the reason then all Kisses and all Feasts would be holy But now Holiness stamps somewhat peculiar upon the thing it 's applied to and signifies that by Some act end or use it 's Separated from the rest of the same kind And for this reason was it more likely the kiss was called Holy from its end use and signification as it was a Testimony of that Holy and intire love which was or ought to have been amongst Christians rather than in respect of the manner for what reason was there for that when it was betwixt persons of the same and not a different Sex Besides if it was a meer Civil rite and design'd for no Religious end could we think the Apostle would require it and close his Epistles so frequently with it Lastly it appears they were not used as mere Civil Rites because they were used in Religious Assemblies and some of them annexed thereunto Of this he saith he can never prove that while Our Saviour was Worshipping his Father he stept aside to wash his Disciples Feet Or that the Primitive Christians were either Kissing or Feasting one another in the Time or Act of Worship as Praying c. It would have become our Author rather to have removed the proofs given of this than to call for more which if he had considered he would have expressed himself with more caution and reverence That washing the Disciples feet had a Spiritual signification I have shewed and so was not unfit for a Religious Solemnity and that it was used in such the Apostle shews Joh. 13. 4. for a further account of which I leave him to the Learned Casaubon How and when the Holy Kiss was used and how it was called the Seal of Prayer and reconciliation I then shewed and is so fully proved by Dr. Falkner that there needs no more to be added till that at least be refuted That the Love-Feasts were joyned to and used at the same time as the Lord's Supper not only the Apostle's discourse upon it sheweth but also the change of Names and the giving of one to the other doth confirm it For Theophylact supposeth that the Apostle calls the Love-Feast by the name of the Lord's Supper And on the contrary Tertullian declares that from hence the Lord's Supper came to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It were easy to heap up Authorities in this kind but that is done to my hand by such as write upon this Custom After I had proved that things Indifferent though not prescribed might be used in Divine Worship from the practice of the Jewish Church and that of Christ and the Apostles I further confirm'd it from the incapacity we should be in of holding Communion with any Church if it were otherwise whether Ancient or Modern But our Author doth endeavour at once to overthrow it For saith he that every particular Christian must practise every thing which the Churches practise which he hath Communion with or be concluded to have no Communion with it is to us a New Assertion And so it is to me who only did maintain these two things That there was no Church or Society but would be found guilty if things uncommanded were unlawful and if the having such uncommanded things would make Communion with a Church unlawful then no Church could be Communicated with So that all that I affirmed was there could be no Communion Lawful to such as held it unlawful to communâ—cate with a Church for the Sake of things uncommanded And who are concerned in this our Author very well knows such I mean as plead this as an argument for their present Separation But though the Assertion as he words it is neither mine nor true yet I dare affirm there are some things uncommanded which every particular Christian must practise or else he can be said to have no Communion with the Churches where such things are practised Such are Forms of Prayer and receiving the Sacrament in the Forenoon and without sitting where there is no provision made for them that would use that posture as well as where it is not allowed And this was the case in the ancient Churches To which he replies Their practices are great uncertainties and their writings depraved or it cannot be made appear that none could have any Communion with those Churches unless he did eat the Lord's Supper fasting or prayed toward the East That their writings are depraved is very true But that they are so depraved as that there is nothing certainly theirs is what no one will assert And that they are not depraved in the passages or things I quoted from thence is very evident from the concurrence of the Fathers therein and the general consent of learned men of all sides As to what he saith that it doth not appear that none could have Communion with them unless c. It were easy to refute it and to shew it in the Instances I gave and to make it out in one for all viz. That of receiving the Lord's Supper Fasting of which St. Austin saith thus Liquidò apparet c. It plainly appears that our Saviour and his Disciples did not receive it Fasting but shall the Vniversal Church be therefore reproached because it receiveth Fasting And this pleased the Holy-Ghost that in Honour of so great a Sacrament the Body of Christ should First enter into the mouth of a Christian. For therefore is this custom observed through the universal Church And more to the same purpose may our Author read in that Epistle Now when this was the practice as