they may not lawfully joyn together with whom shall the Faithful joyn at all Is not this to fill the Conscience with Scruples and the Church with Rents Such as these must if they will be true Sacriâ—eg defer p. 95. to their own Principles renounce Communion with all the World and be like those that Mr. Baxter tells us he Defence of his Cure part 1. p. 47. knows That never communicate with any Church nor ever publickly hear or pray or worship God at all because they think all your ways which he directs to Mr. Bagshaw and other Non-conformists of Worship to be bad With this there can be no continuance in any Communion so much Mr. Burroughs doth maintain There would be no continuance in Church-Fellowship Irenic c. 23. p. 163. if this a Separation from a Church for Corruptions in it were admitted for what Church is so pure and hath all things so comfortable but within a while another Church will be more pure and some things will be more comfortable there Upon the mischievous Consequences of this did Mr. R. Allein ground his last Advice to his Parishioners Destroy Godly Mans Portion p. 127. not saith he all Communion by seeking after a purer Church than in this imperfect State we shall ever attain According to this Principle no Communion at all if not in all where shall we rest In all Society something will offend With this lastly there can be no Order Union or Peace in the Church So Mr. Baines a Person of Comment on â—phes c. 2. 15. p. 297. great Experience This seeking the Peace of Sion reproveth such as make a Secession or Departure from the Church of God our visible Assemblies either upon dislike of some Disorders in Administration Ecclesiastical or disallowed Forms and manner of procuring things which the Communion of Saints for full Complement and Perfection requireth This is not in my conceit so much to reform as to deform to massacre the Body and divide the Head c. and will end in the Dissolution Morton's Memorial p. 78 c. Mr. Baxter's Def. of Cure part 2. p. 171. of all Church-Communion if it be followed as is notoriously evident in the case of Mr. R. Williams of New-England that for the sake of greater Purity separated so long that he owned no Church nor Ordinances of God in the World and at his motion the People that were in Communion with him dissolved themselves as we have the account from thence This therefore is one of the Doctrines we are to avoid according to the prudent Advice in a Book above-cited Doctrines crying up Purity to the England's Remembrancer Serm. 14. p. 371. Ruine of Unity reject for the Gospel calls for Unity as well as Purity Fifthly They argue That to separate upon such Arg. 5 an account is not at all warranted in Scripture Thus Mr. Cawdrey It is no Duty of Christ's imposing no Independ a. Schism p. 192. Priviledg of his purchasing either to deprive a Mans self of his Ordinances for other Mens Sins or to set up a new Church in opposition to a true Church as no Church rightly constituted for want of some Reformation in lighter Matters Saith Mr. Blake Vindiciae Foed c. 31. p. 228. We read not of Separation in his way for the sake of Abuses and Corruptions approved nor any Presidents to go before us in it we read a heavy Brand laid upon it Jude 19. These be they who separate themselves sensual not having the Spirit So the Congregations in New-England declare The Faithful in the Church of Platfoâ—m of Discipline in New-England c. 14. § 8. Corinth wherein were many unworthy Persons and Practices are never commanded to absent themselves from the Sacrament because of the same therefore the Godly in like Cases are not presently to separate It should rather have been inferr'd are not to separate for so much must be concluded from the Premises if any thing at all This is accordingly infer'd by Mr. Noyes For Brethren to separate from Temple measured p. 78. Churches and Church-Ordinances which are not fundamentally defective neither in Doctrine or Manners in Heresy or Prophaneness is contrary to the Doctrine and Practice both of Christ and his Apostles Unto whom I shall add the Testimony of Mr. Tombs Separation Theodulia Answ to Pref. § 25. p. 48. from a Church somewhat erroneous or corrupt in Worship or Conversation c. is utterly dissonant from any of the Rules or Examples which either of old the Prophets or holy Men or Christ and his Apostles have prescribed is for the most part the Fault of Pride or bitter Zeal and tends to Strife and Confusion and every evil Work Sixthly They argue That there is no necessity Arg. 6 for Separation for the sake of such Corruptions because a Person may communicate in the Worship without partaking in those Corruptions It was the Opinion of the Presbyterian Brethren at the Savoy-Conference Confer Savoy p. 12 13. Mr. Baxter's Defence of the Cure p. 34 35. that not only the hearing but the reading a defective Liturgy was lawful to him that by Violence is necessitated to offer up that or none And if there was a Possibility of thus separating the substance from the circumstantial Defects in the Ministerial Use of such Worship much more may this be supposed to to be done by those that only attend upon it and are not obliged by any Act of their own to give an explicite Consent to all and every thing used in it 1. This Separation of the good from the bad in Divine Worship they grant possible So Mr. Ball If Trial of the Grounds c. p. 308. some things human be mixed with divine a sound Christian must separate the one from the other and not cast away what is of God as a nullity fruitless unprofitable defiled because somewhat of Men is annexed unto them In the Body we can distinguish betwixt the Substance and the Sickness which cleaveth unto it betwixt the Substance of a Part or Member and some Bunch or Swelling which is a Deformity but destroyeth not the Nature of that Part or Member c. So Mr. Calamy It 's Door of Truth opened p. 7. one thing to keep our selves pure from Pollution another to gather Churches out of Churches 2. They grant that what is faulty and a Sin in Worship is no Sin to us when we do not consent to it So Mr. Corbet My Non-conformists Plea c p. 6. partaking in any Divine Worship which is holy and good for the Matter and allowable or passable in the mode for the main doth not involve me in the blame of some sinful Defects therein to which I consent not and which I cannot redress So another in his Farewel Sermon While all necessary fundamental Truth is England's Remembrancer Serm. 4. p. 94. publickly professed and maintained in a Church is taught and held forth in publick
the Sacrament of the Lords Supper together they are said to be in Communion with one another and to live in Communion with that Church with which they joyn in all Acts of Worship Now we must acknowledge that Publick Acts of Worship performed in the Communion of the Church are an Exercise of Christian Communion but Church-Communion is something antecedent to all the Acts and Offices of Communion For no Man has a right to any Act of Christian Communion but he who is in a State of Communion with the Christian Church What natural Union is in natural Bodies that Communion is in Bodies Politick whether Civil or Religious Societies a member must be vitally united to the Body before it can perform any natural Action or Office of a member before the Eye can see or the Feet can walk or the Ears can hear and the union of the Eye or Foot to the Body does not consist in seeing or walking but seeing and walking are the effects of this Union Thus in a Body Politick when Men by any common Charter are United into one Society they become one common Body or one Communion and this gives them right to all the priviledges of that Body and obliges them to all the Duties and Offices which their Charter requires of them but should any Man who is not regularly admitted into this Society pretend to the same Priviledges or do such things as are required of those who are members of this Body this would be so far from being thought an Act of Communion with them that it would be censured as an unjust Usurpation Should a Man who is no Citizen of London open his Shop and drive a trade as other Citizens do or give his Vote at a Common-Hall and in all other cases Act like a Citizen this would not make him a Citizen but an Intruder He is a Foreigner still and his presuming to Act like a Citizen when he is none is no Act of Communion with that Body of which he is no member but justly exposes him to censure and punishment Thus it is in the Christian Church which is one Body and Society united by a Divine Covenant Our Communion with the Church consists in being members of the Church which we are made by Baptism The exercise of this Communion consists in all those Offices and Duties which all the members of the Church are obliged to and which none have any right to perform but they such as praying and receiving the Lords Supper together c. Now should any Man who is no member of the Church nor owns himself to be so intrude into the Church and Communicate in all holy Offices this can be no more called an Act of Communion than it can be said to make him