cannot charge the Church with any plain degeneracy or open Apostacy from the Doctrine or Practice of the Scriptures When any particular Church degenerates plainly either in Doctrine or Worship there I am not concerned to determine how far she forfeits all that respect that she might otherwise claim from men nor how much the Credit of a single person may vie with her Perhaps when the Church was degenerated into Arrianism the judgement of Athanasius and some few other Bishops was more to be regarded than that of a whole Synod and in the horrid Apostacy of the Roman Church perhaps the single Doctrine of John Huss was preferable to that of the whole Council of Constance But still in both these Cases or any other parallel ones that respect derived it self not from their persons but was wholly owing to truth and the holy Scriptures that stood with them But blessed be God this is not our case our Church doth challenge and triumph over all charges of any such Apostacy and all the disputes and contests with her by any of these men are about things confessedly doubtful and such as are in their own nature indifferent things about which to say the least it is as possible that single persons may erre and mistake as it is for the Church unless in this also as in many other instances men fall in with the grossest Tenet in Popery that single persons may more reasonably pretend to Infallibility than the whole Church Every man derides and thinks he can baffle all the pretences of the Bishop of Rome to Infallibility and therefore should blush and be ashamed of his own either arrogating it to himself or ascribing it to another For the truth is I do not see but his pretences are as just as another man's i. e. indeed they are both monstrously unreasonable And yet alas this is not the least source of the unhappiness of this Age nor need I be condemned for staying a little while to drop a tear upon it Men turn Dictators in Religion and impose their own Dreams as magisterially upon their Followers as if they were oracular and I am perswaded their Disciples hang as much upon their single authority and confidence and yield as absolute and implicite Faith to all their Doctrines as ever any poor Papists against whom they exclaim so tragically for blind Obedience and Faith They are kept in as absolute subjection to their placits and dare no more read and consult Books that are written to inform them than a poor Papist dare let a prohibited Book be seen in his House by a Father of the Inquisition If ever people followed their leaders blindfold these men do they will not hear any thing against them They have their persons in admiration and I wish I could not say of some for filthy lucres sake or at least some mean reasons equivalent thereto They will not so much as submit to means of Information they commonly say they are satisfied already and the single blustering of one of their own Rabbies shall signifie more with them than all the Arguments of the most Learned and sober men living beside But I am insensibly drawn aside from my chief Subject which is not to treat so much of a respect of Credit and Faith as of Tenderness and Charity which is certainly as justly due from us to the Church as to any private persons whatsoever and it cannot but be as unreasonable to fail in the one as in the other It is every whit as unjust for men to be more regardless of grieving and troubling the Church of Christ as it is foolish and unreasonable to set up one single man's opinion against that of many others that are in the same circumstances and advantages of Knowledge and every way both as knowing and as upright as himself Whatever considerations there are to determine our Charity to single persons there are the same at least to make it necessary towards the Church and as strong reasons to restrain us from offending the one as the other Whatever becomes an Argument in one case is equally so also in the other and if it be not as effectual with us we are partial in the Law and distinguish without any reasons but those of our own partial and unjust respects Let men be pleased to look into the Scriptures and consult the practices of our Lord himself or his Apostles after him and their thoughts will soon be resolved in this matter they will find the one calling for as much deference and respect to the Church as to private persons and the other upon all occasions as careful to pay it and in all cases extreamly careful not to give offence to it in any thing whatsoever as were easie to shew in Instances enough that are plain and obvious to all that read and can scarce pass unobserved by any This is the first Consideration and I appeal to all if it be not a very easie Postulatum a very modest and reasonable intimation and yet I assure you it were a good point gained and a very good step towards our peace were men hearty in their concessions of it Would men pay but the same deference to the Church of Christ and her Constitutions as they readily do to their own single Opinions or the confident suggestions of some admired Leader we might quickly hope to see some end of our Questions and Disputes And would they be but as tender of giving any offence to the Publick as they are of doing so to every little person of their own party we might begin to hope that the Constitutions of our Church might gain some respect and some measure of peaceableness and modesty bless the Inhabitants of this Nation once more 2. But this is too little to suggest and the lesser part of what I would propose to consideration upon this Subject and therefore in the second place I desire it may be considered whether we ought not to have a greater respect to the Church of God than to any single or private persons whatsoever And truly I think this is as reasonable a Postulatum as the other and that which will be as soon granted true by all that duly consider things In all things whatsoever the Publick requires more respect from us than any private person and the welfare of the one is to be preferred by us before that of the other If the Church of Christ and any private Party of men come in competition and it so happen that we probably may give offence to one we ought to let our regard to the Church sway and determine us and think it a less evil that some particular persons be offended than that trouble or offence be given to the whole Church That saying of Caiaphas recorded Joh. 11. 50. though spoken with an unjust and barbarous design yet is a certain and rational truth It is expedient that one man suffer and not the whole Nation perish And it is certainly a less evil
of Rome Our Church having renounced all Communion with the Church of Rome this speaks the greatest distance in the general betwixt the two Churches And as their distance particularly in Government is manifest to all from our Churches having utterly cast off the Jurisdiction of the Papacy so it is easie to shew that there is likewise a mighty distance betwixt them in Doctrine Worship and Discipline But we shall not stand to shew this in each of these distinctly but rather make choice of this Method viz. to shew that our Church is most distant from and opposite to the Church of Rome 1. In all those Doctrines and Practices whereby this Church deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them 2. In all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly Charged with plainly Contradicting the Holy Scriptures 3. In each of their publick Prayers and Offices 4. In the Books they each receive for Canonical 5. In the Authority on which they each of them found their whole Religion First Our Church is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices by which she deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them For instance 1. This Church denieth her Members all Judgment of discretion in matters of Religion She obligeth them to follow her blindfold and to resolve both their Faith and Judgment into hers as assuming infallibility to her self and binding all under pain of Damnation to believe her Infallible But our Church permits us the full enjoyment of our due Liberty in believing and judging and we Act not like Members of the Church of England if according to St. Pauls injunction we prove not all things that we may hold fast that which is good if we believe every Spirit which St. John cautions us against and do not try the Spirits whether they be of God which he requires us to do 'T is impossible that our Church should oblige us to an implicite Faith in herself because she disclaimeth all pretence to infallibility Our Church tells us in her 19th Article that As the Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria and Antioch have erred so also the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their Living and manner of Ceremonies but also in matters of Faith And our Churches acknowledgment is plainly implyed in asserting the most famous Churches in the World to have erred from the Faith that she her self must needs be Obnoxious to Errour in matters of Faith and that she would be guilty of the highest impudence in denying it 2. The Church of Rome imposeth a deal of most slavish Drudgery in the vast multitude of her Rites and Ceremonies and unreasonably severe Tasks and cruel Penances As to her Ceremonies they are so vast a number as are enough to take up as Sir Edwyn Sandys hath observed a great part of a mans life merely to gaze on And abundance of them are so vain and Childish so marvellously odd and uncouth as that they can naturally bring to use that Gentlemans words who was a curious observer of them in the Popish Countries no other than disgrace and contempt to those exercises of Religion wherein they are stirring In viewing only those that are injoyned in the Common Ritual one would bless ones self to think how it should enter into the minds of Men and much more of Christians to invent such things And the like may be said of the Popish Tasks and Penances in imposing of which the Priests are Arbitrary and ordinarily lay the most Severe and Cruel ones on the lightest offenders when the most Leud and Scandalous come off with a bare saying of their Beads thrice over or some such insignificant and idle business But the Church of England imposeth nothing of that Drudgery which makes such Vassals of the poor Papists Her Rites are exceeding few and those plain and easie grave and manly founded on the Practice of the Church long before Popery appeared upon the Stage of the World Our Church hath abandon'd the five Popish Sacraments and contents her self with those two which Christ hath ordained As is to be seen in her 25th Article where she declares that There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel that is to say Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments that is to say Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and Extreme Vnxion are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel being such as have grown partly of the Corrupt following of the Apostles partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures But yet have not like Nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lords Supper For that they have not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about c. And in saying that our Church owns not the fore-mentioned Popish Sacraments is implied that she hath nothing to do with any of those very many Superstitious Fopperies which are injoyned in the Offices appointed for the Administration of those Sacraments Again Our Church no whit more imitates that of Rome in her Cruel Tasks and Penances than in her Ceremonies as is needless to be shewed In short in our Churches few Rites she hath used no other Liberty but what she judgeth agreeable to those Apostolical Rules of Doing all things decently and in order and Doing all things to Edification And she imposeth her Rites not as the Church of Rome doth hers as necessary and as parts of Religion but as meerly indifferent and changeable things as we find in her 34th Article where she declares that Every Particular or National Church hath Authority to Ordain Change and Abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained onely by Mans Authority so that all things be done to Edifying And this Article begins thus It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like for at all times they have been divers and may be changed according to the diversities of Countrys Times and Manners so that nothing be Ordained against Gods Word 2. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to inslaving Passions For instance that of Purgatory makes them all their life-time subject to the bondages of Fear at least those of them who are so sollicitous about the life to come as to entertain any mistrust or doubting as it 's strange if the most Credulous of them do not concerning the Efficacy of Penances and Indulgences Her Doctrine of Auricular Confession subjects all that are not forsaken of all Modesty to the passion of Shame Her Doctrine of the Dependance of the Efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priests intention must needs expose all considerative people and those who have any serious concern about their state hereafter to great Anxiety and Solicitude But these Doctrines are all rejected by the Church of England That of Purgatory she
as Expositors generally interpret it thou shalt utter Spiritual Psalms and Hymns by immediate inspiration on the place and to the same purpose is the word used Numb 11. 25. 1 Chron. 25. 1. and accordingly in the New Testament it is said of Zacharias that he was filled with the Holy Ghost and prophesied saying blessed be the Lord God of Israel c. The matter of all which Prayers and Praises together with those in the Book of Psalms and sundry others recorded in Scripture was immediately dictated to those inspir'd persons by the Holy Ghost and deliver'd by them without any recourse to their own invention or consideration though as to the words of them it may be justly question'd whether they were not left to their own composure as it seems very probable the words of all other inspirations were for considering how the inspired persons differ'd in their stile according as they differ'd in their education in their natural parts and intellectual improvements it is very likely they themselves composed and worded their own inspirations the Spirit of God taking care only so to oversee and direct them that their words might not misrepresent their matter and if so how much less reason have we to suppose that the Spirit inspires the words of our Prayers but this I shall not insist on However after that great descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost wherein the gift of Tongues was communicated to enable the first Planters of the Gospel to propagate it through the World it 's certain that not only the Matter of their Prayers but even the very Language too in which they express them was immediately inspired insomuch that they were not only inabled to Pray upon the place in apt and fluent Expressions but also to Pray in Languages which they never understood before and which even then they understood but very imperfectly and also to interpret those Prayers into the vulgar Language which themselves or others had utter'd in unknown Tongues and this among others the Apostle calls a Spiritual Gift 1 Cor. 12. 1. which as I remember is the only place where the Gift of Prayer is mention'd in Scripture and in 1 Cor. 14. 14. it is also call'd a Spirit where he gives us an account at large of this miraculous way of praying Now that this miraculous Gift of praying in and interpreting Prayers out of unknown Tongues was extraordinary and temporary and peculiar to the Primitive Ages of Christianity is evident because the design of it was not only to enable the first Planters of the Gospel to perform their Ministerial Office in the vulgar Languages of the several Nations they were sent to but also to be a sign from God as all other Miracles were for the confirmation of the Gospel for so the Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 14. 22. That Tongues were for a sign not to them that believe but to them that believe not and therefore since it 's granted of all hands that the gift of Miracles was extraordinary and intended only for a demonstration of the Gospel to the Infidel World and after that to cease there can be no doubt but this miraculous Gift of Prayer was so too But that the Spirit 's inditing the Matter and if you will the words of those inspired Prayers was also extraordinary will require a larger proof because it is look'd upon by many of our dissenting Brethren as an ordinary and standing Gift which the Spirit doth and will communicate to all successive Ages of the World Against this Opinion of theirs therefore I shall briefly offer these following Reasons to their consideration 1. That there is no promise of any such Gift and therefore no reason to expect the continuance of it For whatsoever standing and ordinary benefits we receive from God we receive them by vertue of the New Covenant in which he hath promised to us all those good things which we can reasonably expect at his hands and the promise of God being the only foundation of our hope it is presumption to promise our selves what he hath not promised us but now in all the New Covenant we have not the least intimation of any such promise viz. That the Spirit will immediately indite to us the Matter and Expressions of our Prayers For as for that of Zachary 12. 10. which is the only promise that is pretended in the case it 's evident at first sight that it 's nothing to the purpose I will pour out upon the Inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of Grace and Supplications and they shall look upon me whom they have pierc'd and they shall mourn What is all this to the immediate inspiration of the Matter and Expressions of our Prayer when it 's plain that the Spirit of Supplication here is the same with the Spirit of Grace or of inward Piety and Devotion even as the following words imply and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced and mourn that is for their horrid sin of crucifying me But that there is no such promise in the New Covenant is evident from what is acknowledged of all hands viz. That there are many good Christians who could never pretend to any such inspiration who are some of them fain to be beholding to their own recollection and invention for the Matter and Words of their Prayers and others for want of a sufficient quickness of invention to be beholding to Forms of Prayer of other mens composure neither of which they need were they immediately inspir'd And I am very confident 't would be look'd upon by all sober Dissenters as a very rash and unjust censure to affirm that a man cannot be a good Christian who doth not pray by immediate inspiration but is always fain to depend either on his own invention or a Form of Prayer for the Matter and Expressions of his Devotions and if so how can this consist with a standing promise of immediate inspiration of Prayer in the New Covenant unless we will suppose that there are Blessings promised in the New Covenant to which good Christians may have no right or title and of which they may never actually partake which is utterly to destroy the nature of the Covenant which extends to all who perform the conditions of it and to cut off all our dependance upon it 2. That as there is no promise so there is no need of any such immediate inspiration 'T is true Christ hath promised by his Spirit to be with us to the end of the World and assur'd us that he will give his Spirit unto every one that asks and to what end hath he promised this but only to supply our Necessities and inable us to perform those Duties which through our own impotency we cannot perform without him for so he argues from the readiness of Parents to supply their Children with what is necessary to their bodily life and subsistence to the readiness of God to bestow his Spirit that is to all the purposes that
Name since we may as well and truly offer it in his Name though he is not named in it as if he were and he hath not given us the least intimation of his will to the contrary 't is true he did not express his Name in it because as yet they to whom he gave it were not to ask in his Name he being not yet ascended but now that he is ascended we can as well offer it in his Name as if his Name had been express'd in it how then doth it follow that because he did not direct them to offer it in his Name before his ascention therefore he did not intend they should offer it in his Name afterwards especially considering that he himself had so fram'd it that after his ascention when the Doctrine of his Mediation was to be more fully explain'd to them they could not offer it at all but in and through his mediation for now that we understand his mediation we know that we are the Sons of God in and through him and therefore when we thus invoke God Our Father which art in Heaven we must implicitly invoke him in and through Jesus Christ through whom alone we acknowledge it is that God is peculiarly our Father Since therefore our Saviour hath so composed this Form as that after his ascention his Followers could offer it up no otherwise but in and through his mediation this is a plain indication that he intended that after his ascention they should offer it in his mediation though his Name be not exprest in it and what though it be not exprest yet it may be exprest and always hath been in the Prayers immediately preceding it for though we do believe that our Saviour hath commanded us to use this Form at least in our publick Worship yet we do not pretend that no other Prayer is to be used besides either in publick or in private and if we use another Prayer before it we may express in the transition to it as we ordinarily do that 't is in the Name and Mediation of Jesus Christ that we pray Our Father c. Since therefore when we say Our Father we do implicitly pray in Christ's mediation and also explicitly in the Prayers annext to it how doth it follow that because Christ's Name is not express'd in it therefore he did not intend we should offer it in his mediation or therefore he did not intend it for a standing Form 3. That though there be no mention in the New Testament of the Apostles and Disciples using it yet this is no argument either that they did not use it or that they did not believe themselves oblig'd to use it for the great designe of the New Testament being to give an account of the Life of Jesus and of the Doctrines and Precepts of his Religion together with those miraculous Works by which it was confirm'd it can no more be expected that the Prayers of the Christian Assemblies should be recorded in it than that the Liturgy of the Church of England should be recited in the Exposition of the Creed or the whole Duty of Man And therefore as the New Testament takes no notice of their using the Lord's Prayer so neither doth it take notice of any other particular Prayer that they used in their publick Assemblies from whence we may as reasonably conclude that they used no Prayer at all notwithstanding our Lord commanded them to pray as that they did not use the Lord's Prayer notwithstanding he commanded them to say Our Father or at least that they did not Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost since notwithstanding Christ commanded them to do so yet there is no record in the New Testament of their baptizing any persons in that Form So that from the silence of the New Testament in this matter it would be very unreasonable to infer that the Apostles omitted the Lords Prayer notwithstanding he once commanded them to use it especially considering that those who lived nearest the Apostolical Ages and so were the most competent Judges of what was done in them where the Scripture is silent did always use this Form in their publick Prayers and believe themselves obliged to do so For thus in the Apostolick Age Lucian makes mention of a Prayer which they used in their publick Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beginning from the Father which doubtless was the Lords Prayer vid. Lucian Philop. And Tertullian who lived about an hundred years after the Apostolical Age discoursing of the Lord's Prayer tells us that Novis Discipulis novi Testamenti Christus novam Orationis Formam determinavit i. e. That Christ hath instituted a new Form of Prayer for his new Disciples St. Cyprian who was but a small matter his Junior reckons his giving a Form of Prayer among those divine and wholesome Precepts which he imposed on his People and a little after Oremus saith he Fratres dilectissimi sicut Magister docuit c. Let us pray as our Master hath taught us let the Father own the words of his Son and since saith he we have an Advocate with the Father when we ask pardon for our sins let us ask it in the words of our Advocate and how much more shall we prevail for what we ask in Christ's Name if we ask in his Prayer De Orat. Domin So St. Cyril acquaints us that after the general Prayer for all men followed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Prayer which Christ taught his Disciples Cyril Cat. Myst 5. Thus also St. Jerom Docuit Apostolos ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui Pater Noster Hieron in Pelag. l. 3. And St. Austin tells us that in his time the Lords Prayer was every day said at the Altar and that almost every Church concluded with the Lords Prayer And St. Chrysostom speaking of those who would not forgive injuries tells 'em c. When thou sayest Forgive us Hom. 42. 50. ep 59. ad Paul Qu. 5. St. Chrysde simultat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Trespasses as we forgive if thou dost not forgive thou beggest God to deny thee forgiveness which is a plain evidence that this Form of Prayer was of ordinary use in his Age and that 't was then thought matter of duty to use it syllabically is evident from what follows But saith he you will say I dare not say Forgive me as I forgive but onely Forgive me To which having answered That however he said it God would forgive him as he forgave he concludes thus Do not imagine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that you are secured from this danger by not pronouncing all the Prayer do not therefore curtail it but as it is instituted so use it that so the necessity of dayly using the whole may compel thee to forgive thy Brother And St. Gregory expresly affirms That the Apostles themselves Ep. l. 7. c. 6. did always
