are for a Form This do they urge that are for Sitting at the Lord's Supper and this they say that are for Kneeling so that these and the like Adjuncts do further Devotion and are for Edification is an argument used by both Now if Adjuncts are not part of VVorship and may be yet used to further Devotion then the furthering Devotion by any Rite doth not in it self make that Rite so used to be VVorship I acknowledg there is False VVorship as well as True True VVorship is of Divine Institution and False VVorship is of Humane Appointment and becomes Worship when either Divine Institution is pretended for it or it s used for the same special ends that Gods VVorship is instituted for that is as necessary to acceptance or as a means of Grace And so I confess Adjuncts may be made parts of False VVorship as many Ceremonies are in the Church of Rome but this is not the case with any things used in the Administration of VVorship in our Church we plead nothing of Divine Authority to enforce them use them not as necessary nor as means of Grace after the manner we do the VVord of God and the Sacraments 2. It s another mistake that its charged as a fault upon Rites in VVorship that They are used to further Devotion VVithout this end surely they are not to be used or at least not to be encouraged for Divine VVorship being the acknowledgment of God and a giving Honour to Him should have all things about it Grave and Solemn that may best sute it and promote the ends for which it s used But if Rites are used in it that have no respect to such ends they become Vain and Trifling neither worthy of that nor our Defence And therefore we justly blame the Church of Rome for the Multitude of Ceremonies used in their VVorship and for such that either have no signification or whose signification is so obscure as is not easie to be observed or traced and that rather hinder than further Devotion Surely it would not so well answer the end if the Hand in Swearing was laid upon another Book as when on the Gospel nor if the Love-feasts at the Lords Supper had been only as a Common Meal without respect to Charity signified by it 3. It s another mistake that External Rites taken up by Men and used for the furthering Devotion are made to be of the same Nature with Images This there is no foundation for for the Religious use of Images is expresly contrary to the Command of God and Forbidden because it tends to debase God in the thoughts of those that VVorship him by such mediums But there is nothing in the use of such External Ries as are before spoken of that fall under the censure of either of these but that we may lawfully use them and the use of which is not therefore at all Forbidden in the Second Commandment If there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the VVorship of God the Gospel would be less perfect than Object IV the Law and Christ would not be so Faithful as Moses in the care of his Church Heb. 3. 2. which is not to be supposed The sufficiency of Scripture and Faithfulness of Christ Answer are not to be judged of by what we fancy they should have determined but by what they have It s a plausiable Plea made by the Church of Rome for an Infallible Judge in matters of Faith that by an Appeal to him all controversies would be decided and the Peace of the Church secured But notwithstanding all the advantages which they so hugely amplify there is not one Word in Scripture which in a matter of that importance is absolutely necessary that doth shew that it is necessary or were it so who the Person or Persons are that should have this Power or Commission And in this case we must be content to leave things as the Wisdom of God hath thought fit to leave them and to go on in the old way of sober and amicable debate and fair reasoning to bring debates to a conclusion Thus it is in the matter before us the pretence is very Popular and Plausible that Who can better determine things Relating to the Worship of God than God whose Worship it is And where may we expect to find them better determined than in his Word which is sufficient to all the ends it was writ for But when we come to enquire into the case we find no such thing done no such care taken no such particular directions as they had under the Law and therefore its certain that neither the sufficiency of Scripture nor Faithfulness of Christ stand upon that foundation And if we do not find the like particular prescriptions in Baptism as Circumcision nor in the Lord's Supper as in the Passover nor in Prayers as in Sacrifices its plain that the sufficiency of Scripture and Faithfulness of Christ do respect somewhat else and that they are not the less for the want of them Christ was Faithful as Moses To him that appointed him in performing what belonged to him as a Mediator in which respect Moses was a Type of him and discovering to Mankind in Scripture the method and means by which they might be Sav'd and the sufficiency of Scripture is in being a sufficient means to that end and putting Men into such State as will render them capable of attaining to it And as for modes and circumstances of things they are left to the prudence of those who by the Grace and the Word of God hath been converted to the Truth and have received it in the Love of it I have been the larger in the consideration of this principle viz. that Nothing but what is prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship that I might relieve the consciences of those that are insnared by it and that cannot be so without subjecting themselves to great inconveniences For if nothing but what is of that Nature may be used or joyned with and that the second Commandment doth with as much Authority Forbid the use of any thing not Commanded as the Worshipping of Images If Nadab's and Abihu's Strange Fire and Vzzah's touching of the Ark be examples Recorded for caution to us and that every thing Uncommanded is of the like Nature attended with the like Aggravations and alike do expose to God's Displeasure If the use of any thing not prescribed be such an addition to the VVord of God as leaves us under the Penalty of that Text If any Man shall add unto these things Rev. 22. 18. God shall add unto him the Plagues that are Written in this Book we cannot be too cautious in the Examination of what is or what is not prescribed But withall if this be our case it would be more intollerable than that of the Jews For amongst them every thing for the most part was plainly laid down and though the particular Rites and Circumstances prescribed in their
do any thing in God's Worship but what is so determined it follows that God cannot be worshipped at all unless we could worship him in no Time Place Habit or Gesture nor indeed can I learn how a Christian can with a good Conscience perform any part of God's Worship if this Principle be admitted for true that whatsoever is not commanded is forbid since the external Circumstances of religious Actions without which they cannot be performed are not prescribed or determined in Scripture and so he must commit a Sin every time he prays or receives the Holy Sacrament Besides this Reason would oblige us to separate from all the Churches that ever were or are in the World there being no constituted Church in which there are not some Orders and Injunctions for the regulating the publick Worship of God no where commanded in Scripture We could never upon this Principle have held Communion with the Primitive Churches which undoubtedly had their instituted significant Ceremonies nor is there any Church at this day that hath not by its own Authority determined some of the Circumstances of Divine Service for the more decent and orderly Performance thereof Nay those very Persons that make this Exception do themselves practise many things in the Worship of God without the least shadow of a Divine Command to which they oblige their Hearers and Communicants for conceived Prayers sitting at the Eucharist sprinkling the Infant at Baptism the Minister's officiating in a black Cloak or Coat are full out as unscriptural humane uncommanded as any Gesture Habit or Form used in our Church 2. That is said to be unlawful which hath been abused to sinful Purposes to Idolatry or Superstition so that nothing ought to be retained in our Worship tho it be not forbid by God which was used in times of Popery Hence the ordinary Objection against our Parish Churches is that they are not sufficiently purged from Popery that our first Reformers were indeed excellent and worthy Persons for the Times they lived in that what they did was very commendable and a good Beginning but they were forced to comply with the necessities of the Age which would not bear a compleat Reformation They left a great deal of Popish Trash in the Church hoping by degrees to reconcile the Papists to it or at least that they might not make the Breach too wide and too much prejudice or estrange them from it But we now live under better means have greater Light and Knowledge and so a further and more perfect Amendment is now necessary Thus the Order of Bishops is decried as Popish and Antichristian our Liturgy as taken out of the Mass Book and our Ceremonies as Relicks of Idolatry But the truth of the case is this We must consider that those of the Church of Rome do hold and maintain all the Essentials of Christianity but then by degrees as they found Opportunity they have added a number of impious and pernicious Doctrines to the Christian Faith the Belief and Profession of which they equally require of all that are in their Communion Besides this they have introduced several idolatrous and superstitious Rites and Practises into the Service of their Church never heard of for the first four hundred Years by which they have miserably defaced and corrupted the Worship of God and made it necessary for all those that love their own Salvation to separate from them Now our first Reformers here in England did not go about to invent a new Species of Government to devise new Rites and Ceremonies and a new form of Worship such as should be least excepted against and then obtrude it upon this Nation as was done at Geneva and some other places but they wisely considered that if they did but reject what the Romanists had added to the Faith and Worship of Christians lay aside their novel Inventions Usurpations and unwritten Traditions there would remain the pure simple Primitive Christianity such as it was before the Roman Church was thus degenerated nor have we any thing of Popery left amongst us but what the Papists had left amongst them of Primitive Religion and Worship As we must not receive the evil for the sake of the good so neither must we reject the good for the sake of the evil In our Church we pray neither to Saints nor Angels nor the Virgin Mary our Liturgy is in a known Tongue we deny the Laity no part of the Sacrament nor the reading of the Scriptures we offer no Mass Sacrifice nor Worship Images or the consecrated Bread We have not one Doctrine or Ceremony in use amongst us that is purely Popish But we must be obliged to part with the most sacred venerable and usefullest things in our Religion if this be a sufficient reason of our forbearing any thing because the Papists abuse it This therefore I conclude to be the best and plainest rule for the governing of our Consciences not wilfully to omit any thing that God hath commanded to avoid to the utmost of our Power what God hath forbid and what ever else we have no particular Divine Law about to guide our selves by the general Rules of Scripture the commands of our Superiours and by the measures of Prudence Peace and Charity This one rule and it cannot but seem a very reasonable one would soon put an end to our squabbles and janglings about Forms and Ceremonies and other indifferent things 5. In order to the bringing men to a complyance with the Laws of our Church we must desire them to consider that there never was nor ever will be any publick Constitution that will be every way unexceptionable The best policy whether Civil or Ecclesiastical that can be established will have some flaws and defects which must be borne and tolerated Some Inconveniences will in process of time arise that never could be foreseen or provided against and to make alteration upon every emergent difficulty may be often of worse consequence than the evil we pretend to cure by it Let the Rules and Modes of Government Discipline publick Worship be most exact and blameless yet there will be faults in Governours and Ministers as long as they are but men We must not expect in this World a Church without Spot or Wrinkle that consists only of Saints in which nothing can be found amiss especially by those who lye at the catch and wait for an advantage against it If men will scruple and reform as long as any thing remaineth which they can object against they must e'en come at last as a Reverend Person of our Church hath observed to the state of that miserable Man who left all humane Society that he might not be defiled with other Mens Sins and at last cut out the Contents of Chapters and Titles of Books out of the Bible because they were humane Inventions added to the pure Word of God Men must be willing if ever they would promote Peace and Unity to put candid Constructions and
