be considered V. Ambr. de Abr. Patr. l. 1. c. 6. Drus in gen 18.3 V. Gen. 18.2 16. 22. that it is the usual practice even of the Holy Scriptures to call Angels by the name of such as they represent or resemble The two Angels that came to Sodom in the appearance of men are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men Gen. 19.12 The Angel that appeared to Manoah's Wife being asked if he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man who appeared to the Woman declared that he was Jud. 13.11 the Angel in the Sepulchre who gave tidings of the resurrection of Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a young man Mar. 16.5 and the two Angels who appeared at the Ascension of our Lord are called by S. Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men in white apparel Act. 1.10 Now it is not agreeable to religious piety to condemn such ways of expression as evil and sinful which are allowed in the holy word of God nor is it unseemly for an holy Angel to owne that manner of expression which the holy Spirit himself useth And besides this Estius in loc diffic Scrip. in Tob. that which is hinted by Estius may well be admitted that the name of Azarias the Son of Ananias might be taken by the Angel upon himself to express by the signification of these names what was the business he came to effect Azarias signifying the help of God and Ananias the grace and favour of God that by the Angel the help of God was vouchsafed which is the effect of the Favour of God Obj. 5. The last Objection from Tobit and the most considerable is Tob. 12.15 Where the Angel is reported to say I am Raphael one of the seven holy Angels which present the Prayers of the Saints and go in and out before the glory of the holy one For the clearing of this place touching the Phrase of the seven holy Angels which yet is neither in Munsters Hebrew Copy of Tobit nor in the Syriack it may be taken for an definite number as the like Phrase is used Mat. 12.45 Mede Disc on Zech. 4.10 And Mr. Mede's Notion is known who asserteth it as an evident truth in his judgment and for which he giveth considerable proof that there are only seven principal Angels or Arch-Angels to which these words refer But whether these words be understood definitely for seven only or indefinitely for an uncertain number we have the like expression in the Canonical Scripture Zec. 4. 10. Rev. 5.6 7. What is here said concerning Angels presenting the Prayers of the Saints this being a point of truth or matter of belief may not be received accordin gto the judgment both of the ancient Church and our present Church upon the authority of an Apocryphal Book further than it is grounded upon the evidence of the Canonical Scripture and in such a ense only as is agreeable to the Doctrine of those holy Scriptures Indeed if these words be acknowledged to be the words of an holy Angel as they are related in this Book according to some versions then must they be as certainly true as if they had been spoken by a Prophet or Apostle But admitting that an holy Angel did converse with Tobit yet might his words be either misapprehended or in this passage misrepresented And that they are so may be hence with some probility conjectured because in this place Tob. 12.15 there is no mention of Angels presenting the Prayers of the Saints either in the Hebrew Copy of Munster or Fagius or in the Syriack Version or in the Latin which S. Hierome translated out of the Chaldee but it is only expressed in the Greek which our Translation followeth and this very place was above 1400. Years ago thrice cited by Cyprian Cypâ—â— de Orat. Domin de Mortalitate Adv. Jud. l. 1. n. 20. without this clause on this manner Ego sum Raphael unus ex septem Angelis Sanctis qui adsistimus conversamur ante claritatem Dei Indeed in the twelfth Verse both according to the Greek the Hebrew and the Latin the Angel spake of his bringing the remembrance of their Prayers before the holy one but even there the Syriack mentioneth no such thing 8. But because these words are in our version and taken in a restrained sense have been ordinarily admitted as a truth by divers ancient Christian Writers I shall give a double account in what sense these words may be taken agreeably to the Canonical Scriptures and the anciently received Doctrine in the Christian Church who owned not the Angels as Mediators nor did allow that Prayers should be put up to Angels 1. They judged that the holy Angels who are frequently present with us do join in our Religious worship and Prayers to God and as all who join in Prayers do present those Prayers to God so particularly do the holy Angels who enjoy a nearer Communion with God then we have yet attained Cont. Cels l. 5. p. 273 238. Lib. 8. p. 401. So Origen who expresly declareth against praying to Angels or to any who do themselves supplicate addeth afterward that the Christians particular Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presenteth the Prayers joining in them P. 420. and in another place of the same Book V. D. Hammond Annot in 1. Cor. 11.10 saith that many myriads of Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do join in Prayer with them who pray to God And as holiness disposeth an Angel to be ever ready to join in glorifying God so love maketh them ready to desire our good Luk. 15.10 since there is joy in the presence of the Angels of God over one sinner that repenteth And S. John in his Vision of the Churches worship declareth the holy Angels about the Throne to join in their Amen thereto Rev. 7.10 11 12. 9. 12. That the holy Angels being Gods Messengers as their name imports are both Ministers of conveying much good to us from God which divine Providence could bbestow without their Ministry and of representing our state and desires to God as his Servants and our friends which are fully and immediately manifest to God who is Omniscient And this may be performed partly as they are testifiers and witnesses of our actions Ad fr. in Erem Serâ—â— 68. with desire of our good and such S. Aug. judgeth them certainly to be and S. Paul giveth Timothy a charge before the elect Angels 1. Tim. 5.21 and speaketh of their presence in the Church 1. Cor. 11.10 and if Satan be the accuser of the brethren before God Rev. 12.10 the holy Angels may well be thought truly to represent what is good and partly as they are ministring Spirits attending on God and desiring our good they declare our Prayers not as Mediators but as Ministers non quia Deum doceant as S. Aug. expresseth sed quia voluntatem ejus super his consulunt desiring to know what commands God will give them to
