of the whole Church and are to be consider'd under a double capacity either as Governours and Ministers Intrusted 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 oblig'd 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 design'd it to break and distribute it and so in the like manner to take and bless the Cup and give it to their Fellow-Christians But if we consider them as Private Men and in common with all Believers their duty was to take and receive the Bread and Wine and to eat and drink in Commemoration of Christ's Love But what syllable or shadow of a Command is there in all the History for the use of any gesture in the act of receiving Since then the Holy Scripture is altogether silent as to this matter it 's 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 But the Scotch Ministers Assembled at Perth affirm that when our Lord Commanded his Disciples to do this he did by those words Command them to use that Gesture which he us'd at that time as well as to take eat drink c. To this I answer 1. That if our Lord did sit at the Institution which we will suppose at present yet there is no reason to think that He intended by these words do this to oblige us to observe this Gesture only and not several other circumstances which he observ'd at the same time as well as this For Example if the words may be Interpreted thus Do this that is sit as Christ did why not thus also Do this that is Celebrate the Sacrament in an Upper-room in a Private-house late at night or in the evening after a full Supper in the Company of Twelve at most and they only Men with their Heads cover'd according to the Custom of those Countries and with unleavened Bread There lies as great an obligation upon us to observe all those circumstances in imitation of our Lord as there do's to sit 2. Even the two last of those circumstances are generally allow'd but all the rest are mention'd in Scripture and were most certainly observ'd by Christ whereas the gesture us'd by them is not mention'd and what it was is very disputable as I shall afterwards prove How then can any Man think himself oblig'd in Conscience to do what Christ is not expreslly said to do and not oblig'd to do what the Scripture expresly saies he did 3. 'T is clear from St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.23 c. that do this respects only the Bread and Wine which signify the Body and Blood of Christ and actions that are specify'd by him which are essential to the right and due Celebration of that Holy Feast For when 't is said Do this in remembrance of me and this do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me and as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come 't is plain that do this must be restrain'd to the Sacramental actions there mention'd and not extended to the gesture of which the Apostle speaks not a word Our Lord Instituted the Sacrament in Remembrance of his Death and Passion and not in Remembrance of his Gesture in Administring it and consequently do this is a general Command obliging us only to such particular actions and rites as he had instituted and made necessary to be us'd in order to this great end viz. to signify and represent his Death and that bloody Sacrifice which he offer'd upon the Cross for us miserable Sinners Nay the Practice of our Dissenters proves that no particular gesture is commanded For there are many serious and sincere Persons among them who profess that were they left to their liberty they cou'd use kneeling as well as any other gesture but they think that an indifferent thing becomes unlawful when 't is injoin'd by Authority I have already confuted this opinion but 't is certain that by granting they cou'd use the posture of kneeling were it not injoin'd and consequently that 't is in it's own nature indifferent they do thereby grant that there is no Command for any particular posture I must add that the Reform'd Churches of France and those of Geneva and Helvetia stand the Dutch generally sit but in some places as in West-Friesland they stand The Churches of the Bohemian and Augustane Confession which spread through the large Kingdoms of Bohemia Denmark and Sweden thro' Norway the Dukedom of Saxony Lithuania and Ducal Prussia in Poland the Marquisate of Brandenburg in Germany and several other places and free Cities in that Empire do for the most part if not all of them retain the Gesture of Kneeling The Bohemian Churches were Reform'd by John Husse and Jerom of Prague who suffer'd Martyrdom at Constance about the year 1416. long before Luther's time and those of the Ausbourg or Augustan Confessions were founded and reform'd by Luther and were the first Protestants properly so call'd But these Churches so early reform'd and of so large extent did not only use the same Gesture that our Church injoins at the Sacrament but they together with those of the Helvetic Confession did in three (b) 1. At Cracow Anno Dom. 1573. 2. Petricow or Peterkaw 1578. 