allowable their Synagogue wâ—â—â—â—â— which was thereby guided and dâ—â—â—cted must necessarily have been altogether impracticable or at least utterly confesed Tr. 2. Ch. 6. div 1. And it is not amiss observed by Bâ—â—hop Whitgist that that command Dâ—ui 12. did as well concern the Judicial part of the Mosaical Law as the Ceremoniâ—l and therefore it may with as much plausibleness be urged to prove that no seâ—â—â—â—ar laws may be made under Christianity as that no Ecclesiastical Constitutions should be therein established unless it can be shewed that under the Gospel the Divine Law hath particular 〈◊〉 joined all circumstances of worship and Rules of Order in all Ecclesiastical Cases where it is presumed he hath not prescribed a Platform of civil polity And yet even in matters judicial also the Jewish Doctors as is manifest from their Bava Kama Sanbedrin Maccoth and other Talmudical Treatises did give divers resclutions of various particular Cases and circumstances not expressed in the Law of Moses and both these decisions and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or their Constitutions to be a bedge of the Law Macc. c. 1. Sect. 1 3. as when the Law did not allow above forty stripes to him who was to be adjudged to be scourged their Doctors required them never to exceed thirty nine not thereby altering Gods Law but taking care lest it should by mistake be violated are well allowed of by Christian Writers However Grot. in Deut. 25.3 2. Cor. 11.24 Coccei in Mac. c. 3. n. 12. Since the Gospel requireth a care of order and decency in the Christian Church to deny this liberty would be a diminishing from its commands but to grant it is no addition to them Wherefore though superstitious placing Religion where we ought not and irreverent neglect or making no Conscience of any Divine Institution are sinful prudential Constitutions remain lawful SECT VII Other Objections from the New Testament cleared 1. From the New Testament it hath been objected 1. That our Saviour defended his Disciples for not obeying the tradition of the â—lders which required them to wash before meat Mat. 15.2 Ans As this tradition did not refer to the order of the publick worship of God in Religious Assemblies so the true reason why our Saviour defended his Disciples in their practising against this tradition was because washing before meat was enjoined by them as a proper rule of Religion and of Purity In Loc. For as to general it hath been observed by Drusius and Dr. Lightfoot that many of the Jews esteemed not the written Law but that given by tradition to be their foundation and chief Rule of Doctrine and declared that he who transgressed the words of the written Law was not guilty but he who transgressed the words of the Scribes was guilty so in this particular discourse our Saviour chargeth them with teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men v. 9. and declareth against their errour and faltâ— Doctrine v. 20. that to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man So that the question between our Saviour and the Scribâ—s and Parisees was this Whether it was to be admitted as a Doctrine that eating with unwashen hands defileth the man and our Saviours justifying his Disciples in this Case doth declare that wheresoever salse Doctrines are obtruded as parts of the Law of God it can be no mans duty to receive them and practise upon them which is that our Church also professeth 2. But our Saviour was so far from opposing prudential Rules and Observations for the orderly performance of Religious services that himself frequently practised such things according to the Custom and Constitutions of the Jews Thus as the Jewish Doctors sat in their Synagogues when they taught the people our blessed Lord ordinarily used the same gesture in teaching He also ordinarily joined in their Synagogue worship which was ordered by the Rules of Ecclesiastical Prudence and observed the gesture and other Rites of the Jewish Passover which the Authority of their Elders had established for order and decency And whereas in the Jewish Synagogues and Schools their Doctors used to sit about in a Semicircle and their Scholars before them upon lower Seats to whom the asking of Questions was allowed our Saviour also n the Temple which in the holy Scriptures oft encludeth the whole Court and building of the Temple among which were Religious Schools and Synagogues sate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the middle of the Doctors hearing them and asking them Questions Luk. 2.46 3. Some have also against the use of external Rites in the worship of God urged those words of our Saviour Joh. 4.23 The hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth collecting thence that the Gospel worship is so wholly spiritual that it doth not admit outward Rites and signs Ans 1. This must needs be a false construction of these words which would tend to disclaim the two New Testament Sacraments the open and visible profession of Faith the publick meeting in Church Assemblies the praising of God and praying with the voice the reading