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
in that place and where I am only occasionally there I can only Communicate occasionally also But to meet with the distempers of this Age and to remove those Apologies some Men make for their Schism it is necessary to make this a question For in this divided state of the Church there are a great many among us who think they cannot maintain constant Communion with the Church of England as constant and fixt Members who yet upon some occasions think they may Communicate with us in all parts of Worship and Actually do so Now when these Men who are fixt Members as they call it of Separate Churches think fit sometimes to Communicate in all parts of Worship with the Church of England we charitably suppose that Men who pretend to so much tenderness of Conscience and care of their Souls will do nothing not so much as once which they believe or suspect to be sinful at the time when they do it and therefore we conclude that those who Communicate occasionally with the Church of England do thereby declare that they believe there is nothing sinful in our Communion and we thank them for this good opinion they express of our Church and earnestly desire to know how they can justifie their ordinary Separation from such a Church as requires no sinful terms of Communion If any thing less than sinful terms of Communion can justifie a Separation then there can be no end of Separations and Catholick-Communion is an Impossible and Impracticable notion that is the Church of Christ neither is one Body nor ever can be For if Men are not bound to Communicate with a Church which observes our Saviours Insttutions without any such corrupt mixtures as make its Communion sinful then there is no bounds to be set to the Fancies of Men but they may new model Churches and divide and subdivide without any end Is that a sound and Orthodox part of the Catholick-Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion If it be not Pray what is it that makes any Church Sound and Orthodox If it be upon what account is it Lawful to Separate from a Sound and Orthodox Church And may we not by the same reason Separate from the whole Catholick Church as from any Sound part of it Nay does not that Man Separate from the whole Catholick Church who Separates from any Sound part of it For the Communion of the Church is but one and he that divides and breaks this union Separates himself from the whole Body Excepting the Independency of Churches which I have proved above to be Schism in the very notion of it the great Pleas for Separation from a Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion are the pretence of greater Edification and purer Ordinances But these are such Pleas as must expose the Church to Eternal Schisms because there are no certain Rules to judge of these matters but the various and uncertain fancies of Men. What they like best that shall be most for their Edification and these shall be purer Ordinances and till Men can agree these matters among themselves which they are never likely to do till they can all agree in the same Diet or in their judgment and opinion about beauty decency fitness convenience they may and will divide without end and if the Peace and Unity of the Church be so necessary a duty it is certain these Principles which are so destructive to Peace and Unity must be false as to consider these things particularly but very briefly What purer Administrations and Ordinances would Men have than those of our Saviours own Institution without any Corrupt and sinful mixtures to spoil their vertue and efficacy as we suppose is acknowledged by those who occasionally Communicate in all parts of our Worship that there is nothing sinful in it the purity of divine Administrations must consist in their agreement with the Institution that there is neither any such defect or addition as alters their Nature and destroys their Vertue For the Efficacy of Gospel Ordinances depends upon their Institution not upon particular modes of Administration which are not expresly Commanded in the Gospel and he who desires greater purity of Ordinances than their conformity to their Institution who thinks that Baptism and the Lords Supper lose their Efficacy unless they be administred in that way which they themselves best like are guilty of gross Superstition and attribute the vertue of Sacraments to the manner of their administration not to their Divine Institution And what Men talk of greater Edification is generally as little understood as the other for Edification is building up and is applied to the Church considered as Gods House and Temple and it is an odd way of building up the Temple of God by dividing and Separating the parts of it from each other This one thing well considered viz. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edification or Building according to the Scripture notion of it does always primarily refer to or at least include Church-unity and Communion is sufficient to convince any Man what an ill way it is to seek for greater Edification in breaking the Communion of the Church by Schism and Separation and therefore I shall make it plainly appear that this is the true Scripture notion of Edification and to that end shall consider the most material places where this word is used Now the most proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Translators render by Edification is a House or Building and this is the proper Sense wherein it belongs to the Christian Church Ye are Gods Husbandry ye are Gods Building that is the Church is 1 Cor. 3. 