very strange that had the Institution been temporary the Church of Christ for Fifteen hundred Years shou'd never be wise enough to discover it and it seems to me a very high presumption for us to determin against the constant belief and practice of the Church in all Ages without the least warrant so to do either from our Saviour or his Apostles But it is Objected yet farther that tho' Forms of God's appointing may and ought to be us'd yet Forms of Man's composure ought not and that we may as well appoint New Scripture for Public instruction because the inspir'd persons did so as we may appoint new Forms for Public worship because they did so But this objection also will be of no force if we consider Four things 1. That this Objection allows the prescribing of Forms to be lawful in its own nature for otherwise God must have done that which is unlawful in its own nature Nay our Saviour's prescribing his Form was a tacit approbation of other Forms that were prescrib'd before and that not only by God but by Men too For the Jews us'd several Forms of human composure in their Temple and Synagogues in our Saviour's time yet he was so far from disapproving them that he prescrib'd a Form to his own Disciples which Form as Mr. Gregory has prov'd he collected out of the Jewish Forms in whose Books the several Parts and Clauses of it are Extant almost verbatim to this day And certainly had he disapprov'd their Forms as evil and sinful he wou'd never have Collected his own Prayer out of them Since therefore our Saviour's giving a Form in such circumstances signifies his approbation of other Forms 't is plain either that he approv'd what is evil or that Forms are lawful 2. That this Objection must allow the prescribing of Public Forms to be not only lawful but also useful For otherwise God who alwaies Acts for wise Ends and Uses the most proper means wou'd never have prescrib'd any Forms And certainly what was once useful is useful still For 1. we are now dull and carnal enough to need Forms and 2. our Saviour has prescrib'd one to be us'd in all Ages which he wou'd not have done had it not been useful for the Gospel-state 3. That this Objection must also allow that God's prescribing Forms by Inspir'd Persons may be lawfully imitated by us provided we have the same reason for it And therefore Governours may prescribe Forms as long as Forms are useful 4. That tho' Governours may prescribe Forms after God's Example yet they may not prescribe them as Scripture or Divine Inspiration For as Spiritual Governours must take care to instruct the People after God's Example but are not obliged to do it by Inspir'd Persons so they may prescribe Forms of Prayer after God's Example but cannot pretend to do it by Inspiration They have God's Example for doing the Action but they cannot pretend to Inspiration in the doing of it without manifest falshood and presumtion And therefore tho' God's Example will warrant for the one yet it will not warrant them falsly to pretend to the other Thus then it appears that some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture and that our Governours are Authoriz'd by God's Example to prescribe others when they judge them useful II. Therefore I am to prove that tho' no Forms were prescrib'd yet Forms are as lawful as conceiv'd or Extempore Prayers Certainly there is no command of God to pray Extempore and therefore Forms have a better claim to Divine Authority than they 'T is said indeed that wheresoever we are commanded to Pray Vocally we are commanded to Pray in our own Conceptions and words but this is a great mistake For certainly when God commanded Men to Pray by his own Forms they did pray Vocally tho' not in their own words And here let me take notice that Dissenters appropriate the Name of Prayer to Praying in their own words and call the using a Form not Prayer but Reading a Prayer But surely the Levites did really Pray when they us'd the Words of David and Asaph and so did the Primitive Christians when they said the Lord's Prayer and if so then a Form may be truly call'd a Vocal Prayer For Vocal Prayer consists in the speaking of our devout affections to God whether with or without a Form But they pretend that whatsoever instances there may be of Forms in Old Times God has declar'd in the New Testament that it is his Will we shou'd Pray by our own gift of utterance for the future Now methinks had it been the Will of God that we shou'd not Pray by Forms 't is very strange that in all the New Testament there shou'd be no express prohibition of it Especially since I have prov'd that the Jews had Forms and Philo de Victim p. 483. and the Modern Rabbins own the same they were also a People most tenacious of their customs and therefore needed to be forbidden the use of Forms had our Lord design'd to exclude them out of his Worship Nay the Essenes who of all the Sects of the Jews did most readily embrace Christianity had certain Forms of Prayer as Josephus observes De Bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 7. p. 783. Now when those that were most likely to receive the Christian Faith were so addicted to Forms can we imagine that had Christ intended they shou'd use them no longer he wou'd not have given them express warning of them But when instead of so doing he bids them say Our Father c. how cou'd they think but that he design'd they shou'd still use a Form as they did before Were not that his design 't is strange that he took no care to undeceive them But that I may fully prove that the Scripture does not command us to Pray without a Form I shall examine the reasons for which the Dissenters think it do's God say they has promis'd us an ability to utter our minds in Vocal Prayer and therefore to Pray by Forms of other Men's composure is contrary to his intention But I shall afterwards prove that this ability which they pretend is promis'd for the purpose of Vocal Prayer is a common gift which God has no more appropriated to Prayer than to any other end of utterance and elocution and that therefore to omit the using it in Prayer is no more contrary to the intention of God than to omit the using it upon any other just and lawful occasion However because they urge some places of Scripture to prove that 't is design'd merely for Vocal Prayer I shall therefore consider them 1. They urge Zach. 12.10 I will pour out upon the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplications The Hebrew word translated supplications do's alwaies say they denote Vocal Prayer and therefore pouring out the Spirit of supplications must imply communicating an ability to Pray Vocally To this I answer that the word is no
