(f) (f) (f) Ibid. c. 19. And therefore all that can be gathered hence is that the Christian Church had no Form of Prayers for Heathen Souldiers which is no great wonder for if they had it 's very unlikely that the Heathen Souldiers would have used it but that they had Forms is evident because he calls the Prayers which Constantine used in his Court 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the manner of the Church of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (g) (g) (g) Ibid. c. 17. authorized Prayers which is the same title which he gave to that Form of Prayers which he made for his Heathen Souldiers (h) (h) (h) Ibid. c. 19. and therefore if by the authorized Prayers which he prescribed to his Souldiers he meant a Form of Prayers as it 's evident he did then by the authorized Prayers which he used in his Court after the manner of the Church he must mean a Form of Prayer also and since he had a Form of Prayers in his Court after the manner of the Church then the Church must have a Form of Prayers too Thus for the first second and third Centuries sufficient Testimony hath been given of the use of publick Forms of Prayer after which not to insist upon St. Basil's St. Chrysostom's and St. Ambrose's Liturgies which without all question are of great antiquity we have undeniable Testimonies of the use of publick Forms thus St. Chrysostom (i) (i) (i) Chrys 2. ad Cor. Hom. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For those who are possess'd with a Devil and those who are under Penance Common Prayers are made both by the People and Priest and we all say one and the self-same Prayer the Prayer which is so full of mercy And then he goes on and tells us how when the Priest had prayed for the People that is in that ancient Form of dismission The Lord be with you they prayed again for him in these words And with thy Spirit I confess to me it seems at least highly probable that they were not at first so strictly limited to one constant Form of Liturgy but that upon occasion they might intermingle other Forms either of their own or other mens composure though in process of time this liberty became very prejudicial to Religion for by this means the Prayers of Hereticks were often mingled with the publick Offices and many unadvised and ill-composed Forms were introduc'd into the publick Worship and this St. Austin complains of Multi irruunt in preces non solùm ab imperitis loquacibus sed etiam ab haereticis compositas per ignorantiae simplicitatem non eas valentes discernere utuntur eis arbitrantes quod bonae sint (k) (k) (k) Austin de Baptism cont Donat. lib. 6. Many there are speaking of the Office of Baptism who take up Prayers hand-over-head which are composed not onely by unskilful persons but also by Hereticks and not being able to discern what they are through their simplicity and ignorance do use them thinking they are very good To prevent which great inconvenience the Church was forced by degrees to limit and restrain this liberty and first the Council of Laodicea which was held about the year 314 or as others think 364 made a Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (l) (l) (l) Concil Laod. c. 18. About using the same Office of Prayers in the Morning and Evening that is that they should not bring in new Forms at their pleasure into the publick Worship either of their own or other mens composure as they had done before but always confine themselves to one and the same Liturgy for so not onely Zonarus (m) (m) (m) Zon. in Concil Laod. c. 18. and Balsamon (n) (n) (n) Balsam ibid. but Smectymnuus (o) (o) (o) Smect Ans to Remon p. 7. and the Presbyterian Commissioners at the Savoy (p) (p) (p) Grand Debate p. 11. understand it viz. that they should use no other Prayers in the publick Service but such as had been constantly received by the Church And that this Canon is to be understood of the received Forms is evident both from the 15th and 19th Canon of this Council for in the 15th they forbid that any should go up into the Desk to sing or call the Psalm but onely the appointed Singers who were to sing out of the publick Parchments in the which onely the received Hymns were inserted for so in the 59th Canon they forbid the calling of the Psalms of private persons (q) (q) (q) Conc. Laod. c. 15 18 19. for before it 's plain that they took the same liberty to introduce new Hymns into the publick Service of their own or other mens composure as they had done to introduce new Prayers and not onely so but any one who would was allow'd to call the Hymn for so Tertul. Post aquam manualem lumina Tertul. Apolog. c. 39. ut quisquis de Scripturis sanctis vel de proprio ingenio potest vocatur in medium Deo canere After their washing their hands and lighting the Candles any one is called forth to sing to God as he is able either out of the Scripture or by his own Gift of composure But the consequence of this liberty being afterwards found as prejudicial to Religion as that of introducing new Prayers the Council thought fit to restrain it and therefore in this 15th Canon they forbid the introducing new Psalms into the publick Worship So in the 18th they forbid the introducing new Prayers there having been the same liberty and the same ill consequence in both And then in the 19th Canon they direct That after the Homily the Prayers should be said for the Catechumeni and when they were gone the Prayers for such as were under penance and when they have received the imposition of hands and are departed then let the three Prayers for the faithful be offered up the First softly or every man to himself the Second and the Third aloud which is a plain argument that their meaning is to direct to the use of their stated Forms of Prayer for the forenamed occasions for how could the Congregation say the First of the three Prayers for the faithful to themselves and the other two aloud unless they were Forms which they had learnt by heart and were constantly used too After this there being as St. Austin complains very great disorders in the African Churches through the ill-composed and heretical Prayers which the Ministers foisted into their publick Worship and in which as it seems the Father was sometimes mentioned for the Son and the Son for the Father it was ordained in the third Council of Carthage (r) (r) (r) Concil Carth. 3 d. c. 12. That none in their Prayers should name the Father for the Son or the Son for the Father but that when they came to the Altar they should direct their Prayers to the Father Et quiccunque sibi
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
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
practice of our Church as being agreeable to that of pure Antiquity For the proof of this numerous testimonies both of Greek and Latine Fathers might be alledged but I will content my self and I hope the Reader too with a few of each sort which are so plain and express that he who will except against them will also with the same face and assurance except against the Whiteness of Snow and the Light of the Sun at Noon-day And first for the Greek Fathers let the testimony of St. Cyril St. Cyril Hierosol Mystag Catech. 5. versus finem Paris edit p. 244. be heard than which nothing can be more plain and express to our purpose This holy Father in a place before cited gives instructions to Communicants how to behave themselves when they approach the Lords Table and that in the act of receiving both the Bread and the Wine At the receiving of the Cup he advises thus Approach says he not rudely stretching forth thy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 245. A. hands but bowing thy self and in a posture of Worship and Adoration saying Amen To the same purpose St. Chrysostome speaks in his 14th Homily on the first Epistle to the Corinthians Where he provokes and excites the Christians of his time to an awful and reverential deportment at the Holy Communion by the example of the Wise men who adored our Saviour in his Infancy after Matth. 2. 1 11. this manner This Body the Wise men reverenced even when it lay in the Manger and approaching thereunto worshipped it with fear and great trembling Let 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 24 Hom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 538. To. 9. Paris us therefore who are Citizens of Heaven imitate at least these Barbarians But thou seest this Body not in a Manger but on the Altar not held by a Woman but by the Priest c. Let us therefore stir up our selves and be horribly afraid and manifest a much greater Reverence than those Barbarians lest coming lightly and at a venture we heap fire on our heads In another place the same Father expresly bids them to fall down and communicate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Chrys Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes in moral p. 1151. when the Table was prepared and the King himself present and in order to beget in their minds great and awful thoughts concerning that Holy and Mysterious Feast he further advises them that when they saw the Chancel doors opened then they should suppose Heaven it self was unfolded from above and that the Angels descended to be spectators I suppose he means of their carriage and behaviour at the Lords Table and by giving their attendance to grace the solemnity With the Testimony of these ancient Writers Theodoret concurs who in a Dialogue between an Orthodox Flor. A. D. 440. Christian and an Heretick introduces Orthodoxus thus discoursing concerning the Lords Supper The mysterious Symbols or signs in the Sacrament viz. Bread and Wine depart not from their proper nature for they abide in their former Essence retain their former shape and form and approve themselves both to our sight and touch to be what they were before but they are considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dialog 2. To. 4. p. 85. Paris edit for such as they are made that is with respect to their Spiritual signification and that Divine use to which they were consecrated and are believed and adored as those very things which they are believed to be Which words clearly import thus much that the consecrated Elements were received with a Gesture of Adoration and withal assure us that such a carriage at the Sacrament was not built upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For there is not a clearer instance in all Antiquity against that absurd Doctrine which the Church of Rome so obstinately believes at this day than what Theodoret furnisheth us with in the words above mentioned Lastly to produce no more out of the Greek Fathers that story which Gregory Nazianzen Gregor Naz. Orat. in laud. Gorg. p. 187. Paris edit Gregor Flor. Ann. Dom. 370. relates concerning his Sister Gorgonia will serve to corroborate what hath been said viz. That being sick and having made use of several Remedies to no purpose at last she resolved upon this course In the stilness of the night she repaired to the publick Church and being provided with some of the consecrated Elements which she had reserved at home she fell down on her Knees before the Altar and with a loud voice supplicated him whom she adored and in conclusion was made hole I am not much concerned whether the Reader shall think fit to believe or censure the Miracle but it 's certain that this famous Bishop hath put it upon Record and applauds his Sister for the method she used for her recovery and which speaks home to my purpose it 's clearly intimated that this pious Woman did Kneel or use an adoring posture at least when she eat the Sacramental Bread And there is no doubt to be made but Gorgonia in Communicating observed the same posture that others generally did in publick She did that in her sickness which all others were wont to do in their health when they came to the Lords Table i. e. fall down and Kneel For it is not to be imagined that at such a time as this when she came to beg so great a Blessing at Gods hands in the publick Church at the Altar stiled by the Ancients the Place of Prayer she would be guilty of any irregularity and used a singular Posture different from what was generally used by Christians when they came to the same place to Communicate and Pray over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice which they esteemed the most powerful and effectual way of Praying the most likely to render God propitious and to prevail with him above all other Prayers which they offered at any other time or in any other place So much for the testimonies of the Greek Fathers who were men famous for Learning and Piety in their generations and great Lights and Ornaments in the Ancient Church With these the Latine Fathers perfectly agree in their judgements concerning our present subject And of these I will onely mention two though more might be produced for brevity sake and they very eminent and illustrious persons held in great esteem by the then present Age wherein they flourish'd and by all succeeding Generations The first is St. Ambrose Bishop of Millain in a Flor. A. D. 370. Psal 98. Ps 99. 5. in our Translation Ambros de Sp. Sto. l. 3. c. 12. Book he wrote concerning the Holy Spirit where inquiring after the meaning of the Psalmist when he exhorts men to exalt the Lord and to worship his Foot-stool he gives us the sence in these words That it seems to belong unto the mystery of our Lords Incarnation and then proceeds to shew for what reason it may be accommodated to that Mysterie and at last
they are necessitated to depart from ours and set up Churches to themselves according to the best Models that every one is able to draw This is certainly a very dangerous adventure and can never be justified by such Arguments as are produced which might be all easily answered upon the general Principle I have already mentioned That none of the things against which the exceptions are made are Unlawful and therefore they cannot make our Communion Unlawful and if that be not Unlawful it must be Unlawful to divide from it This might be Reply enough to the most if not all the Objections that are or can be brought But because it may be thought more satisfactory by some I shall give a particular though very short Answer to those I have now proposed The First and Great thing that is objected against our Church is prescribing a Liturgy or Set Form of Prayers to be constantly used in Publick Worship This is that which has raised a great many Clamours Peoples minds have been extreamly incensed and exasperated against it it has been cryed out upon as Idolatrous Popish Superstitious and I know not how many hard Names it has been called But I am glad to find the temper of our Dissenting Brethren altered so much for the better We do not now so often hear those bitter exclamations of Rome and Babylon Baal and Dagon The Common Prayer is not esteemed such an abominable thing as some ignorant and heady Zealots were wont to count it Among those that have but too openly favoured the Separation the more considerable part both for Number and Sobriety do not only allow that a Form is Lawful but will freely acknowledge that ours is so and therefore they will admit of Occasional and if so I cannot see what can withhold them from a full and constant Communion with us Certainly that which is Lawful once or twice must be Lawful always However we may take some delight to see the old Heats in any measure abated and that the least advances are made towards Peace God grant that this Concession may prove a step to a happy and perfect Reconcilement And so I hope it may for our Brethren cannot be any longer offended with those Forms in which they do sometimes join themselves Nay those that have not yet proceeded so far but are still afraid of being Defiled in our way of Worship cannot have any colour to Condemn it for being a Form The Jews had Forms in their Publick Assemblies which this notwithstanding were duly frequented by our blessed Saviour He delivered a Form himself in his Sermon on the Matth. 6. 9 c. Mount and taught the same again to his Disciples afterwards Luke 11. 2. and Commanded them to use it Some Forms were received very early among the Ancient Christians who have been followed in this by all the Protestant Churches but the Lawfulness of them was never called in question heretofore For how could it since they are no were Forbidden Or if a Command be thought requisite to make them Lawful the other way is no more Commanded than this and therefore upon that Principle they must be both equally Lawful or Unlawful So that if any Prayer be Lawful a Form must be confessed to be so The Arguments in this case are so Convincing that there are few now but that will readily agree that a Form may be Lawful in it self but then they think it ought not to be Imposed because of some Inconveniences which they conceive do attend it And they are principally these Two the One that there may be some particular Emergencies which cannot be provided for by a Set Form The other that it is an hinderance to the Spirit of Prayer The first of these has very little difficulty in it The ordinary wants and necessities of Christians are always the same and we may Petition to have them supplied in the same Words and for other things it may generally be foreseen that they may happen sometimes and sutable Forms may be composed to be used upon such Occasions Where these cannot be fitly applied peculiar Offices may be set forth as has been usual in such cases Where the exigency is great and will not admit of so much delay as is necessary for that the Minister is at Liberty to use his own Conceptions But this cannot be urged for the Exclusion of a Liturgy It were very unreasonable to deprive the Church of known and approved Forms and leave her to the mercy of extemporary Effusions only for the sake of a few Contingencies which may happen but very rarely if at all in a whole Age. The other thing that is alledged would be more considerable if it were really true That Forms did indeed hinder the Spirit of Prayer But this they do not For it is a gross and carnal Mistake to imagine that the Spirit of Prayer can consist in a readiness of Expression and a natural or acquired volubility of Tongue Arts and Accomplishments whereof many Wicked men have been great Masters and wherein as many Good ones may be very deficient The Spirit of Prayer must be acknowledged to be nothing else but an inward good and pious Disposition of the Soul wrought in us by the Grace of God an unfeigned Humility and Abhorrence of our selves when we confess our Sins and beg for Pardon an affectionate Sense of our Wants when we ask for all things necessary both for this and the other Life an holy exultation of Mind when we offer up our Praises and Thanks for the Blessings we have received a full Resignation of our Concerns to God's disposal and a Dependance upon his Promises for the granting our Requests when we have made our Addresses unto him These are the great Indications of the true Spirit of Prayer and these are so far from being Hindered that they may be very much Helped and Advantaged by a Form A man questionless may be more seriously Affected in all these respects and say Amen more heartily to a Form of sound Words which he hath known and considered before than he can to some uncertain Expressions which he never heard nor thought on and possibly may not so well understand nor be satisfied in when he hears them The perplexity and doubtfulness of Thoughts which must often arise when we would join in Prayers we are unacquainted with is directly Opposite to that Faith and Assurance with which we should Pray and can scarce be prevented but by a well digested and studied Form that may be Weighed and soberly Assented to by those that are required to join in it But some think that it may be manifest from Experience that Forms are a hinderance to the very inward Spirit of Devotion They have found their Affections very cold and flat at our usual stated Forms of Prayer but when they hear a man Pray without a Form they are mightily ravished and almost transported and this difference of Temper they observe in themselves has
prevailed with many of the more undiscerning sort especially to forsake our Communion But it is always very dangerous to judge of things not by our Understandings but by the various impulses and motions of our Affections When we have Scripture and Reason on our side we cannot be Deceived but when we Determine as we are swayed by the present byass of our Passions these may be Charmed or Raised or Flattened by several sorts of Spirits and quickly betray us into strong Delusions Therefore if any one should be tempted as some have been to leave the Church on this Account that he thinks he may be more affected in another Place before he goes I would desire him to consider what it is that does thus Affect him If it be the Matter and Substance of the Prayer I suppose that may be usually the same at least as good in our ordinary Offices as it is in their unpremeditated Petitions and so it will not be necessary to make a Separation for this If it be only the chiming and harmony of the Words he is taken with this is no more but a kind of sensitive Delight and to apply the Prophet's Expressions here it is but like a very lovely Song of one Ezek. 33. 32. that hath a pleasant Voice and can play well on an Instrument This will by no means excuse our departing from the Publick Assemblies this would be in effect to say that we may make Divisions in the Church of God to gratifie our own private and it may be mistaken Fancies But if any one hath left us for a time upon this Pretence and made some Trial of both ways then I would desire him strictly to examine his own Conscience whether he have not often been as Dull and Indifferent at a Conceived Prayer as ever he was at the Service of the Church And then on the other side let him consider whether he do not believe that very many may be as serious and devout at the Common Prayer as ever he was at any in the other way he is pleased to prefer And after he has thus inquired if he see Reason to acknowledge both as doubtless he will then the Scales will be even at the least Experience will shew that men may be Fervent and Affectionate with a Form and Cold and Inattentive without one And therefore when we are heavy listless and unaffected at a Prayer by a Form this Defect cannot proceed from the Manner of the Devotion but from the Indisposition of the Person that uses it And when we Separate upon this occasion we are guilty of a double Iniquity in Dividing the Church without sufficient Cause and charging our own Formality upon a good and wholesome Constitution My intended brevity will not permit me to give a particular Answer to all the Exceptions that have been taken at our Liturgy only in the general I say I know nothing in it that can be pretended to be Sinful in it self The most that is urged are some supposed Inconveniences which if we should grant to be real they cannot make our Communion Unlawful and then as I have often intimated it must be a Sin to Separate from it and we may not commit a Sin to decline an Inconvenience This would be to do evil that good may come of it They that are willing to improve every slight Exception into a Cause of Separation should beware of this The question is not whether there be not any thing in the Order of our Divine Service which a man could wish to be altered For that can never be expected under any Constitution The main inquiry is this whether any thing Unlawful be appointed to be used which will make an Alteration not only desirable but necessary And whether we are bound to withdraw till such Alteration be made Which has never been proved Men generally forbear our Publick Worship without ever examining into it upon no other ground but because they prefer their own Arbitrary way before it Which I do not admire but this is very strange and unreasonable that they should take such a disgust at our Liturgy and fly away from it as if it were Popish and Antichristian when they never have so much as read it at least considered it as they ought And here I shall take the Confidence to affirm that the Liturgy some abhor so much was made and reviewed with that Prudence and Moderation that Care and Circumspeâ—tion that there is not any thing now extant in that kind that has been compos'd with greater Wisdom and Piety If we should take the liberty to compare it with the performances in the other way not to mention the many undecent incoherent irreverent expressions to say no worse that might be collected let any Prayer made occasionally and extempore by the ablest and most cautious of those that magnifie that way and despise ours be taken exactly in writing and published to the World and I am very confident that one man without any great pains may find more things really exceptionable in that single Prayer in a short time than the several Parties of Dissenters with all the diligence they have hitherto used have been able to discover in the whole Service of our Church in more than a hundred years And yet some of our Brethren that seek industriously for Scruples in the Common Prayer will readily join in other sudden conceived Prayers without any Scruple when they cannot tell but that there may be some dangerous Heresie in every Sentence and some great Indecencies and Absurdities in every Word This is such partiality and unequal dealing as cannot be easily excus'd But if they should allow of the Forms of Prayer in our Liturgy there are certain Ceremonies injoyn'd which they think give them occasion enough to depart from our Communion A man that were unacquainted with the true State of our case that should stand by and only hear the bitter Cries and Invectives that have been made against Ceremonies would be ready to imagine that sure our Church was nothing else almost but Ceremonies But he would be mightily surprized when upon inquiry he should find that these Ceremonies which had occasioned all this noise should be no more than Three the Surplice the Cross after Baptism and Kneeling at the Sacrament He would be amazed to think that these should be the things about which so many massy Books had been written So great discords and animosities rais'd Such a flourishing Church once quite destroyed and now most miserably divided after it had been so happily restored And his wonder must be increased when he should perceive that of these Three there was but One and no more in which the People were any way concerned The Cross and the Surplice are to be used only by the Minister and if his Conscience be satisfied no mans else need to be disturb'd about them To Kneel at the Lord's Supper all indeed are commanded but supposing this to be Unlawful it could hinder us
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-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
Churches and Societies of Christians 2. I observe further that tho the exercise of Church Communion as to most of the particular Duties and Offices of it must be confined to a particular Church and Congregation for we cannot Actually joyn in the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments c. but with some particular Church yet every Act of Christian Communion though performed in some particular Church is and must be an Act of Communion with the whole Catholick Church Praying and Hearing and receiving the Lords Supper together does not make us more in Communion with the Church of England than with any other true and Orthodox part of the Church tho in the Remotest parts of the World The exercise of true Christian Communion in a particular Church is nothing else but the exercise of Catholick Communion in a particular Church which the necessity of affairs requires since all the Christians in the World cannot meet together for Acts of Worship But there is nothing in all these Acts of Communion which does more peculiarly Unite us to such a particular Church than to the whole Christian Church When we pray together to God we Pray to him as the Common Father of all Christians and do not challenge any peculiar interest in him as members of such a particular Church but as members of the whole Body of Christ when we Pray in the Name of Christ we consider him as the great High Priest and Saviour of the Body who powerfully interceeds for the whole Church and for us as members of the Universal Church And we Offer up our Prayers and Thanksgiving not only for our selves and those who are present but for all Christians all the World over as our Fellow-members and Praying for one another is the truest notion of Communion of Prayers for Praying with one another is only in order to Praying for one another And thus our Prayers are an exercise of Christian Communion when we Pray to the same common Father through the Merits and Mediation of the same common Saviour and Redeemer for the same common Blessings for our selves and the whole Christian Church Thus when we meet together to Celebrate the Supper of our Lord we do not meet as at a private Supper but as at the common Feast of Christians and therefore it is not an Act of particular Church Fellowship but of Catholick Communion The Supper of our Lord does not signifie any other kind of Union and confederation between those Neighbour Christians who receive together in the same Church than with the whole Body of Christ The Sacramental Bread signifies and represents all those for whom Christ died that one Mystical Body for which he Offered his Natural Body which is the Universal Church and our eating of this Bread signifies our Union to this Body of Christ and therefore is considered as an Act of true Catholick not of a particular Church-Communion And the Sacramental Cup is the Blood of the New Testament and therefore represents our Communion in all the Blessings of the Covenant and with all those who are thus in Covenant with God So that there is nothing particular in this Feast to make it a private Feast or an Act of Communion with a particular Church considered as particular but it is the common Feast of Christians and an Act of Catholick Communion Which by the way plainly shews how groundless that scruple is against mixt Communions that Men think themselves defiled by receiving the Lords Supper with Men who are vicious For tho it is a great defect in Discipline and a great reproach to the Christian Profession when wicked Men are not censured and removed from Christian Communion yet they may as well pretend that their Communion is defiled by bad Men who Communicate in any other part of the Church or any other Congregation as in that in which they live and Communicate For this holy Feast signifies no other Communion between them who receive at the same time and in the same Company than it does with all sincere parts of the Christian Church It is not a Communion with any Persons considered as present but it is a Communion with the Body of Christ and all true members of it whether present or absent Those who separate from a National Church for the sake of corrupt professors though they could form a Society as pure and holy as they seem to desire yet are Schismaticks in it because they confine their Communion to their own select Company and Exclude the whole Body of Christians all the World over out of it their Communion is no larger than their gathered Church for if it be then they must still Communicate with those Churches which have corrupt members as all visible Churches on Earth have unless we will except Independents because they have the confidence to except themselves and then their Separation does not Answer its end which is to avoid such corrupt Communions and yet if they do confine their Communion to their own gathered Churches they are Schismaticks in dividing themselves from the Body of Christians and all their Prayers and Sacraments are not Acts of Christian Communion but a Schismatical Combination This does not prove indeed that particular Churches are not bound to reform themselves and to preserve their own Communion pure from corrupt members unless all the Churches in the World will do so too because every particular Church whether Diocesan or National has power to reform its own members and is accountable to God for such neglects of Discipline but it does prove that no Church without the guilt of Schism can renounce Communion with other Christian Churches or set up a distinct and separate Communion of its own for the sake of such corrupt members which was the pretence of the Novatian and Donatist Schism of Old and is so of the Independent Schism at this day 3. I observe further that our obligation to maintain Communion with a particular Church wholly results from our obligation to Catholick Communion The only reason why I am bound to live in Communion with any particular Church is because I am a member of the whole Christian Church which is the Body of Christ and therefore must live in Communion with the Christian Church and yet it is Impossible to live in Communion with the whole Christian Church without Actual Communion with some part of it when I am in such a place where there is a visible Christian Church as no member can be United to the Natural Body without its being United to some part of the Body for the Union and Communion of the whole Body consists in the Union of all its parts to each other Every Act of Christian Communion though performed in a particular Church or Congregation is not properly an Act of particular Church-Communion but is the exercise of Communion with the whole Church and Body of Christ as I have already proved but it can be no Act of Communion at all if it be not performed
and of every sound part of it then our Communion with the Church is as fixt as our relation and membership is and I think no Man who understands himself will talk of an occasional member If no Man can perform any Act of Communion with a Church of which he is no member since all Acts of Communion have a necessary relation to a state of Communion and that which is an Act of Communion in a member is no Act of Communion when performed by him who is no member as I have already proved then it is as plain a contradiction to talk of an occasional Act of Communion as of occasional membership and there can be no place for occasional Communion with a Church of which we are no members unless we will say that a Man who is not in Communion may exercise Acts of Communion with the Church If all the Acts of Christian Communion which respect Christian Worship such as Prayer receiving the Lords Supper c. tho performed in a particular Church be not Acts meerly of a particular Church-Communion but of Catholick Communion with the whole Christian Church and every sound part of it then every true Catholick Christian is not only in a fixt state of Communion with the Catholick Church but lives in as constant an exercise of Christian Communion with all Sound and Orthodox Churches as he does with that Church in which he lives for every Act of Worship which is an Act of Communion with that particular Church in which it is performed if that Church be in Catholick Communion is an Act of Communion with the whole Catholick Church and therefore the very exercise of Christian Communion is equally fixt and constant or equally occasional with the whole Catholick Church There is a sense indeed wherein we may be said to be members of one particular Church considered as distinct from all other particular Churches but that principally consists in Government and Discipline every Christian is a member of the whole Christian Church and in Communion with it but he is under the immediate Instruction and Government of his own Bishop and Presbyters and is bound to Personal Communion with them and this constitutes a particular Church in which all Acts of Worship and all Acts of Discipline and Government are under the direction and conduct of a particular Bishop And when Neighbour Bishops unite into one Body and agree upon some common Rules of Government and the Administration of Religious Offices this makes them a Patriarchal or National Church and thus by submitting to the Government and Discipline of such particular or united Bishops we become members of a Diocesan or National Church considered as distinct from other Diocesan or National Churches But this does not confine our Church-membership and Communion to such a particular Church tho it strictly oblige us to conform to the Worship and Discipline and Government of that Church wherein we live while it imposes nothing on us inconsistent with the Principles of Catholick Communion But tho particular Christians are more peculiarly obliged to observe the Rites and Usages and to submit to the Government and Discipline of the Church wherein they live and to maintain Personal Communion with it and upon this account may in a peculiar manner be called the members of that Church yet every Act of Communion performed in this particular Church is an Act of Catholick Communion and an exercise of Christian Communion with the whole Church and every sound part of it Baptism makes us members of the whole Church and gives us a right to Communion with every sound part of it every Act of Christian Communion in a particular Church is a vertual Communion with the whole Church with all particular Churches which live in Communion with each other and notwithstanding my relation to a particular Church by my constant Abode and Habitation in it when ever I travel into any other Church I Communicate with them as a member so that wherever I Communicate whether in that Church in which I usually live or in any other particular Church where I am accidentally present my Communion is of the same Nature that is I Communicate as a member of the Church and it is Impossible I should Communicate otherwise for I have no right to Communion but as a member and nothing I can do can be an Act of Communion if I be not and do not own my self to be a member And yet this is the occasion of this mistake about Fixt and Occasional Communion that according to the Laws of our Church which are founded on great and wise reasons and indeed according to the Laws of Catholick Communion every Christian is bound to Communicate with that part of the Church wherein he lives now Men may have Houses in different Parishes or distinct Diocesses or may Travel into other parts of the Country and Communicate with the Churches which they find in those places where they are or they may sometimes go to Prayers or hear a Sermon or receive the Lords Supper at another Parish-Church now our ordinary Communion with those Churches where our constant Abode is may be called constant Communion and our Communion with those Churches which we accidentally visit and Communicate with may be called occasional Communion and all this without Schism because we still Communicate either with the same National Church or which is often the case of Travellers with some other sound part of the Catholick Church of which we are also members and so still keep in the same Communion and Communicate with no Churches but those of which we own our selves members as being all in the same Communion as being either sincere members of the National or Catholick Church From hence our Dissenters Conclude that their Communion with an Independent or Presbyterian Church of which they profess themselves fixt members is as constant with their occasional Communion with the Church of England when to serve some present turn they hear the Prayers and receive the Sacraments with us as our fixt Communion with our Parish-Churches is with our occasional Communion with other Parish-Churches which no Body accounts Schism tho when it is too frequent and causeless it is a great disorder But the difference between these two is vastly great for in the First case we only Communicate with such Churches which are all in Communion with each other and therefore he who is a member of one is a member of them all and Communicates with them wherever he is as a member But he who is a fixt member of a Presbyterian or Independent Church cannot Communicate so much as occasionally with the Church of England as a member because he is a member not only of another particular but of a separate Church and it is impossible for any Man who is one with himself to be a member of two separate Churches and whatever Acts of Worship we joyn in with other Churches of which we are no members they are not
properly Acts of Communion Having thus premised the explication of these terms what is meant by Church and what is meant by Church-Communion and what is meant by Fixt or Constant and occasional Communion the right understanding of these things will make it very easie to resolve those cases which Immediately respect Church-Communion and I shall Instance in these three 1. Whether Communion with some Church or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians 2. Whether constant Communion with that Church with which occasional Communion is Lawful be a necessary Duty 3. Whether it be Lawful for the same person to Communicate with two separate Churches Case 1. Whether Communion with some Church Case 1 or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians Now methinks the resolution of this is as plain as whether it be necessary for every Man to be a Christian For every Christian is Baptized into the Communion of the Church and must continue a Member of the Church till he renounce his Membership by Schism or Infidelity or be cast out of the Church by Ecclesiastical censures Baptism incorporates us into the Christian Church that is makes us Members of the Body of Christ which is his Church and is frequently so called in Scripture For there is but one Body and one Spirit Eph. Eph. 5. 23. 4. 12. 4. 4. one Christian Church which is animated and governed by the one Spirit of Christ And we are all Baptized into this one Body For as the Body is one and Col. 1. 18. hath many Members and all the members of that one Body being many are one Body so also is Christ that is the Christian Church which is the Body of Christ of which he is the Head for by one Spirit we are all Baptized 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. into one Body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or Free and are all made to drink into one Spirit for the body is not one member but many Now I have already proved that Church Communion is nothing else but Church-Membership to be in Communion with the Church and to be a member of the Church signifying the same thing And I think I need not prove that to be in a state of Communion contains both a right and an Obligation to Actual Communion He who is a member of the Church may Challenge all the Priviledges of a member among which Actual Communion is none of the least to be admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Christian-Communion to the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments and all other Christian Duties which no Man who is not a member of the Church has any right to And he who is a member is bound to perform all those Duties and Offices which are Essential to Church Communion and therefore is bound to Communicate with the Church in Religious Assemblies to joyn in Prayers and Sacraments to attend publick Instructions and to live like a member of the Church But to put this past all doubt that external and actual Communion is an essential Duty of a Church-member I shall offer these plain proofs of it 1. That Baptism makes us Members of the visible Church of Christ but there can be no visible Church without visible Communion and therefore every visible Member by vertue of his Membership is bound to external and visible Communion when it may be had 2. This is essential to the notion of a Church as it is a Body and Society of Christians For all Bodies and Societies of Men are Instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices to be performed by the Members of it A Body of Men is a Community and it is a strange kind of Community in which every Member may act by it self without any Communication with other Members of the same Body And yet such a kind of Body as this the Christian Church is if it be not an essential Duty of every Member to live in the exercise of visible Communion with the Church when he can For there is the same Law for all Members and either all or none are bound to actual Communion But this is more absurd still when we consider that the Church is such a Body as consists of variety of Members of different Offices and Officers which are of no use without actual and visible Communion of all its Members To what purpose did Christ appoint such variety of Ministers in his Church Apostles Prophets Evangelists Eph. 4. 11 12. Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ to what purpose has he instituted a standing Ministry in his Church to offer up the Prayers of the Faithful to God to instruct exhort reprove and adminster the Christian Sacraments if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them in all Religious Offices 3. Nay the Nature of Christian Worship obliges us to Church-Communion I suppose no Man will deny but that every Christian is bound to Worship God according to our Saviours Institution and what that is we cannot learn better than from the Example of the Primitive Christians of whom St. Luke gives us this account that they continued Stedfast in the Acts 2. 41. Apostles Doctrine and Worship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers That which makes any thing in a Strict sense an Act of Church-Communion is that it is performed in the Fellowship of the Apostles or in Communion with the Bishops and Ministers of the Church They are appointed to Offer up the Prayers of Christians to God in his Name and therefore tho the private devotions of Christians are acceptable to God as the Prayers of Church-Members yet none but publick Prayers which are Offered up by Men who have their Authority from Christ to Offer these Spiritual Sacrifices to God are properly the Prayers of the Church and Acts of Church-Communion If then we must Offer up our Prayers to God according to Christ's Institution that is by the hands of persons Authorized and set apart for that purpose we must of necessity joyn in the Actual and Visible Communion of the Church The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is the principal part of Christian Worship and we cannot Celebrate this Feast but in Church-Communion for this is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common Supper or Communion-Feast which in all Ages of the Church has been administred by Consecrated Persons and in Church-Communion for it loses its Nature and Signification when it is turned into a private Mass so that if every Christian is bound to the Actual performance of true Christian Worship he is bound to an Actual Communion with the Christian Church 4. We may observe further that Church Authority is exercised only about Church-Communion which necessarily supposes that all Christians who
may 1 Cor. 14. 5. 12. receive Edifying That ye may excel to the Edifying Eph. 4. 12. of the Church For the Edifying of the Body of Christ And it is very observable wherein the Apostle places the Edification of the Body of Christ viz. in Unity and Love Till we all come in the Vnity of the Faith and of the 13. knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect Man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ Till we are united by one Faith into one Body and perfect Man And speaking the truth in love may grow up in him into 15 16. all things which is the head Even Christ from whom the whole Body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the Effectual working in the measure of every part maketh increase of the Body unto the Edifying it self in love This is an admirable description of the Unity of the Church in which all the parts are closely united and compacted together as Stones and Timber are to make one House and thus they grow into one Body and increase in mutual Love and Charity which is the very Building and Edification of the Church which is Edifyed and Built up in love as the Apostle adds 1 Cor. 8. 1. that knowledge puffeth up but charity Edifieth this Builds up the Church of Christ and that not such a common Charity as we have for all Mankind but such a love and Sympathy as is peculiar to the Members of the same Body and which none but Members can have for each other and now methinks I need not prove that Schism and Separation is not for the Edification of the Church to Separate for Edification is to Pull down in stead of Building up But these Men do not seem to have any great regard to the Edification of the Church but only to their own particular Edification and we must grant that Edification is sometimes applied to particular Christians in Scripture according to St. Pauls Exhortation Comfort your selves together and Edifie one another 1 Thes 5. 11. even as also ye do And this Edifying one another without question signifies our promoting each others growth and progress in all Christian Graces and vertues and so the Building and Edification of the Church signifies the growth and improvement of the Church in all Spiritual Wisdom and knowledge and Christian graces the Edification of the Church consists in the Edification of particular Christians but then this is called Edification or Building because this growth and improvement is in the Unity and Communion of the Church and makes them one Spiritual House and Temple Thus the Church is called the Temple of God and every particular Christian is Gods Temple wherein the Holy Spirit dwells and yet God has but one Temple and the Holy Spirit dwells only in the Church of Christ but particular Christians are Gods Temple and the Holy Spirit dwells in them as living Members of the Christian Church and thus by the same reason the Church is Edified and Built up as it grows into a Spiritual House and Holy Temple by a firm and close Union and Communion of all its parts and every Christian is Edified as he grows up in all Christian Graces and Vertues in the Unity of the Church And therefore whatever extraordinary means of Edification Men may fancy to themselves in a Separation the Apostle knew no Edification but in the Communion of the Church and indeed if our growth and increase in all Grace and Vertue be more owing to the internal assistances of the Divine Spirit than to the external Administrations as St. Paul tells us I have planted and Apollos watered but God gave the 1 Cor. 3. 6 7. increase So then neither is he that planteth any thing nor he that watereth but God that gave the increase And the Divine Spirit confines his influences and operations to the Unity of the Church as the same Apostle tells us that there is but one Body and Eph. 4. 4. one Spirit which plainly signifies that the operations of this one Spirit are appropriated to this one Body as the Soul is to the Body iâ— Animates then it does not seem a very likely way for Edification to cut our selves off from the Unity of Christs Body 3. The Third and Last Case still remains which Case 3 will be resolved in a few words according to the Principles now laid down which is this Whether it be Lawful to Communicate with two distinct and Separate Churches For this is thought of late days not only a very Innocent and Lawful thing but the true Catholick-Spirit and Catholick-Communion to Communicate with Churches of all Communions unless perhaps they may except the Papists and Quakers It is thought a Schismatical Principle to refuse to Communicate with those Churches which withdraw Communion from us And thus some who Communicate ordinarily with the Church of England make no Scruple to Communicate in Prayers and Sacraments with Presbyterian and Independent Churches and Presbyterians can Communicate with the Church of England and with Independents whom formerly they charged with down-right Schism and some think it very indifferent whom they Communicate with and therefore take their turns in all But this is as contrary to all the Principles of Church-Communion as any thing can possibly be To be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it and to be a Member of two Separate and Opposite Churches is to be as contrary to our selves as those Separate Churches are to each other Christ hath but one Church and one Body and therefore where there are two Churches divided from each other by Separate Communions there is a Schism and Rent in the Body and whoever Communicates with both these Churches on one side or other Communicates in a Schism That the Presbyterian and Independent Churches have made an Actual Separation from the Church of England I have evidently proved already and therefore if the Communion of the Church of England be Lawful as those who can and ordinarily do Communicate with the Church of England must be presumed to acknowledge then they are Schismaticks and to Communicate with them is to partake in their Schism Now if Schism be an Innocent thing and the true Catholick Spirit I have no more to say but that the whole Christian Church ever since the Apostles times has been in a very great mistake but if Schism be a very great Sin and that which will Damn us as soon as Adultery and Murder then it must needs be a dangerous thing to Communicate with Schismaticks The Sum of all in short is this Besides these Men who justifie their Separation from the Church of England by charging Her with requiring Sinful terms of Communion which is the only thing that can justifie their Separation if it could be proved there are others who Separate lightly and wantonly for want of a due sense of the Nature of
Religion but make nothing at all of his Priesthood and Sacrifice If Christ be our great High Priest and we must hope for Salvation only in vertue of his Sacrifice There must be some way appointed to apply his Merits and Salvation to us and this will convince us of the necessity of Church-Communion and a visible Confederation by Sacraments See Vindic. of the Def. cap. 3. of divine appointment But if Christ came only as a great Prophet to instruct us more perfectly in the Rules of Vertue and to give us more certain Hopes of a future State there can be no more necessity of a Church now than there was in a State of Nature Christians may associate if they please for Acts of publick worship and they may break Company when they please without any danger and the Evangelical Sacraments can be only significant Ceremonies which may be used or let alone as every one likes best At this Rate you every where discourse and I believe so well of our Dissenters that though they would be glad to be excused from the guilt of Schism yet they will not thank you for excusing them upon such Principles as tend to undermine Christianity and I believe so well of you that though you affect to talk in the modish way yet you do not understand whither it tends and I hope this timely Caution may prevent your embracing those Principles whereon your Conclusions are Naturally Built Another thing I would warn you of is that these loose Principles of Church-Communion do not tempt you to Schism and State-Factions which usually go together You pretend indeed to be in constant Communion with the Church of England but according to the Principles of your Letters no Church in the World can have any hold of you every Man is a Communicant at his own pleasure who thinks he may part without Sin And it is much to be suspected that no Man who is a hearty lover of the Church of England can make such a Zealous Defence for Dissenters who has not some private reasons for his Zeal and when Men are not Endeared to each other by one Communion it is to be feared they are linked together by some other Common Interest Now should you prove a Schismatick to say no worse it will not excuse you how many Fine Questions soever you can ask about it And that which will greatly endanger you is that great Opinion you have of your self for some men are so wanton as to espouse a Schism or Faction only to shew their Wit in Defending it and to make themselves considerable by espousing a Party I will not so much wrong you as to say that you have shewn any great Wit or Judgment in this Cause but it is evident to every impartial Man who reads your Letters that you have betrayed too great a conceit of both and that is a great deal the more dangerous of the two for true Wit and Judgment will secure Men from those mischiefs which a vain conceit of it betrays them to And now Sir all that I shall add concerns your way of Writing which neither becomes a wise Man nor a fair Disputant you have not offered any Argument to disprove any one thing I have said you have no where shewn the weakness of my Arguments to prove what I undertook but have at all Adventures askt a great many Questions and generally nothing to the purpose Now it had been easie to have askt you as many cross Questions which had been as good an Answer to your Questions as your Questions are to my Discourse and thus People might have gazed on us and have been never the wiser For to raise a great many difficulties onely tends to Scepticism and will never end a Dispute I am loth to mind you of the Proverb because I do not think the application belongs to you but yet it should make any Man of Wit ashamed of such Methods of Dispute wherein he may be out-done by a Man of no Wit I confess I have with some regret stole time from better Employment to answer your Letters but do not think my self bound to do so as often as you think fit to give a publick Challenge This Controversie if you had pleased might have been ended more privately which had been less trouble to me though it may be you thought it might have been less glorious to your self which I presume was your reason of first spreading your Letter in Writing and then of Printing it I shall not envy your Glory I had rather continue mean and obscure in a humble Obedience to Church and State than to raise the most Glorious Triumphs and Trophees to my memory by giving the least disturbance to either And that you and all sober Christians may be of the same mind is the hearty Prayer of SIR Your very Humble Servant W. S. FINIS BOOKS Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stilling fleet 's Unreasonableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger resulting from the change of our Church-Government 1. 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 Englands 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 Anonymus 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 Communions 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 taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren 17. The Case of Infant-Baptism in Five Questions 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. THE CASE OF Lay-Communion WITH THE CHURCH of ENGLAND CONSIDERED And the Lawfulness of it shew'd from the Testimony of above an hundred eminent Non-conformists of several Perswasions Published for the satisfaction of the Scrupulous and to prevent the Sufferings which such needlesly expose themselves to The Second Edition corrected by the Author LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard M. DC LXXXIV TO THE DISSENTERS FROM THE Church of England Dear Brethren YOU being at this time called upon by Authority to join in Communion with the Church and the Laws ordered to be put in Execution against such as refuse it It 's both your Duty and Interest to enquire into the grounds upon which you deny Obedience to the Laws Communion with the Church of God and thereby expose our Religion to danger and your selves to suffering In which unless the Cause be good the Call clear and Mr. Mede 's Farewel Serm. on 1 Cor. 1. 3. the End right it cannot bring Peace to your selves or be acceptable to God Not bring Peace to your selves For we cannot suffer joyfully the Mr. Read 's Case p. 4. spoiling of our Goods the confinement of our Persons the ruin of our Families unless Conscience be able truly to say I would have done any thing but sin against God that I might have avoided those Sufferings from Men. Not be acceptable to God to whom all are accountable Continuat of Morn Exer. Ser. 4. p. 92. for what Portion he hath intrusted them with of the things of this Life and are not to throw away without sufficient reason and who has made it our Duty to do what we can without Sin in Obedience to that Authority which he hath set over us as you are told by some Read Ibid. in the same condition with your selves To assist Persons in this Enquiry I have observed that of late several of the Church of England have undertaken the most material Points that you do question and have handled them with that Candor and Calmness which becomes their Profession and the gravity of the Arguments and which may the better invite those that are willing to be satisfied to peruse and consider them But because Truth and Reason do too often suffer by the Prejudices we have against particular Persons to remove as much as may be that Obstruction I have in this Treatise shewed that these Authors are not alone but have the concurrent Testimony of the most eminent Non-conformists for them who do generally grant that there is nothing required in the Parochial Communion of the Church of England that can be a sufficient reason for Separation from it The sence of many of these I have here collected and for one hundred I could easily have produced two if the Cause were to go by the Poll So that if Reason or Authority will prevail I hope that yet your Satisfaction and Recovery to the Communion of the Church is not to be despaired of Which God of his infinite Mercy grant for your own and the Churches sake Amen THE CONTENTS THE difference betwixt Ministerial and Lay-Communion Pag. 1 The Dissenters grant the Church of England to be a True Church p. 4 That they are not totally to separate from it p. 12 That they are to comply with it as far as lawfully they can p. 16 That Defects in Worship if not Essential are no just reason for Separation p. 23 That the expectation of better Edification is no sufficient reason to with-hold Communion p. 39 The badness of Ministers will not justify Separation p. 48 The neglect or want of Discipline no sufficient reason to separate p. 59 The Opinion which the Non-conformists have of the several Practices of the Church of England which its Lay-Members are concerned in p. 64 That Forms of Prayer are lawful and do not stint the Spirit ibid. That publick prescribed Forms may lawfully be joined with p. 66 That the Liturgy or Common-Prayer is for its Matter sound and good and for its Form tolerable if not useful p. 69 That Kneeling at the Sacrament is not idolatrous nor unlawful and no sufficient reason to separate from that Ordinance p. 71 72 That standing up at the Creed and Gospel is lawful p. 73 The Conclusion ibid. THE NON-CONFORMISTS PLEA FOR Lay-Communion With the CHURCH of ENGLAND THE Christian World is divided into two Ranks Ecclesiastical and Civil usually known by the Names of Clergy and Laity Ministers and People The Clergy besides the things essentially belonging to their Office are by the Laws of all well-ordered Churches in the World strictly obliged by Declarations or Subscriptions or both to own and maintain the Doctrine Discipline and Constitution of the Church into which they are admitted Thus in the Church of England they do subscribe to the Truth of the Doctrine more especially contained in the thirty nine Articles and declare that they will use the Forms and Rites contained in the Liturgy and promise to submit to the Government in its Orders The design of all which is to preserve the Peace of the Church and the Unity of Christians which doth much depend upon that of its Officers and Teachers But the Laity are under no such Obligations there being no Declarations or Subscriptions required of them nor any thing more than to attend upon and joyn with the Worship practised and allowed in the Church Thus it is in the Church of England as it is acknowledged by Mr. Baxter to whom when it Defence of the Cure part 2. pag. 29. was objected that many Errors in Doctrine and Life were imposed as Conditions of Communion he replies What is imposed on you as a Condition to your Communion in the Doctrine and Prayers of the Parish-Churches but your actual Communion it self In discoursing therefore about the Lawfulness of Communion with a Church the Difference betwixt these two must be carefully observed lest the things required only of one Order of Men should be thought to belong to all It 's observed by one That the Original of all Our Mischiefs A Book licensed by Mr. Cranford sprung from Mens confounding the terms of Ministerial Conformity with those of Lay-Communion with the Parochial Assemblies there being much more required of the Ministers than of the People Private Persons having much less to say for themselves in absenting from the publick Worship of God tho performed by the Liturgy than the Pastor hath for not taking Oaths c. Certainly if this Difference were but observ'd and the Case of Lay-Communion truly stated and understood the People would not be far more
something essential to a Church But if the Church have all things essential to it it is a true Church and not to be separated from When the V. Annotations on the Apologet. Nar. p. 17. Church of Rome is called a true Church it 's understood in a Metaphysical or Natural Sence as a Thief is a true Man and the Devil himself though the Father of Lies is a true Spirit But withal she is a false Church as Mr. Brinsly saith from Bishop Hall an Heretical Arraignment of Schism p. 26. Apostatical Antichristian Synagogue And so to separate from her is a Duty But when the Church of England is said to be a true Church or the Parochial Churches true Churches it 's in a moral Sence as they are sound Churches which may safely be communicated with Thus doth Dr. Bryan make the Dwelling with God Serm. 6. p. 289 291. Opposition The Church of Rome is a part of the universal visible Church of Christians so far as they profess Christianity and acknowledg Christ their Head but it is the visible Society of Traiterous Vsurpers so far as they profess the Pope to be their Head c. From this Church therefore which is Spiritual Babylon God's People are bound to separate c. but not from Churches which have made Separation from Rome as the reformed Protestant Churches in France and these of Great Britain have done in whose Congregations is found Truth of Doctrine a lawful Ministry and a People professing the true Religion submitting to and joyning together in the true Worship of God Such a Separation would as has been said unchurch it This would be to deny Christ holds Communion with it or to deny Communion with a Church with which Christ holds Communion contrary to a Principle that is I think universally maintained The Error of these Men saith Mr. Brightman * * * On Rev. c. 3. V. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Allen Vindiciae Pietatis second part p. 123. Vindication of Presbyterian Government p. 130. Cotton on John p. 156. i◠full of Evil who do in such a manner make a Departure from this Church by total Separation as if Christ were quite banished from hence and that there could be no hope of Salvation to those that abide there Let these Men consider that Christ is here feasting with his Members will they be ashamed to sit at Meat there where Christ is not ashamed to sit Further this would be a notorious Schism so the old Non-conformists conclude * * * Grave Consut p. 57. Cawdrey's Independency further proved p. 136. Because we have a true Church consisting of a lawful Ministry and a faithful People therefore they cannot separate themselves from us but they must needs incur the most shameful and odious Reproach of manifest Schism for what is that saith another †††Brinsly's Arraigment p. 15 24 44. but a total Separation from a true Church This lastly would not diminish but much increase the Fault of the Separation As another saith | | | Baily's Disswasive c. 6. p. 104. For it is a greater Sin to depart from a Church which I profess to be true and whose Ministry I acknowledg to be saving than from a Church which I conceive to be false and whose Ministers I take to have no Calling from God nor any Blessing from his Hand This therefore is their avow'd Principle That total Separation from the Church is unlawful And this the old Non-conformists did generally hold and maintain against the Brownists * * * Ames 's Puritanismus Angl. V. Parker on the Cross part 2. c. 91. § 21. Bax. Defence p. 55. and the Dissenting Brethren did declare on their part †††Apologet. Nar. p. 6. We have always professed and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most either actually over-spread with Defilements or in the greatest Danger thereof c. that we both did and would hold Communion with them as the Churches of Christ And amongst the present Non-conformists several have writ for Communion with the Church against those that separate from it and have in Print declared it to be their Duty and Practice So Mr. Baxter | | | Sacril desert p. 75. I constantly joyn i◠my Parish-Church in Liturgy and Sacrament It 's said of Mr. Joseph Allen * * * The Life of Mr. J. Allen p. 111. That he as frequently attended on the Publick Worship as his Opportunities and Strength permitted †††The Doctrine of Schism p. 64. Of Mr. Brinsley that he ordinarily attended on the Publick Worship Dr. Collins saith as much of himself | | | Reasonable Account c. Mr. Lye in his Farewell Sermon doth advise his People to attend the Publick Worship of God to hear the best they could and not to separate but to do as the old Puritans did thirty Years before Mr. Cradacot in his Farewel Sermon professeth That if that Pulpit was his dying Bed he would earnestly perswade them to have a care of total Separation from the Publick Worship of God Mr. Hickman freely declares I profess Bonasus vapulans p. 113. where-ever I come I make it my Business to reconcile People to the Publick Assemblies my Conscience would fly in my Face if I should do otherwise And Mr. Corbet as he did hold Communion with the Church of England so saith * * * Account of the Principles of the Non-conformists p. 26. That the Presbyterians generally frequent the Worship of God in the Publick †††Discourse of the Religion c. p. 33. V. Mr. Read's Case p. 15. Assemblies It 's evident then that it is their Principle and we may charitably believe it is their Practice in Conformity to it * * * Non-conformists Plea for Lay-Communion p. 1. Thus Mr. Corbet declares for himself I own parish-Parish-Churches having a competent Minister and a number of credible Professors of Christianity for true Churches and the Worship therein performed as well in common-Common-Prayer as in the Preaching of the Word to be in the main sound and good for the Substance or Matter thereof And I may not disown the same in my Practice by a total neglect thereof for my Judgment and Practice ought to be concordant And if these two Judgment and Practice be not concordant it would be impossible to convince Men that they are in earnest or that they do believe themselves while they declare against Separation and yet do not keep it up Those good Men therefore were aware of this who met a little after the Plague and Fire to consider saith Mr. Baxter Non-conformists Plea fo◠Peace § 17◠p 240. whether our actual Forbearance to joyn with the Parish-Churches in the Sacrament and much more if it was total might not tend to deceive Men and make them believe that we were for Separation from them and took their Communion to be
Assemblies and the Corruptions there though great yet are not such as make the Worship cease to be God's Worship nor of necessity to be swallowed down if one would communicate in that Worship while any Christian that is watchful over his own Heart and Carriage as all ought ever to be may partake in the one without being active in or approving the other there God is yet present there he may be spiritually worshipped served acceptably and really enjoyed 3. They grant that the being present at Divine Worship is no consent to the Corruptions in it Thus Mr. Robinson He that partakes Lawfulness of Heaâ—ing c. p. 19 23. with the Church in the upholding any Evil hath his part in the Evil also But I deny as a most vain Imagination that every one that partakes with a Church in things lawful joyns with it in upholding the things unlawful to be found in it Christ our Lord joyned with the Jewish Church in things lawful and yet upheld nothing unlawful in it So Mr. Nye Case of great and present Use p. 16 18. Cure dir 35. p 196 c. Defence p. 96. Approbation is an act of the Mind it is not shewed until it be expressed outwardly by my Words and Gestures This Mr. Baxter undertakes to prove by several Arguments as that no Man can in Reason and Justice take that for my Profession which I never made by Word or Deed. That the Profession made by Church-Communion is totally distinct from this That this Opinion would make it unlawful to joyn with any Pastor or Church on Earth since every one mixeth Sin with their Prayers 4. They say that Corruptions though foreknown do not yet make those that are present guilty of them Thus the old Non-conformists declare It is all one to the People Letter of Ministers in Old-England to the Brethren in New-England p. 12 13 16. whether the Fault be personal as some distinguish or otherwise known before-hand or not known For if simple Presence defile whether it was known before-hand or not all Presence is faulty And if simple Presence defile not our Presence is not condemned by reason of the Corruptions known whereof we stand not guilty If the Error be such as may be tolerated and I am called to be present by such Fault I am not defiled though known before Mr. Baxter replies to those of a Curâ— p. 200. contrary Opinion after this manner Take heed that thus by affirming that fore-knowing Faults in Worship makes them ours you make not God the greatest Sinner and the worst Being in all the World For God fore-knoweth all Mens Sins and is present when they commit them and he hath Communion with all the Prayers of the Faithful in the World what Faults soever be in the Words or Forms he doth not reject them for any such Failings Will you say therefore that God approveth or consenteth to all these Sins I know before-hand that every Man will sin that prayeth by defect of Desire c. But how doth all this make it mine c. And he otherwhere adds It is another Man's Christian Diâ—ect p. 748 Fault or Error that you fore-know and not your own 5. It 's granted that the Fault of another in the Ministration of Divine Worship is none of ours nor a sufficient Reason to absent from it or to deprive our selves of it Thus Mr. Baxter The Cure p. 197. V. Jerubbaal justified p 16 c. 22 34. wording of the publick Prayers is the Pastors Work and none of mine c. And why should any hold me guilty of another Mans Fault which I neither can help nor belongeth to any Office of mine to help any farther than to admonish him And that the Faults of him that ministers are no sufficient Reasons to debar our selves of Communion in the Worship Mr. Nye affirms and proves by this Argument Case of great and present use p. 10. If I may not omit a Duty in respect to the Evil mixed with it which is my own much less may I thus leave an Ordinance for the Evil that is another Mans no way mine or to be charged upon me this were to make another Mans Sins or Infirmities more mine than my own Thus is the Case resolved Of Scandal a Discours p. 65. with respect to the Cross in Baptism I may not only saith one do that which I judg to be inconvenient but suffer another to do that which I judg to be unlawful rather than be deprived of a necessary Ordinance e. g. If either I must have my Child baptized with the sign of the Cross or not baptized at all I must suffer it to be done in that way though I judg it an unlawful Addition because the manner concerns him that doth it not me at least not so much so long as there is all the Essence He must be responsible for every Irregularity not I. Thus Jacob took Laban's Oath though by his Idols c. V. Crofton's Reformat no Separat p. 24. After the same manner doth Mr. Baxter resolâ—â— the Case in his Christian Directory pag. 49. Seventhly They grant That it is a Duty to joyn Arg. 7 with a defective and faulty Worship where we can have no better Thus the Presbyterian Brethren at the Savoy * * * Confer at the Savoy p. 3 12 13. An inconvenient mode of Worship is a Sin in the Imposer and in the Chuser and voluntary User that may offer God better and will not And yet it may not only be lawful but a Duty to him that by Violence is necessitated to offer up that or none This is acknowledged by an Author that is far from being favourable to Communion with the Church If the Word of God could be no Separat yet no Schism p. 64. where heard or Communion in Sacraments no where enjoyed but only in such Churches that were so corrupt as yours is conceived to be it might be lawful yea and a Duty to joyn with you so far as possibly Christians could without Sin Accordingly Mr. Baxter declares That Def. of Cure part 1. p. 78. it is a Duty to hold Communion constantly with any of the Parish Churches amongst us that have honest competent Pastors when we can have no better and professeth for his own part Were I saith he in Armenia Part 2. p. 176. and Cure p. 265. q. 6. Abassia or among the Greeks I would joyn in a much more defective Form than our Liturgy rather than none And he adds That this is the Judgment of many New-England Ministers to joyn with the English Liturgy rather than have no Church-Worship I have reason to conjecture from the Defence of the Synod c. Defence of Synod Pref. p. 4 5. Def. of Cure part 1. p. 78. n. 6. p. 96. n. 5. Now in what Cases this is to be presumed that we can have no better he shews 1. When it is so by a necessity arising
kind that have not so much as the Name of Discipline amongst them And so they have little reason to justify themselves in a Separation by such an Argument that will as well wound themselves as those they bend it against and they that do so are guilty of Sin So Mr. Baxter Many that observe the Pollution of the Church by the great neglect of Holy Discipline avoid this Cure Dir. 47. p. 231. Error by turning to a sinful Separation I shall conclude this with that grave Advice of Dr. Owen When Evangel Loâ—e c 3. p. 77. any Church whereof a Man is by his own consent antecedently a Member doth fall in part or in whole from any of those Truths which it hath professed or when it is overtaken with a neglect of Discipline or Irregulatities in its Administration such a one is to consider that he is placed in his present State by Divine Providence that he may orderly therein endeavour to put a stop unto such Defections and to exercise his Charity Love and Forbearance towards the Persons of them whose Miscarriages at present he cannot Remedy In such Cases there is a large and spacious Field for Wisdom Patience Love and prudent Zeal to exercise themselves And it is a most perverse imagination that Separation is the only Cure for Church-Disorders If this Advice be good in one Case it is so in another and if it were well understood and faithfully followed this Argument would be of little or no force 2. I shall shew how little this Plea of the Defective Discipline reaches the Case It 's granted that there is such a Power and Authority of Ecclesiastical Discipline resident in the Church of England that if open and scandalous Persons are not cast out the Fault is in the Governours for the Law takes order they shall be as Dr. Bryan saith (a) (a) (a) Dwelling with God Serm. 6. p 301. V. Grave Confut part 1. p. 17. â—ermin Separation examined p. 28. And the Power of Suspension put thereby into the Minister's Hands is so evident that after Dr. Collins had proved it from the Rubricks Canons c. he concludes (b) (b) (b) Provocator provocatus p. 151 154. V. Vines on Sacrament c. 19. p. 233. Brinsley's Arraign p. 40. Cawdrey's Church Reformat p 122. It 's plain that the Judgment and Practice of the Church of England in all Times ever since it was a Church hath been to suspend some from the Table of the Lord. So that if there be Defects through some past and present Obstructions in the Exercise of Discipline yet cannot the Church properly stand charged with them as is acknowledged (c) (c) (c) Brinsley's Arraign p. 48. Jenk on Jude v. 19. Blake's Vindiciae c. 31. p. 236. or whatever may be charged upon the Church there can be no sufficient Cause from a Defect Remisness or Corruption therein for a Separation from it This was the constant Judgment of the old Non-conformists which I shall transcribe from a grave Author Those saith he that for many Years together during the Reign of the three last Princes denied to come up to a full Conformity to this Church had a low Opinion of the Discipline then exercised of which they have left behind them large Evidences yet how tender were they of the Churches Honour to keep Christians in Communion How zealous were they against Separation as may appear in the Labours of Mr. Parker Mr. Paget Mr. Ball. Mr. Brightman laid us low enough when he did not only parallel us with luke-warm Laodicea but made that Church the Type and we the Antitype by reason of our Discipline yet how zealous is he against Separation from these Assemblers and breaks out in these words Therefore their Error is wicked and blasphemous who so forsake the Church as if Christ were altogether banished thence Having thus far considered what opinion the graver sort of the Non-conformists have of Communion with a Church and what Rules they do lay down about it and shew'd that according to those Rules Separation from the Church is unlawful I shall close all with the last Advice given by a Reverend Person to his Parishioners in a Farewel Sermon in England's Remembranc Serm. 16. p. 454. these words Take heed of Extreams It is the ordinary Temptation in a time of Differences to think we cannot run too far from them we differ from and so whilst we decline one Rock we split upon another Remember the old Non-conformists were equal Enemies to Superstition and Separation Maintain I beseech you sober Principles such as these are that every defective Ministry is not a false Ministry that sinful Super-additions do not nullify Divine Institutions that sinful Defects in Ordinances do not hinder the saving Effects of them That there is a difference betwixt directing a Worship prescribing things simply Evil and manifestly Idolatrous and directing about Worship things doubtfully good being injoined but the unquestionable Substance of Worship being maintained This latter ter doth not justify Separation And that the supposed Corruptions in the Church of England are of that nature as do not affect the substance of it nor are such but what may be safely communicated in I shall now proceed to shew from them 3. I shall consider what Opinion the eminent Non-conformists 3. General have had of the several Practices in the Church of England that are injoined upon those that hold Lay-Communion with it which respect Forms Gestures c. In general they acknowledg that they are Things tolerable and what no Church is without more or less (a) (a) (a) Letter of the Miâ—ist of Old-Engl p. 12 13. Bryan's Dwelling with God p. 311. Troughton's Apol c. 7 p. 68. 2. That they are not sufficient to hinder Communion 3. That they are but few (b) (b) (b) Owen's Peace-Offer p. 17. Mischief of Impositions Epist Dedic First Forms and so it 's required of the Members of the Church that they join in the use of Liturgy or common-Common-Prayer For the better understanding their Judgment in this Matter I shall shew what their Opinion is of Forms of Prayer of publick Forms of Forms prescribed and of that particular Form of Divine Service used in this Church 1. The use of Forms is declared by them to be a thing lawful in it self and what God hath left us at liberty to use or not to use as we see occasion So Mr. Ball The Word of God doth not prescribe Tryal c. 2. p. 36 c. 8. p. 131. any particular Form stinted or not stinted as necessary but doth warrant both as allowable for where nothing is in particular commanded touching the external Form of Words and Order in which our Petitions should be presented to the Lord there we are left at liberty And to put Religion in reading or uttering Words in a stinted or conceived Form What is it less than Superstition Of the same mind is Mr. Baxter and others
* * * Sacril desert p. 98 99. Cure of Ch. Divis p 175. Tomb's Theod. p. 137. And even Dr. Owen though he doth disallow the composing Forms of Prayer for our own private use yet at the same time declares †††Discourse of the Work of the Spirit in Prayer p. 2â—0 235. V. Dissenting Brethren in 32 Quest p. 55. that he doth not argue against Forms of Prayer as unlawful to be used And he adds a little after If they appear not contrary unto or inconsistent with or are not used in a way exclusive of that Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer which we have described from Scripture c. I shall not contend with any about them But they do not only assert but they also undertake to prove the lawfulness of Forms (a) (a) (a) Ball 's Tryal c. 2. Rogers Tr. 223 Bryan's dwelling with God p. 307. from the Nature Use and Ends of Prayer and charge the contrary Opinion with Enthusiasm (b) (b) (b) Grave Confut Epist to Reader Continuat of Morn Exer. p 1006. and Novelty (c) (c) (c) Prest Serm. on Jo. 1. 16. Secondly As to Forms in Publick they declare 1. That it is lawful to use them and that this was the Tenent of all our best and most judicious Divines (d) (d) (d) Clark's Liv. of 10 Divines p. 255. Ball 's Tryal p. 11. This Dr. Owen is cautious of denying who saith (e) (e) (e) Discourse of Prayer p. 231. Supposing that those who make use of and plead for Forms of Prayer especially in Publick do in a due manner prepare themselves for it by Holy Meditation c. I do not judg that there is any such Evil in them as that God will not communicate his Spirit to any in the use of them 2. They do not only grant it lawful to use them but that it 's expedient So Mr. Egerton declares (f) (f) (f) Pract. of Christianity c. 11 p. 691. Edit 5. As for the Publick Congregation special care must be had that nothing be done in Praying Preaching or Administring the Sacraments but what is decent and orderly because there many Eyes do see us and many Ears hear us and upon this account it is expedient for the most part to keep a constant Form both of Matter and Words Mr. Bradshaw Life of Mr. W. Bradshaw in Mr. Clark's Collect. in Fol. p. 67. Continuat of Morn Exerc. Serm. 31. p. 1006. pleads for it as Mr. Gataker informs us in his Life for the avoiding Hesitation which in Prayer is more offensive than in other Discourse And when in a late Collection of Sermons we find it complained of that in our days some have such Schismatical Phrases Notions and Doctrine in Preaching Praying and Praising that a sober Christian cannot say Amen it renders a Form so much the more considerable Collection of the Lives of 10 Divines p. 255. Life of M Capel 3. They declare that Publick Forms were universally used So Mr. Clark saith That Set Forms of Prayer are according to the practice of all Churches even the best Reformed yea and Mr. Smith himself saith upon the Lord's Prayer though as then he was warping and afterwards wandred far in the ways of Separation that it was the practice of the Ancient Church and of all the Reformed Churches in Christendom of the Churches immediatly after the Apostles nay saith he of the Church in the Time of the Apostles as may be probably gathered out of 1 Cor. 14. 26. This hath also been the practice of the best Lights that ever were set up in the Churches of Christ 4. Accordingly this was the practice of the Old Non-conformists So Mr. Clark It is very well known Ibid that the Flower of our own Divines went on in this way when they might have done otherwise if they had pleased in their Prayers before Sermons This we are told of Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Cartwright (a) (a) (a) Bradshaw's Life publish d by Mr. Clark in Fol. p. 67. And we find Mr. Hildersham's Prayer before Sermon Printed (b) (b) (b) His Doctr. of Fasting and Prayer Anno 1633. and others This was so universally and constantly practised that Mr. Clark tells us (c) (c) (c) Collect. of 10 Lives 40. p. 38. that the first Man who brought conceived Prayer into use in those parts where he lived was Mr. Sam. Crook who died but in the Year 1649. Thirdly As to prescribed Forms and Liturgies of this Mr. Ball saith I have shewed the use of a stinted Tryal Epist to Readeâ— Liturgie lawful and allowable by the Word of God of ancient use in the Churches of Christ approved by all Reformed Churches which is a very convenient method for the consideration of their Judgment in the case 1. They grant that they are lawful It 's contrary to no Precept or Commandment directly or by Tryal c. 1. p. 5. c. 3. p. 23. lawful Consequence saith Mr. Ball. So Mr. Norton of New-England doth determine Such things being Answ to Apollonius c. 13. observ'd as are to be observed it may be lawful to use Forms of Prayers c. prescribed in the Church neither are the Churches which use them guilty of Superstition Will-Worship and violating the second Commandment And Dr. Owen himself Discourse of Prayer p. 222 235. complies with it who yields That Men or Churches may agree upon a prescribed Form by common consent as judging and avowing it best for their own Edification and only argues against prescribing such Forms of Prayer universally in opposition and unto the exclusion of free Prayer 2. They grant that they are not only lawful but that there are foot-steps of this way of Worship both in the Old and New Testament as Mr. Tombs and others have shewed (a) (a) (a) Tombs Theodulia p. 221. Baxt. Cure p. 176. Balls Trial p. 128 129. Grave Confut. p. 12 13. and Mr. Ainsworth himself that did otherwise argue against them doth confess (b) (b) (b) Annot. on Ex. 12. 8. 3. They grant that they are very ancient in the Christian Church The Christian Churches of ancient Times for the space of this 1400 Years at least if not from the Apostles Time have had their stinted Liturgies saith Mr. Ball (c) (c) (c) Trial p. 96 106 111 138. p. 80. And they answer Objections to the contrary (d) (d) (d) Tombs Theodulia p. 222. 4. They grant that in the best Reformed nay in all Reformed Churches they are not only used and tolerated but also useful and expedient (e) (e) (e) Balls Trial p. 108 c. Rogers Treatises p. 224. Tombs Theod. p. 234. 5. That those amongst us to whom the use of the Common-Prayer hath been thought most burthensome have from time to time professed their liking and approbation of a stinted Liturgy as Mr. Ball assures us (f) (f) (f) Trial p 96 106 120. 6.