in this place the Chaldee Paraphrast and the Syriack Interpreter who both of them translated from the Hebrew and well understood it render it Phinees stood up and prayed Buxt Conc. Hebr. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Buxtorf in his Hebrew Concordances citeth this verse twice under the different significations of the same root once as expressing Phinees praying and afterwards as expressing him executing judgment 5. If we compare this place with the History to which it relateth Num. 25. we there find the Congregation of Israel and Phinchas the Son of Eleazar the Priest in a deep humiliation weeping before the Tabernacle of the Congregation V. 6. Which solemn weeping was to doubt accompanied with the Prayers of the Priest as was directed and commanded in a like case Joel 2.17 Let the Priests the Ministers of the Lord weep between the proch and the Altar and let them say spare thy people c. and in its own nature Religious weeping doth enclude Confession and Prayer Then we find Phinehas v. 7 8. slaying Zimri and Cozbi in their Adultry which was his executing judgment according to the particular commandment given v. 5. and this was an act of his zeal which accompanying his Humiliation Prayer and Confession did render them more acceptable also and besides this very probably Phinehas either offered incense as Aaron did to make atonement in the like Case of the Plague Num. 16.46 47. or Sacrifice because v. 13. he is said to have made an atonement which is a Priestly action for the Children of Israel Sect. 1. n. 7. and that all such Offerings and Sacrifices did enclude Prayer hath been above in some part observed And by Phinehas his zeal which might well be expressed in all these things and chiesly in his slaying Zimri and Cozbi and by his executing judgment and making atonement the wrath of God was turned away from Israel Num. 25.8 11 13. Now the Septuagint in this place of the Psalms use the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they used Num. 25.13 for Phinehas making the atonement as if the Psalmist had special reference thereunto And indeed all Phinehas his acting whereby he interposed between God and the Israeltes to stop his wrath may well be intended and encluded in this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Psalm and therefore as it is well translated he excuted judgment so it is not blameably rendred he prayed neither of these being the whole and both of them being parts of what Phinehas did in interposing And I suppose all Christians will acknowledge that devout Prayer with reference to the atonement accompanied with true repentance and real resormation is a very esfectual means to appease the Prayer of the Priest in a solemn Assembly was directed under a promise of obtaining the favour and pity of God Joel 2.17 18. 6. Another place is Ps 58.8 which this Version in the Liturgy rendreth Or ever your Pots be made hot with Thorns so let indignation vex him even as a thing that is raw and this by the Non-Conformists in King James his time was censured for a translation senseless and absurd They who have better considered the Original in this place acknowledge it a difficulty to clear the manner of its expression our last and best English Translation expresseth it thus He shall take them away as in a Whirlwind both living and in his wrath which yet doth not clear all the difficulty in the expression of the Original It is manifest from the context that this verse encludeth a resemblance of the speediness of Gods judgments coming down upon the wicked which according to this Version in the Liturgy shall be as the snatching of flesh which is yet raw out of the Pot set on a sire of Thorns which is torn in pieces and devoured greedily in a time of famine even before it hath felt the heat of the sire and this explication and manner of resolving the words and phrases of the Hebrew is owned by Vatablus and divers and good expositors and this general sense of them relating to the swift destruction of the ungodly is the undoubtedly true meaning and intent of this place but as to the manner of the explication and unfolding of the Original phrases among the very great variety of conjectures it is hard to say which is to be preserred before all the rest But this translation is so far from being as it hath been charged senseless and absurd that it is certainly agreeing to the true sense intent and design of the Psalmist 7. But no place is more insisted on than Psal 105.28 where the Psalmist speaking of Gods wonderful works against Egypt saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to our last English Version and divers others they rebelled not against his word that is either Moses and Aaron or the Israelites or as Junius and Tremellius understand it his signs rebelled not against his word But the Version in our Liturgy agreeably to the greatest number of Latin Copies in S. Augustins time Aug. in Ps 104. and to the Septuagint the Arabick and Aethiopick and to the last Greek Version in the Octopta and also to the Syriack expresseth it they were not obedient unto his word understanding this Verse to aim at the Egyptians of whom the Psalmist was speaking continuing disobedient under the mighty signs and works