Argument and shewing that their disobedience to the Commands of their Superiors in Lawful things more likely renders them partakers of the sin of others 2ly That our Submission to Superiors in these matters cannot render us partakers of their supposed sin § 1. This farther proved from the consideration of all the ways which render us partakers of the sins of others directly or indirectly Directly 1. By actually consenting to willing or approving the sin of others 2ly By commanding the doing of it 3ly By perswading encouraging warranting or alluring others to the performance of sin by applauding the action or rejoycing in the doing of it 4ly By teaching false Doctrins which do encourage others to sin § 2. Indirectly 1. When we do that which is a culpable occasion of their sin As 1. By neglecting of that Duty or by committing of that Evil action which doth directly give occasion to the sin of others 2ly When by our ill example we minister occasion to their sin 3ly When we do use our Liberty in things indifferent to the offence or sin of our weak Brother § 3. That our submission to things Lawful in themselves commanded by Superiors can neither directly nor indirectly involve us in guilt § 4. Jnst 2. By partaking with you in the Holy Sacrament who do not separate the Precious from the Vile we should approve of your neglect of discipline and by partaking with them become partakers in their sins Answered § 5. CHAP. VII § 1 IN the last place it is objected that their Submission to the imposed Rites will render them purtakers of the sin of others and therfore ought not to be done This they endeavour to make good upon a double ground And 1. We dare not joyn with you say they in Publick Worship or the participation of the Holy Sacraments Because some things are by Superiors required of all those who are permitted to joyn with you in those Ordinances which tho they are not evil in themselves yet ought they not to be required as the conditions of Communion they being things unnecessary now should we say they yield obedience to them in these things we should countenance them in their imposing these unnecessary burthens upon others and harden them in that which we suppose to be their sin and should encourage their persistance in it and so should be partakers in that Guilt Moreover the Rigid imposition of these things say they tends to divide the Church to make men Schismaticks and so it ministers to the destruction of poor Souls we dare not therefore submit unto the practise of them lest by so doing we approve of those Unchristian practices To this pretence I Answer 1. By Retorting of the Argument for the refusal of obedience to Superiors in Lawful matters hath the like and more pernitious consequences and therefore they at least have equal cause to yield obedience to such constitutions of Superiors on this account lest by refusing that obedience they approve the more Unchristian practises of those who rend the Church desert Communion with her Schismatically separate themselves disturb the Unity the Peace the Charity and the Edification of her Members and cast a vile reproach upon Christianity by representing it as that which doth forbid obedience to Superiors in Lawful matters and harden others in these sins all which is manifestly done by their refusal to obey the Constitutions of Superiors in Lawful matters 2. Did our Submission to any thing which our Superiors should not command make us partakers of their sin then every Burthensome and Grievous Act of Parliament which after it is made tends more unto the prejudice then to the good of the Community not only Lawfully might but must be disobeyed for Conscience sake lest by submitting to it we should encourage our Superiors to impose Grievous burthens on the Subject so that this scruple will lead to Faction in the State as well as to Sedition in the Church And 2ly If this were so that by submitting to any thing Commanded by Superiors which we do not approve of or they should not impose we become Guilty of the Sin of the Imposers then must our Lord and his Apostles be Guilty of like sin for they did ordinarily joyn with the People of the Jews in their Publick Service on the Sabbath day and at their other Festivals as I have shewed already altho they who then sat in Moses chair imposed more Rites and Ceremonies to be observed in those parts of Publick Worship then are imposed in our Church 3ly Then also must St. Paul be Guilty of approving those who did impose the Jewish Ceremonies as necessary to be observed by the Jew converted to Christianity because for peace sake he himself submittedto them and to the Jew became as a Jew that he might gain the Jew He also must himself approve and advise others to approve the judgment and the practice of those Jews who thought the Meats forbidden by the Law of Moses unlawful to be eaten the days appointed by that Law still necessary to be observed because he did himself and he advised others to comply with them in their weakness or to abstain from eating of those meats when that would minister occasion of Offence to their weak Brethren and so according to the Grounds of this objection he himself encouraged and hard'ned other persons in their sin and he advised others so to do But § 2 3ly To give more ample satisfaction to this scruple I shall consider all the ways whereby we become guilty of the sin of others and then apply them to the case in hand We therefore may become partakers of the sin of others either directly when we do actually consent unto will or approve the evil action which is done by others or indirectly when tho we do not actually consent unto the sin of others yet do we that which is a culpable occasion of it 1. Directly when we do actually consent unto will or approve the sin of others Now this is done two ways 1. Antecedently to the Evil action as when 't is done by our command direction or perswasion or consequently when tho we had no hand in doing of it yet we do afterwards censent unto approve or do rejoyce in any Evil done by others 2ly Directly we partake with others in their sin and Antecedently are guilty of it when having power over them we do command the doing of it for this Command is a plain evidence that we do will the Evil action and desire that it may be done Thus Absalom slew Amnon because he commanded his servants saying when I say unto you smite Amnon then kill him fear not have not I Commanded you 2 Sam. 13.30.28 thus David numbred the People 2 Sam. 24.10 by commanding Joab so to do v. 4. He kill'd Uriah the Hittite with the Sword 2 Sam. 12.9 because at the command of David he was put into the front of the Battel that he died 3ly We are directly partakers
which must therefore be unlawful according to this Argument because prescribed by no Apostle in the Holy Scriptures This is a business which if it were necessary would be equally necessary to all Ages Ob. 2. Ibid. and parts of the Catholick Church and therefore it cannot be necessary but it must be the matter of an universal law now God hath made no such law in Scripture and so Scripture sufficiency as the Catholick Rule of faith and universal obedience is utterly overthrown Answer The Answers given to the first objection do also manifestly shew the vanity of this for may it not as well be said of the Festivities of the Apostles and first Martyrs of the Church as of the feast of Christmas the Ascension of our Lord c. That If they are necessary to be observed they must be necessary to all Ages that God in Scripture hath made no law concerning them c. May it not as well be said that if Publick Assemblies are necessary to be set apart now that if any unprescribed forms of Prayer are necessary to be used now or any words in Scripture not prescribed in consecration or celebration of the Sacraments that if standing on the Lords day in time of Prayer if Stationary days if the Penitential Discipline observed in the Primitive Church were necessary in any Age or part of the Church they must be necessary in all Ages and parts of the Catholick Church and that God hath in Scripture made no laws concerning them and so Scripture sufficiency is and was by the observation of them overthrown 2ly Tho we do judge the observation of these Festivals expedient yet we by no means hold it necessary not by necessity of precept for we pretend not to any precept of this kind not as a necessary means for we acknowledge God may be duly praised and Worshipped and magnified for the mercies we then celebrate on other days and therefore we confess that * Non putandum Ecclesiam Christianam aliquancessitate astringi ad obser vationem immotam festorum dierum sed statuendum dies hosee humanâ authoritateconstitutos eddem posse tolli mutari c. Dav. in Coloss 2. v. 16. if the Church thinks fit she may leave all men to their liberty in the observing or not observing of these days only we add that sure the General Rule of doing all things for edification will warrant her appointment of them for the forementioned ends as well as the appointment of a Lecture-day or of a Sermon before the Assizes God himself hath appointed a day for the same purposes as these are pretended for Ob. 3. Ibid. for the Lords day is to commemorate the Resurrection as the great triumphant act of the Redeemer implying all the Rest of his works so that tho it be principally for the resurrection above any single work of Christ yet also for all the work of Redemption and the whole is on that day to be commemorated with Holy joy and praise now when God himself hath set apart one day in every week to commemorate the whole work of Redemption it seems an accusing of his Institutions of insufficiency to come after him to mend them and say we must have an Anniversary day for this or that part of the work Answer 1. That God did institute the Lords day for the particular Commemoration of the whole work of the Redemption is Gratis dictum what Scripture or what declaration of Any Father of the Church saith so 2ly This Argument makes it unlawful to set up a lecture upon any day but the Lords day for that day being appointed for publick reading and hearing of Gods Holy word for men to set up another day for that end is to accuse his institutions of insufficiency 3ly This Argument condemns the universal Church of Christ from the Apostles days for they did then observe the feast of Easter and so tho God had set apart a weekly Commemoration of the resurrection of our Lord they did come after him and observe an Anniversary day for the same thing and so according to this way of Arguing did more apparently accuse his institutions of insufficiency 4ly This objection seems to accuse the wisdom of Gods own institutions for tho the Jewish Sabbath was instituted with a peculiar respect to their deliverance out of Aegypt Deut. 5.15 yet for that mercy which was far inferior to those which Christians do enjoy by our Lords Birth his Death his Resurrection and Ascension he required other solemnities to be observed yearly viz. The great feast of the Passover why therefore may not the wisdom of the Church in imitation of this pattern besides the Lords day weekly set apart for celebrating the work of our Redemption require other solemnities to be observed yearly for a peculiar Commemoration of the most Signal parts of that Redemption Obj. 4 The fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue seems to be of so High a nature that man must not presume to make the like Ibid. but it seems a doing the same or of like nature to what God hath done in the fourth Commandment if any man will make a necessary stated Holy day to the universal Church Answer 1. Who goes about to make a Necessary stated Holy day to the Universal Church sure none besides the Church of Rome pretendeth to give laws unto her But what the Universal Church hath thought fit to observe I hope our Church may prudently comply with and call upon her Children so to do 2ly Is not this done as much by the stated Festivals which you allow of as by those you do condemn was it not done as much by appointing the feast of Purim to be observed yearly and by ordaining that these days should be remembred and kept throughout every Generation Esth 9.27 28. every Family every Province and every City and that these days of Purim should not fail from among the Jews nor the memorial of them perish from their seed was it not done as much by the whole Congregation of Israel when they ordained that the days of the Dedication of the Altar should be observed from year to year by the space of eight days And yet neither our Lord 1 Macc. 4.59 nor any of the Prophets charged them with violation of the 4th Commandment on that account or with presuming to do the like to that which God had done in the institution of it Object 5 Where there is no law sure we are there is no transgression but there is no law of God Commanding Christmas or other Holy-days therefore there is no trangression in not keeping them But then it is not sure that there is no transgression in keeping them therefore the surer side is to be taken Answer 1. That this Argument plainly destroys his former grant of the expedience of observing and enjoyning other Holy-days for which no law of God commanding them can be produced 2ly That this Argument may be retorted thus
