well as Habits and make it as unlawful to use a Church as a Surplice he therefore cautiously begins it with Some of them But yet however he gives us a reason for it viz. Because the appropriation of it to the Religious act speaks something of Religion and Homage to God in it Elsewhere he expresseth himself after the like manner We think they civil usages must not have any thing of the nature of Worship in them but may as well be used in meerly Civil actions as in Religious Duties If there be any thing of Homage to God in them they are Worship which must have an Institution But First What doth he mean by appropriation doth he thereby understand that what is for the present appropriated to a Religious use and Service cannot be omitted nor altered nor upon any reason whatsoever be applied to any other use This our Church doth not hold (a) (a) (a) Homilies Sermon of good works pt 2 Sermon of Prayer pt 2. Article 34. Is it that out of a Reverence to Divine Ordinances it is not fit that the things used in or at Divine Worship be prostituted to vulgar use that what are Churches for an hour or two on the Lord's day be not Stables all the week after nor the Tables and Plate used in the Lord's Supper be employd in the service of the Taverns This we agree to and think our selves well able to defend against any arguments we have yet seen to the contrary 2ly Doth appropriation necessarily imploy homage to God may not things be thus separated for Order and Uniformity for Gravity and Decency for Reverence and Respect to the Solemnities of Religion And may not this Reverence and Respect we shew to the solemnities of Religion and the Devotion we shew in external Worship redound to God himself Indeed what are all the outward acts of Reverence but expressing of Homage Veneration and Adoration to God I do not think the Holy Psalmist forgot himself when he said Come let us Worship and fall down and Ps. 95. 6. kneel before the Lord our Maker Or that our Author himself said amiss when he maintains that Nature Pag. 29. teacheth us to Worship God in the most decent manner we can For though Adoration be to be given to God alone Pag. 13. Jean's answer to Hammond Pag. 21. yet Reverence as our Author distinguisheth is due to all things relating to him and to that Worship we pay to him And as there are several Acts of Worship due to God So there are some things due to his Worship by which his honour is advanced and devotion furthered But for this I refer him to what Case of Indifferent things Pag. 29. was said otherwhere which he was pleased to take no notice of But to bring all to an issue I shall now consider the several arguments and instances I produced to prove that things indifferent though not prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship This I proved from the old Testament and New from the practice of the Primitive and Modern Churches and from their own Concessions 1. The instances I chose to give from the Old Testament were David's Temple the Feast of Purim and the Synagogal Worship To these he answers at once that they are answered long since by Dr. Ames in his Case examined Pag. 25. Fresh Suit And perhaps may be answered by him after the manner he defâ—â—â—â—â— the objection taken from the second Commandment which our Author himself Pag. 27. gives up But 〈…〉 â—â—guments are of force I suppose we shall find it in our Author And he first begins with Davids Temple of which he saith David indeed design'd Pag. 26. a Temple for God without a command But God checked him for it for this very reason 2. Sam. 7. 7. and though he approved his generally good intention yet he restrained him as to his Act as may be seen in that Chap. This being matter of Fact the Text must determine it and from thence I observe 1. That God had at no time given a command concerning building a Temple So in the Text quoted in all the places with all the children of Israel spake I a 2 Sam. 7. 7. word with any of the tribes c. saying why build ye not me an house of Cedars 2. David in designing it went upon rational grounds 1. as God had given him rest and so it became him to do it in point of gratitude and because he had an opportunity for it 2. From comparing his own house Vers 1 with God's See now I dwell in an house of Cedar but the Ark of God dwelleth within curtains 3. It was no rash act for it seems he had at that time Vers 2 made ready for the building having it a long time before in his thoughts Of this see Dr. Lightfoot Temple c. 40. 1 Chron. 28. 2. 3. 1. From all which I infer that neither David in designing nor Nathan in approving what he design'd thought it absolutely unlawful to do what was not commanded in the Worship of God or that what was not commanded was forbidden This must be granted by our Author that saith God approved his generally good intention now what was his intention generally but to do somewhat in honour to God and for the solemnity of his Worship Thus much Mr. Pool doth yield The design being pious and the thing not forbidden by God Nathan hastily approves it Now if he approved it because not forbidden by God then they did not think that what was not commanded was forbidden nor doth that of our Author appear to be reasonable that God checked him for it because it was without a command 2ly Supposing that particular Act condemned yet it is not reasonable to suppose it to be for the general reason given by our Author that nothing must be done without a command but because in a matter of that consequence the Prophet did not advise about it and that he did too hastily approve it as Mr. Pool saith But 3ly It 's evident that the particular Act was not condemned 1. Because God commended him for it thou didst well (a) (a) (a) 1 Kings 8. 17 18. So Mr. Hildersham Though the Lord would not let David build him an House yet he commends his affection for it c. (b) (b) (b) Lect. on Joh. Lect. 28. 2. God rewarded him for it for upon it it was promised (c) (c) (c) 2 Sam. 7. 11. 1 Chron. 17. 10. He will make thee an House So Mr. Pool For thy good intentions to make him an House he will build thee an House 3. He presently gave order upon it for the building such an House and as a mark of approbation and a further reward of David's good intention did both reveal what he would have built and how (d) (d) (d) 1 Chron. 28. 19. And appoint his immediate Successor for the building of it (e) (e) (e) 2 Sam. 7.
of the same thing they cannot both proceed from the nature of the thing but one or t'other must necessarily arise from the disposition and temper of those who are conversant about it Now I have shew'd that Forms of Prayer are in themselves real advantages to publick Devotion and that they are so there are many thousands of good Christians can attest by their own experience and therefore if our Brethren do not experience the same the fault must lie in their own prejudice or temper and there is no doubt to be made but would they heartily indeavour to cure their own prejudice and to dispossess their minds of those groundless Piques they have entertain'd against our Liturgy would they but peruse it with impartial eyes consider the contents and labour to affect their minds with the sense and matter of it they would quickly find the same experience of its advantageousness to publick devotion as those blessed Martyrs did who compos'd it us'd and at last died for it and valued every Leaf of it as an inestimable treasure and as we should consent in our experience so we should also in our communion and with one heart and one mouth glorifie our Father together FINIS CERTAIN Cases of Conscience RESOLVED Concerning The Lawfulness of Joyning WITH Forms of Prayer IN Publick Worship PART II. VIZ. IV. Whether the common wants of Christian Congregations may not be better represented in conceiv'd Prayers than in Forms V. Whether there be any warrant for Forms of Prayer either in Scripture or pure Antiquity VI. Whether supposing Forms to be lawful the imposition of them may be lawfully complied with LONDON Printed by J. C. and F. C. for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard and F. Gardiner at the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1684. CASE IV. Whether the common Cases and Wants of Christians can be so well express'd in one Constant Form as in a Conceiv'd Prayer IT is objected That not onely the Cases of particular Christians but the common Cases of Christian Societies and Assemblies are subject to infinite Changes and Alterations that they have many times new Judgments to be humbled for new Blessings to return thanks for new Dangers to deprecate and new Hopes to pursue and sollicit which the Composers of our standing Forms could not foresee and for which by consequence they could not provide sutable Petitions and Thanksgivings besides which particular Churches may at one time be more pure and reform'd and at another time more deprav'd and degenerated and certainly such different states require different Confessions and Prayers and therefore to sute and adapt one common Form to common Cases and Necessities which are so very variable and alterable seems as vain an attempt as 't would be to make a Coat to fit the Moon in all its changes whereas were the publick Prayers left to be conceived and worded by the Ministers sufficient provision might be made for all these alterations and changes by their varying their Confessions Petitions and Thanksgivings according as the common Cases and Exigencies of their People vary and therefore since conceiv'd Prayers are most fit to represent the publick Cases and Necessities they think it very unlawful that the publick Prayers should be perform'd by a Form In order to the full and plain resolution of this Case therefore I shall lay down these following Propositions 1. That the common Cases and Necessities of Christians are for the main always the same and therefore may be more fully comprehended in a Form than in an extempore Prayer for publick Prayers ought not to descend to particular Cases and Necessities because they are the Prayers of the whole Congregation and therefore ought to comprehend no more than what is more or less every man's Case and Necessity They ought to confess sin in no other particular instances or aggravations than such as are justly chargeable upon a Congregation of Christians nor to petition or return thanks for any other Mercies but what a Christian Congregation may be supposed either to stand in need of or to have receiv'd because the Confession Petition and Thanksgiving is in the name of the whole Congregation and therefore ought to comprize nothing in them but what is the common Case of all and what every one may truly and sincerely joyn with Now as for these matters of Prayer which are common to Christian Congregations they are for the main always the same the same sins and aggravations of sin which were fit for a common Confession of Christians one thousand years ago are for the main as fit for our common Confessions to this day and the Mercies which we need and receive in common now are for the main the same with what all Christians before us have needed and receiv'd in common As for instance the Mercies which in publick Prayer ought to be petition'd for are such as all Christians have a common need of and ought to have a common concern for such as the forgiveness of our sins the peace of our Consciences the assistance of Divine Grace to deliver us from the power of sin and Satan and make us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light redemption from Death and Hell protection and success in all our honest Concerns and Undertakings and the dayly supply of our bodily Wants and Necessities and in general the preservation and direction of our Governours the peace and welfare of our native Country the prosperity of the Church the propagation of the Gospel and the success of its Ministers in the work of the Lord. And these were the main matter of the common Petitions of Christian people a thousand years ago and will be so a thousand years hence Since therefore the matter of publick Prayer is for the main always the same I can see no reason why so far as it is the same it may not be more comprehensively express'd in a Form than in an extempore Prayer which depending on the present invention and memory of the speaker it is impossible almost but of so many particulars some should be many times omitted or at least not so fully and distinctly express'd as it might be in a well-consider'd Form the Composer of which hath much more time to recollect the matter and may supply whatsoever was omitted at first upon a second or a third revisal and I dare appeal to any impartial Judge whether in our Churches Litany how meanly soever our Brethren may think of it there be not a much more distinct enumeration of the main particulars of publick Petitions than ever he met with in any extemporary Prayer 2. That such alterations of the common Cases and Necessities of Christian Churches as could not be forâ—seen and provided for at the first forming of their Liturgies may for the most part be provided for in new Forms when they happen for so our Church we see hath done in all such new Cases as are of
