made by incense the coals were to be taken from thence and therefore surely 't was peculiar to those offices Nay just after the account of the extraordinary way of lighting the fire follows this relation of Nadab and Abihu to shew wherein they offended For before it was the office of Aaron's Sons to put fire upon the Altar and now they suffer'd for attempting to do as formerly because Heaven had declar'd to the contrary There was also a Conformity between the punishment and the sin for as fire from the Lord consum'd the burnt-offering so fire from the Lord consum'd them So that their case seems like that of Vzzah 1 Chron. 13.7 10 15.2 for they acted contrary to God's command I may add that in other places also the phrase not commanded is apply'd to things forbidden such as are call'd abominations that is idolatrous worship false Prophets c. Deut. 17.3 4. Jer. 7.31 19.5 32.35 so that since the phrase is always spoken of things plainly forbidden 't is a sign that 't is rather God's forbidding that made them unlawful than his not commanding But say they why shou'd the phrase be us'd at all in such matters if not commanded is not the same as forbidden To this I answer that not commanded is only a softer way of speaking which is usual in all languages and frequently to be met with in Scripture Thus God saies that hypocrites chuse that in which I delighted not Is 66.4 that is their abominations as we read v. 3. So the Apostle saies the Gentiles did things not convenient Rom 1.28 29. that is envy murther c. And the phrase not commanded is of the like kind when the things it 's apply'd to are alike abominable Besides if not commanded be the same as forbidden then the very notion of indifferent things is destroy'd and there is no indifferent thing in the world because a thing indifferent is as I said before that which is neither commanded nor forbidden But 't is said that all things not commanded in God's Word are additions to it and that such additions are unlawful because God saies Ye shall not add unto the Word which I command you neither shall ye diminish ought from it Deut. 4.2 and the Scribes are condemn'd Matth. 15.9 because they taught for doctrines the Commandments of Men. Now to this I reply that if by adding to the Word they mean doing what the Word forbids or appointing somewhat else instead of what God has appointed or expounding away the design of the Word or making that which is not the Word of God to be of equal authority with it as the Scribes did or giving the same efficacy to human institutions as God does to his if I say by adding to the Word they mean any of these things we think that adding to the Word is unlawful And if by diminishing they mean neglecting what the Word requires or thinking God's institutions not compleat we think that diminishing from the Word is unlawful But if they say that doing any thing not commanded in the worship of God tho' it have none of the ingredients before spoken of is a sinful adding to the Word we therein differ from them 1. Because Christ and his Apostles and all Churches have done things not commanded 2. Because this destroys the nature of indifferent things which cannot be indifferent if they be sinful additions to God's Word Besides adding is adding to the Substance and diminishing is diminishing from the Substance so that when the Substance remains intire without debasement or corruption it cannot be call'd an addition or diminution in the Scripture-sence However our Adversaries themselves are really guilty of what they charge upon us for they forbid as absolutely unlawful to use any thing in the worship of God which is not prescrib'd and certainly he that forbids what the Scripture do's not forbid do's as much add to it as he that commands what the Gospel doth not command As for the Words of the 2d Commandment Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image c. they do by no means prove that we must worship God by no other Religious rites than what he has prescrib'd 'T is true we are there commanded to worship none besides God and to worship God in a manner sutable to his Nature and agreeable to his Will but surely rites instituted by Men for the Solemnity of God's Service are not there forbidden It has been said indeed that Ceremonies being invented by Man are of the same nature with images but we must observe 1. That Images are expresly forbidden and Ceremonies are not 2. That Images tend to debase God in the thoughts of those that worship him after that Manner but Ceremonies do not and therefore Ceremonies are not a breach of the 2d Commandment Ceremonies are not Essential parts of Divine Worship but only circumstances of it and certainly our Brethren cannot find fault that such circumstances are us'd to further Devotion For they themselves do plead for sitting at the Lord's Supper c. upon this very account because they think such external circumstances do further Devotion But say they if there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the Worship of God the Gospel wou'd be less perfect than the Law and Christ wou'd not be so faithful in the care of his Church as Moses who was faithful in all his house Heb. 3.2 Therefore as Moses laid down all the particular Rules for God's Worship under the Law so has Christ under the Gospel and it is as dangerous to add as to detract from them Now to this I answer