of God which sense containeth an eviaent truth and very suitable to the History and clearly reconcileable to the Hebrew if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be admitted to include an interrogation as the same word doth Ex. 8.26 and as divers other like phrases are conceived to do as our Learned Fuller hath observed Miscel l. 3. c. 10. And these words and did they not rebel against his word are of the same import with these they were not obedient to his word 8. And they who are versed in the variety of Translations do well know that several particular expressions of Scripture upon different accounts are by some rendred in the negative and by others in the affirmative and yet both of them are consistent with the Principles of Religion and neither of those Translations can thence be condemned as hurtful or useless For instance we with almost all other Versions read 2. Kin. 8.10 thou maist certainly recover but Junius in his latter Editions altering the sense of his former Non omnino revalesces Where we Gen. 2.5 6. with most other Versions express there was not a man to till the ground But there went up a mist from the Earth Junius and Tremellius agreeing with the Arabick Version which in the Pentateuch is translated from the Hebrew render it there was not a man to till the ground nor a mist that went up out of the earth Yet here is no difference about any matter of Doctrine or rule of life abut only about the time of the first mist into which no man hath so clear a sight as to see further than the light
Rubrick requiring every Parishioner to communicate be understood so as to be exclusive of such notorious siners until their amendment but to urge warn them to amend 7. Cons 4. There is just cause why Christians should be required at least thrice in the year to receive the Communion For whereas God required all males among the Jews to appear before him three times in the year which appearing encluded their professing owning and engaging to serve the God of Israel and their accepting and submitting to the Law of Moses and the Covenant God made with Israel with their expectation of the benefits thereof it would be very unreasonable that Christians who are freed from that severe yoke of bondage which the Jews were under and enjoy higher priviledges than the Jews did should come short of them in our great duties of Religion and therefore we should at least so oft express our owning honouring and accepting the Gospel-Covenant and the service of Christ our Lord in the most solemn manner approaching to this Sacrament of our Lords institution 8. Amongst the ancient Christians this Sacrament was received ordinarily thrice in the Week that is upon the Lords day and the two Stationary days some did partake thereof daily whose practice S. Aug. would neither commend nor censure but he exhorteth them who are duly prepared to receive every Lords day with whom agreeth Gennadius Walaf Strab. de Reb. Eccl. c. 20. as he is cited by Walafridus Strabo who further observeth that they are related to be excommunicate in the Greek Church who passed two or three Lords days without receiving the Communion They who required the least among the ancients did strictly enjoin the communicating thrice in the year De Consecr d. 2. Seculares and omnis hosito as besides others the Councils of Elvira and Agatha are related to have done Our later English Constitutions before the Reformation advised it thrice in the year but insisted upon once at the least Linw. prov l. 5. Tit. 16.8.16 and some Reformed Churches have directed it four times yearly and without all doubt the great neglect of so many amongst us to partake of that Ordinance is a manifest evidence of the want and decay of the ancient spirit of Christian piety and devotion SECT II. Of some other things in the Communion Office 1. Some exceptions here tendred are such that it cannot be conceived that the Objectors thought them at all considerable such is the disliking that clause in the Prayer before the Consecration That our sinful bodies might be made clean by his body and our souls washed by his most precious bloud This passage is charged with ascribing a greater efficacy unto the bloud of Christ than to his body whereas in truth these words as they are here expressed do no way exclude the efficacy of his bloud from washing our bodies nor the sufferings of his body from cleansing our Souls and those words used at the delivery of the Elements The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life and the like concerning his bloud are a manifest expression that the benefits both of the body and bloud of Christ do redound to the salvation both of our souls and bodies 2. Commiss pap p. 92. But with more earnestness and heat the Ministers delivering the Elements to every Communicants hands and using the form of words for the distribution particularly to every one of them is censured as a thing contrary to the practice of Christ and the judging this to be expedient is insinuated to be a studying to be wiser than our Master and not to be obedient to him This Objection was urged also by the Authors of the Admonition V. Bp. Whitgift Tr. 13. c. 1. d. 17. and by Mr. Cartwright formerly and the ground they build upon is this that the holy Evangelists relate our Saviour in his institution of the Lords Supper to have said to his Disciples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take ye eat ye whence they conclude that he neither gave the elements singly to every one nor used any particular expressions to every Communicant at the delivery of the Elements Wherefore that this may be rightly understood I shall consider what may be collected concerning the manner of our Saviours distribution and the expressions he used in this ordinance 3. Touching the distribution of these Elements as I can find no evidence in the holy Scriptures to shew that it was not particular which yet would have been