the secret Language and Discourse of every Devout Christian at this Holy Feast and with these kind of Meditations he refreshes and delights himself So that from the whole we may conclude that the Lord's Supper is in its own Nature truly and properly a Feast though vastly different from Common and Ordinary Feasts throughout even in those things wherein it seems to be like them As to the several Names and Phrases by which the Nature of it is described they are figurative and borrowed from Civil Entertainments but although it hath received the same names and is represented by Phrases that properly sute to Ordinary Feasts yet the Lord's Supper differs in its Nature from Civil Banquets as much as Heaven and Earth Body and Spirit differ in theirs As to the Bread and Wine which we see and tast they are only Signs and Types of the true Spiritual Feast and serve to raise our minds to and whet the Appetites of our Souls after Celestial and Heavenly Enjoyments Thus much may suffice to inform us what the Nature of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is considered barely as a Feast 2. For a further Discovery of its Nature we are to be minded that it is a Feast upon a Sacrifice for Sin wherein we are particularly to Commemorate the 1 Cor. 11. 26. Death of Christ by way of expiation for the Sins of the World 3. It was Instituted in Honour of our Lord our great Benefactor and Redeemer where we meet to preserve an Eternal memory of his Wondrous Works to bless and praise him and speak good of his Name And thus partaking of the Lord's Supper is a proper Act of Christian Worship performed to our Saviour It 's the Worship of God manifested in our Flesh and of our Crucified Lord who submitted himself to a Vile and Tormenting Death for the sake of us Vile and Miserable Sinners 4. The Lord's Supper is a Mysterious Rite of Religious Worship which as it respects God the Father hath the Vertue and Efficacy of a Thanksgiving and a Prayer as the Sacrifices under the Law had For our desires and affections may be signified by Actions as well as Words and by Ceremonies as well as Speech And with respect to this Notion and End of the Lord's Supper it was Anciently Stiled the Liturgy and the Eucharist which last name as it was given to it in the most Ignat. Ep. ad Ephes Justin Mar. in Dial. eum Tryph. early Ages of the Church so it still retains the same among all the Christian Churches to this day 5. The Lord's Supper was Instituted to be a Foederal or Covenanting Rite between God and all worthy Communicants Where by permitting us to Eat and Luk. 22. 19. 1 Cor. 11. 24. Drink at his Table he signifies that we are in a State of Peace and Friendship and in a Covenant-relation with him and we by coming to his Table and Eating and Drinking in his presence do own him to be our God and Saviour and in effect plight our troth to him and Swear Fidelity and Allegiance to him we take the Sacrament upon it as we ordinarily say that we will not henceforth live unto our selves but to him alone that Dyed for us and gave himself for us an Offering and a Sacrifice to God for a Sweet Smelling Savour 6. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was Instituted for this further end viz. to be a means to Convey and Apply to us the Merits of that Sacrifice which Christ offered for Sinners on the Cross and as a Pledge to assure us thereof 7. It was instituted to be a Sacred Bond of Unity and Concord among all Christians to engage and dispose us to Love one another as our Lord Loved us who thought not his Life too dear nor his Blood too much to part with for our Sakes This is a short and so far as it serves my present design a full account of the Nature of the Lord's Supper If the Reader desire to see these things which I have but touched upon more largely proved and explained let him for his satisfaction consult those two excellent Discourses among many others that pass under these names viz. 1. The Christian Sacrifice 2. Discourse of Religious Set forth by 1. Dr. Patriâ— 2. Dr. Sherlock Assemblies Howsoever by what hath been said it appears that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is of a complicated Nature and Instituted for various ends that it is vastly different both in its nature and ends from Civil and Ordinary Feasts And therefore I conclude that we are not at this Religious Feast to guide our Selves by the Rules of Common Table-Fellowship but by more Religious and Spiritual Considerations Which leads me to the second thing proposed for the Resolution of the present Case 2. That the Nature of the Lord's Supper doth not absolutely require and necessarily oblige us to observe a Table-Gesture in order to a right and worthy Receiving of it The Reasons that I shall offer for the Proof of this are these 1. If the Nature of the Sacrament considered as a Feast necessarily requires a Table-Gesture then the Nature of the Sacrament considered as a Feast equally concludes for all other Formalities which are either Essential to all Civil Feasts whatsoever or to all Feasts as they obtain among us For if Sitting be necessary purely because the Nature of a Feast requires it then all other Circumstances which the Nature of a Feast requires will be equally necessary too But our Dissenting Brethren will by no means allow of this nor think themselves obliged to observe all other formalities though equally sutable and agreeable to the Nature of a Feast as Sitting is Though for what good reason I am perfectly in the dark For 1. As they omit many things at the Sacrament that are as agreeable to the Nature of a Feast as the Table-Gesture is So they observe several Modes and Circumstances which are not agreeable to the nature of a Feast as the Custom of our Country standeth For instance at our Common and Ordinary Feasts it 's very sutable and agreeable to Laugh to Talk and Discourse together to Congratulate one anothers welfare to enquire of the State of absent Friends and Acquaintance to Sit with the Head Covered to Eat plentifully and Drink Frequently to Carve and Drink to one another It is further necessary and convenient that at such Feasts the Guests should be well attended with Servants and Waiters who are not allowed to Sit down at the Table with â—hose who are Invited It 's agreeable that the Guests should if they please help themselves and their Friends where they like And yet these and many other things of this Nature though very sutable to and commonly practised at our Ordinary Feasts are not allowed of nor practised by nor urged as necessary to be observed at the Sacrament by our Dissenting Brethren But why they should plead for and urge the necessity of a Common Table-Gesture
that the word dedicated doth there import no more than declared by that Ceremony to be dedicated viz. by the foregoing Baptism like as the Priest is said to have cleansed the Leper whom he onely declareth to be clean Lev. 14. 11. And 't is manifest from the account given of the imposing of this Ceremony in that Canon that this Phrase cannot otherwise be understood I shall not need to add any thing more about this Ceremony after I have said that our Church retains it not in imitation of the Church of Rome but of the Primitive Christians they thereby to use the Words of the foresaid Canon making an outward profession even to the astonishment of the Jews that they were not ashamed to acknowledge him for their Lord and Saviour who died for them upon the Cross c. And as it follows this use of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism was held in the Primitive Church as well by the Greeks as the Latins with one consent and great applause c. I conclude with Beza's judgment of the Lawfulness of Resp ad Baldw. p. 324. this Ceremony Saith he I know many too have retained the use of the Sign of the Cross the Adoration of the Cross being taken away Let them as is meet use their own Liberty But in our Church not onely the Adoration of the Cross but likewise all Superstition in the use of it is perfectly abolished How then can it be thought such a Symbolizing with the Church of Rome as may warrant Separation from our Communion 3. As to the Ceremony of Kneeling at the Communion If our Churches Declaration at the end of the Communion-Service will not vindicate her from an Unlawful Symbolizing with Rome herein I have nothing to say in her defence The declaration is this Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lords Supper that the Communicants should receive the same Kneeling which order is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers and for the avoiding of such Prophanation and disorder in the Holy Communion as might otherwise ensue yet lest the same Kneeling should by any Persons either out of Ignorance and Infirmity or out of Malice and Obstinacy be misconstrued and depraved It is here declared that thereby no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or unto any Corporal-Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very Natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians And the Natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one We see that our Church doth here not only declare that no Adoration is in this Gesture intended either to the Elements or to Christ's Corporal Presence under the Species of Bread and Wine but also that as such a Pretence is absurd and contradictions so the adoring of the Sacramental Bread and Wine would be Idolatry to be abhorred by all faithful Christians So that as nothing is in it self more indifferent than this Gesture in receiving the Holy Communion there being not one Word said of the Gesture in our Saviours Institution of this Sacrament either before his Death to his Disciples or after his Ascension to St. Paul who hath delivered to us what he received of the Lord about this matter as he said that is all that he had received and as Christ hath Consequently lest the particular Gesture to the determination