Edification Nor do's our Church impose them like the Church of Rome as necessary and as parts of Religion but as merely indifferent and changeable things As for our Penances 't is needless to shew that they are not cruel like those of Rome 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to enslaving passions For instance Purgatory subjects them to fear and auricular confession to shame and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention exposes them to great anxiety But our Church rejects the Doctrines of Purgatory and the dependence of the efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priest's intention and do's not oblige her Members to Confess their sins to Men but when for the relief of their Consciences or making satisfaction c. it is their duty so to do 4. The Church of Rome maintains Licentious Principles and Practices which our Adversaries cannot charge upon the Church of England Secondly In all those Doctrines and Practices in which the Church of Rome is justly charg'd with plainly contradicting the Scripture For instance our Church rejects and utterly abhors the Popish Doctrines and Practices of Image-worship invocation of Saints Transubstantiation Pardons Indulgences Sacrifice of the Mass denying the Bible to the Vulgar Prayers and Sacraments in an unknown Tongue robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lord's Supper prohibiting Marriage to Priests Merit Superogation making simple Fornication a mere venial sin damning all that are not of her Communion c. Nor is there any Church that more severely condemns all instances of unrighteousness and immorality than the Church of England do's Thirdly In their public Prayers and Offices To shew this in all particulars wou'd be a tedious task therefore I shall instance only in the office of Infant-Baptism by which the Reader may judge of the rest Before they go into the Church after many preparatory prescriptions the Priest being drest in a Surplice and purple Robe calls the Infant saying what askest thou c. the Godfather answers Faith P. What shalt thou get by Faith G. Eternal Life P. If thou therefore c. Then the Priest blows three gentle puffs upon the Infant 's face and saies Go out of him O unclean Spirit c. Then Crossing the Infant 's Forehead and Breast he saith Receive the sign of the Cross c. Then he praies that God wou'd alwaies c. And after a long Prayer the Priest laying his Hand on the Infant 's Head comes the idle and profane Form of the Benediction of Salt viz. I conjure thee O creature of Salt in the Name c. with many Crossings Then he puts a little Salt into the Infant 's mouth saying Take thou the Salt of Wisdom and adds most impiously be it thy Propitiation unto Eternal Life After the Pax tecum he praies that this Infant c. Then the Devil is conjur'd again and most wofully be-call'd Then the Priest Crosses the Infant 's Forehead saying And this sign c. Then he puts his Hand on the Infant 's Head and puts up a very good Prayer Then he puts part of his Robe upon the Infant and brings him within the Church saying Enter thou c. Then follow the Apostles Creed and the Paternoster Then the Devil is conjur'd again and the Priest takes spittle out of his mouth and therewith touches the Infant 's Ears and Nostrils saying c. Then he conjures the Devil again saying Be packing O Devil c. Then he asks the Infant whether he renounces the Devil c. Then dipping his Thumb in Holy Oyl and anointing the Infant with it in his Breast and betwixt his shoulders he saies I anoint thee c. Then he puts off his Purple Robe and puts on another of White colour and having ask'd four more questions and receiv'd the answers he pours water thrice upon the Child's Head as he recites over it our Saviour's Form of Baptism Then dipping his Thumb in the Chrism or Holy Ointment he anoints the Infant upon the Crown of his Head in the figure of a Cross and praies O God Omnipotent c. Afterwards he takes a white linnen cloth and putting it on the Child's Head saies Take the white garment c. Lastly he puts into the Child's or his God-Father's Hand a lighted Candle saying Receive the burning Lamp c. Besides those things which are in the Common Ritual there are divers others added in the Pastorale which I shall not mention And now if any Man will read our Office of Baptism he will acknowledge that no two things can be more unlike than these two Offices are Our Litany indeed has been Condemn'd by Dissenters as savouring of Popish Superstition but nothing is more false if a Man compares it with the Popish one the greater part of which consists in invocations of Saints and Angels But the Brevity I am confin'd to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument Fourthly In the Books they receive for Canonical For the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into the Canon but the Church of England takes only those which the Primitive Church and all Protestants acknowledge 'T is true she reads some part of the Apocryphal Books for instruction of manners but she do's not establish any Doctrine by them Fifthly and Lastly in the Authority on which they found their whole Religion The Church of Rome founds the Authority of the Scriptures upon her own infallibility and the Authority of many of her own Doctrines on unwritten traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspir'd than the Prophets and Apostles but the Church of England builds her whole Religion upon Scripture which is her rule of Faith and Practice She Reverences ancient general Councils but do's not think them infallible And as for that Authority which our Church claims in Controversies of Faith by requiring subscription to 39 Articles 't is plain that she means no more Authority than to oblige her Members to outward submission when her decisions do not contradict any essentials of Faith or Manners but not an authority to oblige Men to believe them infallibly true and this is necessary for the Peace of any Church 'T is true she thinks it convenient that none should receive Orders be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and she requires Subscription as a Test of this belief but the Church of Rome requires all Persons under pain of damnation to believe all her false and wicked Doctrines as much as the most undoubted Articles of Faith as may be seen in the Creed of Pius the fourth As to the Motives which our Church proposes for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures they are such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the excellency of them and the Miracles which confirm them
