To bring their own Rule to the case in hand how do they know but our Lord was mov'd to Sit at the Sacrament by Special Reasons drawn from that Time and Place or the Feast of the Passover to which that Gesture was peculiar How do they know but that our Lord might have us'd another Gesture if the Sacrament had been Instituted apart from the Passover The necessity of the time made the Jews eat the Passover after one fashion in Egypt which afterward ceasing gave occasion to alter it in Canaan and how do we know but that our Lord comply'd with the present necessity and that his Example if he did Sit was only temporary and not design'd for a Standing Law perpetually obliging to a like Practice If Christ acted upon special Reasons then we are not obliged by their own Rule and if he did not let them produce the Reasons if they can which make this Example of Christ of general and perpetual use and to oblige all Christians to follow it 4. 'T is absurd to talk of Christ's Example apart from all Law and Rule and to make that alone a principle of duty distinct from the Precepts of the Gospel because Christ himself alwaies govern'd his actions by a Law For if we consider him as a Man he was obliged by the Natural Law as a Jew by the Mosaic Law as the Messias by the Gospel-Law He came to fulfil all Righteousness and to Teach and Practise the whole Will of God If therefore we look only to his Example without considering the various capacities and relations he bare both towards God and towards us and the several Laws by which he stood bound which were the Measures of his Actions we shall miserably mistake our way and act like Fools when we do such things as he did pursuant to infinite Wisdom Thus if we shou'd subject our selves to the Law of Moses as he did we shou'd thereby frustrate the great design of the Gospel and yet even this we are obliged to do if his Example alone be a sufficient warrant for our actions Thus it appears that Christ's bare Example do's not oblige us to do any thing that is not commanded I shall only add that they who urge the Example of Christ against Kneeling at the Sacrament do not follow it themselves For our Saviour probably us'd a Leaning Gesture and by what Authority do they change it to Sitting Certainly our changing the Gesture is as warrantable as theirs Nor is it enough to say that Sitting comes nearer our Saviour's Gesture than Kneeling for if they keep to their own Rule they must not vary at all The Presbyterians if one may argue from their Practices to their Principles lay very little stress on this Argument taken from the Example of Christ For tho' they generally chuse to Sit yet they do not condemn Standing as Sinful or Unlawful in it self and several are willing to receive it in that posture in our Churches which surely is every whit as wide from the Pattern our Lord is suppos'd to have set us whether he lay along or sate upright as that which is injoin'd and practis'd by the Church of England There is too a Confessed variation allow'd of and practis'd by the generality of Dissenters both Presbyterians and Independents from the Institution and Practice of Christ and his Apostles in the other Sacrament of Baptism For they have chang'd dipping into sprinkling and 't is strange that those who scruple kneeling at the Lord's Supper can allow of this greater change in Baptism Why shou'd not the Peace and unity of the Church and Charity to the Public prevail with them to kneel at the Lord's Supper as much as mercy and tenderness to the Infant 's Body to sprinkle or pour water on the Face contrary to the first Institution Thirdly kneeling is not therefore repugnant to the nature of the Lord's Supper because 't is no Table-Gesture The Sacrament is a Supper and therefore say they the Gesture at the Lord's Table ought to be the same which we use and observe at our ordinary Tables according to the custom and fashion of our Native Country and by consequence we ought to Sit and not to Kneel because sitting is the ordinary Table-gesture according to the mode and fashion of England Here by the way we may observe that this Argument overthrows the two others drawn from the Command and Example of Christ For 1. Different Table-gestures are us'd in different Countries and therefore tho' Christ did Sit yet we are not oblig'd to Sit after his Example unless sitting be in our Country the common Table-gesture 2. If the Nature of the Sacrament require a Table-gesture and that gesture in particular which is customary then God has not Commanded any particular gesture because different Countries have different Table-gestures However I shall fuâ—ly Answer this Argument drawn from the Nature of the Sacrament by shewing 1. What is the Nature of it 2. That it do's not absolutely require a common Table-gesture 3. That Kneeling is very agreeable to the nature of the Lord's Supper tho' 't is no Table-gesture 1. Then the Nature of the Sacrament is easily understood if we consider that the Scripture calls it the Lord's Table and the Lord's Supper The Greek Fathers call it a Feast and a Banquet because of that Provision and Entertainment which our Lord has made for all worthy Receivers 'T is styl'd a Supper and a Feast either because 't was Instituted by Christ at Supper-time or because it represents a Supper and a Feast and so it is not of the same nature with a civil and ordinary Supper or Feast tho' it bear the same name Three