to confess tho' De Synedr l. 1. Cap. 14.560 being an Erastian in his Judgment he was loth to allow the Word in this Text to signifie a College of Presbyters lest he should be forc'd to allow them the Power of Excommunication 4. To put this Sense upon the Word Presbyter in this Text and to make it to signify the Office is such an Inversion and Disturbance of the natural Order of the Word as is never to be allow'd but in case of plain Necessity lest we make the Sacred Scriptures a Nose of Wax of which Mr. Thorndike was too wise to be Guilty 5. And yet if you will needs take Presbytery here for the Office of a Presbyter which Calvin doth not do but rather for the Solemn Act by which the Office is conferr'd see how little it will be to your Advantage Doth it not then clearly follow that 't is by vertue of the Office it self and not by any Degree that some have obtain'd in it above others that Men are to be Ordain'd into the Ministry So that in whomsoever the Office of a Presbyter is found there is this Power of Ordaining others Have you not then ingenuously or inadvertently granted to our Ministers all that they demand in this Matter and prov'd it for 'em too from Calvin whom you pretend to alledge against ' em To what a pass now have you brought your Episcopal Ordination Are these the only Men that have Power to Ordain a Presbyter Or have they any Power or Authority at all to do it but as they are themselves Presbyters What is a Bishop but a Presbyter set in a higher Degree for Clerical Order and Government sake but as to Office the same with the Presbyter And therefore it is that the Titles are so promiscuously and indifferently us'd in the Holy Scriptures Nor did the Apostles themselves Ordain as Apostles but as Presbyters which is the Title they own in their Epistles and claim as their Honour And that it is the Presbyter not the Bishop i. e. consider'd only as such that must Ordain is put beyond Controversy by a rul'd Case that a Bishop or Prelate Ordain'd per saltum i. e. who never had the Ordination of a Presbyter himself but only of a Bishop can neither Consecrate nor administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Body nor Ordain a Presbyter Tho' for the necessary Ends of Clerical Order and Government the Bishop be set in a superiour Degree of Superintendency and consequently his Presence and authoritative Concurrence be necessary with a select Number of his best qualify'd Presbyters to confer Orders and to see the Laws of Christ duly executed in his Church yet where this Power is abus'd than which nothing in the World is apter nor hath been more abus'd where the Churches are impos'd upon and Presbyters tyrannically ravish'd of their just Rights and Priviledges and causelesly cast out of Episcopal Communion the Presbyter is nevertheless a Presbyter as to all the Parts and Purposes of his Office He may be robb'd of his Pulpit but not of his Office robb'd of his Maintenance but not of his Right to it robb'd of his Liberty but not of his Relation to Christ nor to his Church In the Holy Scriptures we find that Presbyters as such are vested with the Power of Rule and Government in the House of God 1 Tim. 5.17 Act. 20.17 28. But of the Investiture of Prelates or their Ordination by Imposition of Hands as of an Office distinct and different from that of the Presbyter we read not one Word in all the New Testament By what Law of Christ then doth he claim a despotical Power over his Presbyters any other than as the Head and Moderator of their common Council and in whose Name and with whose Concurrence for Order and Government sake all the necessary Canons and By Laws that conduce to the Peace Profit and Edification of the Churches committed to their Care ought to be issued and established Will you tell us they are the Apostle's Successors in Power and Authority So are Our Presbyters too 1 Pet. 5.1 2 3. both in Faith and Doctrin and all Things that are Common and Essential to the Office Prelacy is not of the Office per se but only per Accidens and which when duly exercis'd honourably conduces to the bene Esse of the Church but is not constitutive of its Esse We have hear'd indeed of no Bishop no King and ever thought it extravagant enough but never heard of no Bishop no Church till now Again you would have us to believe that Presbytery being a Name of Dignity is sometimes attributed to Ecclesiastical Officers of the highest Rank as St. Peter and St. John call themselves Presbyters and therefore it must needs here signify a Company of Bishops To this we Reply 1. That the Word Presbytery was never so taken for a Company of Bishops only of which there was but one in one Church which is the limited Sense either in the Times of the Apostles or of the first Centuries of the Church perhaps not till Chrysostome's Time but alway for the Collegium Presbyterorum and before we can believe that it is to be otherwise taken in this Text you must prove it 2. If the Word must be taken in your Sense for a Company of Bishops then