Table-gâ—sture and expresses Fellowship with Christ c. This is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace and yet 't is not accounted an additional Sacrament to that of the Lord's Supper 4. And lastly Suppose that an Independent when he is admitted into their Church-Covenant shou'd signify his assent by holding up his hand or the like this is an outward and visible sign of no less then a new state of life that is of being made a Member of Christ's Church and being engaged to all the duties and instated in all the Privileges of it and yet this was never charg'd upon them by the Presbyterians as introducing a New Sacrament Now from all these instances 't is evident how unreasonable a thing it is that our using the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he the Infant shall not be asham'd to confess the Faith of Christ crucify'd c. shou'd be thought an adding of a New Sacrament of the Cross to that of Baptism But 't is objected that our Convocation c. 30. declares That by the sign of the Cross the Infant is Dedicated c. Now say they Baptism is it self a Seal of Dedication to God and therefore our Dedicating the Infant by our own invented way of the sign of the Cross is adding a New Sacrament To this I answer that Dedication may properly signify a Confirmation of our first Dedication to God and a Declaration of what the Church thinks of a Baptiz'd Person and the sign of the Cross is the Medium of this Declaration That this is the meaning of our Church is evident if we compare the Office of Baptism and the Canon together Both the Rubric and Canon say that Baptism is compleat without the sign of the Cross It is expresly said We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock and upon that do sign it with the Cross So that the Child is declar'd to be within the Congregation of Christ 's Flock before 't is sign'd with the Cross Since therefore the Person is Dedicated in Baptism and the Baptism is acknowledg'd compleat without or before the sign of the Cross we cannot be thought to Dedicate in Baptism and to Dedicate by the Cross again but the Dedication by the Cross must be something very distinct from the Dedication of Baptism that is the one is the sign of the Dedication and the other the Dedication it self So that this is plainly no other than a Declaration the Church makes of what the Baptiz'd Person is admitted to and what engagement he lies under Which Declaration is therefore made in the name of the Church in the Plural number We receive this Child c. and do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. whereas in Baptism the Minister alone as the immediate Agent of Christ pronounces in the singular number I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost From what has been said I hope it appears that our Office of Baptism has nothing in it that may in the least justify a separation from us CHAP. VII Objections against our Communion-Office and particularly that of kneeling at the Sacrament Answer'd THO' the Communion-Office for the Gravity and Holiness thereof is preferr'd by the Dissenters before all other Offices in the Common-Prayer-Book yet it has not past free from exception For I. 'T is objected against it that the Petition in the Prayer before Consecration That our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his body and our Souls wash'd by his most precious Blood implies that the Blood of Christ has greater efficacy than his Body inasmuch as the Soul is said to be cleans'd by the Blood of Christ and only the Body by Christ's Body But I answer that at the delivery of the Bread and Wine the Priest saies The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy Body and Soul unto everlasting Life and The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was c. And therefore 't is plain that our Church teaches that the Sanctification and Salvation of our Souls and Bodies flow from the Body as well as the Blood of Christ Nor do's the mentioning of one alone exclude the other for the Apostle speaks sometimes of the Bread alone 1 Cor. 10.17 and sometimes of the Wine alone 1 Cor. 12.13 and yet all Men must grant that he meant both II. 'T is said that Christ did not deliver the Elements into every Person 's hands with a Form of words recited to every one of them as we do But I answer 1. That this do's not appear from Christ's words for the Evangelists may well be suppos'd to give a short account of the Institution and then what might be particularly said or done to every one wou'd be sufficiently related in being said to be done or spoken to all 2. Suppose that our practice do's vary from this circumstance of the Institution it may be as easily defended as celebrating the Lord's Supper at Dinner-time and not at Supper which the Dissenters themselves do not scruple 3. Our Saviour commanded his Disciples Matth. 