Libertas Ecclesiastica, OR, A DISCOURSE, Vindicating the lawfulness of those things, which are chief excepted against in the Church of England, especially in its LITURGY and WORSHIP.  
And manifesting their agreeableness with the Doctrine and practice both of Ancient and Modern Churches.  
By WILLIAM FALKNER, Preacher at St. Nicholas, in Lyn Regis.  
LONDON, Printed by J. M. for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishops-Head in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1674.   

IMPRIMATUR,  
Jan. 23. 167●/● Sam. Parker.   

TO The most Reverend Father in God, Gilbert by Divine Providence, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan, and one of His Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council, etc.  
May it please your Grace,  
YOur Grace being a Person of such singular Eminency in the Church of England, I humbly crave leave to present to your hands this following Discourse, which contains a Vindication of the Public Worship of our Church, from those Exceptions which by Dissenters have been made against it. And the main Design of this Treatise being to promote Christian Unity, by representing the evil consequences of such unnecessary Discords and Schisms, and the great unreasonableness of those pretences, which have been alleged for their Justification; it will n●t, I hope, be judged incongruous, that it should address itself to your Grace, whose high Office in the Church tendeth to advance the Unity thereof, and entitleth you to the public Patronage of Peace and Truth.  
I cannot doubt your Grace's approbation of this design, which is at all times useful, but more especially in this present Juncture of Affairs, if God please to grant success, which is my earnest prayer. For as all good men who prefer Truth and the sincere practice of Piety before their own prejudices, wills, and passions, cannot but approve of such honest endeavours to rectify mistakes, and compose the minds of men to peace; so all who are pious and wise cannot but discern a greater necessity, and a more particular obligation at this time to silence all these little janglings and quarrels, if they have any respect to the main interest and concerns of the Reformed Profession.  
And I hope, My Lord, that the late Alarm we had from our common Enemies, may open men's eyes to see the mischief of rending the Church into so many Factions, and may dispose them to receive just and reasonable satisfaction. And though what hath been excellently performed by former Writers upon this Subject be sufficiently satisfactory, yet my labour herein may not be wholly useless, considering the humour of this Age, which is more apt to read new Books than to seek for old ones.  
But though the cause I have undertaken deserves your Grace's Patronage, yet my own personal defects might justly have discouraged me, from presenting this discourse to one of so high Dignity, and so great a Judgement; had not the cause itself been so good, that it needed no Art and Colours to set it off, but is sufficiently justified, when it is rightly represented and understood; and your Grace's Candour and Clemency so well known, as to encourage me to hope for a favourable Acceptance; which is the only thing I beg in this humble Address unto your Grace, favourably to accept of this small Present from him, who unfeignedly prayeth for your Grace's prosperity, and is entirely devoted to the service and interest of Truth and Peace, and  
Humbly honoureth your Grace with all due Observance, W. Falkner.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
Christian Reader,  
THE design of this discourse being to remove or at least to allay those fierce contentions about the external forms of worship, to which we own all those unhappy Schisms, which good men so hearty bewail, it was necessary in order to this end to rectify those mistakes and prejudices, which abuse well-minded men, who have not throughly considered things; and to correct those corrupt passions, that quarrelsome and contentious humour, which perverts others.  
To these two causes we own most of our present disorders, & it is too evident, what hand the latter of these has had in them, while divers Persons wanting a due sense of the evil and danger of these discords, and a due regard to the Peace and Unity of the Church, have been too zealous and forward to maintain and promote such dissensions, thereby to serve the Interest of their own parties, and to oppose the settlement of the Church upon sure and lasting principles: now I had no other way of dealing with these men, but to convince them of the great evil of such contentions, and how much it is the duty of every Christian to study Peace and Unity. For there is nothing more evident, than that men's minds are strangely biased by their affections and Interests, and clouded by passion, and therefore while they are so peremptorily resolved upon their way, while they are so fond of their own Inventions, while they are devoted to the service of a Party, and account those men their Enemies, who should rule and govern them, and inform them better; there is no expectation, that reason and argument should prevail with them.  
And if those arguments, which I have made use of for this purpose, should be effectual to calm the passions of men, and to work in them a Christian and peaceable temper of mind, I can easily foretell the success of my following discourse, the design of which is to rectify those mistakes and misapprehensions, which some men labour under, which either concern the particular Rites and offices of our Church, or the General rule of duty, or Ecclesiastical liberty, by which the Church must be directed and guided in matters of order.  
The first hath occasioned various exceptions against some Rites and Ceremonies, and particular passages in our forms of Prayer, and I have spent great part of this Treatise in answering such objections, by which I hope it will appear, what little reason there is to disturb the Peace of the Church, and to separate from our Communion upon such pretences.  
Concerning the General Rule, which ought ever to be observed in the Church about matters of order, there are some, who will allow nothing (except some few circumstances) to be determined by the Authority of the Church, unless it be directly enjoined by a particular divine Institution; and for a more plausible colour they reject all such rules of order or regular administration, under the terms of unscriptural conditions of Communion. But in answer to this I have made it appear to be an unjust and unreasonable exception against the established order of any Church, that there are some things determined and appointed by the Authority of Superiors, which have always been accounted of an Indifferent nature, and are indeed the proper matters of Ecclesiastical Liberty: And I hope, I have abundantly proved to the satisfaction of all sober inquirers, that prudent and well ordered Ecclesiastical Constitutions and appointments for the promoting order and decency, and the advancement of Religion and Piety, are very allowable and unblameable; nay that it is impossible, that any public worship or service of God can be performed, unless some things in those administrations, not particularly commanded by God, be determined either by public Authority, or by common agreement, which makes it necessary for all men either to relinquish this principle, or which is more shameful, to contradict it in their practice.  
I am not unsensible, what rewards such attempts, as this, commonly meet with from men of distempered minds, and ungoverned passions: I have carefully avoided all just occasion of offence, as hoping, that I may the more effectually persuade, the less I anger them; but if nothing will secure me from Invectives and Calumnies. I must be contented with my portion, and appeal to the judgement of more candid and impartial Readers, and satisfy myself with the Testimony of God and my own Conscience of the honesty of my intentions and design in this work, leaving the success of it to the Divine Providence, with my hearty and serious Prayers, that it may be for the public benefit of the Church.  
Farewell.   

THE CONTENTS.  

THE FIRST BOOK.  

CHap. 1. The disagreements about Conformity are of great concernment. Sect. 1. Of the effects of these Dissensions as to the dispositions of the People. Sect. 2. That these Contentions disadvantage Christianity, and gratify Popery and Irreligion. Sect. 3. Of the dangerous loss of the Church's Peace and Unity by this Controversy, and of the Sin of Schism. Sect. 4. Some false Conceptions of Schism refuted. Sect. 5. Of the duty of Obedience to Rulers and Governors, and the due Exercise of the Ministerial Function, which is herein concerned. Sect. 6. A Proposal touching due considerateness, and the design of this Treatise manifested.  
Chap. 2. Of the solemn League & Covenant. Sect. 1. Of an unlawful Oath in itself, and that that Oath was such, with respect to its Matter, and Form, and Imposition. Sect. 2. That the Covenant cannot oblige any Person to endeavour any alteration of the Government of the Church, proved by four Rules.  
Chap. 3. Of the Declaration and Subscription referring to the Liturgy. The common use of such acknowledgements, etc. the true sense of declaring unfeigned assent and consent.  
Chap. 4. Of the Liturgy and the ordinary Service appointed therein. Sect. 1. The Lawfulness, Antiquity, and Expediency of Set-Forms. Sect. 2. Objections against Set-Forms answered. Sect. 3. Of the Composure of the Prayers in our Liturgy; chief of Responsals and short Prayers. Sect. 4. Of the Doxology, Athanasian Creed, and some particular expressions in the Litany. Sect. 5. Considerations concerning the public reading the Apocryphal Chapters. Sect. 6. The Objections from the matter of the Apocrypha discussed Sect. 7. Considerations about the Translation of the Psalms used in the Liturgy. Sect. 8. Of holidays or Festivals.  
Chap. 5. Of the particular Offices in the Liturgy. Sect. 1. Of the direction for Communicants receiving the Lords Supper. Sect. 2. Of some other things in the Communion Office. Sect. 3. Of the saving Regeneration of Infants in Baptism, and the grounds upon which it may be asserted. Sect. 4. The Doctrine of the ancient, and divers Reformed Churches herein observed. Sect. 5. The Objections against the saving Regeneration of Infants in Baptism considered. Sect. 6. Of the Notion of visible Regeneration in Baptism. Sect. 7. Of Sureties, and some other things in the Office for Baptism. Sect. 8. Of the Office for Confirmation, and that for Marriage. Sect. 9 Of the Communion of the Sick, and the Office for Burial.    

The Second Book.  

Chap. 1. The lawful Use of some Ceremonies in the Christian Church asserted. Sect. 1. What we are here to understand by Ceremonies. Sect. 2. The first Argument for the lawfulness of Ecclesiastical Rites, from the liberty therein allowed to the Jewish Church. Sect. 3. Ecclesiastical Constitutions concerning external Rites, warranted by the Apostolical Doctrine and Practice. Sect. 4. The Practice and Judgement of the Primitive, and many Protestant Churches concerning Ceremonies. Sect. 5. The ill consequences of denying the lawfulness of all Ecclesiastical Rites and Constitutions in things indifferent. Sect. 6. Some Objections from Reason and from the Old Testament examined. Sect. 7. Other Objections from the New Testament cleared.  
Chap. 2. Of Ecclesiastical Appointments and Constitutions under some special Considerations. Sect. 1. Of external Rites considered as significant. Sect. 2. Of Ecclesiastical Appointments, considered as imposed and enjoined. Sect. 3. Of Ecclesiastical Constitutions about things scrupled. Sect. 4. Of Ecclesiastical Rites, which have been abused in any corrupt way of Worship.  
Chap. 3. Of devout and becoming Gestures in the Service of God. Sect. 1. Of the Gesture at Prayer, Praise, and Christian Profession of Faith. Sect. 2. Of standing up at the Gospel. Sect. 3. Of the fitness of Kneeling at the Communion: and the gesture at the Institution of that Sacrament considered. Sect. 4. Of the Communion-gesture observed in the Christian Church, both in the purer and the more degenerate times thereof.  
Chap. 4. Of other particular Rites appointed in the Church of England. Sect 1. Of the Surpless. Sect. 2. Of the sign of the Cross in the Office for Baptism. Sect. 3. Of laying on hands in Confirmation. Sect. 4. Of the Ring in Marriage. And the Conclusion.     

Libertas Ecclesiastica. The First BOOK.  

CHAP. I.  
Showing the disagreements about Conformity, to be of great concernment.  

SECT I.  
Of the effects of these oppositions, as to the dispositions of the people.  
1. THE discerning the weightiness of any matter under present circumstances, doth not only depend upon the direct inspection into the thing itself, but also upon a more comprehensive view of it, as it taketh in all its necessary consequents and attendants. If the Sea bank be broken, and carried away by an overflowing rage of Waters, the loss would be fond estimated, by considering only the value of so much earth as would make it up: and it would be some degrees below common folly, to imagine that the advantage of respiration in man, is a thing wholly inconsiderable, because the matter of it is only a little ordinary air: for according to that of Damascen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a small matter is then no small matter, when it bringeth in a great consequent.  
2. Nor can we easily find a more full instance hereof, than in the present subject of Conformity. For the discovering how great the good or evil is, which dependeth thereupon, is not to be concluded, chief from the bare eyeing the things required and appointed, many of which are in their own nature things indifferent; but from observing its necessary attendants, which are of very high consequence and great concernment. Wherefore I shall first take an account, what great and manifold evils flow from these dissensions, and oppositions, whereby this will appear to be a matter deserving serious consideration, and that the maintaining such dissensions, unless they proceed upon necessary and justifiable grounds, (which I shall examine) is upon many weighty accounts utterly disallowable, and greatly condemnable.  
3. From these contentions doth spring much want of Christian love, and that kindness of affection, which our Lord requireth, and by many cogent arguments enforceth upon his Disciples; and instead thereof we may hear many contemptuous, scoffing, and scorning expressions, which are an evidence of a frothy and airy vanity and haughtiness of mind, unsuitable to the gravity and humility of the Christian Spirit. Yea, hence much discourse of many men religiously disposed, which might be well improved to a pious proficiency in the Christian life, runneth up into the wilder branches of contention; and that zeal which might be well employed, is oft misspent in cherishing the flames of passionate heats, and heart-burnings, accompanied with too much bitterness, and becometh that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. James so sharply censureth and condemneth, 
Jam. 3.14, 15.  as being manifestly opposite to those religious practices unto which Christians are directed from above.  
4. This opposition hath also too much promoted many sinful prejudices in the spirits of Men: hence some have their minds unreasonably prepossessed, with so much averseness towards, and disesteem of the public administrations of God's service, as indisposeth them for a devout performance of that worship, and hindereth the vigorous exercise of Christian Graces in their joining therein, to the decay of piety. It occasioneth others to be neglectful in their attendance, even upon the holy Sacramental Institutions of our blessed Saviour; and this same sin of prejudice sometimes ruleth so far, as to promote rashness of judgement and great censoriousness of others, contrary to the Gospel rule, and therein blindeth men's minds, and hurrieth their passions into great excesses. By all which things God is displeased, and Christian Charity is violated, but the greatest hurt befalleth themselves, by their slighting the advantages of a Religious life, and either frequently neglecting, or negligently performing the public duties of God's worship, and not entertaining the means of their Salvation; which includeth also a want of due respect unto God and his grace.  
5. And what strange apprehensions this Sin is prone to raise of the worthiest men, may be best discovered in some particular instances. Hereby they who could not but admire the Works and Doctrine of Christ, did both reject him, and causelessly censure him, as breaking the Sabbath, blaspheming God, being an Enemy to Caesar, and a greater friend to Publicans and Sinners than was allowable, and at last cried out, Crucify him, Crucify him. 
Act. 14.8.19.  Hence also the same persons who so excessively admire Paul and Barnabas at Lystra, being possessed with prejudice by the Jews persuasion, were well pleased that they should be stoned to Death, and thereupon they rejected that Doctrine which the Apostles preached.  
6. Upon the like ungrounded disaffection, 
Bas. Ep. 75.  St. Basil met with no better reputation at Neocesaria (the place of his Father's Family) than to be branded for an Heretic: 
Naz. Cann. de Vita suâ.  and his great Friend Gr. Nazianzen at his first coming to Constantinople (the City being in an uproar against him) was stoned by them, who when they understood him better, being freed from their furious passions, yielded him, as his great worth deserved, an high and honourable respect. And the influence of this evil temper carried so strong a bias to pervert the judgements of the Donatists, that St. Austin himself was misreputed by them, as a seducer and deceiver of Souls; 
Posidon de vit. Aug c. 9  and they exclaimed against him both publicly and privately, that he was a Wolf, who should be slain for the preservation of the flock. And all this was only because that famous man kept and defended the Communion of the Church, which they rejected, he truly judging that a duty, which they erronesously condemned as a sin. Thus this uneven glass of prejudice, when placed before the minds of men, misrepresenteth even what is comely and amiable, as if it was monstrous ugly and deformed.   

SECT. II.  
Showing these contentions to disadvantage Christianity, and to gratify Popery and Irreligion.  
1. It is manifest that the open appearance of such, and indeed of all other open contentions in the Church, have constantly abated the honourable esteem of Christianity in the World, amongst them who do not profess it; and upon that account they ought as much as is possible, to be avoided by those who value the interest of Religion. 
Ep. ad Corinth p. 2.  Clemens the Fellow-labourer of St. Paul took notice, that in the dissensions fomented at Corinth, about no matters of Doctrine, but only of Order and Government, the hot distractions of a few heady and self pleasing persons, (as he styleth them) occasioned the name of that Church, to be greatly reproached and evil spoken of; which was otherwise honourable, renowned, and worthy to be loved. And Socrates averreth, 
Socr. Hist. Eccl. lib. 4. c. 5.  that the controversies (necessary on the Church's part) about Arianism were attended with so great a mischief, that the Christian profession itself, was from thence openly derided in the theatres, even under the Government of a Christian Emperor: and Constantine himself observed, 
Eccl. Hist Eccl. l. 10 c. 5.  that the opposition of the Donatists, at its first taking root, did bring forth such dangerous fruit, that they who had their minds estranged from this most holy Religion, had thence an occasion given them to scorn and deride it. And the reflection upon the strange proneness to disagreement among Christians, occasioned that reproachful expression against the Christian name, related of Solyman the Turkish Emperor, who when it was told him, that the Christians would unite together against him at the last; he lifting up his hand, and stretching out his fingers replied, That there was no more ground to fear, that the Christians should ever unite, than to fear that those singers should grow together.  
2. Nor is it hard to show, that such differences among Protestants, do gratify the interests and desires, and comply with the designs of the Papists. 
Contz. Polit. l. 2. c. 19  It is the known Maxim of their great Politician, Bella haereticorum, pax Ecclesiae, which in his language expresseth, our discords to be their security: And Bishop Whitgift in Queen Elizabeth's days, 
Letter to the Council in Fuller's Hist. l. 9 Contz. l. 2. c. 18.  expressed it to be a thing notorious, that the opposing Uniformity, was in England the Papists advantage, and the Protestants disadvantage: and which way their interests and endeavours at this time move, may be discerned by an observing eye without the help of a Telescope, their hopes being founded in our dissensions.  
3. Upon these dissensions also they much insist, to dissuade persons thereby from the Protestant profession; though this is indeed no other argument than what the Gentiles of old made use of against Christianity, and is both long since sufficiently answered by Clemens Alexandrinus, 
Strom. l. 7.  Origen against Celsus, and many other Fathers on the behalf of Christians, and hath lately been well returned upon the Papists themselves. However the influence from these divisions is so considerable, though the argument from them be not valuable, 
Polit. lib. 9 c. 21.  that Contzen relateth it as the complaint of a Protestant Writer of good account, Papistae funestis Evangelicorum dissidiis absterrentur à Doctrina Evangelicorum, ceu haereticâ, Satanicâ & seditiosâ; That by the lamentable discords of the Protestants, the Papists are frighted from the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, as if it was Heretical, Satanical, and Seditious: and in the same place he speaketh his own thoughts. We, saith he, can not approve the cause of the Protestants, which always some part of themselves, and sometimes the chief and most numerous part doth detest.  
4. Nor are their endeavours ordinarily wanting, to blow up the Coals of contention, that they may be advantaged by the smoke. 
Letter to the Lord Treasurer in Fuller, ubi supra.  That they did animate some dissenters from Conformity in the Queen's days, was asserted by Bishop Whitgift, upon his own certain knowledge. And that in these last thirty years and upwards, they were promoters of our divisions, is more than probable from the informations given to the Archbishop, 
V Biblioth. Reg. p. 42.  1640. by Andrea's ab Habernsfield a Bohemian of noble descent, and from many particular passages concerning our late discords published by Mr. Prinne, and Monsieur du Moulin, together with divers credible relations of known Romanists in the meetings of divers Sects. Mr. Baxter long since declared, that he began to have a strong suspicion, that the Papists had indeed an hand in the extirpation of Episcopacy, 
Grot. Relig. Sect. 66.  and citeth Bishop Bramhal's words against Meliterius. There was a Bishop in the World (losers may have leave to talk) whose privy Purse and subtle Counsels did help to kindle that unnatural War in his Majesty's three Kingdoms.  
5. Agreeably hereto it was observed their Policy about two hundred years since, to endeavour to extinguish the sparks of light in the Bohemian Church, by dividing them asunder; 
Comen. Historiola, Sect. 36.  and as Comenius relateth, admiscebant se personati quidam, qui Papae causam promoturi, dissentiones mutuas promovebant. 
Bulleng. adv. Anabapt.  and Bullenger (as he is cited by Bishop Whitgift in his exhortation before his Answer to the Admonition) declared, that the Anabaptists in Switzerland, and the parts of Germany, were animated by the subtle Papists.  
6. Yet if any will not so much as suspect, that these seeds of division, are either secretly sown, or watered from these hands; considerate men have found cause to conclude, that they expect to reap an harvest by them. This hath not only been expressed by some of themselves, and discerned by others in the Churches of England, Bohemia, and Switzerland, but the same hath been also apprehended in all other Protestant Churches. Hubertus Languetus, a man of great authority, and at that time the Duke of Saxonies' Ambassador, resident in the Emperor's Court at Vienna (as Comenius, who relateth the words of his Epistle, declareth) writing to Andrea's Stephanus a Bohemian Bishop, declared what his observation had discovered, almost an hundred years since; saith he, the Pope feareth nothing more than our consenting and joining in Unity;— sed sunt inter nos insani quidam Theologi, etc. But there are amongst us some furious Divines, who reject all right Counsels, and thereby perform a work advantageous to the Pope's interest.  
7. And even Beza in the life of Calvin declareth concerning the controversies in Saxony about adiaphorous rites, as the Surplice, etc. that Calvin did at first dislike Ph. Melanchthon, (who persuaded to Conformity) but afterwards he discovered that there was no reason so to do. For at that time it did not appear (saith Beza) with what spirit that evil Genius, and the whole Troop of the Flacians (who disdained Conformity) were hurried on, which afterward caused so many troubles, and still do hinder the work of God, non aliter sane, nec minus suriose & impudenter, quam si ab ipso Romano Pontifice magnas stipendiis esset conducta: with no less impudence and sury, (saith he) than if they had been hired by large salaries from the Pope of Rome. 
Praef. in Apol. Catech.  And this contentious spirit of Flacius Illyricus (who was in some other respects a man deserving commendation) hath gained him this Character from Vrsin, that he was one, qui per complures annos, praestantissimis atque veris Christianis, & Orthodoxis viris obtrectando, & multas non necessarias altercationes excitando, plurimorum conscientias, & passim Ecclesias, in Germania turbavit; Who for divers years, by his discrediting worthy and true Christians, and Orthodox men, and by stirring up many unnecessary contentions, was a troubler of divers Consciences and Churches, all over Germany.  
8. Nor is it hard to discover, that these dissensions about our public service, are made an occasion by some others (I might say by many others) who are more careless than scrupulous in matters of Piety, for their gross neglecting the worship of God, and the duties of Religion: as the disputes about the Lords Supper, have in several places apparently caused a great carelessness, of attending on that great Ordinance. 
Letter to the Council, ubi supra.  It was Bishop whitgift's observation concerning our former times, that in King Edward's time, and the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's, before the heat of these contentions, the Gospel mightily prevailed and took great increase, but since this schism and division, (saith he) the contrary effects have happened. And indeed no other can be well expected, because hereby is manifestly wanting that forcible motive, from the general joining in the service of God with readiness of mind, and with one consent, which might persuade them who are otherwise careless of Religion, to be more serious, by making them ashamed of their negligence.  
9 And doubtfulness of Religion in some, and profaneness of life in others, are the woeful ordinary consequents of such differences. When the Donatists, who neither erred in the Faith, nor appeared vicious in their lives, made a great breach in the Church, about matters of discipline; Optatus noteth, 
Opt. adv. Parm. l. 5.  that while they contended that their separation was lawful, and the Orthodox Church decried it as unlawful, the common people were doubtful, and at a stand in the practice of Religion. Inter vestrum licet & nostrum non licet, nutant & remigant animae populorum. And that Apostolical man Clemens, expresseth the fruits of the divisions in the Corinthian Church, about their Governors, to be these: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, your division hath perverted and turned aside many; 
Ep. ad Cor. p. 61.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it hath discouraged many and made them despond; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it bringeth many into doubtfulness, and us all to grief and sorrow.  
10. And besides divers others ways mentioned in the following Sections, whereby Religion is disadvantaged by these oppositions; it is upon this account also apparently hindered, because these discords do oft divert many Ministers, from the more directly profitable parts of their employment; and make it necessary for them to spend much time, in satisfying these scruples, and answering objections, with thoughtfullness of the ill consequents of these dissensions; while they have other work enough to do in the worship of God, the edifying his Church, and the opposing other designs of those Enemies who seek to undermine it. This is like the discovery of a fire breaking forth, or inward mutinies appearing at that time, when there is much necessary work to be done at home, and many conflicts to be prepared for both at home and abroad; which must needs put some considerable obstructions to those proceed.   