either there is no particular Church tho' Diocesan that hath any Presbytery of its own or there must be more Bishops than One in every such Church or else you must say that your one Bishop is a Company of Bishops 3. What can you infer in this Case from Peter's and John's assuming the Title of Presbyter but that in all the common Acts of Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline they acted as Presbyters and not as Apostles And what then have you gotten by this Argument But you urge again That Timothy was a Bishop and had Jurisdiction over Presbyters therefore Presbyters could not Ordain him to his Office for they could not communicate a Power which they never receiv'd To this we Answer 1. That Timothy was an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 which if it signify'd any more than a Preacher of the Gospel which was the Work of every Presbyter then it must signify something more than an Ordinary Bishop to which he had no particular Ordination but the Apostles Election of him as his Companion and his Mission to some particular Services in the Churches of Paul's planting So that the Presbytery Ordain'd him only as a Presbyter not as an Evangelist nor as a Bishop about which we have no Form Rule or Precedent in the Scripture 2. Whereas you say They could not communicate a Power which they never receiv'd We Answer That in this Case there was no need of it they Ordain'd him as a Presbyter and what other Titles he afterward arriv'd to were but Accidental But this Reason of yours seems to be bottom'd on a great Mistake viz. That the Ordainers communicate the ministerial Power to the Persons
Ordained whereas it is Christ that communicates the Pastoral Power and Authority by his Charter of the Gospel the Power is deriv'd from Christ not from the Ordainers As the Major of a City has his Authority from the Charter granted by the King and not from the Recorder who invests him in his Office And yet neither is this true that an inferiour Officer may not invest one of a superiour Order in his Office else what have the Bishops to do at the Coronation of Kings unless you will make the Regal to be an Inferior Office to that of the Bishop which if you do you may next pretend to an absolving and deposing Power too But you tell us again That we do not find in Scripture That to mere Presbyters any such Authority was ever committed nor are there any Footsteps of it in Antiquity And we tell you That we find not in Scripture nor in Antiquity that this Authority was ever committed to any other than Presbyters But if you insist That they must not be mere Presbyters we Reply 1. How do you prove that either Simeon that was called Niger or Lucius of Cyrene or Manaen who were commanded from Heaven Act. 13.1 2. to ordain Paul and Barnabas were any of them at that time more than mere Presbyters as to Matter of Office 2. Where do you find in all the Books of the New Testament not only that a mere Bishop but that any one single Person whether Bishop or Evangelist or Apostle or any other besides our Lord Jesus Christ himself did ever celebrate this Ordinance of Ordination without the assistance of some others more or less of the Presbytery If you instance in Paul's ordaining Timothy with his own Hands will that prove that it was with his own Hands alone especially while he tells us so expresly in words at length and not in figures That it was done by the Hands of the Presbytery 3. We will propose you a Case which is possible tho' we hope will never be real Suppose the Churches of Christ should be reduc'd to a very few and the Bishops of these few should all turn Hereticks or Persecutors of the Orthodox and cast them out of their Communion the Presbyters retaining their Integrity These Presbyters by your Doctrin cannot ordain so much as a Presbyter to continue a Succession much less can they create a Bishop to do it Must the whole Church then be extinct for lack of a Bishop to Head them Or would you expect to have one rais'd from the Dead or sent back out of Heaven to do it 4. As for Antiquity There is nothing more clear than that in the Primitive Churches the Bishops and their Presbyters alway acted in Conjunction in all Acts of Church Discipline both of Excommunication Restauration Confirmation and Ordination And in the Banishment or Absence of their Bishops the Presbyters alone without the presence of any other Bishop did by his order and allowance which he could not have done had it not been a thing in it self lawful execute all that the Bishop was to have done in Person among them Nay St. Jerom will tell you that the Presbyters have Power to Ordain a Bishop over them and invest him with his Episcopal Authority as they did at Alexandria Sir There was a Time within the Memory of Man that Our Bishops were banished from their Clergy in England and what was the Whole Church of England then extinct and cut off from the Head Christ Doth eternal Salvation go and come with Lawn-Sleeves Yet once more you tell us That the Office which