of the whole Church and are to be consider'd under a double capacity either as Governours and Ministers Intrusted by Christ with the Power of dispensing and administring the Sacrament or as ordinary and Lay-communicants If we consider them as Governours and Stewards of the Mysteries their duty to which they are oblig'd by the express Command of their Lord is to take the Bread into their hands to Bless and Consecrate it to that Mysterious and Divine use to which he design'd it to break and distribute it and so in the like manner to take and bless the Cup and give it to their Fellow-Christians But if we consider them as Private Men and in common with all Believers their duty was to take and receive the Bread and Wine and to eat and drink in Commemoration of Christ's Love But what syllable or shadow of a Command is there in all the History for the use of any gesture in the act of receiving Since then the Holy Scripture is altogether silent as to this matter it 's silence is a full and clear demonstration that kneeling is not repugnant to any express command of our Lord because no gesture was ever commanded at all But the Scotch Ministers Assembled at Perth affirm that when our Lord Commanded his Disciples to do this he did by those words Command them to use that Gesture which he us'd at that time as well as to take eat drink c. To this I answer 1. That if our Lord did sit at the Institution which we will suppose at present yet there is no reason to think that He intended by these words do this to oblige us to observe this Gesture only and not several other circumstances which he observ'd at the same time as well as this For Example if the words may be Interpreted thus Do this that is sit as Christ did why not thus also Do this that is Celebrate the Sacrament in an Upper-room in a Private-house late at night or in the evening after a full Supper in the Company of Twelve at most and they only Men with their Heads cover'd according to the Custom of those Countries and with unleavened Bread There lies as great an obligation upon us to observe all those circumstances in imitation of our Lord as there do's to sit 2. Even the two last of those circumstances are generally allow'd but all the rest are mention'd in Scripture and were most certainly observ'd by Christ whereas the gesture us'd by them is not mention'd and what it was is very disputable as I shall afterwards prove How then can any Man think himself oblig'd in Conscience to do what Christ is not expreslly said to do and not oblig'd to do what the Scripture expresly saies he did 3. 'T is clear from St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.23 c. that do this respects only the Bread and Wine which signify the Body and Blood of Christ and actions that are specify'd by him which are essential to the right and due Celebration of that Holy Feast For when 't is said Do this in remembrance of me and this do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me and as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come 't is plain that do this must be restrain'd to the Sacramental actions there mention'd and not extended to the gesture of which the Apostle speaks not a word Our Lord Instituted the Sacrament in Remembrance of his Death and Passion and not in Remembrance of his Gesture in Administring it and consequently do this is a general Command obliging us only to such particular actions and rites as he had instituted and made necessary to be us'd in order to this great end viz. to signify and represent his Death and that bloody Sacrifice which he offer'd upon the Cross for us miserable Sinners Nay the Practice of our Dissenters proves that no particular gesture is commanded For there are many serious and sincere Persons among them who profess that were they left to their liberty they cou'd use kneeling as well as any other gesture but they think that an indifferent thing becomes unlawful when 't is injoin'd by Authority I have already confuted this opinion but 't is certain that by granting they cou'd use the posture of kneeling were it not injoin'd and consequently that 't is in it's own nature indifferent they do thereby grant that there is no Command for any particular posture I must add that the Reform'd Churches of France and those of Geneva and Helvetia stand the Dutch generally sit but in some places as in West-Friesland they stand The Churches of the Bohemian and Augustane Confession which spread through the large Kingdoms of Bohemia Denmark and Sweden thro' Norway the Dukedom of Saxony Lithuania and Ducal Prussia in Poland the Marquisate of Brandenburg in Germany and several other places and free Cities in that Empire do for the most part if not all of them retain the Gesture of Kneeling The Bohemian Churches were Reform'd by John Husse and Jerom of Prague who suffer'd Martyrdom at Constance about the year 1416. long before Luther's time and those of the Ausbourg or Augustan Confessions were founded and reform'd by Luther and were the first Protestants properly so call'd But these Churches so early reform'd and of so large extent did not only use the same Gesture that our Church injoins at the Sacrament but they together with those of the Helvetic Confession did in three (b) 1. At Cracow Anno Dom. 1573. 2. Petricow or Peterkaw 1578. 