appointment it was first Erected But there was no necessity for this upon supposition that it had ceased to be abused for any considerable time and there were no appearance of an inclination in the People to abuse it again And no doubt 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 again inclined so to abuse them at least if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by other means Sixthly But had Hezekiah suffered the Brazen Serpent still to stand no doubt private Persons who have no authority to make publick Reformations might Lawfully have made use of it to put them in mind of and affect them with the wonderful mercy of God expressed by it to their Fore-Fathers notwithstanding that many had not only formerly but did at that very nick of time make an Idol of it 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 joyn with them in their Idolatry As we do not read of any that Separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abused as it was by the generality I will also conclude this Head with the sense of Mr. Calvin concerning Rites used and consequently superstitiously abused by the Papists expressed in these Words Let not any think me so austere or bound up Calv. de vitandâ Superstitione c. as to forbid a Christian without any exception to accommodate himself to the Papists in any Ceremony or Observance for it is not my purpose to Condemn any thing but what is clearly Evil and openly Vitious To which may be added many other such like sayings of this Learned Person And thus much shall suffice to be discoursed upon our second general Head viz. That a Church's Symbolizing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so Symbolizing We now proceed in the Third and last place to shew 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 unlawful We have shewed what a vastly wide Distance and Disagreement there is between the Church of England and that of Rome And we have sufficiently though with the greatest brevity made it apparent that a Church's Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome and those such too as she hath abused in Idolatrous and grosly Superstitious Services is no just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing And we have answered the Chief of those Arguments which have been brought for the Confirmation of the contrary Doctrine And now from what hath been discoursed it may with the greatest ease be prov'd that those things wherein our own Church particularly agreeth with the Romish Church do none of them speak such an Agreement therewith as will justifie Separation from our Church's Communion Now the particulars wherein our Church Symbolizeth with that of Rome which our Dissenters take offence at and make a pretence for Separation though all Dissenters are not offended at all of them and much less so offended as to make them all a pretence for Separation are principally these following First The Government of our Church by Bishops Secondly Our Churches prescribing a Liturgy or Set-Forms of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other Publick Offices Thirdly A Liturgy so contrived as that of our Church is Fourthly Certain Rites of our Church Particularly the Surplice the Cross in Baptism the Gesture of Kneeling at the Communion the Ring in Marriage and the Observation of certain Holy-days And to all these I shall speak very succinctly the limits I am confined to not permitting me to enlarge much upon any of them But I must first premise concerning them all in the general these following things First That I take it for granted that they are all indifferent in their own nature That there is nothing of Viciousness or Immorality in any of them to make them unlawful I know no body so unreasonable as not to grant this Secondly That there is no Express positive Law of God against any of these things I do not know of any such Law objected against any one of them And therefore if all or any of them are unlawful they must be made so either by Consequences drawn from Divine Laws or certain Circumstances attending them Thirdly That I am concerned in this Discourse to vindicate them from being unlawful upon the account onely of this one Circumstance viz. Our Symbolizing with the Church of Rome in them Now then First As to the Government of our Church by Bishops This is so far from being an Vnlawful Symbolizing with the Church of Rome that we have most clear Evidence of its being a Symbolizing with her in an Apostolical Institution And what Eminent Divines of the Presbyterial Party have acknowledg'd and is too evident to be denied or doubted by any who are not wholly ignorant of Church-History is sufficient I should think to satisfie unprejudiced persons concerning the truth of this And that is that this was the Government of all Churches in the World from the Apostles times for about 1500 years together Beza in his Treatise of a Threefold kind of Episcopacy Divine Humane and Satanical asserts concerning the second which is that which we call Apostolical that of this kind is to be understood whatsoever we read concerning the Authority of Bishops in Ignatius and other more Antient Writers And the famous Peter Du Moulin in his Book of the Pastoral Office written in defence of the Presbyterial Government acknowledgeth that presently after the Apostles times or even in their time as Ecclesiastical story witnesseth it was ordained that in every City one of the Presbytery should be called a Bishop who should have preheminence over his Collegues to avoid Confusion which oft times ariseth out of Equality And truly saith he this Form of Government all Churches every where received Mr. Calvin saith in his Institution of Christian Religion Quibus docendi munus injunctum erat c. Those to whom was committed the Office of Teaching they called them all Presbyters These Elected out of their number in L. 4. cap. 4. §. 2. each City one to whom in a special manner they gave the Title of Bishop lest Strife and Contention as it commonly happeneth should arise out of Equality And in his Epistle to Arch-bishop Cranmer he thus accosts him Illustrissime Domine Ornatissime Praesul c. Most Illustrious Sir and most Honourable Prelate and by me heartily Reverenced And tells him that if he might be serviceable to the Church of England he would not think much of passing over ten Seas for that purpose Again in his Epistle to the King of Poland he thus speaks of Patriarchs and Arch-bishops The Ancient Church did
properly Acts of Communion Having thus premised the explication of these terms what is meant by Church and what is meant by Church-Communion and what is meant by Fixt or Constant and occasional Communion the right understanding of these things will make it very easie to resolve those cases which Immediately respect Church-Communion and I shall Instance in these three 1. Whether Communion with some Church or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians 2. Whether constant Communion with that Church with which occasional Communion is Lawful be a necessary Duty 3. Whether it be Lawful for the same person to Communicate with two separate Churches Case 1. Whether Communion with some Church Case 1 or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians Now methinks the resolution of this is as plain as whether it be necessary for every Man to be a Christian For every Christian is Baptized into the Communion of the Church and must continue a Member of the Church till he renounce his Membership by Schism or Infidelity or be cast out of the Church by Ecclesiastical censures Baptism incorporates us into the Christian Church that is makes us Members of the Body of Christ which is his Church and is frequently so called in Scripture For there is but one Body and one Spirit Eph. Eph. 5. 23. 4. 12. 4. 4. one Christian Church which is animated and governed by the one Spirit of Christ And we are all Baptized into this one Body For as the Body is one and Col. 1. 18. hath many Members and all the members of that one Body being many are one Body so also is Christ that is the Christian Church which is the Body of Christ of which he is the Head for by one Spirit we are all Baptized 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. into one Body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or Free and are all made to drink into one Spirit for the body is not one member but many Now I have already proved that Church Communion is nothing else but Church-Membership to be in Communion with the Church and to be a member of the Church signifying the same thing And I think I need not prove that to be in a state of Communion contains both a right and an Obligation to Actual Communion He who is a member of the Church may Challenge all the Priviledges of a member among which Actual Communion is none of the least to be admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Christian-Communion to the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments and all other Christian Duties which no Man who is not a member of the Church has any right to And he who is a member is bound to perform all those Duties and Offices which are Essential to Church Communion and therefore is bound to Communicate with the Church in Religious Assemblies to joyn in Prayers and Sacraments to attend publick Instructions and to live like a member of the Church But to put this past all doubt that external and actual Communion is an essential Duty of a Church-member I shall offer these plain proofs of it 1. That Baptism makes us Members of the visible Church of Christ but there can be no visible Church without visible Communion and therefore every visible Member by vertue of his Membership is bound to external and visible Communion when it may be had 2. This is essential to the notion of a Church as it is a Body and Society of Christians For all Bodies and Societies of Men are Instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices to be performed by the Members of it A Body of Men is a Community and it is a strange kind of Community in which every Member may act by it self without any Communication with other Members of the same Body And yet such a kind of Body as this the Christian Church is if it be not an essential Duty of every Member to live in the exercise of visible Communion with the Church when he can For there is the same Law for all Members and either all or none are bound to actual Communion But this is more absurd still when we consider that the Church is such a Body as consists of variety of Members of different Offices and Officers which are of no use without actual and visible Communion of all its Members To what purpose did Christ appoint such variety of Ministers in his Church Apostles Prophets Evangelists Eph. 4. 11 12. Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ to what purpose has he instituted a standing Ministry in his Church to offer up the Prayers of the Faithful to God to instruct exhort reprove and adminster the Christian Sacraments if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them in all Religious Offices 3. Nay the Nature of Christian Worship obliges us to Church-Communion I suppose no Man will deny but that every Christian is bound to Worship God according to our Saviours Institution and what that is we cannot learn better than from the Example of the Primitive Christians of whom St. Luke gives us this account that they continued Stedfast in the Acts 2. 41. Apostles Doctrine and Worship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers That which makes any thing in a Strict sense an Act of Church-Communion is that it is performed in the Fellowship of the Apostles or in Communion with the Bishops and Ministers of the Church They are appointed to Offer up the Prayers of Christians to God in his Name and therefore tho the private devotions of Christians are acceptable to God as the Prayers of Church-Members yet none but publick Prayers which are Offered up by Men who have their Authority from Christ to Offer these Spiritual Sacrifices to God are properly the Prayers of the Church and Acts of Church-Communion If then we must Offer up our Prayers to God according to Christ's Institution that is by the hands of persons Authorized and set apart for that purpose we must of necessity joyn in the Actual and Visible Communion of the Church The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is the principal part of Christian Worship and we cannot Celebrate this Feast but in Church-Communion for this is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common Supper or Communion-Feast which in all Ages of the Church has been administred by Consecrated Persons and in Church-Communion for it loses its Nature and Signification when it is turned into a private Mass so that if every Christian is bound to the Actual performance of true Christian Worship he is bound to an Actual Communion with the Christian Church 4. We may observe further that Church Authority is exercised only about Church-Communion which necessarily supposes that all Christians who