of it But for their sakes who may not have that Book by them I shall add out of it another answer which I think may satisfie a Reasonable Man Supposing then that the Evangelists did not relate the Matter Summarily but as distinctly as the Words were spoken by our Saviour Yet 2. Our Saviour also Commanded his Disciples Mat. 28. 19. to teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost But will any Christian think it hence deducible That where divers Persons or great numbers are to be Baptized together the Solemn Words of Baptizing them in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost may not lawfully be expressed severally to every Person And if the Baptismal Form of Words may be Solemnly and Suitably to that Sacrament applied to every Person Baptized by the General acknowledgment of all Christians there can be no Reason why the like may not be allowed in the Lord's Supper Wherefore the Practice of our Church herein is no way unsuitable to the Institution of Christ or the Nature of the Sacrament and the Alteration of it would be for the worse and to the abating the Solemnity of its Administration Lib. Eccl. p. 224. There remains but two more particular Exceptions which I think needful to take notice of and those are in the Office of Baptism And the first I mean is 1. That all Baptized Infants are supposed to be Regenerated of which as some say we cannot be certain But I desire those that say so to consider if the Scripture does not attribute to Baptism as much as the Liturgie does We are said by Baptism to be made Members of Christ's Body By one Spirit we are all Baptized into one Body 1 Cor. 12. 13. And to be Baptized into Christ and to put on Christ Gal. 3. 27. and he that is in Christ is a new creature And to be Baptized for the Remission of sins Acts 2. 38. Baptism is also called the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. Now if it be made a Question Whether Infants are Regenerated in Baptism the Question at last must come to this Whether they are Qualified to become Members of Christs Body to be admitted into God's Covenant to receive Pardon of Original Sin and to become New Creatures gaining that State by Grace which they could not have by Nature And I do not see that any but Anabaptists can deny this For they that contend as we do that Infants are capable of Baptism must not deny them to be qualified for this Grace of Baptism unless they will make the Ordinance and Promises of God to be of none effect towards them Now if Infants do by Baptism gain Remission of Sin and are made Members of Christ they are Regenerated and Born anew If they do not gain this by it what does their Baptism signifie Or what benefit can they be supposed to have by it if they die in their Infancy more than if they had not been Baptiz'd at all This is the only means of Salvation they can have And those expressions of the Scripture above recited with many more will justifie our Church which supposes that this means will be effectual so long as they are capable of none other and therefore ought to be considered by those that make it to be of none effect I shall only add That this had been thought a strange Question in the Ancient Church Whether Infants were Regenerated by Baptism when the Pelagians whose cause led them to deny it yet durst not do it directly because they knew it would not be endured and therefore they confessed that Infants were to be Baptiz'd to qualifie them for the Kingdom of Heaven but not for the Remission of Sin So that they themselves seemed to acknowledge the saving effect of Baptism to Infants though as St. Austin often shewed them they contradicted themselves by so doing But they durst do no otherwise because the Doctrine of the Church was so plainly against them in this matter and every Believer was so settled in it that I remember St. Austin somewhere speaks to this purpose that the Pelagians would have come to the point and denied that the Baptism of Infants signified any thing at all to their Salvation and therefore might be as well let alone but that they were afraid the Mothers themselves of those Children would every where reproach them for it The other Objection against the Office of Baptism is this That the Godfathers and Godmothers that answer for Infants are not their Parents or Guardians but others who have they say no Authority to Covenant or Act in their Names In answer to whih I shall omit several things that might be said and content my self with these two things which I think may be sufficient 1. That in all cases where the Sureties are procured by the Parents there they have Authority to Covenant in behalf of the Infant and this the Objectors must grant I think upon their own Principles since they contend that Parents or Pro-parents are fittest to act in behalf of the Baptized Infants as having Authority so to do since they have the Power to dispose of their Education afterward For then the Sureties which are by them prevailed with to stand for their Children have at least all that Authority which the Parents can give them And this is sufficiently known to be the case with us And this is that which the Church might well suppose viz. that the Sureties which contract with the Church in the Infants Name would be procured by the Parents so that the Parents Contracting in behalf of the Infant is included in the Undertaking of the Sureties who although they are required by the Church to answer for the Infant yet are they supposed to be Authoriz'd by its Parents also so to do 2. The good Design of this Order and Appointment in the Church ought to be considered which is not the less for the fault of Men and the looseness of these times does often defeat it For hereby the Church taketh greater security that the Infant shall be brought up in the Knowledge and Practice of that Holy Covenant into which it is Baptiz'd In as much as besides the care of the Parents which is in effect promised and may be more reasonably rely'd upon without their own Solemn Act upon the account of that Natural Affection which makes them particularly concerned besides this I say there is a Particular Obligation laid upon others also to see that the Infant be so Educated as much as in them lies In case the Parents should die before the Child is grown to years of Discretion the Sureties are then more Particularly Obliged to look to their Godchild that he be put into a way of learning and doing his Duty If they should not die before but be remiss the Sureties have Authority to come to them and Admonish them of their Duty and to let them know
and the same Acts 2. 41. day were added to the Church about 3000 souls It 's true St. Peter exhorted them all to repent in order to it but whether they did so or no he stay'd not for proof from their bringing forth fruits worthy of repentance but presently upon their profest willing reception of the Word they were baptiz'd and added to the Church One might have been apt to suspect that amongst so great a number all would not prove sincere Converts and so it fell out Ananias and Saphira Acts 4. 34. Acts 5. 1 2 3. were two of the number in whom ye know that glad reception of the Gospel was found to be but gross hypocrisie By the same rule St. Philip proceeded in planting the Church at Samaria when the People seeing the miracles he did gave heed to the doctrine he Acts 8. 12. taught concerning the Kingdom of Heaven and the Name of Jesus and declar'd their belief of it without any farther examination they were Baptized both Men and Women And amongst them was Simon Magus wose former notorious Crimes of Sorcery Witchcraft and Blasphemy might have given just grounds of fear to the holy Deacon that his Faith was but hypocritical and his Heart not right in the sight of God as appear'd afterwards yet upon his believing Acts 8. 20. he was Baptiz'd such other Members of Christ's Church were Demas Hymeneus and Alexander they ver 13. had nothing it seems but a bare outward profession of the Faith to entitle them to that Priviledg since afterwards as we read the one embrac'd this present World and the other two made shipwrack of Faith and a good Conscience 3. This appears from the representation Christ hath 2 Tim. 4. 10. 1 Tim. 1. 19. made of his Church in the Gospel fore-instructing his Disciples by many Parables that it should consist of a mixture of good and bad It is a Field wherein Wheat and Tares grow up together A Net wherein are Fishes of all sorts A Flour in which is laid up solid Corn and Mat. 13. 24 25. vers 47. light Chaff A Vine on which are fruitful and barren Branches A great House wherein are Vessels of Gold Mat. 3. 12. and Silver and Vessels of lesser value Wood and Earth John 15. 1. A Marriage feast where are wise and foolish Virgins 2 Tim. 2. 20. some with wedding garments and some without some Mat. 25. had Oyl and some but empty Lamps St. Hierome compares it to Noah's Ark wherein were preserv'd Beasts clean and unclean when the Apostle said They are St. Hier. dial con Lucifer Arca Noae Ecclesiae typus not all Israel that are of Israel his meaning was that in the Jewish Church many more were Circumcis'd in the Flesh than what were Circumcis'd in Heart and when our Saviour said many are call'd Rom. 9. 6. but few chosen he declar'd the same thing that in his Church many more were call'd and admitted into it by Baptism than what were sanctified by his Spirit or should be admitted into his Heaven 4. The many corrupt and vicious Members in the Churches which the Apostle themselves had planted is another proof of this The number whereof in all likelihood could not have been so great had they been so cautious and scrupulous as to admit none into them but whom in their judgments they thought to be really holy In the Church of Corinth there were 1 Cor. 15. 34. ver 12. 2 Cor. 12. 20 21. 1 Cor. 7. many that had not the knowledg of God that denied the Resurrection of the Dead that came Drunk to the Lords Table that were Fornicators Unclean and Contentious Persons In the Church of Galatia there were many that Nauseated the Bread of Life and made it their Choice to pick and eat the rubbish of the partition wall which Christ had demolisht The Rites of the Law which expired at the death of Christ they attempted to pull out of their Graves and to give a Resurrection to them They were so much gone off from the Doctrine of Christianity to weak and beggarly Rudiments observing Days and Months and Gal. 3. 7 10 11. Times and Years that by reason of this their Superstition St. Paul signifi'd his fears of quite losing them and that his labour was bestowed upon them in vain Amongst all the Seven Churches in Asia there was not one but what had receiv'd such Members into it that were either very Cold Lukewarm in their Religion or by their Vicious Lives proved a Reproach and Scandal to it The Church of Sardis so swarm'd with these that St. John tells us that there were but a few Rev. 3. 1 4. names in Sardis that had not defil'd their garments Now if the Apostles of our Lord who had the extraordinary assistances of the Holy Ghost for the discerning of Spirits at that time and were thereby enabl'd far beyond what any of their Successors can pretend to to distinguish betwixt the good and the bad did notwistanding admit many meer formal Professors into the Church of Christ we may conclude that they apprehended that 't was the will of Christ it should be so 5. No other rule in admitting persons into the Church is practicable Whether Persons are really holy and truly regenerate or no the Officers of Christ who know not the hearts of Men cannot make a certain judgment of they may through want of judgment be deceiv'd through the subtilty of hypocrites be impos'd upon through humane frailty passion or prejudice be misguided and by this means many times the door may be open'd to the bad and shut against the good Now that cannot be suppos'd to be a rule of Christ's appointment which is either impossible to be observ'd or in observing which the Governours of his Church cannot be secur'd from acting wrongfully and injuriously to Men. In sum Christ hath entrusted the power of the Keys into the hands of an Order of Men whom he hath set over his Church and who under him are to manage the Affairs of it but these being but Earthen vessels of short and fallible understandings he has 2. Cor. 4 7. not left the execution of their Office to be manag'd solely by their own prudence and discretion but hath given them a certain publick Rule to go by both in admitting persons into his Church and in excluding them out of it for the one the Rule is open and solemn profession of the Christian Faith for the other open and scandalous Offences prov'd by witnesses 2. The second Proposition is That every such Member has a right to all the external Priviledges of the Church till by his continuance in some notorious and scandalous sins he forfeits that right and by the just censures of the Church for such behaviour he be actually excluded from those Priviledges For the explanation and proof of this Proposition these three particulars are to be done 1. What 's
If it was not made use of in all Sacred matters where Eire was to be used yet it was most Holy and when Atonement was to be made by Incense the Coals were to be taken from thence (c) (c) (c) Lev. 16. 12 46. and therefore surely was as peculiar to those Offices as the Incense and to be as constantly used in them as never to be used in any other And it will yet make it more evident if it be considered 4. That just before there is an account given of the Extraordinary way by which this Fire was lighted for the Text saith there came out a Fire from before the Lord and consumed upon the Altar the Burnt-Offering c. and immediately Lev. 9. 24. follows the Relation of Nadab's miscarriage Now for what reason are these things so closely connected but to shew wherein they Offended For before it was the Office of Aaron's Sons to put Fire upon the Altar and now through Inadvertency or Presumption Attempting Lev. 1. 7. to do as formerly when there had been this Declaration from Heaven to the contrary they Suffered for it 5. It appears further from the conformity betwixt the Punishment and the Sin as there came Fire from before the Lord and consumed the Burnt-Offering to teach them what Fire for the future to make use of So upon their Transgression there came out Fire from the Lord and devoured them to teach others how Dangerous it was to do otherwise than he had Commanded So that it seems to me to be like the case of Vzzah when 1 Chron. 13. 7. 10. Ch 15. 2. they carried the Ark in a Cart which the Levites were to have born upon their Shoulders and it was not an Offering without a Command but otherwise than Commanded that was their Fault and without doubt they might with no more Offence have taken what Fire they would for their Incense than what Wood they pleased for their Fire if there had been no more direction about the one than the other But to proceed in the other places of Scripture where this Phrase of not Commanded is to be met with it s also so applied to things Forbidden as to what is called Abomination which is the Worshiping of Strange Gods the Sun Moon and Stars and Deut. 17 34. Jer. 7. 31. Ch. 19. 5. Ch. 32. 35. the Host of Heaven To the building the High Places of Topheth and the burning their Sons and Daughters in the Fire to Baal and causing them to pass through the Fire unto Molech Of such and the like its said which I Commanded them not neither came it into my mind And lastly it 's applied to the false Prophets who spake Lies Jer. 29. 22 23. in the Name of the Lord in which case the meer being not Commanded nor sent by him is in the nature of the thing no less than a Prohibition it being a Belying God though there had been no such place as Deut. 18. 