Sense of them to the mind of the Hearers Neither of which I am confident can be truly charged upon them For never did men more indeavour orderly discourse and aim at plain unaffected Speech than they do now in the Church of England where good Sense in the most easie and familiar Words is now lookt upon as the principal Commendation of Sermons Some indeed I have heard find fault with our Sermons for not keeping the old method as they call it of Doctrine Reason and Vse which is altogether unjust as well as frivolous For there is no man that baulks that Method when it is natural but rather chuses it because it hath been common and is easie and useful As for example if any man among us were to preach upon this text Corinth XIII 13. And now abideth Faith Hope and Charity these three but the greatest of these is Charity He would without doubt not only observe among other Doctrines the preheminence of Charity but also give the best Reasons he could think of why it ought to be highest in our Esteem and our Affections too because it is the very end of Faith and Hope and because it makes us like unto God which Faith and Hope do not And after such like things he would likewise make that Use of this Doctrine which the Apostle himself doth Immediately in the very next words Verse 1. Chapter XIV pressing every one to follow after the Love of God and of their Neighbour to follow it earnestly and vigorously and never cease their pursuit till they feel their Hearts possessed with it not contenting themselves meerly with believing but being so affected with it that they attain the end of their Faith which ought to work by Love Nay he would wish them to examine and prove their Faith by this whether it be likely to save them or no. For if it leave them short of this Charity it will leave them short of Heaven for it is Charity alone that hath any place there And who would forbear most pathetical intreaties here to be very serious in this search there being so much Pretence to Faith in the World and so little Charity to be found there To one sort of Faith especially which is the apprehension of Christs Merits and application of them to themselves which every Body makes bold withal whilst very few have any thing of that Charity which St. Paul describes in the Chapter before named of that long suffering and kind Charity which envieth not which vaunteth not it self or is not rash is not puffed up doth not behave it self unseemly seeketh not her own is not easily provoked thinketh no Evil but takes things in the best Sense and puts the fairest Construction upon them in one Word makes a Man inoffensive not only towards God but towards Men of all sorts high and low rich and poor that is to the whole Church of God The like I might say of all other Subjects of the same nature which lead him that handles them into this Method But sometime the matter to be treated of is such that there is no other Reason to be given of it but only the divine Revelation upon whose Testimony we receive it as we do that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of God begotten of his Father before all Worlds The Vses of which I never heard any Preacher amougst us fail to make both for the begetting Reverence towards him Faith in him and Obedience unto him But what need is there of so many Words about this method of Sermons when the ancient Doctors of Religion it is manifest did not mind it nor any other But spake to the Business before them without observing any constant Rule at all in their Discourses and then it is apparent People profited by Sermons much more than they do now when they are most artificially contrived And it would be an inexcusable Sin in those that should leave our Church did the Ministers of it only open the Sense of the Epistle or the Gospel for the day or any other portion of Holy Scripture as St. Chrysostom was wont to do without making particular Observations or concluding all with distinct Uses as the manner now is but only with a general Application pressing what they thought most material or what the necessities of their People most required By which way of preaching if Men can receive no profit they must lay the Blame somewhere else than upon the Composition of the Sermon or the manner of its Delivery either which is the next thing to be considered 2. Now here two things are found fault withal first That our Preachers are not vehement enough in the Delivery of their Sermons secondly That they read them For the former of these it is not true where the matter in hand is of great concernment and requâ—res more than ordinary earnestness Which ought in reason to be reserved for some certain Occasions and not be spent upon all things alike for then it loses its effect at that time when it would be most seasonably and usefully employed But there is a great mistake in that which men call vehemence which oft-times consists only in the strength of the voice which neither all your Preachers nor all ours are indowed withal And if they were would be but noise without good Sense which will move attentive minds as much as a loud sound affects Mens Ears Add to this that there is a natural heat also in some Mens tempers which makes them speak vehemently with such a warmth as hath the appearance of much Zeal when they are nothing near so deeply affected with what they say as some Men of more sedate and cool tempers are whose Judgment operates more strongly than their Passions And these Men surely may be very serviceable for Illumination of the Mind with such force of Argument as will certainly move the affections vehemently by the help of serious Consideration without which if any affections be raised they are little worth and will not last but vanish as soon as that blast is over which stirred them up And this difference of temper is observable in your Men as well as in ours and therefore this can be no hindrance to Edification among us no more than among you As for reading of Sermons it is not universally used but there are those among us whom God hath blessed with such strength of Memory or readiness of Conception that they need not the help of any Notes at all in the Pulpit And others do not tye themselves to them so as never to look off the Book but only assist their Memory by them sometimes Whereby the Auditory is assured that they hear nothing but what hath been beforehand considered and digested and the Preacher himself also is secured that he shall not forget any thing of Moment which he hath prepared that no Expression slip from him on a sudden which may prove indecent or imprudent As for those whose weakness of Memory
may make Separation from We shall need no further proof of this Doctrine than the Example of our Saviour himself c. For why should our Saviour use it if it was unlawful Or why should it be a Sin to us The unâ—easonableness of Separat p. 104. who have not such Eyes to pierce into the Impiety of Mans Traditions as he had as Mr. Bradshaw argues The same Measures were observed also by the Apostles after the Establishment of the Christian Church This is not to be gainsaid and is therefore granted by one in other things rigid more than enough I Non-conformists no Schismaticks p. 15. do not say that every Corruption in a true Church is sufficient Ground of Separation from it The Unsoundness of many in the Church of Corinth touching the Doctrine of the Resurrection and in Galatia touching the Doctrine of Circumcision and the necessity of keeping the Ceremonial Law were not sufficient Ground of Separation from them for the Apostles held Communion with them notwithstanding these Corruptions Now by Parity of Reason it will follow that if Separation was not to be allowed from those corrupted Churches then surely not from such as are not so corrupted as they So Mr. Cawdrey Independ a great Schism p. 195. pleads Corinth had we suppose greater Disorders in it than are to be found blessed be God in many of our Congregations why then do they fly and separate from us And if our Saviour and his Apostles did not separate from such Churches much less should we who may without doubt safely follow the Advice given by an Author above quoted When you are at England's Remembrancer Serm. 4. p. 111. a stand think how Christ would have carried what he would have done in the like case with yours and we may thereby be concluded Thirdly They further argue That Christ doth Arg. 3 still hold Communion with defective Churches and not reject the Worship for tolerable Corruptions in it and so neither ought we It is supposed by Dr. Owen That there is no such Society of Christians Discourse of Evangelical Love c. 3. p. 81. in the World whose Assemblies as to instituted Worship are so rejected by Christ as to have a Bill of Divorce given unto them until they are utterly as it were extirpate by the Providence of God c. For we do judg that where ever the Name of Jesus Christ is called upon there is Salvation to be obtained however the ways of it may be obstructed unto the most by their own Sins and Errors And if this may be said of Churches though fundamentally erroneous in Worship then Who shall dare as another saith to judg when Christ hath forsaken a People Troughton's Apol. p. 110. who still profess his Name and keep up his Worship for substance according to his Word though they do or are supposed to fail in circumstances or lesser parts of Duty Now this granted the other will follow that then we are not to separate from such Churches Thus Mr. Hildersham concluded of old from the Practice Lect. 35 on John p. 165 166. and Lect. 82. p. 384. of Christ and observes 1. So long as God continueth his Word and the Doctrine of Salvation to a People so long it is evident that God dwells among them and hath not forsaken them c. And till God hath forsaken a Church no Man may forsake V. Dr. Bryan's dwelling with God p. 293. it 2. No Separation may be made from those Assemblies where Men may be assured to find and attain Salvation But Men may be sure to find and attain Salvation in such Assemblies where the Ministry of his Word and the Doctrine of Salvation is contained So Mr. * * * On the Sacramen p. 242. Crofton's hard way to Heaven p. 36. Noye's Temple measured p. 79. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Davenport's Apol. reply p. 281. Ball 's Tryal p. 159 c. Vines The Argument saith he of Mr. Brightman is considerable If God afford his Communion with a Church by his own Ordinances Grace and Spirit it would be unnatural and peevish in a Child to forsake his Mother while his Father owns her for his Wife I might heap up Authorities of this kind but shall content my self with a considerable one from †††Comment on 1 Epist John p. 156. Mr. Cotton who reasons after this manner The Practice of the Brownists is blame-worthy because they separate where Christ keeps Fellowship Rev. 1. 18. And that he walks with us we argue because he is still pleased to dispense to us the Word of Life and edifies many Souls thereby and therefore surely Christ hath Fellowship with us and shall Man be more pure than his Maker where Christ vouchsafes Fellowship shall Man renounce it Upon this are grounded the wholesome Exhortations of many eminent Non-conformists as that of Mr. Calamy You must hold Communion with all Godly Mans Ark Epist Ded. those Churches with which Christ holds Communion you must separate from the Sins of Christians but not from the Ordinances of Christ Of Mr. R. Allein Godly Mans Portion p. 122. Excommunicate not them from you excommunicate not your selves from them with whom Christ holds Communion Judg not that Christ withdraws from all those who are not in every thing of your mind and way Methinks saith another in his V. Bains on the Ephes c. 2. 15. p. 297. England's Remâ—mbrancer Serm. 16. p. 455. Farewel Sermon where a Church as to the main keeps the Form of sound Words and the Substantials of that Worship which is Christ's some adjudged Defects in Order cannot justify Separation I dare not dismember my self from that Church that holds the Head I think whilst Doctrine is for the main sound Christ stays with a Church and it is good staying where he stays I would follow him and not lead him or go before the Lamb. To such we find a severe Rebuke given very lately by one of themselves Proud conceited Christians are not contented to come out Continuat of Morn Exerc. Serm. 16. p. 459. and separate from the unbelieving idolatrous World but they will separate also from the true Church of Christ and cast off all Communion with them who hold Communion with him Fourthly They argue That to separate for such Arg. 4 Defects and Corruptions would destroy all Communion If this should be saith Mr. Bradshaw then no Unreas of the Separaâ— p. 103. Man can present himself with a good Conscience at any publick Worship of God wheresoever because except it should be stinted and prescribed he can have no Assurance but that some Errors in Matter and Form will be committed So Mr. Ball One Man is of Opinion Trial of the Grounds of Separat c. 8. p. 137 138. that a prescribed Form is better than another another that a prescribed Form is unlawful c. In these Cases if the least Eâ—ror do stain the Prayers to others that
and the same Acts 2. 41. day were added to the Church about 3000 souls It 's true St. Peter exhorted them all to repent in order to it but whether they did so or no he stay'd not for proof from their bringing forth fruits worthy of repentance but presently upon their profest willing reception of the Word they were baptiz'd and added to the Church One might have been apt to suspect that amongst so great a number all would not prove sincere Converts and so it fell out Ananias and Saphira Acts 4. 34. Acts 5. 1 2 3. were two of the number in whom ye know that glad reception of the Gospel was found to be but gross hypocrisie By the same rule St. Philip proceeded in planting the Church at Samaria when the People seeing the miracles he did gave heed to the doctrine he Acts 8. 12. taught concerning the Kingdom of Heaven and the Name of Jesus and declar'd their belief of it without any farther examination they were Baptized both Men and Women And amongst them was Simon Magus wose former notorious Crimes of Sorcery Witchcraft and Blasphemy might have given just grounds of fear to the holy Deacon that his Faith was but hypocritical and his Heart not right in the sight of God as appear'd afterwards yet upon his believing Acts 8. 20. he was Baptiz'd such other Members of Christ's Church were Demas Hymeneus and Alexander they ver 13. had nothing it seems but a bare outward profession of the Faith to entitle them to that Priviledg since afterwards as we read the one embrac'd this present World and the other two made shipwrack of Faith and a good Conscience 3. This appears from the representation Christ hath 2 Tim. 4. 10. 1 Tim. 1. 19. made of his Church in the Gospel fore-instructing his Disciples by many Parables that it should consist of a mixture of good and bad It is a Field wherein Wheat and Tares grow up together A Net wherein are Fishes of all sorts A Flour in which is laid up solid Corn and Mat. 13. 24 25. vers 47. light Chaff A Vine on which are fruitful and barren Branches A great House wherein are Vessels of Gold Mat. 3. 12. and Silver and Vessels of lesser value Wood and Earth John 15. 1. A Marriage feast where are wise and foolish Virgins 2 Tim. 2. 20. some with wedding garments and some without some Mat. 25. had Oyl and some but empty Lamps St. Hierome compares it to Noah's Ark wherein were preserv'd Beasts clean and unclean when the Apostle said They are St. Hier. dial con Lucifer Arca Noae Ecclesiae typus not all Israel that are of Israel his meaning was that in the Jewish Church many more were Circumcis'd in the Flesh than what were Circumcis'd in Heart and when our Saviour said many are call'd Rom. 9. 6. but few chosen he declar'd the same thing that in his Church many more were call'd and admitted into it by Baptism than what were sanctified by his Spirit or should be admitted into his Heaven 4. The many corrupt and vicious Members in the Churches which the Apostle themselves had planted is another proof of this The number whereof in all likelihood could not have been so great had they been so cautious and scrupulous as to admit none into them but whom in their judgments they thought to be really holy In the Church of Corinth there were 1 Cor. 15. 34. ver 12. 2 Cor. 12. 20 21. 1 Cor. 7. many that had not the knowledg of God that denied the Resurrection of the Dead that came Drunk to the Lords Table that were Fornicators Unclean and Contentious Persons In the Church of Galatia there were many that Nauseated the Bread of Life and made it their Choice to pick and eat the rubbish of the partition wall which Christ had demolisht The Rites of the Law which expired at the death of Christ they attempted to pull out of their Graves and to give a Resurrection to them They were so much gone off from the Doctrine of Christianity to weak and beggarly Rudiments observing Days and Months and Gal. 3. 7 10 11. Times and Years that by reason of this their Superstition St. Paul signifi'd his fears of quite losing them and that his labour was bestowed upon them in vain Amongst all the Seven Churches in Asia there was not one but what had receiv'd such Members into it that were either very Cold Lukewarm in their Religion or by their Vicious Lives proved a Reproach and Scandal to it The Church of Sardis so swarm'd with these that St. John tells us that there were but a few Rev. 3. 1 4. names in Sardis that had not defil'd their garments Now if the Apostles of our Lord who had the extraordinary assistances of the Holy Ghost for the discerning of Spirits at that time and were thereby enabl'd far beyond what any of their Successors can pretend to to distinguish betwixt the good and the bad did notwistanding admit many meer formal Professors into the Church of Christ we may conclude that they apprehended that 't was the will of Christ it should be so 5. No other rule in admitting persons into the Church is practicable Whether Persons are really holy and truly regenerate or no the Officers of Christ who know not the hearts of Men cannot make a certain judgment of they may through want of judgment be deceiv'd through the subtilty of hypocrites be impos'd upon through humane frailty passion or prejudice be misguided and by this means many times the door may be open'd to the bad and shut against the good Now that cannot be suppos'd to be a rule of Christ's appointment which is either impossible to be observ'd or in observing which the Governours of his Church cannot be secur'd from acting wrongfully and injuriously to Men. In sum Christ hath entrusted the power of the Keys into the hands of an Order of Men whom he hath set over his Church and who under him are to manage the Affairs of it but these being but Earthen vessels of short and fallible understandings he has 2. Cor. 4 7. not left the execution of their Office to be manag'd solely by their own prudence and discretion but hath given them a certain publick Rule to go by both in admitting persons into his Church and in excluding them out of it for the one the Rule is open and solemn profession of the Christian Faith for the other open and scandalous Offences prov'd by witnesses 2. The second Proposition is That every such Member has a right to all the external Priviledges of the Church till by his continuance in some notorious and scandalous sins he forfeits that right and by the just censures of the Church for such behaviour he be actually excluded from those Priviledges For the explanation and proof of this Proposition these three particulars are to be done 1. What 's
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
of it being in token of their preheminence and the headship they have over the VVoman c. 1 Cor. 11. 47. But otherwise they without doubt thought it unpracticable to tye all Nations up to the same Modes and Circumstances or if practicable that it was not worth the while when the VVorship might as well be Administred and God as much Honoured by one as the other Now if they did think it sufficient to prescribe only in this General way it must needs be that the particulars of those Generals must be Indifferent and that the chusing of one particular before the other was left to Christian Prudence And if it should be said as it is that when the things are determined in general the particulars are therein also vertually determined and so are not Indifferent I shall content my self to reply that by this way of arguing there would be nothing Indifferent in the VVorld There being nothing how Lawful and Indifferent soever in it self but what we are limited by General Rules in the use of As for example all Meats are now Lawful to Christians but yet there are General Rules by which we are determined in the use of them such as our own Constitution and our Quality or Scandal given to others But the being thus bounded by such Rules doth not change the Nature of those Meats and make them to be other than Indifferent So it is in the VVorship of God for the better Administration of which there are general Rules laid down and according to which we are to be determined in our choice of particulars but yet the particulars notwithstanding are Indifferent and matter of Christian Liberty and what humane prudence is to regulate us in All which will yet be further confirmed by considering the Nature of the things which are the Subject of those general Rules viz. Order Decency and Edification which do mostly if not altogether depend upon variable Circumstances and may be different according to those Circumstances sometimes this and at other times that being subservient thereunto As for instance Decency doth generally depend upon Custom and the Custom of Ages and Countries being different Decency in one Age or Country may be and often is quite different from what it is in another It was once comely amougst some Nations to be covered in Divine Worship and practised both amongst the Jews in their Synagogues as the Apostle doth insinuate 2 Cor. 3. 14. and their own Authors do acknowledg (a) (a) (a) Lightf â—or Hebr. in 1 Cor. 11. 4. and also amongst the (b) (b) (b) Plut. Probl. Rom. Romans But it was Comely amongst others to be Uncovered as amongst the Grecians c who in those Times giving Laws of Civility and in many things of Religion too to other Nations it became a prevailing Custom and was as a thing decent introduced into b Macrob. Saturn l. 3. c. 6. the Christian Church Thus it is also as to Edification which doth in like manner often depend upon Circumstances and according to those Circumstances the Edification of the Church in its Peace Union and Comfort may be promoted or hindred and that may be for Edification in one Age or Church which is not so in another Thus the being covered in Divine Worship was for Edification in the Jewish Church being used in token of Eear and Reverence Distance and Subjection in allusion to which the Seraphims are represented appearing before God after that manner Isai 6. 2. and in imitation of whom the Apostle pleads that Woman should be vailed in Religious Assemblies in token of Subjection and Shamefacedness 1 Cor. 11. 10. But on the contrary he doth judge and Determin that for the Reasons above given it was better and more for Edification that Men should be therein Uncovered So the Love-feasts and Holy-kiss of Charity were at the first thought good for Edification and were accordingly used in Apostolical times being an Excellent and Useful Chrysost and Theophyl in 1 Cor. 11. 17. Tertul. Apol. c. 39. de orat l. 6. Admirable and Frindly Custom as thereby was signified the Universal Love and Charity that Christians ought to maintain and which they should at all times but especially in Divine Worship be forward to express and renew But when Disorder and Licentiousness arose from them they were generally laid aside and Concil Laod. c. 28. c. Abolished by Authority So it was thought to be for Edification in the Primitive Church to Administer Baptism by immersion or dipping and the Apostle doth make use of it as an excellent argument to newness of life Rom. 6. 3 4. and yet notwithstanding the signification of it and the practise of the Church for a long time a Charitable reason hath over-ruled it and brought in Sprinkling instead of it Thus sitting at the Lords Supper is accounted decent by some and Edification as it 's a table posture and is a sign of our being feasted by God and yet in a general Synod of the Reformed Churches in Poland c. it was declared that forasmuch as sitting was introduced first by the Synod Petricav conclus 4. An. 1578. Arrians beside the Custom used in all the Evangelical Churches throughout Europe we reject it as peculiar to them that as they do irreverently treat Christ so also his Sacred appointments and as a Ceremony less Comely and Devout and to many very offensive So that Order Decency and Edification being generally mutable things and varying as circumstances vary there could in the nature of the thing be only general Rules prescribed and so the particulars must be left to discretion and to be determined by those that are best able and have Authority to judge of the circumstances and to pick out of them those which are indifferent what may best serve the ends of Religion and the honour of its institutions 2. I shall prove that things indifferent in themselves though not prescribed may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship from the practice of our Saviour and his Apostles Under the Law the Constitution was very exact the Rites and Orders of it very particular and the Observation of them punctually required But as it was not so precise but that many things respecting the outward Order were added so some things were altered upon prudential considerations and by the addition or alteration of which the Authority of that Law was not conceived to be infringed nor violated as it 's evident from the respect which our Saviour shewed to them and his compliance with them An instance of this is the Synagogual Worship It 's a controversie whether there was any provision made under the Law for the places themselves the intimations of that are if any very obscure but there are not so much as any intimations of the manner and order or parts of the VVorship therein to be observed and yet we find such there was Acts 15. 21. Moses being read and preached there every Sabbath Day and that
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.