used by the Church from the 3d. Century at least unto this present Age. And thence to shew that our Dissenters do by condemning these things in the Church of England in effect condemn the Church of Christ throughout all Ages and all Places Def. of the principles of love p. 55. for as Mr. Baxter well observes they who condemn our Church for reasons common to all the Ages of the Church must virtually condemn all the fore-going Ages of the Churches But because Laymen are ignorant of what was practised by Antiquity and have been taught that Anti-christ began to work in the Apostles days and therefore have but little Reverence for Arguments of this Nature I shall endeavour to convince them of the lawfulness of holding Communion with us in these Ordinances by the Example of our Blessed Lord and Saviour who in like cases did yield Obedience and Submit to the Prescriptions of the Rulers of the Jewish Church And 2ly I shall endeavour to return a full and a perspicuous Answer to all the Arguments they urge from Scripture or from Reason to prove that 't is unlawful to submit unto the things required by the Church of England in order to Communion with her Beginning first with those Arguments which do suppose the things required by the Church of England as the Conditions of Lay Communion to be sinful in themselves or things forbidden by the Word of God And 2ly Proceeding to the Consideration of those Arguments which do allow the things imposed to be lawful in themselves but yet suppose it is unlawful for them to submit unto them 1. Because the Imposition of them is a Violation of their Christian Liberty 2ly Because by their Submission to them as they imagine they shall be indirectly guilty of the sin of the Imposers 3ly Because they have been abused to Idolatry and Superstition and therefore are become unlawful to be used And 4ly Because by using of them they may scandalize the Weak which God having forbidden no Precept of the Magistrate can oblige them to do § 2 And 1. The Practice and Example of our Lord is such a President as our Dissentors cannot reasonably except against nor can they justify their own Refusal to be Followers of Christ or to submit unto such Constitutions made by the Rulers of the Church of Christ as our Dear Lord submitted to being appointed by the Rulers of the Jewish Church or to hold Communion with such a Church as he became a Member of Now 1. Our Blessed Saviour was a Member of the Jewish National Church and of the Synagogue at Nazareth the Confirmation of this Assertion I shall deliver in the Words of Doctor Leightfoot who speaks thus Harm part 3. p. 124. What did Christ all the while he liv'd at Nazareth a private Man Did he never go to the Synagogue upon Sabbath and Holy Days and Synagogue-days Whilst others went to the Congregation and to the publick Service did he stay at home did he not appear before the Lord at the appointed Seasons in the place which he had chosen We are assured he did so for his Parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover and when he was twelve years old they went up to Jerusalem after the Custom of the Feast and the Child went with them 2. Luke 41 42 43. That he went up unto the Feast of Tabernacles we are informed Joh. 7 10. And being circumcised he became a Debtor to do the whole Law Gal. 5 3. being made under the Law Gal. 4.4 he was obliged to the Performance of those things which were enjoyned by it Now the great Business of these Feasts was to offer Sacrifice to rejoyce in the Assembly of Gods People to put up Prayers and Praises for all the Blessings they did then commemorate at these times all Israel met together Lam. 2 22. they heard the Reading of the Law Deut. 31 9 10. and they sang Praises to God Isai 30 29. Ye shall have a Song as in the Night when a Holy Solemnity is kept If then our Saviour did observe these Feasts if he did celebrate the Passover then certainly he did communicate with the Jewish Church for these Appearances were Ordinances and Symbols also of Communion § 3 2ly That Christ himself neglected not the times of publick Prayer that he declared it not unlawful nor did prohibit his Disciples to attend upon them is evident from this that he still owned the Temple as his Fathers House Joh. 2 16. the House of Prayer that his Disciples after his Resurrection continued daily in the Temple and went up to it at the hours of Prayer Act. 3 1. And they esteemed it a very commendable Action of the Widow Anna to serve God there continually with Prayer and Fasting Luke 2.37 Whence we may certainly conclude that Christ himself did not refuse nor did advise his own Disciples to refuse Communion with the Jewish Church in common Prayer but did approve Communion with them in that publick Service Now since the Jews themselves observed no time for Prayer no number of Prayers seeing no dayly Forms of Prayer were appointed by the Law of Moses Therefore saith Dr. Leightfoot Harm part 3. p. 217. the Sanhedrin in several Generations made Canons and Constitutions to decide and determin upon all these particulars as their own Reason and Emergences did lead them and give occasion as in one Generation they prescribed such and such times for Morning and Evening Prayer in process of time they found these times allotted to be too strait therefore the Sanhedrin of another Generation did give Enlargement as they thought good and so concerning the number of Prayers to be said dayly one Sanhedrin appointed so many but time and experience found afterwards that these did not answer such and such occasions as it seems was not observed when they were first appointed therefore the Sanhedrin of another Generation thought good to add more and more still as occasions unobserved before did emerge and so the number of their dayly Prayers grew at last to be eighteen To all which Additions to the Law of Moses our Lord and his Disciples did submit attending the publick Service of the Temple and the Synagogues where they were used And § 4 3ly That he was particularly a Member of the Synagogue at Nazareth is proved from that Passage of St. Luke Luke 4 16. who tells us that he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up and as his Custom was he went into their Synagogue on the Sabbath-day and stood up for to read for Illustration of which place observe that there were Seven Readers appointed in their Synagogues who Leightf Harm part 3 p. 125. when the Angel of the Church or Minister of the Congregation call'd them out did read Now that our Saviour was a Member of this Congregation may be argued thus ibid. p. 124. You find not in the whole Gospel tho Christ preached in
may redound unto us from the Observation of these Festivals unto the ends for which they are appointed by the Church now she appointeth them to be employed in hearing of God's Word read and taught in publick Prayers Can. 13. Injunct Q Eliz. 1559. N. 20. in acknowledging our offences to God and amendment of the same in being reconciled to our Neighbours where there hath been displeasure in oft receiving the Communion in visiting the Poor and Sick and using all sober and Godly conversation Which Christian fruits of Piety were they more plentifully brought forth they would sufficiently recommend those times and seasons which gave occasion to them And surely the benefit of such Holy Exercises is so great that the use of particular times appointed for that purpose ought not to be rejected though some men do abuse them to far other ends And if Dissenters have thought fit to appoint weekly Lectures for some of these good ends Why may not our Church Governours appoint these Anniversaries for the promotion of them all Especially if we consider that they are so exceeding profitable unto the weaker sort of Christians who are instructed by them in many Articles of Christian Faith and caused to reflect on many signal Mercies which they might entirely forget did not these Days return to strengthen and rub up their Memories The common sort of those who seem to be Believers want these Remembrances saith Origen Contra Celsum l. 8. p. 393. That such things may not slip out of their Minds and so these Festivals must needs be useful to them for this end And since the Wisdom of the Church prescribeth Daies to be observed for the Commemoration of the chief things that either were performed by or hapned to our Saviour if the plain Man saith Bishop Hall would but ply well his Almanack that alone would teach him so much Gospel as to shew him the History of his Saviour Remains Serm. on 1 Joh. 15. for there upon the Feast of the Annuntiation might he see his Saviours conception declared by an Angel upon the Feast of 〈◊〉 Nativity he might understand that he was boâ—â— of the Virgin Mary and at last after infinâ—â— and beneficial Miracles he would see him câ—â—â—cified on Good Friday rising from the dead 〈◊〉 Easter and ascending to Heaven on Holy Thuâ—â—day and might be well instructed in these thiâ—â—â— by coming to the Church which hath excellenâ—â—â— fitted these Solemnities with Services which 〈◊〉 explain their meaning and the use we are to mâ—â—â— of them If then we are to follow after the thiâ—â— whereby we may edifie one another Rom. 14.19 we must â—â—â—tinue the Observation of these Festivals 3ly That 't is expedient to observe these 〈◊〉 is evident from the continued custom of the wâ—â—â—â— Church of Christ it being laudable and deâ—â—â—â— to observe the Customs of the whole Church 〈◊〉 Christ and to conform to her Example 〈◊〉 in things no where forbidden by the Word of 〈◊〉 and being reasonable to judge she had good 〈◊〉 to do what was so universally performed whoâ—â— St. 1 Cor. 14.33 11.16 Paul doth admonish his Corinthians to do as 〈◊〉 all Churches of the Saints was done and doth pronounce him a Contentious Person who 〈◊〉 thwart her customs Now all these Festivals of Christ's Nativity his Passion Resurrection cension and of the Advent of the Holy Ghost are by * Illa autem quae non scripta sed tradita custodimus quae quidem toto terrarum orbe observantur dantur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis vel plenariis conciliis 〈…〉 atque statuta retineri slucti quod Domini passio Resurrectio 〈…〉 in Caelum adventus de Caelo Spiritsis Sancti anniversaria soleâ—â—â—â—e celbrantur st quid aliud cale occurrerit quod servatur ab universa quacunque se diffundit Ecclesia Epist 1.18 Cap. 1. vid. Epist 119. Cap. 1. St. Austin reckoned among those things which were observed ab universa quacunque se diffundit Ecclesia by the whole Universal Church and which he therefore doth conjecture that the Observation of them derived it self from the Apostles or the Decrees of General Councils Since therefore it is evident unto all learned men that all the Holy-days prescribed by the Church of England from the Fourth Century at least were universally observed by the Church of Christ it must be fit and laudable to conform to her Example by observing of them as she did Now to return an answer to the Objections of Mr. Disp 5. of Cer. cap. 2. §. 