20. to forbid it Now if so much stress was to be laid upon the Phrase as the Objection doth suppose and that we must take a Non-Commanding for a Prohibition we might reasonablly expect to find the Phrase otherwhere applied to things that were no otherwise Unlawful than because not Commanded but when it s always spoken of things plainly Prohibited it s a sign that it s rather God's Forbidding that made them Unlawful than his not Commanding But it may still be said why should then the Phrase be used at all in such matters and why should the case be thus Represented if not Commanded is not the same with Prohibited To this I answer 1. That all things Prohibited are by consequence not Commanded but it follows not that all things not Commanded are Prohibited If it was Forbidden to Offer Strange Fire then it was a thing not Commanded for otherwise the same thing would be Forbidden and Commanded but if it had been a thing not Commanded only it would not by being so have been any more Prohibited than the Wood that was to be burnt upon the Altar Now it s with respect to the former that things Prohibited are call'd things not Commanded and not with respect to the latter 2. Indeed the Phrase not Commanded is only a Meiosis or Softer way of speaking when more is understood than express'd A Figure usual in all Authors and Languages that I know of and what is frequently to be met with in Scripture Thus it 's given as a Character of an Hypocritical People they choose that in which I Delight not Isai 66 3. 4 Ch. 65. 3 12. which is but another Word for what was said in the verse before their Soul Delighted in their Abominations or Idolatries And when the Apostle would Describe the evil state of the Gentile World by the most Hainous and Flagitious Crimes such as Fornication Covetousness Rom. 1. 28. 29. Laciviousness Envy Murder and what not he saith of these that they were things not Convenient And it is as evident that the Phrase not Commanded is of the like kind when the things its applied to are alike Notorous and Abominable But it s further Objected that it s said in Scripture Object II ye shall not add unto the Word which I Command you neither Deut. 4. 2. shall ye diminish ought from it And that our Saviour condemning the Practices of the Scribes in this kind concludes In Vain do they Worship me Teaching for Matth. 15. 9. Doctrines the Commandments of Men. From whence it may be collected 1. That all things not Commanded by God in his Word are additions to it 2. That such additions are altogether unlawful To this I reply Answer 1. If they mean by adding to the Word the doing what that Forbids and by diminishing the neglecting of what that requires as the next Words do intimate and is plainly the sense otherwise (a) (a) (a) Deut 12. 32. when it s no Deut. 4. 4 6. sooner said What thing soever I Command you Observe to do it but it immediately follows thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it it s what we willingly condemn according to that of our Saviour Whosoever shall break one of these least Commandments and shall teach Matth. 5. 19. Men so he shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven 2. If they mean by adding the appointing somewhat else instead of what God hath appointed as Jeroboam did the Feast of the Eighth Month and by diminishing the taking away what God hath Commanded as Ahaz did the Altar and Laver c. This is what we condemn 2 King 16. 14 17. also and do blame in the Church of Rome whilst they feed the People with Legends instead of Scripture and take away both that and the Cup from the Laity 3. If they mean by adding the adding insolent expositions to the Command by which the end of it is frustrated This our Saviour condemn'd in the Pharisees Why
do ye Transgress the Command of God by your tradition For God Commanded saying Honour thy Father Matth. 15. 3. c. but ye say whosoever shall say to his Father it is a gift c. Thus ye have made the Commandment of God of none effect by your tradition And this we condemn in the Church of Rome who do defeat the Commands of God by their Doctrines of Attrition and Purgatory c. 4. If they mean by adding the making of that which is not the Word of God to be of equal Authority with it This our Saviour condemn'd in the Pharisees when they Taught for Doctrines the Commandments of Men and esteem'd them as necessary to be obeyed and to be of equal force with what was Authorized by him nay it seems they had more regard to the Tradition of the Elders than the Commandment of God as our Saviour Insinuates vers 2 3. and has been observed from their own Authors This we also condemn in the Church of Rome which decrees that the Apocrypha and Traditions should be received with the like Pious Con. Trid Sess 4. Decr. 1. regard as the Sacred Writ 5. If by adding they mean the giving the same Efficacy to humane Institutions as God doth to his by making them to confer Grace upon the rightly disposed and by diminishing that the Service is not complete without it This our Saviour condemn'd in the Pharisees when they maintained that to eat with unwashen Hands defiled a Man verse 20. And this we condemn in the Church of Rome in their use of Holy-Water and Reliques and Ceremonies Thus far we agree but if they proceed and will conclude that the doing any thing not Commanded in the Worship of God is a Sin though it have none of the ingredients in it before spoken of we therein differ from them and upon very good reason For therein they differ from our Saviour and his Apostles and all Churches as I have shewed Therein also they depart from the notion and reason of the thing For adding is adding to the substance and making the thing added of the Nature of the thing it s added to and diminishing is diminishing from the substance and taking away from the Nature of it but when the substance remains intire as much after this humane appointment as it was before it without Loss and Prejudice without Debasement or Corruption it cannot be called an addition to it in the sence that the Scripture takes that Word in Nay so far are we from admitting this charge that we return it upon them and do bring them in Criminals upon it For those that do Forbid what the Gospel Forbids not do as much add to it as those that Command what the Gospel doth not Command And if it be a Crime to Command what that Commands not it must be so to Forbid what it Forbids not And this is what they are Guilty of that do hold that nothing is to be used in the Worship of God but what is prescribed for if that be not a Scripture Proposition and Truth as certain it is not then what an addition is this A greater surely than what they charge upon us for all that is Commanded amongst us is look'd upon not as necessary but expedient but what is Forbid by them is Forbid as absolutely unlawful the latter of which alters the Nature whereas the other only affects the Circumstances of things The second Commandment Thou shalt not make unto Object III thee any Graven Image c. is frequently made use of to prove that we must apply nothing to a Religious Use but what is Commanded and we are told that the sence of it is that We must Worship God in no other way and by no other means or Religious Rites than what he hath prescribed The best way to answer this is 1. To consider Answer what is Forbidden in this Commandment and 2. To shew that we are not concern'd in the Prohibition As to the former 1. In this Command it is provided that there be no act of Adoration given to any besides God By this the Heathens are condemned in their Plurality of Gods and the Church of Rome in the Veneration they give to Saints and Angels 2. That the Honour we give to God be sutable to his Nature and agreeable to his Will Sutable to his Nature and so we are not to Worship him by Creatures as the Sun c. for that is to consider him as Finite nor by Images and Eternal Representations for that is to consider him as Corporeal Agreeable to his Will and so we are Forbidden all other Worship of him than what he hath appointed It s in the last of these we are concerned for I believe there will be no attempt to prove that there is any thing in our Worship that doth derogate from the perfections of God and is unsutable to his Nature further than the defects that must arise from all Worship given by Creatures to a Creator And if we come to consider it as to what he hath revealed there can be nothing deduced thence to prove Rites instituted by Men for the Solemnity of God's service to be Forbidden and which for ought I see is not attempted to be proved from this Commandment or from Scripture else where but by crowding such Rites into and representing them as a part of Divine Worship This way goes one of the most industrious in this cause Ceremonies saith he are External Rites of Religious Worship as used to further Devotion and therefore being Ames Fresh Suit part 2. sect 2. command p. 228. invented by Man are of the same Nature with Images by which and at which God is Worshipped In which are no less than three mistakes As 1. He makes whatever is used to further Devotion to be Religious Worship 2. He makes it a fault in External Rites in Religious Worship that they are used to further Devotion 3. He makes External Rites taken up by Men and used for that end to be of the same Nature with Images If I shew that these are really mistakes I think that in doing so the whole argument taken from 2d Commandment falls with it 1 He mistakes in that he makes whatever is used to further Devotion to be Religious Worship The error of which will appear from this consideration that all things relating to Divine Worship are either Parts or Adjuncts of it Parts as Prayer and the Lord's Supper Adjuncts as Form and Posture Now Adjuncts are not Parts because the Worship is intire and invariable in all the Parts of it and remains the same though the Adjuncts vary Prayer is VVorship whether with a Form or without and the Lord's Supper is VVorship whether Persons Kneel Sit or Stand in the receiving of it And yet though the Adjuncts are no part of VVorship they further Devotion in it This those that are for conceived Prayer plead for Their Practice and this also is pleaded by those that
Perswasion of the Vnlawfulness of our Communion will justifie any Mans Separation from us Or how far it will do it And what is to be done by such Persons in order either to their Communicating or not Communicating with us with a safe Conscience This is our second Point and I apply my self to it There are a great many among us that would with all their Hearts as they say Obey the Laws of the Church and joyn in our Worship and Sacraments but they are really perswaded that they cannot do it without Sin For there are some things required of them as Conditions of Communicating with us which are Forbidden by the Laws of God As for Instance it is against the Commands of Christ to appoint or to use any thing in the Worship of God which God himself hath not appointed For this is to add to the word of God and to Teach for Doctrines the Commandments and Traditions of Men. It is against the Commands of Jesus Christ to Stint the Spirit in Prayer which all those that use a Form of Prayer must necessarily do It is against the Commands of Jesus Christ to use any Significant Ceremony in Religion As for Instance the Cross in Baptism for that is to make new Sacraments It is against the Commands of Jesus Christ to kneel at the Lords Supper for that is directly to contradict our Saviours Example in his Institution of that Sacrament and Savours besides of Popish Idolatry Since therefore there are these Sinful things in our Worship and those too imposed as Terms of Communion how can we blame them if they withdraw themselves from us Would we have them joyn with us in these Practices which they verily believe to be Sins Where then was their Conscience They might perhaps by this means shew how much they were the Servants of Men But what would become of their Fidelity to Jesus Christ What now shall we say to this They themselves are so well satisfi'd with their own doings in these matters that they do not think they are in the least to be blamed for refusing us their Communion so long as things stand thus with them They are sure they herein follow their own Conscience and therefore they cannot doubt but they are in a safe Condition and may justifie their Proceedings to God and to all the World let us say what we please This is the Case Now in Answer to it we must grant them these two things First of all that if indeed they be right in their Judgment and those things which they except against in our Communion be really Unlawful and Forbidden by Jesus Christ then they are not at all to be blamed for their not Communicating with us For in that Case Separation is not a Sin but a Duty We being for ever bound to Obey God rather than Men. And Secondly supposing they be mistaken in their Judgment and think that to be unlawful and Forbidden by God which is not really so Yet so long as this perswasion continues though it be a false one we think they cannot without Sin joyn in our Communion For even an Erroneous Conscience as we have shewed binds thus far that a Man cannot without Sin Act in Contradiction to it These two things I say we grant them and let them make the best advantage of them But then this is the point we stand upon and which if it be true will render this whole Plea for Nonconformity upon account of Conscience as I have now opened it wholly insufficient viz. If it should prove that our Dissenters are mistaken in their Judgment and that our Governours do indeed require nothing of them in the matter of Church Communion but what they may comply with without breach of Gods Law Then I say it will not acquit them from being Guilty of Sin before God in withdrawing from our Communion to say that they really believed our Communion to be unlawful and upon that Account they durst not joyn with us It is not my Province here to Answer all their Objections against our Forms of Prayer our Ceremonies our Orders and Rules in Administring Sacraments and other things that concern our Communion This hath been done several times and of late by several Persons which have treated of all these particular matters and who have shewed with great clearness and strength that there is nothing required in our Church Appointments which is in the least inconsistent with or Forbidden by any Law of Jesus Christ But on the contrary the Establishments of our Church are for Gravity Decency Purity and agreeableness with the Primitive Christianity the most approvable and the least Exceptionable of any Church Constitutions at this day in the World These things therefore I meddle not with but this is the point I am concerned in Whether supposing it be every Mans Duty to joyn in Communion with the Established Church and there be nothing required in that Communion but what may be Lawfully Practised I say supposing these two things whether it will be sufficient to acquit any Man from Sin that withdraws from that Communion upon this Account that through his mistake he believes he cannot joyn with us without Sin Or thus whether will any mans perswasion that there are Sinful Terms required in our Communion when yet there are not any justifie his Separation from us This is the general Question truly put And this I give as the Answer to it That in general speaking a Mans Erroneous Perswasion doth not dissolve the Obligation of Gods Law or justifie any Mans Transgression of his Duty So that if Gods Law doth Command me to hold Communion with the Church where I have no just cause to break it And I have no just cause to break it in this particular Case but only I think I have My misperswasion in this matter doth not discharge me from my Obligation to keep the Communion of the Church or acquit me from Sin before God if I break it The Truth and Reason of this I have fully shewed before in what I have said about the Authority of Conscience I shall now only by way of further Confirmation ask this Question Was St. Paul guilty of Sin or no when he Persecuted the Christians being verily perswaded in his own mind that he ought so to do and that he Sinned if he did not If any will say that St. Paul did not Sin in this because he did but Act according to his Conscience they contradict his own express words For he acknowledgeth himself to be the greatest of Sinners and that for this very reason because he persecuted the Church of Christ If they say that he did Sin in doing this Then they must at the same time acknowledg that a Mans perswasion that a thing is a Duty will not excuse him from guilt in practising it if really and indeed it be against Gods Law And on the other side by the same reason that a Mans perswasion that a thing is unlawful will