Service were many yet they were sufficiently describ'd in their Law and it was but consulting that or Those whose Office and Employment it was to be well versed in it and they might be presently inform'd and as soon see it as the Book was laid open This they all agreed in But it is not so under the Gospel and there is no greater proof of it than the several schemes drawn up for Discipline and Order by those that have been of that Opinion and made some attemps to discribe them And then when things are thus dark and obscure so hard to trace and discover that it has thus perplexed and baffled those that have made it their business to bring these things within Scripture Rules how perplexed must they be that are not skilled in it And as I have above shewed must all their Days live in the Communion it 's likely of no Church since though a Church should have nothing in it but what is prescribed yet it would take up a great deal of time to examine and more to be satisfied that all in it is prescribed 3. I shall consider How we may know what things are Indifferent in the Worship of God I may answer to this that we may know what is Indifferent in the Worship of God by the same Rule that we may know what is Indifferent out of Worship that is if the thing to be enquired after be neither required nor Forbidden For the Nature of Indifferency is always the same and what it is in one kind or instance it is in all and if the want of a Law to Require or Forbid doth make a thing Indifferent in Nature or Civil matters it doth also the same in Religious And in things Forbidden by Humane Authority the not being required in Scripture and in things required by Humane Authority the not being Forbidden in Scripture is a Rule we may safely determine the case and judg of the Lawfulness and Indifferency of things in Divine Worship by But I confess the Question requires a more parcicular Answer because things in their Nature Lawful and Indifferent may yet in their use and application become unlawful As it is in Civil cases and Secular matters to be Covered or Uncovered is a thing in it self Indifferent but to be Covered in the presence of such of our Betters as Custom and Law have made it our Duty to stand bare before would be unlawful and it would be no excuse for such an Omission and Contempt that the thing is in it self Indifferent And then much more will this hold where the case is of an higher Nature as it is in the Worship of God where things in themselves Indifferent may become Ridiculous Absurd and Profane and argue rather contempt of God than reverence for him in the Persons using them Again the things may though Grave and Pertinent yet be so numerous that they may obscure and oppress the Service and confound and distract the Mind that should attend to the Observation of them and so for one reason or another are not to be allowed in the Solemnities of Religion Therefore in Answer to the Question I shall add 1. That things Indifferent are so called from their general Nature and not as if in practice and use and all manner of cases they always were so and never unlawful for that they may be by Accident and Circumstance being lawful or unlawful expedient or inexpedient as they are used and applied 2. I observe that there are several Laws which things Indifferent do respect and that may be Required or Forbidden by one Law which is not Forbidden or Required by another and that may be Indifferent in one State which is Unlawful in another and by passing out of one into the other may cease to be Indifferent and therefore when we say things are Indifferent we must understand of what Rank they are and what Law they do respect As for example Humane Conversation and Religious Worship are different Ranks to which things are referred and therefore what may be Indifferent in Conversation may be unlawful in Worship Thus to Enterchange Discourse about Common Affairs is a thing lawful in it self and useful in its place but when practised in the Church and in the midst of Religious Solemnities is Criminal This distinction of Ranks and States of things is useful and necessary to be observed and which if observed would have prevented the objection made by some that if a Church or Authority may Command Indifferent things then they may require us to Pray Standing upon the head c. for that though Indifferent in another case is not in that as being unsutable to it 3. Therefore we must come to some Rules in Divine Worship by which we may know what things in their Nature Indifferent are therein also Indifferent and may be lawfully used It being not enough to plead they are Indifferent in themselves as some unwarily do and therefore presently they may be used For by the same reason a Person may Spit in anothers Face may keep on his Hat before the King c. the Spitting and being Covered being in their Nature Indifferent But now as there are certain Rules which we are to respect in Common and Civil Conversation and which even in that case do tye us up in the use of things otherwise Indifferent So it is as reasonable and must be much more allowed that there are some Rules of the like Nature which we must have a regard to in the Administration of Divine Worship And as in Common matters the Nature of the thing in Actions the end in Conversation the circumstances are to be heeded viz. Time Place Persons as when where before whom we are Covered or Uncovered c. So in Sacred matters the Nature of the thing in the Decency and Solemnity of the Worship the end for which it was appointed in the Edification of the Church and the Peace Glory Security of that in its Order are to be respected And according to these Rules and the circumstances of things are we to judg of the Indifferency Lawfulness or expediency of things used in the Service of God and as they do make for or against and do approach to or recede from these Characters so they are to be rejected or observed and the more or less esteemed But yet we are not come to a conclusion for 1. These are general Rules and so the particulars are nor so easily pointed to 2. Decency and Edification and Order are as was observed before Variable and Uncertain and depend upon Circumstances and so in their Nature not easily determined And 3. Persons have very different Opinions about what is Decent Edifying and Orderly as in the Apostles time in the Church of Rome some were for and others against the Observation of Days and in the Church of Corinth some doubtless were for being Covered others for being Uncovered in Divine Worship And therefore there is somewhat further requisite to give Satisfaction
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
25. been many times said viz. that by things not Commanded are meant things forbidden and hath nothing to prove it by but only that the things mentioned in Scripture to which that phrase is applied were things forbidden as Idolatry c. Though what he produceth out of the Case be sufficient Case of Indifferent Things p. 20. yet he extreamly forgets himself when he saith nothing but only since in the page he quotes there are two arguments that are sooner flip'd than answered But however what hath he to reply to that which hath been many times said He grants It is true And is this nothing toward the proof of it What fitter way have we to find out the meaning of a phrase than to consider the several places where it is used Or to ascertain the sense of it than to shew that it 's always alike applied to such a case or thing But in answer to this he asks Why are such things express'd to us in this phrase as Not Commanded only 1st I answer they are not thus express'd as Not commanded Only For the things said to be not commanded are either in their own nature or in Scripture absolutely Forbidden as I have shewed and he grants and therefore to limit the phrase as if there was no more intended in it than that the things are not commanded as the Word Only implies and not also forbidden is to thwart Scripture as well as my reasoning from it 2ly If we take the Phrase as it is yet there his Question Why are they thus express'd and not commanded is of no Importance for supposing we could give no Reason for such an use of it that would not be sufficient to question the Thing as long as we find it constantly so used and applied But 3ly Was there no Reason offer'd no account given of it Let him peruse the Tract he opposeth as sure he did and he will find it expresly undertaken and two Reasons given for it as 1. Things forbidden are Case of Indiff Things pag. 23. called not commanded because all things prohibited are by consequence not commanded and not è contra 2. It 's by way of Meiosis c. But these though to the purpose in hand were not I am afraid to his Well! Let us consider 4ly What Account our Author himself gives at last of this 1. Saith he Things forbidden in Scripture are said to be not commanded To let us know the doing of a thing not commanded in God's Worship is Guilt enough Surely not so great as to do a thing notoriously Case Indiff Things pag. 20. forbidden as I there shewed Surely it can be no Guilt at all to do a thing not commanded if not also forbidden because as he owns there are Indifferent Things in the Worship of God and what are indifferent Things but Things not commanded as well as not forbidden 2. He saith it was so express'd because the Guilt of the Sin of Idolatry and Superstition lay in this that it was a thing not commanded had God commanded those things they had been a true Worship and acceptable In which assertion of his he grosly mistakes First as to the nature of Idolatry and Superstition when he saith the guilt of them lay in this that they were things not commanded Whereas it is evident that they were Sins because forbidden For what is Superstition but the dreading of that which is not to be dreaded as the Greek word shews Such as the Signs of Heaven Divinations and Daemons and even the unreasonable and inordinate fear of God himself When we fear Jer. 10. 2. offending him in what is not offensive to him And what is Idolatry but the giving Divine honour to that which is not God or prohibited honour to the true and only God These are things manifestly forbidden Secondly It 's yet a grosser Error which is contained in the reason he gives for it viz. That had God Commanded those things they had been a true Worship and acceptable An assertion First that confounds the Nature of things that makes Vice and Vertue alike and no otherwise discriminated but by Gods written Law as if Idolatry and Superstition were not Evil antecedent to all Revelation and which are so where Revelation is not as well as where it is Secondly From hence it follows that those things may be acceptable to God which in their own nature do tend to drive Religion out of the World and that may be true Worship which will unavoidably debase the Deity in the thoughts of Mankind For so do Idolatry and Superstition As for the Instances he there takes notice of I shall reserve them to a more convenient place Conclus 2. If things Indifferent be such as are neither Conclus Commanded nor Forbidden and that things are not unlawful because not Commanded then things thus Indifferent and not commanded are not additions to the Word Case of Indiff things p. 24. of God and the places usually insisted upon must be understood according to the sence I gave of them and which may serve as a sufficient reply to what he hath Case examined p. 26. said upon that Head But yet because he hath offer'd somewhat in another place that looks like an Argument I shall here consider it He argues thus If obedience be wanting the Salt is wanting to the Sacrifices Pag. 4. of our God which as we humbly conceive leaves no more room for perfective than corruptive Additions to Divine Worship c. What can be an act of Obedience to God but what he hath commanded whether he hath forbidden it or no If we bid our Servant go a mile and he goeth two possibly hoping to do us Service in it we hope his going the Second mile is no act of obedience though we did not forbid him In matters of this Nature no act of Supererogation is allowable because it can be no obedience In answer to which it will be necessary to resolve this Question Q. Whether the doing of any thing in the Worship of God without a command be a sinful addition to the Word of God I answer that if the Question is understood of the proper and essential parts of Worship if I may so speak then we grant it and say that he that shall institute any thing in that kind without Divine Institution doth challenge Gods prerogative to himself and because the rule is sufficient all such perfective are corruptive additions as he speaks to both Rule and Worship It is as if a Servant when bidden to go a mile he goeth two possibly hoping to do Service in it for in matters of this nature no Supererogation is allowable Thus far his comparison holds as to matters of the same Nature and design'd to the same end and esteemed to be of the same use As the going of two Miles for one with an intent to do as good Service and be as well if not better approv'd for so doing But if the question be
understood of such things as are Adjuncts to Divine Worship that are not used upon the score of any of the reasons aforesaid then we are not to expect a command nor do we Sin if we act without it As for example a Servant is required to go a Mile upon some service and he useth a Coat or a Cloak takes an Horse or goes on Foot puts a string about his Finger to remember him of what he is to do Or if to carry a Message considers what to say and Writes it down that he may be the better fitted to deliver it In such cases his Master would think him impertinent to ask Directions and it 's no Disobedience nor Supererogation to act as he sees fit without them And this is the case with us as I shall afterward shew This said there is way made for the next inference Conclus 3. If things Indifferent are neither commanded Conclus 3 nor forbidden and things are not unlawful because not commanded it follows that it 's no Derogation from the Sufficiency of Scripture to maintain the lawfulness of using such things in Divine Worship as are not therein commanded It 's somewhat a Specious way of arguing which this Author useth the Scriptures have determined whatsoever may make us wise to Salvation perfect p. 2â— throughly furnished to all good Works Now if the Worship of God be a good work and the right doing of it hath any tendency to make us perfect they must have a sufficiency to direct us in that And he concludes If there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the Worship of God except as before excepted c. then the Scriptures are not able to make us wise c. By this way of arguing and a challenge he immediately subjoyns viz. If our Author can shew us any Act of Worship c. It may be thought he is a Champion for the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture and we the derogators from it And that without any more ado he would have brought unanswerable arguments for that kind of Scripture-sufficiency which we deny If saith he our R. Author can shew us any Act of Worship for the Pag. 29. performance of which in such a manner as God will accept we cannot shew him direction of Scripture Well! where is it Scripture with the addition of such circumstances as are naturally necessary to all Humane Actions or evidently convenient for an action of a grave and weighty Nature for the obtaining the ends of it or appearing to any Common Judgment to be so decent that without them the performance would be sordid Scripture with the practice of the first Guides of the Church Scripture with the light of Nature shining out in every reasonable Soul c. Scripture with the exceptions before excepted in his Book pag. 21 Suppose then we put it to the question Is Scripture alone a sufficient Rule for matters to be used in the Worship of God He readily answers Yes If you take in the Nature of the thing the light shining in every reasonable Soul if you take in Common Judgment convenience and decency Lastly if you take in the practice of the first Guides of the Church that is it is and it is not Now how he hath all this while pleaded for that Sufficiency of Scripture which we deny And why he should so loudly exclaim against all Supplements and Additions to that and against pag. 38. Reason and Authority as a Supply or what difference he hath conceived betwixt Authority the Guides of the Church or betwixt Reason and the light of Nature Shining out in every reasonable Soul so as to deny to pag. 29. the one what he grants to the other I am not able to understand Yet for all this there must be a difference betwixt him and us and somewhat shall be said to make it out For the Sufficiency of Scripture is a very great argument And so indeed it is and it has been an old pag. 28. argument against the practices of our Church and is not to be easily parted with But yet what to give and what to take and wherein the difference is betwixt what we hold and he is forced to grant he knows not or has not been so kind as to discover But however when all this is pastover he concludes as to one part we cannot possibly agree with our R. Brother in this thing viz. That we have no such particular directions for Worship under the Gospel as they had under the Law This indeed I touched upon to shew that the Case of indifferent things pag. 30. faithfulness of Christ and sufficiency of Scripture consist not in giving as particular directions for Worship as they had under the Law and in proof of this I set Baptism against Circumcision the Lord's Supper against the Passover and Prayers against Sacrifices Now let us consider what are the reasons why he cannot possibly agree Certainly if ever controversie was like to be ended we may now expect it because it 's about plain matter of Fact But in this case he strangely fails of performance For whereas the deciding the case depends upon the comparison betwixt the Law and the Gospel he doth not so much as offer any thing about the latter But let us consider what he saith of the former and as much as we can make up his defect in the latter First he saith As to Circumcision what particular pag. 31. direction had the Jews Their Rule extended no further than to the Act and the time Here I must confess there is nothing but the time that is determined But since there is nothing of that kind in Baptism prescribed the Law is herein more particular than the Gospel 2ly As to the Passover he acknowledges they had a Rule but then he adds What Rule had they to determine them to a Kid or a Lamb But was not that a Rule to determine them when it must be a Kid or a Lamb and no other Creature and is not Two to all the Beasts in the world a determination as well as one to two But was there nothing else determined as his cautious way of expressing it would imply Let him consult the Text and he will find that the Creature was not only thus to be one Exod. 12. c. out of two but it was to be a Male kept the 14th day and to be killed at even without a bone broken to be roasted to be eaten in the house and with unleavened Bread with bitter Herbs and none left to the morning And they were to eat it standing as our Author acknowledges p. 32. with their loyns girt c. And with several other rites too long to enumerate But in the Lord's Supper there is nothing specified or required but the Elements and the breaking and pouring out nothing said of the kind of the Bread or Wine nothing required of the time or posture or number c.
2. Therefore we have a further notion of Natural given us and that is when any thing is suted to the Nature or State of the thing or person Thus Ames and others tell us of Natural Ceremonies as lifting up Fresh Suit p. 1. c. 4. 5. the eyes to Heaven in Sign of Devotion which by the way is not so Natural but that casting them down Luke 18. 13. in Worship is a sign of it too as in the publicans And so habit is Natural to man as belonging and suted to his present condition But saith he it is not Natural for a person may Pray naked and so he may pray blindfold and yet will any one say sight is not natural to man But how may he pray naked in Regious assemblies for we are speaking of publick Worship can he say it 's sutable to the Solemnity And so going naked is as little sutable to the nature of man 3. Again that 's natural which is the effect of Nature though not born with us And I am apt to think that did our Author live within the Circle of the Frigid Zone he would without any Tutor without the knowledge of what is the custom of Civilized Nations without any moral reason have thought upon the benefit of Frieze or somewhat of the like use with that But suppose I am mistaken how hath he mended the matter He tells us that by the custom of Civilized Nations some habit is necessary But then what becomes Gen. 3. 21. of the Fig-leaves what of the coats of Skins God clothed Adam with Now to say it came from custom before custom was for it was in the beginning I think is much more absurd than to say that Habit was natural But it 's time to pass on to a more profitable argument 2. It was proved that all things which in general and for kind are morally necessary are also lawful in their particulars This was made evident from a parity of reason 'twixt what is naturally and what is morally necessary and therefore he that grants the particulars of what is naturally necessary to be indifferent must also grant the particulars of what is morally necessary to be indifferent And as it follows this Time or that this Place or that this Habit or that is lawful and indifferent because Time Place and Habit are necessary So it also follows this Method or that this Form or that this Order or that is lawful and may be used because Method Form and Order are necessary And therefore we need look no more for an institution for a Form than as he saith for a Case examined pag. 18. Bell to call to Worship or for a Gown or Cloak to preach in c. For what Naturally necessary is to the particulars of its kind that is Morally necessary to its particulars And one is no more unlawful for want of an institution or command than the other This our Author also yields to We saith he having agreed Pag. 14. that there are some circumstances of Humane actions in Gods Worship not only Natural common to all actions but of a Moral nature too relating to them as such actions which God having neither commanded nor forbidden may be used are not much concerned in what our Author saith upon his second Head 3. It was further shewed in the aforesaid Treatise that such things in Divine Worship as were agreeable to the Rules of the Apostle and served for Order Decency and Edification were also lawful though they were neither Naturally nor Morally necessary nor did necessarily arise from the nature of the Thing as Method and Form c. do that is that there are a certain sort of things that are ambulatory and contingent that Case of indifferent things p. 8 12 13. vary with circumstances ages places and conditions c. As the being cover'd or uncover'd in Worship such and such fixed hours of Prayer The Love-feasts and Holy-kiss and besides several Civil usages transferr'd from secular affairs into the Service of Religion which were used therein not as meer Civil Rites as I there shewed This argument taken from Civil usages our Author endeavours to avoid several ways 1. He saith If we do not mistake the reason why Case examined pag. 18. Dr. Ames and others do think that Civil usages may be used in Acts of Worship is because they are either necessary to the action as Humane or convenient comely or grave c. And because I had said * * * Case of indifferent things pag. 14. that if the being Civil usages did make them lawful in Divine Worship then there is nothing in Civil cases but may be introduced into the Church though never so absurd he saith he cannot apprehend the consequence because Case examined pag. 19. what is granted about Civil usages is to be applied to grave actions and none other But to this I answer Grant they are thus to be understood of such Civil usages as are grave yet then it is not so much because they are Civil as because they are grave that they may be used and provided that they were grave they might be used if they were not Civil as well as if they were and are not the sooner to be used because they are Civil And then what becomes of their argument for such and such practices and customs that they were Civil And what have they got when to avoid the force of what we say from the Love-Feasts c. plead as he doth that they are Civil usages So that when he and his brethren grant that such usages which may ordinarily Pag. 18. be used in other Humane actions of a grave nature may be used in Acts of Worship which is more than we dare say for then standing crosses may be introduced into Worship which are used to very grave purposes in Civil matters as to distinguish Christian from Heathenish or Turkish Dominions c. I know not what they can deny 2. He gives a very partial account of Civil usages when he tells us of Orators Pulpits and Seats and Bells Gowns and Cloaks But in the mean while forgets that there are Civil usages that are of a Ceremonial Nature and that are used by way of signification distinction c. As now a garment is I may still say Naturally or as he will have it Morally necessary but when in a particular case it 's required that it be White or Purple it 's a Civil usage and is by way of signification and so the signification is transferr'd with it from a civil to a sacred use which how consistent it is with their principles I leave it to his consideration 3. He takes no notice of the Argument used by me that if civil usages without institution may be lawfully used in Divine Worship this with his concessions before about Natural and Moral circumstances will justifie most I had almost said all the practices of our Church as I instanced in the