28.19 to Teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost But will any Man think that when great numbers are to be Baptiz'd together the Form of Baptizing in the Name of the Father c. may not lawfully be express'd severally to every Person And why then may not the same be done in the Lord's Supper Wherefore the practice of our Church herein is no way unsutable to the Institution of Christ or the nature of the Sacrament and the alteration of it wou'd be for the worse and abate the Solemnity of its Administration See Falkner 's Libert Eccles p. 218 c. III. The last and great objection is against the posture of kneeling at the Sacrament and therefore I shall consider it largely and endeavour to shew 1. That Christ has not forbidden us to kneel at the Sacrament 2. That kneeling is not a deviation from his Example 3. That 't is not unsutable for its being no Table-gesture 4. That 't is not contrary to the practice of the Church in the best and purest Ages 5. That kneeling is not therefore unlawful because 't was introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abus'd by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes First then Christ has not forbidden us to kneel at the Sacrament For in all the Scriptures God has not given us any express command to determine our practice one way or other and if Authority did not restrain our Liberty we might either sit kneel or stand without the least violation of the Law of God The Apostles and Disciples of our Lord at the Institution of the Sacrament which the Scripture relates in several places (a) Matth. 26.26 c. Mark 14.22 c. Luke 22.19 c. 1 Cor. 11.23 c. were the Representatives
sort of stipulation which at years of understanding they were bound to own because if they renounc'd it the Covenant was as void as if it had never been made And therefore an implicite stipulation is sufficient for the Baptism of Infants and St. Peter 't is likely had not respect to all Baptism or Baptism in general but only to the Baptism of adult Proselytes whom the Minister us'd to interrogate at the time of Baptism much after the same manner as we interrogate adult Proselytes now But it is plain that Tertullian (f) De Baptism cap. 18. makes mention of Sponsors or Sureties for Children at Baptism and 't is very probable that the Apostles made Parents c. stipulate in the name of their (g) See Selden de Synedr lib. 1. cap. 3. Minors when they Baptiz'd them as the Jews were wont to do and t is certain that our Saviour speaks of Children that Believe in him Matth. 18.6 And therefore St. Peter might also probably allude to all Baptism because Children might be Answer'd for by other Persons Thus I hope I have sufficiently justify'd the practice of Infant-Baptism and shewn that it is by no means a sufficient excuse for separation from us CHAP. VI. Objections against our Form of Baptism and particularly that of the sign of the Cross Answer'd I Proceed now to consider the Objections against our Form of Baptism I. It is said that all Baptiz'd Infants are suppos'd to be regenerated of which some think we cannot be certain But since they are Baptiz'd into Christ's Body 1 Cor. 12.13 and into Christ and have put on Christ Gal. 3.27 and consequently are new Creatures 2 Cor. 5.17 since I say they are Baptiz'd for the Remission of sins Acts 2.38 and since Baptism is call'd the Washing of regeneration Tit. 3.5 therefore the Scripture as well as our Church supposes them to be regenerated unless the Ordinances and Promises of God are of none effect towards them II. 'T is objected that Godfathers and Godmothers have no Authority to Covenant or act in their names To which I answer 1. That the Sureties are procur'd by the Parents and therefore since 't is granted that the Parents may act in behalf of the Infant the Sureties have all that Authority which the Parents can give them 2. The Church do's hereby take great security that the Infant shall be religiously brought up inasmuch as besides their Parents an obligation is laid upon others also to take care of it If the Parents shou'd die or be negligent the Sureties are engaged to admonish the Child and have greater authority and better advantages of doing so than other Persons And in this Age when the Duty of Christian reproof is so generally omitted 't were well if the defect were this way a little supply'd but 't is by no means fit that the opportunity thereof and obligation thereto shou'd be taken away If it be said this is seldom practis'd I answer that the goodness of a Rule is to be judg'd of by the good that is done where 't is kept and not where 't is broken And if the Dissenters have nothing to say but that 't is neglected they may remove this objection themselves by returning to the Church and increasing the number of those that observe it Thus they shall have the benefit of the order of the Church and the Church the benefit of their Examples As for the Interrogatories put to the Sureties and their Answers they are a Solemn Declaration of what Baptism obliges us to and that Infants do stand engag'd to perform it when they come to Age. This is the known meaning of the Contract and therefore I see not why it