Jews were commanded to destroy Idols and the appurtenances of them Deut. 7.25 26. Is 20.22 because they were so prodigiously inclin'd to Idolatry yet surely the Dissenters will not say we must destroy all things that have been abus'd to superstitious uses for then we must destroy our Bells and Fonts and Churches Therefore as Mr. Calvin upon the Second Commandment saies We do not in the least scruple whether we may lawfully use those Temples Fonts and other Materials which have been heretofore abus'd 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 evidently things in their own nature indifferent be not too superstitious It is equally superstitious to condemn things indifferent as unholy and to command them as if they were holy As for the example of Hezekiah's breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent because the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it 2 Kings 18.4 it will not prove that whatsoever has been notoriously defil'd in Idolatrous or grosly Superstitious Services ought to be abolish'd and much less that the not abolishing some such things is a good ground for separation from the Church that neglects so to do For 1. The Brazen Serpent was not only defil'd but an Idol it self and that at the very time when it was destroy'd Nay it was worshipp'd by the generality of the People to those daies the Children of Israel did burn Incense unto it and there was little hope of their being reclaim'd while the Idol stood and moreover the use of it was ceas'd for which it was first erected Now without doubt Governours ought to take away those indifferent things which have been abus'd when the People are inclin'd to abuse them again at least if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by any other means but then I deny that our Rites have been or are any temptation to Idolatry or to the embracing of Popery Had Hezekiah suffer'd the Brazen Serpent still to stand no doubt private Persons who have no Authority to make public Reformations might lawfully have made use of it to put them in mind of and affect them with the wonderful mercy of God express'd by it to their Forefathers notwithstanding that many had formerly made an Idol of it and did so at that very time And much more might they have lawfully continu'd in the Communion of the Church so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to join with them in their Idolatry nor do we read of any that separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abus'd as it was by the generality 2. If Example were a good way of Arguing we find by Hezekiah's practice in other things he did not think it an indispensable Duty to abolish every thing that had been made use of to Idolatry if it did not prove an immediate snare at that time For as to the Temples which Solomon had erected for no other end but the Worship of false Gods 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 Altho' indeed King Josiah afterwards probably upon the increase of Idolatry and renew'd use of those places found it expedient to lay them wholly waste 2 Kings 23.13 Let not any says (d) De Vitand Superstitione Calvin think me so austere or bound up as to forbid a Christian without any exception to accommodate himself to the Papists in any Ceremony or Observance for it is not my purpose to condemn any thing but what is clearly evil and openly vicious III. I proceed now in the last place to shew that the Agreement between the Churches of England and Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful This I shall evince in the chief particulars which our Dissenters take offence at First Then Episcopacy is so far from being an unlawful symbolizing with the Church of Rome that it is an Apostolical Institution and shall we allow the Pope so much power as to make that unlawful by his use which the Apostles and their Disciples have recommended to us by theirs Nay (e) Bez. Episcop du Moul. Past off Calv. Inst lib. 4. cap. 4. Sect. 2. Epist ad Reg. Pol. Beza P. du Moulin and Calvin grant that this was the Goverment of all Churches in the World from the Apostles times for about 1500 years together Nor do I know how the Dissenters will defend the Observation of the Lord's Day while they contend that Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted tradition of the Church from the Apostles times or how those that separate upon the account of Episcopacy can defend the lawfulness of Communicating with any Christian Church for about 1500 years together I shall add no more upon this point only I refer my Reader to Chillingworth's Institution of Episcopacy and Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of separation p. 244 c. Secondly Our symbolizing with the Church of Rome in having set Forms of Prayer is so far from being culpable that 't is highly commendable For herein we symbolize with the Primitive Church nor is any thing more expedient for the public Service of God as I have already shewn in the Third Chapter Now if the Papists nay if the Heathens us'd set Forms because it was the fittest way for the Service of God must we be forbidden to use them Because they did well are we therefore to do worse Thirdly Our Liturgy in particular do's not so much symbolize with the Roman Service as to cause a separation For tho' some Collects are taken out of the Mass-Book yet that is not enough to make them unlawful For then the Lord's Prayer the Psalms and a great part of the Scripture besides and the Creeds also must never be us'd I know it has been said that the Scriptures being of necessary use must be retain'd by us tho' the Church of Rome retains them but that there is not the same Reason for Forms which are not necessary and that in those we ought to go as far from that Church as 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 and not in things wherein they do well 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 us'd also by the Church before Romanism had corrupted it are not as much to be valu'd because they were once us'd by good Christians as to be run down because they have been since us'd by Superstitious and Idolatrous Men. If any Man wou'd set himself to expose the Mass-Book he wou'd I suppose lay hold upon nothing but the Corruptions that are in it and things that are obnoxious to just