3. Wiadislaw 1583. general Synods unanimously condemn the sitting Gesture tho' they esteem'd it in it self lawful as being scandalous for this remarkable Reason viz. because it was us'd by the Arians as their Synods call the Socinians in contempt of our Saviours Divinity who therefore placed themselves as Fellows with their Lord at his Table And thereupon they entreat and exhort all Christians of their Communion to change sitting into kneeling or standing both which Ceremonies we indifferently leave free according as the custom of any Church has obtain'd and we approve of their use without scandal and blame Moreover they affirm That these Socinians who deny Christ to be God were the first that introduced Sitting at the Sacrament into their Churches contrary to the practice of all the Evangelical Churches in Europe Among all these Foreign Churches of the Reformation there is but one that I can find which uses Sitting and forbids Kneeling for fear of Bread-worship but yet in that Synod wherein they condemn'd Kneeling they left it to the choice of their Churches to use Standing Sitting or an Ambulatory Gesture as the French (c) Harmon 4. Synods of Holl. do and at last conclude thus These Articles are so setled by mutual consent that if the good of the Churches require it they may and ought to be chang'd augmented or diminish'd What now shou'd be the ground and reason of this Variety
To bring their own Rule to the case in hand how do they know but our Lord was mov'd to Sit at the Sacrament by Special Reasons drawn from that Time and Place or the Feast of the Passover to which that Gesture was peculiar How do they know but that our Lord might have us'd another Gesture if the Sacrament had been Instituted apart from the Passover The necessity of the time made the Jews eat the Passover after one fashion in Egypt which afterward ceasing gave occasion to alter it in Canaan and how do we know but that our Lord comply'd with the present necessity and that his Example if he did Sit was only temporary and not design'd for a Standing Law perpetually obliging to a like Practice If Christ acted upon special Reasons then we are not obliged by their own Rule and if he did not let them produce the Reasons if they can which make this Example of Christ of general and perpetual use and to oblige all Christians to follow it 4. 'T is absurd to talk of Christ's Example apart from all Law and Rule and to make that alone a principle of duty distinct from the Precepts of the Gospel because Christ himself alwaies govern'd his actions by a Law For if we consider him as a Man he was obliged by the Natural Law as a Jew by the Mosaic Law as the Messias by the Gospel-Law He came to fulfil all Righteousness and to Teach and Practise the whole Will of God If therefore we look only to his Example without considering the various capacities and relations he bare both towards God and towards us and the several Laws by which he stood bound which were the Measures of his Actions we shall miserably mistake our way and act like Fools when we do such things as he did pursuant to infinite Wisdom Thus if we shou'd subject our selves to the Law of Moses as he did we shou'd thereby frustrate the great design of the Gospel and yet even this we are obliged to do if his Example alone be a sufficient warrant for our actions Thus it appears that Christ's bare Example do's not oblige us to do any thing that is not commanded I shall only add that they who urge the Example of Christ against Kneeling at the Sacrament do not follow it themselves For our Saviour probably us'd a Leaning Gesture and by what Authority do they change it to Sitting Certainly our changing the Gesture is as warrantable as theirs Nor is it enough to say that Sitting comes nearer our Saviour's Gesture than Kneeling for if they keep to their own Rule they must not vary at all The Presbyterians if one may argue from their Practices to their Principles lay very little stress on this Argument taken from the Example of Christ For tho' they generally chuse to Sit yet they do not condemn Standing as Sinful or Unlawful in it self and several are willing to receive it in that posture in our Churches which surely is every whit as wide from the Pattern our Lord is suppos'd to have set us whether he lay along or sate upright as that which is injoin'd and practis'd by the Church of England There is too a Confessed variation allow'd of and practis'd by the generality of Dissenters both Presbyterians and Independents from the Institution and Practice of Christ and his Apostles in the other Sacrament of Baptism For they have chang'd dipping into sprinkling and 't is strange that those who scruple kneeling at the Lord's Supper can allow of this greater change in Baptism Why shou'd not the Peace and unity of the Church and Charity to the Public prevail with them to kneel at the Lord's Supper as much as mercy and tenderness to the Infant 's Body to sprinkle or pour water on the Face contrary to the first Institution Thirdly kneeling is not therefore repugnant to the nature of the Lord's Supper because 't is no Table-Gesture The Sacrament is a Supper and therefore say they the Gesture at the Lord's Table ought to be the same which we use and observe at our ordinary Tables according to the custom and fashion of our Native Country and by consequence we ought to Sit and not to Kneel because sitting is the ordinary Table-gesture according to the mode and fashion