shou'd be said to be liable to misunderstanding III. But that which is most dislik'd is the Cross in Baptism against which 't is objected 1. That the sign of the Cross has been so notoriously abus'd by the Papists that our retaining of it makes us partakers of their Superstitions and Idolatry 2. That it seems a new Sacrament and therefore is an invasion of Christ's right who alone may institute Sacraments As to the First pretence tho' I readily acknowledge that the Cross has been notoriously abus'd by the Papists yet this do's not prove our retaining of it to be unlawful if we consider Three things 1. That the use of this sign was common in the primitive times and is more Ancient than any of those Corruptions for which we differ from the Papists Tertullian (a) De Coron Mil. speaks of it as of a practice which Tradition had introduc'd Custom had confirm'd and the Believers faith had observ'd and maintain'd which words together with his frequent and familiar mention of it make it very improbable that he receiv'd it from the Montanists Fourty years after him and about 200 after Christ Origen (b) Hom. 2. in Psal 38. mentions those who at their Baptism were sign'd with this sign and about 100 years after St. Basil (c) De Spir. S. c. 27. gives this usage the Venerable Title of an Ecclesiastical constitution or fixt Law of the Church that had prevail'd from the Apostles daies that those who believe in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ should be sign'd with the sign of the Cross But of all the Fathers St. Cyprian who was before St. Basil and very near if not contemporary with Tertullian himself not only speaks very familiarly of the use of this sign but has some expressions that wou'd now seem very harsh and unwarrantable and yet the authority of this Father has sav'd him from being question'd about it He (d) See Cyprian De Laps p. 169. adv Demet. p. 203. de Unit. p. 175. tells us that they are sign'd in the forehead with the Cross who are thought worthy of the Lord that Baptism is sanctify'd by the Cross and that it compleats every Sacrament The great the antiquity of this usage is manifest nay the Fathers frequently use being sign'd in the forehead for being Baptiz'd I shall not instance in St. Cyril St. Ambrose and St. Austin who sprinkle their writings with the common mention of this Ceremony and oftentimes frame arguments for a good Life from this very sign upon their foreheads Only I shall add this remark that the first Christian Emperour Constantine the Great had his directions probably from Heaven it self to make this sign the great Banner in his Wars with this encouragement that by this he shou'd overcome That this Dream or Vision was from Heaven and a thing of great reality is evident from the success of that Prince's Army under it and we cannot suppose that our Blessed Lord wou'd by so immediate a revelation countenance such a Rite as this already us'd in the Church if he had resented it before as superstitious or any way unwarrantable I may add that we ought not to be too petulant against that which the Holy Spirit has sometimes signaliz'd by very renown'd Miracles as
not his Life too dear nor his Blood too much to part with for our sakes This therefore being the Nature of the Sacrament it follows 2. That it do's not absolutely require a common Table-gesture For if the Nature of the Sacrament consider'd as a Feast necessarily requires a Table-gesture then the nature of the Sacrament consider'd as a Feast do's as well require all other Formalities that are essential either to all civil Feasts whatsoever or to all Feasts as they obtain among us and consequently we must carve and drink one to another c. at the Lord's Supper as we alwaies do at other Feasts But this our Dissenters will by no means allow nor do they think themselves obliged to observe all the other Formalities of a Feast tho' they are as agreeable to the Nature of a Feast as Sitting is It 's not agreeable to the Nature of a Feast that one of the Guests and the principal one too shou'd fill out the Wine and break the Bread and distribute it to the rest of the Society but this the Dissenters generally allow of and practise at the Holy Communion It 's not agreeable to the nature of a Feast to sit from the Table dispers'd up and down the Room In all public Feasts there are several Tables provided when one is not big enough to receive the Guests and yet the Dissenters generally receive in their Pews scatter'd up and down the Church and think one Table is sufficient tho' not capable of receiving the twentieth part of the Communicants in some large Parishes and numerous Assemblies And where there are so few that they may come up to and sit at the Table they generally are against it especially the Presbyterians and think they are not obliged to observe that formality tho' constantly practis'd at common and civil Entertainments It 's by no means agreeable to the nature of a Feast to be sorrowful To mourn and grieve at a Feast is as indecent and unsutable