a member of the Church of which he is no member and resolved not to be Prayers and receiving the Sacraments c. are Acts of Communion when performed by Church-members in the Communion of the Church but they are no Acts of Communion when performed by those who are no Church-members tho to serve a turn they thrust themselves into the Society of the Church As for Instance suppose a member of a Presbyterian or Independant Conventicle should for reasons best known to himself at some critical time come to his Parish Church and there hear the Common-Prayer and Sermon and receive the Lords Supper according to the order of the Church of England does this make this Man a member of the Church of England with which he never Communicated before and it is likely will never do again If it does not all this is no Act of Communion which can be only between the members of the same Body So that to be in Church-Communion does not signifie meerly to perform some such Acts which are Acts of Communion in the members of the Church but since the decay of Church Discipline may sometimes be performed by those who are not members which is such an abuse as would not have been allowed in the Primitive Church who denyed their Communion to Schismaticks as well as to the Excommunicate upon other accounts but to be in Church-Communion signifies to be a member of the Church to be Embodyed and Incorporated with it and I suppose what that means every one knows who understands what it is to be a member of any Society of a City or any Inferior Corporation which consists of Priviledge and Duty and requires all those who will enjoy the benefits of such a Society to discharge their respective trusts and obligations To be in Communion with or to be a member of the Church includes a Right and Title to all those Blessings which God hath promised to his Church and an obligation to all the Duties and Offices of Church Society as Subjection to the Authority Instructions Censures of the Church a Communion in Prayers and Sacraments and other Religious Offices and he who despises the Authority or destroys the Unity of the Church renounces his membership and Communion with it These things are extreamly plain and though Men may cavil for disputes sake yet must needs convince them that no Man is in Communion with a Church which he is not a member of tho through the defect of Discipline he should sometimes be admitted to some Act of Communion with it and I shall observe some few things from hence of great use 1. That Church-Communion primarily and principally respects the universal Church not any particular Church or Society of Christians For to be in Church-Communion signifies to be a member of the Church or Body of Christ which is but one all the World over Church Communion does not consist in particular Acts of Communion which can be performed only among those who are present and Neighbours to each other but in membership now a member is a member of the whole Body not meerly of any part of it how large soever the Body be All the Subjects of England those who live at St. Davids and those at Tarmouth who never saw nor converst with each other are all members of the same Kingdom and by the same reason this membership may extend to the remotest part of the World if the Body whereof we are members reach so far And therefore we may observe that Baptism which is the Sacrament of our Admission into the Covenant of God and the Communion of the Church does not make us members of any particular Church as such but of the Universal Church and I observed before that a Church-state which is the same thing with Church-Communion is founded only on a Divine Covenant and therefore since there is no other Divine Covenant to make us members of particular Churches as distinguisht from the Universal Church such particular Church-membership is at best but a human Invention and indeed nothing else but a Schism from the Universal Church which alone if well considered is a sufficient confutation of Independency which is a particular Church-State as distinguisht from all other
thing and somewhat favoured by Scripture and by Experience has been found to be of such Convenience Advantage and Security to Religion that Mr. Baxter hath more than once said †††Mr. Baxter's Plea for Peace Epist Serm. on Gal. 6. 10. p. 24. Defence p. 21. par 1. p. 36. I doubt not but he that will preserve Religion here in its due Advantages must endeavour to preserve the Soundness Concord and Honour of the Parish-Churches And Mr. Corbet saith | | | Mr. Corbet's Account of the Principles c. of several Non-Conformists p. 26. That the nullifying and treading down the Parish-Churches is a Popish Design But whatever Opinion others may have of that Form yet all of one sort and another agree that the Churches so called are or may be true Churches This was the general Opinion of the old Non-Conformists Thus saith a late * * * Troughton's Apol. p. 103. Writer who though he is unwilling to grant that they did own the National Church to be a true Church yet doth admit as he needs must at least that they did own the several Parishes or Congregations in England to be true Churches both in respect of their Constitution and also in respect of their Doctrine and Worship and that there were in them no such intolerable Corruptions as that all Christians should fly from them And even those that were in other respects opposite enough to the Church did so declare It was saith Mr. Baxter the Parish Churches that had the Liturgy Defence of his Cure part 2. p. 178. V. Letter of Ministers of Old England to New p. 49. which Mr. H. Jacob the Father of the Congregational Party wrote for Communion with against Fr. Johnson and in respect to which he called them Separatists against whom he wrote The same I may say of Mr. Bradshaw Dr. Ames and other Non-conformists whom the Congregational Brethren think were favourable to their way And if you will hearken to the abovesaid Apologist he saith again and again That the general Sence Apol. c. 4. p. â—17 of the present Non-conformists both Ministers and People is that the Parishes of England generally are true Churches both as to the Matter of them the People being Christians and as to the form their Ministers being true Ministers such as for their Doctrine and Manners deserve not to be degraded But lest he should be thought to incline to one side I shall produce the Testimony of such as are of the Congregational Way As for those of New-England Mr. Baxter doth say That Defence of his Cure part 2 p. 177. their own Expressions signify that they take the English Parishes that have godly Ministers for true Churches though faulty Mr. Cotton professeth that Robinson's denial of Way cleared p. 8. the Parishional Churches to be true Churches was never received into any Hearts amongst them and otherwhere saith We dare not deny to bless the Womb that bare us His Letter p. 3. printed 1641. and the Papes that gave us suck The five Dissâ—nting Brethren do declare * * * Apologet. Narr V. Hooker's Survey Pref. and part 1. p. 47. We have this sincere Profession to make before God and the World that all the Conscience of the Defilements in the Church of England c. did never work in us any other Thought much less Opinion but that Multitudes of the Assemblies and Parochial Congregations thereof were the true Churches and Body of Christ To come nearer Dr. T. Goodwin On the Ephes p. 477 488 489. doth condemn it as an Error in those who hold particular Churches those you call Parish-Churches to be no true Churches of Christ and their Ministers to be no true Ministers and upon that Ground forbear all Church-Communion with them in hearing or in any other Ordinance c. and saith I acquitted my self before from this and my Brethren in the Ministry But the Church of England is not only thus acknowledged a true Church but hath been also looked upon as the most valuable in the World whether we consider the Church it self or those that minister in it The Church it self of which the Authors of the grave and modest Confutation thus write All the known Pag. 6. Churches in the World acknowledg our Church for their Sister and give unto us the Right-hand of Fellowship c. Dr. Goodwin saith If we should not acknowledg these Ibid. Churches so stated i. e. Parish-Churches to be the true Churches of Christ and their Ministers true Ministers and their Order such and hold Communion with them too in the Sence spoken of we must acknowledg no Church in all the Reformed Churches c. for they are all as full of Mixtures as ours And Mr. J. Goodwin saith Sion College visited that there was more of the Truth and Power of Religion in England under the late Prelatical Government than in all the Reformed Churches in the World besides If we would have a Character of the Ministry of the Church of England as it was then Mr. Bradshaw Unreasonableness of the Separat p. 97. gives it Our Churches are not inferiour for number of able Men yea and painful Ministers to any of the Reformed Churches of Christ in foreign Parts c. And certainly the Number of such is much advanced since his time But