both in Opinion and Practice touching the Gesture to be us'd at the Lord's Supper Is it to be imagin'd that an Assembly of Learned and Pious Divines met together on purpose to consult how to reform their Churches according to the pure Word of God shou'd thro' weakness and inadvertency overlook an express Command of Christ for the perpetual use of any particular Gesture if any such there had been Or shall we be so uncharitable as to think that all these eminent Churches wilfully past it by and establish'd what was most agreeable to their own fancies contrary to the known Will of God Wou'd they have given liberty to all of their Communion to use several Gestures according to the Custom of their several Churches if our Lord had tied them to observe but one Wou'd they declare as the Dutch Synod doth that what they injoin'd might be alter'd if the good of the Church so requir'd if so be Sitting had been expresly Commanded by our Lord to be us'd by all Christians to the end of the World No undoubtedly they wou'd not we cannot either in Reason or Charity suppose it The true Principle upon which all these Reform'd Churches built and by which they are able to reconcile all this seeming difference in this matter is the very same with that which the Church of England go's by in her Synods and Convocations viz. (d) Vid. Art 34. observat of the French and Dutch Divines on the Harmony of Confessions Edit Geneva 1681. Sect. 14. p. 120. In hoc etiam ritu speaking of Kneeling at the Sacrament suam cuique Ecclesiae libertatem salvam reliquendam arbitramur That as to Rites and Ceremonies of an indifferent nature every National Church has Authority to institute change and abolish them as they in Prudence and Charity shall think most fit and conducive to the setting forth God's Glory the Edification of their People and the Decent and Reverend Administation of the Holy Sacrament Whosoever therefore refuses to receive the Lord's Supper according to the Constitution of the Church of England purely because Kneeling is contrary to the express Command of Christ must condemn the Judgment and Practice of all the Reform'd Churches beyond the Seas who all agree in this That the Gesture in the Act of Receiving is to be reckon'd among things Indifferent and that whether we sit or kneel or stand or Receive walking we transgress no Law of God and consequently they prove my Assertion true That Kneeling is no more contrary to any express Command than any other Gesture because they allow of all as lawful in themselves to be us'd which cannot consist with an express Command for the use of any one Gesture whatsoever Upon the whole matter I think we may certainly conclude that there is not a tittle of a Command in the whole New Testament to oblige us to receive the Lord's Supper in any particular posture and if any be so scrupulous as not to receive it in any other Gesture but what is expresly commanded they must never receive it as long as they live Secondly I shall prove that Kneeling is not a deviation from Christ's example This will appear if we consider 1. that 't is doubtful what Gesture our Saviour us'd at the Institution of the Sacrament For the Scripture do's not inform us what it was and the Jews us'd variety of Gestures at the Passover and therefore since our Lord's Example cannot certainly be known in this Matter our Church cannot be charg'd with deviation from it 2. Those who Kneel at the Sacrament in compliance with the Orders of the Church do manifestly follow the Example of Christ For our Saviour comply'd with that Passover-gesture which the Jews then us'd tho' it was not the same that was us'd at the Institution in Egypt and his compliance may teach us not to be scrupulous about Gestures but to conform to the innocent and prevailing customs of the Church wheresoever we live And if Christians did walk according to this rule they wou'd greatly promote the peace and welfare of the Church of Christ and in so doing procure quiet and peace to themselves with unspeakable comfort and satisfaction But supposing our Lord did sit as the Dissenters will have it yet his bare example do's not oblige all Christians to a like practice 1. Because naked examples without some rule or note added to them to signify that 't is God's Will to have them constantly follow'd have not the force of Laws perpetually obliging the Conscience And therefore in this case because no such note is to be found we are not tied in Conscience to a strict imitation of Christ's Example Thus the Example of our Saviour do's not oblige us to defer our Baptism till the Age of 30 years or not to receive the Sacrament till a little before death and I pray what reason is there to follow his Example in sitting at the Sacrament any more than in those particulars 2. We are bound to imitate Christ in those things only which he has commanded but where there is no command there is no necessity Indeed we must follow Christ and his Apostles but in what Why in acting according to the Gospel-rule An example may help to interpret a Law but of it self it is no Law Against a rule no example is a competent warrant and if the example be according to the rule 't is not the Example but the Rule that is the Measure of our actions 3. The bare Example of Christ is no warrant for us to go by because he was an Extaordinary Person and did many things which we cannot and many which we must not do He Fasted 40 Daies and 40 Nights wrought Miracles c. which we are not to pretend to They say indeed We are bound to imitate Christ and the commendable Example of his Apostles in all things wherein it is not evident they had special Reasons moving them thereunto which do not concern us But I wou'd willingly be inform'd how we shall be ever able to know when they acted upon special Reasons and what they were that we may know our Duty if a bare Example without any Rule obliges us And if we guide our selves by Scripture or Reason in this matter then they are the measures of the Example Besides if we are not to imitate them in such things as they were mov'd to do upon special Reasons which did not concern us then we are obliged to imitate their Examples in such things as they did upon general and common Reasons which concern us as well as them or we are not oblig'd at all by any Example and if so then those Reasons are to be our Rule to which we are to reduce their Examples Unless we find some general or common Reason we have no Warrant according to their own Principle to follow their Examples and when such Reasons do appear then it 's not the Example alone that obliges us but Reason that approves the Example