9. Gods House or Building 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus the same Apostle tells us that in Christ the whole Building Eph. 2. 21. i. e. the whole Christian Church fitly framed together groweth unto an holy Temple in the Lord. Matth. 21. 42. Hence the Governours of the Church are called Builders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Apostles are called Labourers Acts 4. 11. together with God in erecting this Spiritual Building and St. Paul calls himself a Master Builder Hence 1 Cor. 3. 9. the increase growth and advances towards perfection 10. in the Church is called the Building or Edification of it For this reason St. Paul commends Prophesie or Expounding the Scriptures before speaking in unknown Tongues without an Interpreter because 1 Cor. 14. 5. by this the Church receives Building or Edification All these Spiritual gifts which were bestowed v. 12. on the Christians were for the Building and Edifying of the Church The Apostolical power in Church censures was for Edification not for Destruction 2 Cor. 10. 8. 12. 19. 13. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Build and not to pull down that is to preserve the Unity of the Church intire and its Communion pure And we may observe that this Edification is primarily applied to the Church That the Church
the life of our Neighbour or to quench the firing of his House but still this would be but a pityful pretence for our wholly absenting our selves from Church and constant neglect of our Prayers because in the mean time our Neighbours life may be invaded or his house fired by ill Men of which there is great store in the World and so he may stand in need of our help which is a more acceptable Service to God than any acts of Devotion So that however this Argument may serve to excuse the omission of some things Commanded by lawful Authority by those who otherwise are perfectly conformable in extraordinary cases which very rarely happen and for which no provision could be made by Law yet to be sure this will not at all help those who bid open defiance to the Laws stand out in manifest opposition against them live in plain disobedience and contradiction to them as if they were altogether free from them nay set up a distinct way and form of Worship of their own and all this because they are loth to Offend those who are not satisfied of the wisdom and goodness of what is appointed Thus our Dissenting Brethren can gain but little by this Plea if granted to them for upon this account of exercising mercy and charity towards their Neighbours they can be excused from Obedience to their Superiours in such cases only in which they may be excused also from the observation of the Sabbath from Prayer publick or private from Worshipping of God either in the Church or in a Conventicle nay from Obedience to God himself had he pleased in the Scriptures positively to have required whatever is at present enjoyned by our Church and let them well consider whether if God had plainly in his Word prescribed all that our Church doth Command they would have thought it selfe to have refused compliance with such divine impositions because they were unreasonably offensive to some Godly people If our Dissenters will but acknowledge themselves bound to submit to the determinations of their Superiours about the things in controversie between us so far as the Jews were bound to obey the ordinances of God concerning his external Worship delivered by Moses and that they are freed from such obligation to obey the Laws of their Governours only in such cases as the Jews were excused from offering their accustomed Sacrifices or as they think themselves at liberty to break the Sabbath to omit Gods Publick Worship I suppose this dispute would soon be at an end for they dare not own that the Scandal others may take at such things which yet are to give place to moral duties is sufficient to void their obligation to the doing of them Mr. Jeans whose objections I shall the rather consider because of his eminency amongst the Presbyterians tho I find my self somewhat prevented by a late Writer who hath taken particular notice of them thus putteth the Question Suppose saith he the greatest Monarch upon the face of the Earth should command the meanest and lowest of his Slaves upon some important affair to ride Post through such a City without any of the least stay or diversion and then it should happen that a company of little Children should be playing in the Streets can this Slave think that he is obliged to ride over them No surely he ought to use all means and take all care possible to execute his Commission without doing any hurt or damage to any person whatever but if he would have stated the case right it should have been done thus suppose this Slave should utterly refuse to do as he was Commanded and for his justification should plead that he must be forced to ride through many Towns and Cities where are many little Children who are often playing at the Doors or in the Streets he knows not but that some of them may be in his way or chance to run between his Horses legs and therefore to avoid the doing of this mischief which might possibly happen he resolves not to stir one foot from his own home Is this pretence sufficient to excuse his disobedience No more can our Nonconformity to the rules given us by our Superiours be innocent because some may be Scandalized at our Obedience 2. It is further said that Scandal is in the nature of it spiritual murder and if where Authority hath determined our choice we must hold to their determination any Scandal to the contrary notwithstanding it seemeth then in case the Magistrate command it we may lawfully murther the Soul of our Brother wound his weak Conscience and destroy with our meats our Ceremonies the work of God and him for whom Christ died It is good saith St. Paul Rom. 14. 