SECT. III.  
Of the dangerous loss of the Church's Peace and Unity by this controversy, and of the sin of Schism.  
1. That upon matters referring to this controversy, the Peace and Concord of our Church doth much depend, and that it is and hath been thereby evidently and extremely hindered, is so apparently visible, that it needeth no proof, and hath been on all hands generally confessed and complained of. Now though it be every Christians duty, to reject that Peace which is inconsistent with Piety, yet there can be no discharge given to these great duties of Peace and Unity, where they may be practised consistently with godliness and truth. To be truly Religious, is to enjoy a healthful state of a sound mind, where there is no lethargic stupidness, but an inward and vigorous life, which is not attended with distempered heats and inflammations, but with a calm and sedate composure of a sober spirit; for the fruits of righteousness are sown in peace, Jam. 3.18.  
2. This duty is so considerable, that the Holy Ghost seemeth scarce in any thing else, so pathetically to command and urge our practical obedience, as about the Church's Peace, and Christian Unity. If there be any consolation in Christ, 
Phil. 2.1, 2.  (saith the Apostle) if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies: fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like minded, being of one accord, and of one mind. Yea, so generally is this duty pressed, that there is scarce any Book of the holy Scripture, chief of the new Testament, but doth particularly enjoin or recommend it.  
3. If we value the favour and presence of God, even that is no where so much to be found, as where Christian Peace and Unity are most pursued. Wherefore St. Paul commandeth, 2 Cor. 13.11. Be of one mind, live in peace, and the God of love and peace shall be with you. And the same Apostle declareth, that the Church becometh an Holy Temple, 
Eph. 2.21, 22.  and an habitation of God, by being a building joined and united in Christ, and fitly framed together, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (and some have not amiss observed, that in the framing of that Greek word, there is contained a triple band of Unity. The Jewish Doctors observed, that the Shecinah or Divine presence did dwell with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meek and quiet spirits, but flieth from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them who were wrathful and angry. 
Nazianz. Orat. 12.  Nazianzen maketh it a considerable Character of one, who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, near of God and to what is Divine, that he is a man who embraceth peace, and hateth discord: 
Ign. Ep. ad Eph. p. 20. & 25. Edit. Voll.  and Ignatius expresseth the great profitableness of being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in unspoted Unity, that thereby they may always have Communion with God, and prevail against the power of the Devil.  
4. If the true exercise of the Christian life and duty be considered, St. Paul declareth the divisions and discords of the Church of Corinth, to be an evidence that they were carnal. 1 Cor. 3.3. and to be the cause why their assembling to the Lords Supper, was not advantageous, but hurtful to them. Ch. 11.17, 18. and that the benefits of true Christian growth and increase are to be expected in Christian Unity, 
Cyp. de Vnit. Eccl.  Eph. 4.16. Ch. 2.21. Col. 2.19. And in those words of our departing Saviour, 
Hil. in Ps. 119.  Joh. 14.27. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, the ancient Fathers have conceived, the great blessing of peace given by Christ to his Church, and the duty of peace required in it to be chief contained. 
Basil. Mor. Reg. 50. Amb. de Joseph. c. 13.  To this sense, St. Cyprian, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, chrysostom, and Theophylact expound that place, (some of them including also the tranquillity of the Christian mind, and the perfect peace of the life to come) And from that Text St. Augustine concludeth, 
Serm. 59 de Verb. Dom.  that he cannot come to God's inheritance, who doth not observe Christ's Testament; and he can have no concord with Christ, who will be at discord with a Christian.  
5. That the want of peace becometh the decay of piety, may be also sufficiently confirmed by particular instances. 
Ep. ad Cor. p. 3.  Clemens observed concerning the Corinthian Church, that while they enjoyed peace, they had an unsatiable desire to do good, and received a plentiful effusion of the holy Spirit, they were religious in their supplications to God, and harmless towards one another: but upon their discord, righteousness, and peace, was banished far from them, they all (who embraced divisions) forsook the fear of God, 
P. 5.  and became dark sighted in the Faith, and walked after evil affections. And Nazianzen took notice, that Religion had one flourished in the Church, and calculating the season when its decay began, 
Naz. Orat. 21.  he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. that from the time this contradicting spirit as a terrible Disease infected the Church, thence forward its beauty and glory did decline. And there is another Country not unknown to us, where like effects may be observed; and after peace was lost, injustice and unrighteousness, like a mighty torrent, did at once bear down all before it; heretical blasphemies were frequently belched forth, against all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith; and all manner of vile affections were professedly served, under the ranting and other names, of pretendedly Religious Sects.  
6. Upon this account Christian peace was deservedly esteemed, and honoured in the Primitive Church: to which purpose, the judgement and practice of that excellent spirited man, Gr. Nazianzen, is above other worthy our observation. He dissuadeth from that peace which is evil and sinful, 
Orat. 12.  but by no means alloweth any discharge to this great duty in other cases: and declareth that his little Church, where he was Bishop before he went to Constantinople, continuing in Unity and concord, when discord and much overspread the Christian World, was reputed to be as the Ark of Noah, which alone escaped the universal deluge, and where Religion was entirely preserved. 
Ruff. Prol. in Naz. Orat. 49.  And that good man (as both Ruffinus and himself relate) when the Church was like to be embroiled upon his account; cried out in the words of Jonah; 
Naz. Cann. de Vit. sua.  If this tempest be for me, take me up and cast me into the Sea, and the disturbance shall be at an end. And his readiness by all effectual means to promote Peace, together with his eloquent discourses to that purpose, had such an influence upon the concord of the second General Council, and the Churches good, 
Baron. Annal. An. 381. n. 55.  that Baronius thinketh, that thereupon the very place where that Council sat, and these speeches were made, did bear the name of Concordia in after times, which was an evidence how highly Concord was then valued. Indeed it becometh a builder to repair and cement the breaches in the Church, which is the House of God; but he who would widen and increase them, goeth the way to make the whole to fall, and it may be that part may be first in its ruins which he least desireth.  
7. Besides this, the dreadful ruins of Kingdoms and Countries, which are sometimes the consequents of Church divisions, are enough to awaken and deeply affect them, who are not senseless and past feeling, to beware thereof. He who readeth the History of the Turks, and of the Eastern Empire, may see that the Christians State divisions, founded upon, or fomented by discords in the Church, laid the foundation on which the Turks erected their Dominion in those places; which was the rooting out their public Christian profession. And the last words of the Old Testament acquaint us, that the continuance of dissensions, provoketh God to smite the Earth with a Cherem, or a dreadful Curse which includeth an irrecoverable devoting: 
Prol de Bel. Jud.  and Josephus relateth that the divisions of Jerusalem and the Jewish Nation, exposed them to the desolation brought upon them by the Romans, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Bar. An. 303. n. 29.  And it is observed by Baronius, that the dissensions in Africa raised by the Donatists, were the occasion of the great calamities there sustained; first from the Vandals, and after than from the Arabians; to the destruction of the Country, and the almost final ruin there, both of the other Christians, and of the Donatists themselves.  
8. Amongst plenty of other instances, it becometh us to be most affected, as we were most concerned, with the much Christian blood, unchristianly shed in England, as a sad consequent of these contentions. We made ourselves an example to Foreigners, who took notice, that Apud Anglos, integro seculo de Ecclesiae regimine controversia, violenter agitata est, ad status usque publici convulsionem; that the violent motions and disturbances in England about Ecclesiastical controversies, wrought us into a convulsive and distracted State. And we who are nearest home, aught to be, if we be not, most sensible and apprehensive of this, which others at a distance could not but observe with some amazement. The Lord grant that we may at length learn to mind the ways of Peace, and discern the danger and guilt of needless running into divisions.  
9 The breaking the Church's Peace is peculiarly sinful, when without any just and necessary grounds, contentions run so high, as to appear in open Schism and separation, which hath been long designed, and is too much practised by many opposers of Conformity. And though it be and must be asserted, that separation is both lawful and necessary, and therefore free from the sin of Schism, where Communion, upon a right understanding, cannot be kept without sin; yet even the Writings of many Non-Conformists as well as of others, do express and aggravate the sin of unnecessary separation, and the Canons of the ancient Church declare very severely against it. 
Can. Ap. 31. Conc. Carth. etc. c. 100  Besides Conc. Ancyr. c. 18. Gang. c. 6. Antioch. c. 5.2. Carth. c. 9 Trull. c. 31. Such separation is condemned as ambition and tyranny, in the Canons called the Apostles; as a destructive Sacrilegious sin, in the African Code; as a sin which excludeth from the Kingdom of Heaven, by Ignatius; 
Ign. ad Philad. Cont. Helu. c. 22.  and it is censured to include a contempt of true Religion, by the Helvetick confession.  
10. It is a known and approved sentence of Dionysius Alexandrinus, 
Eus. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  That to suffer Martyrdom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather than to divide the Church by Schisms, is not less glorious than to be a Martyr for resusing to offer Sacrifice unto Idols. 
Cyp. de Vnit. Eccles.  And S. Cyprian asserteth that the sin of breaking the Church's peace by Schism, is in divers respects more heinous than the sin of those lapsed Christians, who in the time of persecution, yielded to offer Sacrifice to Idols. Because the former bewailed his miscarriage, and by repentance sought for pardon from God, and communion with his Church, his straits and dangers were the occasion of his sin, and though he miscarried himself, he did not persuade others to do the like, and he might afterwards be honoured as a Martyr; whereas the latter was swelling and pleasing himself in his sin, did disturb, oppose, and reject the Church, his sin was his, of his own free and voluntary choice, and he also beguiled and ensnared others. And all this was expressed by both these ancient Writers with peculiar reference to the Novatian Schism, which them made a breach in the Church's Unity, about matters of Discipline without denying any Articles of the Faith. 
Ibidem.  And S. Cyprian proceedeth so far, as to declare, that if the man who soweth discord in the Church, should lay down his life in the defence of the name of Christ, the stain of his sin could not be wiped out (that is so as to render him honoured in the Church) by the stream of his blood; but as he goeth on, inexpiabilis & gravis est culpa discordiae nec passione purgatur. 
〈◊〉. adv.  And the same thing is by Optatus urged against the Donatists, 
Parm. l. 3.  and is approved by divers others; as being grounded on the words of S. Paul, If I give my body to be burned, and have not Charity, it presiteth me nothing. And from hence we may discern, that in those Primitive times, when the vital heat of Piety within, was able to prevail against the fiercest flames of Persecution without, this duty of minding the Church's Unity, had a mighty commanding force upon the Consciences of Christians, and they accounted unnecessary divisions and Schisms, to be unchristian practices and dreadful sins.  
11. Nor can such separation be otherwise accounted of then a great evil, which general experience manifesteth, ordinarily to eat out Christian love; and doth most directly and openly oppose that Christian Unity, which (as the following Section will evidence) the Gospel commandeth, the relation of Membership in the Christian Society requireth, and our blessed Saviour earnestly and affectionately recommended; and hath naturally such other dangerous attendants, as have been above observed to be the result of the breach, or want of the Church's Peace. This sin is to the Church what Sedition is to the State, the most manifest and direct means to hinder its Government, and to destroy that Society which is best preserved in true Unity; and of which as Christ himself hath, so every Christian ought to have a tender regard. It is to the body of Christ what disjointing is to the body of man; it hindereth the actions of the body, and the usefulness of the members to each other; it weakeneth the whole, and causeth pain and anxious grief to those other members which are not senseless, and is ordinarily accompanied with swelling tumors in the part ill-affected, and out of order.  
12. And as itself is contrary to God's Commandment, so its influence promoteth all manner of sin, and is called by Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an original of evils. 
Ign. Ep. ad Smyrn.  For besides the evils above mentioned which accompany this sin, as it includeth a breach of the Church's Peace; it is apt to prevail with the Separatist to so much impiety, as to place much of his Religion in that which is his sin; viz. his unwarrantable separation; and it is oft, if not ordinarily, attended with so great uncharitableness, as to be pleased (with respect to the interest of their party) in hearing, if not speaking evil, concerning others who withstand them. It promoteth prosaneness and disadvantageth Religion in others, by rendering censures and admonitions of the Church, when they are administered, the less efficacious upon the offenders; who are the more ready to conclude, that it is no great shame or danger, to be excluded from that Society of Christians, from which many who profess Religion do exclude themselves. And upon this and other easily discernible accounts, it is a probable occasion of remissness in the exercising discipline, which would be more enforced and enlivened by a more general Union; whereby also divers obstacles and impediments would be removed. 
Athan. Synops. in 1. Ep. ad Cor.  Thus Athanasius was of opinion, that the Corinthian divisions were the cause, why the incestuous person was not rejected.   

SECT. iv  
Some false Conceptions of Schism refuted.  
1. But because there are some notions, or rather misrepresentations of this sin of Schism, designed to excuse many from the guilt thereof, whom the rules of Christianity do envolve under it, I shall endeavour to discover the insufficiency of such Plasters, either to cover or cure so great and dangerous wounds, as the deep rents made in the Church, to which they are applied.  
2. A first false Conception of Schism, 
A first Notion.  is the natural result of the New-England Independent Principles of Church-Communion. They assert expressly, 
Ans. to 32. Qu. quo. 4.  that Baptism neither maketh nor admitteth any to be members of the Church; and call it the opinion of Papists and Anabaptists that we enter into the Church by Baptism. But they assert the foundation of Church-Society to be laid in their Church-Covenant, which is a particular contract among themselves, binding themselves to God and one to another, to live in Christian Society with that particular Congregation, to which they join themselves by this contract. 
Apol. for Chur. Coven. p. 3, 5, 15.  And this Church-Covenant is they say, the Constitutive form of a Church, and joining in it is that which maketh a particular person a member of a Church. And from hence it may be easily infered, that there can be no duty of holding, and therefore no sin of Schism in withdrawing, or neglecting Communion, where they have not made this engagement by that particular Covenant.  
3. But this notion of the Union and Communion of the Church, doth confine it, to such straight limits, as to exclude in a manner all Christians of all ages from Church Society, but themselves; and is thereby uncharitable and no stranger to Schism, and can not consist with the full and due sense of the Church's Catholicism: for the ancient Church did never account the obligation to Christian Communion, to be so narrow a thing, as only to respect a particular Congregation, and therefore never framed any such particular Covenant. This is also directly contrary to S. Paul, who as an argument to Union and against Schism, saith 1 Cor. 12, 13. By one Spirit we are all baptised into one body: and teacheth us that we are baptised into Christ. Rom. 6.3. and thereby are planted together in the likeness of his death, v. 5. and that they who are baptised into Christ, do put on Christ, Gal. 3.27. Which Scriptures do sufficiently express, that by our Baptism as we undertake the Christian life, so we thereby are admitted to be members of the Church or body of Christ, and are engaged as members to Unity therein, and to continue in Communion therewith. Whereas if this notion was admitted, the grounds for the being and Union of the Church, which the Scriptures lay down, together with the Apostolical and Primitive practice, must be accounted as insufficient, and the necessary support of its being and Union, must be derived from this late invention. All which things are sufficient to manifest the error of this opinion, and to show that there may be a sinful breach of the Unity of the Church, among them who never entered into that Church Covenant.  
4. 
A second Notion. Dr. Owen of Love & Church Peace, c. 3.  But one of that way of our own Nation, treating of Schism and separation, acknowledgeth Baptism to give Relation to, or entrance into the Catholic Church visible; but still owneth a particular contract or joint consent among themselves, to be the only bond for external Ecclesiastical Communion in a particular Church, or (as he expresseth it) to be that wherein the Union of such a Church doth consist (which will be hereafter further considered). 
N. 19, 20. Dr. Owen's Review of Schism, ch. 8, 9  And he giveth us this representation of Schism, That the sin of Schism doth not consist in the want of, or breach of external Unity by separation, but in the want of internal Unity by needless divisions of judgement in a particular Congregation, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (he saith) is used 1 Cor. c. 1.11. Hence these assertions are laid down. 1. That the departing of any man or men from any particular Church, as to the Communion peculiar to such a Church is no where (in Scripture) called Schism, nor is so in the nature of the thing itself. 2. One Church refusing to hold that Communion with another which ought to be between them, is not Schism properly so called.  
5. But if we here consider the matter or thing itself, we must inquire whether Christian Religion doth allow needless separations in the Christian Church. And surely he must have strange thoughts of the earnest commands and frequent arguments for Christian Unity, who supposeth them to regard only an inward Unity, and yet to allow of open breaking and dividing, and visible falling into pieces. Is this to think either honourably or reasonably of the designs of Christ, to suppose that he should express his Church to be one body compacted and joined together, Eph. 4.16. intending that its real members might be daily parting asunder by disclaiming the communion of each other? or that the whole Church should be as one building fitly framed together, Eph. 2.21. but with free allowance, that its parts should be at such a manifest distance, as never to come so near one another as to own their communion? And when our Saviour prayed for his Church, which should believe through his Apostles Doctrine, as a consequent upon their believing, that they may be one in us that the world may believe that thou hast sent me, Joh. 17, 20, 21. 
Cyp. de Ovat. Dom. Christoph. in Joh. 17. Hom. 81. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  It is manifest that that Union of the Church, which should tend to convince the World of Christianity, and engage them to the Faith of Christ, must, besides the inward Unity of faith and love, include an open and professed holding communion with each other; which is the most visible testimony of their Unity, and the want of which hath occasioned them who were strangers to Christianity, to decry and loathe the Christian Religion, as appeareth from what is  in the second Section. 
Hier. in Eph. 4.  And when S. Paul requireth to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, it hath been reasonably of old thence inferred, that separation and breaking the Church's peace, aught to be rejected, because it opposeth and loseth that Unity of the Spirit, 
Cypr. Ep. 52.  which Christians should maintain, by renouncing fellowship with the Church of Christ.  
6. And it is manifest that needless withdrawing or not holding communion, with that particular settled Church where we abide, with appearance of causeless distaste towards it, or the way of its communion, was vehemently and with a pathetic zeal condemned in S. Peter himself, withdrawing and separating from the Gentiles; which action included a  forbearance, of manifesting his allowance and approbation, of their way of Christian life and serving God. Gal. 2.11.14. And the manifold cautions against divisions oft expressed in the Scriptures, do especially condemn such separation, which is the highest attempt, and most open profession of dividing: and as this separation is expressly condemned in the holy Scripture, so this is that thing which is so greatly condemned by the ancient Canons above named, and that even under the term and name of Schism. And it is of no small moment to observe, that the Primitive Church, who received the holy Commandments of the Gospel from the Apostles, did always understand the precepts of peace, to extend mainly to the duties of external communion; especially considering, that whereas the Church's peace can only be broken by Church contests, which are managed either by words, writings, or open actions of discord, this latter way of expressing them by actions of separation, and open rendezvous of parties, is of all other the highest and most considerable.  
7. But if the use of the word (Schism) be here considered, it includeth much of needless strife about words, to deny 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Schism, signifying division or renting asunder, to be a fit expression for rents and separations in the Church; when it hath been so used in the common Ecclesiastical custom of speech, and is that which is according to the direct and proper import of the word. And if S. Paul accounted the bandying into parties and factions at Corinth, though without separation (which some account to be their case) to be Schisms, because their Unity was thereby opposed and hindered; much more must separation which is the highest appearance of parties, and breach of Unity, (and was probably the true state at Corinth) be so accounted of.  
8. 
Dr. Owen of Evang. Love and Church Peace, c. 5.  And whereas the same person hath of late purposely undertaken to espouse the interest of separation from the present Church of England, and to defend it from the charge of Schism, the pleas and pretences made in behalf thereof, will now fall under our enquiry.  
9 
A third Notion. Its first Plea. P. 167, 171, 172.  One principal Plea is, That where things or observances unscriptural, are made the indispensible condition of Communion, there to refuse submission to such things imposed, and to with hold Communion from that Church, is no Schism but a discharge of a duty. And that we may understand what he meaneth by such expressions, as unscriptural conditions of Communion; he telleth us in one place, 
P. 171.  We do not dispute the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the things themselves; 
P. 177.  and in another place, that it may be at present granted, that the manner or modes of the performance of God's worship, with rites and ceremonies for order and decency, may be lawfully appointed (or as it pleased him to call it instituted) by the rulers of the Church; yet (saith he) this will not help in our present enquiry, unless it be also granted, that what may be lawfully practised in the worship of God, may be also lawfully made a necessary condition of Communion. And he saith in another places, 
P. 205.  It is required in this case, not only to produce a warranty from the Scripture for the use of Liturgies, but also for making the constant attendance on them, a necessary condition of Communion. Wherefore his sense is, that withholding Communion becometh lawful and a duty, where any appointments for orderly ministration, and the fit and decent performance of God's service, (though lawful in themselves, but not particularly expressed in Scripture as conditions of Communion) are so determined, that they must be submitted to and complied with, by them who embrace actual Communion with that particular Church.  
10. But this is both false in itself, and would render all settled Church-Communion utterly Unlawful, and would make separation the Universal duty of all Christians, in every Christian Assembly in the World, not excepting them of the Congregational way. For the Scriptures have not enjoined the particular time for Sacramental and other administrations, nor the place for public Assemblies, nor in what method, Prayer, Preaching, Sacraments, Psalms, Chapters, Hymns, with other thanksgivings and services are to be performed; nor hath it determined us, either to, or against any particular lawful form, or external rite, as making them either universally necessary, or sinful; but these with divers other things of like nature, are left to the rules of Ecclesiastical Liberty and Prudence. Now it concerneth him who made this exception, to discover how there can possibly be any orderly Christian Assemblies, and unconfused performances of Religious services, where such things as these are not determined; as where their Prayers and Services are neither performed with nor without a form, etc. And to the common apprehensions of other men it is very manifest, that unless there be a compliance or submission to such determinations, by the members of the Church, they can not actually communicate in these administrations, unless they could communicate in what they will not yield to join in. Yet these things with us are not made the conditions of communion, any other way than the submission to lawful determinations (of those things which must be one way or other determined) is necessary for them who will join in such an orderly Society.  
11. And they who urge this objection do themselves make their determinations of these things (besides some other things peculiar to their way) as much a condition of Communion in their Congregations, as our determinations are with us. They may possibly stamp a divine authority upon those usages of their own, which really have it not; and urge such things for laws of God which he hath not established: but this being much of the same nature, with teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, can never render their communion the more acceptable. And I suppose this following discourse will sufficiently manifest, that the divine authority doth neither enjoin their way of service without all forms and other rites, nor disapprove of ours. And now the arguments brought in that Treatise to make good this exception, will concern themselves to answer as well as others, and may be easily solved. For 1. 
P. 173.  When Christ gave Commission to his Apostles to baptise all Nations and teach them to observe whatsoever he commanded; he thereby enjoined all his doctrines and precepts to be received and obeyed of all men, and especially of those who embrace the Christian baptism; but he doth not thereby forbidden rules of decency and order, which are required in the Scripture, to be received in the Communion of Christians. And 2. 
Lib. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 3. & Ch. 2. Sect. 2, 3.  the Apostles practice and 3. their doctrine (with a particular consideration of the fourteenth Chapter to the Romans) will be evidenced in this Treatise, to give both allowance and direction for Ecclesiastical constitutions of order.  
12. The fourth argument is from this instance of fact. 
P. 191.  When Victor Bishop of Rome excommunicated the Asian Churches, for not observing Easter at the same time with the Roman Church, this his action as fixing new bounds to Church-Communion, was then disliked much by others, and especially rebuked by one of the most holy and learned men then living, (which was Irenaeus). Ans. Well might Victors actions be censured by Irenaeus, which was not only a directing and retaining that as a sixed rule of order for his own Church, 
Eus. Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which was then the Roman Custom and practice, and which Irenaeus and the French Churches (as well as many others) did allow and judge requisite, in that very Epistle to Victor: but it was the obtruding that which was no Apostolical command or institution, to be so far Apostolical, as to be thereupon a doctrine and practice, necessary to be received in all parts of the Christian Church, and that all other whole Churches who received it not, were not to be owned in the Communion of the Catholic Church: 
Ibid. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and upon this account he undertook to excommunicate the Asian Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being Heterodox or erring from the Faith. But our Church can be charged with no such practices as these were, for it declareth itself thus; 
B. of Com. Prayer of Ceremonies.  In these our do we condemn no other Nations, nor prescribe any thing but to our own people only: which words with other to the same purpose, are prefixed to our Liturgy. His fifth argument is, 
P. 194.  that hence it would follow, that there is no certain rule of Communion amongst Christians, fixed and determined by Christ. To which I answer, that in all doctrines of Christianity nothing can be required as necessary for Communion with any Church, but what Christ hath determined: yet even here every error in judgement or miscarriage in practice, doth not forfeit the right of Communion; and concerning defaults, they who have the power of the Keys which is managed with Ecclesiastical Prudence, 
Albasp. Observat. l. 2. Obs. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.  are allowed to consider of times and other circumstances: whence the Church of God hath unblamably used sometimes greater and other times less severity about the same crimes. But that there should be different prudential rules of external order, in the communion of different Churches, hath generally been allowed and acknowledged in the ancient Church, and pleaded for amongst the reformed Churches.  
13. 
P. 171, 202.  Indeed it is in the same Treatise urged, (as a thing included under this exception of unscriptural conditions of Communion) that Ministers are required to express their approbation of the things enjoined; (as the Liturgy, Articles, and Book of Ordination) by their subscription or declaration. But besides, that these things are not intended for conditions of Christian communion, but requisite for regular administrations, and the preservation of order: it is but reasonable, that they who insist on this Plea, before they blame us, much more before they separate from us upon this account, should themselves consider whether they would be willing to receive any persons to be Ministers of their Congregations, who do not some way or other express their allowance of their way and order: and particularly whether they would entertain him as their Minister, who is resolved to perform all ministerial actions according to the order of the Liturgy. If they be willing to entertain such a Minister and Ministration, they must thereby justify our way of order and communion, by their submitting to the same terms of enjoying Church-Communion. But if they will admit no person to be a Minister in their Churches, (as indeed they will not) before they are satisfied that he approveth, and will continue in the way and order of their Churches; while they herein blame our Church, they should consider those words of the Apostle, Rom. 2.1. Thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest, for wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thyself, for thou that judgest dost the same things.  
14. But of the lawfulness of things as enjoined in the Church for order sake, which is the main thing considerable in this exception, and which hath been divers times sufficiently justified, 
Bishop Whitgift Tr. 2. Hccles. Folit. l. 3. Lib. 2. c. 2.  by Bishop Whitgift, Mr. Hooker, and many others since them, I shall treat in another place more particularly; and it will be sufficient here to add, that God who hath appointed Rulers in his Church to guide and command, hath also made it a duty to obey them who have the rule over us.  
15. 
Its second. Plea.  Another Plea for separation from the Church of England, is, That the joining in communion therewith, requireth a consent to omit and refuse known duties commanded by Christ. 
P. 216. P. 218.231.  For the proof of which, he giveth two instances. In his first instance he claimeth to every Minister of a particular Congregation, by the appointment of Jesus Christ, the whole immediate care of the flock, so that no part of discipline should be exempted from his office, or care (p. 219.) and this he saith by Consormity they must renounce (p. 229.) Which Plea for separation or rejecting Communion, is as much as to say, that no Minister may lawfully communicate and exercise his Ministry in any Church, where this kind of Congregational Independency is not the fixed Government; or where the Episcopal Power and Authority above Presbyters in all or any public acts of discipline, is preserved. An assertion which favours of great rashness, in rejecting all those manifest evidences produced by divers, on the behalf of this Episcopal Government and Jurisdiction, with such an height of confidence, as professedly to disclaim the lawsulness of Ecclesiastical Ministration and Communion, with those who in practice embrace them. Yea this is such a position as would have engaged all Christian Ministers, to have renounced the Communion of all the ancient Churches in the Christian World, in the times of the most eminent Fathers of the Church, by this new way and method of the Church's Peace and Unity. And therefore instead of a charge against our Church, he hath herein done it this honour, to mention that as a chief matter of exception against it, in which it is conformable to the purest ages of Christianity.  
16. 
Conc: Nic. c. 5. Conc. Ant. c. 6.  The Councils of Nice and Antioch (which are part of the Code of the Universal Church) expressing a manifest distinction between Bishops and Presbyters, do declare the disciplinary proceed of Church censures to be under the Bishops ordering and authority; and before them S. Cyprian did the same, 
Cyp. Ep. 10, 65.  both concerning excommunication and public disciplinary absolution; and Ignatius frequently required that nothing should be done without the Bishop's Authority: to which agree the Scripture expressions concerning Timothy, Titus, and the Apocalyptick Angels. And that the ancient Churches and the authority of their Bishops were not confined to single Congregations (as some would have us believe) is apparent, 
1. Conc. Neoc. c. 13. Conc. Ant. c. 8. Conc. Sard. c. 6. Athanas. Apol.  besides the instances from the Roman and other Churches in Scripture, 1. From the frequent mention of Country-Presbyters and Religious Assemblies, in such places for which no Bishops were appointed. 2. From the multitude of Presbyters in one City; it not being credible that 46. Presbyters for the City of Rome in Cornelius his time, 
2. Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Photii Nomo can. Yet. 1. c. 30. Justin Novel. Const. ●.  60. at Constantinople, (with a greater number both before and after Justinians Constitution) and a numerous Company in other Churches, should be designed, with a Bishop and many Deacons for the service of God in a single Congregation. 3. Because the greatest Cities in the World with the parts adjacent, when Christians were most numerous, had but one regular Bishop: and he who can imagine that in the most flourishing times of Christianity, there were never more Christians in those Precincts, than made up a single Congregation (though divers Churches were built at Jerusalem and other places) may as well conceive the same of the present London Diocese. And though there be some expressions in some ancient Writers, as Tertullian, and S. Hierome, which many have thought to assert, the ancient exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by a Bench of Presbyters of equal authority, (which would be too large a digression to be here considered) yet even that notion also must fall under the heavy censure of this exception.  
17. The other instance concerneth private Members, 
P. 141.142.  and the whole Church being abridged and deprived of that liberty to discharge their duty, which by the law of Christ they are to provide for. Among these duties he nameth reproof, admonition, and exhortation (as if these things were not allowed in our Church, which is an intimation that needeth reproof) and also withdrawing from them that walk disorderly, and putting such obstinate offenders from among them. Now this instance also is built upon the bottom of Independency, groundlessly supposed to be a divine institution. 
Decl. of Faith and Ord. of Congr. Ch. Par. 2. Se. 4, 5, 7. Answ. to 32. Quest. qu. 14. & 15.  For the Independents allowing the Ministers the principal care about the discipline of the Church, do assert an authority and power of Church-Government, to be seated in all the members of the church, together with their Officers; yea that the members of the Church may censure their Officers; and some of them, as they of New-England express it, that the Keys are committed to all believers, who shall join together according to the ordinance of Christ. And Dr. O. who gives somewhat more authority to Ministers, than many others of them do, yet declareth his non-admittance of our discipline, 
p. 256.  upon this account as one, as being in the hands of merely Ecclesiastical persons, or such as are pretended so to be. This late device, of discipline being exercised by an authoritative power of all the members of the Church, is claimed here as necessary for embracing Communion; but this is not only contrary to the Church of England, 
Gillespy Gou. of Ch. of Scot Part. 2. c. 1. & Postscript. Jus. Diu. Reg. Eccles. Par. 2. c. 10.  with the ancient Churches, and to the French, Dutch, and other reformed Churches abroad, but it is also directly opposed and refuted by the Presbyterians, both of Scotland, and England: and this also is a general argument, for separation from all Christian Assemblies, of the Primitive and Reformed Churches, except a few of themselves.  
18. But as under the former instance, he insisted much upon the great usefulness of administering Church-discipline, which if rightly stated, and in its due measures, we hearty admit; so here he reflecteth upon the defects of exercising discipline among us, urging that upon such defects, as by the design of his discourse he representeth ours to be, 
P. 244, 245.  pious men may without the least suspicion of the guilt of Schism, forsake the Communion of that Church, and if they have a due care of their own salvation, they will understand it to be a duty. But what he intimately chargeth upon the Church of England, speaking of the Church where wicked persons are admitted without distinction or discrimination unto the Communion of the Church, and tolerated therein without any procedure with them or against them: if this be generally understood of all wicked persons as those words without distinction or discrimination to import, it is untrue and slanderous. But if this be meant only of divers particular persons; it is acknowledged that a more vigorous execution of discipline (which I have in the former Section noted to be hindered in the effects thereof, and not helped by divisions and separations) is , and would be advantageous to the Church. Yet here we must observe, 1. That some men's rigour would make the rules of Communion overstrict and severe, which was the ground of the Schism of the Novatians, and Donatists, and as some have anciently related of the Meletians also: and it is not  that the Church's authority should be acted by such heats. 2. That real defects in this particular (though they are not to be approved of) are no sufficient ground for separation, since such blemishes were mixed with the beauty of the Apostolical Churches themselves, as is manifest from almost all the Apostolical Epistles, and particularly from the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in which divers miscarriages were taxed, and yet unity was strictly commanded, and dividing severely rebuked. Yea this very discourse at sometimes will not own, 
P. 126.  that this thing solely of itself is sufficient to justify a separation; and the Congregational Churches in England, in the Declaration of their Faith and order, affirmed, 
Of Institution and Order of Churches, Sect. 21.  the Church-members upon offences taken by them, having performed their duty, (private admonition and relating it to the Church) ought not to disturb any Church-order, or absent themselves from the public assemblies, or the administration of any ordinances upon that pretence, but to wait upon Christ in the further proceeding of the Church.  
19 
Last Plea.  Another thing only touched in that discourse, (but which is the main ground of mis-apprehensin) is, that there is (saith he) no Evangelical obligation to local (or external) Comunion, 
P. 256, 257.  with any particular or parochial Church of this Nation; because every man may relinquish it by removing his habitation: which plea floweth from want of a right sense of the Church Catholic. For every Christians obligation to keep Communion with the Church, is founded in his being visibly a member of Christ's body, which includeth his visible fellowship with the whole Church, which he entereth upon by Baptism, and from hence he standeth obliged to communicate, with that regular fixed part of this Church, where he resideth, and from which he hath no warrantable or necessary cause of separation. In this respect our Parochial Assemblies are of like nature with the Jewish Synagogal Assemblies, unto which they were not obliged by any special Synagogal-Covenant, but partly from God's general command of their assembling themselves together; and partly from their Religious profession and circumcision, engaging them to Communion with the whole Church of the Jews, and thereby to their Synagogal-Communion. Hereupon under that dispensation, it was the practice of our Blessed Saviour, (whose example should not be over-looked by us) to attend upon these Synagogal Assemblies, and the Religious worship of God celebrated therein, as appears, Luk. 4.16. At Nazareth where he had been brought up as his custom was, he went into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day.  
20. And can it enter into the heart of any Christian to imagine, that the holy Apostles, who in their travels could not be fixed in any particular Congregation, did not stand bound by the duty of Christian Unity, to join themselves in Communion, with the particular fixed Churches or Assemblies of Christians where they came, (as S. Peter at Antioch, S. Paul at Jerusalem, and divers other places) though such Churches were founded by some of the other Apostles? And upon this account of the Unity of the body of Christ, the Primitive Christians when they went abroad into other Regions, and distant parts of the World, did with a Religious care seek the Communion of the Churches where they came, and not to make separate Assemblies. Yea this is a thing so far acknowledged by our English Independants themselves, (though they can talk at another rate where it serves their interest) that in their public Confession of Faith at the Savoy, they say, 
Conf. Ch. 27. Sect. 2.  All Saints are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and Communion, in the worship of God, which communion though especially to be exercised by them, in the relations wherein they stand, whether of Families, or Churches; yet as God affordeth opportunity, it is to be extended to all those, who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.  
21. But the conditions required in any particular fixed Christian Assembly, embracing the Christian Faith and Worship, in the place of our residence, to make it our duty, upon the account of the Christian Unity to join therein, are these two. 1. That our communicating therein doth not oblige us, to join in any action or profession which is sinful. This is acknowledged on all hands, and needeth no further proof; because the Christians duty, of keeping in Communion with Christ himself doth require it. 2. That the Assembly we join in doth not maintain an unwarrantable separation, from the Communion of the established Church; for here to join in Communion, is to join in separation, and is like Barnabas and the other Jews, joining with S. Peter, 
Gal. 2.14.  who all walked contrary to the truth of the Gospel, in withdrawing from the Communion of the Gentiles at Antioch: and the communicating with such a separating Assembly, would be a breach of that Apostolical command, of avoiding them who cause divisions, Rom. 16.17. And we may observe, that the joining in needless separations, being a sin against the commands of Christ, which require Christian Unity and Communion, can not be warranted by any authority upon earth, because that authority can not dispense with the commands of Christ, but aught to be subject to them; and therefore as S. Peter's practice and countenance, 
Theod. Hift. l. 4. c. 22. Aug. Ep. 166.  did not excuse Barnablas and the other Jews; so neither could the indulgence of Valons the Emperor or his Predecessor, execuse the different Sects by them tolerated, from being guilty of Schism and the breach of Christian duty, in their divisions, and separations.  
22. Another notion of Schism there is, 
A fourth Notion of Schism.  which condemneth separation where ever Communion is lawful; but assumeth, that wherever any thing unlawful or strongly suspected, 
Mr. H. Tract of Schism, p. 2, 5, 8.  is required in order to Communion, there to hold Communion would be to join in conspiracy, and separation is then both lawful and necessary. Concerning which notion (granting that separation is necessary, where any thing unlawful is required in order to Communion) I can not admit for truth, that if any thing suspected be so required, separation becometh lawful thereby. For if by suspected, be meant whatsoever the person, who maketh the separation, doth suspect as evil; by this rule, he who through carelessness of enquiry, or prejudice and want of Charity, is needlessly suspicious about any form of service, or way of Church-Administrations, will be allowed to separate, and to be therein free from Schism, or sinful breach of Unity, only because he is void of charity and wanting in due Christian care.  
23. Nor can it possibly be true, that if some thing be enjoined, which divers persons who appear to be Religious, and are supposed to have considerable abilities of judgement, do upon professed enquiry, both suspect and condemn, that they may lawfully separate, and not be guilty of Schism, if their judgements herein be erroneous and ungrounded. For though diligent enquiry where it is impartially made, is in this case an excuse from the degree of the sin, or from the precipitant or designed breach of Charity or Unity; yet where it is so ill managed, as to take up with an error, and practice upon it; it can not render that practice allowable. For this would justify almost every party, which in judgement holdeth an error, for separating from that Church, who either in her open practice, or in her public service, requireth a profession of that truth which they oppose: and they must be excused from Schism, only because they acknowledge not the right rules of Religion; and neither Donatists, Novatians, or Anabaptists, could then be blamed for their distance from the Church, provided it be founded in their distance from and disowning of the truth. Yea if any persons be Arians, Futychians, or Nestorians, 
Vbi supra p. 9, 10.  in opinion, (all which the author of this notion over-officiously excuseth from all Heresy, and saith they were at the worst but Schisms) they must also according to his notion, stand excused from Schism, in separating from the Church, which holdeth the true doctrine and openly in her service requireth a profession of it; concerning the person of the Mediator.  
24. This would set up the power of an erring judgement, above the will of God, to discharge persons from what is God's command, and would else have been their duty, (viz. Communion) and to give them authority to do that as a lawful action, which to others who err not is a grievous sin, (viz. separation from that Church which holdeth the truth, merely because it doth profess it) as if the crrour of man could render necessary duties, and divine commands, to be of no obligation. For though their error may (till it be removed) entangle them in sin, in joining with the Church, because this encludeth a practising what they judge unlawful; it can not justify them from sin in separating from it, but this error (as all other erroneous judgements do, where good and evil are mistaken for each other) doth in their practice every way ensnare them under sin, until it be cured. 
Lib. 2. c. 2 Sect. 3.  But of the principal design of this notion, I shall give a further account in considering things under scruples.  
25. From what hath been hitherto discoursed, it appeareth, that the consideration of Schism, will make it necessary for him who undertaketh separation, to be sure that he acteth upon unerring grounds, and not upon mistakes: because to make separation from a Church, which (however it be misunderstood and causelessly censured) requireth nothing in itself absolutely unlawful, to be believed, professed, practised, or joined in, is to be guilty of the great sin of Schism.   