3. Wiadislaw 1583. general Synods unanimously condemn the sitting Gesture tho' they esteem'd it in it self lawful as being scandalous for this remarkable Reason viz. because it was us'd by the Arians as their Synods call the Socinians in contempt of our Saviours Divinity who therefore placed themselves as Fellows with their Lord at his Table And thereupon they entreat and exhort all Christians of their Communion to change sitting into kneeling or standing both which Ceremonies we indifferently leave free according as the custom of any Church has obtain'd and we approve of their use without scandal and blame Moreover they affirm That these Socinians who deny Christ to be God were the first that introduced Sitting at the Sacrament into their Churches contrary to the practice of all the Evangelical Churches in Europe Among all these Foreign Churches of the Reformation there is but one that I can find which uses Sitting and forbids Kneeling for fear of Bread-worship but yet in that Synod wherein they condemn'd Kneeling they left it to the choice of their Churches to use Standing Sitting or an Ambulatory Gesture as the French (c) Harmon 4. Synods of Holl. do and at last conclude thus These Articles are so setled by mutual consent that if the good of the Churches require it they may and ought to be chang'd augmented or diminish'd What now shou'd be the ground and reason of this Variety
of Grace and receive a right to eternal Life I cannot deny but they may be sav'd without Baptism by the uncovenanted Mercy of God but then the hopes of God's mercy in extraordinary cases ought not to make us less regardful of his sure ordinary and covenanted Mercies and the appointed Means to which they are annex'd Nay Infants do by Baptism acquire a present right unto all the Promises of the Gospel and particularly to the promises of the Spirit 's assistance which they shall certainly receive as soon and as fast as their natural incapacity removes Now since these are the benefits of Baptism and since Infants are capable of them let any impartial Man judge whether it is more for their benefit that they shou'd receive them by being Baptiz'd in their infancy or stay for them till they come to years of discretion Is it better for a Child that has the Evil to be touch'd for it while he is a Child or to wait till he is of sufficient Age to be sensible of the benefit Or is it best for a Traytor 's Child to be presently restor'd to his Blood and Estate and his Prince's Favour or to be kept in a mere capacity of being restor'd till he is a man I must add that Baptism laies such an early pre-engagement upon Children as without the highest baseness and ingratitude they cannot afterwards retract For there is no person of common Ingenuity Honour or Conscience but will think himself bound to stand to the Obligation which he contracted in his Infancy when he was so graciously admitted to so many blessings and privileges before he cou'd understand his own good or do any thing himself towards the obtaining of them And therefore the Wisdom of the Church is highly to be applauded for bringing them under such a beneficial pre-engagement and not leaving them to their own liberty at such years when Flesh and Blood wou'd be apt to find out so many shifts and excuses and make them regret to be Baptiz'd 2. Infant-Baptism is very Expedient because it conduces much to the Well-being and Edification of the Church in preventing those scandalous and shameful delays of Baptism which grown Persons wou'd be apt to make in these as they did in former times to the great prejudice of Christianity Since therefore Infant-Baptism is not only Lawful and commanded by the Church but most Expedient in it self and most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles and Primitive Christians and to the Will of Christ it must needs be concluded that there lies the same obligation upon Parents to desire Baptism for their Children as there do's upon grown Persons to desire it for themselves For what Authority soever exacts any thing concerning Children or Persons under the years of discretion laies at least an implicit obligation upon Parents to see that it be perform'd For if in the time of a general contagion the Supreme Power shou'd Command that all Men Women and Children shou'd every Morning take such an Antidote that Command wou'd oblige Parents to give it to their Children as well as to take it themselves Just so the Ordinance of Baptism being intended for Children as well as grown Persons it must needs oblige the Parents to bring them to it What I have here said about the obligation which lies upon Parents to bring their Children to Baptism concerns all Guardians c. to whose care Children are committed And if any ask at what time they are bound to bring them to Baptism I answer at any time for the Gospel indulges a discretional latitude but forbids the wilful neglect and all unreasonable and needless delays thereof V. As to Communion with Believers who were