Surplice since White was used as a badge of Royalty and Dignity of joy and innocency in Civil cases and so may be used by V. Brightman in Ames Fresh Suit part 2. p. 505 510. way of signification in Religious and so of the rest All that he hath to say about the Surplice is that it 's tied to Worship which is remote from the case in hand and shall afterward be considered To this I may also add the Cross which he saith they Pag. 15. do not stumble of making upon a pack of Cloth or Stuff or upon a Sheep for note of distinction and may be and is used for graver purposes in the like way of signification in Civil matters as I have observ'd and so may be by this Argument transfer'd into the Service of Religion 4. It was further maintain'd in the stating of the Case Case of Indiff Things p. 5 6. that the ordering and administration of the things relating to Divine Worship was left to Christian prudence To this our Author saith It is very true these must be determined Case examined p. 7. by human prudence but that they must necessarily be determined by the prudence of the Superiour and may not be determined by the prudence of the agents is another Question Who ever affirmed it That they are left to human prudence to fix and determin is all that I maintain'd but how far Superiours may determin and how far Inferiours must submit to things so determin'd is another Question and belongs to another place From what hath been said it may appear whether no man ever doubted of the truth of the Case as I have stated it when he himself speaks so dubiously and uncertainly about it But because I have not stated it to his mind and that it 's not the Dissenters position pag. 19. but only a position which their adversaries have imposed upon them without any ground as he saith let us see how he states the Question which is thus Q. Whether things the doing or not doing of which Ibid. God hath not prescribed being neither necessary to the action as an human action nor convenient for it with reference to those that perform it for the ends of it nor naturally nor in common judgment such without which it cannot be done decently may be lawfully used in the Worship of God by all persons or by any persons who judge that God hath forbidden the part to which they are by men determined either in the letter or by the just reason and consequence of Holy Writ as forbidding all useless and superfluous things in so sacred actions or things not necessary and used ordinarily in Idolatrous and Superstitious services or judging that in Worship every man is sui juris and ought not to be deprived of the liberty God hath left him may be universally and lawfully used This he hath elsewhere formed into a position and pag. 23 24. from thence doth declare that it lies upon his Adversary to prove that those things which he would have all Dissenters conform to are 1. Things naturally necessary to all human Acts. Or 2. Things convenient for them as human acts Or with reference to the true end of such acts Or 3. Such as Nature shews to be comely for all human acts or such grave acts at least or which common judgment so judgeth Or 4. That men may do what they reasonably judge sinful Or 5. That there is no reason to judge useless and superfluous actions in the Worship of God sinful Or 6. No reason so to judge of the things not necessary to be used in Gods Worship and which have been and are ordinarily used in Idolatrous Worship Or 7. That there is no reason to judge that Christians in matters of Worship ought to be left at liberty in things when God hath so left them Whether this be indeed the Dissenters position he best pag. 19. understands as I should think but whether it be their position explained as he saith or confounded I leave pag. 24. to the judgment of others This only I am sure of that for as much as I can understand of it I may turn his own words upon him and whereas he saith of the Case as I have stated it None in his wits did ever deny it I can say as it 's stated by him None in his wits did ever affirm it For who in his wits will ever affirm that it 's lawful to use such things in the Worship of God that are sordid and indecent disorderly and confused idle useless and superfluous hurtful and pernicious And yet according to him this must he do that will undertake to prove that things that are not comely convenient or edifying may be admitted thereinto For this Author tells us that by Decency we can understand pag. 11. nothing but what is oppos'd to sordidly c. And if it be not decent by his rule it must be sordid And so of the rest Again Who in his wits will affirm that men may do what they reasonably judge sinful And yet these things must they affirm that will attack this position of our Authors By which stating of the Question and mingling things of a different nature together he hath provided well for his own security and may without fear of being conquer'd or so much as oppos'd fling down the Gantlet with If our R. Author hath taken the pag. 25. position as here stated and argued it we shall consider what he hath said if not we shall lightly pass over what he hath said c. and expect till he hath justified all or any of the last Seven mentioned particulars But I shall not so lightly pass over what he hath said without clearing what may be cleared and reducing the Case into its proper principles though it be what he hath taken no care to explain or prove If we review his seven particulars we shall find that the (a) (a) (a) V. case of a scrupulous Conscience Dr. Calamy's Sermon on that subject 4th and 6th (b) (b) (b) the case of Symbolizing and the defence belong not to this case and are otherwhere resolved And of the Five remaining Four of them are reducible to one argument which come now to be considered and the last of Christian Liberty I shall treat upon in the close of this Discourse In treating upon the Four that belong to one argument and have for their subject Human Acts I think it may be done by putting and resolving the following Question Q. What is it that doth make things in themselves lawful and indifferent to be unlawful in Divine Worship This is the main seat of the controversie it being agreed that there are indifferent things in the Worship of God But since we afterward divide upon it and say that notwithstanding this there are some things of that nature that are by circumstance unlawful it is fit to understand how this Question is resolved by
one and the other If We state the case we say the Rules we are to guide our selves by are those of the Apostle of Decency Order and Edification And we trouble not our selves nicely to consider whether the Decency arise from the nature of the thing or from common usage or prescription or institution since we think that decency may arise from any and it matters not from what cause the thing proceeds nor how it came to be Decent when it 's now thought and found to be so And as little curious arewe about the first reasons of Order and Edification for we are so little speculative in matters of practice that we think the peace of the Church and Unity amongst Christians are much more fit to determine us in these cases than all the accuracy in Metaphysicks So that if a thing be found to be decent orderly and for Edification though we were assur'd it did Spring from Humane Institution we think it to be lawful and that Humane Institution cannot make that unlawful which is found by use and experience to be for Decency and Order Again we think that those things which in kind are necessary to Humane Acts in all cases and comely and grave in Worship as well as out of it may be appropriated to Worship and that the appropriation of Places Time and Habit to Worship doth not therefore make such Places Times and Habits unlawful to be used And if things indifferent in themselves are unlawful in Worship we conclude it must be when Divine Institution is pretended for what is Humane and when the things sute not the Nature or defeat the ends Case of indifferent things p. 24 c. of Divine Worship or for the like reasons which I in the controverted Tract did insist upon But now on the contrary by what may be Collected from him it appears to be the Sence of his position 1. That nothing of Humane Institution is to be admitted or may lawfully be used in Divine Worship For thus he saith they must be things necessary to all Humane Acts or convenient for them as Humane Acts or comely for all Humane Acts c. 2. That nothing though necessary or convenient or comely ought to be used in and much less be appropriated to the Worship of God for they are to be considered in Worship only as they have a reference to such Humane Acts. In the consideration of these I shall 1. Consider how he attempts to prove it 2. Endeavour to discover the mistake and vindicate the arguments and instances produced in the case of Indifferent things to the contrary from his Exceptions These are the chief things that all his discourse is founded upon and that are scattered through it But though they are rather supposed than proved by him and therefore to use his own Words I may lightly pass them over and expect till he hath justified them yet because I would make somewhat of it I shall collect from the Hints he gives what it is that he doth think may be said for them As for the first of these that nothing is to be used iâ— Prop. 1. Divine Worship that is meerly of Humane Institution his arguments are fetched from the Nature of thâ— things pleaded for them viz. Decency order edification As saith he 1. We cannot apprehend it in the power of Man tâ— Pag 11. Create a Decency The greatest Emperors wearing aâ— Antick Habit would not make it Decent till it coulâ— prescribe or had obtained a common consent This â— the rather mention because it is an argument much iâ— vogue amongst those that would artificially handlâ— this matter But here let me ask them what it is creates a Decency He saith the Law of Nature and prescription common consent and the guise of Countries But how began that Prescription whence arose that consent whether from chance or institution Or what is it whence iâ— ariseth if it be found to be decent Certainly if it began in one of these institution is the more noble of thâ— two and the less disputable And then it would be harâ— to conceive how that which came by chance should be sawful and that which came by Institution should be unlawful But 2. If Prescription and Common Consent and the Guise of Countreys be the measure of Decency may not these things also be the measure of it in the Church and in things relating to Divine Worship And is not the custom of the Churches of God a reason as sufficient to conclude us in this matter as the grave and Civil customs of a Nation Or 3. Is there any Church on this side Rome that by a Sic volo doth stamp a decency upon its Institutions without respect to prescription and the custom of Churches Or that can do it By his way of expressing himself he would make the Argument great as if to Create a Decency was an invasion of God's Prerogative We cannot apprehend it in the Power of man to Create a Decency The greatest Emperor c. But if a Decency arise from the Guise of Countrys and Prescription and Common Consent it might be questioned whether according to him God himself can then Create a Decency and by his authority make that to be at once which requires time and Custom as he saith to produce and form it So high doth the power of a little School-subtilty and Imagination sometimes transport men that their Arguments vanish out of fight and are lost to all those that converse with what is gross and tangible But supposing it is not in the power of man to Create a Decency yet Order may be Order without those dilatory reasons of Custom and Prescription and therefore what holds against establishing Decency by institution will not hinder but that order may be thereby established Therefore 2. He further argues from the Nature of Decency and Order that things of meer Humane Institution are not capable of that plea. We can understand saith he nothing Ibid. by orderly and according to order but without confusion By Decency we can understand nothing but what is opposed to sordidly nor can we think of any action that is not Decent if the contrary to it be not indecent So then nothing ought to be done in the Worship of God but what may be done without Confusion c. of which Nature can nothing be that is idle and superfluous c. I was at a great loss at first to find out the drift of all this but upon consideration I think it contains these things 1. That it is unlawful to ordain or use any thing superfluous in the Worship of God 2. That whatsoever is not for Order Decency and Edification is superfluous 3. That nothing is Decent if the contrary to it be not indecent It 's the last of these we are now concerned in which by the help of the great managers of this Argument may be better understood Ames 's Fresh Suit answer to Bp. Morton
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.
13. 4. Though God did deny this Privilege to David yet it was not without giving him good reason for it and that was 1. because things were not setled So it was before with the tribes therefore God saith he walked with them (f) (f) (f) 2 Sam. 7. 6 7. vers 1. And so it was with David for though he had at that time rest which was about the 10th or at most the 20th of his Reign Yet it was far from a settled Peace and therefore Mr. Pool reads it as the Margin v. 11. I will cause thee to rest 2. It was not fit for David Because he had been a man of War and shed much blood (g) (g) (g) 1 Chron. 22. 7 8 9. 28 3. Now in opposition to this 1. God saith I will ordain a place for Israel and plant them c. (h) (h) (h) 1 Chron. 17. 9 2. Of Solomon he saith He shall be a man of rest and I will give him Peace (i) (i) (i) 1 Chron. 22. 9 So that it appears that it was not unlawful for David to design a Temple nor unacceptable to God that he did design it but it was deferr'd for the reasons before given and because it was unseasonable Now because the Author has referr'd me to Ames I will send him back thither and let him see whether he has answered all this or no. Ames Fresh Suit part 2. §. 6 and 7. Case examined p. 26. As for the Feast of Purim This Reverend person saith It lieth upon our Author to prove the Feast of purim was kept as a Religious Feast There is no order for any Religious Acts to be performed in it If it were it was generally commanded under the precepts of giving thanks for publick mercies I shall therefore undertake to prove it a Religious Feast But before I proceed I shall 1. observe That the lawfulness of Religious Feasts and Fasts admit of the same general proof and if I prove one I prove the other 2. I observe that the Jews did think it lawful to institute Religious Feasts and Fasts both occasional and anniversary Of the latter sort which is the matter in dispute were the Fasts of the 4 th 5th and 10th Months instituted in the time of the Captivity (a) (a) (a) Zech. 8. 19. Such was the Feast of Dedication instituted by the Jews in the time of the Maccabees (b) (b) (b) 1 Mac. 4. 59. And kept to the time of our Saviour (c) (c) (c) John 10 22. nay to this very day amongst them (d) (d) (d) Buxtorf Synag Jud. And so Mordecai and Esther did establish this Feast of Purim and the Jews took upon themselves to keep it (e) (e) (e) Est 9 20 27 29. Now that it was a Religious Feast will appear 1. As it was a day of thanksgiving to God for that great deliverance Thus it 's called a day of gladness a good day (f) (f) (f) ◠8. 17. 9. 18 19 22. which Mr. Pool thus paraphraseth a time of feasting rejoycing and thanksgiving (g) (g) (g) On c. 8. 17. Ch. 9. 27. This further appears from the reason given for the celebration of it It was saith the Text That the memorial of their deliverance should not perish or as Mr. Pool Because they had seen and felt this wonderful work of God on their behalf (h) (h) (h) C. 9. 25 31. It appear'd further from the circumstances of it it 's said They sent portions one to another and gifts to the poor (i) (i) (i) C. 9 22. Which saith Pool they used to give upon days of thanksgiving of which see Neh. 8. 10. And I may add that it is impossible to conceive that persons of such signal piety as Mordecai and Esther should institute and under the present sense of such a deliverance as the Jews were should observe this Feast only as a day of Civil Joy without respect to God that wonderfully brought it about 2. It was as much a Religious Feast as their Fast was a Religious Fast So the Text makes them parallel They confirmed these days of Purim c. As they had decreed for themselves for their seed the matters of the fastings their cry (k) (k) (k) C. 10 31. But what their Fasting was the nature of the thing as well as the Cry here spoken of doth declare So to go ye and fast Pool adds and pray which was the main business to which fasting was only an help (l) (l) (l) On. c. 4. 16 and 9 31. But our Author saith There is no order for any Religious Acts to be performed in it As if they did not know what became them to do upon such a gracious and wonderful deliverance But we read of no order for such Acts on their days of Fasting were they not therefore Religious Nay we read not of the name of God in the whole Book or of any duty to him plainly expressed and shall we therefore esteem it not to be Religious and Canonical But saith our Author If it were a Religious Feast it was generally commanded under the precepts of giving thanks And I desire no more For in one Breath he hath yielded all So that now we have gained that fixed and anniversary festival days set apart for Commemoration of God's Mercies to us are not only lawful but what we have a command for And thence it follows that a Church hath Power to determine them as they did And further that things not commanded may be used in Divine Worship The next thing is the Synagogal Worship To this he replyes The Worshipping of God in Synagogues wanted no special Command Being but a Circumstance convenient if not necessary to publick Worship considered as an Humane Act. A Multitude of people could not meet to Worship God together without a fit place But First why did not Synagogues want a Special Command as well as the Temple which he contends for For which is worse to build a more convenient place for one already instituted a Temple for a Tabernacle or to build places for which they had as he yields no special command as the Synagogues But suppose they needed not a Command for Synagogues because a Multitude could not meet together without a Fit Place yet how will that be a reason that the Worshipping in Synagogues wanted it not That place is a circumstance convenient and that Synagogues were fit places for a Multitude of people to Worship in we grant and we will grant that this may be a reason to justify the building and using such places without a special Command yet what is that to the Worship so and so ordered in those places What is that to Days and Hours which the Scripture speaks of and he contends against What is this to the Forms used in their Service which the Jews do write of If these are not to be justified though they wanted a Special Command how
was it that our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles did not only frequent the places but the Service as our Saviour's Customary Preaching in them doth shew What is this to the Ritual Observations our Saviour complied with such as the Passover Cup and their posture at it which he shewed his approbation of in his taking the materials of his last Supper from the Rites used in the Passover as learned men have observed of which Casaubon saith Hoc primum observare juvat quomodo Filius Dei umbras Legis ad veritatem traduxerit This he will by no means hear of and therefore useth several evasions for they are no better Thus when it 's recorded that our Saviour told the disciples with desire have I desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer and in prosecution of it that he took the Cup and gave thanks and said Divide it among your selves for I will not Drink of the Fruit of the Vine c. he irreverently represents it as if it was no more than if he drunk only to satisfie Nature For so he saith Before Christ Case examined Pag. 14. did eat the paschal Supper he drank a Cup of Wine and doubtless at it he drank also though it be not recorded People need no Institution to drink while they are eating As if the Evangelist had no more to do than to tell us Christ drank a Cup of Wine with his Meat Surely there is a better account to be given of this matter The Text it self shews it And the Jewish Authors and others that write of their customs do sufficiently inform us In which he must be very ignorant or incredulous that will say as he doth that no more is signified by it than that Case examined Pag. 32. every one might drink as his appetite required and no less irreverent that can think that what is recorded of our Saviour's taking the Cup and blessing and drinking in the Passover was only to serve that end The next thing I insisted upon was our Saviour's compliance with them in the posture us'd by them at the Passover Pag. 3. contrary as he owns to what was used at the first Institution Of this he saith Our Saviour used the Jewish posture in eating the passover being a posture no where that Pag. 84 we know of used by Idolaters nor being any posture of Adoration but their ordinary posture of eating Meat 2. He saith that every one might use the posture which was most convenient for the Nature of the Action and that he doth not see any reason to conclude they would have shut out any that because of the institution desired to eat it with his loyns girt c. 3. That if they did use any uniform posture yet it was because they agreed it among themselves In all which there is hardly any thing said but is full of mistake As 1. He saith the posture used by our Saviour was no where that he knows of used by Idolaters nor was a posture of Adoration I cannot tell how far our Author's Learning may extend in this matter but that the posture of discumbing was used at festival Solemnities from ancient times by the Grecians Medes Persians Indians Romans and Jews c. and from thence translated to their Sacrifical Feasts which the Heathens did very anciently observe (a) (a) (a) Herodotus l. 1. c. 31. is sufficiently known (b) (b) (b) Casab exercit 16. c. 22 insomuch that the whole Solemnity was call'd amongst the Romans Lectisternium (c) (c) (c) Rosini antiq l. 4. c. 15. This is Confirm'd by Scripture So Amos. 2. 8. They lay themselves down upon Clothes laid to pledge by every Altar c. That is the Beds which they used in the Temples of their Gods saith Casaubon (d) (d) (d) Ibid. from the Jews So Ezek. 23. 41. For satisfaction in which I refer this Reverend Author to others (e) (e) (e) Buxtorf Exercit. xxxv xxxviii And whereas he saith this was no posture of Adoration he must needs be mistaken if he grants what they did in those Solemnities in Honour to their Gods to be Adoration And this they did for it was an entertainment made for them the heathens conceiving that the Gods did then feast with them hence the Poets phrase of (f) (f) (f) Horat. l. â— i. ode 37. ornare pulvinar Deorum dapibus So the Apostle calls their Table the Table of Devils (g) (g) (g) 1 Cor. 10. v. 21. and their lying down there an having fellowship with Devils (h) (h) (h) v. 20. Having said thus much I shall not need to proâ—eed and shew how sitting as well as discumbing hath been also used in Idolatrous Service both amongst Heathens of old and Romanists now especially since I have it sufficiently Falkner's Libert Eccles part 2. c. 3. §. 4. n. 10. proved to my hands in a book I suppose our Author well acquainted with As for what he further saith If the Jews did use one uniform posture c. there needs not many words to shew how precarious or false it is For what more precarious than to speak doubtfully If they did of that which yet is clearly evident they did observe Or affirm that if they did it was because they agreed it among themselves which is to suppose the reason of the thing to be certain when the thing it self according to him is uncertain Or what more false since whether it was by agreement among themselves or by the Authority of the Church that there was this Uniformity of posture is not so certain as it is that there was this Uniformity and that they were universally obliged to use and observe it For it was required that discumbiture should be used in all Religious Feasts but especially at the Passover by all without exception in the first part of the Solemnity For which I refer our Author Lightfoot to one well-versed in these matters So little Truth or certainty is there in what our Author asserts that every one might use the posture which was most convenient and that there was no reason to conclude they would have shut out any from their paschal Societies that desired to eat it with his loyns girt c. or standing The next instance produced in the abovesaid Case of Indifferent things and objected against by our Author is the Hours of Prayer which were observ'd amongst the Jews at Morning Noon and Evening Act. 2 15. c. 10. 9. c. 3. 1. Of these our Author gives this account Thus the Apostles Case Examined p. 19. used the hours of Prayer which also they might have changed if they had pleased That the Jews sent any to Goals or excommunicated any for not keeping to those hours we do not find There is nothing of Religion in the time more then in any other part of time Thus St. Paul used Circumcision and Purification Thus How is that Did the Apostles
use the hours of Prayer onely as necessary circumstances of Humane actions or such without which the light of Nature or Common usage shews the thing cannot be done or conveniently or 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
do any thing in God's Worship but what is so determined it follows that God cannot be worshipped at all unless we could worship him in no Time Place Habit or Gesture nor indeed can I learn how a Christian can with a good Conscience perform any part of God's Worship if this Principle be admitted for true that whatsoever is not commanded is forbid since the external Circumstances of religious Actions without which they cannot be performed are not prescribed or determined in Scripture and so he must commit a Sin every time he prays or receives the Holy Sacrament Besides this Reason would oblige us to separate from all the Churches that ever were or are in the World there being no constituted Church in which there are not some Orders and Injunctions for the regulating the publick Worship of God no where commanded in Scripture We could never upon this Principle have held Communion with the Primitive Churches which undoubtedly had their instituted significant Ceremonies nor is there any Church at this day that hath not by its own Authority determined some of the Circumstances of Divine Service for the more decent and orderly Performance thereof Nay those very Persons that make this Exception do themselves practise many things in the Worship of God without the least shadow of a Divine Command to which they oblige their Hearers and Communicants for conceived Prayers sitting at the Eucharist sprinkling the Infant at Baptism the Minister's officiating in a black Cloak or Coat are full out as unscriptural humane uncommanded as any Gesture Habit or Form used in our Church 2. That is said to be unlawful which hath been abused to sinful Purposes to Idolatry or Superstition so that nothing ought to be retained in our Worship tho it be not forbid by God which was used in times of Popery Hence the ordinary Objection against our Parish Churches is that they are not sufficiently purged from Popery that our first Reformers were indeed excellent and worthy Persons for the Times they lived in that what they did was very commendable and a good Beginning but they were forced to comply with the necessities of the Age which would not bear a compleat Reformation They left a great deal of Popish Trash in the Church hoping by degrees to reconcile the Papists to it or at least that they might not make the Breach too wide and too much prejudice or estrange them from it But we now live under better means have greater Light and Knowledge and so a further and more perfect Amendment is now necessary Thus the Order of Bishops is decried as Popish and Antichristian our Liturgy as taken out of the Mass Book and our Ceremonies as Relicks of Idolatry But the truth of the case is this We must consider that those of the Church of Rome do hold and maintain all the Essentials of Christianity but then by degrees as they found Opportunity they have added a number of impious and pernicious Doctrines to the Christian Faith the Belief and Profession of which they equally require of all that are in their Communion Besides this they have introduced several idolatrous and superstitious Rites and Practises into the Service of their Church never heard of for the first four hundred Years by which they have miserably defaced and corrupted the Worship of God and made it necessary for all those that love their own Salvation to separate from them Now our first Reformers here in England did not go about to invent a new Species of Government to devise new Rites and Ceremonies and a new form of Worship such as should be least excepted against and then obtrude it upon this Nation as was done at Geneva and some other places but they wisely considered that if they did but reject what the Romanists had added to the Faith and Worship of Christians lay aside their novel Inventions Usurpations and unwritten Traditions there would remain the pure simple Primitive Christianity such as it was before the Roman Church was thus degenerated nor have we any thing of Popery left amongst us but what the Papists had left amongst them of Primitive Religion and Worship As we must not receive the evil for the sake of the good so neither must we reject the good for the sake of the evil In our Church we pray neither to Saints nor Angels nor the Virgin Mary our Liturgy is in a known Tongue we deny the Laity no part of the Sacrament nor the reading of the Scriptures we offer no Mass Sacrifice nor Worship Images or the consecrated Bread We have not one Doctrine or Ceremony in use amongst us that is purely Popish But we must be obliged to part with the most sacred venerable and usefullest things in our Religion if this be a sufficient reason of our forbearing any thing because the Papists abuse it This therefore I conclude to be the best and plainest rule for the governing of our Consciences not wilfully to omit any thing that God hath commanded to avoid to the utmost of our Power what God hath forbid and what ever else we have no particular Divine Law about to guide our selves by the general Rules of Scripture the commands of our Superiours and by the measures of Prudence Peace and Charity This one rule and it cannot but seem a very reasonable one would soon put an end to our squabbles and janglings about Forms and Ceremonies and other indifferent things 5. In order to the bringing men to a complyance with the Laws of our Church we must desire them to consider that there never was nor ever will be any publick Constitution that will be every way unexceptionable The best policy whether Civil or Ecclesiastical that can be established will have some flaws and defects which must be borne and tolerated Some Inconveniences will in process of time arise that never could be foreseen or provided against and to make alteration upon every emergent difficulty may be often of worse consequence than the evil we pretend to cure by it Let the Rules and Modes of Government Discipline publick Worship be most exact and blameless yet there will be faults in Governours and Ministers as long as they are but men We must not expect in this World a Church without Spot or Wrinkle that consists only of Saints in which nothing can be found amiss especially by those who lye at the catch and wait for an advantage against it If men will scruple and reform as long as any thing remaineth which they can object against they must e'en come at last as a Reverend Person of our Church hath observed to the state of that miserable Man who left all humane Society that he might not be defiled with other Mens Sins and at last cut out the Contents of Chapters and Titles of Books out of the Bible because they were humane Inventions added to the pure Word of God Men must be willing if ever they would promote Peace and Unity to put candid Constructions and