things are essential to a Feast Plenty Good Company and Mirth but the Plenty of the Lord's Supper is a Plenty of Spiritual Dainties and the Company consists of the Three Persons of the Trinity and good Christians and the Mirth is wholly Spiritual So that the Lord's Supper differs in its nature from civil Banquets as much as Heaven and Earth Body and Spirit differ in theirs Farther the Lord's Supper is a Feast upon a Sacrifice for Sin wherein we are particularly to commemorate the Death of Christ 'T was also instituted in honour of our Lord and to preserve an Eternal Memory of his wondrous Works and to Bless and Praise our Great Benefactour 'T is also a Covenanting Rite between God and all worthy Communicants and signifies that we are in a state of Peace and Friendship with him that we own him to be our God and swear Fidelity 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 died for us 'T is also a means to convey to us the Merits of Christ's Death and a Pledge to assure us thereof Lastly 't was instituted to be a Bond of Union between Christians to engage and dispose us to love one another as our Lord loved us who thought
difference must be in the Manner But are conceiv'd Prayers the more Inspir'd because the words are Extempore Did God continue the gift for no other end but that Men might ask those things Extempore which they might as well have asked in a Form Or are they more Inspired because they do generally more enlarge and express the same Matter over again in different words Was the Spirit continu'd only to vary phrases Our Saviour forbids us to use vain repetitions or as Munster's Hebrew reads it to multiply words above what is fit and seasonable thinking we shall be heard for our much speaking and therefore these enlargements are so far from being signs of their immediate Inspiration that supposing the Spirit to be of the same mind with Christ they are generally signs of the contrary 4. That extraordinary manner and way of expressing them for which they are thought to be Inspir'd ordinarily proceeds from natural causes viz. Natural Enthusiasm or present fervour of temper For 1. The Dissenters confess it comes upon them much oftner in their public than in their private Devotions And the reason is plain because the passions of the Congregation do so excite their affections and the reverence of an Auditory obliges them so much to wreck their inventions that their Spirits are many times transported into raptures 2. They are not so fluent in the beginning as when they have Pray'd a while the reason of which is this because the Spirits do not move so briskly till they are chafed and heated with Labour Then do they naturally raise the fancy and render the invention more copious and easy And certainly 't is unwarrantable to attribute that to Inspiration which do's so apparently proceed from natural causes Thus have I shewn what the extraordinary operations of the Spirit are and that they are not to be pretended to in these Times I proceed in the next place to shew very briefly what those ordinary operations are which he has Promis'd to continue to the end of the World They are therefore the proper graces and affections of Prayer such as shame sorrow hope c. But as for the expressions of Prayer they are of no account with God but as they signify to him the graces and affections of it Now can any Man imagin that those affections will be the less acceptable to God because they are presented in a Form and not Extempore Will a Father deny Bread to his Child because he askt it to day in the same words that he did yesterday Is God more taken with words than with affections Certainly his withdrawing the Inspiration of words and continuing the Inspiration of affections prove the contrary Now that God do's continue the Inspiration of Devout affections in Prayer is manifest from Gal. 4.6 Jude 20. and Rom. 8.26 where the Spirit is said to make intercession for us with groans which cannot be utter'd that is with most flagrant affections For these words do not as some persons wou'd persuade us prove the Inspiration of the Words of Prayer because the Inspiration of those things that are too big for words and cannot be uttered cannot mean the Inspiration of words but this Intercession of the Spirit signifies his exciting such affections as make our Prayers acceptable For as Christ who is our Advocate in Heaven enforces our Prayers with his own Intercessions so the Spirit who is our Advocate upon Earth begets those affections which render our Prayers prevalent And these are the standing and ordinary operations which the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer Secondly Stinting or limiting the Spirit is a phrase that is never mention'd in Scripture or Antiquity and therefore 't is a very new objection against Forms of Prayer which I have shewn to be warranted both by Scripture and Antiquity However what the Dissenters mean by it is this viz. that by confining our selves to a Form of words we stint or limit that is restrain the Spirit from giving us that assistance which he ordinarily vouchsafes in conceiv'd Prayer And now having explain'd the Two forgoing particulars the answer to this Objection will be very easy For if the Spirit be stinted or restrain'd by Forms of Prayer it must be either from Inspiring the words or from exciting the affections of Prayer But I have prov'd that Forms are so far from restraining the Devotion of Prayer that they do very much promote and improve it and as for the Words I have prov'd that since the first propagation of the Gospel the Spirit has withdrawn the immediate and Miraculous Inspiration of them And since that cannot be stinted which is not therefore the Inspiration of the Words of Prayer is not stinted by Forms 3. 