thing and somewhat favoured by Scripture and by Experience has been found to be of such Convenience Advantage and Security to Religion that Mr. Baxter hath more than once said †††Mr. Baxter's Plea for Peace Epist Serm. on Gal. 6. 10. p. 24. Defence p. 21. par 1. p. 36. I doubt not but he that will preserve Religion here in its due Advantages must endeavour to preserve the Soundness Concord and Honour of the Parish-Churches And Mr. Corbet saith | | | Mr. Corbet's Account of the Principles c. of several Non-Conformists p. 26. That the nullifying and treading down the Parish-Churches is a Popish Design But whatever Opinion others may have of that Form yet all of one sort and another agree that the Churches so called are or may be true Churches This was the general Opinion of the old Non-Conformists Thus saith a late * * * Troughton's Apol. p. 103. Writer who though he is unwilling to grant that they did own the National Church to be a true Church yet doth admit as he needs must at least that they did own the several Parishes or Congregations in England to be true Churches both in respect of their Constitution and also in respect of their Doctrine and Worship and that there were in them no such intolerable Corruptions as that all Christians should fly from them And even those that were in other respects opposite enough to the Church did so declare It was saith Mr. Baxter the Parish Churches that had the Liturgy Defence of his Cure part 2. p. 178. V. Letter of Ministers of Old England to New p. 49. which Mr. H. Jacob the Father of the Congregational Party wrote for Communion with against Fr. Johnson and in respect to which he called them Separatists against whom he wrote The same I may say of Mr. Bradshaw Dr. Ames and other Non-conformists whom the Congregational Brethren think were favourable to their way And if you will hearken to the abovesaid Apologist he saith again and again That the general Sence Apol. c. 4. p. â—17 of the present Non-conformists both Ministers and People is that the Parishes of England generally are true Churches both as to the Matter of them the People being Christians and as to the form their Ministers being true Ministers such as for their Doctrine and Manners deserve not to be degraded But lest he should be thought to incline to one side I shall produce the Testimony of such as are of the Congregational Way As for those of New-England Mr. Baxter doth say That Defence of his Cure part 2 p. 177. their own Expressions signify that they take the English Parishes that have godly Ministers for true Churches though faulty Mr. Cotton professeth that Robinson's denial of Way cleared p. 8. the Parishional Churches to be true Churches was never received into any Hearts amongst them and otherwhere saith We dare not deny to bless the Womb that bare us His Letter p. 3. printed 1641. and the Papes that gave us suck The five Dissâ—nting Brethren do declare * * * Apologet. Narr V. Hooker's Survey Pref. and part 1. p. 47. We have this sincere Profession to make before God and the World that all the Conscience of the Defilements in the Church of England c. did never work in us any other Thought much less Opinion but that Multitudes of the Assemblies and Parochial Congregations thereof were the true Churches and Body of Christ To come nearer Dr. T. Goodwin On the Ephes p. 477 488 489. doth condemn it as an Error in those who hold particular Churches those you call Parish-Churches to be no true Churches of Christ and their Ministers to be no true Ministers and upon that Ground forbear all Church-Communion with them in hearing or in any other Ordinance c. and saith I acquitted my self before from this and my Brethren in the Ministry But the Church of England is not only thus acknowledged a true Church but hath been also looked upon as the most valuable in the World whether we consider the Church it self or those that minister in it The Church it self of which the Authors of the grave and modest Confutation thus write All the known Pag. 6. Churches in the World acknowledg our Church for their Sister and give unto us the Right-hand of Fellowship c. Dr. Goodwin saith If we should not acknowledg these Ibid. Churches so stated i. e. Parish-Churches to be the true Churches of Christ and their Ministers true Ministers and their Order such and hold Communion with them too in the Sence spoken of we must acknowledg no Church in all the Reformed Churches c. for they are all as full of Mixtures as ours And Mr. J. Goodwin saith Sion College visited that there was more of the Truth and Power of Religion in England under the late Prelatical Government than in all the Reformed Churches in the World besides If we would have a Character of the Ministry of the Church of England as it was then Mr. Bradshaw Unreasonableness of the Separat p. 97. gives it Our Churches are not inferiour for number of able Men yea and painful Ministers to any of the Reformed Churches of Christ in foreign Parts c. And certainly the Number of such is much advanced since his time But I cannot say more of this Subject than I find in a Page or two of an Author I must frequently Mr. Baxter's Cure of Church Divisions Dir. 56. p. 263. use to which I refer the Reader Before I proceed I shall only make this Inference from what hath been said That if the Church of England be a true Church the Churches true Churches the Ministry a true Ministry the Doctrine sound and Orthodox the Worship in the main good and allowable and the Defects such as render not the Ordinances unacceptable to God and ineffectual to us I think there is much said towards the proving Communion with that Church lawful and to justify those that do joyn in it Which brings to the second General which is to consider II. What Opinion the sober and eminent Non-conformists Sect. II. have of Communion with the Church of England And they generally hold 1. That they are not totally to separate from it this follows from the former and must be own'd by all them that hold she is a true Church for to own it to be such and yet to separate totally from it would be to own and disown it at the same time So say the Members of the Assembly of Divines Thus to Papers for Accommodation p. 47. depart from true Churches is not to hold Communion with them as such but rather by departing to declare them not to be such And saith Mr. Baxter Nothing will Reasons for the Christian Relig. p. 464. warrant us to separate from a Church as no Church which yet is the case in total Separation but the want of
touch viz. the unclean and abominable Practices that were us'd by the Heathens in the Worship of their Gods It 's call'd by the Apostle in another place the unfruitful Eph. 4. 11 works of darkness and again thus describ'd by him it 's a shame to speak of those things that are done of them in secret These they were not to touch to have no fellowship with them in but rather to reprove them that is in judgment to condemn them by words to reprove them in conversation to avoid them But now because Christians are not to communicate with Heathens in their filthy mysteries nor to partake with any sort of wicked Men in any Action that 's Immoral does it therefore follow that they must not do their duty because sometimes it cannot be done but in their company Must they abstain from the Publick Worship of God and their Lord's Table to which they are commanded because Evil Men who till they repent have nothing to do there rudely intrude themselves May they not joyn with bad Men in some cases where it cannot be well avoided in doing a good Action because they must in no case and on no account joyn with them in doing a sinful one Because they have omitted their Duty must I neglect mine Because they sin in coming unpreparedly must I sin in not coming at all Will their sin be any plea or excuse for mine If I Communicate with them will their unworthiness be laid at my door If I separate because of that shall they answer for my contempt as well as for their own prophanation of it No surely every Man shall bear his own burden The soul that sinneth it shall dye The Ezek. 18. 