I cannot say more of this Subject than I find in a Page or two of an Author I must frequently Mr. Baxter's Cure of Church Divisions Dir. 56. p. 263. use to which I refer the Reader Before I proceed I shall only make this Inference from what hath been said That if the Church of England be a true Church the Churches true Churches the Ministry a true Ministry the Doctrine sound and Orthodox the Worship in the main good and allowable and the Defects such as render not the Ordinances unacceptable to God and ineffectual to us I think there is much said towards the proving Communion with that Church lawful and to justify those that do joyn in it Which brings to the second General which is to consider II. What Opinion the sober and eminent Non-conformists Sect. II. have of Communion with the Church of England And they generally hold 1. That they are not totally to separate from it this follows from the former and must be own'd by all them that hold she is a true Church for to own it to be such and yet to separate totally from it would be to own and disown it at the same time So say the Members of the Assembly of Divines Thus to Papers for Accommodation p. 47. depart from true Churches is not to hold Communion with them as such but rather by departing to declare them not to be such And saith Mr. Baxter Nothing will Reasons for the Christian Relig. p. 464. warrant us to separate from a Church as no Church which yet is the case in total Separation but the want of
Uncleanness To be so concerned about little things whilst we make no Conscience of the greater is the most evident sign that can be given of a false Christian And hath it not often hapned in the World that such a mighty Scrupulosity about our Duty hath proved a very successful way of growing great or raising an Estate by giving Men so fair an opportunity of imposing upon the credulous and unwary So that I have known it advised as an useful Caution to those who would live in the World always to stand upon your Guard and look to your Pockets when you deal with those who pretend to greater Tenderness and Exactness than other undoubtedly sober and honest Christians generally do 3. Where Persons are truly honest and mean well there is nothing more troublesome and vexatious than such unreasonable Scruples about things lawful This must needs be an intolerable disturbance to a man's Mind and breed great Anxiety and Inquietude when Persons are continually shivering and trembling lest by every thing they do they incur the Divine Displeasure and it certainly disables a man from performing his necessary Duty He is likely to make but a slow Progress in his Journey who instead of going on cheerfully in his way is frequently at a stand doubting which foot he should set forward or what particular Path he should choose This robs men in a great measure of that Peace and Satisfaction which they might otherwise find in Religion whilst they are daily perplexing themselves with untying Knots which themselves only have fastned Scruples about things indifferent when once we attend to and entertain them like the Plague of Flies amongst the Egyptians will be constantly buzzing in our Ears and tormenting us with their Impertinency till at length we come to distrust every thing and there is nothing that belongs to ordinary Civility no recreation we can use no cloaths we can wear no discourse we can hold with others no conversation we can maintain or business which we transact in the World but we shall raise some trifling Objections or Scruples about it which will make our Condition continually uneasie and restless For 4. These Scruples are infinite and endless for being grounded upon some very little and inconsiderable Reason there is hardly any thing to be done but some small Exceptions may be started against it which may soon puzzle and confound the more ignorant sort of Christians Thus he that scruples a Minister's officiating in a white Garment may easily be brought to doubt of the fitness of his doing it in Black and then he proceeds against any solemn distinct Habit and at last against the Office of Ministers it self and tells you all Gods People are holy and that all Christians are a Royal Priesthood and we have no need of Teachers for we are all taught of God From scrupling the Sign of the Cross after Baptism Men have soon come to question Infant Baptism it self they have at first perchance disliked only some significant Ceremonies in God's Worship of Humane Appointment but thence they have gone on to deny all outward bodily Reverence and thought it not expedient to pull off their Hats in Churches then not to do it before Magistrates at last not at all and thus by giving place to such little Scruples they become afraid of speaking looking or doing any thing like other Men. This is notorious amongst us Those who have taken Offence at some things in our Church and have thereupon separated from us and associted themselves with a purer Congregation have soon disliked something amongst them also and then they would reform themselves farther and after that refine themselves more still till at last they have sunk down either into Quakerism Popery or Atheism This doth not only now and then happen in the World but is the probable effect of embracing and cherishing such Scruples that men go on scrupling one thing after another till at length they doubt of every thing 5. Lastly This needless scrupling of lawful things hath done unspeakable mischief to the Church of Christ especially to the Reformed Church of England a Church reformed according to the most Primitive and Apostolical Pattern by the best and wisest Rules in which even by the Confession of the soberest and most considerable of our Dissenters nothing is required as a condition of Communion that is sinful yet how is she rent and torn mangled and divided how hath she been assaulted undermined and in danger to be the second time overthrown upon the Account only of Habits and Gestures and particular Forms Rites and Modes of Discipline and Worship with which some Men are not well satisfied or pleased which they judge might be better done and ordered another way or which they rather would have left at liberty that every man may do therein according to his own Discretion or Opinion In the great and necessary Truths of Religion we all profess to be agreed We all worship the same God believe in the same Lord and Saviour have the same Baptism the same Faith the same Hope the same common Interest our Sacraments as to the main are rightly administred according to our Saviour's Institution our Churches are acknowledged to be true Churches of Jesus Christ but there are some Constitutions which respect chiefly outward Order and the decent Performance of Divine Worship against which men have received strange Prejudices on the account of them have raised a mighty noise and clamour against the Church and have openly separated from its Communion as if by renouncing of Popery we had only exchanged one idolatrous Service for another About these skirts and Borders the dress and circumstances of Religion hath been all our quarelling and contention and these Differences have proceeded to such an height as to beget immortal Feuds and Animosities to break and crumble us into little Parties and Fractions whereby mutual Edification is hindred our common Religion suffers Reproach the Enemies of it are strengthned and encouraged publick Peace endangered and brotherly Love the Badge of Christ's Disciples quite lost amongst us and the continuance of these miserable Distractions amongst us upon such frivolous Accounts if compared with the Interests of Peace and Charity is a matter of sad consideration to all lively Members of Christ's Body and forebodes great evils impendent over our Church and State I doubt not to say that the Devil hath fought more successfully against Religion under the Mask of a zealous Reformer than under any other disguise whatever The grand Enemy of Mankind hath by various ways and means all along contriv'd and endeavoured to defeat the designs of Heaven for the Good and Happiness of Men and as the Divine Wisdom hath in several Ages of the World manifested it self for the encouraging and promoting of true Righteousness and Holiness so hath the Devil always been at work to oppose what he could find most proper for the hindring the good effect of God's Kindness towards us When the fullness