'T is Objected that public Forms are a sinful neglect of the Ministerial gift of Prayer For the Dissenters say the gift of Prayer is an ability to express our minds in Prayer which God has given to Ministers as a means of public Devotion and therefore they may not omit the exercise of it by using Forms of other Mens Composure Now to this I answer 1. That supposing that 't is a fault in Ministers to omit the exercise of their ability yet the People are not to be charged with it God will not reject the People's Devotions because the Minister is to blame He only is accountable for that for the People do not join with him in his omission but in that which is acceptable to God 2. This gift of Prayer is either natural or acquir'd For certainly 't is not Inspir'd at Ordination because the Scripture do's not promise any such thing nor is there any experience of it Nay the Dissenting Ministers must own that just before their Ordination they were as able to express the Devotions of a Congregation as they were just after which shews that they had no new ability to Pray Inspir'd in their Ordination Now since this gift or ability is nothing more than a quickness of invention and speech which is either natural or acquir'd by art and practice therefore 't is no otherwise the gift of God than our natural strength or skill in History or the like All that God has Promis'd his Ministers is to concur with their honest endeavours as far as is necessary to the discharge of their Office and to suppose that this cannot be done without Praying Extempore is to take the Matter in question for granted 3. This freedom of utterance is never call'd the gift of Prayer in Scripture Praying in unknown Languages is once call'd a gift but Praying in our own Language is never call'd so Therefore 't is plain that the gift of readiness of speech is not appropriated by God to Prayer but left in common to all other honest uses that it can be apply'd to and it may as well be call'd the Gift of Pleading at the Bar or of Disputing or Conversation as the gift of Prayer Accordingly we find that those who have this gift in Prayer have it
and advancement of the Protestant Religion Fourthly the establishing of contrary parties by a Toleration is not the way to perfect Religion any more than the suffering of divers Errours wou'd be the means of reforming them One principle only can be true and a mixture of Sacred and Profane is the greatest impurity Fifthly Many Dissenters are not like to improve Christianity because they lay aside the Rules of discretion and rely not on God's assistance in the use of good means but depend wholly upon immediate illumination without the aids of prudence Sixthly Our Church has already better means to promote Pure Religion than any the Dissenters have propos'd Any Church may be improv'd in small matters but 't were very imprudent to change the present model for any that has yet been offer'd We have all the necessaries to Faith and Godliness Primitive discipline decency and order are preserved We have as many truly pious Members as any Nation under Heaven and such excellent Writers and Preachers as God ought to be prais'd for whereas amongst the Parties the folly and weakness of Preachers is delivered solemnly as the dictate of God's Holy Spirit I may add also that the Dissenters Doctrine of God's secret Decrees their Ordination by Presbyters without a Bishop their long unstudy'd effusions their leaving the Creed out of the Directory for public Worship their sitting at the Lord's Supper and that sometimes with the Hat on their alteration of the Form of giving the holy Elements and their forbidding the observation of Festivals were not so conducive to the edifying of the Body of Christ as those things which were in the late Times illegally remov'd by them It is easy enough to alter a Constitution but 't is extreme difficult to make a true and lasting improvement To conclude since it appears that Dissenters are not like to obtain their ends of establishing themselves of rooting out Popery and promoting Pure Religion by overthrowing the Church of England therefore they ought both in Prudence and Charity to endeavour after Union with it CHAP. I. Of the Necessity of living in constant Communion with the Establish'd Church of England THAT I may discourse with all possible clearness it will be necessary before I proceed to explain a few things 1. What is meant by a Christian Church 2. What Church-Communion is 3. What is meant by Fixt Communion and by Occasinal Communion I. Then a Church is a Body or Society of Men separated from the rest of the World and united to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant It is a Body or Society in opposition to particular Men and to a confus'd multitude For tho' it do's consist of particular men yet those men are consider'd not in a private capacity but as united into a regular Society For God is not the Authour of confusion And if the meanest Societies cannot subsist without order much less the Church of God which is a Society instituted for the most