the act of receiving as was before noted and that for the same Reason saies a (b) Alex. Hales de Missâ— p. 2. quest 10. p. 4. Popish Author which our Dissenters urge for Sitting viz. because the Apostles sate at the first Institution of the Sacrament And every Priest by the order of the Mass-Book is to partake standing at the Altar and not Kneeling there Nay if Kneeling be unlawful because it has been abus'd to Idolatry then we must never receive the Holy Sacrament For we must receive in some convenient posture such as Kneeling Sitting Discumbing Standing and yet every one of these either has been or is notoriously abus'd by Heathens and Papists to Idolatrous ends I hope I need not add that it wou'd be very unjust to say that our Kneeling is an act of Worship to the outward Elements when the Church has declar'd this to be Idolatry to be Abhorr'd of all Faithful Christians I shall conclude this Chapter with the opinions of the Dissenting Writers Mr. Tombes has undertaken to shew that whatever the Gesture of our Saviour was yet we are not obliged to it Theod. p. 168. 'T is granted by Mr. Bains Christian Lett. 24. and Mr. Bayly Disswas c. 2 6. that the nature of the Ordinance do's not make Sitting necessary or forbid Kneeling and Mr. Bains ibid. grants that Kneeling is not Idolatrous and Mr. Cartwright who thought it inconvenient yet did not think it unlawful Harmon on Luke 22.14 Lastly Mr. Baxter Christian Dir. part 2. p. 111. quest 3. sect 40. saies For Kneeling I never heard any thing yet to prove it unlawful If there be any thing it must be either some Word of God or the nature of the Ordinance which is suppos'd to be contradicted But 1. there is no Word of God for any Gesture nor against any Christ 's Example can never be prov'd to oblige us more in this than in many circumstances that are confess'd not obligatory as that he deliver'd but to Ministers and but to a Family to Twelve and after Supper and on a Thursday night and in an upper-room c. and his Gesture was not such a Sitting as ours And 2. for the nature of the Ordinance it is mixt and if it be lawful to take a Pardon from the King upon our Knees I know not what can make it unlawful to take a Seal'd Pardon from Christ by his Embassador upon our Knees CHAP. VIII The Objection of our Symbolizing or Agreeing with the Church of Rome Answer'd BUT say the Dissenters there is so great an agreement between your Church and the Church of Rome that we cannot think communion with your Church to be Lawful They tell us that our first Reformers were indeed excellent and worthy Persons for the times they liv'd 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 wou'd 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 enstrange 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 Now I cannot but inwardly reverence the Judgment as well as love the Temper of our first Reformers who in their first Separations from Rome were not nice or scrupulous beyond the just reasons of things Doubtless they were in earnest enough as to all true Zeal against the Corruptions of that Church when they Seal'd the well-grounded offence they took at them with their warmest Blood and cheerfully underwent all the hardships that the Primitive Christians signaliz'd their Profession with rather than they wou'd intermix with Rome in any usage of Worship or Article of Faith that had the least favour of Idolatry Superstition or false Religion at all in it And yet these Holy and Wise Men when they had the Power and Opportunity of Reforming wholly in their hands being equally jealous of Enthusiasm as they were of Superstition wou'd not give themselves up to those fantastic Antipathies as to abolish this or that Ceremony merely because it had been in use among the Papists if some other very substantial Reason did not plead against it And verily had they not alwaies us'd these temperate and unbyass'd methods of Reformation they wou'd not so easily have justify'd themselves to their Adversaries or the World or have made it so evident as by their Wise management they did that what was done by them was from the mere urgencies of Conscience and Reason and not the wantonness of Change and Innovation So that where any mean honestly as I doubt not but many of those do that Dissent from us they ought to have their Reason very well awake that the mere charge of Popery upon any disputed point may not so prejudice them in their enquiries into things as to leave no room for mature Consideration However that I may fully answer this objection drawn from our agreement with the Church of Rome I shall endeavour to shew 1. That there is a vast distance between the Churches of England and Rome 2. That a Church's Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no warrant for separation from the Church so agreeing 3. That the agreement between the Churches of England and Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful I. Then I shall shew that there is a vast distance between the Churches of England and Rome as appears by our Church's having renounced all Communion with Rome and utterly cast off the Pope's Power But I shall descend to particulars and shew the vast distance between them First In all those Doctrines and Practices whereby the Church of Rome deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably enslaves them For 1. She denies them all judgment of discretion in matters of Religion and binds them all under pain of damnation to Believe her infallible but our Church permits us to prove all things that we may hold fast that which is good she disclaims all pretence to infallibility and owns her self to be obnoxious to error in matters of Faith 2. The Church of Rome imposes a most slavish drudgery in the vast multitudes of vain and childish odd and uncouth Rites and Ceremonies which a Man wou'd wonder how they cou'd invent The like may be said of their cruel Penances in imposing of which the Priests are arbitrary But our Rites are exceeding few plain easy grave and manly founded on the Practice of the Church long before Popery appear'd in the World Our Sacraments are but two and consequently we are not burden'd with the superstitious Fopperies of the other five Popish ones In short our Rites are agreeable to the Rules of doing things decently and in order and doing all things to
Edification Nor do's our Church impose them like the Church of Rome as necessary and as parts of Religion but as merely indifferent and changeable things As for our Penances 't is needless to shew that they are not cruel like those of Rome 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to enslaving passions For instance Purgatory subjects them to fear and auricular confession to shame and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention exposes them to great anxiety But our Church rejects the Doctrines of Purgatory and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention and do's not oblige her Members to Confess their sins to Men but when for the relief of their Consciences or making satisfaction c. it is their duty so to do 4. The Church of Rome maintains Licentious Principles and Practices which our Adversaries cannot charge upon the Church of England Secondly In all those Doctrines and Practices in which the Church of Rome is justly charg'd with plainly contradicting the Scripture For instance our Church rejects and utterly abhors the Popish Doctrines and Practices of Image-worship invocation of Saints Transubstantiation Pardons Indulgences Sacrifice of the Mass denying the Bible to the Vulgar Prayers and Sacraments in an unknown Tongue robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lord's Supper prohibiting Marriage to Priests Merit Superogation making simple Fornication a mere venial sin damning all that are not of her Communion c. Nor is there any Church that more severely condemns all instances of unrighteousness and immorality than the Church of England do's Thirdly In their public Prayers and Offices To shew this in all particulars wou'd be a tedious task therefore I shall instance only in the office of Infant-Baptism by which the Reader may judge of the rest Before they go into the Church after many preparatory prescriptions the Priest being drest in a Surplice and purple Robe calls the Infant saying what askest thou c. the Godfather answers Faith P. What shalt thou get by Faith G. Eternal Life P. If thou therefore c. Then the Priest blows three gentle puffs upon the Infant 's face and saies Go out of him O unclean Spirit c. Then Crossing the Infant 's Forehead and Breast he saith Receive the sign of the Cross c. Then he praies that God wou'd alwaies c. And after a long Prayer the Priest laying his Hand on the Infant 's Head comes the idle and profane Form of the Benediction of Salt viz. I conjure thee O creature of Salt in the Name c. with many Crossings Then he puts a little Salt into the Infant 's mouth saying Take thou the Salt of Wisdom and adds most impiously be it thy Propitiation unto Eternal Life After the Pax tecum he praies that this Infant c. Then the Devil is conjur'd again and most wofully be-call'd Then the Priest Crosses the Infant 's Forehead saying And this sign c. Then he puts his Hand on the Infant 's Head and puts up a very good Prayer Then he puts part of his Robe upon the Infant and brings him within the Church saying Enter thou c. Then follow the Apostles Creed and the Paternoster Then the Devil is conjur'd again and the Priest takes spittle out of his mouth and therewith touches the Infant 's Ears and Nostrils saying c. Then he conjures the Devil again saying Be packing O Devil c. Then he asks the Infant whether he renounces the Devil c. Then dipping his Thumb in Holy Oyl and anointing the Infant with it in his Breast and betwixt his shoulders he saies I anoint thee c. Then he puts off his Purple Robe and puts on another of White colour and having ask'd four more questions and receiv'd the answers he pours water thrice upon the Child's Head as he recites over it our Saviour's Form of Baptism Then dipping his Thumb in the Chrism or Holy Ointment he anoints the Infant upon the Crown of his Head in the figure of a Cross and praies O God Omnipotent c. Afterwards he takes a white linnen cloth and putting it on the Child's Head saies Take the white garment c. Lastly he puts into the Child's or his God-Father's Hand a lighted Candle saying Receive the burning Lamp c. Besides those things which are in the Common Ritual there are divers others added in the Pastorale which I shall not mention And now if any Man will read our Office of Baptism he will acknowledge that no two things can be more unlike than these two Offices