Subscription that is required to the 39 Articles it is very Consistent with Our Churches giving all Men Liberty to Judge for themselves and not Exercising Authority as the Romish Church doth over our Faith for she requires no Man to believe those Articles but at worst only thinks it Convenient that none should receive Orders or be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and requires Subscription to them as a Test whereby to Judge who doth so believe them But the Church of Rome requires all under Pain of Damnation to believe all her long Bed-roul of Doctrines which have only the Stamp of her Authority and to believe them too as Articles of Faith or to believe them with the same Divine Faith that we do the indisputable Doctrines of our Saviour and his Apostles For a proof hereof the Reader may consult the Bull of Pope Pius the Fourth which is to be found at the End of the Council of Trent Herein it is Ordained that Profession of Faith shall be made and sworn by all Dignitaries Prebendaries and such as have Benefices with Cure Military Officers c. in the Form following IN. Do believe with a firm Faith and do profess all and every thing contained in the Confession of Faith which is used by the Holy Roman Church viz. I believe in one God the Father Almighty and so to the end of the Nicene Creed I most firmly admit and embrace the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and the other Observances and Constitutions of the said Church Also the Holy Scriptures according to the Sense which our Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold c. I profess also that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and necessary to the Salvation of Mankind although all are not necessary to every individual Person c. I also admit and receive the Received and approved Rites of the Catholick Church in the Solemn Administration of all the foresaid Sacraments of which I have given the Reader a taste I Embrace and Receive all and every thing which hath been declared and defined concerning Original Sin and Justification in the Holy Synod of Trent I likewise profess that in the Mass a True Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice is Offered to God for the quick and dead And that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly really and substantially in the most Holy Eucharist c. I also Confess that whole and intire Christ and the true Sacrament is received under one of the kinds only I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are relieved by the Prayers of the Faithful And in like manner that the Saints Reigning with Christ are to be Worshipped and Invoked c. And that their Relicks are to be Worshipped I most firmly assert that the Images of Christ and of the Mother of God always a Virgin and of the other Saints are to be had and kept and that due Honour and Worship is to be given to them I Affirm also that the power of Indulgences is left by Christ in his Church and that the use of them is very Salutiferous to Christian People I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and I Profess and Swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ Also all the other things delivered decreed and declared by the Holy Canons and Oecumenical Councils and especially by the Holy Synod of Trent I undoubtedly receive and profess As also all things contrary to these and all Heresies Condemned Rejected and Anathematized by the Church I in like manner Condemns Reject and Anathematize This true Catholick Faith viz. all this Stuff of their own together with the Articles of the Creed without which no Man can be Saved which at this present I truly profess and sincerely hold I will God Assisting me most constantly Retain and Confess intire and inviolate and as much as in me lies will take Care that it be held taught and declared by those that are under me or the Care of whom shall be committed to me I the same N. do Profess Vow and Swear So help me God and the Holy Gospels of God Who when he Reads this can forbear pronouncing the Reformation of the Church of England a most Glorious Reformation 2. As to the Motives our Church proposeth for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures viz. that that Doctrine is of Divine Revelation they are no other than such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the Excellency thereof which consists in its being wholly adapted to the reforming of mens Lives and renewing their Natures after the Image of God and the Miracles by which it is confirmed And as to the Evidence of the truth of the matters of Fact viz. that there were such Persons as the Scriptures declare to have revealed Gods will to the World such as Moses our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and that these Persons delivered such Doctrine and Confirmed it by such Miracles and that the Books of Scripture were written by those whose Names they bear I say as to the Evidence of the truth of these matters of Fact our Church placeth it not in her own Testimony or in the Testimony of any Particular Church and much less that of Rome but in the Testimony of the whole Catholick Church down to us from the time of the Apostles and of Vniversal Tradition taking in that of Strangers and Enemies as well as Friends of Jews and Pagans as well as Christians Secondly We proceed to shew that a Churches Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing Agreement with the Church of Rome in things either in their own nature good or made so by a Divine Precept none of our Dissenting Brethren could ever imagine not to be an indispensable duty Agreement with her in what is in its own nature Evil or made so by a Divine Prohibition none of us are so forsaken of all Modesty as to deny it to be an inexcusable sin The Question therefore is whether to agree with this Apostate Church in some things of an indifferent nature be a Sin and therefore a just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing But by the way if we should suppose that a Churches agreeing with the Church of Rome in some indifferent things is sinful I cannot think that any of the more Sober Sort of Dissenters and I despair of success in arguing with any but such will thence infer that Separation from the Church so agreeing is otherwise warrantable than upon the account of those things being imposed as necessary terms of Communion But I am so far from taking it for granted
Question proposed for the Resolution whereof I shall 1. Enquire into the Nature of the Holy Sacrament that so we may truly understand what Gesture is agreeable or repugnant to it 2. Shew that the Nature of the Lord's Supper doth not absolutely require and necessarily oblige us to observe a Common Table-Gesture in order to our worthy Receiving 3. That Kneeling is very Comely and agreeable to the Nature of the Lord's Supper though no Table-Gesture 4. That the Primitive Church and Ancient Fathers had no such notion of the necessity of a Table-Gesture as is maintained and urged by Dissenters 1. As to the Nature of the Sacrament I shall endeavour to discover it under these following Heads First the Sacrament in the Holy Scripture is called the Lord's Table and the Lord's Supper and and Banquet by the Ancient Greek Fathers because of that Provision and Entertainment which our Lord hath made for all worthy Receivers It is styled a Supper and a Feast either because it was Instituted by Christ at Supper-time at night or because it represents a Supper and a Feast And so it is not of the same Nature with a Civil and Ordinary Supper and Feast though it bear the same name There is some resemblance between this Holy Feast and Civil Feasts and the shewing wherein it lies will in part explain its Nature There are three things Essential and Necessary to a Feast and included in the notion of it Plenty good Company and Mirth And upon the account of these the Sacrament is considered in its own Nature properly a Banquet a Feast but then it is a Heavenly and Spiritual one consisting of Spiritual Graces and benefits Communion with Christ and with all true believers signified by and tendered under the outward Elements of Bread and Wine and even in these three particulars which are Essential to it considered as a Feast and are necessary ingredients into all Feasts whatsoever it very much differs from Civil and Ordinary Feasts For though there be Plenty yet it doth not consist of Variety of Dishes to gratifie our Palats or satisfie our Hunger as other Feasts do and particularly the Passover did where the Body was filled and Feasted as well as the mind The provision wherewith our Lord hath Furnished out his Table is not of an Earthly and perishing but of an Heavenly and Immortal Nature even the Body and Blood of Christ which we Spiritually Feast upon Alas if we only fix our Eyes and Thoughts upon what is placed on the Table and those small portions of Bread and Wine allotted us to Eat and Drink without lifting up our Hearts as * * * So St. Cypr. St. Chrysost and St. Aug. expound this Exhort of the Minister at the Communion Cyp. de orat Dom. Chrys Hom. de Encaeniis Aug. de ver Relig. c. 3. our Church exhorts us to do by the Minister in her Communion-Office to those Heavenly and Invisible good things couched under and signified by the outward Elements of Bread and Wine what is there in all that we see that deserves the name of a Feast or can by the help of any figure but an Irony be called by that name Did ever any Man esteem that a Feast where there was not Meat enough to fill his Mouth nor Drink enough to quench his thirst It is upon the account therefore of those Invisible and Spiritual good things wherewith the Souls not the Bodies of worthy Communicants are Strengthened and Refreshed of which the Bread and Wine are but the Types and Shadows that the Sacrament is and may truly be called a Feast or Banquet And for this reason †††St. Chrys in Ps 90. Greg. Naz. orat 40. Athanasius St. Cyril Hierosol Catech. and others the Greek Fathers called it a Spiritual Feast and the Table a Mystical Table and the Cup the Cup of Mysteries and the Sacrament take it all together was by them Styled the Mystical Supper the Mystery and Mysteries as Presenting one thing to the Eye and another to the Mind 2. As Plenty is one necessary ingredient into the Nature of a Feast so also is Choice and Select Company Feasts are made in expectation of Friends and Acquaintance A Man may Dine alone but in Proper and Ordinary Speech no Man is said to Feast alone Now though the Sacrament doth resemble our Common Feasts in this Particular and therefore hath obtained the name of Communion and the Guests Communicants which Phrases do naturally import Number or Society yet if we consider what the persons are that constitute this Society and with whom Communion is held the Nature of this Spiritual Feast will further appear And truly our Communion is with God the Father Son and Holy Ghost the three Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity though principally our Lord Jesus the Master of this Feast in and through whom we all have Eph. 2. 18. access by one Spirit to the Father as St. Paul speaks This high and inestimable priviledge and Honour of being admitted into the Presence of God and holding a friendly Correspondence and Converse with him at his Table is founded on the Blood of Christ which we thankfully Commemorate at this Solemnity by which we who were afar off are made nigh as the same Eph. 2. 13. Divine Writer hath it Moreoever by Eating and Drinking at the Lord's Table we are United to and hold Communion with all Faithful Christians and worthy Communicants the Members of his Mystical Body the Church whom he hath redeemed and cleansed by his most precious Blood And that which qualifies a Man for such Communion doth not Consist in External Garbs or Ornaments of the Body but in Holy and Virtuous Dispositions of Soul in a Penitent Humble Charitable Thankful and Obedient Heart 3. Another thing necessary to a Feast is Mirth and Joy which implies also good discourse and in this too the Sacrament resembles our Common Feasts But then the Joy is of a Spiritual Nature and flows from different Causes Not from what we Tast and See not from our Appetites and Phansies pleased and tickled with the richness and Variety of Dishes which adorn the Table nor from our Blood and Spirits raised and fermented by generous Wines but from Divine and Heavenly Considerations From the Boundless and Unaccountable Love of God in sending his onely Begotten and Beloved Son into the World to lay down his Life and shed his Blood as a propitiation for our Sins from the wonderful Condescention of our Dear Lord and Master in undertaking this hard Task in appearing Clothed with our Flesh in the form of a Servant and at last Humbling himself to the Death of the Cross for our Sakes from the Victory he hath gained for us over Death and Hell and all the Spirits of Darkness from the miraculous Redemption he hath wrought and the Right and Title to Eternal Life which he hath purchased for us Sinful Dust and Ashes by his own most Precious Blood This is
and Climb upon in sign of their desire to seek the things above and a stiff Straw put into the Childs Hand for a sign of Fighting against Spiritual Enemies as with a Spear And all the absurdities of that Nature charged injuriously upon our Proceedings (a) (a) (a) Ames Ib l. 1. c. 3. Pâ—id 1 would rerurn with success upon themselves Since all these are fetched from Customs and Practices in Secular matters Fifthly If this be a reason to Defend the Use of Rites in the Christian Church because they are used out of it and in Civil cases then what will become of that Position before spoken of and generally asserted by those who oppose us that nothing is to be used in the Worship of God without Prescription except the Natural Circumstances of Action for though Civil and Natural are sometimes coincident yet they may be and often are Separated for Feasting and Salutation are Civil usages but are no Natural Circumstances in Divine Worship and which that cannot be performed without And if these and the like were used in the Church and applied and annexed to Divine Worship then the reason upon which they were introduced and used doth wherever that reason is justify the like Practice and we are left still to choose and act according to the Permission and Allowance that is given us that is all such things that are not forbidden are just matter of our Christian Liberty and there is no Sin in a Prudent exercise of it 3. I shall further prove and strengthen the Proposition that things Indifferent though not prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship from the ill consequences attending the contrary one of which is that if we hold all things not commanded to be prohibited we shall find no Church or Religious Society in the VVorld but are Guilty and if the doing so makes Communion with a Church unlawful there is no Church we can hold Communion with There are some Churches that do maintain and use such things as the Scripture expresly condemns and do lay aside such as the Scripture requires as the Church of Rome in it's Worshipping Saints and Angels and denying the Cup to the Laity c. And these things make it necessary for those to quit it's Communion that are of it and for those to avoid it that are not in it But other Churches there are that are Guilty of no such Fundamental Errors and fatal miscarriages and may so far lawfully be Communicated with But even none of these are there but what either wittingly or unwittingly do take the liberty of using what the Scripture hath no where required It was notoriously so in the Ancient Church when some Customs did universally obtain amongst them as the Anniversary Solemnities of the Passion Resurrection and Ascension of Christ and Descent of the Holy-Ghost the receiving of the Lords Supper Fasting (a) (a) (a) Aug. Epis. 118. Januar. the Praying toward the East (b) (b) (b) Basil de Spir. S. c. 27. the Standing in their Devotions on the Lords Days (c) (c) (c) Aug. Epis. 119. Januar. especially from Easter to Whitsontide the Dipping the Baptized thrice in Water (d) (d) (d) Ambros. lib. 2. de Sacrament c. 7. c. Now whatever some of the Fathers might plead for any of these from Scriptures misunderstood yet it 's plain that none of these are required in Scripture and if so a Person that holds it unlawful to use any thing uncommanded and to hold Communion with a Church so using must have separated from the Catholick Church since if there be Credit to be given to the Fathers so reporting they all agreed in the use and Practice of the things above recited And he that held all fixed Holy-Days of Ecclesiastical Institution unlawful and all Ceremonies not instituted by God to be prohibited must not have Worshiped with them who did not only thus do but thought it unlawful when universally Practised to do otherwise But again as there were some Rites universally held in estimation so there were others that were peculiar to some Churches and that were not thought to be obliging out of that particular Communion as when in the Church of Rome it was the Custom to Fast on the Saturday and of most orhers to make no such distinction betwixt that and other days (a) (a) (a) Aug. Epist 118. In the Church of Milain they Washed the Feet of those that were to be Baptized but in the Church of Rome they used it not (b) (b) (b) Ambros l. 3. de Sacrament c. 1. Now if Persons did beleive such things unlawful they could have no Communion with any particular Church because no Church was without such Uncommanded Rites or if they could be so fond as to think the Rites of their own Church to be of Divine Institution yet how could they have Communion with a Church where the contrary Custom did prevail as in the cases abovesaid And as it was then so it is now with all stated and settled Churchers in the World who do Practice against this Principle and either expect not or are not able to find a Command for every thing established amongst them and that Practice with as much contrariety to each other as the Church of Rome and Milain once did so in some Churches they receive the Lord's Supper Kneeling in some Standing in others Sitting In some they Sprinkle the Child in Baptism but once and in others thrice Now there would be no reconciling of these one to another and no possibility of holding Communion with them under these Circumstances or of being a Member of any Church if we must have an institution for every thing done in the Worship of God and that we must joyn in nothing which has it not As for Instance what Church is there in the World which has not some form or forms of Prayer and whose Service for the most part generally speaking is not made up of them especially that doth not use them in the Administration of the Sacraments But now if a Person holds that whatever is not prescribed is unlawful and that forms of Prayer are no where prescribed then he cannot joyn with the Church so using but while in the body of the Church by residence he must be no Member of that Body in Communion Nay further if this be true then none must hold Communion with them who are of this Opinion since those that pretend most to it and urge it as a reason against Communion with us live in contradiction to it and to Practice and Use things which they have no more Authority nor can give more reason for than we do for the things they condemn and that is that they are lawful expedient and convenient As for Example let us consider the Sacraments in wich if any thing we might expect particular Prescription because they are meer Institutions where do they find that the Baptized Person is necessarily to be Sprinkled What Command or
Example have they for it or what reason more than the reason of the thing taken from expedience and the general Practice of the Church of God in colder Climates And yet this is as much used amongst them that pretend to keep exactly to the Rule of Scripture as it is amongst us that take a liberty in things Uncommanded but with this difference that they do it upon the supposition of a Command and so make it necessary and our Church leaves it as it is Indifferent Again where do they find a Command for Sitting at the Lord's Supper or so much as an Example For the Posture of our Saviour is left very uncertain Where again do they find a Command for the necessary use of conceived Prayer and that that and no other should be used in the publick Worship of God And that they must prove that maintain publick Forms unlawful Where again do they find it required that an Oath is to be taken by laying the Hand on the Gospel and Kissing the Book which is both a Natural and Instituted part of Worship being a Solemn Invocation of God and an appeal to him with an acknowledgment of his Omniscience and Omnipresence his Providence and Government of the World his Truth and Justice to Right the Innocent and Punnish the Guilty all which is owned and testified by Kissing that Book that God has declared this more especially in And if we more particularly descend to those that differ from us in this point Where do those of the Congregational way find that even Christians were otherwise divided from Christians than by place or that they did combine into particular Churches so as not to be all the while reputed Members of another and might be admitted upon removal of Place upon the same terms that they were of that they removed from or indeed that they were so Members of a particular as not to be Members of any or the whole Church of Christ upon their being Batipzed VVhere do they find that Christians were gathered out of Christians and did combine into a Society Excluding those from it that would not make a Profession of their Faith and Conversion distinct from that at Baptism Where do we ever read that he that was a Minister of one Church was not a Minister all the World over as well as he that was Baptized in one was reputed a Christian and Church-Member wherever he came Again where do we read that its necessary that Ministers should be alike in Authority Power and Jurisdiction and that there is to be no difference in point of Order and Superiority amongst them Or that there are to be Elders for Governing the Church who are not Ordained to it and are in no other State after than they were before that Service both of which are held by the Prerbyterians strictly so called And if it be said these respect Government but not VVorship I answer the case is the same for if we are to do nothing but what is prescribed in the VVorship of God because as they say it derogates from the Priestly Office of Christ and doth detract from the Sufficiency of Scripture then I say upon the like reason there must be nothing used in Church Government but what is prescribed since the Kingly Office is as much concerned in this as the Priestly in the other and the Sufficiency of Scripture in both Lastly VVhere do any of them find that position in Scripture that there is nothing lawful in Divine Worship but what prescribed and that what is not Commanded is Forbidden And if there be no such position in Scripture then that can no more be true than the want of such a position can render things not Commanded to be unlawful And now I am come to that which must put an Issue one way or other to the Dispute for if there be no such position in Scripture either expressed in it or to be gathered by good consequence from it we have gain'd the point but if there be then we must give it up And this is indeed contended for For it s Objected That it s accounted in Scripture an hainous Crime Object I to do things not commanded as when Nadab and Abihu offered strange Fire before the Lord which he Commanded Levit. 10. 1 c. them not c. From which form of expression it may be collected that what is not Commanded is Forbidden and that in every thing used in Divine Worship there must be a Command to make it lawful and allowable To this I answer that the Proposition infer'd that all Answ I things not Commanded are Forbidden is not true and so it cannot be the Sence and Meaning of the Phrase for 1. Then all things must be either Commanded or Forbidden and there would be nothing but what must be Commanded or Forbidden but I have before shewed and it must be granted that there are things neither Commanded nor Forbidden which are called Indifferent 2. If things not Commanded are Forbidden then a thing not Commanded is alike Hainous as a thing Forbidden And then David's Temple which he designed to Build would have been Criminal as well as Jeroboam's Dan and Bethel and the Feast of (a) (a) (a) Esth 9. 27. Purim like Jeroboam's Eighth Month (b) (b) (b) 1 King 12. 32 33. and the Synagogal Worship like the Sacrificing in Gardens (c) (c) (c) Isai 65. 3. and the hours of Prayer (d) (d) (d) Act. 3. 1. like Nadab's Strange Fire The former of which were things Uncommanded and the latter Forbidden and yet They were approved and These condemned 2. The things to which this Phrase not Commanded is applied to give no encouragement to such an Inference from it for its constantly applied to such as are absolutely Forbidden This was the case of Nadab and Abihu who offered Fire not meerly Uncommanded but what was prohibited which will appear if we consider that the Word Strange when applied to matters of Worship doth signify as much as Forbidden Thus we read of Strange Incense that is other than what was compounded Exod. 30. 9 according to the directions given for it which as it was to be put to no common uses so no common Ver. 34. Ch. 37 29. persmue was to be put to the like uses with it So we also read of Strange Vanities which is but another Jer. 8. 19. Word for Graven Images and of Strange Gods And after the same sort is it to be understood in the case before us viz. for what is Forbidden For that such was the Fire made use of by those Young Men will be further confirm'd if we consider that there is scarcely any thing belonging to the Altar Setting aside the Structure of it of which more is said than of the Fire burning upon it For 1. It was lighted from Heaven (a) (a) (a) Lev. 9. 24. 2. It was always to be burning upon the Altar (b) (b) (b) Ch. 6. 12. 3.