21. neither to eat Flesh nor to drink Wine nor any thing whereby thy Brother stumbleth or is offended or is made weak But our Prelatists saith Mr. Jeans determine quite otherwise If Authority enjoyn it it is good say they to eat Bread drink Wine wear a Surplice use the sign of the Cross in Baptism tho thereby never so many Brethren stumble or are offended or made weak But all this is meer bugbear fitted only to fright Children and such weak persons as we are now treating of for it can never be shewen how wearing a Surplice or Kneeling at receiving of the Sacrament or Crossing the Infants forehead hath any tendency towards the scaring Men from Christianity or making them to deny Christ and forsake and grow weary of his Religion which I have sufficiently proved to be the only proper Scandalizing of our Brother which St. Paul so highly aggravateth and chargeth with the guilt of destroying and murthering his Soul none of these things do directly and immediately lead or tempt any man to any sin Whatever Scandal may follow is wholly accidental and the fault and mistake of those only who are Offended and to provide always against such Scandals is an impossible undertaking for they may follow the most innocent actions nay the most necessary duties and this Argument concludes as strongly against obedience to any other Command of God if by it my Brother may stumble or be offended or be made weak as it doth against submission to our Superiours in things lawful They that make these Objections do not sufficiently consider that by Gods Law we are bound to obey the Lawful Commands of our Superiours and it is not only the Law or Ordinance of Man of which they seem to make so little account but it is the Law of God also that is violated by our disobedience to our Governours in things Lawful The Comparison therefore ought not to be only as they make it between an human Authority determining some indifferent things and the divine Law of charity to the Soul of our Brother but between the divine Command of obedience to our Superiours and the avoiding of Scandal Here we affirm that we cannot be bound to transgress a plain Law of God or which is all
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
probable and no demonstrative reasons that all the Books contained in the Canon and no other are the Word of God but in conjunction with the Testimony and Authority of the Ancient Catholick Church amount to a Demonstration So though the Texts which I have cited are of themselves but probable Arguments for the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism yet in concurrence with such a Comment upon them as the Practice of the next Age unto the Apostles and all Ages since from one Generation to another they amount to such a demonstration as is called in Logick Demonstratio ducens ad absurdum and are a violent Presumption that Children ought to be Baptized I might run on the Parallel as to the other Instances of Episcopal Government the admitting of Women to the Communion and the Observation of the Lord's day and therefore let the Adversaries of Infant Baptism consider well with themselves Wheâ—her rejecting of it after a Concurrence of such Texts and such a Tradition to establish it they do not teach others especially Atheists pure Deists and Sabbatizers to which I may add Scepticks Socinians and Quakers a way to deny all the rest Thus much I have said concerning the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism to shew that it is not lawful to separate from a Church for appointing of Infants to be Baptized when there are such cogent reasons arising from the concurrence of Scripture and Antiquity to presume that Infant-Baptism was an Apostolical Tradition and an Institution of Christ And I have designedly called it a requisite to distinguish it from an absolute necessity lest the Reader should think I were of St. Augustin's Opinion who thought Baptism indispensibly necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptized through the carelesness or Superstition of the Parents or through their mistaken Belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism were * * * Potest proinde rectè dici parvulos sine Baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitissima futuros Multum autem fallit fallitur qui eos in damnatione praedicat non futuros dicente Apostolo Judicium ex uno delicto August de peccat merit remiss contra Pelag. l. 1. c. 16. Vid. contra Julianum Pelag. l. 5. c. 8. infallibly damned No I intended no such severe Conclusion because we ought not to tye God to the same means to which he hath tied us but only to shew that the Baptism of young Children is antecedently necessary and †††Articles of Religion Artic. 