That they thought it altogether unlawful to separate from a Church for the sake of stinted Forms and Liturgies This is not only frequently affirmed by Mr. Ball (g) (g) (g) Trial p. 121 129 140 156. but little less even by Mr. Norton (h) (h) (h) Resp ad Apol c. 13. who saith It is lawful to embrace Communion with Churches where such Forms in Publick Worship are in use neither doth it lie as a Duty on a Believer that he disjoin and separate himself from such a Church And they give this reason for it that then they must separate from all Churches So Mr. Baxter c. Is it not a high degree Sacril desert p. 102. Defence Part 2. p. 65. Balls Trial p. 138. Rogers 7 Tr. p. 224. of Pride to conclude that almost all Christ's Churches in the World for these thirteen hundred Years at least to this day have offered such Worship unto God as that you are obliged to avoid it and that almost all the Catholick Church on Earth this day is below your Communion for using Forms and that even Calvin and the Presbyterians Cartwright Hildersham and the old Non-conformists were unworthy your Communion I know there are several Objections against Forms of Prayer but I know also that these are answered by them But since the most common is that of quenching and stinting the Spirit I shall briefly give their sence of it They say 1. To say that Persons should use no set Form but Roger's 7 Tr. Tr. 3. c. 4. p. 223. Balls Tryal c. 5. p. 83. pray as moved by the Spirit is a fond Error 2. They say that the Spirit instructeth us what to ask not in what phrase of speech It stirreth up in us holy Desires but giveth not ability suddenly and without help to express and lay open our Hearts in a fit method and significant words Ability of Speech is a common Gift of the Spirit which the Lord bestoweth upon good and bad c. 3. That the measure of the Spirit standeth not in Ibid. p. 91. Words and Forms but in fervent Sighs and Groans 4. That there is nothing letteth but that in such Rogers Ibid. Forms the Hearers Hearts may profitably go with the same both to humble to quicken and to comfort And Dr. Owen cannot deny but that they may Disc of Prayer p 222 231 232. be for edification and that Persons in the use of them may have Communion with God 5. They say that the Scriptures insisted upon in this Case are grounded upon Mistakes and are misapplied as Mr. Tombs in particular hath clearly manifested Theodulia p. 164 238. Fourthly I shall consider what their Opinion is as to the English Liturgy or Common-Prayer both as to the Liturgy it self and Communion in it As to the Liturgy it self it 's acknowledged 1. That the Matter for the most part is good sound Bryan's dwelling with God Serm. 6 p. 312. Baxt. Def. pa. t 1. p. 29 59. Crofton Refor no Separ p. 25. T. D. Jerubbaal p 35. and divine and that there is not any Doctrinal Passage in any of the Prayers that may not bear a good construction and so Amen may be said to it as Dr. Bryan with others do maintain 2. That as no Church for this 1400 Years has been without its Publick Forms so ours is the best So the old Non-conformists Compare the Doctrines Leâ—ter of the Minist in Old-Engl p. 12. Prayers Rites at those Times throughout in use in the Churches with ours and in all these blessed be the Name of the Lord we are more pure than they And it 's not much short that we find in Mr. Baxter in the name of Second Plea for Peace p. 101. the present Non-conformists 3. That which is accounted faulty is tolerable and hinders not but that it 's acceptable to God and edifying to pious and well-disposed Persons Tolerable So Mr. Corbet The Worship contained Plea for Lay-Communion p. 2. V. Ball 's Tryal c. 9. p. 58. in the Liturgy may lawfully be partaked in it being sound for substance in the main and the mode thereof being laudable in divers Forms and Orders and passable in the most though in some offensive inconvenient or less perfect Acceptable to God So the old Non-conformists Letter of the Minist in Old-England p. 13. In them that join with the Prayers according to Christ's Command and liberty of absence from Christ hath not been shewed notwithstanding the Corruptions we hold the Prayers to be an holy acceptable Sacrifice to God c. Edifying to well-disposed Persons To this purpose Mr. Hildersham Mr. Rogers c. Treat 3. c. 4. p. 224l And accordingly Mr. Corbet professeth his own experience (a) (a) (a) Corbet Plea p. 3. Though I judg their Form of Worship to be in many respects less perfect than is desired yet I have found my Heart spiritually affected and raised towards God therein and more especially in receiving the Lord's Supper I judg this Form may be used formally by the Formal and spiritually by those that are Spiritual It is my part to make the best of it being the established Form As to Communion in the Liturgy it is granted 1. That there is no cause to renounce it or the Communion of the Church for it and that so to do is a Sin (b) (b) (b) Gifford's plain Declaâ—ation Ball 's Trial c. 7. p. 121. Sacril desert p. 105. 2. That all the Reformed Churches in Christendom do commonly profess to hold Communion with the English Churches in the Liturgy if they come among us where it is used (c) (c) (c) Mr Baxter's Def. of Cure p. 68. 3. It 's declared on the part of the old Non-conformists That they ordinarily and constantly used the Communion-Book in their Publick Ministrations (d) (d) (d) Ball 's Tryal p. 121. c. 8. p. 155. and that the People generally were in their days satisfied in it (e) (e) (e) Let. of Ministers of Old-Engl p. 14. And for the present it 's declared We can lawfully not only hear Common-Prayer but read it our selves (f) (f) (f) Mr. Mead's Case p. 7. M. Humphry's Healing Paper p. 5. Mr. Baxter's Disp 4. of Church-Gov p. 364. Mr. S. Fairclough's Life p. 157. I shall not trouble the Reader with the several Objections against the Liturgy and the Answers return'd to them by the old and present Non-conformists but shall content my self with that which it seems was much Trial. c. 8. p. 152. insisted upon in the days of Mr. Ball and their Reply to it The Liturgy in the whole Matter and Form thereof is Object too like unto the Mass-Book If the Liturgy be Antichristian it is so either in Answ respect of the Matter or of the Form Not of the Matter for that which properly belonged to Antichrist the foul and gross Errors is purged out Not of the Form for Order and Phrase of
the Body by being denied all communications with it Should a Man be admitted a Member of any City or Corporation and yet at the same time be denied the priviledg of his Freedom and not be permitted to set up a Trade to give a Vote or to Act in any other case as other Members do what would be the difference betwixt him and a Foreigner unless it be that his condition is the worse by being mock'd and abus'd and cheated with the Name whilst he has nothing of the Priviledges of a Freeman 3. We have the Practice of the Church of God in the Old Testament for this The whole Nation of the Jews were not only permitted but commanded by God except in cases of legal uncleanness and those notorious Crimes for which they were to be cast out of the Congregation to observe his Ordinances and to joyn in the celebration of his publick Worship and we know they were not all Israel that were of Israel Three times a year were all their Males to appear before the Exod. 23. 14 17. Lord to keep Three solemn appointed Feasts unto him many of which it is to be fear'd had no other qualification than what they were beholden to their birth and the loss of their fore-skin for Again All the Congregation of Israel were too keep the Passover none Exod. 12. 44. were denied it but foreigners and hired servants and they too no longer but till they were Circumcis'd and thereby admitted into covenant with God which shews that meer Circumcision was enough to put a Man into a capacity of Communicating with the Jewish Church in its most solemn and sacred Mysteries 4. This was also the Practice of the Christian Church in the Apostolick Age as is plainly intimated unto us from many Scriptures St. Paul tells us By one Spirit we are all Baptiz'd into one Body whether Jews or Gentiles bond or free and have been all made 1 Cor. 12. 13. to drink into one Spirit To drink into one Spirit particularly relates to the Cup in the Lord's Supper and by a figure of the part for the whole it 's put to signifie the whole Communion but the thing here especially to be taken notice of is that the Apostle makes the number of those that receiv'd the Lord's Supper to be as comprehensive and universal as that of those that were receiv'd into the Church by Baptism As by one Spirit all were baptized into one body so all were made to drink into one spirit The Apostles speaks the same thing again in another place alluding to the other part of the Sacrament We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of one bread all the 1 Cor. 10. 17. members that conspired to make up the one body did partake of the one bread But if any thing yet can be clearer 't is that account St. Luke gives us of the practice of the first Christian Church at Jerusalem where it 's said of the three thousand that gladly receiv'd St. Peter's words and were by Baptism added to the Church they all the three thousand Ananias and Saphira being of the number continued in the Apostles doctrine and in breaking of bread and in prayers 5. From the end of Church-membership which is not only for the more solemn Worship of God and the publick profession of Religion but also for the more effectual edification and salvation of mens souls By Baptism we were admitted into the Church incorporated into that Divine Society and entitled to all the Priviledges of the Gospel to the end that in the unity of the faith and the knowledg of the Son of God Eph. 4. 13. we might come to a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ But how this is to be attain'd without being admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Communion with the Church to the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments and the Word and all other Priviledges and Duties is not easily to be understood hence we may observe that edification in Scripture is usually applied to the Church and tho the edification of the Church consists in the edification of the particular Members of it yet because that is not to be had but in the Unity and Communion of the Church 't is usually stiled the edifying of the Eph. 4. 12. Church and the edifying the body of Christ hence Faith is said to come by hearing and hearing by the Word of God Hence we are said to be born again not of corruptable Rom. 10. 17. 1 Pet. 1. 23. seed but of incorruptable by the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever The same is exprest in those words of our Saviour's Prayer for his Disciples Sanctifie them through thy truth thy Word is John 17. 17. truth God's Church is his Family which he especially takes care of and provides for he that is of it is under the Schechina the wing of the Divine Majesty and his special grace and providence It cannot but be of mighty advantage towards our growth and improvement in all Christian graces and virtues to have therein dispens't to us the lively Oracles of God and provision made for a constant succession of dispensers of the Bread of Life to fit it to allneeds and all capacities Not to be left to the deceits and whispers of a private spirit to personal conjectures or secret insinuations but to have the publick Doctrine of the Church to be our Guide and Leader to have our Devotions mingled with the concurrent Prayers of all God's people and so by their joynt forces after an Coimus incaetum ad Deum quasimanu facta precationibus ambiamus orantes Tertul. humble but powerful manner to besiege and belaguer Heaven to have before our eyes all the great Examples in God's Church to have our Faith strengthen'd our Repentance heighten'd our Love inflam'd our Hopes and our Comforts rais'd by the Holy Communion Will not the flame of others kindle our zeal and assections and will it not put us into a transpoâ—t of devotion to see therein Christ Crucified before our Eyes pouring out his Blood for us bowing his Head as it were to kiss and stretching out his Arms as it were to embrace all that are penitent and return to him These are some of the great Blessings and advantages that cannot be had but in Church-Communion To which if we shall add that our improvement in Holiness and Vertue is more to be ascrib'd to the internal operations of God's spirit than any virtue or efficacy there can be in those external administrations and that God is pleas'd to promise his spirit to believers only as they are Members of his Church and no otherwise than by the use and ministry of his Word and Sacraments we shall farther see the necessity of Mens holding actual Communion with the Church in order to their Sanctification and Salvation We are not now discoursing what God
Member may be reclaim'd or by its just Censures be cut off from the Communion If he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church Matth. 18. 17. Rubr. before the Commun Our Church hath given every Minister of a Parish power to refuse all scandalous and notorius sinners from the Lord's Supper and as slack and as much disus'd as Discipline is amongst us were such persons more generally inform'd against and complain'd of they would not find it so easie a matter to continue in their Offences and the Church together You see by what means the Church may either be clear'd in some measure of publick Offenders or the Members of it together with the Ordinances of God secur'd from infection by their fellowship By this did the Primitive Christians shew their Zeal for their Religion as well as by suffering for it They were infinitely careful to keep the honour of their Religion â—nspotted and the Communion of the Church as much out of danger as they could from the malignant influence of bad examples for this reason they watch'd over one another told them privately of their faults and when that would not do brought them before the cognizance of the Church and tho' lapsing into Idolatry in times of presecution was the common sin that for some Ages chiefly exerciz'd the Discipline of the Church yet all Offences against the Christian Law all Vices and Immoralities that were either publick in themselves or made known and prov'd to the Church came also under the Ecclesiastical Rod and were put to open Shame and Pennance this was that Discipline that preserv'd their Manners so Uncorrupt and made their Religion so Renown'd and Triumphant in the World and how happy would it be for us in this loose and degenerate Age as our own Church expresses Preface to the Comminat her wishes and desires were it again in its due Force and Vigour restored and resetled amongst us But if after all imaginable care and endeavour by private Christians some scandalous Members through the defects of Power in the Discipline or of Care and Watchfulness in Governours should remain in the Church whatever pollution those whose Office it is to rebuke with all Authority may draw on themselves Tit. 3. last by suffering it private Members that are no way neither by consent nor councel nor excuse accessary to their Sin can receive none for sin no otherwise pollutes than as it is in the will not as it is in the understanding as it 's chose and embrac'd not as it 's known I may know Adultery and yet be Chast see Strife and Debate in the City and yet be Peaceable hear Oaths and Curses and yet tremble at God's Name Noah was a good Man in an evil World Lot a righteous person amongst the conversation of the wicked neither is there any more fear of pollution from wicked Men in Sacred than in Civil Society Our Saviour and his Apostles were not the least defil'd by that Society they had with Scribes and Pharisees nor by that Familiarity they had with the accursed Judas tho' he eat the Passover with them and they kept him company after they knew him to be a Traytor What pollution did Abel receive from Cain when they Sacrific'd together Or Elkanah and Hannah from Eli's Debauch'd Sons when at Shilo they Worshipt together The good and bad indeed Communicate together but in what not in sin but in their common duty and tho' to Communicate with sin is sin yet to Communicate with a sinner in that which is not sin can be none Communion is a common union many partaking of one thing wherein they do agree now the common union of the good and bad in the Church is not in evil but in hearing of the Word in receiving of the Sacrament and in other holy Ordinances and Exercises when therefore some do evil the Communion in spiritual things is not polluted because evil is no part of the union in common one with another but the error of Man by himself out of the Communion which he himself and they only that have been partakers with him in it shall answer for Obj. But does not the Apostle say A little leaven 1 Cor. 5. 6. leaveneth the whole lump Ans This is a proverbial speech and shews only that sin like leaven is of a very spreading and diffusive nature not that it actually defiles where it is not admmitted A People in one Assembly are as a lump and a wicked person amongst them is as leaven but now altho' the leaven is apt to conveigh it self through the whole lump yet only are those parts actually leaven'd with it that take the leaven so it is with the Church the sinner by his bad example is apt to spread the infection through the whole body but only such as allow or any way communicate with him in his sin are actually infected such as Chloe that reprove the offender 1 Cor. 1. 11. and present him doing their utmost endeavour in their place ro reform him remain in spight of its malignity unpolluted Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees says our Saviour he adviseth not his Disciples to leave their Assemblies but to beware that they take no leaven of them shewing thereby that a good Man that stands upon his gaurd may be where leaven is and yet not be leaven'd The incestuous person was not cast out of the Church of Corinth and yet the Apostle says at least of some of them ye are unleaven'd ver 7. And why may not the joynt Prayers of the Church and the Examples of Pious and Devout Men in the Communion be as sovereign an antidote against the infection as the bare company of wicked Men is of power to convey it Why should not the holy Ordinances of God and the presence of holy Men at them be of as much virtue and efficacy to purge and sanctifie the whole body as the impurities of the bad are to stain and pollute it especially considering that the sins of the 2 Cor. 30. 18. wicked shall never be imputed to the righteous but the Prayers of the righteous have obtain'd pardon for the wicked Obj. But were not the pollutions of sin typified by Numb 19 13 20. the legal uncleannesses And was not every thing that the unclean person touch'd made unclean Ans Those legal and ceremonial pollutions concern not us under the Gospel we may touch a grave a dead person a leper and not at all be the less clean it 's not any outward uncleanness but the corruption and depravity of the inner man that incapacitates men for the Worship of God and Communion with him 2. Those legal pollutions did not defile the whole Communion but only those particular persons whom the unclean person touch'd for 1. There was no sacrifice appointed for any such pollution as came upon all for the sin of some few 2. Tho' the Prophets many times reproved the Priests
for not separating the clean from the unclean the precious from the vile the Jer. 15. 16. Ezek. 22. 26. holy from the prophane yet did they never teach that because the unclean came into the Congregation through the neglect of their duty the whole Communion was polluted by it but as many as touch'd the unclean person were unclean so as many as have fellowship with the wicked in their sins are polluted by it to partake with men in their sins in a moral sense answers to the legal touching an unclean thing 3. When it 's said that the unclean person that did not purifie himself defiled the Tabernacle and polluted the Sanctuary the meaning is that he did so to himself but not to others so does a wicked man the Ordinances of God in respect of himself but not of others The Prayers of the wicked tho' joyn'd with those of the Church are an abomination unto God whilst at the same time the Prayers of good men go up as a sweet smelling savour and are accepted by him The person that comes unworthily to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper eats and drinks Judgment to himself but that hinders not but that those who at the same time come better prepared may do it to their own Eternal Comfort and Salvation To the pure all things are pure but to them that are defil'd and unbelieving Tit. 1. 15. is nothing pure but even their Mind and Conscience is defil'd The weakness of this suggestion that the whole Communion and the Ordinances of God are polluted by the wicked Mans company at and among them being laid open The truth of the Proposition may be farther evinc'd from these particulars 1. From the example of God's People in the Church of the Jews We do not find that the sins either of the Priests or the People became at any time an occasion of separation to them What sins could be greater than those of Eli's Sons What higher aggravations could there be of sin Whether we consider the quality of the persons that sinn'd being the High-Priests Sons or the publick scandal aed impudence of the sin Lying with the women before the door of the Tabernacle yet did not the People of God not Elkanab and Hannah by name refrain to come up to Shilo and to joyn with them in the publick Worship Nay they are said to transgress who refus'd to come tho' they refus'd out of abhorance and detestation to the wickedness of 1 Sam. 2. 17. 24. those Men They abhorr'd the sacrifices of the Lord ye make the Lord's people to transgress In Ahab's time when almost all Israel were Idolaters and halted betwixt God and Baal yet then did the Prophet Elijah summon all Israel to appear on Mount Carmel and held a Religious Communion with them in Preaching and Praying and offering a Miraculous Sacrifice neither did the Seven Thousand that had kept themselves upright and not bowed their knee to Baal absent themselves because of the Idolatry of the rest but they all came and join'd in that publick Worship perform'd by the Prophet All the People fell on their faces saying the Lord he is God the Lord he is God 1 King 18. 39. All along the Old Testament when both Prince and Priests and People were very much deprav'd and debauch'd in their manners we do not find that the â—rophets at any time exhorted the faithful and sincere to separate or that they themselves set up any separate Meetings but continued in Communion with the Church Preaching to them and Exhorting them to Repentance 2. From the Example of God's People in the New Testament In the Apostolick Churches of Corinth Galatia and the seven Churches in Asia many of the Members were grown very bad and scandalous yet do we not read of the example of any good Man separating from the Church or any such Precept from the Apostles so to do They do not tell them that the whole Body was polluted by those filthy Members and that if they would be safe themselves they must withdraw from their Communion but exhort them to use all means to reclaim them and if neither private nor publick Admonitions and Reproofs would do then to suspend them from the Communion of the Church till by Repentance and Amendment they render'd themselves capable of being restored to Peace and Pardon The Spirit of God in the Second of the Revelation sends his Instructions to the Angels that is to the Bishops of those seven Churches in Asia whose Office it was to Preach Repentance to them and by their Authority to reform abuses but gives them no Command to cease the publick Administration or to advise the unpolluted part to separate from the rest nay altho' those Candlesticks were very foul yet was our Lord pleas'd still to bear with them and to walk in the midst of them Rev. 2. 1. and certainly so song as Christ affords his presence in a Church none of its Members ought to withdraw theirs 3. From our Saviour's own example who notwithanding the Church of the Jews in his time was a most corrupt Church and the Members of it very leud and vicious yet kept in Communion with it and commanded his Disciples so to do We read that the Scribes and Pharisees who rul'd the Ecclesiastical Chair at that time had perverted the law corrupted Mat. 15. 6 7 8. the worship of God were blind guides devoured widows houses were hypocrites and such as only had a form of godliness yet did not our Saviour separate from their Communion but was made under the Law freely subjected himself to all the Rites and Ceremonies of it he was circumcis'd on the eighth day redeem'd by a certain price being a Son and a First-born Luke 2. 22. observ'd their Passover and other Feasts enjoin'd by their Law yea and that of the dedication too tho' Matth. 26. but of humane institution was baptiz'd amongst them preach'd in their Temples and Synagogues reason'd John 17. 37. with them about Religion exhorted his Disciples to hear their Doctrine tho' not to follow their Practice John 10. 6 7. Mat. 6. 7. What greater cause on the account of cortuption in manners could be given to separate from a Church than was here yet how careful was our Saviour both by his Example and Precept to forbid and discountenance it They fit in Moses 's chair hear them 4. From the Apostle's express command to hold communion with the Church of Corinth notwithstanding the many and great immoralities that were amongst the Members of it There were Schisms 1 Cor. 1. 12 13. 1 Cor. 3. 3. 1 Cor. 5. 1. and contentions amongst them strifes and envyings fornication and incest eating at the Idols table and coming not so soberly as became them to the table of our Lord yet does the Apostle not only not command them to separate but approves their meeting together and exhorts them to continue it But let 1 Cor. 5. 4.
touch viz. the unclean and abominable Practices that were us'd by the Heathens in the Worship of their Gods It 's call'd by the Apostle in another place the unfruitful Eph. 4. 11 works of darkness and again thus describ'd by him it 's a shame to speak of those things that are done of them in secret These they were not to touch to have no fellowship with them in but rather to reprove them that is in judgment to condemn them by words to reprove them in conversation to avoid them But now because Christians are not to communicate with Heathens in their filthy mysteries nor to partake with any sort of wicked Men in any Action that 's Immoral does it therefore follow that they must not do their duty because sometimes it cannot be done but in their company Must they abstain from the Publick Worship of God and their Lord's Table to which they are commanded because Evil Men who till they repent have nothing to do there rudely intrude themselves May they not joyn with bad Men in some cases where it cannot be well avoided in doing a good Action because they must in no case and on no account joyn with them in doing a sinful one Because they have omitted their Duty must I neglect mine Because they sin in coming unpreparedly must I sin in not coming at all Will their sin be any plea or excuse for mine If I Communicate with them will their unworthiness be laid at my door If I separate because of that shall they answer for my contempt as well as for their own prophanation of it No surely every Man shall bear his own burden The soul that sinneth it shall dye The Ezek. 18. 20. second is that Text Obj. 2. In the Revelation Come out of her my people that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive 18. c. 4. not of her plagues Answ This place is most certainly to be understood of Idolaters and according to most Interpreters of the Roman Idolatrous Polity and is a command to all Christians to forsake the Communion of that Church lest they endanger their own salvation by Communicating with her in Masses and other Idolatrous Worship And if this be the true sense of the words it abundantly justifies our Separation from the Roman Church But affords not the least plea for Dissenters to separate from ours unless any of them are so hardy as to say that there is none or but little difference betwixt the Church of Rome and the Church of England But blessed be God we have a Church reform'd from all her Superstitions that retains nothing of hers but what she retains of the Gospel and the Primitive Church Here 's no drowning Religion in shadow and formality nor burying her under a load of ritual and ceremonial Rubbish nor dressing up Religion in a flanting pomp to set her off or a gaudy garb to recommend her much less in such fantastical Rites such antick Vestments and Gesticulations that may justly render her ridiculous and contemptible but her Ceremonies are few and decent countenanc'd by Primitive Antiquity and very much becoming the gravity and sobriety of Religion Here are no Half-Communions no more Sacraments thrust upon us than our Lord himself instituted and yet those left whole and entire for our use and comfort that he did no Prayers in an unknown Tongue which the votary neither minds nor understands no praying to Saints or Angels no adoring Images Pictures and Reliques no worshipping the Creature besides or more than the Creator which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they do who in all their publick Offices of Devotion for one Prayer to God have order'd ten to be made to the blessed Virgin Here 's no Doctrine obtruded on our Faith that 's contrary to reason nay to sense to all our senses no Practices allowed that are forbidden by God no Pardons to be bought no Indulgences to be purchas'd no expunging any one Commandment out of the Decalogue or contriving arts and devices to make void the rest but as her Devotions are pure and spiritual having God and him only for their object so her Doctrine is found and orthodox having Christ for its Corner-stone and the Prophets and Apostles for its Foundation A Church that needs no counterfeit Legends no incredible Miracles no ridiculous Fables to promote her veneration whose security lies not in the Peoples ignorance but in their inlightned understandings that can defend it self without the help of spurious Authors or corrupting the words and sense of Authentick ones a Church that dares to be understood and is sure the more she 's lookt into the more to be embrac'd and admir'd And I would to God 't was as easie a matter to clear every one of her Members from Vice as it is her Constitution from Corruption But let those that stand take heed lest they fall and be sure to sweep their own door clean who are so apt to throw dirt in the faces of their Fellow-Christians St. Paul's advice is that every Man should examine himself and I am much mistaken if spiritual pride a rash and censorious judging of our Bretheren be not as great a crime as some of those that are lookt upon to be of so polluting and infectious a nature in other Men I need not say how directly oposite this Pharisaical humour is to that humility meekness and self-denial that the Gospel of our Saviour injoyns how unsuitable to the temper of all good Men who are more apt to suspect and accuse themselves than others who the more holy they are the more sensible of their own imperfections How contrary to the example of our blessed Lord who balkt not at any time the society of Publicans and sinners who when he knew what was in Man and who it was that should betray him yet admitted Judas into the number of his Disciples and familiarly converst with him And yet how fully it answers to the Spirit and Genius of those ancient Schismaticks the Novatians and the Donatists Might I stay to run the parallel both those Schisms and this amongst us would be found to begin on the same Principles slackness of Discipline in the Church and corruption in Manners To be carried on by the same pretences zeal for purity and fear of pollution to spring from the same bitter fountain pride and arrogance But I speak not this to excuse our selves or to recriminate them My hearty Prayer to God is that all Isarel may be saved that they who dissent from us would now at last lay aside all passion and prejudice all groundless scruples and pretences and come in and joyn their forces with our Church against the common Adversary And that we who profess our selves Members of the Church of England would be extreamly careful for the honour of our Religion for the preservation of our Church for the recovery of our straying Bretheren for whose sakes in some cases we are bound to lay down our lives
to lay down our sins and instead of blocking up the way againgst any by scandalous living invite and allure them all in by exemplary Holiness and Purity and this I am sure how short soever my Discourse comes of would be a full Answer to and a perfect Confutation of this Objection FINIS THE CASE OF Indifferent Things Used in the WORSHIP of GOD Proposed and Stated by considering these QUESTIONS Qu. I. Whether things Indifferent though not Prescribed may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship or Whether there be any things Indifferent in the Worship of God Qu. II. Whether a Restraint of our Liberty in the use of such Indifferent things be a Violation of it LONDON Printed by T. Moore J. Ashburne for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation in Anâ—wer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government 1. 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 Anonymus 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 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 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 Kneeling at the Sacrament The Second Part 16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandals or giving Offence to Weak-Bretheren 17. The Case of Infant-Baptism in five Questions 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. Question Q. Whether things not prescribed in the Word of God may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship BEfore I proceed to the Case it self it will be fit to consider what the things are which the Question more immediately respects For the better understanding of which we may observe 1. That there are Essential parts of Divine Worship and which are either by Nature or Revelation so determined that they are in all Ages necessary In Natural Religion such are the Objects of it which must be Divine such are the acknowledgment of Honour and Reverence due and peculiar to those Objects as Prayer c. And in the Christian Religion such are the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper These are always to be the same in the Church 2. There are other things relating to Divine Worship which are arbitrary and variable and determined according to Circumstances as Gesture Place c. As to the former i'ts granted by the contending Parties that they are all already prescribed and that nothing in that kind can be added to what is already prescribed nor can any thing so prescribed be altered or abolished Nothing now can be made necessary and binding to all Persons Places and Ages that was not so from the beginning of Christianity and nothing that was once made so by Divine Authority can be rendred void or unnecessary by any other Therefore the Question is to be applied to the latter and then i'ts no other than Whether things in their own nature Indifferent though not prescribed in the Word of God may be lawfully used in Divine Worship Or Whether there be any thing Indifferent in the Worship of God Toward the Resolution of which I shall 1. Enquire into the Nature and state the Notion of things Indifferent 2. Shew that things Indifferent may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship 3. Consider how we may know what things are Indifferent in the VVorship of God 4. How we are to Determine our selves in the use of Indifferent things so applied 5. Shew that there is nothing required in the Worship of God in our Church but what is either Necessary in it self and so binding to all Christians or what is Indifferent and so may be Lawfully used by them 1. I shall enquire into the Nature and state the Notion of things Indifferent In doing of which we are to observe that all things with reference to Practice are reducible to these three Heads First Duty Secondly Sin Thirdly Neither Duty nor Sin Duty is either so Morally and in its own Nature or made so by Divine and Positive Command Sin is so in its own Nature or made and declared to be such by Divine and Positive Prohibition Neither Duty nor Sin is that which no Law either of Nature or Revelation hath determined and is usually known by the Name of Indifferent that is it 's of a middle Nature partaking in it self of neither extremes and may be indifferently used or forborn as in Reason and Prudence shall be thought meet Things of this kind the Apostle calls Lawfal 1 Cor. 10. 23 c. because they are the subject of no Law and what are therefore Lawful to us and which without Sin we may either chuse or refuse Thus the Apostle doth determine Rom. 4. 15. Where no Law is there is no Transgression that is it can be no transgression to omit that which the Law doth not in-joyn nor to do that which it doth not forbid for else that would be a Duty which the Law doth not in-joyn and that would be a Sin which it doth not forbid which is in effect to say there is a Law where there is none or that Duty and Sin are so without respect to any Law But now if Duty be Duty because it's in-joyned and
our Saviour frequently resorted to it and bore a part in it John 18. 20 c. The like temper we find him of when he used the Cup of Charity after the manner of the Jews in the Passover though there was no institution for it and that it was as many other things taken up and used amongst them by way of signification and as a Testimony of entire Friendship and Charity Luke 22. 16. But I conceive alteration of Circumstances in the Institution is much more exceptionable than the addition of such to it and yet this was both done by them and observed by our Saviour when there was nothing else to oblige him but only a condescension to them in such usages and rites as were inoffensive in themselves and what were then generally used in the Church That the posture first required and used in the Pasiover was standing the Circumstances being to be eat with Staves in their Hands and Shoes on their Feet c. do prove and is affirmed by Philo de Sacrif Able c. Lightf Hor. Matth. c. 26. 20. the Jews and it is as manifest that the Jews in the time of our Saviour and for a long time before did recede from it and did eat it in the posture of discumbency whether it was as they looked upon themselves as settled in the possession of Canaan which they were at the first institution Travelling toward or as it 's said by the latter Jews because it was a sign of Liberty and after the manner of Kings and Great Men is not so material as it is that our Saviour did follow this Custom and complied with this practice of theirs without hesitation And thus did the Apostles when they observ'd the hours of Prayer Acts 3. 1. which were of humane institution as well as the Prayers themselves for without doubt they were publick Prayers which were used in the Temple but though the place was yet that service was of no more Authority than what was used in the Synagogues Now if the Jews did thus institute and alter things relating to external Order and Administration according as the case might require and it was lawful for them so to do as it 's plain from the compliance of our Saviour and the Apostles with them in it then much more may it be supposed lawful for the Christian Church to exercise that liberty when they have no other than such general rules for their direction as they had then without such particulars as they had And that this is no other than a certain Truth will appear from the same liberty taken in Apostolical times in Religious Assemblies when the Christian Church not only complied with the Jews in such Rites as they were under no Obligation but that of Charity to use which they did use because they were not forbidden and so lawful as when St. Paul took upon him a Vow Acts. 21. 26. but also had some Observances of it's own that were of a ritual nature and as they were taken up so might be laid down upon prudential consideration Such I account was the Washing the Disciples Feet which was done by our Saviour in token of the Humility he was to be president of and would have them follow him in and which it seems was observed amongst them 1 Tim. 5. 10. and for a long time after continued in a sort in some Churches (a) (a) (a) Ambros. Tom. 4. l. 3. de Sacrament c. 1. Such also were the Love-feasts at the Administration of the Lords Supper and the Holy-kiss used then amongst Christians if not as a constant attendant upon all publik Worship yet to be sure at Prayer (b) (b) (b) Tertul. de orat c. 14. Which and the like usages however taken up yet were in the Opinion of the Church no other than Indifferent and accordingly were upon the abuse of them as I observed before discarded From all which it appears that there was no such thing as Prescription expected before any Rite should be introduced into the Church or before it would be lawful for Christians to use it but that where it was not forbidden the Practice of the Church was to determine them and if Prescription had been thought necessary for every thing used in Divine Worship which was not Natural then certainly our Saviour and his Apostles would never have used or encouraged others to use any thing that wanted such Authority and that was not of Divine Institution Now if it should be objected that these usages of the Ames Fresh Suit l. 2. Sect. â—3 c. p. 334. Christian Church were Cilvil observances and used as well out of God's Worship as in it and therefore what there needed no Institution for and might be lawfully used without I answer 1. That this doth justify most of the usages contended for and there would be nothing unlawful in using a White Garment c. in Divine Service since that as a sign of Royalty and Dignity was Casaub Exercit 16. c. 73. used in Civil as well as Religious cases and according to this Argument may therefore lawfully be used in Religious because it was in Civil Secondly They must say that either a Civil observance when used in Religious Worship remains Civil notwithstanding it 's being so applied or that it 's Religious whilst so applied if the former then Kneeling or Standing in the Worship of God would be no acts of Adoration and not be Religious because those postures are used in Civil matters if the latter then it must be granted that there may be Rites used in the Worship of God and to a Religious end which there is no Divine Prescription for Nay Thirdly It 's evident that these and the like were not used by the Christians as meer Civil Rites this I think is made evident as to Washing the Feet by a Learned Person (a) (a) (a) Buxtorf Exercit. Hist Sacr. Coenae and not only was the kiss of Charity called the Holy-kiss in Scripture but by the Fatherrs notwithstanding what is (b) (b) (b) Ames ibid. p. 342. n. XXX objected the Seal of Prayer and the Seal of Reconciliation and both consistent the one as it was an attendant upon the office the other as it was a Testimony of their Charity and Reconciliation to each other in it Fourthly If the being Civil usages did make them which were originally so to be lawful in or at Divine Worship then there is nothing that is used out of Worship in Civil cases and affairs but may be introduced into the Church since if it be for that reason that any usages of that kind are defended the reason will as well defend all as one And then the Histrionical Practices of the Church of Rome might warantably be introduced as the rocking of a Babe in a Cradle at night at the Nativity time the Harrowing of Hell at Easter c. Then a Maypole may be brought into the Church for Children to Dance-about
and Climb upon in sign of their desire to seek the things above and a stiff Straw put into the Childs Hand for a sign of Fighting against Spiritual Enemies as with a Spear And all the absurdities of that Nature charged injuriously upon our Proceedings (a) (a) (a) Ames Ib l. 1. c. 3. Pâ—id 1 would rerurn with success upon themselves Since all these are fetched from Customs and Practices in Secular matters Fifthly If this be a reason to Defend the Use of Rites in the Christian Church because they are used out of it and in Civil cases then what will become of that Position before spoken of and generally asserted by those who oppose us that nothing is to be used in the Worship of God without Prescription except the Natural Circumstances of Action for though Civil and Natural are sometimes coincident yet they may be and often are Separated for Feasting and Salutation are Civil usages but are no Natural Circumstances in Divine Worship and which that cannot be performed without And if these and the like were used in the Church and applied and annexed to Divine Worship then the reason upon which they were introduced and used doth wherever that reason is justify the like Practice and we are left still to choose and act according to the Permission and Allowance that is given us that is all such things that are not forbidden are just matter of our Christian Liberty and there is no Sin in a Prudent exercise of it 3. I shall further prove and strengthen the Proposition that things Indifferent though not prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship from the ill consequences attending the contrary one of which is that if we hold all things not commanded to be prohibited we shall find no Church or Religious Society in the VVorld but are Guilty and if the doing so makes Communion with a Church unlawful there is no Church we can hold Communion with There are some Churches that do maintain and use such things as the Scripture expresly condemns and do lay aside such as the Scripture requires as the Church of Rome in it's Worshipping Saints and Angels and denying the Cup to the Laity c. And these things make it necessary for those to quit it's Communion that are of it and for those to avoid it that are not in it But other Churches there are that are Guilty of no such Fundamental Errors and fatal miscarriages and may so far lawfully be Communicated with But even none of these are there but what either wittingly or unwittingly do take the liberty of using what the Scripture hath no where required It was notoriously so in the Ancient Church when some Customs did universally obtain amongst them as the Anniversary Solemnities of the Passion Resurrection and Ascension of Christ and Descent of the Holy-Ghost the receiving of the Lords Supper Fasting (a) (a) (a) Aug. Epis. 118. Januar. the Praying toward the East (b) (b) (b) Basil de Spir. S. c. 27. the Standing in their Devotions on the Lords Days (c) (c) (c) Aug. Epis. 119. Januar. especially from Easter to Whitsontide the Dipping the Baptized thrice in Water (d) (d) (d) Ambros. lib. 2. de Sacrament c. 7. c. Now whatever some of the Fathers might plead for any of these from Scriptures misunderstood yet it 's plain that none of these are required in Scripture and if so a Person that holds it unlawful to use any thing uncommanded and to hold Communion with a Church so using must have separated from the Catholick Church since if there be Credit to be given to the Fathers so reporting they all agreed in the use and Practice of the things above recited And he that held all fixed Holy-Days of Ecclesiastical Institution unlawful and all Ceremonies not instituted by God to be prohibited must not have Worshiped with them who did not only thus do but thought it unlawful when universally Practised to do otherwise But again as there were some Rites universally held in estimation so there were others that were peculiar to some Churches and that were not thought to be obliging out of that particular Communion as when in the Church of Rome it was the Custom to Fast on the Saturday and of most orhers to make no such distinction betwixt that and other days (a) (a) (a) Aug. Epist 118. In the Church of Milain they Washed the Feet of those that were to be Baptized but in the Church of Rome they used it not (b) (b) (b) Ambros l. 3. de Sacrament c. 1. Now if Persons did beleive such things unlawful they could have no Communion with any particular Church because no Church was without such Uncommanded Rites or if they could be so fond as to think the Rites of their own Church to be of Divine Institution yet how could they have Communion with a Church where the contrary Custom did prevail as in the cases abovesaid And as it was then so it is now with all stated and settled Churchers in the World who do Practice against this Principle and either expect not or are not able to find a Command for every thing established amongst them and that Practice with as much contrariety to each other as the Church of Rome and Milain once did so in some Churches they receive the Lord's Supper Kneeling in some Standing in others Sitting In some they Sprinkle the Child in Baptism but once and in others thrice Now there would be no reconciling of these one to another and no possibility of holding Communion with them under these Circumstances or of being a Member of any Church if we must have an institution for every thing done in the Worship of God and that we must joyn in nothing which has it not As for Instance what Church is there in the World which has not some form or forms of Prayer and whose Service for the most part generally speaking is not made up of them especially that doth not use them in the Administration of the Sacraments But now if a Person holds that whatever is not prescribed is unlawful and that forms of Prayer are no where prescribed then he cannot joyn with the Church so using but while in the body of the Church by residence he must be no Member of that Body in Communion Nay further if this be true then none must hold Communion with them who are of this Opinion since those that pretend most to it and urge it as a reason against Communion with us live in contradiction to it and to Practice and Use things which they have no more Authority nor can give more reason for than we do for the things they condemn and that is that they are lawful expedient and convenient As for Example let us consider the Sacraments in wich if any thing we might expect particular Prescription because they are meer Institutions where do they find that the Baptized Person is necessarily to be Sprinkled What Command or
Example have they for it or what reason more than the reason of the thing taken from expedience and the general Practice of the Church of God in colder Climates And yet this is as much used amongst them that pretend to keep exactly to the Rule of Scripture as it is amongst us that take a liberty in things Uncommanded but with this difference that they do it upon the supposition of a Command and so make it necessary and our Church leaves it as it is Indifferent Again where do they find a Command for Sitting at the Lord's Supper or so much as an Example For the Posture of our Saviour is left very uncertain Where again do they find a Command for the necessary use of conceived Prayer and that that and no other should be used in the publick Worship of God And that they must prove that maintain publick Forms unlawful Where again do they find it required that an Oath is to be taken by laying the Hand on the Gospel and Kissing the Book which is both a Natural and Instituted part of Worship being a Solemn Invocation of God and an appeal to him with an acknowledgment of his Omniscience and Omnipresence his Providence and Government of the World his Truth and Justice to Right the Innocent and Punnish the Guilty all which is owned and testified by Kissing that Book that God has declared this more especially in And if we more particularly descend to those that differ from us in this point Where do those of the Congregational way find that even Christians were otherwise divided from Christians than by place or that they did combine into particular Churches so as not to be all the while reputed Members of another and might be admitted upon removal of Place upon the same terms that they were of that they removed from or indeed that they were so Members of a particular as not to be Members of any or the whole Church of Christ upon their being Batipzed VVhere do they find that Christians were gathered out of Christians and did combine into a Society Excluding those from it that would not make a Profession of their Faith and Conversion distinct from that at Baptism Where do we ever read that he that was a Minister of one Church was not a Minister all the World over as well as he that was Baptized in one was reputed a Christian and Church-Member wherever he came Again where do we read that its necessary that Ministers should be alike in Authority Power and Jurisdiction and that there is to be no difference in point of Order and Superiority amongst them Or that there are to be Elders for Governing the Church who are not Ordained to it and are in no other State after than they were before that Service both of which are held by the Prerbyterians strictly so called And if it be said these respect Government but not VVorship I answer the case is the same for if we are to do nothing but what is prescribed in the VVorship of God because as they say it derogates from the Priestly Office of Christ and doth detract from the Sufficiency of Scripture then I say upon the like reason there must be nothing used in Church Government but what is prescribed since the Kingly Office is as much concerned in this as the Priestly in the other and the Sufficiency of Scripture in both Lastly VVhere do any of them find that position in Scripture that there is nothing lawful in Divine Worship but what prescribed and that what is not Commanded is Forbidden And if there be no such position in Scripture then that can no more be true than the want of such a position can render things not Commanded to be unlawful And now I am come to that which must put an Issue one way or other to the Dispute for if there be no such position in Scripture either expressed in it or to be gathered by good consequence from it we have gain'd the point but if there be then we must give it up And this is indeed contended for For it s Objected That it s accounted in Scripture an hainous Crime Object I to do things not commanded as when Nadab and Abihu offered strange Fire before the Lord which he Commanded Levit. 10. 1 c. them not c. From which form of expression it may be collected that what is not Commanded is Forbidden and that in every thing used in Divine Worship there must be a Command to make it lawful and allowable To this I answer that the Proposition infer'd that all Answ I things not Commanded are Forbidden is not true and so it cannot be the Sence and Meaning of the Phrase for 1. Then all things must be either Commanded or Forbidden and there would be nothing but what must be Commanded or Forbidden but I have before shewed and it must be granted that there are things neither Commanded nor Forbidden which are called Indifferent 2. If things not Commanded are Forbidden then a thing not Commanded is alike Hainous as a thing Forbidden And then David's Temple which he designed to Build would have been Criminal as well as Jeroboam's Dan and Bethel and the Feast of (a) (a) (a) Esth 9. 27. Purim like Jeroboam's Eighth Month (b) (b) (b) 1 King 12. 32 33. and the Synagogal Worship like the Sacrificing in Gardens (c) (c) (c) Isai 65. 3. and the hours of Prayer (d) (d) (d) Act. 3. 1. like Nadab's Strange Fire The former of which were things Uncommanded and the latter Forbidden and yet They were approved and These condemned 2. The things to which this Phrase not Commanded is applied to give no encouragement to such an Inference from it for its constantly applied to such as are absolutely Forbidden This was the case of Nadab and Abihu who offered Fire not meerly Uncommanded but what was prohibited which will appear if we consider that the Word Strange when applied to matters of Worship doth signify as much as Forbidden Thus we read of Strange Incense that is other than what was compounded Exod. 30. 9 according to the directions given for it which as it was to be put to no common uses so no common Ver. 34. Ch. 37 29. persmue was to be put to the like uses with it So we also read of Strange Vanities which is but another Jer. 8. 19. Word for Graven Images and of Strange Gods And after the same sort is it to be understood in the case before us viz. for what is Forbidden For that such was the Fire made use of by those Young Men will be further confirm'd if we consider that there is scarcely any thing belonging to the Altar Setting aside the Structure of it of which more is said than of the Fire burning upon it For 1. It was lighted from Heaven (a) (a) (a) Lev. 9. 24. 2. It was always to be burning upon the Altar (b) (b) (b) Ch. 6. 12. 3.
in the point and by which we may be able to Judg what is Decent Edifying and Orderly as well as we are by what is Decent c. to Determine what is fit to be used in Religious Worship And this we may be help'd in by considering 1. That some things make so Eminently for or are so Notoriously opposite to these Rules that Common Reason will be able forthwith to Judge of them and to declare for or against them So when the Love-feasts and the Lords Supper were appointed for the testifying and increase of mutual Charity if one took his Supper before another it was to make it rather a private 1 Cor. 11 20 21. Meal than a Religious Feast and so was a Notorious Breach of Order and Christian Fellowship So a Tumultuous speaking of many together is less for Edification and hath more of Confusion than the Orderly speaking of one by one And Service in an Unknown Tongue doth less conduce to Edification than when it it is in a Language Vulgarly known and Understood 1 Cor. 14. 16. 17 26 27. this is a case that Reason as well as the Apostle doth Determine to our Hands and which Mankind would with one consent soon agree to were it not for a certain Church in the Wotld that carries those of its Communion against sense Reason and Nature for its own advantage 2. But there are other things which are not so Clear and Evident and so the case needs further consideration For the clearing of which we may observe 1. That we are not so much to Judge of Decency Order and Edification asunder as together these having a mutual Relation to and dependance upon each other So it s well observed by St. Chrysostom That Chrys in 1 Cor. Ch. 14. 40. 1 Cor. 14. 26. nothing doth so much Edify as Order Peace and Love And the Apostle when he had reproved the Disorders of their Service in the Church of Corinth concludes it Let all things be done to Edifying The not observing of this is the occasion of very great Mistakes in this matter For Persons when they would Judge of Edification consider presently what they conceive doth most improve them in Knowledge or any particular Grace and having no further consideration for the sake of this throw down the Bounds of Publick Order and bring all into Confusion and for Edifying as they apprehend themselves do Disturb if not Destroy the Church of God and render the means used in it ineffectual to themselves and others Thus again they Judge of what is Decent and Indecent and conclude that there is no Indecency in Sitting suppose at the Sacrament or the Prayers but they mistake in such a conception whilst what is against publick Order and Practice is for that reason Indecent were there no other reason to make it so So that if we would Judge aright of either of these we must Judge of them together and as Order alone is not enough to make a thing Decent which is in it self Indecent so Decency or particular Edification is not enough to recommend that which is not to be Introduced or Obtained without the Disturbance and Overthrow of publick Order and Peace 2. When the case is not apparent we should rather Judge by what is contrary than by what is agreeable to those Rules We know better what things are not than what they are And if Christians should never agree to any thing in the External Administration of Divine Worship till they agree in the notion of Decency Order and Edification or till they can prove that the things used or required to be used in a Church do exactly agree to the Notion and Definition of it Worship must never be Administred or the greater part of Christians must Exclude themselves from it And yet this must be done before it can be positively said unless in things very manifest that this is Decent or that is Orderly c. These things as I have said are variable and depend upon Circumstances and so Persons must needs be Wonderfully Confounded if they come to Niceties and insist upon them And therefore as we better know what is Indecent than Decent Disorderly than Orderly against than for Edification so it s better to take the course abovesaid in Judging about it As for instance if we would enquire into the Decency of the Posture to be used in the Lord's Supper or the Edification that may arise from it some will say its best to receive it in the Posture frequently used in the Devotions of the ancient Church of Standing or Incurvation others would choose Sitting as the dissenting Parties amongst us and some Forreign Churches others be for the Posture of Kneeling used in ours and many more and all with some shew of Reason In these different cases it may not perhaps be so easy for a Person Educated in a different way from what is practised and Prescribed to Judg of the Decency or Edification but if he find it not Indecent or Destructive of Piety and of the ends for which the Ordinance was Instituted he is therewith to satisfy himself St. Austin puts alike case and gives the like answer Some Churches Fast on the Saturday Epist 118. because Christ's Body was then in the Grave and he in a State of Humiliation Others do Eat on the Saturday both because that Day God Rested from his Work and Christ Rested in the Grave And how in such a case to Determine our selves both in Opinion and Practice that Father thus directs If saith he what is joyned be not against Faith or good Manners it is to be accounted Indifferent And I may add if it be not Indecent Disorderly and Destructive of Piety its lawful 3. If the case be not apparent and we cannot easily find out how the things used and injoyned in a Church are Decent c. we are to consider that we are in or Obliged to be of a Church and that these things do respect such a Society and therefore are to be Cautious how we Condemn this or that for Indecent Confused and Inexpedient when we see Christians agreeing in the Practice of them and such whom for other things we cannot Condemn When we find if we argue against it they argue for it and produce Experience against Experience and Reason against Reason and that we have a whole Church against our particular conceptions of things of this Nature we should be apt to think the Fault may be in our selves and that it s for want of Understanding and Insight for want of Use and Tryal and by Reason of some Prejudices or Professions that we thus differ in our Judgment from them We see what little things do Determin Men ordinarily in these matters how addicted some are to their own Ways and Customs and forward to Like or Condemn according to their Education which doth form their conceptions and fix their inclinations how Prone again others are to Novelty and Innovation So St.