that the design of the Epistle to the Hebrews is to compare Moses and Christ or the Law and the Gospel and to shew the exact Correspondence between the Type and the Antitype and not to shew that our Saviour had as particularly prescrib'd the Order of Christian Worship as Moses had that of the Jewish The Gospel is not so particular in the Circumstantials of Worship as the Law was and we must not affirm that it is because we wou'd have it so We cannot prove that Christ has actually done this because we imagine that he shou'd have done it We may better argue that since these things are not expresly determin'd under the Gospel as they were under the Law therefore they are left to the determination of our Superiours whom we are commanded to obey Nor are the sufficiency of Scripture and faithfulness of Christ to be judg'd of by what we fancy they shou'd have determin'd but by what they have Since we do not find in the Scriptures such particular prescriptions in Baptism as in Circumcision nor in the Lord's Supper as in the Passover nor in our Prayers as in the Jewish Sacrifices therefore 't is plain that the sufficiency of Scripture and faithfulness of Christ do respect somewhat else and that they are not the less for want of them Christ was faithful as Moses to him that
sort of stipulation which at years of understanding they were bound to own because if they renounc'd it the Covenant was as void as if it had never been made And therefore an implicite stipulation is sufficient for the Baptism of Infants and St. Peter 't is likely had not respect to all Baptism or Baptism in general but only to the Baptism of adult Proselytes whom the Minister us'd to interrogate at the time of Baptism much after the same manner as we interrogate adult Proselytes now But it is plain that Tertullian (f) De Baptism cap. 18. makes mention of Sponsors or Sureties for Children at Baptism and 't is very probable that the Apostles made Parents c. stipulate in the name of their (g) See Selden de Synedr lib. 1. cap. 3. Minors when they Baptiz'd them as the Jews were wont to do and t is certain that our Saviour speaks of Children that Believe in him Matth. 18.6 And therefore St. Peter might also probably allude to all Baptism because Children might be Answer'd for by other Persons Thus I hope I have sufficiently justify'd the practice of Infant-Baptism and shewn that it is by no means a sufficient excuse for separation from us CHAP. VI. Objections against our Form of Baptism and particularly that of the sign of the Cross Answer'd I Proceed now to consider the Objections against our Form of Baptism I. It is said that all Baptiz'd Infants are suppos'd to be regenerated of which some think we cannot be certain But since they are Baptiz'd into Christ's Body 1 Cor. 12.13 and into Christ and have put on Christ Gal. 3.27 and consequently are new Creatures 2 Cor. 5.17 since I say they are Baptiz'd for the Remission of sins Acts 2.38 and since Baptism is call'd the Washing of regeneration Tit. 3.5 therefore the Scripture as well as our Church supposes them to be regenerated unless the Ordinances and Promises of God are of none effect towards them II. 'T is objected that Godfathers and Godmothers have no Authority to Covenant or act in their names To which I answer 1. That the Sureties are procur'd by the Parents and therefore since 't is granted that the Parents may act in behalf of the Infant the Sureties have all that Authority which the Parents can give them 2. The Church do's hereby take great security that the Infant shall be religiously brought up inasmuch as besides their Parents an obligation is laid upon others also to take care of it If the Parents shou'd die or be negligent the Sureties are engaged to admonish the Child and have greater authority and better advantages of doing so than other Persons And in this Age when the Duty of Christian reproof is so generally omitted 't were well if the defect were this way a little supply'd but 't is by no means fit that the opportunity thereof and obligation thereto shou'd be taken away If it be said this is seldom practis'd I answer that the goodness of a Rule is to be judg'd of by the good that is done where 't is kept and not where 't is broken And if the Dissenters have nothing to say but that 't is neglected they may remove this objection themselves by returning to the Church and increasing the number of those that observe it Thus they shall have the benefit of the order of the Church and the Church the benefit of their Examples As for the Interrogatories put to the Sureties and their Answers they are a Solemn Declaration of what Baptism obliges us to and that Infants do stand engag'd to perform it when they come to Age. This is the known meaning of the Contract and therefore I see not why it shou'd be said to be liable to misunderstanding III. But that which is most dislik'd is the Cross in Baptism against which 't is objected 1. That the sign of the Cross has been so notoriously abus'd by the Papists that our retaining of it makes us partakers of their Superstitions and Idolatry 2. That it seems a new Sacrament and therefore is an invasion of Christ's right who alone may institute Sacraments As to the First pretence tho' I readily acknowledge that the Cross has been notoriously abus'd by the Papists yet this do's not prove our retaining of it to be unlawful if we