of the Church a Gesture being in the general necessary so this Circumstance of Symbolizing with the Church of Rome herein cannot make Our Churches requiring Kneeling to be Unlawful and much less our Obedience to the Church in using this Gesture seeing all the Idolatry and Superstition too wherewith the Church of Rome hath abused it is perfectly removed and 't is required by our Church meerly as a decent Reverend Gesture 4. As to the Ring in Marriage The Church of Rome as is to be seen in the Office of Matrimony juxta usum Ecclesiae Sarisburiensis abuseth it most notoriously There you have it first blessed with two Prayers in the former of which God is beseeched to send his blessing on this Ring that she who shall wear it may be Armed with the Power of Heavenly defence and it may be beneficial to her to Eternal life through Christ our Lord. And in the latter the Priest Crossing himself Prayeth that God would bless this Ring which we in thy Holy Name bless that whosoever shall wear it may abide in his Peace c. Next Holy Water is sprinkled upon the Ring And lastly the Bridegroom puts it upon the Brides Thumb the Bridegroom saying In the Name of the Father Then upon her second Finger saying And of the Son Then on the third saying And of the Holy Ghost Then on the fourth saying Amen And there he leaves it And there is expressed a special Mystery in leaving it upon that Finger But there is used nothing of this impious or Superstitious fooling about the Ring in our Office of Marriage All the doings about it are the Bridegrooms putting it on the fourth Finger he saying after the Minister With this Ring I thee Wed and the mentioning of it in the Prayer following as a Token and Pledg of the Vow and Covenant made between the Married Persons So that 't is so far from being used as a Sacramental sign among us that it no otherwise differs from a meer civil Ceremony than as 't is a Token and Pledg of a Covenant made between the Parties in the most Solemn manner viz. as in the presence of God And in truth this is such a Symbolizing with the Church of Rome as I should be ashamed to bestow two Words about but that so many of our Brethren have been pleased to take offence at it Lastly As to our Observation of certain Holy days All I shall say about it is 1. That there is no Comparison between the number of our Holy-days and the Popish ones 2. Our few are purged from all the Superstitious and wicked Solemnizations of the Popish ones 3. We observe scarcely any besides such as wherein we have the Primitive Church for our Example Excepting those which are enjoyned upon the account of Deliverances and Calamities in which our own Nation is peculiarly concerned 4. An observation of them void of Superstitious conceits about them and onely as our Church directeth can have no other than a very good Effect upon our Hearts and lives If we could say as St. Austin did of the Christians in his time viz. By Festival Solemnities and set days we dedicate and sanctify to God the memory of his Benefits lest unthankful forgetfulness of
by the Devil to the destruction of the Gospel But the Catholick truth delivered unto us by the Scriptures plainly determineth that all such are to be Baptized as whom God acknowledgeth for his People and vouchsufeth them worthy of Sanctification or Remission of their Sins Therefore since that Infants be in the number or scroll of God's People and be Partakers of the Promise by their Purification in Christ it must needs follow thereby that they ought to be Baptized as well as those that can Profess their Faith For we judge the People of God as well by the free and liberal Promise of God as by the Confession of Faith For to whomsoever God promiseth himself to be their God and whom he acknowledgeth for his those no Man without great Impiety may exclude from the number of the Faithful But God promiseth that he will not only be the God of such as do profess him but also of Infants promising them his Grace and Remission of Sins as it appeareth by the words of the Covenant made unto Abraham I will set my Covenant between thee and me saith Gen. 17. the Lord and between thy Seed after thee in their Generations with an everlasting Covenant to be thy God and the God of thy Seed after thee To the which Covenant Circumcision was added to be a sign of Sanctification as well in Children as in Men and no Man may think that this Promise is abrogated with Circumcision and other Ceremonial Laws For Christ came to fulfil the Promises and Matth. 5. not to dissolve them Therefore in the Gospel he saith of Infants that is of such as yet believed not Let the little Matth. 10. Ones come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Again It is not the Will of your Father which Matth. 19. is in Heaven that any of these little Ones do perish Also He Matth. 18. that receiveth one such little Child in my Name receiveth me Take heed therefore that ye despise not one of these Babes for I tell you their Angels do continually see in Heaven my Father's Face And what may be said more plainer than this It is not the Will of the Heavenly Father that the Infants should perish Whereby we may gather that he receiveth them freely unto his Grace although as yet they confess not their Faith Since then that the Word of the Promise which is contained in Baptism pertaineth as well to Children as Men why should the sign of the Promise which is Baptism in Water be withdrawn from Children when Christ himself commandeth them to be received of us and promiseth the Reward of a Prophet to those that receive such a little Infant as he for an Example did put before his Disciples Now will I prove with manifest Arguments that Children Matth. 28. ought to be Baptized and that the Apostles of Christ did Baptize Children The Lord commanded his Apostles to Baptize all Nations therefore also Children ought to be Baptized for they are comprehended under this Word All Nations Further whom God doth account among the faithful they are faithful for it was said to Peter That thing which Acts 10. God hath purified thou shalt not say to be common or unclean But GOD doth repute Children among the Faithful Ergo they be faithful except we had rather to resist God and seem stronger and wiser than he And without all doubt the Apostles Baptized those 1 Cor. 1. which Christ commanded But he commanded the Faithful to be Baptized among the which Infants be reckoned The Apostles then Baptized Infants The Gospel is more than Baptism for Paul said The 1 Cor. 1. Lord sent me to Preach the Gospel and not to Baptize Not that he denied absolutely that he was sent to Baptize but that he preferred Doctrine before Baptism for the Lord commanded both to the Apostles but Children be received by the Doctrine of the Gospel of God and not refused Therefore what Person being of reason may deny them Baptism which is a thing lesser than the Gospel For in the Sacraments be two things to be considered the thing signified and the Sign and thing signified is greater than the Sign and from the thing signified in Baptism Children are not excluded who therefore may deny them the Sign which is Baptism in Water St. Peter could not deny them to be Baptized in Water to whom he saw the Holy Ghost given which is the certain Sign of God's People For he saith in the Acts May Acts 10. any body forbid them to be Baptized in Water who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Therefore St. Peter denied not Baptism to Infants for he knew certainly both by the Doctrine of Christ and by the Covenant which is everlasting that the Kingdom of Heaven pertained to Infants None be received into the Kingdom of Heaven but Rom. 8. such as God loveth and which are endued with his Spirit For whoso hath not the Spirit of God he is none of his But Infants be beloved of God and therefore want not the Spirit of God Wherefore if they have the Spirit of God as well as Men if they be numbred among the People of God as well as we that be of Age who I pray you may well withstand Children to be Baptized with Water in the Name of the Lord. The Apostles in times past being yet not sufficiently instructed did murmur against those which brought their Children unto the Lord but the Lord rebuked them and said Let the Babes come unto me Why then do not these Rebellious Matth. 10. Anabaptists obey the Commandments of the Lord For what do they now a-days else that bring their Children to Baptism than that they did in times past which brought their Children to the Lord and our Lord received them and putting his hands on them Blessed them and both by Words and by Gentle Behaviour towards them declared manifestly that Children be the People of God and entirely beloved of GOD But some will say Why then did not Christ Baptize them Because it is Written Jesus himself Baptized not but his Disciples Moreover Circumcision in the Old Law was ministred John 4. to Infants therefore Baptism ought to be ministred in the New Law unto Children For Baptism is come in the stead of Circumcision as St. Paul witnesseth saying to the Colossians By Christ ye are Circumcised with a Circumcision which is Colos 2. without hands when ye put off the body of sin of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried together with him through Baptism Behold Paul calleth Baptism the Circumcision of a Christian Man which is done without hands not that Water may be ministred without hands but that with hands no Man any longer ought to be Circumcised albeit the Mystery of Circumcision do still remain in Faithful People To this I may add That the Servants of God were always ready to minister the