and hearing Gods word reverent gesiures in Religious service and such like necessary parts of Religious duty in all which there is use of bodily actions and external signs 2. Our blessed Lord by these words of worshipping the Father in spirit and truth expresseth that worship which the Gospel directeth this is often called the truth and the worshipping of God in the Spirit Gal. 3.3 Phil. 3.3 and is opposite to the false worship of the Samaritans and different from the serving of God in Jewish Figures yet it both admitteth and requireth external expressions of reverence And in this place our Saviour declareth that under the Gospel the worship of God should be so properly suitable to God who is a Spirit that it should not be confined to any one particular place and therefore neither the Jewish Temple nor Mount Gerizim about which places of worship Christ then discoursed with the Samaritan Woman should be the peculiar place for divine adoration Because God who is a Spirit would under the Gospel be so spiritually known and honoured that he would not in any singular and peculiar place six any special outward Symbol of his divine presence as in the Jewish dispensation he had done in the Temple over the mercy Seat nor would he endure to be worshipped under the representation of a corporeal image as the Samaritans in Mount Gerizim did worship God in the form or image of a Dove as hath been observed by Mr. Mede Mede Disc en Jo. 3.23 and is declared concerning them in the Talmud in Cholin and by the Jewish Chronicler in Tzemach David whose testimonies and words are produced by Bochartus Bochart Hieroz Part. pester l. 1. c. 1. Vossius de Idololatr l. 1. c. 23. Indeed the Learned Eochartus as did also Vossius accounteth this charge upon the Samaritans to be a Fable
contended for amongst us I shall observe that this hath been many ways also grosly abused First it was the ordinary gesture of worship in the Romish Pagan Idolatry The ancient laws of their Pagan worship required ut adoraturi sedeant which as Plutarch affirmeth Plut. in Numa was appointed by Numa Pompilius and Tertullian informeth us that at their Gentile solemnities even in his time they worshipped their images sitting Tertul. de Orat. c. 12. adoratis sigillaribus suis residendo 11. And in the Romish Church it is by some asserted and appeareth very probable that the Pope himself at some solemnities receiveth the Eucharist sitting When the Emperour receiveth his Coronation their Master of Ceremonies telleth us that at the time of Mass the Pope with the Emperour following him in the place of a Sub-Deacon goeth to the Altar whence Pontifex ad sedem eminentem communicaturus revertitur Sacr. Cerem l. 1. Sect. 5. Cap. 3. the Pope who at that time doth himself celebrate goeth to his seat of eminency therein to receive the Communion And a Book called the Quench-Coal written many years since as an Answer to Dr. Heylins Coal from the Altar produceth this testimony from William Thomas in his History of Italy who declared himself an eye witness thereof in the year 1547. that the Altar in the Cathedral Church of Rome Quench Coal p. 12. even in the time of Mass when the Pope received the Sacrament was standing in the midst of the Quire and the Pope sitting in a Chair of State about it And Didoclavius telleth us which is the only instance he produceth out of any History for sitting at the Sacrament and he may be mistaken in that that the Benedictine Monks receive the Sacrament sitting upon the Thursday before Easter Altar Damasc c. 10. and yet I suppose if his observation be true he will not imagine that they receive it with less adoration of the Host than other Papists do 12. And sitting at the Sacrament hath yet been much more abused by the Arians in Poland as their Synods called the Socinians who as denying the Divinity of Christ In Synodis Cracoviens Petricoviens Wlodislav Toruniens in Corp. Confessionum and not giving due reverence to him were the first Authors known to those Churches of this sitting gesture upon which account the Churches both of the Bobaemian Augustan and Helvetick Confessions residing in Poland and Lithuania disclaimed the use of that gesture though they esteemed it lawful in it self as being upon this occasion scandalous Wherefore to assert that every gesture grosly abused by others ought to be utterly relinquished is not only contrary to truth and to the practice of the Church of England but is herein opposite to the use of all the reformed Churches and it would make void Christs institution of the Sacrament by admitting no gesture to be lawful to communicate therein 13. Yet that we may discern the various working of mens minds in their arguments against this kneeling gesture and how copiously every thing affordeth matter to them who will take up with any thing we may observe Div. Right of Ch. Gov. Ch. 2. q. 1. p. 195. that as kneeling is sometimes disliked as having been Idolatrously abused so sitting is sometimes pleaded for as being the gesture practised and allowed by Christ because it was the gesture say they in the Idols Temple Thus Mr. Rutherford