Theophylact But if any one be not satisfied with this Account of that Business but will further contend that St. Paul here doth not only speak to the Case of Jewish Christians who were zealous for Moses's Law But also takes in the Case of some Gentile Christians at that time who upon a Pythagorean Principle they might have entertained were Averse to the eating any kind of Flesh as thinking all such Food to be Vnclean They may notwithstanding what I have said enjoy their own Opinion For it is indifferent to our Controversie whether the Persons whose Case is here spoken to were Jews or Gentiles Only thus much appears plainly that the most of them were Jewish Christians who together with their Christianity had a Conscientious regard to the Law of Moses Secondly As for what is meant by Doubting in the The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth no where either in Scripture or any other Author signifie to Doubt but most usually to Discern or Distinguish or make a Dâ—fference as it is frequently used in the New Testatament Vid. Matt. XVI 3. Acts XV. 9. I Cor. IV. 7. VI. 5. XI 29. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken Actively and then it hath the same Signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to make a difference As is plain not only in St. Judes Text here quoted but in St. James Ch. II. 4. Where our English Translation hath indeed very well rendred the Apostles Sense thus Are ye not Paâ—tial But if they had truly rendred his Words they must have thus Translated Do ye not make a difference Again sometimes it is taken Passively and then the Signification of it is this to be Divided or Severed or Distinguished And when it is used in this Sense it sometimes happens that the English word Doubting doth conveniently enâ—ugh express it Doubting being indeed nothing else but a Mans being Divided as to his own mind And accordingly in some places our Translators have thus Englished it though I belive in some of those more proper words might be found out to express its Sense But though in a Few Texts it be thus used in Scripture yet I do not find that any Profaâ—e Author did ever use it in this Seâ—se of Doubting And therefore unless there be evident reason I do not know why we should depart from the natural and usual Signification of the Word in the Tâ—xt we are now upon Text the Reader may be pleased to take notice that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we here translate He that doubteth doth as properly signifie to distinguish or make a difference as to Doubt or Hesitate And thus it is used both by Profane Writers and in Holy Scripture as particularly in the 22 d. of St. Jude's Epistle And of some have compassion making a difference 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very word in the Text. Now considering the Apostles Argument in this Chapter is the Case of the Jewish Christians who were divided in their Perswasions about the Legal Observations some making a difference between clean and unclean Meats and such like things and others making none It seems every whit as proper and natural and more suitable to the scope of the Place to take the Word in this Sense in this place rather than in that other according to which it is usually translated So that the Text is thus to be rendered He that maketh a difference between clean and unclean Meats If he do eat any thing which he judgeth to be unclean he is damned or condemned for so doing because he eateth not of Faith And so probable is this rendring that our English Translators took care to put it in the Margin of our Bibles as may be seen by every one Nor doth it want good Authority for the Vulgar Latine thus translates the place and not only so but Erasmus Hentenius and generally all the Latine Expositors if we may believe Estius who yet himself interprets it the Common way Indeed I doubt not but this is the true Version of this Word in this Text However I do not so much stand upon it as to preclude any man from the liberty of taking the other if he likes it better For though this way of rendering doth better serve our Purpose as quite putting an end to the Controversie Yet our Cause doth not so absolutely depend upon it but that we may very well allow of the common Translation as will appear hereafter Thirdly As for the Word Faith which is here used let it be taken notice of that when in the verse before the Text the Apostle speaks of having Faith and in the Text of eating without Faith or not of Faith and that whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin We are not to take Faith here in the large sense as it signifies a Belief in Jesus Christ or an Assent to Gods Revelations particularly those of the Gospel which is the usual Notion of Faith in the New Testament But only for a mans Assent to the Goodness or Lawfulness of any particular Action that he takes in hand So that to have Faith about an Action is to be perswaded that that Action may be Lawfully done in the present Circumstances or at least not to be Conscious of any Reason that should make it unlawful And on the other side to do an Action without Faith or not of Faith as the Apostle here expresseth it is to do an Action of the Lawfulness of which we are no way satisfied but on the contrary think we have good reason to believe that it is an unlawful Action Fourthly Whereas St. Paul saith that he that doubteth or differenceth is damned or condemned if he eat we are to take notice that that expression is not to be understood of the punishment of his eating in the other World which is that which in common speech we call Damnation But only of the guilt of his eating as to his own Conscience