they say of the Universal Church and that they so practised upon the score of an Apostolical Precept as St. Austin there saith how truly is not my business to enquire can we think that it was not required Or that there could be any Communion with those Churches if any did otherwise I added to the ancient Church the State of the Reformed Churches abroad and shewed how they do use things uncommanded in the Worship of God and how impossible it is upon the principles of those that dissent from our Church to hold Communion with theirs To this he replies we have not heard of any thing used among them in Worship c. but what is prescribed excepting only some Forms of Prayer relating to the Sacrament 2. None of these receive the Sacrament kneeling 3. They compel not any to receive Standing or Sitting I would be loth to charge our Author with want of diligence or integrity but how reconcilable this is to it that he saith I must leave to the impartial Reader Supposing however the first to be true yet if they have some Forms they have somewhat not prescribed But have they only some Forms relating to the Sacrament What then shall we say to Capellus that saith diverse of them have set Forms of Liturgies What to their Formularies as those of Holland and Switzerland What to the Bohemian Churches that
have also Forms in Singing of Humane Composure Have they nothing but Forms of Prayer what then thinks he of Anniversary Festivals observed in the Helvetick and Bohemick Churches And of God-Fathers in Baptism As much mistaken is he when he saith None of these receive the Sacrament kneeling as appears from the Petricovian Synod that I quoted in the foresaid Tract But to this he answers it is not at all to be wondred that the Lutherans in that Synod should determine as they did c. Doth he hereby mean that there were none but Lutherans in that Synod or that the Lutherans in that Synod only determined it Which way soever he would be understood it 's a wretched mistake For the Synod was composed of those of the Helvetick Augustan and Bohemick Confession and subscribed by all of them and was indeed but one of several Synods they held in Common together If he had but looked into this Synod all this discourse might have been saved and he might have answered his own Question We desire to know what more receive Sitting except the Lutheran Churches What he produceth the 3d. for I cannot well understand for it 's all one if those Churches forbid any one particular posture as if they required another And yet some do forbid Sitting as the Synod above quoted and one Church Kneeling I proceeded further to shew that they themselves could not then be Communicated with since they do things without prescription as in administring the Sacraments conceived Prayer Swearing and Church-Governments and order He saith we do not make Sitting necessary but that is not the point in dispute for he by his principles should shew where it is commanded For conceived Prayer he argues How this is prescribed he and others have been told elsewhere and those that have told it have had a sufficient answer Laying the hands on the Book he saith is a civil no sacred usage as if the invoking God and a solomn testimony of our so invoking him by some external Rite were meerly civil Such then was lifting up the hand which was anciently used in swearing and so appropriated to it that it was put for swearing it self Gen. 14. 22. Ex. 6. 8. They that can affirm such things as these may affirm any thing As for the things relating to Church-order he saith Ten times more is allowed to matters of Government than Worship But he undertakes not my argument taken from the parity of reason betwixt the Kingly and Priestly offices of our Saviour And which the Presbyterian Brethren so approve of as to use the same Arguments for Government as Worship The Third general was to enquire how we might know what things are indifferent in the Worship of God The main things he herein objects against respect Edification In handling of which he thus sums up my sense of it Our Author would not have us judge of Edification from what most improveth Christians in knowledg and grace but from what tendeth most to publick Order as if I spoke of Order in opposition to and as exclusive of a Christians improvement whereas I plainly say and he acknowledgeth it that we are not so much to judge of them asunder as together The meaning and design of what I said was to shew that Christians are to consider themselves as members of a Church and so to have a tender regard to Communion with it and not to think their own Edification a sufficient reason to break the Peace and Order of it To this he saith several things In Answer to which it will be convenient to give a clear representation and state of the Case which I shall do in these Propositions 1. We must consider that Edification is not the laying a Foundation but a building upon it and so there is not the same reason for the breaking Order for the sake of Edification as there is for the sake of things absolutly necessary to Salvation and that which will warrant and doth oblige to the one will not warrant nor oblige to the other This will serve to shew the little force there is in what this Reverend Author confidently asserts We know and are assured