evidently expressed if it had been designed by our Saviour to be made a necessary duty in all future Administrations of this Sacrament so there are some expressions in the Scripture which seem to intimate the contrary When S. Matthew Mat. 26.26 27. Mar. 14.22 23. Luc. 22.19 20. S. Mark and S. Luke reciting the institution of this Sacrament relate both of the Bread and the Cup that he gave it to the Disciples or he gave it to them these words do more fairly and probably express his giving the Elements to every one of them than that he either only blessed them and set them before them all or that he delivered them to one of his Disciples to be given from one to another And if we consider the manner how the chief person of the family did bless things at the Jewish Passover it will give some light hereto it being manifest that our Lord did much comply with the ordinary Jewish Rites According to their Customs they only blessed some things and every one present took thereof which was their usage about the bitter Herbs which required no action of the Master of the Feast to give or distribute them but other things he both blessed and particularly distributed to every one present and such was their usual practice at the eating of the Cake in the Passover Feast Syn. Jud. c. 13. The former of these is expressed by Buxtorf on this wise that after his benediction comedit alios quoque comedere jubet and of the latter he saith comedit aliis quoque porrigit and Camero citing the words of the Jewish ritual referring to this latter Camer in Mat. 26.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth well render them tum singulis dat seu distribuit then he giveth or distributeth to every one of them To the former Custom our Saviour manifestly complyed when he blessed the Cup before the Lords Supper and commanded them to take it and divid it among themselves Luk. 22.17 but his practice was agreeable to the latter Custom when he gave the Bread and the Cup in the Lords Supper to his Disciples 4. If we further consider the practice of the ancient Christian Church in the purer times of Christianity it is most likely that their practices were conformable to the practice of Christ in the manner of distribution and it is no way probable that they in those early and purer times did administer
the ancient Fathers have ordinarily used or it is approved by those Writings which only are of Divine Authority and by those which are in the Church of greatest humane Authority 6. The expression of his being a dear Brother doth only enclude a respect suitable to a Brotherly relation and expresseth that the Members of the Church of Christ had real desires of the welfare of such persons as are received into its Communion 7. That clause in committing the body to the ground in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life doth so evidently express the Faith and Hope of the general resurrection wherein all Christians are concerned when as it followeth he shall change our vile bodies and make them like to his glorious body that it cannot reasonably be understood with a particular restriction to the party deceased but it declareth that while this object of mortality is before our eyes the Faith of the Resurrection to Life remaineth fixed upon our hearts 8. When we give thanks to God that he hath delivered this our Brother out of the miseries of this sinful World it must be considered that the enâ—ling all troubles and miseries is an act of Gods mercy and ought to be so acknowledged though some men by their own neglect of the Christian life deprive themselves of the benefits thereof as the goodness of God in his patience ought to be owned though some aggravate their own misery by the mis-emprovement thereof And some regard may be had in this expression to the Christian hope of the future estate which is the more quickned by every instance of our present frailty And both this and the former expressions may be used with a particular confidence of the eternal bliss of any holy person deceased and with the exercise of the judgment of Charity in its proper object 9. There is only one expression in the latter Prayer which encludeth particularly our favourable thoughts of the person departed when we pray that we may rest in him as our hope is this our Brother doth In the use of which Phrase we may well express different degrees of hope according to the different evidences of Piety in several distinct persons But even where men were vitious in their lives there may be in ordinary cases some degree of hope that they knowing and professing the truth might at last become truly penitent though we have no evidence thereof For some degree of hope doth not enclude so much as the judgment of Charity and it may be exercised where ever we cannot certainly determine the contrary Yet if there should be any such extraordinary case where not so much as any degree of hope can be admitted it is far more desireable that this expression should be omitted in that singular case alone which would be very rarely found than that all ordinary expressions of the hopefulness of them who depart this life in Communion with so excellent a Church as this is should be expunged and disclaimed For as this would be an undertaking extreamly groundless and deeply uncharitable so the very sound thereof may be enough to affright Pagans from Christianity and Papists from the Reformation if our selves did not allow ordinarily any hopes of the happy estate of the Members of our Church 10. Yet that this may not be misunderstood and mis-emproved when it is applyed to such persons who have been wanting in the practice of due strictness of Christian life and too much swerved from the holy Rules and Doctrines delivered in the Gospel and received by our Church we ought to consider that this expression of hope is no encouragement to any others to be guilty of the like neglects For the bare expression of hope is below any degree of evidence and only expresseth that our judgments and understandings cannot conclude it absolutely certain that he was finally impenitent though his state may appear extreamly hazardous And whosoever liveth wickedly and dyeth without sufficient repentance of which god can certainly judge where man cannot it will be no advantage to him in the other World that his name was mentioned in the Church with some degree of hope or as the Author of the Constitutions expresseth it Const Apol. lib. 8. c. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the state of such a person is not the less miserable because frail men are not endued with that infallible judgment whereby they can conclude it utterly desperate 11. The Charity of the ancient Christian Church in expressing their hope of them who dyed in their Communion is very manifest and it is a great mistake which some have entertained that through the strictness of their Discipline no persons had their names honourably mentioned by the Church with hopes of their future happiness but such who had lived altogether free from any apparent sinfulness of life or had given severe testimonies of a strict amendment Indeed some rigorous Canons neither of general practice nor of long continuance in the Church would not allow some offenders whatsoever repentance they manifested to be reconciled to the Church or admitted to its Communion throughout their whole life no nor at the hour of death and yet these Canons have been conceived only to make them perpetual Poenitentes so that after their death their oblations were received or they all who were admitted as such Penitents were then owned among them who had relation to the Church Albasp Obs l. 2. c. 4. and of whom it had hope but amongst the ordinary rules of Primitive Discipline these were generally admitted 1. That whosoever came under any censure of the Church Cyp. Ep. 54. Can. Apost 52. whatsoever his crime was he might upon his supplication be admitted to be one of the Poenitentes or to be under the rules of penance 4. Con. Carth. c. 74. and the not admitting him hereto was accounted an heinous crime because non fas est Ecclesiam pulsantibus â—laudi 2. That if any of these Poenitentes were under dangerous sickness or approaching death Cyp. Ibidem Conc. Nicen c. 13. Ancyr can 6. Araus can 3. 4. Carth. c. 77. it was requisite they should be then admitted to the peace of the Church and its Communion 3. That even they who being under censure did only in the time of dangerous sickness desire to be admitted Penitents might thereupon forthwith be both admitted Penitents and receive reconciliation and Communion Conc. Araus c. 2. Leo. Ep. 91.4 Carth. c. 76. This is a consequent from the two former and is encluded in the Canon of Ancyra now mentioned and is manifest by divers other particular testimonies and it was grounded upon this reason because as Leo expresseth it we cannot limit the times nor determine the measures of Gods mercy 4. That all who were so received into the Church Dion de Eccles Hier. c. 7. with others who died in its Communion Cyp. Ep. 10. and even Penitents who dyed without the opportunity of obtaining
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
to have Kings her nursing Fathers and a duty to all Rulers upon earth to acknowledge their subjection to Jesus Christ And yet even in the Apostles times there were corporal punishments miraculously inflicted to awaken men to mind the practice and careful exercise of Christianity not only in the particular instances of Saul going to Damascus of Ananias and Sapphira and of Elymas but the delivering a person to Satan hath been ordinarily observed to enclude with the sentence of the Church a giving him over to some outward bodily calamities to be inflicted on him by the evil spirit of which a particular instance is given concerning the Servant of Stilico Paulin in Vit. Ambr. prope fin by Paulinus in the life of S. Ambrose 13. But that this Question may be resolved we must note 1. That it concerneth only secular authority when it is rightly informed in these matters of Religion about which such Laws are established For according to the Rules of Conscience as no authority upon earth may lawfully countenance or join in the profession of an errour so neither may it by commands constitutions or penalties design to advance it But it is as unreasonable that the use of secular authority to advance what is good and commendable should hence be condemned as that the holy action of Abraham Gen. 18.19 commanding his Children to keep the way of the Lord should be disliked because it is certainly unlawful for any Parents to command and enjoin their Children to entertain sin and embrace errour For it is every mans duty to close with that which is good and to favour and prefer it but it is his sin to oppose it or to make use of his interest in the behalf of that which is evil 2. Bishop Whitgifts Defence of his Ex. to Magist ion fin Nor is this Question about the lawfulness of designing the ruine and destruction of any persons only because they err in matters of Religion which is a thing by no means allowable and not only the use of Fire and Faggot for pretended Heresie but the inflicting capital punishments for the sole crimes even of real Heresie or notorious errours in Religion have been sufficiently disclaimed by the great defenders of our Political and Ecclesiastical Constitutions 14. 