was the way in the Apostles time than that it was not But of this let every one Judge as he sees cause This is certain That the Apostles left the Governours of the Church under the Obligation of ordering the Service of God according to General Rules and prescribed that all things should be done Decently and in Order and to Edification And I do not think that our Brethren will ever be able to shew that this Practice which they except against is not agreeable to such General Rules which yet they ought to do very fully and plainly to excuse their Nonconformity That which is most urged is That the People speaking to God in the Church is Disorderly and a breaking in upon the Ministers Office But will they say that the Children of Israel intrenched upon the Priest when they all bowed themselves upon the Pavement and Worshipped the Lord and Praised him saying For he is good for his mercy endureth for ever 2 Chron. 7. 3. I have already observed That Ecclesiastical Order is in this matter secured by the Ministers Presiding in God's Publick Worship and guiding the whole performance of it But not to allow the People to make an audible Confession of Sin after the Minister nor to utter some few affectionate Petitions and those very short to which they are also invited and led by him this rather seems to savour of an affectation of undue superiority over the People than to proceed from any fear lest by this means they should be incouraged to invade the Ministerial Office I believe the Laity of our Communion have as Reverend an esteem of the Sacred Function as their Neighbours and to raise the Comparison no higher have shewn themselves ever since the Reformation as much afraid to usurp the proper Offices of the Clergie as those that have been drawn away from the Communion of the Church and have been taught that they must not say a word in Publick Prayer but Amen We should not think that we endanger our Order and the respect that is due to it if we do not arrogate more to our selves than is meet It has been one great fault of the Church of Rome to advance the Priest unreasonably above the People in the Administration of Holy Things The Dissenting Ministers may be a little guilty of this though in a particular wherein that Church is not guilty of it They seem to make too little account of the Flock of Christ in Condemning our Church for permitting and requiring the People to Offer up those Petitions to God with their own Mouths which are appointed for them in the Liturgie The Minister assuming the whole to himself does not indeed make him much greater in the Church than he is but they that obstinately deny any part of it to the People do make them of much lower and meaner Condition in the Church than they ought to be And it is something strange that those very Persons who Contend for the interest of the Laity in some business in Religious Assemblies that more nearly touches upon Ecclesiastical Authority than the bare offering up of a few Petitions to God should be so unwilling to allow them this They affirm that the People have a right to be heard before Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are Ordained and as several of them contend to interpose also in all Acts of Discipline and yet they do not think them qualified to bear any part in the Prayers of the Congregation unless by saying Amen to what the Minister utters These things do not seem to hang well together And I am persuaded our Church has ordered this Matter with more Judgment and Impartiality in assigning to the People their Interest both in Acts of Worship and Discipline within such Rules and Limits that the Clergie and Laity may know what their proper place and business is in all Ecclesiastical Assemblies I have heard some Object against the Peoples uttering Prayers and Praises in the Congregation that it is Forbidden Women to speak in the Church But this is strangely misapplied to the Matter in hand For it is plain that the speaking mentioned by the Apostle signifies nothing but Prophecying Interpreting Preaching or Instructing and that the reason why he will not allow this to the Woman is because Preaching is an Act that implies Authority whereas the Womans part is Obedience and Subjection They that will read the whole Chapter will find that this is the true meaning of St. Paul And indeed the place it self sufficiently shews it which I shall therefore set down Let your Women keep silence in the Churches for it is not permitted unto them to speak but they are Commanded to be under Obedience as also the Law saith And if they will learn any thing let them ask their Husbands at home for it is a shame for a Woman to speak in the Church 1 Cor. 14. 34 35 The Subject of this Discourse is briefly exprest in the 39 Verse Brethren covet to prophecy and forbid not to speak with tongues Now the reason given why the Woman is not to speak viz. because she is to be under Obedience does plainly restrain that Speaking to Prophecying and the like which is moreover the only sort of Speaking that is discoursed of in this place I know no particular Exception under this Head which remains to be spoken to unless it be that the People are said to utter the Words of Invocation in the Litany for the most part the Minister all the while suggesting the Matter of it to them But this Objectin will be of no force if what I have said concerning the lawfulness of allowing the People an Interest in Vocal Prayer be admitted unless the Objection be this That they are allowed to bear too considerable a part in that Prayer and somewhat to the disparagement of the Ministers Office And then I answer That upon Reasons which I shall presently Offer it seems to me to be otherwise I shall only premise that I am really troubled for their sakes who put us upon this Defence that in Matters of Prudence and Expedience wherein there is a considerable latitude to order them well enough that in these things I say they seem to yield so very little to the Authority and Judgment of their Governours I do not think it hard to make out the Prudence of these Determinations so much disliked This is not the thing I am troubled at But I think it hard that a Publick Rule should not be thought reason enough to justifie things of this sort and to oblige the People to compliance without more adoe I am sorry that our Dissenting Brethren do not consider that it is some diminution to their Modesty and Humility to challenge as in effect they do a nice and punctual account of the prudence of the Publick Orders of this Church before they will Submit to 'em in Practice Now as to the Objection before us The Peoples Vocal Part in the Litany seems to be no
plain account in these words Let the Bishop give the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice by which name the Holy Sacrament was called in Primitive times saying The Body of Christ and let him that receives say Amen Then let the Deacon take the Cup and at the delivery say The Bloud of Christ the Cup of Life and let him that drinketh say Amen Now although it cannot be denied but that these Constitutions are in many things adulterated yet it is allowed on the other hand that in many things they are very sincere and convey to us the pure Practice of the most ancient times That they give a true and sound account in this matter relating to the Sacrament we may rest fully satisfied from the concuring Evidence of other ancient Writers who lived in the fourth Century For both St. Ambrose and St. Cyril of Jerusalem Ambr. de Sacr. lib 4. c. 5. p. 440. To. 4. St. Cyril Hiero. Catech. Mystag 5. Universa Ecclesia accepto Christi Sanguine dicit Amen Resp ad Orosi quest 49. To. 4. p. 691. Basil 1541. make express mention of the peoples saying Amen when the Minister said The Body of Christ So also St. Austin speaks of it as universally practised by the Church of Christ when the Cup was delivered And there is a very remarkable passage recorded by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History which being very apposite to our purpose I will set down for the close of all Novatius a Presbyter of the Church of Rome having renounced the Communion of the Church and the Authority of his rightful Bishop Cornelius set up for himself and became the head Epist Cornel. ad Fab. apud Euseb Eccles Hist lib. 6. c. 35. de Novato of an unreasonable and unnatural Schism and the better to secure to him the Proselytes he had gained he altered the usual form of Prayer at the Sacrament and in the room thereof substituted a new-fangled Oath which he obliged every Communicant to take at the time of their receiving which among other wicked actions is particulary taken notice of and charged upon him by Cornelius as the worst of all and the most villanous Innovation When he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came says he to offer Sacrafices i. e. to celebrate the Lords Supper and to distribute to every one his part at the delivery of it he constrained those persons who unhappily sided with him to take an Oath instead of offering up Prayers and Praises according to custom and instead of saying Amen he forced every Communicant when he received the Bread to say I will never return to Cornelius as long as I live From these plain instances we may see how closely our Church follows the steps of pure antiquity in the Form of Prayer appointed to be used by the Minister at the giving of the Bread and the Cup to the people which runs thus The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ and The Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Body and Soul to everlasting life c. which last Clause was added by latter times by way of explication to that short Form which the Primitive Church used and surely it 's every Christians interest as well as his duty to joyn with the