Timothy had was given him by Prophecy 1 Tim. 4.14 Or according to the Prophesies which went before of him 1 Tim. 1.18 His Ordination therefore must have been an extraordinary Thing and not to be drawn into Precedent except in parallel Cases But our Pastors you suppose do not pretend that they are mark'd out by Prophecy 1. We answer These Prophesies whatever they were concerning Timothy respected his Person and not the manner of his Ordination 2. It is very probable that the Apostles had a more than ordinary Direction relating to the choice of Ministers or Church-Officers many times in their Days Acts 20.28 It is there said That the Elders of the Church of Ephesus were made Overseers of their Flocks by the Holy Ghost i. e. as some think their Choice and Nomination was by Direction of the Holy Spirit of God And Clemens Romanus says That the Apostles in those Days ordained Bishops or Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Discerning by the Spirit and having a perfect Knowledge whom they should Ordain But what is all this to the way of Ordaining by Presbyters is an extraordinary Thing and not to be drawn into Precedent It 's probable that it had been foretold by some one or other that Timothy would be a faithful and eminent Minister of Christ who but you would have concluded from thence That his Ordination by Presbyters was an extraordinary Case 3. May you not as pertinently argue That none of the Ordinations done by the Imposition of the Hands of the Apostles are to be drawn into Precedent because these were extraordinary Cases the Apostles being extraordinary Persons who had an extraordinary and immediate Mission from Christ himself nor do we know of any Bishops that now pretend to be marked out by an immediate Call from Christ or any Prophecy of their extraordinary Vsefulness that have gone before of ' em But Sir Before you had given your self and us all this Trouble to so little purpose you had done much better to have sate down and considered how you could have answered Mr. John Owen's ten Arguments from Scripture and Antiquity Owen's Plea for Scripture Ordination proving Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops to be valid to which to save Labour of Transcribing we refer those that are willing to see much more on this Subject III. The Declamation which you make against popular Ordination we are not at all concern'd in but join with you in our hearty Wishes that they that are would deeply consider it Now to conclude this your third Section Having read out our Indictment in all the Articles of it and examin'd it after your manner you come to sum up the Evidence or what you call Evident and bring in the Bill against us that we have in all these Respects exceeded the Novatians Donatists and Meletians But before you proceed to your Damnatory Sentence we hope your Charity will take into Consideration what we have already so briefly offer'd in our own Defence and what we have yet further to plead for our selves as your following Discourse shall give us Occasion Your fourth Section in which you pretend to blow us wholly up Sect. 4. and to beat us out of all our Fasinesses and not to leave us a Rag to cover our Nakedness with is a Collection of just half a dozen of some little Things which you have pickt up some-where behind
second sort of Teachers who claim a Title to the Ministry as being Ordain'd by Presbyters And indeed when you shall have prov'd this way of Ordination to be Schismatical you will have done something in the Service of your Cause wherein if Saying were Proving and Confidence were good Evidence doubtless you would not fail But this being the main Hinge on which the whole Controversy turns it will be necessary to spend a little more Time with you here And first you make your Trip at our Ministers Heels by striking at the Stone on which they stand but you will find it is a Rock against which you may dash your own Feet but which will not move for all the Kicks you can make at it The main Scripture which with all your might you heave at is that of 1 Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the Gift that is in thee which is given unto thee by Prophecy with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery Against the generally approved Sense of this Scripture you are pleas'd to Quote us Calvin himself whom you mistakingly call the Father of our Discipline and would have us to believe that he could find no such Matter in this Text and that he thought Presbytery here signifies but the Office of a Presbyter and so read to us the Sense of the Text thus That Timothy should not neglect but be careful to exercise that Presbyterial Office or Power which was committed to him by laying on of Hands Now by the way lest you should hereafter forget pray take notice that you have now granted that it was to the Office of a Presbyter that Timothy was now ordain'd not to that of a Bishop or an Evangelist But as for what you refer us to out of Calvin's Institutions We find that he was there