the secret Language and Discourse of every Devout Christian at this Holy Feast and with these kind of Meditations he refreshes and delights himself So that from the whole we may conclude that the Lord's Supper is in its own Nature truly and properly a Feast though vastly different from Common and Ordinary Feasts throughout even in those things wherein it seems to be like them As to the several Names and Phrases by which the Nature of it is described they are figurative and borrowed from Civil Entertainments but although it hath received the same names and is represented by Phrases that properly sute to Ordinary Feasts yet the Lord's Supper differs in its Nature from Civil Banquets as much as Heaven and Earth Body and Spirit differ in theirs As to the Bread and Wine which we see and tast they are only Signs and Types of the true Spiritual Feast and serve to raise our minds to and whet the Appetites of our Souls after Celestial and Heavenly Enjoyments Thus much may suffice to inform us what the Nature of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is considered barely as a Feast 2. For a further Discovery of its Nature we are to be minded that it is a Feast upon a Sacrifice for Sin wherein we are particularly to Commemorate the 1 Cor. 11. 26. Death of Christ by way of expiation for the Sins of the World 3. It was Instituted in Honour of our Lord our great Benefactor and Redeemer where we meet to preserve an Eternal memory of his Wondrous Works to bless and praise him and speak good of his Name And thus partaking of the Lord's Supper is a proper Act of Christian Worship performed to our Saviour It 's the Worship of God manifested in our Flesh and of our Crucified Lord who submitted himself to a Vile and Tormenting Death for the sake of us Vile and Miserable Sinners 4. The Lord's Supper is a Mysterious Rite of Religious Worship which as it respects God the Father hath the Vertue and Efficacy of a Thanksgiving and a Prayer as the Sacrifices under the Law had For our desires and affections may be signified by Actions as well as Words and by Ceremonies as well as Speech And with respect to this Notion and End of the Lord's Supper it was Anciently Stiled the Liturgy and the Eucharist which last name as it was given to it in the most Ignat. Ep. ad Ephes Justin Mar. in Dial. eum Tryph. early Ages of the Church so it still retains the same among all the Christian Churches to this day 5. The Lord's Supper was Instituted to be a Foederal or Covenanting Rite between God and all worthy Communicants Where by permitting us to Eat and Luk. 22. 19. 1 Cor. 11. 24. Drink at his Table he signifies that we are in a State of Peace and Friendship and in a Covenant-relation with him and we by coming to his Table and Eating and Drinking in his presence do own him to be our God and Saviour and in effect plight our troth to him and Swear Fidelity and Allegiance 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 Dyed for us and gave himself for us an Offering and a Sacrifice to God for a Sweet Smelling Savour 6. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was Instituted for this further end viz. to be a means to Convey and Apply to us the Merits of that Sacrifice which Christ offered for Sinners on the Cross and as a Pledge to assure us thereof 7. It was instituted to be a Sacred Bond of Unity and Concord among all Christians to engage and dispose us to Love one another as our Lord Loved us who thought not his Life too dear nor his Blood too much to part with for our Sakes This is a short and so far as it serves my present design a full account of the Nature of the Lord's Supper If the Reader desire to see these things which I have but touched upon more largely proved and explained let him for his satisfaction consult those two excellent Discourses among many others that pass under these names viz. 1. The Christian Sacrifice 2. Discourse of Religious Set forth by 1. Dr. Patriâ— 2. Dr. Sherlock Assemblies Howsoever by what hath been said it appears that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is of a complicated Nature and Instituted for various ends that it is vastly different both in its nature and ends from Civil and Ordinary Feasts And therefore I conclude that we are not at this Religious Feast to guide our Selves by the Rules of Common Table-Fellowship but by more Religious and Spiritual Considerations Which leads me to the second thing proposed for the Resolution of the present Case 2. That the Nature of the Lord's Supper doth not absolutely require and necessarily oblige us to observe a Table-Gesture in order to a right and worthy Receiving of it The Reasons that I shall offer for the Proof of this are these 1. If the Nature of the Sacrament considered as a Feast necessarily requires a Table-Gesture then the Nature of the Sacrament considered as a Feast equally concludes for all other Formalities which are either Essential to all Civil Feasts whatsoever or to all Feasts as they obtain among us For if Sitting be necessary purely because the Nature of a Feast requires it then all other Circumstances which the Nature of a Feast requires will be equally necessary too But our Dissenting Brethren will by no means allow of this nor think themselves obliged to observe all other formalities though equally sutable and agreeable to the Nature of a Feast as Sitting is Though for what good reason I am perfectly in the dark For 1. As they omit many things at the Sacrament that are as agreeable to the Nature of a Feast as the Table-Gesture is So they observe several Modes and Circumstances which are not agreeable to the nature of a Feast as the Custom of our Country standeth For instance at our Common and Ordinary Feasts it 's very sutable and agreeable to Laugh to Talk and Discourse together to Congratulate one anothers welfare to enquire of the State of absent Friends and Acquaintance to Sit with the Head Covered to Eat plentifully and Drink Frequently to Carve and Drink to one another It is further necessary and convenient that at such Feasts the Guests should be well attended with Servants and Waiters who are not allowed to Sit down at the Table with â—hose who are Invited It 's agreeable that the Guests should if they please help themselves and their Friends where they like And yet these and many other things of this Nature though very sutable to and commonly practised at our Ordinary Feasts are not allowed of nor practised by nor urged as necessary to be observed at the Sacrament by our Dissenting Brethren But why they should plead for and urge the necessity of a Common Table-Gesture
a more publick and general concern though the Composers of our Liturgy could not foresee the Horrid Powder-Plot and the strange discovery of it the impious Murder of the late King and the happy Restoration of this yet upon the happening of those great Events our Church hath always taken care to provide such Forms of publick Prayer as are every way suitable to the Case and as for those extraordinary Cases which might be foreseen because they happen more frequently in the course of things such as want of Rain or fair Weather Dearth and War Plague and Sickness there may be Forms composed for them afore-hand as there are in our Church's Liturgy so that it is no Argument at all against publick Forms that they cannot make a due provision for extraordinary Cases and Events for before they happen extempore Prayers can no more make due provision for them than Forms and after they happen as due a provision may be made for them by Forms as by extempore Prayers 3. That supposing such provision for extraordinary Cases be not or cannot be made in the publick Form yet that is no Argument why it should not be used so far forth as it comprehends the main of the common Cases and Necessities of the People for as I shew'd before the main matter of publick Prayer may be much more fully comprehended in a studied Form than it can reasonably be supposed to be in an extempore Prayer in which in all probability there will be more omissions as to what respects the ordinary cases of Christians than there are in the publick Form as to what respects their extraordinary cases so that if the Form ought not to be used because it extends not always to all their extraordinary Cases for the same reason extempore Prayer ought not to be used because it extends not always to all their ordinary Cases But since as hath been proved at large the use of Forms is upon sundry accounts of great advantage to the publick Devotion it 's very reasonable that they should be used so far forth as they can and do express the common Cases and Necessities and that the people should not be deprived of the benefit of joyning with them in the main matters of publick Prayer because such extraordinary matters may occur as either are not or can be express'd in them especially when 4. The defect of such new provision for extraordinary Cases may be supplied by the Minister in a publick Prayer of his own for as I observed before our Church allows or at leasts permits the Minister to use a Prayer of his own composure in the Pulpit in which if any extraordinary Mercy or Judgment for which there is no provision in our Liturgie happen to the place he lives in there is no doubt but he may and ought to supply the Devotion of his People with such Confessions Petitions and Thanksgivings as are proper and suitable to the occasion and where this is allow'd of or permitted the non-provision for such extraordinary Cases in the establisht Liturgy can be no bar at all against the use of it provided its Prayers be good and comprehend all ordinary matters of Prayer it is sufficiently provided for ordinary publick Devotion and so far doubtless may be lawfully used sufficient provision being otherwise made for all those extraordinary matters which it doth not or could not comprehend The sum of all therefore is this That as for the ordinary and main matters of publick Prayer they may be more fully and distinctly comprehended in a Form than in an extempore Prayer and as for those new matters which extraordinary publick Emergencies do administer they may for the generality be as well comprehended in a new Form as in a new extempore Prayer and though it should not or could not be express'd in the publick Form yet that is no bar against our joyning with it in all other matters of Prayer especially when these new matters of Prayer may be comprehended and express'd in a publick Prayer of the Minister's own composure CASE V. Whether there be any Warrant for Forms of Prayer in Scripture or pure Antiquity IN which Case there are two Enquiries to be made 1. Whether there be any Warrant for Forms of Prayer in the holy Scripture 2. Whether there be any evidence of the publick use of them in the primitive and purer Ages of the Church 1. Whether there be any Warrant for the use of Forms of Prayer in holy Scripture Where by Warrant must be meant either first positive Command or secondly allow'd Example for upon both these our Brethren insist First they require us to produce some positive Command upon this pretence that nothing ought to be used in the Worship of God but what is commanded by him which how true it is is not my present business to enquire that being done already to excellent purpose in the Case about Indifferent Things But because upon this pretence our Brethren reject the use of Forms as unlawful I shall endeavour to prove these two things 1. That supposing this pretence were true yet it doth not conclude against the use of Forms 2. That supposing it did conclude against the use of Forms it equally concludes against conceiv'd or extempore Prayer 1. That supposing this pretence were true viz. That what is not commanded by God ought not to be used in his Worship yet it doth not conclude against the use of Forms for though we do not pretend that God hath any-where commanded us to pray to him by Forms and no otherwise or that all the Prayers which we at any time offer to him should be first composed into a Form yet we do assert that he hath injoyn'd some Forms to be used and offer'd up in Prayer though together with those particular Forms we grant there might be and doubtless sometimes were other Prayers to be offer'd up to him Thus in the Old Testament we read of sundry Forms of Prayer injoyn'd to be used by God himself and which is the same thing by persons immediately inspired so Numb 6. 23 24 25 26. On this wise or thus shall Aaron and his sons bless the children of Israel saying unto them The Lord bless thee and keep thee the Lord make his face shine upon thee the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee and give thee peace In which words the Priest did solemnly invocate and pray for a Blessing on the people and he is commanded to do it saying unto them this very Form of words The Lord bless thee c. which is as plain an injunction of this Form as words can well express So also in the expiation of uncertain Murder Deut. 21. 7 8. the people are injoyn'd by God to say Be merciful O Lord unto thy people Israel whom thou hast redeem'd and lay not innocent bloud unto thy people of Israel 's charge So also at their paying their third years Tythes they were expresly injoyn'd to use this Form of words I