are Our Litany indeed has been Condemn'd by Dissenters as savouring of Popish Superstition but nothing is more false if a Man compares it with the Popish one the greater part of which consists in invocations of Saints and Angels But the Brevity I am confin'd to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument Fourthly In the Books they receive for Canonical For the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into the Canon but the Church of England takes only those which the Primitive Church and all Protestants acknowledge 'T is true she reads some part of the Apocryphal Books for instruction of manners but she do's not establish any Doctrine by them Fifthly and Lastly in the Authority on which they found their whole Religion The Church of Rome founds the Authority of the Scriptures upon her own infallibility and the Authority of many of her own Doctrines on unwritten traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspir'd than the Prophets and Apostles but the Church of England builds her whole Religion upon Scripture which is her rule of Faith and Practice She Reverences ancient general Councils but do's not think them infallible And as for that Authority which our Church claims in Controversies of Faith by requiring subscription to 39 Articles 't is plain that she means no more Authority than to oblige her Members to outward submission when her decisions do not contradict any essentials of Faith or Manners but not an authority to oblige Men to believe them infallibly true and this is necessary for the Peace of any Church 'T is true she thinks it convenient that none should receive Orders be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and she requires Subscription as a Test of this belief but the Church of Rome requires all Persons under pain of damnation to believe all her false and wicked Doctrines as much as the most undoubted Articles of Faith as may be seen in the Creed of Pius the fourth As to the Motives which our Church proposes for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures they are such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the excellency of them and the Miracles which confirm them
according to it Thirdly therefore for the untying this great difficulty I say That the great thing to be attended to in this case of a Man's following a Mistaken Judgment is the faultiness or innocence of the mistake upon which he acts for according as this is so will his guilt in acting according to it be either greater or less or none at all If the mistake be such as an honest minded Man might make if he did his best to understand his duty and wanted means to know it better then we think him innocent and not properly guilty of any sin tho' the action is contrary to God's Law For no Man is obliged to do more than what is in his power to do and whatever a Man is not obliged to do it is no sin in him if he do it not Since he cou'd not understand better his mistake and acting according to his mistake are not sinful The only point is this whether the Man be to be blam'd for his erroneous Conscience or no. If the errour be not his own fault he doth not sin in acting according to it but if he had power and opportunities of informing his Conscience better and yet neglected so to do tho' it was his duty then the Man sins while he acts contrary to God's Law under the mistake and his sin is greater or less in proportion to his negligence Thus you see that God enables all Men to do their duty and that none lie under a necessity of sinning but those who wilfully embracing false Principles fall into sin whether they act according to their Conscience or against it Having now done with the Five Principles of my Discourse I proceed to my first intended business that is to speak to the Case of those that separate from the Communion of the Church of England upon this pretence That it is against their Conscience to join with us in it And that I may clear this point I shall do two things First I shall separate those who can plead Conscience for their Non-Conformity from those that cannot for a great many that pretend Conscience refuse Communion with us upon another Principle Secondly I shall enquire how far this Plea of Conscience when truly made will justify any Dissenter that continues in separation from the Church First then that I may Distinguish the true Pretenders to Conscience from the false ones I shall lay down this proposition that no Man can justly plead Conscience for his separation from the Church of England or say that it is against his Conscience to join in Communion with it unless he is persuaded that he cannot Communicate with us without sinning against God in so doing For God's Law is the only Rule to judge whether an action be a Duty or a Sin or indifferent and Conscience is nothing else but a Man's judgment of an action whether it be a Duty or a Sin or indifferent by that Rule So that a Man cannot be bound in Conscience to do or forbear any action unless he is persuaded that God's Law has commanded or forbidden it and therefore no Man can justly plead Conscience for Non-Conformity unless he is persuaded that God's Law has forbidden him to join with us If it be said that a Man who do's not think our Communion directly sinful may notwithstanding think it his duty to join constantly with others for his greater Edification or the like cause I answer that my proposition still holds because he thinks that he is bound by God's Law to join with others which Law he must not break by leaving them to join with us Again If it be said that a Man who do's not think our Communion unlawful but only doubts of the lawfulness of it may justly plead Conscience for Non-Conformity so long as his doubts remain I answer that if he