spiritual and supernatural ends The Jewish Church had exact order and the Christian Church with respect to the Union and Order of it's parts is not only call'd a Body but a spiritual building Holy Temple and the House of God But then the Church is One body in opposition to many bodies The Jewish Church was but One and therefore the Christian which is grafted into the Jewish is but One. The Church is call'd the Temple of God and the Temple was but One by the command of God Christ also tells us that there should be but one fold under one shepherd Joh. 10.16 And indeed it is extremely absurd to say that the Christian Church which has the same Foundation the same Faith the same Promises the same Priviledges should be divided into separate Bodies of the same kind For certainly where everything is common there is One Community 'T is true distinct men tho' of the same common nature have distinct Essences and this makes them distinct persons but where the very essence of a Body or Society consists in having all things common there can be but one Body And therefore if one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all be common to the whole Christian Church and if no Christian has any peculiar privileges then there is but one Church I add that the Church is a Body or Society of Men separated from the rest of the World upon which account Christians are call'd the Chosen or Elect People of God having a peculiar Faith Laws Rites c. which are not common to the whole World It is also a Society of Men united to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant It is united to God because it is a Religious Society and the Men are united to themselves because they are one Society But the chief thing to be observ'd is that the Union is made by a Divine Covenant Thus God made a Covenant with Abraham of which Circumcision was the Seal and the Christian Church is nothing else but such a Society of Men as are in Covenant with God thro' Christ I suppose all Men will grant that God only can make a Church and that the only visible way he has of forming a Church is by granting a Church-Covenant which is the Divine Charter whereon the Church is founded and by authorizing some persons to receive others into this Covenant by such a form of admission as he shall institute which form under the Gospel is Baptism So that to be taken into Covenant with God and to be receiv'd into the Church is the same thing and he is no Member of the Church who is not visibly admitted into God's Covenant From what has been said it plainly follows 1. That a Covenant-State and a Church-State are the same thing 2. That every profest Christian who is receiv'd into Covenant as such is a Church-Member 3. That nothing else is necessary to make us Members of the Christian Church but only Baptism which gives us right to all the privileges of the Covenant 4. That no Church-State can depend upon human Contracts and Covenants and therefore the Independent Church-Covenant between Pastor and People is no part of the Christian Church-Covenant because it is no part of the Baptismal vow which is one and the same for all Mankind and the only Covenant which Christ has made And why then do the Independents exact such a Covenant of Baptiz'd persons before they admit them to their Communion 5. That it is absurd to gather Churches out of Churches which already consist of Baptiz'd persons For there is but one Church which is founded upon a Divine Covenant and this we are made Members of by Baptism if therefore an Independent Church-Covenant be necessary then the Baptismal Covenant is of no value till it be confirm'd by entring into a particular Church-Covenant 6. That if the Church be founded on one Covenant then the Church is but one For those that have an interest in the same Covenant are Members
the Reading of the Lessons and hearing of the Sermon which too was only practis'd in some places for in others the People were not allow'd to sit at all in their Religious Assemblies Which Custom is still observ'd in most if not all the Eastern Churches at this day wherein there are no Seats erected or allow'd for the use of the People Now if the Apostles had Taught and Establish'd Sitting not only as convenient but as necessary to be us'd in order to worthy receiving the Lord's Supper 't is most strange and unaccountable 1. That there shou'd be such an early and universal revolt of the Primitive Church from the Doctrine and Constitutions of the Apostles 2. That so many Churches in distant Countries being perfectly Free and Independent one upon another shou'd unanimously conspire together to introduce a novel-custom contrary to the Apostolical Practice and Order and not only so but that 3. They shou'd censure the practice and injunctions of inspir'd Men as indecent and unfit to be follow'd and observ'd in the public Worship of God and all this without any Person 's taking notice or complaining or opposing either then or in the succeeding generations As for Standing in the time of Divine Service both at Prayers and at the Sacrament 't is so evident that the ancient Church did use it that I shall not endeavour to prove it and as for Kneeling 't is plain the Primitive Christians us'd that gesture also For tho' on Sundays and the Fifty daies between Easter and Whitsunday they observ'd Standing yet at other times they us'd the gesture of Kneeling at their public Devotions as appears from the authorities cited at the (m) Conc. 1. Nic. c. 20. Resp Quest inter Opera Just Mart. p. 468. Tertull. de Coron Mil. c. 3. Epiphan Expos fid Cath. p. 1105. Edit Par. St. Jer. Prol. com in Epist ad Eph. St. Aust Epist 119. ad Jan. c. 15. Tertull. de Orat. c. 3. bottom Now since they were wont in the first Ages of Christianity to receive the Holy Sacrament every day and since (n) See Tertull. Apol. c. 39. p. 47. St. Aust Epist 118. Const Apol. l. 2. c. 57. St. Chrysost Hom. 1. in c. 2. Ep. 1. ad Tim. St. Ambros de Sacram. l. 4. c. 5. Cave's Prim. Christ c. 11. St. Cyril Catech. Myst 5. St. Aust Resp ad Oros Quest 49. Tom. 4. p. 691. Basil 1541. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 35. it was deliver'd and receiv'd with a Form of Prayer and that on those daies when they constantly Pray'd Kneeling and since it is probable that when they receiv'd the Sacrament they did not alter the Praying-posture of the day therefore I conclude that they receiv'd the Sacrament Kneeling upon those daies on which they Pray'd Kneeling For since Sitting was generally condemn'd as an indecent and irreverent gesture by the Primitive Church and since no Man in his Wits will say that Prostration or lying flat upon the ground was ever us'd in the act of receiving or ever fit to be so therefore the posture of receiving must be either standing or kneeling And from hence I gather that on their common and ordinary daies when there was no peculiar reason to invite or oblige them to Stand at the Sacrament in all likelihood they us'd Kneeling that is the ordinary posture They us'd one and the same posture viz. Standing both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament on the Lord's day and for Fifty daies after Easter contrary to what was usual at other times and why then shou'd any Man think they did not observe one and the same posture at all other times viz. that as at such times they did constantly Kneel at their Prayers so they did also constantly Kneel at the Sacrament which was given and receiv'd in a Prayer From the strength of these Premises I may promise my self thus much success that whosoever shall carefully weigh and peruse them with a teachable and unprejudiced mind shall find himself much more inclin'd to believe the Primitive Church us'd at some times to Kneel as we do at the Holy Communion than that they never did Kneel at all or that such a posture was never us'd or heard of but excluded from their Congregations as some great Advocates for Sitting have confidently proclaim'd it to the World But Secondly Suppose they never did Kneel as we do yet this is most certain that they receiv'd the Lord's Supper in an adoring posture which is the same thing and will sufficiently justify the present Practice of our Church as being agreeable to that of pure Antiquity For the proof of this numerous Testimonies both of Greek and Latin Fathers might be alledg'd 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 (o) St. Cyril Hierosol Mystag Catech. 5. versus finem Paris Edit p. 244. St. Cyril 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 Lord's Table and that in the act of receiving both the Bread and the Wine At the receiving of the Cup he advises thus Approach saies he not rudely stretching forth thy hands but bowing thy self and in a posture of Worship and Adoration saying Amen To the same purpose (p) 24 Hom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 538. To. 9. Paris St. Chrysostom speaks in his Fourteenth 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 ador'd our Saviour in his Infancy after this manner This Body the Wise Men reverene'd even when it lay in the Manger and approaching thereunto worshipp'd it with fear and great trembling Let 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 The same Father in another place expresly bids them to fall down and Communicate when the Table is made ready and the King himself there and in order to beget in their Minds great and awful Thoughts concerning that Holy and Mysterious Feast he further exhorts them (p) St. Chrys Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes in moral p. 1151. That when they saw the Chancel doors open then they shou'd suppose Heaven it self was unfolded from above and that the Angels
also to kneel before any Creature as a memorative object of God tho' there be no intention of giving Divine Adoration to that Creature is Idolatry Now if the Primitive Christians may be suppos'd to prostrate themselves before the Altar upon their first approach to it in order to Receive or immediately after they had Receiv'd the Bread and the Cup from the Hand of the Minister or if they bow'd their Heads and Bodies after a lowly manner in the act of Receiving or if they receiv'd it standing upright and ate and drank at the Holy Table with their Hands and Eyes lifted up to Heaven then they incurr'd the Guilt of Idolatry as well as we who Kneel at the Lords supper in the Judgment of those Scotch Casuists and by Consequence Kneeling at the Blessed Sacrament according to the Custom of our Church is not contrary to the practice of the Christian Church in the first and purest Ages For all those Postures before mention'd were Postures of Worship and Adoration and us'd as such by the Primitive Christians especially standing which is allow'd by the (w) Gillesp Disp against E. Po. Câ—r p. 101. Disp of Kneel p. 93. Patrons of sitting