Case and we have an easie resolution of the Question before us viz. That since a greater sin is to be avoided before a less when a man supposes himself to be under a necessity of being guilty of one it is more reasonable that the man we speak of should come to the Sacrament with all his Doubts concerning his unworthiness than that he should customarily and habitually withdraw himself from it because it is a greater sin to do this latter than the former Well but some say How can this consist with St. Paul's Doctrine Who expresly affirms That whoever eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh 1 Cor. 11. 29. Damnation to himself Can there be any more dreadful sin than that which if a man be guilty of it will actually Damn him Certainly one would think by this that a man runs a much less hazard in not Receiving at all than in venturing to Receive whilest he hath the least Doubt that he Receives unworthithily considering the dreadful Consequences of it But to this I briefly answer Such a man as we all along suppose in our Case is in no danger at all of Receiving unworthily in the Sense that St. Paul useth this Term. For the unworthy receiving that he so severly Censures in the Corinthians was their approaching to the Lords Table with so little a sense of what they were about that they made no distinction between the Lords Body and common Food Ibid. v. 29. v. 20 21 22. But under a pretence of meeting for the Celebration of the Lords Supper they used the Church of God as if it was an Eating or Tipling House Some of them Revelling it there to that degree that they went away Drunk from these Religious Assemblies All this appears from the Text. But I hope none among us especially none of those who are so doubtful about their being duly qualified do profane the Sacrament in this manner But further Perhaps the Damnation which St. Paul here denounces is not so frightful as is commonly apprehended For all that he saith if either the Original or the Margin of our English Bibles be consulted will appear to be this He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Judgment to himself Meaning hereby in all probability that he who doth thus affront our Lords Instistution by making no distinction between the Bread of the Sacrament and common Meat doth by this his profaneness draw severe Judgments of God upon himself For for this cause saith he many are weak and Ver. 30. sickly among you and many are fallen asleep But here is not a word of Everlasting Damnation much less of any mans being put into that State by thus receiving unworthily Unless any man will say that all those who are visited with Gods Judgments in this World are in the State of Damnation as to the next Which is so far from being true that St. Paul in this very place affirms the contrary viz. in the 32. Verse where he tells us That When we are thus judged in this World we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the World i. e. with Wicked men in another Life But further Admitting St. Paul in these words to mean Damnation in the usual Sense yet still the utmost they can come to will be no more than this That whosoever eateth and drinketh thus unworthily as the Corinthians did is guilty of a Damnable sin But now there are a great many other Cases besides this of the Sacrament in which a Man is equally guilty of a Damnable Sin if he do not perform his Duty as he ought to do He that Prays or Hears unworthily He that Fasts or gives Alms unworthily In a word He that in any Instance performs the Worship of God or professeth the Christian Religion unworthily I say such a Man according to the Protestant Doctrine may be said to do these things to his own Damnation upon the same account that he is said to Eat and Drink his own Damnation that Communicates unworthily in the Sacrament though indeed not in so high a degree That is to say such a Man is guilty of a Sin that is in its own Nature Damnable and may prove actually so to him unless either by a particular or general Repentance he obtains Gods pardon for it But yet for all this there is no man will for these Reasons think it adviseable to leave off the practice of these Duties but the only Consequence he will draw from hence is that he is so much the more concerned to take care that he perform them as he ought to do But in the last place Let the sin of coming to the Sacrament unworthily be as great and as damnable as we reasonably can suppose it Yet this is that we contend for the sin of totally withdrawing from it is much greater and more damnable So that if he who partakes of it unworthily doth eat and drink Damnation to himself He that partakes not at all is so far from mending the matter that he doth much increase that Damnation The truth of this doth fully appear from what I have before spoke in General concerning the much greater sin of transgressing a known Law of God than of observing that Law as well as we can though with much unworthiness I will only add this further with reference to this Particular of receiving the Sacrament Though I am far from encouraging any to approach to the Lords Table without due Qualifications or from extenuating any mans sin that comes unworthily unworthily I mean in the Scripture Sense of that word and not as it is understood by many melancholly scrupulous Persons Yet this I say That if Men did seriously consider what a sin it is to live without the Sacrament it being no other than living in an open affront to the express Institution of our Lord Jesus and a renouncing the Worship of God and the Communion of the Church in the great Instance of Christian Worship and Christian Communion And withal what dreadful Consequences they bring upon themselves hereby even the depriving themselves of the chief of those ordinary means which our Lord hath appointed for the obtaining Remission of sins and the Grace and Influence of his Holy Spirit I say if men did seriously consider these things they would not look upon it as so slight a matter voluntarily to Excommunicate themselves as to the partaking in this great Duty and Privilege of Christians but what apprehensions soever they had of the sin and the danger of receiving unworthily they would for all that think it more sinful and more dangerous not to receive at all I have said enough in answer to this Objection from St. Paul perhaps too much considering how often these things have been said I will now go on with our Case In the Third place therefore let us suppose our Doubting Man for these or such like Reasons as we have given to have such a Sense of his
inspire such matter as is fit to be offer'd up to God and such expressions as are fit for such matter that so the Publick Worship of God which is the most serious and solemn thing in the World might not be render'd ridiculous by the folly and inadvertency of men Whereas on the contrary we see those publick Prayers which arrogate to themselves the honour of being inspired are generally more liable to these indecencies than Forms of humane composure and that those Prayers which consist of premeditated matter and words are commonly much better sense and far more decent and pertinent than our extemporary effusions which how it should come to pass I know not supposing the continuance of inspiration of Prayer unless we will suppose that Humane Composures may exceed Divine Inspirations and that men may ordinarily premeditate better Prayers than the Spirit of God inspires And methinks it seems very strange that the Spirit should continue this Gift of inspiration to secure the Worship of God from nonsense and impertinence and yet that after all it should remain more liable to these indecencies than if our publick Prayers were offered up in premeditated Forms composed out of our own or other mens inventions 2. Another sign that our composed Prayers are not immediately inspired is that they are so generally tinctur'd with the particular opinions of those that offer them You may observe that in all publick Controversies of Religion mens Opinions are generally to be known by their Prayers especially if they zealously espouse either side of the Question for then the debate runs so much in their heads and they look upon God and Religion so very highly concern'd in it that they can hardly frame a Petition Confession or thanksgiving without giving some intimation of their particular Perswasion and many times one of the Petitions is That God would hinder the propagation of the contrary Perswasion and convince their Adversaries of the Error and Falshood of it Thus for instance when the Contest ran high between the Presbyterians and Independents the Arminians and Calvinists how easie was it to distinguish them by their Prayers from one another Whether this be not so I appeal to our Brethren themselves and to all the World And if so what plainer evidence can be given that their Prayers were not inspired but of their own invention and composure For either we must suppose this Gift of Inspiration to be confin'd to one Party which would be to stint the Spirit with a witness and everlastingly to puzzle our selves where to find it among so many contending Parties that pretend to it or else we must affirm a horrid Blasphemy viz. That the Spirit inspires Contradictions and indites contrary Prayers to men of opposite Parties 3. Another plain sign that our conceiv'd Prayers are not immediately inspired is That that which gives them the reputation of being so is not so much the matter as the way and manner of expressing them For as for the matter of Prayer I suppose our Brethren will not deny but our Forms may equal at least if not exceed their conceiv'd and extemporary Prayers and that 't is possible for men upon mature thoughts and deliberations to compose and pen a Prayer that shall be as full and comprehensive of the common cases and necessities of Christians as if he had conceived and indited it upon the place And if all the matter that is in a conceiv'd Prayer may be easily contain'd and express'd in a Form then all the difference between one and t'other must lie in the way and manner of expressing it and consequently it must be only upon this account that the one must pretend to inspiration more than t'other Now there are only two differences between Forms and conceived Prayers as to the way and manner of expressing the matter in them neither of which are so considerable as to give the one a fairer pretence to inspiration than the other The first is that whereas the matter of a Form of Prayer is express'd in set and premeditated words the same matter in conceiv'd Prayer is express'd in extemporary words and is it not strange that upon such a slight and inconsiderable difference the one should be thought to be more inspired than the other as if the Spirit of God continu'd the Gift of Inspiration to no other purpose but to inable men to ask those Blessings in extemporary words which they might as well have askt in premeditated ones The second is that conceiv'd Prayers do generally more inlarge and amplifie on the matter of Prayer than Forms in which we being always tied to such a set of words have not that liberty to expatiate on our several cases and necessities but this is so far from adding to the value of conceiv'd Prayers that it rather lessens and depreciates them for if you observe these admired enlargements and amplifications are generally nothing else but only the same matter express'd again in different words which makes our conceiv'd Prayers run out many times to that inordinate length the same matter being repeated in them over and over in varied phrases and expressions how then can we entertain such mean conceits of the wisdom of the holy Spirit as to imagâ—n he would continue to us the Gift of immediate inspiration meerly to enable us to repeat the same matter of Prayer to God ten or twenty times over in different phrases and expressions especially considering that by so doing he would cross the orders of our Saviour who expresly forbids us in our Prayers to use vain repetitions or as Munster's Hebrew reads it to multiply words above what is fit and seasonable thinking we shall be heard for our much speaking to which he subjoins this reason For your Father knows what things you have need of before you ask him Matth. 6. 7 8. As if he should have said you need not lengthen out your Prayers with so many copious enlargements and varied repetitions of the same matter as if you meant thereby more fully to instruct your Father in your wants and desires for before ever you ask he knows your needs and therefore a few words will suffice to express your desires to him And when our Saviour hath required that our Prayers should be short and pithy and stript of all needless multiplicity of words what reason have we to think that the Holy Spirit who is his Vice-gerent in the Church would continue the Gift of Inspiration meerly to amplifie and enlarge them These enlargements of conceiv'd Prayer therefore are so far from being signs of their immediate inspiration that supposing the Spirit to be of the same mind with our Saviour they are generally signs of the contrary 4. Another plain sign that our conceiv'd Prayers are not immediately inspired is That that extraordinary manner and way of expressing them for which they are thought to be inspired doth apparently proceed from natural causes for as I shew'd before the reason why our conceiv'd Prayers are