thinks it a sin to do any thing with a doubting Conscience then he thinks that our Communion is forbidden by God so long as his doubts remain but if he do's not think it a sin to act with a doubting Conscience then it cannot go against his Conscience to join with us So that my proposition remains true that none can justly plead Conscience for Non-Conformity but those who think that they cannot join with us without sin Now since this proposition is so certainly true how many Men's pretences to Conscience for their separating from us are hereby cut off For First those that separate either because they have been disobliged by some Church-Man or to please a Relation or increase their Fortunes or procure or regain a Reputation or for any other worldly consideration cannot plead Conscience for separation Nor Secondly can those Lay-People who are resolv'd to hear their beloved Teachers in Conventicles since they cannot hear them in our Churches and who wou'd join with us if we wou'd suffer those Godly Men to Preach nor Thirdly those who dislike Forms of Prayer Ceremonies c. thinking them not convenient tho' they do not judge them to be sinful nor Fourthly those who separate upon the account of Edification or acquaintance with Persons of another persuasion or because many Godly Persons condemn our way all these I say cannot justly plead Conscience for their separation Because neither fancy nor example can be the Rule of any Man's Conscience but only the Law of God and therefore such Persons cannot justly plead Conscience because they do not think our Communion to be forbidden by God's Law Nor Fifthly can those plead Conscience for their separation who think that our Governours have encroach'd too much upon Christian Liberty and laid too much stress upon indifferent things for suppose the Governour 's be faulty in it yet the Conscience of the Subject is not concern'd so long as the things commanded do not interfere with any Law of God Nor Sixthly can those justly plead Conscience for their separation who can join with us sometimes both in Prayer and the Lord's Supper for if our Communion be sinful with what Conscience do they dare to join in it at all and if it be lawful once it is a duty alwaies But leaving these false pretenders I proceed to the case of those that can justly plead Conscience for their separation or who think it a sin to join with us for I shall consider the case of those that plead a doubting Conscience afterwards in a particular discourse Secondly therefore I shall inquire how far this Plea of Conscience when truly made will justify any Dissenter that continues in separation from the Church For there are many that say they wou'd join with us with all their hearts but they are really persuaded they cannot do it without sin For they think that it is against the command of Christ to use Forms of Prayer the Cross in Baptism kneeling at the Sacrament and the like And surely say they you wou'd not have us join in these practices which we verily believe to be sins They are so well satisfy'd in
Prayer in public Worship but of this I have discours'd at large in the third Chapter 3. Shew us any Church that did not always observe festivals in Commemoration of Christ and his Saints 4. Name any one Church since the Apostles times that had not it's Rites and Ceremonies as many if not more in Number and as liable to Exception as those that we use Nay there are few things if any at all requir'd by us which were not in use in the best Ages of Christianity Nay farther I could easily (h) See Durel 's View of the Goverm c. and Spirit 's Cassend Anglic. p. 123 c. shew that most if not all the Usages of our Church are either practis'd in foreign Churches or at least allow'd of by the most Eminent and Learned Divines of the Reformation Consider also that Separation is the ready way to bring in Popery as Mr. Baxter (i) Defence p. 27 52. has prov'd The Church of England is the great Bulwark against Popery and therefore the Papists have us'd all possible Means to destroy it and particularly by Divisions They have attempted to pull it down by pretended Protestant hands and have made use of you to bring about their own designs In order hereunto they have upon all Occasions strenuously promoted the Separation and mixt themselves with you they have put on every Shape that they might the better follow the Common Outery against the Church as Popish and Antichristian spurring you on to call for a more pure and spiritual Way of Worship and to clamour for Liberty and Toleration as foreseeing that when they had subverted all Order and beaten you out of all sober Principles you must be necessitated at last to center in the Communion of the Romish Church This trade they began almost in the very infancy of the Reformation as appears by the (k) Foxes and Firebrands stories of Comin and Heath and no doubt they held on the same in succeeding Times as appears besides all other Instances by (l) See Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation Pref. p. 20 c. Bellarini's Letter concerning the best Way of managing the Popish Interest in England upon the Restoration of King Charles the II. For therein it was advis'd to foment Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops to asperse the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England and to represent it's Doctrine and Worship as coming too near the Church of Rome to second the factious in promoting an Indulgence and to endeavour that the Trade and Treasure of the Nation might be engross'd between themselves and other discontented Parties We know how restless and industrious the Romish Faction has ever been and the only visible security we have against the prevailing of it lies in the firm Union of Protestants And