagans as well as Christians Secondly We proceed to shew that a Churches Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing Agreement with the Church of Rome in things either in their own nature good or made so by a Divine Precept none of our Dissenting Brethren could ever imagine not to be an indispensable duty Agreement with her in what is in its own nature Evil or made so by a Divine Prohibition none of us are so forsaken of all Modesty as to deny it to be an inexcusable sin The Question therefore is whether to agree with this Apostate Church in some things of an indifferent nature be a Sin and therefore a just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing But by the way if we should suppose that a Churches agreeing with the Church of Rome in some indifferent things is sinful I cannot think that any of the more Sober Sort of Dissenters and I despair of success in arguing with any but such will thence infer that Separation from the Church so agreeing is otherwise warrantable than upon the account of those things being imposed as necessary terms of Communion But I am so far from taking it for granted
appoint Patriarchs and Primates in every Province that by this bond of Concord the Bishops might the better be knit together In short for I must not proceed farther upon this vastly large head of discourse I know not how our Brethren will defend the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lords Day while they contend that this of Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholick Church for so many Centuries from the time of the Apostles Nor how those that Separate from our Church upon the account of its Government by Bishops and call it Antichristian can defend the Lawfulness of Communicating with any Church in Christendom for about 1500 years together Secondly As to Our Churches prescribing a Liturgy or set Forms of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other publick Offices It is easie to shew that Symbolizing with the Church of Rome herein is so far from being culpable and much more from being a just ground of Separation from our Church that 't is highly Commendable For as herein our Church no less Symbolizeth with the Primitive Church than with that of Rome as she is now Constituted nothing being more certainly known than that Liturgies are of most Ancient standing so nothing is more highly expedient for the due management of the publick Worship of God than the use of a Liturgy And indeed instead of Expedient I might say Necessary it being impossible to secure the performance of publick Worship with that solemnity and gravity that becomes it in a Church where its Ministers are wholly left free to the Exercise of Extemporary invention But the handling of this Argument is the business of another new Discourse to which I refer the Reader I shall therefore conclude it with a citation out of Calvins Epistle Ad Protectorem Angliae saith he As to a Form of Prayers and Ecclesiastical Rites I do very much approve of the publishing of a fixed one from which it may not be Lawful for the Pastors to depart in the exercise of their Function Thereby to provide against the simplicity and unskilfulness of some and that the consent of all the Churches with each other may more certainly appear And lastly to put a barr to the skipping Levity of others who Affect certain innovations And therefore as he proceeds Statum esse Catechismum oportet Statam Sacramentorum Administrationem publicam item precum Formulam there ought to be an Established Catechism an Office for the Administration of the Sacraments Establisht and also a Publick Form of Prayers And he accordingly composed a Liturgy to be used by the Ministers in Geneva on Sundays and Holydays And the Exiles that resided at Geneva in the days of Queen Mary did by his advice draw up a Liturgy which was Printed in the English Tongue in the year 1556. Thirdly As to a Liturgy so contrived as that of our Church is what hath been said of the vast distance between our Church and that of Rome herein is sufficient to shew that there can be no warrantable pretence for Separation from our Church upon the account of the Symbolizing that is between these two Churches in this particular But we will perticularly consider those instances of agreement between ours and the Roman Service which are most offensive to our Brethren they are especially these four 1. Our many short Prayers which some have too lighly called short Cuts and Shreddings and rather Wishes than Prayers But there needs no other reply hereunto than that our Learned Hooker gives viz. That St. Augustin saith Epist 121. That the Brethren in Aegypt are reported to have many Prayers but every of them very short as if they were Darts thrown out with a kind of sudden quickness lest that Vigilant and erect attention of mind which in Prayer is very necessary should be Wasted and dulled through Continuance if their Prayers were few and long But that which St. Austin alloweth they Condemn c. He might as well have said What that good Father Commendeth nay his words imply no small commendation And I fear not to appeal to all Pious Souls who without prejudice joyn with us in our Publick Prayers whether they find the shortness of many of them an hindrance or help to their Devotion I don't question but that such will readily acknowledge that they find it an help And therefore in my weak judgment our Symbolizing with the Church of Rome in this particular is Symbolizing with her in that which is highly commendable as 't is so also in that wherein she Symbolizeth with very Ancient Churches 2. Another instance is The Peoples bearing a part with the Minister in Divine Service But Mr. Baxter hath said enough in his Christian Directory on Q. 83. not only to vindicate the Lawfulness but the Fitness and Expediency also of Symbolizing herein with the Church of Rome Saith he 1. The Scripture no where forbids it 2. If the People may do this in the Psalms in Metre there can be no reason given but they may Lawfully do it in Prose 3. The Primitive Christians were so full of Zeal and Love of Christ that they would have taken it for an injury or quenching of the Spirit to have been wholly restrained from bearing a part in the Praises of the Church 4. The use of the Tongue keeps awake the Mind and stirs up Gods graces in his Servants 5. It was the decay of Zeal in the People that first shut out the Responses while they kept up the Ancient Zeal they were inclined to take their part vocally in the Worship Though I were under no obligation of brevity I should add nothing more of mine own about this matter 3. Another instance of this Nature is the taking of some of the Collects out of the Mass-Book But to this I give this I hope as satisfactory as short Answer viz. That these Prayers are either good or bad if they are bad ones they may not be used though they were not in the Mass-Book and upon that account the use of them would be Unlawful not upon the account of our Symbolizing in them with the Roman Church But if they are all good ones as they are very good then from what hath been said 't is Evident that this Symbolizing cannot make them bad and 't is a hard case that we should not be allowed the use of whatsoever is good in their Service Our Brethren will allow of reading the same Scriptures that they do and why then should they disallow of using what perfectly agreeth with Scripture because they use it Our departure from them was designed to be a Reformation not a total Destruction and Extirpation 4. The last instance is The appointing of Lessons out of the Apocryphal Books But herein we Symbolize with the Primitive Church rather than with this of Rome For as hath been shewed out of the 6. Article of our Church they are not appointed to be read as Canonical Scripture and we perfectly agree with