practice of our Church as being agreeable to that of pure Antiquity For the proof of this numerous testimonies both of Greek and Latine Fathers might be alledged but I will content my self and I hope the Reader too with a few of each sort which are so plain and express that he who will except against them will also with the same face and assurance except against the Whiteness of Snow and the Light of the Sun at Noon-day And first for the Greek Fathers let the testimony of St. Cyril St. Cyril Hierosol Mystag Catech. 5. versus finem Paris edit p. 244. be heard than which nothing can be more plain and express to our purpose This holy Father in a place before cited gives instructions to Communicants how to behave themselves when they approach the Lords Table and that in the act of receiving both the Bread and the Wine At the receiving of the Cup he advises thus Approach says he not rudely stretching forth thy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 245. A. hands but bowing thy self and in a posture of Worship and Adoration saying Amen To the same purpose St. Chrysostome speaks in his 14th Homily on the first Epistle to the Corinthians Where he provokes and excites the Christians of his time to an awful and reverential deportment at the Holy Communion by the example of the Wise men who adored our Saviour in his Infancy after Matth. 2. 1 11. this manner This Body the Wise men reverenced even when it lay in the Manger and approaching thereunto worshipped it with fear and great trembling Let 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 24 Hom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 538. To. 9. Paris us therefore who are Citizens of Heaven imitate at least these Barbarians But thou seest this Body not in a Manger but on the Altar not held by a Woman but by the Priest c. Let us therefore stir up our selves and be horribly afraid and manifest a much greater Reverence than those Barbarians lest coming lightly and at a venture we heap fire on our heads In another place the same Father expresly bids them to fall down and communicate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Chrys Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes in moral p. 1151. when the Table was prepared and the King himself present and in order to beget in their minds great and awful thoughts concerning that Holy and Mysterious Feast he further advises them that when they saw the Chancel doors opened then they should suppose Heaven it self was unfolded from above and that the Angels descended to be spectators I suppose he means of their carriage and behaviour at the Lords Table and by giving their attendance to grace the solemnity With the Testimony of these ancient Writers Theodoret concurs who in a Dialogue between an Orthodox Flor. A. D. 440. Christian and an Heretick introduces Orthodoxus thus discoursing concerning the Lords Supper The mysterious Symbols or signs in the Sacrament viz. Bread and Wine depart not from their proper nature for they abide in their former Essence retain their former shape and form and approve themselves both to our sight and touch to be what they were before but they are considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dialog 2. To. 4. p. 85. Paris edit for such as they are made that is with respect to their Spiritual signification and that Divine use to which they were consecrated and are believed and adored as those very things which they are believed to be Which words clearly import thus much that the consecrated Elements were received with a Gesture of Adoration and withal assure us that such a carriage at the Sacrament was not built upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For there is not a clearer instance in all Antiquity against that absurd Doctrine which the Church of Rome so obstinately believes at this day than what Theodoret furnisheth us with in the words above mentioned Lastly to produce no more out of the Greek Fathers that story which Gregory Nazianzen Gregor Naz. Orat. in laud. Gorg. p. 187. Paris edit Gregor Flor. Ann. Dom. 370. relates concerning his Sister Gorgonia will serve to corroborate what hath been said viz. That being sick and having made use of several Remedies to no purpose at last she resolved upon this course In the stilness of the night she repaired to the publick Church and being provided with some of the consecrated Elements which she had reserved at home she fell down on her Knees before the Altar and with a loud voice supplicated him whom she adored and in conclusion was made hole I am not much concerned whether the Reader shall think fit to believe or censure the Miracle but it 's certain that this famous Bishop hath put it upon Record and applauds his Sister for the method she used for her recovery and which speaks home to my purpose it 's clearly intimated that this pious Woman did Kneel or use an adoring posture at least when she eat the Sacramental Bread And there is no doubt to be made but Gorgonia in Communicating observed the same posture that others generally did in publick She did that in her sickness which all others were wont to do in their health when they came to the Lords Table i. e. fall down and Kneel For it is not to be imagined that at such a time as this when she came to beg so great a Blessing at Gods hands in the publick Church at the Altar stiled by the Ancients the Place of Prayer she would be guilty of any irregularity and used a singular Posture different from what was generally used by Christians when they came to the same place to Communicate and Pray over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice which they esteemed the most powerful and effectual way of Praying the most likely to render God propitious and to prevail with him above all other Prayers which they offered at any other time or in any other place So much for the testimonies of the Greek Fathers who were men famous for Learning and Piety in their generations and great Lights and Ornaments in the Ancient Church With these the Latine Fathers perfectly agree in their judgements concerning our present subject And of these I will onely mention two though more might be produced for brevity sake and they very eminent and illustrious persons held in great esteem by the then present Age wherein they flourish'd and by all succeeding Generations The first is St. Ambrose Bishop of Millain in a Flor. A. D. 370. Psal 98. Ps 99. 5. in our Translation Ambros de Sp. Sto. l. 3. c. 12. Book he wrote concerning the Holy Spirit where inquiring after the meaning of the Psalmist when he exhorts men to exalt the Lord and to worship his Foot-stool he gives us the sence in these words That it seems to belong unto the mystery of our Lords Incarnation and then proceeds to shew for what reason it may be accommodated to that Mysterie and at last
those affections will be ever a whit the less acceptable to him because they are presented in a form of words and not in extemporary Effusions Sure that Father would be very capricious that should deny Bread to his hungry Child meerly because he askt it to day in the same words that he did yesterday and to imagin that God will dislike or reject the good affections of our Prayer meerly because they are every day express'd in the same form is to suppose him a very captious Being and one that is more taken with our words than with our affections the contrary of which he hath given sufficient proof of in this very particular in that whereas he hath withdrawn from us as I have prov'd at large the inspiration of the words of our Prayer and left them to the composure of our own or other mens invention he still continues to inspire us with the affections of Prayer and to excite them to a due activity For to this among other purposes it is that he hath promised to continue his Holy Spirit to us to enable us to address our selves to him with devout and holy affections thus Gal. 4. 6. Because ye are sons God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts crying Abba father that is by kindling devout and filial affections in your souls inabling you to cry to God with all earnestness and assurance as to a kind and merciful Father and hence also we are said to Pray in or by the Holy Ghost Jude 20. it being by him that those good affections are rais'd in us that we offer up to God in our Prayers and therefore we may well be said to Pray by the Spirit because 't is by the Spirit that we are inspired with those holy affections which are the soul of our Prayer and accordingly the Spirit is said to make intercession for us with sighs and groans which are not to be uttered Rom. 8. 26. which words are far from asserting the inspiration of the matter and words of our Prayer though they are urg'd by our Brethren for that purpose for as for the matter of Prayer here is not the least hint of the Spirits inspiring it for as to that the Christians whom he speaks of were well instructed already by their Christian institution but all that is affirm'd is that the Spirit inabled them to offer up the matter of Prayer to God in a most devout and affectionate manner with sighs and groans that is with earnest and flagrant affections And as for the words of Prayer the Text is so far from implying the inspiration of them that it plainly tells us that those sighs and groans which the Spirit inspired were such as were not to be utter'd or worded And surely to inspire us with affections that are too big for words cannot imply the inspiration of words So that the Spirit 's interceeding for us with sighs and groans that are not to be utter'd can imply no more than his exciting in us the proper affections of Prayer and in this sense he is said in the next Verse to make intercession for the Saints according to the will of God viz. by inabling them to offer up the matter of Prayer to God with such fervent and devout affections as are necessary to render it acceptable to him which is properly to interceed for us for as Christ who is our Advocate in Heaven doth offer up our Prayers to the Father and inforce them with his own intercessions so his Spirit who is our Advocate upon Earth begets in us those affections which render our Prayers prevalent and wings them with fervour