Indeed there is no colour why our Translators should here use the Word Damned since Condemned is the natural Word whether we consider the Propriety of the Greek or the English Language So that this is the meaning of the Proposition He that doubteth with such a Doubt as is here spoken of and yet eateth such a Man is condemned for so doing Condemned how why condemned of himself as the Apostle had expressed it in the verse before condemned of his own Conscience because without necessity having free power over his own Actions he doth that which he apprehends to be sinful I dare say the Reader will be satisfied of the Truth of our Interpretation as to both the last named Particulars if he will carefully read the foregoing verse together with the Text as indeed they do but both make one compleat Sentence and judge of one by the other St. Paul hath for a good while been addressing himself to the stronger Christians in order to the perswading them so to use their Knowledge and
dangerous to add as it is to detract from these written Rules we may no more do what is not Commanded then what is Forbidden This I take to be the main Argument that is brought against us in the present Controversie and if this can be Answered all the rest will be but of little Force Therefore to give what satisfaction I can to this I say first that throughout the whole Epistle to the Hebrews where Moses and Christ or the Law and the Gospel are compared the scope of the Apostle is to shew the exact Correspondence there was betwixt the Type and the Antitype and not that our Saviour had as particularly prescribed the Order of external Worship as Moses by Gods appointment had done For it is certain he did not to give but one instance of very many The manner Exod. 12. of Celebrating the Passover how it should be Killed and how it should be Eaten is it set down with every minute Circumstance But the Institution of the Supper of our Lord is not so delivered unto us We have only a short Narrative with a general Command superadded Do this in remembrance of me And when Luk. 22. 19. 1 Cor. 11. 23 24 25. St. Paul repeats it again he does it without any mention of the Posture of Receiving The Gospel which teaches us a more Spiritual way of Serving God is not so particular in the Circumstantials of Worship as the Law was and we must not affirm that it is because we would have it so We cannot prove that Christ has actually done this because we imagine that he should have done it It would be better argued if we should say The Gospel has not expressly determined these things as the Law did therefore they are left to the prudent determination of those that have the Rule over Heb. 13. 17. us to whom we are Commanded to be Obedient and submit our selves that the Episcopal Power may be equivalent to the Sacerdotal and the Service of God as regularly Administred in the Church as it was in the Temple Besides it was not a Sin even under the Law to ordain and observe some things relating to the Worship of God that were not written And these could not be esteemed additions to the Word if they were not imposed as Divine Precepts but as Prudent Constitutions appointed only for the more Orderly management of the external Offices of Religion But that any thing should be Unlawful meerly because it is not Commanded is a Doctrine I think that was never heard of among Jews or Christians till very lately God had Commanded the setting up of a Tabernacle and most punctually described how it should be made We have been told that there was not to be one Pin about it for which there was not some special Direction And God never spake a word concerning building of an House See 2 Sam. 17. yet this notwithstanding David without any Command 1 Chron. 17. had it in his thoughts to build one and Nathan in his private judgment approved of the design and God himself though he suspended the execution of it for some time commended him for it and rewarded his pious Intentions with a promise of building him 2 Chron 6. 8. another kind of House by confirming the settlement of the Crown in his Family Which is proof enough that every thing then that was not Commanded was not therefore Sinful The antient Church of the Jews were so fully satisfied in this that they made no Scruple of ordering divers things for which they could not find a Command The Feast of the Dedication is a known and pregnant instance it was of modern and humane Institution and yet our Saviour vouchsafed to be present at John 10. 22. it Some things they a little altered and added others at the Passeover as their eating of it not Standing but Sitting or Lying at the Table and their Singing a Paschal Hymn after it which with some other like Usages were observed by our blessed Lord and his Disciples and it can be no less than Blasphemy then to conceive that there could be any thing that was Sinful in them The whole matter may be concluded thus If it were not Sinful under the Law where the external Form of Divine Worship was particularly specified to admit of certain Usages that were not Commanded then much less is it Sinful to do so now under the Gospel where the external Form is not so specified where we have little more than such general Rules as these to be respectively applied by Superiors and Inferiors Let all things be done Decently and in Order 1 Cor. 14. 40. Heb. 13. 17. Rom. 4. 