things perfectly indifferent is no indifferent thing and 't is infinite odds but if once they begin to change without necessity there will never be an end of changing But farther I desire you to consider that the most eminent even of your own Writers do flatly condemn your Separation from the Church of England For they acknowledge her to be a true Church and (b) See Burroughs 's Iren. p. 184. Vind. of Presb. Gov. Brinsly's Arraignm p. 16 31. Corbet 's Plea for Lay-Câ—m Newcomen 's Iren. Epist to the Read â—all's Tryal c. 7. Jeâ—uâ—baâ—l p. 28.30 Throughton's Apol. p. 107. Robinson of the Lawful of Hear p. ult hold that You are not to separate farther from a true Church than the things you separate for are unlawful or conceiv'd so to be that is they hold that you ought to go as far as you can and do what you lawfully may towards Communion with it They (c) See Tombes 's Theod. Answer to Pref. Sect. 23. Blake's Vind. c. 31. Brinsly 's Arraignm p. 50. Noyes 's Temple Meas p. 78. Owen 's Evangel Love p. 76. Cotton on the 1 Epist of John p. 156. Baxter's Cure dir 5. Vines on the Sacram. p. 239. Corbet 's Acc. of Sep. p. 103. Jerubbaâ—l p. 12. hold also that You are not to separate from a Church for unlawful things if the things accounted unlawful are not of so heinous a Nature as to unchurch a Church or are not impos'd as necessary Terms of Communion Nay they (d) See Brownists Confess art 36. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Allen's Life p. 3. Engl. Remembrancer Serm. 4 14 16. Ball 's Tryal p. 74 c. 132 c. 159 c. 308. Platform of Discipl c. 14. sect 8. Hildersham on John Lect. 35 82. Brian 's Dwell with God p. 293 294. Bradshaw's Unreason of Sep. p. 103 104. Non-Conf no schismat p. 15. Cawdry 's Indep a great schism p. 192 195. Owen 's Evang. Love c. 3. Throughton 's Apol. p. 100. Vines on the Sacram. p. 242. Crofton's Hard way to Heaven p. 36. Noyes's Temp. Meas p. 78 89. Davenport's Reply p. 281. Cotton on 1 Epist of John p. 156. Calamy's Godly Man 's Ark Epist Ded. Allen 's Godly Man's Portion p. 122 127. Bâ—ins on Ephes 2.15 Contin Morn Exer. serm 16. Baxter's Cure dir 35. Def. of his Cure part 1. p. 47. part 2. p. 171. Burroughs 's Iren. c. 23. Morton 's Memorial p. 78 c. Blake's Vind. c. 31. Tombes's Theodul answer to Pref. Sect. 25. Conf. Savoy p. 12 13. Calamy's Door of Truth open'd p. 7. Corbet's N. C. Plea p. 6. Robinson 's Lawful of Hear p. 19 23. Nye's Case of great pres Use p. 10 16 18. produce several arguments to prove that Defects in Worship if not essential are no just reason for withdrawing from it 1. Because to break of Communion for such Defects wou'd be to look after a greater Perfection than this present state will admit of 2. Our Saviour and his Apostles did not separate from defective Churches 3. Christ doth still hold Communion with defective Churches and so ought we 4. To separate from such defective Churches wou'd destroy all Communion Nor 5. is it at all Warranted in scripture Nor 6. is it necessary because a Person may communicate in the Worship without partaking in those Corruptions Nay 7. they urge that 't is a duty to join with a defective Worship where we can have no better And as for our Injunctions in particular they (e) See Lett. Min. of Old-Engl p. 12 13. Bryan's Dwell with God p. 311. Troughton's Apol. c. 7. p. 68. Owen's Peace-Off p. 17. Misch of Impos Epist Ded. own them to be tolerable and what no Church is without more or less that they are not sufficient to hinder Communion and that they are but few Nay farther several of the old Non-Conformists zealously oppos'd Separation from the Church of England and join'd with it to their dying Day tho' they cou'd not conform as Ministers and several of the Modern Non-Conformists have written for Communion with it and have in print (f) See Baxter's Sacril Desert p. 75. Mr. J. Allen's Life p. 111. Collins's Doctr. of Schism p. 64. Lye's Reas Account c. Hickman's Bonas Vap. p. 113. Baxter's Plea for Peace p. 240. declar'd it to be their Duty and Practice But besides the Sentiments of your own Teachers there is greater Authority to be urged against you For in those things wherein you differ from us you are condemn'd by the Practice of the Whole Catholic Church for fifteen hundred Years together and surely this Consideration ought to prevail with Modest and Peaceable Men. This might afford a large field for Discourse but I shall only hint at a few Particulars 1. We desire you to produce an Instance of any setled Church that was without Episcopacy till Calvin's time The greatest Opposers of Episcopacy have been forced to grant that it obtain'd in the Church within a few Years after the Apostolic age and we are sure we can carry it higher even to the Apostles themselves There are but two Passages and both of them not till the latter end of the fourth Century that may seem to question Episcopal Authority That of (g) In Epist ad Tit. cap. 1. St. Jerom when improv'd to the utmost that it is capable of only intimates Episcopacy not to be of Apostolical Institution And very clear it is to those that are acquainted with St. Jerom's Writings that he often wrote in hast and did not always weigh things at the Beam and forgot at one time what he had said at another that many Expressions fell from him in the heat of Disputation according to the warmth and eagerness of his Temper and that he was particularly chased into this Assertion by the fierce opposition of the Deacons at Rome who began to Usurp upon and overtop the Presbyters which tempted him to magnify and extol their Place and Dignity as anciently equal to the Episcopal Office and as containing in it the common Rights and Privileges of Priesthood For at other times when he wrote with cooler thoughts about him he does plainly and frequently enough assert the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters and did himself constantly live in Communion with and Subjection to Bishops The other passage is that of Aerius who held indeed that a Bishop and a Presbyter differ'd nothing in Order Dignity or Power But he was led into this Error merely thro' Envy and Emulation being vext to see that his Companion Eustatbius had gotten the Bishoprick of Sebastia which himself had aim'd at This made him start aside and talk extravagantly but the Church immediately branded him for an Heretic and drove him and his Followers out of all Churches and from all Cities and Villages And Epiphanius who was his Cotemporary represents him as very little better than a Mad-man 2. We desire you to name any Church that did not constantly use Forms of