declares against in these Words Article 22 d. The Romish Doctrine of Purgatory is a vain thing fondly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the Word of God As to that of Auricular Confession nothing like it is taught or practised in our Church Her Members are obliged onely to Confess their Sins to God except when 't is necessary to Confess them to Men for the relieving of their Consciences and their obtaining the Prayers of others or in order to the righting of those they have wronged when due satisfaction can't otherwise be made or in order to their giving Glory to God when they are justly accused and their guilt proved in which cases and such like 't is without dispute our duty to confess to Men. Nor have we any such Doctrine in our Church as that of the Dependence of the Efficacy of the Sacraments on the Priests intention but the contrary is sufficiently declared Article 26th viz. that The Efficacy of Christs Ordinance is not taken away by the Wickedness of those that Minister 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by not a few of her Doctrines and Practices to Vile Affections and Vices of all sorts As might be largely shewed See Libertas Evangelica Chap. 17. and will be in part under the next Head of discourse But our Church neither maintains any Licentious Principle nor gives Countenance to any such Practice our Adversaries themselves being Judges Secondly The Church of England is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly charged with plainly contradicting the Holy Scripture For instance not to repeat any of those ranked under the foregoing head several of which may also fall under this Her Doctrines of Image-Worship of Invocation of Saints with her gross practising upon them of Transubstantiation of Pardons and Indulgencies of the Sacrifice of the Mass wherein Christ is pretended to be still offered up afresh for the quick and dead Her keeping the Holy Scriptures from the Vulgar and making it so hainous a crime to read the Bible because by this means her foul Errours will be in such danger of being discovered and the People of not continuing implicite believers Her injoyning the saying of Prayers and the Administration of the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue Her Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper Her prohibiting Marriage to Priests Her Doctrines of Merit and works of Supererogation Her making simple Fornication a mere Venial sin Her damning all that are not of her Communion Her most devilish cruelties towards those whom she is pleased to pronounce Hereticks Her darling Sons Doctrines of Equivocation and Mental Reservations of the Popes power of dispensing with the most Solemn Oaths and of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance to their Lawful Princes with many others not now to be reckoned up But the Church of England Abominates these and the like Principles and Practices As to the instances of Image-Worship Invocation of Saints and Pardons and Indulgences what our Church declareth concerning Purgatory she adds concerning these things too Article 22 d. viz. That the Romish Doctrine concerning Pardons Worship and Adoration as well of Images as of Relicks as also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the Word of God And as there is no such Practice as Worshipping of Images in our Church so all are destroyed which Popery had Erected among us Nor have we in our Church any Co-Mediators with Jesus Christ we Worship only one God by one only Mediator the Man Christ Jesus And the now-mentioned Practices our Church doth not only declare to be Repugnant to the Holy Scriptures but to be likewise most grosly Idolatrous viz. in the Homilies As to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation our Church declareth her sense thereof Article 28th in these Words Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ but it is repugnant to the plain terms of Scripture overthroweth the Nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lords Supper only after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not by Christs Ordinance reserved carried about lifted up or Worshipped As to the Sacrifice of the Mass see what our Church saith of it Article 31st viz. That the offering of Christ once made is that perfect Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World both Original and Actual and there is none other Satisfaction for sins but that alone Wherefore the Sacrifices of Masses in the which it was commonly said that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have Remission of pain or guilt were Blasphemous Fables and dangerous deceits As to the Church of Romes locking up the Scriptures and prohibiting the reading of them Our Church hath not only more than once caused them to be Translated into our Mother-Tongue but also as I need not shew gives as free Liberty to the reading of the Bible as of any other Book nor is any duty in our Church esteemed more necessary than that of Reading the Scriptures and Hearing them read As to Praying and Administring the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue as this is contrary to the Practice of the Church of England so is it to her Declaration also Article 24th viz. That it is a thing plainly Repugnant to the Word of God and the Custom of the Primitive Church to have publick Prayers in the Church or to Administer Sacraments in a Tongue not understanded of the People As to Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper in Our Church they may not receive the Bread if they refuse the Cup. And Article 30. tells us That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Laity for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be Administred to all Christians alike As to prohibiting Marriage to Priests this is declared against Article 32. Bishops Priests and Deacons are not Commanded by Gods Law either to vow the Estate of single Life or to abstain from Marriage therefore it is Lawful for them as for all other Christian Men to Marry at their own discretion as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness As to the Popish Doctrine of Merit Our Church declares against this Article 11. We are accounted righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own Works or Deservings Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only viz. such a Faith as purifies the Heart and works by Love is a most wholsome Doctrine and very
that the word dedicated doth there import no more than declared by that Ceremony to be dedicated viz. by the foregoing Baptism like as the Priest is said to have cleansed the Leper whom he onely declareth to be clean Lev. 14. 11. And 't is manifest from the account given of the imposing of this Ceremony in that Canon that this Phrase cannot otherwise be understood I shall not need to add any thing more about this Ceremony after I have said that our Church retains it not in imitation of the Church of Rome but of the Primitive Christians they thereby to use the Words of the foresaid Canon making an outward profession even to the astonishment of the Jews that they were not ashamed to acknowledge him for their Lord and Saviour who died for them upon the Cross c. And as it follows this use of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism was held in the Primitive Church as well by the Greeks as the Latins with one consent and great applause c. I conclude with Beza's judgment of the Lawfulness of Resp ad Baldw. p. 324. this Ceremony Saith he I know many too have retained the use of the Sign of the Cross the Adoration of the Cross being taken away Let them as is meet use their own Liberty But in our Church not onely the Adoration of the Cross but likewise all Superstition in the use of it is perfectly abolished How then can it be thought such a Symbolizing with the Church of Rome as may warrant Separation from our Communion 3. As to the Ceremony of Kneeling at the Communion If our Churches Declaration at the end of the Communion-Service will not vindicate her from an Unlawful Symbolizing with Rome herein I have nothing to say in her defence The declaration is this Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lords Supper that the Communicants should receive the same Kneeling which order is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers and for the avoiding of such Prophanation and disorder in the Holy Communion as might otherwise ensue yet lest the same Kneeling should by any Persons either out of Ignorance and Infirmity or out of Malice and Obstinacy be misconstrued and depraved It is here declared that thereby no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or unto any Corporal-Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very Natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians And the Natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one We see that our Church doth here not only declare that no Adoration is in this Gesture intended either to the Elements or to Christ's Corporal Presence under the Species of Bread and Wine but also that as such a Pretence is absurd and contradictions so the adoring of the Sacramental Bread and Wine would be Idolatry to be abhorred by all faithful Christians So that as nothing is in it self more indifferent than this Gesture in receiving the Holy Communion there being not one Word said of the Gesture in our Saviours Institution of this Sacrament either before his Death to his Disciples or after his Ascension to St. Paul who hath delivered to us what he received of the Lord about this matter as he said that is all that he had received and as Christ hath Consequently lest the particular Gesture to the determination of the Church a Gesture being in the general necessary so this Circumstance of Symbolizing with the Church of Rome herein cannot make Our Churches requiring Kneeling to be Unlawful and much less our Obedience to the Church in using this Gesture seeing all the Idolatry and Superstition too wherewith the Church of Rome hath abused it is perfectly removed and 't is required by our Church meerly as a decent Reverend Gesture 4. As to the Ring in Marriage The Church of Rome as is to be seen in the Office of Matrimony juxta usum Ecclesiae Sarisburiensis abuseth it most notoriously There you have it first blessed with two Prayers in the former of which God is beseeched to send his blessing on this Ring that she who shall wear it may be Armed with the Power of Heavenly defence and it may be beneficial to her to Eternal life through Christ our Lord. And in the latter the Priest Crossing himself Prayeth that God would bless this Ring which we in thy Holy Name bless that whosoever shall wear it may abide in his Peace c. Next Holy Water is sprinkled upon the Ring And lastly the Bridegroom puts it upon the Brides Thumb the Bridegroom saying In the Name of the Father Then upon her second Finger saying And of the Son Then on the third saying And of the Holy Ghost Then on the fourth saying Amen And there he leaves it And there is expressed a special Mystery in leaving it upon that Finger But there is used nothing of this impious or Superstitious fooling about the Ring in our Office of Marriage All the doings about it are the Bridegrooms putting it on the fourth Finger he saying after the Minister With this Ring I thee Wed and the mentioning of it in the Prayer following as a Token and Pledg of the Vow and Covenant made between the Married Persons So that 't is so far from being used as a Sacramental sign among us that it no otherwise differs from a meer civil Ceremony than as 't is a Token and Pledg of a Covenant made between the Parties in the most Solemn manner viz. as in the presence of God And in truth this is such a Symbolizing with the Church of Rome as I should be ashamed to bestow two Words about but that so many of our Brethren have been pleased to take offence at it Lastly As to our Observation of certain Holy days All I shall say about it is 1. That there is no Comparison between the number of our Holy-days and the Popish ones 2. Our few are purged from all the Superstitious and wicked Solemnizations of the Popish ones 3. We observe scarcely any besides such as wherein we have the Primitive Church for our Example Excepting those which are enjoyned upon the account of Deliverances and Calamities in which our own Nation is peculiarly concerned 4. An observation of them void of Superstitious conceits about them and onely as our Church directeth can have no other than a very good Effect upon our Hearts and lives If we could say as St. Austin did of the Christians in his time viz. By Festival Solemnities and set days we dedicate and sanctify to God the memory of his Benefits lest unthankful forgetfulness of