as to laugh at a Funeral But sure our Dissenters will not say that to come to the Sacrament with a penitent and broken spirit to come with a hearty sorrow for all our Sin which caus'd so much pain and torment to our dearest and greatest Friend our ever blessed Redeemer to reflect upon the Agonies of his Soul in the Garden the bitterness of his deadly Cup the Torture he endur'd on the Cross with a deep Sympathy and Trouble for the occasion they will not surely I say affirm that such a disposition of Heart and Mind is improper and unsutable to the Nature of this Feast which we solemnize in Commemoration of his Death for our sakes This Sacrament is also call'd the Lord's Supper and consequently the nature of it requires the Evening as the proper season for it and yet our Dissenters make no scruple of Communicating at Noon Again the nature of the Lord's Supper do's not necessarily require a Table-gesture because 't is not of the same nature with common and ordinary Feasts For we cannot argue from Natural and Civil things to Spiritual or conclude that because they agree in their names they are of the same nature And therefore tho' the Sacrament is a Feast yet because 't is a Spiritual Feast and not of the same nature with common and ordinary Feasts we must not think that such a gesture as is necessary to the one is also necessary to the other I must add that the nature of the Lord's Supper consider'd as a Feast do's not necessarily require a common Table-gesture in order to right and worthy receiving because the Dissenters grant that it may be worthily receiv'd Standing tho' Standing is no common Table-gesture If any shou'd yet urge that no gesture besides Sitting is agreeable to the nature of the Sacrament consider'd as a Feast and that to use any other gesture wou'd profane the Ordinance I answer that God calls the Passover a Feast Exod. 12.14 and yet he commanded the Israelites to celebrate it with their Loins girt their Shoes on their Feet and their Staff in their Hands which were all signs of haste but no Table-gestures either among the Jews or the Egyptians Now to say that God injoin'd Gestures unsutable to that Ordinance is to call his Wisdom in question and to say that the Feast of the Passover did in it's nature admit of several Gestures is to yield all that I desire for then the Sacrament consider'd as a Feast will admit of several too and consequently do's not oblige us to observe only a Feast-gesture for the due celebration of it 3. Kneeling is very agreeable to the nature of the Lord's Supper tho' 't is no Table-gesture 1. Because 't is a very fit Gesture to express Reverence Humility and Gratitude by which Holy affections are requisite to the Sacrament 2. Since Christ ought to be Ador'd at the Lord's Supper for his wonderful kindness to us therefore whatsoever is fit to express our Veneration is not unsutable to the Sacrament and consequently bowing the Knees is proper because 't is an external sign of Reverence 3. Since lifting up our Hands and Eyes and imploying our Tongues in uttering God's Praises are agreeable to the Lord's Supper why shou'd Kneeling be thought unsutable which is only Glorifying God with another part of our Body 4. The Holy Sacrament was Instituted in remembrance of Christ's Death and Sufferings and therefore I desire the Dissenters to consider his Gesture in the very extremity of his Passion and to observe that he then pray'd Kneeling Luke 22.41 And surely no sober Person will say that 't is improper to Kneel at the Sacrament where we Commemorate those Sufferings part of which he endur'd upon his bended Knees 5. If we consider the benefits of the Sacrament we cannot think Kneeling an unbecoming Gesture at it If a grateful hearty sence of God's infinite Mercy thro' the Merits and Sufferings of his Son and of the manifold Benefits which our Lord has purchas'd with his most precious Blood If a Mind deeply humbled under the sense of our own Guilt and Unworthiness to receive any Mercy at all from the Hands of our Creator and Soveraign Lord whom we have by numberless and heinous Crimes so highly provok'd and incens'd against us If such an inward temper and disposition of Soul becomes us at this Holy Feast which I think no Man will deny then surely the most humble and reverential Gesture of the Body will become us too Why shou'd not a submissive lowly deportment of body sute with this solemnity as well as an humble lowly Mind And this is that which our Church (e) See the Declaration at the end of the Communion Service in the B. of Com. Prayer declares to be the end of her Injunction in requiring all the Communicants to Kneel viz. for a signification of an humble and grateful acknowledgment of the Benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers The Commemoration of the Death and Passion of the