no Man will say that in this sence we live in the French or Dutch Church because there is a French and Dutch Church allowed among us 5. Your next Query is Whether a true Christian though not visibly admitted into Church-Communion where he wants the Means has not a virtual Baptism in the Answer of a good Conscience towards God according to 1. Peter 2. 21. Ans What this concerns me I cannot tell I speak onely of the Necessity of Visible Communion in Visible Members you put a question whether the want of Visible Admission by Baptism when it can't be had may not be supplied with the answer of a good Conscience towards God I hope in some cases it may though I do not hope this from what St. Peter saies who onely speaks of that Answer of a good Conscience which is made at Baptism not of that which is made without it But what God will accept of in this case is not my business to determie unbaptized Persons are no Visible Members of the Church and therefore not capable of Visible Communion and therefore not concerned at all in this dispute 6. Query Why a profest Atheist who has been Baptized and out of Secular Interest continues a Communicant with this Church is more a Member of the Catholick Church than such as are above described Ans Neither Atheists nor Schismaticks are Members of the Catholick Church But this is a vile insinuation against the Governours and Government of our Church as if profest Atheists were admitted to Communion Though possibly there may be some Atheists yet I never met yet with one who would profess himself an Atheist If I should I assure you I would not admit him to Communion and I hope there is no Minister of the Church of England would and I am sure no Man who had any kindness for the Church with which he pretends to hold Communion would ask such a question 7. Query Whether as the Catholick Church is compared to a Body of Men incorporated by one Charter should upon supposition of a possibility of the forfeiture of the Charter to the whole Body by the Miscarriages of any of the Officers does it likewise follow that the Miscarriages of any of the Officers or the Church Representative as I remember Bishop Sanderson calls the Clergy may forfeit the Priviledges given by Christ to his Church or at least may suspend them As suppose a Protestant Clergy taking their Power to be as large as the Church of Rome claim'd should deny the Laity the Sacraments as the Popish did in Venice and here in King Johns time during the Interdicts quid inde operatur Ans Just as much as this Query does the reason of which I cannot easily guess I asserted indeed that as there is but one Covenant on which the Church is founded so there can be but one Church to which this Covenant belongs and therefore those who divide and separate themselves from this one Body of Christ forfeit Resol of Cases p. 8. c. their right to this Covenant which is made onely with the one Body of Christ which I illustrated by the instance of a Charter granted to a particular Corporation which no Man had any interest in who divided himself from that Corporation to which this Charter was granted but what is this to forfeiting a Charter by the Miscarriages of Officers I doubt Sir your Head has been Warmed with Quo Warranto's which so affect your Fancy that you can Dream of nothing else I was almost afraid when your hand was in I should never have seen an end of these Questions and I know no more reason why you so soon left off asking Questions than why you askt any at all for I would undertake to ask five hundred more as pertinent to the business as most of these You have not indeed done yet but have a reserve of particular Queries but general Queries are the most formidable things because it is harder to find what they relate to than how to Answer them You have three sets of Queries relating to three several Propositions besides a parting blow of four Queries relating to my Text. The first Proposition you are pleased to question me about is this That our Saviour made the Apostles and their Successors Governours of his Church with promise to be with them to the end of the World Which I alledged to prove that when the Church is called the Body of Christ it does not signifie a confused multitude of Christians but a regular Society under Order and Government Now Sir is this true or false if it be false then the Church is not a governed Society is not a Body but a confused heap and multitude of Independent Individuals which is somewhat worse than Independent Churches If it be true why do you ask all these Questions unless you have a mind to confute our Saviour and burlesque his Institutions but since I am condemned to answer questions I will briefly consider them 1. Whether our Saviours promise of Divine Assistance did not extend to all the Members of the Church considering every man in his respective station and capacity as well as the Apostles as Church-Governours For which you may compare St. John with St. Matthew Ans No doubt but there are promises which relate to the whole Church and promises which belong to particular Christians as well as promises which relate peculiarly to the Apostles and Governours of the Church in the exercise of their Ministerial Office and Authority but what then Christ is with his Church with his Ministers with particular Christians to the end of the World but in a different manner and to different purposes and yet that promise there is peculiarly made to the Apostles including their Successors also for the Apostles themselves were not to continue here to the end of the World but an Apostolical Ministry was 2. Therefore Query Whether it signifies any thing to say there is no promise to particular Churches provided there be to particular Persons such as are in charity with all Men and are ready to communicate with any Church which requires no more of them than what they conceive to be their duty according to the Divine Covenant Ans It seems to me to be a harder Query what this Query means or how it concerns that Authority which our Saviour has given to his Apostles for the Government of the Church to which this Query relates I asserted indeed that Christ hath made no Covenant with any particular but onely with the Universal Church which includes particulars as Members of it nor has he made any promise to particular Persons but as Members of the Church and in Communion with it when it may be had upon lawful terms Whoever breaks the Communion of the Church without necessary reason tho he may in other things be a very good natur'd man yet he has not true Christian Charity which unites all the Members of the same Body in one Communion
our Saviour frequently resorted to it and bore a part in it John 18. 20 c. The like temper we find him of when he used the Cup of Charity after the manner of the Jews in the Passover though there was no institution for it and that it was as many other things taken up and used amongst them by way of signification and as a Testimony of entire Friendship and Charity Luke 22. 16. But I conceive alteration of Circumstances in the Institution is much more exceptionable than the addition of such to it and yet this was both done by them and observed by our Saviour when there was nothing else to oblige him but only a condescension to them in such usages and rites as were inoffensive in themselves and what were then generally used in the Church That the posture first required and used in the Pasiover was standing the Circumstances being to be eat with Staves in their Hands and Shoes on their Feet c. do prove and is affirmed by Philo de Sacrif Able c. Lightf Hor. Matth. c. 26. 20. the Jews and it is as manifest that the Jews in the time of our Saviour and for a long time before did recede from it and did eat it in the posture of discumbency whether it was as they looked upon themselves as settled in the possession of Canaan which they were at the first institution Travelling toward or as it 's said by the latter Jews because it was a sign of Liberty and after the manner of Kings and Great Men is not so material as it is that our Saviour did follow this Custom and complied with this practice of theirs without hesitation And thus did the Apostles when they observ'd the hours of Prayer Acts 3. 1. which were of humane institution as well as the Prayers themselves for without doubt they were publick Prayers which were used in the Temple but though the place was yet that service was of no more Authority than what was used in the Synagogues Now if the Jews did thus institute and alter things relating to external Order and Administration according as the case might require and it was lawful for them so to do as it 's plain from the compliance of our Saviour and the Apostles with them in it then much more may it be supposed lawful for the Christian Church to exercise that liberty when they have no other than such general rules for their direction as they had then without such particulars as they had And that this is no other than a certain Truth will appear from the same liberty taken in Apostolical times in Religious Assemblies when the Christian Church not only complied with the Jews in such Rites as they were under no Obligation but that of Charity to use which they did use because they were not forbidden and so lawful as when St. Paul took upon him a Vow Acts. 21. 26. but also had some Observances of it's own that were of a ritual nature and as they were taken up so might be laid down upon prudential consideration Such I account was the Washing the Disciples Feet which was done by our Saviour in token of the Humility he was to be president of and would have them follow him in and which it seems was observed amongst them 1 Tim. 5. 10. and for a long time after continued in a sort in some Churches (a) (a) (a) Ambros. Tom. 4. l. 3. de Sacrament c. 1. Such also were the Love-feasts at the Administration of the Lords Supper and the Holy-kiss used then amongst Christians if not as a constant attendant upon all publik Worship yet to be sure at Prayer (b) (b) (b) Tertul. de orat c. 14. Which and the like usages however taken up yet were in the Opinion of the Church no other than Indifferent and accordingly were upon the abuse of them as I observed before discarded From all which it appears that there was no such thing as Prescription expected before any Rite should be introduced into the Church or before it would be lawful for Christians to use it but that where it was not forbidden the Practice of the Church was to determine them and if Prescription had been thought necessary for every thing used in Divine Worship which was not Natural then certainly our Saviour and his Apostles would never have used or encouraged others to use any thing that wanted such Authority and that was not of Divine Institution Now if it should be objected that these usages of the Ames Fresh Suit l. 2. Sect. â—3 c. p. 334. Christian Church were Cilvil observances and used as well out of God's Worship as in it and therefore what there needed no Institution for and might be lawfully used without I answer 1. That this doth justify most of the usages contended for and there would be nothing unlawful in using a White Garment c. in Divine Service since that as a sign of Royalty and Dignity was Casaub Exercit 16. c. 73. used in Civil as well as Religious cases and according to this Argument may therefore lawfully be used in Religious because it was in Civil Secondly They must say that either a Civil observance when used in Religious Worship remains Civil notwithstanding it 's being so applied or that it 's Religious whilst so applied if the former then Kneeling or Standing in the Worship of God would be no acts of Adoration and not be Religious because those postures are used in Civil matters if the latter then it must be granted that there may be Rites used in the Worship of God and to a Religious end which there is no Divine Prescription for Nay Thirdly It 's evident that these and the like were not used by the Christians as meer Civil Rites this I think is made evident as to Washing the Feet by a Learned Person (a) (a) (a) Buxtorf Exercit. Hist Sacr. Coenae and not only was the kiss of Charity called the Holy-kiss in Scripture but by the Fatherrs notwithstanding what is (b) (b) (b) Ames ibid. p. 342. n. XXX objected the Seal of Prayer and the Seal of Reconciliation and both consistent the one as it was an attendant upon the office the other as it was a Testimony of their Charity and Reconciliation to each other in it Fourthly If the being Civil usages did make them which were originally so to be lawful in or at Divine Worship then there is nothing that is used out of Worship in Civil cases and affairs but may be introduced into the Church since if it be for that reason that any usages of that kind are defended the reason will as well defend all as one And then the Histrionical Practices of the Church of Rome might warantably be introduced as the rocking of a Babe in a Cradle at night at the Nativity time the Harrowing of Hell at Easter c. Then a Maypole may be brought into the Church for Children to Dance-about