46. Baxter against the Holy-days foremention'd of which the First is Object 1 Object 1. § 14 That the occasion of these Holy-days was existent in the Apostles days if therefore God would have had such days observed he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles in Scripture as he did other the like things Answer 1. This Argument confutes his former grant that the Festivals of the Holy Martyrs and Apostles might lawfully be observed For of the Protomartyr St. Stephen and of James the Brother of John Kill'd by the Sword Act. 12.2 the Scripture maketh mention and yet saith nothing of the observation of their Festivals nor doth the Beloved Disciple tho He survived the rest of Christs Apostles mention in his Epistles or his Revelations any thing touching the observation of them which notwithstanding Mr. Baxter and which is more considerable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 the Universal Church of God even from the second Century approved of observing Martyrum Natalitia the Birth days of the Martyrs that is the days when they were crowned with Martyrdom with Great Solemnity witness the * Epistle of the Church of Smyrna touching the Martyrdom of Polycarp 2ly By this Argument no places may be set apart for Celebration of Gods publick Worship no Churches and no Tabernacles may be erected for that end no time appointed for that Worship No Synods may convene no Presbyterian Classes may assemble to determine any matter or make any Rules for the due Government of Christians no forms of Prayer excepting the Lords Prayer may be used in Publck no words in Celebration of the Lords Supper or the Sacrament of Baptism to omit many other things of a like nature but what by the Apostles were prescribed in Scripture for if God would have had such things done the occasion of them was existent in the Apostles days and he could as easily and fitly by his Apostles have given command concerning them as touching other the like things 3ly This Argument condemneth the Decrees of the great Nicene Council for praying standing on the Lords day the occasion of it being as old as our Lords Resurrection and it condemneth the whole Church of Christ in the exercise of her Discipline concerning Penitents her Stationary days and almost all her other rites the occasions of which were as well existent in the Apostles days as in succeeding Ages and
bore towards their Christian Brethren And such is kneeling and prostration in prayer embracing and shaking of hands Such saith the Apostle was that covering of the Womans Head in time of Publick Prayer even that which Nature taught 1 Cor. 11.14 15. Such are the Festivals of the Church viz. Expressions of our Praises for the Mercies then received And the standing from Easter to Whitsunday and on the Lords day used in the ancient Church was not to teach by way of signification any duty but to express and testify their Belief of our Lords Resurrection and for this end we also stand up at the Creed now that such signs may lawfully be used and required I know no cause of doubting from any thing which this Objection offers they being not instructive in but only expressive of our Faith and Duty and under this head may be comprised kneeling at the Sacrament as an Expression of our inward Reverence and signing with the Cross as an Expression of our Faith in and owning of the crucifyed Jesus Signs Arbitrary are such as neither of themselves nor yet by any antecedent Custom do signify distincty and determinately to others that which they are instituted or imposed to teach or signify such are the Elements of Bread and Wine for the breaking of Bread doth no more naturally signify the breaking of Christs Body on the Cross than the breaking of any other thing would do and such are all the moral significations of the Rites appointed by the Jewish Law concerning clean Beasts for Sacrifice and unclean forbidden to be sacrificed or eaten and such is the wearing of a Surplice to teach or signify purity it being naturally or by any antecedent Custom no more proper determinately to teach or signify to the Beholder or our selves this Grace than the putting of it on upon black Garments to signify Hypocrisy and a Pharisaical Temper and that we are like Scpulchres white without but black within Against the fitness of the Imposition therefore of such arbitrary signs to teach those duties which are more plainly and determinately taught already in the Word of God I fear this Argument too strongly doth conclude But then the Excellent Bishop Taylor doth sufficiently excuse our Church from this supposed guilt by saying that There is reason to celebrate and honour the Wisdom and Prudence of the the Church of England Ibid. §. 8. p. 327 which hath in all her Offices retained but one Ceremony that is not of Divine Ordinance or Apostolical Practice that is the Cross in Baptism Which tho it be a significant Ceremony and of no other use yet as it is a complyance with the Practice of all ancient Churches so is it very innocent in it self and being one and alone is in no regard troublesome or afflictive to those that understand her Power and her Liberty and Reason I said she hath one only Ceremony of her own appointment for the Ring in Marriage is the Symbol of Civil nor a religious Contract it is a Pledge and Custom of the Nation not of the Religion and those other Circumstances of her Worship are but determinations of time and place and manner of a duty They serve to other purposes besides signification they were not made for that but for Order and Decency for which there is an Apostolical Precept and a Natural Reason and an Evident Necessity or a great Convenience Now if besides these uses they can be construed to any good signification or instruction that is so far from being a prejudice to them that it is their Advantage their Principal End being different and warranted and not destroyed by their superinduced and accidental use sect 3 The use of the Ceremonies is superstitious Oâ—â— 6. and therefore we say they cannot submit unto the Practice of them without sin That the use of the Ceremonies in Religious Worship is superstitious they prove by Arguments already answered viz. That it is super statutum or more than God hath in his Word required and that they are imposed as parts of Worship Moreover these things say they cannot be used without Superstition in the Service of God which have no necessary or profitable use in his Service for as vain Thoughts and Words are forbidden in the Holy Scripture so is it not to be doubted but that vain actions are forbidden especially in the Worship of God Answ 1 To give a Satisfactory Answer unto this Objection it will be only necessary to state the Notion or true import of Superstition that by applying it to our own Practice and to the Practice of Dissenters we may judge who are most guilty of this vice 1. Therefore Superstition being a species of false Worship whereby we do exhibit Worship to an Object to which it is not due or to that Object which deserveth Worship in an undue manner it follows plainly that where no Worship is exhibited by the act done or intended by the Doer or Imposer of the act there can be no Superstition in the Exercise of such an act there may be Vanity and an abuse of Power in the imposing rites unprofitable and unnecessary but there can be no Superstition or Will Worship where there is neither any act of Worship nor any Will to worship God by the Performance of these Rites nor designation of them unto such an end 2ly Superstitious Worship undue as to the manner of it can only be performed by offering that as acceptable and pleasing to God or as an Exercise of Religion and honor to God or an Acknowledgment of some of his perfections which is not acceptable or well pleasing to him which rendreth him no honor and doth not tend to the Acknowledgment of any of his Attributes or perfections for by performing that which indeed is pleasing and acceptable to God or which doth render honor to him we cannot be superstitious hence it must follow that when men make those things a part of their Religion which God hath not commanded or forbidden and think God is pleased with their meer doing or abstaining from doing them they in so doing must be superstitious Two things are therefore necessary to compleat this species of false Worship viz. 1. That the matter about which it is conversant relate to the doing some supposed Religious Act that is some Act of Service acceptable and well pleasing to God and which directly tends unto his honor 2ly That he who doth it do really mistake in judging such an action to be indeed Religious and tending to his honor and therefore acceptable to him 3ly All Superstition consisting fundamentally in this mistake and formally in the ensuing practice thereupon it must with equal reason be concluded that the forbearance of an act upon the like mistake viz. that we conceive it well pleasing to God and tending to his honor to forbear it when indeed it is not so is Superstition because by that Forbearance we equally design to please and honor God and do it as unduly