3. To establish such Laws backed with penalties about good and useful matters Ecclesiastical which may be a proper and fit motive respect being had by the prudence of Superiours to the nature of the things enjoined and to the temper of the persons to be dealt with to excite men to consider and mind their duty is not only allowable but it is the natural result of Rulers discountenancing evil designing their subjects good being careful of the Churches welfare and of serving God in the use of their authority and is contained under that Apostolical Rule Rom 13.4 If thou do that which is evil be affrâ—â—d of the power But if any shall to word that outward punishments are no way useful to direct mens minds to a sense of their duty he must contradict the common experience of a considerable part of Mankind and must disclaim any advantage for amendment of life from paternal correction the constitution of Magistracy and divers providential chastisements of God against the frequent expressions of holy Scripture And he must also undertake to assert that the condition of Israel was not better when all the people engaged themselves to the service of God moved by the zeal for true Religion in their Kings attended with their denouncing temporal punishments on them who neglected or refused than when every one 〈◊〉 and professedly walked in the 〈◊〉 of his own heart 15. And whereas several expressions 〈◊〉 Writers speak against the use of external force in matters of Religion divers of them are intended against the Pagan or Heretical powers oppressing the truth others against over-rigorous severities and extremities towards some persons under errour some were the expressions of those who were themselves abetters of Schism as Socretes was and there are some few expressions of others who were men of greater affection than consideration whose words may be over-ballanced both by reason and other Authorities SECT III. Of Ecclesiastical Constitutions about things scrupled 1. That such things which some persons scruple oppose and dispute against may be practised without sin by them who discern and are well satisfied of their lawfulness is a thing that needeth not much proof For if this be denyed Christianity must be accounted a state of bondage where every mans mistaken apprehensions would lay an obligation on the Consciences of others Wherefore in that Case when some Christians judged it unlawful to eat all sorts of meat S Paul allowed him who discerned his liberty to make use thereof Rom. 14.2 6. Yet because both in that Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans and in 1 Cor. 10. he giveth command to Christians to beware of grieving and offending their brethren the general case of Scandal in things Indifferent will in this place come under some consideration concerning which it may be sufficient to observe three things 2. First That the offending others prohibited in those places by the Apostle consisted not in displeasing others only but in performing such actions which tended to occasion some to fall from Christianity or others not to embrace it This sense of these Precepts Right of the Church c. 4. is observed as a thing manifest by Mr. Thorndike Thus S. Paul declareth the using liberty about things offered to Idolls so as to be a stumbling block to the weak 1 Cor. 8 9. to consist in emboldning them towards the Idol v. 10. whereby the weak Brother perisheth v. 11. And though the Apostle sometimes mentioneth this sin of offending others under the name of grieving them Rom. 14.15 he thereby intendeth an occasioning them to disgust the Christian Religion and therefore in the same verse commandeth Destroy not him with thy meat c. And when he recommendeth in this Case the pleasing of others it is in designing their profit that they may be saved 1 Cor. 10.33 Yet it must be further acknowledged that according to the expressions of other Scriptures it is a sinful scandal or giving offence when any one by the use of his liberty doth knowingly induce others to the commiting any sin being under no obligation to determine this use of his liberty for according to S. Hierome that is scandal where a man dicto vel facto occasionem rui nae cuiquam dederit 3. But the meer displeasing or grieving others about matters indifferent is not always a sin for our Saviour himself greatly grieved his Apostles when he told them that one of them should betray him but as yet concealed the man Mat. 26.21 22. Yet Christianity will not allow a morose and pievish temper but directeth men to be loving amicable and kind and to be ready to please others where duty or prudence do not otherwise engage us but out of
complyance to the mind of others to neglect due reverence to God or Rules of order in the Church of God is not allowable And there lieth a much higher obligation upon us to please others where we are engaged thereto by the bond of justice subjection and obedience than where we are only enclined thereto by the influence of love and common kindness whence the Child or Servant who will provoke his Father or Master by acts of disobedience contrary to his duty meerly to please other persons acteth irregularly and sinfully and upon the same account he who will displease and disobey his Rulers and Governours whether Civil or Ecclesiastical to gratifie other persons of inferiour capacity acteth contrary to Christian duty 4. Secondly The Plea of scandal must then necessarily be ill used when what is undertaken under pretence of avoiding offence doth it self become the greater offence In the Case mentioned in the Epistles to the Romans and the Corinthians there was no giving offence to the Jews Gentiles or the Church of God by their present forbearance of any sort of meat under the circumstances in which they then were and therefore this forbearance out of charity to others became a duty But when S. Peter and Barnabas at Antioch did for a time forbear to eat with the Gentiles which seemingly encluded an urjust censure of the way of Christianity as it was embraced among the Gentiles and was like to be a great offence to the Gentiles this action though undertaken out of an appearance of charitable respect to the Jews that they might not be offended was sinful and contrary to the Gospel And upon the like account the disobeying Ecclesiastical Constitutions but of respect to some other persons while it encludeth an appearance of ungrounded censuring of our