15. Obey them that have the Rule over you Where no Law is there is no transgression I have been something the longer in considering this Argument because the whole debate must issue here which way soever this be decided the Controversie is at an end If our Church require any thing of us that is Unlawful we are bound to Separate from her if she do not we are strictly ingaged to Communicate with her They therefore that Divide should first shew that she injoyns something Unlawful But that never was and I verily believe never can be made appear For we are told in the Person of St. Paul that All things are Lawful which must of necessity be understood 1 Cor. 6. 12. 10. 23. of things that are not Forbidden And then since it cannot be charged upon our Church that she Commands any thing that is Forbidden it must be granted that she Commands nothing but what the Apostle has declared to be Lawful What Reason then can be pretended why we should rend and tear her very Bowels Why should we run so headily into opposite Parties and Factions Why should we hazard the Protestant Cause upon a number of little disunited Independent Interests that are as much at Difference one with another as they all are with us What should make us so timorous in this when we are so daring in some other cases Why should we be afraid to joyn in Communion with a Reformed Church whose Doctrine is Orthodox whose Rites ae Innocent whose Government is Apostolical A man would wonder truly what could be pleaded in defence of a Separation when none of these can be justly accused And yet there are certain Objections brought against us which those that withdraw would fain perswade us to think sufficient to justifie their Departure To some of the chief of these I shall now endeavour to give what satisfaction I can Our Dissenting Brethren therefore are wont to plead That there is a Liturgy or Set Form of Publick Worship prescribed That there are certain Ceremonies injoyned That the use of these Controverted things gives great Scandal to the weak That they cannot Safely joyn in our mixt Communion That they leave our Assemblies for the sake of greater Edification which they can find elsewhere And for these Reasons they think
one and the other If We state the case we say the Rules we are to guide our selves by are those of the Apostle of Decency Order and Edification And we trouble not our selves nicely to consider whether the Decency arise from the nature of the thing or from common usage or prescription or institution since we think that decency may arise from any and it matters not from what cause the thing proceeds nor how it came to be Decent when it 's now thought and found to be so And as little curious arewe about the first reasons of Order and Edification for we are so little speculative in matters of practice that we think the peace of the Church and Unity amongst Christians are much more fit to determine us in these cases than all the accuracy in Metaphysicks So that if a thing be found to be decent orderly and for Edification though we were assur'd it did Spring from Humane Institution we think it to be lawful and that Humane Institution cannot make that unlawful which is found by use and experience to be for Decency and Order Again we think that those things which in kind are necessary to Humane Acts in all cases and comely and grave in Worship as well as out of it may be appropriated to Worship and that the appropriation of Places Time and Habit to Worship doth not therefore make such Places Times and Habits unlawful to be used And if things indifferent in themselves are unlawful in Worship we conclude it must be when Divine Institution is pretended for what is Humane and when the things sute not the Nature or defeat the ends Case of indifferent things p. 24 c. of Divine Worship or for the like reasons which I in the controverted Tract did insist upon But now on the contrary by what may be Collected from him it appears to be the Sence of his position 1. That nothing of Humane Institution is to be admitted or may lawfully be used in Divine Worship For thus he saith they must be things necessary to all Humane Acts or convenient for them as Humane Acts or comely for all Humane Acts c. 2. That nothing though necessary or convenient or comely ought to be used in and much less be appropriated to the Worship of God for they are to be considered in Worship only as they have a reference to such Humane Acts. In the consideration of these I shall 1. Consider how he attempts to prove it 2. Endeavour to discover the mistake and vindicate the arguments and instances produced in the case of Indifferent things to the contrary from his Exceptions These are the chief things that all his discourse is founded upon and that are scattered through it But though they are rather supposed than proved by him and therefore to use his own Words I may lightly pass them over and expect till he hath justified them yet because I would make somewhat of it I shall collect from the Hints he gives what it is that he doth think may be said for them As for the first of these that nothing is to be used iâ— Prop. 1. Divine Worship that is meerly of Humane Institution his arguments are fetched from the Nature of thâ— things pleaded for them viz. Decency order edification As saith he 1. We cannot apprehend it in the power of Man tâ— Pag 11. Create a Decency The greatest Emperors wearing aâ— Antick Habit would not make it Decent till it coulâ— prescribe or had obtained a common consent This â— the rather mention because it is an argument much iâ— vogue amongst those that would artificially handlâ— this matter But here let me ask them what it is creates a Decency He saith the Law of Nature and prescription common consent and the guise of Countries But how began that Prescription whence arose that consent whether from chance or institution Or what is it whence iâ— ariseth if it be found to be decent Certainly if it began in one of these institution is the more