are for a Form This do they urge that are for Sitting at the Lord's Supper and this they say that are for Kneeling so that these and the like Adjuncts do further Devotion and are for Edification is an argument used by both Now if Adjuncts are not part of VVorship and may be yet used to further Devotion then the furthering Devotion by any Rite doth not in it self make that Rite so used to be VVorship I acknowledg there is False VVorship as well as True True VVorship is of Divine Institution and False VVorship is of Humane Appointment and becomes Worship when either Divine Institution is pretended for it or it s used for the same special ends that Gods VVorship is instituted for that is as necessary to acceptance or as a means of Grace And so I confess Adjuncts may be made parts of False VVorship as many Ceremonies are in the Church of Rome but this is not the case with any things used in the Administration of VVorship in our Church we plead nothing of Divine Authority to enforce them use them not as necessary nor as means of Grace after the manner we do the VVord of God and the Sacraments 2. It s another mistake that its charged as a fault upon Rites in VVorship that They are used to further Devotion VVithout this end surely they are not to be used or at least not to be encouraged for Divine VVorship being the acknowledgment of God and a giving Honour to Him should have all things about it Grave and Solemn that may best sute it and promote the ends for which it s used But if Rites are used in it that have no respect to such ends they become Vain and Trifling neither worthy of that nor our Defence And therefore we justly blame the Church of Rome for the Multitude of Ceremonies used in their VVorship and for such that either have no signification or whose signification is so obscure as is not easie to be observed or traced and that rather hinder than further Devotion Surely it would not so well answer the end if the Hand in Swearing was laid upon another Book as when on the Gospel nor if the Love-feasts at the Lords Supper had been only as a Common Meal without respect to Charity signified by it 3. It s another mistake that External Rites taken up by Men and used for the furthering Devotion are made to be of the same Nature with Images This there is no foundation for for the Religious use of Images is expresly contrary to the Command of God and Forbidden because it tends to debase God in the thoughts of those that VVorship him by such mediums But there is nothing in the use of such External Ries as are before spoken of that fall under the censure of either of these but that we may lawfully use them and the use of which is not therefore at all Forbidden in the Second Commandment If there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the VVorship of God the Gospel would be less perfect than Object IV the Law and Christ would not be so Faithful as Moses in the care of his Church Heb. 3. 2. which is not to be supposed The sufficiency of Scripture and Faithfulness of Christ Answer are not to be judged of by what we fancy they should have determined but by what they have It s a plausiable Plea made by the Church of Rome for an Infallible Judge in matters of Faith that by an Appeal to him all controversies would be decided and the Peace of the Church secured But notwithstanding all the advantages which they so hugely amplify there is not one Word in Scripture which in a matter of that importance is absolutely necessary that doth shew that it is necessary or were it so who the Person or Persons are that should have this Power or Commission And in this case we must be content to leave things as the Wisdom of God hath thought fit to leave them and to go on in the old way of sober and amicable debate and fair reasoning to bring debates to a conclusion Thus it is in the matter before us the pretence is very Popular and Plausible that Who can better determine things Relating to the Worship of God than God whose Worship it is And where may we expect to find them better determined than in his Word which is sufficient to all the ends it was writ for But when we come to enquire into the case we find no such thing done no such care taken no such particular directions as they had under the Law and therefore its certain that neither the sufficiency of Scripture nor Faithfulness of Christ stand upon that foundation And if we do not find the like particular prescriptions in Baptism as Circumcision nor in the Lord's Supper as in the Passover nor in Prayers as in Sacrifices its plain that the sufficiency of Scripture and Faithfulness of Christ do respect somewhat else and that they are not the less for the want of them Christ was Faithful as Moses To him that appointed him in performing what belonged to him as a Mediator in which respect Moses was a Type of him and discovering to Mankind in Scripture the method and means by which they might be Sav'd and the sufficiency of Scripture is in being a sufficient means to that end and putting Men into such State as will render them capable of attaining to it And as for modes and circumstances of things they are left to the prudence of those who by the Grace and the Word of God hath been converted to the Truth and have received it in the Love of it I have been the larger in the consideration of this principle viz. that Nothing but what is prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship that I might relieve the consciences of those that are insnared by it and that cannot be so without subjecting themselves to great inconveniences For if nothing but what is of that Nature may be used or joyned with and that the second Commandment doth with as much Authority Forbid the use of any thing not Commanded as the Worshipping of Images If Nadab's and Abihu's Strange Fire and Vzzah's touching of the Ark be examples Recorded for caution to us and that every thing Uncommanded is of the like Nature attended with the like Aggravations and alike do expose to God's Displeasure If the use of any thing not prescribed be such an addition to the VVord of God as leaves us under the Penalty of that Text If any Man shall add unto these things Rev. 22. 18. God shall add unto him the Plagues that are Written in this Book we cannot be too cautious in the Examination of what is or what is not prescribed But withall if this be our case it would be more intollerable than that of the Jews For amongst them every thing for the most part was plainly laid down and though the particular Rites and Circumstances prescribed in their
understood of such things as are Adjuncts to Divine Worship that are not used upon the score of any of the reasons aforesaid then we are not to expect a command nor do we Sin if we act without it As for example a Servant is required to go a Mile upon some service and he useth a Coat or a Cloak takes an Horse or goes on Foot puts a string about his Finger to remember him of what he is to do Or if to carry a Message considers what to say and Writes it down that he may be the better fitted to deliver it In such cases his Master would think him impertinent to ask Directions and it 's no Disobedience nor Supererogation to act as he sees fit without them And this is the case with us as I shall afterward shew This said there is way made for the next inference Conclus 3. If things Indifferent are neither commanded Conclus 3 nor forbidden and things are not unlawful because not commanded it follows that it 's no Derogation from the Sufficiency of Scripture to maintain the lawfulness of using such things in Divine Worship as are not therein commanded It 's somewhat a Specious way of arguing which this Author useth the Scriptures have determined whatsoever may make us wise to Salvation perfect p. 2â— throughly furnished to all good Works Now if the Worship of God be a good work and the right doing of it hath any tendency to make us perfect they must have a sufficiency to direct us in that And he concludes If there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the Worship of God except as before excepted c. then the Scriptures are not able to make us wise c. By this way of arguing and a challenge he immediately subjoyns viz. If our Author can shew us any Act of Worship c. It may be thought he is a Champion for the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture and we the derogators from it And that without any more ado he would have brought unanswerable arguments for that kind of Scripture-sufficiency which we deny If saith he our R. Author can shew us any Act of Worship for the Pag. 29. performance of which in such a manner as God will accept we cannot shew him direction of Scripture Well! where is it Scripture with the addition of such circumstances as are naturally necessary to all Humane Actions or evidently convenient for an action of a grave and weighty Nature for the obtaining the ends of it or appearing to any Common Judgment to be so decent that without them the performance would be sordid Scripture with the practice of the first Guides of the Church Scripture with the light of Nature shining out in every reasonable Soul c. Scripture with the exceptions before excepted in his Book pag. 21 Suppose then we put it to the question Is Scripture alone a sufficient Rule for matters to be used in the Worship of God He readily answers Yes If you take in the Nature of the thing the light shining in every reasonable Soul if you take in Common Judgment convenience and decency Lastly if you take in the practice of the first Guides of the Church that is it is and it is not Now how he hath all this while pleaded for that Sufficiency of Scripture which we deny And why he should so loudly exclaim against all Supplements and Additions to that and against pag. 38. Reason and Authority as a Supply or what difference he hath conceived betwixt Authority the Guides of the Church or betwixt Reason and the light of Nature Shining out in every reasonable Soul so as to deny to pag. 29. the one what he grants to the other I am not able to understand Yet for all this there must be a difference betwixt him and us and somewhat shall be said to make it out For the Sufficiency of Scripture is a very great argument And so indeed it is and it has been an old pag. 28. argument against the practices of our Church and is not to be easily parted with But yet what to give and what to take and wherein the difference is betwixt what we hold and he is forced to grant he knows not or has not been so kind as to discover But however when all this is pastover he concludes as to one part we cannot possibly agree with our R. Brother in this thing viz. That we have no such particular directions for Worship under the Gospel as they had under the Law This indeed I touched upon to shew that the Case of indifferent things pag. 30. faithfulness of Christ and sufficiency of Scripture consist not in giving as particular directions for Worship as they had under the Law and in proof of this I set Baptism against Circumcision the Lord's Supper against the Passover and Prayers against Sacrifices Now let us consider what are the reasons why he cannot possibly agree Certainly if ever controversie was like to be ended we may now expect it because it 's about plain matter of Fact But in this case he strangely fails of performance For whereas the deciding the case depends upon the comparison betwixt the Law and the Gospel he doth not so much as offer any thing about the latter But let us consider what he saith of the former and as much as we can make up his defect in the latter First he saith As to Circumcision what particular pag. 31. direction had the Jews Their Rule extended no further than to the Act and the time Here I must confess there is nothing but the time that is determined But since there is nothing of that kind in Baptism prescribed the Law is herein more particular than the Gospel 2ly As to the Passover he acknowledges they had a Rule but then he adds What Rule had they to determine them to a Kid or a Lamb But was not that a Rule to determine them when it must be a Kid or a Lamb and no other Creature and is not Two to all the Beasts in the world a determination as well as one to two But was there nothing else determined as his cautious way of expressing it would imply Let him consult the Text and he will find that the Creature was not only thus to be one Exod. 12. c. out of two but it was to be a Male kept the 14th day and to be killed at even without a bone broken to be roasted to be eaten in the house and with unleavened Bread with bitter Herbs and none left to the morning And they were to eat it standing as our Author acknowledges p. 32. with their loyns girt c. And with several other rites too long to enumerate But in the Lord's Supper there is nothing specified or required but the Elements and the breaking and pouring out nothing said of the kind of the Bread or Wine nothing required of the time or posture or number c.
is a Rule of Conscience we are not only to understand the prime Heads and most general Dictates of it which are but a few but also all the necessary Deductions from those Heads And by the Law of Scripture as it is the Rule of Conscience we are not only to understand the express Commands and Prohibitions we meet with there in the letter of the Text but all the things likewise that by unavoidable Consequence do follow from those Commands or Prohibitions In a word when we are deliberating with our selves concerning the goodness or badness the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of this or the other particular Action We are not only to look upon the letter of the Law but to attend further to what that Law may be supposed by a Rational Man to contain in it And if we be convinced that the Action we are deliberating about is Commanded or Forbidden by direct Inference or by Parity of Reason we ought to look upon it as a Duty or a Sin though it be not expresly Commanded or Forbidden by the Law in the letter of it And if neither by the letter of the Law nor by Consequence from it nor by Parity of Reason the Action before us appear either to be Commanded or Forbidden In that Case we are to look upon it as an indifferent Action which we may do or let alone with a safe Conscience or to express the thing more properly we are to look upon it as an Action in which our Conscience is not so much concerned as our Prudence III. Having thus given an account of the Rule of Conscience that which Naturally follows next to be considered with Reference to our present design is what share Humane Laws have in this Rule of Conscience whether they be a part of this Rule and do really bind a Mans Conscience to the Observance of them or no which is our Third general Head Now as to this our Answer is that though the Laws of God be the great and indeed the only Rule of Conscience yet the Laws of Men generally speaking do also bind the Conscience and are a part of its Rule in a Secondary Sense that is by Vertue of and in Subordination to the Laws of God I shall briefly explain the meaning of this in the Four following Propositions First there is nothing more certain than that the Law of God as it is declared both by Nature and Scripture doth Command us to Obey the Laws of Men. There is no one Dictate of Nature more Obvious to us than this that we are to Obey the Government we Live under in all honest and Just things For this is indeed the Principal Law and Foundation of all Society And it would be impossible either for Kingdoms or States for Citys or Families to subsist or at least to maintain themselves in any Tolerable degree of Peace and Happiness if this be not acknowledged a Duty And then as for the Laws of God in Scripture there is nothing more plainly declared there than that it is Gods Will and our Duty to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to Submit our selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake and to be Subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake So that no Man can doubt that he is really bound in Duty to Obey the Laws of Men that are made by Just and Sufficient Authority And Consequently no Man can doubt that Humane Laws do really bind the Conscience and are one part of the Rule by which it is to be directed and Governed But then having said this we add this farther in the Second Place that Humane Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but meerly by Vertue of Gods Law who has Commanded that we should in all things be Subject to our Lawful Governours not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Conscience is not properly concerned with any Being in the World save God alone it hath no Superiour but him For the very Notion of it as I have often said is no other than our Judgment of what things we are bound to do by Gods Law what things we are Forbidden to do by Gods Law So that all the Men in the World cannot bind any Mans Conscience by Vertue of any Power or Authority that is in them But now God having made it an everlasting Law both by Nature and Scripture that we should Obey those who are set over us whether they be our Parents or our Masters and much more our Princes and the Soveraign Legislative Power under whom we Live by Vertue of this Command of God and this only we are for ever bound in Conscience to Govern our Actions by the Commands that they impose upon us and those Commands of theirs are a Rule though a Consequential or a Secondary Rule by which we are to Govern our Conscience because they are the Instances of our Obedience to the Laws of God But then in the Third Place this is also to be remembered that Humane Laws do no farther bind the Conscience and are a Rule of it than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God If any Law or Command of Man do Clash with any Law of God that is if it be either Evil in it self or Contradictory to the Duty of Christians as laid down in the Scriptures in that Case that Law or Command by what Humane Authority soever it was made or given doth not bind our Conscience nor is any Rule of our Actions On the contrary we are not at any Rate to yield Obedience to it but we are here reduced to the Apostles Case and must Act as they did that is we must Obey God rather than Men and we Sin if we do not For since God only hath proper and direct Authority over our Conscience and Humane Power only by Delegation from him And since God hath not given any Commission to the most Soveraign Princes upon Earth to alter his Laws or to impose any thing upon his Subjects that is inconsistent with them It follows by necessary Consequence that no Man can be Obliged to Obey any Laws of Men farther than they are agreeable to and consistent with the Laws of God There is yet a Fourth thing necessary to be taken in for the clearing the Point we are upon and that is this That though Humane Laws generally speaking may be said to bind the Conscience and to be a part of its Rule Yet we do not Assert that every Humane Law though it doth not interfere with any of Gods Laws doth at all times and in all Cases Oblige Every Mans Conscience to Active Obedience to it so as that he Sins against God if he Transgress it No it would be a very hard thing to affirm this and I do not know what Manamong us upon these Terms would be Innocent Thus much I believe we may safely lay down as a Truth That where either the Matter of the Law is of such a Nature
Case and we have an easie resolution of the Question before us viz. That since a greater sin is to be avoided before a less when a man supposes himself to be under a necessity of being guilty of one it is more reasonable that the man we speak of should come to the Sacrament with all his Doubts concerning his unworthiness than that he should customarily and habitually withdraw himself from it because it is a greater sin to do this latter than the former Well but some say How can this consist with St. Paul's Doctrine Who expresly affirms That whoever eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh 1 Cor. 11. 29. Damnation to himself Can there be any more dreadful sin than that which if a man be guilty of it will actually Damn him Certainly one would think by this that a man runs a much less hazard in not Receiving at all than in venturing to Receive whilest he hath the least Doubt that he Receives unworthithily considering the dreadful Consequences of it But to this I briefly answer Such a man as we all along suppose in our Case is in no danger at all of Receiving unworthily in the Sense that St. Paul useth this Term. For the unworthy receiving that he so severly Censures in the Corinthians was their approaching to the Lords Table with so little a sense of what they were about that they made no distinction between the Lords Body and common Food Ibid. v. 29. v. 20 21 22. But under a pretence of meeting for the Celebration of the Lords Supper they used the Church of God as if it was an Eating or Tipling House Some of them Revelling it there to that degree that they went away Drunk from these Religious Assemblies All this appears from the Text. But I hope none among us especially none of those who are so doubtful about their being duly qualified do profane the Sacrament in this manner But further Perhaps the Damnation which St. Paul here denounces is not so frightful as is commonly apprehended For all that he saith if either the Original or the Margin of our English Bibles be consulted will appear to be this He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Judgment to himself Meaning hereby in all probability that he who doth thus affront our Lords Instistution by making no distinction between the Bread of the Sacrament and common Meat doth by this his profaneness draw severe Judgments of God upon himself For for this cause saith he many are weak and Ver. 30. sickly among you and many are fallen asleep But here is not a word of Everlasting Damnation much less of any mans being put into that State by thus receiving unworthily Unless any man will say that all those who are visited with Gods Judgments in this World are in the State of Damnation as to the next Which is so far from being true that St. Paul in this very place affirms the contrary viz. in the 32. Verse where he tells us That When we are thus judged in this World we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the World i. e. with Wicked men in another Life But further Admitting St. Paul in these words to mean Damnation in the usual Sense yet still the utmost they can come to will be no more than this That whosoever eateth and drinketh thus unworthily as the Corinthians did is guilty of a Damnable sin But now there are a great many other Cases besides this of the Sacrament in which a Man is equally guilty of a Damnable Sin if he do not perform his Duty as he ought to do He that Prays or Hears unworthily He that Fasts or gives Alms unworthily In a word He that in any Instance performs the Worship of God or professeth the Christian Religion unworthily I say such a Man according to the Protestant Doctrine may be said to do these things to his own Damnation upon the same account that he is said to Eat and Drink his own Damnation that Communicates unworthily in the Sacrament though indeed not in so high a degree That is to say such a Man is guilty of a Sin that is in its own Nature Damnable and may prove actually so to him unless either by a particular or general Repentance he obtains Gods pardon for it But yet for all this there is no man will for these Reasons think it adviseable to leave off the practice of these Duties but the only Consequence he will draw from hence is that he is so much the more concerned to take care that he perform them as he ought to do But in the last place Let the sin of coming to the Sacrament unworthily be as great and as damnable as we reasonably can suppose it Yet this is that we contend for the sin of totally withdrawing from it is much greater and more damnable So that if he who partakes of it unworthily doth eat and drink Damnation to himself He that partakes not at all is so far from mending the matter that he doth much increase that Damnation The truth of this doth fully appear from what I have before spoke in General concerning the much greater sin of transgressing a known Law of God than of observing that Law as well as we can though with much unworthiness I will only add this further with reference to this Particular of receiving the Sacrament Though I am far from encouraging any to approach to the Lords Table without due Qualifications or from extenuating any mans sin that comes unworthily unworthily I mean in the Scripture Sense of that word and not as it is understood by many melancholly scrupulous Persons Yet this I say That if Men did seriously consider what a sin it is to live without the Sacrament it being no other than living in an open affront to the express Institution of our Lord Jesus and a renouncing the Worship of God and the Communion of the Church in the great Instance of Christian Worship and Christian Communion And withal what dreadful Consequences they bring upon themselves hereby even the depriving themselves of the chief of those ordinary means which our Lord hath appointed for the obtaining Remission of sins and the Grace and Influence of his Holy Spirit I say if men did seriously consider these things they would not look upon it as so slight a matter voluntarily to Excommunicate themselves as to the partaking in this great Duty and Privilege of Christians but what apprehensions soever they had of the sin and the danger of receiving unworthily they would for all that think it more sinful and more dangerous not to receive at all I have said enough in answer to this Objection from St. Paul perhaps too much considering how often these things have been said I will now go on with our Case In the Third place therefore let us suppose our Doubting Man for these or such like Reasons as we have given to have such a Sense of his