offering some Observations which he had gather'd out of the Scriptures of the New Testament concerning the Ordination of such as are to serve in the Office of the Ministry and tells us that it is certain the whole Multitude of the People were not to impose Hands on their Ministers in their Ordination but only such as were themselves Pastors in Office to whom alone the ordaining Power belongs tho' he leaves it uncertain whether the Hands of many were always laid on in every solemn Act of Ordination but produces Scripture Instances that it was so done in the Ordination of Deacons Act. 6.6 and in the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas Act. 13.3 But that Paul here minds Timothy that he had ordain'd him with his own Hands tho' not exclusively of all others or with his own Hand only but rather that he was the principal Person and the only Apostle concerned in that Ordination and therefore Admonishes him to stir up the Gift that was in him by the Imposition of his Hands And afterward gives us his private Opinion that when the Apostle mentions to Timothy in his other Epistle the Hands of the Presbytery that he is not there minding him so much of the manner of his Ordination by the College of Presbyters of whom Paul was one and the chief in that Action but rather that he should mind lpsam Ordinationem his Ordination it self and the great and glorious Ends of it q. d. Fac ut Gratia quam per manuum impositionem recepisti quum te Presbyterum Crearem non sit irrita That so the Grace which he had receiv'd when he ordain'd him a Minister of the Gospel or a Presbyter might not prove in vain And now how far Calvin is like to serve your Purpose or to disserve ours we leave to any competent impartial Judge And yet if you think your Notion of Calvin's Sense be the right we must tell you you are a Dissenter from the generality of the most Learned of your own Church Mr. Herbert Thorndike will tell you If we take not our Marks amiss we shall sind Argument enough at least at the beginning for the concurrence of Presbyters with the Bishop in making of Presbyters and other inferior Orders In the first Place those general Passages of the Fathers Wherein is witnessed that the Presbytery was a Bench assistent to the Bishop without Advice whereof nothing of Moment was done must needs be drawn into Consequence to argue that it had effect in a particular of this weight Then the Ordination of Timothy by Imposition of Hands of the Presbytery will prove no less Indeed says he 't is well known that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ecclesiastical Writers signifies divers times the Office and Rank of Presbyters which Signification divers here embrace expounding Imposition of Hands of the Presbytery to mean that by which the Rank of Presbyter was conferr'd But the Apostles Words running as they do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oblige a Man to ask when he is come as far as the Imposition of Hands of whom or whose Hands they were he speaketh of which the next Words satisfy Had it been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sense might better have been diverted but running as it doth with the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Imposition of the Hands it remaineth that it be specified in the next Words whose Hands were imposed Thus this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Gospel Luk. 22.66 and in Ignatius's Epistles signifieth the College of Presbyters which hath the Nature and Respect of a Person in Law and therefore is read in the singular for the whole Bench which being assembled and set is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both Places and in Cornelius of Rome his Epistle to St. Cyprian where he saith Placuit contrahere Presbyterium Now Sir here 's your Mr. Thorndike against what you would impose on our Calvins But besides this we Answer 1. If the Word Presbytery is here to be understood of the Office then will it follow as we have before noted that Timothy's Office was the Office of a Presbyter What then is become of Timothy's Episcopacy which you so learnedly plead for in your Discourse of Church-Government Or When and by Whom was it that he was created Bishop 2. Camerarius tells us that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which imports the Office of a Presbyter So that here 's a foul mistake of the Presbytery for the Presbyterate the Persons for the Office 3. Ignatius who liv'd very near the Times of the Apostles and therefore may well be presum'd to have understood the Meaning and Use of this Word tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Epist ad Trall What is the Presbytery other than the Sacred Company who are the Bishops Counsellors and Assessours This Sense Clemens Alexandrinus and some others of the Primitive Fathers give of it nor was it ever taken in any other Sense by the Fathers till Origen nor in any Place of the New Testament doth it signify any other than the Company of Presbyters as Luk. 22.66 Act. 22.5 And this Mr. Selden himself is fore'd