SECT. V  
Of the duty of obedience to Rulers and Governors, and the due exercise of the Ministerial function, which is in this case concerned.  
1. The opposing Conformity if managed upon insufficient grounds, hath ordinarily involved the person opposing under the sin of disobedience, and want of subjection in things lawful to Christian Governors and Rulers, and their Laws and Constitutions; which ought to be obeyed, not only for wrath, but for Conscience sake. It is their duty in their places to show themselves the servants of God, and to promote his glory, and to that end by their power and authoritative commands, to take care for the promoting and preserving the Order, Peace, and Unity of the Church of God: and towards both Ecclesiastical and secular Rulers, the divine Precepts do very plainly require our obedience. Indeed if any thing any time commanded be really sinful, the instructions given in the Church of England will direct us to believe undoubtedly, 
Hom. of Obedience. Part. 2.  that we may not obey Kings, Magistrates, or any other, though they be our own Fathers, if they would command us to do any thing contrary to God's Commandment. But if the things be lawful which they command (as in this case I hope to make appear to men of unprejudiced minds) it is a sin of no low degree to disobey; and the duty of obedience is so considerable, that the Compilers of the Strasburgh Confession of Faith, 
Conf. Argent. c. 23.  expressed it to be Inter primi crdinis bona opera, in the highest rank and order of good works.  
2. Nor can this obedience be thought a matter inconsiderable, which was enjoined of old in the first Commandment of the second table; 
Phil. de Leg. Spepiailb.  and as Philo observed, encludeth part of the first table, and part of the second, having directly a respect both to God in his Vicegerent, and also to man. And this is earnestly pressed upon us in the Gospel doctrine, as a means whereby we may bring honour to Religion and Christianity, by S. Peter. 1 Pet. 2.12,— 15. and as a necessary practice to express true conversion, from the state of sin to the life of God, by S. Paul Tit. 3.1,— 5. who also warneth against this sin, with respect to the danger of damnation thereby. Rom. 13.2. And this obedience to them who are over us, in things lawful and under their authority, is of so high and necessary a consequence, that without it there can be no peace, nor any regular and unconfused state, in any Family, City, Realm, or Church: this being the practice of the grand Maxim for the upholding order in all Societies of the World, which is evident by its own light, and is a principle of the law of nature.  
3. Another effect of these disagreements about the established order of our Church, hath been this; that divers Ministers have declined the orderly, regular and public exercise, of their Ministerial sunctions. And considering the weightiness of their Commission, with the greatness of their charge and account, and the exceeding advantage to the Church, yea to the honour of Christ and the salvation of men, by their labours where they obtain success, together with other their own concernments; it becometh them to be well assured that they have had a warrantable plea to justify those proceed. It was not without cause accounted a great miscarriage and default in Novatus, 
Eus. Hist. Eccless. l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  that before he openly became the head of a dividing party, he was overforward for want of a due zeal to Religion, to have relinquished the office of Presbyter, to which he was ordained, and to betake himself to another kind of life.  
4. The ancient Church shown its great dislike and distaste, of any Ministers declining the orderly execution of his Ministry, by determining that if any Bishop, 
Can. Ap. 36. Conc. Antioch. c. 17.  Presbyter, or Deacon, being ordained did not undertake his Ministration, he must be separated from the Christian Society, and deprived of Ecclesiastical Communion. And with equal severity they condemned that Minister, who refused the regular work and place of his Ministry, 
Can. Ap. 58.  and him who undertook the place but minded not the work and duty, behaving himself negligently in not attending the care of the people.  
5. From what I have expressed hitherto, we may take a short prospect of the evils flowing from these contentions, which are such as these; the prejudicing men against the holy administrations of God's service, the promoting wrath and strife, and the quenching Christian love; the being a stumbling block to the weak, hardening the careless, and being an occasion of much irreligion, grieving the godly, and every way gratifying the Church's Enemies, and hindering its welsare and the growth of piety; the hurtful disturbance of the Church's Peace, and endangering the Kingdom's interest, and the promoting of dangerous and dreadsul Schisms: nor is the disobedience to Magistrates, and the deserting the Ministerial charge unconcerned herein. And all these things (if God in his mercy put not a stop to them, by directing men's minds to a right understanding, and turning their hearts into a more peaceable and amicable frame and temper) may provealso very dangerous and hurtful in the next Generation, to the dishonour of God, the discredit of Religion, and the ruin of many thousand souls: which sad consequences plainly enough show these unhappy contests, rather to gratify the designs of the destroyer, than of the Saviour; and to be fruits growing from a root of bitterness. 
Ful. Church Hist. l. 7. p. 401.  In these respects I think he was not far from the mark, who called this disagreement about Conformity, the saddest difference that ever happened in the Church of England.   

SECT. VI  
A proposal concerning due considerateness in this Case; and the design of this treatise manifested.  
1. After I have showed the sad fruits of these dissensions, I must still acknowledge, that I doubt not but that there are dissenters, who act out of true principles of Conscience; and design to walk in piety to God, and in love and peace towards men: to such persons though they be of different judgements, (yea though some of them too far indulge their passions) I profess an hearty respect and brotherly love, considering that wise and good men are liable to mistake and err, still retaining this as a testimony of their integrity, that they are willing to be informed, and in practice to embrace what is their duty, when it shall be so evidenced.  
2. S. Cyprian who was a great promoter of Truth, Piety, and Peace, and wrote some tracts purposely to correct the fierceness, of them especially who were of his own opinion (viz de bono patientiae, 
Cyp. in Conc. Carth. & Epist. ad Jubaian.  & de zelo & livore) for want of better information, but with openly avowed dislike of breach of communion, lived, and for what appeared to S. Austin died also, in that error about baptising Heretics. 
Aug. Ep. 48.  But had he rightly understood the truth, he would no doubt have rejected his error, as those Bishops who were of the same opinion with him are related to have done, 
Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 3. Hieron. adv. Lucif. Pamel. in Vit. Cypr.  both in the Eastern Church and in the African, whereupon the Church enjoyed peace, and was filled with exceeding abundant joy: and Pamelius thinketh that S. Cyprian himself lived to do the same.  
3. And the women who out of love, but in their error, came to anoint Jesus, designing it as a rite belonging to his burial, when they ought according to his doctrine, (which they did not yet understand) to have believed that it was the day of his resurrection, meeting with Jesus himself who expressed his favour unto them; were forthwith ready to have their mistakes discovered, and with joy upon conviction to yield both their judgements, and thereupon their practices to be rectified. Erring acts from mistake of judgement, are herein of the same nature with other infirmities of Christians, in that the being of them is consistent with the true nature of Christian life; whereas the wilful persisting in them, and the designed promoting of them against evidence, is contrary thereto. For that is for men to resolve not to deny themselves, or to submit to God; but to oppose his mind and will if it be contrary to their own.  
4. Wherefore I must entreat my Reader if he be a person dissatisfied about the matters treated of in this discourse, that he would make a stand, and give me leave to propose, what his own interest will engage him to admit, That before he proceedeth any further, he would seriously resolve himself these two things. First, whether with reflection upon what hath been said, he would not be hearty unwilling to stand charged in the sight of God, with being any way sinfully instrumental unto so much hurt, as is consequent upon being unwarrantably engaged, in these contentions and oppositions? Secondly, whether he be resolvedly willing to lay aside all prejudice, and designed serving any opinion or party; and to aim impartially to keep a good conscience, and in judgement and practice, to entertain all evidences of truth, in this enquiry about Conformity?  
5. If any man should answer either of these two things in the Negative, he must be a man of an irreligious Spirit willing to ruin himself, and of a pernicious Spirit ready to destroy others; and whilst he remaineth thus strongly prepossessed, he is never like to be advantaged by this discourse, or any other of the same subject; but it is most necessary for him to become better instructed, in that chief principle of Christian practice, to which he is yet a stranger, viz. The great necessity in order to salvation, of minding uprightness to God, and the doing his will, above gratifying his own affections, or the pleasure of any other men. But as to him who answereth these two things in the affirmative, I only entreat him to proceed in the remaining part of this discourse, with the same frame and temper of Spirit.  
6. I come now to examine the matters themselves, to which Conformity referreth, which from the premises, appeareth to be of very considerable use, and tendeth to the resolving divers cases of Conscience, and (if God please to vouchsafe so great a mercy to us) to promote the Church's peace and Unity, the Ministers comfortable discharge of his duty, the common advancement of Christianity, and the Protestant profession, and the particular edification of Christians. In order to the contributing somewhat towards these excellent ends, I have undertaken this discourse, beseeching the God of wisdom and knowledge to guide and lead me, that I may clearly understand and manifest what is truth, and that he would so move on the hearts of others, that they who err by mistake may attain to a right judgement, and that those who act out of any spirit of opposition, may have their hearts reform, and be made willing to mind their duty.  
7. And because among the other things required of Ministers who conform, many dissenters have expressed themselves to be most dissatisfied about the clauses concerning the Covenant, and some who have undertaken to make a Survey of these things, 
Survey of Grand Case, Case 6.  (though they may be mistaken in the measure of their ground) have declared, that this is the great mountain in their way, to be removed by the Faith of miracles; I shall in the first place take that into consideration, and manifest that there is a ready, safe, and direct passage, without any great difficulty or need of miracles, over that which only appeareth to them to be a mountain; if we be willing to walk in the plain paths, to which we are directed by the Scripture rules.  
8. And whereas in the other particulars expressed, there is nothing more (if so much) disliked and opposed, than what is contained in the Liturgy, and particularly the Ceremonies; I shall endeavour in the remaining part of this Book, to give a true account of these things, the right understanding whereof, may be very conducible towards the Church's peace, and the general good.    

CHAP. II.  
Of the Covenant.  