and ardency the one pleads with God for us in our own hearts by kindling such desires there as render our Prayers acceptable to him and the other pleads with him for us in Heaven by presenting those desires and soliciting their supply and acceptance And thus you see what that standing and ordinary Operation is which the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer And now before I proceed to determin the present case I shall only farther inquire what is means by that Phrase of stinting and limiting the Spirit In short therefore to stint or limit the Spirit is a modern Phrase of which there is not the least intimation in Scripture or Antiquity but 't is a term of Art coin'd and invented by our Brethren and appli'd only to the present controversie concerning the lawfulness of Forms of Prayer Which by the way is a plain evidence that this argument against Forms viz. That they stint the Spirit is very new since though Forms of Prayer were used not only in the Scripture Ages as I shall shew hereafter but also in all successive Ages of Christianity yet till very lately we never heard one syllable of stinting or limiting the Spirit by them The meaning of which Phrase is this That by using Forms of Prayer we hinder the Spirit from affording us some assistance in Prayer which otherwise we might reasonably expect from them for so our Brethren explain the Phrase viz. That by confining our selves to a Form of Words we restrain the Spirit from giving us that assistance which he ordinarily vouchsafes in conceiv'd Prayer And now having fully stated the Case the resolution of it will be short and easie It hath been shewn at large that there are two sorts of assistances in Prayer which the Scripture attributes to the Spirit the first extraordinary and temporary viz. the immediate inspiration of the matter and words of Prayer the second ordinary and abiding viz. exciting the devotion and proper affections of Prayer If therefore the Spirit be stinted hinder'd or restrain'd by Forms of Prayer it must be either from inspiring the words and matter or from exciting the affections of Prayer as for the latter to which this Phrase of stinting is never apply'd by our Brethren I shall discourse of it at large in the third Case wherein I shall endeavour to prove that Forms of Prayer are so far from restraining the devotion of it that they very much promote and improve it And as for the former viz. the inspiration of the matter and words of Prayer that I have prov'd was extraordinary and intended only as other miraculous Gifts were for the first propagation of the Gospel and therefore since as to this matter the Spirit hath stinted himself it 's certain that Forms of Prayer cannot stint him for how can that be stinted which is not and if now there be no such thing as immediate inspiration of Prayer how can it be limited by a Form of Prayer In a word if the Spirit of his own accord hath long since withdrawn this Gift of inspiration how can it be now said that he is restrain'd from communicating it by any cause without him Case II. Whether the Vse of Publick Forms be not a sinful neglect of the Ministerial Gift of Prayer In order to the resolution of which Case it would be necessary
eight days shall be circumcis'd among you God was so far from excluding of them from Sacramental Initiation upon the account of natural incapacity that he limited the time for the administration of it beyond which he would not have it deferr'd And accordingly the Jews ever did most religiously observe it from the time of Abraham unto the time of John the Baptist and Christ who were both Circumcised the * * * Luke 1. 59. 2. 21. eighth day Nay when any Gentile turned Jew they immediately Circumcised his Children if he desired it always understanding that Children were called and elected by God in their Parents Thus saith God unto Abraham I will establish my Covenant between thee and me and thy Seed after thee for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and thy Seed after thee The great Goodness of God made him thus separate the Children with their Parents from the rest of the World and look upon them as part of his chosen peculiar People by which they became relatively Holy and of a religious Consideration and differed from the Children of Unbelievers as much as their Parents did from the Unbelievers themselves Since therefore God was pleased to be so gracious as to choose the Children with their Parents and look upon them as Holy upon their account it is no wonder that he should oblige them to dedicate and devote them betimes unto him by solemn initiation into his Church I say he called and elected them in their Parents and with them separated them unto himself from the World and agreeably to the nature of this Gracious Call and separation he made it a sufficient qualification for their actual admission into the Church by the initiating Ordinance which the Children of Heathens were not capable of because they were not so called and chosen and separated of God This was ground enough for their admission into the Church and for God to look upon them as Believers though they could not make open Profession of their Faith as Abraham did before he was Baptized and it is certain after the example of Abraham all * * * Selden de Synedr l. 2. c. 3. adult Proselytes did But though Abraham professed his Faith before he was Circumcised Isaac the next Heir of the Promise was Circumcised before he professed or could profess his Faith because if he lived he was as sure to profess it by vertue of his Calling and Election as any adult Proselyte was to continue in the Profession of his In the mean time the Faith and Consent of the Father or if the Child had none of the Susceptor or God-father 1 Maccab. 2. 46. and of the Congregation under which he was Circumcised was believed of old by the Jews to be †††Seld. de jure lib 2. c. 2. de Synedr l. 1. c 3. imputed to the Child as his own Faith and Consent They had very good ground in the Scriptures for this Opinion because the Infidelity and Disobedience of the Parents in wilfully neglecting or despising Circumcision was imputed to the Children who were esteemed and punished as Breakers of the Covenant when they were not circumcised as it is written Every uncircumcised Male whose Flesh of his Foreskin is not circumcised that Soul shall be cut off from his People he hath broken my Covenant and therefore if the Act of Parents Cassand de Baptism Infant p. 732. in neglecting to bring their Children to Circumcision was reputed theirs much more their Act in bringing them to it might well be reputed as their Act and Deed. Thus in Numb 3. 28. we find the keeping of the Sanctuary imputed to the Males of the Cohathites of a month old and upwards because their Fathers actually kept it and they were to be trained up unto it and in Deut. 29. 11 12. the little ones are expresly said to enter into Covenant with God because the Men of Israel did so and thus also our Blessed Lord who took upon him the Seed of Abraham although he healed * * * Matth. 9. 29. grown Persons for their own Faith yet he healed †††Mark 9. 23. Matth. 8. 13. Joh. 4. 50. Vid. Cassand de Baptismo Infant p. 729. Dr. Taylor of Baptizing Infants Great Exemplar Part. 1. Sect. 9. Children upon the account of the Faith of their Parents or others who besought him for them as it were imputing it to them for their own Faith Having now briefly discoursed of the Original and Evangelical Nature of the Jewish Church and the Initiatory Sacrament of it and the persons that were initiated thereinto I now proceed to make a few Observations upon the Alteration of it from the Mosaical into the Christian Oeconomy or from the Legal State of it under the Old Testament into the Evangelical under the New For as it was the same for Substance under the Law that it was before it so it still remains the same for Substance under the Gospel that it was under the Law The Foundation is the same tho' the Superstructure and Fashion of the House be very different For Abraham is still the Father of the Faithful and we that believe under the Gospel are as much his Seed and Children in God's prime Intention and the true meaning of the Words as those that were Believers under the Law Hence it comes to pass that the Church-Christian is called in the New Testament the New and Supernal Jerusalem to let us know that Christianity is nothing but Spiritual Judaism the same City new reformed constituted upon a new Charter blessed with more noble and ample Priviledges than formerly and every way better built and more August than it was Thus in Rev. 3. 12. Unto him that overcometh saith the Son of Man I will write the Name of my God and the Name of the City of my God which is New Jerusalem which is come down out of Heaven from my God that is I will acknowledge him that holds out to the end for a person truly godly and for a true Member of the pure Catholick Christian-Church which is the Spiritual Jerusalem descended from above And so Chap. 21. 2. I saw the Holy City New Jerusalem coming down from God down out of Heaven prepared as a Bride adorned for her Husband meaning Jesus Christ So in Gal. 4. Jerusalem which is from above or the Supernal Jerusalem is a free City which is the Mother of us all Hence also it comes to pass that St. Peter in his first General Epistle calls the Christians by those proper Titles and Appellations which God gave unto the Jews as unto his peculiar People viz. a chosen Generation a Royal Priesthood an Holy Nation a peculiar People which must needs imply that the Christian Church is fundamentally and radically the same with the ancient Church of the Jews Accordingly St. Paul tho' he was the Doctor of the Gentiles yet compared the calling of them to the engrafting of the wild