Authority for it is not so absurd as may by some be imagined for the Common People to take upon trust from their lawful Teachers what they are not competent Judges of themselves But the difficulty here is how shall a private Christian govern himself when the very Guides and Ministers of Religion determine differently concerning these matters in question amongst us Some warranting and allowing them others as much disapproving and condemning them by what Rule shall he choose his Guide To which I briefly reply 1. As for those who scruple at Conformity and are tolerably able to judge for themselves let not such relye barely upon the Authority either of the one or the other All we desire of them is that they would equally hear both sides that they would think that the Ministers of the Church of England have some Sense and Conscience too as well as other Men and are able to say somewhat for what they do themselves or require of others that laying aside all Prejudices Favour to or admiration of Mens Persons they would weigh and consider the Arguments that may be propounded to them being diffident of their own Apprehensions and indifferent to either part of the Question that they would think it no shame to change their Mind when they see good reason for it Could we thus prevail with the People diligently to examine the Merits of the cause our Church would every day gain more Ground amongst all wise Men for we care not how much Knowledge and Understanding our People have so they be but humble and modest with it nor do we desire Men to become our Proselytes any further than we give them good Scripture and Reason for it 2. But as for those who are not so capable of examining or judging for themselves as few of the common People who separate from us really are they not being able to give any tolerable account of their dissent from us only in general Words declaiming against Popery Superstition Antichristian and Unscriptural Ceremonies Humane Traditions c. such had better trust to and depend on those Ministers of known Sufficiency for their Office who are regularly and by the Laws of the Land set over them than any other Guides or Teachers that they can choose for themselves This to be sure is the safer course which in doubtful cases is always to be taken I speak now of these present Controversies about Forms and Ceremonies so hotly agitated amongst us which are above the Sphere of common People out of their profession not of such things as concern the Salvation of all men which are plain and evident to the meanest Capacities When therefore in such cases about which we cannot easily satisfie our selves we follow the Advice of the publickly authorized Guides and Preachers of Religion if they chance to mislead us we have something to say or apologize for our selves Our Error is more excusable and pardonable as being occasion'd by those to whose Judgment by God's Command we did owe a great Respect and Submission But when we choose Instructors and Counsellors to our selves according to our own Fancy and liking and they teach us contrary to the Doctrine of our lawful Ministers if then we prove to be in the wrong and are betray'd into Sin we may thank our own Wantonness for it and are more severely accomptable for such Mistakes Thus let a Man that is troubled with any threatning disease apply himself rather to the Licensed Physicians or Chyrurgions of approved Skill and Honesty and if he chance to miscarry under them yet he hath this contentment that he used the best and wisest means for his Health and Recovery But if he leaves them all and will hearken only to Quacks and Empiricks tho they advise him quite contrary to what the others prescribed if under their hands he grows worse and worse he must then charge his own perverse Folly or idle Humour as the cause of his Ruine 4. In order to the curing of our Scruples we should thoroughly understand and consider what is the true Notion of lawful and how it differs from what is necessary and from what is sinful That is necessary or our Duty which God hath expresly commanded that is sinful which God hath forbid that is lawful which God hath not by any Law obliging us either commanded or forbid for Where there is no Law saith the Apostle there is no Transgression Rom. 4. 15. There can be no Transgression but either omitting what the Law commands or doing what the Law forbids For instance If any Man can shew where kneeling at the Sacrament is forbid in Scripture where fitting is required where praying by a Form is forbid and extemporary Prayers are enjoyned then indeed the Dispute would soon be at an end but if neither the one nor the other can be found as most certainly they cannot then kneeling at the Sacrament and reading Prayers out of a Book must be reckon'd amongst things lawful And then there is no need of scrupling them because they may be done without Sin nay where they are required by our Superiours it is our Duty to submit to them because it is our Duty to obey them in all lawful things This way of arguing is very plain and convincing and cannot be evaded but by giving another Notion of Lawful And therefore it is commonly said that nothing is lawful especially in the Worship of God which God himself hath not prescribed and appointed or that hath been abused to evil Purposes And on these two Mistakes are chiefly grounded Mens Scruples about indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in God's Worship 1. That only is said to be lawful in God's Worship which he himself hath prescribed and appointed so that this is thought Exception sufficient against the Forms and Usages of our Church that though they are not forbid yet they are no where commanded in Scripture Who hath required these things at your hands Now here I only ask Where our Saviour or his Apostles have forbid us doing any thing in God's Worship which is not by himself commanded or where in the New Testament we are told that God will be angry with us for doing any thing which he hath no where forbid either by general or particular Laws For unless this can be shewn there can be no colour for this Pretence and we are sufficiently sure that no such Place can be produced out of the Bible It is acknowledged by all that the Holy Scriptures as to all that is necessary to be believed or done in order to Salvation as to all the essential and substantial Parts of Divine Worship is a plain and perfect Rule but it is as certain that the outward Circumstances of Time Place Habit and Gesture are not determined in the New Testament as they were in many cases by Moses's Law and yet God cannot be at least visibly and publickly worshipped without them If therefore these be not determined in Scripture and it is unlawful to
thought by us and others to be inspired is that we are many times enabled in them to enlarge extempore with so much readiness and fluency which may be easily resolv'd into meer natural Enthusiasm or present fervour of temper And that from hence this fluency and enlargement in Prayer doth ordinarily proceed seems very evident by two undeniable signs first that according to our Brethrens own confession it comes upon them much oftener in their publick than in their private Devotions For this is an ordinary case in their Divinity how comes it to pass that good men often find themselves so enlarg'd in their publick and so strengthen'd in their private Prayers And indeed supposing the Spirit did ordinarily inspire the matter and words of their Prayer I see not how it could be well resolv'd unless we suppose the Spirit to be more concern'd to inspire us with fluency of matter and words when we are to speak before men than when we are only to speak before God The true resolution therefore of the case is this that in our private Prayers we want the sighs and groans and passionate gestures of a devout Congregation to chafe and excite our affections and the reverence of a numerous Auditory to oblige us to teaz and wrack our inventions for want of which our spirits are not ordinarily so vehemently agitated and heated as when we Pray in publick where being more than ordinarily warm'd partly with our own efforts and struglings to invent and partly with the warmths and pious fervours of the Congregation we are many times transported by this natural Enthusiasm into raptures of passion and inlargement this I say is the only reason that can be assign'd of it unless we will suppose that which is very unsupposeable of the Spirit of God viz. That he is more solicitous to indite our Prayers when we are in the presence of men than when we are only in the presence of God Secondly Another sign that this admired fluency and enlargement in Prayer proceeds from meer natural Enthusiasm is this that generally in the beginning of the Prayer they find themselves streighten'd and confin'd both as to the matter and words of it till they have Pray'd on for a while and then they grow more ready and fluent which how it should come to pass I know not supposing the Prayer were inspired unless perhaps the Spirit comes in only in the middle or towards the latter end of their Prayer but leaves them to their own invention in the beginning and what reason there should be for such an imagination I confess I am not able to guess The true account therefore of the matter is this that in the beginning of the Prayer their Spirits are usually dull and sluggish and do not flow and reflow so briskly to their heads and hearts as afterwards when they have been throughly chaft and heated with a labour and exercise of invention by which being excited and awaken'd they naturally raise the drooping fancy and render the invention more copious fluent and easie So that meerly by the Laws of Matter and Motion as plain an account may be given of this extemporary fluency and enlargement of Prayer as of any other natural effect whatsoever and therefore for our Brethren to attibute to the immediate inspiration of the Spirit of God that which hath such apparent signs of its derivation from natural causes is I conceive very unwarrantable By all which I think it 's very evident not only that we have no sign of the continuance of this Gift of Inspiration of Prayer remaining among us but that we have manifest signs of the contrary 4. And lastly That to suppose the continuance of this Gift of Inspiration of Prayer is to suppose more than our Brethren themselves will allow of viz. That their conceiv'd Prayers are infallible and of equal authority with the Word of God For if our Prayers are dictated to us by the Spirit of God they must be as infallible as he whose infinite knowledge cannot suffer him to be deceiv'd and whose infinite veracity will not admit him to deceive and if so then whatsoever he dictates or inspires must be remov'd from all possibility of error or mistake and consequently our Prayers must be so too supposing he inspires the matter and words of them And as they must be infallible in themselves so they must be of equal authority with Scripture for that which gives the Scriptures the authority of the Word of God is their being inspired by the Spirit of God and therefore whatsoever matter or words are so inspired are as much the Word of God as any matter or words in Scripture All Scripture is given saith the Apostle by the Inspiration of God And therefore whatsoever is given by his Inspiration must necessarily be his Word for what those Holy Men of God spake who deliver'd the Scripture they spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost 1 Pet. 1. 21. and therefore what they deliver'd was the Word of God because their Mouths were the Oracles through which God spake if therefore when we Pray we are mov'd as they were by the immediate inspiration of God what we pray must be as much the Word of God as what they spake So that either our Brethren must affirm that their conceiv'd Prayers are of equal authority with Scripture which I am sure no sober Dissenter will presume or deny that they are immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost And thus I have shewn what those extraordinary Operations are which the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer I proceed in the next place to enquire what the ordinary and standing Operations are which the Scripture attributes to him and which he hath promised to continue to the end of the World Of which I shall give but a very brief account because herein we are all agreed In short therefore the ordinary Operations of the Spirit consist in exciting in us the graces and proper affections of Prayer such as shame and sorrow in the confession of our sins a sense of our need of mercy and a hope of obtaining it in our supplications for pardon resignation to God's will and dependance on his goodness in our Prayers for temporal mercies and deliverances hunger and thirst after righteousness in our Petitions for his grace and assistance and in a word gratitude and love and admiration of God in our Praises and Thanksgivings for Mercy For in these divine and gracious Affections the life and soul of Prayer consists as for the Words and Expressions of it about which our Brethren disagree with us they are of no other account with God than as they signifie to him the graces and affections of our Prayers without which he regards them no more than he doth the whistling of the wind and therefore since these affections are the main of our Prayer and words are nothing in his account in comparison with them can any man be so vain as to imagin that
express'd in Scripture so that it may be as truly said that Prayer always signifies vocal Prayer as that this Hebrew word for Prayer doth so Nor indeed doth it necessarily signifie vocal Prayer in the onely place that is urg'd to prove that it always signifies so viz. Psalm 28. 2. Hear the voice of my supplication when I cry unto thee for this phrase the voice of my Supplication and the voice of my Prayer is a Hebraism and denotes no more than my Supplication or my Prayer for so in Gen. 4. 10. it 's said The voice of thy brother's bloud cries from the ground that is it cry'd just as mental Prayer doth without any material voice or sound yet so as to move God as effectually as the loudest vocal Prayer so that the Psalmist might cry to God with his mind without opening his lips and supposing he did his Prayer had a voice which God could hear as well as if he had pronounc'd it never so loudly But then in other places this Hebrew word plainly signifies at large both mental and vocal Prayer indifferently so in Psalm 86. 6. Give ear O Lord unto my Prayer attend to the voice of my Supplications and Psalm 6. 9. The Lord hath heard my Supplication the Lord will receive my Prayer And as Prayer and Supplications signifie the same thing so the word Supplications is used to express Prayer in general as in Jer. 31. 9. They shall come with weeping and with supplications will I lead them where the word plainly denotes Prayer in general without restriction to any kind of it and so in several other places which it would be needless to name But suppose it were true that the word were always used for vocal Prayer there is no doubt but this promise of pouring out the Spirit of Supplications intends a much greater good than the Gift of extempore utterance in Prayer of which bad men may have a greater share than the most devout and pious and if it doth denote a greater good what can that be but the gift of pious and heavenly affections in vocal Prayer of which we may as well partake in praying vocally by a Form as by our own extemporary utterance But 't is yet farther urg'd that in pursuance of this promise the Apostle tells us Gal. 4. 6. God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son crying Abba Father and that we have received the Spirit of Adoption whereby we cry Abba Father Rom. 8. 15. Now because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies crying with a loud voice 't is from hence inferr'd that we are gifted and inabled by the Spirit to express our selves to God in vocal Prayer and that therefore we ought not to pray by Forms To which I answer first That if by any thing in these words we are obliged to cry vocally to God by our own Gifts we are equally obliged to cry to him in these words Abba Father in all our vocal Prayers because that is the cry or vocal Prayer which the Spirit inables us to make and the Text is every whit as express for the one as the other and therefore if crying by the Spirit must needs denote receiving a Gift from him to pray vocally then crying Abba Father by the Spirit must needs denote receiving a Gift from him to pray vocally Abba Father and consequently not to use these very words when we cry vocally to God will be altogether as sinful an omission as not to cry vocally by our own gift of utterance or expression Secondly I utterly deny that crying here doth necessarily denote vocal Prayer for how often do we find the word applied to things that have no voice at all Thus Luke 19. 40. I tell you that if these should hold their peace the stones would immediately cry out and yet no body imagines that our Saviour meant that the stones should make a Speech to prove him the true Messias Thus also the Labourers hire unjustly detain'd by rich oppressors is said to cry to God James 5. 4. not because it offer'd any vocal Prayer to him but because it moved and provok'd him as the vocal crys of injured persons do us to avenge them upon their oppressors and in this sence mental Prayer may be said to cry because it moves and affects God as effectually as vocal And accordingly it 's said of the Jews That their heart cryed unto the Lord Lam. 2. 18. so that crying unto God signifies in the same latitude with Prayer which includes both vocal and mental Thirdly That supposing that our crying Abba Father by the Spirit were to be understood of vocal Prayer yet all that can be gather'd from it is onely this that when we pray vocally we are inabled by the holy Spirit to address our selves to God with boldness and assurance as to a kind and merciful Father and this we may as well do when we pray by a Form as when we pray extempore for if we never cry Abba Father by the Spirit but when we word our own Prayers we can no more be said to do it when we joyn with a publick extempore Prayer than when we joyn with a publick Form because we word our own Prayers in neither But 't is further insisted on that the Scripture makes mention of a Gift of utterance which the Spirit communicates to true believers as particularly 1 Cor. 1. 5. 2 Cor. 8. 7. which Gift say they was doubtless given for the purpose of Praying as well as of Preaching To which in short I answer That it is most evident that this Gift of utterance or readiness of Speech was extraordinary and peculiar to the primitive Ages of miraculous Gifts wherein the Preachers of the Gospel were ordinarily inspired with a supernatural fluency assurance and volubility of Speech for as St. Chrysostom observes Hom. 24. ad Ephes c. 6. this Gift of utterance is that which our Saviour promised his Disciples in Mark 13. 11. When they shall lead you and deliver you up take no thought before-hand what ye shall speak neither do ye premeditate but whatsoever shall be given to you in that hour that speak ye for it is not ye that speak but the Holy Ghost So that what they spoke was by immediate inspiration without any fore-thought or premeditation of their own and it being God that spoke immediately in and through them what they deliver'd was the Word of God and this Gift certainly no sober Dissenter will pretend to and that this gift of utterance was extraordinary is evident from Acts 2. 4. where it is said That the Apostles were fill'd with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with Tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance so that we may as well pretend to the Gift of Tongues as to this Gift of Utterance they being both miraculous and extraordinary This I think is a sufficient Answer to those Scriptures which our Brethren urge to prove that God hath promised and given to every good Christian an ability
declares against in these Words Article 22 d. The Romish Doctrine of Purgatory is a vain thing fondly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the Word of God As to that of Auricular Confession nothing like it is taught or practised in our Church Her Members are obliged onely to Confess their Sins to God except when 't is necessary to Confess them to Men for the relieving of their Consciences and their obtaining the Prayers of others or in order to the righting of those they have wronged when due satisfaction can't otherwise be made or in order to their giving Glory to God when they are justly accused and their guilt proved in which cases and such like 't is without dispute our duty to confess to Men. Nor have we any such Doctrine in our Church as that of the Dependence of the Efficacy of the Sacraments on the Priests intention but the contrary is sufficiently declared Article 26th viz. that The Efficacy of Christs Ordinance is not taken away by the Wickedness of those that Minister 3. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by not a few of her Doctrines and Practices to Vile Affections and Vices of all sorts As might be largely shewed See Libertas Evangelica Chap. 17. and will be in part under the next Head of discourse But our Church neither maintains any Licentious Principle nor gives Countenance to any such Practice our Adversaries themselves being Judges Secondly The Church of England is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly charged with plainly contradicting the Holy Scripture For instance not to repeat any of those ranked under the foregoing head several of which may also fall under this Her Doctrines of Image-Worship of Invocation of Saints with her gross practising upon them of Transubstantiation of Pardons and Indulgencies of the Sacrifice of the Mass wherein Christ is pretended to be still offered up afresh for the quick and dead Her keeping the Holy Scriptures from the Vulgar and making it so hainous a crime to read the Bible because by this means her foul Errours will be in such danger of being discovered and the People of not continuing implicite believers Her injoyning the saying of Prayers and the Administration of the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue Her Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper Her prohibiting Marriage to Priests Her Doctrines of Merit and works of Supererogation Her making simple Fornication a mere Venial sin Her damning all that are not of her Communion Her most devilish cruelties towards those whom she is pleased to pronounce Hereticks Her darling Sons Doctrines of Equivocation and Mental Reservations of the Popes power of dispensing with the most Solemn Oaths and of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance to their Lawful Princes with many others not now to be reckoned up But the Church of England Abominates these and the like Principles and Practices As to the instances of Image-Worship Invocation of Saints and Pardons and Indulgences what our Church declareth concerning Purgatory she adds concerning these things too Article 22 d. viz. That the Romish Doctrine concerning Pardons Worship and Adoration as well of Images as of Relicks as also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded on no Warranty of Scripture but rather Repugnant to the Word of God And as there is no such Practice as Worshipping of Images in our Church so all are destroyed which Popery had Erected among us Nor have we in our Church any Co-Mediators with Jesus Christ we Worship only one God by one only Mediator the Man Christ Jesus And the now-mentioned Practices our Church doth not only declare to be Repugnant to the Holy Scriptures but to be likewise most grosly Idolatrous viz. in the Homilies As to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation our Church declareth her sense thereof Article 28th in these Words Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ but it is repugnant to the plain terms of Scripture overthroweth the Nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lords Supper only after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not by Christs Ordinance reserved carried about lifted up or Worshipped As to the Sacrifice of the Mass see what our Church saith of it Article 31st viz. That the offering of Christ once made is that perfect Redemption Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World both Original and Actual and there is none other Satisfaction for sins but that alone Wherefore the Sacrifices of Masses in the which it was commonly said that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have Remission of pain or guilt were Blasphemous Fables and dangerous deceits As to the Church of Romes locking up the Scriptures and prohibiting the reading of them Our Church hath not only more than once caused them to be Translated into our Mother-Tongue but also as I need not shew gives as free Liberty to the reading of the Bible as of any other Book nor is any duty in our Church esteemed more necessary than that of Reading the Scriptures and Hearing them read As to Praying and Administring the Sacraments in an unknown Tongue as this is contrary to the Practice of the Church of England so is it to her Declaration also Article 24th viz. That it is a thing plainly Repugnant to the Word of God and the Custom of the Primitive Church to have publick Prayers in the Church or to Administer Sacraments in a Tongue not understanded of the People As to Robbing the Laity of the Cup in the Lords Supper in Our Church they may not receive the Bread if they refuse the Cup. And Article 30. tells us That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Laity for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be Administred to all Christians alike As to prohibiting Marriage to Priests this is declared against Article 32. Bishops Priests and Deacons are not Commanded by Gods Law either to vow the Estate of single Life or to abstain from Marriage therefore it is Lawful for them as for all other Christian Men to Marry at their own discretion as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness As to the Popish Doctrine of Merit Our Church declares against this Article 11. We are accounted righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own Works or Deservings Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only viz. such a Faith as purifies the Heart and works by Love is a most wholsome Doctrine and very
together Then Seven more Saints Then all the Bishops and Confessors together Then all the Holy Doctors Then Five more of their own great Saints by Name Then all the Holy Priests and Levites Then all the Holy Monks and Hermites Then Seven She Saints by Name Then all the Holy Virgins and Widows And Lastly All the He and She Saints together But the brevity I am confined to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument of the vast distance between these two Churches in reference to their Publick Prayers and Offices Fourthly We proceed to shew that there is also no small distance between the Church of England and that of Rome in reference to the Books they receive for Canonical This will be Immediately dispatched For no more is to be said upon this subject but that whereas the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into her Canon the Church of England like all other Protestant Churches receives only those Books of the Old and New Testament for Canonical Scripture as she declares in her Sixth Article of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church And she declareth concerning the Apocryphal Books in the same Article citing St. Hierom for her Authority That the Church doth read them for Example of life and Instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to Establish any Doctrine And after the example of the Primitive Church no more doth ours and appoints the reading some of them only upon the foresaid Account In the Fifth and Last place The Church of England is at the greatest distance possible from the Church of Rome in reference to the Authority on which they each found their whole Religion As to the Church of Rome she makes her own Infallibility the Foundation of Faith For 1. Our belief of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures themselves must according to her Doctrine be founded upon her infallible Testimony 2. As to that Prodigious deal which she hath added of her own to the Doctrines and Precepts of the Holy Scriptures and which she makes as necessary to be believed and practised as any matters of Faith and Practice contained in the Scriptures and more necessary too than many of them the Authority of those things is founded upon her unwritten Traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspired by the Holy Ghost than were the Prophets and Apostles themselves But Contrariwise the Church of England doth 1. Build the whole of her Religion upon the Sole Authority of Divine Revelation in the Holy Scriptures And therefore she takes every jot thereof out of the Bible She makes the Scriptures the Complete Rule of her Faith and of her Practice too in all matters necessary to Salvation that is in all the parts or Religion nor is there any Genuine Son of this Church that maketh any thing a part of his Religion that is not plainly contained in the Bible Let us see what our Church declareth to this purpose in her 16 Article viz. That Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation So that as Mr. Chillingworth saith THE BIBLE THE BIBLE IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS So you see the Bible is the Religion of the Protestant Church of England Nor doth she fetch one Tittle of her Religion either out of unwritten Traditions or Decrees of Councils Notwithstanding she hath a great Reverence for those Councils which were not a Company of Bishops and Priests of the Popes packing to serve his purposes and which have best deserved the Name of General Councils especially the Four first yet her Reverence of them consisteth not in any opinion of their Infallibility As appears by Article 14. General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes and when they be gathered together for as much as they be an Assembly of Men whereof all be not Governed with the Spirit and Word of God they may Err and sometimes have Erred even in things pertaining unto God Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared that is manifestly proved that they be taken out of Holy Scripture Let us see again how our Church speaks of the matter in hand Article 20. The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith And yet it is not Lawful for the Church to Ordain any thing that is contrary to Gods Word Written neither may it so Expound one place of Scripture that it be Repugnant to another Wherefore although the Church be a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ that is as the Jewish Church was so of the Canon of the Old Testament by whose Tradition alone it could be known what Books were Canonical and what not so the Catholick Christian Church from Christ and his Apostles downwards is so of the Canon of the New Yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same so besides the same ought it not to inforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation If it be asked who is to Judge what is agreeable or contrary to Holy Writ 't is manifest that Our Church leaves it to every Man to Judge for himself But 't is Objected that 't is to be acknowledged that if the Church only claimed a Power to Decree Rites and Ceremonies that is according to the general Rules of doing all things Decently and Orderly and to Edification which Power all Churches have ever Exercised this may well enough consist with private Persons Liberty to Judge for themselves but 't is also said in the now Cited Article that the Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith and accordingly Our Church hath Publisht 39 Articles and requires of the Clergy c. Subscription to them To this we answer that we shall make one Article Egregiously to Contradict another and one and the same to Contradict it self if we understand by the Authority in Controversies of Faith which Our Church acknowledges all Churches to have any more than Authority to Oblige their Members to outward Submission when their Decisions are such as Contradict not any of the Essentials of our Religion whether they be Articles of Faith or Rules of Life not an Authority to Oblige them to assent to their Decrees as infallibly true But it is necessary to the maintaining of Peace that all Churches should be invested with a Power to bind their Members to outward submission in the Case aforesaid that is when their supposed Errors are not of that Moment as that 't is of more pernicious Consequence to bear with them than to break the Peace of the Church by opposing them And as to the fore-mentioned