but I affirm that several Forms of Prayer are injoin'd in God's Word Thus Numb 6.23 c. the Priest is commanded to Pray for the People in this very Form of words The Lord bless thee c. And Deut. 21.7 8. the People are injoin'd to say Be merciful O Lord c. and 26.13 c. I have brought c. Look down from thy Holy c. David also by Divine inspiration appointed the Book of Psalms for the public service as appears by the Titles of many of them And tho' some of them have no Titles at all yet we find they were deliver'd by David into the hands of Asaph and his Brethren for Forms of Praise and Thanksgiving 1 Chron. 16.7 and accordingly Hezekiah commanded the Levites to make use of them 2 Chron. 29.30 This Liturgy also was renew'd by Ezra Ezr. 3.10 11. Besides our Saviour saies When ye Pray say Our Father c. in which he do's as plainly prescribe that very Form as 't is possible Nay had he said use this Form it cou'd not have been more expressive of his intention to impose it as a Form If it be said that the Lord's Prayer is not a Form but only a Pattern or Directory of Prayer because our Saviour Matt. 6.9 commanded his Disciples to Pray after this manner Our Father c. I answer 1. When the same matter is mention'd ambiguously in one Text and plainly in another then the doubtful or ambiguous Text must be determin'd by the plain one Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matt. 6.9 may be as well translated Pray in these words as Pray after this manner but I confess we cannot certainly know from that Text whether Christ commands us to use that very Form or one like it But then the words Luke 11.2 When ye Pray say Our Father c. are so express a command to use that very Form that nothing can be plainer and therefore the other Text must be determin'd by them 2. Our Saviour gave this Prayer not after the manner of a Directory but of a Form Had he design'd it for a Directory he wou'd have bidden them to call upon God for such and such things whereas he gives them a Form'd Prayer and bids them say it and we may reasonably suppose that he intended we shou'd use it as a Form since he gave it as such 3. Tho' the words in St. Matthew were only a Directory yet those in St. Luke are a Form of Prayer For the former were deliver'd in the Sermon upon the Mount in the second year after his Baptism but the latter upon another quite different occasion in the third year after it Therefore 't is probable that the Disciples understood those in St. Matthew only as a Directory and requested our Saviour afterwards to give them a Form For 4. the occasion of Christ's giving them this Prayer in St. Luke was their requesting him to Teach them to pray as John taught his Disciples For 't was the custom of the Jewish Doctors to Teach their Disciples a particular Form of Prayer and St. John had done the same and the Disciples desire that Christ wou'd do so too For neither St. John's nor our Saviour's Disciples cou'd be ignorant how to Pray but their request was that Christ wou'd give them his particular Form according to the Jewish custom and this Form he gave them which we call the Lord's Prayer But 't is objected that supposing our Saviour did prescribe it as a Form yet it was only for a time till they shou'd be more fully instructed and enabled to Pray by the coming of the Holy Spirit For say they before Christ's Ascension the Disciples had ask'd nothing in his Name Joh. 16.24 but all Prayers after Christ's Ascension were to be offer'd in his Name Joh. 14.13 14. 16.23 Now this Prayer has nothing of his Name in it and therefore was not design'd to be us'd after his Ascension and accordingly say they in all the New Testament we have not the least intimation of the Disciples using this Form But this objection is of no force if we consider the following particulars 1. That our Saviour has not given us the least intimation that he prescrib'd this Form only for a time and not for continual use And if we may pronounce Christ's Institution to be null without his Authority then Baptism and the Lord's Supper may be temporary prescriptions as well as the Lord's Prayer Whatever Christ has instituted without limitation of time do's alwaies oblige 2. That his not inserting his own Name into it is no Argument at all that he never intended it shou'd be us'd after his Ascension For to Pray in Christ's Name is to Pray in his Mediation depending upon his Merits and Intercession for the acceptance of our Prayers and therefore Prayers may be offer'd up in Christ's Name tho' we do not name him Thus without doubt the Disciples Pray'd in his Name Acts 4.24 tho' his Mediation is not mention'd 'T is true his Name is not expressed in the Lord's Prayer because when he gave it he was not yet Ascended and his Disciples were not to ask in his Name till after his Ascension but now that he is Ascended we can as well offer it in his Name as if it had been express'd in it Nay 't is so fram'd that now after his Ascension when the Doctrine of his Mediation was to be more fully explain'd we cannot offer it at all but in and thro' his Mediation For God is peculiarly our Father in and thro' Jesus Christ And therefore Christ's not inserting his own Name do's by no means prove that he did not design it for a standing Form 3. That tho' the Scriptures do not mention the Apostles and Disciples using the Lord's Prayer yet this is no argument either that they did not use it or that they did not believe themselves obliged to use it For we may as well conclude from the silence of Scripture that they did not Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost tho' Christ had commanded them so to do as we may conclude that they did not use the Lord's Prayer tho' Christ commanded them to say Our Father c. Especially if we consider that those who liv'd nearest the Apostolical Ages and so were the most competent Judges of what was done in them where the Scripture is silent did alwaies use this Form in their Public Prayers and believe themselves obliged to do so Now that this Prayer was look't upon as a standing Form to be perpetually us'd appears from Tertull. de Orat. St. Cyprian de Orat. Dom. St. Cyril Cat. Myst 5. St. Jerom. in Pelag. l. 3. St. Austin Hom. 42.50 Epist 59. St. Chrysost de Simult St. Gregory Ep. lib. 7. cap. 6. And to be sure they who believ'd the Institution of it to be perpetually obliging cou'd not doubt but that it was constantly us'd in the Apostolic Age. And methinks 't is