us to observe onely a Feast-Gesture for the due Celebration of it 3. Kneeling is very Comely and Agreeable to the Nature of the Lord's Supper though no Table-Gesture Which I hope will be made evident to every Honest and Unbyassed Mind which Impartially seeks after Truth by these following considerations 1. Kneeling is allowed on all Hands to be a very fit and sutable Gesture for Prayer and Praise and very apt to express our Reverence Humility and Gratitude by and Consequently very fit to be used at the Holy Sacrament and agreeable to its Nature This will appear if we reflect upon what hath been delivered concerning the Nature and Ends of the Lord's Supper For at the Sacrament we express that by Actions as I hinted before which at other times we do by Words and the Lord's Supper is a Solemn Rite of Christian Worship which implyes Prayer and Praise It includes all the Parts of Prayer By partaking of the Signs of his Body broken and Blood shed for our Sins we do Commemorate Represent and Shew forth to God the Father the Sacrifice which his Dearly Beloved Son made upon the Cross we Feast upon the memorials of the great Sin-Offering And in so doing we make an open Confession and Acknowledgment of our Guilt and Unworthiness to God and we plead with him in the Vertue of his Sons Blood which was shed for us for the Pardon and Remission of all our Sins We further Humbly entreat him to be Propitious and Favourable to us and to bestow upon us all those benefits which our Lord purchased with his most Precious Blood We Intercede with him too at the Communion for the whole Church that all our Fellow-Christians and true Members of his Body may Receive Remission of their Sins and all other benefits of his Passion And as Eating and Drinking at his Table is a Visible and Powerful Prayer in the sight of God so it is a Visible Act of Praise and Thanksgiving whereby we let our Heavenly Father see that we retain a deep and lively sense of his Unexpressible Love in sending his onely begotten Son into the World to Dye for us that we might Live through him And that which enlivens our Faith and emboldens our hopes of finding Favour and Acceptance at his Hands at this time above others is this viz. Our Prayers and Praises are not onely put up in the Name of Christ but presented and as it were Writ in his Blood and offered to God over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice All this our Actions signify and speak when we Eat the Consecrated Bread and Drink the Cup of Blessing at the Lord's Table If therefore these things be True and I think no body who understands what he doth when he partakes of the Lord's Supper will gainsay it then Kneeling must be judged as fitting and convenient to be used at such a time when we signify our desires and affections by external Rites and Ceremonies of Gods appointment as when we do it by Words that is when we say our Prayers 2. Our Dissenting Brethren and all good Christians will Grant that our Blessed Saviour ought to be Worshipt and Adored by all worthy Communicants inwardly in their Hearts and Souls when they Receive the Tokens and Pledges of his tender and exceeding great Love in laying down his Life for the Sins of the whole World And if so then whatsoever is very apt and meet to express the inward esteem and veneration of our minds by can't be thought Unsutable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper Because that is a Religious Feast Instituted in Honour of our Lord and is a Solemn Act of Christian Worship performed to our Crucified Saviour Our meeting together at thâ—s Holy Feast in Obedience to his Commands to Commemorate his Death and tell of all his wondrous Works perpetuate the fame of our great Benefactor as much as in us lyes throughout all Ages is an External mark of the Honour and respect we bear towards him in our minds and is properly speaking that which we call Publick Worship Since to Bow our Knees then is allowed to be a proper mode of publick Worship and an External Sign of Reverence why should an adoring posture be thought Unmeet and Unsutable to the Sacrament which in its nature imports Worship and Adoration 3. No good Christian of what Party or Perswasion soever will deny but that to lift our Hands and Eyes to Heaven and to Employ our Tongues in Uttering the Praises of our Blessed Redeemer even in the Act of Receiving is very agreeable to the Nature of the Sacrament why then should Kneeling be thought Unsutable which is no more but onely Glorifying God and our Blessed Saviour with another part of our Body Why should the Gesture be scrupled at more than the Voice or the Bowing of my Knees be esteemed incongruous and unfitting any more than moving my Tongue or raising my Hands and Eyes to Heaven Especially if we consider that the high degree of Honour and Glory to which our Lord is advanced in the Heavens by God the Father as the reward of his Humble and Submissive Obedience here on Earth challenges from us all manner of Respect and Reverence both of Soul and Body He Humbled himself and became Obedient unto Death even the Death of the Cross Wherefore God hath highly exalted him and given him a Name which is above every Name that at the Name of Jesus Phil. 2. 8 9 10 11. every Knee should Bow c. and that every Tongue should Confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father 4. The Holy Sacrament was Instituted in Remembrance of our Blessed Saviours Death and Sufferings And therefore I request all our Dissenting Brethren to Consult one place of Scripture concerning our Saviours Bodily Gesture or Deportment in the Heat and Extremity of his Passion wherein he presented himself before his Father in his Agony and Bloody Sweat in the Garden Being in an Agony he offered up this Prayer to his Father If thou be willing remove this Cup from Luke 22. 42 44. me Nevertheless not my Will but thine be done But after what manner or in what Gesture of Body did his perplexed Soul utter these earnest Supplications Why Kneeling or fixing his Knees upon the Earth Now though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ver. 41. we may remember and meditate on our Saviours Sufferings in the Garden when his Soul was so exceeding Sorrowful when he was reduced to such a Weak and low Estate as to stand in need of Comfort and Support from an Angel though I say this may be done Sitting Ver. 43. yet sure no Sober and Considering Mind will say that to Celebrate the Memory of these Sufferings with bended Knees as his were on the Earth is an Improper and Unsutable behaviour to be used at the Sacrament where our proper work is to Commemorate the Death and Sufferings of our Saviour and particularly these among
joy and triumph viz. over Death and the Grave and therefore on these days we neither Fast nor bend our Knees nor incline and bow down our Bodies but with our Lord are lifted up to Heaven We pray standing all that time which is a sign of the Resurrection St. August Ep. 119. ad Jan. c. 15. By which posture that is we signifie our belief of that Article From whence we may conclude that as the Christians of those first Ages did at other times certainly Fast so they did also certainly Kneel at their Prayers in their publick and religious Assemblies 6 Another thing I would have observed in order to my present design is this That the Primitive Christians were wont to receive the Holy Sacrament every day as oft as they came together for publick Worship which Custom as it was introduced Acts 2. 42 46. Acts 20. 7. compared with 1 Cor. 10. 16. and practised by the Apostles themselves according to the judgement of very Learned men and that not without good grounds from the Holy Scripture so it continued a considerable time in the Church even down to St. Austin who flourisht in the beginning Ann. Dom. 410. St. Aug Epist 118. ad Januarium c. 2 3. p. 556. 7. Basil edit a Froben 1541. St. Ambr. cap. ult lib. 5. c. 4. de Sacram. p. 449. Paris St. Hier. adver Jovinian p 37. Paris id in Epist ad Lucinium Baeticum p. 71. edit of the fifth Century and seems clearly to intimate to us in his Writings that it was customary in his days as St. Ambrose and St. Hierome had hinted before him concerning the Churches of Millan and Rome in their times From St. Cyprian we are fully Vid. Dr. Cave Prim. Christ p. 339. St. Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 147. Oxon. edit 1682. Can. 9. Apost Antiochen Concil Can. 2. Basil Ep. 289. ad Caesariam Patriciam To. 3. p. 279. assured that it was so in his days viz. about the year 250. For in his explication of that Petition in the Lords Prayer Give us this day our daily bread he expresly tells us that they did receive the Eucharist every day as the food that nourisht them to Salvation St. Basil Bishop of Caesaria who lived about 370 years after Christ affirms that in his Church they communicated four times a Week on the Lords day Wednesday Friday and Saturday two of which were station-days or set days of Fasting which were punctually observed by the generality of Christians in those times And this I the rather note because in all probability since they did receive the Sacrament on these days they did not alter the Posture of the day but received Kneeling For if Kneeling was adjudged by the Catholick Church an unsutable and improper posture for times of mirth and joy such as the Lords days and those of Pentecost were and if they were thought guilty of a great irregularity who used that posture on those Festivals then we may reasonably conclude that Standing which was the Festival Posture was not used by the Catholick Church on days of Fasting and Humiliation and that they who stood at their publick Devotions on Fasting days were as irregular as they who kneel'd on a Festival And that this was really so may I think be clearly collected from a passage in Tertullian to this purpose Tertull. de Orat c. 3. p. 206. Edit Col. Agrip 1617. We judge it an unlawful and impious thing says he either to Fast or Kneel at our Devotions on the Lords day We rejoyce in the same freedom or immunity from Easter to Whitsontide To be