SECT. I.  
Of its being an unlawful Oath.  
1. THE acknowledgement to be made by Ministers, concerning the Covenant, being no permanent Constitution, may require the shorter discourse. Yet it is needful that so much be said as to manifest that while it is for the present continued, and until it shall be withdrawn and abated, it ought not to be an obstacle to any, in the entrance upon Ecclesiastical administrations (or civil offices.) To this end I shall first consider the Oath itself, that it was n itself unlawful; and then its obligation so far as that is concerned in this acknowledgement.  
2. Now an Oath may be accounted unlawful in itself, with respect to the wholesome laws of the land: and upon this account any Oath especially concerning public affairs of Government, is unlawful in itself, where either the matter, or the constitution and framing, is unwarantable according to the law. That the Covenant (and its Imposition) was in this respect unlawful, will be easily admitted by all impartially considering persons, who cannot be supposed to acknowledge, that whatsoever (either for, or against their own interest) obtaineth in any wise a vote in the two Houses, but is not assented to, but disallowed by the King, hath a sufficient legal and warrantable constitution. 
13. Car. 2.1.  And accordingly by the highest authoritative way of resolution, this Oath is declared Unlawful, by a public Act in our Statute Laws.  
3. And it's not having a legal Constitution (besides what respecteth the particular matter thereof) is sufficient to render it unlawful in itself, according to the law of God, which establisheth order, commandeth obedience to Government, and subjection to all wholesome humane laws. For by the law of God the Oaths of Subjects against the will of their Rulers for altering matters of Government must be declared to be unlawful, as not being according to the rule of righteousness. And it is not the matter only which maketh an Oath or Promise Unlawful in itself, but all other necessary ingredients or attendants, may have the like effect and influence; as the consideration of the person who taketh the Oath, with respect to his capacity and authority, and many other such like things, which the Canonists have expressed in this distich; 
Sayr. Clau. Reg. l. 5. c. 3.  Sat jusjurandum licitum decern; notato Quis, cui, quid, per quid, ad quid, cur, quomodo, quando. 
Martin Margarit. Decret. Filiuc. Trac. 25. n. 204.  Agreeable hereunto Filiucius a Casuist maketh an express distinction, between pomissio illici●a ex parte materiae, and promissio illicita per seipsam; telling us that a promise made by a Son against the prohibition of his Father, may be a lawful promise as to the matter of it, but yet it is an unlawful promise in itself, as encluding in itself an unlawful thing; that is disobedience to his Father.  
4. But touching the matter of the Covenant being unlawful, I might note, that that clause expressing them who take the Covenant to be of one reformed Religion, and that they had before their eyes the glory of God, and the honour of the King; was either not so true, or not so well known concerning one another, as that they might safely express it in a warrantable Oath. And what concerned the doctrine, worship, discipline and Government of Scotland and Ireland, was that which could not be understood, as the matter of an Oath should be, by ordinary persons in England who were required to take it. And that clause, declaring that this Covenant was made according to the commendable practice of these Kingdoms in former times, did not only require them who took it to be well skilled in History, but also declareth former open combinations of Subjects by Oath, against the mind and will of their Prince, to alter the affairs of Government, to be commendable practices: which is to assert what is contrary unto truth.  
5. And how much it was in the matter of it Unlawful, by its designed tendency to promote a civil War (even against the King) may also be considered. For though the King was known to oppose this Oath, yet the Covenant engaged them who took it, according to their places and callings to assist and defend all those that entered into this League and Covenant in the maintenance and pursuing thereof. And also that they should all the days of their lives coniinue therein against all opposition. And that this phrase according to our places and callings, was not understood nor intended in the Covenant, and by the contrivers thereof, in the due limited sense (though many private persons did so take it) is manifest by considering what kind of assistance to each other was by them practised, before, at, and after the taking the Covenant; and also because the taking this phrase in such a strict restrained sense, would have been utterly inconsistent with what is joined therewith, viz. the assisting and defending all those that enter into this League and Covenant, in the maintaining and pursuing thereof, to continue therein against all opposition, and not to be withdrawn from it by whatsoever persuasion or terror: since all this was against the Kings known command and open Proclamation.  
6. As this Covenant had respect to the affairs of the Church, it appeareth unlawful upon a double account. 1. That endeavour, intended in the Covenant for the alteration of Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, was in the nature thereof an Unlawful endeavour: for thereby Subjects did undertake of themselves, though without legal authority, and without and against the King's consent, to alter, oppose, and expel what was established by the Laws of the Land. To this purpose the Covenant itself in the beginning thereof declareth, that after other means of supplication, remonstrance, protestation, etc. now at last they enter into a League wherein (Art. 1. and 2.) they engaged themselves to this endeavour. Wherefore that endeavour cannot include such means as supplication to the King, etc. Which are called other means than what they then designed. And according to this sense, the Assembly, 
Pref. to the Directory.  notwithstanding the King's prohibitive Declaration, declared, that to give public testimony of their endeavour for Uniformity in divine worship, which they promised in the Covenant; they resolved to lay aside the former Liturgy, and agreed on the directory. 
Ordin. Jan. 3. 1644.  And the then two Houses without the King's consent and against his Declaration, proceeding, as themselves there expressed, according to their Covenant to reform Religion, did undertake by their ordinance to abolish the Book of Common-Prayer, and to repeal all statutes which enjoined it, and to establish the directory: and in like manner they proceeded in their other Ordinances of Oct. 9th 1646. for abolishing the name, title, 
Ordin. Oct. 9 1646.  stile, and dignity of Archbishop and Bishop, 
Nou. 16. 1648.  and of Aug. 29. 1648. for establishing a new way of discipline and ordination And in the two several ordinances for abolishing Bishops, and selling their lands, there is a special provision to this purpose, To save and preserve all other rights, titles and interests, other than the King's, and his Heirs and Successors, the Archbishops, and Bishops, etc. Which words carry an appearing indication of some conviction, that those endeavours against Episcopacy were not every way lawful and according to right.  
7. The matter of the Covenant was also Unlawful, as it designed the extirpation of Church-government by Archbishops and Bishops. For to engage the rooting out of all Episcopacy, which ever since the Apostles times hath been established in the Church, and under which our own Nation received its reformation, is to Covenant, to abolish that, which (after all Books of controversy hitherto written) may fairly plead for a divine institution; and no man (how confident soever) can be sufficiently secure, that he doth not act against the will of Christ, while he designeth to reject it; and therefore an Oath to this end and purpose cannot be a lawful Oath. 
Conc. Chalc. c. 18 Con. Trull. c. 34. Aurel. 3. c. 21. C. 11. q. 1. Conspirationum.  With what indignation such actings would have been looked upon by the Primitive Christians, may appear by the Canons of the ancient, general, and Provincial Councils, wherein all combinations by Oath (though they were not so high as this of the Covenant) whether by Clergy or Laity against their Bishops were in the highest manner, and with the greatest severity condemned and censured.  
8. I know that some have written that the Covenant did not intent wholly to abolish but to regulate Episcopacy. 
Survey of the Grand Case, p. 44.  But other Covenanters have earnestly opposed this, and tell us that the Government is to be extirpated, not by mutation, mutilation, limitation, or regulation, but utter abolition, una cum stirpe evellere. And that Parliament by whose ordinance the Covenant was taken, when they set upon this extirpation, did design the taking away even the title, stile, name and dignity of Arch bishop and Bishop. And as this restrained interpretation (which was the sense of divers particular persons) maketh somewhat a violent exposition, of the extirpation expressed in the second Article, so it directly clasheth with the first Article, whereby the Church of Scotland (overlooking the Bishops there) under its Presbytery, which professed a great opposition to every little appearance of any fixed Episcopacy, was made the Idea, according to which, the Church of England must be reform. 
Bishop Spotswood Hist. of Ch. of Scotl. l. 3. p. 159, 160.  Now in Scotland according to their form of Church Policy, 1560. they had Superintendents or Bishops, who were to use Episcopal power in many things, were chosen and approved by the Ministers, and were subject to the censures of the Ministers and Elders, and were not required to have Episcopal Ordination: and yet even these Superintendents, 
Ibid. lib. 6. p. 311.  in the modelling their Presbytery (after the new form of policy was introduced 1578.) were rejected, and disclaimed and exploded in the Assembly at Dundee, 1580. as having neither foundation, ground nor warrant in the word of God.  
9 And thus having taken a short, plain, and direct view, of divers things in the Covenant, in must needs seem exceeding strange (unless the interest of parties, or prejudices, have the chief and principal influence upon some men's scruples that divers persons, who profess themselves extremely scrupulous, concerning the lawfulness of other things which are very justifiable, should be as far in the other extreme confident asserters of the lawfulness of this Oath, without any scruple, and even to impatience of all contradiction.   

SECT. II.  
That no man is obliged by this Oath to endeavour any alteration foe the Government.  
1. Though some phrases in the Covenant, which had respect to the King, were truly declared by himself to be dubious and dangerous, and were to such purposes made use of by some violent Spirits, yet I shall presume it now granted, that no man is by that Oath obliged to endeavour any alteration of the Government in the State. But I shall here undertake to manifest, that there lieth no obligation from the Covenant upon any person who took it, to endeavour any alteration of the Government in the Church, though he might intent this in his entering upon that Oath. And this I shall evidence by propounding four Rules.  
2. The first Rule is, That Superiors just rights may not be violated. But if the voluntary Vows or Oaths of Inferiors, made against the consent and command of their Superiors, concerning things belonging to their Government (which is the present case) did bind them to prosecute what they did so undertake; then must it be acknowledged lawful, that the Superiors right and authority be taken away, without his own consent, and that the duties of Obedience, the divine Ordinances of Rule and Dominion, and together therewith all peace may be rooted out of the World. This will be manifest by considering the Oath of a Servant, that he will not do such business as he thinketh his Master intendeth for him; of a Child, that he will have none of those orders, nor servants in his Father's family, which his Father approveth; or of an Army, that they will not engage in a Battle, or undertakeany march though they be thereto commanded. And like to these is the Oath of a Subject, to determine matters of public Government, against the law, and the mind of his Sovereign. And if other inferiors should in the like case as forwardly make contrary vows; if these should also be supposed to necessary obligation against their superiors right, this would perpetuate endless quarrels between these parties, and banish subjection from them both.  
3. And a very great consent of Writers, of different persuasions in other things, ight be produced, to show that such Oaths of Inferiors cannot be obligatory: as Bishop Saunderson de Oblige. Juram. Praelec. 4. sect. 5. & Prael. 7. Sect. 
Conf. Aug. cap. de Vot. Monach.  6. Aquinas 22ae q. 89. a 9 ad 3m m Grot. de Jur. Bel. & Pac. l. 2. c. 13. Sect. 20. Perkins Cases of Consc. l. 2. c. 13. q. 3. Ames. Cas. Consc. l. 4. c. 22. n. 26, 30, 35. and the Augustane Confession. Thus God appointed, that if the Father declared against the vow of his Daughter, or the Husband against the vow of his Wife, that vow should be void and of none effect. Num. 30.3, 4, 
Phil. de leg. special. ad praec. 3m.  etc. which was as Philo Judaeus observeth, because they were under the dominion of others, and might vow things incommodious to them.  
4. But the King who hath in this Realm the chief Government in matters Ecclesiastical, as well as in others, did disallow and openly declare against this Oath, by his Proclamation of Oct. 9 in the 19th year of his Reign, which may be seen in the Bibliotheca Regia, 
Judic Acad Oxon. p. 8.  being many years since therein reprinted, and was long before urged to this purpose, by the University of Oxford. After this among otehr large concessions, the King declared, that he could not consent to the Covenant, both from Newport in the Isle of wight, Sept. 29. 1648. and from Holmby, May 12. 1647. Wherefore the King did several times manifest his disallowing the Covenant, and even with particular respect to its endeavouring the alteration of the Government in the Church, as may be collected from the view of his own words: and thereby any intended obligation from this Oath, to alter this Government, became thenceforth void to all his subjects, agreeably to the like case. Num. 39.9, 10, 11, 12, 13.  
5. A second Rule is, That the doctrine of Christ should be the guide of our practice. Now it was the tradition of the Scribes and Pharisees, Mat. 15.4, 5, 6. and Mar. 7, 10, 11, 12. That though God commanded the honouring the Father and Mother, (which encluded the providing for them things convenient) he who had made a vow not consistent with this duty, ought not to relieve them against his vow. And though there be some variety in the critical exposition of the words of the Evangelists; divers taking the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Matthew, and the Corban in S. Mark, for the gift or thing devoted itself; 
Lect. Var. l. 1. c. 4.  Petitus for Josephus (Ant. l. 4. c. 4.) accounteth Corban to be the name of a votary, who had vowed only to mind the Ministry of God; 
Grot. de Jur. B. & P. l. 2. c. 17. Coce. in Gemar. Sanh. c. 7.  others as Grotius, Cocceius, and some of our own Writers, after Masius, most probably esteem Corban to be the form of a Vow or Oath, which the Jews express, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; yet in all these different ways of resolution, there is a sufficient agreement, concerning the substance and sense of the Pharisaical doctrine. But this their doctrine our Saviour condemneth, as a transgressing the Commandment of God by their traditions, Mat. 15.3. and making the Commandment of God of none effect. v. 6. etc.  
6. Now the same command, Honour thy Father and thy Mother (and divers precepts of the Gospel) doth enjoin obedience to Governors and Rulers. And our Sovereign and our Laws do establish the present Government in the Church, and thereby do require subjects to submit to it and receive it; and therefore according to the doctrine of Christ, no Vow or Oath ought to be accounted to disoblige men from this duty of obedience, which is enjoined by the Commandment of God. 
Second Paper of Proposals 1661.  And the pretence made by some, that they are far from thinking that the Covenant obliged them to resist authority, but yet it doth undoubtedly oblige to forbear their own consent to what they there renounced; this would agree well with the intent of the Pharisees tradition, while the Son might tell his Father, that he acknowledged his vow could not oblige him to do his Father wrong; but yet he was bound that in these present circumstances he might not consent to yield him relief. But such things are of a direct contrary tendency to the doctrines of Christ.  
7. A third Rule is, That every obligation of an Oath of contract, ceaseth by the mutual content of the contractors; and therefore, had the Covenant been every way warrantable, the obligation by contract therein, to endeavour the alteration of the Government of the Church, would have ceased, by the Parliaments of all these three Nations disclaiming any such obligation. 
22ae q. 89. a. 9 ad 2m. De J. B. & P. l. 2. c. 13. Sect. 18. De Obl. Juram. Prael. 7. Sec. 8. De Consc. l. 4. c. 22. Sect. 37.  And that such an Oath ceaseth to bind, when we have the desire or consent of them to whose concernment it hath particular reference, is asserted by such Writers as treat of this matter, as Aquinas, Grotius, Bishop Saunderson, Amesius, and divers others; and this hath been also admitted and insisted upon, by some chief defenders of the Covenant, particularly by Mr. Henderson, in his first Paper to the King. And the reason hereof is evident, because every person, society, or community, may recede from their own right and privilege. Thus after the two spies had made a general Oath to Rahab, to preserve her and her Father's house alive (which was a privilege she obtained) by agreement between her and them it was resolved, 
Jos. 2.12, 13, 17,— 21.  that this Oath should not bind, if either she or her Father's family, were not within the doors of her house. And thus if any two Kingdoms should by Oath engage, to traffic in some commodities with none other but among themselves only; if this contract be afterwards judged prejudicial to both their interests, and the public authority on both sides yield to have it altered, and quit all claim of any such peculiar right of trade, the obligation of that Oath is thereby dissolved.  
8. That the Covenant was designed to be an Oath of contract, between divers subjects of these Nations appeareth, because as it is all along styled the solemn League and Covenant, so in the beginning thereof it is declared, We the Noblemen, Barons, etc. determined to enter into a mutual and solemn League and Covenant: and a mutual League cannot be otherwise, than an Oath of contract. And whereas this Oath in the sixth Article thereof, is styled their Union and Conjunction, and in the end of it, it is called an association and Covenant, all this doth intimate, that its obligation was intended towards one another. Wherefore since any obligation from the Covenant to alter the Government, is disclaimed and rejected by the Parliaments of England and Ireland, and also by the rescissory act (as I find it termed) in Scotland, it must hereby become void, though it had been otherwise binding.  
9 A fourth Rule is, That what the general judgement of the best Christians of all ages have condemned as sin, ought not to be admitted. But they have all acknowledged it a sin, that an Oath so far as it is against any right, should be persisted in as being obligatory. And it is as reasonable to doubt, of ordinary travellers knowing the road they have long used, as to question whether the most eminent Christians since Christ, did ever arrive at the understanding of those plain duties of Religion, which are of frequent practice.  
10. When Novatus made a Schism in the Roman Church against Cornelius, he, in delivering the Holy Sacrament, gave to his followers this Oath; 
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Swear to me by the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, that thou wilt never leave me, nor return to Cornelius: and yet both S. Cyprian and other Catholic Bishops every where, judged these men bound to return, and condemned their continuance with Novatus, in the breach of Peace and Unity. Evagrius relateth, 
Evagr. Hist. l. 6. c. 6.  that when Mauritius the Emperor sent Philippicus to command his Army, they bond themselves by Oath, not to own him for their Commander: but when the Emperor persisted in his purpose, and sent a Bishop to treat with them, they were at last satisfied, that they ought to receive him, notwithstanding their Oath. And when Anacletus was set up to govern the Roman Church, 
Vit. S. Bern. lib. 2. c. 5.  in opposition to Innocentius the second, some persons told S. Bernard, that they could not receive Innocentius, because they were bound by an Oath to hold to Anacletur against him. But S. Bernard answered, insanire eos qui rem illicitam Sacramenti patrocinio constare existimant; that it is a madness to think, that any thing not lawful of itself can be defended by their Oath; 
Spelm. Conc. Brit. in leg. Alf. 1. Novel. 51. Dig. l. 2. Tit. 14. Jurisg.  whereas (said he) such disorderly agreements, under whatsoever pretence of Religion they be established, are to be accounted void, and by the authority of God to be dissolved.  
11. That nothing otherwise unwarrantable can become a duty by any Oath, was declared in the Ecclesiastical laws of Alfred, and by the Councils of Basil. Sess. 4. of Lerida Can. 7. and of Toledo. 8. Can. 2. and in several places of the civil Law; 
Cod. l. 9 Tit. 8. Const. 2.  and by all our Protestant Writers, treating of the vow of single life, in the who have not the gift of continency. And this is so agreeable to all rational principles, that it was received among the ancient Roman laws, 
Phillip de leg. special. C. 22. q. 3. & 4. lib. 2. Tit. 24. cap. 12. & 19  before the Empire became Christian; and is likewise declared by Philo the Jew. And in the Canon Law, Gratian resolved by divers ancient authorities, that an Oath against the duty of obedience being sinful, cannot oblige: and the like is asserted in the Gregorian decretals; both which are in this matter received with good approbation by Protestant Writers.  
12. Now I shall not think it necessary to answer objections, but shall content myself no note, that whatsoever objection may press some one of the rules , doth still leave the main design secure, unless all these rules could be invalidated. And such objections as carry an appearance of proof, that an Oath may oblige to what otherwise would not be warrantable, have this manifest indication of mistake, because they tend to uphold this monstrous position, that men are bound to observe God's commands and their duties no longer, than till they shall please to make an Oath against them.    

CHAP. III.  
Of the Declaration and Subscription referring to the Liturgy.  
1. SOme open acknowledgement or subscription, not only to doctrines, but also to other rules and Ecclesiastical Constitutions, hath been a thing very usual in the Christian Church; and in matters lawful and orderly, hath been thought  to promote Peace, and continue well established order therein; and the expediency thereof standeth recommended, by the wisdom and ordinary practice of the Church.  
2. In the Council of Nice, 
Conc. Nicen. c. 8.  the returning Novatians who were received in the Clergy, were required by subscription to testify, that they would conform to the Catholic practice, and the Constitutions and Decrees of the Catholic Church. The ancient Custom of subscribing to their Synodical Constitutions, 
Conc. Carth. gr. c. 93. Conc. Carth. 2. Can. 13.  is evident from divers ancient Councils: which was also practised in the Carthaginian Territories, where such who acted contrary to their profession or subscription, were sharply sentenced. And in the Constitutions of Justinian, according to some Copies, he who was to be ordained Bishop, besides his subscribing to the doctrine of the Faith, and his Oath against Simony, was required to read the offices of the Church, for the holy Communion, and with the other Prayers of the Church, 
Novel. 123. edit. Haloand  those also appointed for Baptism. And he who (as he was required) did testify his allowance of these Prayers by reading them, might as well have testified the same, by any other vocal acknowledgement or subscription.  
3. Among the Protestants, the practice of subscription to such things (as also that which is more solemn, an acknowledgement by Oath) hath been frequently admitted. In Poland, after the consent (chief touching the Lord's Supper) was established in the Synod of Sandomir, 1570. between the Churches of those three Confessions, the Bohemian, Augustan, and Helvetian; 
Syn. Torun. 2585.  it was concluded in another following General Synod, and attested by the Superintendents, Ministers and Patrons of the several Confessions, that none should be admitted into the Ministry, or received into their Churches as a Minister, unless (among other qualifications) consensui subscribat, he subscribe to the consent, and behave himself accordingly. Which provision contained a prudential care, that a due decorum should be kept, even in the Agenda of Religion. The French Church requireth a subscription to their Liturgy; and the like may be observed in divers other places.  
4. In the Bohemian Church, after the time of their ordination, which was performed, manuum Episcopalium impositione, 
Ratio Discipl. c. 2: Sect. 4. & 5. p. 32, 34.  the Ministers were solemnly admitted to their particular ministration by their Visitor, who amogn other things, committed to them their liber Ritualis, containing their form and rites of worship, of the performance of which they were to take care, and to which among other offices of their Ministry, they did at their Ordination oblige themselves by a Religious Oath, both to God and his Church. 
Ratio Canon. Examine. in Bucer. Script. Angl.  They who entered into the Ministry at Strasburgh, after its first reformation, did by Oath undertake to keep in the Communion, and obedience of the Church and its Governors, according to the law of God, and their Canons, Statutes, and Ordinances. And it is related from the laws of Geneva (where an established Liturgy is one of their Constitutions) that all they who were there received to the Ministry, must oblige themselves by Oath, to observe the Ecclesiastical Ordinances, ordained by the Councils of that City. In the Hungarian reformed Church, they who enter the Ministry, do by a very solemn Oath oblige themselves, to the observations of the Ecclesiastical Canons, 
Eccles. Augl. Vindic. cap. 31. in fin.  and to the performing due obedience to the Bishop, and other Superiors in the Church, as may be seen in their Oath, as it is fully exhibited by Mr. durel, from their Synodical Constitutions.  
5. The Subscriptions or Declarations required amongst us (besides what for the present concerneth the Covenant) are, an acknowledgement of the King's just authority, to secure the Government; of the Articles of Religion, to preserve truth of Doctrine; and of the Liturgy and Book of Ordination, to maintain order and Uniformity: to which end also tendeth the Oath of Canonical obedience, wherein such obedience to the Bishop and his Successors, is engaged in all lawful and honest things: which must needs be blameless, unless it could be accounted a sin, to resolve to do good and honest things, in a way of order. Of these, I shall in this discourse treat of what concerneth the Liturgy, which is chief opugned; and therefore requireth the principal consideration, for the vindicating our Communion in the worship of God, and the manifesting the unlawfulness of the breach thereof.  
6. Some declared allowance of the Liturgy, hath since the reformation been ordinarily required in this Church. 
Art. 35.  The Articles in the time of King Edward the Sixth, contained an approbation both of the Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordination. In Queen Elizabeth's time, the allowance of the use, and the Subscription to the Book of Common-Prayer, was required by the Advertisements, 
Advertism. 7. Eliz. Can. 1571. c. concionatores. Tract. 21. c. 1.  and Canons, and defended by Bishop Whitgift. Since Queen Elizabeth, the same hath been performed, in the Subscription according to the 36th Canon, and in the Declaration and Acknowledgement, in the Act of Uniformity, which in seense much agreeth therewith.  
7. The subscription required by the thirty sixth Canon, is grounded upon the Constitutions of the Convocation, confirmed by the authority of the King's broad Seal, according to his supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastical, and according to the Statute, 25. Henr. 8. And so the Canons of the Church did of old frequently receive a confirmation, by the Emperor's sanction under his Sea; which is a thing of so great antiquity, that Eusebius relateth concerning Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that by his Seal, 
Eus. de Vit. Const. l. 4. c. 27.  he ratisied the determinations made by the Bishops in their Synods.  
8. That Article in this Canon, which referreth to the Book of Common-Prayer, doth include an acknowledging three things. First that that Book containeth nothing contrary to the word of God: which is intended to be manifested in the following Chapters, touching the things chief opposed. The second will be consequent thereupon, viz. that it may lawfully be so used. The third and last clause, is a promise to use the form prescribed in that Book, in public Prayer and administration of the Sacraments, and none other: the lawfulness of which promise, doth evidently follow from the former clause, and its sense is of the same import, with those words of the acknowledgement, required in the Act of Uniformity, viz. I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now established.  
9 But some especial doubts have been peculiarly entertained, concerning the sense of the Declaration in the Act of Uniformity, in giving unfeigned assent and consent, to all and every thing, contained and prescribed, in and by the Book of Common-Prayer, etc. But while our Government doth require the use of this form, both the intended sense (being the same with that of the two former clauses concerning the Liturgy, in the Canon ) and the expression thereof, may upon equitable and impartial consideration, appear clearly and fairly justifiable. To which purpose, the true sense of assenting and consenting, and the things to which this hath respect, is to be enquired after.  
10. Wherefore it is first to be considered, that as to assent, when referred to things asserted, is to own the truth of them; so when referred to things to be done, ordered or used, it is to allow that they should be put in practice: in which latter sense, assenting is one and the same with consenting. Now the Act of Uniformity, both immediately before this Declaration, and in divers other places, referreth this unfeigned assent and consent, to the use of the things in that Book contained and prescribed; and thereby directeth us to this ordinary sense of the word Assent: as doth also the nature of the things to be assented to, which for the main part are Prayers, Thanksgivings, and Rubrics, which being no assertions or propositions, are to be used, but not properly to be believed. This notion of assenting in the same signification with consenting, is according to the frequent use of assensus in the Latin (as when things are agreed unanimi assensu & consensu, and the marriage of Children is declared, 
Littleton C. of Tenant in Dower.  that it should be de assensu & consensu parentum; and we read of dower de assensu patris, in our English Law-Books) and the same might be evidenced by various English Examples. But this Declaration being required by our Statute Laws, it may be sufficient to observe, that this is a very common sense of the word assent, in our English Statutes.  
11. 
25. Ed. 1. c. 1: Pref. to 18. Ed. 3. & to 2. Ric. 2. & passim.  Thus from King Edw. I. will King Henry the seventh (and sometimes after) our Statute Laws are oft declared to be assented unto; or to be made with the assent of the Lords, etc. But from Queen Elizabeth's time downwards, the Laws are oft expressed to be enacted by the King or Queen, with the consent of the Lords, etc. and sometimes with their assent and consent, (as 1. Jac. 2. & 21. Jac. 2.) In the same sense par assent, assensus, and such like expressions, are frequently used in our most ancient Statutes, in their Latin and Frence Originals. As in St. de Carl. Ordinat. Forest. c. 6. St. Lincoln. Westm. 4. Exilium Hug. le despenser. Ordin. pro ter. Hib. And about common assays, the word assent is three times in one paragraph used in this sense, concerning the recovery of any land, 
14 Eliz. 8.  by the assent and agreement of the persons, to whom the reversion shall appertain. Nor doth the using these two words of assent and consent, in the same clause, require such a sense of this Declaration, in which they must differ from each other: since variety of words even in the most soleum acknowledgements, is oft used, not to express the difference, but to determine the certainty of sense; according to that Rule, 
Ex Reg. Juris.  Quae dubitationis tollendae causa inseruntur, jus common non laedunt. Thus in the Oath of Obedience or Allegiance, I A. B. do truly and sincerely, acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare, that our Sovereign Lord is lawful and rightful King,— Where all these words connected by conjunctive Particles, do only serve more expressly to manifest the same thing:  
12. And since the consideration both of persons and time make it evident, that this assent to be given, cannot contribute any thing, to the authoritative ordering and constitution of these things, (which were before established by authority) its most proper and natural sense, must import a consent to, or allowing of the use of these things, which is the sense, unto which the expressions in the Act of Uniformity, do also plainly direct. Wherefore such things only as are to be used (being both contained and prescribed) as all the Prayers, Hymns, directing Rubrics, Calendar, and the Whole frame of the Liturgy, come within the compass of this Declaration. But some things occasionally declared, and not prescribed, are not contained under it. 
In the Preface.  For instance, these words, That this Book as it stood before established by law, did not contain in it any thing, which a godly man may not with a good Conscience use and submit to; though they be true and considerable, yet if they were included under this Declaration, than even such things as were thought fit to be altered, must be still in some sort assented unto; which is both contrary to the end of such alterations, and to the proper sense of the words of this Declaration.  
13. And even such persons who conceive some things or expressions prescribed, either in the Phrases of Common-Prayer itself, or in the pointing of the Psalms, or in the Translation of the Psalms or other Scriptures; not to be suitable to their own desires or apprehensions (yet to be free from fin, and of such a nature, as that the whole remaineth useful, to guide the exercises of Piety) those persons may safely and with a good Conscience, make this Declaration of assent, with respect unto other weighty considerations, of submission to Authority, promoting Peace, Order, and Unity, and the edification of the Church, in the united exercise of a right religious worship. Even as such learned men, who may judge even our last translation of the Bible, not to have fitly expressed the sense of some difficult places, may yet both unfeignedly assent, and earnestly persuade to the diligent use thereof, as knowing it to be of excellent advantage, to the pious and humble Readers, for their profitable learning the Gospel Doctrine, and the will of God.  
14. Wherefore by this Declaration is given such an open vocal approbation of this Book, required by Law, as agreeth in sense with the subscription enjoined by Canon. And the intent thereof is, to express such an unfeigned allowance or consent, to all things contained and prescribed in the Book of Comon-Prayer, with the Psalms, as that they may warrantably and with a good Conscience be used, as they are established by authority: the truth of which will appear more manifest upon a particular enquiry.   