20. second is that Text Obj. 2. In the Revelation Come out of her my people that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive 18. c. 4. not of her plagues Answ This place is most certainly to be understood of Idolaters and according to most Interpreters of the Roman Idolatrous Polity and is a command to all Christians to forsake the Communion of that Church lest they endanger their own salvation by Communicating with her in Masses and other Idolatrous Worship And if this be the true sense of the words it abundantly justifies our Separation from the Roman Church But affords not the least plea for Dissenters to separate from ours unless any of them are so hardy as to say that there is none or but little difference betwixt the Church of Rome and the Church of England But blessed be God we have a Church reform'd from all her Superstitions that retains nothing of hers but what she retains of the Gospel and the Primitive Church Here 's no drowning Religion in shadow and formality nor burying her under a load of ritual and ceremonial Rubbish nor dressing up Religion in a flanting pomp to set her off or a gaudy garb to recommend her much less in such fantastical Rites such antick Vestments and Gesticulations that may justly render her ridiculous and contemptible but her Ceremonies are few and decent countenanc'd by Primitive Antiquity and very much becoming the gravity and sobriety of Religion Here are no Half-Communions no more Sacraments thrust upon us than our Lord himself instituted and yet those left whole and entire for our use and comfort that he did no Prayers in an unknown Tongue which the votary neither minds nor understands no praying to Saints or Angels no adoring Images Pictures and Reliques no worshipping the Creature besides or more than the Creator which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they do who in all their publick Offices of Devotion for one Prayer to God have order'd ten to be made to the blessed Virgin Here 's no Doctrine obtruded on our Faith that 's contrary to reason nay to sense to all our senses no Practices allowed that are forbidden by God no Pardons to be bought no Indulgences to be purchas'd no expunging any one Commandment out of the Decalogue or contriving arts and devices to make void the rest but as her Devotions are pure and spiritual having God and him only for their object so her Doctrine is found and orthodox having Christ for its Corner-stone and the Prophets and Apostles for its Foundation A Church that needs no counterfeit Legends no incredible Miracles no ridiculous Fables to promote her veneration whose security lies not in the Peoples ignorance but in their inlightned understandings that can defend it self without the help of spurious Authors or corrupting the words and sense of Authentick ones a Church that dares to be understood and is sure the more she 's lookt into the more to be embrac'd and admir'd And I would to God 't was as easie a matter to clear every one of her Members from Vice as it is her Constitution from Corruption But let those that stand take heed lest they fall and be sure to sweep their own door clean who are so apt to throw dirt in the faces of their Fellow-Christians St. Paul's advice is that every Man should examine himself and I am much mistaken if spiritual pride a rash and censorious judging of our Bretheren be not as great a crime as some of those that are lookt upon to be of so polluting and infectious a nature in other Men I need not say how directly oposite this Pharisaical humour is to that humility meekness and self-denial that the Gospel of our Saviour injoyns how unsuitable to the temper of all good Men who are more apt to suspect and accuse themselves than others who the more holy they are the more sensible of their own imperfections How contrary to the example of our blessed Lord who balkt not at any time the society of Publicans and sinners who when he knew what was in Man and who it was that should betray him yet admitted Judas into the number of his Disciples and familiarly converst with him And yet how fully it answers to the Spirit and Genius of those ancient Schismaticks the Novatians and the Donatists Might I stay to run the parallel both those Schisms and this amongst us would be found to begin on the same Principles slackness of Discipline in the Church and corruption in Manners To be carried on by the same pretences zeal for purity and fear of pollution to spring from the same bitter fountain pride and arrogance But I speak not this to excuse our selves or to recriminate them My hearty Prayer to God is that all Isarel may be saved that they who dissent from us would now at last lay aside all passion and prejudice all groundless scruples and pretences and come in and joyn their forces with our Church against the common Adversary And that we who profess our selves Members of the Church of England would be extreamly careful for the honour of our Religion for the preservation of our Church for the recovery of our straying Bretheren for whose sakes in some cases we are bound to lay down our lives
Subscription that is required to the 39 Articles it is very Consistent with Our Churches giving all Men Liberty to Judge for themselves and not Exercising Authority as the Romish Church doth over our Faith for she requires no Man to believe those Articles but at worst only thinks it Convenient that none should receive Orders or be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and requires Subscription to them as a Test whereby to Judge who doth so believe them But the Church of Rome requires all under Pain of Damnation to believe all her long Bed-roul of Doctrines which have only the Stamp of her Authority and to believe them too as Articles of Faith or to believe them with the same Divine Faith that we do the indisputable Doctrines of our Saviour and his Apostles For a proof hereof the Reader may consult the Bull of Pope Pius the Fourth which is to be found at the End of the Council of Trent Herein it is Ordained that Profession of Faith shall be made and sworn by all Dignitaries Prebendaries and such as have Benefices with Cure Military Officers c. in the Form following IN. Do believe with a firm Faith and do profess all and every thing contained in the Confession of Faith which is used by the Holy Roman Church viz. I believe in one God the Father Almighty and so to the end of the Nicene Creed I most firmly admit and embrace the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and the other Observances and Constitutions of the said Church Also the Holy Scriptures according to the Sense which our Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold c. I profess also that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and necessary to the Salvation of Mankind although all are not necessary to every individual Person c. I also admit and receive the Received and approved Rites of the Catholick Church in the Solemn Administration of all the foresaid Sacraments of which I have given the Reader a taste I Embrace and Receive all and every thing which hath been declared and defined concerning Original Sin and Justification in the Holy Synod of Trent I likewise profess that in the Mass a True Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice is Offered to God for the quick and dead And that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly really and substantially in the most Holy Eucharist c. I also Confess that whole and intire Christ and the true Sacrament is received under one of the kinds only I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are relieved by the Prayers of the Faithful And in like manner that the Saints Reigning with Christ are to be Worshipped and Invoked c. And that their Relicks are to be Worshipped I most firmly assert that the Images of Christ and of the Mother of God always a Virgin and of the other Saints are to be had and kept and that due Honour and Worship is to be given to them I Affirm also that the power of Indulgences is left by Christ in his Church and that the use of them is very Salutiferous to Christian People I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and I Profess and Swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ Also all the other things delivered decreed and declared by the Holy Canons and Oecumenical Councils and especially by the Holy Synod of Trent I undoubtedly receive and profess As also all things contrary to these and all Heresies Condemned Rejected and Anathematized by the Church I in like manner Condemns Reject and Anathematize This true Catholick Faith viz. all this Stuff of their own together with the Articles of the Creed without which no Man can be Saved which at this present I truly profess and sincerely hold I will God Assisting me most constantly Retain and Confess intire and inviolate and as much as in me lies will take Care that it be held taught and declared by those that are under me or the Care of whom shall be committed to me I the same N. do Profess Vow and Swear So help me God and the Holy Gospels of God Who when he Reads this can forbear pronouncing the Reformation of the Church of England a most Glorious Reformation 2. As to the Motives our Church proposeth for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures viz. that that Doctrine is of Divine Revelation they are no other than such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the Excellency thereof which consists in its being wholly adapted to the reforming of mens Lives and renewing their Natures after the Image of God and the Miracles by which it is confirmed And as to the Evidence of the truth of the matters of Fact viz. that there were such Persons as the Scriptures declare to have revealed Gods will to the World such as Moses our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and that these Persons delivered such Doctrine and Confirmed it by such Miracles and that the Books of Scripture were written by those whose Names they bear I say as to the Evidence of the truth of these matters of Fact our Church placeth it not in her own Testimony or in the Testimony of any Particular Church and much less that of Rome but in the Testimony of the whole Catholick Church down to us from the time of the Apostles and of Vniversal Tradition taking in that of Strangers and Enemies as well as Friends of Jews and Pagans as well as Christians Secondly We proceed to shew that a Churches Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing Agreement with the Church of Rome in things either in their own nature good or made so by a Divine Precept none of our Dissenting Brethren could ever imagine not to be an indispensable duty Agreement with her in what is in its own nature Evil or made so by a Divine Prohibition none of us are so forsaken of all Modesty as to deny it to be an inexcusable sin The Question therefore is whether to agree with this Apostate Church in some things of an indifferent nature be a Sin and therefore a just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing But by the way if we should suppose that a Churches agreeing with the Church of Rome in some indifferent things is sinful I cannot think that any of the more Sober Sort of Dissenters and I despair of success in arguing with any but such will thence infer that Separation from the Church so agreeing is otherwise warrantable than upon the account of those things being imposed as necessary terms of Communion But I am so far from taking it for granted
25. been many times said viz. that by things not Commanded are meant things forbidden and hath nothing to prove it by but only that the things mentioned in Scripture to which that phrase is applied were things forbidden as Idolatry c. Though what he produceth out of the Case be sufficient Case of Indifferent Things p. 20. yet he extreamly forgets himself when he saith nothing but only since in the page he quotes there are two arguments that are sooner flip'd than answered But however what hath he to reply to that which hath been many times said He grants It is true And is this nothing toward the proof of it What fitter way have we to find out the meaning of a phrase than to consider the several places where it is used Or to ascertain the sense of it than to shew that it 's always alike applied to such a case or thing But in answer to this he asks Why are such things express'd to us in this phrase as Not Commanded only 1st I answer they are not thus express'd as Not commanded Only For the things said to be not commanded are either in their own nature or in Scripture absolutely Forbidden as I have shewed and he grants and therefore to limit the phrase as if there was no more intended in it than that the things are not commanded as the Word Only implies and not also forbidden is to thwart Scripture as well as my reasoning from it 2ly If we take the Phrase as it is yet there his Question Why are they thus express'd and not commanded is of no Importance for supposing we could give no Reason for such an use of it that would not be sufficient to question the Thing as long as we find it constantly so used and applied But 3ly Was there no Reason offer'd no account given of it Let him peruse the Tract he opposeth as sure he did and he will find it expresly undertaken and two Reasons given for it as 1. Things forbidden are Case of Indiff Things pag. 23. called not commanded because all things prohibited are by consequence not commanded and not è contra 2. It 's by way of Meiosis c. But these though to the purpose in hand were not I am afraid to his Well! Let us consider 4ly What Account our Author himself gives at last of this 1. Saith he Things forbidden in Scripture are said to be not commanded To let us know the doing of a thing not commanded in God's Worship is Guilt enough Surely not so great as to do a thing notoriously Case Indiff Things pag. 20. forbidden as I there shewed Surely it can be no Guilt at all to do a thing not commanded if not also forbidden because as he owns there are Indifferent Things in the Worship of God and what are indifferent Things but Things not commanded as well as not forbidden 2. He saith it was so express'd because the Guilt of the Sin of Idolatry and Superstition lay in this that it was a thing not commanded had God commanded those things they had been a true Worship and acceptable In which assertion of his he grosly mistakes First as to the nature of Idolatry and Superstition when he saith the guilt of them lay in this that they were things not commanded Whereas it is evident that they were Sins because forbidden For what is Superstition but the dreading of that which is not to be dreaded as the Greek word shews Such as the Signs of Heaven Divinations and Daemons and even the unreasonable and inordinate fear of God himself When we fear Jer. 10. 2. offending him in what is not offensive to him And what is Idolatry but the giving Divine honour to that which is not God or prohibited honour to the true and only God These are things manifestly forbidden Secondly It 's yet a grosser Error which is contained in the reason he gives for it viz. That had God Commanded those things they had been a true Worship and acceptable An assertion First that confounds the Nature of things that makes Vice and Vertue alike and no otherwise discriminated but by Gods written Law as if Idolatry and Superstition were not Evil antecedent to all Revelation and which are so where Revelation is not as well as where it is Secondly From hence it follows that those things may be acceptable to God which in their own nature do tend to drive Religion out of the World and that may be true Worship which will unavoidably debase the Deity in the thoughts of Mankind For so do Idolatry and Superstition As for the Instances he there takes notice of I shall reserve them to a more convenient place Conclus 2. If things Indifferent be such as are neither Conclus Commanded nor Forbidden and that things are not unlawful because not Commanded then things thus Indifferent and not commanded are not additions to the Word Case of Indiff things p. 24. of God and the places usually insisted upon must be understood according to the sence I gave of them and which may serve as a sufficient reply to what he hath Case examined p. 26. said upon that Head But yet because he hath offer'd somewhat in another place that looks like an