of England Here by the way we may observe that this Argument overthrows the two others drawn from the Command and Example of Christ For 1. Different Table-gestures are us'd in different Countries and therefore tho' Christ did Sit yet we are not oblig'd to Sit after his Example unless sitting be in our Country the common Table-gesture 2. If the Nature of the Sacrament require a Table-gesture and that gesture in particular which is customary then God has not Commanded any particular gesture because different Countries have different Table-gestures However I shall fuâ—ly Answer this Argument drawn from the Nature of the Sacrament by shewing 1. What is the Nature of it 2. That it do's not absolutely require a common Table-gesture 3. That Kneeling is very agreeable to the nature of the Lord's Supper tho' 't is no Table-gesture 1. Then the Nature of the Sacrament is easily understood if we consider that the Scripture calls it the Lord's Table and the Lord's Supper The Greek Fathers call it a Feast and a Banquet because of that Provision and Entertainment which our Lord has made for all worthy Receivers 'T is styl'd a Supper and a Feast either because 't was Instituted by Christ at Supper-time or because it represents a Supper and a Feast and so it is not of the same nature with a civil and ordinary Supper or Feast tho' it bear the same name Three things are essential to a Feast Plenty Good Company and Mirth but the Plenty of the Lord's Supper is a Plenty of Spiritual Dainties and the Company consists of the Three Persons of the Trinity and good Christians and the Mirth is wholly Spiritual So that the Lord's Supper differs in its nature from civil Banquets as much as Heaven and Earth Body and Spirit differ in theirs Farther the Lord's Supper is a Feast upon a Sacrifice for Sin wherein we are particularly to commemorate the Death of Christ 'T was also instituted in honour of our Lord and to preserve an Eternal Memory of his wondrous Works and to Bless and Praise our Great Benefactour 'T is also a Covenanting Rite between God and all worthy Communicants and signifies that we are in a state of Peace and Friendship with him that we own him to be our God and swear Fidelity to him we take the Sacrament upon it as we ordinarily say that we will not henceforth live unto our selves but to him alone that died for us 'T is also a means to convey to us the Merits of Christ's Death and a Pledge to assure us thereof Lastly 't was instituted to be a Bond of Union between Christians to engage and dispose us to love one another as our Lord loved us who thought
in Prayer Acts 2.42 5. Church-Membership is in order to the Edification and Salvation of Mens Souls and this cannot be attain'd without being admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Church-Communion For it is of mighty advantage to us to hear God's Word duely Preach'd to have our prayers join'd with those of other Christians and our grace strengthen'd in the Holy Communion and these things cannot be had but in Church-Communion Nay our improvement in holiness is more to be ascrib'd to the operations of the Spirit than to the External Administrations and therefore (d) Acts 2.47 Eph. 5.23 and 4.4 since God Promises his Spirit to Believers only as they are Members of of his Church and no otherwise than by the use and Ministry of his Word and Sacraments since his ordinary method of saving Men is by adding them to the Church since Chriâ—â— suffer'd for us as incorporated into a Church and the operations of the Spirit are confin'd to the Church we see the necessity of holding actual communion with the Church in order to sanctification and saâ—vation But it may â—e said that those who have only the Form and not the power of Godliness are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ and eat and drink their own damnation when they receive the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.27 29. and such men cannot have a right to that in doing which they sin so heinousâ—y Now to this I answer 1. that in a strict sense the very best men are unworthy receivers but 2. those Members that we have asserted to have a right to the External privileges of Christ's Church are not guilty of that unworthiness which the Apostle speaks of For we do not plead for the right of such open and scandalous sinners whom St. Paul charges with Schism and Divisions pride and contempt of their Brethren sensuality and drunkenness Such swine as these ought not indeed to come to the Holy Table of our Lord because they have forfeited their right to it and ought by the censures of the Church to be excluded If it be said that those receivers who are destitute of saving grace tho' they are free from scandalous sins are yet in an unconveâ—ted condition and that this Sacrament is not a converting but confirming Ordinance I answer that taking conversion for turning Men to the profession of Christianity ' tâ—s true that none but converted or Baptiz'd Persons must receive the Sacrament but if we take conversion for turning those who are already Baptiz'd to a serious practice of holiness then this is a converting ordinance For what more powerful motives to holiness can be found than what the Sacrament represents to us wherein the great love of God in Christ and our Saviour's sufferings and God's hatred of sin and the dismal consequences of it are so lively set forth