Minister in such a Prayer and return a hearty Amen to it I will now briefly sum up the Evidence that hath been produced out of Antiquity in justification of Kneeling at the Holy Communion according to the custom and practice of our Church and observe where it directs us to fix and what to resolve upon And in this order it lies Sitting was adjudged by the ancient Catholick Church a very unfit and irreverent posture to be used in time of Divine Service when they were solemnly engaged in the Worship of God the Holy Sacrament was esteemed the most solemn Act or Branch of Christian Worship The Primitive Christians generally used standing at their publick Devotions onely on the Lords days and all that space of time that falls between Easter and Whitsunday At all other times in their religious Assemblies Kneeling was their Worshipping posture and they were wont to meet and receive the Lords Supper every day and particularly on their stated Weekly Fasts which they kept every Wednesday and Friday when to stand was thought as great an irregularity as to kneel was on the Lords day And lastly the Holy Sacrament was delivered and received with a Form of Prayer and that on those days when they constantly prayed Kneeling All these things therefore being considered I think the least that can be concluded from them is what I asserted and designed viz. that in all likelihood the Primitive Christians did kneel at the Holy Communion as the Custom is in the Church of England For sitting was generally condemned as an indecent and irreverent Gesture by the Primitive Church and no man in his wits will say that prostration or lying flat upon the ground was ever used in the act of receiving or ever fit to be so it must be therefore one of these two either Standing or Kneeling As for Standing all the time of publick Worship which was used onely on the Lords day and in Pentecost the reason thereof was drawn not from the Sacrament but from the day and festival season when they did more particularly Communicate the Resurrection of our blessed Saviour openly testified their belief of that great Article at such times therefore they chose standing as being a gesture sutable to the present occasion and as an Emblem and sign of the Resurrection And from hence I gather that on their common and ordinary days when there was no peculiar reason to invite or oblige them to stand at the Sacrament in all likelyhood they used Kneeling that is the ordinary posture They used one and the same posture viz. Standing both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament on the Lords day and for fifty days after Easter contrary to what was usual at other times and why then should any man think they did not observe one and the same posture at all other times viz. that as at such times they did constantly Kneel at their Prayers so they did also constantly Kneel at the Sacrament which was given and received in a Prayer From the strength of these Premises I may howsoever promise my self thus much success That whosoever shall carefully weigh and peruse them with a teachable and unprejudiced mind shall find himself much more inclin'd to believe the Primitive Church used at some times to Kneel as we do at the Holy Communion than that they never did Kneel at all or that such a posture was never used nor heard of but excluded from their Congregations as some great advocates for Sitting have confidently proclaimed it to the World 2. But secondly Suppose they never did Kneel as we do yet this is most certain that they received the Lords Supper in an adoring posture which is the same thing and will sufficiently justifie the present
one and the other If We state the case we say the Rules we are to guide our selves by are those of the Apostle of Decency Order and Edification And we trouble not our selves nicely to consider whether the Decency arise from the nature of the thing or from common usage or prescription or institution since we think that decency may arise from any and it matters not from what cause the thing proceeds nor how it came to be Decent when it 's now thought and found to be so And as little curious arewe about the first reasons of Order and Edification for we are so little speculative in matters of practice that we think the peace of the Church and Unity amongst Christians are much more fit to determine us in these cases than all the accuracy in Metaphysicks So that if a thing be found to be decent orderly and for Edification though we were assur'd it did Spring from Humane Institution we think it to be lawful and that Humane Institution cannot make that unlawful which is found by use and experience to be for Decency and Order Again we think that those things which in kind are necessary to Humane Acts in all cases and comely and grave in Worship as well as out of it may be appropriated to Worship and that the appropriation of Places Time and Habit to Worship doth not therefore make such Places Times and Habits unlawful to be used And if things indifferent in themselves are unlawful in Worship we conclude it must be when Divine Institution is pretended for what is Humane and when the things sute not the Nature or defeat the ends Case of indifferent things p. 24 c. of Divine Worship or for the like reasons which I in the controverted Tract did insist upon But now on the contrary by what may be Collected from him it appears to be the Sence of his position 1. That nothing of Humane Institution is to be admitted or may lawfully be used in Divine Worship For thus he saith they must be things necessary to all Humane Acts or convenient for them as Humane Acts or comely for all Humane Acts c. 2. That nothing though necessary or convenient or comely ought to be used in and much less be appropriated to the Worship of God for they are to be considered in Worship only as they have a reference to such Humane Acts. In the consideration of these I shall 1. Consider how he attempts to prove it 2. Endeavour to discover the mistake and vindicate the arguments and instances produced in the case of Indifferent things to the contrary from his Exceptions These are the chief things that all his discourse is founded upon and that are scattered through it But though they are rather supposed than proved by him and therefore to use his own Words I may lightly pass them over and expect till he hath justified them yet because I would make somewhat of it I shall collect from the Hints he gives what it is that he doth think may be said for them As for the first of these that nothing is to be used iâ— Prop. 1. Divine Worship that is meerly of Humane Institution his arguments are fetched from the Nature of thâ— things pleaded for them viz. Decency order edification As saith he 1. We cannot apprehend it in the power of Man tâ— Pag 11. Create a Decency The greatest Emperors wearing aâ— Antick Habit would not make it Decent till it coulâ— prescribe or had obtained a common consent This â— the rather mention because it is an argument much iâ— vogue amongst those that would artificially handlâ— this matter But here let me ask them what it is creates a Decency He saith the Law of Nature and prescription common consent and the guise of Countries But how began that Prescription whence arose that consent whether from chance or institution Or what is it whence iâ— ariseth if it be found to be decent Certainly if it began in one of these institution is the more noble of thâ— two and the less disputable And then it would be harâ— to conceive how that which came by chance should be sawful and that which came by Institution should be unlawful But 2. If Prescription and Common Consent and the Guise of Countreys be the measure of Decency may not these things also be the measure of it in the Church and in things relating to Divine Worship And is not the custom of the Churches of God a reason as sufficient to conclude us in this matter as the grave and Civil customs of a Nation Or 3. Is there any Church on this side Rome that by a Sic volo doth stamp a decency upon its Institutions without respect to prescription and the custom of Churches Or that can do it By his way of expressing himself he would make the Argument great as if to Create a Decency was an invasion of God's Prerogative We cannot apprehend it in the Power of man to Create a Decency The greatest Emperor c. But if a Decency arise from the Guise of Countrys and Prescription and Common Consent it might be questioned whether according to him God himself can then Create a Decency and by his authority make that to be at once which requires time and Custom as he saith to produce and form it So high doth the power of a little School-subtilty and Imagination sometimes transport men that their Arguments vanish out of fight and are lost to all those that converse with what is gross and tangible But supposing it is not in the power of man to Create a Decency yet Order may be Order without those dilatory reasons of Custom and Prescription and therefore what holds against establishing Decency by institution will not hinder but that order may be thereby established Therefore 2. He further argues from the Nature of Decency and Order that things of meer Humane Institution are not capable of that plea. We can understand saith he nothing Ibid. by orderly and according to order but without confusion By Decency we can understand nothing but what is opposed to sordidly nor can we think of any action that is not Decent if the contrary to it be not indecent So then nothing ought to be done in the Worship of God but what may be done without Confusion c. of which Nature can nothing be that is idle and superfluous c. I was at a great loss at first to find out the drift of all this but upon consideration I think it contains these things 1. That it is unlawful to ordain or use any thing superfluous in the Worship of God 2. That whatsoever is not for Order Decency and Edification is superfluous 3. That nothing is Decent if the contrary to it be not indecent It 's the last of these we are now concerned in which by the help of the great managers of this Argument may be better understood Ames 's Fresh Suit answer to Bp. Morton