Austin Epist 1. 3. observes some warmly contend for an usage because its the Custom of their own Church as if they come suppose into another Place where Lent is observed without any Relaxation they however refuse to Fast because it s not so done in their Country There are others again do like and are bent upon a particular Rite or Usage Because saith he they observ'd this in their Travels abroad and so a Person is for it as perhaps he would be thought so much the more Learned and Considerable as he is distant or doth disagree from what is observed at home Now when Persons are Prone thus to Judg upon such little Reasons and may mistake in their Judgment and do Judg against a Church which they have no other Reason against it would become them to think again and to think that the case perhaps requires only time or use to wear off their Prejudices and that by these ways they may as effectually be reconciled to the things Practised in a Church as they are to the Civil Usages and the Habits of a Nation which at the first they looked upon in their kind as Indecent and Inexpedient as they can do of the Usages of a Church in theirs As suppose the Dispute should be about Forms of Prayer or the use of responsals in it we see that Decency Order and Edification are pleaded by the Parties contending for and against but when a Person considers that whatever Opinion he therein hath yet if he be against them he is at the same time against all formed Churches in the World he may conclude safely that there is a Decency Order and Expediency in the Publick use of them and as St. Austin saith of a Christian living in Epist 86. Casulano Rome where they fasted upon the Saturday that such a one should not so praise a Christian City for it as to Condemn the Christian World that was against it so we should not be so Zealous against a Practice as to Condemn those that are for it and be so addicted to our own Opinion as to set that against a Community and a Church nay against all Churches whatsoever This will give us reason to suspect its a Zeal without Knowledge when we presume to set our Judgment Reason and Experience against the Judgment Reason and Experience of the Christian World Which brings to the Fourth General 4. How are we to determine our selves in the use of Indifferent things with respect to the Worship of God For resolution of which we are to consider our selves in a threefold Capacity 1. As particular Persons solitary and alone 2. As we are in Ordinary and Civil Conversation 3. As we are Members of a Publick Society or Church In the first capacity every Christian may chuse and act as he pleaseth and all Lawful things remain to him as they are in their own Nature Free He may eat this or that chuse this day or another and set it apart for the Service of God and his own Soul In this state where there is no Law of Man to require he may forbear to use what is Indifferent where there is no Law to Forbid he may freely use it In the second capacity as in Conversation with others he is to have a regard to them and to use his Liberty so as shall be less to the prejudice and more to the benefit of those he converses with So saith the Apostle all things are lawful for me but all things are 1. Cor. 10. 23. not expedient all things are lawful for me but all things Edify not In this Capacity Men are still in their own Power and whilst it s no Sin they may safely act and where it s no Sin they may forbear in complyance with those that are not yet advanced to the same Maturity of Judgment with themselves as the Apostle did Though saith he I be free from all Men yet have I 1 Cor. 9. 19 c. made my self Servant unto all that I might gain the more And unto the Jews I became a Jew c. In such a case the strong should not despise affront or discourage the weak nor the weak censure and condemn the strong In the third Capacity as we are Members of a Church and Religious Society so the use of Indifferent things comes under further consideration since then the Practice of a Church and the Commands of Authority are to be respected And as what we may lawfully do when alone we are not to do in Conversation because of Offence So what we may allowably do when alone or in Conversation we must not do in Society if Forbidden by the Laws and Customs of it For the same reason if there was no more that Restrains or Determines us in Conversation is as much more forcible in Society as the Peace and Welfare of the whole is to be preferred before that of a part And if the not grieving a Brother or endangering his Soul makes it reasonable just and necessary to forego our Liberty and to Restrain our selves in the exercise of it then much more is the Peace of a Church upon which the present Welfare of the whole and the Future Welfare of many depend a sufficient reason for so doing and to Oblige us to act or not to act accordingly The Apostle saith Let every one of us please his Neighbour for his good to Rom. 15. 2. Edification that is to his Improvement in Knowledg or Grace or Christian Piety and the promoting of Christian Concord and Charity Now Edification is eminently so with respect to the whole as the Church is the House of God and every Christian one of the living Stones of which that Spiritual building is compacted 1 Pet. 2. 5. and so he is to consider himself as well as he is to be considered as a part of it and to study what may be for the Edification of the whole as well as the good of any particular Member of it And how is that but by promoting Love Peace and Order and taking Care to Preserve it So we find Edification Opposed 2 Cor. 10. 8. 1. Cor. 14. 26. 1 Tim. 1. 4. Rom. 14. 19. 1 Thes 5. 11. Eph. 4. 12 16. to Destruction to Confusion to Disputacity and Licentiousness And on the contrary we find Peace and Edifying Comfort and Edification Union and Edification joyned together as the one doth promote the other And therefore as the Good and Edification of the whole is to be always in our Eye so it s the Rule by which we ought to act in all things lawful and to that end should comply with its Customs observe its Directions and Obey its Orders without Reluctancy and Opposition Thus the Apostle resolves the case Writing about publick Order and the Custom newly taken up of Worshipping Uncovered if any Man seem or have a mind to be contentions we have no such Custom neither the 1 Cor. 11. 16. Churches of God looking
there is nothing Answer Indifferent in the Worship of God for then there is nothing in it matter of Christian Liberty 2. A restraint of our Liberty or receding from it is of it self no violation of it All Persons grant this in the latter and the most scrupulous are apt to plead that the Strong ought to bear with the Weak and to give no Offence to them by indulging themselves in that Liberty which others are afraid to take But now if a Person may recede from his Liberty and yet is bound so to do in the case of Scandal and yet his Liberty be not thereby infringed why may it not be also little infringed when restrained by others How can it be supposed that there should be so vast a difference betwixt restraint and restraint and that he that is restrained by Authority should have his Liberty prejudiced and yet he that is restrained By anothers Conscience 1 Cor. 10. 29. as the Apostle saith should keep intire And if it should be said this is Occasional but the other is perpetuated by the Order perhaps of a Church I answer that all Orders about Indifferent things are but temporary and are only intended to bond so long as they are for the good of the Community And if they are for continuance that alters not the case For though the Apostle knew his own Liberty and where there was Just Reason could insist upon it yet he did not suppose that could be damnified though for his whole life it was restrain'd For thus he resolves If meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the World standeth which certainly he would not have condescended to if such a Practice was not reconcileable to his Exhortation of standing fast in that Liberty c. 3. Therefore to find out the tendency of his Exhortation its fit to understand what Christian Liberty is and that is truly no other than the Liberty which Mankind naturally had before it was restrain'd by particular institution and which is call'd Christian Liberty in opposition to the Jews which had it not under their Law but were restrain'd from the Practice and use of things otherwise and in themselves Lawful by severe Prohibitions Now as all the World was then divided into Jews and Gentiles so the Liberty which the Jews were before denied was call'd Christian because by the coming of Christ all these former restraints were taken off and all the World both Jews and Gentiles did enjoy it And therefore when the Apostle doth exhort them to stand fast in it it was as the Scope of the Epistle doth shew to warn them against returning to that Jewish State and against those who held it necessary for both Jew and Gentile still to observe all the Rites and Orders of it Now if the Usages of a Church were of the same kind or had the same tendency or were alike necessarily impos'd as those of the Mosaical Law then Christians would be concerned in the Apostles Exhortation but where these reasons are not our Liberty is not at all prejudiced by compliance with them As long I say as they are neither peccant in their Nature nor End nor Number they are not unlawful to us nor is our Liberty injur'd in the use of them And so I am brought to the last General which is V. That there is nothing required in our Church which is not either a duty in it self and so necessary to all Christians or else what is indifferent and so may be lawfully used by them By things required I mean such as are used in the Communion and Service of our Church and imposed upon the Lay-members of it for these are the things my Subject doth more especially respect This is a Subject too Copious for me to follow through all the particulars of it and indeed it will be needless for me to enlarge upon it if the foundation I have laid be good and the Rules before given are fit measures for us to Judge of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of things by for by these we shall soon bring the Cause to an Issue I think there is nothing to be charged upon our Church for being defective in any Essential part of Divine Worship as the Church of Rome is in its Half-Communion nor of any practice that is apparently inconsistent with or that doth defeat the ends of any Institution as the same Church doth offend by having its Service in an unknown Tongue and in the multitudes of its Ceremonies I think it will be acknowledged that the Word of God is sincerely and freely Preached the Sacraments intirely and truly Administred the Prayers for matter inoffensive and good And therefore the matter in dispute is about the Ministration of our Worship and the manner of its performance and I think the things of that kind Objected against refer either to Time or Forms or Gesture To Times such are Festivals or Days set apart for Divine Service to Forms such are our Prayers and the Administration of our Sacraments to Gestures as Standing up at the Creed or Gospels and Kneeling at the Lord's Supper But now all these are either Natural or Moral Circumstances of Action and which as I have shewed are inseparable from it Of the former kind are Days and Gestures of the latter are Forms of Administration and so upon the reasons before given may be lawfully determined and used Again these are not forbidden by any Law either expresly or consequentially and have nothing that is indecent disorderly or unedifying in them and which if any should engage his own opinion and experience in he would be answered in the like kind and have the opinions and experience of Thousands that live in the practice of these to contradict him And if there be nothing of this kind apparent or what can be plainly prov'd as I am apt to beleive there cannot then the Proposition I have laid down needs no further proof But if at last it must issue in things inexpedient to Christians or an unlawfulness in the imposure are either of these fit to be insisted upon when the peace of one of the best Churches in the World is broken by it a lamentable Schism kept up and our Religion brought into imminent hazard by both Alas how near have we been to ruin and I wish I had no reason to say how near are we to it considering the indefatigable industry the united endeavours the matchless policy of those that contrive and desire it Can we think that we are safe as long as there is such an abiding reason to make us suspect it and that our divisions are both fomented and made use of by them to destroy us And if this be our danger and Union as necessary as desirable shall we yet make the breach wider or irreparable by an obstinate contention God forbid O pray for the Peace of Jerusalem they shall prosper that love thee Let Peace be within thy Walls and Prosperity within thy
well as Habits and make it as unlawful to use a Church as a Surplice he therefore cautiously begins it with Some of them But yet however he gives us a reason for it viz. Because the appropriation of it to the Religious act speaks something of Religion and Homage to God in it Elsewhere he expresseth himself after the like manner We think they civil usages must not have any thing of the nature of Worship in them but may as well be used in meerly Civil actions as in Religious Duties If there be any thing of Homage to God in them they are Worship which must have an Institution But First What doth he mean by appropriation doth he thereby understand that what is for the present appropriated to a Religious use and Service cannot be omitted nor altered nor upon any reason whatsoever be applied to any other use This our Church doth not hold (a) (a) (a) Homilies Sermon of good works pt 2 Sermon of Prayer pt 2. Article 34. Is it that out of a Reverence to Divine Ordinances it is not fit that the things used in or at Divine Worship be prostituted to vulgar use that what are Churches for an hour or two on the Lord's day be not Stables all the week after nor the Tables and Plate used in the Lord's Supper be employd in the service of the Taverns This we agree to and think our selves well able to defend against any arguments we have yet seen to the contrary 2ly Doth appropriation necessarily imploy homage to God may not things be thus separated for Order and Uniformity for Gravity and Decency for Reverence and Respect to the Solemnities of Religion And may not this Reverence and Respect we shew to the solemnities of Religion and the Devotion we shew in external Worship redound to God himself Indeed what are all the outward acts of Reverence but expressing of Homage Veneration and Adoration to God I do not think the Holy Psalmist forgot himself when he said Come let us Worship and fall down and Ps. 95. 6. kneel before the Lord our Maker Or that our Author himself said amiss when he maintains that Nature Pag. 29. teacheth us to Worship God in the most decent manner we can For though Adoration be to be given to God alone Pag. 13. Jean's answer to Hammond Pag. 21. yet Reverence as our Author distinguisheth is due to all things relating to him and to that Worship we pay to him And as there are several Acts of Worship due to God So there are some things due to his Worship by which his honour is advanced and devotion furthered But for this I refer him to what Case of Indifferent things Pag. 29. was said otherwhere which he was pleased to take no notice of But to bring all to an issue I shall now consider the several arguments and instances I produced to prove that things indifferent though not prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship This I proved from the old Testament and New from the practice of the Primitive and Modern Churches and from their own Concessions 1. The instances I chose to give from the Old Testament were David's Temple the Feast of Purim and the Synagogal Worship To these he answers at once that they are answered long since by Dr. Ames in his Case examined Pag. 25. Fresh Suit And perhaps may be answered by him after the manner he defâ—â—â—â—â— the objection taken from the second Commandment which our Author himself Pag. 27. gives up But 〈…〉 â—â—guments are of force I suppose we shall find it in our Author And he first begins with Davids Temple of which he saith David indeed design'd Pag. 26. a Temple for God without a command But God checked him for it for this very reason 2. Sam. 7. 7. and though he approved his generally good intention yet he restrained him as to his Act as may be seen in that Chap. This being matter of Fact the Text must determine it and from thence I observe 1. That God had at no time given a command concerning building a Temple So in the Text quoted in all the places with all the children of Israel spake I a 2 Sam. 7. 7. word with any of the tribes c. saying why build ye not me an house of Cedars 2. David in designing it went upon rational grounds 1. as God had given him rest and so it became him to do it in point of gratitude and because he had an opportunity for it 2. From comparing his own house Vers 1 with God's See now I dwell in an house of Cedar but the Ark of God dwelleth within curtains 3. It was no rash act for it seems he had at that time Vers 2 made ready for the building having it a long time before in his thoughts Of this see Dr. Lightfoot Temple c. 40. 1 Chron. 28. 2. 3. 1. From all which I infer that neither David in designing nor Nathan in approving what he design'd thought it absolutely unlawful to do what was not commanded in the Worship of God or that what was not commanded was forbidden This must be granted by our Author that saith God approved his generally good intention now what was his intention generally but to do somewhat in honour to God and for the solemnity of his Worship Thus much Mr. Pool doth yield The design being pious and the thing not forbidden by God Nathan hastily approves it Now if he approved it because not forbidden by God then they did not think that what was not commanded was forbidden nor doth that of our Author appear to be reasonable that God checked him for it because it was without a command 2ly Supposing that particular Act condemned yet it is not reasonable to suppose it to be for the general reason given by our Author that nothing must be done without a command but because in a matter of that consequence the Prophet did not advise about it and that he did too hastily approve it as Mr. Pool saith But 3ly It 's evident that the particular Act was not condemned 1. Because God commended him for it thou didst well (a) (a) (a) 1 Kings 8. 17 18. So Mr. Hildersham Though the Lord would not let David build him an House yet he commends his affection for it c. (b) (b) (b) Lect. on Joh. Lect. 28. 2. God rewarded him for it for upon it it was promised (c) (c) (c) 2 Sam. 7. 11. 1 Chron. 17. 10. He will make thee an House So Mr. Pool For thy good intentions to make him an House he will build thee an House 3. He presently gave order upon it for the building such an House and as a mark of approbation and a further reward of David's good intention did both reveal what he would have built and how (d) (d) (d) 1 Chron. 28. 19. And appoint his immediate Successor for the building of it (e) (e) (e) 2 Sam. 7.
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 Pag. 1. Pag. 14. 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 Case of Indifferent things P. 11. 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 Pag. 12 15 16 19. 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 Case of Indifferenc things P. 13. only thing which he hath thought fit to confront what I produced in proof of it That they were Civilrites 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 Case of Indiff p. 9. 12. 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 Hor. in Joh. c. 13. 5. 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 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 Pag. 16. 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 Exercit. 16. n. 22. 24. 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 Libertas l. 2. c. 1. §. 3. 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 1 Cor. 11. 20. calls the Love-Feast by the name of the Lord's Supper And on the contrary Tertullian declares that from hence Apel. c. 39. 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 V. Vines on the Sacram. c. 2. p. 25 c. 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 Case examined Pag. 21. 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 Case of Indifferent things Pag. 15. 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 communicate 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 Epist 118. ad Januar. 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 Thes Salmur part 3. p. 307. 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 Comen de bono unit Annot. cap. 3. 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 Confes Helvet Comen ibid. c. 7. c. 3. §. 2. of God-Fathers in Baptism As much mistaken is he when he saith None of these receive the Sacrament kneeling as appears from the Petricovâ—an Synod that I quoted Case of Indiff Things p. 9. Case examined Pag. 13. 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 V. Case of Kneeling p. 14. 15. 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 solemn 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 Vindicat. of Presbyt Gov. p. 4. Brethren so approve of as to use the same Arguments for Government as Worship The Third general was to enquire how we might
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 Anonymus 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 pâ—omiscuous Congregations and Mixt Communion 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayer 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. 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 Recommenced 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 A DISCOURSE CONCERNING Conscience WHEREIN An Account is given of the Nature and Rule and Obligation of it AND The Case of those who Separate from the Communion of the Church of England as by Law Established upon this Pretence that it is Against their Conscience to joyn in it is stated and discussed LONDON Printed for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-Street 1684. A DISCOURSE OF CONSCIENCE With Respect to those that Separate from the Communion of the Church of England upon the Pretence of it c. THere is nothing more in our Mouths than Conscience and yet there are few things we have generally taken less Pains to understand We sit down too often with this that it is something within us we do not know what which we are to Obey in all that it Suggests to us and we trouble our selves no further about it By which means it frequently comes to pass that though we have espoused very dangerous Errors or happen to be ingaged in very Sinful Practices yet believing and Acting as we say according to our Conscience we do not only think our selves perfectly Right and Safe while we continue in this State but are Effectually Armed against all sorts of Arguments and Endeavours that can be used for the bringing us to a better Mind This is too Visible in many Cases but in none more than in the Case of those that at this Day Separate from the Communion of the Church as it is Established among us Though the Laws of the Land both Ecclesiastical and Civil do oblige them to joyn in our Communion though many Arguments are offer'd to convince them not only that they Lawfully may but that they are bound to do it though they themselves are sensible that many-fold and grievous mischiefs and dangers do ensue from this breach of Communion and these unnatural Divisions both to the Christian Religion in General and to our Reformed Religion in particular yet if to all these things a Man can reply that he is Satisfied in his Conscience that he doth well in refusing his Obedience to the Laws or that he is not satisfied in his Conscience that he ought to joyn with us upon such Terms as are required this single pretence shall be often thought a sufficient Answer both to Laws and Arguments A strange thing this is that Conscience which among other ends was given to Mankind for a Preservative and Security of the Publick Peace for the more Effectually Obliging Men to Unity and Obedience to Laws yet should often be a means of setting them at distance and prove a Shelter for Disobedience and Disorder That God should Command us to Obey our Governours in all Lawful things for Conscience sake and yet that we should Disobey them in Lawful things for Conscience sake too It is the Design of this Discourse to examine what there is in this Plea that is so often made by our Dissenters for their not complying with the Laws viz. That it is against their Conscience so to do and to shew in what Cases this Plea is justly made and in what Cases not and where it is Justly made how far it will Justify any Mans Separation and how far it will not And all this in order to the possessing those who are concerned with a Sense of the great Necessity that lyes upon them of using their most serious endeavours to inform their Conscience aright in these matters before they prefume to think they can Separate from us with a good Conscience which is all we desire of them for it is not our business to perswade any Man to conform against his Conscience but to convince every Man how Dangerous it may be to follow a misinformed Conscience But before I enter upon this disquisition it will be necessary in the first Place to prepare my way by laying down the Grounds and Principles I mean to proceed upon And here that I may take in all things that are needful to be known before-hand about this matter I shall treat distinctly of these Five Heads 1 Of the Nature of Conscience 2 Of the Rule of Conscience And under that 3 Of the Power of Humane Laws to Oblige the Conscience 4 And particularly in the instance of Church Communion 5 Of the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is Obliged to be guided by his Conscience in his Actions I. And first as for the Nature of Conscience the truest way to find out that will be not so much to enquire into the Signification of the word Conscience or the several Scholastical Definitions of it as to consider what every Man doth really mean by that word when he has occasion to make use of it for if it
that the Publick or some private Person shall Suffer Damage or Inconvenience by our not Observing it Or Secondly Though the Law as to the matter of it be never so Trifling nay though perhaps all things considered it be an inconvenient Law yet if the Manner of our not Obeying it be such as gives Offence to our Superiours or to any others that is either Argues a Contempt of Authority or sets an ill Example before our fellow Subjects I say in either of these Cases the Transgression of a Humane Law renders a Man guilty of a Fault as well as Obnoxious to the Penalty of that Law But out of these two Cases I must consess I do not see how a purely Humane Law doth Oblige the Conscience or how the Transgression of it doth make a Man guilty of Sin before God For it is certain if we secure these two Points that is to say the good of the Publick and of private Persons and wâ—th all the sacredness and respect which is due to Authority which is likewise in Order to the Publick good We Answer all the Ends for which the Power of making Laws or laying Commands upon Inferiours was Committed by God to Mankind So that though it be true that Humane Laws do Oblige the Conscience yet it is also true that a great many Cases may and do happen in which a Man may Act contrary to a purely Humane Law and yet not be a Sinner before God Always supposing as I said there be no Contempt or Refractoryness expressed towards the Governours Nor no Scandal or ill Example given to others by the Action For if there be either of these in the Case I dare not acquit the Man from being a Transgressour of Gods Law in the instance wherein he Transgresseth the Laws of Men. For this is that which we insist upon that the Authority of our Governours ought to be held and esteemed very sacred both because the Laws of God and the Publick good require it should be so And herefore wherever they do peremptorily lay their Commands upon us we are bound in Conscience so far to comply as not to contest the matter with them nor to seem to do it And though their Commands as to the matter of them be never so slight nay though they should prove really inconvenient either to our selves or the Publick Yet if they stand upon them if they persist in requiring our Obedience to them we must yield we must Obey always supposing they be not against Gods Laws For we are at no hand either to affront their Authority our selves or to encourage others by our Example to do it For to do either of these things is a greater Evil to the Publtck than our Obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. And now it is time for us to apply what hath been said in General concerning the Rule of Conscience and the Obligation of Humane Laws to the particular Matter here before us that is the business of Church Communion The Obligation of Conscience to which in such manner as the Laws have appointed is the Fourth general Head we are to consider This point of the Obligation to Communion with the Church as by Law Established hath been largely handled by several Learned Men of our Church and particularly it is the Argument of one of those Discourses which have lately been writ for the sake of our Dissenters Thither therefore I refer the Reader for full Satisfaction about this Matter being only just to touch upon it here as one of the Principles we take for granted and shall proceed upon in the following Discourse And here the Proposition we lay down is this That it is every Mans Duty and consequently every Man is bound in Conscience to joyn in Communion with that Church which is Established by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholick Church and there is nothing imposed or required as a Condition of Communicating with it that is Repugnant to the Laws of God or the Appointments of Jesus Christ This Proposition is Evident not only because it Necessarily follows from the foregoing Principle which was that every Man is bound in Conscience to Obey the Laws of Men that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore consequently a Man is bound to Obey in Ecclesiastical matters as well as Civil unless it can be shew'd that Christ hath forbid all Humane Authority whether Ecclesiastical or Civil to make any Laws or Orders about Religion which I believe never was or can be shew'd But it is Evident upon another Account which I desire may be considered We are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in uslyes the Vnity of the Church Which Vnity doth consist not only in professing the same Faith but joyning together with our Brethren under Common Governours in the same Religious Communion of Worship and Sacraments And therefore whoever breaks this Vnity of the Church by withdrawing his Obedience from those Church Governours which God hath set over him in the place where he Lives and Separating from the Established Religious Assemblies of Christians under those Governours doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ and is Guilty of that Sin of Schism which is so very much cautioned against and so highly Condemned in the Scriptures of the New Testament Unless in the mean time it doth appear to the Man who thus withdraws and Separates that there is something required of him in those Assemblies and by those Governours and that as a Term and Condition of holding Communion with them which he cannot Submit to without Sin And this Point I do heartily wish was well considered by our dissenting Brethren They do seem often to look upon this business of coming to Church and joyning with us in Prayers and Sacraments no otherwise to bind their Conscience than other purely Humane Laws They think they owe no Obedience to the Laws in these matters different from that which they yield to any common Act of Parliament And therefore no wonder they often make so slight a business of them But this is a great mistake there is much more in these things than this comes to The withdrawing our Communion from the Church carrys a far greater guilt in it than the Violating any Law that is purely Humane For though we do readily grant that all the Circumstances of Publick Worship enjoyned in the Church as for Instance the Times the Gestures the Forms of Prayer the Methods of Reading the Scripture and Administring the Sacraments as also the Habits of the Ministers that are to Officiate be all of Humane Institution and may be altered and varyed at the discretion of our Governours Yet the Publick Worship it self under Publick Lawful Governours is of Divine Appointment and no Man can Renounce it without Sinning against Jesus Christ as well as Offending against
the Established Worship I lay down this general Proposition That if the Principles I have laid down about Conscience be admitted then it is certainly true that no Man among us can justly plead Conscience for his Separation from the Church of England or can say that it is against his Conscience to joyn in Communion with it but only such a one as is perswaded in his own mind that he cannot Communicate with us without Sinning against God in so doing For since as we have said Conscience is nothing else but a Mans Judgment concerning Actions whether they be Duties or Sins or Indifferent And since the Law of God Commanding or Forbidding Actions or neither Commanding them nor Forbidding them is the only Rule by which a Man can Judg what Actions are Duties and what are Sins and what are Indifferent It plainly follows that as a Man cannot be bound in Conscience to do any Action which it doth not appear to him that Gods Law hath some way or other Commanded and made a Duty So neither can it go against a Mans Conscience to do any Action which he is not convinced that Gods Law hath some way or other Forbidden and so made a Sin And therefore in our present Case That Man only can justly plead Conscience for his Nonconformity that can truly say he is perswaded in his Judgment that Conformity is Forbidden by some Law of God Or which is the same thing No Man can say it is against his Conscience to joyn in our Communion but only such a one as really believes he shall Sin against some Law of God if he do joyn with us If against this it be excepted that it is very possible for a Man to be well satisfied that there is nothing directly Sinful in our Worship but yet for all that it may be against his Conscience to joyn with us in it As for instance in the Case where a Man takes it really to be his Duty to hold constant Communion with some other Congregation where he believes he can be more Edified or to which he is related by some Church Covenant To this I answer that in this Case I grant Conscience is rightly pleaded for Separation though how justifiably I do not now Examine But then I say this Plea proceeds upon the same grounds I just now laid down For if the Man as is supposed in the Case be convinced that it is his Duty by Gods Law as there is no other measure of Duty to hold Communion with others and not with us then he must at the same time be convinced that he cannot without Transgression of Gods Law that is without Sin joyn with us And that is the same Account which we give of its being against any Mans Conscience to hold Communion with us Further If it be urged against our Proposition that not only in the Case where a Man is perswaded of the Unlawfulness of our Communion but also in the Case where he only doubts of the Lawfulness of it a Man may justly plead Conscience for his Nonconformity so long as those doubts remain And therefore it is not truly said of us that in Order to the Pleading Conscience for Nonconformity one must be perswaded in his own mind that Conformity is Forbidden by some Law of God I Answer that if the Man who thus doubts of the Lawfulness of Conformity hath really entertain'd this Principle that it is a Sin to do any thing with a doubting Conscience I grant that it must go against his Conscience to conform so long as he doubts But then this is but the same thing we are contending for for therefore it goes against his Conscience to Communicate with us doubting as he doth because he believes he shall Sin against God if he should But if the Man we are speaking of do not think it a breach of Gods Law to Act with a doubting Conscience then I do not see how it can in the least go against his Conscience to Communicate with us upon that pretence So that notwithstanding these two Exceptions which are all I can think of it will still remain true that no Man can justly Plead Conscience for his Separation from the Church but he that is perswaded that he cannot joyn with it without Sinning against God Now if this Proposition be true as certainly it is then how many Mens pretences to Conscience for their Separating from us are hereby cut off And indeed how few in Comparison of the multitude of Dissenters among us will be left that can be able with Truth to say that it is against their Conscience to Communicate with us in our Prayers and in our Sacraments In the first Place it is Evident that all those who Separate from us upon Account of any private grudge or pique because they have been disobliged or have received some disappointment in the way of our Church or by the Men that are favourers of it and therefore out of a Pet will joyn themselves to another Communion All those that think they can serve their own turns more effectually by being of another way as for instance they can thereby better please a Relation from whom they have expectances they can better advance their Trade or increase their Fortunes they can better procure a Reputation or regain one that is Sunk In a word all those that to serve any ends of Pride or Interest or Passion or out of any other worldly Consideration do refuse us their Company in the Worship of God I say all such are certainly excluded from Pleading Conscience for their Separation In the second Place all those Lay People who refuse our Communion upon Account that the Pastors and Teachers whom they most Love and Reverence are not permitted to Exercise their Function among us whose Pretence it is that if these good Men were allowed to Teach in our Churches they would come to our Congregations but so long as that is refused they will hear them where they can I say all these are likewise excluded from Pleading Conscience for their Separation For however it may really and truly be against the Conscience of their Ministers to conform there being other things required of them than of ordinary People yet it is not against their Conscience so to do for they know no ill in Conformity but only that so many good Men are silenced In the third Place all those that refuse our Communion upon a meer dislike of several things in our Church Offices They do not for instance like a Form of Prayer in general and they have several things to Object against our Form in particular they do not like our Ceremonies they do not like the Surplice or the Cross in Baptism and sundry other things they find fault with Not that they have any thing to say against the Lawfulness of these things but only they have an Aversion to them All these Men likewise are cut off from Pleading Conscience for their Separation For they do
not pretend that it is unlawful or a Sin against God to joyn with us in our Service which is the only thing wherein their Conscience can be concerned but only they are not pleased with many things in our Service as fancying them not to be so decent or convenient or not to be so prudently Order'd as they would have them But what of all this Admit the things to be so as they fancy them yet still so long as they do not think there is any Sin in them it cannot go against their Conscience to joyn with any Assembly in which they are Practised Because Conscience as we have often said is not touched is not affected where no Law of God is Transgressed In the fourth Place all those that are kept from our Communion purely upon the Account of Education or acquaintance with Persons that are of another perswasion Those that have nothing to say against our Worship but only that they were bred in another way or those that would joyn with us in it but that they know a great many Religious Godly Persons that do Condemn it and therefore they dare not come at us These now may be very well meaning Men but yet they cannot reasonably Plead Conscience upon this Account for their Separation For it is not a Mans Education or the Example or Opinion of other Men that makes any Action to be a Duty or a Sin but the Law of God Commanding or Forbidding that Action And therefore before I can say that this or the other Action is against my Conscience I must believe that Gods Law hath either in general or in particular either directly or by Consequence made that Action unlawful I grant the Opinions of other Men especially those that are Learned and Pious are always to be listned to in doubtful Cases But then no Mans Opinion can be the Rule of my Conscience nor am I at all concerned in Conscience to follow it any farther than I am convinced that it declares Gods Law to me And therefore sure in this Case of Church Communion I can be but very little concerned to follow any Mans Opinion when both there are so many Persons and those as Learned and as Pious as any others that are of another Opinion and when also the Publick Law which has much more Authority than any private Opinion hath determined what I am to do in the Case So that it is great weakness sillyness not Conscience that prevails with these Men I am speaking of to live in disobedience to the Laws If indeed they be really perswaded in their own Minds that our way of Worshipping God is in any part or instance of it Unlawful or Forbidden let that Perswasion be upon what grounds it will then they may truly say it is against their Conscience to joyn with us But if they be not convinced of this I do not see how the Example or the advice of their Friends and Acquaintance can in the least give them a Title to Plead Conscience for their refusing our Communion Fifthly those that withdraw from the Church upon this Account that our Governours in their Laws and Prescriptions about Gods Worship have not rightly used the Power which they are intrusted with but have exceeded their bounds have made perhaps too great Encroachments upon Christian Liberty or laid more stress than was meet upon Indifferent things These likewise are excluded by the former Rule from Pleading Conscience for their Separation For admit the Law-givers have been to blame in the Exercise of their Power in these matters which yet is sooner said then proved and have really done more then they can answer to God for yet what is this to them The Conscience of the Governours is indeed deeply concerned about these things and they must give an Account to God for the abuse of their Authority if there be any But how this doth concern the Conscience of the Subject is not easily understood So long as what is Commanded or Enjoyned doth not appear to interfere with any Law of God But having said this I fear there is too much reason to add that those who so much stand up for Christian Liberty and would be thought the great Patrons of it do by their endless scruples about Indifferent things and refusing to Obey Authority in such matters in all appearance take the most Effectuall Course to destroy all Christian Liberty in the true Notion of it and to bring in a Religion that shall consist of Touch not Tast not Handle not and such other Uncommanded things Sixthly and lastly to name no more instances All those that can Communicate Occasionally with us in our Prayers and Sacraments As for instance those that when they have a turn to be served when there is an Office or some such thing in the Case can come to Church and receive the Communion but at other times they do not afford us their Presence These are also excluded from pretending to Conscience for their not constantly joyning in Communion with us For if indeed they did believe it was a Sin in them to joyn with us in our Prayers and Sacraments with what Conscience dare they do it at all They ought not for any worldly good to venture upon such an Action as they do believe to be forbidden by Gods Laws But if they do not believe that to joyn in our Communion is a Sinful thing as I dare say none of these Persons do then I will be bold to make the Inference that it cannot be more against their Conscience to do it Thrice than to do it Once and do it constantly than to do it Thrice But let us leave the false Pretenders to Conscience and come to the Case of those who can justly Plead Conscience for their Separation or that can truly say it is against their Conscience to joyn in our Communion Of this sort are all such and none but such as do teally believe that our Communion is unlawful or that they cannot Communicate with us without Sin as I have before proved As for those that only doubt of the Lawfulness of our Communion but are not perswaded that it is unlawful I do not here consider them because they cannot say that it is against their Conscience to Communicate with us any more than they can say that they are bound in Conscience to Communicate with us For they are uncertain as to both these things and are not determined either way But however because these men may justly Plead Conscience upon this Account that they think it is a Sin to joyn with us so long as they doubt of the Lawfulness of our Communion I shall consider their Case afterwards in a particular Discourse upon that Argument Those that I am now concerned with are such as do believe or are perswaded that there is some thing in our Worship which they cannot comply with without Sinning against God And my business is to Examine whether such a Belief or
of his and God Almighty who is the Judge of all mens Hearts and Circumstances doth know he had not means and opportunities to understand better FINIS ERRATA PAg. 27. l. 7. for annot cavoid r. cannot avoid p. 35. l. 3. for this last r. the least p. 43. l. 28. after Spiritual add by doing the Former p. 61. l. 1. r. because p. 62. l. penult r. Chrysostome p. 66. l. 9. r. no wise p. 94. l. 19. r. Probability ADVERTISEMENT 1. A Discourse concerning Conscience the first Part. Wherein an Account is given of the Nature and Rule and Obligation of it And the Case of those who Separate from the Communion of the Church of England as by Law Estalished upon this Pretence That it is against their Conscience tojoyn in it is stated and discussed 2. A Resolution of this Case viz. Whether it be Lawful to Separate from the Publick Worship of God in the Parochial Assemblies of England upon that New Pretence which some Men make of the Case being much altered now from what it was when the Puritans wrote against the Brownists and the Presbyterians against the Independent 3. Resolution of two Cases of Conscience in two Discourses The First Of the Lawfulness of Compliance with all the Ceremonies of the Church of England The Second Of the necessity of the use of common-Common-Prayer in Publick A DISCOURSE ABOUT A SCRVPVLOVS CONSCIENCE Containing some PLAIN DIRECTIONS For the CURE of it LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street and B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard 1684. A DISCOURSE ABOUT A Scrupulous Conscience c. IT is not my Design in the following Discourse to expose or upbraid the Weakness of any of our Dissenting Brethren but rather charitably to contribute what I can towards the healing and curing of it and this I take for granted That we cannot do greater Service either to the Church of Christ or Souls of Men than by all prudent Means to root those needless Scruples out of their Minds which have been the Occasion of such unchristian Separations and dangerous Divisions amongst us at first begun and still maintained generally upon the Account of such Things as I verily believe a well-instructed Conscience need not be concerned or disturbed about Here I shall first shew what I understand by a Scrupulous Conscience then observe some few things concerning it and lastly offer some plain Rules and Means by which we may best get rid of it First What is a Scrupulous Conscience Now Conscience as it is a Rule of our Actions is nothing else but a Man's Mind or Judgment concerning the moral Goodness or Evil Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of Things and as this Judgment is either true or false so is our Conscience either good and well-grounded or erroneous The Divine Law made known to us either by the light of Nature or plain Scripture or direct consequence from it such as any honest man may understand is the Rule of Conscience or of that Judgment we make of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of things so that our Conscience is a safe Rule and Guide of Actions no further than as it self is directed and warranted by the Law of God 1. A good and well grounded Conscience is when we carefully abstain from whatever God hath forbidden don't neglect doing any thing which he hath commanded and as for other Mattes left indifferent and at liberty we do them or forbea doing of them according as the Rules of obedience to Superiours Prudence and Charity do require This is the Health and sound State of the Mind 2. An erroneous Conscience is when we judge that to be evil or unnecessary which God hath expresly commanded and is our Duty or that to be good and necessary which he hath plainly forbid and is really sinful Now our Consciences cannot alter the nature of things that which is our Duty remaineth so and we sin by omitting it notwithstanding we in our Consciences think it unlawful to be done and what is really Evil continueth such and is Sin in us however our Consciences tell us it is our duty to do it and the fault is more or less compassionable and pardonable as the causes of the Error are more or less voluntary and avoidable This is a grievous Disease and deadly Sickness of the Mind when we thus grosly err in our Judgments and act according to our mistaken Opinion of Things 3. A scrupulous Conscience is conversant about things in their own Nature indifferent and it consists Either in strictly tying up our selves to some things which God hath no where commanded as the Pharisees made great conscience of washing before they did eat and abundance of other unnecessary Rites and Usages they had of Mens own inventing and devising which they as religiously nay more carefully observed than the indisputable Commands of God himself Or in a conscientious abstaining from somethings which are not forbid nor any ways unlawful Touch not taste not handle not doubting and fearing where no Fear is thinking that they should as much offend God by eating some kind of Meats wearing some Garments as they should do were they guilty of Murder and Adultery Which is the Case of many amongst us who by such Scrupulosity about little matters seem more precise and austere than other good and honest Christians are or themselves need or ought to be Far be it from me by any thing I shall now say to discourage the greatest and tenderest care any Christian can take to keep himself from all Sin from all Occasions and Temptations to it from the least appearance of Evil of what is really such and to do any thing that is in it self sinful out of confidence that it is lawful is far worse and a more grievous Offence than to abstain from many things which are truly lawful out of an Opinion that they are sinful Notwithstanding this I cannot but reckon it the chief Policy of the Devil the grand Enemy of all that is good when he cannot persuade us that there is nothing at all sinful or unlawful than to make us suspect every thing for such or at least that there is great danger of displeasing God by the most indifferent and innocent Actions by these means ensnaring and entangling Mens Consciences and rendring Religion a most troublesome Burden to them A scrupulous Conscience therefore starts and boggles where there is no real Evil or Mischief is afraid of omitting or doing what may be omitted or done without Sin Which I know not how better to illustrate than by those unaccountable Antipathies or Prejudices that some men have against some sort of Meats or living Creatures which have not the least harm or hurt in them yet are so offensive and dreadful to such Persons that they fly from them as they would from a Tyger or Bear and avoid them as they would do the Plague or Poyson Just thus do some Men run out of the Church at the sight of a
Surplice as if they had been scared by the Apparition of a Ghost I proceed to the second thing I propounded to observe to you some few general things concerning this scrupulous Conscience as 1. That this is a very sickly crazy temper of Mind a great Indisposition a state of Weakness and Infirmity It ariseth from Ignorance and want of right Understanding our Religion from undue timerousness or unsetledness of Mind from Melancholy or unreasonable Prejudices and Mistakes about the Nature of things Such scrupulous Persons are like fearful Women that wander in the Dark who seeing nothing to affright them yet fancy many things which make them tremble every step they take or like those who see only by an uncertain glimmering twilight their Imagination once abus'd and prepossess'd transforms every Object into a Monster or Gyant Thus this Scrupulous is the same with what in other Words some call a tender Conscience so tender that every thing hurts and wounds it like a tender Eye which the least Dust or Smoke greviously offends or a tender Constitution of Body which the least Air or Wind mightily disorders and discomposes Now this is far from being any Vertue or Commendation in us this is no desirable Qualification nor a matter of Ambition to be thought Men of such tender Consciences no more than it is for a Man's Reputation to be sickly and often indispos'd A good Conscience is firm and steady well setled and resolved and such needless Scruples about things lawful are at the best a sign of an ungovern'd Fancy and a weak Judgment As the niceness and squeamishness of a mans Stomach that distasts wholsom Food is a symptom of an unsound and unhealthy Body This doth not argue any extraordinary holiness or purity above others as the Pharisee conceited of himself Stand off come not nigh me touch me not for I am holier than thou because he washed himself so often No we are yet in a childish state and whilst we are frighted with such Bug-bears and Phantasms we have not yet arrived to the Understanding or Resolution of a Man 2. This Scrupulosity about little matters may be and is often a sign of Hypocrisie I take not upon my self to judge any Persons Let every man look to himself but thus certainly it was with the Scribes and Pharisees of old They strained at every Gnat stumbled at every Straw would starve sooner than eat their Meat with defiled hands would not for the World wrong a Man of a Cummin-seed or a spear of Mint and by this wonderful exactness and strictness in some instances they easily gained the Reputation of the greatest Saints so that it is said to have been an ordinary Proverb among the Jews That if but two Persons in the World went to Heaven one of them would be a Scribe the other a Pharisee Yet for all this if we will believe our Saviour's account of them they made nothing of swallowing Camels living in the greatest and most known Wickedness Alas their Consciences would not give them leave to enter into the Governours Hall to go amongst the Heathens for fear of being polluted by them yet at the same time they stuck not at suborning false Witnesses against the best and most innocent Person that ever lived They blamed the Disciples for plucking the ears of Corn on the Sabbath-day as if they poor tender-hearted men were offended and grieved to the Soul at such Prophaneness and yet they thought it nothing to deny relief and succour to their own Parents when in Want or Distress they made no Bones of Rapine and Extortion oppressing the Poor or devouring Widows Houses By their curiosity about some external Observances they hoped to make amends for their gross Transgressions in other Cases of far greater weight and moment Since they denied themselves many things which God had allow'd them they hop'd he would readily forgive them tho in some other things they took a greater Liberty than he had permitted them Had any of us been present when Mary St. John 12. 3. took the Ointment of Spikenard very costly and anointed the Feet of Jesus and had heard Judas's Rebuke Why was not this Ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the Poor He scrupled such a profuse expence tho about our Saviour himself He thought it might have been better employ'd to more useful purposes Should we not from this have strait concluded him the most charitable and conscientious of all Christ's Disciples and yet this over-great care for the Poor was only a pretence and covering for his theevish Intention They therefore who are so scrupulous about little indifferent matters ought to approve their Honesty and Sincerity by the most accurate Diligence in the Practise of all other Duties of Religion which are plainly and undoubtedly such They who pretend to such a tender Conscience above other Men must know that the World will watch them as to the fairness and justice of their Dealings the calmness of their Tempers their behaviour in their several Relations their Modesty Humility Charity Peaceableness and the like If in all these things they keep the same Tenor use the same caution and circumspection and be uniformly conscientious then it must be acknowledged that it is only Weakness or Ignorance that raiseth their Scruples not any vicious Principle and the condition of those who are under the Power of such Scruples is much to be commiserated But when I see a Man scrupling praying by a Book or Form and yet living without any sense of God or fear of him afraid of a Ceremony in God's Worship and not afraid of a plain damnable Sin of Covetousness rash censuring his Brethren of Hatred and Strife Faction and Schism and Disobedience to Superiours when I see one that out of Conscience refuseth to kneel at the Sacrament and yet dares totally neglect the Communion who takes great care not to give offence to his weak Brother but can freely speak evil of Dignities and despiseth his lawful Governours it is not then uncharitable to say That it is not dread of displeasing God but some other bye end or Interest that acts and moves such a Person and in pleading the Tenderness of his Conscience he is no other than a downright Hypocrite On the other side Let a Man be never so punctual and critical in his Conformity to all the appointed Ceremonies and Usages in our Church let him constantly attend God's solemn Worship and behave himself most reverently and decently at the Publick Prayers yet if this Man be profane and intemperate a Derider of true Piety and Godliness if he lives loosly and at Random all his regular Devotions all his bowing and kneeling to the Honour of our Saviour all his niceness about his Worship to perform it in the most orderly manner all his Zeal for the Church shall avail him nothing He is no better than the Pharisee washing the out-side whilst he is within full of all Wickedness and
of Time came by the appearance of the Son of God in the World he was in a great measure dethroned his Kingdom overthrown and the last and most effectual means were used for the recovery of Men out of his Snare and Power When therefore he perceived that by all the grievous Persecutions he raised against the Church it spread only so much the faster that at last the whole Heathen Idolatry fell down before the Cross of Christ when he was shamefully expelled out of his Temples and from his Altars his Oracles silenced and the Religion of Jesus prevailed every where he then betook himself to his old Serpentine Arts of dissimulation Since he could no longer oppose Christ's Kingdom by open War he resolved to turn Christian and to set up for Christ's Deputy and substitute here on Earth to fight against Christians under Christ's Banner and by adulterating and corrupting the Christian Doctrine to spoil it of all its Efficacy to introduce his old Heathen Rites and Idolatrous Ceremonies as unwritten Traditions from Christ himself or his Apostles and so under his Name and pretended Authority to exercise all that cruelty oppression and fraud which is so pleasing to his own infernal Nature hoping to burn destroy root out all true Christians from the face of the Earth under colour of propagating the Catholick Faith and enlarging Christ's Kingdom in the World When Christendom had long groaned under this miserable Tyranny it pleased God in many places of Europe but especially here in England to set on foot a Reformation of Religion which was happily and peaceably accomplished among us by the favour and countenance of publick Authority and the wise Counsel and Advice of our Reverend Bishops and other Ministers To nip this in the Bud the Devil raised that sharp Persecution in Qu. Mary's days in which our first Reformers gloriously sealed what they had done with their Blood but this proving ineffectual that he might the better frustrate the ends of our Reformation himself would turn Reformer too A great Cry was soon raised against our Church as not sufficiently purged from Popery our Bishops our Prayers our Ceremonies were all Antichristian and it was not long before all Ministers Tythes Temples and the Universities too were condemned as such and God knows they had well nigh reformed away all Learning true Religion and Worship of God and under the specious Pretence of paring off all Superfluities had grievously shaken the Foundations of Christianity it self insomuch that it came to pass as some of those who now dissent from us did then complain That Professors of Religion did openly oppose and deride almost all that Service of God out of Conscience which other Men used to do out of Prophaneness And what infinite mischief this rash and intemperate Zeal for reforming Abuses and Corruptions hath done to our Church and Nation if the Experience of this last Age will not sufficiently convince men it is not to be hoped that any Discourse should We little consider whose Interest we thus serve and promote we do his work who is most delighted with Strife and Confusion and every one can tell who that is and where he reigns To be sure by these uncharitable Separations we highly gratifie the common Enemy whose great Design and Policy it hath all along been by the Follies and invincible Scruples of Protestant Dissenters to weaken and by degrees pull down the Church of England and then we all become an easie Prey to Rome If any now tell me that to prevent this great Mischief and Danger that ariseth from our Divisions it is not so necessary that the People should lay down their Scruples which they cannot well do since no one can at any time think or believe as he will as it is that the Impositions themselves the Matters scrupled at should be removed and taken away and then Peace and Unity may be better secured To this I only answer these two things 1. I now consider things as they at present stand amongst us We have a Church setled and established by Law in which nothing that is sinful is enjoyned What the Duty of our Governours and Superiours is how far they may or ought to condescend to the Weakness or Scruples of others I shall not take upon me to determine that is another Question which belongs not to us But I consider now only what private Members of such a Church are to do and then I say scrupling the Use of some things prescribed by the Church will not justifie our leaving it nay as I shall shew afterwards it is our best and safest course to submit and comply with such Orders notwithstanding our Scruples But I add 2. If this were a sufficient Reason why the Constitution of any Church should be altered because some things are scrupled in it there never could be a setled Church as long as the World stands for since there will be always a difference in Mens Understandings and Tempers some weak and injudicious others peevish and proud there will consequently be many that shall scruple and be offended at the best and most innocnt Constitutions And if the Ceremonies now in use amongst us had not been retained at our first Reformation those very Persons who are now so much dissatisfied with the Imposition of them would perhaps have been the first that should have then complained of the want of them Of which we have this notorious and undeniable Evidence in the late times when our Church was laid in the Dust when none of those Ceremonies or Forms which are now objected against were imposed or commonly used yet even then were men gathering Congregations out of Congregations purifying and reforming still further Scruples encreased Sects and Divisions upon them multiplied and never such Distractions and Confusions in Religion as in those days and without the gift of Prophecy one may foretell that if what is principally found fault with in our Church was now abolished yet those that are given to Scruples would at least in time find cavelling Objections against any Constitution that can be made They are like Men given to sue and go to Law They never want some Pretence to disturb themselves and their Neighbours Men may talk of reconciling our Differences and making up our Breaches to their Lives end and propound their several Projects and frame their Models and conceive fine designs of Union and Accommodation yet none of these will have any effect or do any good till Men learn Humility and Modesty and be contented to be governed by others in things indifferent till Self-conceit and Pride be in some measure rooted out and when this is effectually done there will then be found but little need of any Alteration in the present Constitution The foundation of our Peace and Agreement must be laid in the reforming our selves and our own Tempers The way to unite us lieth not so much in amending the present Establishment Government Liturgy endeavouring to add to it
Galatia yet no one Member of them is ever commanded to come out or separate from those Churches to joyn in a purer Congregation or to avoid mixt Communions or for better Edification For Men to be drunk at the Sacrament was certainly a worse Fault than to kneel at it or for a wicked Man to intrude himself yet the Apostle doth not advise any to withdraw from that Church but only every one to examine himself We ought to do all that we can do without Sin submit to an hundred things which are against our Mind or we had rather let alone for the sake of Peace and Unity so desirable in it self so necessary for the Glory of God the Honour of Religion for our common Interest and Safety for the Preservation of what I may without Vanity call the best Church in the World I cannot stand now to tell you how earnestly this Duty of maintaining Unity amongst Christians is pressed in the New Testament how concerned our Blessed Master was that all his Disciples should agree together and live as Brethren how severely the Holy Apostles chid and rebuked those that caused Divisions and Strife amongst Christians reckoning Schism and Contention amongst the most heinous and dangerous Sins It should make both the Ears one would think of some amongst us to tingle but to hear what Sense the Primitive Christians had of the sinfulness of separating from and breaking the Communion of Christians nay what the old Non-conformists here in England have said of it yet remaining in Print charging the People to be as tender of Church-Division as they were of Drunkenness Whoredom or any other enormous Crime And did Men know and consider the evil of Schism they would not be so ready upon every slight occasion to split upon that Rock Let us therefore divert our Fears and Scruples upon greater Sins It is far more certain that causless Separation from the Communion of Christians is sinful than that Kneeling at the Sacrament or Praying by a Book is such Why then have Men such invincible Scruples about one and none at all about the other They run headlong into the Separate Assemblies which surely are more like to Schismatical Conventicles than any thing in our Church is to Idolatry Let Men be as scrupulous and fearful of offending against the Christian Laws of Subjection Peaceableness and Charity as they are of worshipping God after an impure manner and this alone will contribute much to the making up those Breaches which threaten sudden Ruine to our Church and Nation I only add here that in all that I have now said I am not conscious to my self that I have used any Argument or affirmed any thing but what many of those very Ministers who now dissent from us did teach and maintain and print too against the Independents and other Sectaries that divided from them when they preached in the Parish-Churches And if this was good Doctrine against those who separated upon the account of Corruptions for purer Ordinances in those Days I see not why it is not as good against themselves when upon the very same Pretences and no other they divide from us now The Lord grant that we may all come at last to be of one Mind to live in Peace and Vnity and then the God of Love and Peace shall be with us FINIS SOME CONSIDERATIONS About the CASE OF SCANDAL OR Giving Offence TO Weak Brethren LONDON Printed by H. Hills Jun. for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard and F. Gardiner and the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. Of giving OFFENCE TO Weak Brethren IT hath been often observed concerning our Dissenting Brethren that when they are urged to mention any one thing required of the People in the Publick Worship of God in our Parish Churches judged by them absolutely sinful on the account of which their separation from us is necessary and consequently justifiable they either put us off with some inconveniencies inexpediences or corruptions as they call them some things appointed and used which in their opinion render our service less pure and spiritual the chief of which exceptions have been considered in several Discourses lately written with great temper and judgment for the satisfaction of all honest and teachable minds Or else some of them tell us that they are indeed themselves sufficiently perswaded of the lawfulness of all that is enjoyned they do not see but a good Christian may serve God acceptably and devoutly our way and may go to Heaven living and dying in our Communion but then there are many other Godly but weaker Christians of another perswasion with whom they have been long joyned And should they now at least totally forsake them and conform they should thereby give great offence to all those tender Consciences which are not thus convinced of the lawfulness of holding such Communion with our Church in Prayers and Sacraments as is by Law required Which is a sin so Heinous and of such dreadful Consequence that our Saviour tells us St. Matt. 18. 6. Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me it were better for him that a Milstone were hanged about his Neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the Sea and in St. Pauls account it is no less than Spiritual Murther a destroying of him for whom Christ dyed Rom 14. 15. Now this Case of giving Offence to weak Brethren I have undertaken briefly to consider where I once for all suppose as all those must do who make this the ground of their refusing to Communicate with our Church that nothing is amongst us imposed as a condition of Communion but what may be done without sin for were any thing in it self sinful required by our Church there could be no room for this Plea of Scandal That alone would be sufficient reason for Separation from us I Discourse therefore at this present only with such who for their own particular could well enough joyn with us but dare not do it for fear of Offending those who yet scruple and are dissatisfied at the use of our Prayers and Ceremonies Nor do I design exactly to handle the whole Doctrine of Scandal or Elaborately explain all the places of Scripture concerning it or state the Cases there treated of Nor shall I now meddle with the Duty of Governours and Superiours how far they ought to condescend to the weakness ignorance prejudices and mistakes of those under their care and charge but I shall confine my self to this one Question Whether there doth lye any obligation upon any private Christian as the case now stands amongst us to absent from his Parish Church or to forbear the use of the Forms of Prayer and Ceremonies by Law appointed for fear of Offending or Scandalizing his weak Brethren Here I shall First of all inquire what is the true notion of a weak Brother Secondly What it is to Offend such an one Thirdly How