in these strange expressions undertaketh to prove that Christ did sit at the Lords Supper because sitting at the Idols Table 1 Cor. 8.10 declareth that in Religious Feasts sitting was ordinary and a sign indicant of honouring the spiritual Lord of the Banquet and a religious Communion with the Lord of the Feast was hence signified 14. Another thing urged against kneeling at the Sacrament Obj. 5. Rutherf Divine Right of Ch. Govern Ch. 1. Qu. 5. Sect. 1 3. which of the others is most strange and uncharitable is this that kneeling at the Sacrament is Idolatry and is parallel with worshipping god by an Image and even with the Pagan Idolatry it self upon this ground Altar Damasc c. 10 p. 801. because to kneel before any Creature as a memorative object of God though there be no intention of giving divine adoration to that Creature is Idolatry in the opinion of some men 15. Ans 1. This rash position tendeth to make the Jews worshipping God before the Ark or mercy Seat and before the Temple at Jerusalem or the Tabernacle in the Wilderness to have been equally Idolatrous with the serving Jeroboams Calves or worshipping Baal which was so far from that great sin that it was then a necessary duty of Religion And the cause of this gross mistake is the want of considering the vast difference of worshipping a false God or making use of a memorative object to represent the likeness of the divine being which is contrary to his nature and forbidden by his Precepts and of using such a memorative object in worship as is to be a memorial of the Covenant and grace of God and Christ and his Communion with us being to that end appointed and instituted as a remembrance of him If these things be not accounted vastly different it must be concluded not very considerable whether we do things appointed of God or forbidden of him and things agreeable to the nature of God or apposite thereto And besides this to worship God alone making use of such memorative objects as an help thereto which do properly call to our minds Gods mighty works and glorious Attributes is far from being either Idolatrous or blameable If a pious man taking a view of the mighty works of Gods Creation or any part thereof should upon this sight be put in mind of the power and wisdom of their Creator and thence should glorify admire and worship not the Creature but God alone such actions are not evil but devout and religious 16. 2. This assertion is of so dangerous consequence as to disown this holy Sacrament from being an Ordinance of Christian worship and to hinder the principal duties therein to be performed For it is directly contrary to the duties of this Sacrament to condemn the worshipping of Christ as sinful at the view of this memorial of Christs Death in this Sacrament when Christians here ought to magnifie his grace mercy and love to glorifie him for the wonderful Salvation and Atonement effected by his Death to implore his grace and spirit with all the blessings and benefits of the New Testament to acknowledge him and submit to him as our only Soveraign Lord with other such like which are proper actions of our worshipping and inwardly adoring him And it is unreasonable as well as uncharitable where these inward acts of Religion are necessary and a duty to condemn the outward expression thereof as either Idolatrous or any was sinful being directed to him who is Lord both of our Souls and Bodies 17. And though some mens
also from sin and their whole man from destruction And in this sense if this Petition should be supposed to enclude which in the proper sense of the words it doth not even Traitors and Robbers can we be blamed to pray even for them that God would preserve them from further sin and so keep them that they may have time and grace for repentance and that thereby they may be preserved from eternal destruction according to Mat. 5.44 12. That Petition that God would have mercy upon all men is condemned by some but is certainly commanded by S. Paul requiring us to make Prayers for all men for nothing can be prayed for which doth not enclude Gods mercy But such light objections which are easily made against the best words that the wisdom and piety of man can devise I think not worthy the further naming but shall now proceed to some other matters of greater moment SECT V. Considerations concerning the publick reading Apocryphal Chapters 1. The reading the Apocryphal Chapters in our Church hath been severely censured as if it was a forsaking the holy Scriptures which are the waters of life to drink of other unwholsom streams but that this matter may be rightly understood without prejudice or mistake it will be requistie to take notice of these following considerations 2. Cons 1. The excellent authority of the Canonical Books of Holy Scripture as they are distinguished from the Apocryphal is fully and clearly acknowledged by this Church in her Articles Art 6. where it declareth concerning the Apocryphal Books that the Church as S. Hierome saith doth read them for example of life and instruction of manners but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine which Article plainly disclaimeth them from being accounted Canonical Books of the Holy Scripture That the Jews do not owne these Books as any part of the Old Testament is manifest from their Bibles which contain them not and the particular evidences from the Jewish Rabbins against every one of those seven Books of the Apocrypha which are forged to be Canonical by the Council of Trent are some of them exhibited by Hollinger Thes Phil. l. 2. c. 2. Sect. 1. And that neither the ancient Church of the Jews before the destruction of Jerusalem nor Christ and his Apostles nor the several Ages of the Christian Church till some late Romish Councils did acknowledge or make use of these Books as Canonical is solidly and learnedly evidenced by the Bishop of Durham Schol. Hist of Can. of Scripture throughout with reference to the sixth Article of this Church Wherefore though it would be injurious to the holy Scriptures that any other Books which are not of divine inspiration should be accounted of equal authority with them yet it is far from being a dishonour either to them or to they holy Spirit who indited them if either these Apocryphal or any other good Books be esteemed useful and profitable and acknowledged to contain things that are true and good 3. Cons 2. It was can usual practice in the ancient Christian Church that some of these Apocryphal Books and other good writings besides the holy Scriptures were publickly read as instructive Lessons in their Assemblies but with such variation as the prudence of every Church thought meet In the second Century both the Fpistle of Clemens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the then ancient Custom In Eus Hist l. 4. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and some other Ecclesiastical Epistles were publickly read even on the Lords days for their instruction as Dionysius of Corinth testifieth And in Euscbius his time as well as before it Ibid. l. 3. c. 15. was the Epistle of Clemens publickly read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the greatest number of Churches Aug. de Civ Dei l. 22. c. 8. Hom. de Sanct. de S. Steph. Ser. 7. In the African Church in S. Augustins time the Histories of the passions of Martyrs v. Hom. 26. inter 50. and accounts of miraculous works by the efficacy of Christian Prayer were read in their Churches which Custom though it was very pious in the beginning was at last intolerably abused to the bringing in legend stories And more particularly the publick reading several Apocryphal Books as Wisdom Ecclesiasticus Tobit Judith and the Maccabees was ordered in one of the Carthaginian Councils in S. Augustins time 3. Carth. c. 47. Cont. Carth. c. 27. and that Canon was taken into their Code and besides what S. Hierom oft speaketh of these Books being read in the Church but distinguished from their Canon Ruffinus his contemporary who was first his friend and then his adversary having given first an acount of the Canonical Books proceedeth to these Books which he saith are not Canonical but Ecclesiastical Ruff. in Symb. as Ecclesiasticus Wisdom Tobit Judith c. and declareth the judgment of the ancient Fathers before his time concerning them quae omnia legi quidem in Ecclesiis voluerunt sed non proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam that they would have them all to be read in the Churches but not to be produced as of authority to confirm any matters of Faith And that in after Ages these Books were read in the Church Isid de Eccl off l. 1. c. 11 12. Rab. de Inst Cler. l. 2. c. 53. is evident from Isidonss Hispalensis and in the very same words from Rabanus Maurus and might be shewed from very many others if that was needful 4. Cons 3. These Books called the Apocrypha have been greatly esteemed both in the ancient Church and by the chief Protestant Writers as very useful though not divine writings Divers of the ancients have cited them under the title of the holy Scripture using that Phrase in so great a latitude as to signifie only holy writings though not divinely inspired The Council of Carthage above-named doth there call them Canenical Books as doth also S. Augustin who was in that Council De Doct. Christ lib. 2. c. 8. using the word Canonical in a large sense for it is manifest from that and divers places of S. Aug. that they were not esteemed of equal authority with those Books properly called Canonical And therefore Cajetan for the interpretation of the right sense of there words Caj Com. in Esth in fin hath well declared concerning these Books Non sunt Canonici i. e. regulares ad firmandum ea quae sunt fidei possunt tamen dici Canonici hoc est regulares ad aedificationem fidelium or they are not Canonical as containing a rule to direct our faith an belief though they may sometimes be called Canonical as containing rules to better our lives In the Greek Church where they were not at least so much publickly read as in the Latin they were accounted useful for instruction as appeareth besides the Citations of the Greek Fathers from that very Epistle of Athanasius Fragm Epist 39. in