Argument I shall here consider it He argues thus If obedience be wanting the Salt is wanting to the Sacrifices Pag. 4. of our God which as we humbly conceive leaves no more room for perfective than corruptive Additions to Divine Worship c. What can be an act of Obedience to God but what he hath commanded whether he hath forbidden it or no If we bid our Servant go a mile and he goeth two possibly hoping to do us Service in it we hope his going the Second mile is no act of obedience though we did not forbid him In matters of this Nature no act of Supererogation is allowable because it can be no obedience In answer to which it will be necessary to resolve this Question Q. Whether the doing of any thing in the Worship of God without a command be a sinful addition to the Word of God I answer that if the Question is understood of the proper and essential parts of Worship if I may so speak then we grant it and say that he that shall institute any thing in that kind without Divine Institution doth challenge Gods prerogative to himself and because the rule is sufficient all such perfective are corruptive additions as he speaks to both Rule and Worship It is as if a Servant when bidden to go a mile he goeth two possibly hoping to do Service in it for in matters of this nature no Supererogation is allowable Thus far his comparison holds as to matters of the same Nature and design'd to the same end and esteemed to be of the same use As the going of two Miles for one with an intent to do as good Service and be as well if not better approv'd for so doing But if the question be
between these two things as there is between Doubting for Instance whether a thing in general be lawful or not lawful and Doubting what I am to do in a particular Case where I doubt of the Lawfulness of the thing The first of which Doubts the Casuists call a Speculative Doubt the other a Practical It is plain that a man may often very easily come to a Resolution of this latter kind of Doubt that is be very well satisfied what it becomes him to do as to this present Action without being able to resolve his Doubt of the former kind Thus for instance a man may not be able to resolve this Question Whether it be lawful or not lawful to play at Cards or Dice which is the speculative doubt as the Schools call it But he may be very able to resolve this Question What is most reasonable for him to do in the Case of such a Doubt Again a man may not be able to resolve this Doubt Whether the present War in which his Prince is ingaged be a just War or no But yet he may be very well able to satisfie himself as to the practical Doubt that is What is his Duty to do in case his Prince command him to serve in that War concerning which he doth thus doubt Now it is the Doubts of this latter kind these Practical Doubts as they are call'd that Conscience is directly and immediately concerned with and consequently for the resolving of which it chiefly needs a Rule to direct it For if a man can but get satisfied what is most agreeable to his Duty to do as to the present Action he doubts about it is no great matter as to his Conscience whether he can get his General or Speculative Doubts about that Action resolved or no. These kind of Doubts if they cannot be Resolved must be Over-ruled The truth is it is a very idle thing for men to talk that a man must do no Action till all his Doubts about it be resolved Thus far we grant it concerns him that his Doubts should be resolved viz. That he should be satisfied in his own mind that that side of the Action he determines himself to is all things considered the more fit and reasonable to be chosen And to direct a Man in making such a Choice is our principal business under this Head But if it be meant that a Man must so resolve all his Doubts about an Action as to see clearly through all the Speculative Points which occasion his Doubts so as to be able to untie all the Difficulties which before entangled his Understanding and from Intrinsick Arguments drawn from the nature of the thing to pronounce concerning the merits of the Question I say if this be their meaning there is nothing more absurd than to say That a man is not to do an Action till he has resolved or deposed all his Doubts about it For in many Cases this is utterly impossible to be done the person concerned perhaps having no sufficient Means for the obtaining such a Resolution of his Doubts as we spoke of or if he had the Case may be such as will not allow him sufficient time of Consideration for the doing it for he must either act or not act presently and he is in equal Perplexity both as to the one and as to the other What now in such a Case can a Man possibly do more than this viz. by his own Reason and the advice of his Friends to get satisfied what is most reasonable and most agreeable to his Duty for him to do in the present Circumstances and to proceed accordingly for as for other kind of Resolution of his Doubts as things stand with him he hath not the least Prospect of it And indeed when all is said we see de facto that this is the usual way of proceeding among Men even those that are very Honest and Conscientious I dare say if we take all the Doubtful Cases that happen where there is one Case in which a Man proceeds to Action upon such a Resolution of his Doubts as we before spoke of there are ten Cases where the Doubt is over-ruled and the Man proceeds to Action without such a Resolution sitting down satisfied with this that though he cannot answer the Difficulties on both sides yet all things considered it is most reasonable for him in the present Circumstances to act thus rather than otherwise for this he takes to be most agreeable to his General Duty or this is that which Wise and Good Men whom he hath consulted do advise him to And now having sufficiently explained what kind of Resolution of Doubts that is which a Mans Conscience stands in need of in order to his acting safely in a doubtful Case II. I come now to the second Question upon this Head which is What that Rule is by which we are to proceed in thus Resolving our Doubts or determining our selves to one side or other in any Doubtful Case that happens to us In answer to this Enquiry I shall do these two things First I shall give some account of the General Rule by which a Doubting Conscience is to be guided Secondly I shall apply this General Rule to the several Heads of Doubtful Cases wherein a mans Conscience may be concerned That so every one may be furnished with some Principles for the determining himself in any Matter concerning which he happens to have a Doubt 1. As to the first of these Whoever hath Considered what we have before said will easily be perswaded that nothing ought to turn the Ballance in a Doubtful Case but the greater Weight of Reason on one side than the other For since the very Notion of Doubting is the suspence of a mans Judgment in a Question upon account of the equal appearances of Reason on both sides of it It is plain that that which is to settle the Judgment and to determine the Doubt can be nothing else but this viz. That after all things considered there doth appear greater Reason to lye on this side of the Question than there doth on that So that the General Rule of a Doubting Conscience and from which the measures of resolving all particular Cases are to be taken cannot be laid down otherwise than thus viz. That in all Doubtful Cases that side which all things duely considered doth appear more reasonable that is to be chosen I am not ignorant that the Casuists have usually proposed this Rule in other Terms viz. That in all Doubtful Cases the safer side is to be followed But I do purposely avoid the expressing it so because of the uncertain meaning of the safer side For according as that Word is expounded as it may be expounded different waies so is the Rule so worded true or false If we take safety in the strict and proper Sense and as it is indeed usually understood viz. as it is opposed to any Hazard or Danger it is so far from being an Adaequate Rule