of what he doth 3. It is truly observed by some that considering the known temper of the Nonconformists it is not very likely any such mischief should ensue viz. that by the example of one or more leaving their Separate Assemblies others should be moved to follow them against their own Judgment and Conscience It is abundantly notorious how they have used to treat those that have deserted them with what irreconcileable enmity they have prosecuted them looking upon them as their worst Enemies passing more grievous censures upon them than upon those who have all their lives long continued in our Communion 4. I proceed in the last place to observe from what I have discoursed concerning giving Offence that if to Offend any one be to lead him into sin then we may Scandalize and give Offence to others as soon by pleasing them and complying with them as by dipleasing them and going contrary to their mind and humour St. Paul who Circumcised Timothy Acts 16. 3. in favour of the weak Jews that he might insinuate and ingratiate himself into them refused to Circumcise Titus Galat. 2. 3. tho he made the Jews angry by it yet he would not give place by subjection or submission and condescension to them no not for an hour He considered the different states and conditions of the persons he had to deal withal He complyed to Circumcise Timothy lest all the Jews with him should have forsaken the Christian Faith and for the same reason he denied to Circumcise Titus lest those of Jerusalem should think he was of opinion that the Jewish Law held still in force and so the Cross of Christ should become of no effect to them He pleased indeed the former for fear of driving them from Christianity and for the same reason he displeased the latter lest he should give them occasion to think the observation of Moses's Law always necessary He had truly Scandalized them if he had done as they would have had him He had Offended them in the true Scripture sense if he had pleased and humoured them and this is the most ordinary way of Scandalizing Christians amongst us by not plainly telling Men of their faults and mistakes by not speaking freely and roundly to them nor acting couragiously whereby they become hardned and confirmed in their folly and ignorance To this purpose I cannot but repeat the words of Mr. Baxter in the Book I have so often cited Many a time saith he I have the rather gone to the Common-Prayers of the publick Assemblies for fear of being a Scandal to those same men that called the going to them a Scandal that is for fear of hardning them in a sinful Separation and Error because I knew that was not Scandal which they called Scandal that is displeasing them and crossing their opinions but hardning them in an Error or other sin is true Scandalizing Vnderstand this or you will displease God under pretence of avoiding Scandal p. 135. Thus by complying with our Dissenting Brethren we really do them that mischief which we would avoid and fall into the sin of giving Scandal whilest we are running from it We countenance and encourage their sinful Separation and Division we confirm them in their dangerous Errors and Mistakes we by our practice condemn those things which yet in our Consciences we allow and approve of and by our Authority and influence harden others in their unreasonable prejudices and opposition against the lawful Commands of their Superiours They think us of the same mind with themselves whilst we do the same things and that we judge as ill of the Church of England as long as we refuse to Communicate with it as themselves do and thus we give occasion to their sin and those infinite mischiefs which have happened both to Church and State upon the account of our Religious disputes and divisions which surely ought to be well thought of and considered by a sort of Men amongst us who shall go to Church in the Morning and to a Conventicle in the Afternoon who halt between both and would fain displease neither side but indeed give real Offence to both From all this I think it is very plain that he who is satisfied in his own mind of the lawfulness of Conformity but is afraid of giving Offence by it if he be true to this principle ought to hasten the faster to his Parish-Church that he might not Offend those very Dissenters of whom he would seem to be so tender and thus I have done with the Second thing I propounded to shew what is meant by Offending or Scandalizing 3. It remaineth in the Third and Last place to enquire how far and in what instances we are bound to consider the ignorance or weakness of our Brother In Answer to this that I may proceed with all the clearness I can I shall now suppose notwithstanding all I have already said that our Dissenting Brethren are truly weak persons and that there may be some danger of their being through their own fault Offended by our Conformity yet taking this for granted I shall plainly shew that he who is in his own mind convinced of the lawfulness of coming to his parish-Parish-Church and using the Forms of Prayer and Ceremonies by Law appointed ought not to forbear doing the same for fear of giving such Offence to his weak Brethren There are many other things to be considered in this Case besides this matter of private Scandal and if there be greater evil in and greater mischief to others and a more publick Scandal doth follow our forbearing Communion with the Church and withdrawing into private Assemblies than can happen by our leaving them and returning to the Church and complying with its orders we ought then to conform notwithstanding the Offence that is imagined may be taken at it For these two things as I suppose are agreed on all hands one is that nothing which is sinful may be done to avoid Scandalizing others the other is that to avoid a less Scandal being taken by a few we must not give a greater Scandal and of vastly more pernicious consequence to a much bigger number of persons and by these two Rules I shall now judge of the Case at first propounded 1. Nothing that is sinful may be done to avoid others being Scandalized which is directly the Apostles Doctrine Rom. 3. 8. That we must not do evil that good may come nor is any necessary duty to be omitted out of prudence or charity to others lest they through Error or Ignorance be hurt by it We must not to prevent the greatest sin in another commit the least sin our selves nor disobey Gods Law and so run the hazard of our own damnation tho it be to save the Soul of our Brother Thus Calvin tells us Instit lib. 3. c. 19. Quae necessaria sunt factu nullius offendiculi timore omittenda sunt Whatever is necessary to be done by vertue of Gods Command is not to be omitted
the life of our Neighbour or to quench the firing of his House but still this would be but a pityful pretence for our wholly absenting our selves from Church and constant neglect of our Prayers because in the mean time our Neighbours life may be invaded or his house fired by ill Men of which there is great store in the World and so he may stand in need of our help which is a more acceptable Service to God than any acts of Devotion So that however this Argument may serve to excuse the omission of some things Commanded by lawful Authority by those who otherwise are perfectly conformable in extraordinary cases which very rarely happen and for which no provision could be made by Law yet to be sure this will not at all help those who bid open defiance to the Laws stand out in manifest opposition against them live in plain disobedience and contradiction to them as if they were altogether free from them nay set up a distinct way and form of Worship of their own and all this because they are loth to Offend those who are not satisfied of the wisdom and goodness of what is appointed Thus our Dissenting Brethren can gain but little by this Plea if granted to them for upon this account of exercising mercy and charity towards their Neighbours they can be excused from Obedience to their Superiours in such cases only in which they may be excused also from the observation of the Sabbath from Prayer publick or private from Worshipping of God either in the Church or in a Conventicle nay from Obedience to God himself had he pleased in the Scriptures positively to have required whatever is at present enjoyned by our Church and let them well consider whether if God had plainly in his Word prescribed all that our Church doth Command they would have thought it selfe to have refused compliance with such divine impositions because they were unreasonably offensive to some Godly people If our Dissenters will but acknowledge themselves bound to submit to the determinations of their Superiours about the things in controversie between us so far as the Jews were bound to obey the ordinances of God concerning his external Worship delivered by Moses and that they are freed from such obligation to obey the Laws of their Governours only in such cases as the Jews were excused from offering their accustomed Sacrifices or as they think themselves at liberty to break the Sabbath to omit Gods Publick Worship I suppose this dispute would soon be at an end for they dare not own that the Scandal others may take at such things which yet are to give place to moral duties is sufficient to void their obligation to the doing of them Mr. Jeans whose objections I shall the rather consider because of his eminency amongst the Presbyterians tho I find my self somewhat prevented by a late Writer who hath taken particular notice of them thus putteth the Question Suppose saith he the greatest Monarch upon the face of the Earth should command the meanest and lowest of his Slaves upon some important affair to ride Post through such a City without any of the least stay or diversion and then it should happen that a company of little Children should be playing in the Streets can this Slave think that he is obliged to ride over them No surely he ought to use all means and take all care possible to execute his Commission without doing any hurt or damage to any person whatever but if he would have stated the case right it should have been done thus suppose this Slave should utterly refuse to do as he was Commanded and for his justification should plead that he must be forced to ride through many Towns and Cities where are many little Children who are often playing at the Doors or in the Streets he knows not but that some of them may be in his way or chance to run between his Horses legs and therefore to avoid the doing of this mischief which might possibly happen he resolves not to stir one foot from his own home Is this pretence sufficient to excuse his disobedience No more can our Nonconformity to the rules given us by our Superiours be innocent because some may be Scandalized at our Obedience 2. It is further said that Scandal is in the nature of it spiritual murder and if where Authority hath determined our choice we must hold to their determination any Scandal to the contrary notwithstanding it seemeth then in case the Magistrate command it we may lawfully murther the Soul of our Brother wound his weak Conscience and destroy with our meats our Ceremonies the work of God and him for whom Christ died It is good saith St. Paul Rom. 14. 21. neither to eat Flesh nor to drink Wine nor any thing whereby thy Brother stumbleth or is offended or is made weak But our Prelatists saith Mr. Jeans determine quite otherwise If Authority enjoyn it it is good say they to eat Bread drink Wine wear a Surplice use the sign of the Cross in Baptism tho thereby never so many Brethren stumble or are offended or made weak But all this is meer bugbear fitted only to fright Children and such weak persons as we are now treating of for it can never be shewen how wearing a Surplice or Kneeling at receiving of the Sacrament or Crossing the Infants forehead hath any tendency towards the scaring Men from Christianity or making them to deny Christ and forsake and grow weary of his Religion which I have sufficiently proved to be the only proper Scandalizing of our Brother which St. Paul so highly aggravateth and chargeth with the guilt of destroying and murthering his Soul none of these things do directly and immediately lead or tempt any man to any sin Whatever Scandal may follow is wholly accidental and the fault and mistake of those only who are Offended and to provide always against such Scandals is an impossible undertaking for they may follow the most innocent actions nay the most necessary duties and this Argument concludes as strongly against obedience to any other Command of God if by it my Brother may stumble or be offended or be made weak as it doth against submission to our Superiours in things lawful They that make these Objections do not sufficiently consider that by Gods Law we are bound to obey the Lawful Commands of our Superiours and it is not only the Law or Ordinance of Man of which they seem to make so little account but it is the Law of God also that is violated by our disobedience to our Governours in things Lawful The Comparison therefore ought not to be only as they make it between an human Authority determining some indifferent things and the divine Law of charity to the Soul of our Brother but between the divine Command of obedience to our Superiours and the avoiding of Scandal Here we affirm that we cannot be bound to transgress a plain Law of God or which is all
is apt to breed scruples and perplexities in well meaning but less knowing members of it and by degrees produces a distast or dislike of our Worship and plainly hinders the efficacy of the ordinances of Christ as administred in our Church whilest it creates prejudices in people against them as impure and corrupt and why there should not be a due regard had to those many who are Offended at our Dissenters Conventicle Worship as well as of those who are said to be Scandalized by our Church service I cannot at all guess I shall only say here that irreverent sitting at the receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Mens unmannerly wearing their Hats in time of Divine Worship and oftentimes putting them off but half way at their Prayers their indecent postures and antick gestures at their devotions the extravagancies and follies not to say worse some of them are guilty of in their extemporary effusions the strange uncouth Metaphors and Phrases they use in their Preaching in a word the slovenly performance of Divine Worship amongst the Dissenters is much more Scandalous then all the Ceremonies of our Church can ever be 4. Consider the Scandal that is hereby given to Magistrates and our Superiours by bringing their Laws and Authority into contempt concerning which the forenamed Mr. Jeans in his first Edition of his Discourse about Abstinence from all Appearance of Evil hath these words If saith he it were better to be thrown into the bottom of the Sea with a Millstone about ones Neck than to offend a little one a poor and illiterate Artizan what expression shall we then find answerable to the heinousness of a Scandal given to a Pious Magistrate to a Religious Prince to a Parliament and Convocation to an whole Church and Commonwealth 5. By this Separation from the Church great Scandal is given to the Papists not that they are displeased at it they are not indeed offended in that sense but this serves wonderfully to harden them in their false and Idolatrous Worship it increaseth their confidence that their Church is the only true Church of Christ because amongst them only is found Peace and Unity and this is a mighty temptation to many wavering Christians to turn Papists insomuch that Mr. Baxter hath told us that Thousands have been drawn to Popery or confirmed in it by this Argument already and he saith of himself that he is persuaded that all the Arguments else in Bellarmin and all other Books that ever were written have not done so much to make Papists in England as the multitude of Sects among our selves This indeed is a great Scandal to our Protestant Religion and is that which the Papists are on all occasions so forward to object against us and hit us in the teeth with and by our hearty uniting with the Church of England we may certainly wrest out of their hands the most dangerous weapon they use against the Reformation 6. This tends to the Scandal of Religion in general It prejudiceth men against it as an uncertain thing a matter of endless dispute and debate it makes some Men utterly reject it as consisting mostly in little trifles and niceties about which they observe the greatest noise and contention to be made or as destructive of the Publick Peace of Societies when they see what dangerous feuds and quarrels commence from our Religious Differences and all the disorder and confusion that they have caused here in England shall by some be charged upon Christianity it self Thus our causeless Separations and Divisions open a wide door to Atheisme and all kind of Prophaneness and Irreligion After this manner it was of old and always will be where there are Parties in Religion and one contends that their Separation is lawful and the other that it is unlawful the Common people soon become doubtful and ready to forsake all Religion I might add here that such Separations necessarily occasion breach of Charity they beget implacable enmities and animosities Hence cometh strife emulation envying one Party continually endeavouring to overtop the other watching for one anothers halting rejoycing in one anothers sins and misfortunes constant undermining one another to the disturbance of the Publick Government and endangering the Civil Peace of all which and much more than I can now mention the present distracted condition of our Nation is so great and undenyable an evidence that there need no more words to shew the mischiefs that attend such Divisions and now let any one judge whether the Peace and Unity of the Church the maintaining of Charity amongst Brethren the keeping out Popery and Atheism the preservation of the Authority of the Magistrate and quiet of the Society we are Members of the honour and credit of our Religion Lastly Whether giving Offence to all both Conformists and Nonconformists those only excepted of our own particular Sect and Division nay Scandalizing them also in the true and proper sense of Scandal be not of far greater and more weighty consideration than the fear of displeasing or grieving some few weak dissatisfied Brethren Wo to those by whom Offences come But these things I have very lightly touched because they have been the subject of many Sermons and discourses lately published To sum up all I have said Since they who dissent from the Church of England are not such weak persons as St. Paul all along describes and provides for since we cannot by our Conformity really Scandalize or Offend them in that sense in which the Scriptures use those words since tho we did give Offence to them by our Conformity yet that would not excuse us from doing our Duty and by refusing to Conform we should do both them and others greater hurt and mischief I think I may safely conclude that there cannot lie any obligation upon any private Christian as the case now stands amongst us to absent himself from his parish-Parish-Church or to forbear the use of the Forms of Prayer or Ceremonies by Law appointed for fear of Offending his weak Brethren I end all with one word of Advice First to those who are not convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity Secondly to those who are satisfied that it is lawful 1. To those who are not convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity and therefore urge so hard that they ought not to be Offended by us I would beseech them that they would take some care and make some Conscience to avoid giving any needless Offence to those of the Church of England and this cannot but be thought a reasonable request since they require all others to be so tender of them They ought not therefore to meet in such numbers nor at the same time at which we assemble to Worship God in our publick Churches Let them not affront our Service and common-Common-Prayers nor revile our Bishops and Ministers nor put on their Hats when at any time they chance to be present at our Service in our Churches nor talk nor read in Books nor make sour
faces at our Devotions and when they observe these and other the like rules they may then with a better grace tho with little reason find fault with our Conformity as Offensive to them I would be loth to say any thing that should exasperate or provoke any of the Dissenters whose satisfaction I design I very well know their weakness that they cannot endure to be told of their faults However I must tell them that there are no sort of persons in the Christian World professing Religion and Godliness that have done such Scandalous things as some of those who call themselves Protestant Dissenters I forbear to name particulars 2. As for those who are satisfied concerning the lawfulness of Conformity I would desire them so to order their return to the Church as not to give any just Offence to those whom they forsake that is to say that they would do it heartily and sincerely that all may see they Conformed with a willing mind being persuaded that it is their duty so to do and not meerly to satisfie the Law or to save their Purses or to get into an Office or to capacitate them to Vote or the like For such a kind of Conformity as some practise and call Occasional Communion which is coming to Church and Sacrament to serve a turn is truly Scandalous to all good Men of what persuasion soever FINIS Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government 1. 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 Anonymus 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 Mixâ— 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. 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. THE Charge of Scandal And giving OFFENCE BY CONFORMITY Refelled And Reflected back upon SEPARATION And that place of St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. 32. that hath been so usually urged by Dissenters in this Case asserted to its true Sence and vindicated from favouring the end for which it hath beed quoted by them Give none offence neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God LONDON Printed for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. To the Christian-Reader THou art not ignorant I suppose that this Argument hath been handled by a far better Pen an Author that doth every thing he undertakes with that accuracy of Judgement and strength of Reason that becomes a person of his Character and therefore mayest wonder what so mean a Scribe hath to do after him I have but this Answer onely to give thee that it is neither affectation nor conceit of this Paper that is the cause This Discourse was shewed to some persons both friends to the world and the Author who was wholly ignorant that the Subject was undertaken by another and was thought fit to be stay'd till it was seen what that Discourse expected then would be with a design to suppress it wholly had the Method or the Management been near alike which because it was not and because the same thing that hits one fancy may not do so to another or not to all it was determined to venture this to the Publick also Which the Author doth with Prayer for and true Charity unto all that need such Discourses beseeching God that they may honestly and impartially consider what hath been offered to them of late to satisfie all their most material Scruples and Objections and that they may find a suitable effect upon their own minds THE Charge of Scandal And giving OFFENCE by CONFORMITY REFELLED THere are very few things within the Sphere of Christian Religion that more trouble and distract the thoughts of men than how to govern themselves and order their actions with respect to things that are called Indifferent In things that are essentially good or evil or are made so by some plain Command or Prohibition of our great Law giver all Parties are soon agreed and there needs not any question or dispute between them in these The Rule is plain and supposing men honest there cannot be any great mistake about them But in things that are left wholly undetermined by God and neither directly nor by just and natural consequence either enjoyned or prohibited by any Law of his there men sail not by so plain a Compass but have a larger Scope and may more easily mistake their Course It cannot therefore be less than a good service to men to direct them safely in this Unbeaten track and to prescribe to them such Rules to which if they carefully attend they can never fall into any dangerous errour This is our Apostles charitable design in this Chapter to which I shall have a respect in managing this present Argument viz. 1 Cor. 10. and by governing our selves by the measures of his discourse in it we may be able to hit those great Rules of our actions in these things The Apostles discourse is indeed but of one particular instance of these i e. the eating or not eating things that had
which is likely to be so indeed Particular persons and Parties of men may mistake and it is notorious often do call that an Offence and Scandal which is not so But the whole Church is not so like to take cognizance of and be offended publickly with any thing which doth not deserve that name To which we may cast in this consideration to add weight to the other Every offence to a single private person or persons is not the sin of Scandal but no man can offend the Church of God but he sins grievously and is directly guilty of a great Scandal To conclude the sum of all that I would have considered on this Subject is this 1. That the fear of giving offence to weak and uninstructed persons by Conformity to our Church and returning to the Communion of it is causeless and wholly without any just reason Conformity being neither a sin nor causal of any nor any just cause of offence to any persons whatsoever 2. That it is now matter of plain and indispensible duty tied on us by the Commands and Laws both of God and man and therefore carefully to be done whatever may be the consequences of it to others That no snares or possibilities of offence to some men by it ought to supersede our care or can atone the sin of neglecting of it That we cannot forbear it now for fear of offending others without grievously offending our selves and our own Consciences 3. That our refusing to Conform will greatly offend the Church of God and indeed it doth so Not onely our own National Church of England but even all the Reformed Churches abroad too as may be seen in some Declarations of the Great men among them of late who cannot but grieve to see their great Bulwark and the whole Reformation so battered and weakned by this means and such great advantage thereby given to the great Enemy against it And therefore that this consideration ought to preponderate all the scruples and fears and fancied possibilities of giving offence to private persons of our own party by it And lastly that the effect of all this discover it self in a speedy conscientious care and honest endeavour to put a period to our causeless Separations and Divisions which are the onely true Scandal and giving Offence that I know of in this Case That we no longer go on madly to contrive our own Ruine in pulling down those Walls and making those Breaches in our Churches Banks at which the Enemy may and without Gods immediate interposition will suddenly break in as a mighty resistless torrent That we may all of us return to the Communion of the Church whose Doctrine is Orthodox and Government Apostolical and whose terms of Communion none of us dare term sinful In which we may acceptably serve our God and happily save our own Souls live happily and die comfortably and pass into the Communion of that Church Triumphant above which sings incessant Hallelujahs to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost To whom let us also give all possible praise and Thanksgiving both now and for evermore Amen FINIS BOOKS Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasoâ—ableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger resulting from the change of our Church-Government 1. 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 Englands 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 Anonymus 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 Communions 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 â—he late Cases about Conformity recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 14. An Argument for Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 15. The Case of Kneeling c. 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. 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 COLLECTION OF CASES AND OTHER DISCOURSES Lately Written to Recover DISSENTERS TO THE COMMUNION OF THE Church of England By some Divines of the City of London THE SECOND VOLUME LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street and B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard 1685. Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government 1. 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 Anonymus 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
are necessary to their Spiritual Life as the parallel plainly implies upon them that ask him So that all we can expect by vertue of these promises is only this That the Spirit of God will be ready to aid and assist us in all those necessary cases wherein our Duty and Spiritual Life is concern'd and therefore if there be no necessity of an immediate inspiration of either Matter or Words to inable us to Pray it is an unwarrantable presumption to expect it by vertue of these or such like promises And that there is no necessity I conceive is very apparent for First As for the Matter of our Prayers the Holy Spirit hath already sufficiently reveal'd it to us in the Gospel and as plainly instructed us what we are to pray for as he can be suppos'd to do by any immediate inspiration so that with a very little consideration we may thence easily recollect what it is that we need and what we are warranted and commanded to pray for and for a summary of the whole we need go no further than our Churches Catechism which in answer to that Question after the Lord's Prayer What desirest thou of God in this Prayer sums up the whole matter of our Prayer in a few plain and easie words And to suppose after such a clear revelation of the matter of Prayer a necessity of immediate inspiration of it is in effect to suppose that we have neither reason enough to understand the sense of plain words nor memory enough to retain and recollect it But against this that passage of St. Paul is objected by our Brethren Rom. 8. 26. We know not what we should pray for as we ought but the Spirit it self maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be utter'd For which words We know not what to pray for as we ought they infer that how plainly soever the matter of Prayer is reveal'd to us we cannot in all cases know what it is without an immediate inspiration which must either suppose that all matter of Prayer is not plainly reveal'd to us or that though it be we cannot understand it whereas the Apostles words imply neither the one nor t'other for it 's plain those words we know not what to pray for are not to be understood simply but with reference to as we ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for what to pray for as we ought we know not which plainly refers to the manner and not to the matter of our Prayer how to pray for any thing with that fervency of desire that dependance upon and resignation to God as we ought of our selves we know not without the assistance of the Spirit of God if therefore the Spirit hath already sufficiently reveal'd to us what the matter of Prayer is as he must be suppos'd to do if the Scriptures be sufficient I see no reason why he should reveal it again by immediate inspiration and if there be no necessity of it I know no warrant we have to expect it But then 2. As for the Words of Prayer by which we are to express the Matter of it what necessity can there be that these should be immediately dictated to us when as if we have not quickness enough of fancy and invention to express our wants and desires in our own words we may readily supply that defect by Forms of Prayer of other Mens composure which with very short additions and variations of our own we may easily adapt to all our particular cases and circumstances and to imagin that with such helps and assistances we cannot word our desires to God without an immediate inspiration is to suppose that we are meer whispering Pipes that can breath out nothing but what is breath'd into us 3. That as there is neither promise nor need of any such immediate inspiration of Prayer so there is no certain sign or testimony of it remaining among us whenever God inspir'd men with Divine matter and words his Way was always to attest the divinity of their inspiration with some certain sign by which themselves and others might be well assur'd of it and though at this distance from the inspired Ages we cannot certainly determin by what token it was that the Prophets knew the divinity of their own inspirations while they were seiz'd with them yet this we know that after they were deliver'd of them God always took care to attest them by some miraculous operation for so Miracles are styled by the Apostle the evidence and demonstration of the Spirit as being the constant signs and tokens of Divine inspiration and indeed without such signs to distinguish it from false pretences we were better be without inspiration than with it because we shall be left under an unavoidable necessity either of admitting all inspirations which pretend to be divine or of rejecting all that are truly so as to instance in this case of Prayer we know 't is possible for men to have the matter and words of it dictated to them by a natural or Diabolical as well as a Divine Enthusiasm and therefore it is highly requisit if such Divine Enthusiasm or Inspiration be continu'd to us that the proper signs and testimonies of it should be continu'd too that so we may be able to distinguish that which is divine from that which is natural or diabolical otherwise we must either conclude them all to be natural or diabolical or believe them all to be divine and entertain them accordingly If you say there is no need of either because the Scripture is sufficient to distinguish them I answer that thought the Scripture may be sufficient to distinguish the matter of the inspiration whether it be true or false yet it is not sufficient to distinguish the inspiration it self whether it be divine or natural or diabolical For First as for natural Enthusiasm it is not at all impossible for a man to pray agreeably to Scripture by natural inspiration by which I mean a natural or accidental fervency of temper arising either from a constant heat of constitution or a casual agitation of the spirits occasion'd either by vapours of heated melancholy or an intermixture of sharp and feaverish humours with the blood which as all men know who understand any thing of the nature and composition of humane bodies naturally heightens and impregnates the fancy and causes the images of things to come faster into it and appear more distinct in it and consequently produces a very ready invention of matter and extraordinary fluency of words so that if under a fit of this natural fervency a man's fancy happens to run upon God and Religion he cannot fail to pray with great readiness and fluency and sometimes with that extraordinary passion and enlargement as shall cause him assuredly to believe himself immediately inspired by the Spirit of God of the truth of which instances enough might be given not only among Christians but also among the Devoto's of Mahomet and
the Poets and Orators of the Heathens whose fancies have been very often so strangely exalted by the fervour of their temper or disease that not only they themselves but they that heard them believed that they were inspired by God Supposing then that under a fit of this natural Enthusiasm a man should pray agreeably to Scripture how shall he be able to know by Scripture whether the present inspiration he is under be natural or divine and how will it be possible for him to avoid many times attributing the natural effects of his temper or disease to the immediate operation of the Spirit of God But you will say we all agree that the Spirit of God inspires good men with holy and fervent affections in their Prayers and yet it cannot be deni'd that this fervency of affection doth sometimes also proceed from the present temper of our bodies notwithstanding which we have no other sign or testimony besides that of Scripture whereby to distinguish when 't is divine and when natural doth not therefore the want of such sign as effectually conclude against the Spirits inspiring the fervour of our Prayers as against his inspiring the matter and words of them I answer no For as for the former we have a sure word of promise which we have not for the latter and therefore if we can claim the promise we have just reason to conclude when we feel our affections actually excited that how much soever other causes might contribute to it the Holy Spirit was the principal cause but where we have no promise we have no ground for such conclusion besides which we have no such need of signs to enable us to distinguish in the one case as in the other For as for the inspiration of affection we may easily distinguish whether it be natural or divine by our own sense if our present fervour be accompanied with a fixt and constant devotion of soul we may certainly conclude that the same Spirit which inspired the one inspired the other and whether it be so accompanied or no that natural sense and feeling we have of our own motions and affections will quickly inform us and we have no more need of an outward sign to satisfie us in this matter than we have to know whether we are hungry or thirsty but if the present fervour of our affections in Prayer be only a sudden fit and pang of devotion that finds and leaves us habitually indevout we have just reason to conclude that 't is intirely owing to our present bodily temper whether therefore our affections in Prayer are inspired by God our own sense will inform us if we impartially consult it but whether our matter and words are so no sense we have can resolve us we may feel the matter of our Prayer pour in upon us with extraordinary readiness and be inabled to pour it out again with extraordinary fluency and yet all this may proceed from our own fancy and invention quickned and enlarg'd by meerly natural Enthusiasm and therefore unless we had some other sign besides that of Scripture 't will be impossible for us to distinguish between a divine and natural inspiration of matter and words because that which is natural may be as agreeable to Scripture as that which is suppos'd to be divine and God hath given us no inward sense to distinguish betweeen one and t'other and can it be imagin'd that had he meant to continue this Gift of inspiration to us he would have thus left us in the dark concerning it without any certain sign whereby we might distinguish whether it be from his Spirit or from an ill-affected Spleen or a Feaver But then secondly as for Diabolical Inspirations of Matter and Words in Prayer we have sundry very probable Instances such as Major Weir who is said to have received his Inspirations through a Staff Hacket David George and that Monster of wickedness John Basilides Duke of Russia who were all of them possess'd with such a wonderful Gift of Prayer as did not only charm and ravish those that heard them but seem'd in the opinion of the most wise and impartial to exceed the power of nature which renders it very probable that the matter of their Prayers was for the most part agreeable to Scripture otherwise 't is hardly conceivable how they could have procured to themselves so many admirers and abused so many honest minds into a belief that they were immediately inspired by God And since by inspiring his Votaries with such matter of Prayer as is agreeable to Scripture the Devil may sometimes serve his own ends since he may thereby puff up giddy minds with pride and self-conceit and more effectually recommend Seducers and false Teachers to the World it 's very reasonable to suppose that this subtle Agent who so throughly understands his own game will in some case be forward enough to do it and if in any cases we may reasonably suppose that the Devil may inspire men with such matter of Prayer as is agreeable to Scripture then we can never certainly distinguish by Scripture whether it be the Spirit of God or the Devil that inspires us And can we without blaspheming the goodness of God imagin that if he had continu'd this Gift of immediate inspiration to us he would have neglected to continue such signs and testimonies of it as are necessary to distinguish it from the inspirations of the Devil doubtless 't is much better for us that this Gift should be totally withdrawn and that as to the matter and expressions of our Prayer we should be left to the guidance of Scripture and Reason than that by the continuance of it without some certain sign to know and distinguish it we should be left under a fatal necessity either of rejecting Divine Inspirations or of admitting Diabolical for Divine And therefore since we have no such sign continu'd among us we have all the reason in the world to conclude that this Gift is discontinu'd and ceas'd especially considering that we have not only no certain sign of any such inspiration in the conceiv'd Prayers of those which most pretend to it but many very certain ones of the contrary I will instance in four 1. The great impertinence and nonsense and rudeness to say no worse that are sometimes mingled with these Extempore Prayers I will not give Instances of this because it is so notorious that our Brethren themselves cannot but in part acknowledge it now to attribute these faults of conceiv'd Prayers to immediate inspiration would be to blaspheme the Holy Ghost and father our own follies upon him and yet sure had he thought meet to have continu'd to the Church this Gift of inspiration of Prayer it would have been in order to the securing the Worship of God from those rudenesses and indecencies to which extemporary Prayers of mens own conceiving are liable and if so to be sure in publick Prayer at least he would have constantly taken care to
inspire such matter as is fit to be offer'd up to God and such expressions as are fit for such matter that so the Publick Worship of God which is the most serious and solemn thing in the World might not be render'd ridiculous by the folly and inadvertency of men Whereas on the contrary we see those publick Prayers which arrogate to themselves the honour of being inspired are generally more liable to these indecencies than Forms of humane composure and that those Prayers which consist of premeditated matter and words are commonly much better sense and far more decent and pertinent than our extemporary effusions which how it should come to pass I know not supposing the continuance of inspiration of Prayer unless we will suppose that Humane Composures may exceed Divine Inspirations and that men may ordinarily premeditate better Prayers than the Spirit of God inspires And methinks it seems very strange that the Spirit should continue this Gift of inspiration to secure the Worship of God from nonsense and impertinence and yet that after all it should remain more liable to these indecencies than if our publick Prayers were offered up in premeditated Forms composed out of our own or other mens inventions 2. Another sign that our composed Prayers are not immediately inspired is that they are so generally tinctur'd with the particular opinions of those that offer them You may observe that in all publick Controversies of Religion mens Opinions are generally to be known by their Prayers especially if they zealously espouse either side of the Question for then the debate runs so much in their heads and they look upon God and Religion so very highly concern'd in it that they can hardly frame a Petition Confession or thanksgiving without giving some intimation of their particular Perswasion and many times one of the Petitions is That God would hinder the propagation of the contrary Perswasion and convince their Adversaries of the Error and Falshood of it Thus for instance when the Contest ran high between the Presbyterians and Independents the Arminians and Calvinists how easie was it to distinguish them by their Prayers from one another Whether this be not so I appeal to our Brethren themselves and to all the World And if so what plainer evidence can be given that their Prayers were not inspired but of their own invention and composure For either we must suppose this Gift of Inspiration to be confin'd to one Party which would be to stint the Spirit with a witness and everlastingly to puzzle our selves where to find it among so many contending Parties that pretend to it or else we must affirm a horrid Blasphemy viz. That the Spirit inspires Contradictions and indites contrary Prayers to men of opposite Parties 3. Another plain sign that our conceiv'd Prayers are not immediately inspired is That that which gives them the reputation of being so is not so much the matter as the way and manner of expressing them For as for the matter of Prayer I suppose our Brethren will not deny but our Forms may equal at least if not exceed their conceiv'd and extemporary Prayers and that 't is possible for men upon mature thoughts and deliberations to compose and pen a Prayer that shall be as full and comprehensive of the common cases and necessities of Christians as if he had conceived and indited it upon the place And if all the matter that is in a conceiv'd Prayer may be easily contain'd and express'd in a Form then all the difference between one and t'other must lie in the way and manner of expressing it and consequently it must be only upon this account that the one must pretend to inspiration more than t'other Now there are only two differences between Forms and conceived Prayers as to the way and manner of expressing the matter in them neither of which are so considerable as to give the one a fairer pretence to inspiration than the other The first is that whereas the matter of a Form of Prayer is express'd in set and premeditated words the same matter in conceiv'd Prayer is express'd in extemporary words and is it not strange that upon such a slight and inconsiderable difference the one should be thought to be more inspired than the other as if the Spirit of God continu'd the Gift of Inspiration to no other purpose but to inable men to ask those Blessings in extemporary words which they might as well have askt in premeditated ones The second is that conceiv'd Prayers do generally more inlarge and amplifie on the matter of Prayer than Forms in which we being always tied to such a set of words have not that liberty to expatiate on our several cases and necessities but this is so far from adding to the value of conceiv'd Prayers that it rather lessens and depreciates them for if you observe these admired enlargements and amplifications are generally nothing else but only the same matter express'd again in different words which makes our conceiv'd Prayers run out many times to that inordinate length the same matter being repeated in them over and over in varied phrases and expressions how then can we entertain such mean conceits of the wisdom of the holy Spirit as to imagâ—n he would continue to us the Gift of immediate inspiration meerly to enable us to repeat the same matter of Prayer to God ten or twenty times over in different phrases and expressions especially considering that by so doing he would cross the orders of our Saviour who expresly forbids us in our Prayers to use vain repetitions or as Munster's Hebrew reads it to multiply words above what is fit and seasonable thinking we shall be heard for our much speaking to which he subjoins this reason For your Father knows what things you have need of before you ask him Matth. 6. 7 8. As if he should have said you need not lengthen out your Prayers with so many copious enlargements and varied repetitions of the same matter as if you meant thereby more fully to instruct your Father in your wants and desires for before ever you ask he knows your needs and therefore a few words will suffice to express your desires to him And when our Saviour hath required that our Prayers should be short and pithy and stript of all needless multiplicity of words what reason have we to think that the Holy Spirit who is his Vice-gerent in the Church would continue the Gift of Inspiration meerly to amplifie and enlarge them These enlargements of conceiv'd Prayer therefore are so far from being signs of their immediate inspiration that supposing the Spirit to be of the same mind with our Saviour they are generally signs of the contrary 4. Another plain sign that our conceiv'd Prayers are not immediately inspired is That that extraordinary manner and way of expressing them for which they are thought to be inspired doth apparently proceed from natural causes for as I shew'd before the reason why our conceiv'd Prayers are
to give a brief state of it according as it is put and urg'd by our Brethren By the Gift of Prayer then they mean an ability to express our minds to God in Prayer or to offer up our desires and affections to him in words befitting the matter of them which ability say they is given by God to his Ministers as a means of publick Prayer and in order to their being the Mouths of their Congregations to God to represent to him the common Cases and Necessities of their People and therefore since God say they hath given us this Gift as a means of publick Devotion and in order to our offering up the Prayers of the People it may be justly question'd whether we may lawfully omit the use of it by using publick Forms of other mens composure Now before I enter into a particular consideration of this Case I shall briefly premise these two things 1. That this Case concerns the Clergy only and not the Laity For suppose that it be unlawful for Ministers to omit the use of their own abilities to express the Devotions of their Congregations what is that to the People are they accountable for their Ministers faults or will God reject their sincere Devotions because the Person that utters them is guilty of a sinful omission if so it will be of dangerous consequence to them to joyn in any publick Prayers at all whether they be Forms or Extemporary they being every whit as accountable for the nonsense impertinence and irreverence of their Ministers in the latter as for their omitting the use of their own abilities in the former if therefore this omission be a sin it is the sin of the Minister as for the People they joyn with him indeed in offering up the matter of Prayer which is contain'd in the Form he pronounces but they join not with him in the omission of the use of his ability that is his own proper act and deed and therefore if it be unlawful it 's he and he only that is accountable for it and if the matter of Prayer in which they join with him be good and express'd in decent and suitable words they join with him in nothing but what is acceptable to God and 't is not to be imagin'd that God will be angry with them because he neglected to express their desires in words of his own composure and invention 2. I shall also premise that this is not the case of the Clergy of the Church of England who though they stand obliged to the constant use of a stated Liturgy yet are not hereby restrain'd from the exercise of their own abilities in publick Prayer for after they have finish'd the Service appointed in the Liturgy they are permitted to use their own conceiv'd Prayers in the Pulpit in which they have the same liberty that the dissenting Ministers can claim or pretend to that is to express in their own words all the matter of publick Prayer with all the sobriety affection and seriousness they are able And a long and unrestrain'd permission of our Governours though it be against Law is a kind of allowance untill they reinforce the Law upon our parties and some there are who believe the conceiv'd Prayers which we generally use to be expresly allow'd in our 55th Canon which directs that before all Sermons Lectures and Homilies the Preachers and Ministers shall move the People to join with them in Prayer in this form or to this effect as briefly as conveniently they may Now that to this effect as it stands opposed to this form is meant some Prayer of our own composed to this purpose seems in their opinion very probable from what is generally practised in the Church which in doubtful cases is the best explication of her meaning Since therefore the use of our Liturgy doth not exclude the exercise of our Gift of Prayer But leaves us free to exert it so far as it is fit that is with convenient brevity I see not how this Case can concern our Clergy for if the evil of Forms consists in the Ministers omission of his own Gift as this Case supposes then where the use of Forms doth not oblige us to this omission but leaves us as free to exercise this Gift as those are who use no Forms at all the supposed evil is remov'd from it Having premised these things I shall proceed to a particular resolution of the Case which I shall do in these following Propositions 1. That this Ministerial Gift of Prayer or ability to express in our own words the common Devotions of our Congregations to God is either natural or acquir'd 'T is true if we had any reason to believe that in their admission to holy Orders God did inspire his Ministers with this ability we might thence more plausibly infer that 't was his will that we should ordinarily exercise it and that it was not lawful to neglect or omit it by using Forms of other mens composure it being unlikely that God should inspire them with an ability which he did not intend they should make use of but of Gods inspiring us in our Ordination with this Gift or Ability we have not only no promise in Scripture which is the only foundation upon which we can reasonably expect it but in fact we have no experience of any such matter among us for not only we but the Dissenting Ministers must own if they will speak ingenuously that just before their Ordination they were as able to express the Devotions of a Congregation as they were just after which shews that they had no new ability to Pray inspired in their Ordination and as yet I could never find any proof either from Scripture or Experience that this ability to Pray in words of our own composure had any thing more in it than a promptness of invention and speech which some men have by nature and which others have acquired by art and practice and if so this ability is no otherwise the Gift of God than our natural strength and vigour or our skill in Languages and History And methinks it 's very strange that after all this talk of the gift of Prayer which is supposed ordinarily at least to be conferr'd on rightly ordained Ministers our Brethren should not be able to produce one Promise wherein God hath ingag'd himself to confer it no nor one Text of Scripture which implies such a Promise all that he hath promised his Ministers is to concur with their honest indeavours so far forth as it 's necessary to inable them to discharge the Duties of their Office and to suppose that they cannot do this without praying Extempore or in their own words is to take the matter in question for granted 2. That this natural or acquired Gift is no where appropriated by God to prayer but left common to other uses and purposes For though in Ministers especially it is ordinarily called a Gift of Prayer yet it is no where stiled so
a more publick and general concern though the Composers of our Liturgy could not foresee the Horrid Powder-Plot and the strange discovery of it the impious Murder of the late King and the happy Restoration of this yet upon the happening of those great Events our Church hath always taken care to provide such Forms of publick Prayer as are every way suitable to the Case and as for those extraordinary Cases which might be foreseen because they happen more frequently in the course of things such as want of Rain or fair Weather Dearth and War Plague and Sickness there may be Forms composed for them afore-hand as there are in our Church's Liturgy so that it is no Argument at all against publick Forms that they cannot make a due provision for extraordinary Cases and Events for before they happen extempore Prayers can no more make due provision for them than Forms and after they happen as due a provision may be made for them by Forms as by extempore Prayers 3. That supposing such provision for extraordinary Cases be not or cannot be made in the publick Form yet that is no Argument why it should not be used so far forth as it comprehends the main of the common Cases and Necessities of the People for as I shew'd before the main matter of publick Prayer may be much more fully comprehended in a studied Form than it can reasonably be supposed to be in an extempore Prayer in which in all probability there will be more omissions as to what respects the ordinary cases of Christians than there are in the publick Form as to what respects their extraordinary cases so that if the Form ought not to be used because it extends not always to all their extraordinary Cases for the same reason extempore Prayer ought not to be used because it extends not always to all their ordinary Cases But since as hath been proved at large the use of Forms is upon sundry accounts of great advantage to the publick Devotion it 's very reasonable that they should be used so far forth as they can and do express the common Cases and Necessities and that the people should not be deprived of the benefit of joyning with them in the main matters of publick Prayer because such extraordinary matters may occur as either are not or can be express'd in them especially when 4. The defect of such new provision for extraordinary Cases may be supplied by the Minister in a publick Prayer of his own for as I observed before our Church allows or at leasts permits the Minister to use a Prayer of his own composure in the Pulpit in which if any extraordinary Mercy or Judgment for which there is no provision in our Liturgie happen to the place he lives in there is no doubt but he may and ought to supply the Devotion of his People with such Confessions Petitions and Thanksgivings as are proper and suitable to the occasion and where this is allow'd of or permitted the non-provision for such extraordinary Cases in the establisht Liturgy can be no bar at all against the use of it provided its Prayers be good and comprehend all ordinary matters of Prayer it is sufficiently provided for ordinary publick Devotion and so far doubtless may be lawfully used sufficient provision being otherwise made for all those extraordinary matters which it doth not or could not comprehend The sum of all therefore is this That as for the ordinary and main matters of publick Prayer they may be more fully and distinctly comprehended in a Form than in an extempore Prayer and as for those new matters which extraordinary publick Emergencies do administer they may for the generality be as well comprehended in a new Form as in a new extempore Prayer and though it should not or could not be express'd in the publick Form yet that is no bar against our joyning with it in all other matters of Prayer especially when these new matters of Prayer may be comprehended and express'd in a publick Prayer of the Minister's own composure CASE V. Whether there be any Warrant for Forms of Prayer in Scripture or pure Antiquity IN which Case there are two Enquiries to be made 1. Whether there be any Warrant for Forms of Prayer in the holy Scripture 2. Whether there be any evidence of the publick use of them in the primitive and purer Ages of the Church 1. Whether there be any Warrant for the use of Forms of Prayer in holy Scripture Where by Warrant must be meant either first positive Command or secondly allow'd Example for upon both these our Brethren insist First they require us to produce some positive Command upon this pretence that nothing ought to be used in the Worship of God but what is commanded by him which how true it is is not my present business to enquire that being done already to excellent purpose in the Case about Indifferent Things But because upon this pretence our Brethren reject the use of Forms as unlawful I shall endeavour to prove these two things 1. That supposing this pretence were true yet it doth not conclude against the use of Forms 2. That supposing it did conclude against the use of Forms it equally concludes against conceiv'd or extempore Prayer 1. That supposing this pretence were true viz. That what is not commanded by God ought not to be used in his Worship yet it doth not conclude against the use of Forms for though we do not pretend that God hath any-where commanded us to pray to him by Forms and no otherwise or that all the Prayers which we at any time offer to him should be first composed into a Form yet we do assert that he hath injoyn'd some Forms to be used and offer'd up in Prayer though together with those particular Forms we grant there might be and doubtless sometimes were other Prayers to be offer'd up to him Thus in the Old Testament we read of sundry Forms of Prayer injoyn'd to be used by God himself and which is the same thing by persons immediately inspired so Numb 6. 23 24 25 26. On this wise or thus shall Aaron and his sons bless the children of Israel saying unto them The Lord bless thee and keep thee the Lord make his face shine upon thee the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee and give thee peace In which words the Priest did solemnly invocate and pray for a Blessing on the people and he is commanded to do it saying unto them this very Form of words The Lord bless thee c. which is as plain an injunction of this Form as words can well express So also in the expiation of uncertain Murder Deut. 21. 7 8. the people are injoyn'd by God to say Be merciful O Lord unto thy people Israel whom thou hast redeem'd and lay not innocent bloud unto thy people of Israel 's charge So also at their paying their third years Tythes they were expresly injoyn'd to use this Form of words I
Name since we may as well and truly offer it in his Name though he is not named in it as if he were and he hath not given us the least intimation of his will to the contrary 't is true he did not express his Name in it because as yet they to whom he gave it were not to ask in his Name he being not yet ascended but now that he is ascended we can as well offer it in his Name as if his Name had been express'd in it how then doth it follow that because he did not direct them to offer it in his Name before his ascention therefore he did not intend they should offer it in his Name afterwards especially considering that he himself had so fram'd it that after his ascention when the Doctrine of his Mediation was to be more fully explain'd to them they could not offer it at all but in and through his mediation for now that we understand his mediation we know that we are the Sons of God in and through him and therefore when we thus invoke God Our Father which art in Heaven we must implicitly invoke him in and through Jesus Christ through whom alone we acknowledge it is that God is peculiarly our Father Since therefore our Saviour hath so composed this Form as that after his ascention his Followers could offer it up no otherwise but in and through his mediation this is a plain indication that he intended that after his ascention they should offer it in his mediation though his Name be not exprest in it and what though it be not exprest yet it may be exprest and always hath been in the Prayers immediately preceding it for though we do believe that our Saviour hath commanded us to use this Form at least in our publick Worship yet we do not pretend that no other Prayer is to be used besides either in publick or in private and if we use another Prayer before it we may express in the transition to it as we ordinarily do that 't is in the Name and Mediation of Jesus Christ that we pray Our Father c. Since therefore when we say Our Father we do implicitly pray in Christ's mediation and also explicitly in the Prayers annext to it how doth it follow that because Christ's Name is not express'd in it therefore he did not intend we should offer it in his mediation or therefore he did not intend it for a standing Form 3. That though there be no mention in the New Testament of the Apostles and Disciples using it yet this is no argument either that they did not use it or that they did not believe themselves oblig'd to use it for the great designe of the New Testament being to give an account of the Life of Jesus and of the Doctrines and Precepts of his Religion together with those miraculous Works by which it was confirm'd it can no more be expected that the Prayers of the Christian Assemblies should be recorded in it than that the Liturgy of the Church of England should be recited in the Exposition of the Creed or the whole Duty of Man And therefore as the New Testament takes no notice of their using the Lord's Prayer so neither doth it take notice of any other particular Prayer that they used in their publick Assemblies from whence we may as reasonably conclude that they used no Prayer at all notwithstanding our Lord commanded them to pray as that they did not use the Lord's Prayer notwithstanding he commanded them to say Our Father or at least that they did not Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost since notwithstanding Christ commanded them to do so yet there is no record in the New Testament of their baptizing any persons in that Form So that from the silence of the New Testament in this matter it would be very unreasonable to infer that the Apostles omitted the Lords Prayer notwithstanding he once commanded them to use it especially considering that those who lived nearest the Apostolical Ages and so were the most competent Judges of what was done in them where the Scripture is silent did always use this Form in their publick Prayers and believe themselves obliged to do so For thus in the Apostolick Age Lucian makes mention of a Prayer which they used in their publick Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beginning from the Father which doubtless was the Lords Prayer vid. Lucian Philop. And Tertullian who lived about an hundred years after the Apostolical Age discoursing of the Lord's Prayer tells us that Novis Discipulis novi Testamenti Christus novam Orationis Formam determinavit i. e. That Christ hath instituted a new Form of Prayer for his new Disciples St. Cyprian who was but a small matter his Junior reckons his giving a Form of Prayer among those divine and wholesome Precepts which he imposed on his People and a little after Oremus saith he Fratres dilectissimi sicut Magister docuit c. Let us pray as our Master hath taught us let the Father own the words of his Son and since saith he we have an Advocate with the Father when we ask pardon for our sins let us ask it in the words of our Advocate and how much more shall we prevail for what we ask in Christ's Name if we ask in his Prayer De Orat. Domin So St. Cyril acquaints us that after the general Prayer for all men followed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Prayer which Christ taught his Disciples Cyril Cat. Myst 5. Thus also St. Jerom Docuit Apostolos ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui Pater Noster Hieron in Pelag. l. 3. And St. Austin tells us that in his time the Lords Prayer was every day said at the Altar and that almost every Church concluded with the Lords Prayer And St. Chrysostom speaking of those who would not forgive injuries tells 'em c. When thou sayest Forgive us Hom. 42. 50. ep 59. ad Paul Qu. 5. St. Chrysde simultat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Trespasses as we forgive if thou dost not forgive thou beggest God to deny thee forgiveness which is a plain evidence that this Form of Prayer was of ordinary use in his Age and that 't was then thought matter of duty to use it syllabically is evident from what follows But saith he you will say I dare not say Forgive me as I forgive but onely Forgive me To which having answered That however he said it God would forgive him as he forgave he concludes thus Do not imagine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that you are secured from this danger by not pronouncing all the Prayer do not therefore curtail it but as it is instituted so use it that so the necessity of dayly using the whole may compel thee to forgive thy Brother And St. Gregory expresly affirms That the Apostles themselves Ep. l. 7. c. 6. did always
at the Consecration of the Eucharist make use of the Lords Prayer By these and sundry other Testimonies which are quoted by learned men upon this argument it 's evident that the Church of Christ in all Ages look'd upon the Lords Prayer as a standing Form given by our Saviour to be perpetually used by Christians and to be sure they who believed the institution of it to be perpetually obliging could not make the least doubt but that it was constantly used in the Apostolick Age. And my thinks 't is very strange that had the institution been temporary the Church of Christ for fifteen hundred years should never be wise enough to discover it and it seems to me a very high presumption for us to determine against the constant belief and practice of the Church in all Ages without the least warrant so to do either from our Saviour or his Apostles By all this therefore it 's abundantly evident that both in the Old and New Testament there have been Forms of Prayer instituted and appointed by God himself so that were that true which our Brethren affirm that nothing ought to be admitted into the Worship of God which he hath not commanded yet this will not conclude against the admission of Forms of Prayer since there are Forms which God himself hath commanded But they object yet farther That all that this proves is that Forms of Prayer of Gods appointment may and ought to be admitted into his Worship which no body doubts of but from hence it doth by no means follow that men may appoint Forms of humane composure for those Forms of Prayer which God prescribed were immediately dictated by him to those inspired persons who delivered 'em and therefore we may as well pretend to appoint new Scripture for publick instruction because those inspired persons did so as to appoint new Forms for publick Worship Now because I perceive this Objection is very much insisted on by our Brethren I shall endeavour to return a full and clear answer to it in these following Propositions First That this Objection allows the prescribing of Forms of Prayer to be lawful in its own nature Secondly That it must allow the prescribing of publick Forms to be not onely lawful but good and useful Thirdly It must also allow that Gods prescribing Forms of Prayer by inspired persons is so far forth a Warrant for our imitation as the thing it self is good and useful and lawfully imitable by us Fourthly That though it follows that because God by inspired persons hath prescribed Forms of Prayer therefore the Church may prescribe them upon Gods reasons yet it doth by no means follow that therefore it may prescribe them as Scripture or divine Inspirations First That this Objection allows the prescribing of Forms of Prayer to be lawful of its own nature that is to be void of all intrinsick evil and to have no contrariety in the nature of it to the eternal Rules and Dictates of right reason for this Objection granting as it doth that God hath prescribed Forms of Prayer must either admit that God may do and hath done that which is intrinsically evil and repugnant to right reason or grant that the prescribing of Forms hath no intrinsick evil in it And in particular it is to be considered that our Saviours prescribing his Form was a tacit approbation of other Forms that were prescribed before and that not onely by God but by men too for though besides those Forms which were prescribed by God for the publick Worship of the Jews their Doctors tell us of sundry Forms of humane Composure that were used in their Temple and Synagogues in our Saviour's time yet he was so far from disapproving either them or that which John Baptist taught his Disciples that in conformity to the later he prescribed a Form to his own Disciples which Form of his as our Learned Gregory hath proved he collected out of Forms of Prayer which were then used among the Jews in whose Books the several parts and clauses of it are extant almost verbatim to this day and certainly had he disapproved their Forms as evil and sinful he would never have collected his own Prayer out of ' em Since therefore our Saviour hath not onely given us a Form but hath also given it under such circumstances as do plainly signifie his approbation of other Forms it necessarily follows that either he hath approved that which is evil or that Forms of Prayer are not evil Secondly That this Objection must allow the prescribing of publick Forms to be not onely lawful in it self but also good and useful for whatsoever God doth he is directed to do by his own infallible Wisdom which always proceeds upon the best reasons and proposes the best ends of action to him and the most effectual means to compass and obtain 'em when therefore we grant that God hath done such or such a thing we must either allow the thing to be good and useful to some excellent end and purpose or suppose that he did not consult his Wisdom in it or that his Wisdom was mistaken He therefore who allows that God hath prescribed Forms of Prayer must either blaspheme his Wisdom or grant the prescribing 'em to be good and useful But it is objected that the prescribing 'em was good and useful onely at that time and under those circumstances wherein they were prescribed as for instance in the times of the Old Testament it may be allowed that the prescribing of Forms might be good and useful the Jews to whom they were prescribed being a carnal dull and stupid People and yet under the times and circumstances of the Gospel-state which is so vastly different the prescribing 'em may not onely cease to be good but become hurtful and injurious To which in short I answer 1st That supposing it were the Carnality Dulness and Stupidity of the Jews that render'd Forms so useful to 'em I doubt that as to those particulars the case is not so much alter'd with the generality of Christians but that they may be useful still and though 't is to be hoped we are not altogether so very dull and carnal as they were yet as it hath been made appear in the former part of this Treatise we are not so perfectly refin'd from Dulness and Carnality but that Forms of Prayer may still be very useful to us But 2ly this Objection allows not onely that there were Forms of Prayer prescribed in the Old Testament but that our Saviour himself hath also prescribed one in the New for all successive Ages to pray by and if so then we must either blaspheme the Wisdom of our Saviour for prescribing what is vain and useless or grant the prescription of Forms to be good and useful not onely for the Jewish but also for the Gospel-state Thirdly This Objection must also allow that Gods prescribing Forms of Prayer by inspired persons is so far forth a Warrant for our imitation as the