prejudice them against his Person and Doctrine Thus our Saviours own Country-men who were acquainted with his Father and Mother and Kindred who knew the meanness of his Birth and Education Mark 6. 3. were Offended or Scandalized at him They were astonished at the great things he did and the greater things he spoke and would in all probability have believed on him had they not known his mean Original and employment Is not this the Carpenter the Son of Mary c. After the same manner when our Lord St. John 6. 61. had discoursed of eating the Flesh of the Son of Man they that heard him taking it in a gross carnal sense were Offended or Scandalized at him They began to doubt of his being a true Prophet or the Messiah who would teach his Disciples to turn Cannibals Thus again our Saviour before the night in which he was betrayed told his Disciples St. Matt. 26. 31. all of ye shall be Offended or Scandalized because of me this Night that is shall fly away and shamefully forsake me when you behold my hard usage and dismal sufferings So Christ Crucified 1 Cor. 1. 23. to the Jews was a Scandal or stumbling-block that is they had set their minds and hearts on a temporal earthly King and expected to be freed from the Roman Yoke and to be restored to their former Dominions and greatness as the effect of the coming of their Messiah and therefore could not be persuaded to own him for their Prince and Saviour and the Son of God who was put to such a Cursed and Ignominious death In the same sense they who heard the Word of God Mark 4. 17. and received it with gladness but having no root in themselves when Affliction or Persecution arose for the Words sake were presently offended or Scandalized that is were ready to leave and renounce that Profession that was likely to cost them so dear After the publishing of the Gospel by the Apostles that which most stumbled the Jewish Converts was the danger Moses's Law and their Temple Worship and the singular preeminences of the Seed of Abraham seemed to be in of being undermined by Christianity They were strangely wedded to their Legal observances fond of Circumcision and those peculiarities which distinguished their Nation from the rest of mankind they were jealous of any Doctrine that encroached upon their Priviledges or tended to bring them down to the same level with the Uncircumcised World This mightily Offended them and hardned them against Christianity whereas on the other side the Gentile Converts with as much reason were afraid of putting their Necks under so heavy a Yoke or being brought into subjection to the Jewish Law and there was no such effectual way to scare them from Christianity as when it came attended with the burden of the Mosaical Ceremonies which were an Offence to them that is did discourage them from believing in Christ or continuing in his Faith Now to prevent the mischiefs that might arise from these different apprehensions amongst the Christian Proselites was the occasion of the meeting of that first Council at Jerusalem mentioned Acts 15. and of those directions which St. Paul gives Rom. 14. concerning our behaviour towards weak Brethren Another case there was concerning eating of things offered to Idols of which St. Paul discourseth in his first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 8. and 10. the sum of which seems to be this that the stronger and wiser Christians ought to abstain from eating what had been offered to Idols tho as ordinary meat in the presence of any one who with Conscience of the Idol did eat it as a thing offered to an Idol For such there were in the Church of Corinth so weak as not yet to have quite left off their Idolatrous Worship and a Christians eating what had been Offered in Sacrifice before such an one might serve to harden and confirm him in his Error whose Conscience being weak is defiled Of whose Soul St. Paul professed himself to have so great regard that he would eat no such meat as long as the World lasted rather than lay such a stumbling-block before or wound their weak Consciences In all these places and many more that might be named for the fuller explication of which I refer you to interpreters and those that have written largely on this subject no less than Apostacy from the Christian Faith was the sin into which these weak Christians were so apt to fall and by an undue use of our Liberty to give occasion to anothers forsaking the Christian Religion whereby our Saviour loseth a Disciple and the Soul of our Brother perisheth is the proper sin of Offending or giving Scandal I shall mention but one place more which is Revel 2. 14. where Balaam is said to have taught Balac to cast a stumbling-block or Scandal before the Children of Israel which relates othis inticing them by the Daughters of Moab to Fornication and Idolatry and by that means provoking God against them So that in the most general sense to Scandalize or Offend any one is to give occasion to his sin and consequently his ruin and undoing and this I suppose will be granted by all that do not receive their opinions from the meer sound of words Hence I shall conclude these few things 1. The better Men are the harder it is to Scandalize them Those are not such Godly persons as they would be thought who are so ready at all turns to be Offended for how can they be reckon'd to excel others in knowledg or goodness who are so easily upon every occasion drawn or tempted to sin Thus Mr. Baxter himself tells the Separatists in his Cure of Church Divisions Vsually saith he men talk most against Scandalizing those whom they account to be the best and the best are least in danger of sinning and so they accuse them to be the worst or else they know not what they say for suppose a Separatist should say if you hold Communion with any Parish Minister or Church in England it will be a Scandal to many good people I would ask such an one Why call you those good people that are easily drawn to sin against God Nay that will sin because I do my duty Therefore if you know what you say you make the Separatists almost the worst of men that will sin against God because another will not sin The great thing our Nonconformists pretend unto above other men is tenderness of Conscience by which they must mean if they mean any Vertue by it a great fear of doing any thing that is evil and this where it is in truth is the best security that can be devised against being Scandalized or Offended by what other Men do that is against being drawn into sin by it So that they do really disparage and severely reflect upon the Dissenters who are thus afraid of giving them Offence as I have explained it 2. No man can with sense say of himself that he
shall be Scandalized at what another man does for it is as much as to say that by such a person and action he shall be led into sin ignorantly and his saying this confutes his ignorance If he knows it to be a sin he is not betrayed into it nor doth he fall into it through ignorance and mistake which is the case of those that are Scandalized but wilfully commits it This a great Bishop compares with the peevishness of a little Child who when he is commanded to pronounce the word he hath no mind to tells you he cannot pronounce that word at the same time naming the word he pretends he cannot speak Such Nonsense it is for a man to forbid me doing any thing upon pretence it will be a Scandal to him or make him through mistake fall into some sin when by this it is plain that he knows of it beforehand and so may and ought to avoid the stumbling-block that is laid before him and the danger that he is exposed unto Surely saith Solomon Prov. 1. 17. in vain is the Net spread in the sight of any Bird. If to Offend or Scandalize any one is to tempt and draw him into some sin whereby his Conscience is wounded there then can be no fear of giving Offence by our Conformity to the orders and usages of our Church because there is nothing appointed by or used in it but what may be complyed withal without sin For this as I before observed is supposed in the Question I at first propounded to discourse of that he who absented from his Parish Church for fear of Offending his weak Brethren was convinced in his own mind of the lawfulness of all that is enjoyn'd and therefore by his own Conformity he can only engage others to do as he hath done which as long as he is perswaded to be lawful I do not see how he can be afraid of Scandalizing others by it or making them to sin by his Example unless he will imagine his Brethren not so weak but so wicked as to Worship the Host because he Kneels at receiving of the Sacrament and to adore the Cross because he bows at the Name of Jesus or that they will renounce all Religion because he hath forsaken their ways of Separation This cannot but prove a vain excuse for me to forbear doing that in which there is really no evil lest by the Authority of my example I make others sin in doing the same innocent action which in this case is so far from being to be feared that if by my example I prevail with others to return into the Communion of our Church they are not thereby at all Scandalized but I have done them a most signal kindness and benefit If it be said that tho what I do is in it self lawful yet it may minister occasion or provocation to others to do something else that is unlawful and so I become truly guilty of giving Offence I Answer that we are accountable only for the natural tendencies or probable effects of our actions which may be easily foreseen and prevented Remote probabilites and contingencies and bare possibilities come not into reckoning nor are they at all to be weighed If in every action I am bound to consider what advantage a wicked sensual Man or a weak silly man might take and what Arguments he might possibly thence draw to encourage himself in sin and folly or excuse himself from the care of his Soul and Religion this would open the door to infinite Scrupulosity and trouble and I should hardly be able to do or speak any thing without the incurring the guilt of giving Scandal Now this being supposed I dare boldly challenge any Man to name any one sin either against God our Neighbour or our selves that our Conformity doth give any real probable occasion unto and it is very uncharitable to conceit that our Nonconforming Brethren will out of meer perverseness or spite and revenge run into sin on purpose to make our leaving them criminal and vicious which if any should be so wicked as to do yet they would lose the design of their malice and prove the only guilty persons themselves The only thing I imagine can be further said in this case is that tho I am well satisfied my self yet by my Conformity I may tempt and provoke others that are not satisfied concerning the lawfulness of it nay those who judge it absolutely sinful yet rather than stand out or being moved by the opin on they have of my goodness and Wisdom to follow my example with a doubting or gainsaying Conscience Suppose a Master of Family that used to frequent the private Meetings and his Wife and Children and Servants used to follow him thither but afterwards by reading of such good Books as have been lately written is himself satisfied concerning the lawfulness of going to Church and at last thinks it his duty so to do only he is afraid that the rest of his Family to please and humour him will be apt also to forsake the private Meetings and go along with him to Church tho it be altogether against their judgment and Conscience Or suppose him a man of eminency amongst his Neighbours on whose favour many do depend of great interest and reputation by whose example many are sway'd and led Tho himself doth conform upon good reasons and principles yet his example may invite many others to it tho they have received no satisfaction concerning the lawfulness of it Now here I desire these three things may be considered 1. It is certain that it is as unlawful to go to the Separate Meetings against ones Conscience as it is to go to the publick Church against ones Conscience Why then ought not this man to be as afraid when he leaves his Parish-Church and frequents the private Congregation lest he should draw some to follow him thither with a doubting Conscience as well as he fears if he leaves the Meetings and resorts to his Parish-Church some not satisfied concerning the lawfulness of it should come after him thither The influence of his Example interest reputation is the same in both instances the danger of giving this Scandal is equal that therefore whâ—ch ought to determine his practice must be his own Judgment and persuasion 2. Such an one who hath been a Separatist but is now himself satisfied of the lawfulness of Conformity ought to take great care and pains in endeavouring to satisfie others also especially those whom he hath any cause to think to have been led into the ways of Separation by his example He must not be ashamed to own his former mistake to set before them the reasons on which his change is grounded and must do this publickly and frequently persuading others to use the same helps and means which were so effectual for his own conviction And thus he doth all that lieth in his power to prevent this ill effect and shall not be further answerable for the consequences
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
in Scripture indeed the ability of praying in unknown languages is once called a Gift as I observed before but as for this ordinary ability whether natural or acquir'd of praying in our native language it is no where spoken of in Scripture under the name of a Gift of Prayer nor is there the least mention of any such ability given by God to men purely to inable them to pray and unless our Brethren can produce some Text of Scripture which yet they never attempted wherein God hath appropriated this Gift to the purpose of Prayer they must give us leave to conclude that he hath left it common to all other honest uses and purposes that it can be apply'd to and that in short it is nothing but a freedom of Utterance and Elocution which in some is natural and in some acquired by which they are enabled readily to express their minds to God or men and therefore to how many honest purposes this common Gift of God is applicable to so many it 's design'd and intended and consequently may as well be call'd the Gift of Conversation in good company and the Gift of pleading at the Bar and the Gift of disputing in the Schools or the Gift of Oratory in the Forum as the Gift of Prayer in Private or Publick worship it being all but one and the same Gift applied to several uses and purposes accordingly we find that those who have this Gift have it not only while they are speaking in Prayer but when they are speaking upon other occasions and that ordinarily they can express themselves to Men with the same readiness and fluency in conversation as they express their minds to God in Prayer which is a plain argument that their Gift is not appropriate to Prayer but common to all the other uses and purposes of Elocution 3. That this Gift of utterance not being appropriated by God to Prayer may upon just reason be as lawfully omitted in Prayer as in any other use or purpose 't is designed for I do confess had God any where appropriated it to the end of Prayer those who have it were obliged to use it to that end and to omit it ordinarily by confining themselves to forms of other mens inditing would be to neglect a means of Prayer of Gods special appointment and institution for had he any where intimated to us that he gave it us purely to inable us to pray without any respect to any other end we could not have omitted the use of it in Prayer without crossing his intention and frustrating him of the only end for which he intended it but since he hath given us no such intimation we may justly conclude that he intends it in common for all those honest ends to which it is applicable and if so 't is no more unlawful to omit using it to one end than to another so that either it must be wholly unlawful to omit using our own Elocution to any purpose whatsoever whereunto it may be honestly applied or it must be lawful to omit it in Prayer and consequently supposing I have this Gift of utterance either I may not use a form in petitioning my Prince or a Court of Justice or I may use a form in addressing my self to God in Prayer since my Gift is common to both these purposes and no more appropriated to the one than the other in short therefore as for those common Gifts of God which are applicable to sundry purposes and which he intends no more for one than for another it is left to our own liberty and discretion whether we will apply them to this or that particular purpose or no and no man is obliged to use his Gift to all those just and lawful purposes it is capable of and if he hath two Gifts which serve to the same purpose there is no doubt but he may lawfully omit the one and use the other as he sees occasion and so it is with this Gift of utterance which is naturally serviceable to sundry excellent purposes and among others to this of expressing our minds to God in Prayer but it being serviceable to this in common with others it is left to our liberty whether we will imploy it in this in that or in another purpose and we are neither obliged to imploy it in all nor in this more than in another but if we have another Gift that is serviceable to the purpose of Prayer as well as this of utterance it is left to our own pious discretion whether we will use this or the other so that unless our Brethren can prove that this Gift of Utterance or Elocution is by special command of God made an appropriate means of Publick Prayer they will never be able to prove either that it is more unlawful to omit the use of it in Prayer than in any other Office of Elocution or that if we have any other means of Prayer we are determined to this more than to another 4. That to read our desires to God in other Mens Words is as much a means of Prayer as to speak them in our own for to speak in our own Words is no otherwise a means of Publick Prayer than as it serves to express to God the Common cases and necessities of the Congregation and if these may be as well exprest by Reading them in other Mens Words as by speaking them in our own the end of Publick Prayer is as effectually serv'd by the one as by the other and sure no man will deny but that by a Form of Words composed by another he may express the common Devotions of a Congregation as well as by extempore or premeditated words of his own invention for this would be in effect to say that none but himself can compose a publick Prayer or at least none so well as he for if another Prayer may be as expressive of the Devotions of a Congregation as his own I can see no reason why the reading of that may not be as proper a means of publick Prayer as the speaking of this here then are two means of Prayer viz. reading other mens Forms and speaking our own Conceptions and therefore unless our Brethren can prove that God hath expresly chosen the one and rejected the other they must acknowledge both to be lawful and if we cannot lawfully omit the one because it is a means of Prayer neither can we lawfully omit the other because it is so too and therefore either we must be obliged to use them both which is impossible at the same time or we must be left at liberty to use either according to our own discretion In sum therefore since we are not inspired with any peculiar Gift of Prayer in our ordination and since our Gift of praying in our own words is not appropriated by God to this use but left in common to other purposes and since what is not appropriated by God may be lawfully omitted when there are other means of
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
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)
shall endeavour through Gods assistance to lay some things together of which People of ordinary Capacities may make a Judgments and which may afford reasonable satisfaction to those that Doubt It is by some pretended That the Confessions of Sin in our Liturgie are too General and that there are many Particular Sins which ought to have been Distinctly Confessed of which there is no mention Now I desire those that are of this Mind to consider that there is hardly any thing in Publick Worship which requires more Caution and Prudence in the ordering of it than that Confession of Sin which is to be made by the whole Congregation It may be too Loose and General on the one side or it may be too Particular and Distinct on the other And it is not so very easie to avoid both inconveniencies The reason is because it should be framed as all may in good earnest use it notwithstanding the great Difference amongst those that are within the Communion of the Church the Sins of some of them being more in number and greater in kind and more heinously aggravated than the Sins of others There may be this Inconvenience in a Confession very short and General that takes in all that it does not so well serve to excite or to express that due sense of Sin nor to exercise that humility and self abasement wherewith we should always Confess our Sins to God On the other hand the Inconvenience of a very Particular and Distinct Confession of Sins will be this That some Sins with their Aggravations may be Confessed in the Name of the whole Congregation of which it is by no means to be supposed that all are guilty and then they who through the Grace of God have been kept from them cannot in good earnest make such Confession Now I take it that the Confessions of Sin in the Daily and in the Communion Service are so Judiciously framed as to avoid both extreams Since the Expressions have that large meaning as to take in the case of the best of the Congregation who may in good earnest use them and thereby joyn their Confessions with the rest And on the other side though they are General yet they are so affectionately amplified that they may well serve to express that Contrition which they ought to feel who labour under the Conscience of most hemous Sins and if they come duly prepared to excite a godly sorrow for Sin and to exercise a due sense of their own unworthiness of Gods Mercy And I desire those who are made to believe otherwise that they would venture to use their own Judgment in this matter and upon this occasion seriously to read over those two Confessions in our Lyturgie the one that which our daily Worship almost begins with the other in the Communion Office before the Absolution And then let them judge impartially as in the fear of God if I have not said the Truth But besides this the Confession of Sin after the Minister has recited each of the Ten Commandments is not only General enough to take in all sorts of Men but it seems also to be as particular as can reasonably be desired in a Congregation because it goes particularly through the Ten Commandments to which it has been usual to reduce the whole Duty of Man And this Method of Confession makes it easie for all that consider their own ways and endeavour to understand their own state to confess every one of them to God yet more particularly his known Offences in thought word or deed against each Commandment These things being well provided for to find fault with this part of our Service seems to argue want of Modesty or Judgment in those that do so They seem to believe ours to be amiss because they believe themselves could make a better But if for this and such like reasons they think fit to break Communion with us where will be an end of Division and Separation I hope none of our Brethren will say that they are not to make a Confession of their Sins in a way of expression that is possible to be mended lest by this means they should never make any Confession of Sin at all Since it may still remain a Question Whether this had not been better left out or that added after the best care is taken If a Form of Confession of Sins were Composed by the wifest of them I suppose he would pretend no more than that it is so Composed that Gods People might safely and profitably use it And this is that we may confidently say of the Confessions in our Liturgie and if this be truly said it ought to end the Dispute And yet they who Object the Generalness of our Confessions against us would not find it an easie task to give us better and more unexceptionable I may safely say they would not mend the Matter if they could prevail to have them as Particular as they are wont to be in the Prayers of some that separate from us For besides that they Confess against themselves so many particular Sins as many sincere Christians cannot in good earnest acknowledge themselves to be or ever to have been guilty of there is this other great inconvenience in such Confessions that gross Hypocrites and other Carnal Professors are very apt to go away with an opinion that their case is as good as that of the best since by these Confessions of Sin which describe their own case perhaps truly enough it should seem that the rest are no better than themselves We find it needful to warn those of our own Communion against such like mistakes though they are not in so much danger of falling into them We are afraid lest they that live in the Practice of wilful Sins should think the better of themselves because we do all confess that we have erred and strayed from Gods ways like lost sheep and have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts and have offended against the holy Laws of God and have left undone those things which we ought to have done and have done those things which we ought not to have done and that manifold sins and wickedness in thought word and deed have most grievously been committed by us against the Divine Majesty whereby we have provoked most justly his wrath and indignation against us But 't is not hard for us to shew these Men that all this may be truly Confessed by the sincere and godly as well as by Hypocrites that though the Confession does not mention a difference yet it does not imply that there is no difference between them but after all that these are in a state of Impenitence Damnation while those are in a state of Salvation who yet truely confess their Sins in the same General Words with the rest of the Congregation But there is greater danger of this self-flattery we are speaking of where the Common Confession of Sins is so very particular as some
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