Answer to this Argument and the Answer indeed which I mainly stand upon Yet there is another Answer given to it by the Casuists which because it is the Answer that our Learned Bishop Sanderson thought fit to pitch upon I ought not to pass it by without mention nor if I can without some improvement I must confess if we do admit this Answer the Authority and Obligation of a Doubting Conscience will be set higher than I do in this Discourse suppose it But however it may be a good Answer to the Dissenters because it unties the difficulty upon their own Principles The Answer is this 2. In the Second place Allowing that the Man whose Case St. Paul speaks to in this Text was really a Doubting Person and not one that was Perswaded as we have hitherto supposed Yet it doth by no means follow that because this Man was guilty of Sin and Condemned for eating those Meats of the Lawfulness of which he Doubted Therefore a Man that Obeys Authority in an Instance where he Doubts of the Lawfulness of the Command that such a Man Sins and is Condemned for so doing This I say doth not at all follow For there is a vast Disparity in the Cases and to argue from one to the other is to argue from a Particular to an Vniversal or from one Particular to another without respect to the different Circumstances of each Case which is against all the Rules of Logick If St. Paul had said He that Doubteth is Damned if he Act there had been some pretence for making his Sentence an universal Proposition so as to extend to all Doubting Men in all Cases But now only saying He that Doubteth is Damned if he eat it shews that he only spoke to the Particular Case that was before him and that other Cases are no farther concerned in his Proposition than as they do agree in Circumstances with the Case he there speaks to Now the Case the Apostle there treats of and That which we are now concerned about are so far from any way agreeing in the main Circumstances by which a Man is to measure the Goodness or the Badness of an Action that there cannot be two Doubtful Cases put that are more different as â— shall now shew If St. Paul do at all here speak to the Case of a Doubting Man he speaks of one that Acted Doubtingly in a matter where it was in his own Power to Act without a Doubt That is He was in such Circumstances that he knew he might certainly without sin refuse to eat those Meats concerning which he doubted for there was no colour of obligation upon him to eat them But yet in this Case where he was perfectly at Liberty to let alone for the serving some evil unwarrantable ends he would not chuse that side which was safe and where he need fear no sin which was to forbear but would chuse that side that was Doubtful that is would run a needless hazard of transgressing some Law of God It is of such a Man and in such a Case as this that St. Paul speaks when he saith He that Doubteth is condemned if he eat Supposing indeed that his words are at all to be expoundin this Sense But now because it is thus in this Case and in all such like if you please Doth it therefore follow from these words that a Man that is in other Circumstances that is not at Liberty to chuse his own way as not being at his own disposal but under the Direction and Government of Authority That this man sins and is condemned if he obey the Orders of his Superiours when he is Doubtful of the Lawfulness of the thing in which he expresseth his Obedience No by no means For this Case hath a quite different Consideration In the former Case there was only danger on one side and that was in Acting and the Man might forbear if he pleased and that without any danger But in the other Case there is danger on both sides and the man runs at least as great a hazard in forbearing the Action nay we say a much greater as if he should do it So that undeniably unless we will make one Rule to serve for all Cases though never so different which is the absurdest thing in the World For any thing that St. Paul hath here said to the contrary this latter man may not only without sin do the thing he doubts of but is bound to do it Whereas if the other man spoken of in the Text should do the Action he doubts of it might be a sin in him But further That St. Paul meant not to extend his Proposition to all Doubtful Cases but only to such Cases as he here treats of is pretty evident from the Reason that he gives why he that eateth Doubtingly sins in so doing viz. Because he eateth not of Faith He doth not say He that Doubteth is Condemned if he eat because he eateth with a Doubting Conscience If he had said so I grant the Reason of his Proposition would have reached all Doubting men in all Cases but this is that which he saith He that Doubteth is condemned if he eat because he eateth not of Faith So that if there be any Doubtful Cases wherein a Man may Act with Faith notwithstanding his Doubt I hope it will be allowed that those Cases are excepted out of St. Paul's Proposition Now that there are such Cases and that our Case of Obeying Authority is one of them I thus prove Whosoever so Acts as that he is satisfied in his own mind that what he doth is according to his Duty in the present Circumstances Such a Man Acts with Faith in reference to that Action This is evident from the very Notion of Faith as it is here spoken of of which I have before given an Account But now it is very possible that a Man may have a Doubt concerning the Lawfulness of an Action and yet be in such Circumstances as that he shall be satisfied that is very reasonable and agreeable to his Duty nay as the Case may be that he is really bound to do that Action concerning which he thus Doubts rather than not to do it Because the not doing that Action all things considered appears to him more dangerous or attended with worse Consequences This now being granted it undeniably follows That wherever a man lights into these Circumstances he is not a Sinner even according to the strictest Sense of these words though he Act with some kind of Doubt because he Acts in Faith That is he is resolved in his own Conscience that thus it behoveth him to act in the present Case and that it would be unreasonable or sinful to act otherwise So that let our Adversaries make the most of St. Paul's words that they can it is a very Illogical Inference to say That whoever Acts with a Doubt upon his Conscience in any Case is guilty of Sin and much more is it so to
might by all means save some And this I do for the Gospels sake that I might be partaker thereof with you This was the Apostles design in all these Compliances and Civilities to win many to the Faith of Christ by these wise arts to insinuate himself and his Doctrine into them but when he had once made his way he then taught them another lesson and behaved himself after a far different manner Now to do as St. Paul did would always be the duty and wisdom of one in his circumstances who had his office and was to propagate any Religion amongst Heathens and Infidels like a Master that dealeth not so sharply with his Scholar at his first entrance into the School as he thinketh fit to do afterwards But the directions St. Paul gave and according to which himself practis'd at the first planting of Christianity do no more agree with our times wherein Christianity is become the National Religion countenanced by the Civil Laws and Authority and so generally professed by every one amongst us that we hardly know of any other Religion than the same Cloaths we did wear in our Infancy would serve us now when we are of full Age. We ought indeed to be very careful of Children and lead them by strings and remove every straw and rub out of their way lest they stumble and fall but it is ridiculous to use the same care towards grown men None of us Labour under those prejudices the first Christians did who forsook a Religion in which they had been bred and long lived and as to the Jews had left a way of Worship commanded them by God himself confirmed to them by many Miracles and Wonders delivered to them from their Fathers by a constant succession of Prophets sent from God There is not now amongst us any such competition between two Religions but every one learneth Christianity as he doth his Mothers Tongue The Apostles therefore and Governours of the Church carried themselves towards these new Converts as God Almighty did towards the Children of Israel when he brought them first out of Aegypt He for a while led them by a Pillar of Fire and of a Cloud gave them Water out of the Rock and rain'd down Bread and Flesh from Heaven This he did for them whilest in their passage thus extraordinarily provide for them and in some cases even humour that People lest upon every little pretence they should return back to the Garlick and Onyons of Aegypt but after they were setled in the Land of Canaan he then left them in their own hands by ordinary Common means to take care of and provide for themselves he did not shew the same indulgence to them as he did whilst they were in the Wilderness St. Paul would not take that reward that was due to him for Preaching the Gospel but himself Laboured hard night and day because he would not be chargeable to his Converts 1 Thess 2. 