not use means to attract the Praeputium which the Jews did often to avoid Shame and Persecution in Gentile Countries odious and ridiculous to all other People upon the account of it and for this reason it would have been a mighty bar to the Progress of the Gospel had the Gentiles been to be initiated thereby Furthermore it alone was reckoned as a grievous burden by reason of the painful and bloody nature of it and for that Reason also was laid aside as being inconsistent with the free and easie nature of the Christian Religion for if Zipporah was so much offended at Moses and called him a bloody Husband upon the account of it we may well presume how much the Gentiles would have been offended at the Apostles and at their Doctrine upon the account thereof No Religious Rite could be more ungrateful to Flesh and Blood and therefore the Wisdom of our Lord is to be admired in changing of it into the easie and practicable Ceremony of Baptism which was of more universal significancy and which * * * Diabolus ipsas quoque res Sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis aemulatur tingit ipse quosdam utique credentes ac fideles suos caeterum si Numae superstitiones revolvamus nonne manifeste diabolus morositatem illam Judaicae legis imitatus est Tertull. de praescrip haeret c. 40. O nimium faciles Qui tristia crimina caedis tolli flumineâ posse putatis aquâ Pagans as Paganism was nothing but Judaism corrupted by the Devil practised as well as Jews Hitherto I have given the Reasons of altering the Jewish Oeconomy and of reforming of it into the Christian Church but then my undertaking obliges me to prove what before I observed that * * * Verissimum enim est quod vir doctissimus Hugo Broughtonus ad Danielem notavit Nullos à Christo institutos ritus novos c. Grotii opusc Tom. 3. p. 520. See Dr. Hammond in his discourse of the Baptizing of Infants Christ and his Apostles who were the Reformers of it did build with many of the old Materials and conformed their new house as much as they could after the Platform of the old This will appear from Baptism it self which was a Ceremony by which †††Seld. de jure l. 2. c. 2. de Synedr l. 1. c. 3. Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae p. 42. Hammond on Matth. 3. v. 1. and of the Baptizing of Infants Jacob Altingius dissert Philologica Septima de Proselytis Proselytes both Men Women and Children were initiated into the Jewish Church Though it were but a mere humane Institution or as the dissenting Parties usually phrase it a mere humane Invention yet so much respect had our blessed Lord for the Ancient Orders and Customs of the Jewish Church that being obliged to lay by Circumcision for the reasons above mentioned he consecrated this instead of it to be the Sacrament of initiation into his Church and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith So likewise the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was certainly of | | | Mede 1 Book disc 51. b. 11. Christian Sacrifice Grot. Opusc Tom. 3. p. 510. Dr. Cudworth on the Lord's Supper Thorndike of Religious Assembly chap. 10. Dr. Taylor 's great Exemplar p. 1. disc of Baptism Numb 11. Jewish Original as hath been shewed by many Learned Men and the Correspondence of the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to the High-Priest Priests and Levites doth shew that the Subordination of the Christian Hierarchy is taken from the Jewish Church as St. Jerome observes in his Epistle to Evagrius Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento quod Aaron filii ejus Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia What the High-Priest Priests and Levites were in the Temple that the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are in the Church according to Apostolical Constitution taken from the Old Testament Hither also is to be referred that wonderful Correspondence betwixt the Priest-hood and Altar of the Jewish and Christian Church as it is most excellently discoursed by the Learned and Pious a a a In his Discourse concerning the one Altar and the one Priest-hood c. Mr. Dodwell To all which I may add many other Institutions as that of b b b Dr. Taylor his great Exemplar Disc of Baptism Numb 11. Lightfoot on 1 Cor. c. 5. v. 4. Excommunication and of the ritual performance of Ordination Confirmation and Absolution of Penitents by Imposition of Hands all which are of Jewish Original Likewise the Observation of the antient Love-Feasts before the Holy-Eucharist which for their extream inconvenience were taken away by the c c c Concil Sext. in Trull c. 24. Churches Authority the use of Festivals and Fasts the Institution of the Lord's day which is nothing but the Sabbath translated In a word the manifold and almost entire Correspondence of the Church in her publick Assemblies and Worship with the Synagogue as it is set forth by Mr. Thorndike in his Book of Religious Assemblies even to the formal use of the hebrew-Hebrew-word d d d 1 Cor. 14. 16 Rom. 11. 36. Eph. 3. 21. Phil. 4. 20. 2 Tim. 1. 17. Heb. 23. 27. 1 Pet. 4. 11. Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 1. 7. Just Mart. Ap. 2. p. 97. Iren. l. 2. c. 10. Athan. Apol. ad const Imper. p. 683. Amen Hitherto I have made a short Previous Discourse concerning many useful Particulars As First Concerning the beginning or Original of the Jewish Church Secondly Concerning the Nature of it Thirdly Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it and the Persons that were capable of Initiation And Lastly Concerning the alteration of it from the Legal into the Evangelical Dispensation wherein I have briefly shewed the true grounds of that blessed Reformation and how tender Christ and his Apostles were of Altering or rejecting more than was necessary or of receding more than was needful from the Jewish Church All these things I thought necessary to be discoursed as Praecognita to fit and prepare the Reader 's mind to understand the State of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism as it is proposed in these five Comprehensive Questions 1. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism 2. Whether they are excluded from Baptism by Christ 3. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized 4. Whether it be the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism 5. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with believers who were Baptized in their Infancy The whole merit of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism lies in these five Comprehensive Questions and I shall presently proceed to the stating of them after I have shew'd that Circumcision was a Sacrament of equal Significancy Force and Perfection with Baptism and that Baptism succeeded in the room of it not as the Antitype succeeded in the
probable and no demonstrative reasons that all the Books contained in the Canon and no other are the Word of God but in conjunction with the Testimony and Authority of the Ancient Catholick Church amount to a Demonstration So though the Texts which I have cited are of themselves but probable Arguments for the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism yet in concurrence with such a Comment upon them as the Practice of the next Age unto the Apostles and all Ages since from one Generation to another they amount to such a demonstration as is called in Logick Demonstratio ducens ad absurdum and are a violent Presumption that Children ought to be Baptized I might run on the Parallel as to the other Instances of Episcopal Government the admitting of Women to the Communion and the Observation of the Lord's day and therefore let the Adversaries of Infant Baptism consider well with themselves Wheâ—her rejecting of it after a Concurrence of such Texts and such a Tradition to establish it they do not teach others especially Atheists pure Deists and Sabbatizers to which I may add Scepticks Socinians and Quakers a way to deny all the rest Thus much I have said concerning the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism to shew that it is not lawful to separate from a Church for appointing of Infants to be Baptized when there are such cogent reasons arising from the concurrence of Scripture and Antiquity to presume that Infant-Baptism was an Apostolical Tradition and an Institution of Christ And I have designedly called it a requisite to distinguish it from an absolute necessity lest the Reader should think I were of St. Augustin's Opinion who thought Baptism indispensibly necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptized through the carelesness or Superstition of the Parents or through their mistaken Belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism were * * * Potest proinde rectè dici parvulos sine Baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitissima futuros Multum autem fallit fallitur qui eos in damnatione praedicat non futuros dicente Apostolo Judicium ex uno delicto August de peccat merit remiss contra Pelag. l. 1. c. 16. Vid. contra Julianum Pelag. l. 5. c. 8. infallibly damned No I intended no such severe Conclusion because we ought not to tye God to the same means to which he hath tied us but only to shew that the Baptism of young Children is antecedently necessary and †††Articles of Religion Artic. 