that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome that I must needs profess I have often wondred how this should become a Question Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature as it is not Commanded so neither is it Forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law and where there is no Law the Apostle saith there is no transgression Sin being according to his definition the transgression of the Law And whereas certain Circumstances will make things that in themselves are neither duties nor sins to be either duties or sins and to fall by Consequence under some Divine Command or Prohibition I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing 's being used by the Church of Rome can be thought to alter the Nature of that thing and make it cease to be indifferent and become sinful But that it doth so is endeavoured to be proved by that general Prohibition to the Israelites of imitating the doings of the Aegyptians and Canaanites in those Words Lev. 18. 2. After the doings of the Land of Aegypt wherein ye dwell shall ye not do and after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you shall ye not do neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances This place divers of the Defenders of Nonconformity have laid great weight upon as a proof of the Sinfulness of Symbolizing with the Church of Rome Even in indifferent things But I chuse to forbear the Naming of any whose Arguings I purpose to inquire into because I would prevent if it be possible the least suspition in the Readers that I design in this Performance to expose any Mans weakness in particular or that I am therein Acted by any Personal Piques Now then as to the Text now Cited not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of Arguing without mighty caution from Laws given by Moses to the Israelites so as to infer the Obligation of Christians who are under a dispensation so different from theirs and in Circumstances so vastly differing from those they were in I say not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of this way of Arguing which all considering Persons must needs be aware of if this general Prohibition be not at all to be limited then it will follow from thence that the Israelites might have no usages whatsoever in common with the Aegyptians or Canaanites and therefore in as general terms as the Prohibition runs our Brethren must needs acknowledge that there is a restriction therein intended it being the most absurd thing to imagine that the Israelites were so bound up by God as to be Obliged to an unlikeness to those People in all their Actions For as the Apostles said of the Christians if they were never to Company with Wicked Men they must needs go out of the World we may say of the Israelites in reference to this Case of theirs they then must needs have gone out of the World Now if this general Prohibition After their doings ye shall not do be to be limited and restrained what way have we to do it but by considering the Context and confining the restriction to those Particulars Prohibited in the following verses But I need not shew that the particulars forbidden in all these viz. from v. 5th to the 24th were not things of an indifferent Nature but Incestuous Copulations and other abominable Acts of Vncleanness And God doth Expresly enough thus restrain that general Prohibition in the 24th v. in these Words Defile not your selves in any of these things for in all these the Nations are Defiled which I cast out before you But those that alledge this Text to the foresaid purpose will not hear of the general Proposition's being thus limited by the Context as apparent as it is that it necessarily must because say they we find that God forbids the Israelites in other places to imitate Heathens in things of an Indifferent and Innocent Nature To this I Answer First That supposing this were so it doth not from thence follow that God intended to forbid such imitations in this place the contrary being so manifest as we have seen But Secondly That God hath any where prohibited the Israelites to Symbolize with Heathens in things of a meer Indifferent and Innocent Nature I mean that he hath made it unlawful to them to observe any such Customs of the Heathens meerly upon the account of their being like them is a very great mistake Which will appear by considering those places which are produced for it One is Deut. 14. 1. You shall not Cut your selves nor make any baldness between your Eyes for the dead Now as to the former of these prohibited things who seeth not that 't is Vnnatural and therefore not indifferent And as to the latter viz. the disfiguring of themselves by Cutting off their Eyebrows this was not meerly an indifferent thing neither It being a Custom at Funerals much disbecoming the People of God which would make them look as if they sorrowed for the dead as Men without hope Another place insisted upon for the same purpose is Lev. 19. 19. Thou shalt not let thy Cattle-Gender with a divers kind thou shalt not sow thy ground with mingled seed nor shall a Garment of Linnen and Woollen come upon thee Now these three 't is said are things of so indifferent a Nature that none can be more indifferent I answer 'T is readily granted But where is it said that these things were forbidden because the Heathens used them Maimonides indeed as I learn from Grotius saith that the Aegyptians used these mixtures of Seeds and of Linnen and Woollen in many of their Magical Exploits but 't is universally acknowledged that these things among many other were forbidden to the Jews as Mystical instructions in Moral Duties I have found no other Text made use of to prove meer indifferent things to have been forbidden the Israelites only in regard of Heathens using them which make more for this purpose than these two do nor hardly another that makes so much But if there were never so many it is not worth our while to concern ourselves now with them because though we should suppose a great number of instances of such things as were forbidden those People for no other reason but because the Egyptians or Canaanites used them yet this would signifie nothing to the proving Our Churches Symbolizing with that of Rome in indifferent things to be Unlawful because there is not the like reason why in such things we may not Symbolize with Papists that there was why the Jews should be forbidden to Symbolize in such with those Heathens For there could not be too great a distance and unlikeness between those People and these in their usages in regard of their strangely Vehement inclination to their Superstitious and Idolatrous Practices And upon this account the distance was made wider as our Brethren themselves will acknowledge between the Jews and the Pagans than it ought to be between
must with all our Old Churches c. or we are guilty of an inexcusable violation of the Divine Law And to except such things as these after they have Evinced from such Scriptures our obligation to destroy all things notoriously polluted in grosly Superstitious and Idolatrous Services seems to be making too too bold with the express Laws of God which make no such exceptions nor doth the forementioned reason of them imply any such And therefore they have been highly condemned for making such like exceptions by others of their Brethren who have Attained to a higher dispensation And considering this Concession that such things as the fore-named may still be lawfully used as also the Concessions of a nameless Author in his famous Book call'd Nehushtan that no Creature of God is to be refused nor any necessary or profitable devices of men need be sent packing upon the account of their having been much abused to the foresaid ends I appeal to their own more sedate thoughts whether all that can be concluded from such Scriptures is any more than this that things so abused ought to be destroyed or abolished by all who have power to do it in some certain case or cases and not merely for this reason because they have been so abused This I presume none of us will deny and if they will acknowledge it as they must do if they will stand to those their Concessions they will be Constrained to give up this Cause I will conclude the Argument in hand with the judgment of that Eminent Reformer Mr. Calvin whose Authority goes farther with the generality of our Brethren than I think any Mans next to the Apostles Saith he upon the Second Commandment I know that the Jews throughout the time of their Paedagogy were Commanded to destroy the Groves and Altars of Idolaters not by vertue of the Moral Law but by an Appendix in the Judicial or Politick Law which did oblige that People for a time only but it binds not Christians And therefore we do not in the least scruple whether we may Lawfully use those Temples Fonts and other Materials which have been heretofore abused to Idolatrous and Superstitious uses I acknowledge indeed that we ought to remove such things as seem to nourish Idolatry upon supposition that we our selves in opposing too violently things in their own Nature indifferent be not too Superstitious It is equally Superstitious to Condemn things indifferent as Vnholy and to Command them as if they were Holy Thus you see Mr. Calvins sense agreeth exactly with Ours touching this Point of Controversie between us and many of our Dissenting Brethren Secondly They endeavour also to make out this Doctrine of theirs by Scripture Examples There are four or five of these Examples insisted upon but I will trouble the Reader with considering only one of them both because it is the Principal Example and that which they lay most stress on and because the Reply I shall make to this will be as satisfactory in reference to the rest It is that of Hezekiah his breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent that Moses had made because the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it 2 Kings 18. 4. Now saith a certain Noted Author What Example is more considerable than that of Hezekiah who not only abolished such Monuments of Idolatry as at their first Institution were but Men's inventions but brake down also the Brazen Serpent though Originally set up at Gods Command when once he saw it abused to Idolatry And he adds that this deed of Hezekiah Pope Stephen doth greatly Praise citing Wolphius for it and professeth that it is set before us for our imitation that when our Predecessors have wrought some things which might have been without fault in their time and afterwards they are converted into Error and Superstition they may be quickly destroyed by us who come after them Which soever of the Stephens this was he was a strangely Honest Pope especially had he Practised according to this his Profession and his Infallibility-ship had judg'd Impartially of Errors and Superstitions And he cites Farellus out of an Epistle of Calvins for this saying That Princes and Magistrates should learn by this Example of Hezekiah what they should do with those significant Rites of Mens devising which have turned to Superstition And he farther adds that the Bishop of Winchester in his Sermon on Phil. 2. 10. acknowledgeth that whatsoever is taken up at the injunction of Men when it is drawn to Superstition cometh under the Compass of the Brazen Serpent and is to be abolished And he saith he Excepteth nothing from this Example but only things of Gods own Prescribing But 't is strange if a Bishop should not except Churches and some other things besides which are of an humane make and as strange if there be nothing going before or coming after this acknowledgment to lead us to a better understanding of it We will not question our Authors faithfulness in Transcribing it but wish he had told us which Bishop of Winchester this is and in what page of his Sermon we might find this Acknowledgment But that this Fact of King Hezekiah will not prove that whatsoever hath been notoriously defiled in Idolatrous or grosly Superstitious Services ought to be abolished and much less that the not abolishing some such things is a good ground for Separation from the Church that neglects so to do will I presume sufficiently appear by these following Considerations First The Brazen Serpent was not only a thing defiled in Idolatrous Services but it was made an Idol it self Secondly It was not only a thing that had once been made an Idol or Object of Religious Worship but it was Actually so at that time when it was destroyed Nay it was at that instant an Object of the most gross kind of Idolatry It being not only bowed down to but had likewise Incense burnt to it this being a Rite which is never used in meer Civil Worship like bowing the Knee c. but so proper and peculiar to Divine Worship that no Rite is more so Nay farther Thirdly It was not thus notoriously Idolized by some few of the People but the People were generally lapsed into this Idolatry As the Text plainly sheweth Nay Fourthly There was as little hope as could be of the Peoples being reclaimed from this Idolatry while the Idol was in being Seeing that of a long time they had been accustomed thereunto For 't is said that unto those days the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it which speaks it to have been not only a Custom but a Custom also of a long standing Fifthly Although it had been only a thing defiled in Idolatrous Services yet we freely grant that it ought to have been destroyed or removed from the Peoples sight if the continuance of it in their View were like to be a Snare to them and a Temptation to Idolatry Since now the use of it was ceased for which by Divine
and I perceive you mean that it pleaseth you to find it not written in a heat and that there is nothing of a Censorious or Peevish humour or of a haughty contempt of those he deals with therein exprest And he hopes that upon the same accounts you are no less pleased with the other Resolutions of Cases which bear this company But he thinks it no mighty Attainment to be able in writing to manage a Controversie Coolly and Sedately without bitter or provoking Reflexions or contemptuous Expressions Though men of warm Tempers may find it somewhat difficult to govern their Spirits and Passions as it becomes them in the heat of disputing by word of mouth one would think that a small measure of Humility or Good nature or of Discretion and Prudence should make it no hard matter to acquire that other Attainment And much more that no one who is a Christian in Spirit and Temper as well as in Notion and Profession can find it a difficult thing to arrive at it But enough of this In your Second Paragraph you seem to intimate that our Author might have spared his pains in dwelling so long upon the Distance between our Church and the Church of Rome in points of Doctrine But he is not satisfied with the reasons you give for the needlesness of so doing Your reasons are two First because he argued chiefly for Communion in Worship And Secondly you never met with the Doctrinal part of the 39 Articles charged as Popish nor our Church reflected on as symbolizing with that Idolatrous Church in Points of Doctrine But these reasons have not convinced our Author that he is over long upon this Argument for it was not his design to shew that our Church doth not symbolize in Points of Doctrine with that of Rome but that She stands at greatest defyance with that Church Not that She doth not teach her Corrupt Doctrine in her Articles but that she designedly confutes them and exposeth the falsity and corruption of them And this surely was worth the shewing in so many instances for their sakes who never read or considered those Articles as I fear very few of the Dissenters have done And whereas you say you never met with the Doctrinal part of the 39 Articles charged as Popish and it would be strange if you had I say there is too great cause to suspect that very few of our Dissenting Brethren do understand how Anti-popish they are though they do not charge them as Popish And I doubt you have met with many I am sure very many are to be met with who have reflected upon our Church as an Idolatrous Church though you never heard her accused as symbolizing with the Idolatrous Church of Rome in Points of Doctrine But they will find it somewhat hard to understand how a Church can be Idolatrous in matters of Practice and yet be pure in her Doctrine from any tang of Idolatry Surely her Practices must be grounded upon her Doctrines or they would be strange Practices indeed And it would be wonderfull if she should Practise Idola try and yet Believe nothing that tends to the encouragement of that foul Sin nay believe and teach all those Doctrines that are as Opposite to Idolatry as Light to Darkness So that I conceive nothing could be more to our Author's purpose than to endeavour to remove that prejudice of many against the Constitution of our Church which is grounded upon an Opinion of its being near of kin to Popery And what could signifie more to their Conviction that there is not any ground for such an Opinion than the shewing how abhorrent to Popery our Church is in her Doctrine and what a testimony she beareth in her Articles against the Idolatrous and Superstitious Doctrines of the Romish Church and the Practices which she foundeth upon those Doctrines As to the several Additions you say may be made to the * * * pag. 4. Anti-popish Doctrines contained in the 39 Articles our Author conceives he was not guilty of any Oversight in not preventing you because some of them are not properly Anti-popish but contrary to the Doctrine of other Sects which are to be found among Abhorrers of Popery as well as Papists and others of them our Author hath not omitted but if you 'll look again you may find them in their proper places Viz. those Doctrines contained in Artic. VI. and Artic. XI This under the head of Doctrines flatly contradicting the Holy Scriptures pag. 9. That under the head of the Authority on which each of the two Churches founds its whole Religion pag. 18. Now I hope by this time you understand very well what our Author would have you conclude from this first part of his Performance which you say * * * pag. 4. you do not well understand And whereas you ask whether it be that the 39 Articles have in them nothing of kin to Popery as to matters of Faith And add that you dare say there is not a judicious Dissenter in England will say they have I answer if there be any injudicious Dissenters in England that will say they have I hope these poor people ought not to be so despised as that we should use no means for the undeceiving of them But our Author would have you conclude that he hath done what he designed which is as hath been already said not to shew that the 39 Articles have nothing of kin to Popery but that they are most abhorrent from it and that our Church is at the widest and vastest distance from Popery in her Doctrinals and consequently one would think too in matters of Practice But our Author does not satisfie himself to prove this by this consequence but goes on to shew it in the particular instances of matters of Practice after he had done it in Points of Doctrine To return now to your Second Page You say that it is mightily Satisfactory to you to hear our Author assuring you that our Church alloweth her Members the judgment of Discretion c. But Sir you needed no Authors to assure you of this since our Church hath done it as fully as it can be done by words and our Author no otherwise assures you of it than by citing our Churches Articles But whereas you add that this you cannot but think implieth a Liberty not onely to Believe and Judge but to Doe also according to what a man believes and judgeth surely you will find your self able to think otherwise when you have considered what is the necessary and immediate consequence of such a thought viz. that all such things as Laws are utterly inconsistent with allowing to men the Judgment of Discretion according to this large notion And that therefore our Church doth faultily Symbolize with the Church of Rome in having any such things as Government and Discipline You next say that our Author speaketh very true as to the Popish Rites and Ceremonies and that those in our Church are
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
by the Devil to the destruction of the Gospel But the Catholick truth delivered unto us by the Scriptures plainly determineth that all such are to be Baptized as whom God acknowledgeth for his People and vouchsufeth them worthy of Sanctification or Remission of their Sins Therefore since that Infants be in the number or scroll of God's People and be Partakers of the Promise by their Purification in Christ it must needs follow thereby that they ought to be Baptized as well as those that can Profess their Faith For we judge the People of God as well by the free and liberal Promise of God as by the Confession of Faith For to whomsoever God promiseth himself to be their God and whom he acknowledgeth for his those no Man without great Impiety may exclude from the number of the Faithful But God promiseth that he will not only be the God of such as do profess him but also of Infants promising them his Grace and Remission of Sins as it appeareth by the words of the Covenant made unto Abraham I will set my Covenant between thee and me saith Gen. 17. the Lord and between thy Seed after thee in their Generations with an everlasting Covenant to be thy God and the God of thy Seed after thee To the which Covenant Circumcision was added to be a sign of Sanctification as well in Children as in Men and no Man may think that this Promise is abrogated with Circumcision and other Ceremonial Laws For Christ came to fulfil the Promises and Matth. 5. not to dissolve them Therefore in the Gospel he saith of Infants that is of such as yet believed not Let the little Matth. 10. Ones come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Again It is not the Will of your Father which Matth. 19. is in Heaven that any of these little Ones do perish Also He Matth. 18. that receiveth one such little Child in my Name receiveth me Take heed therefore that ye despise not one of these Babes for I tell you their Angels do continually see in Heaven my Father's Face And what may be said more plainer than this It is not the Will of the Heavenly Father that the Infants should perish Whereby we may gather that he receiveth them freely unto his Grace although as yet they confess not their Faith Since then that the Word of the Promise which is contained in Baptism pertaineth as well to Children as Men why should the sign of the Promise which is Baptism in Water be withdrawn from Children when Christ himself commandeth them to be received of us and promiseth the Reward of a Prophet to those that receive such a little Infant as he for an Example did put before his Disciples Now will I prove with manifest Arguments that Children Matth. 28. ought to be Baptized and that the Apostles of Christ did Baptize Children The Lord commanded his Apostles to Baptize all Nations therefore also Children ought to be Baptized for they are comprehended under this Word All Nations Further whom God doth account among the faithful they are faithful for it was said to Peter That thing which Acts 10. God hath purified thou shalt not say to be common or unclean But GOD doth repute Children among the Faithful Ergo they be faithful except we had rather to resist God and seem stronger and wiser than he And without all doubt the Apostles Baptized those 1 Cor. 1. which Christ commanded But he commanded the Faithful to be Baptized among the which Infants be reckoned The Apostles then Baptized Infants The Gospel is more than Baptism for Paul said The 1 Cor. 1. Lord sent me to Preach the Gospel and not to Baptize Not that he denied absolutely that he was sent to Baptize but that he preferred Doctrine before Baptism for the Lord commanded both to the Apostles but Children be received by the Doctrine of the Gospel of God and not refused Therefore what Person being of reason may deny them Baptism which is a thing lesser than the Gospel For in the Sacraments be two things to be considered the thing signified and the Sign and thing signified is greater than the Sign and from the thing signified in Baptism Children are not excluded who therefore may deny them the Sign which is Baptism in Water St. Peter could not deny them to be Baptized in Water to whom he saw the Holy Ghost given which is the certain Sign of God's People For he saith in the Acts May Acts 10. any body forbid them to be Baptized in Water who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Therefore St. Peter denied not Baptism to Infants for he knew certainly both by the Doctrine of Christ and by the Covenant which is everlasting that the Kingdom of Heaven pertained to Infants None be received into the Kingdom of Heaven but Rom. 8. such as God loveth and which are endued with his Spirit For whoso hath not the Spirit of God he is none of his But Infants be beloved of God and therefore want not the Spirit of God Wherefore if they have the Spirit of God as well as Men if they be numbred among the People of God as well as we that be of Age who I pray you may well withstand Children to be Baptized with Water in the Name of the Lord. The Apostles in times past being yet not sufficiently instructed did murmur against those which brought their Children unto the Lord but the Lord rebuked them and said Let the Babes come unto me Why then do not these Rebellious Matth. 10. Anabaptists obey the Commandments of the Lord For what do they now a-days else that bring their Children to Baptism than that they did in times past which brought their Children to the Lord and our Lord received them and putting his hands on them Blessed them and both by Words and by Gentle Behaviour towards them declared manifestly that Children be the People of God and entirely beloved of GOD But some will say Why then did not Christ Baptize them Because it is Written Jesus himself Baptized not but his Disciples Moreover Circumcision in the Old Law was ministred John 4. to Infants therefore Baptism ought to be ministred in the New Law unto Children For Baptism is come in the stead of Circumcision as St. Paul witnesseth saying to the Colossians By Christ ye are Circumcised with a Circumcision which is Colos 2. without hands when ye put off the body of sin of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried together with him through Baptism Behold Paul calleth Baptism the Circumcision of a Christian Man which is done without hands not that Water may be ministred without hands but that with hands no Man any longer ought to be Circumcised albeit the Mystery of Circumcision do still remain in Faithful People To this I may add That the Servants of God were always ready to minister the