freed and exempted from Fasting and Kneeling not onely on the Lords day but all the days of Pentecost was esteemed a great priviledge and matter of much joy to this Holy Father and the Christians who lived in his days And from hence I infer that at other times when they met together for publick Worship especially on days of Fasting they generally used Kneeling and that at the Lords Supper which was administred every day in the African So St. Cyprian before cited Church whereof Tertullian was a Presbyter For if they had generally stood at all other times of the year in their religious Assemblies as well at their Prayers as at the Lords Supper where is the priviledge and immunity they boasted so much of and rejoyced in viz. that they were freed from Kneeling on such days and at such certain times Not to Fast on the Lords day was a Priviledge because they did Fast on the Week-days and so say I of Standing To Stand on the Lords days and all the time between Easter and Whitsunday could not be thought a special act of favour and the Prerogative of those seasons if Kneeling had not been the ordinary and common Gesture at all other times throughout the year And if Kneeling was the Didoclavius his own argument retorted Si stabant inter orandum viz. Die Dominico toto temporis intervallo inter Pascha Pentecosten non est probabile de geniculis adorasse cum perciperent Eucharistiam sed potius contrarium nempe stetisse Altar Damasc p. 784. Gesture which the Christians did then commonly use at their Prayers on the Week-days then in all probability when they received the Sacrament on those days they received in the ordinary posture The 7th and last particular which I would observe relating to this business is this That the Primitive Christians received the Holy Sacrament Praying The whole Communion Service was performed with Prayer and Praise It was begun with a general Prayer wherein the Minister and the whole Congregation joyntly prayed for the Vniversal Tert. Apol. c. 39. p. 47. St. Aug. Ep. 118. Const Apost l. 2. c. 57. p. 881. St. Chrys Hom. 1. in 2. cap. Epist 1. Tim. Peace and Welfare of the Church for the Tranquillity and the quietness of the World for the Prosperity of the Age for wholesome Weather and fruitful Seasons for Kings and Emperours and all in Authority c. The Elements were sanctified by a solemn Benediction the form whereof is set down by St. Ambrose and De Sacr. lib. 4. c 5. p. 439. See Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity c. 11. p. 347. the whole action was concluded with Prayer and Thanksgiving But that which more particularly affects the matter in hand is that the Minister used a Prayer at the delivery of the Sacrament to each Communicant to which every one at their receiving said Amen The Apostolical Constitutions though in some things much corrupted and adulterated yet in many things are very sound and in this particular seem to express the most Ancient Practice of the Church For there we find this Account The Apostolical Constitutions confessed by all hands to be very Mr. Daillé sets them at the latter end of the 5 Century Const Apost lib. 8. c. 13. p. 483. Ancient though not altogether so much as is pretended in some things give us this
concludes thus By the Footstool therefore is the earth Itaque per Scabellum terra intelligitur per terram autem caro Christi quam hodie quoque in mysteriis adoramus quam Apostoli in Dom. Jesu adorarunt to be understood and by the earth the Body of Christ which at this day too we adore in the Sacrament and which the Apostles worshipt in the Lord Jesus c. On the very same words St. Austin Bishop of Hippo comments and to the same purpose For thus he resolves that Question how or in what sence the earth his Footstool may be worshipped without Impiety Because he took earth of the earth for flesh is of the earth and he took flesh of the flesh of Mary And because he conversed here in the flesh and gave us his very flesh to eat unto Salvation Now there is none who eateth that Nemo carnem illam manducat nisi prius adoraverit flesh but first worshippeth We have found then how this Footstool may be adored so that we are so far from sinning by adoring that we really sin if we do not Adore In the judgement therefore of these Primitive Bishops we may lawfully adore at the Mysteries though not the Mysteries themselves at the Sacraments not the Sacraments themselves the Creator in the Creature which is sanctified not the Creature it self as a late Protestant Writer of Phil. Mornay du Plessis de Missa l 4. c. 7. p. 732. prime Quality and Learning among the French distinguishes upon the forecited words of St. Ambrose From these few Instances I think it appears evident that the Primitive Christians used an adoring posture at the Sacrament in the act of receiving It were easie to heap together many other Witnesses if it were necessary so to do either to prove or clear the Cause in hand but since there is no need to pester the Discourse with numerous references and appeals to Antiquity would but puzzle and obscure the Argument and tend in all likelihood rather to confound and disgust than convince and gratifie the Reader By what hath been alleadged the practice of our Church in Kneeling at the Sacrament is sufficiently justified as agreeable to the Customs and Practice of pure Antiquity For if the Ancients did at the Sacrament use a posture of Worship and Adoration which that they did is very plain then Kneeling is not repugnant to the practice of the Church in the first and purest Ages no though we should suppose that Kneeling was never practised among them which will appear if we cast our eyes a little upon that heavy Charge which some of the fiercest but less prudent Adversaries of Kneeling have drawn up against it They object against Kneeling as being an Adoring gesture For they affirm That to kneel in the act of Receiving before the consecrated Gillesp p. 166. 172 Altar Damas p. 801. Rutherf Divine Right of Ch. Gov. c. 1. Qu. 5. Sec. 1. 3. Bread and Wine is formal Idolatry So also to kneel before any Creature as a memorative object of God though there be no intention of giving divine Adoration to that Creature is Idolatry Now if the Primitive Christians may be supposed to prostrate themselves before the Altar upon their first approach thither in order to receive or immediately after they had received the Bread and the Cup from the hand of the Minister or if they bowed their Heads and Bodies after a lowly manner in the act of Receiving or if they received standing upright and eat and drank at the Lords Table with their Hands and Eyes lifted up to Heaven then they were guilty of Idolatry as well as we who kneel at the Sacrament in the judgement of those Scotch Casuists and consequently Kneeling at the Holy Communion according to the Custom of our Church is not contrary to the practice of the Church of Christ in the first and purest Ages For all those postures before mentioned were postures of Worship and Adoration and used as such by the Primitive Christians especially standing which is allowed by Gillesp Disp against E. Po. Cer. p. 191. Disp of kneel p. 93. the Patrons of Sitting to be anciently and most generally used in time of Divine Worship and particularly in the act of Receiving I will conclude all with an Instance in their own Case about a common Table-gesture Suppose the Primitive Christians did in some places receive the Holy Sacrament Sitting or lying along upon Beds as the ancient Custom was in those Eastern Countries at their common and ordinary Tables Put the Case that in other places they sate cross-legg'd on Carpets at the Lords Supper as the Turks and Persians eat at this day or that they received Standing in other places according to the common mode of Feasting which we will suppose onely at present Could any man now reasonably object against the lawfulness of Sitting upright at the Sacrament upon a Form or Chair according to the Custom of England as being contrary to the practice of all Antiquity who never sate at all Certainly no. For though they differ from the Ancients as to the Site of their Bodies and the particular mode of Receiving yet they all agree in this that they receive in a common Table-gesture They all use the same Gesture at the Sacrament that they constantly used at their civil Feasts and ordinary Entertainments in the several places of their abode And so say I in the present Case What though the Primitive Christians stood upright some of them at the Sacrament and others bowed their Heads and Bodies in the Act of Receiving and none of them ever used Kneeling Yet they and we do very well agree for all that because we all receive in an Adoring or Worshipping Posture It is one and the same thing variously exprest according to the modes of different Countries Query V. Whether it be unlawful to Receive Kneeling because this Gesture was first introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abused by the Papists to idolatrous ends and purposes ALl that is needful to be said for satisfaction in this Case may be comprized under these two Propositions which I will endeavour to make good 1 It can never be proved that Kneeling in the Act of Receiving was first brought in by Idolaters as is pretended and supposed in the Question 2 That it is not sinful to use such Things and Rites as either have been or are notoriously abused to Idolatry As to the first of these Propositions I have in my Answer to the fourth Query made it I think appear very probable That the Church of Christ in the first and purest Ages did Kneel as we do at this day in the Act of Receiving And if this be allowed then they who oppose Kneeling will be unavoidably driven upon one of these two things Either they must pronounce the Primitive Christians guilty of Idolatry or not guilty If they say they were Idolaters then the former Objection against Kneeling contained in