therefore I conjure you by all the kindness which you pretend for the Protestant Religion heartily to join in Communion with us For the Common Enemy waits all Opportunities and stands ready to enter at those breaches which you are Making You might condemn the Rashness of your own Counsels and lament it it may be when it wou'd be too late if you shou'd see Popery erected upon the ruins of that Church which you your selves had overthrown It wou'd be a sad addition to your Miseries if the Guilt and Shame of them too might be laid to your charge With what remorse wou'd you reflect upon it when the heat of your Passion was over if the Protestant Profession shou'd be farther endanger'd and the Agents of Rome get greater advantages daily by those Distractions which have been secretly managed by them but openly carried on and maintain'd by your selves With what face wou'd you look to see the Papists not only triumphing over you but mocking and deriding you for being so far impos'd upon by their Cunning as to be made the immediate instruments of your own Ruin Therefore I beseech you not to act as if you were prosecuting the Designs of the Conclave and proceed just as if you were govern'd by the Decrees of the pretended Infallible Chair You may be asham'd to look so much like Tools in the hands of the Jesuits when you suffer your selves to be guided by those Measures which they had taken and talk and do as they wou'd have you as if you were immediately inspir'd from Rome To these arguments I must add another which I hope will prevail with you viz. I cannot see how you can avoid being self-condemn'd if you continue in your Separation For certain it is that most of you have been at our Churches and receiv'd the Sacrament there and I am not willing to think that you acted against your Consciences or did it merely to secure a gainful Office or a place of Trust or to escape the Lash and Penalty of the Law These are Ends so very Vile and Sordid this is so horrible a Prostitution of the Holy Sacrament the most venerable Mystery of our Religion so deliberate a Way of sinning even in the most solemn act of Worship that I can hardly suspect any shou'd be guilty of it but Men of Profligate and Atheistical Minds But then why do's not the same Principle that brings you at one Time bring you at another Why can we never have your Company but when Punishment or Advantage prompts you to it We blame the Papists for dispensing with Oaths and receiving the Sacrament to serve a turn and to advance the Interest of their Cause but God forbid that so heavy a Charge shou'd ever lie at the Doors of Protestants and especially those who wou'd be thought most to abhor Popish practices and who wou'd take it ill to be accounted not to make as much if not more Conscience of their Waies than other Men. Now I beseech you to reason a little If our Communion be sinful why did you enter into it If it be lawful why do you forsake it Is it not that which the commands of Authority have ty'd upon you which Commands you are bound to submit to not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake Are not the Peace and Unity of the Church things that ought greatly to sway with all Sober Humble and Considering Christians If it be possible saies the Apostle and as much as lies in you live peaceably with all men And shall Peace be broken only in the Church where it ought to be kept most intire And that by those who acknowledge it to be possible and within their Power Are you satisfy'd in your Conscience to join in Communion with us and will you not do it for the sake of the Church of God Will you refuse to do what is lawful and as the Case stands necessary in order to Peace only because Authority commands and has made it your Duty Let me intreat you as you love your dear Redeemer to do as much for the Peace of His Church as for a Vote or Office and to come to the Sacrament
To bring their own Rule to the case in hand how do they know but our Lord was mov'd to Sit at the Sacrament by Special Reasons drawn from that Time and Place or the Feast of the Passover to which that Gesture was peculiar How do they know but that our Lord might have us'd another Gesture if the Sacrament had been Instituted apart from the Passover The necessity of the time made the Jews eat the Passover after one fashion in Egypt which afterward ceasing gave occasion to alter it in Canaan and how do we know but that our Lord comply'd with the present necessity and that his Example if he did Sit was only temporary and not design'd for a Standing Law perpetually obliging to a like Practice If Christ acted upon special Reasons then we are not obliged by their own Rule and if he did not let them produce the Reasons if they can which make this Example of Christ of general and perpetual use and to oblige all Christians to follow it 4. 'T is absurd to talk of Christ's Example apart from all Law and Rule and to make that alone a principle of duty distinct from the Precepts of the Gospel because Christ himself alwaies govern'd his actions by a Law For if we consider him as a Man he was obliged by the Natural Law as a Jew by the Mosaic Law as the Messias by the Gospel-Law He came to fulfil all Righteousness and to Teach and Practise the whole Will of God If therefore we look only to his Example without considering the various capacities and relations he bare both towards God and towards us and the several Laws by which he stood bound which were the Measures of his Actions we shall miserably mistake our way and act like Fools when we do such things as he did pursuant to infinite Wisdom Thus if we shou'd subject our selves to the Law of Moses as he did we shou'd thereby frustrate the great design of the Gospel and yet even this we are obliged to do if