the Principle had any real Foundation in it self or they acted in any due consistency with the Principle they pretend That which our Dissenting Brethren urge as they think of the greatest force and pertinency in this matter is the example of Hezekiah who when he found the brazen Serpent which God himself had directed to be set up for the Healing of those that had been stung with Fiery Serpents abus'd to downright Idolatry He would not endeavour to recover it to the first design of its preservation that is to keep it standing only as a memorial of Gods Power and goodness who had done such great and beneficial things amongst them by it but without any more ado takes it away from all further view of the People breaks it in pieces and calls it Nehushtan i. e. let 's the People see it was a thing of Brass and 2 Kings XVI â—1 4. nothing else To this I answer First Although it is very natural to mankind to govern themselves more by example than precept yet Arguments fetcht from examples generally are not the truest way of reasoning and that partly upon this very account namely the proneness we have toward example and Byass and Prejudice we may the easilier be drawn away with upon that account But chiefly because in alledging examples it is very rare that we can hit the Case perfectly right It may be said of Examples as it is of Similitudes they seldom do Currere quatuor pedibus they do not perfectly reach the thing intended to be prov'd but are so widely different or defective in some one or other Circumstance that there is not that parity of Reason that ought to be and the varying of Circumstances may much alter the Case Which very thing apparently falls out in this very instance For certainly if the example be concern'd in any thing with respect to our practice it may seem to prove nothing further than the necessity of taking away not what hath been us'd only to Idolatrous purposes but what it self hath been and at that instant is a meer Idol This was the Circumstance of the brazen Serpent it was by Custom become a real Idol it had been so for a long time was so at that instant when Hezekiah brake it to pieces to those days the Children of Israel did burn Incense unto it So that thus far perhaps this instance might affect us that were there any Crucifix or material image of our Saviour upon the Cross now standing to which People for some Ages had given and for the generality did still give divine honour it would then indeed concern the Government in their Reformation from the Idolatries of the Church of Rome to take away and abolish this and all other Images of this kind This perhaps answers the pattern pretty much and copieth out Hezekiah's wise and good Action and this accordingly is entirely done in our Church there being no such Image abiding now amongst us to which any adoration is publickly avow'd or that can be pretended to have such snare in it as to hazard any general Idolatry What proportion doth our Aerial sign of the Cross toward which there is no intention nor indeed any possibility of giving any divine Worship what proportion doth this bear to the material figure of the brazen Serpent to which they had for a long time actually burnt Incense did it to those very days and gave such Evidence of their Inveteracy in Idolatry that there seem'd no moral likelihood of preventing it by any other course than breaking the Idol to pieces and letting them see what a meer lump of Brass they had been Worshipping But then 2. If Example were a good way of Arguing we find by Hezekiah's practice in other things he did not think it an indispensible Duty in him to abolish every thing that had been made use of to Idolatry if they did not prove an immediate snare at that time for as to Temples which Solomon had erected for no other end but the Worship of false Gods in them 1 Kings 11. 7. Hezekiah did not make it his business to destroy them as being in his time forlorn and neglected things of which no bad use was then made Although indeed King Josiah afterward probably upon the encrease of Idolatry and renewed use of those places foued it expedient to lay them wholly waste 2 Kings 23. 13. And thus much I have thought fit to say as to that first Head of Objection against the sign of the Cross as it is cry'd out against as a Relick of Popery and had been so deprav'd by the Superstitious use of it in the Church of Rome I cannot but acknowledg this to be the weakest part of their plea against it and probably our Brethren know it to be so too yet because it is most affecting amongst common People and seems to have made the deepest impression upon those that are not so well fitted for profound and solid reasoning I have chosen to be the larger here that even the meanest capacities may see that the Sign of the Cross as we use it was not introduc'd by the Church of Rome but was of a much ancienter date That the use we make of it bears no Conformity at all with that Church in their using it that by our different usage we keep at a sufficient distance nay perhaps are in less likelyhood of falling into the Snare of their Communion than if it had been utterly abolisht In a word that that very Principle upon which the charge of Popery is laid as an Argument against the Cross is it self weak and fallible nor are we bound by any Precept or Example in Holy Writ to throw off the use of any one thing meerly because the Church of Rome hath abus'd it It hath prov'd a mighty inconvenience to the Church that People have been thrown into so precipitant a Zeal of removing themselves to the utmost extreams from the Church of Rome that they have been almost afraid to determine in any action or circumstance of Divine Worship lest it should some way or other have been Prophan'd and made unwarrantable by their practice This is that gave rise to the mischievous Enthusiasms in Germany that ended in such bloody and barbarous Practtises as well as sensless and ridiculous Principles taken up and maintain'd by the Anabaptists there I am loth to mention the horrid confusions of our own Age and Nation which yet perhaps we were wrought up into by this very humour I mean a restless fondness for some additional refinements still which our Church had not thought fit to make I cannot but inwardly reverence the Judgment as well as love the Temper of our first Reformers who in their first Separations from Rome were not nice or scrupulous beyond the just reasons of things Doubtless they were in earnest enough as to all true Zeal against the Corruptions of that Church when they seal'd the well-grounded offence they took at them with their warmest
betoken our being made new Creatures and entred into a new State or Condition of Life which still they seem to aim more expresly at in their general care to give the Child some Scripture Name or some name that should signify some excellent vertue or Grace some Religious duty owing to God or some memorable benefit receiv'd from him Here we have an outward Visible sign and this too sometimes of an inward Spiritual Grace and yet this no more accounted a new Sacrament or a Sacrament within that of Baptism than we do our Sign of the Cross and indeed there seems just as much reason for the one as for the other and no more 2. Those Arguments which some of our Dissenting Brethren have us'd in Plea for the posture of sitting at the Lords Supper do shew that besides what they urge from the posture wherein our Saviour himself celebrated it they apprehend some Significancy in the gesture that renders it more accommodate to that ordinance than any other for some of them plead for the posture of sitting as being most properly a Table-gesture and doth best of all express our fellowship with Christ and the honour and priviledg of Communion with him as Co-heirs Now in this matter let us consider our Lord hath no where expresly Commanded us to perform this Sacrament in a sitting posture much less hath he told us that he ordain'd this gesture in token of our fellowship with him so that we see this gesture of sitting by the Tenor of their Argument made an outward Visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace and this not from any antecedent express institution of Christ which notwithstanding this posture of sitting is not accounted by those that frame the Argument any new or additional Sacrament to that of the Lords Supper 3. Lastly Those of the Congregational way have a formal Covenant which they insist upon that whoever will be admitted into any of their Churches must engage themselves in this is of that importance amongst them that they call it the Constitutive Form of a Church that which makes any particular Person Member of a Church Apol. for Church-coven Yea and as another expresses it that wherein the Vnion of such a Church doth consist We will suppose then this Covenant administer'd in some form or other and the Person admitted by this Covenant into an Independant Church declaring his consent by some Action or other such as holding up his Hand or the like Let me ask them What must they of that Church think of this Rite or Ceremony of holding up the hand will they not look upon it as a token of his consent to be a Church-Member Here then is an outward Visible sign of What of no less according to their apprehension of things than a perfect new State and Condition of Life that is of being embody'd in Christ's Church engag'd to all the Duties and enstated in all the priviledges of it Will they say that this way of admission either the form of words wherein their Covenant is administred or the Ceremony of holding up the hand by which this Covenant is taken and assented to was originally ordain'd by Christ or do they themselves esteem this of the nature of a Sacrament or did the Presbyterian-Brethren in all their Arguments against this way charge them with introducing a new Sacrament So that from all instances imaginable both of the Jewish and Christian Church and that both Primitive and later Reformations even from the particular practices of our Dissenting Brethren it is very Evident how unreasonable a thing it is that though we sign the baptiz'd person with the Sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith Christ of Crucifi d c. We should be accus'd as introducing a new Sacrament or adding the Sacrament of the Cross to that of Baptism But then they tell us secondly we seem to own it our selves when in an entire Representative of our Church such as we suppose a Convocation to be it is actually determin'd that by the Sign of the Cross the Person Baptiz'd is dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross and what can be more immediate saith one of our Brethren than in the present dedicating act to use the sign and express the dedicating Signification It is confest that the 30th Canon doth say the Cross is an honourable badg whereby the Infant is dedicated c. And the stress of the Objection in this part of it lieth in the word dedicated that is because the Sacrament of Baptism is it self a Seal of Admission into Covenant and Dedication to God and the Christian Religion therefore by using a Symbolical Ceremony of humane institution whereby we profess the Person Baptiz'd dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross we have made a new Sacrament and added to that of Baptism to dedicate him in our own invented way as Christ hath in that which he hath instituted 1. To this I answer that surely the word dedication is of a much larger Signification than that it should be confin'd meerly to the Interpretation that our Brethren would put upon it The meaning of dedication properly is the appropriating of any thing or Person to any peculiar service such as a Church or Temple for the Worship of God any Person to the profession the true Religion to the Ministry or to any kind of attendance at the Holy Altars This is the strictest sense of dedication but then in a larger sense we may suppose it apply'd to any strict or conscientious discharge of all the Duties and answering all the ends of the first dedication Thus suppose a Man ordain'd to the Ministry whereby he is properly dedicated to the work and service of the Gospel he may by some solemn act of his own dedicate himself to a zealous and faithful discharge of that Office and this after some time that he may have apprehended himself hitherto not so diligent in the trust that had been committed to him This cannot be call'd in any sense a new ordination but it may with reason and sense enough be stil'd a dedicating of a Man's self more particularly to the service of God in the discharge of that Ministry he was ordain'd to And therefore 2. In this sense the Convocation ought in all justice to be understood when they in explaining the intention of the Cross tell us it is an honourable badg whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross c. And yet I must needs say it seems hard measure upon the Church of England that if those in a Convocation should not have apply'd the word dedication to what might be most strictly the sense of it that this should be so severely expounded that no other declarations of their meaning and intention must be accepted of than what meerly the strict and critical sense of that word will bear Surely
danger of unworthy receiving and therefore they had better wholly to abstain from it By which it came to pass that in very many Places this great and solemn Institution of the Christian Religion was almost quite forgotten as if it had been no part of it and the remembrance of Christ's death even lost among Christians So that many Congregations in England might justly have taken up the complaint of the Woman at our Saviour's Sepulchre they have taken away our Lord and we know not where they have laid him But surely men did not well consider what they did nor what the consequences of it would be when they did so earnestly dissuade men from the Sacrament 'T is true indeed the danger of unworthy receiving is great but the proper inference and conclusion from hence is not that men should upon this consideration be deterred from the Sacrament but that they should be affrighted from their sins and from that wicked course of life which is an habitual indisposition and unworthiness St. Paul indeed as I observed before truly represents and very much aggravates the danger of the unworthy receiving of this Sacrament but he did not deter the Corinthians from it because they had sometimes come to it without due reverence but exhorts them to amend what had been amiss and to come better prepared and disposed for the future And therefore after that terrible declaration in the Text Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord he does not add therefore let Christians take heed of coming to the Sacrament but let them come prepared and with due reverence not as to a common meal but to a solemn participation of the body and bloud of Christ but let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For if this be a good reason to abstain from the Sacrament for fear of performing so sacred an action in an undue manner it were best for a bad man to lay aside all Religion and to give over the exercise of all the duties of Piety of prayer of reading and hearing the Word of God because there is a propoâ—â—ionable danger in the unworthy and unprofitable use of any of these The prayer of the wicked that is of one that resolves to continue so is an abomination to the Lord. And our Saviour gives us the same caution concerning hearing the Word of God take heed how ye hear And St. Paul tells us that those who are not reformed by the Doctrine of the Gospel it is the savour of death that is deadly and damnable to such persons But now will any man from hence argue that it is best for a wicked man not to pray not to hear or reade the Word of God lest by so doing he should endanger and aggravate his condemnation And yet there is as much reason from this consideration to persuade men to give over praying and attending to God's Word as to lay aside the use of the Sacrament And it is every whit as true that he that prays unworthily and hears the Word of God unworthily that is without fruit and benefit is guilty of a great contempt of God and of our blessed Saviour and by his indevout prayers and unfruitfull hearing of God's Word does further and aggravate his own damnation I say this is every whit as true as that he that eats and drinks the Sacrament unworthily is guilty of a high contempt of Christ and eats and drinks his own Judgment so that the danger of the unworthy performing this so sacred an action is no otherwise a reason to any man to abstain from the Sacrament than it is an Argument to him to cast off all Religion He that unworthily useth or performs any part of Religion is in an evil and dangerous condition but he that casts off all Religion plungeth himself into a most desperate state and does certainly damn himself to avoid the danger of damnation Because he that casts off all Religion throws off all the means whereby he should be reclaimed and brought into a better state I cannot more fitly illustrate this matter than by this plain Similitude He that eats and drinks intemperately endangers his health and his life but he that to avoid this danger will not eat at all I need not tell you what will certainly become of him in a very short space There are some conscientious persons who abstain from the Sacrament upon an apprehension that the sins which they shall commit afterwards are unpardonable But this is a great mistake our Saviour having so plainly declared that all manner of sin shall be forgiven men except the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost such as was that of the Pharisees who as our Saviour tells us blasphemed the Holy Ghost in ascribing those great miracles which they saw him work and which he really wrought by the Spirit of God to the power of the Devil Indeed to sin deliberately after so solemn an engagement to the contrary is a great aggravation of sin but not such as to make it unpardonable But the neglect of the Sacrament is not the way to prevent these sins but on the contrary the constant receiving of it with the best preparation we can is one of the most effectual means to prevent sin for the future and to obtain the assistence of God's grace to that end And if we fall into sin afterwards we may be renewed by repentance for we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous who is the propitiation for our sins and as such is in a very lively and affecting manner exhibited to us in this blessed Sacrament of his body broken and his bloud shed for the remission of our sins Can we think that the primitive Christians who so frequently received this holy Sacrament did never after the receiving of it fall into any deliberate sin undoubtedly many of them did but far be it from us to think that such sins were unpardonable and that so many good men should because of their carefull and conscientious observance of our Lord's Institution unavoidably fall into condemnation To draw to a conclusion such groundless fears and jealousies as these may be a sign of a good meaning but they are certainly a sign of an injudicious mind For if we stand upon these Scruples no man perhaps was ever so worthily prepared to draw near to God in any duty of Religion but there was still some defect or other in the disposition of his mind and the degree of his preparation But if we prepare our selves as well as we can this is all God expects And for our fears of falling into sin afterwards there is this plain answer to be given to it that the danger of falling into sin is not prevented by neglecting the Sacrament but encreased because a powerfull and probable means of preserving men from sin is neglected And why should
this so that they should onely respect Sitting as he did why should we not think our selves obliged to do all that he did at the same time as well as this For example If these words may be interpreted thus Do this that is Sit as Christ did why not thus also Do this that is celebrate the Sacrament in an upper Room in a private House late at night or the Evening after a full Supper †††Mat. 26. 20. in the Company of 11 or 12 at most Mar. 14. 17. Luke 22. 14. and they onely Men with their Heads Covered according to the custom of those Countries and with unleavened Bread There lyeth as great an Obligation upon all Christians to observe all these Circumstances in Imitation of our Lord by vertue of these words Do this as there doth to Sit. So that this Argument violently recoils upon those that urge it and proves a great deal more than they are willing to have it It concludes strongly against their own Practices and the liberty they take in omitting some things and pressing the necessary observance of others upon a reason which equally obliges to all But I desire our Dissenting Brethren who may be Answ II of the same Perswasion with these Scotch-men to take this further consideration along with them which I think will turn the Scales and make deep impressions upon tender Consciences and oblige them to observe most of the other Circumstances which they omit rather than this of Sitting which they so earnestly press and contend for All those forementioned Circumstances except the two Last which too are generally allowed among Learned Men on all sides are expresly mentioned in the Gospel and were without dispute observed by Christ at the Institution of the Sacrament But the particular Gesture used by him at that time is not expresly mentioned and what it was is very disputable and dubious as I shall evince by and by under the second Query How then can any Man think himself obliged in Conscience by the force of these words Do this to do what Christ is no where expresly said to do and not obliged to do what the Scripture affirms he really did Why that which is dark and dubious should be made an infallible Rule of Conscience and that which is plainly and evidently set down in Scripture should have no force nor be esteemed any Rule at all These are Questions I confess beyond my capacity and surpassing my skill to resolve It 's clear from St. Paul in the forecited place that Answ III those words of our Lord Do this do respect onely the 1 Cor. 11. 23 4 5 6 27 28. Verses Bread and Wine which signify the Body and Bloud of Christ and those other actions there specified by him which are essential to the right and due celebration of that Holy Feast For when it 's said Do this in Remembrance of me and This do ye as oft as ye Drink it in Remembrance of me and As oft as ye Eat this Bread and Drink this Cup ye do shew the Lords Death till he come it 's plain that Do this must be restrained to the Sacramental Actions there mentioned and not extended to the Gesture of which the Apostle speaks not a word Our Lord Instituted the Sacrament in Remembrance of his Death and Passion and not in Remembrance of his Gesture in Administring it And consequently Do this is a general Command obliging us onely to such particular Actions and Rites as he had Instituted and made necessary to be used in order to this great end viz. to signify and represent his Death and that Bloudy Sacrifice which he offered to his Father on the Cross for us miserable Sinners Upon the whole matter I think we may certainly conclude that there is not a tittle of a Command in the whole New Testament to oblige us to receive the Lords Supper in any particular Posture and if any be so scrupulous after all as not to receive it in any other Gesture but what is expresly Commanded they must never receive it as long as they live And then I leave this to their serious consideration How they will be ever able to excuse their neglect of a known necessary duty such as receiving the Sacrament is before God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who loved us so much as to send his Son to be a propitiation for our Sins How they will ever Answer to their Crucified Saviour their Living and Dying in the breach of an express Command of his given a little before his Passion to Do this in Remembrance of him meerly because the Gesture prescribed by Authority was cross to their private Wills and Phansies but not to the Mind and Will of God 2. For the further proof and Confirmation of this Assertion that there is no express Command in Scripture for the use of any particular Gesture in the Act of receiving the Sacrament I will appeal to the Judgment and Practice of our Dissenting Brethren and all the Reformed Churches in Europe 1. To begin with our Non-conforming Brethren There are a great many Serious and Sincere-Hearted persons among them who profess that were they left to their liberty and not tyed up by the Law to Kneel at the Sacrament they could with a safe Conscience use that Gesture as well as any other And they further tell us that they are willing and ready to Communicate with us provided we would Administer the Sacrament to them either Sitting or Standing that is any way but that which is imposed by Law For the Rule by which they conduct their Consciences in this matter is this Things in their own nature indifferent which are no where Commanded or prohibited by God in Scripture cannot nor ought not to be restrained and limited by any Power or Authority of Man And therefore all such things which God left free for us to do or not to do without Sin become sinful to us when imposed by humane Authority It 's remote from my business to shew how weak and false a Principle this is and of what mischievous consequences to the Peace of the Church and for that reason I will pass it by But thus much may be inferr'd from this Tenent to my purpose that they who hold and urge it as a reason why they cannot Receive Kneeling which otherwise they could safely do plainly own that as to the Gesture in the Act of receiving it is in its own nature Indifferent and left free by God for us to use or refuse as we think fit and by necessary consequence that there is no express Command given by God for the use of any particular Gesture It could not be a matter of indifferency to our Dissenting Brethren whose Principle this is if there were no Law of Man to Kneel at the Sacrament and now there is such a Law it could not be Indifferent to them whether they received Sitting or Standing as they profess it is if
there were any Law of God obliging to the use of any one Gesture whatsoever 2. That there is no express Command in Scripture for any one Gesture in the Act of Receiving may be inferr'd from the Judgment and Practice of all the Reformed Churches abroad Whose Judgment and example will I presume sway much with those who separate from the Church of England as not being sufficiently purged from the Corruptions of the Church of Rome as other Neighbour-Churches are and who stood once engaged in a Solemn Covenant to reform the Churches of England and Ireland according to the Word of God and the Pattern of the best Reformed Churches Let us now compare the practice of our Church with the example of the Protestant Churches abroad and see whether she ought to reform the Gesture prescribed at the Sacrament The Reformed Churches of France and those of Geneva and Helvetia Stand the Dutch generally Sit but in some places as in West-Friesland they Stand. The Churches of the Bohemian and Augustan Confession which spread through the large Kingdoms of Bohemia Denmark and Sweden through Norway the Dukedom of Saxony Lithuany and the Ducal Prussia in Poland the Marquisate of Brandenburg in Germany and several other places and free Cities in that Empire do for the most part if not all of them retain the Gesture of Kneeling The Bohemian Churches were reformed by John Husse and Jerom of Prague who suffered Martyrdom at Constance about the year 1416. long before Luthers time and those of the Augsburg or Augustan Confessions were founded and reformed by Luther and were the first Protestants properly so called Both these Churches so early reformed and of so large extent did not only use the same Gesture that our Church enjoyns at the Sacrament but they together with those of the Helvetick Confession did in three general Synods unanimously condemn the Sitting Gesture though they esteemed it in it self Lawful 1 At Cracow Anno. Dom. 1573. 2 Petricow or Peterkaw 1578. 3 Wladislaw 1583. as being Scandalous for this remarkable reason viz. because it was used by the Arrians as their Synods call the Socinians in contempt of our Saviours Divinity who therefore placed themselves as Fellows with their Lord at his Table And thereupon they entreat and exhort all Christians of their Communion to change Sitting into Kneeling or Standing both which Ceremonies we Indifferently leave free according as the Custom of any Church hath obtained and we approve of their use without Scandal and Blame Moreover they affirm That these Socinians who deny Christ to be God were the first that introduced Sitting at the Sacrament into their Churches contrary to the Practice of all the Evangelical Churches in Europe Among all these Forreign Churches of the Reformation there is but one that I can find which useth Sitting and forbids Kneeling for fear of Bread-Worship but yet in that Synod wherein they condemned Kneeling they left it to the choice of their Churches to use Standing Sitting or an Ambulatory Gesture as the French do and at last conclude thus Harmon 4 Synods of Holl. These Articles are setled by mutual Consent that if the good of the Churches require it they may and ought to be changed augmented or diminished What now should be the ground and reason of this variety both in Opinion and Practice touching the Gesture to be used at the Lords Supper Is it to be supposed or imagined that an Assembly of Learned and Pious Divines met together on purpose to consult how to Reform their Churches according to the pure Word of God should through weakness and inadvertency overlook an express Command of Christ for the perpetual use of any particular Gesture if any such there had been Or shall we be so uncharitable as to think that all these eminent Churches wilfully past it by and established what was most agreeable to their own Phansies contrary to the known Will of God Would they have given liberty to all of their Communion to use several Gestures according to the custom of their several Churches if our Lord had tyed them to observe but one Would they declare as the Dutch Synod doth that what they enjoyned might be altered if the good of the Church so required if so be Sitting had been expresly Commanded by our Lord to be used by all Christians to the end of the World No undoubtedly they would not we cannot either in reason or Charitie suppose it The true Principle upon which all these Reformed Churches built and by which they are able to reconcile all this seeming difference in this matter is the very same with that which the Church of England goes by in her Synods and Convocations viz. That as to Rites and Ceremonies of an indifferent nature every National Church hath Authoritie to institute change and abolish them as they in Prudence and Charitie shall think most fit and conducive to the setting forth God's Glory the Edification of their People and the Decent and Reverend Administration of the Holy Sacrament Whosoever therefore refuses Vid. Art 34 observat of the French and Dutch Divines on the Harmony of Confessions edit Geneva 1681. sect 14. p. 120. In hoc etiam ritu speaking of Kneeling at the Sacr. suam cuique Ecclesiae libertatem salvam reliquendam arbitramur to receive the Lord's Supper according to the Constitution of the Church of England purely because Kneeling is contrary to the express Command of Christ must condemn the Judgment and Practice of all the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas who all agree in this that the Gesture in the Act of Receiving is to be reckoned among things Indifferent and that whether we Sit or Kneel or Stand or Receive Walking we Transgress no Law of God and consequently they prove my assertion true that Kneeling is not contrary to any express Command no more than any other because they allow of all Lawful in themselves to be used which cannot consist with an express Command for the use of any one Gesture whatsoever Query II. Whether Kneeling be not a Devotion from that Example which Christ set us at the first Institution FOr a full and satisfactory resolution of this doubt I shall propound the four following particulars to the consideration of our Dissenting Brethren which I will endeavour with all Brevitie and Clearness to make good 1. That it can never be proved so as that the conscience may surely build upon it what Gesture Christ and his Apostles used at the Celebration of the Sacrament 2. Supposing that our Lord did Sit yet his bare example doth not oblige all Christians to a like practice 3. That they who urge the example of Christ for our Rule in this case do not follow it themselves 4. That they who Kneel at the Lords Supper in complyance with the Custom and Constitution of the Church do manifestly follow the example of Christ First The particular Gesture used by Christ and his Apostles at the Institution and Celebration of