true Church or whether of these Two you will please to cut off for the Schismatick or whether the Catholick Vnion were preserv'd between them both notwithstanding these wide Deffences and Dissentions in external Rites and Communion But if these were still One in Catholick Vnion we understand not How less Matters than these should make the Conformists and Non-Conformists of England to be Two so as that We must be condemn'd for Schismaticks rather than You. 4. You argue from the Scripture Distinction of the Schismatick from the approv'd and then tell us that those that live in Corformity to your Church are the approved and the beloved of God ay Sir the approved Drunkards and Swearers the beloved Woremongers and Adulterers c. for such are too many of those who are allowed Communion with you but we are the Schismaticks and the Reprobates because you have cast us out and will not admit us to your Communion without Conformity to your Ceremonies Doth not the Church of Rome tell us the same thing How generally and loosly do you talk of Conformity to the Church without making any difference of what is Good or what is Evil in it or what will justify a Separation from it and what will not the same Argument serves indifferently both Rome and You. The high Presumption you have of your Purity and the Inoffensiveness of your Terms of Communion is no more than what is common to the Biggots of the corruptest Church and Faction in the World But till it be better prov'd than hitherto it hath been you must excuse us that we cannot take You to be the Approv'd so as to condemn our Selves for the Schismaticks in not Communicating with you on such Terms as the Holy Scripture doth not require and our own Consciences are not satisfy'd in II. Your Second It has been said which you call our Second Argument runs thus That in the Apostle's Days there were independent and separate Churches planted in the same City But still you think it too much to be at the Charge of producing our Author or putting it into Form of Argument without which you do but juggle with us and misrepresent us to the World How far you intend to stretch your Independency of Churches we cannot Divine or whether by Independent Churches you mean Churches or Congregations only Separate as to outward Communion in the same City How then shall we form this into an Argument but in your own ambiguous Terms And then it will Hypothetically look thus If there were Independent and separate Churches planted in the Apostle's Days in the same City then are not the Independent and separate Churches now in England Schismatical But there were Independent and Separate Churches planted in the Apostle's Days in the same City Erg. And now that it is brought into this Logical Order for you we know not who will own it either Major or Minor If those that among us are call'd Independents will own it let them Answer for themselves But as far as it concers us we doubt you will have no great Reason to triumph in it by that time we have examin'd it The Consequence of the Major we deny because in the Apostle's Days there might be and we have Reason to think there were but too many Independent and Separate Churches planted in the same Cities by those false Teachers who then crept into the Churches and drew Disciples after them and of whom the Apostles often complain'd Act. 20 30. Jud. 19.3 Joh. 10. Yet thus your invidious Charity represents us that you may if possible perswade the World to believe that we are the Persons whom the Apostles prophecy'd and complain'd of and whom the Scripture condemns for Schismaticks c. As for your Minor That there were such Independent Churches planted in the Apostles Days if you mean by such as Schismatically Separated themselves we will grant it but if you mean planted by the Apostles themselves as your following Discourse on it plainly intimates let them that think themselves so highly concern'd in it Dispute it out for 't will be even all one to Us on whether side the Victory shall fall On this Argument you have left us little to do but to expect the Issue of the Squabble betwixt you and your Learned Dr. Hammond who tells you That as St. Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision and St. Paul of the Gentiles so whensoever these Two great Apostles came to the same City the one constantly apply'd himself to the Jews receiv'd Disciples of such form'd them into a Church and left them when he departed that Region to be Govern'd by some Bishop of his own Assignation And the Other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles And this is what you endeavour very Learnedly to Refute Sir We will not presume to intrude our selves as Moderators between you however you may give us leave to gather up some of the great Spoyles of the Field at least a few of the broken Arrows to warm our selves by Now that the Apostles themselves were free to Communicate on all Occasions both with Jews and Gentiles is most certain