to be anciently and generally us'd in time of Divine Worship and particularly in the act of Receiving To conclude all with an Instance in their own Case about a common Table-Gesture let us suppose the Primitive Christians in some places did receive the Holy Sacrament sitting or lying along upon Beds according to the ancient Custom in those Eastern Countries at their common and ordinary Tables let us put the case that in other places they sate cross-legg'd on Carpets at the Sacrament as the Persians and Turks eat at this day or that they receiv'd standing in other places after the common mode of Feasting which we will suppose only at present Cou'd any Man now object with reason 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 the Ancients who never sate at all No certainly For tho' they differ from the Ancients as to the site of their Bodies and the particular manner of Receiving yet they all consent in this that they receive in a common Table-Gesture They all observe the same Gesture at the Sacrament that they constantly observ'd at their Civil Feasts and ordinary Entertainments in the several places of their abode And so say I in the present Case What tho' the Primitive Christians stood upright some of them at the Sacrament and others bow'd their Heads and Bodies in the act of Receiving and none of them ever us'd 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 the different Countries Fifthly and lastly I am to Prove that Kneeling is not therefore unlawful because 't was first introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abus'd by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes This will appear if we consider 1. That it can never be prov'd that Kneeling in the act of receiving was brought in by Idolaters as is pretended 2. That 't is not sinful to use such things as are or have been notoriously abus'd to Idolatry I. Then it can never be prov'd that Kneeling in the act of receiving was brought in by Idolaters I have already made it very probable that the Primitive Christians receiv'd the Sacrament Kneeling and I hope our Dissenters will not charge them with Idolatry I know that they pretend the Kneeling-posture was brought in by Honorius the Third but that which he brought in was a reverent Bow to the Sacrament when the Priest elevates the Patten or Chalice or when the Host is carry'd to any Sick Person and not any Kneeling in the act of receiving For these are the very words of the Decree (x) Decret Greg. l. 3. tit 41. c. 10. That the Priests shou'd frequently instruct their People to Bow themselves reverently at the Elevation of the Host when Mass was celebrated and in like manner when the Priest carry'd it abroad to the Sick Nay as Bishop Stilling fleet (y) Unreasonab of Separat p. 15. saies tho' Kneeling at the Elevation of the Host be strictly requir'd by the Roman Church yet in the act oâ— receiving it is not as manifestly appears by the Pope's manner of receiving which is not Kneeling but either Sitting as it was in Bonaventure 's time or after the fashion oâ— Sitting or a little Leaning upon his Throne as he doth at this day If any shou'd ask when the Gesture of Kneeling came in I confess I cannot certainly tell but this is no Argument against but rather for the ancient and universal use of it Novel-customs are easily traced to their Originals but generally we cannot tell from whence the most ancient usages of any Country are deriv'd However I am so far from thinking as our Dissenters do that Kneeling owes its birth to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that I verily believe that the Kneeling or Adoring posture us'd by the ancient Christians in the act of receiving did very much among other things conduce to beget and nurse up in the minds of superstitious and fanciful Men a conceit that Christ was really and corporally present at the Sacrament which Notion by subtil and inquisitive heads was in a little time improv'd and explain'd after this manner That after the Elements of Bread and Wine were consecrated they were thereby chang'd into the substance of Christ's natural Body and Blood This I am sure of that the Patrons of Transubstantiation did very early make use of this very Argument to prove that they taught and believ'd no more than the Primitive Bishops and Christians did For what else cou'd they intend or mean say they by that extraordinary Reverence and Devotion which they manifested when they receiv'd the dreadful Mysteries as they call'd the Bread and Wine if they were bare and empty Signs only and not chang'd into the very Body and Blood of Christ Which is in effect the very Argument us'd by (z) Alger de Sacramentis l. 2. c. 3. Algerus a stout Champion for Transubstantiation And (a) Costor Enchirid. p. 353. Edit 1590. Costor another Popish Writer is so far from saying even after Transubstantiation took place that the Pope introduced it that he resolves it into an ancient Custom continu'd from the Apostles times But II. Suppose it were otherwise yet 't is not sinful to use such things as are or have been notoriously abus'd to Idolatry as I shall shew in the next Chapter I shall only observe at present that if it be sinful to kneel at the Sacrament because that Gesture has been and is notoriously abus'd by Papists to Idolatrous ends then Sitting is also sinful which is contended for with so much Zeal For the Pope himself fits in