27. in any wise to be retained in the Church as being most agreeable with the Holy Scripture the Apostolical Practice and the Institution of Christ And to set this way of arguing more home upon the Consciences of those who Dissent from the Church upon the account of Infant-Baptism I appeal unto them Whether Scripture and Antiquity standing against Infant-Baptism in the same posture of evidence that they now stand for it it would not be unjustifiable for any sort of Men to separate from the Church for not Baptizing Infants as they do now for Baptizing of them Let us suppose for Example That the Disciples of Christ instead of rebuking those that brought little Children unto him had brought them to him themselves and he had been much displeased at them for it and said I suffer not little Children to come unto me for the Kingdom of God is not of such Let us put the case That two Evangelists had recorded this supposed Story and accordingly we had been assured by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apostles that then there was no Baptizing of Infants and that the Apostles Baptized them not and that there never was any Church in after Ages which did practise Infant-Baptism Upon this Supposition I appeal unto them Whether it would not be highly unreasonable to separate from all the Churches in the World for not allowing of Infant-Baptism against the Concurrence of such a Text to the contrary and the sence and practise of the Catholick Church The case which I suppose one way is the real case the other only with this difference that the supposed case would have but the benefit of one Text whereas the real hath the benefit of many in Conjunction with Tradition and therefore seeing there are so many Texts and such a cloud of Witnesses for Infant-Baptism Why should it not be looked upon as one of the common Notions of Christianity like the Parallel Doctrines above-mentioned though it be not commanded especially when as I have shewed there was no need of commanding of it in express Words I know the Dissenters of all sorts and especially those for whose sake I am now writing are bred up in great prejudice and sinister Suspicions against Tradition declaiming against it as very uncertain and against the use of it as very derogatory to the sufficiency of the Word of God But as to the first part of their Objection against the certainty of Tradition I desire them to take notice that there is a certain as well as an uncertain an undoubted as well as a pretended Tradition as there are true certain and undoubted as well as pretended and uncertain Scriptures and that there are sure ways whereby ingenious and inquisitive Men may satisfie themselves which is one and which is the other The way then to find out true and undoubted Tradition as * * * Advers Haeres c. 3. Vincentius Lirinensis teacheth is to try it by these three Tests Universality Antiquity and Consent First By Universality If all the Churches wheresoever dispersed or how different soever in their Languages and Customs do believe or practice such a Doctrine Secondly Antiquity If what all the Churches all the World over doth so believe or practice was no innovation but Believed and Practiced in the Ages next to the Apostles when such Fathers governed the Churches or such Famous Men lived in them as knew the Apostles and conversed with them or lived near unto those or with those Apostolical Men who so knew them or conversed with them or lived near unto them Thirdly Consent If it appear that such a Doctrine was the consentient belief or practice of all the Fathers in those Ages or of all except a very few who had no proportion to the rest To which I will add First That this Tradition must be written and not Oral And Secondly That it must be proved in every Age from Books that were written in it and whose Authors whether under their own or under borrowed Names had no interest to write so And therefore though the Testimonies for Infant-Baptism in the Constitutions going under the name of * * * L. 6. c. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptize your Infants educate them in the Discipline and Admonition of God for saith our Lord Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not Clemens Romanus and the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy bearing the name of
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
Lord Jesus Christ whereunto you are now called through the mighty operation of his Holy Spirit Amen I received Yesternight from you Dear Brother S. and Fellow-Prisoner for the truth for Christ's Gospel a Letter wherein you gently require my Judgment concerning the Baptism of Infants which is the effect thereof And before I do shew you what I have learned out of God's Word and of his true Infallible Church touching the same I think it not out of the matter first to declare what Vision I had the same Night whilst musing on your Letter I fell asleep knowing that God doth not without cause reveal to his People who have their Minds fixed on him Special and Spiritual Revelations to their Comfort as a taste of their Joy and Kingdom to come which Flesh and Blood cannot comprehend Being in the midst of my sweet rest it seemed to me to see a great beautiful City all of the colour of Azure and white four square in a marvellous beautiful composition in the midst of the Skie the sight whereof so inwardly comforted me that I am not able to express the consolation I had thereof yea the remembrance thereof causeth my Heart as yet to leap for Joy And as Charity is no Churle but would have others to be Partakers of his delight some thought I called to others I cannot tell whom and whilst they came and we together beheld the same by and by to my great Grief it vaded away This Dream I think not to have come of the illusion of the Senses because it brought with it so much Spiritual Joy and I take it to be of the working of God's Spirit for the contentation of your Request as he wrought in Peter to satisfie Cornelius Therefore I Interpret this Beautiful City to be the Glorious Church of Christ and the appearance of it in the Sky signifieth the Heavenly State thereof whose Conversation is in Heaven and that according to the Primitive Church which is now in Heaven Men ought to measure