Name since we may as well and truly offer it in his Name though he is not named in it as if he were and he hath not given us the least intimation of his will to the contrary 't is true he did not express his Name in it because as yet they to whom he gave it were not to ask in his Name he being not yet ascended but now that he is ascended we can as well offer it in his Name as if his Name had been express'd in it how then doth it follow that because he did not direct them to offer it in his Name before his ascention therefore he did not intend they should offer it in his Name afterwards especially considering that he himself had so fram'd it that after his ascention when the Doctrine of his Mediation was to be more fully explain'd to them they could not offer it at all but in and through his mediation for now that we understand his mediation we know that we are the Sons of God in and through him and therefore when we thus invoke God Our Father which art in Heaven we must implicitly invoke him in and through Jesus Christ through whom alone we acknowledge it is that God is peculiarly our Father Since therefore our Saviour hath so composed this Form as that after his ascention his Followers could offer it up no otherwise but in and through his mediation this is a plain indication that he intended that after his ascention they should offer it in his mediation though his Name be not exprest in it and what though it be not exprest yet it may be exprest and always hath been in the Prayers immediately preceding it for though we do believe that our Saviour hath commanded us to use this Form at least in our publick Worship yet we do not pretend that no other Prayer is to be used besides either in publick or in private and if we use another Prayer before it we may express in the transition to it as we ordinarily do that 't is in the Name and Mediation of Jesus Christ that we pray Our Father c. Since therefore when we say Our Father we do implicitly pray in Christ's mediation and also explicitly in the Prayers annext to it how doth it follow that because Christ's Name is not express'd in it therefore he did not intend we should offer it in his mediation or therefore he did not intend it for a standing Form 3. That though there be no mention in the New Testament of the Apostles and Disciples using it yet this is no argument either that they did not use it or that they did not believe themselves oblig'd to use it for the great designe of the New Testament being to give an account of the Life of Jesus and of the Doctrines and Precepts of his Religion together with those miraculous Works by which it was confirm'd it can no more be expected that the Prayers of the Christian Assemblies should be recorded in it than that the Liturgy of the Church of England should be recited in the Exposition of the Creed or the whole Duty of Man And therefore as the New Testament takes no notice of their using the Lord's Prayer so neither doth it take notice of any other particular Prayer that they used in their publick Assemblies from whence we may as reasonably conclude that they used no Prayer at all notwithstanding our Lord commanded them to pray as that they did not use the Lord's Prayer notwithstanding he commanded them to say Our Father or at least that they did not Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost since notwithstanding Christ commanded them to do so yet there is no record in the New Testament of their baptizing any persons in that Form So that from the silence of the New Testament in this matter it would be very unreasonable to infer that the Apostles omitted the Lords Prayer notwithstanding he once commanded them to use it especially considering that those who lived nearest the Apostolical Ages and so were the most competent Judges of what was done in them where the Scripture is silent did always use this Form in their publick Prayers and believe themselves obliged to do so For thus in the Apostolick Age Lucian makes mention of a Prayer which they used in their publick Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beginning from the Father which doubtless was the Lords Prayer vid. Lucian Philop. And Tertullian who lived about an hundred years after the Apostolical Age discoursing of the Lord's Prayer tells us that Novis Discipulis novi Testamenti Christus novam Orationis Formam determinavit i. e. That Christ hath instituted a new Form of Prayer for his new Disciples St. Cyprian who was but a small matter his Junior reckons his giving a Form of Prayer among those divine and wholesome Precepts which he imposed on his People and a little after Oremus saith he Fratres dilectissimi sicut Magister docuit c. Let us pray as our Master hath taught us let the Father own the words of his Son and since saith he we have an Advocate with the Father when we ask pardon for our sins let us ask it in the words of our Advocate and how much more shall we prevail for what we ask in Christ's Name if we ask in his Prayer De Orat. Domin So St. Cyril acquaints us that after the general Prayer for all men followed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Prayer which Christ taught his Disciples Cyril Cat. Myst 5. Thus also St. Jerom Docuit Apostolos ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui Pater Noster Hieron in Pelag. l. 3. And St. Austin tells us that in his time the Lords Prayer was every day said at the Altar and that almost every Church concluded with the Lords Prayer And St. Chrysostom speaking of those who would not forgive injuries tells 'em c. When thou sayest Forgive us Hom. 42. 50. ep 59. ad Paul Qu. 5. St. Chrysde simultat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Trespasses as we forgive if thou dost not forgive thou beggest God to deny thee forgiveness which is a plain evidence that this Form of Prayer was of ordinary use in his Age and that 't was then thought matter of duty to use it syllabically is evident from what follows But saith he you will say I dare not say Forgive me as I forgive but onely Forgive me To which having answered That however he said it God would forgive him as he forgave he concludes thus Do not imagine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that you are secured from this danger by not pronouncing all the Prayer do not therefore curtail it but as it is instituted so use it that so the necessity of dayly using the whole may compel thee to forgive thy Brother And St. Gregory expresly affirms That the Apostles themselves Ep. l. 7. c. 6. did always
also to be observed that the Chapters omitted are those of the Old Testament which either recite Genealogies or the Rules of the Levitical Service or which relate matters of Fact delivered also in other Chapters that are read or which are hard to be understood This seems to Apologise for the Churches leaving those to be considered at home by them that have ability so to do and appointing some Apocryphal Chapters to be read which are more plain and in that respect more profitable for the Common People Unless a Man will say that because the Scripture is all of Divine Authority it must be always more profitable to read any part of that to the people than to use any other Exhortation or read any other good Lesson And then I do not know what place will be left for Sermons since as I said before they are no more of Divine Authority than the Apocryphal Lessons 3. If it be said that the reading of these as Lessons is a prevailing Temptation to the Vulgar to take them for God's Word or to think them equal to the Writings of the Old and New Testament I believe there is no sufficient ground for this I never heard of any of our Communion that were led into that mistake It is certain that our Church declareth those Lessons to be no part of Canonical Scripture and in the 6th Article saith That they are read for example of Life and instruction of Manners but that it doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine And herein she follows the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church which distinguisheth between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books esteeming those to be of Divine Authority these not so but indeed Godly Writings profitable to be publickly read And why the same use of them may not be retained with the same distinction I can see no good Reason For the Church of Romes receiving the Apocryphal Books into her Canon is not likely to mislead any of our Communion since we are not so forward to take their Opinion in any Matter of Religion But in the last place There is no Apocryphal Lesson read in our Churches upon any Lords day in the year and so there is not this pretence against Communion with us upon the Lords days when it is that we do so earnestly desire the Communion of those that have separated from us And therefore I shall at present say nothing to those Exceptions which are taken from the Matter of some of the Apocryphal Books as that some Relations are pretended to be Fabulous c. For this would engage me to a greater length than I intend But whoever thinks himself capable to judge of this Controversie may receive satisfaction from what Dr. Falkner has said upon it in his Libertas Ecclesiast p. 164 c. To proceed Although the Communion Service for the Gravity and Holiness thereof is preferred by the Dissenters before all other Offices in the Common-Prayer-Book yet that has not past free from Exception The Passages that seem to be disliked are two 1. That Petition in the Prayer before Consecration That our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his Body and our Souls washed by his most precious Blood Here they say a distinct efficacy of cleansing and a greater efficacy is attributed to the Blood of Christ than to his Body inasmuch as the cleansing of our Souls is attributed to the Blood of Christ whereas our Bodies are said only to be cleansed by his Body Now in answer to this I suppose it is plain from those Words at the delivery of the Bread and Wine 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 c. It is I say plain from hence that our Church teaches the Sanctification and Salvation of our Souls and Bodies to flow from the Body as well as the Blood of Christ And therefore that former Passage is not to be Interpreted as if our Souls were not cleansed by the Body of Christ because they are said to be washed by his Blood For the saying of this does not exclude the other When the Apostle said We being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread 1 Cor. 10. 17. Though he exprest only the Bread of the Eucharist yet no man will say he meant to exclude the Cup as if the Unity of the Church would be argued only from their partaking in that one kind And when he said that we have been all made to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12. 13. he meant not to exclude the Participation of the Bread as if that one Spirit which animated the Church was signified only by partaking of the Cup. Nor will any Man argue from hence that he attributes a distinct efficacy to the Bread to prove the Unity of the Body and to the Cup to prove the Unity of the Spirit I must needs say that this Exception was sought but never offered it self 2. The Ministers delivering the Elements into every Communicants hands with a Form of Words recited to every one of them at the Distribution is blamed also as being thought a departure from the Practice of Christ at the first Institution of this Sacrament For they say our Lord's Words were Take ye Eat ye Drink ye all of this and therefore the People are not to take the Elements one by one out of the Ministers hand nor ought any Form of Words to be used particularly to every one that receives To this I answer 1. That it does not appear from those Words Take ye c. which are spoken in the Plural Number that our Saviour did not speak particularly to every one of his Apostles when they received or that he did not deliver the Elements into every particular Mans hand For the Evangelists may well be supposed to give a short account of the Institution of Christ not of every Word he then said but what was necessary to be related And then what might be particularly said or done to every one would be sufficiently related in being related as spoken or done Generally to all That is if Christ had said Take thou Eat thou to every one of them this were truly related by the Evangelists who tell us that he had said to all Take Eat c. And therefore I do not see how it can be proved that our Practice varies from this Circumstance of the Institution Tho if it did I suppose it might be as easily defended as the Celebration of the Eucharist about Dinner time and not at Supper which the Dissenters themselves scruple not But he that thinks not this Answer sufficient let him consult the aforesaid excellent Book of Dr. Falkner p. 218 c. where he shall find that it is indeed more probable that our way is agreeable to the way of the First Institution in this Matter than that which the Dissenters would have instead