already in many instances of things no where determined by the Law of Moses and yet enjoyned by them 't is also contrary to the Apostles Practice who forbad the using of things strangled and blood tho they not only were things in themselves indifferent but things required by that Ceremonial Law from which our Lord had freed his Servants and therefore more might have been pleaded against submitting unto that Decree than to the Constitutions of the Church of England concerning other things indifferent Lastly St. Paul requires that all things which relate unto Gods Publick Worship of which he there discourseth should be done decently and orderly but how shall Rulers be able to order matters so if it be an Infringement of our Christian Liberty to have any thing imposed upon us by our Governours for decency and orders sake Particular Rules being not given us in Scripture about this matter which to be sure would have been done were they not left to the determination of the Rulers of the Church Wherefore to give a brief but a sufficient Answer to the Objections mentioned § 4 1. From what hath been discoursed it is evident that Christian Liberty cannot be violated by these Impositions because the Conscience is obliged by them that is 't is bound to yield obedience to them when they are imposed for if this maketh the Commands of our Superiors to violate our Christian Liberty Then 1. All the Commands of Masters Parents and Superiors respecting things indifferent civil or sacred must be repugnant to that Liberty because we are if Servants Children or Subjects obliged to obey them in all lawful matters even for Conscience sake 2ly Then our own vows and resolutions concerning any thing indifferent must violate our Christian Liberty because we are obliged in Conscience to perform them 3ly Then can we not abstain from any thing indifferent in case of Scandal as St. Paul Commands us without infringing of our Christian Liberty because our Conscience is then bound for fear of Scandal to abstain from what is in it self indifferent 2ly It also is exceeding evident that Christian Liberty cannot be violated by requiring Persons to do that of which their Conscience being erroneous doubts or which it doth Condemn as is insinuated in the fourth Objection For were this so Then 1. our Laws must violate true Christian Liberty when they command the Quaker to pay Tythes for he not only doubts the lawfulness thereof but peremptorily pronounceth it unlawful so to do Then 2ly our Laws Commanding all Papists to come to Church to obey the King in opposition to the Pope to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy must violate his Christian Liberty because he doubts the lawfulness of yielding obedience to them 3ly By the same Rule my Christian Liberty must be infring'd much more when Magistrates Command me to abstain from what my Conscience tells me I should do now seeing an Erroneous Conscience may urge Men to the greatest wickedness since it may make them verily believe they ought to do many things contrary to the Name of Jesus Acts 26.9 and that by killing his Disciples they would do God Service Joh. 16.2 no Laws according to this Doctrine can be laid on Men whose Conscience is Erroneous to bind them not to do the worst of Evils 3ly In Answer to that passage of St. Paul we are bought with a Price 1 Cor. 7.23 and therefore must not be the Servants of Men. I say 1. That it is only an advice unto those Christians who being Slaves to Heathens had once bought their Liberty or by the bounty of their Friends had been redeemed from Slavery not to sell themselves again or to return to the condition of their former Servitude but to continue in that Liberty it therefore should be thus Translated are ye bought with a Price Be not ye the Servants of Men To make this clear consider that the Apostle is there instructing Christians how to behave themselves in their particular stations and callings and not upon pretence of Christianity to think themselves obliged to alter their condition or to neglect those Duties their proper station did require thus from v. 12th to the 16th he requires the believing â—usband not to desert the unbelieving Wife and the believing Wife not to part from her unbelieving Husband but to abide in that condition in which the Lord had called them In the 18th and 19th verses he advises the Circumcised Christian not to desire to be Uncircumcised vice versa but to abide as they were from v. 21. to v. 24. he gives advice to those who were believing Servants thus Art thou called being a Servant care not for it think it not a disparagement to Christianity that thou art still a Bondman but if thou maist be made Free prefer Freedom before Bondage Are you bought with a Price as by the Charity of Christians many believers then were be not then the Servants of Men return not any more to the condition of your former Slavery This without doubt is the true import of the words But 2ly according to the ordinary reading and interpretation of them viz. ye are bought with a Price even with the Blood of Christ be ye not the Servants of Men it giveth no Commission to the Christian to refuse obedience to his Superiors in lawful matters for to be the Servants of Men which is the thing forbidden to Christs Servants is only not to yield obedience to Men in any thing repugnant to that Service which they owe to Christ and therefore it is so far from being prejudicial to that obedience we owe unto Superiors for the Lords sake that for this very reason we are required to obey them in all lawful things because 't is part of that obedience which Christ requires from us as his Servants and which we are required to do for the Lords sake So Col. 3.20 Children obey your Parents in all things for this is well pleasing to the Lord and v. â—â— Servants obey your Masters in all things and whatsoever you do do it heartily as to the Lord for in serving them you serve the Lord Christ it being his ordinance that you obey in yielding to them in all lawful things And again 1 Pet. 2.13 16. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake as the servants of God So that you see our being bought with a Price being that which maketh us Christs servants even when we are free from Slavery to Men it must engage us the more strictly to Obedience to Masters Parents and Superiors this being that we owe unto them in all lawful matters for the Lords sake and which we are obliged to perform as the servants of Christ. Lastly In Answer to that enquiry of St. Paul If you be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the World Coloss 2.20 wherefore as living in the World are ye subject to Ordinances Touch not taste not handle not c. I say 1. That the
in our Ministerial function and thereupon do judge of us as of Time-Servers and Separate from our Communion and become guilty of that Schism which accidentally procures their ruine must we not therefore submit to Authority Obey them that have the Rule over us or feed our Flocks When therefore things indifferent in their own Nature become necessary to these ends we may perform them tho accidentally they tend unto the ruin of our Brother 1. Because disobedience to our Superiors in Lawful matters is a sin and we must not do evil that good may come 2ly Because the Scandals following from our refusal to obey will in this case be greater and more destructive to Souls then are the Scandals which are ministred by our obedience Obj. 8 It is good saith Paul neither to eat Flesh nor drink Wine nor to do any thing whereby thy Brother stumbleth or is offended or is made weak Rom. 14.22 But our Prelatists determine quite otherwise if Authority enjoyn it is good say they to eat Bread drink Wine wear a Surplice use the sign of the Cross in Baptism tho never so many Brethren stumble or are offended or made weak thereby Answ This Tenet is injuriously imposed upon them whom he contemptuously stiles Prelatists they do not say that the determination of Superiors will always take away the sin of Scandal in these matters but that it will then do it when upon that Determination an equal or a greater Scandal follows on the other hand and where the thing is Lawful and the Scandal equal what reason can there be on the account of Scandal for our refusal to obey Obj. 9 But can then the Law of Superiors be greater then the Law of Charity which is Gods Law Answer Is not the Law of Obedience to our Rulers equally Gods Law Put the case that after the Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem some particular Persons should have been offended that their Brethren refused to eat meats offered to Idols pleading that was Superstition in them or a betraying of their Christian Liberty or that the things enjoyned by that decree were not Commanded of the Lord and so were Human inventions Will-Worship and addition to Gods Word would Christians then have been obliged to suspend their obedience to this Decree lest they should offend such Scrupulous Persons I trow not § 3 There be other Answers usually offered to take off the Objection of Scandal ministred by our Ceremonies which I cannot approve of and therefore dare not offer as v. g. 1. It is said the Scandal which the weak conceive at our Conformity is passive and not active that is the nature of our action doth not give occasion to it but they are only Scandalized through ignorance or weakness Now say they it is only Scandal given which we are Concerned to Avoid in opposition to this Plea I say That it is not sufficient to excuse us from being Guilty of sinful Scandalizing our weak Brother that what we do is Lawful in it self and therefore ministers no just occasion to the sin full or ruin of our Brother For the Apostle doth declare that he was taught by the Lord Jesus that no meats were of themselves Rom. 14.14 unclean and therefore that the eating of them could minister no just occasion of offence to the weak Jew 1 Cor. 8.7 and that it was for want of knowledg and through the weakness of his conscience that the weak Brother was offended at it and yet he doth as positively declare that it was evil to eat them with offence that the strong by thus eating of them did walk uncharitably and sin against Christ Rom. 14.15 20. 1 Cor. 8.12 Matt. 17.27 moreover our Lord himselfe paid tribute though he might Lawfully not have done it lest he should Scandalize where Even Maldonate observes that Christ in paying tribute to avoid Scandal shun'd a Scandal which was meerly passive because the exactors of Tribute ought not to have been Ignorant that Christ was free from any obligation to the payment of it whence he concludes that this is no sure Rule that Scandal only given and not Scandal taken is to be avoided 3ly The keeping of the Brazen Serpent as a monument of Divine mercy was a thing Lawful in it self and yet when Scandal arose out of it 't was necessary to remove it as being in it self a thing unnecessary Lastly If Scandal passive tends to Gods dishonour by ministring unto my Brothers sin if his Soul suffers by a passive as well as by an active Scandal surely the Love of God and of my Neighbours Soul should be sufficient motive to engage me to do all that Lawfully I can for the prevention of it provided that I know or have good reason to suspect that it will follow from my action tho through my Brothers fault For are we not obliged to preserve a Drunken Man from falling down a Precipice or into a River because he is made Drunk by his own fault Why therefore are we not obliged if Lawfully we can to preserve our Brothers Soul from perishing by his own fault I fear this will be found at the last day too true that he doth Criminally Scandalize who doth or who enjoyneth that which is unnecessary and which he knows will through the weakness of his Brother Minister occasion of his sin and ruine having no benefit from what he doth require or do equal unto the mischief which it doth to others 2ly It is said by Dr. Womack that Scandal is an action done with intent to ensnare Men in sin Melius Inquir p. 106. or set up as a Mouse-Trap on purpose to entrap them whence it will follow that no Man in the judgment of Charity can say that by the Ceremonies we Scandalize our weak Brother because they cannot Charitably judg that these Ceremonies are imposed with an intent to draw Men to sin But with submission to better judgments I humbly conceive that it will not excuse us from the guilt of Scandal that we do not designedly and actually intend to make our Brother sin provided that the action doth through our Brothers weakness Admister occasion to his sin and ruine and we do either by experience find it to be so or may if we be careful see that this is like to be the issue of it and yet when no necessity is laid upon us will proceed to do it For although Peter did not intend to cause the Gentiles to sin or to compel them to judaize by his withdrawing from them at the coming of the Jews from Jerusalem for the Text tells us he did it for another reason viz. Gal. 2.11 fearing those of the Circumcision yet was he to be blamed saith St. Paul Gal. 2.11 he was a Transgressor v. 18. and that because by his Authority and example tho not by his intention he compel'd the Gentiles to live as did the Jews v. 14. 2ly He who doth venture on that action whence he either doth