knowing that the Partitian-Wall being now broken down they both made but One Catholick Church under Christ the Catholick Head But it is as certain that it was long before the Old Bottles could hold the New Wine without bursting Hence it is that there were for the first Age such Differences and Distances between the Jewish and Gentile Converts that they could endure no Religious Communion with one another 'T is true this Heat arose on the Jew's Side who were still so superstitiously Zealous for their Old Ceremonies and 't is a common Observation that the Weaker and more Superstitious are always the more obstinately Hot for the Exteriors of Religion and more for the Shadow than the Substance of it But so it was that they would admit no other than a Jew or Jewish Proselyte into their Communion or into any of their Synagogues at least not into their Temple as appears by Paul's hard Case at Jerusalem Act. 21.20 c. So that whether or no they were at first Apostolically Constituted as distinct Churches under their proper Bishops in one and the same City this is most evident that they had their different Forms of Woship and Religious Rites and distinct Communions and Assemblies whether under one City or Diocesan Bishop or more Neither do all these Arguments wherewith the Apostle laboured to defend his Gentile Converts against the Old-Leaven of the Judaizing Zealots and to convince the Jews of their unchristian Bigottry against the Simplicity and Liberty of the Gospel and to maintain the sacred Bond of Union and Peace among them prove that they were not of different Outward Communions yea else why should he say to the Jews I became as a Jew c. 1 Cor. 9.20 c. But he only endeavours to calm the Heats of their Spirits towards one another that they should not lay the
with you might not the Apostle have said we have no such Custom So that this Argument recoils upon you and flies very sorely in your own face 6. Your next Paragraph tells us what you have to say for the Sign of the Cross which you use in Baptism for which you cannot pretend to any Apostolical Institution but an Old and General Custom you fancy it to be almost as Old as the Apostle's or not above an Age short of them 'T is true the Image of the Cross crept very early into the Church He that sows the Tares is not wont to be long behind him that sows the Good Seed in the Field But we hope you will not say that the Earliness of a thing is enough to justifie it And that it was very commonly though we cannot say universally used as an Ensign among the Christians and as a visible Badge of their Christianity especially before the Heathen who were wont to upbraid them with their Crucified God we will grant neither will we uncharitably censure the Zealous Principles or Prudential Reasons on which it was at first taken up by such as foresaw not the ill use that would in After Ages be made of it However though it were taken up in those Days as a Testimony against the Infidel World and in token that they were not ashamed of their once Crucified LORD and used by them not as any part of their Worship but only for distinction sake between Them and Heathens yet this is but a precarious kind of Apologizing for the using much less for the imposing of it now when there is not per ratio the same reason for it especially after it hath been so generally and so long as idolatrously abused by such as have prevented the first Design of it as ever Gideon's Ephod or the Brazen Serpent were abus'd Nor doth it yet appear how our Protestant Reformers have or ever can free it from the Pollution of those Abuses whereby the Superstitions and Idolatries of Men have defil'd it by putting it into your Liturgy and making it a significant Sign and imposing it on us as an Integral Part of the Sacrament of Baptism without which that Sacrament is not to be esteemed Perfect and all this without any intimation of instruction or warrant from him who instituted and left this Sacrament intire with his Churches Baptism as our Saviour himself instituted it is but one Symbolical Sign but you by adding to it another of your own devising have made it Two which to us appears like the setting of your Thresheld by God's Threshold and your Post by God's Post Neither will the great Names in which you boast of the Saints and Martyrs now with God who in the Days of their Flesh walked with God and Worshipped according to their present Circumstances and the Light they had then attain'd to justifie your practice in this more than in any other thing which is now acknowledged to be the imperfection of these more early and unexperienced Times 7. You can't yet have done with your beloved thing Custom it being that on which the Life of your Cause doth depend From Custom you take your measures of Decency or Indecency in all things that you are pleased to call indifferent that is all those things that may be by the Wit of Man superadded as Accidental or Integral Parts for only the Essential Parts are by you excepted of God's Worship And