CHAP. IU.  
Of the Liturgy and the ordinary service appointed therein.  

SECT. I.  
The lawfulness, antiquity, and expediency, of public forms.  
1. PVblick Prayer is acknowledged by all Christians, to be a chief part of the worship of God, who hath said, My house shall be called an house of Prayer for all people. But since God hath not expressly declared in his word, whether the ordinary public duties of Christian Prayer, should be performed with or without a form, the determination of the sittest practice in this case must be made (not without regard to the authority of Governors) by a respect to the rules of order, edification, and the glory of God, and an eye unto approved examples, from which considerations, I shall produce divers evidences, of the requisiteness of a set form for the public offices of the Church, both from Reason, and from example and authority.  
2. The reasons are such as these. 1. That hereby a fit, true, right, and well ordered way of worship, in addresses to God, may be best secured to the Church, in its public service of God, that neigher God nor his worship may be dishonoured; their being many easily discernible ways, of considerable miscarriage, in the public offices of the Church, even by them who err not in the doctrines of Religion. 2. That needful comprehensive petitions, for all common and ordinary spiritual and outward wants, of ourselves or others, with fit thanksgivings, may not in the public supplications of the Church be omitted; which (considering men as they are) can not other way be either so well or at all assured. 3. That the affections and hearts of pious and religious men may be more devont, and better united in their presenting their service to God, where they may consider beforehand, what particular Prayers and Thanksgivings they are to offer up, and come the more ready and prepared to join in them. This is an advantage of which many are deprived by a bad temper of mind, either sucked in by prejudice, or swallowed down by carelessness.  
3. 4. That such difficult parts of Church Offices, as Baptism and the Lords Supper, the matter of which requireth great consideration, that they may be clearly and aright expressed, (as both Conformists, and many Non-Conformists acknowledge, and is evident from the many disputes about them, by men neither of mean parts, nor dangerous designs) may by a more considerate care in the composure of a form, be so framed, that men of greatest understandings may with readiest assent entertain them, and that they may be sufficiently vindicated against the boldest opposers. 5. To be an evidence to other Churches and future times, after what way and manner we worship God, and that both the matter and expression of our service to him, is sound and pious, in our general and common worship. And this may be a full testimony that such a Church both receiving the true faith, and expressing a right way of worship, is both a true and in its measure a pure and incorrupt Church.  
4. The Arguments from example, which in general countenance the lawfulness or expediency of a form are two, which will require a larger Declaration. The first is from the practice and example of Christ, who directed his Disciples the use of the Lords Prayer, as a set form: and that from thence the custom of the Christian Church, 
De Eccles. Offic. l. 1. c. 9  in composing and using set forms did take its pattern, is reasonably asserted by Isidorous Hispalonsis. That the Lords Prayer was delivered as a form is so manifest; that (was it not for the violent force offered to men's minds, by prejudice and contentious opposition) it could never have been questioned. And it may be sufficiently proved. 1. From the command given by our Saviour Luk. 11.2. When ye pray, say Our Father, etc. and the expression in S. Matthew, Mat, 6.9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pray sc, or on this manner, is the same with that, when the form of Aaronical benediction was enjoined. Numb. 6.23. On this wise (in the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) shall ye bless. But the blessing there directed hath been generally acknowledged, to be a constant invariable form of Benediction under the law, 
Luth. Tom. 3. f. 10. Prec. Eccles. Form. Genev.  and as such was used in the Germane Reformation by Luther, and in that also of Geneva. 2. From the ground of the Disciples request. Luk. 11.1. Lord, teach us to pray as John also taught his Disciples. That it was ordinary for the Jewish Teachers to compose forms for their Disciples is observed by Dr. Lightfoot, on Mat. 6.9. and the frequent yea constant use of forms in the Jewish Church shall be hereafter manifested, and if this be referred to the words of S. Luke now mentioned, it is not to be doubted, but that John the Baptist, according to the custom of the Jews, delivered a form of Prayer to his Disciples, and that what John did herein, was both approved, and the like practised by our Saviour, who directed the use of the Lords Prayer to his Disciples at two different times.  
5. 3. From the manner of the composure of the Lords Prayer, which is not propounded as a general direction to pray, that God's name may be hallowed, and that his Kingdom should come; but it is dictated by Christ as it should be expressed by us in our persons, Our father, hallowed be thy name, etc. 4. The ancient Christian Church near the times of Christ, did acknowledge and use it as a form. S. Cyprian is very large to this purpose; 
Cyp. de Orat. Domin.  saith he, Christ consulting the salvation of his people, etiam orandi formam ipse dedit, himself delivered them a form of prayer; and then exhorteth that we pray as our master taught us, that the father when we pray may own the words of his Son; and saith he, when we have Christ an advocate, let us express the words of our advocate; and how much more effectually shall we obtain what we ask in Christ's name, if we ask by his Frayer. Tertullian before him declared, 
Tertul. de Orat. c. 1. etc. 9  Christus novam orationis formam determinavit, Christ appointed a new form of prayer, and he saith, that whilst the Christians used other Prayers this was not omitted, praemissa legitima & ordinaria oratione quasi fundamento. And before both these the words of Lucian in Trajan's time, 
Lucian. in Philopat.  about reciting the Prayer beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth intimate the ordinary use of this Prayer among Christians. From these testimonies I suppose it evident, that the Lords Prayer was used as a form in the ancient Christian Assemblies, and that we have good reason thus far to receive, what some hundred years after was delivered by S. Gregory, 
Gr. Ep. l. 7. c. 63.  and from him by divers other Writers, that the Apostles themselves did always at the Consecration of the Eucharist, make use of the Lords Prayer. Wherefore the Lords Prayer being thus delivered as a form, doth include an approbation of the like composures of Prayers among the Jews, and an allowance of the same among Christians, for whom this was intended. And that path where we follow our Saviour's steps cannot be the way of error.  
6. The other argument from example, is from the ordinary practice of the Church both Jewish and Christian. Concerning the Jewish Church, I might instance in the eighteen Prayers, composed for its ordinary use from the time of the Captivity, which are oft mentioned by the Jewish Writers, and in their forms of Prayer for the Passover, 
De Emendar. Tempor. l. 6. p. 573.  of which Scaliger thinketh that there is as much reason to be confident, that the particular Prayers recorded in the Talmud (which he calleth their Digests) were the ancient forms used by the Jews, as that the Roman Digests exhibit to us the true determination of the Roman Lawyers. But I shall rather insist on the Jewish Church making use of set forms of Prayer, from the very times of Moses, and so downwards; which is no new opinion but is ordinarily received; and it hath been observed by divers learned men, that the Samaritan Chronicle speaketh of a Book of Prayers, used by the Jews at their Sacrifices, from the time of their Legate Moses, until that day. And besides the testimony of that Author (which I urge no further than other proof may be made) let these two things be considered.  
7. First, That it is certain from the Scriptures (and oft expressed by Philo Judaeus) that the Jews did use Prayers with their Sacrifices and oblations. The whole multitude were praying without at the time of incense, Luk. 1.10. and the Apostles themselves went up to the Temple, at the hour of Prayer, which was the ninth hour, Act. 3.1. Which was the time of the evening Sacrifice; 
Mr. Mede Disc. on Ezr. 6.10.  and Mr. Mede hath well proved that Sacrifice if self is a rite of supplication. And that the use of such Prayers was as ancient as Moses, is manifest from Leu. 16.21. Where Aaron was commanded to confess over the live Goat, the iniquities of the Children of Israel. Secondly, That there are plain evidences in the Old Testament, of such forms used upon many occasions. Besides the forms of Prayers and praises in the Book of Psalms, enjoined for constant use unto the Levites by Hezekiah, and the Princes, 1 Chr. 29, 30. and besides divers other Hymns and Songs, and such commands for a form of words, as Joel 2.17. Hos. 14.2. there is an express form of Prayer appointed by God, to be used at the Offering the Heifer for expiation of uncertain murder, Deut. 8.21. and a form of confession at the offering up their first fruits, Deut. 26.3, 4, 5, 6, 7. and a form of Prayer at the presenting the third years Tithe, Deut. 26.13, 14, etc. and some other such like. Whence it is evident, that forms of Prayer were by God's appointment used, from the beginning of the Jewish Church. Yet if no such thing could have been proved, and if their original had been from John the Baptist, and the direction of our Saviour, this alone might be sufficient to recommend them unto Christians.  
8. In considering the general practice of the Christian Church, it must be acknowledged, that in that extraordinary case (which reacheth not the ordinary condition of the Church) when the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost were communicated; both Prayer, prophesying, and singing were frequently thereby performed, as is evident from 1. Cor. 14. And I yield it most probable (though even Protestant Writers do herein differ) that the ancient Roman, Jerusalem, and Alexandrian Offices, were called the Liturgies of S. Peter, S. James, and S. Mark, because of their certain early use in the Churches where they presided; though it is not certain that they were composed by them, this being mentioned by no ancient Writer of the first Centuries. Nor do I doubt but the Liturgy or Anaphora of S. John, and that of the twelve Apostles are suppositious, which with the former are related by Gabriel Sionita, 
Gab. Sionit. de Ritib. Maron.  to be exhibited amongst the Syriack Offices: for of these we have no mention in any ancient Ecclesiastical Writer, unless the words of Epiphanius, 
Epiph. Haer, 79.  expressing all the Apostles with S. James the Brother of our Lord, to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (that is, chief Dispenser's or Stewards of the Christian Mysteries) might allowably be racked, to speak them all Composers of Liturgical forms, 
Allatius de Liturg. S. Jacob.  according to the violence offered to those words by Leo Allatius. But if it can yet be proved, that at least since the ceasing of the frequent distribution of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, the Church of Christ hath in all Ages used and approved forms, this will be as considerable a testimony in behalf of Liturgies, as can reasonably be required.  
9 That forms of Prayer were of use in the Church, about 1300 years since, is acknowledged by them who plead most against them, from Conc. Laod. c. 18.3. Carth. c. 23. and Conc. Mil. c. 12. and that they have continued from that time downward, cannot be denied. In the fourth Century, there is frequent mention in some parcels of Liturgy, in the Writings of the Fathers: and there are so many testimonies that S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and S. Basil were framers of Liturgies, that I do not see how any can rationally doubt of the truth thereof. But that these Liturgies have undergone divers alterations in succeeding Ages, is both apparent, and is very reasonable to be imagined. And he who shall compare the Greek Copy of S. Basils' Liturgy, with the Syriack or its version, both which are represented together by Cassander, 
Cassand. Liturgy.  will find them so vastly different from each other, that he must either conclude great alterations to have passed upon them, or that they never were originally the same. But from these I shall now look back, into the more early times of the Christian Church, where for the most part, I shall only briefly mention the testimonies, which have been fully produced by others.  
10. It is not probable, 
Euseb. de Laud. Constant. autemed.  that Constantine the Emperor would have composed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, godly Prayers, for the use of his Soldiers, if such forms had not then been used in the Christian Church: 
De Vit. Const. l. 4. c. 19, 20.  Eusebius accounting this an admirable thing that the Emperor should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a teacher of the words of Prayer. But Eusebius in another place, giving a particular account of some expressions suited to the Soldiery, in those set forms of Prayer, which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the constituted Prayers; doth a little before that declare Constantine's own practice, that he would take Books into his hands, either for contemplating the holy Scriptures, or for the expressing with his Court 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prayers that were constituted and appointed: and this Eusebius there calleth his ordering his Court 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the manner of the Church of God: and this is a manifest evidence of forms in the Christian Church in his time. 
Orig. Hom. 11. in Jerom. Cont. Celsum l. 6.  Origen manifestly citeth a piece of the usual Liturgy, an hundred years before Constantine saying, Frequenter in oratione dicimus Da omnipotens, da nobis partem cum prophetis, etc. We frequently say in our Prayers, Give, O Almighty God, give us a part with the Prophets, etc. and in his Books against Celsus he declareth Christians to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prayers which were ordained or constituted. S. 
Cyp. de Orat. Dom.  Cyprian sufficiently intimateth the use of some forms in the Carthaginian service in his time, by describing the entrance or beginning thereof, the Priest saying sursum corda, lift up your hearts; and the people answering Habemus ad Dominum, We lift them up unto the Lord. And the that considereth, that Tertullian plainly intimateth a form of abrenunciation in Baptism, De Cor. Mil. c. 3. and that they had set Hymns then appointed for particular times and hours, upon their stationary days, 
Albasp. Observe. l. 1: c. 16.  as Albaspinus interpreteth him, Adu. Psych. c. 13. will think it not improbable, that what he mentioneth of the particular heads of Prayer, in the usual Assemblies of the Christians, should have reference to some constant forms by them used: 
Tert. Ap. c. 39  and their use is favoured by the expressions of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Justin Martyr, and Ignatius. And many have thought, 
V Dr. Hammond in 1. Tim. 2.1.  that the Apostle had a special eye to the composure of such forms of Prayer, agreeably to what the Baptist and our Saviour prescribed to their Disciples, in commanding Timothy the Governor of the Church, that (among the things which concerned his behaviour in the Church of God, Ch. 3.15.) first of all, prayers, intercessions, supplications, and giving of thanks, be made for all men, etc. For though the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may either signify that Prayers be put up to God, or that they be composed, in this place it may well intent both. And it is thought by S. Augustine, 
Aug. Ep. 59  that these various words of the Apostle, Prayers, Supplications, Intercessions, and giving of thanks, did direct to a comprehensive fullness of all such Prayers, in the fixed models of the public service of the Church, when the Communion was administered, and that the public offices of the Church were accordingly composed, 
De Vocat. Gentium l. 1. c. 4.  and the same sense is also favoured by Prosper.  
11. Since the reformation, the Saxon and other Lutheran Churches have their Liturgies, the Bohemian had its Liber Ritualis, and the Palatinate it's Agenda (as Vrsin styleth it) by which the right order of its public administrations, 
Vrsin. Praef. in Apolog. Catechis.  might be vindicated from the Calumnies of detractors. And the Churches of France, Holland, and others, have their forms for the public service of God. And after the Order at Geneva had established a form of public service for the Lords day, with some appearance of a liberty of variation (which some relate not to have been so manifest in their practice, as in their rule; which was Dominico die mane haec ut plurimum adhibetur formula) I say after this was established at Geneva, 
Calv. Ep. 87.  Calvin who composed it expressed his judgement to be for the strict use of set forms, in his Letter to the Lord Protector in England: Wherein he writeth to this purpose. For so much as concerneth the form of Prayers and Ecclesiastical rites, valde probo, I much approve, that it be determined, so that it may not be lawful for the Ministers in their administrations, to vary from it. And this he judgeth necessary for these reasons, that it may be an help to the weakness of some, that it may be a testimony of the Church's consent, and that it may slop the desultorious levity of those who are for new things.  
12. And these very expressions of Calvin, are cited with great approbation by the Walachrian Classis of Zealand, in what they wrote in the time of our late Wars, to the Assembly at London, and they further declare their great distaste against them, who condemn the use of forms, in these words; 
Consid. Contr. in Angl. c. 7. qu. 2.  Durum putamus omnes illas pias Ecclesias condemnare, quae ab Apostolicis & primitivae Ecclesiae temporibus, usque ad hodiernum diem, cultum Dei publicum ex praescriptis certisque formulis celebrarunt,— pr●inde hominum illorum praecisam singularitatem arguimus, qui omnes praescriptas formulas ex cultu divino eliminant. Say they, We account it grievous, to condemn all those holy Churches, which from the Apostolical times, and the primitive Church, unto this day, have celebrated the public worship of God out of prescribed forms,— Wherefore we blame the precise singularity of those men, who would cast out all prescribed forms from divine worship: So they. And indeed it must be a rash sentence to condemn forms of Prayer as evil and sinful, which were embraced by the ancient Church, while it retained its soundness, and before the corruptions and distempers of the Church of Rome took place, and by the Protestant Churches since their recovery there from. And in the determining what is expedient, or inexpedient, he had need have strong foundations to erect his high confidence upon, who will oppose his own judgement, with some very few persons besides, against the concurrent judgement and practice of the Church of Christ, in so many several Ages and Nations, and against the determination of God himself under the Old Testament, and our blessed Saviour under the New.   

SECT. II.  
Objections against set forms answered.  
1. What is opposed against the former Section, must be here considered, both concerning the antiquity, lawfulness, and expediency of set forms. It is acknowledged, that public Prayer even at the Celebration of the Holy Communion, was at the beginning of Christianity, performed by the extraordinary and wonderful effusion of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, when also prophesying and singing were performed by the same. But some attempt hath been made to prove that there was no ordinary use of forms of Prayer in the three first Centuries, and that they were not established till the end of the fourth Century.  
2 To this purpose Justin Martyr is first produced, 
Apol. 2. prope fin. p. 98.  who declareth concerning his time, that at the Communion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the chief Minister sendeth forth Prayers and Thanksgivings according to his ability, or rather, with all his might. Now all the proof here dependeth on the use of the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Objectors understand, according to his ability in composing a Prayer. But this is a sense not consistent with the use of the same Phrase in another place of the same Apology, where he discourseth also of their Prayers at the Eucharist, 
p. 60.  and speaketh of all Christians (who were not all to compose Prayers according to their ability for that service) that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praising God with Prayers and Thanksgivings with all their might; that is, with the greatest intention and fervency of heart and spirit; and this is properly the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as may be evinced from the use thereof in other places, and from the use of like expressions referring to Prayer.  
3. It was Nazianzens exhortation, 
Naz. Orat. 3.  Let us being cleansed in soul and body, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with all our might sing that song, which the Israelites sung when the Egyptians were destroyed; where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies affectionateness and earnestness of mind in the use of a set form of words. 
Lex Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Buxtorf noteth it as an expression used among the Jews, that he who shall say Amen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with all his might (which answereth to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the Gates of Paradise shall be opened to him: but here could be no variety of expression, but (as he interpreteth it) by this Phrase is meant, omni intention & devotione, a joining with all earnestness of intention and heartiness of devotion. 
Linw. Prov. l. 3. Tit. 23. Sect. 1.  About 450. years since was framed an English Canon, requiring the daily public Prayers and service to be performed religiously, prout Deus dederit, and again, prout Deus inspiraverit (which are Phrases as plausible and pregnant as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and yet these Phrases were used concerning the set diurnal and nocturnal offices, requiring that they should behave themselves therein with Religious devoutness, according as God should give them ability, and breath by his spirit. Wherefore this citation from Justin Martyr, though managed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or with the utmost might, will prove nothing but the weakness of the attempt of the Undertakers.  
4. Another place objected is from Tertullian, 
Apol. c. 30.  who saith the Christians did pray, sine monitore quia de pectore, without a monitor or prompter, because from their heart. The sense of these words of Tertullian hath been variously apprehended by divers learned men; some judging that they intent praying by heart (as we call it) and therefore by a form; others that they expressed the readiness of Christians to put up hearty and devout supplications to God, 
Bishop Bilson, of Christian subjection. Part. 4.  from the Religious inclinations of their own spirits, and some very worthy men have thought that sense of these words, which is closed with in the management of this objection, not to be improbable concerning Tertullia's time. And it is not much of be wondered, if some obscure Phrases of so dark a Writer as Tertullian be either not well understood, or sometimes misunderstood; among this number I account this Phrase, which I suppose to refer to an ancient custom in the Primitive Church. But  
5. In answer to this objection, it might be sufficient to observe, that sine monitore, can in no propriety of speech be construct, without a form; since the Monitor must needs be a person not a Book, whose words were to guide and direct others. Now I suppose they who object this place, would not from hence infer, that in the public Prayers of the Church, there was no Minister who expressed the words of Prayer, with which the rest joined in affection. This is indeed most properly to pray sine monitore, but this could not be practised in public Prayers, save only in the use of a known form, in which they should all conspire with one heart and voice: and according to this sense (in which it is most fairly understood, if it be referred to the public Prayers of the Church) this place is a considerable testimony for the use of set forms.  
6. But it seemeth to me very probable (which I leave to the consideration of others) that these words peculiarly concern the Stationary days of the ancient Church. These days were the fourth and sixth days of the Week, in which the Christians attended the public Assemblies of the Church, 
Albasp. Obs. l. 1. obs. 16.  beginning very early in the Morning, and continuing till three a Clock in the Afternoon, and these were accounted the chief days of Christian supplication and humiliation, and the observance of them was esteemed the most effectual means, to obtain God's blessing and favour. On these days, besides their joining in public Prayers which Tertullian intimateth to be performed about the hours of nine, twelve, and three, a considerable portion of the days was allotted for their exercising themselves in private Prayers, and inward and fervent supplications, humbly performed upon their knees, with fasting and tears in the place of public Assemblies; with regard to what was needful either to themselves in particular, or to the public welfare of the Church or Empire. Of the ordinary use of these retired, but solemn supplications and devotions in the Christian Church, there are (as I suppose) divers sufficient testimonies.  
7. Tertullian (who in his Book De Oratione, 
De Orat. c. 13.  hath peculiar respect to their Stationary days) speaketh hereof; Quid amplius referunt isti qui clarius adorant, nisi quod proximis obstrepant? imo prodendo petitiones suas quid minus faciunt, quam si in publico orent? 
Cyp. de Orat. Dom. v. Pamel. in Cyprianum.  And S. Cyprian requireth them who are gathered together in the Assemblies with the brethren, and do celebrate divine Sacrifices with God's Priest, that they would avoid indigested and tumultuous speaking, and setteth before them the example of Hannah, who prayed not by loud petition, said  & modest, intra ipsas pectoris latebras precabatur. That there were such Prayers used in the Jewish Church, appeareth from the example of Hannah, and of the Pharisee and Publican. To understand this Phrase of Tertullian concerning such Prayers in the Christian Churches, is most agreeable to the literal sense of these words, sine monitore quia de pectore, and to zephyrus thus paraphrasing upon it. We do not conceive Prayers dictated by a Priest, but all the Christian Assembly, as if we all conspired together, to express our desires with sighs and groans, out of the very seat of our minds and spirit. So that he understandeth this place, of that inflamed devotion kindled from a fervency of inward heat, which needed not the help of the wind without to blow it up; or of those active desires which received not their efficacy from the breath or voice of another, but from the inward motions of the soul.  
8. After these are produced, the Council of Laodicea Can. 18.3. Conc. Carth. c. 23. and Conc. Milev. c. 12. as if they gave the original to set forms of Prayer, when they only established some sanctions concerning them. The Laodicean Canon enjoineth the use of these services Morning and Evening. The Canon of Carthage in one part of it requireth that quascunque sibi preces aliquis describit, whatsoever Prayers any one shall transcribe for himself, he shall not use them till he hath conferred with the understanding brethren. Now tramcribing (properly here intended) supposeth a form, and care is taken by this Canon, that no Copy for the public use of the Church, (which could then be only had by transcribing) should be received until it was carefully examined. 
V Medes Christian Sacr. Sec. 3.  The other part of that Canonrequireth, that at the Communion (where Christ's offering up himself to the Father is commemorated) their Prayers should always be directed to the Father. This doth not suppose that there were no forms then in use, but might well be intended either to put a stop to what was then entering, or to regulate what was amiss in any of their set forms, especially considering that in the vast territories of the Carthaginian jurisdiction, various forms of Prayer were about that time used; some of which were composed by Heretics, as is evident from S. Augustin, 
Cont. Don. l. 6. c. 25.  who was a member of that Council. The Canon of Milevis declareth against the use of any other forms, than those established by the Council: but we may as well conclude from our Act of Uniformity, as from any of these Councils, that it gave the first Original to forms of Prayer, because they are thereby established. And thus having viewed these chief objections, I may well conclude that the evidence for the great antiquity of set forms remaineth inviolable.  
9 The argument against the lawfulness of set forms, because they limit the use of gifts, needeth not much consideration; since it is manifest, that by the will of God, bounds and limits were to be set even to the use of the extraordinary gifts of God's spirit, that the Church might be edified. 1 Cor. 14.26, 27, 28, 30, 33. Whereas now no such miraculous emanation of the Holy Ghost can be pretended; nor doth the establishing a form for the public Offices of the Church deny the liberty in due place of using other Prayers, according to the practice of our and the ancient Church.  
10. It is further objected, that forms of Prayer are disadvantageous to piety and devotion, and the Non-Conformists oft plead experience as a testimony, that they are the cause of much deadness in men's spirits, and the hindrance of the lively exercise of Religion. Here on the other hand, others by experience assert the advantage of set forms to promote devotion, when attended without prejudice, and with a Religious design of joining in God's worship. To discern the truth in this difference, it may be useful to consult the judgement of such persons as are least partial in this Case, and yet are able to make a true estimate of damage or advantage; and then especially to consider the evidence of reason which may be produced.  
11. The Leyden Professors declare concerning set forms, 
Synopl. Purior. Theol. Disp. 36. Sect. 33.  non tantum licitas sed & valde u●●les esse contendimus, We defend against any persons that they are not only lawful, but exceedingly advantageous and this they assert not only because every Christian cannot fitly conceive new Prayers upon every occasion, but because in great Assemblies, attentio auditorum per usitatas formulas non parum juvatur, the attentiveness of the hearers is not a little helped forward by usual forms. 
Consid. Contr. Ang. c. 7. q. 2.  The Walachrian Classis of Zealand, do in like manner declare public forms to be lawful, and profitable for the helping and directing the attention of the auditors, and the preserving Uniformity: and that in good forms of Prayer, Christians may pray with a humble sense of their wants, with holy affection, desire, zeal, faith, and a Religious acting of the heart to God, suitable to their own cases, nobis expertis certissimum est, is a thing (say they) most certain to us who have experienced it.  
12. But the surest way of trial, whereby forms of Prayer may be manifested to bring no disadvantage to the Church of themselves, is from considering several arguments to that purpose, as 1. because (as I have showed) God himself prescribed a constant form of Prayer for the Jewish Offerings, and a form of Priestly blessing; and our Saviour directed the Lords Prayer as a form, and presented a form of words for the administering Baptism: but it must be at the least a great misapprehension and sin, to think that the holy God and our blessed Saviour, should command and enjoin what is of its own nature a hindrance to godliness, Piety and true Religion, and a disadvantage to the Church. 
De Orat. Dom.  S. Cyprian said well, what Prayer can be more spiritual than that which was given to us by Christ, by whom the holy Spirit himself was sent? 2. Because it is generally acknowledged that the singing Psalms of Prayer or praise, may be advantageously performed in a set form of words, and the holy Scriptures are not the less edifying nor the less applicable to our selves because they are contained in a set form of words, & both in reading the Scriptures and in Prayer our hearts ought to be religiously moved towards God though in somewhat a different manner. 3. Because all the ages of the Christian Church from the first Centuries, have used them as an advantage to Religion; and it is not at all probable, that such excellently devout and judicious men, as the fourth and fifth Centuries abounded with, should be so stupid and dull spirited, as not any of them to discern between the helps and hindrances of religious devotion, in matters of most ordinary practice. Wherefore though many men's minds may be most pleased and delighted with variety of expression, there is no prejudice to piety from a set form, further than this is caused by prejudice against such a form, or by want of a Religious temper to join in it. Here I shall note what Mr. Baxter observeth (though he yield not so much use of forms as I plead for.) He saith, 
Disp. of Liturgy Prop. 10.  the constant disuse of forms is apt to breed a giddiness in Religion, and it may make men Hypocrites, who shall delude themselves with conceits that they delight in God, when it is but in these novelties, and varieties of expression that they are delighted: and therefore he adviseth forms to fix Christians and make them sound. And the arguments in the foregoing Section do evidence the benefits of their constant use.   