descended to be Lookers on I suppose he means of their Courage and Behaviour at the Table of the Lord and by giving their attendance to grace that Solemnity With the Testimony of these Ancient Writers Theodoret agrees who in a Dialogue between an Orthodox Christian and an Heretic brings in Orthodoxus thus Discoursing of the Supper of the Lord. The mysterious Symbols or Signs in the Sacrament viz. Bread and Wine depart not from their proper Nature for they continue in their former Essence and keep their former Shape and Form and approve themselves both to our sight and touch to be as they were before (q) Dialog 2. To. 4. p. 85. Paris Edit but they are consider'd for such as they are made that is in respect to their Spiritual signification and that Divine use to which they were consecrated and are believ'd and ador'd aâ— those very things which they are believ'd to be Which words plainly import thus much that the consecrated Elements were receiv'd with a Gesture of Adoration and at the same time assure us that such a Behaviour at the Lords supper was not founded upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For there is not a more manifest instance in all the Ancients against that absurd Doctrine which the Roman Church so obstinately believes at this very day than what Theodoret gives us in the words abovemention'd Lastly to alledge no more out of the Greek Fathers that Story which Gregory Nazianzen (r) Oâ—at in laud. Gorgon p. 187. Paris Edit relates concerning Gorgonia will much confirm what has been said viz. That being sick and having used several Medicins in vain at last she resolv'd upon this course She went in the stilness of the Night to the public Church and having with her some of the consecrated Elements which she had reserv'd at home she fell down on her knees before the Altar and with a loud voice pray'd to him whom she Ador'd and in conclusion was healed I am not much concern'd whether the Reader will believe or censure this Miracle but it 's certain that this famous Father has Recorded it and commends his Sister for the way she took for her Recovery This is home to my purpose and clearly discovers that Gorgonia did Kneel or at least us'd a Posture of Adoration when she ate the Sacramental Bread And without doubt in Communicating she observ'd the same Posture that others generally did in public She did that in her sickness which all others us'd to do in their health when they came to the Sacrament that is She Kneeled down For it can't be suppos'd that at this time when she came to beg so great a Blessing of Almighty God in the public Church and at the Altar call'd by the Ancients The Place of Prayer she wou'd be guilty of any misbehaviour and make use of a singular Posture different from what was generally us'd by Christians when they came to the same place to communicate and pray over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice which they lookt upon as the most prevailing and effectual way of Praying the most likely to render God favourable to them and to prevail with him above all other Prayers which they offer'd at any other time or in any other place So much for the Authorities of the Greek Fathers who were Men eminent for Learning and Piety in their Daies and great Lights and Ornaments in the Primitive Church With these the Latin Fathers fully agree in their Judgments concerning our present Case And of these I will only mention two tho' more might be produc'd and those very eminent and illustrious Persons had in great veneration by the then present Age wherein they flourish'd and by succeeding Generations The first is (Å¿) Ambros de Sp. Sanct. l. 3. c. 12. St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan in a Book he wrote concerning the Holy Ghost where enquiring after the meaning of the Pslamist when he exhorts Men to exalt the Lord and to worship his Footstool he gives us the sense in these words That it seems to belong unto the mystery of our Lord's Incarnation and then goes on to shew for what Reason it may be accommodated to that Mystery and at last concludes thus By the Footstool therefore is the Earth to be understood and by the Earth the body of Christ which at this day too we adore in the Sacrament and which the Apostles worshipp'd in the Lord Jesus c. St. Austin Bishop of Hippo Comments on the very same words and to the same purpose For thus he resolves that Question How or in what sense the Earth his Footstool may be worshipp'd without impiety Because he took earth of the earth for flesh is of the earth and he took flesh of the flesh of Mary and because he convers'd here in the flesh and gave us his very flesh to eat unto Salvation Now there is none who eateth that flesh but first worshippeth We have found then how this Footstool may be ador'd so that we are so far from sinning by adoring that we really sin if we do not adore In the Judgment therefore of these Primitive Bishops we may lawfully adore at the Mysteries tho' not the Mysteries themselves at the Sacraments tho' not the Sacraments themselves the Creator in the Creature which is sanctify'd not the Creature it self as a late (t) Phil. Mornay du Plessis de Missa l. 4. c. 7. p. 732. Protestant Writer of