Thirdly I proceed to shew that some corrupt Members remaining in the Church is no just cause of Separation from her And 1. From the Example of the Jews What sins cou'd be greater than those of Eli's Sons who arriv'd to such impudence in sinning that they lay with the Women before the door of the Tabernacle Yet did not Elkanah and Hannah refrain to come up to Shilo and to join with them in public worship Nay they are said to transgress who refus'd to come tho' they refus'd out of abhorrence of the Wickedness of those Men 1 Sam. 2.17 24. In Ahab's time when almost all Israel were Idolaters and halted betwixt God and Baal yet then did the Prophet Elijah Summon all Israel to appear on Mount Carmel and hold a Religious Communion with them in Preaching and Praying and offering a miraculous Sacrifice Neither did the Seven Thousand that had kept themselves upright and not bow'd their Knee to Baal absent themselves because of the Idolatry of the rest but they all came and join'd in that public Worship perform'd by the Prophet 1 Kings 18.39 and 19.18 In the Old Testament when both Prince and Priests and People were very much deprav'd and debauch'd in their Manners we do not find that the Prophets at any time exhorted the faithful and sincere to separate or that they themselves set up any separate Meetings but continu'd in Communion with the Church Preaching to them and exhorting them to Repentance 2. From the Example of Christians Many Members of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia and the 7 Churches in Asia were grown very scandalous yet we do not read that good Men Separated from the Church or that the Apostles commanded them so to do 3. From our Saviour's own Example who did not separate from the Jewish Church tho' the Scribes and Pharisees who rul'd in Ecclesiastical Matters at that time had perverted the Law corrupted the Worship of God were blind guides and hypocrites devoured widows houses and had only a form of Godliness Matth. 15.6 7 8. How careful was he both by his Example and Precept to forbid and discountenance a separation upon that account They sit in Moses 's Seat saies he all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do Matth. 23.2 3. 4. From the Apostle's express command to hold Communion with the Church of Corinth notwithstanding the many and great immoralities that were amongst the Members of it (e) 1 Cor. 1.12 13. and 3.3 and 5.1 and 11.18 There were Schisms and Contentions amongst them strife and envyings fornication and incest eating at the Idols Table and coming not so soberly as became them to the Table of our Lord yet do's the Apostle not only not command them to separate but approve their meeting together and exhort them to continue it But (f) 1 Cor. 11.28 let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. In these words the Apostle plainly solves the Case I am discoursing on and shews what private Christians in whose power it is not judicially to correct Vice are to do when they see so many vicious Members intruding to the blessed Sacrament viz. not to abstain from it but by preparation and examination of themselves to take care that they be not of their number If to separate had been the way the Apostle wou'd then have manag'd his Discourse after this manner There are many Schisms and strises in the Church there is an incestuous Person not cast out many proud contemners of their Brethren Men of strange Opinions of untam'd Appetites and unbridl'd Passions and therefore I advise you not to come amongst them nor to partake of the Holy Sacrament with them lest you be infected with their Sores and partake of their Judgments But by advising Men to examine themselves and then to come he plainly intimates that 't was their Duty to continue in the Communion of the Church notwithstanding these as if he had said I do not mention the foul Enormities of some that come to this holy Table to discourage you from coming lest you shou'd be polluted by their
sins but to excite you to a due care and examination of your selves that you be not polluted by any sinful Acts and Compliances of your own and then there 's no danger of being defil'd by theirs 5. From the Nature of Church-Communion I have already prov'd in the First Chapter that every act of Church-Communion is an act of Communion with the whole Christian Church and and all the Members of it whether present or absent and therefore those who separate from a National Church for the sake of corrupt Professours are Schismatics in doing so and all their Prayers and Sacraments are not acts of Communion but a Schismatical Combination Because tho' they cou'd form a Society as pure and holy as they desire yet they confine their Communion to their own select company and exclude the whole body of Christians all the World over out of it Their Communion is no larger than their gather'd Church for if it be then they must still Communicate with those Churches which have corrupt Members as all visible Churches on earth have 'T is true good Men must frequently exhort and advise corrupt and scandalous Members they must reprove them with prudence affection and calmness they must bewail their sins and pray to God for their Reformation they must as much and as conveniently as may be avoid their company especially all familiarity with them and if repeated admonitions either private or before one or two more will