again For now comes another Exorcising or Conjuring of the Devil And this being also concluded the Priest takes Spittle out of his Mouth and touches therewith the Ears and Nostrils of the Infant And in touching his right and left Ear he saith Ephphatha i. e. Be opened Then touching his Nostrils he saith for a savour of sweetness no doubt mighty sweet Another Conjuration of the Devil followeth in these Words Be packing O Devil for the judgment of God is at hand And now the Priest will make you hope again that he hath not forgotten his main business For he asks the Infant whether he renounces the Devil and all his Works and all his Pomps of which he makes three Questions and the God-Father distinctly answers to them But alas he is thus soon gone off from his proper Work again for now you have him dipping his Thumb in Holy Oyl and Anointing the Infant with it in his Breast and betwixt his Shoulders in the figure of a Cross saying I Anoint thee with the Oyl of Salvation in Christ Jesus our Lord that thou mayest obtain Eternal Life Amen Then next he puts off his Purple Robe and puts on another of a White Colour and falls in good earnest to the great business for having askt three more Questions out of the Creed and received the God-Fathers Answers and this other Question Whether the Infant will be Baptized and received the God-Fathers answer to that he pours Water thrice upon the Childs head as he reciteth over it our Saviours Form of Baptism doing it each time at the naming of each of the three Persons And now that the Priest mayn't conclude less wisely than he began comes the Chrism or Holy Ointment in which dipping his Thumb and Anointing the Infant upon the Crown of his head in the figure of a Cross he thus Prayeth O God Omnipotent the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who hath regenerated thee of Water and the Holy Ghost and who hath given thee Pardon of all thy Sins Anoint thee with the Chrism of Salvation in the same Christ Jesus our Lord to Eternal Life Amen And next after the Pax tibi and the wiping of his Thumb and the Anointed head he takes a White Linnen Cloath and putting it on the Childs head useth this Form Take the white Garment which thou maist carry unspotted before the Tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ that thou maist have Eternal Life Amen And Lastly He puts into the Childs or his God-Fathers hand a lighted Candle and saith Receive the burning Lamp and keep thy Baptism blameless keep Gods Commandments that when the Lord shall come to the Wedding thou maist meet him together with all his Saints in the Celestial Court and maist have Eternal Life and live for ever Amen Concluding all with this Form Go in Peace and the Lord be with thee Amen And as if there were not fooling and ridiculous doings enough in this Office of the Common Ritual there are divers other added to them in the Pastorale For instance the Ceremony of blowing thrice in the Childs Face is here to be done Crossways And after the Conjuration following to which two more are here added the Priest Crossing his Forehead saith I Sign thee in the Forehead in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ that thou maist trust in him Then he Crosseth his Eyes saying I bless thy Eyes that thou maist see his Brightness Then his Ears saying I bless thine Ears that thou Which Crossings are also prescribed by the Ritual in the Office of Adult Baptism but with a variation of the Forms maist hear the Word of his truth Then his Nostrils saying I bless thy Nostrils that thou maist smell his sweetness Then his Breast saying I bless thy Breast that thou maist believe in him Then his Shoulders saying I bless thy Shoulders that thou maist bear the Yoke of his Service Then his Mouth saying I bless thy Mouth that thou maist Confess him who Lives and Reigns God with the Father c. Again The Child here receives the Sign of the Cross in his Right-hand the Priest saying calling him by his Name I deliver thee the Sign of our Lord Jesus Christ in thy Right-hand that thou maist Sign thy self and drive away the Enemy on all sides from thee and maist have Eternal Life c. Here also the Priest is to lay his Robe on the Child in the Figure of a Cross with a many dire menaces tormenting the Devil before his time Here also the Ave Maria is added to the Pater Noster The Infant likewise hath this Benediction pronounced over him before his going to the Font The Benediction of God the Father ✚ Almighty and of his Son ✚ and Holy Ghost ✚ descend and abide upon thee and the Angel of the Lord keep thee until thou comest to Holy Baptism As if the poor Creature were in mighty danger of being carried away by the Devil before he could be Baptized notwithstanding all the past Conjurations and dreadful doings that had been made with him and all the Crosses together with the holy Oyl and holy Spittle bestowed on the Infant And lastly to name no more additions though there are divers others the Flax wherewith the anointed places are wiped is ordered to be burnt over a Pond of Water If those who are unacquainted with our Churches Office of Baptism would after the Reading of this of the Romish Church consult ours they will immediately acknowledge that no two things can well be more unlike than are these two Offices And the like as was said may be seen in the rest as those may perceive who if they understand sorry Latine will take the pains to compare theirs with ours And whereas we asserted the same thing of their and our Forms of Morning and Evening Prayers we might particularly instance in the Litanies Our Litany which I think if comparisons may be allowed is the choicest part of our Service is more than any other part of the Liturgy condemned by Dissenters as Savouring of Popish Superstition But as nothing but great Ignorance can make any man think it really doth so so I am perswaded that the meer comparing it with that of the Romanists might incline the most prejudiced to call it a most Protestant piece of Devotion For they shall find Invocations of Saints and Angels to pray for them the greater part of the Popish Litany Next after the Holy Trinity St. Mary is there invoked first by name then as the Mother of God then as the Virgin of Virgins Next to her three Angels are invoked by name Then all the Angels and Arch-Angels together Then all the holy Orders of Blessed Spirits Next John the Baptist Next all the Patriarchs and Prophets Next St. Peter and all the other Apostles and Evangelists by name Then Altogether Then all the holy Disciples of our Lord. Then all the Holy Innocents Then the Protomartyr St. Stephen and Ten other by Name Then all the Holy Martyrs
a Table for us and set before us the bread of life we will not come and feed upon it with joy and thankfulness THE END A Catalogue of Books and Sermons Writ by the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury Viz. 1 SErmons Preached upon several Occasions in two Volumes in Octavo 2. The Rule of Faith c. 3. A Sermon Preached on the 5th of November 1678. at St. Margarets Westminster before the Honourable House of Commons upon St. Luke 9. 55 56. But he turned and rebuked them and said ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of For the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them 4. A Sermon Preached at the first General Meeting of the Gentlemen and others in and near London who were Born within the County of York Upon John 13. 34 35. A new Commandment I give unto you that ye love one another c. 5. A Sermon Preached before the King at White-hall April 4th 1679 upon 1 John 4. 1. Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God c. 6. A Sermon Preached before the King at White-hall April 2d 1680 upon Joshua 24. 15. If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord chuse ye this day whom ye will serve 7. The Lawfulness and Obligation of Oaths A Sermon Preached at the Assizes held at Kingstone upon Thames July 21. 1681 upon Heb. 6. 16. And an Oath for Confirmation is to them an end of all Strife 8. Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Mr. Thomas Gouge November 4th 1681 with an account of his Life upon Luke 20. 37 38. Now that the Dead are raised even Moses shewed at the bush c. 9. A Persuasive to Frequent Communion in the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Preached in two Sermons upon 1 Cor. 11. 26 27 28. For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come c. 10. A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benjamin Whichcot D. D. and Minister of St. Lawrence Jewry London May 24th 1683 upon 2 Cor. v. 6. Wherefore we are always confident knowing that whilst we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. Sold by Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill and William Rogers at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet Advertisement of Books THE Works of the Learned Dr. Isaac Barrow late Master of Trinity College in Cambridge Published by the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury in two Volumes in Folio The First containing Thirty two Sermons preached upon several Occasions an Exposition of the Lord's Prayer and the Decalogue a Learned Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy a Discourse concerning the Unity of the Church also some Account of the Life of the Authour with Alphabetical Tables The Second Volume containing Sermons and Expositions upon all the Apostles Creed with an Alphabetical Table and to which may be also added the Life of the Authour Sermons preached upon several Occasions by the Right Reverend Father in God John Wilkins D. D. and late Lord Bishop of Chester Never printed before Printed for William Rogers at the Sun against S. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet THE CASE OF KNEELING AT THE Holy Sacrament STATED RESOLVED PART I. Wherein these QUERIES are considered I. Whether Kneeling at the Sacrament be contrary to any express Command of Christ obliging to the observance of a different Gesture II. Whether Kneeling be not a Deviation from that example which our Lord set us at the first Institution III. Whether Kneeling be not Unsutable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper as being no Table-Gesture The Second EDITION LONDON Printed by J. C. and Freeman Collins for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. THE CASE Whether it be Lawful to receive the Holy Sacrament Kneeling THe Resolution of the most weighty and considerable Doubts which may in point of Conscience arise about this matter and do at present much influence the minds and practices of many honest and well-meaning Dissenters will depend upon the Resolution of these following Queries 1. Whether Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Holy Sacrament according to the Law of the Land be not contrary to some express Law of Christ obliging to the observance of a different Posture 2. Whether Kneeling be not a deviation from that example which our Lord set us at the first Institution 3. Whether Kneeling be not altogether Unsutable and Repugnant to the nature of the Sacrament as being no Table-Gesture 4. Whether Kneeling Commanded in the Church of England be not contrary to the general Practice of the Church of Christ in the first and purest Ages 5. Whether it be Unlawful for us to receive Kneeling because this Gesture was first introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abused by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes 1. Whether Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Sacrament in Obedience to the Law of the Land be not a Transgression against some express Law of Christ which obliges us to observe another Gesture For satisfaction in this Point our onely recourse must be to the Holy Scriptures contained in the Books of the New Testament wherein the whole body of Divine Laws delivered and enacted by our Blessed Saviour are collected and recorded by the Holy Ghost And if there be any Command there extant concerning the use of any particular Gesture in the Act of Receiving the Lord's Supper we shall upon a diligent enquiry be sure to find it But before I give in my Answer I readily grant thus much by way of Preface Whatsoever is enjoyned and appointed by God to be prepetually used by all Christians throughout all Ages without any alteration that can never be nullified or altered by any Earthly Power or Authority whatsoever When once the Supreme Lawgiver and Governour of the World hath any ways signified and declared that such and such positive Laws shall be perpetually and unalterably observed then those Laws though in their own nature and with respect to the subject matter of them they be changeable must remain in full Force and can admit of no Change from the Laws of Men. It would be a piece of intolerable Pride and the most daring Presumption for any Earthly Prince any Council any Societie of Men whatsoever to oppose the known Will of the Soveraign Lord of Heaven and Earth In this Case nothing can take off the Force and Obligation of such Laws but the same Divine Authoritie which first passed them into Laws Thus much being granted and premised I return this Answer to the Question proposed God hath been so far from establishing the unalterable use of any particular Gesture in the Act of Receiving that among all the Sacred Records of his Will there is not any express Command to determine our practice one way or other We are left perfectly at our