27. in any wise to be retained in the Church as being most agreeable with the Holy Scripture the Apostolical Practice and the Institution of Christ And to set this way of arguing more home upon the Consciences of those who Dissent from the Church upon the account of Infant-Baptism I appeal unto them Whether Scripture and Antiquity standing against Infant-Baptism in the same posture of evidence that they now stand for it it would not be unjustifiable for any sort of Men to separate from the Church for not Baptizing Infants as they do now for Baptizing of them Let us suppose for Example That the Disciples of Christ instead of rebuking those that brought little Children unto him had brought them to him themselves and he had been much displeased at them for it and said I suffer not little Children to come unto me for the Kingdom of God is not of such Let us put the case That two Evangelists had recorded this supposed Story and accordingly we had been assured by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apostles that then there was no Baptizing of Infants and that the Apostles Baptized them not and that there never was any Church in after Ages which did practise Infant-Baptism Upon this Supposition I appeal unto them Whether it would not be highly unreasonable to separate from all the Churches in the World for not allowing of Infant-Baptism against the Concurrence of such a Text to the contrary and the sence and practise of the Catholick Church The case which I suppose one way is the real case the other only with this difference that the supposed case would have but the benefit of one Text whereas the real hath the benefit of many in Conjunction with Tradition and therefore seeing there are so many Texts and such a cloud of Witnesses for Infant-Baptism Why should it not be looked upon as one of the common Notions of Christianity like the Parallel Doctrines above-mentioned though it be not commanded especially when as I have shewed there was no need of commanding of it in express Words I know the Dissenters of all sorts and especially those for whose sake I am now writing are bred up in great prejudice and sinister Suspicions against Tradition declaiming against it as very uncertain and against the use of it as very derogatory to the sufficiency of the Word of God But as to the first part of their Objection against the certainty of Tradition I desire them to take notice that there is a certain as well as an uncertain an undoubted as well as a pretended Tradition as there are true certain and undoubted as well as pretended and uncertain Scriptures and that there are sure ways whereby ingenious and inquisitive Men may satisfie themselves which is one and which is the other The way then to find out true and undoubted Tradition as * * * Advers Haeres c. 3. Vincentius Lirinensis teacheth is to try it by these three Tests Universality Antiquity and Consent First By Universality If all the Churches wheresoever dispersed or how different soever in their Languages and Customs do believe or practice such a Doctrine Secondly Antiquity If what all the Churches all the World over doth so believe or practice was no innovation but Believed and Practiced in the Ages next to the Apostles when such Fathers governed the Churches or such Famous Men lived in them as knew the Apostles and conversed with them or lived near unto those or with those Apostolical Men who so knew them or conversed with them or lived near unto them Thirdly Consent If it appear that such a Doctrine was the consentient belief or practice of all the Fathers in those Ages or of all except a very few who had no proportion to the rest To which I will add First That this Tradition must be written and not Oral And Secondly That it must be proved in every Age from Books that were written in it and whose Authors whether under their own or under borrowed Names had no interest to write so And therefore though the Testimonies for Infant-Baptism in the Constitutions going under the name of * * * L. 6. c. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptize your Infants educate them in the Discipline and Admonition of God for saith our Lord Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not Clemens Romanus and the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy bearing the name of
of the Jews were admitted as effectually into the Covenant and had it as really sealed unto them and were as strongly tyed to perform the Conditions of it when they came to years of understanding as if they had been Circumcised then and at their Circumcision had personally and expresly indented with God Wherefore the same answer which will serve to justifie Infant-Circumcision will justifie Infant-Baptism which succeeds in the place of it and it is this That God of his goodness towards Infant 's was pleased to seal the Covenant of Grace unto Infants upon an implicite and imputative sort of Stipulation which at years of understanding they were bound to own by openly professing the Jewish Religion or if they then renounced it thereupon they became Strangers to the Covenant which in such cases was as void as if it had never been made An implicit Stipulation was sufficient for the Children of Believers though an open Profession and Stipulation was required of Grown Proselytes which shews that Circumcision was an institution of Latitude and that personal and express Restipulation was not a general pre-requisite condition to Circumcision but only to some Persons to be Circumcised In like manner Baptism being an institution of Latitude ordained for Persons under as well as at the years of discretion perssonal and express Stipulation is only required of the former and therefore St. Peter in the Text above cited likely had respect not to all Baptism or Baptism in general but only to the Baptism of Adult Proselytes whom the Minister used to * * * Hence Tertullian de Baptismo calls Baptism Sponsionem Salutis And in St. Cyprian we often read of the interrogation in Baptism interrogate at the time of Baptism much after the same manner as we interrogate Adult Proselytes now Wherefore this Objection like the rest which the Anabaptists make runs upon this presumption that Baptism is a strict institution and that personal and express answering or Restipulation is a pre-requisite condition to all Baptism whereas it is only a personal qualification required of Majors or Adult Persons when they come to be Baptized But as for Children Baptism may be administred unto them upon an implicite and imputative sort of Restipulation as Circumcision was to the Jewish and Baptism now is to agonizing Christian Infants or else it may be administred unto them as Baptism formerly was among the Jews to the Infants and Minors of Proselytes upon a vicarious Restipulation by their Sponsors which seems to have been translated together with the use of Baptism from the Jewish Church It is certain that * * * De Baptismo cap. 18. quid enim necesse est Sponsores etiam periculo ingeri Tertullian makes mention of Sponsors or Sureties for Children at Baptism and very probable that the Apostles made Parents and Major domos stipulate in the name of their †††Praefecturae igitur juridicae quae Baptismo praeerat profitebatur Proselytus ipse Majorennis Masculus qui annum decimum tertium foemina quae duodecim superaverat legem Mosaicam se servaturum Minorum vero nomine idem ipsum profitebatur praefectura ipsa uti in Christianismo susceptores minorennium seu parvulorum saltem si nec parentes adessent qui idem praestare possent Selden de Synedriis Lib. 1. c. 3. And what is here said of the CONSISTORT among the Jews concerning the Baptism of Infants and Minors St. Augustine saith of the Church among Christians accommodat illis mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant aliorum cor ut credant aliorum linguam ut fateantur Minors when they Baptized them as the Jews were wont to do and upon this Supposition St. Peter in the Text above cited might also probably allude to all Baptism because Grown Proselytes to the Christan Religion did answer for their Children as well as for themselves at Baptism according to the Custom of the Jewish Church Nay there is little reason to doubt but that the Jewish being the Pattern of the Christian Baptism the Apostles and their Assistants who were Jews or Hellenists did observe this Custom of Vicarious Stipulation at the