Table-gâ—sture and expresses Fellowship with Christ c. This is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace and yet 't is not accounted an additional Sacrament to that of the Lord's Supper 4. And lastly Suppose that an Independent when he is admitted into their Church-Covenant shou'd signify his assent by holding up his hand or the like this is an outward and visible sign of no less then a new state of life that is of being made a Member of Christ's Church and being engaged to all the duties and instated in all the Privileges of it and yet this was never charg'd upon them by the Presbyterians as introducing a New Sacrament Now from all these instances 't is evident how unreasonable a thing it is that our using the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he the Infant shall not be asham'd to confess the Faith of Christ crucify'd c. shou'd be thought an adding of a New Sacrament of the Cross to that of Baptism But 't is objected that our Convocation c. 30. declares That by the sign of the Cross the Infant is Dedicated c. Now say they Baptism is it self a Seal of Dedication to God and therefore our Dedicating the Infant by our own invented way of the sign of the Cross is adding a New Sacrament To this I answer that Dedication may properly signify a Confirmation of our first Dedication to God and a Declaration of what the Church thinks of a Baptiz'd Person and the sign of the Cross is the Medium of this Declaration That this is the meaning of our Church is evident if we compare the Office of Baptism and the Canon together Both the Rubric and Canon say that Baptism is compleat without the sign of the Cross It is expresly said We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock and upon that do sign it with the Cross So that the Child is declar'd to be within the Congregation of Christ 's Flock before 't is sign'd with the Cross Since therefore the Person is Dedicated in Baptism and the Baptism is acknowledg'd compleat without or before the sign of the Cross we cannot be thought to Dedicate in Baptism and to Dedicate by the Cross again but the Dedication by the Cross must be something very distinct from the Dedication of Baptism that is the one is the sign of the Dedication and the other the Dedication it self So that this is plainly no other than a Declaration the Church makes of what the Baptiz'd Person is admitted to and what engagement he lies under Which Declaration is therefore made in the name of the Church in the Plural number We receive this Child c. and do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. whereas in Baptism the Minister alone as the immediate Agent of Christ pronounces in the singular number I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost From what has been said I hope it appears that our Office of Baptism has nothing in it that may in the least justify a separation from us CHAP. VII Objections against our Communion-Office and particularly that of kneeling at the Sacrament Answer'd THO' the Communion-Office for the Gravity and Holiness thereof is preferr'd by the Dissenters before all other Offices in the Common-Prayer-Book yet it has not past free from exception For I. 'T is objected against it that the Petition in the Prayer before Consecration That our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his body and our Souls wash'd by his most precious Blood implies that the Blood of Christ has greater efficacy than his Body inasmuch as the Soul is said to be cleans'd by the Blood of Christ and only the Body by Christ's Body But I answer that at the delivery of the Bread and Wine the Priest saies The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy Body and Soul unto everlasting Life and The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was c. And therefore 't is plain that our Church teaches that the Sanctification and Salvation of our Souls and Bodies flow from the Body as well as the Blood of Christ Nor do's the mentioning of one alone exclude the other for the Apostle speaks sometimes of the Bread alone 1 Cor. 10.17 and sometimes of the Wine alone 1 Cor. 12.13 and yet all Men must grant that he meant both II. 'T is said that Christ did not deliver the Elements into every Person 's hands with a Form of words recited to every one of them as we do But I answer 1. That this do's not appear from Christ's words for the Evangelists may well be suppos'd to give a short account of the Institution and then what might be particularly said or done to every one wou'd be sufficiently related in being said to be done or spoken to all 2. Suppose that our practice do's vary from this circumstance of the Institution it may be as easily defended as celebrating the Lord's Supper at Dinner-time and not at Supper which the Dissenters themselves do not scruple 3. Our Saviour commanded his Disciples Matth. 28.19 to Teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost But will any Man think that when great numbers are to be Baptiz'd together the Form of Baptizing in the Name of the Father c. may not lawfully be express'd severally to every Person And why then may not the same be done in the Lord's Supper Wherefore the practice of our Church herein is no way unsutable to the Institution of Christ or the nature of the Sacrament and the alteration of it wou'd be for the worse and abate the Solemnity of its Administration See Falkner 's Libert Eccles p. 218 c. III. The last and great objection is against the posture of kneeling at the Sacrament and therefore I shall consider it largely and endeavour to shew 1. That Christ has not forbidden us to kneel at the Sacrament 2. That kneeling is not a deviation from his Example 3. That 't is not unsutable for its being no Table-gesture 4. That 't is not contrary to the practice of the Church in the best and purest Ages 5. That kneeling is not therefore unlawful because 't was introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abus'd by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes First then Christ has not forbidden us to kneel at the Sacrament For in all the Scriptures God has not given us any express command to determine our practice one way or other and if Authority did not restrain our Liberty we might either sit kneel or stand without the least violation of the Law of God The Apostles and Disciples of our Lord at the Institution of the Sacrament which the Scripture relates in several places (a) Matth. 26.26 c. Mark 14.22 c. Luke 22.19 c. 1 Cor. 11.23 c. were the Representatives