libertie by God to use what comely Gesture we please either Sitting Kneeling or Standing And if the Law of the See the Case of Indifferent things Land did not restrain our libertie we might use any of the forementioned Gestures without the least violation of any Law of God This perhaps at first sight may seem very strange and false to many of our Dissenting Brethren who have been taught to believe otherwise and it may be to judge Charitably their Teachers and Pastours have in this particular been imposed on themselves by the Writings and Assertions of other Men whose Persons they have had in great admiration But yet I am so secure of this Truth that I challenge all the World to produce the Chapter and Verse wherein any Command is given for the use of any particular Gesture at the Celebration of the Lord's Supper That Popish Principle of believing as the Church believes and swallowing all for Gospel which she affirms to be so though very mischievous in its consequence is not so Popish that is so ill as to pin our Faith on the Sleeves of particular Men and relying barely on the word and credit of any one Man whom we highly esteem of what Party or Perswasion soever For this is to create a Pope to our selves and make every Man whom we phansie infallible this is to make two more than six and the Authority of one Man outweigh the Authority of the Church that is a Society of Men who are nothing near so liable to deception I don't desire therefore to be trusted by any means in the matter under present consideration and therefore I would have the Reader to observe this Rule Trust no Mans Eyes or Judgment where you are able to use your own but follow the example of the Bereans so highly commended Acts. 17. 11. by St. Paul upon this very account that is to make an ingenuous enquiry into the Truth of things to search the Scriptures whether these things be so as I say and assert If this course were generally followed it would go a great way towards the composing those differences and curing those divisions that at present are on foot amongst us occasioned by several Tenets and Opinions about matters of Religion By this means a great many which pass for Divine Oracles and Doctrines would appear to be no other than the whimsies and inventions of Men. With this cautionary advice I might fairly dismiss this Question as being fully Answered and leave all my Readers to disprove me if they can But because some may pretend they have not Leisure and others want of Skill and others are not enduced with Patience enough to search and examine this matter throughly as it ought I will yield all the Charitable assistance I am able towards their relief by doing the work to their hands My Business then at present is this to Collect and Present to your view all those places which relate to the Sacrament and are most likely to inform us what our Lord by his Institution and Appointment hath obliged us to And certainly if there be any Command which tyes us up to the use of any particular Gesture Sitting suppose or Standing and not Kneeling we shall find it in one or other of the Evangelists who give us a perfect Narrative of the whole Mind and Will of Christ in all matters necessary to Faith and Salvation Let us therefore bring them under a strict examination St. Matthew gives this account of Mat. 26. 26. the whole matter As they were eating Jesus took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body And he took the Ver. 27. Cup and gave Thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it For this is my Blood of the New Testament Ver. 28. which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins But I Ver. 29. say unto you I will not Drink henceforth of this Fruit of the Vine until that day when I Drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom And when they had Sung an Hymn Ver. 30. they went out into the Mount of Olives Much to the same purpose is the account which St. Mark gives of this matter And as they did eat Jesus took Bread and blessed and Mar. 14. 22. brake it and gave to them and said Take eat this is my Body And he took the Cup and when he had given Ver. 23. Thanks he gave it to them and they all Drank of it And he said unto them This is my Bloud of the New Ver. 24. Ver. 25. Testament which is shed for many Verily I say unto you I will Drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine until that day that I Drink it new in the Kingdom of God And Ver. 26. when they had Sung a Hymn they went out into the Mount of Olives And this is the sum of what Saint Mark delivers concerning the Lord's Supper Saint Luke with very little variation thus describes the matter And he took Bread and gave Thanks and brake it and Luke 22. 19. gave unto them saying This is my Body which is given for you this do in Remembrance of me Likewise also the Ver. 20. Cup after Supper saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Bloud which is shed for you This Evangelist indeed makes mention of another Cup which our Lord took and after he had blessed it he said to his Disciples Take this and divide it among your selves and withal told them that he would not Drink of the Fruit of the Vine until the Kingdom of God should come which Cup plainly refers to the Passover as will appear to any one who will consult and compare the 15 16 17 and 18. Verses of See Dr. Lightfoot on Mat. 26. 26. Horae Heb. Talmud the fore-mentioned Chapter and is supposed to be that Cup wherewith the Jews were wont to begin the Paschal Feast which they Blessed or Consecrated in this Form of words Blessed be God who Created the Fruit of the Vine And whereas our Lord saith he will Drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine his meaning is that he would never Celebrate the Feast of the Passover with them any more after that time but their next Festival Meeting should be in Heaven and this is very consistent with our Lord 's Drinking another Cup after this which he Consecrated to another use and signification in the Sacrament Ver. 20. And this is all the light this Divine Writer affords us concerning the outward Rites and Ceremones which our Lord used himself at the Institution of the Sacrament and established for the use of all Christians in all succeeding Ages As for St. John he makes no mention at all of the Institution of this Holy Feast by our Lord. All that can be collected from his Writings relates to the Passover or according to the Learned Dr. Lightfoot to
not oblige all Christians to a like Practice 1. Because naked examples without some Rule or Note added to them to signify that it is the mind and will of God to have them constantly followed and perpetually Imitated by us have not the force of a Law perpetually obliging the Conscience Thus in our present Case though our Lord did Sit at the Sacrament yet his example alone doth not become an everlasting Rule for all Ages to observe because he hath no where discovered his binding will and pleasure in this particular And consequently since he hath left us in the Dark we may act contrary to his will and intention when we so zealously press and follow his example especially in this matter relating to Gesture For even under the Law where all other Circumstances of Time Place Habits and the Ceremonies relating to Divine Worship were with great particularity described this of Gesture was left free and undetermined God never obliged them to use any particular Gesture in any particular part of his Worship but left it to their choice whether to Kneel or Stand or Bow down their Heads and Bodies or fall prostrate on the Earth to use all or any one of these as Custom and their own Pious Prudence should prompt and direct them Seeing then that the Gesture in the Worship of God was never determined under the Law Since it was and is in its own nature a Mutable Ceremony in the Service of God it remains so unto this day Our Lord left it as he found it unless it can be proved that he hath by some Command or Note of Immutability fixt and determined it to all succeeding Ages But because no such Command or Note is to be found therefore we are not tyed in Conscience to a strict Imitation of his Example A few instances will clear this point Our Lord was not Baptized till Luke 3. 23. he was about thirty years of Age but this example is not esteemed by the generality of Dissenters a Law or Warrant for us to defer our Baptism so long So he Instituted the Sacrament a little before his Death But is there no obligation upon us to receive it but when we are near our Graves and under a Prospect of Death He also Instituted and Administred the Sacrament after a full Meal in an upper Room to Men onely Doth his bare example oblige us to observe punctually all these Circumstances or no If it doth why do our Brethren of the Separation take the liberty to depart from his example in these things if his example layeth no necessity upon us to follow it in these particulars how doth Sitting become necessary barely upon the account of his example I desire them therefore Seriously and impartially to examine this matter and see if they can assign any reasons for this liberty they take of following the example of our Saviour in some things and not in others where there is no other Rule to guide them I believe they will be constrained to do one of these two things either to withdraw their Suit against Kneeling and quit their own Principle or condemn their own practices as shamefully repugnant to it 2. The bare example of Christ is no Warrant for us to act by because the great end and usefulness of that Glorious example he left us consists in this viz. that it shews the possibility and clears up the sense of his Laws and excites and encourages us to the Practice of them it puts the Rule into activity and sets it forth to the life It is to our lives as Exhortation is to Doctrine it thrusts us forward to do that which we were obliged in Conscience to do before Whatsoever our Lord hath Commanded us to do in that onely we are necessarily bound to Imitate him But where there is no Precept there is no Necessity We may do it if we will and if we can innocently as in the case of a single Life but we are not under Constraint and an indispensable Obligation He hath Commanded us to be Meek and Lowly to be Just and Merciful to be Patient under all our Troubles and Afflictions to follow Peace with all Men to be ever contented and resigned to the Will of our Heavenly Father in all States and Conditions of Life and the life And in all these things he became an Example to us that we might follow his Steps He Commands us to do what he performed himself and that which we are concerned in if we would walk surely is first to look for our Rule and then for our encouragement to look unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our Faith It 's true indeed we are Commanded in Scripture to follow the Examples of the Apostles so far forth as they follow Christ and the Example of our Lord is made the Touchstone to try all others by but then if we would know what is out Duty we must bring his Example to the Rule For as to Preach Christ and to Preach the Gospel to Obey Christ and Obey the 1 Cor. 11. 1. Acts 5. 42. Acts 11. 20. Marc. 16. 15. Heb. 5. 9. 2 Thess 1. 8. Col. 2. 6. Gospel are Phrases of alike Import it Scripture so in like manner to follow Christ is all one with following the Gospel-Rule or doing as Christ did in obedience to his Commands The Sum of all is this An Example may help to Interpret a Law but of it self it is no Law Against a Rule no Example is a Competent Warrant and if the Example be according to the Rule it 's not the Example but the Rule that is the Measure of our Actions 3. The bare Example of Christ is no Warrant for us to go by because he was an extraordinary Person and did many things which we cannot and many which we must not do He Fasted 40 Days and 40 Nights and spent whole Nights in Prayer he wrought many Miracles to prove the Truth of his Doctrine and his Divine Authority by that he was the Messias the Son of God and Saviour of Mankind he was a Prophetical Priest by which Office he was obliged to teach us the whole mind of God in all things necessary to Faith and Salvation and to offer up himself as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the World Nothing we should quickly experiment would be more Vain and Foolish than attempts of an Imitation in some things And nothing more Wicked than to think and believe we may and ought to follow his example in others To dye to Sin and Crucify the Flesh with its Affections and Lusts is a good way as the Scripture Teaches and Warrants of Imitating our Lords Death in a Spiritual Sense So to Die rather than deny the Faith and Dishonour our Saviour is great and Praiseworthy but to Die for Sin either our own or other Men's to propose a Meritorious Death to our Selves and by way of expiation is a Sin of so deep a Stain that the Blood of Christ