great Learning and Quality among the French distinguishes upon the forecited words of Saint Ambrose I think it appears evident from these few Instances that the Primitive Christians us'd a posture of adoration at the Communion in the act of receiving It were easy to bring a cloud of other Witnesses if it were necessary so to do either to prove or clear the Cause in hand but since there is no need to clog the Discourse with numerous References and Appeals to Antiquity it wou'd but obscure the Argument and tend in all likelihood rather to confound and distaste than convince and gratify the Reader By what has been already alledg'd the practice of our Church in Kneeling at the Sacrament is sufficiently justify'd as agreeable to the Customs and Practice of pure and Primitive Christianity For if the Ancients did at the Sacrament use a Posture of Worship and Adoration which is very plain they did then Kneeling is not repugnant to the practice of the Church in the first and purest Ages no tho' we shou'd suppose that Kneeling was never practis'd among them which will be plain if we cast our Eyes a little upon that heavy Charge which some of the fiercest but less prudent Adversaries of Kneeling have exhibited against it They object against Kneeling as being an adoring Gesture for they affirm (u) Gillesp p. 166 172. Altar Damas p. 801. Rutherf Divine Right of Ch. Gov. c. 1. Qu. 5. Sect. 1.3 That to kneel in the act of Receiving before the consecrated Bread and Wine is formal Idolatry So
by their curiosity about some external Observances They therefore who are so Scrupulous about little indifferent matters ought to approve their Honesty and Sincerity by the most accurate diligence in the practice of all other Duties of Religion which are plainly and undoubtedly such They who pretend to such a tender Conscience above other Men must know that the World will watch them as to the fairness and justice of their Dealings the calmness of their Tempers their Behaviour in their several Relations their Modesty Humility Charity Peaceableness and the like If in all these things they keep the same Tenor use the same caution and circumspection and be uniformly conscientious then it must be acknowledg'd that it is only Weakness or Ignorance that raiseth their Scruples and not any vicious Principle and the condition of those who are under the power of such Scruples is much to be commiserated But when I see a Man scrupling praying by a Book or Form and yet living without any sense of God or fear of him afraid of a Ceremony in God's Worship and not afraid of a plain damnable Sin of Coveteousness rash censuring his Brethren of Hatred and Strife Faction and Schism and disobedience to Superiours when I see one that out of Conscience refuseth to kneel at the Sacrament and yet dares totally neglect the Communion who takes great care not to give offence to his weak Brother but can freely speak evil of Dignities and despise his lawful Governours it is not then uncharitable to say That it is not a dread of displeasing God but some other End or Interest that acts and moves him and that in pleading the Tenderness of his Conscience he is no other than a downright Hypocrite 3. 'T is excessively troublesome and vexatious It robs a Man of that Peace and Satisfaction which he might otherwise find in Religion and makes his Condition continually uneasy and restless 4. It 's scruples are infinite and endless for there is hardly any thing to be done but some small exceptions may be started against it Scrupulous Men go on from one Thing to another till at Length they Scruple every thing This is notorious amongst us for those who have taken Offence at some things in our Church and have thereupon separated from us and associated themselves with a purer Congregation have soon dislik'd something amongst them also and then they wou'd reform themselves farther and after that refine themselves more still till at last they have sunk down either into Quakerism Popery or Atheism 5. This Needless scrupling has done unspeakable mischiefs to the Church of Christ especially to the Reform'd Church of England In the great and necessary Truths of Religion we all profess to be agreed We all worship the same God believe in the same Lord and Saviour have the same Baptism the same Faith the same Hope the same common Interest our Sacraments as to the main are rightly administred according to our Saviour's Institution our Churches are acknowledg'd to be true Churches of Jesus Christ but there are some Constitutions which chiefly respect outward Order and the decent Performance of Divine Worship against which Men have receiv'd strange Prejudices on the account of them have rais'd a mighty noise and clamour against the Church and have openly separated from her Communion as if by renouncing of Popery we had only exchanged one idolatrous Service for another About these Skirts and Borders the dress and circumstances of Religion has been all our quarrelling and contention and these Differences have