noble of thâ— two and the less disputable And then it would be harâ— to conceive how that which came by chance should be sawful and that which came by Institution should be unlawful But 2. If Prescription and Common Consent and the Guise of Countreys be the measure of Decency may not these things also be the measure of it in the Church and in things relating to Divine Worship And is not the custom of the Churches of God a reason as sufficient to conclude us in this matter as the grave and Civil customs of a Nation Or 3. Is there any Church on this side Rome that by a Sic volo doth stamp a decency upon its Institutions without respect to prescription and the custom of Churches Or that can do it By his way of expressing himself he would make the Argument great as if to Create a Decency was an invasion of God's Prerogative We cannot apprehend it in the Power of man to Create a Decency The greatest Emperor c. But if a Decency arise from the Guise of Countrys and Prescription and Common Consent it might be questioned whether according to him God himself can then Create a Decency and by his authority make that to be at once which requires time and Custom as he saith to produce and form it So high doth the power of a little School-subtilty and Imagination sometimes transport men that their Arguments vanish out of fight and are lost to all those that converse with what is gross and tangible But supposing it is not in the power of man to Create a Decency yet Order may be Order without those dilatory reasons of Custom and Prescription and therefore what holds against establishing Decency by institution will not hinder but that order may be thereby established Therefore 2. He further argues from the Nature of Decency and Order that things of meer Humane Institution are not capable of that plea. We can understand saith he nothing Ibid. by orderly and according to order but without confusion By Decency we can understand nothing but what is opposed to sordidly nor can we think of any action that is not Decent if the contrary to it be not indecent So then nothing ought to be done in the Worship of God but what may be done without Confusion c. of which Nature can nothing be that is idle and superfluous c. I was at a great loss at first to find out the drift of all this but upon consideration I think it contains these things 1. That it is unlawful to ordain or use any thing superfluous in the Worship of God 2. That whatsoever is not for Order Decency and Edification is superfluous 3. That nothing is Decent if the contrary to it be not indecent It 's the last of these we are now concerned in which by the help of the great managers of this Argument may be better understood Ames 's Fresh Suit answer to Bp. Morton
Case and we have an easie resolution of the Question before us viz. That since a greater sin is to be avoided before a less when a man supposes himself to be under a necessity of being guilty of one it is more reasonable that the man we speak of should come to the Sacrament with all his Doubts concerning his unworthiness than that he should customarily and habitually withdraw himself from it because it is a greater sin to do this latter than the former Well but some say How can this consist with St. Paul's Doctrine Who expresly affirms That whoever eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh 1 Cor. 11. 29. Damnation to himself Can there be any more dreadful sin than that which if a man be guilty of it will actually Damn him Certainly one would think by this that a man runs a much less hazard in not Receiving at all than in venturing to Receive whilest he hath the least Doubt that he Receives unworthithily considering the dreadful Consequences of it But to this I briefly answer Such a man as we all along suppose in our Case is in no danger at all of Receiving unworthily in the Sense that St. Paul useth this Term. For the unworthy receiving that he so severly Censures in the Corinthians was their approaching to the Lords Table with so little a sense of what they were about that they made no distinction between the Lords Body and common Food Ibid. v. 29. v. 20 21 22. But under a pretence of meeting for the Celebration of the Lords Supper they used the Church of God as if it was an Eating or Tipling House Some of them Revelling it there to that degree that they went away Drunk from these Religious Assemblies All this appears from the Text. But I hope none among us especially none of those who are so doubtful about their being duly qualified do profane the Sacrament in this manner But further Perhaps the Damnation which St. Paul here denounces is not so frightful as is commonly apprehended For all that he saith if either the Original or the Margin of our English Bibles be consulted will appear to be this He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Judgment to himself Meaning hereby in all probability that he who doth thus affront our Lords Instistution by making no distinction between the Bread of the Sacrament and common Meat doth by this his profaneness draw severe Judgments of God upon himself For for this cause saith he many are weak and Ver. 30. sickly among you and many are fallen asleep But here is not a word of Everlasting Damnation much less of any mans being put into that State by thus receiving unworthily Unless any man will say that all those who are visited with Gods Judgments in this World are in the State of Damnation as to the next Which is so far from being true that St. Paul in this very place affirms the contrary viz. in the 32. Verse where he tells us That When we are thus judged in this World we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the