Baptism of Infants and Minors as well as all the other Particulars in which they resemble one another as the Picture doth the Face whose Picture it is As for Example the Jewish Baptism was administred to Women as well as Men and so is the Christian Secondly It was never reiterated nor repeated no more is the Christian Thirdly It was called Regeneration and a New Birth and Baptized Persons were said to be born again and Regenerated which also holds in Christian Baptism Fourthly Baptized Proselytes among the Jews were bound to leave their nearest Relations if it were necessary and adhere to the Church and so are Baptized Christian Proselytes bound to do the same Fifthly The Infants of Proselytes were Baptized among the Jews as well as the Proselytes themselves and so have I proved that Infants have been always Baptized among the Christians And therefore in the last place since the Jewish Church Baptized Infants upon Vicarious Stipulation why should not we think it sufficient for their entrance into the Covenant and that the Apostles did so too These things and whatsoever else is written in this little Tract I hope will be fairly and candidly confidered by the Dissenters among us upon the account of Infant-Baptism I say the truth in Christ I lye not my Conscience also bearing me Witness in the Holy Ghost who is the Searcher of Hearts that I have great heaviness and almost continual sorrow in my heart for them and that to reconcile them to the Church I could wish in the Apostles Sence that I my self were an Anathema from Christ And because it is a Disease too common among Dissenters and more especially among those with whom I have been a dealing to have minds full of Prejudice Prepossession and sinister Suspitions against what we Speak or Preach or Write I have here subjoined a Letter of that Famous Martyr of Jesus Christ Mr. John Philpot concerning Infant-Baptism which I seriously recommend to their Impartial and diligent perusal hoping that the same Arguments which may perhaps have less effect upon them as they come from me may be better received and make deeper impression upon their Souls as they come from him who like the Primitive Martyrs was Blessed with Heavenly Visions and chearfully suffered for his Redeemer who had suffered for him and thanked God when the time was come that he was to seal the truth of the Protestant Religion with his Blood A Letter of Mr. PHILPOT to a Friend of his Prisoner the same time in Newgate Wherein is debated and discussed the matter or question of Infants to be Baptized THE God of all Light and Understanding lighten Book of Martyrs 3 Vol. p. 606. Col. 2. London 1641. your Heart with all true Knowledge of his Word and make you perfect to the day of our
Sacraments to them for whom they were instituted As for an Example we may behold Joshua who most diligently procured the People of Israel to Jos 2. be Circumcised before they entred into the Land of Promise but since the Apostles were the Preachers of the Word and the very Faithful Servants of Jesus Christ who may hereafter doubt that they Baptized Infants since Baptism is in place of Circumcision Item The Apostles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament Therefore it is certain that they did attemperate Baptism accordingly to Circumcision and Baptized Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism for the People of Israel passed through the Red Sea and the bottom of the Water of Jordan with their Children And although the Children be not always expressed neither the Women in the Holy Scriptures yet they are comprehended and understood in the same Also the Scripture evidently telleth us That the Apostles baptized whole Families or Housholds But the Children be comprehended in a Family or Houshold as the chiefest and dearest part thereof Therefore we may conclude that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or Children and not only Men of lawful age And that the House or Houshold is taken for Man Woman and Child it is manifest in the 17. of Genesis and also in that Joseph doth call Jacob with all his House to come out of the Land of Canaan into Egypt Finally I can declare out of ancient Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours neither that it was instituted by any Councels neither of the Pope nor of other Men but commended from the Scripture by the Apostles themselves Origen upon the Declaration of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans expounding the 6. Chapter saith That the Church of Christ received the Baptism from the very Apostles St. Hierome maketh mention of the Baptism of Infants in the 3. Book against the Pelagians and in his Epistle to Leta St. Augustine reciteth Heb. 11. for this purpose a place out of John Bishop of Constantinople in his 1. Book aganst Julian Chap. 2. and he again writing to St. Hierome Epist 28. saith That St. Cyprian not making any new Decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his fellow Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully Baptized The place of Cyprian is to be seen in his Epistle to Fidus. Also St. Augustine in writing against the Donatists in the 4. Book Chap. 23. 24. saith That the Baptism of Infants was not derived from the authority of Man neither of Councels but from the Tradition or Doctrine of the Apostles Cyril upon Leviticus Chap. 8. approveth the Baptism of Children and condemneth the iteration of Baptism These Authorities of Men I do alledge not to tie the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but Lies for them and new Imaginations which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment After this will I answer to the sum of your Arguments for the contrary The first which includeth all the rest is It is Written Go ye into all the World and Preach the glad Tidings to all Creatures He that believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved But he that believeth not shall be Damned c. To this I answer That nothing is added to God's Word by Baptism of Children as you pretend but that is done which the same Word doth require for that Children are accounted of Christ in the Gospel among the number of such as believe as it appeareth by these words He that offendeth Matth. 18. one of these little Babes which believe in me it were better for him to have a Milstone tyed about his Neck and to be cast into the bottom of the Sea Where plainly Christ calleth such as be not able to confess their Faith Believers because of his mere Grace he reputeth them for Believers And this is no Wonder so to be taken since God imputeth Faith for Righteousness unto Men that be of riper Age For both in Men and Children Righteousness Acceptation or Sanctification is of mere Grace and by Imputation that the Glory of God's Grace might be praised And that the Children of Faithful Parents are Sanctified and among such as do believe is apparent in the 1 Cor. 1 Cor. 7. 7. And whereas you do gather by the order of the words in the said Commandment of Christ that Children ought to be taught before they be Baptized and to this end you alledge many places out of the Acts proving that such as Confessed their Faith first were Baptized after I answer That if the order of words might weigh any thing to this Cause we have the Scripture that maketh as well for us St. Mark we read that John did Baptize in the Desart Mark 1. Preaching the Baptism of Repentance In the which place we see Baptizing go before and Preaching to follow after And also I will declare this place of Matthew exactly considered to make for the use of Baptism in Children for St. Matthew hath it written in this wise All Power is Matth. 28. given me saith the Lord in Heaven and in Earth therefore going forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Disciple ye as I may express the signification of the Word that is make or gather to me Disciples of all Nations And following he declareth the way how they should gather to him Disciples out of all Nations baptizing them and teaching by baptizing and teaching ye shall procure a Church to me And both these aptly and briefly severally he setteth forth saying Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Now then Baptism goeth before Doctrine But hereby I do not gather that the Gentiles which never heard any thing before of God and of the Son of God and of the Holy Ghost ought to be Baptized neither they would permit themselves to be Baptized before they knew to what end But this I have declared to shew you upon how feeble Foundation the Anabaptists be grounded And plainly it is not true which they imagine of this Text that the Lord did only command such to be Baptized whom the Apostles had first of all taught Neither here verily is signified who only be to be Baptized but he speaketh of such as be of perfect age and of the first Foundations of Faith and of the Church to be planted among the Gentiles which were as yet rude and ignorant of Religion Such as be of Age may hear believe and confess that which is Preached and taught but so cannot Infants therefore we may justly collect that he speaketh here nothing of Infants or Children But for all this