and judge the Church of Christ now in Earth for as the Prophet David saith The Foundations thereof be in the Holy Hills and glorious things be spoken of the City of God And the marvellous quadrature of the same I take to signifie the universal agreement in the same and that all the Church here Militant ought to consent to the Primitive Church throughout the four Parts of the World as the Prophet affirmeth saying God maketh us to dwell after one manner in one House And that I conceived so wonderful Joy at the Contemplation thereof I understand the unspeakable Joy which they have that be at Unity with Christ's Primitive Church For there is Joy in the Holy Ghost and Peace which passeth all Understanding as it is written in the Psalms As of Joyful Persons is the dwelling of all them that be in thee And that I called others to the fruition of this Vision and to behold this wonderful City I construe it by the Will of God this Vision to have come upon me musing on your Letter to the end that under this Figure I might have occasion to move you with many others to behold the Primitive Church in all your Opinions concerning Faith and to conform your self in all points to the same which is the Pillar and Establishment of truth and teacheth the true use of the Sacraments and having with a greater fulness than we have now the first fruits of the Holy Ghost did declare the true Interpretation of the Scriptures according to all verity even as our Saviour promised to send them another Comforter which should teach them all truth And since all truth was taught and revealed to the Primitive Church which is our Mother let us all that be obedient Children of God submit our selves to the judgment of the Church for the better understanding of the Articles of our Faith and of the doubtful Sentences of the Scripture Let us not go about to shew in us by following any private Man's Interpretation upon the Word another Spirit than they of the Primitive Church had lest we deceive our selves For there is but one Faith and one Spirit which is not contrary to himself neither otherwise now teacheth us than he did them Therefore let us believe as they have taught us of the Scriptures and be at peace with them according as the true Catholick Church is at this day And the God of Peace assuredly will be with us and deliver us out of all our Worldly Troubles and Miseries and make us Partakers of their Joy and Bliss through our Obedience to Faith with them Therefore God commandeth us in Job to ask of the Elder Generation and to search diligently the memory of the Fathers For we are but Yesterdays Children and be Job 8. ignorant and our days are like a Shadow and they shall teach thee saith the Lord and speak to thee and shall utter words from their Hearts And by Solomon we are Prov. 6. commanded not to reject the direction of our Mother The Lord grant you to direct your steps in all things after her and to abhor contention with her For as St. Paul writeth If any Man be contentious neither we neither the 1 Cor. 11. Church of God hath any such custom Hitherto I have shewed you good Brother S. my Judgment generally of that you stand in doubt and dissent from others to the which I wish you as mine own Heart to be comformable and then doubtless you cannot err but boldly may be glad in your Troubles and Triumph at the hour of your Death that you shall die in the Church of God a Faithful Martyr and receive the Crown of Eternal Glory And thus much have I written upon the occasion of a Vision before God unfeigned But that you may not think that I go about to satisfie you with uncertain Visions only and not after God's Word I will take the ground of your Letter and specially answer to the same by the Scriptures and by infallible reasons deduced out of the same and prove the Baptism of Infants to be lawful commendable and necessary whereof you seem to stand in doubt Indeed if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only which hath corrupted God's Word by false Interpretations and hath perverted the true use of Christ's Sacraments you might seem to have good handfast of your Opinion against the Baptism of Infants But forasmuch as it is of more Antiquity and hath his beginning from God's Word and from the use of the Primitive Church it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected or thought not expedient to be used in Christ's Church Auxentius one of the Arrians Sect with his Adherents was one of the first that denied the Baptism of Children and next after him Pelagius the Heretick and some other there were in St. Bernard's time as it doth appear by his Writings and in our days the Anabaptists and Inordinate kind of Men stirred up
25. been many times said viz. that by things not Commanded are meant things forbidden and hath nothing to prove it by but only that the things mentioned in Scripture to which that phrase is applied were things forbidden as Idolatry c. Though what he produceth out of the Case be sufficient Case of Indifferent Things p. 20. yet he extreamly forgets himself when he saith nothing but only since in the page he quotes there are two arguments that are sooner flip'd than answered But however what hath he to reply to that which hath been many times said He grants It is true And is this nothing toward the proof of it What fitter way have we to find out the meaning of a phrase than to consider the several places where it is used Or to ascertain the sense of it than to shew that it 's always alike applied to such a case or thing But in answer to this he asks Why are such things express'd to us in this phrase as Not