He was an eminent Minister of the Presbyterian Party Epist Dedicat to Gangraen print 1646. One who as he tells the Parliament had out of Choice and Judgment from the very beginning Embarqued himself with Wife Children and Estate and all that was dear to him in the same Ship with them to sink and perish or to come safe to Land with them and that in the most doubtful and difficult Times not only in the beginning of the War and Troubles in a Malignant place among Courtiers where he had Pleaded their Cause justified their Wars and Satisfied many that Scrupled but when their Affairs were at lowest had been most Zealous for them Preaching Praying stirring up the People to stand for them and had both gone out in Person and lent Mony to them He held Correspondence with considerable Persons in all parts of the Nation and was careful to have the best Intelligence from all Quarters and professes to lay down the Opinion and Errours which he mentions in terminis and in their own Words and Phrases Syllabically and as near as might be Now amongst infinite other things he tells us Catal. and discov of Errors p. 15 c. vid. 2 d. Part. p. 5. 22. 24 27. 105. 110. fresh discov p. 115. 16â— alibi passim 't was then commonly maintained That the Scriptures cannot be said to be the Word of God and are no more to be Credited than the Writings of men being not a divine but Humane Tradition that God has a Hand in and is the Author of the Sinfulness of his People not of the Actions alone but of the very Pravity which is in them that all Lies come forth out of his Mouth that the Prince of the Air that Rules in the Children of Disobedience is God that in the Unity of the God-head there is not a Trinity of Persons but that it is a Popish Tradition that the Doctrine of Repentance is a Soul-destroying Doctrine and that Children are not bound to Obey their Parents at all if they be Ungodly that the Soul of Man is Mortal as the Soul of a Beast that there is no Resurrection at all of the Bodies of Men nor Heaven nor Hell after this Life I instance only in these as a Tast not that they are all or the Hundred part no nor the worst there being other Blasphemies and Impieties which my Pen trembles to Relate Secondly The Liturgy of our Church being discharged and thrown out and every one left to his own liberty 't is scarce possible to believe what wild and prodigious Extravagancies were upon all occasions used in holy things not in Preaching only but especially in Prayer the most immediate Act of Worship and Address to God It is an affront to the Majesty of Religious Worship that there should be any thing in it Childish and Trivial Absurd and Frivolous that its Sacred Mysteries should be exposed to Contempt and Scandal by that Levity and distraction that heat and Boldness those weaknesses and Indiscretions those Loose Raw and Incongruous Effusions which in most Congregations of those Times did too commonly attend it But the things I intend to Instance in are of a far worse colour and complexion for whose Ears would it not make to tingle to hear men in the Pulpit telling God That if he did not finish the good Work which he had begun View of the late troubles in Eng. cap. 43. p. 567 c. See also Edwards Gang 3 d. Part a little before in the Reformation of the Church he would shew himself to be the God of Confusion and such a One as by cunning Stratagems had contrived the Destruction of his own Children That God would bless the King and Mollifie his hard Heart that delights in Blood for that he was fallen from Faith in God and become an Enemy to his Church let thine Hand we pray thee O Lord our God be upon him and upon his Fathers p. 17. House but not upon thy people that they should be Plagued O God O God many are the Hands lift up against us but there is one God it is thou thy self O Father who dost us more Mischief than they all We know O Lord that Abraham made a Covenant Moses and David made a Covenant and our Saviour made a Covenant but thy Parliaments Covenant is the greatest of all Covenants I presume the Devout and Serious Reader desires no more of such intolerable Profane and Lewd Stuff as this is They that are curious of more may find it besides others in The short view of the late Troubles in England where Times Places and Persons are Particularly named Thirdly The Fences of Order and Discipline in the Church of England being broken down what a horrid Inundation of all manner of Vice and Wickedness did immediatly over-flow the Land The Assembly at Westminster Petitioned the Parliament That July 19. 1644. some Severe Course might be taken against Fornication Adultery and Incest which sry they do greatly abound especially of late by reason of Impunity Further discov p. 187. 3 d. Part p. 185 c. And Mr. Edwards speaking of the whole Tribe of Sectaries tells us He was confident that for this many Hundred Years there had not been a Party that hath pretended to so much Holiness Strictness power of Godliness tenderness of Conscience above all other Men as this Party hath â—lone that hath been guilty of so great Sins horrible wickedness provoking Abominations as they are with much more both there and elsewhere to the same purpose and the Charge very often made good by particular Instances So that indeed Hell seemed to have broke loose and to have Invaded all Quarters in despite of their Covenant and all the little Schemes of their so much Magnified Reformation The Covenant Cries God grant not against you for Reformation of the Kingdom the Extirpation of Heresies Schisms Profaneness c. and these Impieties abound as if we had taken a Covenant to maintain them and since it was taken these Sins which we have Covenanted against have more abounded than in the space of Ten Times so many Years before as Mr. Jenkin tells the Lords in Parliament And that all East Sermon Jan. 27. 1646. p. 29. that I have mentioned which yet is â—nfinitely short of what might be said was the effect of the Ruin of the Church of England and let in by the Method they took for Reformation we have from their own confessions We says Mr. Edwards in these Four Cat. and discov p. 73 74 76. last Years have over-passed the Deeds of the Prelates and justified the Bishops in whose time never so many nor so great Errours were heard of much less such Blasphemies or Confusions we have worse things among us than ever were in all the Bishops Days more corrupt Doctrines and unheard of Practices than in Eighty Years before I am persuaded if Seven Years ago the Bishops and their Chaplains had but Preached
and the Churches succeeding excluded it out of their Congregations and gave it no Entertainment for the space of 1200 years That Kneeling to receive the Sacrament was not used at the Institution of the Lords Supper nor after in any Age of the Church before the time of Honorius the Third about the year 1220. So also another great Champion for sitting writes Didoclavius maintaineth saith he that which none of our opposites Gillesp Disp against Eng. Pop. Cer. p. 191. Altar Damascen 784. lib. 1. c. 1. are able to infringe viz. That no Testimony can be produced which may evince that ever Kneeling was used before the time of Honorius the Third He further observes from the History of the Waldenses That bowing of the Knees before the Host was then onely enjoyned when the opinion of Transubstantiation got place By the Practice of the Church in the first and purest Ages I conceive they mean thus much That from the Age wherein the holy Apostles lived down to that wherein Transubstantiation was set on foot or that wherein Honorius the Third enjoyned the Adoration of the Host Kneeling in the act of Receiving the Lords Supper was never heard of nor used or as one Author expresly asserts it till the year 1220. Howsoever for sureness sake and in order to the clearing of this matter under our present Consideration I think it will be requisite to fix the time wherein Transubstantiation was first broacht as well as when it was establisht or imposed as an Article of Faith and so too wherein the Adoration of the Host was enjoyned whereby the just bounds and limits will be known beyond which we are not to pass to fetch in Evidence and consequently all extravagancy will be prevented on our part and all cavilling if possible on theirs As for the Time then which we enquire after I think we may safely relie on the judgment of a very Learned Prelate of our own which he delivers after this manner The word Transubstantiation Histori Transub Papal Josian Ep. Dunelm Edit 1675. p. 53 54. is so far from being found in the sacred Scriptures or the Writings of the ancient Fathers that the great Patrons of it do themselves acknowledge it was not so much as heard of before the twelfth Century Nay that the Thing it self without the Word that the Doctrine without the Expression cannot be proved from Scripture is ingenuously acknowledged by the most Learned Schoolmen who endeavour by other Arguments Scotus Durandus Biel Cameracen Cajetan c. therefore to defend it and allow it to be brought in by the Authority of the Pope and not received in the Church of Rome till 1200 years after Christ The first Authors who mention this new-coyn'd word Transubstantiation are Petrus Blesensis who lived under Pope Alexander the Third about the year 1159 and Stephanus Eduensis a Bishop whose Age and Writings are very doubtful The Pope who first establisht this An. Dom. 1215. An. Dom. 1217 or thereabouts monstrous Doctrine by his own Arbitrary power as an Article of Faith was Innocent the Third And his Successor Honorius was the man who decreed Adoration to the Host The first Council which took notice and approved of the Papal Decree for Transubstantiation was that assembled at Constance which condemned A D. 1415. Wiclif for an Heretick because among other truths he had asserted this That the substance of the Bread and Wine remains materially in the Sacrament of the Altar and that in the same Sacrament no accidents of