thing it self is good and useful and imitable by us if God doth such or such a thing because it is good and useful to some end that is a sufficient Warrant for us to do the same provided we have the same reason for to imitate God is not onely our priviledge but our duty But how can we be said to imitate Him if so far as our power extends we do not the same things that he doth when we have the same reasons Since therefore God as supreme Governour of his Church hath prescribed Forms of Prayer because they are good and useful those whom he hath substituted to govern for him are thereby sufficiently warranted to prescribe 'em too so long as they continue so so that Gods prescribing 'em is a sufficient argument that they are useful and that they are useful is a sufficient reason for the Governours of the Church to prescribe 'em also because for that reason God himself hath prescribed 'em and certainly our Spiritual Governours who are in Gods stead are sufficiently warranted to do as God hath done when they have Gods own reason to do it Against this I know nothing can be objected but onely that common and fundamental Principle of all our Separations viz. That God himself hath forbid the prescribing of any thing in or about his Worship but what he himself hath prescribed and therefore whatsoever reason there may be for it no other Forms ought to be prescribed but what are of his own inditing and prescription The falseness of which hath been sufficiently demonstrated in the Case about Indifferent Things And therefore as to the matter in hand I shall onely say that the Objection strikes with equal force against Extemporary words which God hath not prescribed as against Forms of words which he hath not prescribed for as I have already proved Part 1. and shall yet further prove hereafter praying Extempore by our own Gift of expression is no more prescribed by God than praying by a Form and therefore the words of Extempore Prayers are no more prescribed by him than the words of Forms so that if the latter may not be admitted into the Worship of God because they are not prescribed by him neither may the former And indeed he who prays extempore doth as much prescribe a Form of words to the people in publick Worship as he who prays by a Form their devout desires and affections being equally confined to this particular Set of expressions in both And if each single Presbyter may prescribe a Form of words to the People which God hath not prescribed 'em how much more may the Governours of the Church Admitting therefore that such words may be prescribed in Prayer as God hath not prescribed his prescribing of Forms of Prayer must be a sufficient Warrant for the Governours of his Church to prescribe 'em when they have his reason so to do Fourthly and lastly That though it follows that because God by inspir'd persons hath prescribed Forms of Prayer therefore the Governours of the Church may prescribe 'em upon Gods reasons yet it doth by no means follow that therefore they may prescribe 'em as Scripture or Divine Inspiration As briefly to instance in another case Because God the supream Governour of his Church hath taken care to instruct it by inspired persons it thence follows that those whom he hath appointed to govern it should take care to instruct it too but it doth by no means follow either that they should instruct it by inspired persons or that they should pretend to instruct it by Divine Inspiration for they have the same reason that God had to instruct it viz. because it 's good and useful to the best purposes And so far as they have the same reason with God they ought to do the same thing but they cannot have the same reason that God had to instruct it by inspired persons because 't is not in their power so to do and therefore as they cannot be obliged to it so neither ought they to pretend to it And so it is as to prescribing Forms of Prayer for That God himself hath prescribed 'em to his Church by immediate Inspiration may be a sufficient Warrant for Church-Governours to prescribe 'em too but it cannot be a sufficient Warrant for 'em to prescribe 'em by immediate Inspiration for they may have the same reasons to prescribe 'em that God had viz. because they are good and useful for publick Devotion but they cannot have the same reason to prescribe 'em by immediate Inspiration because that is not in their power and therefore 't would be a manifest cheat for 'em to pretend to it Had they the same common reasons with God for both his Example would warrant 'em not onely to prescribe 'em but to prescribe 'em as Scripture and Divine Inspiration but since there is a peculiar reason why they may not prescribe 'em as Scripture viz. because they cannot without manifest falshood and presumption which reason is not at all applicable to the bare and simple prescribing 'em therefore it doth by no means follow that if they may lawfully do the latter they may lawfully do the former also Having thus answered the Objections of our Brethren it remains that supposing that Principle were true viz. That nothing ought to be admitted into the Worship of God but what God hath commanded yet it doth not universally conclude against the admitting Forms of Prayer into his Worship because he himself hath commanded some Forms and by commanding them hath licensed and authorized the Governours of his Church to prescribe others upon the same reasons I proceed therefore to the second general Head proposed which was to shew that supposing this Principle viz. That nothing ought to be admitted into the Worship of God but what is commanded by him did conclude against Forms of Prayer it equally concludes against conceived or extempore Prayers because these are no more commanded by God than Forms nay indeed as to publick Worship have much less claim to Divine Authority than Forms but we will suppose at present the Forms of Prayer were not at all commanded yet this we assert makes no more against them than it doth against Extempore Prayers there being no command of God requiring us to pray Extempore or to utter our affections in Prayer in our own conceptions and expressions It is indeed very confidently asserted by our Brethren That wheresoever we are commanded to pray vocally we are commanded to pray in our own conceptions and words but that this is not so is evident from what has been discours'd before viz. that God hath commanded men to pray in sundry Forms of his own composure and sure in those cases wherein they were commanded to pray vocally in Gods Conceptions and Words they could not be commanded to pray vocally in their own Thus far therefore our Brethren must grant if they will be determin'd by express words of Scripture that the commands to pray vocally
all agree doth in Scripture frequently signifie an Office and that in both these Texts it is so to be understood is evident because those things which the Apostles exhort them to are the proper acts and exercises of those several Offices and Capacities of Bishops Presbyters Deacons and rich men and the Argument by which they exhort them is that they had receiv'd the proper Gifts to which these acts appertain So that if by these Gifts we understand abilities to perform those acts we shall force the Argument to prove too much viz. that it is the duty of every one to Rule and Teach and Minister and Prophesie that hath receiv'd an ability to do so whereas in truth none can have a right to perform these acts as all sober Dissenters will acknowledge but onely such as are vested with the Offices to which they appertain Wherefore either this Argument having received Gifts must oblige all men to rule c. that are able to do so or else by Gifts must be meant the Offices to which those acts of ruling c. belong But you will say 'T is evident that by some of these Gifts must be meant the ability of doing the acts here specifi'd as particularly that of distributing to the Poor and shewing Mercy I answer That as for these acts the meer ability to relieve the poor and miserable not onely authorizes but obliges us to them and by putting it in our power God doth as much make it our Office to relieve them as if he had set us apart to it by a solemn Ordination and because the ability here confers the Office the Gift though it signifies the Office must necessarily include the ability too but in all those other particulars where the Office and Ability are distinct things the Gift must signifie the Office distinct from the Ability because here it being the Office and not the Ability that authorizes and obliges us to perform the acts the necessity of performing the acts must be argued from the Office and not from the Ability So then if by the Gifts here spoken of onely such and such Offices are intended by what consequence doth it follow that because those who are vested with these Offices are here exhorted faithfully to discharge them therefore those who are able to pray extempore are hereby obliged to do so Our Brethren may as well argue from these words that all those who are able to rule are obliged to exercise the Episcopal Office as that those who are able to pray extempore are obliged to pray extempore But then thirdly and lastly I answer That supposing that by these Gifts were not meant Offices but onely Abilities yet all that can hence be argued is that those who have them are obliged to exercise them so far forth as is consistent with edification for so the Apostle exhorts That all things be done to edification and to be sure what he exhorts to in one Text doth not at all clash with what he exhorts in another and even of those extraordinary Gifts that were poured out in the Primitive times the Apostle declares 1 Cor. 14. that those who had them were no farther obliged to use them in the Church than the use of them tended to edification vers 2 6 18 19. and particularly for the Gift of Tongues though it was immediately inspired he totally forbids them the use and exercise of it where there was no interpreter vers 23 27 28. If then we are not to exercise our Gifts meerly because they are Gifts but because the exercise of them tends to Edification and if when they do not tend to it we are to suspend the exercise of them as it 's plain we are by this instance of the Gift of Tongues then although by the Gifts mention'd in the above-nam'd Text were meant Abilities and not Offices yet it doth not follow that those who have an ability to pray extempore should therefore be obliged to exercise it any further than as it tends to Edification and therefore if praying by a Form in publick Worship be more for the publick Edification and that it is hath been proved Part 1. Case 3. we are no more oblig'd to pray extempore though we have an ability to do so than he who had the Gift of Tongues was to exercise his Gift when he could not edifie the publick by it and if we ought to suspend the exercise of our Gift when it is not at all edifying at least we are not obliged to exercise it when we may perform the same thing without exercising it in a more edifying manner Having thus shewn the insufficiency of those Scriptures which our Brethren urge to prove that those who are able to pray extempore are oblig'd to do so it remains that hitherto no discovery can be made of any Command of Scripture by which we are oblig'd to pray vocally by our own gift or ability of expression for upon the utmost enquiry I can make these which I have answer'd are the onely Texts which with any shew of argument our Brethren produce to this purpose Supposing therefore it were true that nothing ought to be admitted into God's Worship but what he hath commanded yet this makes a great deal more against praying by our own Gift and in our own words and expressions than it doth against praying by a Form because there are express Commands for praying in some cases by a Form but there is no Command at all for praying by our own Gifts Since therefore there are sundry instances of God's prescribing Forms of Prayer and since no instance can be given of his requiring us to pray by our own Gifts and Abilities this certainly is a sufficient Scripture-warrant of the lawfulness of worshipping him by Forms I proceed to the second Enquiry included in this Case and that is Whether there be any Warrant for the use of Forms in pure Antiquity For it is pretended by some of our Brethren that in the primitive Ages of the Church all publick Prayers were perform'd by the Gifts and Abilities of him that minister'd and that there was no such things as Forms admitted into their publick Worship for the proof of which bold Assertion they onely urge two or three doubtful Authorities against a whole current of plain and express Testimonies to the contrary In the prosecution therefore of this Enquiry I shall endeavour 1. To answer those Authorities which are objected by our Brethren against the use of Forms in the Primitive Ages 2. To prove that they were used in those Ages by a short Historical Account of the Matter of Fact The first Authority which they object against the Primitive use of Forms of Prayer is that of Justin Martyr (a) (a) (a) Apol. 2. p. 98. who tells us that at the Communion the Chief Minister did send forth Prayers and Thanksgivings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is say they according to his ability from whence they infer that in Justin Martyr's days
onely oversaw their being dictated rightly in order to their being repeated rightly When therefore Tertullian saith We pray without a Monitor his meaning is not that we pray without a Priest to dictate our Prayers to us whether it were out of a Book or extempore but that we pray without a Custos or Overseer either to admonish our People of their repeating the Prayers falsly or to admonish our Priests of their dictating them falsly in order to the Peoples repeating them rightly Because saith he we pray from our hearts which words may admit of a twofold interpretation first because we do not vocally repeat our Prayers after our Priest but onely joyn our affections with them and send up our hearts and desires after them or 2ly because we can say our Prayers by heart and so are in no great danger of repeating them falsly and consequently have no such need of a Monitor to observe and correct us for it is well known how much Tertullian in all his Writings affects to imitate and express the Greek which renders him oftentimes so very obscure and therefore it 's probable enough as hath been observ'd (p) (p) (p) Thornd Relig. Assem p. 237. that his de pectore here or from the heart may be onely a translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to say by heart according to which account these words of Tertullian are so far from testifying against the use of Forms that they rather argue the use of them for since he onely denies their having a Monitor he doth in effect grant their having a Priest to read the publick Prayers to them as well as the Heathen and if from the heart be in Tertullian's Language the same with by heart it 's a plain case that they used Forms for otherwise how could they have them by heart That this is the true account of this difficult phrase I will not confidently affirm because it is onely my own single guess but whether it be or no it 's certain it can no more signifie without a Form of Prayer than without a Minister to pray extempore the one being as much a Monitor to the People as the other The last Testimony which our Brethren urge against the Antiquity of Forms of Prayer is that of Sucrates Scholasticus (q) (q) (q) Soc. Hist l. 5. c. 21. whose words they thus translate Everywhere and in all Worships of Prayer there are not two to be found that speak the same words and therefore say they it 's very unlikely they should pray by receiv'd Forms But how far this is from the sence of the Author will evidently appear by considering what he had been before discoursing of In short therefore he had been just before relating the different Customs that were used in several Churches and among the rest he tells us that in Hellas Jerusalem and Thessalia the Prayers were made whilst the Candles were lighting according to the manner of the Novatians at Constantinople and that in Caesarea of Cappadocia and Cyprus the Presbyters and Bishops always interpreted the Scripture on the Saturday and Lord's-day in the evening the Candles being lighted that the Novatians in the Hellespont did not observe the same manner of praying with those of Constantinople but that for the most part they followed the Customs of the chief Churches among them and then he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. upon the whole every where and among all the Worships of Prayer there are not two to be found that agree in the same thing where by Worships of Prayer it 's plain he means the Ceremonies and Rites of Prayer that were used in several Churches for 't was of these he had been immediately before discoursing and therefore his meaning can be no more than this that among all the constituted Rites and Ceremonies of Prayer that were used in the several Churches there were not two to be found that agreed in the same and how doth it follow that because they did not use the same Rites and Ceremonies of Prayer therefore they did not use Forms of Prayer for even now we see there are different Rites of Prayer among those Churches which do yet agree in using Forms of Prayer And now I proceed to the second thing proposed which was to prove the use of Forms of Prayer in the primitive Ages by a short Historical Account of the Matter of Fact That in the first Age there was a Gift of praying extempore by immediate inspiration seems highly probable both from what the Apostle discourses of praying in unknown Languages 1 Cor. 14. and from what St. Chrysostom asserts concerning it (r) (r) (r) Chrys in Rom. 8. 26. viz. That together with those miraculous Gifts which were then poured out there was a Gift of Praying which was called by the Apostle a Spirit by which he who was endued with it poured out Prayers for all the People and while this Gift continued perhaps which how long it was is very uncertain there might no other Form be used in publick Worship in those places especially where it abounded but onely that of the Lord's Prayer and it may be in imitation of this Gift upon which even in the Apostles time the Christians were apt to over-value themselves some might affect to pray extempore after it was wholly expired but it is highly probable that upon the ceasing or abatement of it it was in most places immediately supplied by Forms of Prayer which were composed either of the words or according to the method and manner of those inspired Prayers by Apostolical persons that heard and remembred them for so as the same St. Chrysostom goes on (s) (s) (s) Chrys ibid. For we being ignorant of many things which are profitable for us do ask many things which are unprofitable and therefore this Gift of Prayer was given to some one person that was there i. e. in the Congregation who ask'd for all that which was profitable for the universal Church and taught others to do so that is to form Prayers according to those inspired Models for though I do not pretend that there were no other Prayers used in publick but onely Forms either in or presently after the Age of the Apostles yet it seems most probable that even from the Apostolical Age some part at least of the publick Worship was perform'd in Forms of Prayer and if so we have all the reason in the world to conclude that these Forms were composed according to the Pattern of those primitive inspired Prayers Now that there were Forms from the Apostolical Age seems highly probable because so far as we can find there never was any dispute among Christians concerning the lawfulness of praying by a Form Had this way of praying been introduc'd after the Primitive Ages it would have been a most observable innovation upon the Primitive Christianity and that in such a publick matter of fact that every Christian could not but take notice
of it Now that such an open Innovation should be so silently admitted into the Church without the least contest or opposition seems very strange if not incredible 'T is true there were some Innovations that crept in very early without any opposition but none that was of such a publick cognizance as this and unless the whole Christian World had been fast asleep it is hardly supposeable they would ever have admitted such a remarkable alteration in their publick Worship as from praying extempore to pray by a Form without the least contradiction If therefore praying by a Form were an Innovation upon their Primitive Worship it was certainly the most lucky and fortunate one that ever was of that kind there being no one Innovation besides it of that publick nature but what hath always found powerful Adversaries to withstand it But not to insist upon probabilities we will inquire into the matter of fact And first we have those three ancient Liturgies which are attributed to St. Peter St. Mark and St. James which though they have been all of them wofully corrupted by later Ages yet are doubtless as to the purer parts of them of great antiquity and probably even from the Apostolical Age for besides that there are many things in them which have a strong relish of the simplicity and piety of that Age that of St. James in particular was of great authority in the Church of Jerusalem whereof he was the first Bishop in St. Cyril's time who wrote a Comment upon it (t) (t) (t) Cyril Catech Mystag 5 and is declar'd by Proclus Archbishop of Constantinople (u) (u) (u) Alat de Liturg S. Jacob. and the sixth General Council (w) (w) (w) Concil Trull c. 32. to be St. James's own composure which is a plain argument of the great Antiquity if not Apostolicalness of it for St. Cyril flourish'd in the year 350 and as St. Jerom observes (x) (x) (x) S. Jerom de Scrip. in Cyr. composed this Comment on St. James's Liturgy in his younger years Now it is not to be imagin'd he would have commented on it had it not been of great authority in the Church of Jerusalem and how could it have obtain'd any great Authority had it not been long before receiv'd that is at least seventy or eighty years Supposing then that he wrote this Comment Anno 347 as 't is very probable (y) (y) (y) Vid. Dr. Cave 's Life of St. Cyril and that this Liturgy had been receiv'd in the Church of Jerusalem but seventy or eighty years and less cannot well be supposed it could not be above a hundred and seventy years after the Apostolical Age that this Liturgy was receiv'd in the Church of Jerusalem And that there are Forms of Worship in it as ancient as the Apostles seems highly probable for first there is all that Form with a very small variation from ours call'd Sursum corda Lift up your hearts we lift them up unto the Lord it is meet and right so to do it is very meet right and our bounden duty to praise thee c. Therefore with Angels and Arch-Angels c. all which is in St. Cyril's Comment (z) (z) (z) Cyril Catech Mystag 5. which is a plain argument that 't was much ancienter than he And the same is also in those ancient Liturgies of Rome and Alexandria and in the Constitutions of St. Clemens (a) (a) (a) Constit Clem. l. 8. c. 22. which all agree are of great antiquity though not so great as they pretend And St. Cyprian who was living within an hundred years after the Apostles mentions it as a Form that was then used and receiv'd in the Church (b) (b) (b) Cyprian de Orat. Dominic The Priest saith he in the Preface before the Prayer prepares the minds of the Brethren by saying Lift up your hearts that so while the People answer We lift them up unto the Lord they may be admonished that they ought to think of nothing but the Lord. And lastly St. Austin tells us that this Sursum corda which is the Name and Title of the whole following Form and consequently includes it even as Te Deum Venite exultemus do the Hymns that go under that Title are verba ab ipsorum Apostolorum temporibus petita i. e. words derived from the very Age of the Apostles And the same is asserted by Nicephorus of the Trisagium in particular Hist lib. 18. cap. 53. And that even from that Primitive Age there was a certain Form prescribed in Baptism is evident by those solemn Questions and Answers that were made by the Priests and return'd by the person to be baptized for so Tertullian (c) (c) (c) Tertul. de Resurrect Carn speaking of Baptism tells us That the Soul is not establish'd by the washing but by the Answer And St. Cyprian expresly calls it Interrogatio Baptismi the questioning of Baptism (d) (d) (d) Cyp. 76. 80. which plainly shews that there were certain Questions and Answers given and return'd in Baptism and what the Question was may be guess'd by the Answer which was this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I renounce Satan and his works and his pomps c. (e) (e) (e) Clem. Constit lib. 7. And accordingly Tertullian (f) (f) (f) Coron Milit. In the Church and under the hand of the Priest we protest to renounce the Devil his pomps and works Which form of Question and Responsal Origen who lived not long after derives from Christ or his Disciples Who is there saith he (g) (g) (g) In Numer Homil. 5. can easily explain the reason of some Words and Gestures and Orders and Interrogations and Answers that are used in Baptism which yet we observe and fulfil according as we first took them up they being deliver'd to us by Tradition from our Great High Priest or his Disciples If it be objected that this is no Form of Prayer I answer that 't is a limiting the Minister from exercising his own Gift in performing his Ministerial Office and if in performing he might be limited to a Form of Question why not to a Form of Prayer And if the Church thought fit not to leave him at liberty to question extempore in Baptism it 's very improbable it should leave him at liberty to pray extempore in publick there being as great a necessity to prescribe him a Form for the later as for the former And that de facto there were Forms of Prayer as well as of Question and Answer used in Baptism is not onely affirmed in the Constitutions of St. Clemens but some of the Prayers also are there inserted (h) (h) (h) Clem. Constit l. 7. But that the Christians did very early use Forms of Prayer in their publick Worship is very evident from the denominations which the Primitive Writers give to the publick Prayers such as the Common-Prayers (i) (i) (i)
Just Mart. Apol. 2. p. 93. Ignat. Ep. ad Magn. the Constituted-Prayers (k) (k) (k) Orig. Cont. Cels l. 6. and the Solemn-Prayers (l) (l) (l) Cyp. de laps serm 14. which last was the Title by which the Heathens then distinguish'd and express'd their publick Forms of Prayer (m) (m) (m) Vid. Ovid. l. 6. de fastis Statius Papin l. 4. Senec. in Oedip. Act 2. Sect 2. and consequently in the Language of that Age must signifie a publick Form And as for that particular Form of Prayers so often used in our Liturgy Glory be to the Father c. St. Basil fetches the Original of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the tradition of the Apostles and cites this Doxology from St. Clemens the Apostles Scholar and from Dionysius of Alexandria (n) (n) (n) Basil de sp s c. 27. 29. who was living Anno 200. and Clemens of Alexandria who was living Anno 160 sets down these words as the Christians Form of praising God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (o) (o) (o) Clem. Alex. Paedag. Praising the Father and the Son with the Holy Ghost And therefore though there are some who attribute the composure of this Eucharistical Hymn to the rise of the Arian Sect yet from these Authorities it is much more probable that it was long before composed and used in the publick Worship of the Church for the Arians are sharply reproved by the Orthodox Fathers for altering this ancient Form into Glory be to the Father by the Son and in the Holy Ghost (p) (p) (p) Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 24. And indeed a great-part of the Primitive Worship consisted of Hymns and Doxologies which could no longer be extempore than while the miraculous Gifts continued after which they must necessarily be composed into set Forms for Tertullian tells us that their Coetus antelucani their meetings before day were ad canendum Christo ut Deo to sing to Christ as God (q) (q) (q) Tertul. Apologet. c. 2. And Lucian before him thus describes the practice of Christians that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spend whole nights in watching and singing of Psalms (r) (r) (r) Lucian Philop. So also Justin Martyr describing the Christian life tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are to sing Hymns and Psalms and Odes and Praise (s) (s) (s) Just Mart. Epist ad Zen. Heren Now it 's evident that in Pliny's and Lucian's time the Christians used set Forms of Hymns not onely of divine but also of humane composure for so Pliny tells us (t) (t) (t) Plin. Epist l. 10. Ep. 97. That early in the morning it was their manner to sing by turns a Hymn to Christ as to God which Hymn was doubtless of humane composure there being no Hymn to Christ in Scripture of that length as to take up a considerable part of their publick Service And besides Eusebius tells us That very early there were various Psalms and Odes composed by Christians concerning the Divinity of Christ (u) (u) (u) Euseb Hist lib. 5. and that Paulus Samosetanus was condemned for suppressing those Hymns that were made in the Honour of Christ as being the compositions of men of late days (w) (w) (w) Ibid. Hist lib. 7. though in all probability those Hymns were composed within much less than an hundred years after the Apostolical Age but as for this Hymn which Pliny speaks of it was earlier for it could not be much above ten years after the death of St. John that Pliny gave this account of Christians to Trajan and therefore to be sure the Hymn he there speaks of was used in the Age of the Apostles And about the same time Lucian makes mention of a Prayer which they used in their publick Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beginning from the Father which doubtless was the Lord's Prayer and of a famous Hymn added to the end of their Service (x) (x) (x) Lucian Philop. which in all probability was the Hymn that Pliny speaks of Since therefore the Primitive Worship did in a great measure consist of Hymns which were Forms of Praise intermixt with Prayer and some of these of humane composure this is an evident Testimony of the Primitive use of Forms And doubtless they who made no scruple of praying by Form in verse could not think it unlawful to pray by Form in prose for that praying in Meeter or composed Hymns was a very early Practice in the Christian Church is evident from the Apostolical Constitutions where it is injoyned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the People sing the verses which answer adversly to one another (y) (y) (y) Constit Apost l. 2. c. 5. which way of singing was so very ancient that Eusebius (z) (z) (z) Euseb Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 17. urges it as an argument to prove the Essenes Christians because they sung by turns answering one another But how could they thus answer to one another in their Hymns and Prayers unless they had constant Forms of Prayer But that they had such Forms of Responsal in Prayer is evident because when Julian for the credit of Gentilism would needs dress it up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) (a) (a) Sos Hist l. 5. c. 15. after the Order of the Christian Worship one thing wherein he sought to imitate it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their constituted Prayers that is not in having constituted Forms of Prayer for that the Heathen had before but in having such constituted Forms as the Christians had that is as Nazianzen explains it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Form of Prayer to be said in parts (b) (b) (b) Nazian Orat. 1. p. 102. for this way of praying in parts Nicephorus (c) (c) (c) Niceph. l. 13. c. 8. derives from Ignatius who was a Scholar of the Apostles All which to me is a plain demonstration of the great antiquity of Forms And that in Constantine's time the Church used publick Forms of Prayer is evident from that often-cited place of Eusebius (d) (d) (d) Euseb d◠Laud. Constant where he tells us of Constantine's composing Godly Prayers for the use of his Souldiers and elsewhere tells us in particular what the Prayer was We acknowledge thee O God alone c. (e) (e) (e) Id. de vit Constant c. 20. which is a plain evidence that it was a set Form of words But it 's objected that this Form was composed onely for the use of his Souldiers who were a great part of them Heathens and that Constantine's composing it is a plain evidence that at that time there were no publick Forms in the Church for if there had what need Constantine have composed one To which I answer That this Form indeed was composed onely for his Heathen Souldiers for as for his Christian Souldiers the story tells us that he gave them liberty to go to Church
who it is they joyn with and whose Cause they advance while they thus decry our Liturgy and advance their own extempore Prayers in the room of it they will at last see cause to retract a mistake which none but the Church of Rome will have cause to thank them for CASE VI. Whether it be lawful to comply with the use of Publick Form s when they are imposed IN answer to which a very few words will suffice for it hath been already proved that the use of publick Forms is universally lawful there being nothing either in Scripture or the nature of the thing that forbids it but a great deal in both that approves and warrants it so that now the Question is no more than this Whether a lawful thing when imposed may be lawfully complied with The affirmative of which is sufficiently proved in the Case of Indifferent Things And indeed if the Imposition of Praying in publick by Forms though lawful in it self may not be lawfully complied with then neither may the Imposition of praying extempore and if so then we must act quite contrary to what we are commanded by Authority and pray by Form when we are commanded to pray extempore as well as extempore when we are commanded to pray by Form and if in lawful things Authority can oblige us to comply with this by commanding the contrary our liberty will be altogether as liable to restraint this way as the other because we shall be as much obliged this way to forbear a lawful thing as we are to comply with it the other And if all men were of this opinion that no lawful thing ought to be complied with when it is commanded Authority might as effectually oblige them to do whatsoever it would have by commanding the quite contrary as it can now by commanding the thing it would have But this being quite besides the Province I have undertaken I shall insist no farther upon it FINIS BOOKS Printed for Fincham Gardiner 1. 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 Englands 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 Anonymus 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 Communions 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. 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 Weak Brethren 15. The Case of Infant-Baptism in Five Questions c. 16. A Discourse concerning Conscience wherein an Account is given of the Nature and Rule and Obligation of it c. 17. The Charge of Scandal and giving Offence by Conformity Refelled and Reflected back upon Separation 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. 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 3. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. AN ANSWER TO THE Dissenters Objections Against the COMMON PRAYERS And some other Parts of Divine-Service Prescribed in the LITURGIE OF THE CHURCH of ENGLAND LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street B. Took at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard and F. Gardiner at the White-horse in Ludgate-street 1684. AN ANSWER TO THE Dissenters Objections Against the COMMON PRAYERS And some other Parts of DIVINE SERVICE Prescribed in the LITURGIE of the CHURCH of ENGLAND I Believe all Considering Persons are by this time sensible what advantage the Papists make of the Separation of some Protestants from the Church of England And the ill effects of it at present and the worse which we have reason to fear are so very discernible that it may now be hoped the Consideration hereof will something abate those Prejudices of Dissenters against us which we think have hitherto hindred the prevailing of our Reasons Though Prejudice is hard to be remov'd yet 't is not impossible Several Ingenuous Persons of that Persuasion have been rescu'd from their Prejudices against our Communion when the mischief of these Divisions was not so apparent as 't is now I trust therefore that at this time many more will and I pray God that all of them may seriously and impartially look over the Grounds upon which they have kept up the Separation For I am persuaded that their Objections against our Communion are not of that Conseâ—uence â—s to Justifie their forsaking it and that themselves would discern it if they would consider our Answers with the same Meekness and Charity wherewith we offer them I have with great pleasure read some short Discourses lately Publisht that tend to this purpose the Good Spirit where with they are written seeming to be a very likely means of conveying the Argument with all its advantage into the Minds of those that shall take the pains to read them And though I think that which hath been said already is enough to satisfie Judicious Men yet by the persuasion of some Friends I have taken upon me to Answer those Particular Objections against the Publick Service of God by the Book of Common Prayer which the Dissenters are said to insist most upon I must confess that I have always thought the Liturgie of the Church of England to be such a truly Evangelical Form of Publick Worship that it would rather have invited Protestants to our Communion than kept them from it And I believe if the Dissenters would seriously read over that Sermon of Dr. Beverege concerning the Excellency and Vsefulness of the Common Prayer they would go near to be of the same mind And I hope many of them are so excepting only as to those Particulars wherein they are not so well satisfied And therefore I
would have ours to be And though there is greater need of Caution against it in such places yet the way of their Confession makes the mistake more difficult to be prevented Indeed we find in the Scripture Examples of Holy Men confessing such Sins as themselves were not guilty of Thus did Jeremiah Nehemiah Ezra c. But this was upon Solemn Humiliation for those known and publick Idolatries of the Nation which had brought Gods heavy Judgments upon them or for Common and Scandalous Transgressions afterward They considered themselves as part of that Community which had provoked God to send them into Captivity and therefore they bore their part in the Common Calamity with such meekness and confessed the Common Sins with such humility as if themselves had offended as greatly in their own Persons as their Countrey-men had done But I conceive there is a great deal of difference between those Confessions of Sin that such extraordinary occasions of Publick Humiliation require and those that are fit for the ordinary Service of God in the constant and stated Assemblies of the Church But it ought not to be forgot that those particular Confessions of Sin which some Men want in our Liturgie are not properly the matter of that Publick Service we are to offer daily unto God in Religious Assemblies but of that Private Devotion which is necessary to be performed in our Closets And if we could be persuaded seriously to enter upon this Work of Examining our selves impartially concerning those Sins which we have more openly or secretly committed and then to humble our selves before God for them with particular Confessions and sutable Prayer for his Grace and Pardon we should then find our Affections prepared to comply with those more General Confessions of Sin which we make with the whole Congregation we should then have less reason to complain that those Confessions are not apt to move us because this way would cure the deadness of our hearts which commonly are most to blame when we find fault with the means that God hath provided for us To conclude this Matter There is great need of Particular Confession of Sins in Religious Assemblies but that of another sort than what I have yet been speaking of and that is the particular and humble Confession which every Scandalous Sinner ought to make in the Congregation for the satisfaction of the Church and the declaration of a true Repentance This is not properly an Act of Worship but of Discipline but alas almost lost in this miserably divided state of the Church a loss never enough to be lamented For so it has fallen out that by quarreling for a Reformation in things of an Indifferent Nature that ought to be left to the Prudence of Governours and the Communion of Christians is broken and the Spiritual Authority which Christ left in his Church is exposed to Contempt which is a Matter of a thousand times more concern then all the Objections against the Book of Common Prayer put together though they were as considerable as our Adversaries seem to believe they are The second Objection I shall take notice of is that against the shortness of the Collects by reason of which it is pretended that the Prayer is often suddenly broken off and then begun again And this is thought not so agreeable to the Gravity wherewith this Duty ought to be performed nor so likely a means of exciting Reverence and Devotion in the People as one continued Form of Prayer that might be as long as all those put together Now in answer to this I say 1. That the meer shortness of a Prayer is not to be found fault with by any understanding Christian since this would be to disparage that Form of Prayer which our Lord taught his Disciples it being not much longer than most of our Collects and not so long as some of them 2. That it will be hard to prove That many of these short Prayers being offer'd up unto God one immediately after another is either not so Grave or not so Edifying as one Continued Form I do not believe the difference to be so great as it is made by those that do not approve our way For the Work of Praying is as much continued all the while as if there were but one Continued Form Indeed in the Book the Printed Prayer breaks off somewhat often and there is a distinction made between the several Collects by a New Title shewing the Matter of the Prayer and by beginning a New Line But I hope our Brethren do not mean that in this there is a defect of Gravity or any hindrance of Devotion and Edification For the abruption of the Printed Forms is by no means an interruption of our Prayer since we still go on in Praying or in giving Thanks to God and without breaking off pass from one Petition or Matter of Invocation to another as immediately as if the Distinct Forms we use together were all brought into the Compass of One. And as there is no Interruption of our Praying caused by the frequent beginning and ending of the Collects so neither can this cause an Interruption of Attention in the People which is rather helped by that frequency of saying Amen which this way requires Nor can it be charged with a tendency to Interrupt that Devout Affection and Godly Disposition of Mind which is the best thing in Prayer But on the other hand this may be kept alive and more effectually secured by calling upon the Name of God and pleading the Merits of Christ so often as we do I know some have said this is done more frequently than is meet But it would be a lamentable thing if there should be any difference about this Matter When the Decence and Convenience of a thing is considered we should attribute much to the Wisdom of Authority and to the Judgment of Prudent and Holy Men such as our first Reformers were and great numbers of Learned Persons since their time were also who thought this manner of Praying to be Grave and Edifying And I believe others would be of the same Mind if they would not altogether dwell upon their Prejudice against our way but attend a little to those considerations that favour it and which discover the advantage and usefulness of it which sort of Equity they that are Wise and Humble will shew to all Men much more to their Governours Now the Invocation of God somewhat often by his Attributes does of it self tend to maintain in our Minds a reverent sense of his Majesty and Presence which we all know is of necessary use to make us Pray unto him as we ought to do I make no question but those that have been blamed for repeating Lord Lord so very often in their Extempore Prayers would think themselves somewhat hardly used if they should not be believed in saying that this was not for want of Matter but for the exciting of a reverent sense of Gods Authority in
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
disparagement at all to the Ministers Office upon these accounts 1. Although the Formal Words of Good Lord deliver us and We beseech thee to hear us Good Lord be uttered by the People yet it must be acknowledged that this is but part of the Prayer of the Litany that which the Minister utters being the other part and the far greater part 2. That the Words of Prayer are begun by the Minister not only in the Invocation of the Holy Trinity first of all but in that Prayer Remember not Lord our Offences and Spare us Good Lord and We beseech thee O Lord God c. So that the Minister does utter the Formal Words of Prayer and the People take them all afterward from him excepting only the Words of that Petition Good Lord deliver us 3. They are but these two short and known Petitions Good Lord deliver us and We beseech thee to hear us Good Lord upon the uttering of which by the People the weight of the Objection lies And if they will allow the People any Vocal part in the Words of Prayer I know not what Petitions are more proper for them than such as these As for the Repetition of them there is this reason for it that there is still new and distinct Matter to which they are applied And I will be bold to say that the repeated application of them is a great relief to attention and minding the business we are about and evidently contributes to keep up an affectionate and ardent frame of Heart in desiring those weighty things we ask of God in this Prayer I could almost appeal to the keenest of our Adversaries if that Petition Good Lord deliver us were applied but once in gross to the Deprecations and Supplications of that part of the Litany to which it belongs whether we should not be more apt to let our attention fall and to forget the meaning and to languish in the offering up of those Prayers than as it is now ordered But 4. I think it is plain that in offering up these Prayers to God the Minister has the Principal and Guiding part in that he utters all the distinct Matter of the Prayer which the People do not whereas he utters Words of Invocation as well as they And now I desire our Brethren to consider whether if the People were to utter that which is the Ministers part now and the Minister to say that only which is theirs they would not have more grievously complained that the Ministers Authority was slighted in the whole design since he seemed only to learn from the People what the Congregation was to pray for It is of great Consequence with what Mind we come to consider any thing if with prejudice and dislike we are then ready to turn all that is reasonably produced in favour for it into an argument of distaste and that seems unreasonable with the quite contrary to which we should have been more displeas'd if this had been instead of the other But surely we may judge of these things with Impartiality and if need be with Candor as we ought to do And if the difficulty of doing so be seen in the frequency of doing the Contrary even amongst Men otherwise good we have the greater need to intreat of God to enlighten our Understandings and to rescue us from prejudices and passions in the Judgment we make of all things of this nature I do not intimate this any way in affectation of seeming not to need this exhortation my self but remembring my own frailty I do hereupon admonish my self as well as others In the mean time if there be any Biass upon my Judgment in that esteem I declare my self to have of the Prayers of the Church I must confess that I believe my self to be byass'd on the right hand For I take it to be much more for the safety of my own Soul as well as the security of the Churches Peace that I should be inclined rather to Judge too favourably of Publick Rules than to value them beneath their just worth and usefulness But I must confess That of all the Prayers in our Liturgie that are of Humane Composition I should be most unwilling to part with the Litany as it now stands there It seems to be what it was designed to be a Form of Prayer apt to excite our most intense and servent desires of God's Grace and Mercy Whilest the Minister leads the people to pray against those several Sins and Evils which a Christian is most concerned to be afraid of and at the end of every convenient period the Congregation with one voice cries out Good Lord deliver us while the Minister leads them to pray for all those particular Blessings which ought to be most dear to a Christian and the whole Congregation with one voice cries out We beseech thee to hear us Good Lord. These Prayers seem to be offered with such affection as I am not well able to express by any ordinary instance In Offering them we seem to be as passionately concerned as a Malefactor upon his knees that begs his own life The whole Office is framed with respect both to matter and contrivance for the raising of the utmost Devotion of good Christians and for the warming of the coldest hearts by the heat of the Congregation And in such a disposition it is then most fit to express our Charity by praying for others even all sorts of Men as distinctly and particularly as Publick Prayers will bear And this the fullness of this Prayer doth admirably provide for as no Man will deny who considers it without aversion and prejudice against it which I pray God deliver all well meaning people from that they may not deprive themselves of so great a benefit I shall say no more concerning this Matter of the peoples joyning in Vocal Prayer and Praise And indeed the Reason why I have dwelt so long upon an Answer to this Objection is because I have observed that some honest persons are very confident that in this thing at least our Liturgie is to be blamed And I hope what hath been said will to such persons give reasonable satisfaction that for this thing it is rather to be commended But because upon this occasion the part of the Congregation in the Litany was last mentioned I shall now speak briefly to some other Objections against the Litany which are commonly made The first of these is That we pray to be delivered from all deadly sin which seems to imply that there are some Sins which are not deadly Now in answer to this it is by some truly enough said That these Words do not necessarily imply a distinction between Sins that are and Sins that are not deadly But admitting that such a distinction was intended yet I think no understanding Christian has reason to be offended with it By Deadly Sin a Protestant means all such Sin as puts a Man out of a state of Favour with God But all
that since themselves were desired by them to undertake for this Child they as such Sureties are particularly concerned to mind the Parents of their Duty and if need be to rebuke them sharply for neglecting it since they did in effect and to all purpose of Obligation undertake for the performance of it when the Sureties undertook for the Child Moreover when the Child is grown to years of Knowledge and come abroad into the World he is liable to the Charitable Admonitions of his Sureties as well as of his Parents in case he does amiss and their Reproofs are more likely to take place than those of most other Persons Now though all Christians as Members of one Body are to take care of and to watch over one another yet some are more Particularly Obliged and have greater Advantages to do those Works of Spiritual Charity than others And I appeal to all considering Men if Sureties at Baptism may not with great Authority and with likelyhood of good effect Reprove both those Negligent Parents and Vnruly Children for whom they have undertaken to the Church The Parents for not minding to Educate their Children in the knowledge and keeping of the Baptismal Vow or the Children for not hearkening to good Admonition And in this Age when the Duty of Christian Reproof is so generally omitted it were well if the defect were this way a little supplied But it is by no means desireable that the opportunity thereof and the obligation thereunto should be taken away I know some will be apt to say that this is but rarely Practised But that is no sufficient Answer to what I have said For when we use to judge of the goodness of a Rule or Custom by the good that comes of observing it we must look where 't is kept though it be kept but by few and not where 't is broken And if the Dissenters have nothing to say against the use of Sureties but that the end of this Appointment is seldom regarded themselves may help to remove this Objection by returning to the Church and encreasing the number of those that do pursue the End of it And thus doing they shall have the benefit of this Order of the Church and the Church the benefit of their good Examples As for the use of the Interrogatories put to the Sureties and their Answers they are a Solemn Declaration of what Baptism doth oblige all Baptiz'd Persons to and that Infants do stand ingaged to perform the Vow of Baptism when they shall come to years of knowledge This is the known meaning of the Contract nor did I ever hear of any that otherwise understood it and therefore I see not why it should be said to be liable to misunderstanding After all there is one General Objection yet remaining which still prevails with some Persons and that is That some of our Prayers are to be found in the Mass-Book and the Breviary and the Offices of the Church of Rome This Objection hath made a great noise but I appeal to Understanding Men if there be any sense in it No Man will say that 't is enough to make any Prayer or Form of Devotion or Instruction unlawful to be used that the same is to be found in the Mass-Book c. For then the Lords Prayer the Psalms and a great part of the Scriptures besides and the Creeds must never be used by us And therefore whether any part of the Roman Service is to be used by us or not must be judged of by some other Rule that is by the Word of God So that 't is a vain Exception against any part of our Liturgie to say it was taken out of the Mass-Book unless it could be shewn withal that it is some part of the Romish Superstition I know it has been said that the Scriptures being of necessary use are to be retained by us though the Church of Rome retains them but that there is not the same Reason for Forms which are not necessary but in those we ought to go as far from that Church as ever we can But what reason is there for this For the Danger that may happen to us in coming too near them lies in things wherein they do ill not in which they do well And as for the Papists themselves we do not in the least countenance them wherein they are wrong by agreeing with them wherein they are right And as for the Things themselves they are not the worse for being used by them We should allow the Papists a greater Power to do mischief than they have if their using of some good things should render all use of them hurtful to us The Case in short is this When our Reformers were intent upon the Reformation of the Liturgie they designed to Purge it of all those corrupt Additions which the usurpt Authority of the Church of Rome had long since brought into it and to retain nothing but what was agreeable to the Holy Scriptures and to the Practice of the purer Ages of the Church And in this they did like Wise Men because thus it would be evident to all the World that they Reformed upon just necessary Reasons and not meerly out of a desire of Change and Innovation since they Purged the Forms of Divine Service from nothing but Innovations and Corruptions and an unprofitable croud of Ceremonies No Man can shew a good Reason why those Passages in the Common-Prayer-Book which are to be found in the Mass-Book but which were used also by the Church before Romanism had Corrupted it are not as much to be Valued because they were once used by good Christians as to be run down because they have been since used by Superstitious and Idolatrous Men. But to conclude this Matter If any Man would set himself to expose the Mass-Book he would I suppose lay hold upon nothing but the Corruptions that are in it and things that are obnoxious to just reproof not on things that are justifiable and may easily be defended And the reason of this is plain because the Mass-Book is to blame for those parts of it only but not for these Now for such Passages as the Mass-Book it self is not to be blamed for neither is our Liturgie to be blamed if we will speak justly of things and without Prejudice and Passion I have now considered all those Exceptions against the Solemn Service of God by our Liturgie which the Dissenters are thought to insist most upon Not but that some other Exceptions have been made by the Ministers of that persuasion But this I hope was without design to prejudice the People against our Communion but rather to gain some alterations which in their Judgment would have been advantageous to the Book of Common-Prayer and given it a greater perfection whether they were right in this or not I will not now dispute being very desirous as I pray God we may all be to avoid Controversies in this Matter as much as may be Nay
of Rome Our Church having renounced all Communion with the Church of Rome this speaks the greatest distance in the general betwixt the two Churches And as their distance particularly in Government is manifest to all from our Churches having utterly cast off the Jurisdiction of the Papacy so it is easie to shew that there is likewise a mighty distance betwixt them in Doctrine Worship and Discipline But we shall not stand to shew this in each of these distinctly but rather make choice of this Method viz. to shew that our Church is most distant from and opposite to the Church of Rome 1. In all those Doctrines and Practices whereby this Church deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them 2. In all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly Charged with plainly Contradicting the Holy Scriptures 3. In each of their publick Prayers and Offices 4. In the Books they each receive for Canonical 5. In the Authority on which they each of them found their whole Religion First Our Church is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices by which she deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them For instance 1. This Church denieth her Members all Judgment of discretion in matters of Religion She obligeth them to follow her blindfold and to resolve both their Faith and Judgment into hers as assuming infallibility to her self and binding all under pain of Damnation to believe her Infallible But our Church permits us the full enjoyment of our due Liberty in believing and judging and we Act not like Members of the Church of England if according to St. Pauls injunction we prove not all things that we may hold fast that which is good if we believe every Spirit which St. John cautions us against and do not try the Spirits whether they be of God which he requires us to do 'T is impossible that our Church should oblige us to an implicite Faith in herself because she disclaimeth all pretence to infallibility Our Church tells us in her 19th Article that As the Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria and Antioch have erred so also the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their Living and manner of Ceremonies but also in matters of Faith And our Churches acknowledgment is plainly implyed in asserting the most famous Churches in the World to have erred from the Faith that she her self must needs be Obnoxious to Errour in matters of Faith and that she would be guilty of the highest impudence in denying it 2. The Church of Rome imposeth a deal of most slavish Drudgery in the vast multitude of her Rites and Ceremonies and unreasonably severe Tasks and cruel Penances As to her Ceremonies they are so vast a number as are enough to take up as Sir Edwyn Sandys hath observed a great part of a mans life merely to gaze on And abundance of them are so vain and Childish so marvellously odd and uncouth as that they can naturally bring to use that Gentlemans words who was a curious observer of them in the Popish Countries no other than disgrace and contempt to those exercises of Religion wherein they are stirring In viewing only those that are injoyned in the Common Ritual one would bless ones self to think how it should enter into the minds of Men and much more of Christians to invent such things And the like may be said of the Popish Tasks and Penances in imposing of which the Priests are Arbitrary and ordinarily lay the most Severe and Cruel ones on the lightest offenders when the most Leud and Scandalous come off with a bare saying of their Beads thrice over or some such insignificant and idle business But the Church of England imposeth nothing of that Drudgery which makes such Vassals of the poor Papists Her Rites are exceeding few and those plain and easie grave and manly founded on the Practice of the Church long before Popery appeared upon the Stage of the World Our Church hath abandon'd the five Popish Sacraments and contents her self with those two which Christ hath ordained As is to be seen in her 25th Article where she declares that There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel that is to say Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments that is to say Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and Extreme Vnxion are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel being such as have grown partly of the Corrupt following of the Apostles partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures But yet have not like Nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lords Supper For that they have not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about c. And in saying that our Church owns not the fore-mentioned Popish Sacraments is implied that she hath nothing to do with any of those very many Superstitious Fopperies which are injoyned in the Offices appointed for the Administration of those Sacraments Again Our Church no whit more imitates that of Rome in her Cruel Tasks and Penances than in her Ceremonies as is needless to be shewed In short in our Churches few Rites she hath used no other Liberty but what she judgeth agreeable to those Apostolical Rules of Doing all things decently and in order and Doing all things to Edification And she imposeth her Rites not as the Church of Rome doth hers as necessary and as parts of Religion but as meerly indifferent and changeable things as we find in her 34th Article where she declares that Every Particular or National Church hath Authority to Ordain Change and Abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained onely by Mans Authority so that all things be done to Edifying And this Article begins thus It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like for at all times they have been divers and may be changed according to the diversities of Countrys Times and Manners so that nothing be Ordained against Gods Word 2. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to inslaving Passions For instance that of Purgatory makes them all their life-time subject to the bondages of Fear at least those of them who are so sollicitous about the life to come as to entertain any mistrust or doubting as it 's strange if the most Credulous of them do not concerning the Efficacy of Penances and Indulgences Her Doctrine of Auricular Confession subjects all that are not forsaken of all Modesty to the passion of Shame Her Doctrine of the Dependance of the Efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priests intention must needs expose all considerative people and those who have any serious concern about their state hereafter to great Anxiety and Solicitude But these Doctrines are all rejected by the Church of England That of Purgatory she
declares against in these Words Article 22 d. The Romish Doctrine of Purgatory is a vain thing fondly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the Word of God As to that of Auricular Confession nothing like it is taught or practised in our Church Her Members are obliged onely to Confess their Sins to God except when 't is necessary to Confess them to Men for the relieving of their Consciences and their obtaining the Prayers of others or in order to the righting of those they have wronged when due satisfaction can't otherwise be made or in order to their giving Glory to God when they are justly accused and their guilt proved in which cases and such like 't is without dispute our duty to confess to Men. Nor have we any such Doctrine in our Church as that of the Dependence of the Efficacy of the Sacraments on the Priests intention but the contrary is sufficiently declared Article 26th viz. that The Efficacy of Christs Ordinance is not taken away by the Wickedness of those that Minister 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by not a few of her Doctrines and Practices to Vile Affections and Vices of all sorts As might be largely shewed See Libertas Evangelica Chap. 17. and will be in part under the next Head of discourse But our Church neither maintains any Licentious Principle nor gives Countenance to any such Practice our Adversaries themselves being Judges Secondly The Church of England is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly charged with plainly contradicting the Holy Scripture For instance not to repeat any of those ranked under the foregoing head several of which may also fall under this Her Doctrines of Image-Worship of Invocation of Saints with her gross practising upon them of Transubstantiation of Pardons and Indulgencies of the Sacrifice of the Mass wherein Christ is pretended to be still offered up afresh for the quick and dead Her keeping the Holy Scriptures from the Vulgar and making it so hainous a crime to read the Bible because by this means her foul Errours will be in such danger of being discovered and the People of not continuing implicite believers Her injoyning the saying of Prayers and the Administration of the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue Her Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper Her prohibiting Marriage to Priests Her Doctrines of Merit and works of Supererogation Her making simple Fornication a mere Venial sin Her damning all that are not of her Communion Her most devilish cruelties towards those whom she is pleased to pronounce Hereticks Her darling Sons Doctrines of Equivocation and Mental Reservations of the Popes power of dispensing with the most Solemn Oaths and of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance to their Lawful Princes with many others not now to be reckoned up But the Church of England Abominates these and the like Principles and Practices As to the instances of Image-Worship Invocation of Saints and Pardons and Indulgences what our Church declareth concerning Purgatory she adds concerning these things too Article 22 d. viz. That the Romish Doctrine concerning Pardons Worship and Adoration as well of Images as of Relicks as also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the Word of God And as there is no such Practice as Worshipping of Images in our Church so all are destroyed which Popery had Erected among us Nor have we in our Church any Co-Mediators with Jesus Christ we Worship only one God by one only Mediator the Man Christ Jesus And the now-mentioned Practices our Church doth not only declare to be Repugnant to the Holy Scriptures but to be likewise most grosly Idolatrous viz. in the Homilies As to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation our Church declareth her sense thereof Article 28th in these Words Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ but it is repugnant to the plain terms of Scripture overthroweth the Nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lords Supper only after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not by Christs Ordinance reserved carried about lifted up or Worshipped As to the Sacrifice of the Mass see what our Church saith of it Article 31st viz. That the offering of Christ once made is that perfect Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World both Original and Actual and there is none other Satisfaction for sins but that alone Wherefore the Sacrifices of Masses in the which it was commonly said that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have Remission of pain or guilt were Blasphemous Fables and dangerous deceits As to the Church of Romes locking up the Scriptures and prohibiting the reading of them Our Church hath not only more than once caused them to be Translated into our Mother-Tongue but also as I need not shew gives as free Liberty to the reading of the Bible as of any other Book nor is any duty in our Church esteemed more necessary than that of Reading the Scriptures and Hearing them read As to Praying and Administring the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue as this is contrary to the Practice of the Church of England so is it to her Declaration also Article 24th viz. That it is a thing plainly Repugnant to the Word of God and the Custom of the Primitive Church to have publick Prayers in the Church or to Administer Sacraments in a Tongue not understanded of the People As to Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper in Our Church they may not receive the Bread if they refuse the Cup. And Article 30. tells us That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Laity for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be Administred to all Christians alike As to prohibiting Marriage to Priests this is declared against Article 32. Bishops Priests and Deacons are not Commanded by Gods Law either to vow the Estate of single Life or to abstain from Marriage therefore it is Lawful for them as for all other Christian Men to Marry at their own discretion as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness As to the Popish Doctrine of Merit Our Church declares against this Article 11. We are accounted righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own Works or Deservings Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only viz. such a Faith as purifies the Heart and works by Love is a most wholsome Doctrine and very