there are many expressions in the Fathers that may seem more distant from that sense we are willing to take them in and we should be very loth to yield them up as the Authors or Defenders of some dangerous Opinions in the Church of Rome because some phrases of theirs in the rigour of them may be prest to a kind of meaning that may seem to favour them There is a necessary allowance to be given to some schemes of Speech and meaning of words or else we should be in a perpetual wrangle and dispute about them However there doth not need even this sort of Charity for this word dedicated upon which such weight of Argument hath been lay'd For as in all Authors it hath been variously used so is it properly enough apply'd in this Canon for the design for which it was used and the declaration is plain and intelligible enough to the candid and unprejudic'd mind The word dedication as they use it may properly enough signifie a Confirmation of our first dedication to God in Baptism and a declaration of what the Church thinks of the Person Baptiz'd what she doth expect from him and what Obligations he lieth under by his Baptism And as a medium of this declaration the sign of the Cross is made being as expressive as so many words what the Infant by his Baptism was design'd to the Apostle himself having comprehended the whole of Christianity under that term and denomination of the Cross Now that our Church did design this declarative dedication by the use of this sign and none other is very evident in that though the word dedicated is used in the explication of their sense in that Canon yet do they there refer to the words used in the Book of Common Prayer By comparing therefore the Canon and the Office for Baptism together the Canon directing to the Office and the Rubrick belonging to the Office directing to the Canon we may observe what stress is to be lai'd upon the word Dedicated that is how far they were from desâ—gning the same sort of immediate dedication that is made by Baptism and yet how by the Cross we may properly enough be said to be dedicated too As to the Sacrament of Baptism we are all agreed that by that we are dedicated to the Service of Christ and the Profession of his Gospel Now the Church of England both in the Rubrick and Canon do affirm and own that the Baptism is complete and the Child made a Member of Christ's Church before the Sign of the Cross is made use of or if upon occasion it should not be made use of at all It is expresly said We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ's Flock and upon that do sign it with the Cross So that the Child is declar'd within the Congregation of Christ's Flock before the Sign of the Cross be apply'd to it Beside that in the Office for private Baptism where the Sign of the Cross is to be omitted we are directed not to doubt but that the Child so Baptiz'd is lawfully and sufficiently Baptiz'd the Canon confirming it that the Infant Baptiz'd is by vertue of Baptism before it be sign'd with the sign of the Cross receiv'd into the Congregation of Christ's Flock as a perfect Member thereof and not by any power ascribed unto the sign of the Cross If therefore we be dedicated in Baptism and the Baptism acknowledg'd complete and perfect before or without the use of this Sign the Church cannot be suppos'd ordaining so needless a repetition as this would be to dedicate in Baptism then to dedicate by the Cross again but that which they express by dedicated by the Cross must be something very distinct from that dedication which is in Baptism that is the one is a sign of dedication the other is the dedication it self as distinct the one from the other as the Sign of Admission is from Admission it self and a signification of a priviledg is from an Instituted means of Grace It seems a thing decent and seasonable enough that when it hath pleas'd God to receive a person into his favour and given him the Seal of it that the Church should give him the right hand of fellowship solemnly declaring and testifying he is receiv'd into her Communion by giving him the Badg of our Common Religion So that this is plainly no other than a Declaration the Church makes of what the Person Baptiz'd is admitted to what engagement he lies under when capable of making a visible Profession It expresseth what hath been done in Baptism which is indeed not a sign of Dedication but Dedication it self as I have already said as also the Cross is not dedication itself but a sign of it Which Declaration is therefore made in the name of the Church in the plural number We Receive this Child into the Congregation of Christs Flock and do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. Whereas in Baptism the Minister as the immediate agent of Christ by whom he is Authoriz'd and Commissionated in the singular number as in his Name pronounceth it I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost As to what is urg'd above that nothing can be more immediate than in the present dedicating act to use the sign and express the dedicating signification they must know it might have been more immediate either to have plac'd this Sign before Baptism or to have appointed some such form of words in applying it as the Church of Rome doth or if it had been pretended to be of divine Institution and necessary to make the Sacrament of Baptism compleat and perfect And thus I presume I have run through the main debate betwixt us and our dissenting brethren as to this Case Wherein I hope I have neither misrepresented their objections nor let pass any material strength in them nor in replying to them used any one provoking or offensive word Would they but read and weigh this and the other Discourses of this kind with the same calmness of temper and study of mutual agreement wherewith I dare say they have been written I cannot think there would abide upon their Spirits so vehement a desire for the removal of these things but it might rather issue in a peaceable and happy closure in the use of what hath been made appear was so innocently taken up and might with so much advantage under the encouragement of serious and good Men be still retained I do not indeed think any of our Church so fond of this Ceremony particularly but that if the laying it aside might turn to as great Edification in the Church as the serious use of it might be emprov'd to our Governours would easily enough condescend to such an overture Instances of this have been given in our Age and our Presbyterian-Brethren in their Address to the Bishops do own that divers Reverend Bishops and Doctors in a Paper in Print Except