Bread an t Wine remain without a Substance and for this Opinion they ordered his Body to be taken out of his Grave and burnt to ashes Thus things stood till the year 1551. when the Council of Trent publisht it to the world for an infallible Truth and imposed the belief of it upon all under the pain of an Anathema As for the Doctrine of Consubstantiation and the Corporal presence of Christ at with and in the Sacrament it was started long before that of Transubstantiation and was much disputed among learned men He who first broacht it in the East was John Damascen in the days of Gregory the Third And about About the year 740. an hundred years afterwards it was set a-foot in the West by the means of Paschasius Radbertus a Monk of Corbie and one Amalarius a Who wrote de Ecclesias Officiis de ord Antiphon c. contemporary with Amalarius Fortunatus Ar. bp of Triers who wrote de Sac. Baptis ad Carol. M. Deacon of Metz. The former taught that Christ was Consubstantiated or rather enclosed in the Bread and Corporally united to it in the Sacrament for as yet there was no thoughts of the Transubstantiation of Bread The latter gives Amalar. de Ecclesi Offic. lib. 3. c. 24. vid. lib. 3. c. 35. it as part of his Belief That the simple nature of the Bread and Wine mixed is turned into a reasonable nature viz. of the Body and Bloud of Christ Moreover he in another place confesseth that it was past his skill to determine what became of his Body after it was eaten When the Body of Christ is taken with a good intention it is not for me to dispute saith he whether it Amalar. Epist ad Guitardum MS in Biblioth Coll. S. Benedic Cantabri Cod. 55. cited by A. Bp. Vsher Ans Jesuits Chall p. 75. Rabanus Maurus John Erigena Wala Strabo Ratramus or Bertramus be invisibly taken up into Heaven or kept in our Body until the day of our burial or exhaled into the Air or whether it go out of the Body with the Bloud or be sent out by the mouth c. For this and another Foolery of the three parts or kinds of Christs Body he was censured by a Synod held at Cressy wherein it was declared by the Bishops of France That the Bread and Wine are spiritually made the Body of Christ which being a meat of the Mind and not of the Belly is not corrupted but remaineth unto everlasting life From whence we may learn as also from the Writings of several Learned men of that Age who opposed these Dotages of the Corporal presence that the Western Church had not then adulterated the Doctrine of the Sacrament but followed the pure and sound sence of the Ancient Fathers and condemned these Whimseys and gross conceits of the carnal or Oral eating of Christ in the Sacrament Nay in the year 1079. when Hildebrand called Gregory the 7th came to the Papal Chair the Bishops and Doctors were divided in their Opinions concerning the Corporal Presence some maintaining Berengarius his opinion who denied it and some following that of Paschasius as appears from the Acts of that Council writ by those of the Popes Faction which was called on purpose to condemn Berengarius Moreover it 's recorded that Hildebrand himself doubted whether what we receive at the Lords Table be indeed the Body of Christ by a substantial conversion For three
months space was granted to Berengarius to consider in and a Fast appointed to the Cardinals That God would shew by some sign from Heaven who was in the right the Pope or Berengarius It seems the Doctrine of the Popes Bâ—nno Card. in vita Hild. Epis Dunelm Hist Trans p. 135. Infallibility was not known to that Age and that of the Corporal presence much doubted But however thus much we may conclude upon That from the dark and mysterious Writings of those men Paschasius and Amalarius did that monstrous Errour of Transubstantiation spring which afterwards came to be established as an Article of Faith in the Church of Rome As to the time then wherein we are to contain this Discourse it shall be the first 700 years after Christ and to Authors onely that liv'd within that compass I will appeal for evidence in the matter under dispute and surely our Dissenting Brethren will allow that they lived in the first and purest Ages because they were dead before the Doctrines either of Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation were hatcht much less received or establisht in the World If I would take all the advantage that our Adversaries give us I need not confine my self within so narrow a compass For they challenge us to produce one instance for Kneeling before the days of Honorius the Third who lived 1220 or thereabouts and confidently affirm Kneeling was never heard of nor used for 1200 years after Christ I hope therefore they will not complain of foul dealing or that I strain the point since I give away 500 years wherein the pure ancient Catholick Faith touching the Holy Sacrament began to decline and was by various arts and tricks at last foully corrupted Which piece of liberality I need not have exercised but that I design purely to convince not to contend Let us therefore bring this matter under examination and see what the practice of the Church was within the compass of 700 years after Christ or which is all one in the first and purest Ages And what I shall produce out of Antiquity may be conveniently placed under these two general Heads according to the method proposed in the beginning of this Discourse 1 That notwithstanding several Nonconformists well esteemed of for Learning have in their Writings boldly asserted Kneeling to be contrary to all Antiquity it is highly probable the Primitive Christians did Kneel in the act of Receiving as the Custom is in the Church of England 2 It 's certain they used an Adoring posture As to the first I hope I shall be able to make it good by this following Account which I shall give with all possible plainness and sincerity And I declare beforehand to all the World that I will offer nothing for satisfaction to others which I do not think in my Conscience to be true and that I would not use a Fallacy to serve the Cause though I were sure it could never be detected by any of our Separating Brethren In the first place for the first Century or 100 years wherein our Lord and his Apostles lived the Scripture hath left us in the dark and under great uncertainty what the particular Gesture was which they used at the Institution and Celebration of the Holy Sacrament which I think I have sufficiently evinced in my Answers Part 1. p. 17. to the first and second Query In the next place I desire those who urge a common Table-gesture and particularly Sitting which was a usual posture at Meals among those Eastern Nations as well as among us now to observe that Sitting was esteemed a very irreverend Posture to be used in the Worship and Service of God by the Primitive Church of which I shall give a few instances The ancient Loadicean Which met under Pope Sylvester 1. between the Neocaesarian Synod and the first general Council of Nice that is between the years 314 and 325 as some learned men think or Anno Dom. 365. after the first general Nicaene Council as others Synod finding great inconveniencies to arise from the Love-Feasts which were kept at the same time with the Lords Supper prohibited absolutely the said Feasts and the lying upon Couches in the Church as their manner was of Solemnizing those Feasts The words of the Canon are these The Feasts of Charity ought Can. 28. not to be kept in the Lords House or in the Church neither may ye eat or make Couches in the House of God This was afterward forbidden by the Council of Carthage and the Decrees of both these Provincial or National Councils were ratified by the 6th Trullan Council and that under the pain of Excommunication Can. 74. upon which in some time the Custom dwindled to nothing Now the Reasons which induced these holy Bishops and ancient Fathers to prohibit these Feasts of Charity and the use of a discumbing posture upon Beds or Couches in the House of God which was too an ordinary Table-gesture according to the custome of those times were in all probability taken from the Disorder and Irreverence the Animosities and Excess that accompanied these Feasts and which both poor and rich were guilty of They did not distinguish between their spiritual and corporal Food between the Lords Supper and an ordinary Meal they did not discern the Lords Body as St. Paul speaks and I am apt to think that the same abuses which had crept in so early into the Church of Corinth and which St. Paul took notice of and reproved continued and spread till the Church by her Censures and Decrees opposed the growing evil and rooted up the causes of such mischievous effects To these Canons of Councils if we adde the Testimony of particular Bishops who lived in those first Ages and who speak not their own private sence and Opinions but Customes and Usages of the Church in their time we shall plainly discern that Sitting was accounted an irreverent posture in the Worship of God while they were engaged in Prayer or Praise or receiving the Holy Sacrament Justin Martyr who lived in the second Century which immediately Flor. Ann. D. 155. succeeded that of the Apostles seems to hint that the people sate at the Sermon and while the Lessons were reading when he informs us concerning the Christian Assemblies in his Apol. 2. time and the place where he lived After the reading of the Lessons and the exhortatory Sermon of the Bishop we rise up saith he all together and send up our Prayers He doth not indeed signifie what the particular Gesture was which they used at their Prayers but it 's clear enough they did not Sit and they might Kneel for any thing he saith to the contrary For it 's customary among us to sit at the Sermon and during the reading of the Lessons and after they are ended we may be truly said to rise up all together and send up our Prayers But if any one should hence infer that we stood and not kneeled he would conclude