Rulers who appointed them and the Church who practiseth them and a want of care of its order Peace and Unity besides other ill consequents above expressed is not allowable nor can it be justified by the rules of Religion but by the bad example of neglect of duty it giveth the greatest occasion of offence 5. And if any persons shall in such a case take offence so far as to distast the Religious worship of God V. Tertullian de Virgin Vel. c. 3. because others observe established Orders this is an offence taken but not given For in matters indifferent and left altogether to our liberty he who without any care of his Brothers good acteth what he knoweth will occasion him to fall is guilty of a scandal against the rule of charity but he who acteth nothing but what is his duty lawfully commanded by his superiour or undertaken with respect to the greater good and order of the Church is guilty of no scandal nor breach of charity though others may take occasion to fall thereby 22 ae qu. 43. Art 2. It is well resolved by Aquinas that every scandal or offence encludeth sin that which is a scandal given or an active scandal is the sin of him who giveth the occasion but the scandal taken or the passive scandal is the sin of him only who taketh the occasion to fall Thus there were divers things which our Saviour spake and did at which the Pharisees were offended the sin of which must be charged upon themselves in being alienated thereby from the Doctrine of Christ 6. Thirdly The duty of forbearing the use of some things lawful and expedient because others account them sinful hath likewise peculiar respect to that case when the erring persons have not had sufficient opportunity of being fully instructed and stedfastly established in the truth Thus in the time of the Apostles when the Doctrine of the Gospel was first divulged the Jews could not be presently satisfied concerning the liberty and freedom of Christians from the rites of the law of Moses and many of the Gentiles were not so firmly established in all the Doctrines of Christianity that they might not be led aside by mistaking the practices of other Christians and in such cases the use of things lawful and indifferent must be restrained from the consideration of others weakness But where there hath been sufficient means and opportunity for better instruction if some still retain their erroneous opinions they who understand the truth are not obliged in this case to forbear their practising according to their true principles in matters of indifferency and Christian liberty because this practice is in this case a profession of truth against errour and the forbearance thereof may frequently be interpreted a complyance with errour Vrsin Loc. Theol in 3m. Prac. And it is truly observed by Vrsin that it is scandalum datum in rebus adiaphoris errores in animis infirmorum confirmare to add confirmation to erroneous opinions in the minds of the weak about indifferent things is a giving offence or being guilty of an active scandal Upon this account though our Saviour knew that his heating and commanding the man who was healed to take up his bed on the sabbath day his eating with Publicans and Sinners and his Disciples eating with unwashen hands were things in the highest manner offensive to some of the Jews he practised and allowed these things in opposition to the Scribes and Pharisees who in their censures of him proceeded upon erroneous and corrupt Doctrines vented by them for divine dictates 7. But it may deserve a more full enquiry whether Ecclesiastical Constitutions and legal Injunctions may be allowed concerning things which either are or may become matter of dispute and opposition Commis Papers passim because this is a thing which is in the substance of it much insisted upon In order to the resolution hereof I shall assert 1. The peace and Vnity of a Church which must both respect the Union of its members among themselves and with the Vniversal Church is of so great value that to that end it would be very desirable that any particular constitution about matters meerly indifferent should be altered where peace with a well ordered state of the Church can only by that means be firmly secured because the principal end of them is to promote Unity order and edification 8. Assert 2. Where minds are prone to raise disputes and entertain prejudices and jealousies about matters of Gods worship the most innocent things cannot be long secured from being opposed and scrupled For in this case when men of greater parts do without just cause propound doubts and arguments against a thing which may easily be done about any subject men of lesser understanding if they have also unsetled and unestablished minds are apt either out of weakness of judgment to take their fallacies to be solid reasons or from the earnestness of their affections to esteem such persons to be the ablest and faithfullest guides And he who observeth the World will discern that there is scarce any truth of Religion even in matters most Fundamental which hath not been disputed and opposed by men