Society of Christians you please Which giddy principle if it shou'd prevail wou'd certainly throw us into an absolute Confusion and introduce all the Errours and Mischiefs that can be imagin'd But our Blessed Lord founded but one Universal Church and when he was ready to be Crucify'd for us and pray'd not for the Apostles alone but for them also that shou'd believe in him thro' their Word one of the last Petitions which he then put up amongst diverse others to the same Purpose was That they all may be One as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us that the World may believe that thou hast sent me 'T is plain this was to be a Visible Vnity that might be taken notice of in the World and so become an Inducement to move Men to embrace the Christian Faith Peace and Amity and a good Correspondence betwixt the several Members of which they consist is the only Beauty Strength and Security of all Societies and on the contrary the nourishing of Animosities and running into opposite Parties and Factions do's mightily weaken and by degrees almost unavoidably draw on the Ruin and Dissolution of any Community whether Civil or Sacred Concord and Union therefore will be as necessary for the Preservation of the Church as of the State It has been known by too sad an Experience as well in ours as other Ages what a pernicious Influence the Intestine Broils and Quarrels among Christians have had They have been the great stumbling-block to Jews Turks and Heathens and the main hindrance of their Conversion they have made some among our selves to become Doubtful and Sceptical in their Religion they have led others into many dangerous Errors that shake the very Foundations of our Faith and some they have tempted to cast off the Natural sense they had of the Deity and embolden'd them to a profess'd Atheism Therefore as you wou'd avoid the hardening of Men in Atheism and Infidelity and making the Prayer of our dying Saviour as much as in you lies wholly ineffectual you ought to be exceeding cautious that you do not wilfully Divide his Holy Catholic Church You are often warn'd of this and how many Arguments do's St. Paul heap together to persuade you to keep the Vnity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace One Body and one Spirit even as you are call'd in one Hope of your Calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all Eph. 4.3 4 5 6. And how pathetically do's the same Apostle exhort you again to the same thing by all the mutual Endearments that Christianity affords If there be therefore any Consolation in Christ if any Comfort in Love if any Fellowship of the Spirit if any Bowels and Mercies fulfil ye my Joy that ye be like minded having the same Love being of one Accord of one Mind Phil. 2.1 2. These vehement Exhortations to Peace and Concord do strictly oblige you to hold Communion with that Church which requires nothing but what is lawful of you They that have the same Articles of Faith and hope to meet in the same Heaven thro' the Merits of the same Lord shou'd not be afraid to come into the same Assemblies and join seriously in sending up the same Prayers and participating of the same Sacraments Besides the many strict Precepts and other strong Obligations which you have to this Duty our Saviour dy'd that he might gather together in One the Children of God that were scatter'd abroad John 11.52 And do you not then contradict this end of his Death in setting those at Variance whom he intended to Vnite Nay may you not be said to Crucify the Son of God afresh by mangling and dividing a sound and healthful part of that Body of which he owns himself to be the Head If indeed our Church did require you to profess any false Doctrine or to do any thing contrary to any Divine Command you were bound in such instances to withdraw from her but since her Doctrine Discipline and Worship are good and lawful you are indispensably engaged to join in Communion with her For as I said before and it cannot be inculcated too often Nothing but the Vnlawfulness of joining with us can make a Separation Lawful Let it pity you at least to see the ghastly wounds that are still renew'd by the continuance of our Divisions Be persuaded to have some Compassion on a Bleeding Church that is ready to faint and in imminent Danger of being made a prey to her Enemies by the unnatural Heats and Animosities of those that shou'd Support and Defend her Why shou'd you leave her thus Desolate and Forlorn when her present Exigencies require your most Cordial Assistance If the condition of her Communion were such as God's Laws did not allow you might forsake her that had forsaken him but since this cannot be Objected against her since she exacts no forbidden thing of you you ought to strengthen her Hands by an unanimous Agreement Since the Substantials of Religion are the same let not the Circumstances of external Order and Discipline be any longer an Occasion of Difference amongst us And so shall we bring Glory to God a happy Peace to a Divided Church a considerable Security to the Protestant Religion and probably defeat the subtil Practices of Rome which now stands gaping after All and hopes by our Distractions to repair the Losses she has suffer'd by the Reformation May the Wisdom of Heaven make all wicked Purposes unsuccesful and the Blessed Spirit of Love heal all our Breaches and prosper the charitable Endeavours of those that follow after PEACE Amen THE END