against the Feasts of Christmas Easter the Ascension c. Answered § 14. The Objection from Gal. 4.9 10. Coloss 2.16 Answered § 15. CHAP. IX HAving thus Answered all the considerable Objections of Dissenters which they plead in general against Submission to the Ceremonies appointed by the Church of England to be used in her Solemnities I proceed to a particular consideration of those Ceremonies of which I have not had a fit occasion to discourse in the foregoing Chapters And they are those viz. Kneeling at the Receiving of the Sacrament The Bishops imposition of hands at confirmation and standing up at the Creed and at the reading of the Gospel at the saying Gloria patri Kneeling at Prayer c. And § 1 1. Concerning Kneeling at the Sacrament I say 1. That since some posture is then necessary and none by God determined it cannot reasonably be doubted but that the Church hath power to determine in this matter as she conceives most proper and convenient 2ly I know no posture more convenient than that of Kneeling it being a very fit expression of our humility and of the sense of our unworthiness of the great blessings there received And 2ly A posture fit for Prayer which we do use at the Receiving of the Sacrament 3ly I add That if it be lawful to receive in such a humble posture then must it be unlawful to refuse Communion with our Church in the participation of this Ordinance because she doth require us to use this posture in receiving For on this supposition we must refuse to hold communion with her in a lawful matter and so must separate from her communion in this Ordinance without cause which is the sin of Schism Now that it is lawful to receive Kneeling will appear by answering the Arguments produced by Dissenters against this posture And 1. It is objected That Kneeling at the Sacrament is contrary to the Practice and Example of Christ and his Apostles for they received sitting Answ 1 It is confessed that the Greek words by which the posture of our Lord and his Disciples at their Receiving is expressed are translated so as to seem to countenance their opinion who hold the sitting posture to be most agreeable to the Example of our Lord and his Disciples but yet 't is certain from the Original that Christ and his Disciples did neither sit nor Kneel but did lye down on Couches at the Receiving of this Ordinance for 't was administred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they lying down Mark 14.18 of Christ himself 't is said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he lay down with the twelve Matt. 26.20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he fell down with them Luk. 22.14 If therefore this Objection be of any force it unavoidably will prove that we must neither sit nor stand nor Kneel but must lye down at the Receiving of this Sacrament and so our Lords Example will be as strong against sitting which is the posture our Dissenters use as against kneeling which is the posture they reject Answ 2 2ly I Answer that in such things as these which accidentally were done by Christ and his Apostles and had no real goodness in them we cannot be obliged to imitate them This men do generally acknowledge in things of a like nature to this gesture for they conceive that we are not obliged to receive this Sacrament in a like place viz an upper Room or Inn nor at the same time after the passover or after supper nor in the same habit in Sandals or a seemless coat why therefore should they think it necessary to be received in a like Gesture that being not commanded any more than is the time or place or habit Moreover St Paul when he informeth his Corinthians what he received from the Lord to be delivered to them touching this holy Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.23 maketh no mention of this Gesture and thereby doth assure us that it was not necessary to be observed And Bishop Jewel noteth well Repl. to Hard Artic. 2. that our Lord said do this but said not do it after supper do it sitting do it with twelve Disciples nor did the Apostles so understand him Answ 3 The Gesture in which the Passover even by Gods Command was celebrated at the first was altered by the Jewish Church for in the first Passover they were Commanded to eat it with their loins Girt their shoes on their feet Ex. 12.11 and their staves in their hands as men standing ready and in hast to be gone but being entred into their rest the land of Canaan they changed this posture into lying down and yet our Saviour and his Apostles did not scruple to conform unto it how much less should we scruple the varying from an uncommanded Gesture used occasionally and not of choice by our Dear Lord. 2ly It is objected that Kneeling at the Sacrament maketh us Guilty of Idolatry by worshipping God before or by or with Relation to a Creature For the Elements say they are the motive of your kneeling for if they were not there you would not kneel Answ It is to be lamented that such false Groundless and frivolous suggestions as these are should keep men from Communion with their Brethren in this Holy Ordinance for 1. The matter of fact is in this Argument Extreamly false it being not the Sight of the Elements which doth induce us then to Kneel But we receive them Kneeling saith our Lyturgy Rubr. after the Commun for a signification of our humble acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ there tendred and because Kneeling is a proper posture to tender our devotion in The Elements do only bring these things to our remembrance they do it to our eyes as the words used in a Sermon Prayer Book or by the Minister do bring them to remembrance by our hearing if then it be Idolatry to worship God when these things by the Symbols are brought to our remembrance it must be so to worship God when we do hear a Sermon Prayer or a discourse concerning them 2ly If this be Idolatry then our Dissenters must be Gross Idolaters for Surely inward worship unduly tendred is as Gross Idolatry as outward worship by which it is express'd now do not they when they behold the bread broken and the wine poured out put forth an act of inward worship viz. an act of praise thanksgiving love affiance do they not do this before a creature as much as we are not the Elements seen by them the motive of their doing so as much as of our Kneeling If then we are Idolaters for Kneeling to God before them why must not they be equally Idolaters by tendring all this inward worship to him before and on occasion of the same Elements 3ly Were this Idolatry the Jews must be Idolaters by worshipping the Lord before the Ark or Mercy Seat before the Temple at Jerusalem and before the Tabernacle for by so doing they worshipped God before a creature and would not
to be found among the People of Israel So Christ our Paschal Lamb being now Offered no Leaven of Malice and Wickedness and consequently no such wicked Persons ought to be left in the Church of the true Israelites but wholly purged out of it That the exercise of this Discipline doth highly tend to the Glory of God Prop. 2. and to the credit of Christianity And surely this cannot be doubted by them who know that this alone is that by which the Church can be preserved pure and like unto that God who will have no Communion with the works of Darkness with whom no Person can have fellowship who walks not in the light as he is in the light 1 Joh. 1.7 That this alone can make the light of Christians to shine forth so as to Glorifie their Father which is in Heaven Matt. 5.16 and cause them to shew forth the virtues of him that hath called them from darkness into his marvellous light 1 Pet. 2.9 and that this only can render us able to commend Christianity to others from the prevailing topick of the Strict and Holy lives of the allowed professors of it by which it chiefly was promoted in the first and purest Ages of the Church In nobis Christus patitur opprobrium l 4. p. 140. v. p. 139. 141. That the Name and Doctrine of our Lord is Blasphemed among Heathens Atheists Scepticks and profane Persons by the ungodly lives of its Professors as Salvian sadly doth complain and by finding many who are owned as Christians and permitted to partake of the highest Ordinances and Priviledges of Christians who lead lives worse than Heathens and who were constantly rejected from the Communion of Christians in the best Ages of the Church When if at any time it was Objected by the Heathens that such persons bore the Name of Christians her Answer was they went out from us but they are not of us nor owned or †Just M. p. 70.253.306.308 vid. Tertull ad Scap. cap. 4. allowed of by us but are excluded by the Churches censures or by their voluntary separations which may deserve to be considered The exercise of this Discipline is necessary to perserve the Members of Christs Body from the danger of pollution Prop. 3. This cannot easily be questioned 1. By him who well considers that enquiry of St. Paul Know you not that a little Leaven leaveneth the whole lump 1 Cor. 5.7 purge therefore the Old Leaven from you that you may be a new lump 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the neglected evil may defile the whole Body of the Church say Oecumenius and Theophylact. 2. By him who knows how properly is the shame and punishment inflicted upon others for confess'd or palpable enormities to restrain us from the like practices and how exceeding apt Men are to run into those vices without fear which by experience they find connived at by Superiors As then the Man who was defiled by Leprosie or by an Issue Numb 5.2 3. or dead Body was by Gods command to be removed out of the Camp of Israel that they defiled not the Camp in the midst of which God dwelt so on the same account should the Spiritual Leper when the marks evidently do appear upon him be excluded from the Christian Camp that he desile not that Church in which God dwelleth now as in his Temple It seemeth probable that the exercise of this Discipline is that which will alone preserve the Church Gods Temple Prop. 4. and consequently will continue his presence with her Assemblies by the influences of his Holy Spirit on them in greater efficacy and measure And that on these considerations 1. That every Christian Church or Assembly is in the Scripture represented as Gods Temple the place in which he dwelleth as he of Old dwelt in Jerusalem for by inspection of the places where this Phrase Gods Temple is used in the New Testament it seemeth evident that it is not so much each private Christian as the Assemblies and Churches of them which are stiled Gods Temple So the Apostle speaks to the Corinthians in the general Know you not that you are the Temple of God and that the Spirit of God doth dwell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among you 1 Cor. 3.16 and v. 17. The Temple of God is Holy which Temple you are So also 2 Cor. 6.16 What Communion hath the Temple of God with Idols For you are the Temple of the living God as God hath said I will dwell and walk among them and they shall be to me a People and I will be their God Which words are manifestly taken from Lev. 26.11.12 and therefore they must speak of Gods presence with his Christian Churches the Israel of God in such a manner as he was present with the Jewish Church by placing of his Tabernacle among them and giving demonstrations of his gracious presence with them Accordingly we find this promise made with respect unto the Gospel times I will set my Sanctuary in the midst of them for ever my Tabernacle also shall be with them yea I will be their God and they shall be my People Ezek. 37.26 27. Thus also the Apostle speaks to the Church of Ephesus saying You are fellow Citizens of the the Saints and of the Household of God and are built upon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ being the chief Corner Stone in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth into an holy Temple in the Lord in whom also you are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit Ephes 2.19 20 21 22. Hence Lastly the Members of Christs Body or the Community of Christians seems to be stiled Christs house Heb. 3.6 his Spiritual house 1 Pet. 2.5 2ly That the condition of Gods continuing to dwell in or to abide with this his Temple as it was this of Old that the Lords People should be Holy that is be free from Ceremonial pollution and from such sins as were committed wilfully and with an High hand against the Law of Moses and so deserved cutting off that they should be to him an Holy Nation Exod. 19.6 a Holy People Deut. 7.6 an Elect peculiar People Deut. 14.2.26.18 So it seems plainly now under the New Testament to be the same For Christians under the New Testament are in like manner called the Elect of God 1 Pet. 1.2 Col. 3.22 a chosen Generation 1 Pet. 2.9 a Holy Nation and Peculiar People ibid. And they are in like manner called to come out from the Sons of Belial the Children of Darkness and Unrighteousness with whom they can have no Communion and to be separate that the Lord God may dwell among them 2 Cor. 6.16 17 18. and consequently the continuance of Gods Spirit with his Church and his assistance in the Dispensation of its Ordinances seems likewise to depend on their continuance to be such a People and therefore on the execution of the censures of the