assert and which occasioned our Author's Resolution of the Case of Symbolizing c. is this That things which might otherwise be lawfully used in the Worship of God do become unlawfull by their having been abused in Idolatrous or Superstitious Services And some of them do understand this in a more limited and restrained sense as our Author hath shewed than others of them do Secondly as this Question is put you are sure to have no Adversaries For who ever doubted whether a thing be unlawfull in the Worship of God that is Vnsuitable to the Ends thereof whether this thing hath been abused or no in Idolatrous Services Now having thus strangely put the Question you proceed to shew that from thence will follow several things as things out of controversie betwixt us And I perceive you are very cautious herein of reviving a certain Old controversie among your selves viz. Whether our Old Churches Bells and Fonts c. may still be used For you thus word your third particular wherein we are agreed viz. That things of mere conveniency for a Religious Action for the Service of the Ends of it may be used though Idolaters have used the like you are shy I perceive of saying the same so as none scruple the using of Churches to meet in c. You say not none scruple the using of the Old Churches which were built by Papists In your next Page you tell our Author that you think that * * * p. 11. Zanchy's Rule is at least Safest and that he knows that in dubiis animae tutior pars est eligenda But I think you might have Englisht it better than thus in matters of Sin the Safest part is always to be preferred For in matters of Sin or sinfull matters in my silly judgment there is no safest part to be preferred Next you positively assert that in matters of Divine Worship if the things used by Idolaters be not necessary both the abuse and the use also ought to be abolished And you say you cannot understand what else is the meaning of the Apostle in that his Application of the words found Psal 24. 1. in 1 Cor 10. 28. viz. If any man say unto you this is offered in Sacrifice unto Idols Eat not for his sake that shewed it and for Conscience sake For the Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof c. That is you say you shall not need to starve though you do not eat of that meat c. To this I answer that our Author hath freely acknowledged pag. 36. That all things of an indifferent nature that have formerly been abused to Idolatry or Superstition ought to be taken away by the Governours whensoever they find their People inclined again so to abuse them At least if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by other means But our Author utterly denies that those Rites which our Church retaineth that have been abused and are still by the Church of Rome have been observed to be any temptation to Idolatry or to the embracing of Popery And therefore there is upon this supposition no Argument to be drawn from that Text against the Sinfulness of using those Rites because the Apostle there forbids the Strong Christian the eating of that meat which a Weak Christian shall inform him was a portion of an Idol-sacrifice for this reason lest he be confirmed in or betrayed to the sin of Idolatry by his example not rightly understood by him And consequently this Christian is supposed to be such a weak one as would be in danger of making this ill use of his Example as being but lately converted from Paganism and not yet sufficiently instructed in the precepts of Christianity It is manifest from the immediately following verse that the Apostle forbiddeth the eating of meat offered to Idols upon this sole account For saying in the former verse Eat not for his sake that shewed it and for Conscience sake he adds in the latter that he means not that he should forbear for the sake of his own Conscience but onely for the sake of the others Conscience If therefore you can prove that these Rites of our Church are Temptations to any of its Members to go over to the Romish Church or to commit Idolatry still continuing therein you shall be so far from being opposed by our Author that he 'll heartily join with you in endeavouring by all lawfull means to have them abolished on supposition that the Temptation cannot otherwise be taken away But I desire you by the way to take notice that it is not the Design of his Book which you could not but see though you would seem not to see it to plead for the continuance of these Rites as innocent and harmless things at least as he takes them to be but onely to perswade Dissenters not to separate from our Church upon the account of such things and to shew that their having been abused is no just ground for Separation And having minded you of this I shall not need to tell you that the other Old-Testament Text which you have added to those which he hath replied to is alledged very impertinently which yet we 'll bestow two or three words in answer to But first let us see what you reply to what he saith to these Texts You say * * * p. 12. you cannot possibly get leave of your self considering under what terms of Divine Abhorrence God every where mentioneth Idolatry in Holy writ c. to be of the mind of our Author that the Texts Lev. 19. 2. Deut. 14. 1. Lev. 19. 19. are merely to be understood of things in themselves evil Nor by the way is our Author of that mind for he acknowledgeth pag. 27. that the things forbidden in the last of these places are things of so indifferent a nature that none can be more indifferent But he asks where it is said that these things were forbidden because the Heathens used them And he addeth that though Maimonides saith that the Egyptians used these Mixtures of Seeds and of Linnen and Woollen in many of their Magical Exploits yet 't is universally acknowledged that these things among many others were forbidden to the Jews as Mystical instructions in Moral duties But to this you are perfectly silent But why cannot you be of our Author's mind as to the two other Texts You say The following part of the Chap. Lev. 18. gives some colour to interpret that place of things morally evil yet why are they forbidden under the notion of things done after the doings of the Egyptians and the Canaanites I answer because they were the doings of those people whom they were exceedingly prone to imitate even their greatest Immoralities And this is a sufficient Answer Then you tell us Nor is Deut. 14. 1. or Lev. 19. 8. capable of such a sense But our Author saith not a word of Lev. 19. 8. for 't is verse the 19th that he speaks to and as hath been said already he
grant that it ought to have been destroyed or removed out of the peoples sight if the continuance of it in their view were like to be a snare to them and a temptation to Idolatry You reply may not the like be said of what Dissenters plead against But you have been already told that the like may not be said with any colour or shew of reason 6. Our Author saith That if Hezekiah had let it stand private persons might have made use of it to put them in mind of the wonderfull mercy of God expressed by it to their Fore-fathers This you acknowledge but say that the Question at present under our debate is whether Hezekiah might lawfully have let it stand and removed it into the Temple whether his setting it up by the Ark or Mercy Seat would have purged it But for shame Sir do not say that this is the Question in debate between us In your 16th Page you express very great offence at those next words of our Author pag. 36. And much more might they have lawfully continued in the Communion of the Church so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to join with them in their Idolatry But you leave out what follows viz. as we do not reade of any that separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abused as it was by the Generality And do you find that the pious Jews did separate upon this account Or if they did not will you say that they were guilty of Sin For my part I dare not say so nor that it would be a sin now not to separate from our Church though our Governours were so remiss as not to Excommunicate Idolaters if such were found therein any more than it is so upon the account of Promiscuous Congregations and Mixt Communions As the Worthy person that published the Resolution of that case hath clearly proved and proved too that it is Vnlawfull to separate upon that pretence But you say you can never believe this till some can prove to you that a Wife may lawfully contrary to the command of her Husband stay in a Family of Whoremongers provided that she be not compelled to play the Whore I answer that a Wife may not lawfully though her Husband hath not expresly forbidden it stay in a Family consisting wholly of Whoremongers except to bear her Husband company and in that case it is her duty to stay But where hath Christ forbidden us to Communicate with a Church out of which Idolaters are not ejected though Idolatry be not enjoined You say he hath done it in those words Rev. 18. 4. Come out of her my people but I pray read on and you have an answer that ye be not partaker of her sins and that ye receive not viz. by partaking of her sins of her plagues And moreover I presume you will acknowledge that the Babylon which the Christians were commanded to come out of is the Idolatrous Church of Rome But I need not acquaint you that you cannot continue in this Church except you will your self also be an Idolater But I will not stand to dispute this point with you it being nothing to the business of our Author's Book and all he asserts as to this matter doth amount to no more than this That we are not obliged to renounce Communion in pure Ordinances with such as we know to be guilty of Idolatry when it lies not in our power to keep them away And now you have brought me to our Author's Third Head of Discourse viz. That the Agreement which is between the Church of England and the Church of Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawfull You say Page 17th That if our Author had said all Communion viz. with the Church of England is not unlawfull you had fully concurred with him believing that this Church cannot be justly charged with Idolatry and that some Communion may and ought to be held with any Church that is not so charged If you mean by some Communion a not being divided in heart as you before express it I say again we thank you for nothing the Communion which our Author pleads for being as your self observes in your first Page chiefly Communion in Worship But you proceed saying but as he hath laid it I cannot agree with it I am sure Christ had Communion with the Jewish Church and I believe he had so in all acts of worship of his Father's Institution and I am as sure he had no Communion with them in the Traditional part of their worship as I am that he would not himself practise what he condemned so severely But are you not as sure that our Blessed Lord had Communion with the Jewish Church in all acts of worship instituted by his Father as you are that he had no Communion with them in the Traditional part of their Worship I am sure that in the former part of that saying you are too too cautious and in the latter not so cautious as you ought to have been For you may be sure of the contrary to what you affirm so positively when you have considered that our Lord could not have so freely been admitted into the Temple had he not observed divers Traditions or Canons of the Elders without complying with which none might come thither I shall not stand to instance in particulars but refer you to Dr. Leightfoot's Temple Service pag. 115. to 120. And again you may yet be more sure of the contrary when you have considered how our Lord complied with Jewish Traditions in the celebration of the Passover and such too as altered certain circumstances prescribed in its First Institution Particularly his ordering the Preparation of the Lamb on the 14th day when Moses ordained the taking of it up upon the 10th day His eating the Passover lying along being the posture in which they ate their ordinary Meals according to a Jewish Tradition as you may see in Dr. Leightfoot's foresaid Book pag. 143 144. whereas according to Moses his Institution it was to be eaten with their Loins girded c. and in haste or standing His complying with the Jewish customs of drinking Wine at the Passover and concluding with the Hallel or a Hymn And not these onely but more Traditions than these Dr. Leightfoot will satisfie you were conformed to by our Blessed Saviour But you say Christ condemned severely the Jewish Traditions But I say he did not at all condemn all Jewish Traditions and none but such as by which they made the Commandments of God of none effect And such as they placed special Holiness in and necessary to acceptance with God as is too evident to need my standing to prove it And Sir when you can prove that our Ceremonies are like to those condemned Traditions I will undertake that our Author shall be as zealous against complying with them as he is now against separation from our
Sacraments to them for whom they were instituted As for an Example we may behold Joshua who most diligently procured the People of Israel to Jos 2. be Circumcised before they entred into the Land of Promise but since the Apostles were the Preachers of the Word and the very Faithful Servants of Jesus Christ who may hereafter doubt that they Baptized Infants since Baptism is in place of Circumcision Item The Apostles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament Therefore it is certain that they did attemperate Baptism accordingly to Circumcision and Baptized Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism for the People of Israel passed through the Red Sea and the bottom of the Water of Jordan with their Children And although the Children be not always expressed neither the Women in the Holy Scriptures yet they are comprehended and understood in the same Also the Scripture evidently telleth us That the Apostles baptized whole Families or Housholds But the Children be comprehended in a Family or Houshold as the chiefest and dearest part thereof Therefore we may conclude that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or Children and not only Men of lawful age And that the House or Houshold is taken for Man Woman and Child it is manifest in the 17. of Genesis and also in that Joseph doth call Jacob with all his House to come out of the Land of Canaan into Egypt Finally I can declare out of ancient Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours neither that it was instituted by any Councels neither of the Pope nor of other Men but commended from the Scripture by the Apostles themselves Origen upon the Declaration of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans expounding the 6. Chapter saith That the Church of Christ received the Baptism from the very Apostles St. Hierome maketh mention of the Baptism of Infants in the 3. Book against the Pelagians and in his Epistle to Leta St. Augustine reciteth Heb. 11. for this purpose a place out of John Bishop of Constantinople in his 1. Book aganst Julian Chap. 2. and he again writing to St. Hierome Epist 28. saith That St. Cyprian not making any new Decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his fellow Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully Baptized The place of Cyprian is to be seen in his Epistle to Fidus. Also St. Augustine in writing against the Donatists in the 4. Book Chap. 23. 24. saith That the Baptism of Infants was not derived from the authority of Man neither of Councels but from the Tradition or Doctrine of the Apostles Cyril upon Leviticus Chap. 8. approveth the Baptism of Children and condemneth the iteration of Baptism These Authorities of Men I do alledge not to tie the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but Lies for them and new Imaginations which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment After this will I answer to the sum of your Arguments for the contrary The first which includeth all the rest is It is Written Go ye into all the World and Preach the glad Tidings to all Creatures He that believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved But he that believeth not shall be Damned c. To this I answer That nothing is added to God's Word by Baptism of Children as you pretend but that is done which the same Word doth require for that Children are accounted of Christ in the Gospel among the number of such as believe as it appeareth by these words He that offendeth Matth. 