whether this Position do not open a wide Door to all the Superstitions in the World and justifie all that hath ever been done of this kind in the most degenerate Churches let any but a Bigot judge 8. But now you begin to be more Orthodox when you tell us That things which according to Custom are Signs of irreverence amongst Men are Marks of Prophaneness and Contempt when they are used towards the Almighty Tho' here you might have remembred to have made an exception of some few things but in general what Custom represents as Undecent or Rude in Civil Conversation deserves a worse Name in Religious Worship If we rudely rush into God's Presence without an awful sense of his Majesty upon our Hearts and such an outward Behaviour of Body as either Nature or Custom hath made expressive of our inward Fear and Reverence though without any of those quaint Ceremonies which are of Humane Institution we may indeed justly fear the due punishment of such Irreverence And now Sir if you lay all these things together as you advise us to do you may find that what you call the Reverence and Decency of your Services is indeed their Defilement that in what you call your Laudable Customs you act against the Scripture Rules of Spiritual Worship and Gospel Simplicity and have deserted the way in which Christ and his Apostles walked and deal with us in that Tyrannical manner which the Holy Scripture condemns As for outward Bodily Worship we own and practice as zealously as you though not in your Formal Ceremonious way which seems to be more Artificial than Natural and so nearer of kin to Graven Images You are for setting forth your Publick Services with Pomp and Art we are for what is more Plain and Rational and naturally Expressive of the hidden Man of the Heart and therein more Agreeable to the Tenour of the Gospel We are careful to avoid whatever Nature Scripture or Custom hath made a Mark of Irreverence in the Worship of our God but we know no Authority we or any others have to prescribe particular positive Laws in these things to others Kneeling in Prayer we own as a Gesture which both Nature and Scripture directs to and so we practice though not from a Conscience of its absolute necessity either in our own Private Houses or in the Publick because God hath allowed us a Liberty in it and all the Saints before us have used the same Liberty nor do we understand why you should so strictly require it of us in Publick rather than in Private which your selves do not observe in every Prayer you put up to God there unless it be from a conceit you have that the Publick House is more Holy than the Private which is a Notion too Jewish for us to entertain To conclude this Head omitting as you say some other Particulars in debate between us which perhaps you are not willing to undertake the Defence of you think you have one thing that will demonstrate to us the weakness of our Exceptions against the Ceremonies of the Church and shew as the Irreverence that is used in our Meetings And what you mean is the Lord's Supper which in our way is appointed to be received sitting Now against this you begin to demonstrate very gravely thus Is there any Precept for this in Scripture Or if none can be found is it not against the Second Commandment Is it not an Idol This you offer us Ironically but we reply to you in Earnest that we find that in Scripture which
warrants our Sitting at this Sacrament but never a word of Kneeling by Precept or Precedent of Christ or his Apostles in all the New Testament nor in the Practice of the Churches while they retained their Primitive Purity therefore you are as much concerned in the Second Commandment on this account as we You tell us for certain that this Matter is not decided in Scripture But why is it not there decided Because it is not expresly required or forbidden and where the Scripture is not very punctually express there no doubt Men may devise and do and impose what they list without any regard to Scripture Consequences But yet you find that it is not for your Interest alway to use this way of Arguing The Practical Precedents and Examples of Christ or his Apostles which you find in Scripture will sometimes amount with you to the force of a Precept when you apprehend it will fall on the side of your Beloved Ceremonies Nay you can plead very stiffly the Authority of an Old Custom of the Churches which hath been taken up and perhaps superstitiously enough long after the Apostle's Days But now it seems there is nothing to be taken for certain that hath not a plain Scripture command wherein we think you are not so well aware at what an uncertainty you have lest the Cause you have now undertaken Though you cannot be ignorant of what hath been already said by so many of the Learned of our Way in the Vindication of our Practice herein yet let us once more see if we may not find much more in the Holy Scripture for Sitting at this Sacrament than for Kneeling Now it is certain that this Sacrament as to the Externals of it is but a Ceremony tho' of the most Sacred Institution and Highest Importance both a Signifying and a Sealing Ceremony and he that instituted it did best understand the Nature and Ends of it and what Gesture and Circumstances would best become the Celebration of it And his own Example herein we think is sufficient to warrant if not to require our Imitation But when we look back to the Institution we find that Christ sate down with the Twelve and Eat the Passover with them Here the Gesture was expressed and 't was Sitting not Kneeling Matth. 