full of Comfort as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification As to the Doctrine of Supererogation this is confuted Article 14. Voluntary Works besides over and above Gods Commandments which they call Works of Supererogation cannot be taught without Arrogance and Impiety For by them Men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are Commanded to you say We are unprofitable Servants As to making simple Fornication a meer Venial sin Our Church will endure no such Doctrine For as in the Litany she calls Fornication expresly a deadly sin so hath it ever been accounted in Our Church one of the most deadly even considered as distinct from Adultery As to the Church of Romes Damning all that are not of her Communion the Church of England is guilty of no uncharitableness like it and never pronounced so sad a sentence against those in Communion with the Church of Rome as great a detestation as she expresseth in the Homilies especially of her Idolatrous and Wicked Principles and Practices She is satisfied to Condemn the gross Corruptions of that Apostate Church and leaves her Members to stand or fall to their own Master nor takes upon her to Vnchurch her And as to the remaining most Immoral Principles and Practices of the Romish Church which are all as contrary to Natural as to revealed Religion the greatest Enemies Our Church hath cannot surely have the forehead to charge her with giving the least countenance to any such There being no Church in Christendom that more severely Condemns all instances of Unrighteousness and Immorality Thirdly The Church of England is at a mighty distance from the Church of Rome in reference to their Publick Prayers and Offices Whereas our Liturgy hath been by many Condemned as greatly resembling the Mass-Book all that have compared them do know the contrary and that there is a vast difference between them both as to matter and form Although some few of the same Prayers are found in both and three or four of the same Rites of which more hereafter To shew this throughout in the particulars would be a very long and tedious task I will therefore single out the Order of Administration of Infant-Baptism as we have it in the Roman Ritual and desire the Reader to compare it with that in our Liturgy and by this take a measure of the likeness between our Liturgy and the Mass-Book c. there being no greater agreement between the Morning and Evening Services and the other Offices of each than is between these two excepting that besides the Lords Prayer there is no Prayer belonging to the Popish Office of Baptism to be met with in ours For the sake of the Readers who understand no more of the Language that the Popish Prayers and Offices are expressed in than the generality of those that make use of them take the following account of the Popish Admonistration of Infant-Baptism in our own Tongue To pass by the long Bedroul of Preparatory Prescriptions the Priest being drest in a Surplice and Purple Robe calls the Infant to be Baptized by his Name and saith What askest thou of the Church of God the God-Father answers Faith The Priest saith again What shalt thou get by Faith The God-Father replies Eternal Life Then adds the Priest If therefore thou wilt enter into Life keep the Commandments Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart c. and thy Neighbour as thy self Next the Priest blows three gentle puffs upon the Infants face and saith as if we come all into the World possessed by the Devil Go out of him O unclean Spirit and give place to the Holy Ghost the Comforter Then with his Thumb he makes the Sign of the Cross on the Infants Forehead and Breast saying Receive the Sign of the Cross both in thy Forehead and in thy heart Take the Faith of the Heavenly Precepts and be thy manners such as that thou maist now become the Temple of God After this follows a Prayer that God would always protect this his Elect one calling him by his Name that is Signed with the Sign of the Cross c. And after a longer Prayer the Priest laying his hand on the Infants head comes the Benediction of Salt of which this is the Form I exorcize or conjure thee O Creature of Salt in the Name of God the Father Almighty ✚ and in the Love of our Lord Jesus Christ ✚ and in the Power of the Holy Ghost ✚ I conjure thee by the Living God ✚ by the true God ✚ by the Holy God ✚ by the God ✚ which Created thee for the safeguard of Mankind and hath ordained that thou shouldest be consecrated by his Servants to the People entring into the Faith that in the Name of the Holy Trinity thou shouldest be made a wholesome Sacrament for the driving away of the Enemy Moreover we Pray thee O Lord our God that in Sanctifying thou wouldest Sanctifie ✚ this Creature of Salt and in Blessing thou wouldest Bless it ✚ that it may be to all that receive it a perfect Medicine remaining in their Bowels in the Name of the same Jesus Christ our Lord who is about to come to judge the quick and dead and the World by fire Amen This Idle and prophane Form being recited the Priest proceeds in his Work with the poor Infant and next putting a little of this Holy Salt into his mouth he calls him by his Name and saith Take thou the Salt of Wisdom and adds most impiously be it thy propitiation unto Eternal Life Amen This ended with the Pax tecum God Almighty is next mockt with a Prayer That this Infant who hath tasted this first food of Salt may not be suffered any more to hunger but may be filled with Celestial Food c. Now follows another Exorcising of the Devil wherein he is conjured as before and most wofully becalled And next the Priest Signs the Infant again with his Thumb on the Forehead saying And this Sign of the Holy Cross ✚ which we give to his Forehead thou Cursed Devil never dare thou to Violate By the same Jesus Christ our Lord Amen And now after all this tedious expectation we see some Sign of Baptism approaching for the Priest puts his hand again on the Infants head and puts up a very good Prayer for him in order to his Baptism The Prayer being ended he puts part of his Robe upon the Infant and brings him within the Church for he hath been without all this while saying calling him by his Name Enter thou into the Temple of God that thou mayest partake with Christ in Eternal Life Amen Then follow the Apostles Creed and the Pater Noster But after all this here 's more exercise for our Patience for the Priest falls to his fooling
together Then Seven more Saints Then all the Bishops and Confessors together Then all the Holy Doctors Then Five more of their own great Saints by Name Then all the Holy Priests and Levites Then all the Holy Monks and Hermites Then Seven She Saints by Name Then all the Holy Virgins and Widows And Lastly All the He and She Saints together But the brevity I am confined to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument of the vast distance between these two Churches in reference to their Publick Prayers and Offices Fourthly We proceed to shew that there is also no small distance between the Church of England and that of Rome in reference to the Books they receive for Canonical This will be Immediately dispatched For no more is to be said upon this subject but that whereas the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into her Canon the Church of England like all other Protestant Churches receives only those Books of the Old and New Testament for Canonical Scripture as she declares in her Sixth Article of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church And she declareth concerning the Apocryphal Books in the same Article citing St. Hierom for her Authority That the Church doth read them for Example of life and Instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to Establish any Doctrine And after the example of the Primitive Church no more doth ours and appoints the reading some of them only upon the foresaid Account In the Fifth and Last place The Church of England is at the greatest distance possible from the Church of Rome in reference to the Authority on which they each found their whole Religion As to the Church of Rome she makes her own Infallibility the Foundation of Faith For 1. Our belief of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures themselves must according to her Doctrine be founded upon her infallible Testimony 2. As to that Prodigious deal which she hath added of her own to the Doctrines and Precepts of the Holy Scriptures and which she makes as necessary to be believed and practised as any matters of Faith and Practice contained in the Scriptures and more necessary too than many of them the Authority of those things is founded upon her unwritten Traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspired by the Holy Ghost than were the Prophets and Apostles themselves But Contrariwise the Church of England doth 1. Build the whole of her Religion upon the Sole Authority of Divine Revelation in the Holy Scriptures And therefore she takes every jot thereof out of the Bible She makes the Scriptures the Complete Rule of her Faith and of her Practice too in all matters necessary to Salvation that is in all the parts or Religion nor is there any Genuine Son of this Church that maketh any thing a part of his Religion that is not plainly contained in the Bible Let us see what our Church declareth to this purpose in her 16 Article viz. That Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation So that as Mr. Chillingworth saith THE BIBLE THE BIBLE IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS So you see the Bible is the Religion of the Protestant Church of England Nor doth she fetch one Tittle of her Religion either out of unwritten Traditions or Decrees of Councils Notwithstanding she hath a great Reverence for those Councils which were not a Company of Bishops and Priests of the Popes packing to serve his purposes and which have best deserved the Name of General Councils especially the Four first yet her Reverence of them consisteth not in any opinion of their Infallibility As appears by Article 14. General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes and when they be gathered together for as much as they be an Assembly of Men whereof all be not Governed with the Spirit and Word of God they may Err and sometimes have Erred even in things pertaining unto God Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared that is manifestly proved that they be taken out of Holy Scripture Let us see again how our Church speaks of the matter in hand Article 20. The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith And yet it is not Lawful for the Church to Ordain any thing that is contrary to Gods Word Written neither may it so Expound one place of Scripture that it be Repugnant to another Wherefore although the Church be a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ that is as the Jewish Church was so of the Canon of the Old Testament by whose Tradition alone it could be known what Books were Canonical and what not so the Catholick Christian Church from Christ and his Apostles downwards is so of the Canon of the New Yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same so besides the same ought it not to inforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation If it be asked who is to Judge what is agreeable or contrary to Holy Writ 't is manifest that Our Church leaves it to every Man to Judge for himself But 't is Objected that 't is to be acknowledged that if the Church only claimed a Power to Decree Rites and Ceremonies that is according to the general Rules of doing all things Decently and Orderly and to Edification which Power all Churches have ever Exercised this may well enough consist with private Persons Liberty to Judge for themselves but 't is also said in the now Cited Article that the Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith and accordingly Our Church hath Publisht 39 Articles and requires of the Clergy c. Subscription to them To this we answer that we shall make one Article Egregiously to Contradict another and one and the same to Contradict it self if we understand by the Authority in Controversies of Faith which Our Church acknowledges all Churches to have any more than Authority to Oblige their Members to outward Submission when their Decisions are such as Contradict not any of the Essentials of our Religion whether they be Articles of Faith or Rules of Life not an Authority to Oblige them to assent to their Decrees as infallibly true But it is necessary to the maintaining of Peace that all Churches should be invested with a Power to bind their Members to outward submission in the Case aforesaid that is when their supposed Errors are not of that Moment as that 't is of more pernicious Consequence to bear with them than to break the Peace of the Church by opposing them And as to the fore-mentioned
appointment it was first Erected But there was no necessity for this upon supposition that it had ceased to be abused for any considerable time and there were no appearance of an inclination in the People to abuse it again And no doubt all things of an indifferent Nature that have formerly been abused to Idolatry or Superstition ought to be taken away by the Governours whensoever they find their People again inclined so to abuse them at least if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by other means Sixthly But had Hezekiah suffered the Brazen Serpent still to stand no doubt private Persons who have no authority to make publick Reformations might Lawfully have made use of it to put them in mind of and affect them with the wonderful mercy of God expressed by it to their Fore-Fathers notwithstanding that many had not only formerly but did at that very nick of time make an Idol of it And much more might they have Lawfully continued in the Communion of the Church so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to joyn with them in their Idolatry As we do not read of any that Separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abused as it was by the generality I will also conclude this Head with the sense of Mr. Calvin concerning Rites used and consequently superstitiously abused by the Papists expressed in these Words Let not any think me so austere or bound up Calv. de vitandâ Superstitione c. as to forbid a Christian without any exception to accommodate himself to the Papists in any Ceremony or Observance for it is not my purpose to Condemn any thing but what is clearly Evil and openly Vitious To which may be added many other such like sayings of this Learned Person And thus much shall suffice to be discoursed upon our second general Head viz. That a Church's Symbolizing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so Symbolizing We now proceed in the Third and last place to shew That the Agreement which is between the Church of England and the Church of Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful We have shewed what a vastly wide Distance and Disagreement there is between the Church of England and that of Rome And we have sufficiently though with the greatest brevity made it apparent that a Church's Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome and those such too as she hath abused in Idolatrous and grosly Superstitious Services is no just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing And we have answered the Chief of those Arguments which have been brought for the Confirmation of the contrary Doctrine And now from what hath been discoursed it may with the greatest ease be prov'd that those things wherein our own Church particularly agreeth with the Romish Church do none of them speak such an Agreement therewith as will justifie Separation from our Church's Communion Now the particulars wherein our Church Symbolizeth with that of Rome which our Dissenters take offence at and make a pretence for Separation though all Dissenters are not offended at all of them and much less so offended as to make them all a pretence for Separation are principally these following First The Government of our Church by Bishops Secondly Our Churches prescribing a Liturgy or Set-Forms of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other Publick Offices Thirdly A Liturgy so contrived as that of our Church is Fourthly Certain Rites of our Church Particularly the Surplice the Cross in Baptism the Gesture of Kneeling at the Communion the Ring in Marriage and the Observation of certain Holy-days And to all these I shall speak very succinctly the limits I am confined to not permitting me to enlarge much upon any of them But I must first premise concerning them all in the general these following things First That I take it for granted that they are all indifferent in their own nature That there is nothing of Viciousness or Immorality in any of them to make them unlawful I know no body so unreasonable as not to grant this Secondly That there is no Express positive Law of God against any of these things I do not know of any such Law objected against any one of them And therefore if all or any of them are unlawful they must be made so either by Consequences drawn from Divine Laws or certain Circumstances attending them Thirdly That I am concerned in this Discourse to vindicate them from being unlawful upon the account onely of this one Circumstance viz. Our Symbolizing with the Church of Rome in them Now then First As to the Government of our Church by Bishops This is so far from being an Vnlawful Symbolizing with the Church of Rome that we have most clear Evidence of its being a Symbolizing with her in an Apostolical Institution And what Eminent Divines of the Presbyterial Party have acknowledg'd and is too evident to be denied or doubted by any who are not wholly ignorant of Church-History is sufficient I should think to satisfie unprejudiced persons concerning the truth of this And that is that this was the Government of all Churches in the World from the Apostles times for about 1500 years together Beza in his Treatise of a Threefold kind of Episcopacy Divine Humane and Satanical asserts concerning the second which is that which we call Apostolical that of this kind is to be understood whatsoever we read concerning the Authority of Bishops in Ignatius and other more Antient Writers And the famous Peter Du Moulin in his Book of the Pastoral Office written in defence of the Presbyterial Government acknowledgeth that presently after the Apostles times or even in their time as Ecclesiastical story witnesseth it was ordained that in every City one of the Presbytery should be called a Bishop who should have preheminence over his Collegues to avoid Confusion which oft times ariseth out of Equality And truly saith he this Form of Government all Churches every where received Mr. Calvin saith in his Institution of Christian Religion Quibus docendi munus injunctum erat c. Those to whom was committed the Office of Teaching they called them all Presbyters These Elected out of their number in L. 4. cap. 4. §. 2. each City one to whom in a special manner they gave the Title of Bishop lest Strife and Contention as it commonly happeneth should arise out of Equality And in his Epistle to Arch-bishop Cranmer he thus accosts him Illustrissime Domine Ornatissime Praesul c. Most Illustrious Sir and most Honourable Prelate and by me heartily Reverenced And tells him that if he might be serviceable to the Church of England he would not think much of passing over ten Seas for that purpose Again in his Epistle to the King of Poland he thus speaks of Patriarchs and Arch-bishops The Ancient Church did
appoint Patriarchs and Primates in every Province that by this bond of Concord the Bishops might the better be knit together In short for I must not proceed farther upon this vastly large head of discourse I know not how our Brethren will defend the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lords Day while they contend that this of Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholick Church for so many Centuries from the time of the Apostles Nor how those that Separate from our Church upon the account of its Government by Bishops and call it Antichristian can defend the Lawfulness of Communicating with any Church in Christendom for about 1500 years together Secondly As to Our Churches prescribing a Liturgy or set Forms of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other publick Offices It is easie to shew that Symbolizing with the Church of Rome herein is so far from being culpable and much more from being a just ground of Separation from our Church that 't is highly Commendable For as herein our Church no less Symbolizeth with the Primitive Church than with that of Rome as she is now Constituted nothing being more certainly known than that Liturgies are of most Ancient standing so nothing is more highly expedient for the due management of the publick Worship of God than the use of a Liturgy And indeed instead of Expedient I might say Necessary it being impossible to secure the performance of publick Worship with that solemnity and gravity that becomes it in a Church where its Ministers are wholly left free to the Exercise of Extemporary invention But the handling of this Argument is the business of another new Discourse to which I refer the Reader I shall therefore conclude it with a citation out of Calvins Epistle Ad Protectorem Angliae saith he As to a Form of Prayers and Ecclesiastical Rites I do very much approve of the publishing of a fixed one from which it may not be Lawful for the Pastors to depart in the exercise of their Function Thereby to provide against the simplicity and unskilfulness of some and that the consent of all the Churches with each other may more certainly appear And lastly to put a barr to the skipping Levity of others who Affect certain innovations And therefore as he proceeds Statum esse Catechismum oportet Statam Sacramentorum Administrationem publicam item precum Formulam there ought to be an Established Catechism an Office for the Administration of the Sacraments Establisht and also a Publick Form of Prayers And he accordingly composed a Liturgy to be used by the Ministers in Geneva on Sundays and Holydays And the Exiles that resided at Geneva in the days of Queen Mary did by his advice draw up a Liturgy which was Printed in the English Tongue in the year 1556. Thirdly As to a Liturgy so contrived as that of our Church is what hath been said of the vast distance between our Church and that of Rome herein is sufficient to shew that there can be no warrantable pretence for Separation from our Church upon the account of the Symbolizing that is between these two Churches in this particular But we will perticularly consider those instances of agreement between ours and the Roman Service which are most offensive to our Brethren they are especially these four 1. Our many short Prayers which some have too lighly called short Cuts and Shreddings and rather Wishes than Prayers But there needs no other reply hereunto than that our Learned Hooker gives viz. That St. Augustin saith Epist 121. That the Brethren in Aegypt are reported to have many Prayers but every of them very short as if they were Darts thrown out with a kind of sudden quickness lest that Vigilant and erect attention of mind which in Prayer is very necessary should be Wasted and dulled through Continuance if their Prayers were few and long But that which St. Austin alloweth they Condemn c. He might as well have said What that good Father Commendeth nay his words imply no small commendation And I fear not to appeal to all Pious Souls who without prejudice joyn with us in our Publick Prayers whether they find the shortness of many of them an hindrance or help to their Devotion I don't question but that such will readily acknowledge that they find it an help And therefore in my weak judgment our Symbolizing with the Church of Rome in this particular is Symbolizing with her in that which is highly commendable as 't is so also in that wherein she Symbolizeth with very Ancient Churches 2. Another instance is The Peoples bearing a part with the Minister in Divine Service But Mr. Baxter hath said enough in his Christian Directory on Q. 83. not only to vindicate the Lawfulness but the Fitness and Expediency also of Symbolizing herein with the Church of Rome Saith he 1. The Scripture no where forbids it 2. If the People may do this in the Psalms in Metre there can be no reason given but they may Lawfully do it in Prose 3. The Primitive Christians were so full of Zeal and Love of Christ that they would have taken it for an injury or quenching of the Spirit to have been wholly restrained from bearing a part in the Praises of the Church 4. The use of the Tongue keeps awake the Mind and stirs up Gods graces in his Servants 5. It was the decay of Zeal in the People that first shut out the Responses while they kept up the Ancient Zeal they were inclined to take their part vocally in the Worship Though I were under no obligation of brevity I should add nothing more of mine own about this matter 3. Another instance of this Nature is the taking of some of the Collects out of the Mass-Book But to this I give this I hope as satisfactory as short Answer viz. That these Prayers are either good or bad if they are bad ones they may not be used though they were not in the Mass-Book and upon that account the use of them would be Unlawful not upon the account of our Symbolizing in them with the Roman Church But if they are all good ones as they are very good then from what hath been said 't is Evident that this Symbolizing cannot make them bad and 't is a hard case that we should not be allowed the use of whatsoever is good in their Service Our Brethren will allow of reading the same Scriptures that they do and why then should they disallow of using what perfectly agreeth with Scripture because they use it Our departure from them was designed to be a Reformation not a total Destruction and Extirpation 4. The last instance is The appointing of Lessons out of the Apocryphal Books But herein we Symbolize with the Primitive Church rather than with this of Rome For as hath been shewed out of the 6. Article of our Church they are not appointed to be read as Canonical Scripture and we perfectly agree with
the Primitive Church in reading them for Example of Life and instruction of Manners but not for the Establishing of any Doctrine Which in that Article is shewed from St. Hierom to have been the Practice of that Church And besides they are not now appointed to be ordinarily on Sundays read in Our Churches These I take to be the chief of those instances of our Churches Symbolizing with that of Rome in the Composure of the Liturgy that Our Dissenters are offended at And as for their other Objections of this kind they are as easily answered And I most sincerely profess that 't is not to me imaginable that any thing better than Extreme prejudice can make any Man a Separatist from Our Communion upon such accounts as these As also that I cannot understand how any devout and pious Souls that come to our Publick Prayers without prejudice can find themselves in the least tempted not to joyn in them heartily with the Congregation Absolute perfection is not to be expected in any thing of a human make but if all would read Our Liturgy with that Candour they use in reading the Books of those they have a good opinion of as I am sure they could think nothing intolerable therein so am I as sure they would freely acknowledge it to be exceedingly well adapted to the design of it viz. the exciting of Devotion and that good temper of mind that is necessary to Our Worshipping of God in Spirit and in Truth I am certain the experience of very many as excellent Christians as this Age can boast of do bear me witness that this is no lavish commendation of Our Prayers Dr. Tayler that blessed Martyr gave this Testimony to Our Liturgy There was set Acts and Monuments p. 1696. forth by the most Innocent King Edward for whom God be Praised everlastingly the whole Church-Service with great deliberation and advice of the best Learned Men in the Realm and Authorised by the whole Parliament and received and Publisht gladly by the whole Realm which Book was never reformed but once and yet by that one Reformation it was as fully perfected according to the Rules of Our Christian Religion in every behalf that no Christian Conscience could be Offended with any thing therein contained I mean of that Book Reformed What then would he have thought of it had he lived to see it twice more Reformed as it hath been since Lastly I proceed to the fore-named Rites and Ceremonies of Our Church in which Our Symbolizing with Popery is so much Condemned and made a pretence for Separation But before I come to particulars I will observe in the general that the distance Our Church keeps from that of Rome in the imposition of Ceremonies is infinitely greater than her Agreement therein with her For as those imposed by our Church as hath been already said are exceeding few not the hundredth part scarcely of those imposed by the Roman Church so doth not our Church impose them as the other doth on the Consciences of her Members as things of necessity as parts of Religion or meritorious Services as hath been proved out of the Articles Now then 1. As to the Surplice our Church requires not the wearing of this Garment as an Holy Vestment like the Priestly Garments under the Old Law but meerly for the sake of Order and Uniformity whereas in the Church of Rome a Surplice may not be worn till 't is hallowed in a solemn manner by the Bishop or some one by his Allowance as may be seen in the Missal with divers Prayers that it may defend him who wears it from the Assaults of the Devil the Prayers being accompanied with a number of Crossings and in fine the Surplice besprinkled with Holy Water in the Name of the Blessed Trinity But I say in our Church 't is used only as a Garment of distinction no more holiness is placed in it than in the Hoods worn over it meerly for distinction of degrees And the White is preferred before any other Colour because it was a very antient Custom in the Primitive Church for the Ministers to Officiate in White Garments Beza saith of the Surplice These linnen Garments Contra Westphalum vol. 1. p. 255. we do not so stick at that we would have the progress of the Word of God hindred in the least for them And we might shew that Mr. Calvin much blamed contending with Authority about the wearing this Garment Particularly in his Epistle to Bullinger And since all the Popish abuse of this Garment is perfectly removed I know not why all Ministers should not be of their mind and much less can I imagine why those who are not obliged to wear it should be affrighted from our Churches by the meer sight of so Innocent a thing 2. As to the Cross in Baptism Our Church holds so little Conformity with the Papists herein that in no one thing of an Indifferent nature can our Symbolizing with them be less scandalous Dr. Burges in his defence of Dr. Morton Sheweth that we hold no Conformity with the Papists in the use thereof either in the P. 416. c. time when or place where or manner how or end whereto The Minister with us as he there sheweth may not Cross Himself or the People or Font Water Communion-Table or Cups or the Bread and Wine or any other of Gods Ordinances All which in Popery the Priest is bound to do for their Consecration or blessing of himself or them as without which nothing is Consecrated The Child to be Baptized with us may not be Crossed before Baptism on the Forehead Breast or any part which in Popery the Priest must do to drive away the Devil and make the Efficacy of that Sacrament more easy and strong as they teach After Baptism the Minister may not with us Cross the Children with Oyl or Chrism or without on the Crown of the Head as in Popery is required to give them their full Christendom lest they should die before Confirmation Yea at Confirmation the Minister is not to make the sign of the Cross on the Forehead with Chrism or without which is enjoyned in Popery as an Essential part of the Sacrament as they call it of Confirmation Nay as he proceeds if the Child be in danger of present death and not like to live to make profession of Christ Crucified the Minister is directed not to use the sign of the Cross that all may know that we hold it not to be either Operative upon the Child or at all necessary to the Efficacy of the Lord's Sacrament but do onely retain it according to the first and best intention as an outward badg of the Constant profession of Christ Crucified And whereas 't is said in the 30 Canon that by this lawful Ceremony and honorable badg this Child is dedicated to the service of Christ the Doctor declareth that he hath good warrant to assure those who are offended at that Explication
that the word dedicated doth there import no more than declared by that Ceremony to be dedicated viz. by the foregoing Baptism like as the Priest is said to have cleansed the Leper whom he onely declareth to be clean Lev. 14. 11. And 't is manifest from the account given of the imposing of this Ceremony in that Canon that this Phrase cannot otherwise be understood I shall not need to add any thing more about this Ceremony after I have said that our Church retains it not in imitation of the Church of Rome but of the Primitive Christians they thereby to use the Words of the foresaid Canon making an outward profession even to the astonishment of the Jews that they were not ashamed to acknowledge him for their Lord and Saviour who died for them upon the Cross c. And as it follows this use of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism was held in the Primitive Church as well by the Greeks as the Latins with one consent and great applause c. I conclude with Beza's judgment of the Lawfulness of Resp ad Baldw. p. 324. this Ceremony Saith he I know many too have retained the use of the Sign of the Cross the Adoration of the Cross being taken away Let them as is meet use their own Liberty But in our Church not onely the Adoration of the Cross but likewise all Superstition in the use of it is perfectly abolished How then can it be thought such a Symbolizing with the Church of Rome as may warrant Separation from our Communion 3. As to the Ceremony of Kneeling at the Communion If our Churches Declaration at the end of the Communion-Service will not vindicate her from an Unlawful Symbolizing with Rome herein I have nothing to say in her defence The declaration is this Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lords Supper that the Communicants should receive the same Kneeling which order is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers and for the avoiding of such Prophanation and disorder in the Holy Communion as might otherwise ensue yet lest the same Kneeling should by any Persons either out of Ignorance and Infirmity or out of Malice and Obstinacy be misconstrued and depraved It is here declared that thereby no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or unto any Corporal-Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very Natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians And the Natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one We see that our Church doth here not only declare that no Adoration is in this Gesture intended either to the Elements or to Christ's Corporal Presence under the Species of Bread and Wine but also that as such a Pretence is absurd and contradictions so the adoring of the Sacramental Bread and Wine would be Idolatry to be abhorred by all faithful Christians So that as nothing is in it self more indifferent than this Gesture in receiving the Holy Communion there being not one Word said of the Gesture in our Saviours Institution of this Sacrament either before his Death to his Disciples or after his Ascension to St. Paul who hath delivered to us what he received of the Lord about this matter as he said that is all that he had received and as Christ hath Consequently lest the particular Gesture to the determination of the Church a Gesture being in the general necessary so this Circumstance of Symbolizing with the Church of Rome herein cannot make Our Churches requiring Kneeling to be Unlawful and much less our Obedience to the Church in using this Gesture seeing all the Idolatry and Superstition too wherewith the Church of Rome hath abused it is perfectly removed and 't is required by our Church meerly as a decent Reverend Gesture 4. As to the Ring in Marriage The Church of Rome as is to be seen in the Office of Matrimony juxta usum Ecclesiae Sarisburiensis abuseth it most notoriously There you have it first blessed with two Prayers in the former of which God is beseeched to send his blessing on this Ring that she who shall wear it may be Armed with the Power of Heavenly defence and it may be beneficial to her to Eternal life through Christ our Lord. And in the latter the Priest Crossing himself Prayeth that God would bless this Ring which we in thy Holy Name bless that whosoever shall wear it may abide in his Peace c. Next Holy Water is sprinkled upon the Ring And lastly the Bridegroom puts it upon the Brides Thumb the Bridegroom saying In the Name of the Father Then upon her second Finger saying And of the Son Then on the third saying And of the Holy Ghost Then on the fourth saying Amen And there he leaves it And there is expressed a special Mystery in leaving it upon that Finger But there is used nothing of this impious or Superstitious fooling about the Ring in our Office of Marriage All the doings about it are the Bridegrooms putting it on the fourth Finger he saying after the Minister With this Ring I thee Wed and the mentioning of it in the Prayer following as a Token and Pledg of the Vow and Covenant made between the Married Persons So that 't is so far from being used as a Sacramental sign among us that it no otherwise differs from a meer civil Ceremony than as 't is a Token and Pledg of a Covenant made between the Parties in the most Solemn manner viz. as in the presence of God And in truth this is such a Symbolizing with the Church of Rome as I should be ashamed to bestow two Words about but that so many of our Brethren have been pleased to take offence at it Lastly As to our Observation of certain Holy days All I shall say about it is 1. That there is no Comparison between the number of our Holy-days and the Popish ones 2. Our few are purged from all the Superstitious and wicked Solemnizations of the Popish ones 3. We observe scarcely any besides such as wherein we have the Primitive Church for our Example Excepting those which are enjoyned upon the account of Deliverances and Calamities in which our own Nation is peculiarly concerned 4. An observation of them void of Superstitious conceits about them and onely as our Church directeth can have no other than a very good Effect upon our Hearts and lives If we could say as St. Austin did of the Christians in his time viz. By Festival Solemnities and set days we dedicate and sanctify to God the memory of his Benefits lest unthankful forgetfulness of
absolve by commission from God more than declaratively I mean I know no one that maketh the Priest's Absolution to be other in Effect than declarative though it signifies more than if pronounced by a Layman Nor your Fourth That the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ is in the Elements of Bread and Wine really Our Church-Catechism saith that The Body and Bloud of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithfull in the Lord's Supper And I know no Divine of ours that explaineth this otherwise than thus That Believers feed on the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Lord's Supper as truly and really as they do on the Elements but not after a corporal and carnal manner but after a spiritual viz. by applying to themselves the Benefits of Christ's death by faith And I presume you will neither assert this to be Popish Doctrine nor deny that 't is true Doctrine Nor do I know any one of our Divines that holds your Fifth Proposition for it may not be called a Doctrine viz. That our Conformable Congregations are no better than Conventicles where the Minister reads not the Communion Service at the Altar Which you assert to be tantamount to the allowing of Prayers in an Vnknown Tongue because in multitudes of Congregations the People cannot hear a line from him I say I know of no Divine of our Church that ever asserted that such Congregations as the forementioned are no better than Conventicles There was indeed lately a foolish Book published to Prove them Conventicles but it is strongly conjectured that this Book was written by a certain Layman And what Church he is of I cannot say nor is it a pins matter to know But I may as much suspect him to be a Protestant Dissenter as a Popish upon the score of that his Position it being nothing of kin to the allowing of Prayers in an Vnknown tongue For as there is not One of your Multitudes of Congregations wherein the People cannot hear a line from him that reads at the Communion Table except you mean wherein every one of the People cannot for I doubt not the Major part can in all where the Minister hath a voice to be well heard from the Pulpit so all that is read is known before to those who are not Strangers to our Prayers or at least they may have Books to enable them to go along with the Minister whether they can or cannot hear distinctly one sentence from him Nor do I know any one of our Divines that hath ever taught your 6th Doctrine That whole Christ is under each Element which you intimate is the onely foundation on which the Sacrilegious Romish Practice stands But if I could believe that Doctrine to be true I should notwithstanding judge it an intolerable thing to refuse the Cup to the Laity against the express Institution of our Lord. Nor know I any Divine of ou Church guilty of the 7th particular of your Charge viz. That there are those who interpret the Ten Commandments so as that he who will ever be saved must do a great many works of supererogation And if I did know any one that so interpreted the Commandments as to make any one such work necessary to Salvation I would not call him a Papist for it but an Ignoramus who understands not the word Supererogation Nor know I any one that teacheth Original Sin thereby understanding Corruption of Nature to be rather our Misfortune than our Fault which is your 8th Doctrine Nor consequently that Concupiscence is no sin which is your 9th Nor your 10th That man hath a power in his own will to chuse and doe what is spiritually good i. e. without the Assistence of Divine Grace And with this Assistence I hope you Dissenters do all hold it Nor know I any one of our Divines who teacheth That we are not accounted righteous before God or Justified onely for the Merits of Christ that is that there is any other Meritorious cause of our Justification besides the Active and Passive obedience of Christ Nor your 11th That we are not Justified by Faith alone Understanding by Faith not a dead but a living Faith that purefies the heart and works by love Nor your 12th That good works must go before justification and are not the fruits of Faith but Faith it self For I know no one of our Church that asserts more than this that a sincere Resolution to obey all God's Commandments must in order of nature go before Justification Nor your 13th That there is no Eternal Predestination of persons to life and the means tending thereunto I know of none of our Church that have ever taught this Doctrine as you have expressed it nor any worse than this That Eternal Predestination to life is not Irrespective or Absolute which no Article of our Church saith it is And Abundance of you Dissenters hold this Doctrine as well as Church of England men And thus have I gone over all the Doctrines contradictory to the 39 Articles taught by your Ecclesia Loquens yours I say for she is not ours and I declare again that I know of no Divine of our Church that teacheth or holdeth such Doctrines If you know any as one would think you do very many I pray name them You say we spare any names in these cases but be you entreated not to spare them But if you won't be prevailed with we shall very shrewdly guess at the reason Sir to deal freely with you I cannot but wonder at your adventuring into the World this other Celeusma since the Author of the former had so ill success and must needs have repented him heartily of that Undertaking All that have consideratively read his Answerer I am confident are convinced that after a Great Cry Little Wooll appeared or rather none at all Nor can such be ignorant what foul play was used to make our Divines of the Church of England broach Heresie And I doubt not but you your self have blushed at it if you have ever read the Parallela imparia sive Specimen fidei Celeusmaticae Could you catch us thus dealing with the Books of your Authors as ours have been dealt with by that Author and some others that might be named we should at another kind of rate have been exposed than they have been But Sir for God's sake let us make as much Conscience of vile Calumny than which there is not a more express Transgression of the Law of God nor of the very Light of Nature as of Obedience to Authority in such things as no Divine Law can be produced against and nothing but strained and far-fetcht Consequences And for God's sake also let us at length be perswaded to have so great a concern for our common Religion as to give over exposing it by such unchristian doings to the Scorn and Derision of our Common Enemy But I cannot take my leave of this heavy Charge of yours till I have asked you what you inferr
hath consequently left the particular Gesture to the Determination of the Church a Gesture being in the general necessary Your answer is Our Saviour bad his Disciples Baptize but saith nothing of Water nor from what Fountain or River hath he therefore left it to the Churches determination that Ministers shall Baptize onely with Rose-water or Water fetched from the River Truly Sir a smile is the best Reply that is due to this But do you in sober sadness then think that nothing is left by Christ to the Churches Determination neither place nor time nor any other Circumstance If this be not wild Fanaticism there is no such thing in nature and I know you 'll acknowledge it But if the Church may determine the place of publick worship and the times of day when to meet because our Lord hath not determined such particulars why may not the Church determine particular Gestures when they are not by him determined And can you think Sir that it is well done after this manner to Ridicule the Churche's Power No I know you cannot think so and therefore this was an hasty Slip from your Pen which you will not upon Second thoughts justifie You say at the Bottom of this page That you do not think what our Author mentions pag. 50. of the Ring in Marriage worth the speaking to Because Dissenters generally believe the Ring a Civil Pledg c. I wish they universally thought so and if they do not as time was when you know they did not I know not why you should add that How it comes into our debate you cannot tell Next you spend the best part of two pages upon our Holy-days which is our Author's last instance of Rites which Dissenters are offended with upon the account of our Symbolizing in them with the Church of Rome And 1. You say That it is God's Prerogative alone to make a day Holy i. e. such as it shall be sinfull for any to labour in But do you think that God 's Vicegerents have not power given them to set apart days to a holy use And in any other sense we do not think that any day is capable of being made Holy 'T is manifest from what follows that you do not think so And if you do not can you think that our Governours have no power to forbid ordinary Labour upon those days which they have so set apart And if they have this power can you think it lawfull to disobey those laws of theirs that prohibit working on those days And if this be not lawfull then I fear 't is Sinfull 2. You say That God's Revelation of his Will for solemn Praises upon the Receipt of Signal Mercies or solemn Prayers in times of great Distress justifieth Magistrates or Churches in setting apart in such Cases Days for Praise and Prayers Then I hope the Magistrates or the Church have power to make a day Holy and Consequently they may forbid opening of Shops and Ordinary labour on such a day And therefore 't is sinfull to disobey them herein 3. You say That all such days ought to be intirely spent in Religious Exercises But notwithstanding you are so dogmatical in this thing I am Confident upon second thoughts you 'll acknowledge you were too rash For you cannot really think what you assert with such Confidence except you can find in your heart to reprove Ringing of Bells and innocent Recreations after Sermon on the Fifth of November as Profanations of that Holy-day And I hope we may make bold to call that day a Holy-day it being so according to your own Concession in the foregoing particular 4. You say That to spend an hour of such a Day in Prayer and all the rest in Idleness Drinking Revelling Gaming c. is not to keep a Holy but a Licentious Day No body doubts this But are you obliged by our Church so to spend Her Holy-days And if you are not but may keep them as strictly as you please what a strange objection is this against the lawfulness of observing them 5. You say That there is no need of keeping any such days in Commemoration of the Birth Death Resurrection or Ascension of Christ because God hath appointed fifty two every year for that purpose I answer if you mean by no need that there is no absolute necessity of the Churches setting apart days for the Commemoration of Christ 's Birth Death c. we will perhaps grant it but what then Doth it thence follow that the well observing such days doth not tend to our Edification to the more building us up in our holy Faith and encrease in Holiness you dare not say or think so But I say farther that the well observing them is of admirable use And nothing would tend more to our Growth in all the Christian Vertues than besides the general Meditation on the Birth Death Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord every Lord's day to set days apart for the particular Meditation on Each of these Grand Mysteries of our Religion There being in each of them more than enough to employ a whole day in admiring thoughts of it and in praises to God for it and in making Applications of it to our Spiritual Advantage And therefore I am certain you would spend your pains to far better purpose if instead of prejudicing Peoples minds against the observance of such days you would Excite them like the good Fathers of the Primitive Church to the well observing and making the best improvement of them The generality God knows of Professors of Christianity are too too carelesly and irreligiously disposed of themselves to need to be disswaded from the using of any helps to their being made more devout and better People And where there is one among us that is apt to be too superstitiously inclined I fear there are some hundreds who are more enclined to the other Extreme that of profaneness But our Author hath sufficiently shewed that the Popish Superstitions are perfectly removed by our Church from the Observation of Holy-days And no man that observes them as our Church directeth can have the least temptation from the Observance of them to be superstitious 6. You say That to keep a day Holy to any Saint is to make an Idol of that Saint And do you think our Church in her Festivals designs keeping Days holy to Saints if you do not think so why are you thus impertinent But if you do then you declare that she makes Idols of Saints And if so why did you pag. 17th declare it as your belief that the Church of England cannot be justly charged with Idolatry But I think that the making an Idol of a Saint is idolatry 7. You say That to keep a Day of Thanksgiving for blessing the world with such a Saint is what God hath no where prescribed what neither the Jews nor Christians in the first times ever did So that it seems you are not so ignorant as you now seemed to make your self
but do know why many of our Festivals receive their names from certain Saints And why may we not on certain Days meet together to praise God for blessing the world with such Saints as have been next to our Blessed Lord the most Glorious instruments of good to the world and at the same time hear those Chapters read wherein their worthy deeds are recorded and together with other Prayers put in one for grace to follow those blessed Examples of a holy Life of both active and passive Obedience which they have through the Divine grace left behind them What Sin is there in all this Nay why should not this highly become us and be of singular advantage to us You give two reasons why this is unlawfull 1. Because God hath no where prescribed it But must we be at this time of day told that nothing is lawfull relating to the Worship of God but what is expresly commanded when the Idleness and Folly of that Doctrine hath been over and over exposed as it hath been But 2dly you say That this is that which the Jews nor Christians in the first times never did But if you mean by the First times the times of the Apostles 't is more than you can prove that the Martyrdom of St. Stephen was never solemnly commemorated by the Christians in their time And I presume you would not have had the Martyrdoms of the Apostles commemorated before they were Martyred what if this be not recorded is it therefore a certain Argument that it never was You find not I think the Martyrdom of any one of the Apostles recorded in holy Scripture except St. James's But if you mean by the first times the Primitive times I perceive you never read or have forgotten The Epistle of the Church of Smyrna concerning Policarp's Martyrdom But I hope it needs not to be proved to you that the Catholique Church observed Martyrum Natalitia the Days whereon they were crowned with Martyrdom even from the Second Century But where do you find it prescribed in God's word or recorded that it was practised in the Apostles times for to be sure you mean those by the First times to praise God for the good Examples of Holy men among other great Blessings is it therefore unlawfull so to doe as well as to doe it upon Set Days You will not assert so absurd a thing In short Sir think not that we need either Precepts or Examples to justifie our doing of that which the very Light of Nature and Right Reason do plainly declare to us to be though not a necessary duty yet highly becoming us and praise-worthy And we are certain that it is dictated thereby to be highly becoming us to commemorate at Annual Selected times the unspeakable Goodness of God to us in giving us such Shining Lights as the Holy Apostles c. and to meditate upon Christ glorified in them who with admirable courage first preached and propagated his Gospel in the World and with admirable Patience for the sake thereof indured the greatest of Miseries and Calamities and at last Sealed it with their Blood 8. You say But if Devout persons will set apart Days you might have said too will observe Days set apart by the Church to give God thanks for any signal mercies among which I think every Apostle is a most signal one or to put up Prayers for any people in distress provided they do not mock God in giving him an holy hour instead of an holy day and spend the rest of the day in Idleness Gaming Drinking c. And can you think that any of our Devout people do not abhor such practices as much as you Dissenters will never blame or condemn them for it I hoped you would have said they will join with us since Authority requires it 9. You say Finally Dissenters will never separate from the Church of England for the true keeping of a day holy to God c. Yes surely they will if it be a Saint's day at least as one would think by what you have said But you add that they will separate from the Looseness and commonly practised Profanation of it and so do thousands of those that are no Dissenters I hope or such as were onely so in the Pope's Kalendar as St. George c. Now you would Sir again feign your self more ignorant than you are for no doubt you know as well as we that St. George his day is no Church of England Holy-day And for all your c. you cannot but know too that Our Church hath no Festival-days called by any Saints names but such as all Christians own for the Greatest of Saints except those Innocents who had the honour to suffer for Christ's sake before they were of age to know him We have indeed a Fast-day occasioned by the Horrid Murther of King Charles the Martyr whom we deservedly honour as a Great Saint But I never heard that this Saint stands in the Pope's Kalendar and I 'll warrant you never shall We should be glad to hear that He stands in yours however we hope He will never be blotted out of ours And now having done with our Author you spend a good part of your five last Pages in such discourse as is so far from tending to the composing of our Differences and healing our wide and most dangerous Breaches that it hath the most apparent tendency to the making them irreparable beyond all Remedy And 't is enough to convince all sober people that the cause of those that separate is desperate to observe what strange principles are taken up of late in the defence of Separation even such as the Old Non-conformists would have thought very wild ones serving no better purpose than the Unhinging of all And those Sir which you here lay down so dogmatically not offering any proof of them you shall find most shamefully baffled by the Dean of St. Pauls in his forementioned excellent Book For my part I am too much tryred with Scribbling thus long to take into consideration this close of your Book farther than reflecting upon two or three passages though I am not at all obliged to take notice of those neither as a Defender of our Author And indeed to deal like a plain-hearted Friend with you it was but the other day before I could be perswaded to think it needfull to Reply at all You say pag. 31. That Separation in these three Cases is Lawfull if not Necessary Your First case is When such errours are in the Constitution of a Church as if they had been known before ought to have hindered Vnion with it But you do not tell us what Errours those are Would you have your Readers take it for granted that there are such Errours in the Constitution of the Church of England But we may guess at one of those Errours in our Constitution from that which you say pag. 30. viz. That Governing Churches must have proper Officers which cannot be unless elected by
prejudicial to mens Souls and contributed unspeakably more to the impurity both of mens hearts and lives than the impure Ordinances you so complain of And therefore all good and pious Church of England men cannot but say How happy should we not onely think our selves but indeed be would our Brethren but leave disputing with such mighty concern about little things and things that are perfectly harmless and innocent Would make no more Sins than God and their Blessed Saviour have made Would be as fearfull of culpably Disobeying Authority as of culpably Obeying it Would be as thankfull that they are in no worse Circumstances as they are full of Complaints that they are in no better Would take as much pains to satisfie themselves how far they may lawfully hold Communion with our Church as how far they may lawfully Separate from it Would be as willing to read those Books that are written in the defence of the things enjoined by our Church as to read those which are written in opposition to them Would as impartially consider the vast distance between our Church and that of Rome as thus dwell upon the most inconsiderable Agreement that is between them which our Author hath convincingly to any unprejudiced person proved to be no justifiable pretence for Separation And if we would well digest those excellent words of the Apostle Rom. 14. 17 18. The Kingdom of God is not meat or drink but righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Ghost For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men And if we would follow after the things that make for v. 19. peace and things wherein one may edifie another And lastly if we would at length be perswaded to Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and Eph. 4. 31 32. clamour and evil speaking against one another be put away from us with all malice And to be Kind and affectionate one to another notwithstanding the Difference of Apprehensions tender hearted forgiving one another even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us I say if we could once be brought to this temper we should be unspeakably more happy than those things you express so passionate a desire of could possibly make us And without this blessed temper we shall be miserable wretches though there were no Agreement in any one Rite between Rome and us and though our Ordinances were as pure as 't is your wish to have them Nor will our bidding the greatest defiance to the Antichrist in the Roman Chair one whit avail us while the Spiritual Antichrist which is the worse of the two continues possessed of his Seat in our Hearts And so Sir I heartily bid you Farewell ERRATA Page 19. Lin. 12. read in their greatest p. 27. l. 30. dele p. 32. l. 1. read is so contrived FINIS Books sold by R. Horne T. Basset R. Chiswell B. Tooke Brabazon Aylmer W. Rogers and F. Gardiner 1. A Persuasive 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 unlawfull to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus 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 Lawfull to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions 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. 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 for Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 14. The Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England considered 15. A Persuasive to Frequent Communion in the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper 16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to the weak Brethren 17. The Case of Infant-Baptism in five Questions c. 18. The Charge of Scandal and giving Offence by Conformity Refelled and Reflected back upon Separation c. 19. A Defence of the Resolution of this Case viz. Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawfull to hold Communion with the Church of England In Answer to a Book Intituled A Modest Examination of that Resolution THE CASE OF Infant-Baptism In Five QUESTIONS I. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism II. Whether Infants are excluded from Baptism by Christ III. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptised IV. Whether it be the Duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism V. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with Believers who were Baptized in their Infancy LONDON Printed by T. Hodgkin for Tho. Basset at the George in Fleet-Street Benj. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1685. THE CASE OF Infant-Baptism The Previous Discourse THE better to prepare the mind of my Reader for what I shall say in this Discourse about Infant-Baptism I think it requisite to premise a short Introduction First Concerning the Original And Secondly Concerning the Nature of the Jewish Church Thirdly Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it and the Persons that were capable of Initiation And Lastly Concerning the alteration of it from the Mosaic into the Christian Oeconomy or to express my self more plainly in the * * * Heb. 2. 5 6. Scripture-phrase concerning the alteration of the House of Moses into the House of Christ As for the Original of the Jewish Church it is to be referred unto Abraham the †††Rom. 4. 11. Father of the Faithful purely considered as a Church But if it be considered as a Common-wealth or as a Church under such a Political Regulation then it is to be referred unto Moses who was called even by Heathen Writers the * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 7. Legislator of the Jews These two Considerations of the Jewish Church purely as a Church and as a Common-wealth or as a Church under such a mixture with a Common-wealth ought heedfully to be distinguished 1. Because there is ground for such a distinction in the nature
Indian Church in Coulan and Crangonor and about Maliapur Planted by St. Thomas both which practice Infant-Baptism tho in all probability they never had it one from the other or both from any third Church It is very incredible that God should suffer all Churches in all the Parts of the World to fall into one and the same Practice which certainly is a Church-destroying Practice if the Apostles and their Assistants did not Baptize Infants but only grown Persons One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into such an harmless Practise as that of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Sacrament as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God should let them all not preserving any one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a Practice which destroys the Being of the Church is at least a thousand times more Incredible than that the Apostles without a Prohibition from Christ to the contrary and no such Prohibition is Extant in the New Testament should Baptize Infants according to the Practise of the Jewish Church But in the fourth Place what Account can rationally be given why the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision should not have been much more offended if the Apostles had refused to initiate Children under the New Testament which had always been initiated under the Old Is it reasonable to believe that those who complained so much meerly because the Apostles Taught the Jews which lived among the Gentiles that they should not Circumcise their Children would not have complained much more if they had not Baptized them but quite excluded them like the Infants of Unbelievers from Admission into the Church It must in all probability have galled them very much to see their Children Treated like the Children of meer Strangers and to have had no visible difference put between the Infants of those that Embraced and those that resisted the Faith For they always looked upon Pagan Children as Common and Unclean but upon their own as Separate and Holy and St. Paul makes the same distinction between them 1 Cor. 7. 14. But had the Apostles taught that the Children of those who were in Covenant with God had no more right unto Baptismal Initiation than the Children of Idolaters who were out of the Covenant they had Taught a Doctrine which certainly would have offended them more than all they Preached against Circumcision and keeping the Ceremonial Law Wherefore since we never read among their many Complaints upon the alteration of the Jews Customs that they complained of their Childrens not being initiated by Baptism it is a greater presumption that the Apostles and their Assistants Baptized their Children then the want of an Express Example of Infant-Baptism in the New Testament is that they Baptized them not Having now shewed first that Infants are not uncapable of Baptism Secondly That they are not excluded from it by Christ but that on the contrary we have very convincing Reasons to presume that the Baptism of Infants as well as of grown Persons was intended by him Let us now proceed to make a fair and impartial enquiry upon the Third Question Quest III. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized And this considering what I have said upon the former Questions must be determined in the Negative Whether we consider Infant-Baptism only as a thing lawful and allowable or as a Thing highly requisite or necessary to be done I know very well that my Adversaries in this Controversie will be apt to deny this distinction betwixt Lawful and Necessary as acknowledging nothing in Religious matters to be lawful but what is necessary according to that common Principle imbibed by all sorts of Dissenters That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is commanded by some Precept or directed unto by some special Example in the Word of God Hence they ordinarily say Can you shew us any Precept or Example for Baptizing Infants in the New Testament if you can we will grant that the appointment of it is lawful but if you cannot we disallow it as unlawful nay as an Usurpation and will never be of a Church which so Usurpeth it over the Consciences of Men. This way of Arguing is plausible to the Vulgar and would be very good were there such a Principle in the Scripture as this from whence they Argue viz. That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is warranted by Precept or Example in the Word of God Wherefore as the Men with whom I have to deal in this Controversie are generally Persons of good natural Understandings So in the First place I beg them to consider that there is no such Rule in the Scripture as this and therefore those who teach it for a Scripture-rule or Precept do themselves impose upon Mens Consciences as bad as Papists and like them and the Pharisees of old teach the Traditions of Men for Doctrines of God On the contrary the Gospel tells us that Sin is the Transgression of a Law and that where there is no Law there is no Transgression and according to this plain and intelligible Rule though the Baptizing of Infants were not commanded in the Scriptures yet the Church would have Power and Authority to appoint it upon supposition that it is not forbid Secondly I desire them to consider the absurdity of this pretended Scripture-rule in that it takes away the distinction betwixt barely lawful or allowable and necessary and leaves no Negative mean betwixt necessary and sinful but makes things forbidden and things not commanded to be the very same Thirdly I desire them to consider what a slavish Principle this is and how inconsistent it is with the free and manly nature of the Christian Religion under which we should be in a far more servile and Childish condition then the Jews were under the Law which as it is evident from the Feast of Purim and from the Institution of Baptism among the Jews allowed private Persons to practice and the Church to appoint things of a Religious nature which God had not commanded to be done Lastly I entreat them to consider how utterly impracticable this pretended Principle is as might be proved from the contrary Practice of all those who advance it against Ecclesiastical Authority and particularly from their own Practice in Baptizing grown Persons who were bred up from Infants in the Christian Religion and in admitting Women to the Lords-Supper who were not admitted to the Passover nor Paschal-cup of Blessing without any Precept or President for so doing in the Word of God This little well considered is enough to obviate all Objections against my first Assertion viz. That it is not lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized upon supposition that Infant-Baptism is barely lawful and