that no man to keep up any such human bounds of Order ought to omit means by which he may improve his own Soul in the knowledge of Christ or the exercise of his habits of Grace by which assertion of his he makes Edification and improvement in knowledge c. as necessary as the knowledge of the Fundamentals of Religion 2. We must consider as I then observed that Order is a means of Edification and therefore if there happens a dispute betwixt observing Order and improvement in knowledg or grace it 's 'twixt means and means 'twixt what is for Edification in one way and what is for it in another and not betwixt what is for and what is against Edification as he would have it understood 3. We must observe that when there is a dispute betwixt means and means the less is to give place to the greater and what is most for Edification is to yield to that which is least 4. That for that reason the Edification of the Church and the welfare of the whole is to be prefer'd before the spiritual advantage of any particular member for what the less is to the greater that is a member to the Church and if a person cannot serve and improve himself without damage to the Publick he is rather to sit down without that improvement than to do mischief to the Community for the obtaining it And as long as he is not without means sufficient for Salvation he is in that Case to recede from some further attainments in doing which for so good an end he is acceptable to God and approved of men So that however our Author may seem to shelter himself under the phrase of Human Order yet as long as no Church can subsist without it and he that takes away Order takes away the Church and he that saith a person ought to throw it down to improve his Soul takes away Order he must pardon me if I think that he talks without consideration for he that talks of Edification of particular Souls in a distinct notion from the building them up as members of a Church or of members of a Church without being united as a Church or of a Church without any means to unite it doth to return him his own words but discourse of building Castles in the Air and what he would be loth his own Congregation if he hath one should at every turn put into practice Of all which if this will not convince him I shall desire him impartially to view the places of Scripture quoted by himself from the Apostle as also what was said before in the controverted Tract and he hath not yet answered or has been since discoursed of in another Case The 4th enquiry in the Tract aforesaid was
that will speak very severe things of his following appeal to God Judge O thou righteous Judge between these people and those who thus pursue them I am far from one God is my witness that is a smiter of his fellow-servants as he calls them nor would have any one do what he verily believeth is unlawful but I do think it is the duty of all to do what they lawfully can to hear readily and consider impartially what may be offered for their satisfaction and to suffer patiently where they cannot receive it This I think every truly conscientious person will do and I should question his conscience that doth it not Certainly to return him his own words if our Brethren have any value for the Glory of God for the good and peace of others Souls for the preserving the Protestant Religion for the union of Protestants against Popish adversaries for any thing indeed that is good and lovely they will rather break than any longer draw this saw of contention and will do as much as in them lies for the repairing of those breaches which must be confessed are no less dangerous than scandalous to our Religion The Kingdom of God is not Meat and Drink but righteousness and peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost FINIS ERRATA PAg. 3. l. 13. r. I should p. 30. l. antepenult r. imply p. 31. l. 6. r. expressions p. 89. Marg. add to Lightfoot Hor. in Matth. and Mark p. 46. l. 17. r. Government Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER 1. A A Perswasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which Respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God Proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Aaonymus in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of Mixt Communion Whether it be Lawful to separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations and Mixt Communion 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayer and some other Parts of Divine â—ervice Prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10 The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament Stated and Resolved c. in Two Parts 11 A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where Men think they can profit most 12. A serious Exhortation with some Important Advices Relating to the late Cases about Conformity Recommended to the Present Dissenters from the Church of England 13. An Argument to Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 14. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to the Weak Brethren 15. The Case of Infant-Baptism in Five Questions c. 16. The Charge of Scandal and giving Offence by Conformity Refelled c. 17. The Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England Considered 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. 