SECT. III.  
Of the manner of composing the Prayers in our Liturgy; chief of Responsals and short Prayers.  
1. Coming now to a particular consideration of that form of Prayer enjoined in this Church, I shall wave such things where the force and matter of the objections is cut of, by the alterations authoritatively made in the new establishment of our Liturgy; and beginning with the Prayers themselves in the daily service, there are two things especially to be treated of concerning their general frame and contexture. The first is that the people are required to bear a part in this service, not only in that they are by voice to join in the Confession and Doxology, but that several Petitions are required to be expressed, by the united voice of all the Assembly. This is condemned by the Non-Conformists, 
Except of Presbyter p. 4.  who say that the Minister is appointed for the people, in all public services appertaining to God, and that the people hereby seem to invade that sacred office; the Scriptures making the Minister the mouth of the people to God in Prayer, and intimating the people's part to be only to say, Amen.  
2. But since our Saviour condemneth the teaching, or receiving for doctrines the commandments of men; we may not embrace that as a Scripture doctrine, where the Scripture delivereth no such thing. Indeed under the law there was a special command of God, that whatever legal Sacrifices were offered to him (some few extraordinary cases only excepted) that service was to be performed by the hand of the Priest; but there is no constitution under the Gospel, that spiritual Sacrifices of Prayer, thanksgiving, or the expression of a contrite broken heart, may be offered up to God in no other way than by the mouth of a Minister, though it be in a public Assembly. And what they assert is (sufficiently to other men's understandings) contradicted by themselves, who allow the people liberty by their voices to join in singing those Psalms which contain both Prayers, praises, and Confessions.  
3. The truth is, all such Prayers as have particular reference to the Consecration, and Administration of the Sacraments, and to the Ministerial absolution and benediction, aught to be performed by the Minister alone (though it be in a private place, and upon a particular occasion) because these things include the power of the Keys. But as for others the rules of order and edification will direct, that Prayers and Confessions which are considerably long should be expressed by one, that the rest may the better understand and join in them; and the authority of the Ecclesiastical office, and its order and degree in the Church, will require this to be performed by some in the Ministry. For this we have the examples of the Scripture times, to which agreeth the practice of the following ages; 
De Eccles. Dogm. c. 30.  and the author under S. Aug. name saith, that those who are of authority in the Church, tota fere Ecclesia secum congemiscente postulant & precantur, do put up their requests and Prayers almost all the Church joining with their sighs and groans. Yet this practice doth no way disallow the people's vocal joining, in short Ejaculations or in other generally known Petitions, since this may be of good use to unite their affections more firmly, to quicken their minds into a greater fervency, and to fix their spirits in a more diligent attending to the service they are about, and more particularly to express their joining therein, whereby they may both incite others, and use their tongues as instruments of God's glory.  
4. Indeed S. Paul speaketh of him who occupieth the room of the unlearned, saying Amen, at their blessing or giving of thanks. 1. Cor. 14.16. But the very phrase of blessing and giving of thanks, makes it probable that this Text is to be understood as Mr. Thorndike expoundeth it, of the Consecration of the Communion. And at that time the people did ordinarily answer Amen, and nothing more, as appeareth from the early testimonies of Justin Martyr, and Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria. 2. But if this sense be not admitted, this Text of the Apostle doth neither mention, nor in the context more nearly refer to Prayer than to singing, in which latter the people's bare saying Amen is not contended for, nor allowed as a constant rule for the Church's practice, though it was probable the usual method in the Christian Assemblies in those Apostolical days, when the duty of singing was performed by the immediate inspiration of the spirit, upon some particular persons: and that these extraordinary motions of God's spirit in those times, were only vouchsafed to the Clergy or Ministry, is not probable from the contents of that very Chapter. And therefore this place of Scripture doth not confine the whole vocal service of God (excepting an Amen) to the Ministry, the people being altogether debarred and excluded.  
5. But that all the servants of God may allowably be interested, (where the due rules of order and edification are observed) in the outward joint expression of praise and Prayer to God, is very agreeable to the holy Scriptures, where the holy Angels are represented to cry one to another and say, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of Hosts, the whole Earth is full of his glory, Is 6.3. and all Israel praised God and said, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever. 2. Chr. 7.3. And as S. Paul exhorteth that with one mind and one mouth Christians should glorify God. Rom. 15.6. S. John in his Vision beheld and heard the four living things, the Elders, the Angels, and every Creature in Heaven and Earth, expressing blessing, honour, glory and power unto God. Rev. 4.8.— 11. Ch. 5, 8.— 14. and a great multitude whom no man could number, crying with a loud voice and saying, Salvation to our God, which sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb. Rev. 7, 9, 10. and he heard also the voice of the 144000. who were with the Lamb on Mount Zion, as the voice of many Waters, and as the voice of a great thunder, singing a new Song. Rev. 14.1, 2, 3. and these places last mentioned are the more considerable, because they contain representative Visions, of the service acceptably performed to God in the Christian Church.  
6. If we consult Ecclesiastical practice, there is very probable evidence, that under the Old Testament the people did vocally join by responsals, in the ordinary service of God, in the Sanctuary and Synagogues. 
V Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 6.13.  Both the Joma and other Tracts of the Talmud, mention the people in the period of their Prayers, expressing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Blessed be the name of the glory of his Kingdom for ever and ever. 
In Ch. Par. in Deut. 10.16.  And the particular responsals used by the Jews at Circumcision, are expressed by Fagius. The use of alternate singing among the Essens is sufficiently known, but that this was of very ancient use in the Jewish Church, is very likely, because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifieth to answer, is an usual expression of singing even in the holy Scriptures. And there appeareth considerable evidence, from Ex. 15. v. 1. & v. 20. that that Song of Moses and the Children of Israel, 
Phil. de Vit. Mos. l. 3.  was uttered as Philo Judaeus averreth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with responsal melodies alternately repeated.  
7. In the Christian Church, the Original of the Antiphona, or the alternate singing of Hymns by two quires, is ascribed by Socrates to Ignatius; the like use of David's Psalms is declared by Theodoret, to have had its beginning at Antioch from Flavianus and Diodorus. Their Original in the Latin Church is referred by Platina to Damaseus, and by Walafridus Strabo to S. Ambrose: 
Is. Hisp. de Eccl. Offic. l. 1. c. 7, 8.  but both Isidorus Hispalensis, and Rabanus Maurus, do testify that long before this, the Responsoria wherein the whole Choir answered to one Man, 
Rab. Maur. de Inst. Cler. l. 2. c. 50, 51.  were known by that name and used in the Latin Church. And sometimes the whole Assembly joined in their Hymns and Psalms, sometimes they were sung by one alone all the rest joining to echo forth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or end of the Hymn, 
Conc. Laod. c. 15:  and by the Laodicean Council the wholly Assembly were not allowed to join in their public singing, which was required to be performed by the appointed singers only. Thus the Ecclesiastical practice hath varied, according to what was thought prudent and convenient.  
8. Concerning Prayers and Confessions, S. Basil declareth it to have been in his time the ordinary practice of divers Eastern Churches, 
Bas. Ep. 63.  that every man by his own words did profess repentance, and make confession. 
Naz. Or. 3.  And Gr. Nazianzene acquainteth quainteth us that Julian in imitation of the Christians did appoint amongst the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a form of Prayer to be said in parts, or by way of Responsals. Hierom also relateth, that populus cum sacerdote loquitur in precibus, the people did speak with the Priest in the Prayers; and Gregory the great noteth, 
Gr. Ep. l. 7. c. 63.  that in the Greek Church the Lord's Prayer was ordinarily said by all the people together: and as anciently as we can meet with any parcels of Liturgy or particular Offices, the use of responsals may be easily discerned, even as far as S. Cyprians sursum Corda, and Habemus ad Dominum. Wherefore the use of responsals, and the people joining in some expressions in the public service of god, was a thing thought useful by the ancient Church, as well as by our own, and is allowable by the rules of the Scripture, and the Order of the public worship of God: and whosoever assert that the vocal joining of the people, in any expressions of Prayer, in the public Assembly, is as Vzziahs' action was, an entrenching upon the Priest's Office; doth set up such Bars about the service of God, which do keep God's people at a greater distance from the throne of Grace, than the nature and privilege of Christian liberty will allow. Yet the composing or directing particular Prayers for the public use of Christian Assemblies, is the proper work of the Church Officers who are to be the guides thereof; as also teaching and instructing (being an act of authority) doth ordinarily belong to the Ministers of the Church: and this is that speaking which is forbidden to Women in the Church, because it is an act of authority, 1. Cor. 15.34. 1. Tim. 2.12. Whereas the joint expressing some words of confession or supplication, is wholly an act of humility, and is not forbidden by those places of S. Paul, which purposely provide, that women may not usurp authority over the man, but be under obedience.  
9 The next thing to be considered in the composure of our public service, is, that it doth not contain one continued Prayer only, for a particular Office, which God hath no where commanded, but several short Prayers which he hath no where forbidden. This hath been thought by many considering and Religious men, to be advantageous, for the quickening our affections and pious desires towards God, and for preserving the mind from deadness and dulness. But the shortness of these Prayers were censured formerly by the Non-Conformists, to be short cuts and shred, and of late was styled by the Presbyterians, an affected empty tossing God's name in men's mouths, vain repetition● and and tautologies, which are not the 〈◊〉 but the worse because God's name is 〈◊〉 the matter of them. 
Presbyter. Papers p. 47, 48.  But surely 〈◊〉 expressions, whereby they indulge themselves to make sport with Religious ●●rvice, is not a thing well becoming so●●●r men and Christians; and is so much the worse when they thereby cast reproach, even upon the devout using the holy name of God in pious addresses to him. It is an easy thing for the vain fancies of men, if they be not more Christianly principled, to make use of scornful and deriding speeches, concerning any method of service whatsoever, and indeed concerning any good thing: the effect of which would be to bring contempt upon Religion and dishonour to him whom it should be our endeavour to glorify.  
10. But if we consider soberly; the main difference between the use of one continued long Prayer, and divers short ones to the same purpose, is this, that in these short Prayers the name and attributes of God are more frequently mentioned in the beginning, as the ground of our adoration and dependence; and the merits of Christ are often mentioned in the end thereof, as the only way and means of our access to God, and obtaining grace and help from him; with a more frequent saying Amen, as an expression of confidence and joint consent in these Prayers. Since therefore the serious sense of God, and an application to him, and confidence in him, with an eye to the merits of Christ, aught to take place in our minds throughout every petition in our Prayer; I cannot see how the vocal expressing them if solemnly performed, and not beyond what is decent and convenient, can possibly fall under any just censure, unless it could be sinful to express that with the mouth in public service, which is both pious and requisite to be conceived in the heart: especially since it cannot be denied, but that God is honoured by us if we think of him frequently, provided it be also piously; and no imaginable account can be given, why he should not be also honoured by us when we oft express his name in Religious invocation of him, but not without a due gravity, reverend devoutness, and pious affection.  
11. Indeed our Saviour condemneth battology or vain repetitions, where they think to be heard for their much speaking. Mat. 6.7. which is, when true Religion is neglected, and confidence placed in the sound and multitude of words; as the Worshippers of Baal cried from Morning to Noon saying, O Baal hear us. 1. Kin. 18.26. But the expressing our application to God and dependence upon Christ for several distinct blessings in the Liturgy, is not a repetition of the same sense but of that which is different: and yet where the very same words and sense are piously repeated, this is as far from the vain repetition our Saviour condemned, as vanity is from Piety. Such repetitions were frequently practised by the Psalmist, and our Saviour himself praying thrice in a very short distance of time, did use the same words as the Evangelists relate. Mar. 14.39. Mat. 26.44. And it is very observable, that these repeated Prayers were the Prayers of his agony, when he prayed more earnestly as is manifest from Luk. 22.42, 43, 44. and with special reference to these Prayers, the Apostle declareth, that in the days of his flesh, he offered up Prayers and Supplications, with strong cries and tears, unto him who was able to save him from death. Heb. 5.7. So that affectionate repetitions are no vain repetitions. And this may be sufficient to justify the repeated use of the Lords Prayer, both before the use of the Psalms, Hymns, Scriptures and Creed, and after them in the daily service, as also in the deprecatory Prayers of the Litany, and in other particular Offices appointed.  
12. But it is objected, 
Pr. Pap. ibid. Presbyt. Excep. p. 9  that we have in Scripture some examples of the supplications of holy men, where they are not composed of several distinct short Prayers, but the whole matter of their address is comprised in one entire one. But here it is to be considered, 1. That there is as much or more reason to admit, that it is our necessary duty to observe no other method in Preaching, than what was used by the Prophets and Apostle, some of whose Sermons are probably extant in the Scriptures, as they were delivered to the Jewish and Christian Assemblies; as there is to conclude that the method of our public Prayers must be conformable to the Prayers of some holy men in Scripture, though we have probably no one Prayer comprised in the Scriptures, which was the entire service of the Jewish or Christian public Assemblies at that time. But the Non-Conformists themselves do not judge themselves obliged to follow the method of the Apostles Sermons, who ordinarily took no texts, and usually made a continued discourse, without dividing it into first and secondly. 2. Divers Prayers recorded in the holy Scriptures, which were either directed for the use of, or declared to have been used in their public Assemblies, were short Prayers, such besides the Lord's Prayer, was the Prayer of Hezekiah referring to the Passover. 2. Chr. 30.18, 19 the Prayer of humiliation directed for the Temple service, Joel, 2.17, 18. and that of Hos. 14.2, 3. and the time of these solemnities being considered, it cannot in reason be doubted, but that they used other Prayers besides these, at the same time. 3. That the Psalms of David were of ordinary use among the Jews as Hymns of praise, is acknowledged by the Jewish Writers, and is declared 2. Chr. 29.30. and that divers Psalms were used one after another, at the Passover and other Temple services is generally owned, but why should not the beginning one Psalm after another be as much disliked, as the beginning one Prayer after another? 4. There are some examples in the Scripture, of one Prayer following another, in the same service of God and supplication to him. So besides the Prayers in our Saviour's agony , Solomon at the Dedication of the Temple, immediately after the end of one Prayer upon his knees, 1. Kin. 8.54. beginneth another Prayer of benediction standing, v. 56, 57 and when the Gospel service was represented by a Vision of Angels, Elders, and other Creatures, Rev. 4.8, 11. Ch. 5.9, 12, 13, 14. Ch. 7, 10, 12. the worship of God was not there expressed in one continued Prayer, but in several distinct short expressions of adoration. 5. No rule of Religion declareth any particular method of Prayer to recommend us to God's acceptance and blessing, which is done by inward grace and piety which is not tied to a certain model of expression.  
13. It hath been also objected, that it would be unseemly and imprudent, for any man who petitioneth a great King, divers times to begin and end and then begin again, and therefore this is not to be allowed in our address to God by that rule, Mal. 1.8. Offer it now unto thy Governor. But 1. the expressing divers Prayers one after another, is not to begin and end but to continue in Prayer. 2. Nor is there any indecorum, if he who is to speak to a King about several matters, shall when he passeth to a new head give the King some fit honourable title. 3. And chief those words in Malachi do require, that that respect and reverence which we are to express to God, must not be less, but always greater than that which we give to any authority upon earth; but it no way directs us to the same course in honouring and worshipping God, which we use in giving respect to our Governor. It is most proper for a mean man who would present a Petition to a King, not to attempt to come himself directly to the King or the Prince, but to make some favourite who is also a mere subject his friend to present his Petition; yet will not this plead for the Popish address to God by Saints and Angels: and it would be accounted intolerable impudence, if a subject should every day of his life twice, four times, or seven times a day, come into his presence and prefer his suit to him in a great measure to one and the same effect at all times; whilst this frequent practice of supplication to God is a Religious devoutness. These things besides divers others manifest, that the measuring divine service and worship, by the standard of any humane respect, in all the particulars of our address to God, is the way to commit an error as great as from Earth to Heaven.  
14. But besides this, if the ordinary practice of the Church of God be considered, it may be of use to discover what hath been accounted expedient, in a matter where God hath given no particular command. 
Buxt. Lex. Rab in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hor. Heb. in Mat. 6.9.  It hath been observed by divers learned men from both the Talmuds, that in and before the time of our Saviour the Jews had eighteen distinct Prayers, appointed for ordinary daily use of them who were most devout, when they who had not liberty to attend to them were to use the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or summary of them. And the ordinary custom of celebrating the Jewish Passover, 
Idem in Mat. 26.26, 27.  did contain several distinct Prayers and benedictions: which is a practice manifestly as ancient as the time of our Saviour.  
15. In the Christian Church the Liturgy framed by S. Chrysostom, 
Bax. Syn. Jud. c. 13.  and before him that of S. Basil (though they have passed through cousiderable changes) sufficiently appear to have been composed, after the manner of distinct short Prayers: 
Bas. Ep. 63.  and S. Basil declareth it to have been in his time the usual practice at Caesaria, and divers other Churches in the East, that even in the midst of their Psalmody, or between their singing Psalms or Hymns, they did frequently intermix Prayers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And in the Latin Church the like use of short Prayers is evident, from the composure of the Ambrosian and other very ancient Offices, divers of whose particular Prayers are collected, and exhibited in a distinct Treatise by Cassander. 
Cass. Preces Ecclesiast.  These things (besidew what might be observed from Clemens his Constitutions, and the Prayers used by the Brethren in Egypt, 
Aug. Ep. 121. c. 10.  which were very short as S. Augustin relateth) do give considerable evidence of the ancient practice of the Christian Church, and render it very probable that the like methods of Prayer were used before the time of these Fathers, because it is very unlikely, that a perfect new method and model of the service of God, of a quite different nature from what was of former use amongst any Christians, should about the same time be introduced into places so remote from each other, as Italy, Cappadocia, Egypt, Syria and others. And as that architect who disparageth a Fabric which himself cannot equal, doth thereby display his own imprudence; so it can be no part of wisdom, for persons in the present age, to condemn the prudence of the ancient Christians, in ordering their Religious service, when they were as well before us in the devoutness of their Religious piety, as in time.  
16. The last thing to be considered, concerning the composure of the Liturgy, is, that it standeth charged by some, who have greater regard to the serving an interest than to truth, to be wholly Romish, and to be taken out of the Romish Breviary Missal and their other Rituals. Whereas in truth the doctrine of no Protestant Church differeth so much from that of the Church of Rome, as the model of our Liturgy doth from their Mass and other Offices; where our reformers have rejected all things that were corrupt or inconvenient in themselves, which were very many, and have added much which was though necessary or expedient, and have put the whole service into a different and more regular frame. Indeed several pious Prayers (of which the Lord's Prayer is one) with some ancient and approved Hymns, and the Creed (besides Psalms and Scriptures) which were by them used, are by us retained. And as for such persons who assert, that every thing made use of in the Romish service though never so innocent, aught to be rejected, 
V Zanch. ad Arianum Resp. de Antithes. Christi & Antichrist.  let them consider that upon this principle there were some who asserted it necessary to disclaim our Creed, and renounce the doctrine of the Trinity, beacuse it might not be acknowledged (said they) that the Romanists did retain any true belief concerning God. And that strange design of rash rejecting those things in Religion, (though useful and good) which they embrace, as it hath unchristianly engaged some to deny the Divinity of Christ; so if it be without all bounds entertained, it may engage others impiously to disown the holy Scriptures, and the true God: wherras our Caristian profession requireth us to prove 〈◊〉 things, 
1. Thes. 5.21.  and to hold fast that which is 〈◊〉.   