a Table for us and set before us the bread of life we will not come and feed upon it with joy and thankfulness THE END A Catalogue of Books and Sermons Writ by the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury Viz. 1 SErmons Preached upon several Occasions in two Volumes in Octavo 2. The Rule of Faith c. 3. A Sermon Preached on the 5th of November 1678. at St. Margarets Westminster before the Honourable House of Commons upon St. Luke 9. 55 56. But he turned and rebuked them and said ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of For the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them 4. A Sermon Preached at the first General Meeting of the Gentlemen and others in and near London who were Born within the County of York Upon John 13. 34 35. A new Commandment I give unto you that ye love one another c. 5. A Sermon Preached before the King at White-hall April 4th 1679 upon 1 John 4. 1. Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God c. 6. A Sermon Preached before the King at White-hall April 2d 1680 upon Joshua 24. 15. If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord chuse ye this day whom ye will serve 7. The Lawfulness and Obligation of Oaths A Sermon Preached at the Assizes held at Kingstone upon Thames July 21. 1681 upon Heb. 6. 16. And an Oath for Confirmation is to them an end of all Strife 8. Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Mr. Thomas Gouge November 4th 1681 with an account of his Life upon Luke 20. 37 38. Now that the Dead are raised even Moses shewed at the bush c. 9. A Persuasive to Frequent Communion in the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Preached in two Sermons upon 1 Cor. 11. 26 27 28. For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come c. 10. A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benjamin Whichcot D. D. and Minister of St. Lawrence Jewry London May 24th 1683 upon 2 Cor. v. 6. Wherefore we are always confident knowing that whilst we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. Sold by Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill and William Rogers at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet Advertisement of Books THE Works of the Learned Dr. Isaac Barrow late Master of Trinity College in Cambridge Published by the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury in two Volumes in Folio The First containing Thirty two Sermons preached upon several Occasions an Exposition of the Lord's Prayer and the Decalogue a Learned Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy a Discourse concerning the Unity of the Church also some Account of the Life of the Authour with Alphabetical Tables The Second Volume containing Sermons and Expositions upon all the Apostles Creed with an Alphabetical Table and to which may be also added the Life of the Authour Sermons preached upon several Occasions by the Right Reverend Father in God John Wilkins D. D. and late Lord Bishop of Chester Never printed before Printed for William Rogers at the Sun against S. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet THE CASE OF KNEELING AT THE Holy Sacrament STATED RESOLVED PART I. Wherein these QUERIES are considered I. Whether Kneeling at the Sacrament be contrary to any express Command of Christ obliging to the observance of a different Gesture II. Whether Kneeling be not a Deviation from that example which our Lord set us at the first Institution III. Whether Kneeling be not Unsutable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper as being no Table-Gesture The Second EDITION LONDON Printed by J. C. and Freeman Collins for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. THE CASE Whether it be Lawful to receive the Holy Sacrament Kneeling THe Resolution of the most weighty and considerable Doubts which may in point of Conscience arise about this matter and do at present much influence the minds and practices of many honest and well-meaning Dissenters will depend upon the Resolution of these following Queries 1. Whether Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Holy Sacrament according to the Law of the Land be not contrary to some express Law of Christ obliging to the observance of a different Posture 2. Whether Kneeling be not a deviation from that example which our Lord set us at the first Institution 3. Whether Kneeling be not altogether Unsutable and Repugnant to the nature of the Sacrament as being no Table-Gesture 4. Whether Kneeling Commanded in the Church of England be not contrary to the general Practice of the Church of Christ in the first and purest Ages 5. Whether it be Unlawful for us to receive Kneeling because this Gesture was first introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abused by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes 1. Whether Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Sacrament in Obedience to the Law of the Land be not a Transgression against some express Law of Christ which obliges us to observe another Gesture For satisfaction in this Point our onely recourse must be to the Holy Scriptures contained in the Books of the New Testament wherein the whole body of Divine Laws delivered and enacted by our Blessed Saviour are collected and recorded by the Holy Ghost And if there be any Command there extant concerning the use of any particular Gesture in the Act of Receiving the Lord's Supper we shall upon a diligent enquiry be sure to find it But before I give in my Answer I readily grant thus much by way of Preface Whatsoever is enjoyned and appointed by God to be prepetually used by all Christians throughout all Ages without any alteration that can never be nullified or altered by any Earthly Power or Authority whatsoever When once the Supreme Lawgiver and Governour of the World hath any ways signified and declared that such and such positive Laws shall be perpetually and unalterably observed then those Laws though in their own nature and with respect to the subject matter of them they be changeable must remain in full Force and can admit of no Change from the Laws of Men. It would be a piece of intolerable Pride and the most daring Presumption for any Earthly Prince any Council any Societie of Men whatsoever to oppose the known Will of the Soveraign Lord of Heaven and Earth In this Case nothing can take off the Force and Obligation of such Laws but the same Divine Authoritie which first passed them into Laws Thus much being granted and premised I return this Answer to the Question proposed God hath been so far from establishing the unalterable use of any particular Gesture in the Act of Receiving that among all the Sacred Records of his Will there is not any express Command to determine our practice one way or other We are left perfectly at our
practice of our Church as being agreeable to that of pure Antiquity For the proof of this numerous testimonies both of Greek and Latine Fathers might be alledged but I will content my self and I hope the Reader too with a few of each sort which are so plain and express that he who will except against them will also with the same face and assurance except against the Whiteness of Snow and the Light of the Sun at Noon-day And first for the Greek Fathers let the testimony of St. Cyril St. Cyril Hierosol Mystag Catech. 5. versus finem Paris edit p. 244. be heard than which nothing can be more plain and express to our purpose This holy Father in a place before cited gives instructions to Communicants how to behave themselves when they approach the Lords Table and that in the act of receiving both the Bread and the Wine At the receiving of the Cup he advises thus Approach says he not rudely stretching forth thy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 245. A. hands but bowing thy self and in a posture of Worship and Adoration saying Amen To the same purpose St. Chrysostome speaks in his 14th Homily on the first Epistle to the Corinthians Where he provokes and excites the Christians of his time to an awful and reverential deportment at the Holy Communion by the example of the Wise men who adored our Saviour in his Infancy after Matth. 2. 1 11. this manner This Body the Wise men reverenced even when it lay in the Manger and approaching thereunto worshipped it with fear and great trembling Let 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 24 Hom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 538. To. 9. Paris us therefore who are Citizens of Heaven imitate at least these Barbarians But thou seest this Body not in a Manger but on the Altar not held by a Woman but by the Priest c. Let us therefore stir up our selves and be horribly afraid and manifest a much greater Reverence than those Barbarians lest coming lightly and at a venture we heap fire on our heads In another place the same Father expresly bids them to fall down and communicate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Chrys Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes in moral p. 1151. when the Table was prepared and the King himself present and in order to beget in their minds great and awful thoughts concerning that Holy and Mysterious Feast he further advises them that when they saw the Chancel doors opened then they should suppose Heaven it self was unfolded from above and that the Angels descended to be spectators I suppose he means of their carriage and behaviour at the Lords Table and by giving their attendance to grace the solemnity With the Testimony of these ancient Writers Theodoret concurs who in a Dialogue between an Orthodox Flor. A. D. 440. Christian and an Heretick introduces Orthodoxus thus discoursing concerning the Lords Supper The mysterious Symbols or signs in the Sacrament viz. Bread and Wine