5. A Discourse concerning a Guide in Matters of Faith with respect especially to the Romish pretence of the Necessity of such an one as is Infallible Case examined p. 2. p. 16. pag 2. p. 10. a The difference of the Case between the separation of Protestants from Rome c. p. 42 c. b p. 36 37. n. 4. 38. Case of Indifferent things p. 3. Conclus 1. p. 25. Case of Indifferent Things p. 20. Case Examined p. 25. Case of Indifferent Things p. 20. Case of Indiff Things pag. 23. Case Indiff Things pag. 20. Jer. 10. â— Conclus Case of Indiff things p. 24. Case examined p. 26. Pag. 4. Conclus 3. p. 2â— Pag. 29. pag. 21. pag. 38. pag. 29. pag. 28. Case of indifferent things pag. 30. pag. 31. Exod. 12. c. pag 32. Page 8 Conclus 4. Case examined pag. 27 Pag. 27. Sect. 2. Case of Indiff Things p 4. c. Case examined p. 19 20. Defence of the principles of love part 2. p. 97. Case examin'd p. 15. Pag. 7. 1 Corinth 15. 44. Eph 2. 3. Fresâ— Suâ—â— p. 1. c. 4. 5. Luke 18. 13. Gen. 3. 21. Case examined pag. 18. Pag. 14. Case of indifferent things p. 8 12 13. Case examined pag. 18. * Case of indifferent things pag. 14. Case examined pag. 19. Pag. 18. V. Brightman in Ames Fresâ— Suit part 2. p. 505 510. Pag. 15. Case of Indiff Things p. 5 6. Case examined p. 7. pag. 19. Ibid. pag. 23 24. pag. 19. pag 24. pag. 11. pag. 25. a V. case of a scrupulous Conscience Dr. Calamy's Sermon on that subject b the case of Symbolizing and the defence Case of indifferent things p. 24 c. Prop. 1. Pag 11. Ibid. Ames's Fresh Suit answer to Bp. Morton Jean's Uniformity in answer to Dr. Hammond Pag. 18. Pag. 36. Pag. 13. Proceedings at the Savoy p. 62. 1 Cor. 7. 35. Against Dr. Hammond pag. 80. Prop. 2. Pag. 23. Pag. 15. Pag. 18. Pag. 12. a Homilies Sermon of good works pt 2 Sermon of Prayer pt 2. Article 34. Ps. 95. 6. Pag. 29. Pag. 13. Jean's answer to Hammond Pag. 21. Case of Indifferent things Pag. 29. Case examinea Pag. 25. Pag. 2â— Pag. 26. 2 Sam. 7. 7. Vers. 1 Vers. 2. 1 Chron. 28. â— 3. a 1 Kings 8. 17 18. b Laect on Job Lect. 28. c 2 Sam. 7. 11. 1 Chron. 17. 10. d 1 Chron. 28. 19. e 2 Sam. 7. 13 f 2 Sam. 7. 6 7. vers 1. g 1 Chron. 22. 7 8 9. 28 3. h 1 Chron. 17. 9 i 1 Chron. 22. 9 Ames Fresâ— Suit part 2. §. 6. and 7. Case examined p. 26. a Zech. 8. 19. b 1 Mac. 4 59. c John 10 22. d Euxtorf Synag Jud. e Est. 9 20 27 29. f C. 8. 17. 9. 18 19 22. g On c. 8. 17. Ch. 9. 27. h C. 9. 2â— 31. i C. 9 22. k C. 10 31. l On. c. 4. 16 and 9 31. Case examined Pag. 14. Case examined Pag. 32. Pag. 3. a Pag. 84 a Herodotus l. 1. c. 31. b Casab exercit 16. c. 22 c Rosini antiq l. 4. c. 15. d Ibid. e Buxtorf Exercit. xxxv xxxviii f Horat. l. â— i. ode 37. g 1 Cor. 10. v. 21. h v. 20. Falkner's Libert Eccles. part 2. c. 3. §. 4. n. 10. Lightfoot Case Examined p. 15. Pag. 1. Pag. 14. Case of Indifferent things P. 11. Pag. 12 15 16 19. Case of Indifferenc things P. 13. Case of Indiff p. 9. 12. Hor. in Joh. c. 13. 5. Pag. 16. Exercit. 16. n. 22. 24. Libertas l 2. c. 1. §. 3. 1 Cor. 11. 20. Apel. c. 39. V. Vines on the Sacram. c. 2. p. 25 c. Case examined Pag. 21. Case of Indifferent things Pag. 15. Epist. 118. ad Januar. Thes. Salmur part 3. p. 307. Comen de bono unit Annot. cap. 3. Confes. Helvet Comen ibid. c. 7. c. 3. §. 2. Case of Indiff Things p. 9. Case examined Pag. 13. V. Case of Kneeling p. 14. 15. Vindicat. of Presbyt Gov. p. 4. §. 3. Case examined Pag. 33. Pag. 34 Case of Indifferent things P. 36. Case examined Pag. 35 Rom. 14. 18. Case Examined p. 34. 35. Case of Indifferent things p. 41 42. Case of Lay-Commun p 39 c. §. 4. Case Examined p. 39. Pag. 5. 9. 17 32. 40. Pag. 9. a Fresh suit part 2. p. 300. b Pag. 17. 30. 32. 39. 41. Lev. 14. 30. On Lev. 1. 14. Pag. 30. Pag. 17. Pag. 30. Pag. 9. Pag. 22. Pag. 35. a P. 7. 38. b P. 9. 30. c P. 39 40. Case of Indiff Things p. 46. Case Exam. p. 40. Act. 15. 18. Case of Indifferent things Pag. 47. §. 5. Case Examin pag. 3. 36. 38. pag. 14. pag. 22. pag. 12. pag. 36. pag. 12 13. pag. 30. pag. 22. Case of Indiff p. 8. Case Exam. p. 22. pag. 29. pag. 26. pag. 39. pag. 7. pag. â— pag. 41 44. ibid. pag. 1. pag. 41 44. pag. 41. ibid.
ancient times by the Grecians Medes Persians Indians Romans and Jews c. and from thence translated to their Sacrifical Feasts which the Heathens did very anciently observe is sufficiently known insomuch that the whole Solemnity was call'd amongst the Romans Lectisternium This is Confirm'd by Scripture So Amos. 2. 8. They lay themselves down upon Clothes laid to pledge by every Altar c. That is the Beds which they used in the Temples of their Gods saith Casaubon from the Jews So Ezek. 23. 