was the way in the Apostles time than that it was not But of this let every one Judge as he sees cause This is certain That the Apostles left the Governours of the Church under the Obligation of ordering the Service of God according to General Rules and prescribed that all things should be done Decently and in Order and to Edification And I do not think that our Brethren will ever be able to shew that this Practice which they except against is not agreeable to such General Rules which yet they ought to do very fully and plainly to excuse their Nonconformity That which is most urged is That the People speaking to God in the Church is Disorderly and a breaking in upon the Ministers Office But will they say that the Children of Israel intrenched upon the Priest when they all bowed themselves upon the Pavement and Worshipped the Lord and Praised him saying For he is good for his mercy endureth for ever 2 Chron. 7. 3. I have already observed That Ecclesiastical Order is in this matter secured by the Ministers Presiding in God's Publick Worship and guiding the whole performance of it But not to allow the People to make an audible Confession of Sin after the Minister nor to utter some few affectionate Petitions and those very short to which they are also invited and led by him this rather seems to savour of an affectation of undue superiority over the People than to proceed from any fear lest by this means they should be incouraged to invade the Ministerial Office I believe the Laity of our Communion have as Reverend an esteem of the Sacred Function as their Neighbours and to raise the Comparison no higher have shewn themselves ever since the Reformation as much afraid to usurp the proper Offices of the Clergie as those that have been drawn away from the Communion of the Church and have been taught that they must not say a word in Publick Prayer but Amen We should not think that we endanger our Order and the respect that is due to it if we do not arrogate more to our selves than is meet It has been one great fault of the Church of Rome to advance the Priest unreasonably above the People in the Administration of Holy Things The Dissenting Ministers may be a little guilty of this though in a particular wherein that Church is not guilty of it They seem to make too little account of the Flock of Christ in Condemning our Church for permitting and requiring the People to Offer up those Petitions to God with their own Mouths which are appointed for them in the Liturgie The Minister assuming the whole to himself does not indeed make him much greater in the Church than he is but they that obstinately deny any part of it to the People do make them of much lower and meaner Condition in the Church than they ought to be And it is something strange that those very Persons who Contend for the interest of the Laity in some business in Religious Assemblies that more nearly touches upon Ecclesiastical Authority than the bare offering up of a few Petitions to God should be so unwilling to allow them this They affirm that the People have a right to be heard before Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are Ordained and as several of them contend to interpose also in all Acts of Discipline and yet they do not think them qualified to bear any part in the Prayers of the Congregation unless by saying Amen to what the Minister utters These things do not seem to hang well together And I am persuaded our Church has ordered this Matter with more Judgment and Impartiality in assigning to the People their Interest both in Acts of Worship and Discipline within such Rules and Limits that the Clergie and Laity may know what their proper place and business is in all Ecclesiastical Assemblies I have heard some Object against the Peoples uttering Prayers and Praises in the Congregation that it is Forbidden Women to speak in the Church But this is strangely misapplied to the Matter in hand For it is plain that the speaking mentioned by the Apostle signifies nothing but Prophecying Interpreting Preaching or Instructing and that the reason why he will not allow this to the Woman is because Preaching is an Act that implies Authority whereas the Womans part is Obedience and Subjection They that will read the whole Chapter will find that this is the true meaning of St. Paul And indeed the place it self sufficiently shews it which I shall therefore set down Let your Women keep silence in the Churches for it is not permitted unto them to speak but they are Commanded to be under Obedience as also the Law saith And if they will learn any thing let them ask their Husbands at home for it is a shame for a Woman to speak in the Church 1 Cor. 14. 34 35 The Subject of this Discourse is briefly exprest in the 39 Verse Brethren covet to prophecy and forbid not to speak with tongues Now the reason given why the Woman is not to speak viz. because she is to be under Obedience does plainly restrain that Speaking to Prophecying and the like which is moreover the only sort of Speaking that is discoursed of in this place I know no particular Exception under this Head which remains to be spoken to unless it be that the People are said to utter the Words of Invocation in the Litany for the most part the Minister all the while suggesting the Matter of it to them But this Objectin will be of no force if what I have said concerning the lawfulness of allowing the People an Interest in Vocal Prayer be admitted unless the Objection be this That they are allowed to bear too considerable a part in that Prayer and somewhat to the disparagement of the Ministers Office And then I answer That upon Reasons which I shall presently Offer it seems to me to be otherwise I shall only premise that I am really troubled for their sakes who put us upon this Defence that in Matters of Prudence and Expedience wherein there is a considerable latitude to order them well enough that in these things I say they seem to yield so very little to the Authority and Judgment of their Governours I do not think it hard to make out the Prudence of these Determinations so much disliked This is not the thing I am troubled at But I think it hard that a Publick Rule should not be thought reason enough to justifie things of this sort and to oblige the People to compliance without more adoe I am sorry that our Dissenting Brethren do not consider that it is some diminution to their Modesty and Humility to challenge as in effect they do a nice and punctual account of the prudence of the Publick Orders of this Church before they will Submit to 'em in Practice Now as to the Objection before us The Peoples Vocal Part in the Litany seems to be no
together Then Seven more Saints Then all the Bishops and Confessors together Then all the Holy Doctors Then Five more of their own great Saints by Name Then all the Holy Priests and Levites Then all the Holy Monks and Hermites Then Seven She Saints by Name Then all the Holy Virgins and Widows And Lastly All the He and She Saints together But the brevity I am confined to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument of the vast distance between these two Churches in reference to their Publick Prayers and Offices Fourthly We proceed to shew that there is also no small distance between the Church of England and that of Rome in reference to the Books they receive for Canonical This will be Immediately dispatched For no more is to be said upon this subject but that whereas the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into her Canon the Church of England like all other Protestant Churches receives only those Books of the Old and New Testament for Canonical Scripture as she declares in her Sixth Article of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church And she declareth concerning the Apocryphal Books in the same Article citing St. Hierom for her Authority That the Church doth read them for Example of life and Instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to Establish any Doctrine And after the example of the Primitive Church no more doth ours and appoints the reading some of them only upon the foresaid Account In the Fifth and Last place The Church of England is at the greatest distance possible from the Church of Rome in reference to the Authority on which they each found their whole Religion As to the Church of Rome she makes her own Infallibility the Foundation of Faith For 1. Our belief of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures themselves must according to her Doctrine be founded upon her infallible Testimony 2. As to that Prodigious deal which she hath added of her own to the Doctrines and Precepts of the Holy Scriptures and which she makes as necessary to be believed and practised as any matters of Faith and Practice contained in the Scriptures and more necessary too than many of them the Authority of those things is founded upon her unwritten Traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspired by the Holy Ghost than were the Prophets and Apostles themselves But Contrariwise the Church of England doth 1. Build the whole of her Religion upon the Sole Authority of Divine Revelation in the Holy Scriptures And therefore she takes every jot thereof out of the Bible She makes the Scriptures the Complete Rule of her Faith and of her Practice too in all matters necessary to Salvation that is in all the parts or Religion nor is there any Genuine Son of this Church that maketh any thing a part of his Religion that is not plainly contained in the Bible Let us see what our Church declareth to this purpose in her 16 Article viz. That Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation So that as Mr. Chillingworth saith THE BIBLE THE BIBLE IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS So you see the Bible is the Religion of the Protestant Church of England Nor doth she fetch one Tittle of her Religion either out of unwritten Traditions or Decrees of Councils Notwithstanding she hath a great Reverence for those Councils which were not a Company of Bishops and Priests of the Popes packing to serve his purposes and which have best deserved the Name of General Councils especially the Four first yet her Reverence of them consisteth not in any opinion of their Infallibility As appears by Article 14. General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes and when they be gathered together for as much as they be an Assembly of Men whereof all be not Governed with the Spirit and Word of God they may Err and sometimes have Erred even in things pertaining unto God Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared that is manifestly proved that they be taken out of Holy Scripture Let us see again how our Church speaks of the matter in hand Article 20. The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith And yet it is not Lawful for the Church to Ordain any thing that is contrary to Gods Word Written neither may it so Expound one place of Scripture that it be Repugnant to another Wherefore although the Church be a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ that is as the Jewish Church was so of the Canon of the Old Testament by whose Tradition alone it could be known what Books were Canonical and what not so the Catholick Christian Church from Christ and his Apostles downwards is so of the Canon of the New Yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same so besides the same ought it not to inforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation If it be asked who is to Judge what is agreeable or contrary to Holy Writ 't is manifest that Our Church leaves it to every Man to Judge for himself But 't is Objected that 't is to be acknowledged that if the Church only claimed a Power to Decree Rites and Ceremonies that is according to the general Rules of doing all things Decently and Orderly and to Edification which Power all Churches have ever Exercised this may well enough consist with private Persons Liberty to Judge for themselves but 't is also said in the now Cited Article that the Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith and accordingly Our Church hath Publisht 39 Articles and requires of the Clergy c. Subscription to them To this we answer that we shall make one Article Egregiously to Contradict another and one and the same to Contradict it self if we understand by the Authority in Controversies of Faith which Our Church acknowledges all Churches to have any more than Authority to Oblige their Members to outward Submission when their Decisions are such as Contradict not any of the Essentials of our Religion whether they be Articles of Faith or Rules of Life not an Authority to Oblige them to assent to their Decrees as infallibly true But it is necessary to the maintaining of Peace that all Churches should be invested with a Power to bind their Members to outward submission in the Case aforesaid that is when their supposed Errors are not of that Moment as that 't is of more pernicious Consequence to bear with them than to break the Peace of the Church by opposing them And as to the fore-mentioned
not fearing any thing of Humane Weakness but trusting in God Consecrated the Child to the Priest-hood almost as soon as he saw the Light Thou wilt have no need of Superstitious Charms and Amulets for him in which the Devil steals to himself from silly Souls the Honour which is due to God but call upon him the name of the Holy Trinity which is the most safe and excellent of Charms And afterwards a a a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so far the Baptism of those who desire Baptism but what shall we say of Infants who are sensible neither of the gain nor loss of it shall we Baptize them Most certainly if they be in danger for it is better that they be Sanctified without the Sense of it than that they dye uninitiated and unconsigned and my reason is taken from Circumcision which was administred on the Eighth Day unto Infants that had no Reason to which I may add the saving of the First-Born in Goshen by the sign of the Blood on the Lintel of the Door and the two Side-Posts The Brevity which I design in this Treatise will not permit me to recite many more Authorities which are very b b b Vid. testim Veter Script de Baptism apud Cassand Gerhard Joh. Voss disp 14. de Baptismo numerous out of Chrysostom Ambrose Jerom Augustin c. But I shall rather superadd some Considerations which confirm this Ancient Tradition of Infant-Baptism and are sufficient to induce any considerate and impartial Man to believe that so Ancient and universal a Practice was as old as the Planting of Churches by the Apostles and originally derives its Authority from them For first if Infant-Baptism was not the Practice of the Apostles but an Innovation it is very hard to imagine that God should suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous Practice which would in time Un-Church it while Miracles were yet Extant in the Church The same Holy Spirit that was the guide of the Apostles into all Truth was the Author of Miracles too but the first four Witnesses which I have produced for Infant-Baptism to wit Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Cyprian do all likewise assure us that Miracles were then not extraordinary in the Church c c c Adversus haereses l. 2. cap. 56 57. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 5. cap. 7. Irenaeus tells us that the true Disciples of Christ did then dispossess Devils and had the Gift of Tongues and of Praescience and Praediction and of healing the Sick and that the whole Congregation meeting together did by Fasting and Prayer often raise the Dead and that many so raised were then alive in the Church Nay he tells us that the number of Spiritual Gifts were innumerable which the Church all the World over then received from Christ and I truly confess it cannot enter into my heart to believe that God should suffer the Church to Embrace such a pernicious Error as Infant-Baptism was if it was not of Apostolical Tradition and fill the Christian World with Mock-Christians while he bore them Witness with Signs and Wonders and divers Miracles and Gifts of the Holy Ghost Tertullian in his a a a Et ad Scapulam c. 2. Apologetic tells us that the Christians had then power to make the Gods of the Heathen confess themselves to be Devils Nay he Challenges the Heathens to bring any one of those that were acted and inspired with any one of their Gods and Goddesses whom they worshipped and if that Daemon God or Goddess not daring to tell a Lye before any Christian should not confess it self to be a Devil then they should shed the Blood of that Christian upon the Place Origen in his Answer to Celsus frequently appeals to the Miracles which the Christians wrought in his Days particularly in the first b b b Cambridge Edition p. 34. Book he saith that they exorcised Daemons healed the Sick and foresaw Future Events And in the c c c p. 334. See also p. 62 80 124 127 376. seventh Book he proves that Christians did not their Miracles by any curious Magical Arts because Idiots or illiterate Men among them did by nothing but by Prayers and Adjurations in the Name of Jesus banish Devils from the Bodies and Souls of Men. d d d In Epist ad Donatum vid. Epist ad Magnum ad Demetrianum p. 202. Ed. Rigalt St. Cyprian tells us that the Christians in his days had power to hinder the Operation of deadly Poisons to restore Mad-men to their Senses to force Devils to confess themselves to be so and with invisible strokes and Torments to make them cry and howl and forsake the Bodies which they possessed These are the first four Witnesses which I have produced for the Practice of Infant-Baptism and let any man judge whether the Church could yet run into a Church-destroying Practice within such an Holy and Miraculous Period as this But secondly If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition or were derivable from any thing less than Apostolical Practice how came the a a a Vid. Vossii hist Pelag. l. 2. pars 2 Thes 4. 13. disp de Bapt. Thes 18. disp 14. Thes 4. Cassand praefat ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. Testim veteru de Bapt. parvulorum p. 687. Pelagians not to reject it for an Innovation seeing the Orthodox used it as an Argument against them that Infants were guilty of Original Sin It had been easie for them had there been any ground for it to say that it was an Innovation crept into Practice since the time of the Apostles or that it was brought up by False-Apostles and False-Teachers in the Apostles Times but then they were so far from doing this which they would have been glad to do upon any colourable Pretence that they practiced it themselves and owned it for an Apostolical Tradition and as necessary for Childrens obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven tho they denied that they were Baptized for the Remission of Original Sin But thirdly If Infant-Baptism were not in Practice from the first Plantation of Christian Churches or were derivable from any other Cause than Apostolical Tradition let the Opposers of it tell us any other probable way how it came to be the uniform practice of all Churches not only of such as were Colonies of the same Mother-Church or had Correspondence with one another by their Bishops and Presbyters but of such as were Original Plantations and betwixt which there was likely none or but very little Communication by reason of the vast distance and want of intercourse betwixt the Countries where b b b Brerewoods Enquiries c. 23 Cassand exposit de auctor Consult Bapt. Infant p. 692. they lived Among these of the latter sort are the Abassin-Church in the further Ethiopia and the c c c Osor l. 3. de rebus gest Eman cit à Vossio in disp 14. de Baptismo Brerewoods Enquiries c. 20.
against the Law of the Land and the common practice of the Church Rising up doth not necessarily imply that a man stands or kneels afterwards but somewhat previous to both for we generally rise before we do either But however sitting at the Sermon and Lessons was usual in those Assemblies which this holy Father and Martyr frequented yet in most other places the people were not permitted to sit at all not so much as at the Lessons or in Sermon-time as appears partly from what Philostorgius an ancient Ecclesiastical Historian observes Hist Eccles l. 3. n. 5. p. 29. Flor. A. D. 425 of Theophilus an Indian Bishop That among several irregularities which he corrected in those Churches he particularly reformed this that the people were wont to sit when the Lessons out of the Gospel were read unto them And partly from Sozomens History wherein he notes it as a very unusual thing in the Bishop of Alexandria that he did not rise up when the Gospels were read But the fullest evidence Optatus Bishop of Milevis affords us Eccles Hist l. 7. c. 19. p. 734. Flor. A. D. 440 by what he writes against Parmenianus the Donatist For after he had taxed him with Pride and Innovation with a censorious uncharitable spirit which animated all his Tractates or Sermons to the people he cites a passage out of the Psalms and applies it home to him after this manner Thou sittest and speakest against thy Brother c. in which place God reproves him Psal 49. in our Transl 50. 20. Lib. 4. de Schis Donat. p. 78. Par. Edit An. D. 365. Vid. Albasp not in 4 lib. Oâ—tat who fits and defames his Brother and therefore such evil Teachers as you says he are more particularly pointed at in this Text For the people are not licensed to sit in the Church This Text chiefly respects the Bishops and Presbyters who had onely a right and priviledge to sit in the Publick and Religious Assemblies but doth not concern the people who stood all the time Now if it had not been a general and prevailing custom among the Christians of those times as well Heretical as Orthodox to stand the whole time of Divine Service and particularly at the Lessons and Sermons Parmenianus might have easily retorted this Argument upon Optatus as being weak and concluding nothing against him in particular but what might be charged in common upon all private Christians who sate in the Church as well as he Again that Sitting was esteemed irreverent in the Worship Floruit An. D. 198. Tertul. de Orat. c. 12. Tom. 2. p. 130. edit Collon Agrip. 1617. item quod adsignata oratione assidendi mos est quibusdam c. of God will further be manifested from a passage or two in Tertullian who lived in the same Century with Justin Martyr before cited and I think nothing can be spoken more plain and home to the purpose than what he delivers concerning this Gesture which is so much contended for by our Dissenting Brethren For among other vanities and ill customs taken notice of and reproved by this ancient Father this was one That they were wont some of them to fit at Prayer A little further in the same Chapter Tertullian hath these words Adde hereunto the sin of Eo apponitur irreverentiae crimen etiam ipsis nationibus si quid saperent intelligendum Si quidem irreverens est assidere sub conspectu contraque conspectum ejus quem cum maxime reverearis ac venereris quanto magis sub conspectu Dei vivi Angelo adhuc orationis adstante factum illud irreligiosissimum est nisi exprobramus Deo quod oratio fatigaverit Tertull. de Oratione c. 12. Irreverence which the very Heathen if they did perceive well and understand what we did would take notice of For if it be irreverent to sit in the presence of and to confront one whom you have a high respect and veneration for How much more irreligious is this Gesture in the sight of the living God the Angel of Prayer yet standing by unless we think fit to upbraid God that Prayer hath tired us Adde to all this that saying of Constantine the great Euseb de vit Const mag lib. 4 p. 400. Col. Allob. 