depart not from their proper nature for they abide in their former Essence retain their former shape and form and approve themselves both to our sight and touch to be what they were before but they are considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dialog 2. To. 4. p. 85. Paris edit for such as they are made that is with respect to their Spiritual signification and that Divine use to which they were consecrated and are believed and adored as those very things which they are believed to be Which words clearly import thus much that the consecrated Elements were received with a Gesture of Adoration and withal assure us that such a carriage at the Sacrament was not built upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For there is not a clearer instance in all Antiquity against that absurd Doctrine which the Church of Rome so obstinately believes at this day than what Theodoret furnisheth us with in the words above mentioned Lastly to produce no more out of the Greek Fathers that story which Gregory Nazianzen Gregor Naz. Orat. in laud. Gorg. p. 187. Paris edit Gregor Flor. Ann. Dom. 370. relates concerning his Sister Gorgonia will serve to corroborate what hath been said viz. That being sick and having made use of several Remedies to no purpose at last she resolved upon this course In the stilness of the night she repaired to the publick Church and being provided with some of the consecrated Elements which she had reserved at home she fell down on her Knees before the Altar and with a loud voice supplicated him whom she adored and in conclusion was made hole I am not much concerned whether the Reader shall think fit to believe or censure the Miracle but it 's certain that this famous Bishop hath put it upon Record and applauds his Sister for the method she used for her recovery and which speaks home to my purpose it 's clearly intimated that this pious Woman did Kneel or use an adoring posture at least when she eat the Sacramental Bread And there is no doubt to be made but Gorgonia in Communicating observed the same posture that others generally did in publick She did that in her sickness which all others were wont to do in their health when they came to the Lords Table i. e. fall down and Kneel For it is not to be imagined that at such a time as this when she came to beg so great a Blessing at Gods hands in the publick Church at the Altar stiled by the Ancients the Place of Prayer she would be guilty of any irregularity and used a singular Posture different from what was generally used by Christians when they came to the same place to Communicate and Pray over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice which they esteemed the most powerful and effectual way of Praying the most likely to render God propitious and to prevail with him above all other Prayers which they offered at any other time or in any other place So much for the testimonies of the Greek Fathers who were men famous for Learning and Piety in their generations and great Lights and Ornaments in the Ancient Church With these the Latine Fathers perfectly agree in their judgements concerning our present subject And of these I will onely mention two though more might be produced for brevity sake and they very eminent and illustrious persons held in great esteem by the then present Age wherein they flourish'd and by all succeeding Generations The first is St. Ambrose Bishop of Millain in a Flor. A. D. 370. Psal 98. Ps 99. 5. in our Translation Ambros de Sp. Sto. l. 3. c. 12. Book he wrote concerning the Holy Spirit where inquiring after the meaning of the Psalmist when he exhorts men to exalt the Lord and to worship his Foot-stool he gives us the sence in these words That it seems to belong unto the mystery of our Lords Incarnation and then proceeds to shew for what reason it may be accommodated to that Mysterie and at last
be his Duty And for the matters in question most earnestly imploring the Assistance of Gods Spirit to guide and direct him Well but supposing a Man has endeavoured to inform his Judgment as well as he can and hath used all those Prudent means that were in his Power to satisfie himself of the Lawfulness of our Communion But yet after all he is of the same perswasion that he was viz. That he cannot joyn in our Worship without Sin what will we say to such a Man as this Will we still say that this Man must either Conform though against his Conscience or he is a Schismatick before God This is the great difficulty and I have two things to say to it In the first place we do heartily wish that this was the Case of all or of the most of our Dissenters viz. that they had done what they can to satisfie themselves about our Communion For if it was I do verily perswade my self that there would presently be an end of all those much to be lamented Schisms and Divisions which do now give so much Scandal to all good Men and threaten the Ruin of our Reformed Religion And this poor Church of England which hath so long Laboured and Groaned under the furious Attacques that have been made upon her by Enemies without and Enemies within her own Bowels would in a little time be perfectly set free from all apprehension of Danger at the least from the one sort of her Adversaries If all our Brethren of the Separation would most seriously follow after the things that make for Peace and walk by the same Rule as far as they were able and in things where they were otherwise minded would Religiously apply themselves to God for direction and to the use of Prudent means for Satisfaction I doubt not but the Face of things would presently be changed among us and we should near no more of any Division or Schism in our Nation that was either dangerous to the Church or to the Salvation of the Men that were concerned in it But alas we fear we have too great reason to say that the generality of our Dissenting Brethren even those of them that Plead Conscience for their Separation have not done their Duty in this matter have not heartily endeavoured to satisfie their Minds about the Lawfulness of Conformity in those Points which they stick at If they had one would think that after all their endeavours they should before they pronounced Conformity to be unlawful be able to produce some one plain Text of Scripture for the proving it so either in the whole or in any part of it but this they are not able to do They do indeed produce some Texts of Scripture which they think do make for them But really they are such that if they had not supinely taken up their meaning upon trust but would have been at the pains of carefully examining them and using such helps as they have every where at hand for the understanding them It would have been somewhat difficult for them to have expounded those Texts in such a sense as would infer the unlawfulness of our Communion But further I say it is not probable that the generality of our Dissenters who condemn our Communion as unlawful have ever anxiously applied themselves to the considering the Point or gaining Satisfaction about it because they do not seem to have much consulted their own Teachers in this affair and much less those of our way If they had they would have been disposed to think better of our Communion than they do For not to mention what the Churchmen do teach press in this matter the most Eminent of their own Ministers are ready thus far to give their Testimony to our Communion That there is nothing required in it but what a Lay-Person may Honestly and Lawfully comply with though there may be some things incovenient and which they wish were amended Nay they themselves are ready upon occasion to afford us their Company in all the instances of Lay-Communion But I desire not to enlarge upon this Argument because it is an Invidious one All that I say is that we wish it was not too apparent by many Evidences that most of those who separate from us are so far from having done all they can to bring themselves to a complyance with our Church Constitutions that they have done little or nothing at all towards it But have taken up their Opinions hand over head without much thinking or enquiring and having once taken up an Opinion they adhere to it without scarce so much as once thinking that it is possible for them to be in the wrong If you speak of a Man that may with reason be said to have done his endeavour to satisfie himself about the Points of his Duty in this matter Give us such a one as hath no end no interest to serve by his Religion but