41. For satisfaction in which I refer this Reverend Author to others And whereas he saith this was no posture of Adoration he must needs be mistaken if he grants what they did in those Solemnities in Honour to their Gods to be Adoration And this they did for it was an entertainment made for them the heathens conceiving that the Gods did then feast with them hence the Poets phrase of ornare pulvinar Deorum dapibus So the Apostle calls their Table the Table of Devils and their lying down there an having fellowship with Devils Having said thus much I shall not need to proceed and shew how sitting as well as discumbing hath been also used in Idolatrous Service both amongst Heathens of old and Romanists now especially since I have it sufficiently proved to my hands in a book I suppose our Author well acquainted with As for what he further saith If the Jews did use one uniform posture c. there needs not many words to shew how precarious or false it is For what more precarious than to speak doubtfully If they did of that which yet is clearly evident they did observe Or affirm that if they did it was because they agreed it among themselves which is to suppose the reason of the thing to be certain when the thing it self according to him is uncertain Or what more false since whether it was by agreement among themselves or by the Authority of the Church that there was this Uniformity of posture is not so certain as it is that there was this Uniformity and that they were universally obliged to use and observe it For it was required that discumbiture should be used in all Religious Feasts but especially at the Passover by all without exception in the first part of the Solemnity For which I refer our Author to one well-versed in these matters So little Truth or certainty is there in what our Author asserts that every one might use the posture which was most convenient and that there was no reason to conclude they would have shut out any from their paschal Societies that desired to eat it with his loyns girt c. or standing The next instance produced in the abovesaid Case of Indifferent things and objected against by our Author is the Hours of Prayer which were observ'd amongst the Jews at Morning Noon and Evening Act. 2 15. c. 10. 9. c. 3. 1. Of these our Author gives this account Thus the Apostles used the hours of Prayer which also they might have changed if they had pleased That the Jews sent any to Goals or excommunicated any for not keeping to those hours we do not find There is nothing of Religion in the time more then in any other part of time Thus St. Paul used Circumcision and Purification Thus How is that Did the Apostles use the hours of Prayer onely as necessary circumstances of Humane actions or such without which the light of Nature or Common usage shews the thing cannot be done or conveniently or comelily done as he saith Or rather did they not use them as they found them instituted and observed in the Jewish Church And not for his Thus and the reasons given by him Will those reasons justifie those very hours of the day or the just number of three hours Or however how will they Justify the Prayers used at those hours But whatever exceptions he had against the time he it seems found nothing to say to the Service which yet was pleaded as well as that But he saith There is nothing of Religion in the time If so as is granted then it 's in the power of a Church to institute and determine it where there is no other Religion in the Time than as it 's thus separated to the Service of God Lastly he saith The Apostles might have changed the Hours of Prayer if they had pleased How might they have changed them Might they do it as Apostolical Persons or as Private Members of the Jewish Church As to the former I find not they did exercise any such Power within the Jurisdiction of the Jewish Church nor that they had any Commission so to do As for the latter I deny it For if it lay in the power of Private Members of a Church to alter the Hours in which the Church is to assemble it is in their power to Dissolve the Assembly and there could nothing but Confusion issue from it I must confess he seems to be at a perfect loss what to say as to this matter And it appears so when he dares not so much as touch upon the Prayers used In those hours and applies his Thus to St. Paul's using Circumcision and Purification as if they also were necessary circumstances of Humane action or such without which the light of Nature or Common Vsage shews the thing cannot be done c. which were things of pure Institution at the first and what though peculiar to the Jewish Church the Apostle complied with them in for a time The next instances produced in proof of the Proposition were Washing the Disciples feet Love-Feasts and Holy-Kiss which he joyns together and of which he saith 1. It 's impossible to prove that they were any more than Civil usages c. 2. They were not used in Worship Whether it is impossible to prove the first or no doth not rest upon our Author's authority and yet that is the only thing which he hath thought fit to confront what I produced in proof of it That they were Civil rites is granted but that they were used by Christ and the Apostles as no more than Civil is I may safely venture to say impossible to prove First Because there is the reason of the thing against it as they were instituted and used for Spiritual ends and in token of Christian Humility and Charity as I then shewed Secondly Because of the great Difference there was betwixt them when used as meerly Civil and as used by our Saviour and the Apostles What this was as to washing the feet I then shewed where he might be Satisfied and to Buxtorf I may add the Learned Dr. Lightfoot It appears further they were not meerly Civil from the Character given to the kiss of Charity being called the Holy Kiss But This was saith he because the Apostle commanded Christians to use it in a Sober Temperate Chast Or holy manner But if this was