his Example alone be a sufficient warrant for our actions Thus it appears that Christ's bare Example do's not oblige us to do any thing that is not commanded I shall only add that they who urge the Example of Christ against Kneeling at the Sacrament do not follow it themselves For our Saviour probably us'd a Leaning Gesture and by what Authority do they change it to Sitting Certainly our changing the Gesture is as warrantable as theirs Nor is it enough to say that Sitting comes nearer our Saviour's Gesture than Kneeling for if they keep to their own Rule they must not vary at all The Presbyterians if one may argue from their Practices to their Principles lay very little stress on this Argument taken from the Example of Christ For tho' they generally chuse to Sit yet they do not condemn Standing as Sinful or Unlawful in it self and several are willing to receive it in that posture in our Churches which surely is every whit as wide from the Pattern our Lord is suppos'd to have set us whether he lay along or sate upright as that which is injoin'd and practis'd by the Church of England There is too a Confessed variation allow'd of and practis'd by the generality of Dissenters both Presbyterians and Independents from the Institution and Practice of Christ and his Apostles in the other Sacrament of Baptism For they have chang'd dipping into sprinkling and 't is strange that those who scruple kneeling at the Lord's Supper can allow of this greater change in Baptism Why shou'd not the Peace and unity of the Church and Charity to the Public prevail with them to kneel at the Lord's Supper as much as mercy and tenderness to the Infant 's Body to sprinkle or pour water on the Face contrary to the first Institution Thirdly kneeling is not therefore repugnant to the nature of the Lord's Supper because 't is no Table-Gesture The Sacrament is a Supper and therefore say they the Gesture at the Lord's Table ought to be the same which we use and observe at our ordinary Tables according to the custom and fashion of our Native Country and by consequence we ought to Sit and not to Kneel because sitting is the ordinary Table-gesture according to the mode and fashion of England Here by the way we may observe that this Argument overthrows the two others drawn from the Command and Example of Christ For 1. Different Table-gestures are us'd in different Countries and therefore tho' Christ did Sit yet we are not oblig'd to Sit after his Example unless sitting be in our Country the common Table-gesture 2. If the Nature of the Sacrament require a Table-gesture and that gesture in particular which is customary then God has not Commanded any particular gesture because different Countries have different Table-gestures However I shall fuâ—ly Answer this Argument drawn from the Nature of the Sacrament by shewing 1. What is the Nature of it 2. That it do's not absolutely require a common Table-gesture 3. That Kneeling is very agreeable to the nature of the Lord's Supper tho' 't is no Table-gesture 1. Then the Nature of the Sacrament is easily understood if we consider that the Scripture calls it the Lord's Table and the Lord's Supper The Greek Fathers call it a Feast and a Banquet because of that Provision and Entertainment which our Lord has made for all worthy Receivers 'T is styl'd a Supper and a Feast either because 't was Instituted by Christ at Supper-time or because it represents a Supper and a Feast and so it is not of the same nature with a civil and ordinary Supper or Feast tho' it bear the same name Three things are essential to a Feast Plenty Good Company and Mirth but the Plenty of the Lord's Supper is a Plenty of Spiritual Dainties and the Company consists of the Three Persons of the Trinity and good Christians and the Mirth is wholly Spiritual So that the Lord's Supper differs in its nature from civil Banquets as much as Heaven and Earth Body and Spirit differ in theirs Farther the Lord's Supper is a Feast upon a Sacrifice for Sin wherein we are particularly to commemorate the Death of Christ 'T was also instituted in honour of our Lord and to preserve an Eternal Memory of his wondrous Works and to Bless and Praise our Great Benefactour 'T is also a Covenanting Rite between God and all worthy Communicants and signifies that we are in a state of Peace and Friendship with him that we own him to be our God and swear Fidelity to him we take the Sacrament upon it as we ordinarily say that we will not henceforth live unto our selves but to him alone that died for us 'T is also a means to convey to us the Merits of Christ's Death and a Pledge to assure us thereof Lastly 't was instituted to be a Bond of Union between Christians to engage and dispose us to love one another as our Lord loved us who thought
also to kneel before any Creature as a memorative object of God tho' there be no intention of giving Divine Adoration to that Creature is Idolatry Now if the Primitive Christians may be suppos'd to prostrate themselves before the Altar upon their first approach to it in order to Receive or immediately after they had Receiv'd the Bread and the Cup from the Hand of the Minister or if they bow'd their Heads and Bodies after a lowly manner in the act of Receiving or if they receiv'd it standing upright and ate and drank at the Holy Table with their Hands and Eyes lifted up to Heaven then they incurr'd the Guilt of Idolatry as well as we who Kneel at the Lords supper in the Judgment of those Scotch Casuists and by Consequence Kneeling at the Blessed Sacrament according to the Custom of our Church is not contrary to the practice of the Christian Church in the first and purest Ages For all those Postures before mention'd were Postures of Worship and Adoration and us'd as such by the Primitive