the Ecclesiastical Laws A Humane Law grounded upon a Divine or to speak more properly a Divine Law modify'd or Clothed with several Circumstances of Mans Appointment doth Create another kind of Obligation upon every Subject than a Law that is purely Humane that is to say a Law the matter of which is neither Good nor Evil in it self but perfectly indifferent In the former Case we must yield Obedience to the Law as to the Law of God however it comes Clothed with Circumstances of Mans Appointment In the other Case we only yield Obedience as to the Command of Man and for no other reason than that God in general hath Obliged us to Obey our Superiors To make this a little plainer let us for Instance take the business of Paying Tribute and Custom in this Nation in which Case there is a Complication of a Divine Law with a Humane as it is in the Case we are now upon That every Subject should Pay Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom is due is a Law of God as being a branch both of Natural and Christian Justice But out of what goods we should Pay Tribute or Custom or what Proportion of those Goods should be Paid this is not defined either by the Law of Nature or the Law of the Gospel but is left to the Determination of the Municipal Laws of every Kingdom But now because Humane Authority doth interpose in this Affair and settles what every Man is to Pay to the King and out of what Commodities doth it therefore follow that if a Man can by Fraud or Concealment detain the Kings Right from him that he incurs no other guilt for this but only the Transgressing of an Act of Parliament and the being Obnoxious to the Penalties in Case he be detected No certainly for all that the Customs in that manner and form be settled upon the King by Humane Law only yet the matter of that Law being a point of Natural Justice between Man and Man the Man that is thus Guilty ought to look upon himself as an Offender against the Divine Law as an unjust Person before God And his willingness to Submit to the Forfeiture of his Goods will not render him less unjust or more excuseable The Case is much the same as to the matter we have now before us It is not a meer Humane Law or Act of Parliament that Obligeth us to keep the Unity of the Church to bring our Châ—ldren to be made Christians by Baptisme to meet together at Solemn times for the Profession of our Faith for the Worshipping God for the Commemorating the Death of our Saviour in the Sacrament of his Supper All this is tyed upon us by the Laws of Christ These things are as much required of us by God as Christians as it is required that we should Pay the King and every Man what is due to them if we would not be dishonest unjust It is true that the particular Forms and Modes and Circumstances of doing these things are not Commanded nor Prescribed by the Laws of Christ in this Instance of Church Communion no more than they are prescribed by the Laws of God in the other Instance I gave But they are left intirely to the Prudence and Discretion of the Governours that God hath set over us in Ecclesiastical matters just as they are in the other But in the mean time these things thus Clothed by Humane Authority as to their Circumstances Yet being for the Matter of them bound upon us by Christ himself we can no more deny our Obedience to the Publick Laws about them than we can in the other Instance I have named And that Man may as well for Instance purge himself from the Imputation of Knavery before God that will contrive a way of his own for the Paying his just Debts contrary to what the Law of the Land hath declared to be Just and Honest As any Man can acquit himself from the Sin of Schism before God that will chuse a way of his own for the Publick Worship different from and in Opposition to what the Laws of the Church have prescribed always supposing that the Worship Established be Commanded by just Authority and there be nothing required in it as a Condition of Communion that is against the Laws of Jesus Christ The Sum of all this is that it is every Mans Duty by the Laws of Christ as well as the Laws of Man to Worship God in the way of the Church so long as there is nothing required in that Worship that can justly offend the Conscience of a Wise and Good Christian And therefore there is more in departing from the Communion of the Church when we can Lawfully hold it than meerly the Violation of a Statute or a Humane Law for we cannot do it without breaking the Law of God Nay so much is it against the Law of God to do this that I think no Authority upon Earth can warrant it So that even if there was a Law made which should Ordain that wilful causless Separation from the Established Church should be allowed and tolerated and no Man should be called to an Account for it Yet nevertheless such a Separation would still be a Schism would still be a Sin against God for no Humane Law can make that Lawful which Gods Law hath forbid There now only remains our last general Head about Conscience to be spoken to and then we have done with our Preliminary Points And that is concerning the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is Obliged to follow or be guided by his Conscience in his Actions When we speak of the Obligation of Conscience or of being bound in Conscience to do or not to do an Action it sufficiently appears from what hath been said that we can mean no more by these Phrases than this that we are convinced in our Judgment that it is our Duty to do this or the other Action because we believe that God hath Commanded it Or we are perswaded in our Judgment that we ought to forbear this or the other Action because we believe that God hath forbidden it This now being that which we mean by the Obligation of Conscience here we come to inquire how far this Perswasion or Judgment of ours concerning what is our Duty and what is Sinful hath Authority over us how far it doth Oblige us to Act or not Act according to it Now in Order to the resolving of this we must take Notice that our Judgment concernâ—ng what God hath Commanded or Forbidden or left Indifferent is either true or false We either make a right Judgment of our Duty or we make a wrong one In the former Case we call our Judgment a Right Conscience in the latter we call it an Erroneous Conscience As for those Cases where we doubt and hesitate and know not well how to make any Judgment at all which is that we call a Doubting Conscience but indeed
a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations and Mixt Communion 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other Parts of Divine Service Prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament Stated and Resolved c. The First Part. 11. Certain Cases of Conscience c. The Second Part. 12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where Men think they can profit most 13. A serious Exhortation with some Important Advices Relating to the late Cases about Conformity Recommended to the Present Dissenters from the Church of England 14. An Argument for Union c. 15. The Case of Kneeling at the Sacrament The Second Part. 16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren 17. The Case of Infant-Baptism in Five Questions c. 18. The Charge of Scand I and giving Offence by Conformity Refelled c. 1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking of us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be Received and what Tradition is to be Rejected 3. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. A CATALOGUE OF ALL THE Cases and Discourses Contained in the second Volume of this COLLECTION 1. CErtain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in publick Worship In two Parts 2. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common-Prayers c. 3. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of Englands symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 4. A Defence of the Resolution of this Case of Symbolizing c. 5. The Case of Infant-Baptism 6. The Case of the Cross in Baptism considered 7. A Persuasive to frequent Communion in the Holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper 8. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved In two Parts 9. A Discourse about Edification 10. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons 11. An Argument of Union taken from the true Interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 12. A Serious Exhortation with some important Advises relating to the late Cases about Conformity recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England CERTAIN Cases of Conscience RESOLVED Concerning the Lawfulness of Joyning WITH Forms of Prayer IN Publick Worship PART I. VIZ. I. Whether the using of Forms of Prayer doth not stint and limit the Spirit II. Whether the using Publick Forms of Prayer be not a sinful omission of the Ministerial Gift of Prayer III. Whether Praying by a Publick Form doth not deaden the Devotion of Prayer The Second Edition LONDON Printed by H. Hills Jun. for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Chuch-yard and F. Gardiner at the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. A RESOLUTION OF THE Cases of Conscience Which concern the Use of FORMS of PRAYER ONE of the main Points which our dissenting Brethren insist on to justifie their Separation from our Church is That our Publick Worship is perform'd in a Form of Words of Man's Invention which they conceive is unlawful for hereby say some of them the Holy Spirit who inspires our Prayer is stinted and limited and hereby the Gift of Prayer say others which the Holy Spirit communicates to Ministers to enable them to express the Devotions of their Congregations to God is rendred useless and not only so but even the Devotions of the Congregation too are mightily deaden'd by being continually express'd in the same form of words besides that the wants of Christians being various casual and emergent cannot be so fully represented in a fixt Form as in conceiv'd Prayers which upon the account of their variation in Expressions may be the better extended to the continual variations of Mens cases and circumstances besides all which say they we have no warrant for the use of Forms either in Scripture or pure Antiquity and if we had yet an universal imposition of them can by no means be lawfully compli'd with this according to the best recollection I can make is the sum of what our Brethren urge against the lawfulness of joyning with us in a stated Liturgy or Form of Publick Worship and therefore in order to the satisfying their Consciences in this matter I shall reduce their whole Plea to these following Cases and indeavour a plain and clear resolution of them 1. Whether Praying in a Form of Words doth not stint or limit the Spirit of Prayer 2. Whether the Vse of Publick Forms of Prayer be not a sinful neglect of the Ministerial Gift of Prayer 3. Whether the constant Vse of the same Form of Prayer doth not very much deaden the Devotion of Prayer 4. Whether the common wants of Christian Congregations may not be better represented in conceiv'd Prayer than in a Form of Prayer 5. Whether there be any warrant for Forms of Prayer either in Scripture or pure Antiquity 6. Whether supposing Forms to be lawful the imposition of them can be lawfully compli'd with Case I. Whether Praying in a Form of Words doth not stint and limit the Spirit of Prayer In order to the resolution of this Case it will be necessary to explain first what it is that the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer and secondly what is meant by stinting or limiting the Spirit in Prayer 1. What is it that the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer I answer there are some things attributed to him which were extraordinary and temporary and others that are ordinary fixt and standing The through state and distinguishing of which will very much contribute to the resolution of this present Case and therefore I shall insist more largely upon it First I say there are some things attributed to the Holy Spirit in this matter of Prayer which were extraordinary and temporary and that was the immediate Inspiration of the matter of Prayer together with an ability to express and utter it in known or unknown Languages thus as for the immediate inspiration of the matter of Prayer we read in the Old Testament of Prayers and Praises which upon special occasions were immediately indited by Divine Inspiration for so when Hannah presented her Son to the Lord in Shiloh the Text only saith that she praid and said but the Targum paraphrases it that she praid by the Spirit of Prophesie and accordingly praying and praising by immediate inspiration is frequently call'd prophesying So 1 Sam. 10. 5. The Spirit of the Lord shall come upon thee and thou shalt prophesie that is
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
preces aliunde describit non eis utatur nisi prius eas cum instructioribus Fratribus contulerit i. e. And whosoever shall write out Prayers for himself from elsewhere that is from any Book that hath not been publickly received and allowed for what else can be meant by aliunde he shall not presume to use them till he hath first consulted about them with his more learned Brethren Which is a plain evidence that they used Forms before otherwise how could they have written them out from elsewhere or from other mens composures Whereas before therefore they had liberty to add new Forms as they thought fit to the received Liturgy they are so far restrained by this Council as not to do it without the advice and approbation of their more learned Brethren but this restriction being found insufficient to prevent the ill consequences of their former liberty it was ordained a few years after in the Council of Mela (s) (s) (s) Concil Milev c. 12. That those Prayers which had been approved of in the Council whether Prefaces or Commendations or Impositions of Hands should be used of all and that none should be said in the Church but such as had been treated of by the more prudent or allowed in the Synod lest any thing contrary to the Faith should be inserted either through ignorance or want of care Now though these indeed were but Provincial Councils and so in themselves could oblige no farther than their particular Provinces yet the very Canon above-cited out of the first of them (t) (t) (t) Concil Laod. c. 18. is taken into the collections of the Canons of the Catholick Church being the 122th therein which Collection was received and establish'd in the General Council of Chalcedon (*) (*) (*) Concil Chalced. c. 1. An. 451. By which establishment the whole Christian Church was obliged to the use of Liturgies so far as the authority of the General Council extends And then in the year 541 these Canons are made Imperial Laws by the Emperour Justinian who enacted (u) (u) (u) Justin Novel 131. c. 1. that the Canons of those four General Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcadon should oblige as far as the Empire did extend Of what authority the use of formed Liturgies were in this Emperour's time and long before may be easily collected from his Novels for he complains of the remissness of some Bishops that they did not take care to inforce the observance of the sacred Canons and tells us that he had received several complaints against the Clergy Monks and some Bishops that they did not live according to the Divine Canons and that some among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not acquainted with the Prayer of the Holy Oblation and Holy Baptism (w) (w) (w) Id. Nov. 137. Preface and then he declares that for the future he was resolved to punish the Transgressors of the Canons which had it been done before saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (x) (x) (x) Id. ib. c. 1. Every one would have endeavoured to learn the Divine Liturgies that he might not be subject to the condemnation of the Divine Canons Which is a plain argument not onely that there were form'd Liturgies before Justinian for otherwise how could he expect the Clergy should learn them but that these Liturgies had been long before establish'd by the Canons of the Church And then among other things he requires that for the future such as were to be ordained should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (y) (y) (y) Id. ib. c. 2. Recite the Office for the Holy Communion and the Prayer for Holy Baptism and the rest of the Prayers which Prayers were not made in Justinian's time but long before they being as he tells us before establish'd by the Ecclesiastical Canons And after this he enjoyns all Bishops and Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (z) (z) (z) Id. ib. c. 6. That they should not say these Prayers silently but so as that the People might hear them that so their minds might be raised to an higher pitch of Devotion Thus for near six hundred years after Christ we have sufficient testimony of the publick use of Forms of Prayer And from henceforth or a little after down to Mr. Calvin's time all are agreed that no other Prayers were admitted into the publick Worship but what were contain'd in the