consider Three things 1. That the use of this sign was common in the primitive times and is more Ancient than any of those Corruptions for which we differ from the Papists Tertullian (a) De Coron Mil. speaks of it as of a practice which Tradition had introduc'd Custom had confirm'd and the Believers faith had observ'd and maintain'd which words together with his frequent and familiar mention of it make it very improbable that he receiv'd it from the Montanists Fourty years after him and about 200 after Christ Origen (b) Hom. 2. in Psal 38. mentions those who at their Baptism were sign'd with this sign and about 100 years after St. Basil (c) De Spir. S. c. 27. gives this usage the Venerable Title of an Ecclesiastical constitution or fixt Law of the Church that had prevail'd from the Apostles daies that those who believe in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ should be sign'd with the sign of the Cross But of all the Fathers St. Cyprian who was before St. Basil and very near if not contemporary with Tertullian himself not only speaks very familiarly of the use of this sign but has some expressions that wou'd now seem very harsh and unwarrantable and yet the authority of this Father has sav'd him from being question'd about it He (d) See Cyprian De Laps p. 169. adv Demet. p. 203. de Unit. p. 175. tells us that they are sign'd in the forehead with the Cross who are thought worthy of the Lord that Baptism is sanctify'd by the Cross and that it compleats every Sacrament The great the antiquity of this usage is manifest nay the Fathers frequently use being sign'd in the forehead for being Baptiz'd I shall not instance in St. Cyril St. Ambrose and St. Austin who sprinkle their writings with the common mention of this Ceremony and oftentimes frame arguments for a good Life from this very sign upon their foreheads Only I shall add this remark that the first Christian Emperour Constantine the Great had his directions probably from Heaven it self to make this sign the great Banner in his Wars with this encouragement that by this he shou'd overcome That this Dream or Vision was from Heaven and a thing of great reality is evident from the success of that Prince's Army under it and we cannot suppose that our Blessed Lord wou'd by so immediate a revelation countenance such a Rite as this already us'd in the Church if he had resented it before as superstitious or any way unwarrantable I may add that we ought not to be too petulant against that which the Holy Spirit has sometimes signaliz'd by very renown'd Miracles as
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
Society of Christians you please Which giddy principle if it shou'd prevail wou'd certainly throw us into an absolute Confusion and introduce all the Errours and Mischiefs that can be imagin'd But our Blessed Lord founded but one Universal Church and when he was ready to be Crucify'd for us and pray'd not for the Apostles alone but for them also that shou'd believe in him thro' their Word one of the last Petitions which he then put up amongst diverse others to the same Purpose was That they all may be One as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us that the World may believe that thou hast sent me 'T is plain this was to be a Visible Vnity that might be taken notice of in the World and so become an Inducement to move Men to embrace the Christian Faith Peace and Amity and a good Correspondence betwixt the several Members of which they consist is the only Beauty Strength and Security of all Societies and on the contrary the nourishing of Animosities and running into opposite Parties and Factions do's mightily weaken and by degrees almost unavoidably draw on the Ruin and Dissolution of any Community whether Civil or Sacred Concord and Union therefore will be as necessary for the Preservation of the Church as of the State It has been known by too sad an Experience as well in ours as other Ages what a pernicious Influence the Intestine Broils and Quarrels among Christians have had They have been the great stumbling-block to Jews Turks and Heathens and the main hindrance of their Conversion they have made some among our selves to become Doubtful and Sceptical in their Religion they have led others into many dangerous Errors that shake the very Foundations of our Faith and some they have tempted to cast off the Natural sense they had of the Deity and embolden'd them to a profess'd Atheism Therefore as you wou'd avoid the hardening of Men in Atheism and Infidelity and making the Prayer of our dying Saviour as much as in you lies wholly ineffectual you ought to be exceeding cautious that you do not wilfully Divide his Holy Catholic Church You are often warn'd of this and how many Arguments do's St. Paul heap together to persuade you to keep the Vnity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace One Body and one Spirit even as you are call'd in one Hope of your Calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all Eph. 4.3 4 5 6. And how pathetically do's the same Apostle exhort you again to the same thing by all the mutual Endearments that Christianity affords If there be therefore any Consolation in Christ if any Comfort in Love if any Fellowship of the Spirit if any Bowels and Mercies fulfil ye my Joy that ye be like minded having the same Love being of one Accord of one Mind Phil. 