Baptiz'd in their Infancy 't is certainly Lawful and has ever been thought so nay 't is an exceeding great sin to refuse Communion with them because that wou'd be a disowning those to be Members of Christ's Body whom he owns to be such Nothing now remains but that I take off two objections First 'T is said that Infant-Communion may be practis'd as well as Infant-Baptism But I answer 1. There is not equal Evidence for the Practice of Infant-Communion because St. Cyprian is the first Author which they can produce for it and then the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Cyril of Jerusalem mention it towards the latter end of the Fourth Century and St. Austin in the Fifth whereas for Infant-Baptism we have the Authority of St. Cyprian and a whole Council of Fathers over which he Presided of Origen Tertullian Irenaeus St. Jerom St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom St. Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and the Third Council of Carthage who all speak of it as a thing generally practis'd and most of them as of a thing which ought to be practis'd in the Church I may add that none of the Four Testimonies for Infant-Communion speak of it as of an Apostolical Tradition as Origen do's of Infant-Baptism 2. There is not equal Reason for the Practice of it For Persons of all Ages are capable of Baptism but the Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament of Perfection instituted for the remembrance of Christ's Death and Passion which being an act of great Knowledge and Piety Children are not capable to perform Nor is there an equal concurrence of Tradition or the Authority of so many Texts of Scripture for Infant-Communion it being grounded only upon John 6.53 Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you Now 't is doubtful whether this be meant of the Eucharist or no because it was not as yet instituted but if it be so to be understood yet the sence of it ought to be regulated by the chief end of its Institution Do this in remembrance of me Nay the Western Church discerning the Mistake upon which Infant-Communion was grounded have long since laid it aside tho' they still continue the practice of Infant-Baptism But in truth the practice of Infant-Communion is so far from prejudicing the Cause of Infant-Baptism that it mightily confirms it because none were or cou'd be admitted to partake of the Holy Communion till they were validly Baptiz'd And therefore the practice of Infant-Communion fully proves that all the Churches wherein it ever was or still (e) As in the Greek Russian and Abyssin Churches and among the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies is practis'd were of opinion that the Baptism of Infants is as Valid and Lawful as that of grown Persons Secondly 't is objected that Children who have not the use of Reason cannot know what a Covenant means and therefore they cannot contract and stipulate tho' St. Peter says the Baptism which saveth us must have the Answer or Restipulation of a good Conscience towards God To this I Answer 1. That this Objection is as strong against Infant-Circumcision as against Infant-Baptism 2. That God was pleas'd to Seal the Covenant of Grace unto Circumcis'd Infants upon an implicite and imputative
not his Life too dear nor his Blood too much to part with for our sakes This therefore being the Nature of the Sacrament it follows 2. That it do's not absolutely require a common Table-gesture For if the Nature of the Sacrament consider'd as a Feast necessarily requires a Table-gesture then the nature of the Sacrament consider'd as a Feast do's as well require all other Formalities that are essential either to all civil Feasts whatsoever or to all Feasts as they obtain among us and consequently we must carve and drink one to another c. at the Lord's Supper as we alwaies do at other Feasts But this our Dissenters will by no means allow nor do they think themselves obliged to observe all the other Formalities of a Feast tho' they are as agreeable to the Nature of a Feast as Sitting is It 's not agreeable to the Nature of a Feast that one of the Guests and the principal one too shou'd fill out the Wine and break the Bread and distribute it to the rest of the Society but this the Dissenters generally allow of and practise at the Holy Communion It 's not agreeable to the nature of a Feast to sit from the Table dispers'd up and down the Room In all public Feasts there are several Tables provided when one is not big enough to receive the Guests and yet the Dissenters generally receive in their Pews scatter'd up and down the Church and think one Table is sufficient tho' not capable of receiving the twentieth part of the Communicants in some large Parishes and numerous Assemblies And where there are so few that they may come up to and sit at the Table they generally are against it especially the Presbyterians and think they are not obliged to observe that formality tho' constantly practis'd