and the Churches succeeding excluded it out of their Congregations and gave it no Entertainment for the space of 1200 years That Kneeling to receive the Sacrament was not used at the Institution of the Lords Supper nor after in any Age of the Church before the time of Honorius the Third about the year 1220. So also another great Champion for sitting writes Didoclavius maintaineth saith he that which none of our opposites Gillesp Disp against Eng. Pop. Cer. p. 191. Altar Damascen 784. lib. 1. c. 1. are able to infringe viz. That no Testimony can be produced which may evince that ever Kneeling was used before the time of Honorius the Third He further observes from the History of the Waldenses That bowing of the Knees before the Host was then onely enjoyned when the opinion of Transubstantiation got place By the Practice of the Church in the first and purest Ages I conceive they mean thus much That from the Age wherein the holy Apostles lived down to that wherein Transubstantiation was set on foot or that wherein Honorius the Third enjoyned the Adoration of the Host Kneeling in the act of Receiving the Lords Supper was never heard of nor used or as one Author expresly asserts it till the year 1220. Howsoever for sureness sake and in order to the clearing of this matter under our present Consideration I think it will be requisite to fix the time wherein Transubstantiation was first broacht as well as when it was establisht or imposed as an Article of Faith and so too wherein the Adoration of the Host was enjoyned whereby the just bounds and limits will be known beyond which we are not to pass to fetch in Evidence and consequently all extravagancy will be prevented on our part and all cavilling if possible on theirs As for the Time then which we enquire after I think we may safely relie on the judgment of a very Learned Prelate of our own which he delivers after this manner The word Transubstantiation Histori Transub Papal Josian Ep. Dunelm Edit 1675. p. 53 54. is so far from being found in the sacred Scriptures or the Writings of the ancient Fathers that the great Patrons of it do themselves acknowledge it was not so much as heard of before the twelfth Century Nay that the Thing it self without the Word that the Doctrine without the Expression cannot be proved from Scripture is ingenuously acknowledged by the most Learned Schoolmen who endeavour by other Arguments Scotus Durandus Biel Cameracen Cajetan c. therefore to defend it and allow it to be brought in by the Authority of the Pope and not received in the Church of Rome till 1200 years after Christ The first Authors who mention this new-coyn'd word Transubstantiation are Petrus Blesensis who lived under Pope Alexander the Third about the year 1159 and Stephanus Eduensis a Bishop whose Age and Writings are very doubtful The Pope who first establisht this An. Dom. 1215. An. Dom. 1217 or thereabouts monstrous Doctrine by his own Arbitrary power as an Article of Faith was Innocent the Third And his Successor Honorius was the man who decreed Adoration to the Host The first Council which took notice and approved of the Papal Decree for Transubstantiation was that assembled at Constance which condemned A D. 1415. Wiclif for an Heretick because among other truths he had asserted this That the substance of the Bread and Wine remains materially in the Sacrament of the Altar and that in the same Sacrament no accidents of Bread an t Wine remain without a Substance and for this Opinion they ordered his Body to be taken out of his Grave and burnt to ashes Thus things stood till the year 1551. when the Council of Trent publisht it to the world for an infallible Truth and imposed the belief of it upon all under the pain of an Anathema As for the Doctrine of Consubstantiation and the Corporal presence of Christ at with and in the Sacrament it was started long before that of Transubstantiation and was much disputed among learned men He who first broacht it in the East was John Damascen in the days of Gregory the Third And about About the year 740. an hundred years afterwards it was set a-foot in the West by the means of Paschasius Radbertus a Monk of Corbie and one Amalarius a Who wrote de Ecclesias Officiis de ord Antiphon c. contemporary with Amalarius Fortunatus Ar. bp of Triers who wrote de Sac. Baptis ad Carol. M. Deacon of Metz. The former taught that Christ was Consubstantiated or rather enclosed in the Bread and Corporally united to it in the Sacrament for as yet there was no thoughts of the Transubstantiation of Bread The latter gives Amalar. de Ecclesi Offic. lib. 3. c. 24. vid. lib. 3. c. 35. it as part of his Belief That the simple nature of the Bread and Wine mixed is turned into a reasonable nature viz. of the Body and Bloud of Christ Moreover he in another place confesseth that it was past his skill to determine what became of his Body after it was eaten When the Body of Christ is taken with a good intention it is not for me to dispute saith he whether it Amalar. Epist ad Guitardum MS in Biblioth Coll. S. Benedic Cantabri Cod. 55. cited by A. Bp. Vsher Ans Jesuits Chall p. 75. Rabanus Maurus John Erigena Wala Strabo Ratramus or Bertramus be invisibly taken up into Heaven or kept in our Body until the day of our burial or exhaled into the Air or whether it go out of the Body with the Bloud or be sent out by the mouth c. For this and another Foolery of the three parts or kinds of Christs Body he was censured by a Synod held at Cressy wherein it was declared by the Bishops of France That the Bread and Wine are spiritually made the Body of Christ which being a meat of the Mind and not of the Belly is not corrupted but remaineth unto everlasting life From whence we may learn as also from the Writings of several Learned men of that Age who opposed these Dotages of the Corporal presence that the Western Church had not then adulterated the Doctrine of the Sacrament but followed the pure and sound sence of the Ancient Fathers and condemned these Whimseys and gross conceits of the carnal or Oral eating of Christ in the Sacrament Nay in the year 1079. when Hildebrand called Gregory the 7th came to the Papal Chair the Bishops and Doctors were divided in their Opinions concerning the Corporal Presence some maintaining Berengarius his opinion who denied it and some following that of Paschasius as appears from the Acts of that Council writ by those of the Popes Faction which was called on purpose to condemn Berengarius Moreover it 's recorded that Hildebrand himself doubted whether what we receive at the Lords Table be indeed the Body of Christ by a substantial conversion For three
joy and triumph viz. over Death and the Grave and therefore on these days we neither Fast nor bend our Knees nor incline and bow down our Bodies but with our Lord are lifted up to Heaven We pray standing all that time which is a sign of the Resurrection St. August Ep. 119. ad Jan. c. 15. By which posture that is we signifie our belief of that Article From whence we may conclude that as the Christians of those first Ages did at other times certainly Fast so they did also certainly Kneel at their Prayers in their publick and religious Assemblies 6 Another thing I would have observed in order to my present design is this That the Primitive Christians were wont to receive the Holy Sacrament every day as oft as they came together for publick Worship which Custom as it was introduced Acts 2. 42 46. Acts 20. 7. compared with 1 Cor. 10. 16. and practised by the Apostles themselves according to the judgement of very Learned men and that not without good grounds from the Holy Scripture so it continued a considerable time in the Church even down to St. Austin who flourisht in the beginning Ann. Dom. 410. St. Aug Epist 118. ad Januarium c. 2 3. p. 556. 7. Basil edit a Froben 1541. St. Ambr. cap. ult lib. 5. c. 4. de Sacram. p. 449. Paris St. Hier. adver Jovinian p 37. Paris id in Epist ad Lucinium Baeticum p. 71. edit of the fifth Century and seems clearly to intimate to us in his Writings that it was customary in his days as St. Ambrose and St. Hierome had hinted before him concerning the Churches of Millan and Rome in their times From St. Cyprian we are fully Vid. Dr. Cave Prim. Christ p. 339. St. Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 147. Oxon. edit 1682. Can. 9. Apost Antiochen Concil Can. 2. Basil Ep. 289. ad Caesariam Patriciam To. 3. p. 279. assured that it was so in his days viz. about the year 250. For in his explication of that Petition in the Lords Prayer Give us this day our daily bread he expresly tells us that they did receive the Eucharist every day as the food that nourisht them to Salvation St. Basil Bishop of Caesaria who lived about 370 years after Christ affirms that in his Church they communicated four times a Week on the Lords day Wednesday Friday and Saturday two of which were station-days or set days of Fasting which were punctually observed by the generality of Christians in those times And this I the rather note because in all probability since they did receive the Sacrament on these days they did not alter the Posture of the day but received Kneeling For if Kneeling was adjudged by the Catholick Church an unsutable and improper posture for times of mirth and joy such as the Lords days and those of Pentecost were and if they were thought guilty of a great irregularity who used that posture on those Festivals then we may reasonably conclude that Standing which was the Festival Posture was not used by the Catholick Church on days of Fasting and Humiliation and that they who stood at their publick Devotions on Fasting days were as irregular as they who kneel'd on a Festival And that this was really so may I think be clearly collected from a passage in Tertullian to this purpose Tertull. de Orat c. 3. p. 206. Edit Col. Agrip 1617. We judge it an unlawful and impious thing says he either to Fast or Kneel at our Devotions on the Lords day We rejoyce in the same freedom or immunity from Easter to Whitsontide To be freed and exempted from Fasting and Kneeling not onely on the Lords day but all the days of Pentecost was esteemed a great priviledge and matter of much joy to this Holy Father and the Christians who lived in his days And from hence I infer that at other times when they met together for publick Worship especially on days of Fasting they generally used Kneeling and that at the Lords Supper which was administred every day in the African So St. Cyprian before cited Church whereof Tertullian was a Presbyter For if they had generally stood at all other times of the year in their religious Assemblies as well at their Prayers as at the Lords Supper where is the priviledge and immunity they boasted so much of and rejoyced in viz. that they were freed from Kneeling on such days and at such certain times Not to Fast on the Lords day was a Priviledge because they did Fast on the Week-days and so say I of Standing To Stand on the Lords days and all the time between Easter and Whitsunday could not be thought a special act of favour and the Prerogative of those seasons if Kneeling had not been the ordinary and common Gesture at all other times throughout the year And if Kneeling was the Didoclavius his own argument retorted Si stabant inter orandum viz. Die Dominico toto temporis intervallo inter Pascha Pentecosten non est probabile de geniculis adorasse cum perciperent Eucharistiam sed potius contrarium nempe stetisse Altar Damasc p. 784. Gesture which the Christians did then commonly use at their Prayers on the Week-days then in all probability when they received the Sacrament on those days they received in the ordinary posture The 7th and last particular which I would observe relating to this business is this That the Primitive Christians received the Holy Sacrament Praying The whole Communion Service was performed with Prayer and Praise It was begun with a general Prayer wherein the Minister and the whole Congregation joyntly prayed for the Vniversal Tert. Apol. c. 39. p. 47. St. Aug. Ep. 118. Const Apost l. 2. c. 57. p. 881. St. Chrys Hom. 1. in 2. cap. Epist 1. Tim. Peace and Welfare of the Church for the Tranquillity and the quietness of the World for the Prosperity of the Age for wholesome Weather and fruitful Seasons for Kings and Emperours and all in Authority c. The Elements were sanctified by a solemn Benediction the form whereof is set down by St. Ambrose and De Sacr. lib. 4. c 5. p. 439. See Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity c. 11. p. 347. the whole action was concluded with Prayer and Thanksgiving But that which more particularly affects the matter in hand is that the Minister used a Prayer at the delivery of the Sacrament to each Communicant to which every one at their receiving said Amen The Apostolical Constitutions though in some things much corrupted and adulterated yet in many things are very sound and in this particular seem to express the most Ancient Practice of the Church For there we find this Account The Apostolical Constitutions confessed by all hands to be very Mr. Daillé sets them at the latter end of the 5 Century Const Apost lib. 8. c. 13. p. 483. Ancient though not altogether so much as is pretended in some things give us this