will not Wash out For this in effect is Trampling upon and Vilifying of the Precious Blood of our Saviour and to detract from the Virtue and Merits of his Sacrifice and thereby render it weak and insufficient to save us Blindly therefore to follow the Example of Christ is a certain way to run into Error and Mischief We must then of necessity if we would follow him safely seek out for a plain Rule in the Word of God or guide our Selves by the Dictates of Reason and Prudence and either way is a sufficent Demonstration that a bare Example is not to be trusted to Those who urge the example of Christ for Sitting were somewhat ware of this namely that his example and those of his Apostles are not to be Imitated by us in all things and therefore they lay down this Gillesp against Cer. p. 339. for their Maxim and Guide We are bound to Imitate Christ and the commendable example of his Apostles in all things wherein it is not evident they had special reasons moving them thereunto which do not concern us But I would willingly be informed how we shall be ever able to know when they acted upon special reasons and what they were that we may know our Duty if a bare Example without any Rule obliges us And if we guide our selves by Scripture or Reason in this matter then they are the measures of the Example Besides if we are not to Imitate them in such things which they were moved to do upon special reasons which did not concern us then we are obliged to Imitate their examples in such things as they did upon general and common reasons which concern us as well as them or we are not obliged at all by any Example and if so then those reasons are our Rule to which we are to reduce their Examples Without we find some general or common Reason we have no Warrant according to their own Principle to follow their Examples and when such Reasons do appear then it 's not the example alone that obliges us but Reason that approves the Example To bring their own Rule to the case in Hand How do they know but our Lord was moved to Sit at the Sacrament by Special reasons drawn from that Time and Place from the Feast of the Passover to which that Gesture was peculiar How do they know but that our Lord might have used another Gesture if the Sacrament had been Instituted apart from the Passover The necessity of the time made the Jews Eat the Passover after one fashion in Egypt which afterward ceasing gave occasion to alter it in Canaan and how do we know but that our Lord complyed with the present necessity and that his Example if he did Sit was onely temporary and not designed for a Standing Law perpetually obliging to a like practice If Christ acted upon special reasons then we are not obliged by their own Rule and if he did not let them produce the reasons if they can which make this Example of Christ of general and perpetual use and to oblige all Christians to follow it When ever they do this I am sure they will expose their own Principle which they have built so much upon to the Scorn and Contempt of the World which is this That the bare example of Christ and good Gillesp 338. disp against Ceremo Men in Scripture are a compleat Rule and Sufficient Warrant for our Actions in such things as we have no Precept or Prohibition for in the Word of God That a Christians Duty in a great measure flows purely from Examples Recorded in the Word of God and not from the express Laws of God which he hath revealed to us 4. It 's absurd to talk of Christs Example apart from all Law and Rule and to make that alone a Principle of Duty distinct from the precepts of the Gospel because Christ himself all the while the World enjoyed the benefit of his example governed his actions by a Law For if we consider him as a Man like unto us in all things Sin onely excepted he was Born under the obligation of the Moral and Natural Law as a Jew under the Mosaick Law as the Messias sent of God into the World to compass the great Work of our Redemption which he had freely undertaken he still acted by Divine appointment and was under the Gospel-Law He came to fulfil all Righteousness and to teach us the whole Mind and Will of God and Exemplify to us what he taught and delivered That which made that bitter and deadly Cup which ended his Days relish with him was this consideration that it was a Cup given him by John 18. 11. his Father and the Drinking it was agreeable to his will and it was the comfort and support of his Soul a little before his Death that he had finished the Work that his Father had given him He frequently professed Joh. 17. 4. v. Mat. 11. 27. Luke 2. 49. Joh. 4. 34. Joh. 5. 30. 8 c. 28 29. Joh. 10. 25. Joh. 14. 24 31. Joh. 15. 10 15. in his life-time that he did as his Father gave him Commandment and that it was his great business and delight to do the will of his Father and many such expressions he used which may be consulted at leisure If therefore we onely look to his Example without considering the various Capacities and Relations he bare both towards God and towards us and the several Laws by which he stood bound which were the measures of his Actions we shall miserably mistake our way and bewilder our selves we shall Act like Fools when we do such things as he did pursuant to infinite Wisdom Thus to give but one instance if we should Subject our selves to the Law of Moses as he did for he fulfilled the Ceremonial Law which he came to abolish we should thereby frustrate the great Design of the Gospel and of our Saviours coming into the World And yet even this we are obliged to do if his Example alone be a sufficient Warrant for our Actions I have staid the longer upon this Head because so ill a use hath been made of Scripture-Examples and to shew how far forth we may safely steer by them I scarce know any one Doctrine so teeming and big with Error so Fatal to the Souls of private Persons and the Peace of Publick Societies both Civil and Ecclesiastical as that which teaches us to Learn and Derive our Duty from and to Judge of the Goodness and Badness of our Actions by the Examples of Christ and good Men over and above what we are obliged to do by the Precepts and Laws of the Gospel 3. They who urge the Example of Christ against Kneeling at the Sacrament as our Rule to which we ought to Conform do not follow it themselves Because the posture he Instituted the Sacrament in which they say was a Passover-Gesture was if so very different from that which they so earnestly plead for
and use at this day For that was a Discumbing or Leaning Gesture on the left side much after the manner that we lye upon Couches with the upper part of the body almost erect It is agreed by all Learned Men that this was the Ancient Custom of the Jews in our Saviours time and is so to this day at the Passover by which Gesture they distinguish this Festival Night from all others Now if the same Gesture were used by Christ at the Sacrament as was at the Passover and his example makes it necessary and obligatory to all Christians for what Reasons and by what Authority do our Dissenting Brethren change it into Sitting upright according to our Civil way and manner of Feasting When they tell us this it will be very easy to justify Kneeling by the same Authority which they shall alledge for Sitting and our changing the Gesture will be as warrantable as theirs Unless they will say that they alone have the Power and Priviledge to recede from the Example of Christ when and how far they please but our Church hath not nor any other upon the face of the Earth To say Sitting as they do comes nearer to the Gesture used by our Lord at the Passover and consequently as is supposed at the Sacrament then the Kneeling Gesture according to the Custom of our Church will do them no service For there is no Room for this Question Who cometh nearest to the Example they or we when they ought not at all to vary if they keep to their own Rule The Example of Christ as it is urged by them against Kneeling equally Concludes against all other Gestures besides what he himself used And then the supposed Gesture which he observed binds to Lying along For where we have nothing to go by but his Pattern we must cut exactly by it or else we take a liberty to do that of our own heads for which we have no allowance That is we leave the Pattern which we were obliged onely to follow and act at random upon our own heads and then the Pattern cannot be alledg'd for our Justification Though our Church therefore doth not strictly follow the Example of Christ as is objected by requiring all her Communicants to Kneel yet they have no reason to complain and to scruple Communicating with us who do not follow it themselves but receive the Sacrament in their separate Congregations in a Gesture different from what our Lord used at the first Institution of it The Presbyterians if one may Argue from their Practices to their Principles lay very little stress on this Argument taken from the Example of Christ For though they generally choose to Sit yet they do not Condemn Standing as Sinful or Unlawful in its self and several are willing to Receive it in that posture in our Churches which surely is every whit as wide from the Pattern our Lord is supposed to have set us whether he Lay along or Sate upright as that which is Injoyned and Practised by the Church of England There is too a Confessed variation allowed of and Practised by the generality of Dissenters both Presbyterians and Independents from the Institution and Practice of Christ and his Apostles in the other Sacrament of Baptism For they have changed Immersion or Dipping into aspersion or Sprinkling and Pouring Water on the Face Baptism Mat. 3. 16. Mat. 28. 19. by Immersion or Dipping is sutable to the Institution of our Lord and the Practice of his Apostles and was by them ordained and used to represent our Burial with Christ a Death unto Sin and a New Birth Rom. 6. 4. 6. 11. Col. 2. 12. unto Righteousness as St. Paul explains that Rite Now it 's very strange that Kneeling at the Lord's Supper though a different Gesture from that which was used at the first Institution should become a Stumbling-block in the way of Weak and Tender Consciences that it 's more unpassable than the Alpes and yet they can with Ease and Cheerfulness pass by as great or a greater change in the Sacrament of Baptism and Christen as we do without the least murmur or complaint Sitting Kneeling or Standing were none of them Instituted or used to signify and represent any thing Essential to the Lord's Supper as Dipping all over was why cannot Kneeling then be without any wrong to the Conscience as Safely and Innocently used as Sprinkling How comes a Gnat to use our Saviours Proverb to be harder to swallow than a Camel Or why should not the Peace and Unity of the Church and Charity to the Publick prevail with them to Kneel at the Lord's Supper as much or rather more as Mercy and Tenderness to the Infants Body to Sprinkle or pour Water on the Face contrary to the first Institution 4. They who Kneel at the Sacrament in complyance with the Customs and Constitutions of the Church whereof they are Members do manifestly follow the Example of Christ For our Saviour complyed with that Passover-Gesture which was at that time commonly and generally observed by the Jews but cannot be pretended to be Altar Dam. 745. 747. the same that was used at the first Institution of that Feast in Egypt For thus the Command runs Exod. 12. 11. And thus shall ye Eat it with your Loyns Girded your Shoes on your Feet and your Staff in your Hand And you shall Eat it in haste it is the Lord 's Passover This say the Hebrew Doctors was but a temporary Law suted to the necessity of that time and served for that Night onely and did not oblige the following Generations in the Land of Canaan For thus they comment upon it Four things were contained in this Law which did not oblige but for that night at the Vid. Mr. Ainsworth Exod. 12. 6. 11. Passover in Egypt 1. Eating of the Lamb in their Houses dispersed in Egypt 2. Taking up of the Lamb from the tenth Day 3. Striking the Blood on their Door-Posts 4. Eating in Haste Here the Gesture in all probability was Standing though it be not expresly mentioned Howsoever it was different from that used by the Jews in our Saviours time which was a Gesture denoting Ease and Rest and their deliverance from Egyptian Bondage And our Lord's Complyance with this Custom may teach us thus much That we should not be scrupulous about Gestures but conform to the Innocent and prevailing Customs of the Church wheresoever we live To this Practice St. Paul's Rule well sutes Not Phil. 4. 8. onely Whatsoever things are True and Just and Lovely and Pure and Honest but whatsoever things are of good report i. e. well spoken of or laudable Not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely If there be any vertue but if there be any praise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if any thing be much approved of in Common esteem or is made commendable by Custom we are to think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or make account of these things and conform our
practice to them And if Christians in the several places of their abode did walk according to this Rule they would greatly promote the Peace and Welfare of the Church of Christ and in so doing procure quiet and Peace to themselves with unspeakable Comfort and Satisfaction Whosoever would be esteemed and rewarded as a Peacemaker and avoid the ill reputation and Mat. 5. 9. guilt of a Turbulent Person ought among other things carefully to observe this viz. to Submit to and Comply with the Innocent Customs of the Church whereof he is a Member For thus the same Divine Writer after he had Argued against Womens being Uncovered in the publick Assemblies concludes all after this manner 1 Cor. 11. 6 If any Man seem to be Contentious we have no such Customs nor the Churches of God Pray by the way let this be observed from this place That we may Lawfully do some things in the Worship and Service of God for which we have no Command or Example in Scripture or else St. Paul's Argument from Custom is of no force To sum up all upon this second Query Seeing that we can never be certain of the particular Gesture used by Christ at the Institution of the Holy Sacrament Seeing his bare Example supposing he did Sit doth not oblige us in Conscience to Imitate it Seeing they who urge his Example do not follow it themselves even in that particular they urge it for Seeing Conformity to the Gesture prescribed by Law is a plain Conformity to the Example and Practice of Christ considered as to the Equity Reason and Spiritual Meaning and Instruction of it I think no Man can reasonably object against Kneeling and scruple in Conscience a Conformity to it as being repugnant to the Example of our Lord. Query III. Whether Kneeling be not altogether Vnsutable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper as being no Table-Gesture BEfore I proceed to the Case it self it will be requisite to premise something which may explain the true sense of it and Discover upon what Grounds and Reasons our Dissenting Brethren build their scruples against Kneeling as being no Table-Gesture By a Table-Gesture we are to understand thus much That at the Lord's Supper we ought in their Judgment to use the same Gesture as we do at our ordinary Meals and Tables at our Civil Feasts and Entertainments And because divers Gestures are used at Meals according to the different Modes and Customs of several Nations therefore we are obliged to use that at the Sacrament which the Custom of our Country hath prescribed at our Ordinary and Civil Meals Thus saith the Author of Altare Damascenum a Stout and Learned Champion for a Table-Gesture Sitting cross-legged Altar Dam. p. 762. as the Turks do at their Meals would be amongst them if they were Converted a Comely fashion of Receiving the Lord's Supper The Sacrament is a Supper a Feast Disput against Kneeling p. 2. p. 56. arg 4. a Banquet and therefore requires a Supper a Feast a Banquet-Gesture And such a Gesture must be used as Standeth with the Custom of the Country In no Nation was it ever held Comely to Kneel at their Banquets or Abridgment p. 61. reply to Bp. Morton 3 Innoc. Cer. p. 37. set forth in K. James's Reign to Receive their food Kneeling So that according to the sense of their own Writers and great Patrons of Sitting this is the reason why they question the Lawfulness of Kneeling That the Gesture at the Lord's Table ought to be the same with that which we use and observe at our Ordinary Tables according to the Custom and Fashion of our Native Country wherein we live And then the full Import and meaning of the Query is this Whether the nature of the Sacrament considered as a Feast doth not require and oblige us to Sit and not Kneel because Sitting and not Kneeling is the Ordinary Table-Gesture according to the Mode and Fashion of England Here the Reader may observe that this Argument for Sitting drawn from the nature of this Holy Feast quite overthrows the two former Arguments drawn from the express Command and Example of our Saviour and renders them useless and unserviceable to their cause 1. For they don't say we are obliged to use the same Gesture with our Lord but only a Table-Gesture though never so different from that which he used according to the Custom of our Country where we live Various Gestures according to the Variety of Fashions and Usages of several Nations at their Common Feasts may be all Comely and Sutable to the Nature of this Holy Feast According to this Argument therefore we are not obliged to Sit because Christ did at the Sacrament and then his bare Example is no Rule to us in this matter His Example was Governed and Guided by the Nature of the Sacrament and the Custom of the Jews Our Lord Instituted the Sacrament before the Paschal Feast was over and he continued in the same posture which he used at the Passover say they and that was Sitting Suppose this what follows Why therefore we are bound to Sit too after his Example No by no means say I unless it be the Custom of our Country to Sit at our Meals and Sitting be our Common Table-Gesture Which is the strength of this Argument drawn from the Nature of the thing if we may believe what they say themselves 2. Again if the Nature of the Sacrament require a Table-Gesture and we are obliged to use that in particular which standeth with the Custom of our Country and the Gestures may be different according as their Customs differ then God hath no where Commanded the use of any particular Gesture nor obliged all Christians in all places to observe one and the same 3. And then Thirdly we may Lawfully observe some things in the Worship of God for which we have no Command or Example in the Holy Scriptures if this Argument of the Table-Gesture be good And this principle viz. that we ought not to do any thing in the Worship of God but what we have some Command or Example for in Scripture is the great battering Engine which hath been constantly imployed against the Ceremonies enjoyned by our Church and it is a Principle wherein the Mystery of Puritanisme doth Preface to his Serm. last Edit 1681. consist as Bishop Sanderson Notes Therefore it behoves our Brethren not to be fond of this Table-Gesture as they love the Life of their Cause I am sure no greater Argument can be afforded of a routed baffled Cause in the matter of Sitting at the Sacrament than to see the Patrons of it running up and down in Confusion and flying for Refuge sometime to the Command of Christ then to his Example when driven out there then to the Nature of the thing and Civil Customs and about again to the Example For thus the Authors of the fore-mentioned Tracts do Thus much being premised I proceed to Consider the
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
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
de Sacramentis lib. 2. c. 3. * * * A Monk of Corbie who wrote against Berengar and liv'd about the year 1074. Algerus a stout Champion for Transubstantiation And †††Coster Enchirid p. 353. edit 1590. Coster another Popish Writer is so far from saying the Pope introduced it and that after Transubstantiation took place that he resolves it into an ancient Custom continued from the Apostles times Seeing then upon the whole matter it appears by the confession of some who oppose Kneeling that Honorius did not institute or ordain that Gesture in the Act of Receiving seeing the Decree which he made and which others appeal to doth not at all relate to this matter but onely to the Adoration of the Host at the Priests elevation of it seeing no other Pope is alledged as the Author of this Custom seeing Kneeling was never any instituted Ceremony in the Church of Rome nor is there any Canon or Decree or Rubrick extant which requires the use of that Gesture seeing the Pope himself and the Priests who celebrate use another Gesture in the Act of Receiving seeing their own Writers look on it as an ancient Usage derived to them from the first and purest Ages it follows that what is pretended and supposed in the Question is without all Warrant and Proof viz. that Kneeling in the Act of Receiving was first brought in by Idolaters And now to close up all I will appeal to any man of sense and understanding whether this be not a very silly and extravagant way of Arguing Kneeling in the Act of Receiving is sinful because it was first introduced by Antichrist and the man of sin and that after the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was started and took place in the world and yet after all when you come up close to them and enquire into particulars they are not able to date the original of it nor name the Authors who first invented it and set it up At this rate of talking it were the easiest matter imaginable to evince that Sitting and Standing were equally unlawful with Kneeling For it is but affirming boldly that they were first brought in and used by Idolaters and then the work is done effectually And if such slender Objections must drive us away from the Lords Supper we shall never communicate as long as we live But besides the folly of such Arguments I think it 's a very wicked thing for men to invent and urge them as the Case stands with us at present For what is there more desired and wisht for by all good Christians than Brotherly Love and Concord than that we may all meet together with one accord in one place and with one mind and one mouth glorifie God in the publick Churches What more talkt of now adays then Peace and Vnion Whosoever therefore shall any ways obstruct so blessed and desirable a Work must be concluded every ill man And such a one most certainly is he whatsoever we may think of it who withdraws himself from the Holy Communion upon groundless jealousies and unreasonable fears of incurring the divine displeasure if he receive Kneeling and shall go about by the Bugbear-words of Idolaters Antichrist the man of sin to scare weak and honest men from Receiving the Holy Sacrament in our Churches Because the Lords Supper was instituted for this peculiar end among others viz. to be an uniting Ordinance to bind Christians together in the strictest bonds of Love and Friendship to dispose and engage them to put on Bowels of Mercy to exercise the most kind and tender affections and the most fervent Charity one towards another that is possible for men to do Those Nonconforming Ministers therefore who possess the people with these Arguments which they themselves know unless they be grosly ignorant to be false and senceless to render them averse from the Lords Supper as it is administred in our Churches are in plain English the Authors and Fomenters of our Divisions and the Disturbers of our Peace In the second place to proceed it is not unlawful to use such Things and Rites as either have been or are notoriously abused to Idolatry Before I produce my Reasons for the proof of this Proposition I think it will not be amiss to inform the Reader with those Arguments which Dissenters use to overthrow it and they are these two in general 1. All Things and Rites which have been notoriously abused to Gillesp Eng. Pop. Cer. c. 2. par 3. p. 130. Idolatry if they were such as were devised by man and not by God and Nature made to be of necessary use should be utterly abolished and purged away from divine Worship But Kneeling in the Act of Receiving is one of these Rites therefore it should utterly be Abridgment of Linc. Min. p. 17. Vid. Mr. Hook Eccles Pol. lib. 4. p. 160. abolished 2. To imitate and agree with Idolaters by using such Rites and Ceremonies as they do though in themselves indifferent and though they contain nothing which is not agreeable to the Word of God is sinful So that not to abolish utterly whatsoever we know to have been abused heretofore to Idolatry to take up any old Heathenish and Idolatrous Customs and Rites though at present disused by Idolaters is sinful and then to use the same Rites Gillesp p. 141. c. 3. with Idolaters at present to sort our selves and communicate with them in their Rites is to partake of their sins and to become Altar Dam. p. 536 549. guilty of Idolatry too With these Arguments they make a great noise and endeavour to confirm them by Scripture and Reason I shall not offer at a Confutation of these Proofs which stand built upon a weak and sandy Foundation upon trifling and sorry Reasons upon Scripture-Precepts whose sence is horribly wrested and Scripture-Examples falsly applied and nothing to the purpose There is a Case of Conscience lately published wherein the Author hath done this Work to my hands For he clearly shews That a Vid Case resolved whether the Ch. of Eng. Symbolizing c. p. 24. to p. 47. p. 38. Churches agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing and particularly instanceth in our Churches agreement with the Church of Rome by Kneeling at the Sacrament There you will find the most considerable Texts and Examples which they drag from Scripture and urge for themselves rendred utterly unserviceable to their Cause and rescued from their Tortures All that I shall do therefore at present is onely this briefly to propound my Reasons for the proof of my Assertion by which I hope to make it evidently appear that our Dissenting Brethren lie under a great errour and mistake by thinking that all those Rites and Ceremonies which are in themselves indifferent and of mans devising ought to be utterly abolished and become sinful for us to use purely because they either have been or are notoriously abused