SECT. iv  
Of the Doxology, Athanasian Creed, and some particular expressions in the Litany.  
1. The frequent use of that Doxology, Glory be to the Father, etc. which is so much disliked by some, is sufficiently vindicated from Battology, or a vain and superstitious multiplying of words, in the foregoing Section. 
N. 11.  To which I shall here add these considerations. 1. That it seemeth unreasonable and partial that they who allowed themselves in the conclusion of their own Prayers, to use that Doxology, To whom (Christ) with the Father and the Holy Ghost be Glory, frequently four or five times in the same Assembly, should undertake to determine, 
Except. of Presbyt. p. 16.  that this other Doxology (more expressly acknowledging divine glory eternally due to all the three persons of the Trinity) is unfit to be used more than once in the Morning, and once in the Evening. 2. That since in all our Christian service, and especially in Hymns and Psalms of praise, it is our duty to give glory to the holy Trinity, it cannot be blamable to express that with our mouths, which is at that time the most fit and proper exercise of our minds. 3. That it is manifest from divers passages of the Psalms, and other Scriptures, as 2. Chr. 5.13. Ch. 7.3. Ch. 20.21. Ezr. 3.11. Jer. 33.11. That with their Hymns or Psalms, the Jews ordinarily used some such Doxology as this, Hallelujah or praise ye the Lord, for he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever. 
Delft. Phoenic. c. 6.  Hence it is probably conjectured that preparation to the Paeanism among the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had its original (being the corruption of Hallelujah.) And from this use of the Jews the Arabian Church their Neighbours did probably derive their practice, of expressing Hallelujah at the end of every Psalm, as appeareth in the Arabic version of the psalms, who also make use of this Doxology to the three persons distinctly, which is expressed in the Arabickversion at the end of every tenth Psalm, but was probably in practice at the end of every Psalm. And that the Western Church used this Doxology, Glory be to the Father, 
Cassian Col. l. 1. c. 8.  and at the end of every Psalm we have the testimony of Cassian, for about thirteen hundred years since. Wherefore since this is of so ancient original in the Christian Church, so agreeable to the practice of the Jewish Church approved by the Holy Scriptures, and a practice so reasonable in itself, it may be piously used, but not justly blamed in our Liturgy.  
2. The reading the Athanasian Creed, to some (though not the generality of Non-Conformists) who hearty own the doctrine of the Trinity, hath been thought a matter not free from difficulty. For that Creed expressing, what must be believed of every one who would be saved, doth contain deep mysteries (as for instance.) that the Son is not made nor created but begotten, and that the Holy Ghost is neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. Now since believing things as necessary to Salvation, is not an assent to the use of Phrases and expressions, but to the sense contained in them, it must include that there is some difference understood between what is affirmed and what is denied. But the difference between the Eternal Generation, and Eternal Procession, being a Mystery where the greatest Divines see but darkly, they are justly afraid to condemn all persons as uncapable of Salvation, who cannot reach to so high a pitch.  
3. But here it is to be considered, that in that Creed commonly called the Athanasian, there are some things contained and expressed as necessary points of Faith; and other things for a more clear and useful explication of the truth, though they be not of equal necessity to be understood, adn believed even by the meanest capacities. Thus if we first consider the contexture of that Creed, the Faith declared necessary concerning the Trinity, is thus expressed in the beginning thereof, The Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. After this followeth an explication, useful to set forth the true Christian Doctrine, which beginneth, For there is one person of the Father, etc. after which explication, the same necessary doctrine to be known and believed, is thus again expressed pressed, and distinguished from that explication in these words, So that in all things as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped, he therefore who will be saved must thus think of the Trinity. So that the acknowledging and worshipping the Trinity of persons, and Unity of Godhead, is that which only is declared necessary in the former part of that Creed; and this must be acknowledged necessary, since we are baptised into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and we must believe and worship according as we are baptised.  
4. What is contained in this consideration is the more clear (both with reference to the instance mentioned, and to the Union of the two natures in Christ,) by this following observation: viz. That our Church doth both here and in her Articles, evidently receive the Athanasian Creed: and yet from the manner of using the Apostles Creed, in the form of Baptisin, as containing the profession of that Faith into which we are baptised; in the Catechism as containing all the Articles of the Christian Faith; and in the Visitation of the sick, as being a rule to try whether he believe as a Christian man should or not; it is manifest that no more is esteemed in our Church, of necessity to salvation for all men to believe, than that only which is contained and expressed in the Apostles Creed.  
5. I proceed to consider some expressions in the Litany. In the way to which I shall only reflect upon that objection, (which if it had not been mistaken had been very inconsiderable) framed by Mr. Cartwright against the Litany in General; That it being chief a deprecatory Prayer against evils was framed by Mamertus Bishop of Vienna (or rather Vienne in France) upon a special occasion of the calamities of that Country. This was a very strange and gross mistake, for the Litaniaes which were ordered by Mamertus were days of supplication in Rogation Week, which days were called Litania minor, triduanae Litaniae, and by some Litania major, 
Alcuin de Diu. offic. Tit. dieb. Rogat. Amal. de Eccl. Offic. l. 1. c. 37. Stra. de Reb. Eccl. c. 28. Mur. c. 57  as is manifest from Alevinus, Amalarius, Strabo, Mictologus, Rupertus Tintiensis, Johannes Beleth; besides other latter ritualists, and the French Historians especially Gregorius Turonensis, who all mention what Mamertus did, in appointing days of Prayer, which were called Litaniae, to be yearly observed, for the obtaining God's mercy in their distress, occasioned by wild Beasts and frequent Earthquakes. But that deprecatory Prayers which are called Litanies also, and were so called by S. Basil, and were of so great use in the stationary days of the ancient Church, should have their original from Mimertus, who lived many hundred years after, is a notion built upon no other foundation, but the manifest mis-apprehending the sense of that word Litania.  
6. Amongst the particular expressions in the Litany, disliked by many Non-Conformists the first is where we pray to be delivered from fornication, and all other deadly sin. But the phrase of deadly sin is sufficiently warranted from these places of Scripture, Rom. 6.23. the wages of sin is death. Jam. 1.15. Sin when it hath conceived bringeth forth death. Jam. 3.8. The tongue is full of deadly poison. And the sense of this phrase in this place is this, that we here pray to be kept from all such sins as are most destructive and pernicious (which is all one with deadly) and to be delivered from all sin (the nature of all fin encluding a tendency to death) and this extensive sense of this phrase, is both suitable to the pious desires of a Christian, and agreeable to the comprehensiveness of the following words, From all the deceits of the World, the flesh and the Devil, Good Lord deliver us.  
7. That Petition against sudden death, hath also been much excepted against, and Drusius seemed to have an eye to this, 
Drus. in Job. 21.13.  writing upon that expression in Job, concerning the wicked, They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave; that is (saith he) they die cita morte quam aliqui deprecantur, sed viderint an recte. But if that learned man had any design from this text to censure this Prayer of our Liturgy, he hath greatly miscarried in his attempt. For if he with others be right in the exposition of that phrase (which may well be understood that the life of the wicked was so prosperous, that it seemed not to them tedious and long) I say if his sense be embraced, these words cannot be allowed to contain such blessings, as were really advantageous to the wicked, and truly  for him; but only such things at the best, as appeared good to them who have their eye no farther than the things of this life; unless his being in a moment cut off from all hopes of the time of grace and repentance, could be a blessing.  
8. I doubt not but the intent of praying against sudden death, is this, that whereas many dangers might daily surprise us, and by a sudden stroke end our lives, if divine providence did not protect us, we here commit ourselves to Gods keeping, to be preserved by his care from such judgements and dangers. And such a sudden death is a dreadful estate to the wicked, and to die as Josiah or Vzzah did, is not desirable to the most holy and pious men, who according to the example of Jacob, David, and our blessed Saviour himself, by their holy instructions at the time of their death, may become useful for the bettering the lives of them who survive.  
9 But they tell us, there may be sudden death in a lawful War or Martyrdom, To which I answer. 1. That sudden unexpected death is chief intended in this Prayer, and in this sense Martyrdom is not always a sudden death. 2. That the example of our Saviour, who prayed with submission to his Father's will, that that Cup might pass from him, will warrant the like submissive Prayer in any of his Disciples. 3. And chief it is upon divers accounts both lawful and fit, to pray that we may not be suddenly taken away, either by Martyrdom or War. For though Christianity tendeth to prepare men to be willing and ready, upon just occasions to hazard or lay down their lives; yet touching Martyrdom, true Christian charity towards all men, and sincere love to the Church of God, will direct us to pray, that the truth of God may ever be so countenanced in the World (if God see it good) and especially amongst us, that the Church of God may be free from persecution, and that none in the World may be so wicked, as to oppose Religion, with design to take away the lives of its Professors; and that the true members of the Church of God may be preserved from such cruelties as were exercised in divers horrid measures, and were designed in the Gunpowder-treason. And so far as concerneth sudden death in lawful Wars, the peaceableness of the doctrine of Christianity, will not only allow bt excite us to pray, that righteousness and love may so far prevail in the World, that none may through any injustice, pride, or inordinate affections promote Wars, and that Swords may be turned into Ploughshares rather than sheathed in one another's bowels.  
10. However to be preserved in the day of Battle, is a mercy which as it deserveth thankful acknowledgement when enjoyed, so it may without all blame be desired with submission to the divine will, to which purpose there are divers passages in the Book of Psalms. If we further consider the state of the most pious man even upon his own account; it is acknowledged that it is not considerable ferrum an febris de corpore solverit as S. Aug. expresseth it, 
Aug. Ep. 122.  whether he die in his bed or be slain in the field: yet even so holy a man as S. Austen himself was, did both value and make good use of the time of his sensibly approaching death, that he might be found well doing, 
Posid. in Vit. Aug. c. 31.  and be the better prepared to die, by affectionate renewing the exercise of repentance, humble confession, and lively faith. But in short, to return to the proper and direct sense of this Petition in the Litany, let that man alone who judgeth it unfit to commit himself to the protection of God; to be preserved from dangers which may assault his life, condemn and reject this petition against sudden death.  
11. Another Petition which meeteth with opposition, is this, 
Fap. ● Com. 〈◊〉.  That it may please thee to preserve all that travel by land or by water: for this is supposed to include the praying for Thiefs and Robbers, and Pirates and Traitors going on such errands as Faux did. But this objection is a violent detorting these words; for he is properly a traveller who goeth upon his allowable or ordinary occasions. If the meanest man in the Country should hear of an Act of Parliament, for securing the safe passage of all travellers, he would never thence conclude, that they intended or provided for the safety of Robbers, Highwaymen and Traitors, who are the great disturbers of safety. Might not the instances objected be alleged against S. Paul, commanding that Prayer be made for all men? and against the Geneva form, 
Prec. Eccl. Genev. post Conc. & in Ca Dom.  commending to God's care, singulos etiam homines, all particular men in prison, banishment, etc. as well as against this Phrase in the Litany? especially if that comprehensive sense be allowed in this Petition, which charity will admit, that God would not only preserve the bodies of them that travel from outward danger, but their souls also from sin and their whole man from destruction. And in this sense if this Petition should be supposed to include (which in the proper sense of the words it doth not) even Traitors and Robbers, can we be blamed to pray even for them that God would preserve them from further sin and so keep them that they may have time and grace for repentance, and that thereby they may be preserved from eternal destruction, (according to Mat. 5.44.)  
12. That Petition that God would have mercy upon all men, is condemned by some, but is certainly commanded by S. Paul, requiring us to make Prayers for all men: for nothing can be prayed for, which doth not include God's mercy. But such light objections, which are easily made against the best words, that the wisdom and piety of man can devise, I think not worthy the further naming, but shall now proceed to some other matters of greater moment.   

SECT. V  
Considerations concerning the public reading Apocryphal Chapters.  
1. The reading the Apocryphal Chapters in our Church, hath been severely censured, as if it was a forsaking the holy Scriptures which are the waters of life, to drink of other unwholesome streams: but that this matter may be rightly understood, without prejudice or mistake, it will be requistie to take notice of these following considerations.  
2. Cons. 1. The excellent authority of the Canonical Books of Holy Scripture, as they are distinguished from the Apocryphal, is fully and clearly acknowledged by this Church in her Articles, 
Art. 6.  where it declareth concerning the Apocryphal Books, that the Church (as S. Hierome saith) doth read them for example of life, and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine: which Article plainly disclaimeth them from being accounted Canonical Books of the Holy Scripture. That the Jews do not own these Books as any part of the Old Testament, is manifest from their Bibles which contain them not, and the particular evidences from the Jewish Rabbins, against every one of those seven Books of the Apocrypha, which are forged to be Canonical by the Council of Trent, are some of them exhibited by Hollinger. 
Thes. Phil. l. 2. c. 2. Sect. 1.  And that neither the ancient Church of the Jews before the destruction of Jerusalem, nor Christ and his Apostles, nor the several Ages of the Christian Church till some late Romish Councils, did acknowledge or make use of these Books as Canonical, is solidly and learnedly evidenced by the Bishop of Durham, 
Scholar Hist. of Can. of Scripture throughout.  with reference to the sixth Article of this Church. Wherefore though it would be injurious to the holy Scriptures, that any other Books which are not of divine inspiration, should be accounted of equal authority with them; yet it is far from being a dishonour either to them, or to they holy Spirit who indicted them, if either these Apocryphal or any other good Books, be esteemed useful and profitable, and acknowledged to contain things that are true and good.  
3. Cons. 2. It was can usual practice in the ancient Christian Church, that some of these Apocryphal Books, and other good writings besides the holy Scriptures, were publicly read, as instructive Lessons in their Assemblies, but with such variation as the prudence of every Church thought meet. In the second Century, both the Fpistle of Clemens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the then ancient Custom, 
In Eus. Hist. l. 4. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and some other Ecclesiastical Epistles were publicly read even on the Lords days, for their instruction, as Dionysius of Corinth testifieth. And in Euscbius his time as well as before it, 
Ibid. l. 3. c. 15.  was the Epistle of Clemens publicly read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the greatest number of Churches. 
Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 22. c. 8. Hom. de Sanct. de S. Steph. Ser. 7.  In the African Church in S. Augustins' time, the Histories of the passions of Martyrs, (v. Hom. 26. inter 50.) and accounts of miraculous works by the efficacy of Christian Prayer, were read in their Churches, which Custom though it was very pious in the beginning, was at last intolerably abused to the bringing in legend stories. And more particularly the public reading several Apocryphal Books; as Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith and the Maccabees, was ordered in one of the Carthaginian Councils in S. Augustins' time, 
3. Carth. c. 47. Cont. Carth. c. 27.  and that Canon was taken into their Code; and besides what S. Hierom oft speaketh of these Books being read in the Church, (but distinguished from their Canon) Ruffinus his contemporary, who was first his friend, and then his adversary, having given first an acount of the Canonical Books, proceedeth to these Books which he saith are not Canonical but Ecclesiastical, 
Ruff. in Symb.  as Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Tobit, Judith, etc. and declareth the judgement of the ancient Fathers before his time concerning them, quae omnia legi quidem in Ecclesiis voluerunt, sed non proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam, that they would have them all to be read in the Churches, but not to be produced as of authority to confirm any matters of Faith. And that in after Ages these Books were read in the Church, 
Isid. de Eccl. off. l. 1. c. 11, 12. Rab. de Inst. Cler. l. 2. c. 53.  is evident from Isidonss Hispalensis, and in the very same words from Rabanus Maurus, and might be showed from very many others, if that was needful.  
4. Cons. 3. These Books called the Apocrypha have been greatly esteemed, both in the ancient Church, and by the chief Protestant Writers, as very useful (though not divine) writings. Divers of the ancients have cited them under the title of the holy Scripture using that Phrase in so great a latitude, as to signify only holy writings though not divinely inspired. The Council of Carthage  doth there call them Canenical Books, as doth also S. Augustin who was in that Council; 
De Doct. Christ. lib. 2. c. 8.  using the word Canonical in a large sense: for it is manifest from that and divers places of S. Aug. that they were not esteemed of equal authority, with those Books properly called. Canonical. And therefore Cajetan for the interpretation of the right sense of there words, 
Caj. Com. in Esth. in fin.  hath well declared concerning these Books, Non sunt Canonici i. e. regulares ad firmandum ea quae sunt fidei; possunt tamen dici Canonici hoc est regulares ad aedificationem fidelium, or they are not Canonical as containing a rule to direct our faith an belief, though they may sometimes be called Canonical as containing rules to better our lives. In the Greek Church, where they were not (at least so much) publicly read as in the Latin, they were accounted useful for instruction, as appeareth (besides the Citations of the Greek Fathers) from that very Epistle of Athanasius, 
Fragm. Epist. 39 in Tom. 2. Athanas.  where he purposely declareth them to be no part of the Canon of Scripture. And amongst the Protestants Dr. Reinolds who wrote so largely against the authority of the Apocrypha Books, 
Censura de Lib. Apocr. Prael. 7.  in his Censura, yet in one of his Praetections declareth of some of them, chief Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, valde bonos & utiles esse & omnibus tractationibus praeferendos, that they are exceeding good and profitable, and to be preferred before all Treatises of other Writers, 
Prael. 74.  and in another Praelection expressing his judgement of the same Books, saith, proximum illis locum deberi post scripturam sacram, that they ought to have the next place after the holy Scripture; in the former of which expressions, he followeth the steps of S. Aug. de praedestin. Sanctorum. 
Exam. post. 1. de Scrip. Can.  And Chemnititus alloweth them to be Books, quae à fidelibus in Ecclesiis leguntur, Which are read in the Churches by the faithful, and non esse abjectos & damnatos, that they are not condemned writings and off-casts, but may be received in the number of the holy writings (or sacrae scripturae) sobeit they be not reputed the Canon of Faith: and this saith he we willingly both yield and teach.  
5. Cons. 4. And it is in this Case especially to be considered, that in our Church no Apocryphal Chapter is appointed for any Lord's Day throughout the Year: not is any directed for any Holiday, but only out of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which are Books of great esteem with all those who have well considered them. And also upon those Weekdays when some Apocryphal Chapters are read, there are always other Canonical Scriptures read likewise: 
Directory of reading the holy Script.  whereas they who do oppose Conformity (so far as we may take the Directory for their rule) did never appoint or direct any Scriptures, to be ordinarily and publicly read upon any of these week days; but ordered that where the reading on either Testament endeth on one Lords day, it should begin on the next. Wherefore it is to be well noted and observed, that our Church doth not herein differ from the dissenters, as if they did require the Canonical Scriptures to be more frequently read in public than our Calendar appointeth, but our Calendar requireth the Holy Scriptures to be much more frequently read in public, (almost six Chapters for one besides the Epistles and Gospels) than the Directory did; and besides them these Apocryphal Lessons for profitable instruction.  
6. But if any persons shall decry in the general, the hearing any thing in the Church, besides the holy Scriptures of immediate infallible inspiration, this would either from unadvisedness or from what is worse, reject and disown, to the great disadvantage of Religion, the use of Sermons, Exhortations, and Catechism. Nor is it any sufficient cause to condemn the reading Apocryphal Chapters, because they are read as one of the Lessons: For our Church manifestly declareth these Lessons not to be Canonical Scripture; nor can any command of God be produced, which either directly or by consequence, requireth that in every daily Assembly of Christians, there must be two Lessons read out of the Canonical Scripture, or that none may be taken out of any other approved Book. And it is manifest that the censuring this practice condemneth divers, if not all the ancient Churches, before the decaying and degeneracy of the Christian Profession. 
V Bishop durham's Scholar Hist. of Can. of Scrip. Sect. 60.  For though it be admitted that the Laodicean Council did appoint that none but the Canonical Books should be read in the Church, and that Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy there mentioned are intended for parts of the Prophecy of Jeremy, yet long before that did even the Greek Church read the Epistles of Clemens, etc. above mentioned and the Book of Hermas. And it is not to be wondered that there should be different practices observed in the Church, in matters of order and liberty.  
7. Cons. 5. Whereas this Church is the more blamed, for using some Apocryphal Chapters, while some others acknowledged to be Canonical Scripture, are not appointed to be read by the Calendar (which are mostly either some Prophecies hard to be understood, or matters of Genealogy or Jewish Observations, or some Histories for the mostpart expressed in other Scriptures appointed to be read) it must be considered, that even hence it is evident that the Calendar was never intended to be a Determination, or Declaration of what is Canonical Scripture, and of certain divine authority, but only a direction for useful and profitable reading. Nor was it the Custom of the ancient Christian Church, 
Conc. Laod. c. 60.  that the Canon of the Scripture should be described by what was publicly read: the rule of the Laodicean Council which cometh nearest thereto, did not direct the Revelation to be read. The ancient Jews who divided the Old Testament into the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; 
Bux. Syn. Jud. c. 11. Salian Annal. Eccl. A. M. 3447. n. 16.  did for a long time only read the Law in the Synagogues, after which only a Section of the Prophets was added: but that the Hagiograph●a (which included all the Books from the beginning of the Chronicles to the end of the Canticles, besides Ruth, Lamentations, and Daniel) were not read in the Jewish Synagogues, 
Hor. Heb. in Joh. 4.15.  hath been observed from the Talmudists: and this is agreeable to divers passages of the New Testament. Luk. 4.16. Act. 13.15, 27 Act. 15.21. Yet Christ and his Apostles blamed not the Jews but joined with them in this service.  
8. Cons. 6. That which is objected from the matter of these Apocryphal Chapters, which are appointed to be read, is not sufficient either to prove them hurtful or not useful, as will appear from the following Section.   