at common and civil Entertainments It 's by no means agreeable to the nature of a Feast to be sorrowful To mourn and grieve at a Feast is as indecent and unsutable as to laugh at a Funeral But sure our Dissenters will not say that to come to the Sacrament with a penitent and broken spirit to come with a hearty sorrow for all our Sin which caus'd so much pain and torment to our dearest and greatest Friend our ever blessed Redeemer to reflect upon the Agonies of his Soul in the Garden the bitterness of his deadly Cup the Torture he endur'd on the Cross with a deep Sympathy and Trouble for the occasion they will not surely I say affirm that such a disposition of Heart and Mind is improper and unsutable to the Nature of this Feast which we solemnize in Commemoration of his Death for our sakes This Sacrament is also call'd the Lord's Supper and consequently the nature of it requires the Evening as the proper season for it and yet our Dissenters make no scruple of Communicating at Noon Again the nature of the Lord's Supper do's not necessarily require a Table-gesture because 't is not of the same nature with common and ordinary Feasts For we cannot argue from Natural and Civil things to Spiritual or conclude that because they agree in their names they are of the same nature And therefore tho' the Sacrament is a Feast yet because 't is a Spiritual Feast and not of the same nature with common and ordinary Feasts we must not think that such a gesture as is necessary to the one is also necessary to the other I must add that the nature of the Lord's Supper consider'd as a Feast do's not necessarily require a common Table-gesture in order to right and worthy receiving because the Dissenters grant that it may be worthily receiv'd Standing tho' Standing is no common Table-gesture If any shou'd yet urge that no gesture besides Sitting is agreeable to the nature of the Sacrament consider'd as a Feast and that to use any other gesture wou'd profane the Ordinance I answer that God calls the Passover a Feast Exod. 12.14 and yet he commanded the Israelites to celebrate it with their Loins girt their Shoes on their Feet and their Staff in their Hands which were all signs of haste but no Table-gestures either among the Jews or the Egyptians Now to say that God injoin'd Gestures unsutable to that Ordinance is to call his Wisdom in question and to say that the Feast of the Passover did in it's nature admit of several Gestures is to yield all that I desire for then the Sacrament consider'd as a Feast will admit of several too and consequently do's not oblige us to observe only a Feast-gesture for the due celebration of it 3. Kneeling is very agreeable to the nature of the Lord's Supper tho' 't is no Table-gesture 1. Because 't is a very fit Gesture to express Reverence Humility and Gratitude by which Holy affections are requisite to the Sacrament 2. Since Christ ought to be Ador'd at the Lord's Supper for his wonderful kindness to us therefore whatsoever is fit to express our Veneration is not unsutable to the Sacrament and consequently bowing the Knees is proper because 't is an external sign of Reverence 3. Since lifting up our Hands and Eyes and imploying our Tongues in uttering God's Praises are agreeable to the Lord's Supper why shou'd Kneeling be thought unsutable which is only Glorifying God with another part of our Body 4. The Holy Sacrament was Instituted in remembrance of Christ's Death and Sufferings and therefore I desire the Dissenters to consider his Gesture in the very extremity of his Passion and to observe that he then pray'd Kneeling Luke 22.41 And surely no sober Person will say that 't is improper to Kneel at the Sacrament where we Commemorate those Sufferings part of which he endur'd upon his bended Knees 5. If we consider the benefits of the Sacrament we cannot think Kneeling an unbecoming Gesture at it If a grateful hearty sence of God's infinite Mercy thro' the Merits and Sufferings of his Son and of the manifold Benefits which our Lord has purchas'd with his most precious Blood If a Mind deeply humbled under the sense of our own Guilt and Unworthiness to receive any Mercy at all from the Hands of our Creator and Soveraign Lord whom we have by numberless and heinous Crimes so highly provok'd and incens'd against us If such an inward temper and disposition of Soul becomes us at this Holy Feast which I think no Man will deny then surely the most humble and reverential Gesture of the Body will become us too Why shou'd not a submissive lowly deportment of body sute with this solemnity as well as an humble lowly Mind And this is that which our Church (e) See the Declaration at the end of the Communion Service in the B. of Com. Prayer declares to be the end of her Injunction in requiring all the Communicants to Kneel viz. for a signification of an humble and grateful acknowledgment of the Benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers The Commemoration of the Death and Passion of the