18. one of these little Babes which believe in me it were better for him to have a Milstone tyed about his Neck and to be cast into the bottom of the Sea Where plainly Christ calleth such as be not able to confess their Faith Believers because of his mere Grace he reputeth them for Believers And this is no Wonder so to be taken since God imputeth Faith for Righteousness unto Men that be of riper Age For both in Men and Children Righteousness Acceptation or Sanctification is of mere Grace and by Imputation that the Glory of God's Grace might be praised And that the Children of Faithful Parents are Sanctified and among such as do believe is apparent in the 1 Cor. 1 Cor. 7. 7. And whereas you do gather by the order of the words in the said Commandment of Christ that Children ought to be taught before they be Baptized and to this end you alledge many places out of the Acts proving that such as Confessed their Faith first were Baptized after I answer That if the order of words might weigh any thing to this Cause we have the Scripture that maketh as well for us St. Mark we read that John did Baptize in the Desart Mark 1. Preaching the Baptism of Repentance In the which place we see Baptizing go before and Preaching to follow after And also I will declare this place of Matthew exactly considered to make for the use of Baptism in Children for St. Matthew hath it written in this wise All Power is Matth. 28. given me saith the Lord in Heaven and in Earth therefore going forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Disciple ye as I may express the signification of the Word that is make or gather to me Disciples of all Nations And following he declareth the way how they should gather to him Disciples out of all Nations baptizing them and teaching by baptizing and teaching ye shall procure a Church to me And both these aptly and briefly severally he setteth forth saying Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Now then Baptism goeth before Doctrine But hereby I do not gather that the Gentiles which never heard any thing before of God and of the Son of God and of the Holy Ghost ought to be Baptized neither they would permit themselves to be Baptized before they knew to what end But this I have declared to shew you upon how feeble Foundation the Anabaptists be grounded And plainly it is not true which they imagine of this Text that the Lord did only command such to be Baptized whom the Apostles had first of all taught Neither here verily is signified who only be to be Baptized but he speaketh of such as be of perfect age and of the first Foundations of Faith and of the Church to be planted among the Gentiles which were as yet rude and ignorant of Religion Such as be of Age may hear believe and confess that which is Preached and taught but so cannot Infants therefore we may justly collect that he speaketh here nothing of Infants or Children But for all this
betoken our being made new Creatures and entred into a new State or Condition of Life which still they seem to aim more expresly at in their general care to give the Child some Scripture Name or some name that should signify some excellent vertue or Grace some Religious duty owing to God or some memorable benefit receiv'd from him Here we have an outward Visible sign and this too sometimes of an inward Spiritual Grace and yet this no more accounted a new Sacrament or a Sacrament within that of Baptism than we do our Sign of the Cross and indeed there seems just as much reason for the one as for the other and no more 2. Those Arguments which some of our Dissenting Brethren have us'd in Plea for the posture of sitting at the Lords Supper do shew that besides what they urge from the posture wherein our Saviour himself celebrated it they apprehend some Significancy in the gesture that renders it more accommodate to that ordinance than any other for some of them plead for the posture of sitting as being most properly a Table-gesture and doth best of all express our fellowship with Christ and the honour and priviledg of Communion with him as Co-heirs Now in this matter let us consider our Lord hath no where expresly Commanded us to perform this Sacrament in a sitting posture much less hath he told us that he ordain'd this gesture in token of our fellowship with him so that we see this gesture of sitting by the Tenor of their Argument made an outward Visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace and this not from any antecedent express institution of Christ which notwithstanding this posture of sitting is not accounted by those that frame the Argument any new or additional Sacrament to that of the Lords Supper 3. Lastly Those of the Congregational way have a formal Covenant which they insist upon that whoever will be admitted into any of their Churches must engage themselves in this is of that importance amongst them that they call it the Constitutive Form of a Church that which makes any particular Person Member of a Church Apol. for Church-coven Yea and as another expresses it that wherein the Vnion of such a Church doth consist We will suppose then this Covenant administer'd in some form or other and the Person admitted by this Covenant into an Independant Church declaring his consent by some Action or other such as holding up his Hand or the like Let me ask them What must they of that Church think of this Rite or Ceremony of holding up the hand will they not look upon it as a token of his consent to be a Church-Member Here then is an outward Visible sign of What of no less according to their apprehension of things than a perfect new State and Condition of Life that is of being embody'd in Christ's Church engag'd to all the Duties and enstated in all the priviledges of it Will they say that this way of admission either the form of words wherein their Covenant is administred or the Ceremony of holding up the hand by which this Covenant is taken and assented to was originally ordain'd by Christ or do they themselves esteem this of the nature of a Sacrament or did the Presbyterian-Brethren in all their Arguments against this way charge them with introducing a new Sacrament So that from all instances imaginable both of the Jewish and Christian Church and that both Primitive and later Reformations even from the particular practices of our Dissenting Brethren it is very Evident how unreasonable a thing it is that though we sign the baptiz'd person with the Sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith Christ of Crucifi d c. We should be accus'd as introducing a new Sacrament or adding the Sacrament of the Cross to that of Baptism But then they tell us secondly we seem to own it our selves when in an entire Representative of our Church such as we suppose a Convocation to be it is actually determin'd that by the Sign of the Cross the Person Baptiz'd is dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross and what can be more immediate saith one of our Brethren than in the present dedicating act to use the sign and express the dedicating Signification It is confest that the 30th Canon doth say the Cross is an honourable badg whereby the Infant is dedicated c. And the stress of the Objection in this part of it lieth in the word dedicated that is because the Sacrament of Baptism is it self a Seal of Admission into Covenant and Dedication to God and the Christian Religion therefore by using a Symbolical Ceremony of humane institution whereby we profess the Person Baptiz'd dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross we have made a new Sacrament and added to that of Baptism to dedicate him in our own invented way as Christ hath in that which he hath instituted 1. To this I answer that surely the word dedication is of a much larger Signification than that it should be confin'd meerly to the Interpretation that our Brethren would put upon it The meaning of dedication properly is the appropriating of any thing or Person to any peculiar service such as a Church or Temple for the Worship of God any Person to the profession the true Religion to the Ministry or to any kind of attendance at the Holy Altars This is the strictest sense of dedication but then in a larger sense we may suppose it apply'd to any strict or conscientious discharge of all the Duties and answering all the ends of the first dedication Thus suppose a Man ordain'd to the Ministry whereby he is properly dedicated to the work and service of the Gospel he may by some solemn act of his own dedicate himself to a zealous and faithful discharge of that Office and this after some time that he may have apprehended himself hitherto not so diligent in the trust that had been committed to him This cannot be call'd in any sense a new ordination but it may with reason and sense enough be stil'd a dedicating of a Man's self more particularly to the service of God in the discharge of that Ministry he was ordain'd to And therefore 2. In this sense the Convocation ought in all justice to be understood when they in explaining the intention of the Cross tell us it is an honourable badg whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that dy'd upon the Cross c. And yet I must needs say it seems hard measure upon the Church of England that if those in a Convocation should not have apply'd the word dedication to what might be most strictly the sense of it that this should be so severely expounded that no other declarations of their meaning and intention must be accepted of than what meerly the strict and critical sense of that word will bear Surely
could allot any more time for a solemn preparation for it than they did for any other part of divine worship And consequently that the Apostle when he bids the Corinthians examine themselves could mean no more than that considering the nature and ends of this Institution they should come to it with great reverence and reflecting upon their former miscarriages in this matter should be carefull upon this admonition to avoid them for the future and to amend what had been amiss which to doe requires rather resolution and care than any long time of preparation I speak this that devout persons may not be entangled in an apprehension of a greater necessity than really there is of a long and solemn preparation every time they receive the Sacrament The great necessity that lies upon men is to live as becomes Christians and then they can never be absolutely unprepared Nay I think this to be a very good preparation and I see not why men should not be very well satisfied with it unless they intend to make the same use of the Sacrament that many of the Papists do of Confession and Absolution which is to quit with God once or twice a year that so they may begin to sin again upon a new score But because the Examination of our selves is a thing so very usefull and the time which men are wont to set apart for their preparation for the Sacrament is so advantageous an opportunity for the practice of it therefore I cannot but very much commend those who take this occasion to search and try their ways and to call themselves to a more solemn account of their actions Because this ought to be done sometime and I know no fitter time for it than this And perhaps some would never find time to recollect themselves and to take the condition of their souls into serious consideration were it not upon this solemn occasion The sum of what I have said is this that supposing a person to be habitually prepared by a religious disposition of mind and the general course of a good life this more solemn actual preparation is not always necessary And it is better when there is an opportunity to receive without it than not to receive at all But the greater our actual preparation is the better For no man can examine himself too often and understand the state of his soul too well and exercise repentance and renew the resolutions of a good life too frequently And there is perhaps no fitter opportunity for the doing of all this than when we approach the Lord's table there to commemorate his death and to renew our Covenant with him to live as becomes the Gospel All the Reflexion I shall now make upon this Discourse shall be from the consideration of what hath been said earnestly to excite all that profess and call themselves Christians to a due preparation of themselves for this holy Sacrament and a frequent participation of it according to the intention of our Lord and Saviour in the institution of it and the undoubted practice of Christians in the primitive and best times when men had more devotion and fewer scruples about their duty If we do in good earnest believe that this Sacrament was instituted by our Lord in remembrance of his dying love we cannot but have a very high value and esteem for it upon that account Methinks so often as we reade in the institution of it those words of our dear Lord doe this in remembrance of me and consider what he who said them did for us this dying charge of our best friend should stick with us and make a strong impression upon our minds Especially if we add to these those other words of his not long before his death Greater love than this hath no man that a man lay down his life for his friend ye are my friends if ye doe whatsoever I command you It is a wonderfull love which he hath expressed to us and worthy to be had in perpetual remembrance And all that he expects from us by way of thankfull acknowledgment is to celebrate the remembrance of it by the frequent participation of this blessed Sacrament And shall this charge laid upon us by him who laid down his life for us lay no obligation upon us to the solemn remembrance of that unparallel'd kindness which is the fountain of so many blessings and benefits to us It is a sign we have no great sense of the benefit when we are so unmindfull of our benefactour as to forget him days without number The Obligation he hath laid upon us is so vastly great not onely beyond all requital but beyond all expression that if he had commanded us some very grievous thing we ought with all the readiness and chearfulness in the world to have done it how much more when he hath imposed upon us so easie a commandment a thing of no burthen but of immense benefit when he hath onely said to us Eat O friends and drink O beloved when he onely invites us to his table to the best and most delicious Feast that we can partake of on this side heaven If we seriously believe the great blessings which are there exhibited to us and ready to be conferred upon us we should be so far from neglecting them that we should heartily thank God for every opportunity he offers to us of being made partakers of such benefits When such a price is put into our hands shall we want hearts to make use of it Methinks we should long with David who saw but the shadow of these blessings to be satisfied with the good things of God's house and to draw near his altar and should cry out with him O when shall I come and appear before thee My soul longeth ye even fainteth for the courts of the Lord and my flesh cryeth out for the living God And if we had a just esteem of things we should account it the greatest infelicity and judgment in the world to be debarred of this privilege which yet we do deliberately and frequently deprive our selves of We exclaim against the Church of Rome with great impatience and with a very just indignation for robbing the People of half of this blessed Sacrament and taking from them the cup of blessing the cup of salvation and yet we can patiently endure for some months nay years to exclude our selves wholly from it If no such great benefits and blessings belong to it why do we complain of them for hindring us of any part of it But if there do why do we by our own neglect deprive our selves of the whole In vain do we bemoan the decay of our graces and our slow progress and improvement in Christianity whilst we wilfully despise the best means of our growth in goodness Well do we deserve that God should send leanness into our souls and make them to consume and pine away in perpetual doubting and trouble if when God himself doth spread so bountifull