which he may judge of what sort the action is This Measure is the Rule of Conscience and Conscience is no farther safe than as it follows that Rule Now this Measure or Rule of Conscience can be nothing else but the Law of God because nothing can be a Duty or Sin but what is commanded or forbidden by God's Law and that thing only is indifferent which his Law neither commands nor forbids Now by the Law of God which is the Rule of Conscience I mean God's Will for the Goverment of Men's actions whether declar'd by Nature or Revelation By the Law of Nature I mean those Principles of Good and Evil just and unjust which God has written in our minds and which every Man is naturally convinced of Some things are eternally Good as to Worship God c. and we know them to be our Duty others are eternally Evil and we know them to be Sins by the light of Reason and the Apostle saies the Gentiles had this Law written in their hearts But Christians have the Law of Revelation too contain'd in the Scriptures by which God do's not make void the Law of Nature but declare it's Precepts more certainly and accurately with greater strength and greater rewards and punishments than before By this also he has perfected the Law of Nature and obliged us to higher instances of Vertue and added some positive Laws as for instance to believe in Christ to pray to God in Christ's Name to be Baptiz'd and partake of the Lord's Supper Thus then the Natural and Reveal'd Law of God is the great Rule of Conscience Only we must remember that by the Law of Nature is to be understood not only the chief and general heads of it but also the necessary deductions from these heads and by the Reveal'd Law is to be understood not only express Commands and Prohibitions but also the necessary consequences of those commands and prohibitions So that whatever is by direct inference or parity of reason commanded or forbidden is a Duty or a Sin tho' it be not commanded or forbidden in the Letter of the Law And if it be neither commanded nor forbidden by the Letter of the Law nor yet by inference or parity of reason the thing is indifferent and we may do it or let it alone with a safe Conscience III. In the third place I must consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience for in a secondary sence they are a part of the Rule of Conscience by vertue of and in subordination to the Laws of God This I shall explain in four propositions First It is most certain that God's Law Commands us to obey the Laws of Men. For all Society is founded in this Principal Law of Nature that we must obey our Governours in all honest and just things Otherwise no State City or Family can subsist happily And 't is most evident that God Commands us in Scripture to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to be Subject not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake So that a Man is bound in duty to obey Human Laws and consequently they are a part of the Rule of Conscience Secondly Human Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but merely by Vertue of God's Law who has commanded us both by Nature and Scripture to obey our Superiours Conscience is our judgment of our actions according to God's Law and has no Superiour but God alone but yet we are bound in Conscience to obey Men because therein we obey God Thirdly Human Laws do no farther bind the Conscience than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God so that when Men command any thing sinful we must not obey For God has not given any Man power to alter his Laws or impose any thing inconsistent with them Fourthly Tho' Human Laws generally speaking bind the Conscience yet I do not say that every Human Law tho' consistent with God's Law do's at all times and in all cases oblige every Man's Conscience to active obedience to it so as that he sins against God if he transgress it For then who could be innocent But First where the Public or some private Person shall suffer damage or inconvenience by our not observing the Law or Secondly where the Manner of our not obeying it argues contempt of Authority or sets an ill example there the transgression of a Human Law is sinful and not in other cases So that there are many cases in which a Man may transgress a purely Human Law and yet not be a sinner before God provided I say there be no contempt of Authority or ill example in it for either of these makes it a sin For this I insist upon that God's Law and the public good require that Authority be held sacred and therefore when Governours insist upon a thing tho' it be trifling or inconvenient yet we must not even seem to contest the matter with them provided it be not sinful For to affront their Authority or to encourage others by our example to do it is a greater evil to the public than our obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. I shall now consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience in the instance of Church-Communion And here I affirm That every Man is bound in Conscience to join with the Church establish'd by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholic Church and nothing sinful is requir'd as a condition of Communion with it For I have already shewn that Men are bound to obey Human Laws that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore they must obey in Church-Matters unless it can be shew'd that God has forbidden Men to make Laws about Religion which can never be done But farther I earnestly desire it may be well consider'd by Dissenters that we are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in us lies the Unity of the Church which consists not only in professing the same faith but joining together in the same worship And therefore whoever breaks this Unity doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ and is guilty of Schism which is so much caution'd against and so highly condemn'd in Scripture Those therefore who think they are no more bound to come to Church than to obey any common Act of Parliament are greatly mistaken because they break not only the Law of Man but the Law of God For tho' all the circumstances of Worship are Human Institutions yet the Public Worship it self under Public Lawful Governours is of Divine appointment and no Man can renounce it without sinning against Christ as well as Human Laws A Divine Law cloath'd with circumstances of Man's appointment creates another kind of obligation than a Law that commands a thing perfectly indifferent In the former case we must obey because 't is