2.1 2. These vehement Exhortations to Peace and Concord do strictly oblige you to hold Communion with that Church which requires nothing but what is lawful of you They that have the same Articles of Faith and hope to meet in the same Heaven thro' the Merits of the same Lord shou'd not be afraid to come into the same Assemblies and join seriously in sending up the same Prayers and participating of the same Sacraments Besides the many strict Precepts and other strong Obligations which you have to this Duty our Saviour dy'd that he might gather together in One the Children of God that were scatter'd abroad John 11.52 And do you not then contradict this end of his Death in setting those at Variance whom he intended to Vnite Nay may you not be said to Crucify the Son of God afresh by mangling and dividing a sound and healthful part of that Body of which he owns himself to be the Head If indeed our Church did require you to profess any false Doctrine or to do any thing contrary to any Divine Command you were bound in such instances to withdraw from her but since her Doctrine Discipline and Worship are good and lawful you are indispensably engaged to join in Communion with her For as I said before and it cannot be inculcated too often Nothing but the Vnlawfulness of joining with us can make a Separation Lawful Let it pity you at least to see the ghastly wounds that are still renew'd by the continuance of our Divisions Be persuaded to have some Compassion on a Bleeding Church that is ready to faint and in imminent Danger of being made a prey to her Enemies by the unnatural Heats and Animosities of those that shou'd Support and Defend her Why shou'd you leave her thus Desolate and Forlorn when her present Exigencies require your most Cordial Assistance If the condition of her Communion were such as God's Laws did not allow you might forsake her that had forsaken him but since this cannot be Objected against her since she exacts no forbidden thing of you you ought to strengthen her Hands by an unanimous Agreement Since the Substantials of Religion are the same let not the Circumstances of external Order and Discipline be any longer an Occasion of Difference amongst us And so shall we bring Glory to God a happy Peace to a Divided Church a considerable Security to the Protestant Religion and probably defeat the subtil Practices of Rome which now stands gaping after All and hopes by our Distractions to repair the Losses she has suffer'd by the Reformation May the Wisdom of Heaven make all wicked Purposes unsuccesful and the Blessed Spirit of Love heal all our Breaches and prosper the charitable Endeavours of those that follow after PEACE Amen THE END
the Reading of the Lessons and hearing of the Sermon which too was only practis'd in some places for in others the People were not allow'd to sit at all in their Religious Assemblies Which Custom is still observ'd in most if not all the Eastern Churches at this day wherein there are no Seats erected or allow'd for the use of the People Now if the Apostles had Taught and Establish'd Sitting not only as convenient but as necessary to be us'd in order to worthy receiving the Lord's Supper 't is most strange and unaccountable 1. That there shou'd be such an early and universal revolt of the Primitive Church from the Doctrine and Constitutions of the Apostles 2. That so many Churches in distant Countries being perfectly Free and Independent one upon another shou'd unanimously conspire together to introduce a novel-custom contrary to the Apostolical Practice and Order and not only so but that 3. They shou'd censure the practice and injunctions of inspir'd Men as indecent and unfit to be follow'd and observ'd in the public Worship of God and all this without any Person 's taking notice or complaining or opposing either then or in the succeeding generations As for Standing in the time of Divine Service both at Prayers and at the Sacrament 't is so evident that the ancient Church did use it that I shall not endeavour to prove it and as for Kneeling 't is plain the Primitive Christians us'd that gesture also For tho' on Sundays and the Fifty daies between Easter and Whitsunday they observ'd Standing yet at other times they us'd the gesture of Kneeling at their public Devotions as appears from the authorities cited at the (m) Conc. 1. Nic. c. 20. Resp Quest inter Opera Just Mart. p. 468. Tertull. de Coron Mil. c. 3. Epiphan Expos fid Cath. p. 1105. Edit Par. St. Jer. Prol. com in Epist ad Eph. St. Aust Epist 119. ad Jan. c. 15. Tertull. de Orat. c. 3. bottom Now since they were wont in the first Ages of Christianity to receive the Holy Sacrament every day and since (n) See Tertull. Apol. c. 39. p. 47. St. Aust Epist 118. Const Apol. l. 2. c. 57. St. Chrysost Hom. 1. in c. 2. Ep. 1. ad Tim. St. Ambros de Sacram. l. 4. c. 5. Cave's Prim. Christ c. 11. St. Cyril Catech. Myst 5. St. Aust Resp ad Oros Quest 49. Tom. 4. p. 691. Basil 1541. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 35. it was deliver'd and receiv'd with a Form of Prayer and that on those daies when they constantly Pray'd Kneeling and since it is probable that when they receiv'd the Sacrament they did not alter the Praying-posture of the day therefore I conclude that they receiv'd the Sacrament Kneeling upon those daies on which they Pray'd Kneeling For since Sitting was generally condemn'd as an indecent and irreverent gesture by the Primitive Church and since no Man in his Wits will say that Prostration or lying flat upon the ground was ever us'd in the act of receiving or ever fit to be so therefore the posture of receiving must be either standing or kneeling And from hence I gather that on their common and ordinary daies when there was no peculiar reason to invite or oblige them to Stand at the Sacrament in all likelihood they us'd Kneeling that is the ordinary posture They us'd one and the same posture viz. Standing both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament on the Lord's day and for Fifty daies after Easter contrary to what was usual at other times and why then shou'd any Man think they did not observe one and the same posture at all other times viz. that as at such times they did constantly Kneel at their Prayers so they did also constantly Kneel at the Sacrament which was given and receiv'd in a Prayer From the strength of these Premises I may promise my self thus much success that whosoever shall carefully weigh and peruse them with a teachable and unprejudiced mind shall find himself much more inclin'd to believe the Primitive Church us'd at some times to Kneel as we do at the Holy Communion than that they never did Kneel at all or that such a posture was never us'd or heard of but excluded from their Congregations as some great Advocates for Sitting have confidently proclaim'd it to the World But Secondly Suppose they never did Kneel as we do yet this is most certain that they receiv'd the Lord's Supper in an adoring posture which is the same thing and will sufficiently justify the present Practice of our Church as being agreeable to that of pure Antiquity For the proof of this numerous Testimonies both of Greek and Latin Fathers might be alledg'd but I will content my self and I hope the Reader too with a few of each sort which are so plain and express that he who will except against them will also with the same face and assurance except against the Whiteness of Snow and the Light of the Sun at Noon-day And first for the Greek Fathers let the Testimony of (o) St. Cyril Hierosol Mystag Catech. 5. versus finem Paris Edit p. 244. St. Cyril be heard than which nothing can be more plain and express to our purpose This holy Father in a place before cited gives Instructions to Communicants how to behave themselves when they approach the Lord's Table and that in the act of receiving both the Bread and the Wine At the receiving of the Cup he advises thus Approach saies he not rudely stretching forth thy hands but bowing thy self and in a posture of Worship and Adoration saying Amen To the same purpose (p) 24 Hom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 538. To. 9. Paris St. Chrysostom speaks in his Fourteenth Homily on the First Epistle to the Corinthians where he provokes and excites the Christians of his time to an awful and reverential deportment at the Holy Communion by the Example of the Wise Men who ador'd our Saviour in his Infancy after this manner This Body the Wise Men reverene'd even when it lay in the Manger and approaching thereunto worshipp'd it with fear and great trembling Let us therefore who are Citizens of Heaven imitate at least these Barbarians But thou seest this Body not in a Manger but on the Altar not held by a Woman but by the Priest c. Let us therefore stir up our selves and be horribly afraid and manifest a much greater Reverence than those Barbarians lest coming lightly and at a venture we heap fire on our Heads The same Father in another place expresly bids them to fall down and Communicate when the Table is made ready and the King himself there and in order to beget in their Minds great and awful Thoughts concerning that Holy and Mysterious Feast he further exhorts them (p) St. Chrys Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes in moral p. 1151. That when they saw the Chancel doors open then they shou'd suppose Heaven it self was unfolded from above and that the Angels
descended to be Lookers on I suppose he means of their Courage and Behaviour at the Table of the Lord and by giving their attendance to grace that Solemnity With the Testimony of these Ancient Writers Theodoret agrees who in a Dialogue between an Orthodox Christian and an Heretic brings in Orthodoxus thus Discoursing of the Supper of the Lord. The mysterious Symbols or Signs in the Sacrament viz. Bread and Wine depart not from their proper Nature for they continue in their former Essence and keep their former Shape and Form and approve themselves both to our sight and touch to be as they were before (q) Dialog 2. To. 4. p. 85. Paris Edit but they are consider'd for such as they are made that is in respect to their Spiritual signification and that Divine use to which they were consecrated and are believ'd and ador'd aâ— those very things which they are believ'd to be Which words plainly import thus much that the consecrated Elements were receiv'd with a Gesture of Adoration and at the same time assure us that such a Behaviour at the Lords supper was not founded upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For there is not a more manifest instance in all the Ancients against that absurd Doctrine which the Roman Church so obstinately believes at this very day than what Theodoret gives us in the words abovemention'd