1612. recorded by Eusebius as an indication of the Piety of that Christian Emperour with which I will conclude this point It was upon occasion of a Panegyrick concerning the Sepulchre of our Saviour delivered by Eusebius not in the Church but in the Palace of the Emperour and the Historian observes to the praise of this excellent Prince that though it was a long and tedious Oration and though the Emperour was earnestly sollicited to fit down on his Throne which was hard by yet he refused and stood attentively all the time as the rest of the Auditory did affirming it to be unfit to attend upon any Discourse concerning God with ease and softness and that it was very consonant to Piety and Religion that Discourses about Divine things should be heard standing Thus much may suffice for satisfaction that the ancient Church did by no means approve of Sitting or a common Table-gesture as fitting to be used in time of Divine Service except at the reading of the Lessons and hearing of the Sermon which too was onely practised in some places for in others the people were not allowed to sit at all in their religious Assemblies Which Custom is still observed in most if not all the Eastern Churches at this day wherein there are no Seats erected or allowed for the use of the people Now upon what hath been said I shall onely make this brief Reflection and so proceed If the Apostles of our Lord had in pursuance of their Commission to teach all Nations in their Travels throughout the World every where taught and established sitting or discumbing which were the common Table-gestures according to the customs of those Eastern Countries not onely as convenient but as necessary to be used in order to worthy receiving the Lords Supper it is a most strange and unaccountable thing how there should be 1 Such an early and universal Revolt of the Primitive Church from the Doctrine and the Constitutions of the holy Apostles and then 2 Considering what a high value and esteem the Primitive Christians had for the Apostles the first founders of their Faith and for all that passed under their names it seems to me not onely highly improbable but morally impossible that so many Churches together with their respective Bishops and Pastors dwelling in remote and distant Countries not biass'd by Faction nor swayed by a superiour Authority being perfectly free and independent one upon another should unanimously consent and conspire together to introduce a novel Custom into the Church of Christ contrary to Apostolical Practice and Order and not onely so but 3 to Censure the practice and injunctions of divinely-inspired men as indecent and unfit to be followed and observed in the
and tho the Church may prescribe Rules of Worship which are not expressed in the Divine Covenant this will not justifie a Separation if she commands nothing which is forbid for the very Authority Christ has committed to his Ministers requires our obedience to them in things lawful and if Men will adhere to their own private Fancies in opposition to Church-Authority they are guilty of Schism and had best consider whether such pride and opinionativeness will be allowed for excuse 3. Whether if the promise you mention be confined to the Apostles as Church-Governours it will not exclude the Civil Power Ans There are peculiar promises made to Church-Governours and to Civil Magistrates their Authority and Power is very distinct but very consistent 4. What was the extent of the promise whether it was to secure the whole Church that its Governours should never impose unlawful Terms of Communion or that there never be a defection of all the Members of the Catholick Church but that there should always be some true Members Ans The promise is that Christ will be with them in the discharge of their Ministry and Exercise of their Power and this is all I know of the matter our Saviour gave them Authority to Govern the Church and this was to last to the end of the World as long as there is any Church on Earth which is all I cited it for and so much it certainly proves The Second Proposition you raise Queries on is this 'T is absurd to gather a Church out of a Church of Baptized Christians This I do indeed assert that since the Church is founded on a Divine Covenant and to be in Covenant with God and to be Members of his Church is the same thing therefore Baptism whereby we are received into Covenant with God makes us Members of the Church also and this makes it very absurd to gather a Church out of Churches of Baptized Christians which supposes that they were not a Church before instead of considering the reason whereon this is founded as every honest Writer should do you onely put a perverse Comment on it By which say you I suppose you mean That Men ought not to Separate from such and live in a distinct Church-Communion from any Church of Baptized Christians which I conceive needs explaining But if this were true it were plain enough but the fault is that it is not true for we may Separate from any Church of Baptized Christians if their Communion be Sinful which justifies a Separation from the Church of Rome and answers your two first Queries But indeed the Proposition as asserted by me does not so much as concern a Separation from a Church let the cause be what it will just or unjust For the Independents who are the Men for gathering Churches do not own that they Separate from any Church but that they form themselves into a Church-State which they had not before and which no Christians according to their Principle have who are not Members of Independent Churches Baptism they acknowledge makes Men Christians at large but not Church-Members which I shewed must needs be very absurd if the Church be a Body and Society of Men founded on a Divine Covenant for then Baptism which admits us into Covenant with God makes us Members of the Church and they may as well rebaptize Christians as form them into new Church-Societies This I suppose may satisfie you how impertinent all your Queries are under this head Your two first concern the Separation from the Church of Rome which was not made upon Independent Principles because they were no Church but because they were a corrupt Church 3. Whether every Bishoprick in England be not so many Churches within the National Ans Every Bishoprick is a distinct Episcopal Church and the Union of them in one National Communion makes them not so many Churches within a National but one National Church which you may see explained at large in the Defence of Dr. Still Vnr of Separation 4. And therefore Independent and Presbyterian Churches are indeed within the National Churches within a Church which is Schismatical but not one National Church as Bishopricks are 5. And therefore tho we should allow them to have the External Form and all the Essentials of a Church which is a very liberal grant yet they are not in Catholick Communion because they are Schismaticks 6. And this is all I am to account for that they are not in Visible Communion with that one Church and Body of Christ to which the promises are made But what allowances Christ will make for the mistakes of honest well-meaning Men who divide the Communion of the Church I cannot determine I can hope as Charitably as any Man but I dare not be so Charitable as to make Church-Communion an indifferent thing which is the great Bond of Christian Charity 3dly You take occasion for your next Queries from what I say of the Independent Church-Covenant you say I suppose that the Independents exclude themselves from Catholick Communion by requiring of their Members a new contract no part of the Baptismal vow I prove indeed from their placing a Church-State in a particular explicite Covenant between Pastor and People that they separate themselves from the whole Body of Christians for no other Christians which are not in Covenant with them are Members of their Church nor can they be Members of any other Church And I proved that those are Separate Churches Resol of Cases p. 10. 32. which are not Members of each other and do not own each others Members for their own For the Notion of Church-Communion consists in Church-Membership and therefore no Man is in Communion with that Church of which he is no Member and if no Man can be a Member of a Church but by such an explicite Independent Covenant then he is a Member of no Church but that with which he is in Covenant and consequently is in Communion with no Church but that particular Independent Congregation of which he is a Member by a particular Covenant And if those be Schismaticks and Schismatical Churches which are not in Communion with each other then all Independents must be Schismaticks for they are in Communion with none but their own Independent Congregations Let us now hear your Queries Q. 1. Whether any Obstacle to Catholick Communion brought in by Men may not be a means of depriving Men of it as well as Covenant or Contract Ans Yes it may but with this Material difference Other things hinder Communion as Sinful Terms of Communion this Independent Covenant in its own Nature Shuts up Encloses and breaks Christian Communion into as many Separate Churches and Communions as there are Independent Congregations Sinful Terms of Communion are a just cause of Separation an Independent Church-Covenant is a State of Separation in its own Nature The Communion of the Church may be restored by removing those Sinful Terms of Communion but there can be no
that which mankind would have been had there been no such particular Institution and was in before that Institution 'T was the nature of the Law and the injoining of it by divine Institution so as it became necessary to them that made it a Yoke and a Act. 15. 18. Yoke intolerable and it was a freedom from that Law that constitutes the Liberty which the Apostle treats of in that Epistle And if it be also to be taken as our Author would have it for a freedom in matters of Worship from any thing but what is of Divine Institution that is a secondary sense and which may be taken from some parity of reason betwixt Case and Case but is not the Apostles nor the primary sense of it But take it how we will in this or the other I there shewed that the Apostles exhortation was of no use to them that Case of Indifferent things Pag. 47. plead it against submission to Authority in Indifferent Things when imposed in or about Divine Worship I am now come to the last general head of the aforesaid §. 5. Tract which contained a short account of the things required in our Church as they were either Duty or Indifferent And for an inforcement of that and conclusion of the whole I shall briefly shew how far this Reverend Author consents to or by his concessions must be bound to acknowledge it Indeed he sometimes doth tell us that Nine parts of Ten of all Dissenters say they cannot comply with things required in the English Case Examin pag. 3. 36. 