World i. e. with Wicked men in another Life But further Admitting St. Paul in these words to mean Damnation in the usual Sense yet still the utmost they can come to will be no more than this That whosoever eateth and drinketh thus unworthily as the Corinthians did is guilty of a Damnable sin But now there are a great many other Cases besides this of the Sacrament in which a Man is equally guilty of a Damnable Sin if he do not perform his Duty as he ought to do He that Prays or Hears unworthily He that Fasts or gives Alms unworthily In a word He that in any Instance performs the Worship of God or professeth the Christian Religion unworthily I say such a Man according to the Protestant Doctrine may be said to do these things to his own Damnation upon the same account that he is said to Eat and Drink his own Damnation that Communicates unworthily in the Sacrament though indeed not in so high a degree That is to say such a Man is guilty of a Sin that is in its own Nature Damnable and may prove actually so to him unless either by a particular or general Repentance he obtains Gods pardon for it But yet for all this there is no man will for these Reasons think it adviseable to leave off the practice of these Duties but the only Consequence he will draw from hence is that he is so much the more concerned to take care that he perform them as he ought to do But in the last place Let the sin of coming to the Sacrament unworthily be as great and as damnable as we reasonably can suppose it Yet this is that we contend for the sin of totally withdrawing from it is much greater and more damnable So that if he who partakes of it unworthily doth eat and drink Damnation to himself He that partakes not at all is so far from mending the matter that he doth much increase that Damnation The truth of this doth fully appear from what I have before spoke in General concerning the much greater sin of transgressing a known Law of God than of observing that Law as well as we can though with much unworthiness I will only add this further with reference to this Particular of receiving the Sacrament Though I am far from encouraging any to approach to the Lords Table without due Qualifications or from extenuating any mans sin that comes unworthily unworthily I mean in the Scripture Sense of that word and not as it is understood by many melancholly scrupulous Persons Yet this I say That if Men did seriously consider what a sin it is to live without the Sacrament it being no other than living in an open affront to the express Institution of our Lord Jesus and a renouncing the Worship of God and the Communion of the Church in the great Instance of Christian Worship and Christian Communion And withal what dreadful Consequences they bring upon themselves hereby even the depriving themselves of the chief of those ordinary means which our Lord hath appointed for the obtaining Remission of sins and the Grace and Influence of his Holy Spirit I say if men did seriously consider these things they would not look upon it as so slight a matter voluntarily to Excommunicate themselves as to the partaking in this great Duty and Privilege of Christians but what apprehensions soever they had of the sin and the danger of receiving unworthily they would for all that think it more sinful and more dangerous not to receive at all I have said enough in answer to this Objection from St. Paul perhaps too much considering how often these things have been said I will now go on with our Case In the Third place therefore let us suppose our Doubting Man for these or such like Reasons as we have given to have such a Sense of his
who it is they joyn with and whose Cause they advance while they thus decry our Liturgy and advance their own extempore Prayers in the room of it they will at last see cause to retract a mistake which none but the Church of Rome will have cause to thank them for CASE VI. Whether it be lawful to comply with the use of Publick Form s when they are imposed IN answer to which a very few words will suffice for it hath been already proved that the use of publick Forms is universally lawful there being nothing either in Scripture or the nature of the thing that forbids it but a great deal in both that approves and warrants it so that now the Question is no more than this Whether a lawful thing when imposed may be lawfully complied with The affirmative of which is sufficiently proved in the Case of Indifferent Things And indeed if the Imposition of Praying in publick by Forms though lawful in it self may not be lawfully complied with then neither may the Imposition of praying extempore and if so then we must act quite contrary to what we are commanded by Authority and pray by Form when we are commanded to pray extempore as well as extempore when we are commanded to pray by Form and if in lawful things Authority can oblige us to comply with this by commanding the contrary our liberty will be altogether as liable to restraint this way as the other because we shall be as much obliged this way to forbear a lawful thing as we are to comply with it the other And if all men were of this opinion that no lawful thing ought to be complied with when it is commanded Authority might as effectually oblige them to do whatsoever it would have by commanding the quite contrary as it can now by commanding the thing it would have But this being quite besides the Province I have undertaken I shall insist no farther upon it FINIS BOOKS Printed for Fincham Gardiner 1. A Perswasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of Englands Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of mixt Communion Whether it be Lawful to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other parts of Divine Service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved c. In two Parts 11. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where men think they can profit most 12. A serious Exhortation with some important Advices relating to the late Cases about Conformity recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 13. An Argument to Union taken from the true Interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 14. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren 15. The Case of Infant-Baptism in Five Questions c. 16. A Discourse concerning Conscience wherein an Account is given of the Nature and Rule and Obligation of it c. 17. The Charge of Scandal and giving Offence by Conformity Refelled and Reflected back upon Separation c. 1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking of us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 2. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 3. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. AN ANSWER TO THE Dissenters Objections Against the COMMON PRAYERS And some other Parts of Divine-Service Prescribed in the LITURGIE OF THE CHURCH of ENGLAND LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street B. Took at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard and F. Gardiner at the White-horse in Ludgate-street 1684. AN ANSWER TO THE Dissenters Objections Against the COMMON PRAYERS And some other Parts of DIVINE SERVICE Prescribed in the LITURGIE of the CHURCH of ENGLAND I Believe all Considering Persons are by this time sensible what advantage the Papists make of the Separation of some Protestants from the Church of England And the ill effects of it at present and the worse which we have reason to fear are so very discernible that it may now be hoped the Consideration hereof will something abate those Prejudices of Dissenters against us which we think have hitherto hindred the prevailing of our Reasons Though Prejudice is hard to be remov'd yet 't is not impossible Several Ingenuous Persons of that Persuasion have been rescu'd from their Prejudices against our Communion when the mischief of these Divisions was not so apparent as 't is now I trust therefore that at this time many more will and I pray God that all of them may seriously and impartially look over the Grounds upon which they have kept up the Separation For I am persuaded that their Objections against our Communion are not of that Conseâ—uence â—s to Justifie their forsaking it and that themselves would discern it if they would consider our Answers with the same Meekness and Charity wherewith we offer them I have with great pleasure read some short Discourses lately Publisht that tend to this purpose the Good Spirit where with they are written seeming to be a very likely means of conveying the Argument with all its advantage into the Minds of those that shall take the pains to read them And though I think that which hath been said already is enough to satisfie Judicious Men yet by the persuasion of some Friends I have taken upon me to Answer those Particular Objections against the Publick Service of God by the Book of Common Prayer which the Dissenters are said to insist most upon I must confess that I have always thought the Liturgie of the Church of England to be such a truly Evangelical Form of Publick Worship that it would rather have invited Protestants to our Communion than kept them from it And I believe if the Dissenters would seriously read over that Sermon of Dr. Beverege concerning the Excellency and Vsefulness of the Common Prayer they would go near to be of the same mind And I hope many of them are so excepting only as to those Particulars wherein they are not so well satisfied And therefore I
was the way in the Apostles time than that it was not But of this let every one Judge as he sees cause This is certain That the Apostles left the Governours of the Church under the Obligation of ordering the Service of God according to General Rules and prescribed that all things should be done Decently and in Order and to Edification And I do not think that our Brethren will ever be able to shew that this Practice which they except against is not agreeable to such General Rules which yet they ought to do very fully and plainly to excuse their Nonconformity That which is most urged is That the People speaking to God in the Church is Disorderly and a breaking in upon the Ministers Office But will they say that the Children of Israel intrenched upon the Priest when they all bowed themselves upon the Pavement and Worshipped the Lord and Praised him saying For he is good for his mercy endureth for ever 2 Chron. 7. 3. I have already observed That Ecclesiastical Order is in this matter secured by the Ministers Presiding in God's Publick Worship and guiding the whole performance of it But not to allow the People to make an audible Confession of Sin after the Minister nor to utter some few affectionate Petitions and those very short to which they are also invited and led by him this rather seems to savour of an affectation of undue superiority over the People than to proceed from any fear lest by this means they should be incouraged to invade the Ministerial Office I believe the Laity of our Communion have as Reverend an esteem of the Sacred Function as their Neighbours and to raise the Comparison no higher have shewn themselves ever since the Reformation as much afraid to usurp the proper Offices of the Clergie as those that have been drawn away from the Communion of the Church and have been taught that they must not say a word in Publick