Church upon the account of them But to go on whereas our Author saith of Episcopal Government and the three other following things pag. 38. That he takes it for granted that there is nothing of Viciousness or Immorality in any of them to make them Vnlawfull and therefore that they are indifferent in their own nature You reply pag. 18. That there are few things to be named unlawfull in this sense I answer there are as many things unlawfull in this sense as there are things prohibited by the Moral Law and if you please to consult our Expositors of the Decalogue I presume you 'll find those things not a few You say at the bottom of this 18th Page That it troubles you to reade your Author saying I know not how our Brethren will defend the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lord's day while they contend that this of Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholique Church c. And why I pray Sir doth this trouble you You give this reason why viz. Because certainly for the Apostolical practice in the Observation of the Lord's day we have the infallible evidence of Holy Scripture Acts 20. 1 Cor. 16. But you must prove that we have in those Scriptures or some other infallible evidence for the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lord's day and not for the mere Apostolical practice or you will say nothing to the purpose But to save my self the labour of saying more upon this Argument and of replying to those few lines that follow against the Primitiveness of our Episcopacy I entreat you to consult Mr. Chillingworth's Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy demonstrated together with the most Learned Dean of St Pauls his Ample Proof of these two Propositions in his Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 244 c. viz. First that our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church And Secondly That it is not repugnant to any Institution of Christ nor devising a new species of Churches without God's Authority As to what you say p. 19. about Liturgies viz. that they cannot be indifferent if indeed as our Author speaks they be highly expedient to be universally imposed yea necessary I reply you have not caught him in a Contradiction as you think for his saying concerning Liturgies c. pag. 38. is That he takes it for granted that they are all indifferent in their own nature And tells you what he means by those words in the next viz. that there is nothing of viciousness or immorality in any of them c. Now is it a contradiction to say of the same thing that it is indifferent in its own nature and that 't is necessary considering certain circumstances And I farther say that Liturgies are necessary considering that through humane Weakness and Frailty the performance of publick worship with that Solemnity and Gravity which it calls for cannot be secured and yet notwithstanding they are still things in their own nature indifferent and so are all those things too which God 's Positive Laws have made necessary as all know who understand the difference between Moral and Positive But as to the Antiquity of Liturgies which you say our Author knoweth to be denied you have had a good while extant that Discourse which he said was expected and which you say you will patiently wait for to give you satisfaction about this matter And it is excellently fitted as I hope you have before now found not onely for the satisfying of Dissenters about that point relating to Liturgies but divers others also In your next Paragraph you tell us that all Divines will readily acknowledge that such a Method and Order of a Liturgy as is not contrived in Subserviency to the 3 General Rules of Doing all to Edification the Glory of God and not giving offence to any of the Churches of God may make it unlawfull And I also do readily acknowledge this and am confident that you cannot prove that Ours is not so contrived as to be made not Subservient unto those Rules And as to the last of them whatsoever Churches please to take offence at our Liturgy I am sure it gives no offence to them In what follows you profess that you never thought it unlawfull for any Laick wholly to separate from the Church of England because of our Liturgy and I hope you think it no more Lawfull for a Clergy-man nor did your self ever so separate But for all that you know that many hundreds and I fear some thousands do But you say there is a new Generation started up that not onely makes you a Separatist but all Conformable Ministers if they do not every time read the Second Service at the Altar This in good earnest is somewhat a hard Case but I pray Sir by what figure do you call one Start-up Warm Head a new Generation In your next Paragraph pag. 20. You say Our Author hath spied four little Thorns in some Dissenters Flesh which he hath very charitably endeavoured to pick out And you add that you will candidly enquire if no bit of them remain which may cause pain and hinder healing To make no reflexion Sir upon your expressing your self thus phancifully your meaning must be that you will enquire whether our Author hath not well defended the four things in our Liturgy which Dissenters object against as symbolizings with the Roman Service from being liable to just Offence Of which The First is The shortness of many Prayers But you say not one word in answer to what he speaks in the Vindication thereof But tell us that if some Dissenters think that throughout the Scriptures there is nothing like this to be found either in the Prayers of Solomon c. or any others and be a little stumbled at it you cannot condemn them But you must needs condemn it as an errour in them to think there are no short Prayers to be found in the Holy Scriptures when there are many more short than there are long Prayers When our Saviour used in the Garden thrice a shorter Prayer than is any one in our Service And when the Form he left behind him for our use is a very short one But if the using of a short Prayer be not the thing blamed but the using of several such in the same Service instead of one very long one I must take leave to say this is mere Wantonness And whereas you say you cannot condemn Dissenters if they be a little stumbled at it I say to be stumbled at it so as to make it one pretence for not joining with us in our Prayers is not to be a little stumbled at it And you know that that which our Author is concerned to doe is to perswade Dissenters not to be so much stumbled at any thing in our Prayers as to leave our Communion upon the account thereof Though he would be very glad to have them so well pleased with
but do know why many of our Festivals receive their names from certain Saints And why may we not on certain Days meet together to praise God for blessing the world with such Saints as have been next to our Blessed Lord the most Glorious instruments of good to the world and at the same time hear those Chapters read wherein their worthy deeds are recorded and together with other Prayers put in one for grace to follow those blessed Examples of a holy Life of both active and passive Obedience which they have through the Divine grace left behind them What Sin is there in all this Nay why should not this highly become us and be of singular advantage to us You give two reasons why this is unlawfull 1. Because God hath no where prescribed it But must we be at this time of day told that nothing is lawfull relating to the Worship of God but what is expresly commanded when the Idleness and Folly of that Doctrine hath been over and over exposed as it hath been But 2dly you say That this is that which the Jews nor Christians in the first times never did But if you mean by the First times the times of the Apostles 't is more than you can prove that the Martyrdom of St. Stephen was never solemnly commemorated by the Christians in their time And I presume you would not have had the Martyrdoms of the Apostles commemorated before they were Martyred what if this be not recorded is it therefore a certain Argument that it never was You find not I think the Martyrdom of any one of the Apostles recorded in holy Scripture except St. James's But if you mean by the first times the Primitive times I perceive you never read or have forgotten The Epistle of the Church of Smyrna concerning Policarp's Martyrdom But I hope it needs not to be proved to you that the Catholique Church observed Martyrum Natalitia the Days whereon they were crowned with Martyrdom even from the Second Century But where do you find it prescribed in God's word or recorded that it was practised in the Apostles times for to be sure you mean those by the First times to praise God for the good Examples of Holy men among other great Blessings is it therefore unlawfull so to doe as well as to doe it upon Set Days You will not assert so absurd a thing In short Sir think not that we need either Precepts or Examples to justifie our doing of that which the very Light of Nature and Right Reason do plainly declare to us to be though not a necessary duty yet highly becoming us and praise-worthy And we are certain that it is dictated thereby to be highly becoming us to commemorate at Annual Selected times the unspeakable Goodness of God to us in giving us such Shining Lights as the Holy Apostles c. and to meditate upon Christ glorified in them who with admirable courage first preached and propagated his Gospel in the World and with admirable Patience for the sake thereof indured the greatest of Miseries and Calamities and at last Sealed it with their Blood 8. You say But if Devout persons will set apart Days you might have said too will observe Days set apart by the Church to give God thanks for any signal mercies among which I think every Apostle is a most signal one or to put up Prayers for any people in distress provided they do not mock God in giving him an holy hour instead of an holy day and spend the rest of the day in Idleness Gaming Drinking c. And can you think that any of our Devout people do not abhor such practices as much as you Dissenters will never blame or condemn them for it I hoped you would have said they will join with us since Authority requires it 9. You say Finally Dissenters will never separate from the Church of England for the true keeping of a day holy to God c. Yes surely they will if it be a Saint's day at least as one would think by what you have said But you add that they will separate from the Looseness and commonly practised Profanation of it and so do thousands of those that are no Dissenters I hope or such as were onely so in the Pope's Kalendar as St. George c. Now you would Sir again feign your self more ignorant than you are for no doubt you know as well as we that St. George his day is no Church of England Holy-day And for all your c. you cannot but know too that Our Church hath no Festival-days called by any Saints names but such as all Christians own for the Greatest of Saints except those Innocents who had the honour to suffer for Christ's sake before they were of age to know him We have indeed a Fast-day occasioned by the Horrid Murther of King Charles the Martyr whom we deservedly honour as a Great Saint But I never heard that this Saint stands in the Pope's Kalendar and I 'll warrant you never shall We should be glad to hear that He stands in yours however we hope He will never be blotted out of ours And now having done with our Author you spend a good part of your five last Pages in such discourse as is so far from tending to the composing of our Differences and healing our wide and most dangerous Breaches that it hath the most apparent tendency to the making them irreparable beyond all Remedy And 't is enough to convince all sober people that the cause of those that separate is desperate to observe what strange principles are taken up of late in the defence of Separation even such as the Old Non-conformists would have thought very wild ones serving no better purpose than the Unhinging of all And those Sir which you here lay down so dogmatically not offering any proof of them you shall find most shamefully baffled by the Dean of St. Pauls in his forementioned excellent Book For my part I am too much tryred with Scribbling thus long to take into consideration this close of your Book farther than reflecting upon two or three passages though I am not at all obliged to take notice of those neither as a Defender of our Author And indeed to deal like a plain-hearted Friend with you it was but the other day before I could be perswaded to think it needfull to Reply at all You say pag. 31. That Separation in these three Cases is Lawfull if not Necessary Your First case is When such errours are in the Constitution of a Church as if they had been known before ought to have hindered Vnion with it But you do not tell us what Errours those are Would you have your Readers take it for granted that there are such Errours in the Constitution of the Church of England But we may guess at one of those Errours in our Constitution from that which you say pag. 30. viz. That Governing Churches must have proper Officers which cannot be unless elected by
Jewish Church Or if in a short History of their Mission and Undertaking we should have read that they Circumcised and Baptized as many Proselytes as gladly received their word would this have been an Argument that they did not also Circumcise and Baptize the Infants of those believing Proselytes according to the Laws and Usages of their Mother-Church No certainly such a Commission to Proselyte Strangers to the Jewish Religion could not in reason have been strained to prejudice the customary right of Infants to Circumcision and Baptism and therefore in parity of reason neither could the Apostles so understand their Commission without other Notices as to exclude Infants from Sacramental Initiation into the Church The plain truth is their Commission was a direction how they should proselyte Strangers to Christianity according to the nature of propagating a new Religion in strange Countries as it is set forth by the Apostle Rom. 20. 14. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard And how shall they hear without a Preacher And how shall they Preach unless they be sent Accordingly they were sent out to Preach or to Disciple Men and Women by Preaching and to Baptize as many of them as should upon their Preaching Believe and Repent But though the Order of Nature required that they should proceed in this Method with grown Persons as the Jews were wont to do with Proselytes to the Law yet it did not hinder that they who had been born and bred Jews should initiate the Infants of such Proselyted Persons according to the usage of the Jewish Church What need Christ have said more unto them when he sent them out than to bid them Go and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Or to Preach the Gospel to every Creature and tell them that he that would believe the Gospel and be Baptized should be saved But then the respective sence of these words could only concern adult Persons and their qualification for Baptism but could in no reason be construed by them to exclude Infants but only unbelieving Men and Women whereof none were to be admitted into the Church by Baptism before they were taught Christianity and had confessed their Faith and Sins Should God as I said before call twelve Men of any Church where Infant-Baptism had been the constant and undoubted practice and bid them go and Preach the Gospel in the Indies to every creature and to say He that believeth the Doctrine which we Preach and is Baptized with the Baptism which we Administer shall be Saved I appeal to any Dissenter upon the account of Infant-Baptism whether he thinks that these Men bred up to the practice of Infant-Baptism could in probability so interpret this Commission as to think that it was God's intention that they should exclude the Infants of believing Proselytes from Baptismal admission into the Church The Professors against Infant-Baptism put the greatest stress upon these words of our Saviour He that believeth and is baptized shall be Saved But if they would well consider the next words they would find that Infants are not at all concerned in them because it follows but he that believeth not shall be Damned The same want of Faith which here excludes from Baptism excludes also from Salvation and therefore it cannot be understood of Infants unless they will say with the * * * The Petrobusians vid. Cassandri praefat ad Duc. Jul. Cli. praefat advers Anabaptistas Original Anabaptists that the same incapacity of believing which excludes them from Baptism excludes them from Salvation too Wherefore it is plain that the believing and not believing in that Text is only to be understood of such as are in capacity of hearing and believing the Gospel that is of grown Persons just as the words in Joh. 3. 36. He that believeth on the Son of God hath Everlasting Life and he that believeth not shall not see Life but the Wrath of God abideth on him Thus far have I proceeded to shew how inconclusively and absurdly the Anabaptists go about to prove that Infants ought to be excluded from Baptism from the fore-mentioned Texts which speak of the Order of Proselyting grown Persons and their Qualifications for Baptism and as little success have they with some others which they bring to shew how unprofitable Baptism is for Infants as that in 1 Pet. 3. 21. Where the Apostle tells us that external Baptism of putting away the filth of the Flesh of which Infants are only capable signifies nothing but the answer of a good Conscience towards God of which say they Infants are altogether uncapable to which the answer is very easie that another Apostle tells us that external Circumcision of which Infants were only capable profited nothing without keeping the Law which Infants could not keep nay that the outward Circumcision of which Infants were only capable was nothing but that the inward Circumcision of the heart and in the spirit was the true Circumcision and yet Infants remaining Infants were utterly uncapable of that so that their way of arguing from this and such like Texts proves nothing because it proves too much and stretches the words of the Apostles unto undue consequences beyond their just Meaning which was only to let both Jews and Christians know that there was no resting in external Circumcision or Baptism but not that their Infants were unprofitably Circumcised and Baptized So weak and unconcluding are all the Arguments by which the Anabaptists endeavour from Scripture to prove that Christ hath limited the Subject of Baptism unto grown Persons put them all together they do not amount to any tolerable degree of probability much less unto a presumption especially if they be put in the ballance against the early and universal practice of the Catholick Church Had not the Church been always in possession of this practice or could any time be shewed on this side the Apostles when it began Nay could it be proved that any one Church in the World did not Baptize Infants or that any considerable number of Men otherwise Orthodox did decline the Baptizing of them upon the same Principles that these Men do now then I should suspect that their Arguments are better than really they are and that Infant-Baptism might possibly be a deviation from the rule of Christ But since it is so universal and ancient a practice that no body knows when or where it began or how from not being it came to be the practice of the Church since there was never any Church Antient or Modern which did not practise it it must argue a strange partiality to think that it could be any thing less than an Apostolical Practice and Tradition or the Original use of Baptism in its full Latitude under the Gospel which it had under the Law Had the * * * Ecquid verisimise est tot
allowable but if any man desire further satisfaction as to this point he may have it abundantly in the case of indifferent things to which I refer him it being more my business to shew here that Infant-Baptism is at least a lawful and allowable thing To prove this I need but desire the Reader to reflect upon the State of the two first Questions For if Infants be as capable of Baptism under the Gospel as they were of Circumcision under the Law and if Christ have not excluded them from it neither directly nor consequentially Otherwise if Baptism be an Institution of as great Latitude in its self as Circumcision its Fore-runner was and Christ hath not determined the administration of it to one Age more than one Sex Once more if Children may be taken into the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel as well as under the Law and Christ never said nor did any thing which can in reason be interpreted to forbid them to be taken in In a word If they are capable of all the Ends of Baptism now that they were of Circumcision then and of having the Priviledges of Church-Membership and the Blessings of the Covenant consigned unto them and Christ neither by himself nor by his Apostles did forbid the Church to satisfie and fulfil this their capacity Or last of all If Christ hath only appointed Baptism instead of Circumcision but said nothing to determine the Subject of it then it must needs follow that Infant-Baptism must at least be lawful and allowable because it is an indifferent and not a forbidden or sinful thing But upon this supposition that it were left undetermined and indifferent by Christ it might like other indifferent things be lawfully appointed by any Church from which it would be a Sin to separate upon that account For in this case Churches might safely differ in their practice about Infant-Baptism as they do now in the Ceremonies of Baptism and those who lived in a Church which did practice it ought no more to separate from her for appointing of it then those who lived in another Church which did not practise it ought to separate from her for not appointing thereof Thus much I have said I hope with sufficient moderation upon supposition that all I have written upon former Questions doth but satisfactorily prove that Infant-Baptism is only lawful and not highly requisite and necessary but then if it be not only lawful but highly requisite and necessary so that it ought to be appointed then it must needs be much more sinful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized Now as to the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism supposing that my Reader bears in memory that I have said upon the last Question to make it appear with the highest degree of credibility that Christ instituted Baptism for Infants as well as grown Persons and that the Apostles and their Companions Practised Infant-Baptism I must here entreat him further to observe that there is a two-fold necessity in matters of Christian Faith and practice one which proceeds from plain dictates of natural reason or from plain and express words of the Gospel where the sense is so obvious and clear that no sober man can mistake it or doubt of it and another which proceeds from the general Scope and Tenour of the Gospel or from doubtful places in it so or so understood and interpreted by the unanimous voice and practice of the ancient Catholick Church The first degree of necessity is founded on oftensive certainty and demonstration wherein there is no room left for Objection And the Second is founded upon violent presumption where the Objections on one hand are insufficient to move or at least to turn the Ballance if put in the Scale against the other which is weighed down Mole universatis Ecclesiae with the authority of the Universal Church And because this Rule like others is not so intelligible without an Example I will add some Instances of things which are necessary to be believed and practised by every good Christian under both these Notions of necessity that they may be better understood According to the First Notion of it it is necessary to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messias and the Son of God because it is delivered in express words of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe that he is of the same substance with the Father and equal unto him and that there are three distinct and coequal Persons in the God-head which are all but one God because these Doctrines though they are not to be found in express words in the Gospel yet they are to be collected from several places of it which were always so interpreted by that ancient Catholick Church Again according to the First Notion of necessity it is necessary for all Men to believe the Word of God whether spoken or written because natural reason teacheth us so to do And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament to be the Word of God and no other how Divine and Orthodox and Ancient soever they may be because they and they only have been received for such by the ancient Catholick Church In like manner as to matter of Practice by the First sort of Necessity it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God because Reason and Scripture plainly teach them so to do And by the Second sort it is necessary that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week because the Observation of the Lords Day appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament as tehy are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the ancient Catholick Church To proceed according to the First Notion of Necessity Church-Government is necessary because it is enjoyned by the Dictates of Common reason and most express places of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary to believe the Books contained in the New Testament to be the Word of God and no other how Divine and Orthodox and Ancient soever they may be because they and they only have been received for such by the Ancient Catholick Church In like manner as to matter of Practice by the First sort of Necessity it is necessary for Christians to assemble together to Worship God because Reason and Scripture plainly teach them so to do And by the Second sort it is necessary that they should assemble themselves periodically to Worship God on every first day of the Week because the Observation of the Lords Day appears to be a Duty from several places of the New Testament as they are interpreted to this sence by the universal Practice of the Ancient Catholick Church To proceed according to the First Notion of Necessity Church-Governmenr is necessary because it is enjoined by the Dictates of Common reason and