38. Liturgy because they believe the things sinful and unlawful And elsewhere Two hardly of an Hundred think them Indifferent But whether our Author be of that number or at least has reason so to be I shall leave to his own conscience as to himself and to his concessions as to others In which I shall observe the method taken in the aforesaid Tract where I said all things objected against might be refer'd to Posture Forms and Times and shew'd these to be Natural or Moral circumstances of Action and inseparable from it Now in general he grants what are such may be lawfully used And if we pag. 14. come to particulars he doth at last yield it As for postures what more scrupled and opposed than Kneeling at the Sacrament Yet of this he saith There pag. 22. is no command in it and it is Indifferent that in all probability our Saviour administred it Kneeling and sitting pag. 12. backward upon his Legs that no Dissenter refuseth it pag. 36. because it is not decent but because it is a posture of Adoration that our Church doth not intend it as an homage to the Body of Christ there really present but declares that to do it as to the bread were an Idolatry to pag. 12 13. be abhor'd And in conclusion tells us that those that hesitate in that point fear a posture of Adoration used by Idolatrous Papists which is a consideration of no moment as has been already shewed As to Forms of Prayer he saith God has lest us pag. 30. at liberty what words to use and further that for conceived Prayer we know no body saith no other must be used pag. 22. in Gods Worship and if so then Forms may be lawfully used in it But suppose any scruple the use of them Case of Indiff p. 18. he saith however We know no reason but people may hear them if any scruples the use of them he may yet Case Exam. p. 22. have Communion with the Church we hope though he doth not act in it as a Minister As to time he saith the Law of Nature directs and for Festivals such as Purim amongst the Jews he pag. 29. saith It was generally commanded under the precepts of pag. 26. giving thanks for publick mercies Lastly Are the things required unlawful because imposed He answers Some of us including surely himself are not of that mind nay he affirms that the most pag. 39. sober Dissenters will agree in these things that is Natural pag. 7. circumstances to obey the command of Superiours provided it be not such as by circumstances is made sinful But if imposition would make them sinful such a command must not have been obeyed So that in the conclusion I see no reason why our Reverend Brother and the Dissenters he defends and that in all things as he saith agree to the Doctrine professed in the Articles pag. 1. of the Church of England should dissent from the Liturgy and Ceremonies of it as far as Lay-Communion is concerned in them Nor why he should tell us so much of Goals and Sessions and Judicatures and of the Sufferings they endure when if these things be true pag. 41 44. it 's for not doing what they lawfully can It is no wonder when such with-hold communion from the Church and set up other Churches against it that some call them as he complains perverse and contumacious persons â—bid and others call them damnable Schismaticks and pag. 1. are so bold as to say that such a separation from that Church is a separation from Christ And it 's likely he will meet with such that will speak very severe things of his following appeal to God Judge O thou righteous Judge between these people and those who thus pursue pag. 41 44. them I am far from one God is my witness that is a smiter of his fellow-servants as he calls them nor pag. 41. would have any one do what he verily believeth is unlawful but I do think it is the duty of all to do what they lawfully can to hear readily and consider impartially what may be offered for their satisfaction and to suffer patiently where they cannot receive it This I think every truly conscientious person will do and I should question his conscience that doth it not Certainly to return him his own words if our Brethren have any value for the Glory of God for the good and ibid. peace of others Souls for the preserving the Protestant Religion for the union of Protestants against Popish adversaries for any thing indeed that is good and lovely they will rather break than any longer draw this saw of contention and will do as much as in them lies for the repairing of those breaches which must be confessed are no less dangerous than scandalous to our Religion The Kingdom of God is not Meat and Drink but righteousness and peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost FINIS ERRATA PAg. 3. l. 13. r. I should p. 30. l. antepenult r. imply p. 31. l. 6. r. expressions p. 39. Marg. add to Lightfoot Hor. in Matth. and Mark p. 46. l. 17. 1. Government Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER 1. A. A Perswasive 〈…〉 with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which Respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the
is a Rule of Conscience we are not only to understand the prime Heads and most general Dictates of it which are but a few but also all the necessary Deductions from those Heads And by the Law of Scripture as it is the Rule of Conscience we are not only to understand the express Commands and Prohibitions we meet with there in the letter of the Text but all the things likewise that by unavoidable Consequence do follow from those Commands or Prohibitions In a word when we are deliberating with our selves concerning the goodness or badness the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of this or the other particular Action We are not only to look upon the letter of the Law but to attend further to what that Law may be supposed by a Rational Man to contain in it And if we be convinced that the Action we are deliberating about is Commanded or Forbidden by direct Inference or by Parity of Reason we ought to look upon it as a Duty or a Sin though it be not expresly Commanded or Forbidden by the Law in the letter of it And if neither by the letter of the Law nor by Consequence from it nor by Parity of Reason the Action before us appear either to be Commanded or Forbidden In that Case we are to look upon it as an indifferent Action which we may do or let alone with a safe Conscience or to express the thing more properly we are to look upon it as an Action in which our Conscience is not so much concerned as our Prudence III. Having thus given an account of the Rule of Conscience that which Naturally follows next to be considered with Reference to our present design is what share Humane Laws have in this Rule of Conscience whether they be a part of this Rule and do really bind a Mans Conscience to the Observance of them or no which is our Third general Head Now as to this our Answer is that though the Laws of God be the great and indeed the only Rule of Conscience yet the Laws of Men generally speaking do also bind the Conscience and are a part of its Rule in a Secondary Sense that is by Vertue of and in Subordination to the Laws of God I shall briefly explain the meaning of this in the Four following Propositions First there is nothing more certain than that the Law of God as it is declared both by Nature and Scripture doth Command us to Obey the Laws of Men. There is no one Dictate of Nature more Obvious to us than this that we are to Obey the Government we Live under in all honest and Just things For this is indeed the Principal Law and Foundation of all Society And it would be impossible either for Kingdoms or States for Citys or Families to subsist or at least to maintain themselves in any Tolerable degree of Peace and Happiness if this be not acknowledged a Duty And then as for the Laws of God in Scripture there is nothing more plainly declared there than that it is Gods Will and our Duty to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to Submit our selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake and to be Subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake So that no Man can doubt that he is really bound in Duty to Obey the Laws of Men that are made by Just and Sufficient Authority And Consequently no Man can doubt that Humane Laws do really bind the Conscience and are one part of the Rule by which it is to be directed and Governed But then having said this we add this farther in the Second Place that Humane Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but meerly by Vertue of Gods Law who has Commanded that we should in all things be Subject to our Lawful Governours not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Conscience is not properly concerned with any Being in the World save God alone it hath no Superiour but him For the very Notion of it as I have often said is no other than our Judgment of what things we are bound to do by Gods Law what things we are Forbidden to do by Gods Law So that all the Men in the World cannot bind any Mans Conscience by Vertue of any Power or Authority that is in them But now God having made it an everlasting Law both by Nature and Scripture that we should Obey those who are set over us whether they be our Parents or our Masters and much more our Princes and the Soveraign Legislative Power under whom we Live by Vertue of this Command of God and this only we are for ever bound in Conscience to Govern our Actions by the Commands that they impose upon us and those Commands of theirs are a Rule though a Consequential or a Secondary Rule by which we are to Govern our Conscience because they are the Instances of our Obedience to the Laws of God But then in the Third Place this is also to be remembered that Humane Laws do no farther bind the Conscience and are a Rule of it than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God If any Law or Command of Man do Clash with any Law of God that is if it be either Evil in it self or Contradictory to the Duty of Christians as laid down in the Scriptures in that Case that Law or Command by what Humane Authority soever it was made or given doth not bind our Conscience nor is any Rule of our Actions On the contrary we are not at any Rate to yield Obedience to it but we are here reduced to the Apostles Case and must Act as they did that is we must Obey God rather than Men and we Sin if we do not For since God only hath proper and direct Authority over our Conscience and Humane Power only by Delegation from him And since God hath not given any Commission to the most Soveraign Princes upon Earth to alter his Laws or to impose any thing upon his Subjects that is inconsistent with them It follows by necessary Consequence that no Man can be Obliged to Obey any Laws of Men farther than they are agreeable to and consistent with the Laws of God There is yet a Fourth thing necessary to be taken in for the clearing the Point we are upon and that is this That though Humane Laws generally speaking may be said to bind the Conscience and to be a part of its Rule Yet we do not Assert that every Humane Law though it doth not interfere with any of Gods Laws doth at all times and in all Cases Oblige Every Mans Conscience to Active Obedience to it so as that he Sins against God if he Transgress it No it would be a very hard thing to affirm this and I do not know what Manamong us upon these Terms would be Innocent Thus much I believe we may safely lay down as a Truth That where either the Matter of the Law is of such a Nature
of Time came by the appearance of the Son of God in the World he was in a great measure dethroned his Kingdom overthrown and the last and most effectual means were used for the recovery of Men out of his Snare and Power When therefore he perceived that by all the grievous Persecutions he raised against the Church it spread only so much the faster that at last the whole Heathen Idolatry fell down before the Cross of Christ when he was shamefully expelled out of his Temples and from his Altars his Oracles silenced and the Religion of Jesus prevailed every where he then betook himself to his old Serpentine Arts of dissimulation Since he could no longer oppose Christ's Kingdom by open War he resolved to turn Christian and to set up for Christ's Deputy and substitute here on Earth to fight against Christians under Christ's Banner and by adulterating and corrupting the Christian Doctrine to spoil it of all its Efficacy to introduce his old Heathen Rites and Idolatrous Ceremonies as unwritten Traditions from Christ himself or his Apostles and so under his Name and pretended Authority to exercise all that cruelty oppression and fraud which is so pleasing to his own infernal Nature hoping to burn destroy root out all true Christians from the face of the Earth under colour of propagating the Catholick Faith and enlarging Christ's Kingdom in the World When Christendom had long groaned under this miserable Tyranny it pleased God in many places of Europe but especially here in England to set on foot a Reformation of Religion which was happily and peaceably accomplished among us by the favour and countenance of publick Authority and the wise Counsel and Advice of our Reverend Bishops and other Ministers To nip this in the Bud the Devil raised that sharp Persecution in Qu. Mary's days in which our first Reformers gloriously sealed what they had done with their Blood but this proving ineffectual that he might the better frustrate the ends of our Reformation himself would turn Reformer too A great Cry was soon raised against our Church as not sufficiently purged from Popery our Bishops our Prayers our Ceremonies were all Antichristian and it was not long before all Ministers Tythes