only to Please God and to go to Heaven and who in the choice of the way that leads thither hath the Indifference of a Traveller to whom it is all one whether his way light on the right Hand or on the left being only concerned that it be the way which leads to his Journeys end Give us a Man that concerns himself as little as you please in the Speculative Disputes and Controversies of Religion But yet is wonderfully Solicitous about the Practice of his Duty and therefore will refuse no pains or trouble that may give him a right understanding of that Give us a Man that in the midst of the great Heats and Divisions and different Communions of the Church is yet modest and humble and docible That believes he may be mistaken and that his private Friends may be mistaken too and hath such an Esteem and Reverence for the Wisdom of his Governours in Church or State as to admit that it is probable they may see farther into matters of State and Religion than he doth And that therefore every Tenent and Opinion that was inbibed in his Education that was infused by private Men of his acquaintance or that was espoused upon a very few thoughts and little Consideration ought not to be so stifly maintained as to control or to be set in Opposition to the Publick Establishments of Authority Lastly give us a Man that where the Publick Laws do run counter to his private Sentiments and he is at a loss to reconcile his Duty to Men with his Duty to God Yet doth not presently upon this set up a Flag of Defiance to Authority but rather applies himself with all the Indifference and Honesty he can to get a true Information of these matters And to that end he Prays to God continually for his assistance he calls in the best helps and consults the best guides he can his Ears are open to what both sides can say for themselves and he is as willing to read a Book which is writ against his Opinion as one that defends
it In a word if he be prejudiced or biassed any way it is on the side of Authority being rather deâ—â—rous to find himself mistaken and his Governours in the Right than himself in the Right and his Governours miâ—taken I say shew us such a Man as this and we readily grant you have produced a Person that doth sincerely use his endeavours to satisfie himself about the Lawfulness of our Communion But then we must say this also that as the Case stands between the Church of England and the Dissenters we can hardly believe that such a Man will long continue in Separation from the Church but will in a little time gain the Satisfaction of seeing not only that he may Lawfully joyn with us but also that it is his Duty so to do But let us admit that a Man may have endeavoured to Inform his Judgment as well as he can and yet be so far from being convinced that it is his Duty to joyn with us in our Worship that he is still of Opinion that it is his Duty to Separate from us What will we say of such a Man Will we still brand him for a Schismatick notwithstanding he hath done all he can to bring himself over to us but cannot To this I answer in the second Place according to the Principles I have before laid down that if such a Case do ever happen though the Man cannot be excused from Schism as to the matter of it because wherever there is an Actual Separation from a Church with which we ought and with which we may Lawfully Communicate there is an Actual Schism Commenced let the pretence for the Separation be what it will yet I trust he shall not be charged before God with the Formal guilt of the Schism any farther than the Error that led him into it was contracted by his own fault Though Schism in it self as we have said be a great Sin yet we do not say that all those who are engaged in the same Schism are equally Guilty before God In the first place those that separate from the Church to serve any private secular turn these are most horribly guilty of Schism and there is nothing to be said in their excuse In the second Place those who separate from the Church through misperswasions and mistakes of Judgment which they groundlessly and foolishly took up and might have avoided and would yet still certainly correct in themselves if they were but so Careful and Conscientious about their Duty as they ought to be These Men have indeed far more to say for themselves than the former but yet they are very blameable and are bound as they Love their Souls to take more Care of Informing their Conscience aright that so they may leave that Sin they are engaged in But Thirdly those that separate from the Church of God because they know no better nor never had means to know better Or those that have sincerely endeavoured to understand their Duty as much as could be expected from one in their Circumstances yet through weakness of understanding or want of Opportunity light into wrong Paths In a word those that are unhappily engaged in a Schism but God Almighty who searcheth the Hearts knoweth that it is not through the Fault of their Wills but the misfortune of their Circumstances I say if there be any Man among us that is in this Condition though he be a Schismatick Materially yet he is Innocently at least Pittiably so And if he be as free from blame in the other parts of his Life be may be a good Christian for all that And God Almighty we hope who Judgeth of Men by their inward Sincerity and not by their outward Circumstances will impute that Schism which in others perhaps is a wilful Crime to this Man no otherwise then as a pure Sin of Ignorance which shall not upon a general Repentance for all Sins known and unknown be accounted for at the last day Especially if this Innocently mistaken Man we speak of do to the other Regularities of his Life add a diligent Care in these four following Points First that he be not Obstinate and Pertinacious in his way but that he keep his mind readily prepared and disposed to receive any Conviction which God by any Means or Instruments shall offer to him Secondly That he Separate no farther from the Church of which he ought to be a Member than he needs must but do chearfully comply with the Publick Laws and Establishments in all those Instances where he is Satisfied he may do it with a safe Conscience Thirdly that where he cannot give Active Obedience to the Laws he do in those Instances Patiently and Christianly submit to the Penalties which those Laws inflict Neither exclaiming against his Governours or the Magistrates as Persecutors for enacting or Executing those Laws Nor using any undue Illegal means to get himself more ease and Liberty But in all things behaving himself as a quiet and peaceable Subject to the Government he lives under And Fourthly and lastly that he shew himself a good Neighbour as well as a good Subject in avoiding all peevish and bitter Censures of those that differ in Opinion and perswasion from him and Exercising Humanity and Friendliness and Charity to all his Fellow Christians Whosoever I say of our Brethren of the Separation make good these Points That is to say are in the first place very sincere in their endeavours to inform their Conscience aright in the matter of our Communion And in the next place when they cannot Satisfie their Conscience about our way do yet in their Dissent from us Observe the four Particulars I have now named I should be loth for my part to Censure them either as ill Men or ill Subjects or ill Christians But then all that I have said in this matter doth no more justifie the Sin of Schism or Extenuate the hainousness of it in its own Nature Than it would serve to justifie or Extenuate the Sin of Idolatry if all that I have now said was applied to the Case of an Ignorant well meaning devout Papist For I do verily believe that what I have now represented by way of Apology for an innocent mistaken Separatist will hold true mutatis mutandis in the Case of a deluded Romanist who is invincibly and without any fault of his intangled in the Practice of their Idolatries But I believe for all that the Sin of Idolatry is in it self a most grievous Sin and so I believe is the Sin of Schism and therefore notwithstanding all that may be said concerning the Innocence or Excuseableness of some Mens mistakes about these matters yet nevertheless it infinitely concerns every Person to have a care how he be engaged either in the one or the other To come to a conclusion that which I would most seriously press from what hath been said is this It appears from the foregoing Discourse how absolutely necessary it is that every Man should