Prayer but Amen We should not think that we endanger our Order and the respect that is due to it if we do not arrogate more to our selves than is meet It has been one great fault of the Church of Rome to advance the Priest unreasonably above the People in the Administration of Holy Things The Dissenting Ministers may be a little guilty of this though in a particular wherein that Church is not guilty of it They seem to make too little account of the Flock of Christ in Condemning our Church for permitting and requiring the People to Offer up those Petitions to God with their own Mouths which are appointed for them in the Liturgie The Minister assuming the whole to himself does not indeed make him much greater in the Church than he is but they that obstinately deny any part of it to the People do make them of much lower and meaner Condition in the Church than they ought to be And it is something strange that those very Persons who Contend for the interest of the Laity in some business in Religious Assemblies that more nearly touches upon Ecclesiastical Authority than the bare offering up of a few Petitions to God should be so unwilling to allow them this They affirm that the People have a right to be heard before Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are Ordained and as several of them contend to interpose also in all Acts of Discipline and yet they do not think them qualified to bear any part in the Prayers of the Congregation unless by saying Amen to what the Minister utters These things do not seem to hang well together And I am persuaded our Church has ordered this Matter with more Judgment and Impartiality in assigning to the People their Interest both in Acts of Worship and Discipline within such Rules and Limits that the Clergie and Laity may know what their proper place and business is in all Ecclesiastical Assemblies I have heard some Object against the Peoples uttering Prayers and Praises in the Congregation that it is Forbidden Women to speak in the Church But this is strangely misapplied to the Matter in hand For it is plain that the speaking mentioned by the Apostle signifies nothing but Prophecying Interpreting Preaching or Instructing and that the reason why he will not allow this to the Woman is because Preaching is an Act that implies Authority whereas the Womans part is Obedience and Subjection They that will read the whole Chapter will find that this is the true meaning of St. Paul And indeed the place it self sufficiently shews it which I shall therefore set down Let your Women keep silence in the Churches for it is not permitted unto them to speak but they are Commanded to be under Obedience as also the Law saith And if they will learn any thing let them ask their Husbands at home for it is a shame for a Woman to speak in the Church 1 Cor. 14. 34 35 The Subject of this Discourse is briefly exprest in the 39 Verse Brethren covet to prophecy and forbid not to speak with tongues Now the reason given why the Woman is not to speak viz. because she is to be under Obedience does plainly restrain that Speaking to Prophecying and the like which is moreover the only sort of Speaking that is discoursed of in this place I know no particular Exception under this Head which remains to be spoken to unless it be that the People are said to utter the Words of Invocation in the Litany for the most part the Minister all the while suggesting the Matter of it to them But this Objectin will be of no force if what I have said concerning the lawfulness of allowing the People an Interest in Vocal Prayer be admitted unless the Objection be this That they are allowed to bear too considerable a part in that Prayer and somewhat to the disparagement of the Ministers Office And then I answer That upon Reasons which I shall presently Offer it seems to me to be otherwise I shall only premise that I am really troubled for their sakes who put us upon this Defence that in Matters of Prudence and Expedience wherein there is a considerable latitude to order them well enough that in these things I say they seem to yield so very little to the Authority and Judgment of their Governours I do not think it hard to make out the Prudence of these Determinations so much disliked This is not the thing I am troubled at But I think it hard that a Publick Rule should not be thought reason enough to justifie things of this sort and to oblige the People to compliance without more adoe I am sorry that our Dissenting Brethren do not consider that it is some diminution to their Modesty and Humility to challenge as in effect they do a nice and punctual account of the prudence of the Publick Orders of this Church before they will Submit to 'em in Practice Now as to the Objection before us The Peoples Vocal Part in the Litany seems to be no
what past John 13. from Ver. 1. to 31. vid. Hor. Heb. Tal. p. 300. and Mat. 26. 6. between Christ and his Disciples at a common and ordinary meal in Bethany and that for this reason among many others judiciously urged by him because the Disciples thought when our Lord had said to him Ver. 27. That thou doest do quickly that he had given order to Judas who kept the bag to buy those things that they had need of against the Feast viz. the Passover and therefore all those passages and that discourse related by St. John in the foregoing Verses of that Chapter were transacted at an ordinary and common Supper And indeed this seems to be the great end and design which St. John proposed to himself in writing his Gospel and which throughout he constantly pursues viz. To add out of his own Knowledge several remarkable passages especially such as tend to demonstrate the Divinity of our Saviour as had been omitted by the other Evangelists in their History of the Birth Life Actions and Sufferings of our Blessed Saviour There is another passage in St. John's Gospel which in the Judgment of John 5. 