most express places of Scripture And according to the Second Notion of it it is necessary that the Church should be governed by Bishops where they can be had distinct from and Superiour to Presbyters because this Government appears to be instituted by Christ from several Passages of the New Testament as they are explained by the uniform Practice of the Primitive Catholick Church Furthermore according to the first sort of necessity it is necessary to administer the Lords Supper because our Saviour hath commanded it in express words And accordlng to the Second which is also an indispensable degree of Necessity it is necessary to administer it to Women though they never were admitted to the Passover or Paschal Postcaenium which answered unto it because we can prove from some probable places of the New Testament that they were admitted unto it as those places are in equity to be interpreted by the universal Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church To conclude according to the former Notion of Necessity it is necessary to Baptize because our Lord hath commanded it in express words And according to the Second It is in like manner necessary to Baptize Infants because we can prove their Baptism from the Scope and Tenor of the Gospel and from many Passages of it as they are interpreted according to the Practice of the Ancient Primitive Church First From the Scope and Tenour of the Gospel which it is reasonable to presume would extend the Subject of Baptism as far as the Jewish Church extended the Subject both of Circumcision and Baptism And Secondly From many Passages in the Gospel whereof I shall recite some Except a Man be Born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. Suffer the little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 14. The three noted places which inform us that the Apostles baptized whole Housholds as of Stephanas 1 Cor. 1. 16. Lydia Acts 16. 15. and the Jaylor Acts 16. 33. The Unbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the BELIEVING Wife and the unbelieving Wife is Sanctified by the BELIEVING Husband else were your Children Common or Unclean but now they are Holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. And were all Baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10. 2. The requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism may be fairly concluded from these Texts For the First seems to make Purgation by Water and * Alioquin meminerat dominicae desinitionis nisi quis nascatur ex Aquâ Spiritu non introibit in Regnum Dei id est non erit Sanctus ita omnis anima usque eo in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiu recenseatur Tertull. de Animâ cap. 39 40. Pro hoc Ecclesia traditionem suscepit ab Apostolis etiam parvulis Baptismum dare quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent Orig. in Ep. ad Rom. l. 5. in Luc. Hom. 14. Propterea Baptizantur parvuli nisi enim quis renatus c. Omnes venit Christus per semetipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Irenaeâ—s l. 2. c. 39. the Spirit equally necessary for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless one be born again c. From the * * * Tertullian de Bapt. ait quidem dominus nolite prohibere illos ad me venire This he saith by way of Objection which shews that this Text was in his time understood for Infant-Baptism but then because it was his present Opinion that Cunctatio Baptismi praecipue circa parvulos was utilior he answers Veniant dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quò veniant docentur Second it is reasonable to conclude that little Children are capable of Proselytism or entring into the Covenant after the Jewish manner when they are brought unto it by others First Because they are declared a a a Cassandr de Baptism Infant p 730. capable of the Kingdom of God And Secondly Because b b b Dr. Ham. of Infant-Baptism Sect. 22. 28. the Original words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence the Word Proselyte doth come From the Third it is reasonable to conclude That they Baptized the Children upon the Conversion of the Parents after the Custom of the Jewish Church c c c Tertul. de anima c. 39. Hinc enim Apostolus ex Sanctificato alterutro â—exu Sanctos procreari ait tam ex seminis praerogativâ quà m ex institutionis disciplinâ Caterum inquit immundi nascerentur quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios ut hujus spei pignora Matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinaretur Alioqui meminerat From the Fourth it is reasonable to believe That the Foederal Holiness of Believers Children makes them Candidates for Baptism and gives them a right unto it And the Fifth makes it reasonable to conclude from the Type to the Antitype that if the Jews with their Children were umbratically Baptized unto Moses in the one that Christians and their Infants should be really Baptized in the other To all which may be added d d d Rom. 5. Psal 51. 5. Rom. 3. 23 24. Joh. 3. 5 6. 2 Cor. 15. 21 22. 2 Cor. 5 14 15. Job 14 4. Vid Voss hist Pelag. l. 2. part 2. other Texts which have been alledged by the Ancients both * * * Voss hist Pelag p. 1. Thes 6. before and after the Pelagian Controversie to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary to wash away their Original Sin which makes them obnoxious to Eternal Death I say the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism might be fairly concluded from these Texts without the Tradition of the Ancient Church though without it I confess it could not be demonstrated from them as the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of the Holy Ghost may be fairly and sufficiently proved from those Texts which the Orthodox bring for them without Ancient Tradition though without it they could not be demonstrated from them because they do not assert it in express words But then as those Texts in Conjunction with Tradition do put those Doctrines out of all reasonable doubt So do the other which I have cited in Conjunction with the Practice of the Ancient Church put the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism out of Question because the Church in the next Age unto the Apostles practiced Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical Tradition and by consequence as an Institution of Christ In like manner as the Intrinsecal Arguments taken from the Style Sanctity Dignity and Efficacy of the Holy Scriptures and the perpetual Analogy and Conformity of the several Books contained in them are by themselves but
the Church in this Particular by shewing First That Baptismal-Initiation is very beneficial and profitable for Infants And Secondly That the Baptizing of them conduceth very much to the well-being and edification of the Church First then Baptismal-Initiation is very beneficial and profitable for Infants because they are capable of the Benefits and Priviledges of Baptism This I shewed in general before under the first Question and now I will shew it in a more particular manner of Induction by insisting upon the several Ends for which Baptism was ordained First then Baptism was ordained That the Baptized Person might be thereby solemnly consecrated unto God and dedicated to his Service and I hope I need not prove that Children are capable of this benefit since Jewish Infants were Consecrated to God by Circumcision and the Scripture tells us that * * * Judges 13. 15. Sampson was a Nazarite from the Womb and that Samuel from the time of his Weaning was dedicated unto the Lord. Secondly Baptism was ordained That the Baptized Person might be made a Member of Christ's Mystical Body which is the Holy Catholick Church This is a great and honourable Priviledge and no Man can deny but Infants are as capable of it under the New as they were under the Old Testament Nay so far are they from being under any Natural Incapacity as to Church-Membership that they are ordinarily born free of Kingdoms Cities and Companies and therefore why any Man should think it not so proper for the Church-Christian to be as indulgent to them as the Jewish Church was and Civil Societies usually are I profess I cannot tell Thirdly it was ordained That the Baptized Person might by that Solemnity pass from a State of Nature wherein he was a Child of Wrath into a State of Adoption or Grace wherein he becomes a Child of God For by our First Birth we are all Children of Wrath. But by our Second Birth in Baptism we are made Children of God And why it should be so improper for a Child to pass in this solemn manner from one Spiritual as well as from one Temporal State to another or be Solemnly Adopted by God as well as Man or Lastly Why a Child may not be Adopted under the Gospel as well as under the Law I am confident those who are willing to defer the Baptism of Infants would be puzzled to give any rational account In the Fourth place Baptism was instituted for a Sign to Seal unto Baptized Persons the pardon of their Sins and to confer upon them a Right of Inheritance unto Everlasting Life but Baptism hath this Effect upon Infants as well as upon adult Persons for it washes them clean from * * * De hoc etiā David dixisse credendus est illud qui in peccato concepit me mater mea pro hoc Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis Baptismum dare Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati quae per aquam spiritum ablui deberent Origen in Ep. ad Lous l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contra Celsum l. 4. Quanto magis prohiberi non debet Infans qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae primâ Nativitate contraxit Cyprian in Ep. ad Fidum Those that would see more Testimonies out of the Ancients about Original Sin before the time of the Pelagian Controversie may consult Irenaeus l. 4. cap. 5. l. 5. cap. 16. l. 3. cap. 20. l. 5. cap. 14. 17 21. and many more cited out of Just Mart. in Dial cum Tryph. Tatianus his Scholar Athanasius c. by Vossius in his Hist Pelag. l. 2. part 1. Th. 6. Vid. Can. Concil Carthag 112. Original as it doth Men and Women both from Actual and Original Sin I say it washes them clean from Original Sin and seals the Pardon of it and the assurance of God's favour unto them and being cleansed by the washing of Regeneration from the guilt of that natural vitiosity which they derived from Adam and which made them obnoxious to the displeasure of God they become reconciled unto him and acquire as certain a Right to Eternal Life upon their justification as any actual Believer in the Word I cannot deny but they may be saved without Baptism by the extraordinary and uncovenanted Mercies of God and so may actual Believers who die unbaptized if they did not contemn Baptism but then the hopes which we ought to have of Gods Mercy in extraordinary Cases ought not to make us less regardful of his sure ordinary and covenanted Mercies and the appointed means unto which they are annexed But in the Fifth place Baptism was ordained That being admitted into the Covenant and ingrafted into Christ's Body we might acquire a present Right unto all the Promises of the Gospel and particularly unto te promises of the Spirit which is so ready to assist Initiated Persons that it will descend in its influences upon them at the time of their Initiation in such a manner and measure as they are capable thereof This the Primitive Christians found by experience to be so true that they called Baptism by the names of * * * Heb. 6. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. Apol. 2. 94. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregor Nazianz. Orat. 40. †Vid. Cypriani Ep. 1. ad Donatum Illumination Grace and Unction and we need not doubt but they talked as they felt and for this reason they Baptized Infants because they knew that they acquired a Right unto the same Spirit by Baptism who would be sure to preside and watch over them and act upon their Souls according to the measure of their capacity and prevent them in their very first doings with his gracious helps Wherefore though it should be granted that the Holy Ghost cannot be actually conferred upon Infants in Baptism by reason of their natural incapacity as Anabaptists rashly assert yet the Baptizing of them is not frustraneous as to this great End of Baptism because they thereby acquire an actual Antecedent Right to the Assistances and Illuminations of the Holy Spirit which they shall receive as soon and as fast as their natural incapacity removes This distinction betwixt having the Spirit and having a Right unto the Spirit holds not only in Infant-Baptism but in the Baptism of Hypocrites and secret Sinners who by submitting unto the Ordinances of Baptism acquire an actual Antecedent Right unto the Spirit although they are in a moral incapacity of receiving the Graces of it till their Hypocrisie is removed Nevertheless their Baptism is not ineffectual as to this End but is a means of conferring the Holy Ghost upon them without re-baptization because though they cannot receive it at the moment of their Baptism by reason of their Hypocrisie as sincere Penitents do in whom there is no such Moral
being most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles and the Intention and Will of Christ First As being most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles who it is highly to be presumed authorized the practice of Infant-Baptism because it was practised in the next Age unto them And Secondly As being most agreeable to the Intention and Will of Christ who it is to be presumed would have forbidden and countermanded the Jewish practice of initiating Infants if he had not had a mind they should be Baptized Wherefore * * * Nam quum paedo-Baptismus in Ecclesiâ Judaicâ in admissione Proselytorum ita fuit notus usitatus frequens ut nihil ferè notius usitatius frequentius non opus erat ut aliquo praecepto roboraretur Nam Christus Baptismum in manus suas atque in usum Evangelicum suscepit qualem invenit hoc solùm addito quod ad digniorem finem atque largiorem usum promoverit Novit satis gens universa parvulos solitos Baptizari Illud praecepto opus non habuit quod Communi usu semper invaluerat Si prodiret jam edictum regale in haec verba Recipiat se unusquisque die dominico ad publicum conventum in Ecclesiâ insaniet certè ille quicunque olim hinc argueret non celebrandas esse die dominico in publicis conventibus preces conciones Psalmodias eo quod nulla in edicto de iis mentio Nam cavit edictum de celebratione diei dominicae in publicis conventibus in genere de particularibus autem divini cultûs speciebus ibidem celebrandis non opus erat ut esset mentio cum istae ante datum edictum cum daretur semper ubique notae essent in usu assiduo Ipsissimo hoc modo res se habuit cum Baptismo Christus cum instituit in Sacramentum Evangelicum quo in professionem Evangelii omnes admitterentur ut olim in Proselytismum ad Religionem Judaicum Particularis eò spectantia modus scilicet Baptizandi aetas Baptizanda sexus Baptizandus c. regulâ definitione opus non habuerunt eo quod haec vel lippis tensoribus nota erant ex communi usu E contra ergo planâ apertâ prohibitione opus erat ut Infantes parvuli non Baptizarentur si eos Baptizandos nollet servator Si aboleri istam consuetudinem vellet Christus aperte prohibuisset Silentium ergo ejus Scripturae paedo-baptismum firmat propagat Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae in Matth. 3. 6. his very not repealing of that practice is a sufficient Demonstration that it was his pleasure it should be continued it was the practice of the Jewish Church before he came and the practice of the Church Christian not long after he departed and we find the practice of it in the one harmoniously answering to the practice of it in the other and therefore what was before and what was after this time we may well presume was continued in the interim during the time of the Apostles as his presumed Will and Intention who never did or spoke any thing that can reasonably be interpreted that he would have the Jewish custom of admitting Infants into the Church laid aside and therefore his silence and the silence of the Scriptures are so far from being Arguments against Infant-Baptism that considering the Antecedent usage of it they are very strong Presumptions for it as the Learned Author in the Margin foregoing doth excellently prove To this purpose also have I discoursed above upon the Second and Third Questions and therefore if Christ in the Reformation of the Church from the Law into the Gospel did not repeal the Ancient practice of Infant-Baptism but left Baptism to be administred in the same Latitude as before his time then it must needs be concluded that there lies the same Obligation upon Parents abstracting from the Commands of the Church to desire Baptism for their Children as for grown Proselytes to desire it for themselves For what authority soever enacts any thing concerning Children or Persons under the years of discretion doth lay at least an implicite Obligation upon Parents and Pro-parents to see that act be performed As if for Example an Act of Parliament should be made that all Persons whatsoever Men Women and Children should pay so much an Head unto the King the Act by the nature of it would oblige Parents and Pro-parents to pay for their Children and the Minors in their custody as well as for themselves Or if in the time of a general Contagion the Supream Power should command that all Men Women and Children should every Morning take such an Antidote that Command would oblige Parents to give it unto their Children as well as to take it themselves Just so the Ordinance of Baptism being intended or instituted by our Saviour in its ancient Latitude for Children as well as grown Persons it must needs lay an Obligation upon Parents and Pro-parents to bring them to the Holy Sacrrament otherwise the Divine Institution would in part be made void and frustrated of the Ends for which it was instituted as if it did not also lay an Obligation upon Adult Persons to offer themselves unto the Holy Sacrament it would be of no force at all To sum up all in short When our Lord first appointed Baptism and afterwards said Go and Proselyte all Nations Baptizing them c. either he intended that Children should be Baptized as well as Grown Proselytes or he did not if he did not intend they should be Baptized Why did he not plainly discover that Intention Nay Why did he not plainly forbid them to be Baptized as they were wont to be but if he intended they should be Baptized according to the ancient custom in the Jewish Church Parents are as much bound to offer them unto Baptism as Adult Believers Men and Women are bound to offer themselves What I have here said about the Obligation which lies upon Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism concerns all Pro-parents to whose care Children are committed as Guardians Tutors and Church-Wardens and lest any should ask as some Sceptically do at What time they are bound to bring them unto Baptism As soon as they are born or the next day after or when I answer by shewing the impertinency of that Question in reference to Grown Believers thus When must a Believing Man or Woman be Baptized As soon as he Believes or the next day after or when And truly the Answer is the same to both Questions at any time the Gospel indulging a discretional Latitude in both Cases and only forbidding the wilful neglect of the Ordinance and all unreasonable and needless delays thereof Quest V. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with Believers who were only Baptized in their Infancy The stating of this depends upon what I have said upon the Second and Third Questions to prove That Infants are capable Subjects of Baptism and that it is
lawful to Baptize them and if I have not erred as I hope I have not in those two Determinations then the Baptism of Infants is lawful and valid and if the Baptism of them be lawful and valid then it cannot be unlawful to Communicate with them when they come to be Men and Women Accordingly it never entred into the Heart of any of the ancient Christians to refuse Communion with grown Believers who had been Baptized in their Infancy whether they were Baptized in perfect health as Children most commonly were or only in dnager of Death as the Children of those Novatian kind of Parents above mentioned always were who were so far from thinking Infant-Baptism a Nullity or Corruption of Baptism that they thought it necessary for them in case of apparent danger and durst not let them die un baptized Some others deferred the Baptizing of their Children because they thought them too weak to endure the Severities of the Trine immersion and others perhaps according to the private Opinion of a a a De Baptismo c. 18. Ait quidem dominus nolite illos prohibere ad me venire veniant ergò dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quò veniant docentur Tertullian and b b b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 40. Nazianzen thought is more convenient to delay the Baptizing of them till they were capable of being Catechized between Three and Four years old but still this delay of Baptism supposed their continuing in health but in case of danger they thought it c c c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessary to Baptize them and if they survived the danger looked upon them as lawfully and validly Baptized These were all the Pleas we read of for deferring the Baptism of Infants among the Ancients who never urged this for one that Infant-Baptism was unlawful or invalid No They never argued against it from the want of those pre-requisite Conditions in Children which Christ and the Apostles required in Adult Proselytes nor from the want of Precept and Example for it in the New Testament but so understood the Scriptures as to think it as lawful and warrantable as the Baptism of grown Believers and necessary in case of danger and just so did those who deferred their Baptism for fear of sinning after it think the Baptism of Men and Women only necessary at the last extremity in apparent danger of Death But then if the ordinary practice of Infant-Baptism be not only lawful and valid but also necessary as appearing most agreeable to the presumed Will of Christ who did not countermand the practice of it and most conformable to the practice of the Apostles as can be proved from the practice of the very next Age unto them then it must not only be lawful to Communicate with Believers who were Baptized in their Infancy but an exceeding great Sin and Presumption to refuse Communion with them upon that account In a word If Infant-Baptism be not only lawful but necessary what a grievous and provoking Sin must it needs be to disown those for Members of Christ's Body whom he owns to be such But if it be neither as Anabaptists vainly pretend then there hath not been a true Church upon the Face of the Earth for Eleven hundred Years nor a Church for above Fifteen hundred with which a true Christian could Communicate without Sin This is a very absurd and dreadful consequence and inconsistent with the purity of the Apostolical Ages while the Church was so full of Saints Martyrs and Miracles and represented as * * * See Dr. More 's Apocalypsis Apoc. Preface p. 20. and on the 11. Ch. of the Rev. v. 1 2. Symmetral by the Spirit of God under the Symbol of Measuring the Temple of God and the Altar Revel 11. 1 2. THE CONCLUSION ALthough in the management of this Controversie against the Anabaptists I have endeavoured so to state the Case of Infant-Baptism as to obviate or answer all the Considerable Pleas and Material Objections which they are wont to make against it yet there are two of their Objections of which I have yet taken no notice thinking it better that I might avoid tediousness and confusion in determining upon the preceding Questions to Propose and Answer them a part by themselves The First of these two is the ancient Custom of giving the Communion unto Infants which they endeavour with all their Art and Skill to run Parallel with the practice of Infant-Baptism although there is not the like Evidence nor the like Reason for the practice of that as there is for the practice of this First There is not the like Evidence for the practice of it St. a a a Ac nequid de esset ad criminis cumulum Infantes quoque parentum manibus vel impositi vel attracti amiserunt parvuli quod in primo statim Nativitatis Exordio fuerunt consecuti Nonne illi cum judicii dies venerit dicent Nos nihil fecimus nec derelicto cibo ac poculo domini ad profana contagia sponte properavimus Afterwards he tells a Story of a little Girl who having been carried to the Idol-Feasts was afterwards brought by her Mother who knew nothing of it to the Communion when he administred it and when the Deacon brought the Cup to her she turned away her Face from it but the Deacon pouring some of the Wine into her Mouth she fell into Convulsions and Vomitings which the Holy Father looking upon as a Miracle did thereupon discover that she had been polluted at the Idol-Feasts Vid. August ad Bonifacium Episcop Ep. 23. vol. 2. Cyprian being the first Author which they can produce for it and after him the b b b Cap. 7. Contemplat 3. p. 360 362. Author of the Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and c c c Catechesis 3. isluminat Hierosolym Cyril of Jerusalem are the next who make mention of it towards the latter end of the Fourth Century and then St. d d d De verbis domini in Evang. Johan Epist 23. 106 107. Lib. 1. de peccatorum merit remiss cap. 20. lib. 1. Contra Julianum c. 11. Contra duas Epistolas Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 22. lib. 4. cap. 14. Augustine in the Fifth who indeed speaks frequently of it as of the practice of the Church in that Age. These are all the Authorities for Infant-Communion that I know of till St. Augustin's time whereas besides the authority of St. Cyprian which is the first they have for Communicating Infants we have the authority of a whole Council of Fathers in which he presided and of Origen Tertullian and Irenaeus who was the Scholar of St. Polycarp and the Grand-Scholar of St. John And then whereas among the Writers of the 4th Century there are but the two above-cited who make mention of Infant-Communion we have St. * * * See them all cited at large in Walker's Plea for Infant-Baptism from p. 266. to p.