men He that minds those Things most on which the Efficacy of his Prayers for Christ's sake do's Depend will not Need new Phrases every time to raise his Affections and the more a Man is concern'd about the Necessary Preparation for the Sacrament the less afraid will he be of offending God by Kneeling at it For he will find that True Religion consists in the Constant Practice of Holiness Righteousness and Charity which make a Man really Better and more Like to God 3. If Men were but really Willing to receive satisfaction this alone wou'd half conquer their Scruples but when they are fond of them and nourish them and will neither hear nor read what is to be said on the other side there can be but Little Hopes of recovering them to a Right Apprehension of things Wou'd they come once to distrust their own Judgments to suppose that they may perhaps be all this while mistaken wou'd they calmly and patiently hear faithfully and impartially consider what is said or written against them as eagerly seek for satisfaction as Men do for the cure of any Disease they are subject unto wou'd they I say thus diligently use all fit means and helps for the removal of their Scruples before they troubled the Church with them it wou'd not prove so very difficult a Task to convince and settle such teachable Minds When they have any Fear or Suspicion about their worldly concerns they presently repair to those who are best skill'd and most able to resolve them and in their judgment and determination they commonly acquiesce and satisfy themselves Has any Man a Scruple about his Estate whether it be firmly setled or he has a true legal Title to it The way he takes for satisfaction is to advise with Lawyers the most eminent for Knowledge and Honesty in their Profession If they agree in the same Opinion this is the greatest assurance he can have that it is right and safe Thus is it with one that doubts whether such a custom or practice be for his Health the opinion of known and experienc'd Physicians is the only proper means to determine him in such a Case The reason is the same here When any private Christian is troubled and perplex'd with Fears and Scruples that concern his Duty or the Worship of God he ought in the first place to have recourse to the public Guides and Ministers of Religion who are appointed by God and are best fitted to direct and conduct him I say to come to them not only to dispute with them and pertly to oppose them but with modesty to propound their doubts and meekly to receive Instruction humbly begging of God to open their Understandings that they may see and embrace the truth taking great care that no evil affection love of a Party or carnal Interest influence or byass their Judgments I do not by this desire Men to pin their Faith upon the Priest's Sleeve but only diligently to Attend to their Reasons and Arguments and to give some due Regard to their Authority For 't is not so Absurd as some may Imagine for the Common People to take upon Trust from their Lawful Teachers what they are not Competent Judges of themselves But the difficulty is how a private Christian shall govern himself when the very Ministers of Religion disagree By what Rule shall he chuse his Guide I answer 1. If a Man be tolerably able to Judge for himself let him impartially hear both sides and think it no Shame to Change his Mind when he sees good Reason for it Cou'd we thus prevail with the People diligently to examine the Merits of the cause our Church wou'd every day gain more Ground amongst all wise Men. For we care not how much Knowledge and Understanding our People have so they be but humble and modest with it nor do we desire Men to become our Proselytes any further than we give them good Scripture and Reason for it 2. As for those who are not capable of Judging they had better Depend on those Ministers who are Regularly and by the Laws of the Land set over them than on any other Teachers that they can chuse for themselves I speak now of these present Controversies about Forms and Ceremonies which are above the sphere of Common People not of such things as Concern the Salvation of all Men which are plain and evident to the Meanest Capacities When therefore in such Cases about which we cannot easily satisfy our selves we follow the Advice of the Authoriz'd Guides if they chance to Mislead us we have something to say for our selves our error is more Excusable as being occasion'd by those whose Judgment God commands us to respect but when we chuse Instructors according to our own Fancies if we then prove to be in the wrong and are betray'd into sin we may Thank our own Wantonness for it and are more severely Accountable for such mistakes Thus if a Sick Person shou'd miscarry under a Licens'd Physician he has this contentment that he us'd the wisest means for Recovery but if he will hearken only to Quacks and then grow worse and worse he must charge his own Folly as the Cause of his Ruin 4. We shou'd throughly consider what is the true Notion of Lawful and how it differs from what is Necessary and from what is Sinful That is necessary or our Duty which God has expresly commanded that is sinful which God has forbidden that is lawful which God has not by any Law obliging us either commanded or forbidden For Where there is no Law saith the Apostle there is no Transgression Rom. 4.15 There can be no Transgression but either omitting what the Law commands or doing what the Law forbids For instance If any Man can shew where Kneeling at the Sacrament is forbidden in Scripture and Sitting is requir'd where Praying by a Form is forbidden and Extempore Prayers are injoin'd then indeed the Dispute wou'd soon be at an end but if neither the one nor other can be found as most certainly they cannot then Kneeling at the Sacrament and reading Prayers out of a Book must be reckon'd amongst things lawful And then there is no need of scrupling them because they may be done without Sin Nay where they are requir'd by our Superiours it is our Duty to submit to them because it is our Duty to obey them in all lawful things This way of arguing is very plain and convincing and cannot be evaded but by giving another notion of lawful And therefore it is commonly said that nothing is lawful especially in the Worship of God which God himself has not prescrib'd and appointed or that has been abus'd to evil Purposes but having fully confuted these two Mistakes in the Second and Eighth Chapters I shall pass them over here 5. I desire those who Scruple to comply with our Church to consider that there never was nor ever will be any public Constitution that will be every way unexceptionable The