Council or Mr. Prynne Apol. for lib. to tender Con. p. 75. printed 1662. Synod from Christs institution of the Lords Supper till above 1460 years after his Ascension Nor any one Rubrick in all the Liturgies Writings of the Fathers or Missals Breviaries Offices Pontificals Ceremonials of the Church of Rome it self that I could either find upon my best search or any other yet produced enjoyning Communicants to Kneel in the Act of Receiving Thus that inquisitive Gentleman assure us and in the same place backs his Report with the authority of the Reverend Dr. Burgesse whom he stiles the best and eminentest Champion for this Gesture of Bneeling of all others The sum of what Dr. Burgesse delivers concerning this matter is Dr. Burg. Ans rejoy to the Reply to Dr. Mort. gen Defence p. 478 478. this That Kneeling in the Act of Receiving was never any instituted Ceremony of the Church of Rome nor is at this day For this he cites Bellarmine and Durantus who make no mention of Kneeling in the Act of Receiving though they treat particularly of the Mass and the Ceremonies of the Roman Church Instead of this Durantus affirms That the Sacrament ought to be taken Standing and proves it also And so doth the Pope himself receive it Missal Rom. in the Rubr. set out by Pius V. when he celebrates and every Priest by order of the Mass-book is to partake standing reverently at the Altar and not Kneeling there The people which receive not as well as they that do receive are reverently to bow themselves to the Sacrament not when they receive it but when the Priest doth elevate the Patin or Chalice for Adoration or when the Host is carried to any sick person or in Procession And this is that Adoration which was first brought in by Pope Honorius the Third and not any Kneeling or Adoration in the Act of Receiving For these are the very words of the Decree That the Priests should frequently instruct their People to bow themselves reverently at the Elevation of the Host when Mass was Celebrated and Ut Sacerdotes frequenter doceant Plebem suam ut cum Elevatur Hostia Salutaris quisque se reverenter inclinet Idem faciens quum eam deferat Praesbyter ad infirmum Decret Greg. l. 3. tit 41. c. 10. in like manner when the Priest carried it abroad to the sick At the last the Doctor thus resolves upon the Question That Kneeling in the Act of Receiving was never any instituted Ceremony of the Church of Rome nor ever used when it was used by them for Adoration to the Sacrament as is falsly believed and talked of by many And with him a learned Papist agrees who in a Book purposely written for the Adoration of the Sacrament declareth Espencaeus de Adorat Euch. lib. 2. c. 16. That it is not much material in what Gesture it is performed whether Sitting Standing Lying or Kneeling And in the same place further informs us That the Kneeling Gesture had not obtained in the Church of Lyons in the year 1555 and when some endeavoured to obtrude it upon that Metropolis a stop was put to their proceeding by the Royal Authority Nothing needs more be said to give satisfaction in this matter and fix us when we have added what a very great man of our own Church now living hath delivered in writing viz. Although Dean of St. Paul's Unreasonableness of Separation p. 15. Kneeling at the Elevation of the Host be strictly required by the Roman Church yet in the Act of Recâ—iving it is not as manifestly appears by the Popes manner of Receiving which is not Kneeling but either Sitting as it was in Bonaventure 's time or after the fashion of sitting or a little leaning upon his Throne as he doth ot this day And now the matter is brought to a fine pass How outragious have the Adversaries of Kneeling been in their Clamours against the Church of England for appointing a Gesture that was first introduced and used by Antichrist and Idolaters and when the matter comes to be sifted not the least proof is produced to make good the Accusation but on the other side it appears that those two Postures which are so earnestly contended for by our Dissenting Brethren are the very Postures which the man of sin uses at this day himself in the Act of Receiving the Holy Sacrament When he celebrates Mass himself and upon some other Vid. Dr. Falk lib. Ecles p. 484 485. particular and solemn occasions he stands but generally and ordinarily he receives sitting or in a posture very like it And this Dr. Burg. lawful of Kneel p. 67. I desire may be remembred against we come to discourse on the second Head viz. that Kneeling is not therefore sinful because it is used by Idolaters If any should after all put the Question thus to me When is it say you that Kneeling first commenced in the World by whose means and upon what reasons my plain Answer is I cannot cerntainly tell nor can I find any account thereof among the ancient Records But this is no Argument against but rather for the ancient and universal use of this Gesture Novel Customs are easily traced to their Originals but generally the most ancient Usages of every Country are without Father and Mother and we cannot tell from what source they are derived 2. I am so far from thinking as our Dissenting Brethren do that Kneeling owes its birth to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that I verily believe the contrary viz. Kneeling or an adoring posture used by the ancient Christians in the Act of Receiving did very much among other things conduce to beget and nurse up in the minds of Superstitious and Phanciful men a Conceit that Christ was really and corporally present at the Sacrament which Notion by subtil and inquisitive heads was in a little time improved and explained after this manner That after the Elements of Bread and Wine were consecrated they were thereby changed into the substance of Christs natural Body and Bloud This I am sure of that the Patrons of Transubstantiation did very early make use of this very Argument to prove that they taught and believed no more than what the Primitive Bishops and Christians did For what else could they intend or mean say they by that extraordinary Reverence and Devotion which they manifested when they received the dreadful Mysteries as they called the Bread and Wine if they were bare and empty signs onely and not changed into the very Body and Bloud of Christ which is in effect the very Argument used by Cassa enim videtur tot hominum huic Sacramento ministrantium vel adorantium veneranda sedulitas nisi ipsius Sacramenti longe major crederetur quam videretur veritas utilitas cum ergo exterius quasi nulla sint quibus tanta impenduntur venerationis obsequia aut insensati sumus aut ad intima mittimus magna salutis mysteria Alger
de Sacramentis lib. 2. c. 3. * * * A Monk of Corbie who wrote against Berengar and liv'd about the year 1074. Algerus a stout Champion for Transubstantiation And †††Coster Enchirid p. 353. edit 1590. Coster another Popish Writer is so far from saying the Pope introduced it and that after Transubstantiation took place that he resolves it into an ancient Custom continued from the Apostles times Seeing then upon the whole matter it appears by the confession of some who oppose Kneeling that Honorius did not institute or ordain that Gesture in the Act of Receiving seeing the Decree which he made and which others appeal to doth not at all relate to this matter but onely to the Adoration of the Host at the Priests elevation of it seeing no other Pope is alledged as the Author of this Custom seeing Kneeling was never any instituted Ceremony in the Church of Rome nor is there any Canon or Decree or Rubrick extant which requires the use of that Gesture seeing the Pope himself and the Priests who celebrate use another Gesture in the Act of Receiving seeing their own Writers look on it as an ancient Usage derived to them from the first and purest Ages it follows that what is pretended and supposed in the Question is without all Warrant and Proof viz. that Kneeling in the Act of Receiving was first brought in by Idolaters And now to close up all I will appeal to any man of sense and understanding whether this be not a very silly and extravagant way of Arguing Kneeling in the Act of Receiving is sinful because it was first introduced by Antichrist and the man of sin and that after the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was started and took place in the world and yet after all when you come up close to them and enquire into particulars they are not able to date the original of it nor name the Authors who first invented it and set it up At this rate of talking it were the easiest matter imaginable to evince that Sitting and Standing were equally unlawful with Kneeling For it is but affirming boldly that they were first brought in and used by Idolaters and then the work is done effectually And if such slender Objections must drive us away from the Lords Supper we shall never communicate as long as we live But besides the folly of such Arguments I think it 's a very wicked thing for men to invent and urge them as the Case stands with us at present For what is there more desired and wisht for by all good Christians than Brotherly Love and Concord than that we may all meet together with one accord in one place and with one mind and one mouth glorifie God in the publick Churches What more talkt of now adays then Peace and Vnion Whosoever therefore shall any ways obstruct so blessed and desirable a Work must be concluded every ill man And such a one most certainly is he whatsoever we may think of it who withdraws himself from the Holy Communion upon groundless jealousies and unreasonable fears of incurring the divine displeasure if he receive Kneeling and shall go about by the Bugbear-words of Idolaters Antichrist the man of sin to scare weak and honest men from Receiving the Holy Sacrament in our Churches Because the Lords Supper was instituted for this peculiar end among others viz. to be an uniting Ordinance to bind Christians together in the strictest bonds of Love and Friendship to dispose and engage them to put on Bowels of Mercy to exercise the most kind and tender affections and the most fervent Charity one towards another that is possible for men to do Those Nonconforming Ministers therefore who possess the people with these Arguments which they themselves know unless they be grosly ignorant to be false and senceless to render them averse from the Lords Supper as it is administred in our Churches are in plain English the Authors and Fomenters of our Divisions and the Disturbers of our Peace In the second place to proceed it is not unlawful to use such Things and Rites as either have been or are notoriously abused to Idolatry Before I produce my Reasons for the proof of this Proposition I think it will not be amiss to inform the Reader with those Arguments which Dissenters use to overthrow it and they are these two in general 1. All Things and Rites which have been notoriously abused to Gillesp Eng. Pop. Cer. c. 2. par 3. p. 130. Idolatry if they were such as were devised by man and not by God and Nature made to be of necessary use should be utterly abolished and purged away from divine Worship But Kneeling in the Act of Receiving is one of these Rites therefore it should utterly be Abridgment of Linc. Min. p. 17. Vid. Mr. Hook Eccles Pol. lib. 4. p. 160. abolished 2. To imitate and agree with Idolaters by using such Rites and Ceremonies as they do though in themselves indifferent and though they contain nothing which is not agreeable to the Word of God is sinful So that not to abolish utterly whatsoever we know to have been abused heretofore to Idolatry to take up any old Heathenish and Idolatrous Customs and Rites though at present disused by Idolaters is sinful and then to use the same Rites Gillesp p. 141. c. 3. with Idolaters at present to sort our selves and communicate with them in their Rites is to partake of their sins and to become Altar Dam. p. 536 549. guilty of Idolatry too With these Arguments they make a great noise and endeavour to confirm them by Scripture and Reason I shall not offer at a Confutation of these Proofs which stand built upon a weak and sandy Foundation upon trifling and sorry Reasons upon Scripture-Precepts whose sence is horribly wrested and Scripture-Examples falsly applied and nothing to the purpose There is a Case of Conscience lately published wherein the Author hath done this Work to my hands For he clearly shews That a Vid Case resolved whether the Ch. of Eng. Symbolizing c. p. 24. to p. 47. p. 38. Churches agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing and particularly instanceth in our Churches agreement with the Church of Rome by Kneeling at the Sacrament There you will find the most considerable Texts and Examples which they drag from Scripture and urge for themselves rendred utterly unserviceable to their Cause and rescued from their Tortures All that I shall do therefore at present is onely this briefly to propound my Reasons for the proof of my Assertion by which I hope to make it evidently appear that our Dissenting Brethren lie under a great errour and mistake by thinking that all those Rites and Ceremonies which are in themselves indifferent and of mans devising ought to be utterly abolished and become sinful for us to use purely because they either have been or are notoriously abused