9. and this he did for the furtherance of the Gospel that all might see he did not serve his own Belly But surely our Dissenting Brethren do not think themselves obliged by this Example in places where Publick maintenance is setled on Ministers by Law to refuse to take it and earn their own Bread by some manual occupation tho thereby they avoid giving offence to Quakers and those who call them hirelings and say they prophesie only for filthy lucre Thus it is usually observed that St. Paul writes quite after a different manner to the Romans and to the Galatians tho upon the same subject In his Epistle to the Romans amongst whom he had never yet been he pitieth and pleadeth for the weak Christians chargeth that they should not be despised or cast off that no cause of offence should be given them but to the Galatians a People that had been fully instructed in the nature of their Christian Liberty amongst whom himself had planted the Gospel and had been present in person and so knew that they understood better when some of them fell into the same Error thinking Circumcision and the observation of the Mosaical Law necessary to Christians he chides them sharply and rebukes them more severely Who hath bewitched you O foolish Galatians c. He who would condescend to the Ignorant Novices amongst the Romans would not in the least comply with the Galatians that had or ought to have had more knowledge and light and afterwards when the reason of such forbearance ceased when the nation of the Jews had rejected Christ and the Gentile world was come into the Church the observation of the Mosaical Law and the distinction of meats contained therein was so far from being tolerated in those whether Jews or Gentiles who through mistake thought themselves obliged to it that it was condemned by the Rules and Canons of the Church The sum of all this is that whatever Argument may be drawn from St. Paul's discourses about weak Brethren by way of Analogy or Similitude or Parity of reason yet there are no such weak persons now amongst us as those were for whom the Apostle provideth or as those little ones were for whom our Saviour was so much concerned 2ly I would desire our Dissenting Brethren to consider by what pretence they can challenge any priviledge belonging to them under the notion of weak Christians when according to their own opinion and conceit of themselves they are of all men furthest off from being such in any sense This is as if a man worth a Thousand pound per annum should Sue in formâ pauperis They who take upon themselves to be teachers of others wiser and better than their Neighbours the only Sober and Godly party and are too apt to despise all other Christians as Ignorant or Prophane with what colour of reason can they plead for any favour to be shewn or regard to be had to them in complyance with their weakness Tho they love to argue against us from the example of St. Pauls condescension to the uninstructed Jews or Gentiles yet it is apparent that they do not in other cases willingly liken themselves to those weak believers or Babes in Christ They have really better thoughts of themselves and would be Leaders and Masters in Israel and prescribe to their Governours and give Laws to all others and do prefer their own private opinion which they call their Conscience before the Judgment of the wisest men or the determinations of their Lawful Superiours And if in all instances we should deal with them as weak persons turn them back to their Primmer advise them to learn their Catechism they would think themselves highly wrong'd and injured If the several Dissenters amongst us did in good earnest look upon themselves as weak that is Ignorant Wavering half Christians did they think their dislike of the Constitutions of our Church to be the effect of such weakness they would be either more careful to hide it or would more diligently seek out for remedy
Leen offered in Sacrifice by the Gentiles to their Daemons which I shall have occasion to explain at large hereafter to you But it is equally applicable to all things of the like Indifferent nature And there are two Rules laid down by him there which men ought to govern themselves by in the use of such things 1. The First is the Glory of God v. 31. Whatsoever therefore ye do whether ye eat or drink do all to the glory of God i. e. whatever ye do in these things be sure you have respect to the Law and Will of God and take heed that you violate none of the divine Commandments either by what you do or what you refuse to do in things of this nature For this is the true notion and meaning of doing all to the glory of God i. e. Keeping us close to the observance of those Laws and Rules that he hath commanded us For then God is most truly glorified by us when we express a great sense of his Soveraignty and Laws in all that we do But this by the way The 2d Rule is Charity and respect to the benefit and advantage of those we converse with and live among that we neither grieve nor injure them by any thing that we do or neglect to do and this is the meaning of these words so often quoted by our dissenting Brethren Give none offence neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God This is that Rule of our actions in all indifferent things which I have chosen to consider in this discourse and the rather because we have some contest with our dissenting Brethren about it There hath been great talk about Scandal and giving Offence to weak and tender Consciences by Conformty and Compliance with all those things which the Church of England requires in her Liturgie and amongst all the other Arguments and Pretences against it this hath been prest to serve in the Cause either to add some real weight to the rest or at least to add to their number Though to tell you plainly I think it is onely to make a shew and to render the bulk of their Exceptions the bigger that this is summoned to the Muster and not for any real weight that there is in it to serve the Cause However whatever there is in it a great noise is made with it and as a mighty noise hath been made about Scandal and great pains used to wrest the notion of it to serve mens purposes in these things so great art hath been employed to accommodate it to the present purpose and to fright men with the guilt and danger of it from complying with the Institutions of the Church which as is pretended are so very great a Scandal and Offence to weak Consciences Two great and popular Pleas against the Liturgie of the Church of England and the Ceremonies retained by it have been these tenderness and scruples of Conscience in some and fear of Scandal and giving Offence to such in others Some men have pleaded their own Scruples and want of sufficient Conviction and Information and excused their omission of these things from that saying of the Apostle Rom. 14. 23. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin And some have alledged their fear of Scandal and offending others and pleaded that in bar of their compliance from these words of the same Apostle Give none offence c. How much the sence of the first place is mistaken and how false the consequence that is made from it is I am not now obliged to shew My Province at this time is about the second this place that I have now quoted in order to which I intend to do these two things 1. Shew that this place is not at all concerned in our present Question nor will serve that purpose that the Dissenters from our Church alledge it for 2. That if it were it would conclude against them and their practice in the present Case betwixt us 1. I begin with the first which is to shew that this place is not concerned in our present Case nor pertinently urged by our Brethren against their Conformity to the present Rites and Usages of the Church And this I might do from two things mistaken greatly in the application of this Text. 1. The true notion of Scandal and Offence here mentioned 2. The nature of the things to which it is applied which is vastly different from what men scruple or forbear in our Case 1. From the true notion of Scandal and Offence that is mentioned in this place and in many other places in the New Testament I do not intend here a large Discourse of the nature of Scandal in the general or a removing and rectifying those many common mistakes in the world about it but only to observe so much as will be sufficient to my present purpose 1. Then I observe that as there are onely two notions of Scandal in the New Testament so there are only two Cases in which men are properly and primarily capable of being guilty of it I mean in giving it to others 1. The first notion of Scandal is That it is a Snare or a Gin by which men are intrapped and drawn into some plain sin and wickedness In which sence it is used in many places and particularly in that famous Speech of our Saviours Matth. 18. 6. to 10. And men do then give offence or scandalize others when they do that which directly and in its own nature tends to induce others either to do that which God hath forbidden and is a sin or omit that which he hath commanded and is a plain Duty both which men may do several ways which it is not now so very needful to reckon up singly 2. The second notion of Scandalâ—is That it is some just cause of grief or trouble to others in their Christian course and that which hinders them from walking in it with that chearfulness and security that they otherwise would According to which sence it is rendred Offence in this and many other Texts of Scripture i. e. some just cause of offence of trouble or grief given to another by something that he sees us either omit or do In this sence it is used in many places of the New Testament not for that which is a direct occasion of another mans sin but a just cause of his grief and sorrow and discouragement in the way of Duty So it is used particularly Joh. 16. 1. and Rom. 14. 15. it is expressed by grieving And in this sence men give offence to others when either by doing or neglecting something themselves they give just cause of sorrow or grief to others and discourage them in their Christian course and occasion to them some trouble and grief of mind that otherwise might be free from 2. Having observed this therefore I proceed in the second place to observe that neither of these notions of Scandal can be accommodated to our present case nor can
the Ministers pray'd by their own Gifts and Abilities But this hath been so fully answer'd by our learned Doctor Faulkner (b) (b) (b) Libert Eccles 113. that I am apt to think 't will hardly be objected any more for he hath prov'd at large that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie with all his might i. e. with his utmost intention and fervency for so as he shews it must necessarily signifie in another place of his Apology (c) (c) (c) Apol. 2. p. 60. where speaking of the praying of Christians in general at the Eucharist he tells us that they did praise God with Prayers and Thanksgivings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is with all their might which cannot signifie according to their Gifts and Abilities Since whatsoever the Minister might do it 's certain the People did not compose their own Prayers at the Eucharist and therefore it must signifie with their utmost fervour and intention in which sence as he shews the same phrase is used by Nazianzen (d) (d) (d) Nazian Orat. 3. Another Testimony they object against the use of Forms is that of Tertullian who affirms (e) (e) (e) Sine Monitore quia de pectore Oremus Tertul. Apolog. That the Christians did pray without a Monitor or Prompter because they pray'd from their hearts in which words say they he plainly alludes to a Custom of the Heathen who in their publick Worship had a Monitor to direct them in what words and to what God they were to offer up their Prayers When therefore he says that they pray'd without a Monitor his meaning must be say they that they pray'd without any one to direct them what Form of words they were to pray in To which I answer first That supposing he here speaks of the publick Worship as it seems most probable it 's evident that by this phrase without a Monitor he cannot mean without any one to dictate or prescribe a Form of words to them for in their ordinary publick Prayers their Minister was the Mouth of the Congregation and whether he pray'd by Form or Extempore his words were a Form of words to them in which they were obliged to frame and express their Devotions so that either this phrase without a Monitor must import that they had none to dictate and minister to them in their publick Prayers or it cannot import that they had no publick Forms to pray by because if they had any to dictate to them his extempore Prayer would have been as much a Monitor to direct them what words to pray in as if it had been a stated Form of Liturgy Whatever therefore this obscure phrase means it 's certain it cannot mean without a Form unless it be allowed to mean without a Minister too But then 2ly not to take notice of the various guesses which learned men make at the meaning of it and by which it is sufficiently vindicated from meaning without a Form of Prayer it seems to me most probable that without a Monitor here is meant without any one to correct them when either they repeated or the Minister recited the publick Prayers falsly for the Gods of the Heathen being various and having each their various Offices and Provinces allotted them it was the manner of their Priests to begin their publick Sacrifices with a Form of Prayer (f) (f) (f) A. Gellins Noct. Attic. l. 13. c. 21. which began with an Invocation of Janus and Vesta and proceeded with various Invocations of all the greater Deities by name (g) (g) (g) Rosm Antiq Rom. l. 3. c. 33. in which they implored such favours of each Deity as lay within their particular Province to bestow thus for instance when they invocated Bacchus they began thus O Bacchus Son of Semele the bestower of Riches (h) (h) (h) Casaub in Ann. Eccl. Exercit 16. N. 42. when they offer'd the Cake to Janus O Father Janus with this I offer thee my good Prayers that thou wouldest be propitious to me c. (i) (i) (i) Festus in verbor signif So for Jupiter Dapalis With this Cake O Jupiter I offer thee my good Prayers that thou wouldest have mercy on me my House and Family (k) (k) (k) Cato de re Rustic c. 134. and so for Mars I pray thee O Mars to be propitious to me my Field and Corn and Wine and Cattel (l) (l) (l) Ibid. 141. Which several Invocations that there might be none of the names of their greater Gods pretermitted nor none of the Prayers falsly or disorderly recited or repeated were with great care recited by a Priest out of the Ritual and repeated after him by the People (m) (m) (m) Brison de formal l. 1. p. 61. there being another Priest appointed for a publick Monitor for so Pliny tells us (n) (n) (n) Plin. l. 28. cap. 2. Vidimus certis precationibus obsecrasse summos Magistratus ut nequid verborum praetermitatur aut praeposterum dicatur de scripto praeire aliquem rursusque alium custodem dari qui attendat When any of the Chief Magistrates offer certain Prayers lest any of the Sacred Words should be omitted or preposterously pronounc'd they have one to dictate them to them out of a Book and another who is Overseer diligently to attend And accordingly Livy observes (o) (o) (o) Liv. l. 4. Obsecratio itaque a populo duumviris