show that this Ceremony hath nothing owing in it to that which we call Popery because it was establisht in the Church so long before that Mystery of Iniquity had its being And tho through the Antiquity of it if warrantable at the first it becomes so much the more Venerable and might justly lay some restraints upon the modest Christian in his Censures against it yet doth not this put it beyond the degree of an indifferent Ceremony without which the Sacrament of Baptism is declar'd by our Church as complete and perfected Did the Antiquity of its practice make it necessary it might prove as necessary almost in every Action of Life as well as Baptism because as I have noted before Tertullian tells us it was once so used No it only gives us the warrant of doing it because practis'd in the most incorrupt Ages of Christianity and the necessity of keeping it still in use lyes not so much in that it was the Custom of some Church or Constitution of some Council in former days as that it is the Custom of our Church now and the appointment of our Governours But Secondly It is further considerable that the use of the Cross as it is ordain'd and appointed in our Church hath not the least affinity with the use of it as it is in the Romish Rituals 1. We do by no means allow any visible Images of a Crucifi'd Jesus so as to have the least concern in any part of our Worship There is no mention of them in our Rubrick there is hardly in any writings of the Doctors of our Church one passage to be found of that latitude that Mr. Baxter amongst his calmest thoughts hath Christian direct Ecclesiastical Cases qu. 113. p. 875. Ibid. p. 876. not adventur'd to say that is that a Crucifix well befiteth the Imagination and Mind of a Believer nay further that it is not unlawful to make an Image and gives the instance particularly of a Crucifix to be the objectum vel medium excitans ad cultum Dei an Object or medium of our consideration exciting our minds to Worship God The sense of our Church is truly exprest in this matter by Mr. Hooker who tells us that between the Cross which Superstition honoureth as Christ and that Ceremony of the Cross which serveth only for a sign of Remembrance there is as plain and great a difference as between those brazen Images which Solomon made to bear up the Cistern of the Temple and that which the Israelites in the Wilderness did adore Eccles Pol. l. 5. p. 348. Or between those Altars which Josias destroy'd because they were Instruments of meer Idolatry and that which the tribe of Reuben with others erected near the River Jordan to far other purposes Ours is no other than a meer transient or as others express it aerial figure of the Cross which comes not within the widest notion of an Image or if it were so is so very transient that it abides not so long as to be capable of becoming any Object or medium of Worship any further than any words we use in Worship may do 2. The use even of this transient sign bears no kind of Conformity or likeness with the use of it in the Church of Rome They use it upon numberless occasions beside Baptism If they enter in or go out of Church or a Friends House when they say their Prayers or are present at any Religious Solemnity If startled at Thunder taken in a storm frighted with a spectrum or are surpriz'd with any kind of Fear or Astonishment they bless themselves still and take refuge under this sign of the Cross which they will make upon themselves If they visit the sick administer the extreme Unction or indeed perform any of their other Sacraments so call'd by them the transient sign of the Cross must begin and close all But then in the Sacrament of Baptism the use of this sign is so exceedingly different as well in the nauseous Repetitions of it before and afterward in the Forehead in the Mouth and upon the Brest as also the Monstrous Significations according to the divers places whereon it is imprest that nothing can be more Beside that it is not us'd at the time nor with the form of words that we use it with So that there is not the least agreement betwixt us and them either in the use or in the significancy of this Ceremony and so no reasonable offence can be taken at it upon any Symbolizing of ours with the Church of Rome in it All this might be further confirm'd by giving a particular view of the Roman Ritual as to what respects their office for Baptism but this is done by a better hand upon another See Case about the Ch. of Engl. Symbol with the Ch. of Rome p. 10. 11. 12. Case of this kind Lastly Although it cannot be deny'd but the Church of Rome hath greatly abus'd this Ceremony to very ill purposes of Superstition yet doth not this make it unlawful to continue the reform'd use of it amongst us that have professedly separated from the Corruptions of that Church It is a Principle that some of our Brethren imagine they are very well fortify'd in from some instances in the Gld Testament viz. that whatever hath been abus'd to Idolatrous or Superstitious purposes should eo nomine be abolisht But perhaps they would find this much more a question than they have hitherto presum'd if they would consider that if this Principle were true it would go nigh to throw a scorn upon all or most so the Reformations that have been made from the Church of Rome for they do not seem to have govern'd themselves by this Rule Some of them in their publick Confessions declaring that they might lawfully retain such Rites or Ceremonies as are of advantage to Faith the Worship of God or Peace and Order in the Church though they had Confess Bohem. Art 15. been introduc'd by any Synod or Bishop or Pope or any other It is a Principle that would render Christianity impracticable because no Circumstance no Instrument no Ministry in Worship but may have been some way or other abus'd and desecrated by Pagan or Romish Idolatries It would make every Garment of what shape or of what colour soever unfit for use in our Religious services for not only the White but the Red the Green and the Black have been us'd even for the significancy of their respective colours by the Gentile or the Romanist to very superstitious purposes in divine Worship It would condemn the Practice of those very Persons that would pretend this to be their Principle For they have few of them carry'd it to that height as to abolish Churches Fonts or other Vtensils but have thought fit to make use of them in the same services of Religion as formerly though not in those modes by which they were abus'd to Superstition and Idolatry All which they should not do if either
there are many expressions in the Fathers that may seem more distant from that sense we are willing to take them in and we should be very loth to yield them up as the Authors or Defenders of some dangerous Opinions in the Church of Rome because some phrases of theirs in the rigour of them may be prest to a kind of meaning that may seem to favour them There is a necessary allowance to be given to some schemes of Speech and meaning of words or else we should be in a perpetual wrangle and dispute about them However there doth not need even this sort of Charity for this word dedicated upon which such weight of Argument hath been lay'd For as in all Authors it hath been variously used so is it properly enough apply'd in this Canon for the design for which it was used and the declaration is plain and intelligible enough to the candid and unprejudic'd mind The word dedication as they use it may properly enough signifie a Confirmation of our first dedication to God in Baptism and a declaration of what the Church thinks of the Person Baptiz'd what she doth expect from him and what Obligations he lieth under by his Baptism And as a medium of this declaration the sign of the Cross is made being as expressive as so many words what the Infant by his Baptism was design'd to the Apostle himself having comprehended the whole of Christianity under that term and denomination of the Cross Now that our Church did design this declarative dedication by the use of this sign and none other is very evident in that though the word dedicated is used in the explication of their sense in that Canon yet do they there refer to the words used in the Book of Common Prayer By comparing therefore the Canon and the Office for Baptism together the Canon directing to the Office and the Rubrick belonging to the Office directing to the Canon we may observe what stress is to be lai'd upon the word Dedicated that is how far they were from desâ—gning the same sort of immediate dedication that is made by Baptism and yet how by the Cross we may properly enough be said to be dedicated too As to the Sacrament of Baptism we are all agreed that by that we are dedicated to the Service of Christ and the Profession of his Gospel Now the Church of England both in the Rubrick and Canon do affirm and own that the Baptism is complete and the Child made a Member of Christ's Church before the Sign of the Cross is made use of or if upon occasion it should not be made use of at all It is expresly said We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ's Flock and upon that do sign it with the Cross So that the Child is declar'd within the Congregation of Christ's Flock before the Sign of the Cross be apply'd to it Beside that in the Office for private Baptism where the Sign of the Cross is to be omitted we are directed not to doubt but that the Child so Baptiz'd is lawfully and sufficiently Baptiz'd the Canon confirming it that the Infant Baptiz'd is by vertue of Baptism before it be sign'd with the sign of the Cross receiv'd into the Congregation of Christ's Flock as a perfect Member thereof and not by any power ascribed unto the sign of the Cross If therefore we be dedicated in Baptism and the Baptism acknowledg'd complete and perfect before or without the use of this Sign the Church cannot be suppos'd ordaining so needless a repetition as this would be to dedicate in Baptism then to dedicate by the Cross again but that which they express by dedicated by the Cross must be something very distinct from that dedication which is in Baptism that is the one is a sign of dedication the other is the dedication it self as distinct the one from the other as the Sign of Admission is from Admission it self and a signification of a priviledg is from an Instituted means of Grace It seems a thing decent and seasonable enough that when it hath pleas'd God to receive a person into his favour and given him the Seal of it that the Church should give him the right hand of fellowship solemnly declaring and testifying he is receiv'd into her Communion by giving him the Badg of our Common Religion So that this is plainly no other than a Declaration the Church makes of what the Person Baptiz'd is admitted to what engagement he lies under when capable of making a visible Profession It expresseth what hath been done in Baptism which is indeed not a sign of Dedication but Dedication it self as I have already said as also the Cross is not dedication itself but a sign of it Which Declaration is therefore made in the name of the Church in the plural number We Receive this Child into the Congregation of Christs Flock and do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. Whereas in Baptism the Minister as the immediate agent of Christ by whom he is Authoriz'd and Commissionated in the singular number as in his Name pronounceth it I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost As to what is urg'd above that nothing can be more immediate than in the present dedicating act to use the sign and express the dedicating signification they must know it might have been more immediate either to have plac'd this Sign before Baptism or to have appointed some such form of words in applying it as the Church of Rome doth or if it had been pretended to be of divine Institution and necessary to make the Sacrament of Baptism compleat and perfect And thus I presume I have run through the main debate betwixt us and our dissenting brethren as to this Case Wherein I hope I have neither misrepresented their objections nor let pass any material strength in them nor in replying to them used any one provoking or offensive word Would they but read and weigh this and the other Discourses of this kind with the same calmness of temper and study of mutual agreement wherewith I dare say they have been written I cannot think there would abide upon their Spirits so vehement a desire for the removal of these things but it might rather issue in a peaceable and happy closure in the use of what hath been made appear was so innocently taken up and might with so much advantage under the encouragement of serious and good Men be still retained I do not indeed think any of our Church so fond of this Ceremony particularly but that if the laying it aside might turn to as great Edification in the Church as the serious use of it might be emprov'd to our Governours would easily enough condescend to such an overture Instances of this have been given in our Age and our Presbyterian-Brethren in their Address to the Bishops do own that divers Reverend Bishops and Doctors in a Paper in Print Except
Pap. of the Presbyt p. 31. before these unhappy Wars began yielded to the laying aside of the Cross and making many material alterations c. They have not those apprehensions of these things that they are unalterable and obligatory upon all Christians as such or that the laying them aside for the bringing about some greater good would be offensive to God I would to God our Brethren at least would but meet us thus far as to throw off those Superstitious prejudices they may have conceiv'd against them and think that as the laying them aside would not be displeasing to God so the use of them cannot be so neither Forgive the expression of Superstitious prejudices For I must suppose we put too high a value upon indifferent rites when we think that either the use or rejection of them will recommend us to God unless there be other accidents of obedience or disobedience to Authority that will alter the Case Otherwise the Imagination we may have of pleasing or displeasing God in any of these things must look like what the Greeks express Superstition by I mean a causeless dread of God It is a passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Calvin that it is equally Superstitious to condemn things indifferent as unholy and to command them as if they were holy It is infinitely In 2 Praecept a nobler Conquest over our selves a proper regaining that Christian liberty to which we are redeemed and would be of far happier consequence to the Church of God to possess our selves with such notions of God and of indifferent things as to believe we cannot recommend our selves to him in the least measure by scrupling what he hath interpos'd no Command to make them either Obligatory or Unlawful FINIS A Catalogue of the several Cases c. 1. A Persuasive 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 unlawfull to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus 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 Lawfull to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions 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 taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 15. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament Stated and Resolved The second Part. 16. The Case of â—ay-Communion with the Church of England considered 17. A Persuasive to frequent Communion c. 18. A Defence of the Resolution of this Case viz. Whether the Church of England 's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawfull to hold Communion with the Church of England In Answer to a Book intituled A Modest Examination of that Resolution 19. The Case of compelling Men to the Holy Sacrament 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 c. 6. A Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints 7. A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church maintained in the Church of England A PERSUASIVE TO Frequent Communion IN THE HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE Lords Supper LONDON Printed by M. Flesher for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill and William Rogers at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet 1684. A PERSUASIVE TO FREQUENT COMMUNION MY design in this Argument is from the Consideration of the Nature of this Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and of the perpetual Use of it to the end of the World to awaken Men to a sense of their Duty and the great Obligation which lies upon them to the more frequent receiving of it And there is the greater need to make men sensible of their Duty in this particular because in this last Age by the unwary Discourses of some concerning the Nature of this Sacrament and the danger of receiving it unworthily such doubts and fears have been raised in the minds of Men as utterly to deter many and in a great measure to discourage almost the generality of Christians from the use of it to the great prejudice and danger of Mens Souls and the visible abatement of Piety by the gross neglect of so excellent a means of our growth and improvement in it and to the mighty scandal of our Religion by the general disuse and contempt of so plain and solemn an Institution of our blessed Lord and Saviour Therefore I shall take occasion as briefly and clearly as I can to treat of these four Points First Of the Perpetuity of this Institution this the Apostle signifies when he saith that by eating this 1 Cor. 11. 26. Bread and drinking this Cup we do shew the Lord's Death till he come Secondly Of the Obligation that lies upon all Christians to a frequent observance of this Institution this is signified in that Expression of the Apostle As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup which Expression considered and compared together with the practice of the Primitive Church does imply an Obligation upon Christians to the frequent receiving of this Sacrament Thirdly I shall endeavour to satisfie the Objections and Scruples which have been raised in the Minds of Men and particularly of many devout and sincere Christians to their great discouragement from their receiving this Sacrament at least so frequently as they ought which Objections are chiefly grounded upon what the Apostle says Wherefore whosoever
a Table for us and set before us the bread of life we will not come and feed upon it with joy and thankfulness THE END A Catalogue of Books and Sermons Writ by the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury Viz. 1 SErmons Preached upon several Occasions in two Volumes in Octavo 2. The Rule of Faith c. 3. A Sermon Preached on the 5th of November 1678. at St. Margarets Westminster before the Honourable House of Commons upon St. Luke 9. 55 56. But he turned and rebuked them and said ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of For the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them 4. A Sermon Preached at the first General Meeting of the Gentlemen and others in and near London who were Born within the County of York Upon John 13. 34 35. A new Commandment I give unto you that ye love one another c. 5. A Sermon Preached before the King at White-hall April 4th 1679 upon 1 John 4. 1. Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God c. 6. A Sermon Preached before the King at White-hall April 2d 1680 upon Joshua 24. 15. If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord chuse ye this day whom ye will serve 7. The Lawfulness and Obligation of Oaths A Sermon Preached at the Assizes held at Kingstone upon Thames July 21. 1681 upon Heb. 6. 16. And an Oath for Confirmation is to them an end of all Strife 8. Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Mr. Thomas Gouge November 4th 1681 with an account of his Life upon Luke 20. 37 38. Now that the Dead are raised even Moses shewed at the bush c. 9. A Persuasive to Frequent Communion in the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Preached in two Sermons upon 1 Cor. 11. 26 27 28. For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come c. 10. A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benjamin Whichcot D. D. and Minister of St. Lawrence Jewry London May 24th 1683 upon 2 Cor. v. 6. Wherefore we are always confident knowing that whilst we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. Sold by Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill and William Rogers at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet Advertisement of Books THE Works of the Learned Dr. Isaac Barrow late Master of Trinity College in Cambridge Published by the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury in two Volumes in Folio The First containing Thirty two Sermons preached upon several Occasions an Exposition of the Lord's Prayer and the Decalogue a Learned Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy a Discourse concerning the Unity of the Church also some Account of the Life of the Authour with Alphabetical Tables The Second Volume containing Sermons and Expositions upon all the Apostles Creed with an Alphabetical Table and to which may be also added the Life of the Authour Sermons preached upon several Occasions by the Right Reverend Father in God John Wilkins D. D. and late Lord Bishop of Chester Never printed before Printed for William Rogers at the Sun against S. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet THE CASE OF KNEELING AT THE Holy Sacrament STATED RESOLVED PART I. Wherein these QUERIES are considered I. Whether Kneeling at the Sacrament be contrary to any express Command of Christ obliging to the observance of a different Gesture II. Whether Kneeling be not a Deviation from that example which our Lord set us at the first Institution III. Whether Kneeling be not Unsutable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper as being no Table-Gesture The Second EDITION LONDON Printed by J. C. and Freeman Collins for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. THE CASE Whether it be Lawful to receive the Holy Sacrament Kneeling THe Resolution of the most weighty and considerable Doubts which may in point of Conscience arise about this matter and do at present much influence the minds and practices of many honest and well-meaning Dissenters will depend upon the Resolution of these following Queries 1. Whether Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Holy Sacrament according to the Law of the Land be not contrary to some express Law of Christ obliging to the observance of a different Posture 2. Whether Kneeling be not a deviation from that example which our Lord set us at the first Institution 3. Whether Kneeling be not altogether Unsutable and Repugnant to the nature of the Sacrament as being no Table-Gesture 4. Whether Kneeling Commanded in the Church of England be not contrary to the general Practice of the Church of Christ in the first and purest Ages 5. Whether it be Unlawful for us to receive Kneeling because this Gesture was first introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abused by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes 1. Whether Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Sacrament in Obedience to the Law of the Land be not a Transgression against some express Law of Christ which obliges us to observe another Gesture For satisfaction in this Point our onely recourse must be to the Holy Scriptures contained in the Books of the New Testament wherein the whole body of Divine Laws delivered and enacted by our Blessed Saviour are collected and recorded by the Holy Ghost And if there be any Command there extant concerning the use of any particular Gesture in the Act of Receiving the Lord's Supper we shall upon a diligent enquiry be sure to find it But before I give in my Answer I readily grant thus much by way of Preface Whatsoever is enjoyned and appointed by God to be prepetually used by all Christians throughout all Ages without any alteration that can never be nullified or altered by any Earthly Power or Authority whatsoever When once the Supreme Lawgiver and Governour of the World hath any ways signified and declared that such and such positive Laws shall be perpetually and unalterably observed then those Laws though in their own nature and with respect to the subject matter of them they be changeable must remain in full Force and can admit of no Change from the Laws of Men. It would be a piece of intolerable Pride and the most daring Presumption for any Earthly Prince any Council any Societie of Men whatsoever to oppose the known Will of the Soveraign Lord of Heaven and Earth In this Case nothing can take off the Force and Obligation of such Laws but the same Divine Authoritie which first passed them into Laws Thus much being granted and premised I return this Answer to the Question proposed God hath been so far from establishing the unalterable use of any particular Gesture in the Act of Receiving that among all the Sacred Records of his Will there is not any express Command to determine our practice one way or other We are left perfectly at our
us to observe onely a Feast-Gesture for the due Celebration of it 3. Kneeling is very Comely and Agreeable to the Nature of the Lord's Supper though no Table-Gesture Which I hope will be made evident to every Honest and Unbyassed Mind which Impartially seeks after Truth by these following considerations 1. Kneeling is allowed on all Hands to be a very fit and sutable Gesture for Prayer and Praise and very apt to express our Reverence Humility and Gratitude by and Consequently very fit to be used at the Holy Sacrament and agreeable to its Nature This will appear if we reflect upon what hath been delivered concerning the Nature and Ends of the Lord's Supper For at the Sacrament we express that by Actions as I hinted before which at other times we do by Words and the Lord's Supper is a Solemn Rite of Christian Worship which implyes Prayer and Praise It includes all the Parts of Prayer By partaking of the Signs of his Body broken and Blood shed for our Sins we do Commemorate Represent and Shew forth to God the Father the Sacrifice which his Dearly Beloved Son made upon the Cross we Feast upon the memorials of the great Sin-Offering And in so doing we make an open Confession and Acknowledgment of our Guilt and Unworthiness to God and we plead with him in the Vertue of his Sons Blood which was shed for us for the Pardon and Remission of all our Sins We further Humbly entreat him to be Propitious and Favourable to us and to bestow upon us all those benefits which our Lord purchased with his most Precious Blood We Intercede with him too at the Communion for the whole Church that all our Fellow-Christians and true Members of his Body may Receive Remission of their Sins and all other benefits of his Passion And as Eating and Drinking at his Table is a Visible and Powerful Prayer in the sight of God so it is a Visible Act of Praise and Thanksgiving whereby we let our Heavenly Father see that we retain a deep and lively sense of his Unexpressible Love in sending his onely begotten Son into the World to Dye for us that we might Live through him And that which enlivens our Faith and emboldens our hopes of finding Favour and Acceptance at his Hands at this time above others is this viz. Our Prayers and Praises are not onely put up in the Name of Christ but presented and as it were Writ in his Blood and offered to God over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice All this our Actions signify and speak when we Eat the Consecrated Bread and Drink the Cup of Blessing at the Lord's Table If therefore these things be True and I think no body who understands what he doth when he partakes of the Lord's Supper will gainsay it then Kneeling must be judged as fitting and convenient to be used at such a time when we signify our desires and affections by external Rites and Ceremonies of Gods appointment as when we do it by Words that is when we say our Prayers 2. Our Dissenting Brethren and all good Christians will Grant that our Blessed Saviour ought to be Worshipt and Adored by all worthy Communicants inwardly in their Hearts and Souls when they Receive the Tokens and Pledges of his tender and exceeding great Love in laying down his Life for the Sins of the whole World And if so then whatsoever is very apt and meet to express the inward esteem and veneration of our minds by can't be thought Unsutable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper Because that is a Religious Feast Instituted in Honour of our Lord and is a Solemn Act of Christian Worship performed to our Crucified Saviour Our meeting together at thâ—s Holy Feast in Obedience to his Commands to Commemorate his Death and tell of all his wondrous Works perpetuate the fame of our great Benefactor as much as in us lyes throughout all Ages is an External mark of the Honour and respect we bear towards him in our minds and is properly speaking that which we call Publick Worship Since to Bow our Knees then is allowed to be a proper mode of publick Worship and an External Sign of Reverence why should an adoring posture be thought Unmeet and Unsutable to the Sacrament which in its nature imports Worship and Adoration 3. No good Christian of what Party or Perswasion soever will deny but that to lift our Hands and Eyes to Heaven and to Employ our Tongues in Uttering the Praises of our Blessed Redeemer even in the Act of Receiving is very agreeable to the Nature of the Sacrament why then should Kneeling be thought Unsutable which is no more but onely Glorifying God and our Blessed Saviour with another part of our Body Why should the Gesture be scrupled at more than the Voice or the Bowing of my Knees be esteemed incongruous and unfitting any more than moving my Tongue or raising my Hands and Eyes to Heaven Especially if we consider that the high degree of Honour and Glory to which our Lord is advanced in the Heavens by God the Father as the reward of his Humble and Submissive Obedience here on Earth challenges from us all manner of Respect and Reverence both of Soul and Body He Humbled himself and became Obedient unto Death even the Death of the Cross Wherefore God hath highly exalted him and given him a Name which is above every Name that at the Name of Jesus Phil. 2. 8 9 10 11. every Knee should Bow c. and that every Tongue should Confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father 4. The Holy Sacrament was Instituted in Remembrance of our Blessed Saviours Death and Sufferings And therefore I request all our Dissenting Brethren to Consult one place of Scripture concerning our Saviours Bodily Gesture or Deportment in the Heat and Extremity of his Passion wherein he presented himself before his Father in his Agony and Bloody Sweat in the Garden Being in an Agony he offered up this Prayer to his Father If thou be willing remove this Cup from Luke 22. 42 44. me Nevertheless not my Will but thine be done But after what manner or in what Gesture of Body did his perplexed Soul utter these earnest Supplications Why Kneeling or fixing his Knees upon the Earth Now though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 41. we may remember and meditate on our Saviours Sufferings in the Garden when his Soul was so exceeding Sorrowful when he was reduced to such a Weak and low Estate as to stand in need of Comfort and Support from an Angel though I say this may be done Sitting Ver. 43. yet sure no Sober and Considering Mind will say that to Celebrate the Memory of these Sufferings with bended Knees as his were on the Earth is an Improper and Unsutable behaviour to be used at the Sacrament where our proper work is to Commemorate the Death and Sufferings of our Saviour and particularly these among
the rest 5. The Sacrament was Instituted to be a means of Receiving the benefits of his Death and Passion and a Pledge to assure us thereof If we do but Consider what invaluable Blessings we expect to receive by our worthy partaking of the Consecrated Bread and Wine at the Table of our Lord such as the forgiveness of all our Sins the plentiful Communications of his Grace and Spirit and a Right and Title to Eternal Life we can't think Kneeling an Unmeet and Unbecoming Gesture in the Act of Receiving the Outward Signs and Pledges of this Inward and Invisible Grace If a Graceful Hearty sense of Gods infinite mercy through the Merits and Sufferings of his Son and of the manifold rich benefits which our Lord hath purchased with his most Precious Blood if a mind deeply Humbled under the sense of our own Guilt and Unworthiness to Receive any mercy at all from the Hands of our Creator and Soveraign Lord whom we have by numberless and Heinous Crimes so highly provok't and incensed against us If such an inward temper and disposition of Soul becomes us at this Holy Feast which I think no Man will deny then surely the most Humble and reverential Gesture of our Body will become us too Why should not a Submissive Lowly deportment of Body sute with this Solemnity as well as a Humble Lowly Mind And this is that which our Church Declares See the Declaration at the end of the Communion-Service in the Book of Common Prayer to be the end and design of her Injunction in requiring all her Communicants to Kneel viz. for a Signification of an Humble and Grateful acknowledgment of the Benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers 6. They who urge Sitting as necessary and the only agreeable Gesture to the Nature of the Lord's Supper because it 's the Common Table-Gesture must make the Sacrament either the same with an Ordinary and Common Feast or onely like it in some respects and unlike it in others as every like is not the same To make it the same is directly to unhallow and prophane the Ordinance it is to Eat and Drink unworthily not discerning 1 Cor 11 29. the Lord's Body as St. Paul charges the Corinthians For it 's clear from that Discourse of the Apostle that their not distinguishing between the Lord's Supper and a Common Meal or Supper was their great fault which he sharply reproves them for as that which render'd them unworthy Communicants Which will appear to any that will take the pains to examine Vid. 20 21 22. and compare them with 33 34. the matter If the Lord's Supper be not the same with an Ordinary Feast how comes it to pass that the same Gesture must be necessarily used at both If they differ in their whole nature then that which is agreeable to the nature of the one must be Repugnant to the nature of the other If they agree in some respects only and differ in others but not in their whole nature then Kneeling may be as proper and sutable in some respects as Sitting is in others For though the Civil Custom of a Table-Gesture be allowed to strike some stroke in a Spiritual Ordinance where there is Eating and Drinking yet other respects in the Lord's Supper have a stroke too and that the greatest if we duly weigh and consider the ends of its Institution which I have already described And if upon such Examination it appear that Kneeling or an adoring Gesture holds fitting Correspondence with the principal respects and ends of the Lord's Supper then the Banquetting Gesture though Lawful and Sutable in some less respects must and ought in reason to give place at least it ought not to be Insisted on as the onely agreeable and necessary Gesture without which we cannot worthily Communicate Whatsoever Gesture answers the principal respects and ends of this Holy Feast best Sutes to its Nature and consequently ought in reason to be best esteemed of and sway more with us than any other if we will wholly guide our selves by the Nature of the thing And that Kneeling or an adoring posture doth best answer the Nature and Ends of the Sacrament I think is clear and undenyable if the account I have given of the Sacrament be good I am sure howsoever that there is no reason why Sitting should justle out Kneeling as Sinful and Unsutable to the Nature of this Holy Ordinance Let Mr. Cartwright a Learned Advocate Annot. in Luk. 22. 14. for Nonconformists be heard in this matter and determine it A Man must not saith he refuse to Receive the Sacrament Kneeling when he cannot have it otherwise 4. The Primitive Church and Ancient Fathers had no such notion of the necessity of a Table-Gesture as is maintained and urged by Dissenters at present which will appear from those Names and Titles they gave to this Holy Feast And First I observe from the Learned Mr. Mede that for the space of 200 years after Christ there is not the least mention made of the name Table in any of their Writings They call the place on which Can. Apost 2. St. Ignat. in 3 Epistles and Philad Trallen Eph. Justin Mart. Irenaeus the Consecrated Elements stood the Altar and the Eucharist An Oblation and a Sacrifice because at this Solemnity they did Commemorate and Represent that Sacrifice which Christ once offered on the Cross for the Sins of the World Now the Eucharist conceived under the Notion of a Sacrifice and the place on which it was offered of an Altar doth not necessarily require a Table-Gesture there is not that strict Connexion and Relation between an Altar or a Sacrifice and a Common Table-Gesture as is conceived to be between a Feast or Table and a Feast or Table-Gesture 2. The Primitive Christians and Ancient Fathers of the Church did not entertain any such conceits about the necessity of a Common Table-Gesture as our Dissenters do As that Kneeling or an adoring Gesture is against Dispute against Kneeling Arg. 1. p. 6. p. 26 27 28 31 37. the Dignity of Guests and Debarrs us the Priviledges and Prerogatives of the Lord's Table such as Social admittance and Social Entertainment that it is against the purpose of Christ whose intention was to Dignify us by Setting us at his Table and much more of this Nature and to this effect Now the Primitive Church little dreamt of this Dignity and Priviledge of Communicants of this purpose of Christ and of this kind of Fellowship and Familiarity with him as the Phrases they use and the August and Venerable Titles they give the Holy Sacrament even when they consider it as a Feast and Supper and speak of the Table on which it was Celebrated plainly demonstrate They call it as St. Paul doth the Lord's Supper the Kingly Royal and most Divine Supper which Import Deference Distance and Respect on our Parts the Dreadful Sacrifice the Venerable and Vnbloody Sacrifice the Wonderful and
Terrible Mysteries the Royal Spiritual Holy Formidable Tremendous Table The Bread and Wine after Consecration are in their Language called the most Mysterious most Holy Food and Nutriment the most Holy things and the place where the Table stood the most Holy part of the Temple in allusion to that of the Jewish Temple to which the Jews paid the highest Reverence The Bread in particular they Stiled the Bread of God the Cup the Holy and Mysterious the Royal and Dreadful Cup. The Primitive Bishops and Holy Fathers advise the Communicants to Reverence these Holy Mysteries to come with Fear and Trembling with Sorrow and Shame with silence and downcast Eyes to keep their Joy within and to approach the Table with all the Signs and Expressions of Reverence and Humility imaginable How can these Speeches consist with that Social Familiar carriage at the Sacrament which the Patrons of the Table-Gesture contend for as the Priviledge of Guests and the Prerogative of the Lord's Table For a conclusion of this whole matter I desire our Nonconforming Brethren seriously to consider two or three Questions which I shall propound to them and endeavour to frame an Honest and Impartial Answer as in the Presence of God who searches our Hearts and tryeth our Reins They are not of a Captious Nature started to puzzle the Cause or for the sake of Contention God knows my Heart I have no such designs through this whole Discourse but they are plain and easie to be resolved almost at first sight Qu. I. Whether of two or three Gestures which are all agreeable to the Nature of the Sacrament any one is not to be chosen and used by us when we can't use another without breaking the Peace and Vnity of that Church wherein we live Qu. II. Whether it can consist with Piety or Prudence to Expose your Selves and Families to Danger and the lash of the Law when nothing is Commanded but what is consistent with the Law of God and agreeable to the Nature of the Sacrament though not to your Phansies and desires Qu. III. Whether we are not as Christians obliged by the Law of God and the example of our Saviour to deny our Selves many things that are otherwise Lawful for us Rom. 15. 2. 3 8. to do and use and are highly pleasing and grateful to us for the Good and Edification of our Neighbour If so How much more when the publick good and welfare of both Church and State depends upon such self-denyal Qu. IV. Whether it be Piously done of you to chuse never to Receive the Sacrament and so deprieve your Selves of the Spiritual Benefit of that Heavenly Feast rather then part with a Civil Circumstance such as a Table-Gesture is It is the Custom of our Country to Sit at Feasts but few men are so mad as to refuse to Eat Standing and go Hungry away when they have no room to Sit down Why should we not be as Prudent at this Spiritual Feast in the Concerns of our Souls as we are in those of our Bodies Put the case we were strictly prohibited by the Law of the Land the use of a Table or a Table-cloth at this Holy Feast and we could not receive with that Convenience as now we may would you end your days in a continual refusal and never receive the Sacrament I don't know how far Passion and Prejudice and the heat of Disputation may blind and transport Men but if they will calmly consider this matter and hearken to Reason they will find nothing to justify the total neglect of this Ordinance by I am very apt to think they will be of my mind for I declare to all the World rather than not Receive at all the Comfortable Sacrament of our Blessed Saviours Body and Blood I will Receive it on a Tomb-stone on the ground in a Church or in a Field if all other things that are Essential to it be rightly observed and performed If any of our Dissenting Brethren shall upon this Question think as I do viz. that there is no absolute necessity of a Table in this case which the Custom of our Country requires at Ordinary Feasts He will also at the same time see there is no absolute necessity of a Table-Gesture and that we may Receive worthily without either the one or the other FINIS BOOKS Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER 1. 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 Englands 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 Anonymus 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 Communions 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. 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 for 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 Weak Brethren 15. The Case of Infant-Baptism in Five Questions c. 16. The Charge of Scandal and giving Offence by Conformity Refelled and Reflected back upon Separation 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. Some Seasonable Reflections on the Discovery of the late Plot being a Sermon preached on that occasion by W. Sherlock D. D. Rector of St. George Buttolph-lane London King David's Deliverance or the Conspiracy of Absolon and Achitophel defeated in a Sermon Preached on the day of Thanksgiving appointed for the Discovery of the late Fanatical Plot. By Thomas Long B. D. one of the
months space was granted to Berengarius to consider in and a Fast appointed to the Cardinals That God would shew by some sign from Heaven who was in the right the Pope or Berengarius It seems the Doctrine of the Popes Bâ—nno Card. in vita Hild. Epis Dunelm Hist Trans p. 135. Infallibility was not known to that Age and that of the Corporal presence much doubted But however thus much we may conclude upon That from the dark and mysterious Writings of those men Paschasius and Amalarius did that monstrous Errour of Transubstantiation spring which afterwards came to be established as an Article of Faith in the Church of Rome As to the time then wherein we are to contain this Discourse it shall be the first 700 years after Christ and to Authors onely that liv'd within that compass I will appeal for evidence in the matter under dispute and surely our Dissenting Brethren will allow that they lived in the first and purest Ages because they were dead before the Doctrines either of Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation were hatcht much less received or establisht in the World If I would take all the advantage that our Adversaries give us I need not confine my self within so narrow a compass For they challenge us to produce one instance for Kneeling before the days of Honorius the Third who lived 1220 or thereabouts and confidently affirm Kneeling was never heard of nor used for 1200 years after Christ I hope therefore they will not complain of foul dealing or that I strain the point since I give away 500 years wherein the pure ancient Catholick Faith touching the Holy Sacrament began to decline and was by various arts and tricks at last foully corrupted Which piece of liberality I need not have exercised but that I design purely to convince not to contend Let us therefore bring this matter under examination and see what the practice of the Church was within the compass of 700 years after Christ or which is all one in the first and purest Ages And what I shall produce out of Antiquity may be conveniently placed under these two general Heads according to the method proposed in the beginning of this Discourse 1 That notwithstanding several Nonconformists well esteemed of for Learning have in their Writings boldly asserted Kneeling to be contrary to all Antiquity it is highly probable the Primitive Christians did Kneel in the act of Receiving as the Custom is in the Church of England 2 It 's certain they used an Adoring posture As to the first I hope I shall be able to make it good by this following Account which I shall give with all possible plainness and sincerity And I declare beforehand to all the World that I will offer nothing for satisfaction to others which I do not think in my Conscience to be true and that I would not use a Fallacy to serve the Cause though I were sure it could never be detected by any of our Separating Brethren In the first place for the first Century or 100 years wherein our Lord and his Apostles lived the Scripture hath left us in the dark and under great uncertainty what the particular Gesture was which they used at the Institution and Celebration of the Holy Sacrament which I think I have sufficiently evinced in my Answers Part 1. p. 17. to the first and second Query In the next place I desire those who urge a common Table-gesture and particularly Sitting which was a usual posture at Meals among those Eastern Nations as well as among us now to observe that Sitting was esteemed a very irreverend Posture to be used in the Worship and Service of God by the Primitive Church of which I shall give a few instances The ancient Loadicean Which met under Pope Sylvester 1. between the Neocaesarian Synod and the first general Council of Nice that is between the years 314 and 325 as some learned men think or Anno Dom. 365. after the first general Nicaene Council as others Synod finding great inconveniencies to arise from the Love-Feasts which were kept at the same time with the Lords Supper prohibited absolutely the said Feasts and the lying upon Couches in the Church as their manner was of Solemnizing those Feasts The words of the Canon are these The Feasts of Charity ought Can. 28. not to be kept in the Lords House or in the Church neither may ye eat or make Couches in the House of God This was afterward forbidden by the Council of Carthage and the Decrees of both these Provincial or National Councils were ratified by the 6th Trullan Council and that under the pain of Excommunication Can. 74. upon which in some time the Custom dwindled to nothing Now the Reasons which induced these holy Bishops and ancient Fathers to prohibit these Feasts of Charity and the use of a discumbing posture upon Beds or Couches in the House of God which was too an ordinary Table-gesture according to the custome of those times were in all probability taken from the Disorder and Irreverence the Animosities and Excess that accompanied these Feasts and which both poor and rich were guilty of They did not distinguish between their spiritual and corporal Food between the Lords Supper and an ordinary Meal they did not discern the Lords Body as St. Paul speaks and I am apt to think that the same abuses which had crept in so early into the Church of Corinth and which St. Paul took notice of and reproved continued and spread till the Church by her Censures and Decrees opposed the growing evil and rooted up the causes of such mischievous effects To these Canons of Councils if we adde the Testimony of particular Bishops who lived in those first Ages and who speak not their own private sence and Opinions but Customes and Usages of the Church in their time we shall plainly discern that Sitting was accounted an irreverent posture in the Worship of God while they were engaged in Prayer or Praise or receiving the Holy Sacrament Justin Martyr who lived in the second Century which immediately Flor. Ann. D. 155. succeeded that of the Apostles seems to hint that the people sate at the Sermon and while the Lessons were reading when he informs us concerning the Christian Assemblies in his Apol. 2. time and the place where he lived After the reading of the Lessons and the exhortatory Sermon of the Bishop we rise up saith he all together and send up our Prayers He doth not indeed signifie what the particular Gesture was which they used at their Prayers but it 's clear enough they did not Sit and they might Kneel for any thing he saith to the contrary For it 's customary among us to sit at the Sermon and during the reading of the Lessons and after they are ended we may be truly said to rise up all together and send up our Prayers But if any one should hence infer that we stood and not kneeled he would conclude
publick Worship of God and all this without the least notice taken by without any complaint or opposition from any particular person either in the then present or succeeding generation 3 The Primitive Church esteemed the Holy Sacrament to be the most solemn part of Christian Worship as that which deservedly challenged from them the utmost pitch of Devotion and the highest degree of Reverence that they could possibly pay and express either with their Souls or Bodies This is clear partly from those Honorary Titles they bestowed upon this Ordinance and adorn'd it with which import the greatest deference and the most awful regard imaginable partly from that tedious See part 1. p. 58. and severe Discipline which she exercised the Catechumens and Penitents with before she admitted them into the Communion of the Faithful and approved of them as fit to partake of the Holy Mysteries To be admitted to the Sacrament so onely as to behold it and to be present at those Prayers which were put up by worthy Communicants over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice was heretofore accounted a high honour and priviledge But to make one at this heavenly Feast and to receive the pledges of our Lords love was esteemed the top and perfection of Christianity and the extremity of honour and happiness that a Christian is capable of in this life Heretofore with shame and reproach be it spoken to our stupidly wicked and degenerate Age to be excluded from the Holy Communion was look'd upon as the greatest curse and punishment that could be inflicted and on the other hand to be a Communicant to have a freedom of access to the Lords Table as the greatest blessing and most ample reward that could be propounded the sum of a Christians hopes the center of all his wishes during his abode here 4. For standing in time of Divine Service both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament there are so many and so clear testimonies extant in pure Antiquity that a man must take a great deal of pains not to see this truth who is never so little conversant in the Records of those times and in such a man it must be height of folly or impudence to deny it The bare asserting of it shall be sufficient because to insist upon the proof of it by an enumeration of particulars would swell this Discourse beyond measure and besides it would be a needless labour since the great Patrons of sitting or the common Table-gesture Gillesp Disp against En. Po. Cer. point 1660. p. 190 191. do frankly own and acknowledge that Standing was a posture generally used by the ancient Church in her religious Assemblies both at their ordinary Prayers and at the Communion-service Howsoever I shall be forced to say something concerning this matter under the following particular 5 Which is this That the Primitive Christians though on the Lords days and for the space of 50 days between Easter and Whitsunday they observed Standing yet at other times used the gesture of Kneeling at their publick Devotions Which will appear from a Decree pass'd in the first general Council assembled at Nice in words to this effect Because there are some Can 20 about the year 325. which Kneel on the Lords day and in the days of Pentecost that is between Easter and Whitsunday it is therefore ordained by this holy Synod that when we pay our Vows unto the Lord in Prayer we observe a Standing gesture to the end that a uniform and agreeable Custom may be maintained or secured through all Churches By which Canon provision was made against Kneeling not as if it were an inconvenient and unbecoming gesture to be used at all in the publick Worship of God but onely as being an irregular and unfit posture to be used at such particular times and occasions as is there specified viz. on the Lords days and the Feast of Pentecost when for any Christian to stand was to cross the general Custom and Practice of the Church at that time For this Council did not you must note introduce and establish any new thing in the Church but onely endeavoured by its authority to keep alive and in credit an ancient Custom which they saw began to be neglected by some Christians And from that clause in the Canon Because there are some which Kneel on the Lords day and in the days of Pentecost c. we may with good reason infer that Kneeling was the posture that was generally used at other times in their religious Assemblies For if Standing had been generally observed by all Churches in time of Divine Service at all other times as well as those mentioned in the Decree what occasion or necessity had there been for such an Injunction whereby all Christians were obliged to do that which they constantly and universally did before There is a passage in the Author of the Questions and Answers in Justin Martyr which will put this matter out of doubt and give us the reason why they altered their posture on the Lords day It is Respons ad quest 115. p. 468. saith he that by this means we may be put in mind both of our Fall by Sin and our Resurrection and Restitution by the Grace of Christ that for six days we pray upon our Knees is in token of our Fall by Sin but that on the Lords day we do not bow the Knee doth symbolically represent our Resurrection c. This he there tells us was a Custom derived from the very times of the Apostles for which he cites Irenaeus in his Book concerning Easter That it was ancient appears from Tertullian who lived in the same Age with Irenaeus and speaks of it as if it had been establish'd An. Dom. 198. by Apostolical Authority or at least by Custom had obtained the force of a Law for these are his words We esteem Die dominico jejunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare Tert. de Cor. mil. c. 3. 206. Col. Agrip. edit 1617. Epiph. exposit Fid. Cathol p. 1105. edit Par. Flor. An. Dom. 390. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Hieronym prolog Comment in Ep. ad Ephes it a great act of wickedness or villany either to Fast or Kneel on the Lords day Which intimates too that Fasting and Kneeling in their publick Worship were both lawful and customary at other times To whose Testimony if we joyn that of another Father who lived some time after the first general Nicene Council we need not produce any more witnesses to clear the matter It is that of Epiphanius in his Exposition of the Catholick Faith where he certifies that the weekly stated Fasts of Wednesday and Friday were diligently kept by the Catholick Church the whole year round excepting the fifty days of Pentecost on which they do not Kneel nor is there any Fast appointed The reason of which Custom was as both St. Jerome and St. Augustin attest because all that space between Easter and Whitsunday was a time of
joy and triumph viz. over Death and the Grave and therefore on these days we neither Fast nor bend our Knees nor incline and bow down our Bodies but with our Lord are lifted up to Heaven We pray standing all that time which is a sign of the Resurrection St. August Ep. 119. ad Jan. c. 15. By which posture that is we signifie our belief of that Article From whence we may conclude that as the Christians of those first Ages did at other times certainly Fast so they did also certainly Kneel at their Prayers in their publick and religious Assemblies 6 Another thing I would have observed in order to my present design is this That the Primitive Christians were wont to receive the Holy Sacrament every day as oft as they came together for publick Worship which Custom as it was introduced Acts 2. 42 46. Acts 20. 7. compared with 1 Cor. 10. 16. and practised by the Apostles themselves according to the judgement of very Learned men and that not without good grounds from the Holy Scripture so it continued a considerable time in the Church even down to St. Austin who flourisht in the beginning Ann. Dom. 410. St. Aug Epist 118. ad Januarium c. 2 3. p. 556. 7. Basil edit a Froben 1541. St. Ambr. cap. ult lib. 5. c. 4. de Sacram. p. 449. Paris St. Hier. adver Jovinian p 37. Paris id in Epist ad Lucinium Baeticum p. 71. edit of the fifth Century and seems clearly to intimate to us in his Writings that it was customary in his days as St. Ambrose and St. Hierome had hinted before him concerning the Churches of Millan and Rome in their times From St. Cyprian we are fully Vid. Dr. Cave Prim. Christ p. 339. St. Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 147. Oxon. edit 1682. Can. 9. Apost Antiochen Concil Can. 2. Basil Ep. 289. ad Caesariam Patriciam To. 3. p. 279. assured that it was so in his days viz. about the year 250. For in his explication of that Petition in the Lords Prayer Give us this day our daily bread he expresly tells us that they did receive the Eucharist every day as the food that nourisht them to Salvation St. Basil Bishop of Caesaria who lived about 370 years after Christ affirms that in his Church they communicated four times a Week on the Lords day Wednesday Friday and Saturday two of which were station-days or set days of Fasting which were punctually observed by the generality of Christians in those times And this I the rather note because in all probability since they did receive the Sacrament on these days they did not alter the Posture of the day but received Kneeling For if Kneeling was adjudged by the Catholick Church an unsutable and improper posture for times of mirth and joy such as the Lords days and those of Pentecost were and if they were thought guilty of a great irregularity who used that posture on those Festivals then we may reasonably conclude that Standing which was the Festival Posture was not used by the Catholick Church on days of Fasting and Humiliation and that they who stood at their publick Devotions on Fasting days were as irregular as they who kneel'd on a Festival And that this was really so may I think be clearly collected from a passage in Tertullian to this purpose Tertull. de Orat c. 3. p. 206. Edit Col. Agrip 1617. We judge it an unlawful and impious thing says he either to Fast or Kneel at our Devotions on the Lords day We rejoyce in the same freedom or immunity from Easter to Whitsontide To be freed and exempted from Fasting and Kneeling not onely on the Lords day but all the days of Pentecost was esteemed a great priviledge and matter of much joy to this Holy Father and the Christians who lived in his days And from hence I infer that at other times when they met together for publick Worship especially on days of Fasting they generally used Kneeling and that at the Lords Supper which was administred every day in the African So St. Cyprian before cited Church whereof Tertullian was a Presbyter For if they had generally stood at all other times of the year in their religious Assemblies as well at their Prayers as at the Lords Supper where is the priviledge and immunity they boasted so much of and rejoyced in viz. that they were freed from Kneeling on such days and at such certain times Not to Fast on the Lords day was a Priviledge because they did Fast on the Week-days and so say I of Standing To Stand on the Lords days and all the time between Easter and Whitsunday could not be thought a special act of favour and the Prerogative of those seasons if Kneeling had not been the ordinary and common Gesture at all other times throughout the year And if Kneeling was the Didoclavius his own argument retorted Si stabant inter orandum viz. Die Dominico toto temporis intervallo inter Pascha Pentecosten non est probabile de geniculis adorasse cum perciperent Eucharistiam sed potius contrarium nempe stetisse Altar Damasc p. 784. Gesture which the Christians did then commonly use at their Prayers on the Week-days then in all probability when they received the Sacrament on those days they received in the ordinary posture The 7th and last particular which I would observe relating to this business is this That the Primitive Christians received the Holy Sacrament Praying The whole Communion Service was performed with Prayer and Praise It was begun with a general Prayer wherein the Minister and the whole Congregation joyntly prayed for the Vniversal Tert. Apol. c. 39. p. 47. St. Aug. Ep. 118. Const Apost l. 2. c. 57. p. 881. St. Chrys Hom. 1. in 2. cap. Epist 1. Tim. Peace and Welfare of the Church for the Tranquillity and the quietness of the World for the Prosperity of the Age for wholesome Weather and fruitful Seasons for Kings and Emperours and all in Authority c. The Elements were sanctified by a solemn Benediction the form whereof is set down by St. Ambrose and De Sacr. lib. 4. c 5. p. 439. See Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity c. 11. p. 347. the whole action was concluded with Prayer and Thanksgiving But that which more particularly affects the matter in hand is that the Minister used a Prayer at the delivery of the Sacrament to each Communicant to which every one at their receiving said Amen The Apostolical Constitutions though in some things much corrupted and adulterated yet in many things are very sound and in this particular seem to express the most Ancient Practice of the Church For there we find this Account The Apostolical Constitutions confessed by all hands to be very Mr. Daillé sets them at the latter end of the 5 Century Const Apost lib. 8. c. 13. p. 483. Ancient though not altogether so much as is pretended in some things give us this
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
to Idolatry But here a few things must be premised to prevent Cavils and Mistakes 1. I take it for granted that indifferent things may be lawfully See the Case of Indifferent Things used in the Worship of God This is supposed in the present Question for otherwise it would be sinful in us to Kneel whether that Gesture had been ever used or abused by Idolaters or no. 2. I grant that the Worship of God is to be preserved pure See Dr. Fal. lib. Eccles p. 443. from all sinful Mixtures and Defilements whatsoever whether of Idolatry or Superstition and that things otherwise indifferent which either in the design of them that use them or in their own present tendency do directly promote or propagate such Corruptions do in that case become things unlawful To follow Idolaters in what they think or do amiss to follow them generally in what they do without other reason than onely the liking we have to the Pattern of their Example which liking doth intimate a more universal approbation than is allowable in these cases I think with the Reverend Mr. Hooker Conformity Hook Ecles Pol. l. 4. p. 165. with Idolaters is evil and blame-worthy in any Christian Church But excepting these Cases it is not sinful or blame-worthy in any Society of Christians to agree with Idolaters in Opinion or Practice and to use the same Rites which they abuse And consequently our Church is not to be blamed or charged with Idolatry for her Agreement with the Church of Rome in using the same Ceremonies unless it can be proved that the Church of England doth abuse the said Ceremonies to sinful ends or that the Ceremonies used and appointed by our Church naturally tend to promote the Corruptions practised in the Church of Rome and were ill designed or that she did not follow the general Rules of Gods Word the Directions of the Holy Ghost in appointing and enjoyning the use of Ceremonies as being godly comely profitable but overlooking all this had an eye purely to the Example of Idolatrous Papists in what they did amiss Now this I am sure can never be made good against our Church who hath sufficiently vindicated her self by the open declarations she hath printed to the World from all accusations of this nature Let but any man consult the Articles of Religion Art 20. Art 34. Canon 18. the Preface to the Book of common-Common-Prayer just after the Act of Vniformity the two excellent Discourses that follow it concening the Service of the Church and Ceremonies and the Reasons she hath publisht at the end of the Communion-service for enjoyning her Communicants to receive Kneeling I say let any man peruse these and he will receive ample satisfaction that our Governours in Church and State in appointing the use of Ceremonies did not steer by the Example of Idolaters nor enjoyn them out of any ill design or to any ill ends but were conducted by the light of Gods Word the Rules of Prudence and Charity the Example of the holy Apostles and the Practice of pure Antiquity These things being premised I proceed to prove this Assertion That it is not sinful to use such Things and Rites as either have been or are notoriously abused to Idolatry Or which is all one That to Kneel in the Act of Receiving according to the custom of the Church of England is not therefore sinful because it hath been and is notoriously abused to Idolatry for these Reasons 1. In general No abuse of any Gesture though it be in the most manifest Idolatry doth render that Gesture simply evil and for ever after unlawful to be used in the Worship of God upon that account For the abuse of a thing supposes the lawful use of it and if any thing otherwise lawful becomes sinful by an abuse of it then it 's plain that it is not in its own nature sinful but by accident and with respect to somewhat else This is clear from Scripture for if Rites and Ceremonies after they have been abused by Idolaters become absolutely evil and unlawful to be used at all then the Jews sinned in offering Sacrifice erecting Altars burning Incense to the God of Heaven bowing down themselves before him wearing a Linnen Garment in the time of Divine Worship and observing other Things and Rites which the Heathens observed in the Worship of their false Gods No say the Dissenters we except all such Rites as were commanded or approved of by God and such are all those fore-mentioned But say I it 's a silly Exception and avails nothing For if the abuse of a thing to Idolatry makes it absolutely sinful and unlawful to be used at all then it 's impossible to destroy that Relation and what hath been once abused must ever remain so that is an infinite power can't undo what hath been done and clear it from ever having been abused And therefore I conclude from the Command and Approbation of God that a bare Conformity with Idolaters in using those Rites in the Worship of the true God which they practice in the Worship of Idols is not simply sinful or formal Idolatry for if it had God had obliged the Children of Israel by his express Command to commit sin and to do what he strictly and severely prohibited in other places In truth such a Position would plainly make God the Author of sin 2. This Position That the Idolatrous abuse of any thing renders the use of it sinful to all that know it is attended with very mischievous consequences and effects First It intrenches greatly upon Christian liberty as dear to our Dissenting Brethren as the Apple of their Eyes and I wonder they are not sensible of it At other times they affirm that no earthly power can rightly restrain the use of those things which God hath left free and indifferent and that those things which otherwise are lawful become sinful when imposed and enjoyned by lawful Authority and yet these very men give that power to Strangers both Heathens and Papists which they take away from their own rightful Princes and lawful Superiours An Idolater may yoke them when a Protestant Prince must not touch them And what more heavy and intolerable Yoke can be clapt on our necks than this That another mans abuse of any thing to Idolatry though in its own nature indifferent and left free by God renders the use of it sinful Whether this be not a violation of Christian Liberty let St. Paul determine who tells us that to the pure all things are pure and affirms it lawful to eat of such things as had been offered to Idols and to eat whatsoever was 1 Cor. 10. 25 27 28 29. sold in the shambles And what reason is there why a Gesture should be more defiled by Idolaters than Meat which they had offered up in Sacrifice to Idols and why should one be sinful and idolatrous to use and not the other Certainly St. Paul would never have granted them
such a priviledge if he judged it idolatrous to use what Idolaters had abused especially considering that he in the same Chapter exhorts them earnestly to flee from Idolatry Vers 14. Secondly This Position subjects the minds of Christians to infinite Scruples and Perplexities and naturally tends to reduce us to such a state and condition in which both the Jews and Gentiles were before the glorious light of the Gospel broke out upon the World that is it tends to beget and propagate a base servile temper and disposition towards God and to fill us with fears tremblings when we are engaged in his Worship and Service Whereas the true and great design of the Gospel is to breed in men a filial cheerful frame of heart the spirit of Love and of a sound or quiet Rom. 8. 15. 2 Tim. 1. 7. mind to give us a free easie comfortable access to God as to our Father and to encourage every good man to a diligent constant frequent attendance upon the duties of his Worship by the pleasure and delight that follows them But now if nothing may be used by us without highly offending God that either hath been or is abused to Idolatry who sees not what trouble and distraction will arise in our minds hereupon when we meet together to worship God It 's well known that most of our Churches were erected by Idolatrous Papists and as much defiled by Idolatry as any Gesture can be they are dedicated to several Saints and Angels whose Images were once set up and adored Our Bells Pews Fonts Desks Church-yards have been consecrated after a superstitious manner many Cups Flagons Dishes Communion-Tables have been given and used by Idolaters What now is to be done If Kneeling at the Sacrament be sinful because it hath been abused by Idolaters notoriously so also it is sinful to use any other Thing or Rite that hath if it be of mans divising as the afore-mentioned Writers limit the Question If Sitting were allowed by Authority we could not come to the publick Churches nor to the Sacrament nor christen our Children for all that if we know the Font and other Utensils of the Church were once abused to Idolatry by Papists We must first make a diligent search and if certain information cannot be had we can't Worship God in publick without panick fears and great disquiet of mind But Thirdly Such a Position as this will destroy all Publick Worship For if nothing must be used which hath been or is abused by Idolaters it will be in the power of Idolaters by ingrossing all the outward marks and signs of that inward veneration and esteem which we owe to God to smother our Devotions so as they shall never appear in the World and by that means frustrate the very end and design of Religious Assemblies And truly this work is already by the strength of this Principle very well effected For Kneeling at Prayers and Standing and Sitting and lifting up the hands and eyes to Heaven and bowing of the body together with Prayer and Praise and Singing have been all notoriously abused to Idolatry and are so at this day I know how it will be replied that they except such things as Object are necessary to be used in the Service of God it 's absolutely necessary that we worship God and do him publick Honour and whatsoever is necessary in order to this may lawfully be used by us without sin though the same gestures and signs of Adoration are used and abused by Idolaters To this I answer That this is cunningly but not honestly and Answ truly said For the Reasons they give to prove that it is sinful to use the same Rites and Ceremonies with Idolaters at any time prove it so at all times and make it for ever so So long as the Reasons hold to make any thing sinful so long it is so If the use or abuse of any thing by Idolaters make it simply evil then it must for ever remain so and no necessity whatsoever can take it off and make it lawful and innocent If such Things and See Gillesp. p. 128. Ceremonies which are or have been abused to Idolatry become sinful in these by respects and for these reasons viz. Because they 1. Reductive 2. Participative put us in mind of Idolatry and preserve the memory of Idols and secondly Because they move us to turn back to Idolatry and sort us with Idolaters then it will be ever sinful for us to use them Quia Monent Quia Movent 134. 149. For these Reasons will hold good in things that are of necessary use in the Church as well as in things that are not necessary that is nothing can hinder and destroy these effects they will ever mind us of and move us to Idolatry And from hence I conclude that this Principle is a very false one and ought to be laid aside For it is attended with this absurdity It obliges us utterly to abolish and forbids the use of all such Rites as have been notoriously abused to Idolatry in some cases for reasons which eternally hold in all So that at last it drives us into such streights that we must sin one way or other For either we must not worship God in publick or we must be guilty of Idolatry Gillesp. c. 3. p. 149. if we do And though of two Evils or Calamities the least is to be chosen yet of two Sins neither is Christian Religion flows from infinite Wisdom and the Laws of God do not cross one another but are even and consistent We are never cast by God under a necessity of sinning of transgressing one Law by the observance of another but thus it must be if we take up and stick to this Principle 3. Our Dissenting Brethren condemn themselves in what they allow and practise by the same Rule by which they condemn Kneeling at the Sacrament and other Rites of our Church For they themselves did use without Scruple such Places and Things and Postures as had been defiled and abused by Idolaters They were wont to be bare-headed in time of Divine Worship at Prayer and at the Sacrament and so do Idolatrous Papists they never affirmed that it was sinful to Kneel at our Prayers both publick and private yet this Gesture the Papists use in their Prayers to the Virgin Mary to the Cross to Saints and Angels They used our Churches Church-yards and Bells and never thought they sinn'd against God by so doing though they knew Direct of the day and place of Worship they had been abused Nay the Directory declares That such places are not subject to any such Pollution by any Superstition formerly used and now laid aside as may render them unlawful and inconvenient Rutherf of Scandal Q. 5 6. Mr. Rutherford saith of Bells grosly abused in time of Popery That it is unreasonable and groundless that thereupon they should be disused Upon which the Reverend Dr. Faulkner hath this judicious