Sacraments to them for whom they were instituted As for an Example we may behold Joshua who most diligently procured the People of Israel to Jos 2. be Circumcised before they entred into the Land of Promise but since the Apostles were the Preachers of the Word and the very Faithful Servants of Jesus Christ who may hereafter doubt that they Baptized Infants since Baptism is in place of Circumcision Item The Apostles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament Therefore it is certain that they did attemperate Baptism accordingly to Circumcision and Baptized Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism for the People of Israel passed through the Red Sea and the bottom of the Water of Jordan with their Children And although the Children be not always expressed neither the Women in the Holy Scriptures yet they are comprehended and understood in the same Also the Scripture evidently telleth us That the Apostles baptized whole Families or Housholds But the Children be comprehended in a Family or Houshold as the chiefest and dearest part thereof Therefore we may conclude that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or Children and not only Men of lawful age And that the House or Houshold is taken for Man Woman and Child it is manifest in the 17. of Genesis and also in that Joseph doth call Jacob with all his House to come out of the Land of Canaan into Egypt Finally I can declare out of ancient Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours neither that it was instituted by any Councels neither of the Pope nor of other Men but commended from the Scripture by the Apostles themselves Origen upon the Declaration of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans expounding the 6. Chapter saith That the Church of Christ received the Baptism from the very Apostles St. Hierome maketh mention of the Baptism of Infants in the 3. Book against the Pelagians and in his Epistle to Leta St. Augustine reciteth Heb. 11. for this purpose a place out of John Bishop of Constantinople in his 1. Book aganst Julian Chap. 2. and he again writing to St. Hierome Epist 28. saith That St. Cyprian not making any new Decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his fellow Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully Baptized The place of Cyprian is to be seen in his Epistle to Fidus. Also St. Augustine in writing against the Donatists in the 4. Book Chap. 23. 24. saith That the Baptism of Infants was not derived from the authority of Man neither of Councels but from the Tradition or Doctrine of the Apostles Cyril upon Leviticus Chap. 8. approveth the Baptism of Children and condemneth the iteration of Baptism These Authorities of Men I do alledge not to tie the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but Lies for them and new Imaginations which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment After this will I answer to the sum of your Arguments for the contrary The first which includeth all the rest is It is Written Go ye into all the World and Preach the glad Tidings to all Creatures He that believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved But he that believeth not shall be Damned c. To this I answer That nothing is added to God's Word by Baptism of Children as you pretend but that is done which the same Word doth require for that Children are accounted of Christ in the Gospel among the number of such as believe as it appeareth by these words He that offendeth Matth. 18. one of these little Babes which believe in me it were better for him to have a Milstone tyed about his Neck and to be cast into the bottom of the Sea Where plainly Christ calleth such as be not able to confess their Faith Believers because of his mere Grace he reputeth them for Believers And this is no Wonder so to be taken since God imputeth Faith for Righteousness unto Men that be of riper Age For both in Men and Children Righteousness Acceptation or Sanctification is of mere Grace and by Imputation that the Glory of God's Grace might be praised And that the Children of Faithful Parents are Sanctified and among such as do believe is apparent in the 1 Cor. 1 Cor. 7. 7. And whereas you do gather by the order of the words in the said Commandment of Christ that Children ought to be taught before they be Baptized and to this end you alledge many places out of the Acts proving that such as Confessed their Faith first were Baptized after I answer That if the order of words might weigh any thing to this Cause we have the Scripture that maketh as well for us St. Mark we read that John did Baptize in the Desart Mark 1. Preaching the Baptism of Repentance In the which place we see Baptizing go before and Preaching to follow after And also I will declare this place of Matthew exactly considered to make for the use of Baptism in Children for St. Matthew hath it written in this wise All Power is Matth. 28. given me saith the Lord in Heaven and in Earth therefore going forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Disciple ye as I may express the signification of the Word that is make or gather to me Disciples of all Nations And following he declareth the way how they should gather to him Disciples out of all Nations baptizing them and teaching by baptizing and teaching ye shall procure a Church to me And both these aptly and briefly severally he setteth forth saying Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Now then Baptism goeth before Doctrine But hereby I do not gather that the Gentiles which never heard any thing before of God and of the Son of God and of the Holy Ghost ought to be Baptized neither they would permit themselves to be Baptized before they knew to what end But this I have declared to shew you upon how feeble Foundation the Anabaptists be grounded And plainly it is not true which they imagine of this Text that the Lord did only command such to be Baptized whom the Apostles had first of all taught Neither here verily is signified who only be to be Baptized but he speaketh of such as be of perfect age and of the first Foundations of Faith and of the Church to be planted among the Gentiles which were as yet rude and ignorant of Religion Such as be of Age may hear believe and confess that which is Preached and taught but so cannot Infants therefore we may justly collect that he speaketh here nothing of Infants or Children But for all this
a Table for us and set before us the bread of life we will not come and feed upon it with joy and thankfulness THE END A Catalogue of Books and Sermons Writ by the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury Viz. 1 SErmons Preached upon several Occasions in two Volumes in Octavo 2. The Rule of Faith c. 3. A Sermon Preached on the 5th of November 1678. at St. Margarets Westminster before the Honourable House of Commons upon St. Luke 9. 55 56. But he turned and rebuked them and said ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of For the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them 4. A Sermon Preached at the first General Meeting of the Gentlemen and others in and near London who were Born within the County of York Upon John 13. 34 35. A new Commandment I give unto you that ye love one another c. 5. A Sermon Preached before the King at White-hall April 4th 1679 upon 1 John 4. 1. Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God c. 6. A Sermon Preached before the King at White-hall April 2d 1680 upon Joshua 24. 15. If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord chuse ye this day whom ye will serve 7. The Lawfulness and Obligation of Oaths A Sermon Preached at the Assizes held at Kingstone upon Thames July 21. 1681 upon Heb. 6. 16. And an Oath for Confirmation is to them an end of all Strife 8. Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Mr. Thomas Gouge November 4th 1681 with an account of his Life upon Luke 20. 37 38. Now that the Dead are raised even Moses shewed at the bush c. 9. A Persuasive to Frequent Communion in the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Preached in two Sermons upon 1 Cor. 11. 26 27 28. For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come c. 10. A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benjamin Whichcot D. D. and Minister of St. Lawrence Jewry London May 24th 1683 upon 2 Cor. v. 6. Wherefore we are always confident knowing that whilst we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. Sold by Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill and William Rogers at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet Advertisement of Books THE Works of the Learned Dr. Isaac Barrow late Master of Trinity College in Cambridge Published by the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury in two Volumes in Folio The First containing Thirty two Sermons preached upon several Occasions an Exposition of the Lord's Prayer and the Decalogue a Learned Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy a Discourse concerning the Unity of the Church also some Account of the Life of the Authour with Alphabetical Tables The Second Volume containing Sermons and Expositions upon all the Apostles Creed with an Alphabetical Table and to which may be also added the Life of the Authour Sermons preached upon several Occasions by the Right Reverend Father in God John Wilkins D. D. and late Lord Bishop of Chester Never printed before Printed for William Rogers at the Sun against S. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet THE CASE OF KNEELING AT THE Holy Sacrament STATED RESOLVED PART I. Wherein these QUERIES are considered I. Whether Kneeling at the Sacrament be contrary to any express Command of Christ obliging to the observance of a different Gesture II. Whether Kneeling be not a Deviation from that example which our Lord set us at the first Institution III. Whether Kneeling be not Unsutable and Repugnant to the Nature of the Lord's Supper as being no Table-Gesture The Second EDITION LONDON Printed by J. C. and Freeman Collins for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. THE CASE Whether it be Lawful to receive the Holy Sacrament Kneeling THe Resolution of the most weighty and considerable Doubts which may in point of Conscience arise about this matter and do at present much influence the minds and practices of many honest and well-meaning Dissenters will depend upon the Resolution of these following Queries 1. Whether Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Holy Sacrament according to the Law of the Land be not contrary to some express Law of Christ obliging to the observance of a different Posture 2. Whether Kneeling be not a deviation from that example which our Lord set us at the first Institution 3. Whether Kneeling be not altogether Unsutable and Repugnant to the nature of the Sacrament as being no Table-Gesture 4. Whether Kneeling Commanded in the Church of England be not contrary to the general Practice of the Church of Christ in the first and purest Ages 5. Whether it be Unlawful for us to receive Kneeling because this Gesture was first introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abused by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes 1. Whether Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Sacrament in Obedience to the Law of the Land be not a Transgression against some express Law of Christ which obliges us to observe another Gesture For satisfaction in this Point our onely recourse must be to the Holy Scriptures contained in the Books of the New Testament wherein the whole body of Divine Laws delivered and enacted by our Blessed Saviour are collected and recorded by the Holy Ghost And if there be any Command there extant concerning the use of any particular Gesture in the Act of Receiving the Lord's Supper we shall upon a diligent enquiry be sure to find it But before I give in my Answer I readily grant thus much by way of Preface Whatsoever is enjoyned and appointed by God to be prepetually used by all Christians throughout all Ages without any alteration that can never be nullified or altered by any Earthly Power or Authority whatsoever When once the Supreme Lawgiver and Governour of the World hath any ways signified and declared that such and such positive Laws shall be perpetually and unalterably observed then those Laws though in their own nature and with respect to the subject matter of them they be changeable must remain in full Force and can admit of no Change from the Laws of Men. It would be a piece of intolerable Pride and the most daring Presumption for any Earthly Prince any Council any Societie of Men whatsoever to oppose the known Will of the Soveraign Lord of Heaven and Earth In this Case nothing can take off the Force and Obligation of such Laws but the same Divine Authoritie which first passed them into Laws Thus much being granted and premised I return this Answer to the Question proposed God hath been so far from establishing the unalterable use of any particular Gesture in the Act of Receiving that among all the Sacred Records of his Will there is not any express Command to determine our practice one way or other We are left perfectly at our
what past John 13. from Ver. 1. to 31. vid. Hor. Heb. Tal. p. 300. and Mat. 26. 6. between Christ and his Disciples at a common and ordinary meal in Bethany and that for this reason among many others judiciously urged by him because the Disciples thought when our Lord had said to him Ver. 27. That thou doest do quickly that he had given order to Judas who kept the bag to buy those things that they had need of against the Feast viz. the Passover and therefore all those passages and that discourse related by St. John in the foregoing Verses of that Chapter were transacted at an ordinary and common Supper And indeed this seems to be the great end and design which St. John proposed to himself in writing his Gospel and which throughout he constantly pursues viz. To add out of his own Knowledge several remarkable passages especially such as tend to demonstrate the Divinity of our Saviour as had been omitted by the other Evangelists in their History of the Birth Life Actions and Sufferings of our Blessed Saviour There is another passage in St. John's Gospel which in the Judgment of John 5. 53. many Learned Divines both Ancient and Modern hath respect to the Lord's Supper though not at that time instituted when those mysterious words were uttered by our Saviour Except ye Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink Ver. 54. his Blood ye have no life in you Whoso Eateth my Flesh and Drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day For my Flesh is meat indeed and Ver. 55. my Blood is drink indeed He that Eateth my Flesh and Ver. 56. Drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him Now all that can be inferr'd from these words as they relate to this Holy Feast is onely thus much that it 's highly necessary for all Christians who have an opportunity to do it to partake of the Lord's Supper as they would partake in the merits of his Sacrifice and the Efficacy of his Death and his Sufferings and that none but such as do receive the tokens and signs of his Body broken and Blood shed for their Sins shall be owned and rewarded by him as his Friends These are all the places that we meet with in the Gospel let us now see what is delivered in the Acts and other Writings of the Apostles and Divinely-inspired Authors Among all their Writings there is but one place which gives any account of the History of the Sacrament and Institution of it and that is in the 1 Epist to the Corinthians Chap. 11. where St. Paul declares that what he delivered to them he received by immediate Revelation from Christ himself viz. That the Lord Jesus the same night in which Ver. 23. Ver. 24. he was betrayed took Bread and when he had given Thanks he brake it and said Take eat this is my Body which is broken for you this do in Remembrance of me After the Ver. 25. same manner he took the Cup when he had Supped saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Bloud this do as oft as ye Drink it in Remembrance of me For as often as Ver. 26. ye eat this Bread and Drink this Cup ye do shew or shew ye the Lord's Death till he come There are several other places wherein the Holy Sacrament is mentioned 1 Cor. 10. 16 21. 1 Cor. 11. 20. Acts 2. 46. Acts 20. 7. and described by several Names and Titles sutable to the nature and ends of it which for brevity sake I omit and desire the Reader to consult at his leisure and I would not put him to that trouble if they did contain any thing that made against Kneeling or that lookt like a command for the use of any other Gesture Let us now look back a little upon the places forementioned and see what our Lord hath ordained and appointed to be of perpetual use in his Church The Apostles and Disciples of our Lord at the Institution of the Sacrament were the Representatives of the whole Church and are to be considered under a double capacity Either as Governours and Ministers entrusted by Christ with the Power of dispensing and administring the Sacrament or as ordinary and lay Communicants If we consider them as Governours and Stewards of the Mysteries their Duty to which they are obliged by the express command of their Lord is to take the Bread into their Hands to bless and consecrate it to that mysterious and Divine use to which he designed it to break it to give it to the Communicants as he gave it them And so in like manner to Take the Cup to bless it to give it to their fellow-Christians That which they were obliged to do by the command of our Lord considered as private Men and in common with all believers was to take and receive the Consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine to eat and Drink and to do all this in Commemoration of his wonderful Love in giving his Body to be broken and his Blood to be shed for the Sins of the World And what the least Syllable or Shadow of a Command is there here in all this History for the use of any Gesture in the Act of Receiving Since then the Holy Scripture is altogether silent as to this matter its silence is a full and clear demonstration that Kneeling is not repugnant to any express Command of our Lord because no Gesture was ever Commanded at all And this hath been ingenuously Confessed in writing by a A Manuscript of an unknown Author cited by Mr. Paybody p. 48. great Enemy to Kneeling and a great Advocate for Sitting That the Gesture of Sitting is but a matter of Circumstance and not expresly Commanded But the Scotch Ministers Assembled at Perth affirm Object that when our Lord at the Institution Commanded his Disciple to do this he did by those words Command them to use that Gesture which he used at that time as well as to Take Eat Drink c. The Force of their Argument lies in this if it have any force at all Our Saviour Sate at the Passover as the Scriptures plainly inform Mat. 26. 20. Mar. 14. 18. Luke 22. 14. us and it is to be supposed he continued in the same posture when he instituted and Administred the Sacrament which was at the close of the Passover therefore Do this relates to and includes the Gesture amongst other things But this is a miserable shift which tends to Sink rather than Support their Cause For first If our Lord did Sit when he Administred Answ I the Sacrament which we will suppose at present yet there is no reason in the World to incline us to think that he intended by those words Do this to oblige us to observe his Gesture onely and not several other Circumstances which he observed at the same time Since Christ hath not restrained and interpreted these words Do
this so that they should onely respect Sitting as he did why should we not think our selves obliged to do all that he did at the same time as well as this For example If these words may be interpreted thus Do this that is Sit as Christ did why not thus also Do this that is celebrate the Sacrament in an upper Room in a private House late at night or the Evening after a full Supper †††Mat. 26. 20. in the Company of 11 or 12 at most Mar. 14. 17. Luke 22. 14. and they onely Men with their Heads Covered according to the custom of those Countries and with unleavened Bread There lyeth as great an Obligation upon all Christians to observe all these Circumstances in Imitation of our Lord by vertue of these words Do this as there doth to Sit. So that this Argument violently recoils upon those that urge it and proves a great deal more than they are willing to have it It concludes strongly against their own Practices and the liberty they take in omitting some things and pressing the necessary observance of others upon a reason which equally obliges to all But I desire our Dissenting Brethren who may be Answ II of the same Perswasion with these Scotch-men to take this further consideration along with them which I think will turn the Scales and make deep impressions upon tender Consciences and oblige them to observe most of the other Circumstances which they omit rather than this of Sitting which they so earnestly press and contend for All those forementioned Circumstances except the two Last which too are generally allowed among Learned Men on all sides are expresly mentioned in the Gospel and were without dispute observed by Christ at the Institution of the Sacrament But the particular Gesture used by him at that time is not expresly mentioned and what it was is very disputable and dubious as I shall evince by and by under the second Query How then can any Man think himself obliged in Conscience by the force of these words Do this to do what Christ is no where expresly said to do and not obliged to do what the Scripture affirms he really did Why that which is dark and dubious should be made an infallible Rule of Conscience and that which is plainly and evidently set down in Scripture should have no force nor be esteemed any Rule at all These are Questions I confess beyond my capacity and surpassing my skill to resolve It 's clear from St. Paul in the forecited place that Answ III those words of our Lord Do this do respect onely the 1 Cor. 11. 23 4 5 6 27 28. Verses Bread and Wine which signify the Body and Bloud of Christ and those other actions there specified by him which are essential to the right and due celebration of that Holy Feast For when it 's said Do this in Remembrance of me and This do ye as oft as ye Drink it in Remembrance of me and As oft as ye Eat this Bread and Drink this Cup ye do shew the Lords Death till he come it 's plain that Do this must be restrained to the Sacramental Actions there mentioned and not extended to the Gesture of which the Apostle speaks not a word Our Lord Instituted the Sacrament in Remembrance of his Death and Passion and not in Remembrance of his Gesture in Administring it And consequently Do this is a general Command obliging us onely to such particular Actions and Rites as he had Instituted and made necessary to be used in order to this great end viz. to signify and represent his Death and that Bloudy Sacrifice which he offered to his Father on the Cross for us miserable Sinners Upon the whole matter I think we may certainly conclude that there is not a tittle of a Command in the whole New Testament to oblige us to receive the Lords Supper in any particular Posture and if any be so scrupulous after all as not to receive it in any other Gesture but what is expresly Commanded they must never receive it as long as they live And then I leave this to their serious consideration How they will be ever able to excuse their neglect of a known necessary duty such as receiving the Sacrament is before God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who loved us so much as to send his Son to be a propitiation for our Sins How they will ever Answer to their Crucified Saviour their Living and Dying in the breach of an express Command of his given a little before his Passion to Do this in Remembrance of him meerly because the Gesture prescribed by Authority was cross to their private Wills and Phansies but not to the Mind and Will of God 2. For the further proof and Confirmation of this Assertion that there is no express Command in Scripture for the use of any particular Gesture in the Act of receiving the Sacrament I will appeal to the Judgment and Practice of our Dissenting Brethren and all the Reformed Churches in Europe 1. To begin with our Non-conforming Brethren There are a great many Serious and Sincere-Hearted persons among them who profess that were they left to their liberty and not tyed up by the Law to Kneel at the Sacrament they could with a safe Conscience use that Gesture as well as any other And they further tell us that they are willing and ready to Communicate with us provided we would Administer the Sacrament to them either Sitting or Standing that is any way but that which is imposed by Law For the Rule by which they conduct their Consciences in this matter is this Things in their own nature indifferent which are no where Commanded or prohibited by God in Scripture cannot nor ought not to be restrained and limited by any Power or Authority of Man And therefore all such things which God left free for us to do or not to do without Sin become sinful to us when imposed by humane Authority It 's remote from my business to shew how weak and false a Principle this is and of what mischievous consequences to the Peace of the Church and for that reason I will pass it by But thus much may be inferr'd from this Tenent to my purpose that they who hold and urge it as a reason why they cannot Receive Kneeling which otherwise they could safely do plainly own that as to the Gesture in the Act of receiving it is in its own nature Indifferent and left free by God for us to use or refuse as we think fit and by necessary consequence that there is no express Command given by God for the use of any particular Gesture It could not be a matter of indifferency to our Dissenting Brethren whose Principle this is if there were no Law of Man to Kneel at the Sacrament and now there is such a Law it could not be Indifferent to them whether they received Sitting or Standing as they profess it is if
the Sacrament can never be demonstrated so as that the conscience may surely build upon it This I shall endeavour to make good these two ways First we have no sure ground for it in Scripture Secondly the Customs observed by the Jews render it very incertain and disputable 1. All that can be gathered from Scripture amounts Mat. 26. 26. Mar. 14. 22. to no more than this that as they were eating or as they did eat as the Phrase is rendred in St. Mark Jesus took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples and he took the Cup when he had Supped saith St. Paul after Supper as St. Luke hath 1 Cor. 11. 25. Luke 22. 20. it and gave Thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it Now it 's very clear from this account which the Scripture gives that our Lord did Institute and Administer the Sacrament to his Disciples and that they did Receive it But whether Sitting Kneeling or Standing is no where mentioned nor plainly determined It 's clear that he Instituted this Holy Feast at the close of the Paschal Feast for he took the Bread as they were Eating and the Cup when he had Supped that he did Celebrate the Passover according to the usual manner of the Jews in those times which was in a Discumbing Luke 22. 14. Mat. 26. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Marg. posture on Beds placed about the Table much after the manner of our lying or leaning upon Couches Yet whether after all the Apostles Received or our Lord Administred the Sacrament still Sitting after the same manner as they did at the Passover is not exprest nor can it be certainly concluded from the Word of God The utmost strength of their Argument who urge Sitting in imitation of our Saviours example can arise to no more than this That it's probable our Lord did not alter the Gesture he used at the Passover when he Instituted the Sacrament But who sees not that a probability is far from a certainty A thing may be really false though it seem likely to be true And that opinion which is speculatively probable may when reduced to practice become a great Sin and a great Error Thus to refuse to Receive the Holy Sacrament Kneeling and thereby neglect a known necessary Duty and not onely so but to disturb the Peace and break the Unity of the Church upon a bare probability that our Lord sate which we are not cannot be sure of is a great fault in all who are guilty of it For they appeal to an incertain example against a plain certain Command viz. to receive the Tokens and Pledges of our Saviours dying love and to do this in Remembrance of him They therefore who urge the example of Christ for Sitting at the Sacrament and as a Plea against Kneeling would do well first to make the example appear and prove that he did Sit before they press a Conformity 2. If we consult the Records of Jewish Antiquities and the Writings of Learned Men both Jews and Christians concerning the Passover and the manner of the Jews Celebrating it we shall find that they did not keep to one and the same Gesture throughout the Solemnity For the Babylon and Jerusalem Talmud Maimonides and Buxtorf do certifie us that they did alter their posture at the Passover though the Lying or Leaning posture was generally and most Religiously used and observed at this Feast above any other And the Scripture gives some hints and intimations of the Truth of what they deliver 1. It was the antient custom of the Jews and of those Gen. 18. 4. 19. c. 2. 24. 32. Mat. 15. 2. Mar. 7. 3. Luke 7. 44. Eastern Countries at their ordinary Feasts and Entertainments to Wash their Hands and their Feet and especially at their Religious Feasts to Wash their Hands often At the Passover they Washed their Hands thrice at least according to the Talmudists and the Authors forecited Which Ceremony could not well nor was Tract Berachoth â—esachin Maimon in Chametz Umaâ—sah Buxtorf Synag c. 13. not in all likelyhood performed during their Lying or Leaning posture on their left sides as their manner was For the reason of their Washing at all and so frequently was that no legal Impuritie or Uncleanness might cleave to them and to signify the great care they took to keep this Solemn Feast Holy to the Lord. And as they were Nice and Curious in Purifying and Washing themselves so in keeping the Beds Table Dishes and Vid. Buxt Synagoga c. 12. p 286. all other Utensils necessary for this Feast clean and free from all pollution too To Wash so often more than the Law required and the general custom of those Eastern and hot Countries warranted was a Pharisaical Invention and superstitiously abused by them and as such it 's certain our Lord did not use it but that he did Wash sometime before he Eat the Paschal Supper and after he had Sat down as the manner was there is little reason to doubt and all that I infer from hence is that when he Washed be it once or twice he altered his posture and in all probabilitie either arose from his Bed and went Vid. John 2. 6. to the place where Water and Vessels were prepared and set for such uses or had Water brought to him in a Basin wherein he Washed either Sitting upright or Standing which are both different from that Gesture which was peculiar and proper to the Passover St. John in Chap. 13. 2 4 5. Verses will explain and Confirm this Custom we are speaking of There he tells us how that Supper being ended that is in a manner or almost ended for by comparing the 12 and 26 and 27 Verses together we shall find plainly that they had not quite finished their Supper Jesus riseth from Supper and laid aside his Garments and took a Towel and girded himself and after that poureth Water into a Basin and began to Wash the Disciples Feet There are Learned Men on both sides who think all this was Vid. Grot. in loe Dr. Hamond on v. 26. Mark 14. 12. done at the Feast of the Passover and that towards the close of it when he Instituted the Lords Supper but I shall wave this and not infist upon it because as I hinted before I believe as the Learned Dr. Lightfoot doth it was no more then an ordinary or common meal and therefore I onely shall conclude thus much from it which I think is very probable That it was usual with the Jews to Wash at their Feasts and that in Supper-time And that our Saviour complyed with thâ—s custom To Wash the Feet of the Guests was the Office of Servants and it was altogether unusual for the Master of the Feast to do but our Lord to set his Disciples an example of Humility and Charitable condescention one to another performs this servile Office himself Joh. 13. 14 15.