53. many Learned Divines both Ancient and Modern hath respect to the Lord's Supper though not at that time instituted when those mysterious words were uttered by our Saviour Except ye Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink Ver. 54. his Blood ye have no life in you Whoso Eateth my Flesh and Drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day For my Flesh is meat indeed and Ver. 55. my Blood is drink indeed He that Eateth my Flesh and Ver. 56. Drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him Now all that can be inferr'd from these words as they relate to this Holy Feast is onely thus much that it 's highly necessary for all Christians who have an opportunity to do it to partake of the Lord's Supper as they would partake in the merits of his Sacrifice and the Efficacy of his Death and his Sufferings and that none but such as do receive the tokens and signs of his Body broken and Blood shed for their Sins shall be owned and rewarded by him as his Friends These are all the places that we meet with in the Gospel let us now see what is delivered in the Acts and other Writings of the Apostles and Divinely-inspired Authors Among all their Writings there is but one place which gives any account of the History of the Sacrament and Institution of it and that is in the 1 Epist to the Corinthians Chap. 11. where St. Paul declares that what he delivered to them he received by immediate Revelation from Christ himself viz. That the Lord Jesus the same night in which Ver. 23. Ver. 24. he was betrayed took Bread and when he had given Thanks he brake it and said Take eat this is my Body which is broken for you this do in Remembrance of me After the Ver. 25. same manner he took the Cup when he had Supped saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Bloud this do as oft as ye Drink it in Remembrance of me For as often as Ver. 26. ye eat this Bread and Drink this Cup ye do shew or shew ye the Lord's Death till he come There are several other places wherein the Holy Sacrament is mentioned 1 Cor. 10. 16 21. 1 Cor. 11. 20. Acts 2. 46. Acts 20. 7. and described by several Names and Titles sutable to the nature and ends of it which for brevity sake I omit and desire the Reader to consult at his leisure and I would not put him to that trouble if they did contain any thing that made against Kneeling or that lookt like a command for the use of any other Gesture Let us now look back a little upon the places forementioned and see what our Lord hath ordained and appointed to be of perpetual use in his Church The Apostles and Disciples of our Lord at the Institution of the Sacrament were the Representatives of the whole Church and are to be considered under a double capacity Either as Governours and Ministers entrusted by Christ with the Power of dispensing and administring the Sacrament or as ordinary and lay Communicants If we consider them as Governours and Stewards of the Mysteries their Duty to which they are obliged by the express command of their Lord is to take the Bread into their Hands to bless and consecrate it to that mysterious and Divine use to which he designed it to break it to give it to the Communicants as he gave it them And so in like manner to Take the Cup to bless it to give it to their fellow-Christians That which they were obliged to do by the command of our Lord considered as private Men and in common with all believers was to take and receive the Consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine to eat and Drink and to do all this in Commemoration of his wonderful Love in giving his Body to be broken and his Blood to be shed for the Sins of the World And what the least Syllable or Shadow of a Command is there here in all this History for the use of any Gesture in the Act of Receiving Since then the Holy Scripture is altogether silent as to this matter its silence is a full and clear demonstration that Kneeling is not repugnant to any express Command of our Lord because no Gesture was ever Commanded at all And this hath been ingenuously Confessed in writing by a A Manuscript of an unknown Author cited by Mr. Paybody p. 48. great Enemy to Kneeling and a great Advocate for Sitting That the Gesture of Sitting is but a matter of Circumstance and not expresly Commanded But the Scotch Ministers Assembled at Perth affirm Object that when our Lord at the Institution Commanded his Disciple to do this he did by those words Command them to use that Gesture which he used at that time as well as to Take Eat Drink c. The Force of their Argument lies in this if it have any force at all Our Saviour Sate at the Passover as the Scriptures plainly inform Mat. 26. 20. Mar. 14. 18. Luke 22. 14. us and it is to be supposed he continued in the same posture when he instituted and Administred the Sacrament which was at the close of the Passover therefore Do this relates to and includes the Gesture amongst other things But this is a miserable shift which tends to Sink rather than Support their Cause For first If our Lord did Sit when he Administred Answ I the Sacrament which we will suppose at present yet there is no reason in the World to incline us to think that he intended by those words Do this to oblige us to observe his Gesture onely and not several other Circumstances which he observed at the same time Since Christ hath not restrained and interpreted these words Do
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