longer Lessons sitting while this particular reverence is expressed only at the reading some shorter portion of the Scripture De Eccl. Offic. l. 3. c. 11. is very allowable because it is well observed by Amalarius that the Apostles themselves did sometimes hear the Scriptures read in the Jewish Synagogue sitting as is evident from Act. 13.14 15 16. Where they entred into the Synagogue and sat down and after the reading the Law and the Prophets Paul stood up 5. Obs 3. Standing at a short portion of the Gospel rather than at any other portion of the Scripture is reasonably chosen to express reverence to the holy word of God because the actions and words of our blessed Saviour are for the most part therein contained In the Primitive Church while the servour of true devotion did continue they heard the Writings of the Apostles read with that high esteem and veneration as if they had then seen the Apostles faces and received those words from their mouths which Tertullian thus expresseth Tertul. de Praescrip c. 36. Authenticae literae eorum sc Apostolorum recitantur sonantes vocem representantes faciem uniuscujusque eorum And in like manner they heard the words of the Gospel as if they had seen Christ himself and received these words from his mouth And though all divine truth be therefore highly valuable because it is from God yet so far as concerneth the deliverer it was requisite and warranted by the Scriptures Mat. 21.37 Heb. 2.1 2 3. Ch. 3.3 that those who lived when Christ was in the flesh should shew the higher respect of the two to Christ himself speaking whose words are ordinarily in the Gospel than to his Apostles who were sent by him Ign. Ep. ad Philadelph Wherefore Ignatius accounteth the Gospel to have this excellency in it viz. the presence of our Saviour Jesus Christ and his suffering and resurrection And out of special respect to our Lord and Saviour it was the Custom of the ancient Greek Church to stand up when ever the Book of the four Evangelists was opened Chrysost de Circo Const Apost l. 2. c. 57. or any Lesson read from thence though the gesture of sitting was allowed at the hearing any other Books of Scripture so that the liberty of sitting even at any Lessons from the Gospel was not there indulged the practice of divers Churches being in these things not alway the same where the same liberty was allowed concerning the other Scriptures 6. Wherefore to shew that outward respect to the holy Scriptures which both the Jewish and Christian Churches have owned and wherein our blessed Lord hath given us an example to stand up at the reading them is reasonable and unblameable And the liberty allowed for sitting at the other Scriptures which for order sake is sit to be used doth not countenance any want of high respect to all Divine truth which is expressed by manifesting this respect to a particular short part thereof and that part is to this purpose chosen wherein the words and actions of our Lord and Master do frequently occur SECT III. Of the fitness of kneeling at the Communion and the gesture at the institution of that Sacrament considered 1. To kneel at the receiving the holy Communion hath been judged a gesture very expedient and commendable upon divers respects 1. Because this Sacrament doth in a special manner exhibit a mystical and spiritual Communion with Christ or the Communion of his body and bloud and the greatest reverence and most humble gesture is very convenient for so solemn an Ordinance and so near an approach to Jesus Christ especially since in this great Ordinance there ought to be a devout religious worship performed unto Christ himself Kneeling therefore is a fit gesture of adoration performed in this Ordinance unto God and Jesus Christ which is the more inoffensively performed because our Church hath openly declared against any adoration either of the Sacramental Bread and Wine Rubr. after Communion or of any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and bloud therein 2. Because of the greatness of the benefits conveyed in this Ordinance to the worthy receiver such as the Grace of God and remission of sins in the bloud of Christ and if he who receiveth some great gift or some great pardon from his Prince doth fitly receive it kneeling and the Poenitentes in the ancient Church always received Ecclesiastical absolution from the Rulers of the Church upon their knees in token of their submissive humility much more he who cometh unto Christ in this Sacrament to receive from him the remission of his sins tendred in his bloud of the New Testament should appear before him with humility Ibidem To this purpose Kneeling at the Sacrament is in our Liturgy declared to be for a signification of an humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers and Mr. Hooker saith very well coming as receivers of inestimable Grace at the hand of God Eccles Pol. l. 5. c. 68. what doth better beseem our bodies at that hour than to be sensible witnesses of minds unfeignedly humbled 2. 3. Kneeling is a suitable gesture for solemn Prayer and humble thanksgiving both which may be sitly exercised at the receiving this Sacrament For religious Prayer becometh him who there affectionately desireth to be made partaker of the benefits of Christs Passion and therefore the Communicant should devoutly join in and in heart say Amen to those Petitions at the delivery of the Elements which peculiarly refer to himself The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy Body and Soul to everlasting life and The bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ c. And humble thanksgiving at the holy Eucharist for the benefits of the New Testament there tendred the love of Christ in his sufferings here remembred and for the means of Communion with the Father and the Son in this Ordinance encluded with reflexion on our own guilt Ans to Admenit Tr. 15. c. 1. div 11. pollution and infirmity is a fit exercise for this Ordinance And upon this consideration Bishop Whitgift declared the kneeling gesture to be very meet for the receiving this Sacrament 3. But against the lawfulness of this gesture divers things are objected 1. That Kneeling is no Table gesture as sitting is nor doth it so properly express our fellowship with Christ Rutherf Divine Right of Ch. Gov. p. 196. and the honour and priviledge of Communion with him as Coheirs Ans 1. As the Lords Supper is no common Feast but a Heavenly Banquet prepared by Jesus Christ which principally consisteth of spiritual graces and benefits and Communion with Christ signified by and tendred under the outward Elements so the administration and participation of this great Ordinance ought not to be guided by the Rules of common Table fellowship but by more religious considerations At other Tables the attendants