towards them which he might as well have done after Supper if it had not been usual to have Washed in Supper-time Seeing then it appears partly from Scripture and partly from Ancient Monuments of Jewish customs that the Jews were wont both before and at their Civil and Religious Feasts to Wash and particularly at the Passover then it 's very probable our Lord did so too and altered his posture as they did nay it is very probable that our Lord to make his Discipels understand what he was about to do did at the Institution of this new Feast the Holy Sacrament of his Body and Bloud Wash before it and having changed the posture that he was in before at the Eating of the Paschal Supper did not resume it but used a new posture at this new Festival-Solemnity but what that was is not certain 2. At the beginning of the Paschal Feast the Jews did put themselves into this Discumbing or Leaning posture and used it while they Eat and Drank the two first Cups of Wine for every Guest was obliged to As the Talmudist and forementioned Writers testify Vid. Dr. Lightfoot Hor. Heb. 291. Drink four Cups at this Feast but at the third Cup called the Cup of blessing in their Language and the fourth styled the Song or Psalm-Cup when they Sung the Hymn there was no necessity of lying along and it 's likely our Lord took an opportunity when he took the third Cup to change the use and signification of it and to Institute the Eucharistical Cup called by St. Paul the Cup of blessing 1 Cor. 10. 16. 3. Before they Drank of the third Cup the Master of the Feast took a piece of Unleavened Bread and brake it and after he had Eat some himself he offers the remainder See Mr. Ainsworth a Learned Non-Conformist in Ex. 12. 8. 11. to the rest of the Company to do the like After this he proceeds to take some of the bitter Herbs and to dip them in a thick Sawce called by them Charoseth which was formed in the shape of a Brick to represent the hard slavery undergone by their Fore-fathers in the Brick-Kilns of Egypt and commanded all the Societie to follow his example Now this was not done in an inclining posture as the Jewish Doctors Buxt Syn. c. 13. p. 300. teach us and they give this reason for it because this was to put them in mind of the Egyptian Bondage and therefore here they stood in all probability because to eat Standing was the manner of Slaves whereas Lying along Pesachin fol. 37. 2. Hor. Heb. 291 292. after a Lordly manner was in token of that ease and rest they enjoyed in the Land of Canaan and of their redemption from the House of Bondage So often therefore as they Eat the bitter Herbs so often they changed their Gesture 4. Though the Jews in their Solemn Feasts used Discumbing yet in blessing and giving thanks before those Feasts they were as Philo relateth in a Standing Gesture In vita contemplat p. 663 Col. Allobro edit 1613. p. 695. with their Eyes and Hands lifted up to Heaven And therefore it 's no way probable that Christ and his Apostles would continue in their Table-Gesture at the blessing of the Holy Supper which is an higher Ordinance than the Passover Because this would be very unsutable to so great a Solemnity Especially too if Dr. Lightfoot's Opinion be true and it may be so for any thing that appears to the contrary viz. that Christ changed the third Cup at the Passover called the Cup of blessing into the Sacramental Cup because it was the custom of the Jews then to alter their Table-Gesture that was peculiar to the Passover and it 's highly Improbable that our Lord would continue in the Table-Gesture contrary to the General and Currant Custom of the Jews They that don't think so as I do in this particular will receive little advantage by being cross For if it may be supposed that our Lord Sate sometimes when the Jews were wont to Stand it may equally be supposed that he Stood sometimes when the Jews were wont to Sit and what becomes of their Argument for Sitting at the Sacrament after the example of Christ because that stands built upon supposition that our Lord Sate at the Passover as the Jews did and continued in the same Gesture when he Instituted the Sacrament which was before the Paschal-Solemnity was over I will onely observe this briefly by the way and then proceed to shut up all upon this Head That those Nonconformists who cry out so vehemently against the Church for Imposing and her Members for using a Kneeling Gesture were very unfortunate in their choice when they pitcht upon Sitting and urged it as the onely necessary Gesture to receive in in Conformity to our Saviours Practice and Example Because the Standing Gesture may be much better maintained and defended than Sitting and hath more and greater probabilities attending it If therefore variety of Gestures were used by the Jews at the Passover and it no where appears from Scripture that our Lord did not comply in this matter then we cannot know for certain what the particular Gesture was which Christ used at the Institution of the Sacrament it might be Lying along and it might be Sitting upright it might be Standing in an adoring posture with his hands and eyes lifted up to Heaven which is much more probable than either of the former for the reasons forementioned we cannot certainly say which and yet we must be certain of one before we can build upon it as an Infallible Rule of Conscience Let it be therefore granted to our Brethren who differ from us in this point that our Saviour Sate at the Passover that the Sacrament was Instituted by him before the Paschal Feast was fully ended that the Disciples Eat the Sacramental Bread and Drank the Sacramental Cup in the same posture as they Eat and Drank at the Passover What of all this how will the necessity of a Sitting Gesture appear from these premises Why thus Therefore our Lord Instituted and Administred the Holy Sacrament Sitting say they How doth this follow of course I ask Since they Eat and Drank in several postures at the Paschal Feast I confess the Argument had been strong if they could make it appear that throughout the whole Solemnity of the Passover no other Gesture but Sitting was used by our Lord. But this I am sure can never be done and consequently their conclusion can never be good From the whole I conclude thus much Since the example of our Lord cannot be certainly known in this matter our Church cannot be charged for deviating from it And consequently to scruple Conformity to the practice of our Church because she doth not Conform to the practice of Christ which no body can certify us of is very Unjust and Unreasonable 2. Supposing our Lord did Sit as they will have it yet his bare example doth
not oblige all Christians to a like Practice 1. Because naked examples without some Rule or Note added to them to signify that it is the mind and will of God to have them constantly followed and perpetually Imitated by us have not the force of a Law perpetually obliging the Conscience Thus in our present Case though our Lord did Sit at the Sacrament yet his example alone doth not become an everlasting Rule for all Ages to observe because he hath no where discovered his binding will and pleasure in this particular And consequently since he hath left us in the Dark we may act contrary to his will and intention when we so zealously press and follow his example especially in this matter relating to Gesture For even under the Law where all other Circumstances of Time Place Habits and the Ceremonies relating to Divine Worship were with great particularity described this of Gesture was left free and undetermined God never obliged them to use any particular Gesture in any particular part of his Worship but left it to their choice whether to Kneel or Stand or Bow down their Heads and Bodies or fall prostrate on the Earth to use all or any one of these as Custom and their own Pious Prudence should prompt and direct them Seeing then that the Gesture in the Worship of God was never determined under the Law Since it was and is in its own nature a Mutable Ceremony in the Service of God it remains so unto this day Our Lord left it as he found it unless it can be proved that he hath by some Command or Note of Immutability fixt and determined it to all succeeding Ages But because no such Command or Note is to be found therefore we are not tyed in Conscience to a strict Imitation of his Example A few instances will clear this point Our Lord was not Baptized till Luke 3. 23. he was about thirty years of Age but this example is not esteemed by the generality of Dissenters a Law or Warrant for us to defer our Baptism so long So he Instituted the Sacrament a little before his Death But is there no obligation upon us to receive it but when we are near our Graves and under a Prospect of Death He also Instituted and Administred the Sacrament after a full Meal in an upper Room to Men onely Doth his bare example oblige us to observe punctually all these Circumstances or no If it doth why do our Brethren of the Separation take the liberty to depart from his example in these things if his example layeth no necessity upon us to follow it in these particulars how doth Sitting become necessary barely upon the account of his example I desire them therefore Seriously and impartially to examine this matter and see if they can assign any reasons for this liberty they take of following the example of our Saviour in some things and not in others where there is no other Rule to guide them I believe they will be constrained to do one of these two things either to withdraw their Suit against Kneeling and quit their own Principle or condemn their own practices as shamefully repugnant to it 2. The bare example of Christ is no Warrant for us to act by because the great end and usefulness of that Glorious example he left us consists in this viz. that it shews the possibility and clears up the sense of his Laws and excites and encourages us to the Practice of them it puts the Rule into activity and sets it forth to the life It is to our lives as Exhortation is to Doctrine it thrusts us forward to do that which we were obliged in Conscience to do before Whatsoever our Lord hath Commanded us to do in that onely we are necessarily bound to Imitate him But where there is no Precept there is no Necessity We may do it if we will and if we can innocently as in the case of a single Life but we are not under Constraint and an indispensable Obligation He hath Commanded us to be Meek and Lowly to be Just and Merciful to be Patient under all our Troubles and Afflictions to follow Peace with all Men to be ever contented and resigned to the Will of our Heavenly Father in all States and Conditions of Life and the life And in all these things he became an Example to us that we might follow his Steps He Commands us to do what he performed himself and that which we are concerned in if we would walk surely is first to look for our Rule and then for our encouragement to look unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our Faith It 's true indeed we are Commanded in Scripture to follow the Examples of the Apostles so far forth as they follow Christ and the Example of our Lord is made the Touchstone to try all others by but then if we would know what is out Duty we must bring his Example to the Rule For as to Preach Christ and to Preach the Gospel to Obey Christ and Obey the 1 Cor. 11. 1. Acts 5. 42. Acts 11. 20. Marc. 16. 15. Heb. 5. 9. 2 Thess 1. 8. Col. 2. 6. Gospel are Phrases of alike Import it Scripture so in like manner to follow Christ is all one with following the Gospel-Rule or doing as Christ did in obedience to his Commands The Sum of all is this An Example may help to Interpret a Law but of it self it is no Law Against a Rule no Example is a Competent Warrant and if the Example be according to the Rule it 's not the Example but the Rule that is the Measure of our Actions 3. The bare Example of Christ is no Warrant for us to go by because he was an extraordinary Person and did many things which we cannot and many which we must not do He Fasted 40 Days and 40 Nights and spent whole Nights in Prayer he wrought many Miracles to prove the Truth of his Doctrine and his Divine Authority by that he was the Messias the Son of God and Saviour of Mankind he was a Prophetical Priest by which Office he was obliged to teach us the whole mind of God in all things necessary to Faith and Salvation and to offer up himself as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the World Nothing we should quickly experiment would be more Vain and Foolish than attempts of an Imitation in some things And nothing more Wicked than to think and believe we may and ought to follow his example in others To dye to Sin and Crucify the Flesh with its Affections and Lusts is a good way as the Scripture Teaches and Warrants of Imitating our Lords Death in a Spiritual Sense So to Die rather than deny the Faith and Dishonour our Saviour is great and Praiseworthy but to Die for Sin either our own or other Men's to propose a Meritorious Death to our Selves and by way of expiation is a Sin of so deep a Stain that the Blood of Christ
as being agreeable to the Nature of a Feast or a Banquet and at the same time think there lyes no necessity at all upon them to observe other Formalities equally agreeable to the Nature of Civil Feasts and warranted by custom as much as Sitting is the great knot of the Question and that which puzzles me I confess to unty 2. They observe several Modes and Circumstances at the Sacrament which are not agreeable to the Nature of a Feast or Supper nor to the customary way of Feasting among us For example The Sacrament say they is a Feast a Supper and requires a Feast a Supper-Gesture and then too say I it requires a Supper-time It is called in Scripture the Lord's Supper and it was Instituted the same night in which he was betrayed and it 's clear that our Lord Administred it at Even and that late at the close of the Paschal Feast Now the Nature of a Supper according to Common use and acception requires the Evening or Night as the proper and peculiar season for it and yet our Dissenting Brethren make no scruple of Communicating at Noon It 's not agreeable to the Nature of a Feast that one of the Guests and the Principal one too should fill out the Wine and break the Bread and distribute it to the rest of the Society but this the Dissenters generally allow of and practice at the Holy Communion It 's not agreeable to the Nature of a Feast to Sit from the Table dispersed up and down the Room In all publick Feasts there are several Tables provided when one is not big enough to receive the Guests and yet the Dissenters generally receive in their Pews scattered up and down the Church and think one Table is sufficient though not capable of receiving the twentieth part of the Communicants in some large Parishes and numerous Assemblies And where they are few in number that they may come up to and Sit at the Table they generally are against it especially the Presbyterians and think they are not obliged to observe that formality though constantly practised at Common and Civil Entertainments It 's by no means agreeable to the nature of a Feast to be Sorrowful To Mourn and Grieve at a Feast is as Indecent and Unsutable as to Laugh at a Funeral But sure our Dissenting Brethren will not say that to come to the Sacrament with a Penitent and a broken Spirit to come with a hearty Sorrow for all our Sins which caused much Pain and Torment to our Dearest and Greatest Friend our ever-Blessed Redeemer To reflect upon the Agonies of his Soul in the Garden the Bitterness of his deadly Cup the Torture he endured on the Cross with a deep Sympathy and Trouble for the occasion they will not surely I say affirm that such a disposition of Heart and Mind is improper and unsutable to the Nature of this Holy Feast which we Solemnize in Commemoration of his Death for our sakes I make no doubt but all Pious Dissenters bring along with them to the Sacrament such a temper but this they ought not to do if their Rule hold good viz. That at this Feast we ought to be guided by the Rules of Common Table-Fellowship 2. The Nature of the Lord's Supper doth not necessarily require a Common Table-Gesture because it 's not of the same Nature with Common and Ordinary Feasts It is very ill Logick as well as ill Divinity to argue from Natural and Civil things to Spiritual to conclude that because they agree in their names they are of the same Nature For example When any Man who hath led a loose sensual wicked Life is awakened and excited by the Grace of God to consider and take up to mind Heavenly things and to breath after God and Christ and Eternity to alter his mind and his manners and lead quite another Life from what he did before this Person is in Scripture-Phrase said to be Regenerate and Born again But if we would go about to judge of the true Nature of Regeneration and the new Birth purely by the Correspondency it holds with the Natural Birth and argue from the Natural to the Spiritual we should Entertain very gross and silly Conceptions of Regeneration and greatly mistake the Nature of it How ridiculous would it be to prescribe the same Rules to be observed by a New Convert or a New-Born Babe in a Spiritual Sense in Order to his Spiritual nourishment and growth in Grace as are prescribed and practised towards Infants and New-Born Babes in a Natural Sense for the maintenance and preservation of their Natural Life and Strength as that they should be Swathed and enter into a Milk-Dyet And yet this is every way as reasonable as to prescribe Sitting as necessary to the worthy Receiving of the Sacrament which is a Spiritual Feast because it 's agreeable to the Nature of Civil Feasts Or which amounts to the same thing because it 's called a Feast therefore it 's of the same Nature with Ordinary and Common Feasts and Consequently such a Gesture and Behaviour as is necessary and requisit to these is also requisit and necessary to the Lord's Supper 3. The Nature of the Lord's Supper considered as a Feast doth not necessarily require and oblige us to use a Common Tale-Gesture in order to right and worthy Receiving because in the Judgement and Practice of numerous Dissenters it may be worthily Received Standing Thus the Presbyterians and all their Writers who have engaged against Kneeling do not condemn Standing as Sinful and Unlawful nor esteem such as use it unworthy Receivers on that account and yet Standing is no Common Table-Gesture If any should yet urge the necessity of Sitting as the Object onely agreeable Gesture to the Nature of the Sacrament considered as a Feast and that to use any other Gesture would Prophane the Ordinance I offer this to be considered as a good Answer That Answer the Passover was called a Feast by God himself who Exod. 12. 14. Instituted it and yet he Commanded the Children of Israel to Celebrate it in Egypt after this manner with Ver. 11. their Loyns Girt their Shoes on their Feet and their Staff in their Hands All Signs of hast indeed but no Feast or Table-Gestures either among the Jews or the Egyptians To say that God enjoyned Gestures unsutable to the Nature of that Ordinance is to call in Question the Wisdom and the Knowledge and the Truth of God as not Acting upon a right understanding of and in Conformity to the true Nature of things it 's all one as to suppose that God after he had Created a reasonable Creature would enjoyn him to do something that was disagreeable to his Nature and Reason On the other hand to say that the Feast of the Passover did in its Nature admit of several Gestures is to yield all that I desire for then the Sacrament considered as a Feast will admit of several too and Consequently doth not oblige
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
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
there were any Law of God obliging to the use of any one Gesture whatsoever 2. That there is no express Command in Scripture for any one Gesture in the Act of Receiving may be inferr'd from the Judgment and Practice of all the Reformed Churches abroad Whose Judgment and example will I presume sway much with those who separate from the Church of England as not being sufficiently purged from the Corruptions of the Church of Rome as other Neighbour-Churches are and who stood once engaged in a Solemn Covenant to reform the Churches of England and Ireland according to the Word of God and the Pattern of the best Reformed Churches Let us now compare the practice of our Church with the example of the Protestant Churches abroad and see whether she ought to reform the Gesture prescribed at the Sacrament The Reformed Churches of France and those of Geneva and Helvetia Stand the Dutch generally Sit but in some places as in West-Friesland they Stand. The Churches of the Bohemian and Augustan Confession which spread through the large Kingdoms of Bohemia Denmark and Sweden through Norway the Dukedom of Saxony Lithuany and the Ducal Prussia in Poland the Marquisate of Brandenburg in Germany and several other places and free Cities in that Empire do for the most part if not all of them retain the Gesture of Kneeling The Bohemian Churches were reformed by John Husse and Jerom of Prague who suffered Martyrdom at Constance about the year 1416. long before Luthers time and those of the Augsburg or Augustan Confessions were founded and reformed by Luther and were the first Protestants properly so called Both these Churches so early reformed and of so large extent did not only use the same Gesture that our Church enjoyns at the Sacrament but they together with those of the Helvetick Confession did in three general Synods unanimously condemn the Sitting Gesture though they esteemed it in it self Lawful 1 At Cracow Anno. Dom. 1573. 2 Petricow or Peterkaw 1578. 3 Wladislaw 1583. as being Scandalous for this remarkable reason viz. because it was used by the Arrians as their Synods call the Socinians in contempt of our Saviours Divinity who therefore placed themselves as Fellows with their Lord at his Table And thereupon they entreat and exhort all Christians of their Communion to change Sitting into Kneeling or Standing both which Ceremonies we Indifferently leave free according as the Custom of any Church hath obtained and we approve of their use without Scandal and Blame Moreover they affirm That these Socinians who deny Christ to be God were the first that introduced Sitting at the Sacrament into their Churches contrary to the Practice of all the Evangelical Churches in Europe Among all these Forreign Churches of the Reformation there is but one that I can find which useth Sitting and forbids Kneeling for fear of Bread-Worship but yet in that Synod wherein they condemned Kneeling they left it to the choice of their Churches to use Standing Sitting or an Ambulatory Gesture as the French do and at last conclude thus Harmon 4 Synods of Holl. These Articles are setled by mutual Consent that if the good of the Churches require it they may and ought to be changed augmented or diminished What now should be the ground and reason of this variety both in Opinion and Practice touching the Gesture to be used at the Lords Supper Is it to be supposed or imagined that an Assembly of Learned and Pious Divines met together on purpose to consult how to Reform their Churches according to the pure Word of God should through weakness and inadvertency overlook an express Command of Christ for the perpetual use of any particular Gesture if any such there had been Or shall we be so uncharitable as to think that all these eminent Churches wilfully past it by and established what was most agreeable to their own Phansies contrary to the known Will of God Would they have given liberty to all of their Communion to use several Gestures according to the custom of their several Churches if our Lord had tyed them to observe but one Would they declare as the Dutch Synod doth that what they enjoyned might be altered if the good of the Church so required if so be Sitting had been expresly Commanded by our Lord to be used by all Christians to the end of the World No undoubtedly they would not we cannot either in reason or Charitie suppose it The true Principle upon which all these Reformed Churches built and by which they are able to reconcile all this seeming difference in this matter is the very same with that which the Church of England goes by in her Synods and Convocations viz. That as to Rites and Ceremonies of an indifferent nature every National Church hath Authoritie to institute change and abolish them as they in Prudence and Charitie shall think most fit and conducive to the setting forth God's Glory the Edification of their People and the Decent and Reverend Administration of the Holy Sacrament Whosoever therefore refuses Vid. Art 34 observat of the French and Dutch Divines on the Harmony of Confessions edit Geneva 1681. sect 14. p. 120. In hoc etiam ritu speaking of Kneeling at the Sacr. suam cuique Ecclesiae libertatem salvam reliquendam arbitramur to receive the Lord's Supper according to the Constitution of the Church of England purely because Kneeling is contrary to the express Command of Christ must condemn the Judgment and Practice of all the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas who all agree in this that the Gesture in the Act of Receiving is to be reckoned among things Indifferent and that whether we Sit or Kneel or Stand or Receive Walking we Transgress no Law of God and consequently they prove my assertion true that Kneeling is not contrary to any express Command no more than any other because they allow of all Lawful in themselves to be used which cannot consist with an express Command for the use of any one Gesture whatsoever Query II. Whether Kneeling be not a Devotion from that Example which Christ set us at the first Institution FOr a full and satisfactory resolution of this doubt I shall propound the four following particulars to the consideration of our Dissenting Brethren which I will endeavour with all Brevitie and Clearness to make good 1. That it can never be proved so as that the conscience may surely build upon it what Gesture Christ and his Apostles used at the Celebration of the Sacrament 2. Supposing that our Lord did Sit yet his bare example doth not oblige all Christians to a like practice 3. That they who urge the example of Christ for our Rule in this case do not follow it themselves 4. That they who Kneel at the Lords Supper in complyance with the Custom and Constitution of the Church do manifestly follow the example of Christ First The particular Gesture used by Christ and his Apostles at the Institution and Celebration of