Commanded only 1st I answer they are not thus express'd as Not commanded Only For the things said to be not commanded are either in their own nature or in Scripture absolutely Forbidden as I have shewed and he grants and therefore to limit the phrase as if there was no more intended in it than that the things are not commanded as the Word Only implies and not also forbidden is to thwart Scripture as well as my reasoning from it 2ly If we take the Phrase as it is yet there his Question Why are they thus express'd and not commanded is of no Importance for supposing we could give no Reason for such an use of it that would not be sufficient to question the Thing as long as we find it constantly so used and applied But 3ly Was there no Reason offer'd no account given of it Let him peruse the Tract he opposeth as sure he did and he will find it expresly undertaken and two Reasons given for it as 1. Things forbidden are Case of Indiff Things pag. 23. called not commanded because all things prohibited are by consequence not commanded and not è contra 2. It 's by way of Meiosis c. But these though to the purpose in hand were not I am afraid to his Well! Let us consider 4ly What Account our Author himself gives at last of this 1. Saith he Things forbidden in Scripture are said to be not commanded To let us know the doing of a thing not commanded in God's Worship is Guilt enough Surely not so great as to do a thing notoriously Case Indiff Things pag. 20. forbidden as I there shewed Surely it can be no Guilt at all to do a thing not commanded if not also forbidden because as he owns there are Indifferent Things in the Worship of God and what are indifferent Things but Things not commanded as well as not forbidden 2. He saith it was so express'd because the Guilt of the Sin of Idolatry and Superstition lay in this that it was a thing not commanded had God commanded those things they had been a true Worship and acceptable In which assertion of his he grosly mistakes First as to the nature of Idolatry and Superstition when he saith the guilt of them lay in this that they were things not commanded Whereas it is evident that they were Sins because forbidden For what is Superstition but the dreading of that which is not to be dreaded as the Greek word shews Such as the Signs of Heaven Divinations and Daemons and even the unreasonable and inordinate fear of God himself When we fear Jer. 10. 2. offending him in what is not offensive to him And what is Idolatry but the giving Divine honour to that which is not God or prohibited honour to the true and only God These are things manifestly forbidden Secondly It 's yet a grosser Error which is contained in the reason he gives for it viz. That had God Commanded those things they had been a true Worship and acceptable An assertion First that confounds the Nature of things that makes Vice and Vertue alike and no otherwise discriminated but by Gods written Law as if Idolatry and Superstition were not Evil antecedent to all Revelation and which are so where Revelation is not as well as where it is Secondly From hence it follows that those things may be acceptable to God which in their own nature do tend to drive Religion out of the World and that may be true Worship which will unavoidably debase the Deity in the thoughts of Mankind For so do Idolatry and Superstition As for the Instances he there takes notice of I shall reserve them to a more convenient place Conclus 2. If things Indifferent be such as are neither Conclus Commanded nor Forbidden and that things are not unlawful because not Commanded then things thus Indifferent and not commanded are not additions to the Word Case of Indiff things p. 24. of God and the places usually insisted upon must be understood according to the sence I gave of them and which may serve as a sufficient reply to what he hath Case examined p. 26. said upon that Head But yet because he hath offer'd somewhat in another place that looks like an Argument I shall here consider it He argues thus If obedience be wanting the Salt is wanting to the Sacrifices Pag. 4. of our God which as we humbly conceive leaves no more room for perfective than corruptive Additions to Divine Worship c. What can be an act of Obedience to God but what he hath commanded whether he hath forbidden it or no If we bid our Servant go a mile and he goeth two possibly hoping to do us Service in it we hope his going the Second mile is no act of obedience though we did not forbid him In matters of this Nature no act of Supererogation is allowable because it can be no obedience In answer to which it will be necessary to resolve this Question Q. Whether the doing of any thing in the Worship of God without a command be a sinful addition to the Word of God I answer that if the Question is understood of the proper and essential parts of Worship if I may so speak then we grant it and say that he that shall institute any thing in that kind without Divine Institution doth challenge Gods prerogative to himself and because the rule is sufficient all such perfective are corruptive additions as he speaks to both Rule and Worship It is as if a Servant when bidden to go a mile he goeth two possibly hoping to do Service in it for in matters of this nature no Supererogation is allowable Thus far his comparison holds as to matters of the same Nature and design'd to the same end and esteemed to be of the same use As the going of two Miles for one with an intent to do as good Service and be as well if not better approv'd for so doing But if the question be
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.