Church on them who are notoriously otherwise they are Commanded to purge out the Old Leaven that they may be a new Lump and to look diligently that no root of bitterness spring up among them Heb. 12.15 whereby others may be in danger of defilement And as to them who sin'd with an High hand was threatned destruction by the hand of God so the Apostle saith that him who defileth the Temple of the Lord will God destroy 1 Cor 3.17 And as God declared that he would not be with the Church of Israel when it was defiled except they did destroy the accursed thing from among them that is the person who Transgressed his Covenant Josh 7.11 12. So we may also fear that he will not vouchsafe his presence with us unless we also do remove those from among us who defile his Temple and openly transgress their Christian Covenant As then Jehojada set Porters at the Gates of the House of the Lord that none who was unclean in any thing should enter 2 Chron. 23.19 So also should the Rulers of Christs Church Act. 20.28 Jer. 15.19 who are Commanded to take heed unto the Flock and whose concern it is to separate the precious from the vile That the neglect of this great Duty tends very much unto the detriment of the Church Prop. 5. not only as it indangers the infection of her Members and brings a Scandal on her but also as it doth expose her to Gods judgments for the neglect of this his Ordinance this may be gathered 1. from the close of the 5th Chapter of the first Epistle to the Church of Corinth where the discourse of the Apostle on this subject concludeth with these words do not ye judg them that are within that is saith Dr. Hammond you know it is the practice among you to inflict censures on Church Members and ye shall put away the evil from among you That is by doing this you shall free your selves from those punishments which the neglect of your Duty in permitting such offendors to go unpunished and unreformed may bring upon you 2ly From Christs reproof unto the Church of Thyatira because her Rulers suffered the Woman ealled Jezabel to teach Rev. 2.14 15. and to seduce his Servants to commit Fornication and to eat things Offered to Idols Rev. 2.20 and from his threatnings against the Church of Pergamos that he would come against her quickly and fight against her with the Sword of his Mouth for suffering those among her who taught the Doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitans if she did not repent that is saith Dr. Hammond There is gotten among you and permitted and not punish'd by your Bishops N. B. that unclean Doctrine and Practice of the Nicolaitans which being odious to me ought most strictly to have been punished by you and if this lenity be not speedily mended I will visit and destroy you suddenly by judgments parallel to the Sword that fell on the Israelites that were corrupted by Balaams Counsel Numb 25.5 And as when Magistrates neglect their Duty in punishing Offenders and bear the Sword in vain God is provoked to take it into his own hand and punish such Offenders by his immediate power so when Church Discipline is neglected it may be rationally expected God should immediately punish that neglect Now on these propositions depends the great Objection of Dissenters against Communion with and for their Separation from our Church For say they seeing it is certain that a Church in which this Duty is performed is better than a Church which doth neglect it fince we have cause to hope Gods presence will be more vouchsafed to such a Church and his good Spirit will more powerfully assist them seeing in such a Church the danger from Gods judgments and the pollution of her Members will be certainly the less we think it reasonable to prefer a Church in which this Discipline obtains in some good measure as it doth in our Communions before Communion with that Church in which it is apparently if not confessedly neglected and therefore till the Church of England will restore this Discipline 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we shall continue as we are § 5 In Answer to this considerable Objection I add these following Propositions That in case Church Officers do not perform their Duty with reference to this great Ordinance of Chris Prop. 6. yet is it not the * Praecidendae unitatis nulla est justa necessitas cum sibi nequaquam nocituros malos ideo tolerent boni ne spiritualiter sejungantur à bonis cum Disciplinae severitatem consideratio cusiodiendae pacis refrenat aut differt August contr Epist Parm. l. 2. c. 11. p. 39. Peoples Duty to Separate from their Communion except in the ensuing Cases 1. That they require those who Communicate with them to own or to approve of this defect in which Case it is evident that our Communion with them must be unlawful because it cannot be obtained without sin Or 2ly When we without dividing of the Church or disturbing of her Peace or disobedience to or Separation from her Governours or any other greater evil to our selves or to the Church of God can Communicate with other Church Officers legally called who conscientiously endeavor to perform that Duty which others do neglect for from the Reasons offer'd in the foregoing Propositions and the confession of our own Church that this is a Godly Disciplne and that the Restoration of it is much to be desired it rationally seems to follow that if this can be done without a greater evil to our selves or to the Church of God we should prefer a Church Caeteris paribus in which this Discipline of Christ obtains in some good measure before Communion with the Church in which it is confessedly neglected For proof of the proposition thus laid down let us consider 1. That the Scribes and Pharisees rejected Christs Doctrine Luk. 7.30 and the Baptism of John which was an Ordinance of God and yet our Saviour bids both the People and his own Disciples Mat. 23.1 hear them sitting in the Chair of Moses which doth imply Communion with those Scribes and Pharisees And tho both Priest and People were exceedingly corrupted tho he declares the Scribes and Pharisees to be a Generation of Vipers v. 33. and the Generality of the People to be of their Father the Devil Joh. 8.44 and the Sadduces who joyn'd in Publick Worship with the rest Mark 12.27 to be greatly erroneous yet neither did he Separate himself nor command others to Separate from the Communion of the Jewish Church or Synagogues on those accounts 2ly St. Paul declareth of the Church of Corinth that it was their fault that the incestuous Person was not separated from their Communion 1 Cor. 5.1 and commands them to separate him v. 13. But he chides none for Communicating with them whilst he was not Separated which sure he would have done had that Communion
Obj. 2 The Bishop when he lays his hands on those who come to be confirmed declareth § 8 Office of confirm that he doth it to certifie them by this Sign of God's favour and gracious goodness towards them which say Dissenters we fear is more than he can warrantably do For as no Person by administring the Elements of Bread and Wine which are the Eucharistick Signs or by Baptizing with water could certifie the Communicant or the Baptized Person of Remission of Sins if God had no where Promised Pardon to those who duly use those Signs so can no Person certifie another of God's favour and of his gracious goodness to them by this Sign of laying on of hands if God hath no where promised this grace and favour shall be annexed to the due use of that Sign And as he who would set my Sign or mark unto a Paper to certifie another of any act of favour I would do unto him without commission from me so to do would do that which he could not justifie so unless some commission can be shewed from God which authorizeth Bishops thus to act and certifie by such a Sign we know not say they how the doing of it can be justified or how it can be well excused from being an humane Sacrament Now if such a Divine Commission can be shewed why is it by the Church declared that confirmation hath not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God Can. 25. and therefore hath not the like nature of a Sacrament with Baptism and the Lords Supper shrewdly intimating that had it such a Sign there would be nothing left to distinguish it from having the like nature of a Sacrament 2. If this be a divinely instituted Sign for the forementioned ends how can any Person promise to himself the favour of God who never hath received this Sign or never was Confirm'd any more than he can promise to himself admission into the Covenant of Grace or Pardon of his Sins if he neglect to be partaker of the Signs used in Baptism and in the Supper of the Lord to which these Blessings are annexed So that as far as we are able to discern this must be either a very Necessary Ceremony or else a Superstitious or too much magnified Ceremony Answ Could I return no other Answer to this Argument it were sufficient to inform the Lay Communicant that this concerns the Bishop only it is no Part of the Prayer to which the Person Confirmed is to say Amen but only a Ceremony used by the Bishop in the time of Prayer and so can Minister no just occasion to him to neglect this very ancient excellent and pious practice of solemn owning our Baptismal Covenant 2ly The Judicious Mr. Lib. Eccles p. 534. Faulkner saith in Answer to this Argument 1. That to testifie God's gracious acceptance either by our words or actions of mens undertaking the exercise of Christianity is a thing greatly different from the tendering the Divine Grace of God's covenant as exhibited by any Sign as a means to convey the same which is the Proper nature of a Sacrament which is very true But then 't is very difficult to apprehend how any Person can certifie another of God's grace and favour to him by such a Sign which is no means of tendring or of conveighing of the same especially if God hath no where said that such a Sign shall signifie or certifie this favour to us 2ly This Imposition of hands saith he Ibid. is a Sign of Benediction in God's name from the Officer of the Church For we have an instance of this Rite in the Priestly Benediction Lev. 9.22 In Jacobs Blessing the Sons of Joseph Gen. 48.14 16. whence it was ever practised by the Jews in all Benedictions and conferring of Offices Thus Moses constituted Joshua the son of Nun the Governor over Israel by laying of his hand upon him Numb 27.18 23. and that by virtue of this imposition of Hands Joshua receiv'd the Holy Ghost seems evident from these words And Joshua the Son of Nun was full of the Spirit of Wisdom For Moses had laid his hands upon him Deut. 34.9 this Rite was also used in the Ordination of their Elders and the constant use thereof in particular Benedictions by men of Great eminency among the Jews is reasonably esteemed the cause why the Jews brought little Children to Christ that he might put his hands on them and pray Matt. 19.13 And our Saviour made use of the same Rite when he Blessed his Apostles before his Ascension Luke 24.50 And his Apostles adopted it to be the Rite for the Communicating of the Holy Ghost Act. 8.17 which is the Reason why the Bishop saith this laying on of hands is done after the example of the Holy Apostles Biblioth Sacr. voc manus Moreover the end and design of imposition of hands in Benediction was saith Ravanellus to be in testimony of the help favour and grace of God to be given to him who receiveth imposition of hands Ainsworth upon these words Numb 6.27 And they shall put my name upon the Children of Israel and I will bless them writes thus It seems to be meant of the Priests Gesture that they should lift their hands towards his People as did Aaron Levit. 