strongly enforc'd upon his Mind or in Prayers which among them are better compos'd and more fervently sent up unto God and in all other parts of Devotion which there are better fram'd and order'd to affect his Soul and make a truly Christian man These two things being explain'd and premis'd the Answer to the Question will be found true if we consider these following Reasons 1. That the Ground upon which the Question stands is false viz. There is not better Edification to be had in the Separate Meetings than in the Communion of the Church of England This will appear if we consider 1. How apt and fit the whole Constitution of the Church of England is to Edifie Mens Souls 2. That this Constitution is well us'd and manag'd by the Pastors of our Church for Edification The first will be manifest by Induction if we consider the several parts of her Constitution reducible to these following Heads 1. Her Creeds or Articles of Faith are those which our Dissenters themselves allow which are full and plain containing all Necessaries and Fundamentals in Religion nothing defective in Vitals or Integrals to make up the Body of a true Christian Church Christ that founded his Church best knew what was absolutely necessary to her being and there is nothing that he hath declar'd to be so but is contain'd in her Creeds Whatever is fundamental for us to know of the Nature of God is to be found there or by easie Consequences deduced from them Would we know what we ought to believe of the Nature of Christ or his Offices the Designs of his coming upon Earth the Constitution of his Reign and Government the Rewards and Punishments of his Laws the Times of Account and Retribution the mighty Miracles and extraordinary Acts of Providence to confirm these we may read them at large in Holy Writ and find wisely summ'd up in our Creeds Whose Articles to help the Memories of Men are short and few and to assist the dulness of their Understandings are manifest and plain they containing no more than what was some way or other either suppos'd before or included in or following from that brief Creed the Character of a true Christian that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God 1 John 4. 15. 5. 5. Whatever is any way reveal'd by God as necessary is an Article of our Faith nothing that is nice and obscure fit onely for dispute and wrangling is brought into our Creed all whose Articles are Primitive and of Divine right none of them purely speculative or curious but plain and useful in order to practice naturally leading to an Holy Life the end of all Religion We love every thing that is truly ancient and Apostolical but we cannot call that an eternal truth which was but yesterday and we are ready to embrace all truth but we cannot call that the High-Priest which is but the Fringe of his Garment We believe all that the early Christians in the first 300 Years thought sufficient for them to know and they were very secure that this would save them And if any truth be disguis'd or defac'd by the iniquity of the descending Ages we are ready to receive it whenever it is made clear and restor'd to its former shape and complexion we casting out obstinacy and perversness out of our Practice as well as niceness out of our Creed That Creed that Christ and his Apostles taught the Saints Martyrs and Confessors the Wise and Good Men in the first and purest days of Christianity believ'd and were secure of Heaven by it and therefore added no more that Faith this Church maintains which will sufficiently and effectually Edifie the Souls of Men. 2. The Necessity she lays upon a Good Life and Works For this is the solemn intention of all Religion our Creed our Prayers our Sacraments and Discipline and all Devotion Her Creed is such that all its Articles so directly or by natural consequence lead unto Virtue and Holiness that no man can firmly believe them but they must ordinarily influence his Manners and better his Conversation and if by virtue of his Creed his Life is not mended he either ignorantly and grosly mistakes their Consequences or is wilfully desperate Our Church publickly declares that without preparatory Virtues no Acts of Devotion however set off with Zeal and Passion are pleasing unto God and if obedience be wanting afterwards are but scene and show Such a Faith she lays down as fundamental to salvation which rests not in the brain and story in magnifying and praising in sighing and repeating but in the production of Mercy Charity and Justice and such excellent Virtues She makes no debates between Faith and Good Works nor argues nicely about the preference nor disputes critically the Mode how joyntly they become the condition of Salvation but plainly determines that without Faith and Good Works no Man shall see God She not onely keeps to a Form of sound Words but to a Conversation of equal Firmness and Solidity Her Festivals are to commemorate the Virtues of Excellent Men and to recommend them as Presidents for imitation Her Ceremonies which were principally design'd for Decency may also remind us of those Virtues which become the Worshippers of God Her Collects and Petitions are for Grace to subdue our Follies and to fortifie our resolutions for Holiness Her discipline is to lash the sturdy into Sobriety and Goodness And her Homilies are plainly and smartly to declare against the gross Acts of Impiety and to perswade a true Christian Deportment in Word and Deed and her whole Constitution aims at the Design of the Gospel to teach Men to live Soberly Righteously and Godly She flatters and lulls no man asleep in Vice but tells all secure sinners plainly that they do not pray nor receive aright that they are not absolv'd that their persons are not justified nor can have any true hopes of Heaven except they purifie themselves and be really just and good She neither useth nor allows any nice distinctions in plain Duties to baffle our Obedience nor suffers a cunning head to serve the designs of a wicked heart and teach Men learnedly to sin but urgeth plain Virtues laid down distinctly in Holy Writ and taught by Natural Reason and Conscience without calling them mean Duties or ordinary Morality to be the great Ornament of our Religion and the Soul of our Faith She sets no abstruse and phantastick Characters nor any Marks whose truth must be fetcht in by long deductions and consequences for Men to judge by whether they shall be sav'd or no but Faith and good Works which the Philosopher and meanest Christian can easily judge of The civil interest of a Nation is Edifi'd by such a Church pressing the necessity of good Works not onely thereby enforcing Peace and Justice Pity and Tenderness Humility and Kindness one towards another but she makes Kings safer and Subjects more secure condemning both Tyranny and Disobedience Parents more obey'd and
Men if it be to make plain the great things in Religion to the understandings of Men or whatever the import of it is in relation to Faith or Virtue which is the condition of our Salvation it is to be found in this Church whose Constitution is apt and fit to do all this And St. Jude seems to tell us that true Edification was a stranger to those who separated from the common building but those who kept to the Vers 19. Communion of the Church built up themselves in their most holy Faith and pray'd in the Holy Ghost And the honest Christian with greater assurance may expect the Grace and Blessings of Christ and the Divine Spirit whose Promises are made to them who continue in the Communion of the Church and not to them who divide from the Body and have greater hopes of Edification from their Teacher than the Grace of God from Apollos that waters than from Christ the chief Husbandman who gives the encrease 2. This Constitution is us'd and manag'd in the best way by the Pastours of our Church to Edifie the Souls of Men. This will appear if we consider these two things 1. That there are strict Commands under great Penalties laid upon the Pastours of our Church to do this who are not left to their own freedom and private judgment or the force onely of common Christianity upon them thus to improve Mens Souls committed to their charge but have Temporal Mulcts and Ecclesiastical Censures held over them to keep them to their Duty That when they do inform or direct their Flocks about their Belief they should keep to the Analogy of Faith or Form of sound Words Or when they perswade to practice their Rules and Propositions must be according to Godliness That whenever they Exhort or Rebuke Preach or Pray whenever they Direct or Answer the Scruples of Mens Minds in the whole Exercise and Compass of their Ministry they are to have an Eye to the Creed to regard Mercy and Justice the Standard of good Manners in short to preserve Faith and a good Conscience with substantial Devotion which will to the purpose Edifie Mens Souls and effectually save them 2. That these Commands are obey'd by the Pastours of our Church and they do all things in it to Edification For the truth of this we appeal to good Men and wise Men in the Communion of our Church who have Honesty and Judgment to confess this truth and with gratitude acknowledge that the Pastours of the Church of England have led them into the ways of Truth and Righteousness cured their Ignorance and reform'd their Lives and upon good grounds given them an assurance of Heaven To say such as these are prejudic'd and want sincerity and knowledge to pass a judgment is onely to prove what we justly suspect that they want true Edification among themselves and should be better taught the Doctrine of Charity Our Protestant Neighbours impartial Judges will give their Testimony to this Truth who have own'd and commended the Government of this Church condemn'd the Separation magnifi'd the Prudence Piety and Works of her Governours and Pastours and wish'd that they and their charge were under such a Discipline and translated many of their Pious and Learned Works to Edifie and Save their People Our The Unreasonableness of Separation p. 117. dissenting Brethren themselves at least in the good Mood and out of the heat of Dispute give their consent to this that the Instructions and Discourses of our Pastours from their Pulpits are Solid Learned Affectionate and Pious and their only Crime was that sometimes they were too well studied and too good If in the great number of the English Clergy some few may be lazy one particular person may clothe his Doctrine in too gay a dress another talks Scholastically above the capacity of his hearers a third too dully a fourth too nicely and opinionatively and here and there a Pastour answers not the true design of Preaching to inform mens Minds to guide their Consciences and move their Affections what is this to the general Charge That no Edification so good is to be had as in the separate Meetings the pretended Cause of their Separation For 't is no more a true Cause than want of Accommodation or Room in Churches for some to separate where good Edification and Conveniency too may be easily had And since they compel our Pastours to speak well of themselves by their detraction and speaking ill of them they must gladly suffer them as fools boldly to say 2 Cor. 11. 19. That since the Reformation and many hundred years before there hath not been a Clergy so Learned and Pious so Prudent and Painful and every way industrious to Edifie and save the Souls of Men as now is in the English Church The Second Argument to confirm the Answer is That those that usually make this pretence for Separation do commonly mistake better Edification We have prov'd already that good and sufficient Edification to save the Souls of Men is to be had in the English Church For if teaching plainly the Articles of Faith and laying down clearly Rules of Manners using well-composed Prayers and proper Administration of Sacraments be not good and sufficient Edification I know not what Edification means it may be heating of fancy stirring up of humours this or that and Men may as well define the thing they call Wit as what Edification means And therefore to desert the plain and great Duty of our Church-Communion for disputable doubtful or truly mistaken Edification is to be guilty of the sin of Schism In most cases to judge what is better or best is very hard and requires a sincere and considering head and so it is in the business of better Edification which is so easily mistaken especially by the generality of the People who are usually ignorant of such nice things and prejudic'd by their Parties and Affections and are mutable and various according to their fancies For better Edification purer Administrations and Churches and things that are more excellent absolute Perfection and a less defective Way of Worship are hard to understand perplex mens minds and fill them with innumerable doubts and scruples and put them upon refining and purging so long till they weaken and destroy the Spirit of Religion And so they run themselves into a known sin for dark and dispâ—â—able advantages which indeed are only mistakes and principally are these three that follow 1. In taking nice and speculative Notions for great and Edifying Truths When Doctrines have been rais'd only to please the temper of the curious and inquisitive yet have made many think their hearts were warm'd when their heads and fancies were gratifi'd And dark and obscure Discourses about Angels the state of separated Souls and things of the like nature have made Colos 2. 18 some call the Preacher high and mysterious while others teaching the way of Salvation plainly by Faith and a good Conversation
Perswade to Rebuke and Exhort and have the Charge of Souls committed to them for fancies peevishness and humour to be scorn'd and discountenanc'd and have their Ministry rendred useless and the Sheep to govern the Shepherd But what if our Pastour be idle or remiss in his Duty or corrupt in his Faith and teacheth Errour instead of sound Doctrine and we have no means of Edification what must we do must we take in Poyson for Food or not be fed at all To be sure you must not run into Schismatical Separation 't is more tolerable to go to other Congregations of our Communion that may be irregular but 't is not Schismatical but thanks be to God we have a Government which upon a just and modest Complaint will quicken the lazy and negligent correct the Heretical Pastour and restore to you true Edification That this Discourse may prevail upon such who make this Question I desire to recommend these two following things which are very reasonable to their consideration 1. That if they fancy any Defects in our Government they should not hence conclude that they have not sufficient Edification in the Church to save their Souls If upon a nice search and critical enquiry they think they have found some little Flaws and Defects improper Phrases doubtful Senses and some small Omissions in the matter of our Prayers and Discipline yet let them not conclude that these can weigh in the ballance against the black sin of Schism and Separation and all its sad Consequences which is excus'd by nothing else but terms of Communion plainly sinful Have not Divine Services been accepted which were less perfect and came not up to their rule as is plain in Hezekiah's Passover which was not to the Purification of the Sanctuary yet the good King's 2 Chron. 30. 18 19 20. Prayer and the necessity of the time prevail'd with God to heal the People that is to repute them clean and well prepar'd and their Sacrifice and Devotion good Is there no Reverence to be paid to the Pious Authors of our Service and Reformation but to tell them they must divide from them were they now living for they cannot Edifie under that Religion and Government for which they dy'd Is there or will there ever be any Government in the Church so well fram'd and built but some curious Surveyor can spy out some disproportion or ill shape especially if assisted by ill Nature Emulation the Spirit of Pride and Contention which is ever quick-sighted abroad and blind at home the difficulty of knowing what is utmost perfection and absolute purity of Administrations which till attain'd these Men think they are not to rest in any Church should make them judge candidly interpret fairly and comply with every thing that is not sinful to preserve Peace and Love When Men in the English Church are plainly taught to believe well to live well and to dye well and have good and proper Offices to serve these great purposes in order to their Salvation what can they desire more To be better or more sav'd we know not what it means To leave such a Communion upon such an account proceeds from peevishness uncharitableness or some ill Principle and is downright Schism if ever there was Schism in the World Bring but an honest sincere and teachable mind and it will find improvement and advantage in Offices and Administrations fuller of spots and blemishes far than they can pretend to find in the English Church but if the mind be byassed by a Party or corrupted by Designs if its Palate be vitiated the best Food is coarse and insipid to it 2. Let Edification be plac'd in the substantial things of Religion Some revolt from our Church for things wherein the Pastour is solely concern'd and others for things of decency and indifferency but these things do not concern the Case of Edification That a right Faith and an honest Conversation are not taught in our Church is onely a scandal cast upon her to plead for their unjust Separation For after she hath plainly and distinctly taught the Articles of Faith as was prov'd before with the same Spirit and Zeal she commands and presses Justice Humility Mercy and every Virtue that is necessary to a true Christian Life and both under the Penalty of Eternal Damnation these and these alone do truly Edifie the Souls of Men as is plain if we consider that our Prayers and Sacraments our Churches Ceremonies and Discipline and all other parts in Religion are in order to and minister unto Faith their head that works by love and the nearer these approach unto and the greater service they do to this design the greater degree they have in Religion and more value is set upon them This is that Religion which our first Parent was of in his Paradise and innocency Noah and his Posterity in their Precepts and Pious Men in different Countries before the Law of Moses thus serv'd God And the scope and aim of the Jewish Law with its Temple and Utensils its Figures and Ceremonies was to discipline and teach Men thus to be good with allowance to the Nature of that People and the Times they liv'd in And the best and most knowing Pagans thought such a Religion as this would most please God who therefore in some measure did accept it and reward it with greater Discoveries as is plain Acts 8. 27. Acts 10. 4. in Cornelius the Queen of Candaces Treasurer and others who having not the Law were a Law unto themselves In such things as these the Kingdom of our Messias was to consist not in Meat Rom. 14. 17. and Drink but Righteousness and Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost Such a Religion as this Edifies in so great a degree that 't is the onely Condition and Qualification for the upper World where though other great Parts of Religion shall dye with us Righteousness Gratitude Love of God and glorifi'd Beings and such like Virtues are of an Eternal Nature shall be Ingredients of our Happiness and shall live with us for ever What can be justly requir'd in Religion to improve Mens Souls that is not found in this Is it to recover the Nature of Man now defac'd Righteousness and Goodness proceeding from Faith their root will make us truly good Is it to give us a clearer Knowledge and worthy Conceptions of God such a practical Religion as this best prepares for greater knowledge and in Scripture-sence is knowing of him Is it Religion 1 Joh. 2. 4. to love God the love of God consists in obedience to his Precepts submission to his Will and resignation to his Providence otherwise 't is flattery and fondness Is it the design of Religion to bless Mankind here and edifie them in their different relations such a Religion as this in our Church will do all that and make the World a Paradise once more This will give us the best character to judge by whether we shall be
sav'd or no being the perfection of all other marks and signs of our assurance of Life and Glory When we are so Edifi'd and Religious we are certain that we are justifi'd and adopted accepted and treated like the Sons of God that we are in Christ and have our wedding-Garments on our proper qualifications for the state of Heaven Such an honest Principle as this makes our Prayers to be heard our Devotions to be regarded our Hopes to be strengthened This is the great intention of Christianity the Holy of Holys of our Temple and all Religion Such a Religion as this being so strongly enjoyn'd and zealously taught in our Church no ways disguis'd by a dress of Phrases or corrupted into soft and lushious sences we need not complain for want of the means of Grace and Edification we need not cross the Seas or run into private corners for it 't is nigh us even at our Doors in the establish'd Government of the Church of England Some use to say that brown Bread and the Gospel was very good Fare but now they are grown as nice and delicate about Religion and Edification as about Sawces and Dresses Thanks be to God 't is a knowing Age I wish it was as good The Corruption of it doth not arise for want of Knowledge and Information if it doth the Cure is near let them value that Church and Government that hath all things in it sufficient to Mens Salvation Let them not think so light of Schism and speaking evil of the Rule and Discipline in our Church so fit and necessary to the preservation of Christianity let them not cry up other Pauls and Apollos's any other Teachers making Divisions among us than this Church hath allowed for their Edification which is so far from Spiritual Edification that it calls such Men Carnal For the desire 1 Cor. 3. 4. of any other Nourishment beside such plain Food is Spiritual Pride and Wantonness and they pamper their Fancies while they starve their Judgments Let us therefore stick to such a manly Religion one great part of which is to preserve Obedience Peace and Order and say of our Church that teacheth it as the Disciples of its Author Thou art he and we seek for no other whither shall we go thou hast the Words of Eternal Life She hath all things in her that are necessary for the perfecting of Ephes 4. 12 13. the Saints for the Work of the Ministry for the Edifying of the Body till we all come in the Vnity of the Faith and of the Knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. That such a Religion as this in our Church is pleasing both to God and Man we have the Testimony of an Apostle He that Rom. 14. 18. in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approv'd of Men. FINIS BOOKS Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger resulting from the change of our Church-Government 1. 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 Englands 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 Anonymus 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 Communions 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 taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 15. The Case of Kneeling c. 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. 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 Discourse OF PROFITING BY SERMONS AND Of going to HEAR where men think they can PROFIT most LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard F. Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1684. A Discourse Of PROFITING by SERMONS AS there is nothing that all good Men more desire nothing that they more heartily seek and endeavour than a Happy re-union of all those with us who have Rent themselves from us which we should reckon to be one of the highest blessings that God can now bestow upon us so there is little hope of seeing those desires and endeavours satisfied while the smallest Scruples seem a sufficient cause to hinder many People from joyning with us But among all the Reasons that I have heard alledged for leaving our Churches this seems to me to be the weakest and most ungrounded That our Ministers are unedifying Preachers for they cannot profit by their Sermons Which I am informed is so commonly objected and some lay such weight upon it and it carries with it such a shew of Piety it being a very commendable thing to desire to be the better for every Sermon one hears that it is thought to be worth some body's pains to try to remove this unjust Prejudice which too many have entertained against the most instructive and useful Sermons that perhaps are preached any where in the Christian World This may seem too high a commendation but it is the Judgment of more indifferent persons then we are on either side of
Revelation insomuch as when the truth which is but One shall appear to the simple multitude no less variable than contrary to it self the Faith of Men will soon after dye away by degrees and all Religion be held inscorn and contempt Fourthly If several contrary Parties be established by way of sufferance no progress is likely to be made towards the perfecting of Religion For the suffering of divers Errors is not the way to the reforming of them One Principle only can be true and the blending of such as are contrary with it createth the greatest of Impurities a mixture of that which is profane with that which is sacred Fifthly Many Dissenters are not likely to erect a Model by which Christianity may be improved amongst us because they lay aside Rules of discretion and rely not on God's assistance in the use of good means but depend wholly upon immediate illumination without the aids of Prudence And some of the more sober amongst them have inclined too much towards this extream In Reformation said one * * * Mr. S. Sympson in A. 1643. Reform Preservat p. 126 27. in his Sermon before the Commons do not make reason your Rule nor Line you go by It is the line of all the Papists The second Covenant doth forbid not only Reason but all Divine Reason that is not contain'd by Institution in the Worship of God God's Worship hath no ground in any reason but God's Will Sixthly There are already provided in this Church more probable means for the promoting of pure Religion than those which have been proposed by all or any of the Dissenting Parties It is true each Church is capable of improvement by the change of obsolete Words Phrases and Customs by the addition of Forms upon new Occasions by adjusting discreetly some Circumstantials of External Order But to change the Present Model for any other that has yet been offered to publick consideration is to make a very injudicious bargain There are in it all the necessaries to Faith and Godliness there is preserved Primitive Discipline Decency and Order And under the means of it there are great numbers grown up into such an improvement of Judicious Knowledge and useful prudent serious Piety that it requireth a Laborious Scrutiny to find Parallels to them in any Nations under the Heavens I do not take pleasure in distastful Comparisons Yet I ought not sure to pass by with unthankful negligence that excellent Spirit which God hath raised up among the Writers and Preachers of this Church their labours being so instrumental towards the right information of the Judgment and the amendment of the Lives of unprejudic'd Hearers It must be confessed that there is some trifling on all sides And it will be so whilst Men are Men. But there is now blessed be God as little of it in the Church of England as in any Age. And the very few who do it appear plainly to be what they are Phantasticks and Actors rather than Preachers But amongst the Parties the folly and weakness puts on a more venerable pretence and they give vent to it with studied shews of mighty seriousness and deliver it solemnly as the immediate dictate of God's Holy Spirit And I cannot but call to mind one Minister in this Church who would for instance sake have deliberately used these words of Mr. Rutherford in a solemn audience * * * Ruth on Dan. 6. 26. p. 8. A. 1643. bef the Commons and after this manner God permits Sins and such solemn Sins that there may be room in the Play for pardoning Grace It seemeth also not unfit for me to take notice that the Changes formerly made in Church-matters in England by Dissenters were not so conducive in their nature to the edifying of the Body of Christ as the things illegally removed The Doctrine of God's Secret decrees taught in their Catechisms was a stronger and more improper kind of meat than that with which the Church of England had fed her Children Ordination by a Bishop accompany'd with Presbyters was more certain and satisfactory than that by Presbyters without a Bishop There was not that sobriety in many of the present and unstudied Effusions which appeared in every of those publick Forms which were considered and fixed And it sounded more decently for example sake to pray in the Churches words and say from Fornication Good Lord deliver us than to use those of an eminent Dissenter * * * Prayers at the end of Farewell Sermons Mr U's Prayer bef Serm. p. 31. Lord un-lust us Nor did the long continued Prayers help Men so much against Distraction as those shorter ones with breaks and Pauses in the Liturgy and the great and continued length of them introduced by consent sitting at Prayer Neither did it tend less to edification to repeat the Creed standing than to leave it quite out of the Directory for publick Worship Neither was it an advantage to Christian Piety to change the gesture of kneeling in the Eucharist when the Sacred Elements were given together with Prayer for that less reverend one of sitting Of sitting especially with the Haâ—t on as the most uncomely practice of some was the People being taught to cover the Head * * * Edward's Gangrena part 1 Error 112. p. 25. whilst the Minister was to remain bare amongst them Nor was the civil Pledge of the Ring in Marriage bettered by the invention of some Pastors who as is storied of them took a Ring * * * See Edw. Grangr 2 part p. 13. of some Women-converts upon their admittance into their Church Neither was the Alteration of the Form of giving the Holy Elements an amendment For the Minister was directed to the use of these words * * * Directory for publick Worship p. 27. Tak ye eat ye this is the Body of Christ which is broken for you This Cup is the New Testament in the blood of Christ which is shed for the Remission of the Sins of many The words denoting Christ's present Crucifix and either actually or in the future certainty of it give countenance to the Romish Sacrifice of the Mass though I verily believe they were not so intended Nor did the forbidding the Observation of Christ's Nativity and other Holy-days add one Hairs bredth to the Piety of the Nation but on the other hand it took away at least from the common People one ready means of fixing in their Memories the most useful History of the Christian Religion It is easy enough even for Men who are Dwarfs in the Politicks in such sort to alter a constitution as to make it more pleasing for a time to themselves during their Passion and the novelty of the Model in their Fancy not yet disturbed by some unforeseen Mischief or inconveniencie but 't is extream difficult upon the whole matter to make a true and lasting Improvement there being so many parts in the frame to be mutually fitted and such
variety of Cases in Humane Affairs I pray from my Heart for the bettering but I dread the tinkering of Government The Conclusion IF then Dissenters are not likely to obtain their Ends of Establishing themselves of rooting out of Popery and promoting pure Religion by overthrowing the Church of England the Inference is natural they ought both in Prudence and Christianity to endeavour after Vnion with it They will it may be say to me Can Men be persuaded two contrary ways Can they both Assent and Dissent And whilst they secretly Dissent would you force them into an Hypocritical Compliance I Answer thus First Though a Man cannot at the same time wholly Assent and Dissent yet there are means for the rectifying of a false persuasion and he may upon good Grounds change his Mind Secondly No Man's Mind can beforced for it is beyond the reach of Humane Power Thirdly Good Governours do not use Severity to force Men to dissemble their Minds and to make them Hypocrites but to move them after a Tryal of fair means to greater consideration I am not concerned in the Emblem of the Persian Dervi * * * Tavern Pers Trav. l. 4. c. 6. p. 155 156. who whilst they go about their Office of teaching the Law to the People carry a great Club in their hands But neither do I think that the best way to remove pernitious error from Men is never to give them any disturbance in it I have two things only to recommend first to the consideration and then to the practice of such as Dissent First This is a time of Prosecution and a time of Adversity is a proper time for Consideration and Consideration is a means to make us hold fast that which is good and reject that which is evil I beseech you make such advantage of this Juncture Sit down and think once more of the Nature of this Church Confer with the Guids of the National Religion read without prejudice the Books commended by them to you Peruse seriously the Books which Authority hath set forth Some who have spoken against them have by their own confession never read them Examine and Judge Many of your Scruples have arisen from what you have heard and read they would not have otherwise been ingendred in your Minds Hear and Read for your Information as well as your entanglement Secondly Do as much as you can do Do as much as the Dissenters who are most eminent for Learning Piety Preaching Writing Experience and Fame sometimes actually do They have owned our Communion to be lawful * * * See Lawf of hearing the publick Ministry c. by Mr. Nye Mr. Robinson c. and Mr. Corbet's Non-Conformists Pâ—ea for Lay-Communion They have received the Communion kneeling They have bred up Children to the Ministry of this Church They have joyned in the Liturgy They have been Married according to the Form of it Nay one who assisted in making the Directory would have his own Daughter in those times be Married in the way of the Book of common-Common-Prayer * * * Mr. Marshall in Hist of Indep 1 part p. 80. Do as the antient Non-conformists did who would not separate though they feared to Subscribe Who wrote with such Zeal against those of the Separation that Mr. Hildersham was called * * * See Dr. Willit's Epistle Dedicatory before his Harm on 1 Sam. Schismaticorum Qui vulgo Brownistae malleum The Maul of the Brownists Do more for the Peace of God's Church than for a Vote or Office or Fear of Legal Penalty Come as Christians to the Sacrament and not as Politicians Those who have so done yet break the unity of the Church are said to use the Arts of Jesuits and to be without all excuse by a Dissenter * * * Vox Clam Sect. 6. p. 49 50 c. who writes with commendable temper Do constantly what you do upon occasion No Preaching or Praying which is better liked can ballance the evil of Separation from a Church which imposeth no terms of Communion which are sinful For Peace sake let that be more constant in which your Conscience alloweth occasional exercise A Member who joyns himself to any established Church and also to any Churches which are set up not as legal Supplements of it but as Forts against it seems to be a kind of Wooden Legg if I may represent so grave a matter by so light a Similitude He is tyed on and taken off at pleasure he is not as by natural Ligaments and Nerves knit to such Ecclesiasticrl Bodies If all would do constantly what they can in Conscience do sometimes they would create a better Opinion of themselves in the Governours and move them to all due favour and hinder all the destructive breaches amongst us For the remain of other Dissenters would be so inconsiderable as to abide in the Body of the Nation as ill humors thrown off the extream parts from which there may arise some little pain but no mortal danger Now the God of Peace grant Peace to us always by all fit means The END A SERIOUS EXHORTATION With some Important Advices Relating to the late Cases about CONFORMITY Recommended to the Present Dissenters From the CHVRCH of ENGLAND LONDON Printed 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. Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stilling fleet 's Unreasonableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government 1. 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 Anonymus 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 Communions 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 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 A Serious EXHORTATION With some Important Advices c. Recommended to the Dissenters from the Church of England THE offering friendly Advice and Counsel especially in great and important Cases is tho often a Thankless yet a very Charitable Office a thing agreeable to the best Inclinations of Humane Nature and highly conducive to the Necessities of Men and consequently needs no Apology to introduce it We live 't is true in an ill-Natured and Censorious Age wherein 't is rare to find any one who will not take with the Left-hand what 's offered to them with the Right But I am not discouraged from this Attempt by the Peevishness and Frowardness of many that differ from us Remembring that all Honest Undertakings and such I am sure this is are under the more peculiar Conduct and Blessing of the Divine Providence which can and will succeed and prosper them to an happy Issue if Mens own Obstinacy and Perverseness do not put a Bar in the way to hinder it I do therefore beseech our Dissenting Brethren with all the earnestness that becomes a matter of so much Importance and with all the Kindness and Tenderness that becomes a Christian that they would suffer the VVord of Exhortation and duely weigh and consider the Requests and Advices that are here plainly laid before them which I hope will be found such as carry their own Light and Evidence along with them I. And First We beg of them to believe That they may be mistaken about those matters which are alledged as the Causes of their Separation This one would think were as needless as 't is a modest and reasonable Request For did ever any Man the Bishop of Rome excepted lay claim to Infallibility Do not the woeful Infirmities of Humane Nature the Weakness and Short-sightedness of our Understandings the daily Experience of our selves and the lamentable Failures we observe in others sufficiently convince us how prone we are to Error and Mistake But tho this be granted and owned on all hands yet in Practice we frequently find Men acting by other Measures For how many are there that in the most Controverted Cases bear up themselves with as much Confidence and Assurance censure others with as Magisterial a Boldness condemn the things enjoyned by our Church with as positive and peremptory a Determination as if they were infallibly sure that they are in the Right and all others in the Wrong that differ from them The early Prepossession of a contrary Opinion the powerful Prejudices of Education an implicite and unexamined Belief of what their Guides and Leaders teach them have a strange force upon the Minds of Men so that in effect they no more doubt of the Truth and Goodness of the Cause they are engaged in than they question the Articles of their Creed Wherefore I do once and again intreat them that laying aside all Pride Partiality and Self-conceit they would not think more highly of themselves and of their own way than they ought to think especially remembering that the Matters contended about are confessedly Disputable and that they cannot be ignorant that the Case seems otherwise to others who may at least be allowed to be as wise Men and as competent Judges as themselves Truth makes the easiest Entrance into modest and humble Minds The Meek will he guide in Judgment the Meek will he teach his way The Spirit of God never rests upon a Proud Man II. Secondly We beg of them that they would seriously and impartially weigh and consider as well what is said on the one side as on the other This is a piece of Justice that every one owes to Truth and which indeed every Man owes to himself that is not willing to be deceived To take up with Prejudices which Education or long Custom have instilled into him or wherein any other Arts or Methods have engaged him without strictly enquiring whether those Prejudices stand upon a firm Foundation is to see only on one side to bind up ones self in the Judgment or Opinion of any Man that is not Divinely-inspired and Infallible or pertinaciously to adhere to any Party of Men how plausible and specious soever their Pretences may be without examining their Grounds and endeavouring to know what is said against them is to choose a Persuasion at a peradventure and 't is great odds whether such a one be in the right In all Enquiries after Truth we ought to keep an Ear open for one side of the Controversie as well as the other and not to think we have done enough till without Favour or Prejudice and to the best of our Understandings we have heard tryed and judged the Reasons brought as well for as against it And till this be done I see not with what pretence of Reason Men can talk so much of their Scruples or plead for Favour on the account of their Dissatisfactions Consciences truly tender are willing and desirous to embrace all opportunities of Resolution are ready to kiss the Hand that would bring them better information and are not wont to neglect much less thrust from them the means that might ease them of their Doubts and Scruples We justly blame it in them of the Church of Rome that in a manner they resign up their Understandings to their Guides and Confessors and are not suffered to be truly acquained with the Protestant Principles and the Grounds and Reasons of the Reformation nor to Read any of the Books that are written for their Conviction without a special and peculiar Licence Whether our Brethren of the Separation be under any such Spiritual Discipline I know not sure I am it looks very odly that so many of them are no more concerned to understand the true State of the Church of England and the Nature and Reasons of her Constitutions that so few of them care to Confer with those that are able to Instruct them but Cry out They are satisfied already nay some of them to my knowledge when desired to propose their Scruples in order to the giving them satisfaction have plainly and absolutely refused to do it Little reason there is to believe that such Persons have ever Read and Examined what the Church of England has to say for her self Are there not many that not only Scruple but Rail at the Book of common-Common-Prayer that yet never heard it nor perhaps ever read it in all their Lives And if this be not to speak Evil of what they know not I cannot tell what is How many incomparable Books
We desire them to Consider Whether it be not a Just Prejudice to their Cause and that which ought to prevail with Men Modest and Peaceable that in those things wherein they differ from us they are Condemned by the Practice of the whole Catholick Church for Fifteen Hundred Years together This were I minded might afford a large Field for Discourse but I shall instance only and that very briefly in a few Particulars And First We desire them to produce any settled part of the Christian Church that ever was without Episcopal Government till the time of Calvin it being then as hard to find any part of the Christian World without a Church as to find a Church without a Bishop This is so evident in the most early Antiquities of the Church that I believe our Dissenters begin to grow sick of the Controversie And if Blondell Salmasius and Daille whose great Parts Learning and indefatigable Industry could if any thing have made out the contrary have been forced to grant That Episcopacy obtained in the Church within a few Years after the Apostolick Age We are sure we can carry it higher even up to the Apostles themselves There are but two passages that I know of in all Antiquity of any Note and both of them not till the latter end of the Fourth Century that may seem to question Episcopal Authority The One That famous and well known passage of St. Jerom which yet when improved to the Idem Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent c. Hier. in Epist ad Tit. c. 1. utmost that it is capable of only intimates Episcopacy not to be of Apostolical Institution And very clear it is to those that are acquainted with St. Jeroms Writings that he often Wrote in haste and did not always weigh things at the Beam and forgot at one time what he had said at another that many expressions fell from him in the heat of Disputation according to the warmth and the eagerness of his Temper that he was particularly chased into this Assertion by the fierce opposition of the Deacons at Rome who began to Usurp upon and over-top the Presbyters which tempted him to Magnifie and Extol their Place and Dignity as anciently equal to the Episcopal Office and as containing in it the common Rights and Priviledges of Priesthood For at other times when he Wrote with cooler Thoughts about him he does plainly and frequently enough assert the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters and did himself constantly live in Communion with and Subjection to Bishops The other passage is that of Aerius who held indeed that a Bishop and a Presbyter differed nothing in Order Dignity or Power But he was led into this Error meerly through Envy and Emulation being vext to see that his Companion Eustathius had gotten the Bishoprick of Sebastia which himself had aimed at This made him start aside and talk extravagantly but the Church immediately branded him for an Heretick and drave him and his followers out of all Churches and from all Cities and Villages And Epiphanius Cont. Aer haeret 75. who was his Contemporary represents him as very little better than a Madman and adds that all Heresies that ever were from the beginning of the World had been hatched either by Pride or Vain Glory or Covetousness or Emulation or some such Evil Inclination But his Heresie it seems was not long-liv'd for we hear no more concerning this matter till the Reformation at Geneva Secondly We desire them to shew any Christian Church that did not constantly use Liturgies and Forms of Prayer in their Publick Offices and Administrations of Divine Worship I take it for granted that there were Forms of Publick Prayer in the Jewish Church and I make no doubt but that the use of such Forms was together with many other Synagogue-rites and Usages transferred into the Practice of the Christian Church and did actually obtain in the most early Ages in all Churches where there were not Miraculous Gifts and every where as soon as those Miraculous Gifts ceased it being very fit and proper and agreeable to Order and Decency that the Peoples Devotions should be thus Conducted and Governed in their Publick Ministrations Not to insist upon the Carmen or Hymn which even the Proconsul Pliny says the Christians upon a set Day were wont one among another to say to Christ as to their God Apparent footsteps of some Passages of their Ancient Liturgies are yet extant in the Writings of Origen and St. Cyprian And when Eusebius gives us an account how Religiously Constantine Devit Constant lib. 4. c. 17. the Great ordered his Court That he was wont to take the Holy Bible into his Hands and carefully to Meditate upon it and afterwards to offer up Set or Composed Prayers together with his whole Royal Family he adds He did this after the manner or in imitation of the Church of God Nazianzen tells us of St. Basil That he composed Orders and Forms of In Sanctum Basilium Orat 20. Bas Ep. 63. Prayer and appointed decent Ornaments for the Altar And St. Basil himself reciting the manner of the Publick Service that was used in the Monastical Oratories of his Institution says That nothing was done therein but what was Consonant and Agreeable to all the Churches of God And the Council of Laodicea holden much about the Year 365 expresly provides that the same Liturgy or Form of Prayers Can. 18. conf Conc. Milev can 12. Conc. Carth. 3. c. 23. should be always used both Morning and Evening That so it might not be lawful for every one that would to compose Prayers of his own Head and to repeat them in the Publick Assemblies as both Zonaras and Balsamon give the reason of that Canon Further than this we need not go the Case being henceforward evident beyond all Contradiction Thirdly Let them shew us any Church that did not always set apart and observe Festival Commemorations of the Saints besides the more solemn times for Celebrating the great Blessings of our Redeemer his Birth-day and Epiphany Easter in Memory of his Resurrection Pentecost or Witsuntide for the Mission of the Holy Ghost they had Annual days for solemnizing the Memories of the Blessed Apostles they had their Memoriae and Natalitia Martyrum whereon they assembled every year to offer up to God their Praises and Common Devotions and by Publick Panegyricks to do honour to the memory of those Saints and Martyrs who had suffered for or Sealed Religion with their Bloud Not to mention their Lent Fast and their Stationary Fasts on Wednesdays and Fridays which Epiphanius more than once expresly Sâ—rm compâ—nd de Expos fid p. 466. â—dv Aer Haeres 75. says were a Constitution of the Apostles But the less need be said on this head because few that have any Reverence for Antiquity will have the hardiness to oppose it Fourthly We desire them to produce any
He was an eminent Minister of the Presbyterian Party Epist Dedicat to Gangraen print 1646. One who as he tells the Parliament had out of Choice and Judgment from the very beginning Embarqued himself with Wife Children and Estate and all that was dear to him in the same Ship with them to sink and perish or to come safe to Land with them and that in the most doubtful and difficult Times not only in the beginning of the War and Troubles in a Malignant place among Courtiers where he had Pleaded their Cause justified their Wars and Satisfied many that Scrupled but when their Affairs were at lowest had been most Zealous for them Preaching Praying stirring up the People to stand for them and had both gone out in Person and lent Mony to them He held Correspondence with considerable Persons in all parts of the Nation and was careful to have the best Intelligence from all Quarters and professes to lay down the Opinion and Errours which he mentions in terminis and in their own Words and Phrases Syllabically and as near as might be Now amongst infinite other things he tells us Catal. and discov of Errors p. 15 c. vid. 2 d. Part. p. 5. 22. 24 27. 105. 110. fresh discov p. 115. 16â— alibi passim 't was then commonly maintained That the Scriptures cannot be said to be the Word of God and are no more to be Credited than the Writings of men being not a divine but Humane Tradition that God has a Hand in and is the Author of the Sinfulness of his People not of the Actions alone but of the very Pravity which is in them that all Lies come forth out of his Mouth that the Prince of the Air that Rules in the Children of Disobedience is God that in the Unity of the God-head there is not a Trinity of Persons but that it is a Popish Tradition that the Doctrine of Repentance is a Soul-destroying Doctrine and that Children are not bound to Obey their Parents at all if they be Ungodly that the Soul of Man is Mortal as the Soul of a Beast that there is no Resurrection at all of the Bodies of Men nor Heaven nor Hell after this Life I instance only in these as a Tast not that they are all or the Hundred part no nor the worst there being other Blasphemies and Impieties which my Pen trembles to Relate Secondly The Liturgy of our Church being discharged and thrown out and every one left to his own liberty 't is scarce possible to believe what wild and prodigious Extravagancies were upon all occasions used in holy things not in Preaching only but especially in Prayer the most immediate Act of Worship and Address to God It is an affront to the Majesty of Religious Worship that there should be any thing in it Childish and Trivial Absurd and Frivolous that its Sacred Mysteries should be exposed to Contempt and Scandal by that Levity and distraction that heat and Boldness those weaknesses and Indiscretions those Loose Raw and Incongruous Effusions which in most Congregations of those Times did too commonly attend it But the things I intend to Instance in are of a far worse colour and complexion for whose Ears would it not make to tingle to hear men in the Pulpit telling God That if he did not finish the good Work which he had begun View of the late troubles in Eng. cap. 43. p. 567 c. See also Edwards Gang 3 d. Part a little before in the Reformation of the Church he would shew himself to be the God of Confusion and such a One as by cunning Stratagems had contrived the Destruction of his own Children That God would bless the King and Mollifie his hard Heart that delights in Blood for that he was fallen from Faith in God and become an Enemy to his Church let thine Hand we pray thee O Lord our God be upon him and upon his Fathers p. 17. House but not upon thy people that they should be Plagued O God O God many are the Hands lift up against us but there is one God it is thou thy self O Father who dost us more Mischief than they all We know O Lord that Abraham made a Covenant Moses and David made a Covenant and our Saviour made a Covenant but thy Parliaments Covenant is the greatest of all Covenants I presume the Devout and Serious Reader desires no more of such intolerable Profane and Lewd Stuff as this is They that are curious of more may find it besides others in The short view of the late Troubles in England where Times Places and Persons are Particularly named Thirdly The Fences of Order and Discipline in the Church of England being broken down what a horrid Inundation of all manner of Vice and Wickedness did immediatly over-flow the Land The Assembly at Westminster Petitioned the Parliament That July 19. 1644. some Severe Course might be taken against Fornication Adultery and Incest which sry they do greatly abound especially of late by reason of Impunity Further discov p. 187. 3 d. Part p. 185 c. And Mr. Edwards speaking of the whole Tribe of Sectaries tells us He was confident that for this many Hundred Years there had not been a Party that hath pretended to so much Holiness Strictness power of Godliness tenderness of Conscience above all other Men as this Party hath â—lone that hath been guilty of so great Sins horrible wickedness provoking Abominations as they are with much more both there and elsewhere to the same purpose and the Charge very often made good by particular Instances So that indeed Hell seemed to have broke loose and to have Invaded all Quarters in despite of their Covenant and all the little Schemes of their so much Magnified Reformation The Covenant Cries God grant not against you for Reformation of the Kingdom the Extirpation of Heresies Schisms Profaneness c. and these Impieties abound as if we had taken a Covenant to maintain them and since it was taken these Sins which we have Covenanted against have more abounded than in the space of Ten Times so many Years before as Mr. Jenkin tells the Lords in Parliament And that all East Sermon Jan. 27. 1646. p. 29. that I have mentioned which yet is â—nfinitely short of what might be said was the effect of the Ruin of the Church of England and let in by the Method they took for Reformation we have from their own confessions We says Mr. Edwards in these Four Cat. and discov p. 73 74 76. last Years have over-passed the Deeds of the Prelates and justified the Bishops in whose time never so many nor so great Errours were heard of much less such Blasphemies or Confusions we have worse things among us than ever were in all the Bishops Days more corrupt Doctrines and unheard of Practices than in Eighty Years before I am persuaded if Seven Years ago the Bishops and their Chaplains had but Preached
owned it at his Condemnation that perhaps he thought Colemans Tryal p. 101. Def. of his Answ to the Admonit p. 349. that Popery might come in if Liberty of Conscience had been granted And this is that which wise Arch-Bishop Whitgift long ago foresaw would come to pass when he told the Dissenters of those Days I am persuaded that Anti-Christ worketh effectually at this Day by our Stirs and Contentions whereby he hath and will more prevail against this Church of England then by any other means whatsoever And now upon the whole matter I desire our Dissenting Brethren to consider whether the orderly and truly Primitive Constitution of the Church of England or Innovation Schism and Separation be the likelier way to keep out Popery and do therefore Conjure them by all the Kindness which they pretend for the Protestant Religion heartily to join in Communion with us as which I believe humanely speaking to be if not the only at least the only safe and durable means of shutting Popery for ever out of Doors IX Ninthly We desire of them that if neither these nor any other Advices and Considerations can prevail with them they would at least cease to Reproach the Government for Reviving the Execution of the Laws about these matters I know it is very natural to Men to complain when any thing pinches them but then they ought to be so just as to consider whose fault it is that has brought it upon them The Laws in this case were framed with great Advice and upon dear bought Experience and every Nation in the World thinks it self obliged when no other ways will do it by Penalties to secure the Publick Peace Safety and Tranquility of the State though it may sometimes press hard in some particular Cases when Men through Fancy Humour Mistake or Design especially about little and as themselves confess indifferent matters shall endanger the Publick Welfare and by an ill Example expose the Reverence and Majesty of the Laws And yet notwithstanding all this and a great deal more that might be said we find them at every turn charging the Government for using them Cruelly and with the hardest Measure censuring their Superiours and speaking Evil of Dignities and this not only the Cry of the mean and common Sort but of their chiefest Leaders even to this Hour It being no hard matter but that I love not to exasperate to instance in several things that are no very good Arguments of that Obedient Patience which some of them so much pretend to It is far from my Temper to delight in Cruelty much more to plead for Severity to be used towards Dissenting Brethren and therefore should have said nothing in this Argument were it not necessary to Vindicate the Government which upon these occasions I have so often heard Blamed and Censured I would these Persons who complain so much would consider a while how their Predecessors were dealt with in the times of the good Queen Elizabeth which will appear either from the Laws then made or from the Proceedings then had against them The Laws then made against them were chiefly these In the First of the Queen An Act for the Vniformity of Common-Prayer c. wherein among other Clauses and Penalties it is provided That if any Person shall in any Playes Songs Rhimes or by other open Words declare or speak any thing in the derogation depraving or despising the Book of Common-Prayer or any thing therein contained being thereof lawfully convicted he shall forfeit for the first Offence an hundred for the second four hundred Marks for the Third all his Goods and Chattels and shall suffer Imprisonment during Life A Clause which had it been kept up in its due Life and Power our Liturgy and Divine Offices had been Treated with much more Respect and Reverence then I am sure they have met with especially of late In Her Fifth Year an Act was passed for the due Execution of the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo amongst others particularly levelled against such as refuse to receive the Holy Communion or to come to Divine Service as now commonly used in the Church of England with severe Penalties upon those that shall not yield up themselves to the same Writ Anno. 13. passed an Act of general Pardon but it was with an Exception of all those that had committed any Offence against the Act for the Vniformity of common-Common-Prayer or were Publishers of Seditious Books or Disturbers of Divine Service Anno 23. By an Act to retain the Queen's Majesty's Subjects in their due Obedience it is provided That every Person above the Age of Sixteen Years which shall not repair to some Church or usual place of common-Common-Prayer but forbear the same by the space of a Month shall for every such Moth forfeit Twenty Pounds Which Act was again Confirmed and Ratified by another in the 29th Year of Her Reign with many Clauses and Provisions for the better Execution of it And by the Act of the 35th of Her Reign If any Person so forbearing shall willingly joyn in or be present at any Assemblies Conventicles and Meetings under colour or pretence of any Exercise of Religion contrary to the Laws of the Realm such Person being lawfully Convicted shall be Imprisoned without Bail or Mainprize untill he Conform and if he do not that within Three Months he shall be obliged to Abjure the Realm and if refusing to Abjure or returning without Licence he shall be Adjudged a Felon and suffer as in case of Felony without benefit of Clergy Such were Her Laws and such also were Her Proceedings against those who faultered in their Conformity or began to Innovate in the Discipline of the Church and these Proceedings as quick and smart as any can be said to be against the Dissenters of this time Do they complain of their Ministers being Silenced now so they were then being deprived of their Benefices and Church-Preferments for their Inconformity Thus Sampson was turned out of his Deanry oâ— Christ-Church for refusing to Conform to the Orders and Ceremonies of the Church Cartwright the very Head of them Expelled the Colledge and deprived of the Lady Margarets Lecture Travers turned out from Preaching at the Temple with many more Suspended from the Ministry by the Queens Authority and the Approbation of the Bishops for not Subscribing to some new Rites and Ceremonies imposed upon them as appears from Beza's Letter to Bez. Epist 8. Bishop Grindal Anno 1566. Are any in Prison so they were then Benson Button Hallingham Cartwright Knewstubbs and many others some in the Marshalsey others in the White-Lion some in the Gatehouse others in the Counter or in the Clink or in Bridewel or in Newgate Poor Men miserably handled with Revilings Deprivations Imprisonments Banishments if we may believe what themselves tell us both in the First and Second Admonition And what is yet far beyond any thing which God be thanked our Dissenters can pretend to complain of
for fear of Offence and again in the same place Hic Charitatis rationem haberi decet sed usque ad aras Our charity to our Brother ought to be limited by this that we do not for his sake displease God The very best things and actions may be perverted by Men of ill-disposed or weak minds false consequences and unjust inferences may be strained from them as we know the grace of God in the Gospel was abused into an argument for licentiousness and Christ himself is said to be set for the fall of many St. Luke 2. 24. but still this doth not Cancel our obligations to universal obedience to Gods Law nor can it alter the nature of good and evil duty and sin which are no such uncertain contingent things as to depend upon the constructions others shall make of our actions or the conclusions they shall draw from them God Almighty in the making of his Laws hath a perfect comprehension of all the accidental events that may happen either through the weakness or wickedness of Men and we must not think our selves to be wiser than God taking upon our selves to dispense with his Commands without any allowance from him as if himself had not foreseen those inconveniences which may arise from our doing our duty it can therefore never be that obedience to God should give any real Scandal and whatever Offence may be taken at my doing of my duty it is a contradiction to imagine it imputable to me as a sin or fault for it is to suppose one to disobey God in obeying him but they alone are chargeable who are Offended by it Now by the express Command of God we are obliged to obey the lawful injunctions of our Superiours whether Civil or Ecclesiastical and if any are so hardy as to deny this they must seek for another Bible out of which to judge of Gods will for there is hardly any one duty of Religion more plainly Commanded more frequently and earnestly pressed in the New Testament than quiet and peaceable subjection to Authority both in Church and State in all things lawful and that not only to avoid punishment but for Conscience sake and to refuse obedience in such things is a sin against the fifth Commandment That the Conformity required by our Church contains not any thing in it unlawful must be granted as I have already observed by all those who make use of this Plea of Scandal from all which the necessary Conclusion is Since we may not redeem a Scandal by disobedience to God since God hath plainly required our submission to those whom he hath set over us in all things lawful since it is acknowledged by those I now discourse with that Conformity to the Church is enjoyned by a competent Authority and is lawful I say the necessary conclusion is that no Man can with a good Conscience refuse to conform only for fear of Scandal Our Dissenting Brethren when they are urged with this Argument neither do nor can deny any of the Premises they must confess that no sin may be committed upon any account whatsoever and that a Man is not bound to provide for his Brothers safety by wounding his own Soul they cannot deny but that God hath Commanded us to be subject to Lawful Authority in all things lawful but then to evade the force of this reasoning they have endeavoured to load the conclusion with some seeming difficulties and absurdities which they pretend follow from this principle that we are bound to obey notwithstanding the Scandal that may ensue upon it The chief of these I shall mention and briefly return an Answer to them 1. It is pleaded that those precepts which contain only rituals are to give place to those which do concern the welfare of Mens Bodies and much more to those which do respect the welfare of our Brothers Soul so that when both together cannot be observed we must neglect or violate the former to observe the latter That this is true even of some Commands given by God himself to which purpose our Saviour doth produce that saying of the Prophet Hosea I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice Now if Sacrifices prescribed by God himself which were so considerable a part of the Divine Worship under Moses's Law yet were to give place to acts of mercy how much more are the positive injunctions of Men that concern only the externals and circumstantials of Religion to yield to the Royal and indispensable Law of Charity of which this duty of not giving Offence to others is such an Eminent part Thus saith Mr. Jeans in his Second Part of Scholastical Divinity What Laws of any Earthly Wight whatsoever concerning Ceremonies can be more obligatory than the Commands of God touching the externals of his Worship and Service and yet it is his will and pleasure that these externals of his Worship should be laid aside for the performance of outward works of mercy If therefore the sacred Ordinances of God are to give way unto works of mercy unto the bodies of Men surely then much more is the trash of human inventions to yield unto a work of mercy to the Souls of Men. In answer to this it is readily acknowledged that when there doth happen any such interfering between two Commands of God the one Positive the other Moral the Positive ought always to give place to the Moral and by the same reason the positive Commands of our Superiours ought certainly to give way to the Moral Commands of God which are of eternal and immutable obligation They cease to bind us either in case of absolute necessity or when they plainly hinder our performance of any Moral duty to God or our Neighbour and the Church is presumed to dispense with its orders as God Almighty doth allow the neglect of his own positive Institutions in such circumstances But then this is only where the necessity is urgent and extream the sin we must otherwise commit evident and certain and at last our Obedience is dispensed withal only for that one time Thus in a case of necessity Our Saviour St. Matth. 12. 5. acquits David and his followers of all blame who being ready to perish for hunger did eat of the Shewbread which otherwise was not lawful for them to eat but had they taken a particular fancy to that Bread and refused to have eaten of any other because that best agreed with their Stomacks and was most pleasing to their Palate can we think our Saviour would have so easily excused them Or which is nearer to our Case because God did prefer acts of Mercy before Sacrifices where both could not be done yet this would not have justified any mans wholly leaving off Sacrificing or refusing to do it at Jerusalem inventing another way of Worship as more expedient than Sacrificing or choosing another place to Sacrifice in which might be more convenient for all the Jews than that City was We may leave our Prayers forsake the Church to save