26.20 And as they were Eating without changing the Gesture he Instituted and Celebrated this Gospel Ordinance and Administer'd it to them with his own Hand verse 26 27 28. Mark tells us as they Sate and did Eat Mark 14.18 i. e. the Passover and in the same Posture still As they did Eat Jesus took Bread and Blessed it ver 22. Luke also tells us That be Sate down and the Twelve Apostles with him Luke 22.14 and in that Posture Administred his Last Supper to them verse 17 18 19 20. These are the only three Evangelists that particularly mention the manner of our Saviour's Administring this Ordinance and they all speak expresly of their Sitting but never a word of Kneeling in either of them Thus Christ and his Disciples did Eat it together as they were wont to Eat the Passover which was the very same Ordinance of the same Divine Institution Signification and Mystery and equally Sacred though of a different Form as this of the Gospel is And will you now say that this was irreverently done That it had too much of Familiarity and two little of Decency or Humility Dare you thus Blaspheme the Wisdom of your Saviour Did not he understand the End and the proper Signification of his Own Mystery as well as you Hath he told you again and again that he and his Disciples did Eat it Sitting and will you tell him that it ought to have been done Kneeling May he not then demand of you who made you his Counsellors or his Correctors And who hath required this voluntary Humility and Will-worship of you But you tell us that there is a Prayer with which you deliver the Elements to the People and therefore it ought to be received in a Praying Posture A Prayer viz. The Body and Blood of Christ preserve thy Body and Soul unto Eternal Life To which we answer 1. This which you call a Prayer sounds more like a Priestly Benediction or kind of Exorcism being repeated over and over to every individual Communicant so that the Kneeling seems to be requir'd rather in Honour of the Office as in Confirmation and Absolution than in respect of what you call a Prayer 2. Who made this Form of Words for you Or required it of you Is there any mention of this or of any thing like it in the Institution Though we grant that the Heart ought to be full of Holy Ejaculations Vows and Self-resignation in so Sacred an Action and which may be done every way as Decently and Reverently Sitting or Standing as Kneeling and wherein every one ought to have his own Liberty and Freedom of thought in the Exercise of all Graces according as they find particular occasion in and from themselves and wherein the Minister from the Experiences of his own Heart may piously and profitably suggest to their assistance in it and this reasonable Service we reject not 3. Why do not You Administer on your Knees For if it be a Prayer 't is you that properly Pray and the People say Amen Doth not your requiring it of others condemn your selves Why must you Pray Standing and they Kneeling 4. Though Kneeling be an ordinary Praying Posture yet if you will excuse your selves you must grant that it is not indispensibly necessary The Apostle bids you Pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continually or without ccasing but should you be bound to Kneel continually we doubt that would not be very pleasing Judge now whether your Practice herein be not irregular to say no worse of it What the Reasons were of our LORD 's Instituting this Sacrament with a Table-Gesture and of what it is significant we will not now enquire 'T is enough for us that we know his Will in it by his Practice But you know that we have something else to Object against Kneeling in the Act of Receiving This Gesture is now become scandalous at least to some because it Symbolizes with the Idolatry of the Church of Rome in Worshipping the Host and by whom as some say it was introduc'd and impos'd to support their Bloody Doctrine of the Real Presence or as others think that this was the occasion of that Idolatry so that here is an unexcusable appearance of Evil in it and therefore having no Command of God for it nor Apostolical Example we ought not to continue its use much less to endure the imposition of it as if it were of necessity Neither is your Churches declaring against the Idolatrous use of it enough to purge or to defend it unless it were a matter of particular Divine Institution As for those that think it their Duty or their Liberty so to express their Reverence to Almighty God in this Sacrament