Temples and the Universities too were condemned as such and God knows they had well nigh reformed away all Learning true Religion and Worship of God and under the specious Pretence of paring off all Superfluities had grievously shaken the Foundations of Christianity it self insomuch that it came to pass as some of those who now dissent from us did then complain That Professors of Religion did openly oppose and deride almost all that Service of God out of Conscience which other Men used to do out of Prophaneness And what infinite mischief this rash and intemperate Zeal for reforming Abuses and Corruptions hath done to our Church and Nation if the Experience of this last Age will not sufficiently convince men it is not to be hoped that any Discourse should We little consider whose Interest we thus serve and promote we do his work who is most delighted with Strife and Confusion and every one can tell who that is and where he reigns To be sure by these uncharitable Separations we highly gratifie the common Enemy whose great Design and Policy it hath all along been by the Follies and invincible Scruples of Protestant Dissenters to weaken and by degrees pull down the Church of England and then we all become an easie Prey to Rome If any now tell me that to prevent this great Mischief and Danger that ariseth from our Divisions it is not so necessary that the People should lay down their Scruples which they cannot well do since no one can at any time think or believe as he will as it is that the Impositions themselves the Matters scrupled at should be removed and taken away and then Peace and Unity may be better secured To this I only answer these two things 1. I now consider things as they at present stand amongst us We have a Church setled and established by Law in which nothing that is sinful is enjoyned What the Duty of our Governours and Superiours is how far they may or ought to condescend to the Weakness or Scruples of others I shall not take upon me to determine that is another Question which belongs not to us But I consider now only what private Members of such a Church are to do and then I say scrupling the Use of some things prescribed by the Church will not justifie our leaving it nay as I shall shew afterwards it is our best and safest course to submit and comply with such Orders notwithstanding our Scruples But I add 2. If this were a sufficient Reason why the Constitution of any Church should be altered because some things are scrupled in it there never could be a setled Church as long as the World stands for since there will be always a difference in Mens Understandings and Tempers some weak and injudicious others peevish and proud there will consequently be many that shall scruple and be offended at the best and most innocnt Constitutions And if the Ceremonies now in use amongst us had not been retained at our first Reformation those very Persons who are now so much dissatisfied with the Imposition of them would perhaps have been the first that should have then complained of the want of them Of which we have this notorious and undeniable Evidence in the late times when our Church was laid in the Dust when none of those Ceremonies or Forms which are now objected against were imposed or commonly used yet even then were men gathering Congregations out of Congregations purifying and reforming still further Scruples encreased Sects and Divisions upon them multiplied and never such Distractions and Confusions in Religion as in those days and without the gift of Prophecy one may foretell that if what is principally found fault with in our Church was now abolished yet those that are given to Scruples would at least in time find cavelling Objections against any Constitution that can be made They are like Men given to sue and go to Law They never want some Pretence to disturb themselves and their Neighbours Men may talk of reconciling our Differences and making up our Breaches to their Lives end and propound their several Projects and frame their Models and conceive fine designs of Union and Accommodation yet none of these will have any effect or do any good till Men learn Humility and Modesty and be contented to be governed by others in things indifferent till Self-conceit and Pride be in some measure rooted out and when this is effectually done there will then be found but little need of any Alteration in the present Constitution The foundation of our Peace and Agreement must be laid in the reforming our selves and our own Tempers The way to unite us lieth not so much in amending the present Establishment Government Liturgy endeavouring to add to it
Questions besides that it cannot serve any purposes of piety if it declines from duty in any instance it is like giving Alms out of the portion of Orphans or building Hospitals with the Money and spoils of Sacrilege 4. It is further said by Mr. Jeans out of Amesius If determination by Superiours is sufficient to take away the sin of Scandal then they do very ill that they do not so far as is possible determine all things indifferent that so no danger may be left of giving Offence by the use of them Then the Church of Rome is to be praised in that she hath determined so many indifferent things Then St. Paul might have spared all his directions about forbearance out of respect to weak Brethren and fully determined the matters in debate and so put an end to all fear of Scandal This truly seemeth a very odd way of arguing and all that I shall say to it is that it supposeth nothing else worthy to be considered in the making of Laws or in the determinations of Superiours about indifferent things but only this one matter of Scandal and the project it self should it take would prove very vain and unsuccessful For tho we truly say that we are bound to comply with the Orders and Ceremonies of the Church of England they being but few and innocent and so giving no real ground of Offence yet we do not say the same upon supposition our Church had determined all circumstances in Gods Worship she possibly could which would perhaps have been a yoke greater than that of the Ceremonial Law to the Jews nor if she had prescribed as many Ceremonies as the Church of Rome hath done which manifestly tend to the disgrace and Scandal of our Christian Religion and as for the course St. Paul took it is plain that some things upon good reasons were determined by the Apostles as that the Gentile Converts should abstain from blood and things strangled and offered to Idols which decree I presume they might not Transgress out of charity to any of their Brethren who might take Offence at such abstinence and other things for great reason were for a time left at liberty which reason was taken from the present circumstances of those the Apostles had to deal withal tho afterwards as I observed before when that reason ceased determinations were made about those things which St. Paul had left at liberty and if St. Paul had determined the dispute about meats and days one way they who had followed so great an Authority whatever had happened had surely been free from the sin of Scandal but still the Scandal had not been prevented but all the contrary part had been in danger to have been utterly estranged from Christianity and that was reason sufficient why St. Paul did not make any determinations in that case For Governours are not only to take care to free those that obey them from the sin of Scandal but also to provide that as little occasion as is possible may be given to any to be Scandalized There are other Objections offered by Mr. Jeans out of Amesius and Rutherford against this Doctrine of our obligation to obedience to Superiours in things lawful notwithstanding the Scandal that may follow but they either may be Answered from what I have already said or else they chiefly concern the case of Governours and are brought to prove that they act uncharitably and give great Offence contrary to St. Pauls rules who take upon them determinately to impose unnecessary rites by which they know many good Men will be Scandalized but this is not my present business to discourse of tho I cannot forbear saying these two things which I think very easie to make out 1. That our Church of England hath taken all reasonable care not to give any just offence to any sort of persons and the offences that have been since taken at some things in our Constitution could not possibly have been foreseen by those who made our first Reformation from Popery and so they could not be any reason against the first establishment Nor 2. Are they now a sufficient reason for the alteration of it unless we can imagine it reasonable to alter publick Laws made with great wisdom and deliberation as often as they are disliked by or prove Offensive to private persons If this be admitted there then can never be any setled Government and order in the Church because there never can be any establishment that will not be lyable to give such Offence They who now take Offence at what the Church of England enjoyns on the same or a like account will take Offence at whatever can be enjoyned and the same pretences of Scandal will be good against any establishment they themselves shall make for tho they will not use these reasons against their own establishment yet in a short time others will take up their weapons to fight against them and what served to destroy the present Church will be as effectual to overthrow that which shall be set up in its room so that whatever alteration is made if this be allowed for a sufficient ground of it viz. to avoid the Offence that some men take at the present constitution yet still we shall be but where we were and new Offences will arise and so there must be continual changing and altering to gratifie the unreasonable humours and fancies of Men and should any one party of Dissenters amongst us get their Form of Government and Worship established by Law I doubt not but they would Preach to us the very same Doctrine we do now to them They would tell us that private persons must bend and conform to the Laws and not the Laws to private persons that it was our own fault that we were Offended that our weakness proceeded from our unwillingness to receive instruction that the weak were to be governed not to prescribe to their Governours that we must not expect that what was with good reason appointed and ordered should be presently abrogated or changed out of complyance with Mens foolish prejudices and mistakes It is sufficiently known how strict and rigorous botht the Presbyterians and Independents are and have been where they have had any advantage and what little consideration or regard they have had of their Dissenting Brethren tho they would have us so tender of them Thus much I think sufficient to shew that the Precept of Obedience to Superiours in things Lawful is more obligatory than the Precept of avoiding Scandal whence it follows that it is our duty to obey in such instances tho Offence may be taken at it because no sin is to be committed for the avoiding Scandal I might from this head further argue that if we must not commit any sin to avoid giving Offence then it is not Lawful to Separate from our Parish-Churches upon that account because all voluntary Separation from a Church in which nothing that is unlawful is required as a condition of
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