all your Party formerly may prevail with you more than any of ours give me leave to mind you what Mr. Hildersham hath resolved in several cases like to ours particularly about this of Mens leaving their own Pastors to hear others VI. 1. And first he resolves this That it is the Ordinance of God every Pastor should have his own Flock to attend and every one of Gods People should have a Pastor of his own to depend upon From whence he concludes that none of those People may ordinarily and usually leave that Pastor because then he doth not depend upon his Ministry which he proves every one of them is bound to do 2. And that you may not imagine he means any other Pastor than such as ours his second Resolution is this that they who dwell next together should be of the same Congregation whence the name of Paroichia and Parish first came 3. Now thirdly if it happen that he who is the setled Pastor of the place where you dwell is a man whose Gifts are far inferiour to some others his Resolution in this case is That he being a Man whose Gift is approved by Gods Church and who is conscionable in his Place and of an unblameable Life you ought not to leave him at any time with contempt of his Ministry And then you contemn his Ministry when you speak or think thus in your heart Alas he is no Body a good honest Man but he hath no Gifts I cannot profit by him Mind I beseech you these Words which are none of mine but Mr. Hildersham's and I doubt too common Language now among you and mark the Reasons he gives which I shall contract why you may not do this First A Man may be a true Minister though his Gifts be far inferiour to many others and consequently secondly You are bound to love him and reverence him and thank God for him and thirdly Doubtless you may profit by him if the Fault be not in your selves The best Christian that is may profit by the meanest of Christs Servants And I am perswaded saith he There is never a Minister that is of the most excellent Gifts if he have a godly Heart but he can truly say he never heard any faithful Minister in his Life that was so mean but he could discern some Gift in him that was wanting in himself and could receive some profit by him Which is a thing worthy your consideration now for there is none of your Ministers dare say that they cannot profit by the Sermons that are commonly preached in our Churches and therefore so may you if you please to be impartial how meanly soever you may think of any of our Ministers especially if you observe this fourth thing which the same Mr. Hildersham judiciously adds That 4. The Fruit and Profit which is to be received from the Ministry depends not only nor chifely upon the Gifts of the Man that preaches but upon the Blessing that God is pleased to give unto his own Ordinance To which he applies those Words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. 5 6 7 8. Who is Paul and who is Apollo but Ministers by whom ye beleived even as the Lord gave to every Man I have planted Apollo watred but God gave the Increase So then neither is he that planted any thing nor he that watereth but God that giveth the Increase c. And God doth oft give a greater Blessing to weake than to stronger means and therefoer consider saith he the Fault may be rather in thy self than in the Preacher that thou canst not profit And indeed how shouldst thou profit by his Ministry if thou come with Prejudice without any Reverence or Delight unto it and dost scarce acknowledg God's Ordinance in it nor ever seek to God for his Blessing upon it but look wholly at the Man who preaches To conclude this he observes the great want of Judgment that appears in this sort of Christians in the choice they make of their Teachers and the applause they give unto them which shews how necessary it is they should be confined commonly to their own For as some admire and follow another rather than their own Pastor because he can make more ostentation of Eloquence Reading Learning and such like humane Gifts than their own Pastor doth upon which account the Corinthians preferred sundry Teachers before St. Paul himself so there are those who leave their own Pastor and go to others only for Varieties sake Though their own have never such excellent Gifts yet can they not like any one Man long but having itching Ears must have an heap of Teachers And some also prefer others before their own Pastor only because they shew more Zeal mark this in their Voice and Gesture and Phrase of Speech and manner of Delivery though happily the Doctrine it self be nothing so wholsome or powerful or fit to edifie their Consciences as the Doctrine of their own Pastor is Any though these be the best of the three sorts now mentioned and pretend much Love and Zeal yet we may wish them more Knowledg and Judgment I omit other things upon this Subject which you may find in his 58th Lecture upon the 4th of St. John Where he admits indeed that a man may some time go from his own Parish Church to hear another whose gifts he more admires But then like a judicious Divine adds this notable observation to correct and regulate this liberty that it may not prove an evil Humour viz. He only makes right use of the benefit of hearing such as have more excellent Gifts than his own Pastor as learns thereby to like his own Pastor the better and to profit more by him Mark it I most earnestly intreat you together with his Illustration of it by this Example The excellent Gifts God hath bestowed on others in this case may be fitly resembled unto Physick which they use well whose appitite is thereby amended and are made able to rellish and like their ordinary food the better If after men have heard one of excellent Gifts they begin to distaste the Ministry of their ordinary Pastors and can like of none profit by none unless they have rare Gifts they become at length like to those who by accustoming themselves to drink hot and strong Waters bring their Stomacks to that pass that they can find no Relish or Vertue in any Drink or Water be it never so hot or strong Believe it they receive no true profit from the most admired Preacher who learn not by hearing him to profit by any one that delivers to them the wholesome Words of our Lord Jesus and the Doctrine that is according unto Godliness though in the plainest manner imaginable both for Method and Language This I have chosen to write in his Words because there are some I fear that would scarce indure such Doctrine from us which may at least be more reverently received and duly considered proceeding from a Person of such note heretofore
the worldly increase with their Power And for illustration-sake when the House being garbell'd had much less right but more force the Army as yet agreeing with them and the good King being in their hands than they gave to the Declarations of their Pleasure the Title not as before of Ordinances but of Acts of Parliament * * * Whill Memoirs p. 363. Oliver likewise declared plainly That there was as much need to keep the Cause by Power as to get it And being potent he entred the House and mock'd at his Masters and commanded with insolent disdain that That Bawble * * * Speech at the Dissol of the House Jan. 22. 1654. p. 22 meaning the Mace of the Speaker should be taken away Men may intend well but using the help of the illegal secular Arm they can never secure * * * Id. ibid. â— 529. what they propose but frequently render that which was well settled much worse by their unhinging of it But such means it comes to pass that the Civil State is embroyl'd and Religion sensibly decays in stead of growing towards perfection where publick order is interrupted and Men gain a Liberty which they know not how to use Secondly It appeareth by the History of our late Revolutions which began with pretence of a more pure Religion that our Dissentions occasion'd great Corruptions both in Faith and manners Then the War was Preached up as the Christian Cause And one of the City-Soldiers mortally wounded at Newberry-fight was applauded in an Epistle * * * Hill 's Ser. called Temple work A. 1644. to the Houses as one whose Voice was more than humane when he cryed out O that I had another Life to lose for Jesus Christ Then this Doctrine so very immoral and unchristian was by some * * * D. Crisp in Ser. called Our sins are already laid on Christ p 274 275. Preached and by great numbers embrac'd The Lord hath no more to lay to the charge of an Elect Person yet in the heighth of Iniquity and the excess of Riot and committing all the Abominations that can be committed than he hath to lay to the charge of a Saint Triumphant in Glory Then certain Soldiers * * * H. of Indep part 2. p 152 153. enter'd a Church with five Lights as Emblems of five things thought fit to be extinguish'd viz. The Lord's-day Tythes Ministers Magistrates the Bible Then by a publick Intelligencer who called himself Mercurius Britanicus ** ** ** Merc. Brit. N 13. Nov. A. 43 p. 97. the Lord Primate Vsher himself was reproach'd as an Old Doting Apostating Bishop Instances are endless but what need have we of further Witnesses than the Lords and Commons and the Ministers of the Province of London whose Complaints and Acknowledgments are here subjoyned The Lords and Commons in one of their Ordinances * * * Die Jovâ—z Febr. 4 1646. use these words We have thought fit lest we partake in other Mens sins and thereby be in danger to receive of their Plagues to set forth this our deep sense of the great dishonour of God and perillous condition that this Kingdom is in through the abominable Blasphemies and damnable Heresies vented and spread abroad therein tending to the Subversion of the Faith contempt of the Ministry and Ordinance of Jesus Christ The Ministers made a like acknowledgment saying Instead ** ** ** Testim to Truth of J. Chr. p. 31. of extirpating Heresie Schism Profaness we have such an impudent and general inundation of all these evils that Multitudes are not asham'd to press and plead for publick formal and universal Toleration And again We the Ministers of Jesus Christ do hereby testify to all our Flocks to all the Kingdom and to all the Reformed Churches as our great dislike of Pilacy Erastianism Brownism and Independency so our utter abhorrence of Anti-Scripturism Popery Arianism Socinianism Arminianism Antimonianism Anabaptism Libertinism and Familism with all such like now too rife among us Thirdly some Dissenters by the Purity of Religion mean agreeableness of Doctrine Discipline and Life to the dispensation of the New Testament and a removal of humane Inventions and thus far the Notion is true but with reference to our Church it is an unwarrantable Reflexion For it hath but one Principal Rule and that is the Holy Scripture and Subordinate rules in pursuance of the general Canons in Holy Writ are not to be called in our Church any more than in the pure and Primitive Christian Church whose Pattern it follows humane Imaginations but rules of Ecclesiastical Wisdom and Discretion But there are others among the Dissenters who by the Purity of Religion mean a simplicity as oppos'd to composition and not to such mixtures as corrupt the Circumstances or parts of Worship which in themselves are pure Quakers and some others believe their way the purer because they have taken out of it Sacraments and External Forms of Worship and endeavoured as they phrase it * * * G. Fox in J. Perrot's Hidden things brought to light p. 11. to bring the Peoples minds out of all Visibles By equal reason the Papists may say their Eucharist is more pure than that of the Protestants because they have taken the Cup from it But that which maketh a pure Church is like that which maketh a pure Medicine not the fewness of the Ingredients but the good quality of them how many soever they be and the aptness of their Nature for the procuring of Health Men who have this false Notion of the purity of Religion distill it till it evaporates and all that is left is a dead and corrupt Sediment And here I have judged the following words of Sir Walter Rawleigh not unfit to be by me transcribed and considered by all * * * Hist of the World l. 2. 1. part c. 5. p. 249. The Reverend Care which Moses had in all that belong'd even to the outward and least parts of the Tabernacle Ark and Sanctury is now so forgotten and cast away in this Superfine Age by those of the Family by the Anabaptist Brownist and other Sectaries as all cost and care bestow'd and had of the Church wherein God is to be served and worshipped is accounted a kind of Popery and as proceeding from an Idolatrous Disposition Insomuch as time would soon bring to pass if it were not resisted that God would be turned out of Churches into Barns and from thence again into the Fields and Mountains and under the Hedges and the Officers of the Ministry robbed of all Dignity and Respect be as contemptible as these places all Order Discipline and Church-Government left to newness of Opinion and Men's Fancies Yea and soon after as many kinds of Religions would spring up as there are Parish Churches within England Every Contentious and ignorant person clothing his Fancy with the Spirit of God and his Imagination with the gift of