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-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
Subjects more lov'd commanding equally Bowels and Affections and Duty and Honour Masters and Servants Husbands and Wives and all Relations are kept in their just Bounds and Priviledges With other Churches we make good Works necessary to Salvation but think our selves more modest and secure in taking away Arrogance and Merit and advancing the Grace of Christ With other Men we cry up Faith but not an hungry and a starved one but what is fruitful of good Works and so have all that others contend for with greater modesty and security 3. How fitly this Church is constituted to excite true Devotion When we make our Addresses unto God we ought to have worthy and reverend Conceptions of his Nature a true sense and plain knowledge of the Duty and of the Wants and Necessities for which we pray to be suppli'd All which our Church to help our Devotion plainly sets down describing God by all his Attributes of just wise and laying forth the Vices and Infirmities of Humane Nature and that none else but God can cure our needs When her Sons are to pray the matter of her Petitions are not nice and controverted trivial or words of a Party but plain and substantial wherein all agree Her Words in Prayer are neither rustick nor gay the whole Composure neither too tedious nor too short decently order'd to help our Memories and wandring Thoughts Responsals and short Collects in Publick Devotion are so far from being her fault that they are her beauty and prudence There are few Cases and Conditions of Humane Life whether of a Civil or Spiritual Nature which have not their proper Prayers and particular Petitions for them at least as is proper for publick Devotions When we return our Thanks we have proper Offices to enflame our Passions to quicken our Resentment to excite our Love and to confirm our future Obedience the best instance of gratitude When we Commemorate the Passion of Christ we have a Service fit to move our Affections to assist our Faith to enlarge our Charity to shew forth and exhibit Christ and all his bloudy Sufferings every way to qualifie us to discharge that great Duty She hath indeed nothing to kindle an Enthusiastick heat nor any thing that savours of Raptures and Extasies which commonly flow from temper or fraud but that which makes us manly devout our Judgment still guiding our Affections When we enter first into Religion and go out of the World we have two proper Offices Baptism and Burial full of Devotion to attend those purposes So that if any doth not pray and give thanks communicate and live like a Christian 't is not because the Services to promote these are too plain and hungry beggarly and mean but their own mind is not fitly qualifi'd before they use them bring but an honest mind to these parts of Devotion a true sense of God sober and good purposes and affections well disposed that which is plain will prove Seraphical improve our Judgment heighten our Passions and make the Church a Quire of Angels Without which good disposition our Devotion is but Constitution or melancholy Peevishness Sullenness or Devotion to a Party a Sacrifice that God will not acccept 4. Her Order and Discipline Such are the Capacities and Manners of Men not to be taught onely by naked Vertue a natural Judgment or an immediate Teaching of God but by Ministry and Discipline decent Ceremonies and Constitutions and other external Methods these are the outward Pales and Guards the Supplies and Helps for the Weakness of Humane Nature Our Church hath fitted and ordered these so well as neither to want or to abound not to make Religion too gay nor leave her slovingly neither rude nor phantastick but is cloth'd in Dresses proper to a manly Religion not to please or gratifie our senses so as to fix there but to serve the reason and judgment of our Mind There are none of our Ceremonies which good Men and wise Men have not judged decent and serviceable to the great ends of Religion and none of them but derive themselves from a very ancient Family being us'd in most Ages and most of the Churches of God and have decency antiquity and usefulness to plead for them to help our Memories to excite our Affections to render our Services orderly and comely Were we indeed all Soul and such Seraphical Saints and grown Men as we make our selves we might then plead against such external helps but when we have Natures of weakness and passion these outward helps may be call'd very convenient if not generally necessary and as our Nature is mixt of Soul and Body so must always our Devotion be here and such God expects and is pleas'd with Our Church is neither defective in Power and Discipline had she her just dues and others would do well to joyn with her in her wishes that they might be restor'd which would turn all into Confusion nor yet tyrannical want of Authority breeding as many if not more Miseries than Tyranny or too much Power both of them severe Curses of a Nation But her Government like her Clime is so well temper'd together that the Members of this Christian Society may not be dissolute or rude with her nor her Rulers insolent being constituted in the Church with their different Names and Titles not for lustre and greatness and Secular purposes but for suppression of Vice the maintaining of Faith Peace Order and all Virtues the true Edification of Mens Souls And if those Vices are not reprov'd and chastized which fall under her Cognizance 't is not the fault of her Power but because by other ways ill restrain'd unnecessary Divisions from her hindring her Discipline upon Offenders and so they hinder that Edification which thy contend for This Government is not Modern Particular or purely Humane but Apostolical Primitive and Universal to time as well as place till some private Persons for Number Learning or Piety not to be equall'd to the good Men of old who defended it and obey'd it and suffer'd for it out of some mistakes of Humane frailty and passion or born down with the iniquities of the times began to change it and declaim against it though so very fit and proper to promote Christianity in the World This is a general account of that Edification that is to be had in that Church in which we live a more particular one would be too long for this Discourse but thus much must be said that examine all her particular Parts and Offices you will find none of them light or superstitious novel or too numerous ill dispos'd or uncouth improper or burthensome no just cause for any to revolt from her Communion but considering the present circumstances of Christianity and Men the best constituted Church in the World If therefore Edification be going on to Perfection Heb. 6. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 18. Rom. 15. 2. 1 Cor. 14. 3. or growing in Grace if it is doing good to the Souls of
have brought your self to much liberty I doubt not you will find that you are in a wrong way and therefore resolve to alter it and come into the way of the Church Where if you do not meet presently with such advantages for your Spiritual growth as you are told you may receive you have reason to conclude as the forenamed Mr. Hildersham doth to those that said they could not find such Lights such Power such Comfort in the Word as was spoken of First either you have not sought it aright not with earnestness or not with a good Heart or Secundly if you have and do not find it at first yet you shall hereafter if you seek it here with an honest heart VIII And the preaching of Gods holy Word among us would be of greater efficacy upon your Hearts if when you come to partake of it you would remember and observe some Rules delivered by the same Author in another place Lecture XXVI about the Publick Worship of God which now alas are generally neglected and therefore had need to be pressed for the disposing all Mens Hearts to profit by their attendance on it 1. One is that at your coming into the Congregation and during the whole time of your abode there you would behave your selves reverently For we may not come into the place of Gods Worship as we would into a dancing-School or Play-House laughing or toying c. neither may we go out of it as we would out of such a one but in our very coming in and going out and whole outward carriage there we ought to give some signification of the reverence that we bear to this Place and that we do indeed account it the House of God Which serious temper of Mind and awful sense of Gods Presence possessing the Mind would no doubt be an excellent preparation to receive benefit by the whole Service of God as well as by the Sermon For which end 2. Another Rule is that we must all come to the beginning of Gods publick worship and carry till all be done Yea it is the Duty of Gods People saith he to be in Gods House before the beginning For it becomes them to wait for the Minister of God and not to let him wait for them The Reasons he gives for this are two First there is Nothing done in our Assemblies but all may receive profit by it For example by the confession of Sins and Absolution I may add and all other Prayers used in the Congregation a man may receive more profit and comfort than by any other Which is the reason why the Apostles even after Christs Ascention when the typical Honour of the Temple was abolished c. were so delighted to go to the Temple to pray at the times of publick Prayer 1. Act. 3. c. And so he goes on to shew how by hearing the Word read all may profit and by hearing it preached even by the meanest Minister of Christ if the fault be not in themselves How the singing of Psalms also furthers the fruit of the Word in the Hearts of Believers and much more benefit may the faithful receive by the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Nay by being present at the Administration of Baptisme all may receive profit being put in mind there-by of the Covenant God made with them in Baptism c. Lastly by the blessing pronounced by Gods Minister all may receive good and therefore none ought to absent himself from any part of the publick Service of God For which his second Reason is very remarkable that though we could receive no profit by the Exercises used in our Assemblies yet we must be present at them all to do our homage unto God and shew the reverent respect we have to his Ordinances For there is nothing done in Gods publick Worship among us observe this but it is done by the Instruction and Ordinance and Commandment of the Lord. As he shews particularly that it is his ordinance there should be all sorts and kinds of Prayers used yea this is the chief duty to be performed in our assemblies 1 K. 11. 1 2. that in our publick assemblies the Word of God should be read as well as preached the Holy Communion administred c. that is all things should be done as they are now in our Common-Prayer to which it is plain he hath respect And this he repeats again Lecture XXVIII If thou wast sure thou couldst not profit yet must thou come to do thy Homage to God and to shew thy reverence to his Ordinance 3. Another of his general Rules is that when we are present we ought to joyn with the Congregation in all the parts of Gods Worship and do as the Congregation doth For it makes much for the come liness and reverence of Gods Worship that all things be done in good order without confusion And it is a principle part of this good order that should be in the Congregation when they all come together and go together pray together sing together kneel together in a word when every part of Gods Worship is to be performed by the Congregation as if the whole Congregation were but one Man And in several places he reproves with a great deal of Zeal mens great carelessness in this particularly their neglect of kneeling in the Prayers having observed that men who will kneel at their own private prayers can never be seen to kneel at the common and publick Prayer His last general Rule is that we ought to teach our Children and Servants to shew Reverence to the Sanctuary and publick Worship of God For God cannot indure profaneness and contempt of Religion no not in Children And it stands us all upon to use the utmost Authority we have to maintain the Reverence of Gods Sanctuary for the open contempt done by any may bring Gods curse on us all And certainly saith he among other causes of the Plauge and other Judgments of God upon the Land this is not the least that Gods publick Worship is performed among us with so little Reverence and Devotion as it is I am tempted to transcribe a great deal more of these Lectures because by them you may see that if I had moved all that hath been said about our Sermons I might according to the Judgment of this devout and learned man have maintain'd that there wants not sufficient means of profiting in our Congregations if there were none as long as the word of God is there read by which together with the other holy duties all may receive the greatest profit and comfort if they please For it is of far greater excellence authority and certainty than the Sermons of any Preacher in the World First because it comes more immediately from God and though it be translated by men yet is there in it far less mixture of humane Ignorance and Infirmity than in Sermons While the Word is read we are sure we hear God speaking to us and that it is the
have been heretofore written in defence of our Church her Rites and Usages that yet generally lie by the Walls little known and less read by those that so much Cry out against her And at this time how many excellent Discourses have been Published for the satisfaction of Dissenters written with the greatest Temper and Moderation with the utmost plainness and perspicuity with all imaginable evidence and strength of Reasoning so short as not to require any considerable portion either of Time or Cost so suited to present Circumstances as to obviate every material Objection that is made against Communion with us and yet there is just cause to fear that the far greatest part of our Dissenters are meer strangers to them and are not so just to themselves or us as to give them the reading And that those few that do look into them do it rather out of a design to pick quarrels against them and to expose them in scurrilous or cavilling Pamphlets than to receive satisfaction by them I do heartily and from my Soul wish an end of these Contentions and that there were no further occasion for them but if our Dissenting Brethren will still proceed in this way we desire and hope 't is but what is reasonable that the things in difference may be debated in the most quiet peaceable and amicable manner that they may be gravely and substantially managed and only the Merits of the Cause attended to and that the Controversie may not be turned off to mean and trifling Persons whose highest Attainment perhaps it is to write an idle and senseless Pamphlet and which can serve no other use but only that the People may be borne in hand that such and such Books are Answered Which is so unmanly and disingenious a way and so like the shifting Artifices of them of the Church of Rome that I am apt to persuade my self the wiser Heads of the Dissenting Party cannot but be ashamed of it If they be not 't is plain to all the World they are willing to serve an ill Design by the most unwarrantable Means But however that be we think we have great Reason to expect from them that they should hear our Church before they condemn Her and consider what has been said for the removing of their Doubts before they tell us any more of Scruples Tender-Consciences and the hard measure that they meet withall I confess could I meet with a Person that had brought himself to some kind of Unbyas'dness and indifferency of Temper and that design'd nothing more than to seek and find the right way of Serving God without respect to the Intrigues and Interests of this or that particular Party and in order thereunto had with a sincere and honest Mind read whatever might probably conduce to his Satisfaction fairly proposed his Scruples and modestly consulted with those that were most proper to advise him and humbly begged the Guidance and Direction of the Divine Grace and Blessing and yet after all should still labour under his old Dissatisfactions I should heartily pity and pray for such a Man and think my self obliged to improve all my Interest for Favour and Forbearance towards him But such Persons as these I am afraid are but thin sowed and without Breach of Charity it may be supposed there is not One of a Thousand III. Thirdly We desire that before they go on to accuse our Church with driving them into Separation they would directly charge her with imposing sinful terms of Communion And unless they do this and when they have done it make it good for barely to accuse I hope is not sufficient I see not which way they can possibly justifie their Separation from us 'T is upon this account that the whole Protestant Reformation defends their Departure from the Church of Rome They found the Doctrine of that Church infinitely corrupt in several of the main Principles of Religion New Articles of Faith introduced and bound upon the Consciences of Men under pain of Damnation its Worship overgrown with very gross Idolatry and Superstition its Rites and Ceremonies not only over-numerous but many of them advanced into proper and direct Acts of Worship and the use of them made necessary to Salvation and besides its Members required to joyn and communicate in these Corruptions and Depravations nay and all Proposals and Attempts towards a Reformation obstinately rejected and thrown out in which Case they did with great Reason and Justice depart from her which we may be confident they would not have done had no more been required of them than instead of Worshipping Images to use the Sign of the Cross in Baptism or instead of the Adoration of the Host to kneel at the Receiving of the Sacrament A Learned Amyrald de Secess ab Eccles Rom. pag. 233. Protestant Divine of great Name and Note has expresly told us That had there been no other Faults in the Church of Rome besides their useless Ceremonies in Baptisme and some other things that are beyond the measure and genius of the Christian Religion they had still continued in the Communion of that Church Indeed did the Church of England command any thing which Christ has prohibited or prohibit any thing which Christ has commanded then come ye out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord were good Warrant and Authority But where do we meet with these prohibitions not in the word of God not in the nature and reason of the things themselves nor indeed do we find our Dissenting Brethren of late very forward to fasten this charge and much less to prove it whatever unwary sayings may fall from any of them in the heat and warmth of Disputation or be suggested by indirect consequences and artificial insinuations And if our Church commands nothing that renders her Communion sinful then certainly Separation from her must be unlawful because the Peace and Unity of the Church and obedience to the commands of lawful Authority are express and indispensable duties and a few private suspicions of the unlawfulness of the thing are not sufficient to sway against plain publick and necessary Duties nor can it be safe to reject Communicating with those with whom Christ himself does not refuse Communion This I am sure was once thought good Doctrine by the chiefest of our Dissenters who when time was reasoned thus against those that subdivided from them If we be a Church of Christ and Christ hold Communion with A Vindication of the Presbyterial Government 1649. p. 130. us why do you Separate from us If we be the Body of Christ do not they that Separate from the Body Separate from the Head also we are loath to speak any thing that may offend you yet we entreat you to consider that if the Apostle call those Divisions of the Church of Corinth wherein Christians did not separate into divers formed Congregations in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Schisms 1 Cor. 1. 10. may not your
Secession from us and professing you cannot joyn with us as Members and setting up Congregations of another Communion be more properly called Schism You gather Churches out of your Churches and set up Churches in an opposite way to our Churches and all this you do voluntarily and unwarrantably not having any sufficient cause for it And in the same Book they tell us of a Two-fold Schism Negative and Positive Negative when Men do peaceably and quietly withdraw from Communion with a Church not making a Head against that Church from which they are departed the other is when Persons so withdrawing do consociate and withdraw themselves into a distinct and opposite Body setting up a Church against a Church which say they Camero calls a Schism by way of Eminency and further tells us There are Four Causes that make a Separation from a Church lawful 1. When they that Separate are grievously and intollerably Persecuted 2. When the Church they Separate from is Heretical 3. When it is Idolatrous 4. When it is the Seat of Antichrist And where none of these four are found there the Separation is insufficient and Schism Now we are fully assured that none of these Four Causes can be justly charg'd upon our Congregations therefore you must not be displeased with us but with your selves if we blame you as guilty of positive Schism All which is as true now as it was then and as applicable to us and them as it was to them and their Dissenters Admit then there were some things in our Constitution that might be contrived to better purposes and that needed Amendment and Alteration yet I hope every Defect or supposed Corruption in a Church is not a sufficient ground for Separation or warrant enough to rend and tear the Church in pieces Let Mr. Calvin judge between us in this matter Institut lib. 4. Sect. 10 11 12. fol. 349. who says That wherever the Word of God is duely Preached and reverently attended to and the true use of the Sacraments kept up there is the plain Appearance of a true Church whose Authority no Man may safely despise or reject its Admonitions or resist its Counsels or set at nought its Discipline much less Separate from it and Violate its Unity for that our Lord has so great regard to the Communion of his Church that he accounts him an Apostate from his Religion who obstinately Separates from any Christian Society which keeps up the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments that such a Separation is a denial of God and Christ and that it is a dangerous and pernicious Temptation so much as to think of Separating from such a Church the Communion whereof is never to be rejected so long as it continues in the true use of the Word and Sacraments though otherwise it be over-run with many Blemishes and Corrupons Which is as plain and full a Determination of the Case as if he had particularly designed it against the Doctrine and Practice of the Modern Dissenters from our Church IV. Fourthly We entreat them to Consider Whether it be pure Conscience and mere Zeal for the Honour of Religion and not very often Discontent or Trade and Interest that has the main stroke in keeping them from Communion with our Church Far be it from me to judge the Secrets of Mens Hearts or to fasten such a Charge on the whole Body of Dissenters yea I accuse not any particular Person but only desire they would lay their Hand upon their Hearts and deal impartially with themselves and say whether they stand clear before God in this matter And there is the more Reason to put Men upon this Enquiry not only because Secular Ends are very apt to mix with and shelter themselves under the shadow of Religion but because this has been an old Artifice made use of to promote Separation Thus the Donatists in the Primitive Times upheld their Separation from the Catholick Church and kept their Party fast together by Trading only within themselves by imploying none to Till their Grounds or be their Stewards but those that would be of their side nay and sometimes hiring Persons by large Sums of Money to be Baptiz'd into their Party as Crispin did the People of Mappalia And how evident the same Policy is among our Modern Vid. Aug. Epist 173. ad Crisp Quakers is too notorious to need either Proof or Observation Time was when it was made an Argument to prove Independency to be a Faction and not Edward's further Discovery p. 185. matter of Conscience because Needy broken decayed Men who knew not how to live and hoped to get something turned Independents and became Sticklers for it that some who had businesses Causes and Matters depending struck in with them and pleaded for them that so they might find Friends be sooner dispatched and fare better in their Causes that Ambitious Proud Covetous Men who had a mind to Offices places of profit about the Army Excise c. turned about to the Independents and were great Zealots for them Thus it was then and whether the same Leaven do not still spread and ferment and perhaps as much as ever there is just cause to suspect Whoever looks into the Trading part of this City and indeed of the whole Nation must needs be a very heedless and indiligent Observer if he do not take notice how Interests are formed and by what Methods Parties and Factions are kept up how many Thousands of the Poorer sort of Dissenters depend on this or that Man for their Work and consequently for their Livelihood and Subsistence how many depend upon others for their Trade and Custom whom accordingly these Men can readily Command and do produce to give Votes and increase Parties on all Publick Occasions and what little Encouragement any Man finds from them that once deserts them and comes over to the Church of England There is another thing that contributes not a little to this Jealousie and Suspicion that many of the Chiefest and most Stiff and Zealous of the Dissenting Party are they at least the immediate Descendants of those who in the late Evil-Times by Rapine and Violence shared among themselves the Revenues of the Church and the Patrimony of the Crown and are said still privately to keep on foot their Titles to them And if so what wonder if such Men look on themselves as obliged in point of Interest to widen Breaches foment Differences increase Factions and all this to Subvert and over-turn the Church of England being well assured they can never hope but over the Ruines of this Church to make way to their once sweet Possessions Let Men therefore impartially examine themselves and search whether a Worldly Spirit be not at the bottom of their Zeal and Stiffness These I confess are Designs too Base and Sordid to be owned above Board but be not Deceived God is not Mocked Man looks to the outward Appearance but God looks to the Heart V. Fifthly