lay it upon the Jesuits thereby tacitly acknowledging that they had so great a power over some of them as to make them to become their Instruments for the cutting off the Lord 's Anointed For if they will not allow Cromwell and Ireton and some others of that Order to have been Dissenters properly so called yet certainly they must not deny that Name to Mr. Peters Mr. John Goodwin and many like to them who appeared publickly in that very black and insolent wickedness How far it is true that the Jesuits influenc'd those Counsels I do not now examine nor do's my Talent lie in Mysteries of State But that in the late Revolutions Popery was not routed out no Man can remain ignorant who is of competent Age and had not perfectly lost the use of his memory though he has made the most negligent Observations Robert Mentit de Salmonet * * * Hist des troâ—bles de la grand Bret. a Parâ—â— 1661. lib. 3. p. 165 See sport view of the late Troubl p. 564. a Scotchman and a Secular Priest in actual exercise of Communion with the Church of Rome hath publickly taken notice of the many Priests slain at Edge-Hill and of two Companies of Walloons and other Catholicks as he is pleased to style them in the Service of the States It hath been commonly said * * * Arbitr Government p. 28. that Gifford the Jesuit appeared openly in the Year 47 amongst the Agitators and that his Pen was used in the Paper drawn up at a Committee in the Army and call'd the Agreement of the People * * * See Whitl Memoirs p. 279 280 282. K. Charles the Martyr speaketh of such things as notorious in one of his printed Declarations * * * Exact Col. p. 647. All Men know said he the great number of Papists which serve in their Army Commanders and others In the Year 49 * * * Id. ibid. p. 405. Those in the House were acquainted with divers Papers taken in a French Man's Trunk at Rye discovering a Popish Design to be set on foot in England with Commissions from the Bishop of Chalcedon by Authority of the Church of Rome to Popish Priests and others for settling the Discipline of the Romish Church in England and Scotland Mr. Edwards * * * Gangrena p. 1â— p. r. 2 reports from Mr. Mills a Common-Council-man who was so informed by a knowing Papist that the Romanists did generally shelter themselves under the Vizor of Independency It is certain that a College of Jesuits was established at Come * * * Narr sent up to the Lords from the Bishop of Heâ—eford p. 7. in the Year 52. And in a Paper found there mention was made of 155 reconcil'd that year to the Church of Rome Oliver himself used these words in a Declaration publish'd by the Advice of his Council * * * Prot. Declaration Octob. 31. 1655. It is not only Commonly observed but there remains with Us somewhat of Proof that Jesuits have been found among some discontented Parties in this Nation who are observed to quarrel and fall out with every Form or Administration in the Church or State Dr. Bayly * * * In the Life of Bish Fisher p. 260 161. the Romanist openly courted Oliver as the present hopes of Rome and with a Flattery as gross as the Jingle was ridiculous call'd him Oliva Vera And one of his Physitians * * * V. Elench Mot. par 2. p. 341. hath said of him that he was once negotiating with the Romanists for Toleration but brake off the Bargain partly because they came not up to his price and partly because he feared it would bâ— offensive to the People It is also publickly told us * * * H. Indep part 2. p. 245 c. that an Agreement was made in 49 even with Owen ô Neal that bloody Romanist and that he in pursuance of the Interest of the State so called raised the Siege of London-derry A great door was opened to Romish Emissaries when the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy were by publick Order taken away For they were Tests of Romamism Likewise the Doctrine of the unlawfulness of an Oath revived in those days by Roger Williams * * * See Mr. Cotton's Lr. Exam. A. 44. p. 4 5 Simplicit defence A. 1646. p. 22. Min. of Prov. of Lond. Testim p. 18. Samuel Gorton and others helped equivocating Papists to an evasion as I fear it may do at this day among the Quakers So we may be induced to believe by comparing present with former Transactions For we are informed that in the Reign of King James * * * Gee's Foot out of the Snare p. 58 59. A. 1621. Thomas Newton pretended to have had a Vision of the Virgin Mary who said to him Newton See thou do not take the Oath of Allegiance And being of this publickly examined at the Commission-Table and asked how he knew it to be the Virgin Mary which appeared He answer'd I know it was she for she appeared unto me in the form of her Assumption It was the Church of England which in our late Troubles principally fortify'd and entrench'd the true Protestant Religion against the Assaults of Rome This Church was still in being though in Adversity She had strong Vitals and did not die notwithstanding there was some Distemper in her Estate There was still a Constitution where Primitive order and decencie might be found and in which Men of Sobriety might be fixed And great numbers of the Church-men by their constant adherence to their Principles under publick contempt and heavy pressure gained daily on the People and convinced the World that they were not so Popish and Earthly-minded as popular clamour had represented them Also their learned Books and Conferences reduced some and establish'd many and we owe a part of the stablity of Men in those times to God's blessing on the Writings of Arch-bishop Laud Mr. Chillingworth Dr. Bromhall Dr. Cosins Dr. Hammond and others Last of all It is the Opinion of the Papists themselves that their Cause is promoted by our Dissensions and according to these measures of Judgment they govern their Councils This was the Opinion of the Jesuite Campanella in his Dâ—scourse touching the Spanish Monarchy written about the Year 1600 and in 54 publish'd at London in our Language * * * Campan Disc of Span. Mon. c. 25. p. 157 Concerning the weakning of the English says that Jesuit there can no better way possibly be found out than by causing Divisions and Dissentions among themselves And as for their Religion it cannot be so easily extinguished and rooted out here unless there were some certain Schools set up in Flanders by means of which there should be scattered abroad the Seeds of Schism c. And whether these kinds of Seeds have not come from hence to us as well as those better ones of the
Printed Licensed dispersed up and down in City and Country openly a Quarter of these Errours Heresies Blasphemies which have been all these ways vented by the Sectaries the People would have risen up and stoned them and pulled down their Houses and forced them to forbear such Doctrines O how is the Scene changed within these few Years and not long after he tells us that These are Risen Increased Reign and Prevail so far under a Parliament Sitting not under the Bishops Corrupt-Clergy Court-party but under a Parliament And in his Epistle to the Lords and Commons before the first part of his Gangraena he tells them That the Errours Heresies Blasphemies and Practices of the Sectaries of this Time had been Broached and Acted within these Four last Years in England and that in Your Quarters and in the places under your Government and power for which I tremble to think least the whole Kingdom should be in Gods Black Bill that together with their Reformation come in a Deformation and worse things were come upon them than ever they had before they had put down the Book of Common-Prayer but there were many amongst them that had put down the Scriptures slighting yea Blaspheming them he tells them they had cast out the Bishops and their Officers and they had many that had cast down to the ground all Ministers in all the Reformed Churches they had cast out Ceremonies in the Sacraments and they had many that had cast out the Sacraments themselves with many more sad complaints which he there makes To sum up all in the words of my Author Vbi supra p. 73. In this Catalogue the Reader may see great Errors and yet may turn himself again and behold greater namely damnable Heresies and yet turn himself again and read Horrid Blasphemies and a third time and read Horrible Disorders Confusions strange and unheard of Practices not only against the Light of Scripture but Nature as in Women's Preaching in Stealing away Men's Wives and Children from Husbands and Parents in Baptizing Women Naked in the Presence and Sight of Men c. And thus we see by what means it was that the Nation came to be Pestred with Opinions and Practices Impious beyond the Example of former Ages and such as were not once named among the Gentiles to the A Letter from a Noble Venetian to Card Barbarino translated and Printed 1648. p. 19. Infinite Prejudice and dishonour both of our Religion and our Nation It being the Observation which an Ingenious Foreigner who resided at London in those times made upon this occasion one of the Fruits says He of this Blessed Parliament and of these two Sectaries Presbyterians and Independents is that they have made more Jews and Atheists than I think there is in all Europe besides I doubt not but that the greatest part of our Dissenters do from their Souls detest the Heresies Blasphemies and Wickednesses that have been mentioned but then the Consideration ought to oblige them to double their diligence to prevent the like dismal Effects for the time to come and not to open the Gap again at which they must necessarily flow in upon us By what has been done they may see what a Blessed Reformation they may expect by the Ruin of this Church for the thing that hath been is that which shall be the same causes set on foot by the same Principles will Eternally produce the same Effects and though Men at first may mean never so well yet Temptations will insensibly grow upon them and Accidents happen which in the Progress will carry them infinitely beyond the Line of their first Intentions and engage them in Courses out of which when they come to discern their Errour it may be too late for them to Retire In the beginning of the long Parliament I make no question but the far greatest part of them met together with very honest and good Intentions and designed no more than to Correct some little Irregularities which they apprehended to be in Church or State But wee see how these very Persons where cariied from one passage to another and in time transported to those very things which at first they had so vehemently protested and declared against till at length Horrid Enormities came to be acted by and under them which no age can Paralel which ought to be a Sufficient Caution to all how they shake the least Stone that belongs to the Foundation least by picking out one after another the whole House tumble about their Ears when it is beyond their own Power to support it I shall shut up this Head with a brief Recapitulation of some of those Inferencs which Mr. Edwards makes from the State of those Loose and Licentious times we have been speaking of and then leave the Reader to judg whether they be not as Applicable to present Circumstances under which we are He infers thus First we may hence see how dangerous it is to Cat. and Discov Part 3 d. p. 52 53 57 70. Further Discov p. 195 203. despise and let alone a small Party Secondly That it is more than time fully and Effectually to settle the Government and Discipline of the Church Thirdly What the Mischief Evil and Danger of a Toleration and pretended Liberty of Conscience would be to this Kingdom and what it would Prove and Produce Fourthly That it sufficiently Justifies in the Sight of the World those Ministers and People who are Zealous for setling Religion and cry out for Government who Preach Petition speak often one to another of these things Fifthly what a great Evil and Sin Separation is from the Communion of the Reformed Churches and how highly displeasing to God for Men to make a Rent and Schism in the Church of God Sixthly That all such who have been deceived and drawn away under pretence of greater Purity Holiness c. and have any Fear and Awe of God and his Word be Exhorted to leave and forsake them and return to the Publick Assemblies and Communion of this and other Reformed Churches And God grant we may hearken to this Counsel and may seriously lay these things to heart VIII Eighthly We desire it may be considered what plain and apparent Advantages Separation gives to the Common Enemy of the Protestant Religion in these Nations The Church of England is notoriously known to have been the most strong and standing Bulwark of Protestancy ever since the Reformation for being Founded on Scripture-grounds and the Practice of True Genuine Primitive Antiquity and having been reformed by the most wise regular and justifiable Methods it stands like a Rock impregnable against all the Assaults which the Church of Rome makes upon it This has engag'd them to Plant all their Batteries to beat it down as being the only Church considerable enough to stand in their way and when not able to effect it by any other Arts they have betaken themselves to the old Artifice of Ruining us by dividing us In