Lastly to alledge no more out of the Greek Fathers that Story which Gregory Nazianzen (r) Oâ—at in laud. Gorgon p. 187. Paris Edit relates concerning Gorgonia will much confirm what has been said viz. That being sick and having used several Medicins in vain at last she resolv'd upon this course She went in the stilness of the Night to the public Church and having with her some of the consecrated Elements which she had reserv'd at home she fell down on her knees before the Altar and with a loud voice pray'd to him whom she Ador'd and in conclusion was healed I am not much concern'd whether the Reader will believe or censure this Miracle but it 's certain that this famous Father has Recorded it and commends his Sister for the way she took for her Recovery This is home to my purpose and clearly discovers that Gorgonia did Kneel or at least us'd a Posture of Adoration when she ate the Sacramental Bread And without doubt in Communicating she observ'd the same Posture that others generally did in public She did that in her sickness which all others us'd to do in their health when they came to the Sacrament that is She Kneeled down For it can't be suppos'd that at this time when she came to beg so great a Blessing of Almighty God in the public Church and at the Altar call'd by the Ancients The Place of Prayer she wou'd be guilty of any misbehaviour and make use of a singular Posture different from what was generally us'd by Christians when they came to the same place to communicate and pray over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice which they lookt upon as the most prevailing and effectual way of Praying the most likely to render God favourable to them and to prevail with him above all other Prayers which they offer'd at any other time or in any other place So much for the Authorities of the Greek Fathers who were Men eminent for Learning and Piety in their Daies and great Lights and Ornaments in the Primitive Church With these the Latin Fathers fully agree in their Judgments concerning our present Case And of these I will only mention two tho' more might be produc'd and those very eminent and illustrious Persons had in great veneration by the then present Age wherein they flourish'd and by succeeding Generations The first is (Å¿) Ambros de Sp. Sanct. l. 3. c. 12. St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan in a Book he wrote concerning the Holy Ghost where enquiring after the meaning of the Pslamist when he exhorts Men to exalt the Lord and to worship his Footstool he gives us the sense in these words That it seems to belong unto the mystery of our Lord's Incarnation and then goes on to shew for what Reason it may be accommodated to that Mystery and at last concludes thus By the Footstool therefore is the Earth to be understood and by the Earth the body of Christ which at this day too we adore in the Sacrament and which the Apostles worshipp'd in the Lord Jesus c. St. Austin Bishop of Hippo Comments on the very same words and to the same purpose For thus he resolves that Question How or in what sense the Earth his Footstool may be worshipp'd without impiety Because he took earth of the earth for flesh is of the earth and he took flesh of the flesh of Mary and because he convers'd here in the flesh and gave us his very flesh to eat unto Salvation Now there is none who eateth that flesh but first worshippeth We have found then how this Footstool may be ador'd so that we are so far from sinning by adoring that we really sin if we do not adore In the Judgment therefore of these Primitive Bishops we may lawfully adore at the Mysteries tho' not the Mysteries themselves at the Sacraments tho' not the Sacraments themselves the Creator in the Creature which is sanctify'd not the Creature it self as a late (t) Phil. Mornay du Plessis de Missa l. 4. c. 7. p. 732. Protestant Writer of great Learning and Quality among the French distinguishes upon the forecited words of Saint Ambrose I think it appears evident from these few Instances that the Primitive Christians us'd a posture of adoration at the Communion in the act of receiving It were easy to bring a cloud of other Witnesses if it were necessary so to do either to prove or clear the Cause in hand but since there is no need to clog the Discourse with numerous References and Appeals to Antiquity it wou'd but obscure the Argument and tend in all likelihood rather to confound and distaste than convince and gratify the Reader By what has been already alledg'd the practice of our Church in Kneeling at the Sacrament is sufficiently justify'd as agreeable to the Customs and Practice of pure and Primitive Christianity For if the Ancients did at the Sacrament use a Posture of Worship and Adoration which is very plain they did then Kneeling is not repugnant to the practice of the Church in the first and purest Ages no tho' we shou'd suppose that Kneeling was never practis'd among them which will be plain if we cast our Eyes a little upon that heavy Charge which some of the fiercest but less prudent Adversaries of Kneeling have exhibited against it They object against Kneeling as being an adoring Gesture for they affirm (u) Gillesp p. 166 172. Altar Damas p. 801. Rutherf Divine Right of Ch. Gov. c. 1. Qu. 5. Sect. 1.3 That to kneel in the act of Receiving before the consecrated Bread and Wine is formal Idolatry So