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
favourable Interpretations upon things to take them by the best handle and not strain things on purpose that they might cavil the more plausibly and raise more considerable Objections against them We must not make personal accidental Faults nor any thing a pretence for our leaving the Communion of our Church which ariseth only from the necessary condition and temper of all humane Affairs that nothing here is absolutely perfect 6. And lastly if you cannot by these and other the like considerations not now to be mentioned get rid of and conquer your Scruples then be advised to lay them aside to throw them out of your Minds as dangerous Temptations and act positively against them But here I easily imagine some ready presently to ask me Do you perswade us to conform to the Orders of the Church tho we are not satisfied in our Minds concerning them I answer That I think this the best Advice that can be given to such scrupulous Persons It would be an endless infinite thing and Communion with any Church would be altogether unpracticable if every private Christian was obliged to suspend joyning himself to it till he was perfectly satisfied about the reasonableness and expediency of all that was required or was in use in that Church for indeed private Persons are by no means proper Judges of what is fit and convenient in the Administration of Church-Government Discipline or publick Worship no more than they are of matters of State or the Reasonableness of all Civil Laws Common People generally have neither Patience to consider nor Judgment to weigh all Circumstances nor Wisdom to choose that which is best these things of a Publick Nature belong only to our Superiours and Governours and if they appoint what is unfit indecent or inconvenient they only are accountable for it It is not the fault of those that joyn with such Worship or yield to such Injunctions not plainly sinful for the sake of Peace and Order I know therefore no better Rule for the directing and quieting Mens Consciences than this that as to all such Matters as relate to Publick Order and decent Administration of God's Worship they should without any superstitious Fearfulness comply with the Customs of the Church they live in never troubling themselves nor curiously examining what is best and fittest as long as there is nothing enjoyned or done which after due enquiry appears to us contrary to any Law of God Thus St. Augustin directs us in that often quoted place where he tells us He knew no better course for a serious prudent Christian to take in matters of Rites and Customs than to follow the Churches Example where he is for whatsoever is prescribed neither against Faith or Manners is a matter in its self indifferent and to be observed according to the Custom of those he lives among This was agreeable to the Counsel St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan gave him when he was sent by his Mother to enquire his Judgment about the Saturday Fast When I am at Rome saith the Bishop I fast on the Sabbath but at Milan I do not So thou likewise when thou comest to any Church observe its Custom if thou wouldest neither be an offence to them nor have them be so to thee Which St. Augustin ever after looked upon as an Oracle from Heaven I do not by this encourage Men to venture blindfold on Sin or to neglect any reasonable care of their Actions but if People raise all the Difficulties and Objections they can start before they proceed to a Resolution about things that have no manifest Impiety in them nor are plainly nor by any easie consequence contrary to the revealed Will of God this cannot but occasion infinite Perplexity and Trouble to Mens Minds and there are but few things they shall be able to do with a safe and quiet Conscience Should all those that have some little Arguments against the Sign of the Cross puzzle themselves with the Objections usually urged against Infant Baptism and defer baptizing their Children till they were fully satisfied about it I doubt not but the baptizing of Infants would soon be as much scrupled at as the crossing them now is But there is no apparent Evil in it it is the Practise of the Church we live in it is no where forbid in Scripture this ordinarily is sufficient Warrant for what we do Before we separate from a Church or refuse to comply with its Orders we ought to be fully satisfied and persuaded of the Unlawfulness of what is required that it is forbid by God because by leaving the Communion of any Church we pass Sentence upon and condemn it which ought not to be done upon light and doubtful causes but there is not the same necessity that we should be thus fully satisfied about our Conformity to all things prescribed by the Church We may presume them to be innocent unless they plainly appear to us otherwise The Judicious and Learned Bishop Sanderson thus expresseth it in his fourth Sermon Ad Clerum The Law taketh every Man for a good Man and true till his Truth and Honesty be legally disproved and as our Saviour sometimes said He that is not against us is for us so in these matters he speaks of those Ceremonies that for Order's sake and to add the greater Solemnity to sacred Actions are appointed in the Church we are to believe all things to be lawful for us to do which cannot be shewn by good Evidence either of Scripture or Reason to be unlawful If any one be afraid that this Principle once imbibed would introduce Popery make People greedily swallow and without any Examination submit to every thing their Superiours please to impose upon them let him only consider which we all agree in that there are many things in the Popish Worship and Religion manifestly evil and forbidden by the revealed Will of God which renders our Separation from them necessary and so consequently justifiable whereas the things objected against in our Church are at worst only doubtful and suspicious or rather not so good and expedient as might be devised and this surely makes a wide difference in the case But doth not St. Paul say Rom. 14. 19. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing unclean it is unclean Doth not he expresly tell us That whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin that is Whatever we do without a full Persuasion of the lawfulness of it tho it be not so in it self yet is a Sin in him that doth it against his Conscience And doth not the Apostle say He that doubteth is damned if he eat before he is convinced that it may be done I desire here therefore only to be rightly understood and then these things are soon reconciled 1. When I speak of a Scrupulous Conscience I suppose the Person tolerably well perswaded of the lawfulness of what is to be done but yet he
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.