publick Worship of God and all this without the least notice taken by without any complaint or opposition from any particular person either in the then present or succeeding generation 3 The Primitive Church esteemed the Holy Sacrament to be the most solemn part of Christian Worship as that which deservedly challenged from them the utmost pitch of Devotion and the highest degree of Reverence that they could possibly pay and express either with their Souls or Bodies This is clear partly from those Honorary Titles they bestowed upon this Ordinance and adorn'd it with which import the greatest deference and the most awful regard imaginable partly from that tedious See part 1. p. 58. and severe Discipline which she exercised the Catechumens and Penitents with before she admitted them into the Communion of the Faithful and approved of them as fit to partake of the Holy Mysteries To be admitted to the Sacrament so onely as to behold it and to be present at those Prayers which were put up by worthy Communicants over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice was heretofore accounted a high honour and priviledge But to make one at this heavenly Feast and to receive the pledges of our Lords love was esteemed the top and perfection of Christianity and the extremity of honour and happiness that a Christian is capable of in this life Heretofore with shame and reproach be it spoken to our stupidly wicked and degenerate Age to be excluded from the Holy Communion was look'd upon as the greatest curse and punishment that could be inflicted and on the other hand to be a Communicant to have a freedom of access to the Lords Table as the greatest blessing and most ample reward that could be propounded the sum of a Christians hopes the center of all his wishes during his abode here 4. For standing in time of Divine Service both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament there are so many and so clear testimonies extant in pure Antiquity that a man must take a great deal of pains not to see this truth who is never so little conversant in the Records of those times and in such a man it must be height of folly or impudence to deny it The bare asserting of it shall be sufficient because to insist upon the proof of it by an enumeration of particulars would swell this Discourse beyond measure and besides it would be a needless labour since the great Patrons of sitting or the common Table-gesture Gillesp Disp against En. Po. Cer. point 1660. p. 190 191. do frankly own and acknowledge that Standing was a posture generally used by the ancient Church in her religious Assemblies both at their ordinary Prayers and at the Communion-service Howsoever I shall be forced to say something concerning this matter under the following particular 5 Which is this That the Primitive Christians though on the Lords days and for the space of 50 days between Easter and Whitsunday they observed Standing yet at other times used the gesture of Kneeling at their publick Devotions Which will appear from a Decree pass'd in the first general Council assembled at Nice in words to this effect Because there are some Can 20 about the year 325. which Kneel on the Lords day and in the days of Pentecost that is between Easter and Whitsunday it is therefore ordained by this holy Synod that when we pay our Vows unto the Lord in Prayer we observe a Standing gesture to the end that a uniform and agreeable Custom may be maintained or secured through all Churches By which Canon provision was made against Kneeling not as if it were an inconvenient and unbecoming gesture to be used at all in the publick Worship of God but onely as being an irregular and unfit posture to be used at such particular times and occasions as is there specified viz. on the Lords days and the Feast of Pentecost when for any Christian to stand was to cross the general Custom and Practice of the Church at that time For this Council did not you must note introduce and establish any new thing in the Church but onely endeavoured by its authority to keep alive and in credit an ancient Custom which they saw began to be neglected by some Christians And from that clause in the Canon Because there are some which Kneel on the Lords day and in the days of Pentecost c. we may with good reason infer that Kneeling was the posture that was generally used at other times in their religious Assemblies For if Standing had been generally observed by all Churches in time of Divine Service at all other times as well as those mentioned in the Decree what occasion or necessity had there been for such an Injunction whereby all Christians were obliged to do that which they constantly and universally did before There is a passage in the Author of the Questions and Answers in Justin Martyr which will put this matter out of doubt and give us the reason why they altered their posture on the Lords day It is Respons ad quest 115. p. 468. saith he that by this means we may be put in mind both of our Fall by Sin and our Resurrection and Restitution by the Grace of Christ that for six days we pray upon our Knees is in token of our Fall by Sin but that on the Lords day we do not bow the Knee doth symbolically represent our Resurrection c. This he there tells us was a Custom derived from the very times of the Apostles for which he cites Irenaeus in his Book concerning Easter That it was ancient appears from Tertullian who lived in the same Age with Irenaeus and speaks of it as if it had been establish'd An. Dom. 198. by Apostolical Authority or at least by Custom had obtained the force of a Law for these are his words We esteem Die dominico jejunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare Tert. de Cor. mil. c. 3. 206. Col. Agrip. edit 1617. Epiph. exposit Fid. Cathol p. 1105. edit Par. Flor. An. Dom. 390. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Hieronym prolog Comment in Ep. ad Ephes it a great act of wickedness or villany either to Fast or Kneel on the Lords day Which intimates too that Fasting and Kneeling in their publick Worship were both lawful and customary at other times To whose Testimony if we joyn that of another Father who lived some time after the first general Nicene Council we need not produce any more witnesses to clear the matter It is that of Epiphanius in his Exposition of the Catholick Faith where he certifies that the weekly stated Fasts of Wednesday and Friday were diligently kept by the Catholick Church the whole year round excepting the fifty days of Pentecost on which they do not Kneel nor is there any Fast appointed The reason of which Custom was as both St. Jerome and St. Augustin attest because all that space between Easter and Whitsunday was a time of
We desire them to Consider Whether it be not a Just Prejudice to their Cause and that which ought to prevail with Men Modest and Peaceable that in those things wherein they differ from us they are Condemned by the Practice of the whole Catholick Church for Fifteen Hundred Years together This were I minded might afford a large Field for Discourse but I shall instance only and that very briefly in a few Particulars And First We desire them to produce any settled part of the Christian Church that ever was without Episcopal Government till the time of Calvin it being then as hard to find any part of the Christian World without a Church as to find a Church without a Bishop This is so evident in the most early Antiquities of the Church that I believe our Dissenters begin to grow sick of the Controversie And if Blondell Salmasius and Daille whose great Parts Learning and indefatigable Industry could if any thing have made out the contrary have been forced to grant That Episcopacy obtained in the Church within a few Years after the Apostolick Age We are sure we can carry it higher even up to the Apostles themselves There are but two passages that I know of in all Antiquity of any Note and both of them not till the latter end of the Fourth Century that may seem to question Episcopal Authority The One That famous and well known passage of St. Jerom which yet when improved to the Idem Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent c. Hier. in Epist ad Tit. c. 1. utmost that it is capable of only intimates Episcopacy not to be of Apostolical Institution And very clear it is to those that are acquainted with St. Jeroms Writings that he often Wrote in haste and did not always weigh things at the Beam and forgot at one time what he had said at another that many expressions fell from him in the heat of Disputation according to the warmth and the eagerness of his Temper that he was particularly chased into this Assertion by the fierce opposition of the Deacons at Rome who began to Usurp upon and over-top the Presbyters which tempted him to Magnifie and Extol their Place and Dignity as anciently equal to the Episcopal Office and as containing in it the common Rights and Priviledges of Priesthood For at other times when he Wrote with cooler Thoughts about him he does plainly and frequently enough assert the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters and did himself constantly live in Communion with and Subjection to Bishops The other passage is that of Aerius who held indeed that a Bishop and a Presbyter differed nothing in Order Dignity or Power But he was led into this Error meerly through Envy and Emulation being vext to see that his Companion Eustathius had gotten the Bishoprick of Sebastia which himself had aimed at This made him start aside and talk extravagantly but the Church immediately branded him for an Heretick and drave him and his followers out of all Churches and from all Cities and Villages And Epiphanius Cont. Aer haeret 75. who was his Contemporary represents him as very little better than a Madman and adds that all Heresies that ever were from the beginning of the World had been hatched either by Pride or Vain Glory or Covetousness or Emulation or some such Evil Inclination But his Heresie it seems was not long-liv'd for we hear no more concerning this matter till the Reformation at Geneva Secondly We desire them to shew any Christian Church that did not constantly use Liturgies and Forms of Prayer in their Publick Offices and Administrations of Divine Worship I take it for granted that there were Forms of Publick Prayer in the Jewish Church and I make no doubt but that the use of such Forms was together with many other Synagogue-rites and Usages transferred into the Practice of the Christian Church and did actually obtain in the most early Ages in all Churches where there were not Miraculous Gifts and every where as soon as those Miraculous Gifts ceased it being very fit and proper and agreeable to Order and Decency that the Peoples Devotions should be thus Conducted and Governed in their Publick Ministrations Not to insist upon the Carmen or Hymn which even the Proconsul Pliny says the Christians upon a set Day were wont one among another to say to Christ as to their God Apparent footsteps of some Passages of their Ancient Liturgies are yet extant in the Writings of Origen and St. Cyprian And when Eusebius gives us an account how Religiously Constantine Devit Constant lib. 4. c. 17. the Great ordered his Court That he was wont to take the Holy Bible into his Hands and carefully to Meditate upon it and afterwards to offer up Set or Composed Prayers together with his whole Royal Family he adds He did this after the manner or in imitation of the Church of God Nazianzen tells us of St. Basil That he composed Orders and Forms of In Sanctum Basilium Orat 20. Bas Ep. 63. Prayer and appointed decent Ornaments for the Altar And St. Basil himself reciting the manner of the Publick Service that was used in the Monastical Oratories of his Institution says That nothing was done therein but what was Consonant and Agreeable to all the Churches of God And the Council of Laodicea holden much about the Year 365 expresly provides that the same Liturgy or Form of Prayers Can. 18. conf Conc. Milev can 12. Conc. Carth. 3. c. 23. should be always used both Morning and Evening That so it might not be lawful for every one that would to compose Prayers of his own Head and to repeat them in the Publick Assemblies as both Zonaras and Balsamon give the reason of that Canon Further than this we need not go the Case being henceforward evident beyond all Contradiction Thirdly Let them shew us any Church that did not always set apart and observe Festival Commemorations of the Saints besides the more solemn times for Celebrating the great Blessings of our Redeemer his Birth-day and Epiphany Easter in Memory of his Resurrection Pentecost or Witsuntide for the Mission of the Holy Ghost they had Annual days for solemnizing the Memories of the Blessed Apostles they had their Memoriae and Natalitia Martyrum whereon they assembled every year to offer up to God their Praises and Common Devotions and by Publick Panegyricks to do honour to the memory of those Saints and Martyrs who had suffered for or Sealed Religion with their Bloud Not to mention their Lent Fast and their Stationary Fasts on Wednesdays and Fridays which Epiphanius more than once expresly Sâ—rm compâ—nd de Expos fid p. 466. â—dv Aer Haeres 75. says were a Constitution of the Apostles But the less need be said on this head because few that have any Reverence for Antiquity will have the hardiness to oppose it Fourthly We desire them to produce any