9.22 for a Sign that the name and Blessing of God was imposed upon them And Masius out of Junius doth Comment thus upon the Text. Duobus Signis solitis testatum facient Populo gratiam meam nominis mei invocatione manuum suarum impositione publica solenni By two vsual Signs they shall testifie my favour to the People viz. By the Invocation of my name and by solemn imposition of hands Hence then I Argue thus Either this Ceremony was used in vain or had some certain import and signification if it were used in vain then must our Lord and his Apostles and all the Jews that used it be charged with using a vain Ceremony in Gods solemn Worship the invocation of God and blessing others in his name if it were used by Gods appointment and our Lords practice to signifie any thing the hand being the Symbol of power and Efficacy what can it signify more naturally than the power of God in giving of the blessings prayed for why then may we not certifie them whom we pray for by this Sign if they be duly qualified of the engagement of Gods power to confer it If Hands were by Gods institution the practise of our Lord the Patriarchs and Apostles imposed in testimony of Gods help favor and grace to be given to him on whom they were imposed why not to certifie what they do testifie If this were a Sign whereby they did testatum facere populo Gratiam Dei why may not our most Reverend Bishops who are by Christ appointed to bless use the same Sign testatum facere confirmato Gratiam Dei to certifie the confirmed person of Gods Grace and favor to him It being
him against vain-glorious and Pharisaical addresses against prayers used in an unknown tongue or not put up in Faith or put up in wrath against the prayer of him who lifts not up pure hands or who continues in his sin but the whole Scripture affords us not one caution against Forms of prayer either in publick or in private and therefore we may rationally suppose that they are not displeasing to him or unacceptable at the throne of Grace Argum. 2 Moreover our blessed Lord hath both commanded and approved a Form of prayer and therefore it unquestionably must be lawful His command to use a Form is evident 1. From those positive words Luke 11.2 when you pray say Our Father c. and though St Matthew varies the words of the command informing us that our Lord said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pray so yet may that please be very well consistent with the other and may import that those words should be used in our prayers for in the form of the Aaronical Benediction the command runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on this wise shall ye bless Numb 6.23 whereas the blessing was pronounced in the very form of words prescribed there And when God put the words into the mouth of Balaam which he was to speak he saith unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Prophets Numb 23.5 Thus saith the Lord thus shall you say unto the house of Israel always imports these words shall you say or the Lord saith 2. The request of Christs Disciples was that He would teach them to pray as John had taught his Disciples Vid. Leight in Matt. 6.9 Now it being ordinary for the Jewish Doctors to compose Forms of prayer for their Scholars it is not to be doubted but that St John did so and consequently that our Lord did so for his Disciples And Thirdly This is farther evident from the words of the Lords Prayer they being not directed to man but God for 't is not said pray to your Father in Heaven that his Name may be hallowed but Our Father hallowed be thy Name And as such did the Antient Church of Christ receive and use it Christ saith Tertullian De Orat. c. 1. Novam orandi formulam determinavit appointed a new form of prayer and this we Christians do begin with In the Apostolick constitutions it is required to be used thrice a day and Austin saith l. 7. c. 25. Ep. 59. ad Paul Qu. 5. that almost the whole Church concluded the Communion Service with it So that if our Dissenters be not men of greater abilities than the Apostles were at least before Christs Resurrection and than the greatest Worthies of the Church after the Resurrection they cannot look upon it as a thing below them to observe this Form of Prayer Again our Lord approved of a Form of prayer by his using the Hymn called the Hallel with his Disciples at the Passover Matt. 26.30 by his presence at the Forms used in the Jewish Service V. 44. and by his thrice repeating the same words even when He used the greatest fervency in prayer Now hence do naturally flow such Corollaries as evidently shew the falsehood of the reasonings of the Dissenters against the lawfulness of Forms as v. g. 1. Hence it follows that such Forms cannot be unlawful worship forbidden by the Second Commandment unless our Lord did both prescribe and by his practice did approve unlawful worship 2. Hence it must follow that the using of a Form can be no hindrance to our Devotion attention fervency in prayer unless our Lord can be supposed to have prescribed that which was thus prejudicial to his Service 3. Hence it will also follow that the using of a Form cannot be prejudicial to the duty of using our own Gifts for had our Lord intended it to be the duty of all Ministers of the Gospel to use their own abilities in publick prayer in opposition to a Form sure He himself would not have given them such a Form to be used in their publick addresses to God De Orat. Dom. p. 141. wherein saith Cyprian we say Our Father because publica nobis est communis oratio it is our Common Prayer 4. Hence it is evident that praying by a Form is well consistent with praying by the Spirit for otherwise our use of the Lords Prayer would be repugnant to prayer by the Spirit Moreover the Saints of the Old Testament and Christ himself and his Disciples prayed as I have shewed by Forms and yet dare any say they prayed not by the Spirit yea all the Churches of Christ from the third Century and the devoutest persons of all the following ages have ever used Forms in publick and dare we say that none of all these Churches or persons ever prayed in publick by the Spirit yea do not France Geneva Holland and almost all Reformed Churches pray by Forms and when the Minister conceives a Prayer is not that prayer a Form unto the people who are confined to pray according to the words he utters as much as by the words prescribed by the Common Prayer and yet dares any one affirm that all these pray without the Spirit of God Argum. 3 But Thirdly Forms of prayer have constantly been used even by the confession of those who plead against them throughout the universal Church of Christ from the Third Century that is above 1300 years and are retained and approved by almost all Reformed Churches and therefore to condemn them as unlawful forbidden by the Second Commandment or by plain precept in the New Testament as impediments to attention and fervency in prayer and to the exercise of the Gifts vouchsafed to the Ministers of Christ to fit them for the work and lastly as false and unacceptable worship is to cast all these reproaches on the whole Church of Christ for so long time at least and to charge all her eminent and pious Clergy as persons guilty through their whole lives of tendring to God a false forbidden worship and being always guilty in their publick service of him of all the crimes forementioned which Nam hoc quin ita faciendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est Ep. 118. p. 558. D. as St Austin truly saith is such a charge as will pronounce the Authors of it guilty of the most insolent madness The confessions of Dissenters to this effect may be seen in Smectymnuus * Answ to the Remonstr p. 7. p. 11. Thes Salm. part 3. loc com 47. N. 49. and the grand debate and the Assertion of Capellus that the use of publick forms obtained in the Vniversal Church through the whole world for above 1300 years will be made good from these considerations 1. That even Pliny †Epist l. 10. ep 97. apud Euseb l. 7. c. 30. p. 281. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth inform us that the Christians in his time did sing an Hymn to Christ as God That Dionysius
of Alexandria makes mention of the Hymns used by the Christians in his time now these were Forms of Prayer or Praises De Orat. Dom. p. 152. That Cyprian doth sufficiently intimate the use of some Forms in the Carthaginian Church by describing the entrance or beginning thereof saying Sursum corda Lift up your hearts and the people Answering Habemus ad Dominum We lift them up unto the Lord. That Eusebius informs us concerning Constantine that he would take Books in his hands for the expressing with his Court 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De vita Constant l. 4. c. 17. the appointed Prayers and that he by so doing ordered his Court 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the manner of the Church of God That the Council of Laodicea decreed that there should be always the very same Service of Prayers Morning and Evening i. e. that there should be the same Morning Service Can. 18. and the same Evening Service continually And to assure us that the Council had a particular respect to FOrms of Prayer then in use in the next Canon Can. 19. it gives an account of some part of the order of that Service viz. that after the Sermon or Homily they had first the Prayer for the Catechumeni then the Prayer for the Penitents then three Prayers for the Faithful And that this Canon was received into the Code of Canons of the universal Church which was cited confirmed and established in the General Council of Chalcedon A. D. 451. Can. 1. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the three prayers of the faithful were then so well known L. 2. cap. 59. that in the constitutions of the Apostles they are represented as saying the three Prayers standing every Lords Day without reciting what they were That when Paulus Samosatenus about the year 262. Euseb ubi supra took away the Psalms and Hymns which had been used to be sung in the Church pretending they were new and made by men of later date by a numerous Council called at Antioch he was censured for it and cast out of the Church of God Lastly that whereas the Constitutions Apostolical were first composed saith our incomparably Learned Bishop Pearson from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vindic. Ignat. p. 60 61 62. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the instructions orders and constitutions made by Apostles and Apostolick men much changed indeed and interpolated in the seventh and eighth Books of those Constitutions we find Forms of prayers under their names for all Church Offices for the Catechumeni the Baptized the Penitents the Faithful the Ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons the Celebration of the Lords Supper So that unless this whole eighth Book be wholly spurious and not only interpolated Haer. 45. n. 5.11 12.80 n. 7. we must have evidence of Forms of prayer like ours still used in the Church not only from the Fourth Century when Epiphanius cites thess constitutions but even from the days of the Apostles and haply these were the Liturgies of the Apostles so much spoken of and since so much encreased § 8 Moreover to convince men from plain evidence of reason in this matter it only will be needful to advertise them 1. That all premeditated Prayer in which we do consider what to say and in what words we should express our thoughts to God is in effect a stinted prayer for it is not the Writing or the Printing but the ordering and composing of the words which makes the Prayer a Form if therefore this be be done before we pray our prayer must be a Form 2. This being so the true state of the Question can be only this whether in our addresses to the most immense infinite eternal God we should use consideration or pray and praise him inconsiderately Whether we should deliberate and take good heed that we offend not with our tongues or speak without deliberation whatsoever cometh first into our thoughts Hos 14.2 Whether we should take unto our selves words and speak unto him as the Prophet Hoseah doth advise or should present our selves before him not knowing what to say And for our better satisfaction the Wise man doth advise us Eccles 5.2 not to be rash with our mouths nor let our hearts be hasty to utter any thing before God and that for an eternal reason viz. because God is in Heaven and we are on Earth Now what man in the world is hasty to offer any thing before God if he be not who prays ex tempore or who speaks rashly with his mouth if he doth not who speaks without deliberation or consideration what to say Secondly our own experience will inform us how natural it is to all mankind to take such good advice before hand when they present their thanks or their petitions to an Earthly Prince as may secure them that they deliver their requests in grave and decent Forms of words and can it therefore stand with the reverence we owe to the most Glorious Majesty of Heaven and Earth to use to him what we durst not present unto a Prince or prudent Governour in such a serious matter as ought to be the subject of our Prayers This is the Argument by which God pleads against the lame and the imperfect sacrifices of his people saying if ye offer the blind for sacrifice is it not evil and if you offer the lame and sick is it not evil Mal. 1.8 offer it now unto thy Governour will he be pleased with thee or accept thy person implying that the great King of Heaven and Earth must be served with the best sacrifices we can tender to him and therefore with the best prayers and praises which we can conceive and that what earthly Princes may slight as beneath them must be unworthy to be offered to the King of Kings Moreover if we compare together both these kinds of prayer by Form and by extemporary effusions we shall find the former to be more expedient in our publick Worship for several momentous reasons concerning both our selves and others For 1. The Apostle doth require us 1 Cor. 14.15 and even reason doth inform us that we should pray with the understanding and that we cannot say Amen to that Prayer we understand not now what assurance can the people have in joining with a Minister who prays ex tempore and oft in mystical expressions of the Old Testament that he shall understand the meaning of his words whereas if constant Liturgies be used we may be well assured by our own reading or by the information of others of the meaning of them 2ly The Apostle intimates that 't is the duty of the hearer to say Amen to the Prayers offered up in publick and indeed otherwise we cannot well be said to join with the Minister in Prayer now this we cannot do sincerely unless we do approve the matter of the Prayer now what assurance can the people have in that great difference of
here in same latitude 3ly If any large expressions were used in our Liturgy concerning wicked men they might be justifyed by our Lords Parable which calls the man who had not on his wedding garment friend Matt. 22.12 because by coming to the wedding supper he professed himself a Friend by his saying to the Traytor Judas Matt. 26.50 friend wherefore art thou come when he professed friendship to him by a Kiss by St. Paul's saying to the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 12.27 that they were the body of Christ and members in particular and to the Galatians Gal. 3.26 27 28. ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus for as many as are baptised into Christ have put on Christ you are all one in Christ Jesus and many other like expressions Object 2 2ly It is objected that the Apostle Paul setting out a meet Form of Congregational Praises and by proportion of Prayers also sheweth that it is the will of the God of Order that for orders sake one should be as the mouth of the Congregation to speak for them and from them to the Lord and the rest give their assent by yielding their Amen to what is spoken by him but the Common-Prayer Book proceeding much in another Form ordereth all the people syllabically to repeat many petitions after the Minister as if they did not acknowledge him to be their mouth to God Thus also do the Presbyterian Commissioners except P. 4. desiring that the repetitions and responsals of the Clerk and People may be omitted the Minister being appointed for the people in all publick services appertaining to God and the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament intimating the peoples part in publick prayers to be only with silence and reverence to attend thereunto and to declare their consent in the close by saying Amen Answ 1 That the Apostle sheweth that it is the will of God that one should so be the mouth of the Congregation in her Prayers and Praises as that the rest should only say Amen cannot be proved for in the place referred to viz. 1 Cor. 14.16 the Apostle only intimates that at least the Idiot should say Amen not that he may never say more 2ly He speaketh there not of the ordinary service to be continued always in the Church but of extraordinary Prayers and Blessings performed by the gift of tongues to which indeed it was impossible the people who were not inspired as the speaker was should do more than say Amen as in prescribed Forms they may 3ly that this was not the only Form for Congregational Praises is evident because they had their Tehillim or Psalms of Praises which they sang together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 5.19 saith Paul sibi invicem canentes saith Pliny singing one to and with another Answ 2 Though in those parts of Liturgy which are imployed in benediction consecration or administration of the Sacraments or in the exercise of the power of the Keys it is reasonable that the people should not bear a share because all these are acts appropriated to the Ministerial Office yet do I see no reason why they who are to join with the Minister in Prayer and who are a spiritual Priesthood 1 Pet. 2.5 9. to offer such spiritual Sacrifices to God should bear no share in uttering any part thereof to signifie the joint consent and union of their Spirits with him in that duty but rather much to plead in favour of the custom of our Church 1. From examples of such Responsals and Petitions occasionally used in the Jewish Church for as the Psalmist in the general doth call upon all men to exalt Gods name together so Psal 34.3 though the Levites were appointed to sing in the Publick Service yet did the people also praise the Lord and say For his mercy endureth for ever 2 Chron. 7.3 Moreover De vita Mosis l. 3. Philo Judaeus doth inform us that the Song of Miriam was uttered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with alternate melodies and the words in the Seventy plead fairly for the same for thus they run 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 15.21 and Miriam began unto them saying Let us sing and of the Essenes he saith Euseb Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 17. p. 57. vid. Philon de vit contempl non procul à fine That the President of them standing up sung an Hymn composed in praise of God and after him did others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their orders in convenient manner and when they come unto the close of the Hymns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then all both Men and Women sing together So of Judith it is said Judith 16.1 That she began her Confession to all Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all the people sang after her the same Song 2. Because this practice hath obtained from the purest Ages of the Church this custom being introduced saith Socrates L. 6. c. 8. by the great Ignatius did universally obtain on which account Eusebius concludeth of the Essenes Ibid. that they must be Christians because they sang by turns answering one another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 3. p. 107. And Gregory Nazianzen saith That Julian the Apostate in imitation of the Christians did appoint among the Heathens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Form of Prayer to be said in parts Moreover in the Constitutions stiled Apostolical we find this injunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 2. c. 57. l. 8. c. 5. that one should sing the Psalms of David and that the people should sing after the ends of the verses that they should all answer and with thy Spirit that they should servently pray for those that are baptized thus Lord have mercy upon them Cap. 8. Save them O God and lift them up by thy mercy that when the Priest hath said Cap. 12. lift up your hearts they should Answer We lift them up unto the Lord when he saith Let us give thanks unto the Lord they should Answer Adding that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. 63. ad Cler. Neocaes It is meet and right so to do that they should all say Holy Holy Holy Lord God of hosts Heaven and Earth is full of thy Glory that when the Bishop said Holy things to holy persons they should all Answer There is one Holy one Lord one Jesus Christ to the Glory of God the Father blessed for evermore Amen St. Basil tells us That in his time they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sing alternately and then permitting one to begin the melody 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rest sing after him Athanasius Apol. de suga p. 717. that he commanded the Deacon to read the Psalm and the people to Answer For his mercy endureth for ever Sozomen saith that they who were skilful l. 5. c. 19. were Praecentors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the multitude answered by consent And lastly Chrysostom