proceeded to such an height as to beget immortal Feuds and Animosities to break and crumble us into little Parties and Factions whereby mutual Edification is hinder'd our common Religion suffers Reproach the Enemies of it are strengthen'd and encouraged public Peace endanger'd and brotherly Love the Badge of Christ's Disciples quite lost amongst us and the continuance of these miserable Distractions amongst us upon such frivolous Accounts is a matter of sad consideration and forebodes great Evils in Church and State I doubt not to say that the Devil has fought more successfully against Religion under the Mask of a zealous Reformer than under any other disguise whatever Thirdly I shall offer some plain Rules and Means by which we may best get rid of a Scrupulous Conscience 1. We shou'd Endeavour to have the most Honourable thoughts of God for accordingly as we Conceive of His Nature so shall we judge what Things are most Pleasing or most Offensive to Him Now consider I pray Do's not God principally Regard the Frame of our Minds in Prayer or will He refuse to hear us because He dislikes the Garment of the Minister Do's God regard any particular Gestures or Habits which are neither Dishonourable to Him nor Unsutable to the Nature of the Religious performance so far as that the acceptance of our Worship shou'd depend upon such Circumstances To surmise any such Thing is surely to Dishonour God as if he were a low poor humoursom Being like a Father that shou'd disinherit his Dutiful Child only because he did not like his Complexion or the Colour of his Hair The Wiser and Greater any Person is to whom we address our selves the less he will stand upon little Punctilioes Mean Thoughts of God are the true ground of all Superstition when we think to court and please him by making great Conscience about little things and so it has been truly observ'd that there is far more Superstition in conscientious abstaining from that which God has no where forbidden than there is in doing that which God has not commanded A Man may certainly do what God has not commanded and yet never think to flatter God by it nor place any Religion in it but he may do it only out of obedience to his Superiours for outward Order and Decency for which end our Ceremonies are appointed and so there is no Superstition in them But now a Man cannot out of Conscience refuse to do what God has not forbidden and is by lawful Authority requir'd of him but he must think to please God by such abstaining and in this conceit of pleasing or humouring God by indifferent things consists the true Spirit of Superstition 2. We shou'd lay out our Great Care and Zeal about the Necessary and Essential Duties of Religion and this will make us less Concern'd about Things of an Idifferent and Inferiour Nature St. Paul saies Rom. 14.17 The Kingdom of God is not Meat nor Drink but Righteousness Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost What needs all this stir and bustle this censuring disputing and dividing about Standing or Kneeling These are not the great matters of our Faith they are not worth so much Noise and Contention The great stress and weight in our Religion is laid upon the Duties of a Righteous and Holy Life and a Peaceable Spirit and Conversation For saies St. Paul ver 18. he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approv'd of
best Policy whether Civil or Ecclesiastical that can be establish'd will have some flaws and defects which must be born and tolerated Some Inconveniences will in process of time arise that never cou'd be foreseen or provided against and to make alteration upon every emergent difficulty may be often of worse consequence than the evil we pretend to cure by it Let the Rules and Modes of Goverment Discipline Public Worship be most exact and blameless yet there will be faults in Governours and Ministers as long as they are but Men. We must not expect in this World a Church without spot or wrinkle that consists only of Saints in which nothing can be found amiss especially by those who lie at the catch and wait for an advantage against it Men must be willing if ever they wou'd promote Peace and Unity to put candid Constructions and Favourable Interpretations upon Things and not strain them on purpose that they may raise more considerable Objections against them 6. If these and the like Considerations will not conquer a Man's Scruples then let him lay them aside and act against them But here I easily imagine some ready presently to ask me Do you persuade us to Conform to the Orders of the Church tho' we are not satisfy'd in our Minds concerning them I answer That I think this is the best Advice that can be given to such Scrupulous Persons It wou'd be an endless thing and Communion with any Church wou'd be altogether unpracticable if every private Christian was obliged to suspend joining himself to it till he was perfectly satisfy'd about the reasonableness and expediency of all that was requir'd or was in use in that Church For indeed private