praeeuntibus est facta That Prayer was made by the People two men going before or dictating to them now that this latter of the two whom Pliny calls the Custos or Overseer was the Monitor whom Tertullian alludes to seâ—ms very probable because as Livy observes his business was proeire populo i. e. to dictate to the People after him who according to Pliny's account did de scripto praeire i. e. dictate to them out of the Book and to what other purpose should he dictate to them what had been dictated before but onely to admonish and correct them when they repeated falsly or disorderly especially considering that the reason which Pliny assigns why this Custos was appointed was lest any of the Sacred Words should be omitted or preposterously repeated which was look'd upon as a very ill Omen But how could he prevent this unless it were his Office to admonish and correct either the Priest or People or both when he read or they repeated them falsly This Monitor therefore was not he who read the Prayers or dictated them to the People out of the Book but he whose Office 't was to oversee either that they were rightly dictated or rightly repeated or both and indeed there was more need that he should oversee that they were rightly repeated than that they were rightly dictated because they were dictated out of a Book and so could not be so easily dictated as repeated falsly But suppose his Office were to oversee both yet since they were dictated in order to their being repeated he
practice to them And if Christians in the several places of their abode did walk according to this Rule they would greatly promote the Peace and Welfare of the Church of Christ and in so doing procure quiet and Peace to themselves with unspeakable Comfort and Satisfaction Whosoever would be esteemed and rewarded as a Peacemaker and avoid the ill reputation and Mat. 5. 9. guilt of a Turbulent Person ought among other things carefully to observe this viz. to Submit to and Comply with the Innocent Customs of the Church whereof he is a Member For thus the same Divine Writer after he had Argued against Womens being Uncovered in the publick Assemblies concludes all after this manner 1 Cor. 11. 6 If any Man seem to be Contentious we have no such Customs nor the Churches of God Pray by the way let this be observed from this place That we may Lawfully do some things in the Worship and Service of God for which we have no Command or Example in Scripture or else St. Paul's Argument from Custom is of no force To sum up all upon this second Query Seeing that we can never be certain of the particular Gesture used by Christ at the Institution of the Holy Sacrament Seeing his bare Example supposing he did Sit doth not oblige us in Conscience to Imitate it Seeing they who urge his Example do not follow it themselves even in that particular they urge it for Seeing Conformity to the Gesture prescribed by Law is a plain Conformity to the Example and Practice of Christ considered as to the Equity Reason and Spiritual Meaning and Instruction of it I think no Man can reasonably object against Kneeling and scruple in Conscience a Conformity to it as being repugnant to the Example of our Lord. Query III. Whether Kneeling be not altogether Vnsutable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper as being no Table-Gesture BEfore I proceed to the Case it self it will be requisite to premise something which may explain the true sense of it and Discover upon what Grounds and Reasons our Dissenting Brethren build their scruples against Kneeling as being no Table-Gesture By a Table-Gesture we are to understand thus much That at the Lord's Supper we ought in their Judgment to use the same Gesture as we do at our ordinary Meals and Tables at our Civil Feasts and Entertainments And because divers Gestures are used at Meals according to the different Modes and Customs of several Nations therefore we are obliged to use that at the Sacrament which the Custom of our Country hath prescribed at our Ordinary and Civil Meals Thus saith the Author of Altare Damascenum a Stout and Learned Champion for a Table-Gesture Sitting cross-legged Altar Dam. p. 762. as the Turks do at their Meals would be amongst them if they were Converted a Comely fashion of Receiving the Lord's Supper The Sacrament is a Supper a Feast Disput against Kneeling p. 2. p. 56. arg 4. a Banquet and therefore requires a Supper a Feast a Banquet-Gesture And such a Gesture must be used as Standeth with the Custom of the Country In no Nation was it ever held Comely to Kneel at their Banquets or Abridgment p. 61. reply to Bp. Morton 3 Innoc. Cer. p. 37. set forth in K. James's Reign to Receive their food Kneeling So that according to the sense of their own Writers and great Patrons of Sitting this is the reason why they question the Lawfulness of Kneeling That the Gesture at the Lord's Table ought to be the same with that which we use and observe at our Ordinary Tables according to the Custom and Fashion of our Native Country wherein we live And then the full Import and meaning of the Query is this Whether the nature of the Sacrament considered as a Feast doth not require and oblige us to Sit and not Kneel because Sitting and not Kneeling is the Ordinary Table-Gesture according to the Mode and Fashion of England Here the Reader may observe that this Argument for Sitting drawn from the nature of this Holy Feast quite overthrows the two former Arguments drawn from the express Command and Example of our Saviour and renders them useless and unserviceable to their cause 1. For they don't say we are obliged to use the same Gesture with our Lord but only a Table-Gesture though never so different from that which he used according to the Custom of our Country where we live Various Gestures according to the Variety of Fashions and Usages of several Nations at their Common Feasts may be all Comely and Sutable to the Nature of this Holy Feast According to this Argument therefore we are not obliged to Sit because Christ did at the Sacrament and then his bare Example is no Rule to us in this matter His Example was Governed and Guided by the Nature of the Sacrament and the Custom of the Jews Our Lord Instituted the Sacrament before the Paschal Feast was over and he continued in the same posture which he used at the Passover say they and that was Sitting Suppose this what follows Why therefore we are bound to Sit too after his Example No by no means say I unless it be the Custom of our Country to Sit at our Meals and Sitting be our Common Table-Gesture Which is the strength of this Argument drawn from the Nature of the thing if we may believe what they say themselves 2. Again if the Nature of the Sacrament require a Table-Gesture and we are obliged to use that in particular which standeth with the Custom of our Country and the Gestures may be different according as their Customs differ then God hath no where Commanded the use of any particular Gesture nor obliged all Christians in all places to observe one and the same 3. And then Thirdly we may Lawfully observe some things in the Worship of God for which we have no Command or Example in the Holy Scriptures if this Argument of the Table-Gesture be good And this principle viz. that we ought not to do any thing in the Worship of God but what we have some Command or Example for in Scripture is the great battering Engine which hath been constantly imployed against the Ceremonies enjoyned by our Church and it is a Principle wherein the Mystery of Puritanisme doth Preface to his Serm. last Edit 1681. consist as Bishop Sanderson Notes Therefore it behoves our Brethren not to be fond of this Table-Gesture as they love the Life of their Cause I am sure no greater Argument can be afforded of a routed baffled Cause in the matter of Sitting at the Sacrament than to see the Patrons of it running up and down in Confusion and flying for Refuge sometime to the Command of Christ then to his Example when driven out there then to the Nature of the thing and Civil Customs and about again to the Example For thus the Authors of the fore-mentioned Tracts do Thus much being premised I proceed to Consider the