Christians especially standing which is allow'd by the (w) Gillesp Disp against E. Po. Câ—r p. 101. Disp of Kneel p. 93. Patrons of sitting to be anciently and generally us'd in time of Divine Worship and particularly in the act of Receiving To conclude all with an Instance in their own Case about a common Table-Gesture let us suppose the Primitive Christians in some places did receive the Holy Sacrament sitting or lying along upon Beds according to the ancient Custom in those Eastern Countries at their common and ordinary Tables let us put the case that in other places they sate cross-legg'd on Carpets at the Sacrament as the Persians and Turks eat at this day or that they receiv'd standing in other places after the common mode of Feasting which we will suppose only at present Cou'd any Man now object with reason against the lawfulness of sitting upright at the Sacrament upon a Form or Chair according to the Custom of England as being contrary to the Practice of all the Ancients who never sate at all No certainly For tho' they differ from the Ancients as to the site of their Bodies and the particular manner of Receiving yet they all consent in this that they receive in a common Table-Gesture They all observe the same Gesture at the Sacrament that they constantly observ'd at their Civil Feasts and ordinary Entertainments in the several places of their abode And so say I in the present Case What tho' the Primitive Christians stood upright some of them at the Sacrament and others bow'd their Heads and Bodies in the act of Receiving and none of them ever us'd Kneeling Yet they and we do very well agree for all that because we all receive in an adoring or worshipping Posture It is one and the same thing variously exprest according to the modes of the different Countries Fifthly and lastly I am to Prove that Kneeling is not therefore unlawful because 't was first introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abus'd by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes This will appear if we consider 1. That it can never be prov'd that Kneeling in the act of receiving was brought in by Idolaters as is pretended 2. That 't is not sinful to use such things as are or have been notoriously abus'd to Idolatry I. Then it can never be prov'd that Kneeling in the act of receiving was brought in by Idolaters I have already made it very probable that the Primitive Christians receiv'd the Sacrament Kneeling and I hope our Dissenters will not charge them with Idolatry I know that they pretend the Kneeling-posture was brought in by Honorius the Third but that which he brought in was a reverent Bow to the Sacrament when the Priest elevates the Patten or Chalice or when the Host is carry'd to any Sick Person and not any Kneeling in the act of receiving For these are the very words of the Decree (x) Decret Greg. l. 3. tit 41. c. 10. That the Priests shou'd frequently instruct their People to Bow themselves reverently at the Elevation of the Host when Mass was celebrated and in like manner when the Priest carry'd it abroad to the Sick Nay as Bishop Stilling fleet (y) Unreasonab of Separat p. 15. saies tho' Kneeling at the Elevation of the Host be strictly requir'd by the Roman Church yet in the act oâ— receiving it is not as manifestly appears by the Pope's manner of receiving which is not Kneeling but either Sitting as it was in Bonaventure 's time or after the fashion oâ— Sitting or a little Leaning upon his Throne as he doth at this day If any shou'd ask when the Gesture of Kneeling came in I confess I cannot certainly tell but this is no Argument against but rather for the ancient and universal use of it Novel-customs are easily traced to their Originals but generally we cannot tell from whence the most ancient usages of any Country are deriv'd However I am so far from thinking as our Dissenters do that Kneeling owes its birth to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that I verily believe that the Kneeling or Adoring posture us'd by the ancient Christians in the act of receiving did very much among other things conduce to beget and nurse up in the minds of superstitious and fanciful Men a conceit that Christ was really and corporally present at the Sacrament which Notion by subtil and inquisitive heads was in a little time improv'd and explain'd after this manner That after the Elements of Bread and Wine were consecrated they were thereby chang'd into the substance of Christ's natural Body and Blood This I am sure of that the Patrons of Transubstantiation did very early make use of this very Argument to prove that they taught and believ'd no more than the Primitive Bishops and Christians did For what else cou'd they intend or mean say they by that extraordinary Reverence and Devotion which they manifested when they receiv'd the dreadful Mysteries as they call'd the Bread and Wine if they were bare and empty Signs only and not chang'd into the very Body and Blood of Christ Which is in effect the very Argument us'd by (z) Alger de Sacramentis l. 2. c. 3. Algerus a stout Champion for Transubstantiation And (a) Costor Enchirid. p. 353. Edit 1590. Costor another Popish Writer is so far from saying even after Transubstantiation took place that the Pope introduced it that he resolves it into an ancient Custom continu'd from the Apostles times But II. Suppose it were otherwise yet 't is not sinful to use such things as are or have been notoriously abus'd to Idolatry as I shall shew in the next Chapter I shall only observe at present that if it be sinful to kneel at the Sacrament because that Gesture has been and is notoriously abus'd by Papists to Idolatrous ends then Sitting is also sinful which is contended for with so much Zeal For the Pope himself fits in