establish'd Liturgies of the respective Churches and even that great Light of the Reformation Mr. Calvin though he used to pray extempore after his Lecture yet always used a Form before (a) (a) (a) Praef. ad praelect Calv. in Min. proph and his Prayers before and after Sermon were rather bidding of Prayers according to the ancient usage than formal Prayers (b) (b) (b) Beza in praef ad Conc. Calv. in Job and as he used a Form himself so he composed one for the Sunday-service which was afterwards establish'd by the Order at Geneva And in his Letter to the Lord Protector in the Reign of Edward the Sixth he thus declares his judgment concerning publick Forms (c) (c) (c) Calvin Ep. 87. For so much as concerns the Forms of Prayers and Ecclesiastical Rites I highly approve that it be determined so as that it may not be lawful for the Ministers in their Administration to vary from it Nor is there any one reformed Church whether Calvinistical or Lutheran but what hath some publick Office or Form of Prayer especially for the Administration of the Sacraments So that our Dissenting Brethren in England who disallow the use of publick Forms do stand alone by themselves from all the World And as for that extempore way of praying which they so much celebrate and for the sake of which they despise and vilifie our publick Liturgy as a Relick of Popish Idolatry they would do well to consider who it was that first introduc'd it into England and set it up in opposition to our Liturgy For first there was one Faithful Commin a Dominican Friar who in the 9th of Eliz. to seduce the People from the Church thereby to serve the ends of Popery began to pray extempore with such wonderful Zeal and Fervour that he deluded a great many simple People for which he was afterwards amply rewarded by the Pope (d) (d) (d) Vid. Foxes and Fire-brands p. 7 c. After him one Thomas Heath a Jesuit pursued the same method exclaiming against our Liturgy and crying up Spiritual or Extempore Prayers (e) (e) (e) Id. p. 17. thereby to divide the People from our publick Worship telling the Bishop of Rochester by whom he was examined That he had been six years in England labouring to refine the Protestants and to take off all smacks of Ceremonies and to make the Church purer (f) (f) (f) Of which see more in the Preface of the Learned Treatise The Vnreasonableness of Separation beginning at p. 11. And I hope when our Brethren have well considered
against the Law of the Land and the common practice of the Church Rising up doth not necessarily imply that a man stands or kneels afterwards but somewhat previous to both for we generally rise before we do either But however sitting at the Sermon and Lessons was usual in those Assemblies which this holy Father and Martyr frequented yet in most other places the people were not permitted to sit at all not so much as at the Lessons or in Sermon-time as appears partly from what Philostorgius an ancient Ecclesiastical Historian observes Hist Eccles l. 3. n. 5. p. 29. Flor. A. D. 425 of Theophilus an Indian Bishop That among several irregularities which he corrected in those Churches he particularly reformed this that the people were wont to sit when the Lessons out of the Gospel were read unto them And partly from Sozomens History wherein he notes it as a very unusual thing in the Bishop of Alexandria that he did not rise up when the Gospels were read But the fullest evidence Optatus Bishop of Milevis affords us Eccles Hist l. 7. c. 19. p. 734. Flor. A. D. 440 by what he writes against Parmenianus the Donatist For after he had taxed him with Pride and Innovation with a censorious uncharitable spirit which animated all his Tractates or Sermons to the people he cites a passage out of the Psalms and applies it home to him after this manner Thou sittest and speakest against thy Brother c. in which place God reproves him Psal 49. in our Transl 50. 20. Lib. 4. de Schis Donat. p. 78. Par. Edit An. D. 365. Vid. Albasp not in 4 lib. Oâ—tat who fits and defames his Brother and therefore such evil Teachers as you says he are more particularly pointed at in this Text For the people are not licensed to sit in the Church This Text chiefly respects the Bishops and Presbyters who had onely a right and priviledge to sit in the Publick and Religious Assemblies but doth not concern the people who stood all the time Now if it had not been a general and prevailing custom among the Christians of those times as well Heretical as Orthodox to stand the whole time of Divine Service and particularly at the Lessons and Sermons Parmenianus might have easily retorted this Argument upon Optatus as being weak and concluding nothing against him in particular but what might be charged in common upon all private Christians who sate in the Church as well as he Again that Sitting was esteemed irreverent in the Worship Floruit An. D. 198. Tertul. de Orat. c. 12. Tom. 2. p. 130. edit Collon Agrip. 1617. item quod adsignata oratione assidendi mos est quibusdam c. of God will further be manifested from a passage or two in Tertullian who lived in the same Century with Justin Martyr before cited and I think nothing can be spoken more plain and home to the purpose than what he delivers concerning this Gesture which is so much contended for by our Dissenting Brethren For among other vanities and ill customs taken notice of and reproved by this ancient Father this was one That they were wont some of them to fit at Prayer A little further in the same Chapter Tertullian hath these words Adde hereunto the sin of Eo apponitur irreverentiae crimen etiam ipsis nationibus si quid saperent intelligendum Si quidem irreverens est assidere sub conspectu contraque conspectum ejus quem cum maxime reverearis ac venereris quanto magis sub conspectu Dei vivi Angelo adhuc orationis adstante factum illud irreligiosissimum est nisi exprobramus Deo quod oratio fatigaverit Tertull. de Oratione c. 12. Irreverence which the very Heathen if they did perceive well and understand what we did would take notice of For if it be irreverent to sit in the presence of and to confront one whom you have a high respect and veneration for How much more irreligious is this Gesture in the sight of the living God the Angel of Prayer yet standing by unless we think fit to upbraid God that Prayer hath tired us Adde to all this that saying of Constantine the great Euseb de vit Const mag lib. 4 p. 400. Col. Allob. 1612. recorded by Eusebius as an indication of the Piety of that Christian Emperour with which I will conclude this point It was upon occasion of a Panegyrick concerning the Sepulchre of our Saviour delivered by Eusebius not in the Church but in the Palace of the Emperour and the Historian observes to the praise of this excellent Prince that though it was a long and tedious Oration and though the Emperour was earnestly sollicited to fit down on his Throne which was hard by yet he refused and stood attentively all the time as the rest of the Auditory did affirming it to be unfit to attend upon any Discourse concerning God with ease and softness and that it was very consonant to Piety and Religion that Discourses about Divine things should be heard standing Thus much may suffice for satisfaction that the ancient Church did by no means approve of Sitting or a common Table-gesture as fitting to be used in time of Divine Service except at the reading of the Lessons and hearing of the Sermon which too was onely practised in some places for in others the people were not allowed to sit at all in their religious Assemblies Which Custom is still observed in most if not all the Eastern Churches at this day wherein there are no Seats erected or allowed for the use of the people Now upon what hath been said I shall onely make this brief Reflection and so proceed If the Apostles of our Lord had in pursuance of their Commission to teach all Nations in their Travels throughout the World every where taught and established sitting or discumbing which were the common Table-gestures according to the customs of those Eastern Countries not onely as convenient but as necessary to be used in order to worthy receiving the Lords Supper it is a most strange and unaccountable thing how there should be 1 Such an early and universal Revolt of the Primitive Church from the Doctrine and the Constitutions of the holy Apostles and then 2 Considering what a high value and esteem the Primitive Christians had for the Apostles the first founders of their Faith and for all that passed under their names it seems to me not onely highly improbable but morally impossible that so many Churches together with their respective Bishops and Pastors dwelling in remote and distant Countries not biass'd by Faction nor swayed by a superiour Authority being perfectly free and independent one upon another should unanimously consent and conspire together to introduce a novel Custom into the Church of Christ contrary to Apostolical Practice and Order and not onely so but 3 to Censure the practice and injunctions of divinely-inspired men as indecent and unfit to be followed and observed in the