not do then they must tell the Church that by it 's more public reproofs the scandalous Members may be reclaim'd or by it's just censures cut off from the Communion These things the Holy Scriptures command us to do and the Primitive Christians practis'd accordingly But if after all the endeavours of private Christians some scandalous Members thro' the defect of discipline shou'd remain in the Church they cannot injure those Persons that are no way accessary to their sin For no sin pollutes a Man but that which is chosen by him Noah and Lot were good even amongst the wicked nor did Judas defile our Saviour and his Apostles at the passover The good and bad Communicate together not in sin but in their common duty To Communicate in a sin is sin but to Communicate with a sinner in that which is not sinful cannot be a sin 'T is true the Apostle saies 1 Cor. 5.6 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump but this is a Proverbial speech and shews only that sin like leaven is of a very spreading nature The People are as a lump and a wicked Person is as leaven amongst them but tho' the leaven is apt to convey it self thro' the whole lump yet only those parts are actually leaven'd with it that take the leaven and so tho' the sinner by his bad example is apt to infect others yet those only are actually infected who Communicate with him in sin Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees saies our Saviour he do's not advise his Disciples to leave their Assemblies but to beware that they take no leaven of them The incestuous Person was not cast out of the Church of Corinth and yet the Apostle saies at least of some of them ye are unleavened 1 Cor. 5.7 And why may not the joint Prayers of the Church and the examples of good Men be as sovereign an antidote against the infection as the bare company of wicked Men is of power to convey it Especially considering that the sins of the wicked shall never be imputed to the righteous but the Prayers of the righteous have obtain'd pardon for the wicked If it be said that the pollutions of sin were typify'd by the legal uncleanesses and that every thing that the unclean Person touch'd was made unclean I answer that those legal pollutions did not defile the whole Communion but only those whom the unclean Person touch'd For 1. There was no Sacrifice appointed for any such pollution as came upon all for the sin of some few 2. Tho' the Prophets reprov'd the Priests for not separating the clean from the unclean Ezek. 22.26 yet they never taught that the whole Communion was polluted because the unclean came into the Congregation thro' the neglect of the Priests duty As those that touch'd the unclean Person were unclean so those that have Fellowship with the wicked in their sins are polluted 3. When 't is said that the unclean Person that did not purify himself defil'd the Tabernacle and polluted the sanctuary the meaning is that he did so to himself but not to others so does a wicked Man the Ordinances of God in respect of himself but not of others The Prayers of the wicked tho' join'd with those of the Church are an abomination unto God whilst at the same time the Prayers of good Men go up as a sweet-smelling Savour and are accepted by him The Person that comes unworthily to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper eats and drinks Judgment to himself but that hinders not but that those who at the same time come better prepar'd may do it to their own Eternal Comfort and Salvation To the pure all things are pure but to them that are defil'd and unbelieving is nothing pure but even their Mind and Conscience is defil'd Tit. 1.15 I grant indeed that the Apostle saies 2 Cor. 6.17 Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing but this makes nothing against my Assertion if we consider 1. the occasion of this Exhortation For the Christian Corinthians liv'd in the midst of Heathens by whom they were often invited to their Idol-Feasts at which some of them did not scruple to eat things Sacrificed to Idols but the Apostle persuades them not to go not only upon the account of scandal to their weak Brethren whose ignorance might suffer them to be drawn by their Example to go and eat at them even in honour to the Idol but also because 't was plain Idolatry so to do For as we receive the Lord's Supper in honour of Christ so they must be thought to eat in honour to the Idol because the Sacrifice was offer'd to the Idol But blessed be God we live in a Christian Country wherein there are no Idol-Feasts at all 2. That the Persons from whom they were to separate were no better than Vnbelievers and Idolaters But now because Christians by the Apostle's command were to separate from the Assemblies of Heathen Idolaters do's it therefore follow that they must separate from the Assemblies of Christians because some who while they profess Christ do not live like Christians are present at them Is there no difference between a Pagan or an Infidel that denies Christ and worships Devils and an immoral Christian who outwardly owns Christ and worships the true God 3. That the unclean thing they were not to touch was the abominable practices us'd by the Heathens in the Worship of their Gods But now because Christians are not to Communicate
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
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