Persons are by no means proper Judges of what is fit and convenient in the Administration of Church-Goverment Discipline or public Worship any more than they are of matters of State or the Reasonableness of all Civil Laws Things of a Public Nature belong to Superiours and if they Appoint what is Indecent or Inconvenient they only are Accountable for it but 't is not the Fault of Inferiours who join with such Worship or yeild to such Injunctions not plainly sinful for the sake of Peace and Order I do not by this encourage Men to venture blindfold on Sin or to neglect any reasonable care of their Actions but if People raise all the Difficulties and objections they can start before they proceed to a Resolution about things that have no manifest Impiety in them nor are plainly nor by any easy consequence contrary to the reveal'd Will of God this cannot but occasion infinite Perplexity and Trouble to Mens minds and there are but few things they shall be able to do with a safe and quiet Conscience Before we separate from a Church or refuse to comply with it's Orders we ought to be fully satisfy'd and persuaded that what is requir'd is forbidden by God because by leaving the Communion of any Church we pass Sentence upon it and condemn it which ought not to be done upon light and doubtful Causes But there is not the same necessity that we shou'd be thus fully satisfy'd about our Conformity to all things prescrib'd by the Church We may presume them to be innocent unless they plainly appear to us otherwise If any one think that this Principle will introduce Popery and make People without any examination submit to every Thing which their Superiours please to impose upon them let him only Consider that there are many things in Popery which God has manifestly forbidden which render our Separation from it necessary whereas ours are at the worst only doubtful or rather not so Good as might be Devis'd and this surely makes a wide Difference in the Case But do's not St. Paul say Rom. 14.14 I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing Vnclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing Vnclean it is unclean Do's he not say He that doubteth is damn'd if he eat v. 23. and that whatsoever is not of faith is sin I answer Yes But then when I speak of a Scrupulous Conscience I suppose the Person tolerably well persuaded of the lawfulness of what is to be done but yet he has some little Exceptions against it he do's not think it best and fittest all things consider'd This is properly a Scruple and is certainly the case of all those who do sometimes join in our Worship which they cou'd not do did they judge it absolutely sinful So that tho' it shou'd be granted that a Man cannot innocently do that of which his Conscience doubts whether it be Lawful or no which case I have discours'd of in the foregoing Chapter yet a Man may and in some cases is bound to do that which is not Unlawful tho' upon some other accounts he Scruples the doing of it Now if we have no very Weighty Reason for the doing of them then it may be the safest way to forbear all such things as we scruple at Of such Cases the Apostle speaks in the fore-mentioned places of eating or not eating some Meats neither of them was requir'd by Law Eating was no Instance of Duty nor was it any waies forbid Christians Where to do or not to do is perfectly at our own choice it is best for a Man to forbear doing that which he has some suspicion of tho' he be not sure that it is sinful As suppose a Man have Scruples in his Mind about playing at Cards and Dice or going to see Stage-plays or putting out his Money to Usury because there is no great Reason or Necessity for any of these things and to be sure they may be innocently forborn without any detriment to our selves or others tho' we do not judge them absolutely sinful yet it is safest for him who cannot satisfy himself concerning the Goodness and Fitness of them wholly to deny himself the use of them But in these two cases it is most for the quiet of our Consciences to act against or notwithstanding our Fears and Scruples when either our Superiours to whom we owe Obedience have interpos'd their Commands or when by it we prevent some great Evil or Mischieâ— 1. All Fears and Scruples only about the Conveniency and Expediency of Things ought to be despis'd when they come in Competition with the Duty of Obedience Wou'd Men but think themselves in Conscience bound to pay the same Duty and Respect to the Judgment and Authority of Magistrates and Governours whether in Church or State as they do expect their Servants and Children shou'd to themselves they wou'd soon see the reasonableness of such Submissions For all Goverment and Subjection wou'd be very precarious and arbitrary if every one that did not approve of a Law or was not fully satisfy'd about the reasonableness of it was thereby excepted from all Obligations to obey it This is to give the Supreme Authority to the most humoursome or perverse sort of Christians for according