SECT. VI  
The Objections from the matter of the Apocrypha disoussed.  
1. Among the particular Objections from the matter of these books.  
Obj. 1. Judith, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon are thought to be sabulous, because no certain time can be easily fixed for Judith, S. Hierome calleth the other susannae Belis & Draconis fabulas, 
Prol. in Dan. & Com. in Dan. 13. & 14.  and Josephus maketh no mention of them. But first, if these Books should be admitted to be parabolical discourses, to express the great opposition of many wicked men against God, and his Worship, the Vanity and Folly of their Pride and evil designs, and the mighty protection that God can give to his people by his Almighty Power, they might still be allowed to be of very considerable use. The frequent use of Parabolical Instructions among the Jews, is both manifest from their Talmudical Writers, and allowed by the practice of our Saviur. And besides this, they had another Custom of Clothing real Histories under different names which expressed a resemblance of the things intended: 
Targ. in Cant. c. 6. v. 7, 8.  whence the Targum mentioning the expedition against Antiochus, speaketh of him under th' ename of Alexander, and the Prophet speaketh to the Jews under the stile of the Rulers of Sodom and the Elders of Gomorrha.  
2. And secondly the Objection is not sufficient to disprove the Historical truth of these Books, if we consider, 1. That the fixed time of the life of Job, and the time to which divers Prophecies refer is not easily determined, which yet is no good argument against the truth of either: as it is a bad argument against the credit of ancient History, either of our own or other Nations, that it is hard to fix the situation of divets ancient places, mentioned by names now unknown. 2. That both Josephus and other Historians, do make no mention of divers considerable things, which were certainly true, as for Josephus, some of the Prophets, and the matter of divers Canonical Books, and some remarkable Histories, as particularly all that referred to the framing the Golden Calf are omitted by him. 3. That the ancient Christians who had the use of divers ancient Jewish Writers, and other Histonary now lost, and had thereby greater opportunity of searching into the Historical truth of these things, did esteem them to be true Relations. Bel and the Dragon is cited as a true Narration, containing an example for Martyrdom, and an instance of the sureness of God's provision for them that trust in him, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, S. Cyprian and Gr. Nazianzen and divers others. 
V Lit. African. in Crit. Sacr. Tom. 8. p. 46, 47.  And Origen particularly undertook the defence of the truth of the History of Susanna in answer to the Letter of Africanus which containeth the sum of all the Objections against it, 
Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which were fully and manifestly satisfied by Origen, saith Eusebius. S. Hierome also wrote a Comment upon Susanna and upon Bel, and declareth Origen to have written upon the same. And S. Hierome calling these fabulaes, useth that word here as he doth elsewhere (V. Epist. ad Castrutium) for true Narrations which we also sometimes call stories; and these very things he particularly acknowledgeth for truths. Apol. 2. ad Ruff. & Proleg. in Habbacuc. ad Chromatium. And Judith is propounded as a true Narration and example of love to her people or courage, by Hierome, Origen, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, 
Clem. Ep. ad Corinth. p. 70.  and even by Clemens Romanus the Companion of St. Paul in that his undoubted Epistle to the Corinthians. And these testimonies are the more considerable, because several of these Writers, and particularly Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen and Hierome, were men of great knowledge in all ancient learning. Wherefore there is very considerable evidence that these relations are true Histories, though it would be inconsiderable matter of Objection, if they were acknowledged to be only Parables.  
3. Obj. 2. Judith approveth the fact of Simeon against the Sichemites, by desiring the like assistance from God. Ch. 9 and spoke things untrue, Ch. 10. v. 12, 13, 14. and Ch. 11. and yet she was commended highly, and blessed by Joacim and the Elders. Ans. Both in these Books and even in the Canonical Scriptures, we must distinguish between things Historically related, which are many times evil; and the matters of precept and command which are always good. The main design of this Book of Judith, being to show Gods wonderful Providence in preserving his Church; divers things are mentioned in the carriage of Judith, which are neither to be allowed in her, nor imitated by us. And in the Canonical Scriptures we read of good men uttering expressions in Prayer, which were unadvised and blamerble; such were Elijahs intercession against Israel, and both his and JOnah's passionate desire of Death. We also read of Jacob by false speeches procuring his Father's blessing, which were allowed by Rebecca; and of the contrivance of jacob's other Sons against Joseph, with their lying devices to palliate their own sin, and of the like wiles which Jehu used to destroy the Worshippers of Baal; and in some things both Jehu and Judith deserved commendation, but in other things their practices (as the other now mentioned and divers more) are not examples for our imitation, but rather warnings to us to take heed of the like miscarriages.  
4. Obj. 3. From Tobit there are divers things objected. (Of what is said against any thing contained in the fifth Chapter, which is purposely left out of our Calendar, I shall take no notice.) But Ch. 6.9, 10. The using the heart and liver of a Fish is declared (as from an Angel) to be a Cure for one vexed with an evil Spirit, and the Gall thereof to be a remedy for the whiteness of the eyes. Concerning which place two ways of interpretation are propounded by Drusius: 
Dr●●● Tob.  theone that these words concern a Disease or distemper of body, occasioned by the operation or influence of an evil spirit, which yet may be healed by natural remedies, which the Angel did direct; and he showeth that some parts of fishes are reputed to have medicinal virtue; and it is ordinarily acknowledged that some distempers curable by Medicine may be promoted by evil spirits. But the other which I chief embrace is to this purpose, that it is no ways improbable, that God who more frequently manifested himself by Angels before the coming of Christ, should by the Ministry of one of them, vouchsafe an extraordinary help and cure, to one who religiously served him, though by the use of means otherwise inconsiderable, that his mercy and mighty power should be manifested, by the effecting such a Cure. By washing in Jordan, according to the Prophet's direction, the Leprosy of Naaman was miraculously cleansed; by washing in Siloam at our Saviour's command, the blind man obtained a wonderful Cure. So small a thing as Moses his r●d ordered by God's power, was an instrument of working divers miracles, and by Elijah's Mantle smiting the Waters, they were twice divided. 2. Kin. 2.8, 14. and in Egypt at the sprinkling of blood the destroying Angel passed over. Now can any man think it either impossible, or altogether incredible, that God should produce great effects by small appearances, at the direction of an Angel, who had oft done the like at the direction of a Prophet. And this direction of the Angel is manifestly designed, for a particular preservation to Tobit, and a Cure to his Father, and the following Chapters declare the effect of both: nor ought it to be doubted, but that our great and eternal God hath done many great things, besides what was thought necessary to be expressed in the Canonical Scriptures.  
5. Obj. 4. In the sixth, seventh, and ninth Chapters of Tobit, the Angel who is said to Accompany him, is spoken to under the name of Azarias' (viz. the Son of Ananias) and seemeth to own that name, whereas it could not be true that the Angel was this Azarias. But here it must be considered, 
V Ambr. de Abr. Patr. l. 1. c. 6. Drus. in gen. 18.3. V Gen. 18.2. 16. 22.  that it is the usual practice even of the Holy Scriptures, to call Angels by the name of such as they represent or resemble. The two Angels that came to Sodom in the appearance of men, are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men Gen. 19.12. The Angel that appeared to Manoah's Wife, being asked if he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man who appeared to the Woman declared that he was. Jud. 13.11. the Angel in the Sepulchre, who gave tidings of the resurrection of Christ, is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a young man Mar. 16.5. and the two Angels who appeared at the Ascension of our Lord, are called by S. Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men in white apparel, Act. 1.10. Now it is not agreeable to religious piety, to condemn such ways of expression as evil and sinful, which are allowed in the holy word of God; nor is it unseemly for an holy Angel, to own that manner of expression, which the holy Spirit himself useth. And besides this, 
Estius in loc. diffic. Scrip. in Tob.  that which is hinted by Estius may well be admitted, that the name of Azarias' the Son of Ananias, might be taken by the Angel upon himself, to express by the signification of these names, what was the business he came to effect. (Azarias signifying the help of God, and Ananias the grace and favour of God) that by the Angel the help of God was vouchsafed, which is the effect of the Favour of God  
Obj. 5. The last Objection from Tobit and the most considerable is, Tob. 12.15. Where the Angel is reported to say, I am Raphael one of the seven holy Angels, which present the Prayers of the Saints, and go in and out before the glory of the holy one. For the clearing of this place; touching the Phrase of the seven holy Angels, (which yet is neither in Munster's Hebrew Copy of Tobit, nor in the Syriack) it may be taken for an definite number as the like Phrase is used, Mat. 12.45. 
Mede Disc. on Zech. 4.10.  And Mr. Mede's Notion is known, who asserteth it as an evident truth in his judgement, (and for which he giveth considerable proof) that there are only seven principal Angels or Arch-Angels, to which these words refer. But whether these words be understood definitely for seven only, or indefinitely for an uncertain number, we have the like expression in the Canonical Scripture, Zec. 4. 10. Rev. 5.6.  
7. What is here said concerning Angels presenting the Prayers of the Saints, this being a point of truth or matter of belief, may not be received (accordin gto the judgement both of the ancient Church and our present Church) upon the authority of an Apocryphal Book, further than it is grounded upon the evidence of the Canonical Scripture, and in such a ense only as is agreeable to the Doctrine of those holy Scriptures. Indeed if these words be acknowledged to be the words of an holy Angel, as they are related in this Book according to some versions, then must they be as certainly true, as if they had been spoken by a Prophet or Apostle. But admitting that an holy Angel did converse with Tobit, yet might his words be either misapprehended, or in this passage misrepresented. And that they are so may be hence with some probility conjectured, because in this place Tob. 12.15 there is no mention of Angels presenting the Prayers of the Saints, either in the Hebrew Copy of Munster, or Fagius, or in the Syriack Version, or in the Latin which S. Hierome translated out of the Chaldee, but it is only expressed in the Greek, which our Translation followeth; and this very place was above 1400. Years ago thrice cited by Cyprian, 
Cyp●● de Orat. Domin & de Mortalitate Adu. Jud. l. 1. n. 20.  without this clause on this manner, Ego sum Raphael unus ex septem Angelis Sanctis, qui adsistimus & conversamur ante claritatem Dei. Indeed in the twelfth Verse, both according to the Greek, the Hebrew, and the Latin, the Angel spoke of his bringing the remembrance of their Prayers before the holy one, but even there the Syriack mentioneth no such thing.  
8. But because these words are in our version; and taken in a restrained sense have been ordinarily admitted as a truth, by divers ancient Christian Writers, I shall give a double account, in what sense these words may be taken agreeably to the Canonical Scriptures, and the anciently received Doctrine in the Christian Church, who owned not the Angels as Mediators, nor did allow that Prayers should be put up to Angels. 1. They judged that the holy Angels who are frequently present with us, do join in our Religious worship and Prayers to God; and as all who join in Prayers do present those Prayers to God, so particularly do the holy Angels, who enjoy a nearer Communion with God than we have yet attained. 
Cont. Cells. l. 5. p. 273, & 238. Lib. 8. p. 401.  So Origen who expressly declareth against praying to Angels, or to any who do themselves supplicate, addeth afterward that the Christians particular Angel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presenteth the Prayers joining in them; 
P. 420.  and in another place of the same Book, 
V D. Hammond Annot. in 1. Cor. 11.10.  saith, that many myriads of Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do join in Prayer with them who pray to God. And as holiness disposeth an Angel to be ever ready to join in glorifying God, so love maketh them ready to desire our good, 
Luk. 15.10.  since there is joy in the presence of the Angels of God over one sinner that repenteth. And S. John in his Vision of the Church's worship declareth the holy Angels about the Throne to join in their Amen thereto. Rev. 7.10, 11, 12.  
9 12. That the holy Angels being God's Messengers as their name imports, are both Ministers of conveying much good to us from God, which divine Providence could bbestow without their Ministry, and of representing our state and desires to God as his Servants and our friends, which are fully and immediately manifest to God who is Omniscient. And this may be performed partly as they are testifiers and witnesses of our actions, 
Ad fr. in Erem. Ser●●. 68  with desire of our good, and such S. Aug. judgeth them certainly to be, and S. Paul giveth Timothy a charge before the elect Angels, 1. Tim. 5.21. and speaketh of their presence in the Church, 1. Cor. 11.10. and if Satan be the accuser of the brethren before God, Rev. 12.10. the holy Angels may well be thought truly to represent what is good: and partly as they are ministering Spirits attending on God and desiring our good, they declare our Prayers not as Mediators but as Ministers, non quia Deum doceant (as S. Aug. expresseth) sed quia voluntatem ejus super his consulunt, desiring to know what commands God will give them to Minister for our good according to our Petitions. 
Ep. 120. c. 22. Ep. 121. c. 9  This sense is oft expressed by S. Augustin, and in the Book under his name De diligendo Deo, and seemeth well to agree with the expressions of others of the ancient Fathers, and with the notion of the ancient Jews as it is mentioned by Philo: 
Phil. de Plant. Nae. & de Gigantibus.  and thus much seemeth to be included in these words of the New-Testament, Heb. 1.14. Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be Heirs of Salvation, And Mat. 18.10. Take heed that you despise not one of these little ones, for I say unto you that their Angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in Heaven. And this notion expresseth an honourable ministration of the holy Angels, 
De Cu. Dei l. 9.6. 15.  which hath respect to the Church of God, but doth not allow them (as S. Aug. would not) to be accounted Mediators, nor to receive Religious worship from us; but to be honoured by us Charitate non servitute, 
De Ver. R●elig. c. 55.  by an high degree of respectful love, but not by Religious service and subjection.  
10. As to that passage of Ecclus. 46.22. Which mentioneth Samuel prophesying after his death, it is sufficient here to observe, that that that part of that Chapter is by our Calendar directed to be omitted. And from all this it may appear, that nothing is in our service appointed to be read out of the Apocrypha, which being rightly understood is any way hurtful, or of ill influence upon practice. Yet it is to be further noted, that he who shall acknowledge that there is much good contained, and no evil or sin advised in any of the Apocryphal Books, is still far from admitting them to be equal to the Canonical Scriptures. For though there may be divers Books free from actual error; yet it is the Prerogative of the holy Scriptures alone, to be immediately indicted by that holy Spirit who can never err, and to be tendered of God and received of his Church, as the perpetual and infallible rule, to manifest the will of God and the Doctrines of Faith.   

SECT. VII.  
Considerations about that Translation of the Psalms used in the Liturgy.  
1. The next thing to be treated of is the we of the Psalms, according to the version in the Common-Prayer-Book, concerning which, Consid. 1. The use of this Translation doth not require us to judge it the best English Translation. For as formerly the sentences out of the Psalms, before Morning Prayer and at the Communion, were expressed according to another ancient and distinct translation, so both the Epistles and Gospels, and the sentences out of the Psalms at the beginning of Morning and Evening Prayer, are now altered according to our last allowed English Translation, which alteration seemeth to prefer that Translation as the best.  
2. Cons. 2. The Translation of the Psalms used in our Liturgy, is from the Hebrew, to which it generally agreeth, sometimes using the liberty of a paraphrastical stile. And the Hebrew being the Original is doubtless more pure than any Translation which differeth fromit. And though the Septuagint in the Book of Psalms (which of all other hath been of most (frequent public use in the Christian Church) doth vary less from the Hebrew, than in any other Poetical Book of holy Scripture, yet a Catalogue may be given of at least an hundred and fifty places, wherein the Septuagint differeth from the Hebrew (not in any Christian Doctrine, but in the manner of expressing the sense of those Texts) in all which the version in the Liturgy accordeth with the Hebrew, and dissenteth from the Septuagint. Indeed in some phrases and clauses our version followeth the Septuagint, where the matter is unblameable: and three entire verses which are not in the Hebrew, Chaldee, or Syriack, are in the fourteenth Psalm added in this English Version, according to the ordinary Copies of the 70, 
Grot. in Ps. 14.  and of many (but as Grotius intimateth not all) of the , Vulgar Latin and Arabic, and which are not in the Greek Manuscript from Alexandria: but these Verses being the same with what is cited by the Apostle out of the Old Testament, Rom. 3.12, 13,— 18. cannot be disallowed as to the matter of them, and the Psalms in the Liturgy being chief used as Hymns of praise, or our words of blessing God (agreeably to the practice of the Jewish and ancient Christian Church) may well admit in that use of such a variation from the Hebrew Text.  
3. If we observe the practice of the ancient Christian Churches, we shall find, that the Greek Church publicly used the Psalms according to the Septuagint, and the Latin, Arabian, and  Churches, 
V P. Pithaeum de Latin Biblior. Interpret.  had their Psalms of public use translated from the Septuagint, or with a little tincture from Lucian the Martyr, wherein they also followed some evident corruptions of the Greek Copies, as the Arabic in admitting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ps. 17.14. the  in reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ps. 39.5. 
Ps. 92.10.  and the Vulgar in translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Syriack Version was translated out of the Hebrew, but hath suffered some alterations by being revised according to the Septuagint, from whence among other things it received its frequent use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but this Version hath many imperfections, as chief its leaving out sometimes a whole verse, as in Ps. 34.9. and sometimes some part thereof as Ps. 58.9. The result of this consideration is this, that the Psalms publicly used in the Church of England, are more fully agreeing to the Original Hebrew, than any of those known Versions were, which were used in the ancient Christian Churches; and he who thinketh that he may not lawfully join or Minister in the Church of England, because of our use of this version of the Psalms, might have discerned greater cause in this very particular, to have kept him at a greater distance from all the famous ancient Christian Churches in the World.  
4. Cons. 3. The particular places most blamed in this Version of the Psalms, do afford no sufficient cause, when our superiors enjoin the use of this Translation, to withhold our hearty consent thereto. I shall instance in three places which are chief urged. 1. One is Ps. 106.30. where this Translation readeth it, than stood up Phinees and prayed: and so the Plague ceased. But the Version in our Bibles rendereth it, Then stood up PHinehas and executed judgement. The word in the Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Verbs of which Root being most used in the form Hithpahel, do generally signify to pray, and in this form of Pihel they are rarely used, and do sometimes signify judging or the judge interposing between men and men to end their strife. But in this place the Chaldee Paraphrast, and the Syriack Interpreter (who both of them translated from the Hebrew and well understood it) render it Phinees stood up and prayed. 
Buxt. Conc. Hebr. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And Buxtorf in his Hebrew Concordances citeth this verse twice under the different significations of the same root, once as expressing Phinees praying, and afterwards as expressing him executing judgement.  
5. If we compare this place with the History to which it relateth, Num. 25. we there find the Congregation of Israel, and Phinchas the Son of Eleazar the Priest, in a deep humiliation weeping before the Tabernacle of the Congregation. V 6. Which solemn weeping was to doubt accompanied with the Prayers of the Priest, as was directed and commanded in a like case, Joel 2.17. Let the Priests, the Ministers of the Lord weep between the proch and the Altar, and let them say spare thy people, etc. and in its own nature Religious weeping doth include Confession and Prayer. Then we find Phinehas v. 7, 8. slaying Zimri and Cozbi in their Adultery, which was his executing judgement according to the particular commandment given, v. 5. and this was an act of his zeal, which accompanying his Humiliation, Prayer, and Confession, did render them more acceptable also: and besides this, very probably Phinehas either offered incense, (as Aaron did to make atonement in the like Case of the Plague, Num. 16.46, 47.) or Sacrifice, because v. 13. he is said to have made an atonement (which is a Priestly action) for the Children of Israel: 
Sect. 1. n. 7.  and that all such Offerings and Sacrifices did include Prayer, hath been above in some part observed. And by Phinehas his zeal (which might well be expressed in all these things, and chiefly in his slaying Zimri and Cozbi) and by his executing judgement, and making atonement, the wrath of God was turned away from Israel, Num. 25.8, 11, 13. Now the Septuagint in this place of the Psalms use the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which they used Num. 25.13. for Phinehas making the atonement, as if the Psalmist had special reference thereunto. And indeed all Phinehas his acting whereby he interposed between God and the Israeltes to stop his wrath, may well be intended and included in this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Psalm: and therefore as it is well translated he excuted judgement, so it is not blameably rendered, he prayed neither of these being the whole, and both of them being parts of what Phinehas did in interposing. And I suppose all Christians will acknowledge, that devout Prayer with reference to the atonement, accompanied with true repentance and real resormation, is a very esfectual means to appease the Prayer of the Priest in a solemn Assembly was directed, under a promise of obtaining the favour and pity of God, Joel. 2.17, 18.  
6. Another place is Ps. 58.8. which this Version in the Liturgy rendereth, Or ever your Pots be made hot with Thorns, so let indignation vex him even as a thing that is raw: and this by the Non-Conformists in King James his time was censured for a translation senseless and absurd. They who have better considered the Original in this place, acknowledge it a difficulty to clear the manner of its expression: our last and best English Translation expresseth it thus, He shall take them away as in a Whirlwind both living and in his wrath: which yet doth not clear all the difficulty in the expression of the Original. It is manifest from the context, that this verse encludeth a resemblance of the speediness of God's judgements coming down upon the wicked; which according to this Version in the Liturgy, shall be as the snatching of flesh which is yet raw, out of the Pot set on a sire of Thorns, which is torn in pieces and devoured greedily in a time of famine, even before it hath felt the heat of the sire: and this explication and manner of resolving the words and phrases of the Hebrew, is owned by Vatablus, and divers and good expositors; and this general sense of them relating to the swift destruction of the ungodly, is the undoubtedly true meaning and intent of this place; but as to the manner of the explication and unfolding of the Original phrases, among the very great variety of conjectures, it is hard to say which is to be preferred before all the rest. But this translation is so far from being (as it hath been charged) senseless and absurd, that it is certainly agreeing to the true sense, intent and design of the Psalmist.  
7. But no place is more insisted on, than Psal. 105.28. where the Psalmist speaking of God's wonderful works against Egypt, saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (according to our last English Version and divers others) they rebelled not against his word; that is, either Moses and Aaron, or the Israelites; or as Junius and Tremellius understand it, his signs rebelled not against his word. But the Version in our Liturgy, agreeably to the greatest number of Latin Copies in S. Augustins' time, 
Aug. in Ps. 104.  and to the Septuagint, the Arabic and Aethiopick, and to the last Greek Version in the Octopta, and also to the Syriack, expresseth it, they were not obedient unto his word, understanding this Verse to aim at the Egyptians (of whom the Psalmist was speaking) continuing disobedient under the mighty signs and works of God; which sense containeth an eviaent truth, and very suitable to the History, and clearly reconcileable to the Hebrew, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be admitted to include an interrogation as the same word doth. Ex. 8.26. and as divers other like phrases are conceived to do, as our Learned Fuller hath observed. 
Miscel. l. 3. c. 10.  And these words, and did they not rebel against his word? are of the same import with these, they were not obedient to his word.  
8. And they who are versed in the variety of Translations do well know, that several particular expressions of Scripture, upon different accounts are by some rendered in the negative, and by others in the affirmative, and yet both of them are consistent with the Principles of Religion; and neither of those Translations can thence be condemned as hurtful or useless. For instance, we with almost all other Versions, read 2. Kin. 8.10. thou mayst certainly recover, but Junius in his latter Editions, altering the sense of his former, Non omnino revalesces. Where we, Gen. 2.5, 6. with most other Versions express, there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the Earth. Junius and Tremellius agreeing with the Arabic Version (which in the Pentateuch is translated from the Hebrew) render it, there was not a man to till the ground: nor a mist that went up out of the earth. Yet here is no difference about any matter of Doctrine, or rule of life, about only about the time of the first mist, into which no man hath so clear a sight, as to see further than the light of this Text will discover. Divers other instances may be observed, such as in the Syriack translation reading. Ps. 7.11. God is not angry every day; to which the Greek agreeth; and in the Syriack, and Arabic, which in the Historical Books translateth from the Syriack expressing. 2. Kin. 18.27. That they may not eat their own dung, 
Mr. Thorn. Epilogue. l. 1. c. 32.  (which sense is well allowed by a learned man of our own Nation); and in the Septuagint with the vulgar Arabic and Aethiopick who are guided by it, rendering Ps. 35.20. They spoke peace to me; and also in the Samaritan translating, Gen. 41.16. God will not give answer without me. The difference of divers translations may be noted in such places as these, Num. 11.25. where some have, They did not cease, and others, They did not proceed; and in Job 34.30. Dent. 20.19. and Deut. 21.12. Where some read, She shall pair or cut off her nails, others; She shall nourish her nails or suffer them to grow; and our last English Translation doth in the Text embrace the former, and in the margin the latter; but it would be a great folly thence to conclude that that Translation of the Bible is either useless or hurtful. See the like, 2. Kin. 19.25. Ps. 121.11. Yet the various ways of rendering some particular expressions of Scripture, where it may be difficult to determine that sense which must exclude all other, is very far from acknowledging the sense of Scriptures ancertain, in matters of Faith and Christian life; which are frequently and manifestly therein expressed; and to which the general consent of the purest times of Christianity (and in matters of life the very principles of Reason and Conscience) do agree. All that can be hence concluded, is, that there is sufficient matter in divers passages of Scripture, for the exercise of the learnedest Critics and greatest Students, as there is abundant plainness of instruction in the most necessary things for the meanest capacities.   

SECT. VIII.  
Of holidays, or Festival-days.  
1. These days are acknowledged to have no particular divine institution, but have been allowed and appointed by the Church of God, and are established by the civil Sanctions of our laws. 
5. & 6. Edw. 6.3.  The end of their appointment is, for the promoting the service of God and Religious exercises 
Injunct. n. 20. Can. 13.  as is at large expressed in that Statute, by which they were particularly confirmed, and in the Queen's Injunctions, and in the Book of Canons; which requireth them to be employed in hearing God's word read and taught, in private and public Prayers, in acknowledging our ofsences to God, and amendment of the same, in being reconciled to our neighbours where there hath been displeasure, in oft receiving the Communion, in visiting the poor and sick persons, and using all sober and godly conversation. If such fruits of Christian Piety were more plentifully and abundantly brought forth, they would by their pleasant sweetness both recommend themselves, and those times and seasons, the good use of which, more especially contributed to their ripeness and maturity.  
2. Now these Duties being the principal business of the Christian life, it must either be asserted that no particular time may be peculiarly set apart thereto, unless it can be proved that God hath particularly instituted that time, which is an evil Principle whereby men would be taught to reject daily Christian exercises, and to live in disobedience to God's commands, and in much impiety and irreligion: or else it must be granted (which is truth) that God having commanded these Duties, doth both allow and expect, that fit and seasonable times in the whole course of life, be allotted to the practice thereof; whence some portions of every day, and some especial days, may be profitably and advantageously employed, in these Religious exercises. And such times may allowably the called Holy hours and days, from the holy actions of God's Service and Religion, for which they are reserved, and to which they are appointed. 
2. Kin. 12.18. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 2.  For For that is properly holy which is set apart to God; and also according to cl. Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that is a holy time in which we receive the knowledge of God: but the use of the word Holiday is no more but the ancient English and Saxon word for Church-festivals.  
3. But whereas many persons misspend these days in vanity and intemperance, which by the direction of the Church and the prescription of the Law, aught to be (and by others are) used piously and devoutly: these men's miscarriage condemneth their abuse, but not the appointment of these times to other good ends and purposes. The Jews in Isaiahs' time, abused their fasting days in hypocrisy and to wicked ends, fasting for strife and envy, and to smite with the fist of wickedness, Isa. 58.4. and yet the appointing fasting days to a better end, was not only allowed at other times, but even in his time also in Isa. 22.12. Indeed the corruptions of many men are prone to make a bad improvement of the best things; The three solemn Feasts of the Jews, 
Tract. Kiddush.  in which all their Males must appear before the Lord, were through their abuse of them acknowledged by their own Talmud to be become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ulcer of the year. 
Buxtorf. Lex Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The Feasis of Par●●x were religiously appointed, though amongst the debauched Spirits of the Jews they were turned into mere Baccanalia or voluptuousness and vanity. And the want of care in many persons of the Service of god upon the Lords days, hath administered just cause for that great complaint in our Homilies, 
Hom. of time and place of Prayer. Part. 1.  That God is greatly dishonoured, and the Devil served upon that day. And in my apprehension it is not improbable, that the opposition maintained against the observing these Holidays, may have this forcible influence upon many, who are easily withheld from good, but hardly persuaded ot it, to make them the more neglectful therein of Religious exercises.  
4. It was the practice of the Jewish Church, and was in many instances allowed by the holy Scriptures, to set apart voluntarily some days for Religious Service, which God had not particularly enjoined. I might mention their usual Fasts of the firstborn before the Passeover, and their Fasts after the days of unleavened bread, and after Pentecost. The annual Fasts for many years of the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months are mentioned by the Prophet Zechariah (Zech. 8.19.). We read also of a particular Fast proclaimed by Jehosaphat, 2 Chron. 20.3. and of another in Josiahs' time, Jer. 36.9. and another in Josiahs' time, Jer. 36.9. and another commanded by Ezar, Ezr. 8.21. and of a three days Fast appointed by Esther, which the Chaldee Paraphrast with some probability observeth, to be kept within the days of unleavened bread. See Esth. 3.12. with Chap. 4.8, 16. 
Chal. par in Est. 4.17.  and it may be easily inferred, that if it be lawful to set days apart for humbling themselves before God with fasting and prayer, without any particular divine Commandment; it must needs also be lawful where there is sufficient occasion, to appoint the like for the Service of God, with Religious praise and thanksgiving, with joy and gladness of heart.  
5. They had also the Feast of Purim established by the Letters of Mordecai, Esth. 9.21. when the Jews ordained and took upon themselves to do after this writing, vers. 27. after which Esther and Mordecai wrote with all authority to confirm these days of Purim, verse. 29.31. and it is expressly declared, that the Decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim, verse. 32. The Feast of Dedication was appointed by Judas Maccabaeus and his Brethren, and the Children of Israel 1 Mac. 4.59. to be observed annually for eight days, in remembrance of the cleansing of the Temple from the profanations of Antiochus, and the restoring the liberty of the performing the Service of God therein; and at this Feast was our blessed Saviour himself present at the Temple, Joh, 10.22, 23. And that the Feast of Dedication was that Feast appointed by Judas Maccabaeus (though some ancient Christian Writers did otherwise interpret it) is proved by Junius, Buxtorf, but especially and very largely and fully by Mr. Selden. 
De Syned. l. 3. c. 13. Sect. 7. etc. Ibid. Sect. 12.  Divers other Feasts are mentioned in the various Jewish Kalendars, as may be seen in Scaliger, and in that Calendar exhibited by Mr. Selden, which I shall not insist upon. Yet it may be considered, that Scasiger divideth the Jewish Feasts into the Legalia or Feasts appointed by God's Law, and Politica or such as were established by their own consent; and that those of this last sort, were some of them appointed before the time of Fsdras, and some after, of both which he undertaketh to give particular instances: 
De Emend. Temp. l. 7.  and it is thought by Mr. Thorndike, that the Feast of the Wood-offering, expressed in the Jewish Kalendars, 
Of Religious Assemblies, c. 8.  is referred unto in Neb. 10.34. and Chap. 13.31. both which places speak of the Wood-offering at the time appointed. But the instances above mentioned are sufficient to manifest, that it was lawful under the time of the Jewish Church, to appoint days of Religious Solemnity to be annually observed, though they were not enjoined by any divine Institution. Wherefore I forbear to insist upon the seven days feast which Solomon kept before the Lord, immediately before the Feast of Tabernacles, 1 King. 8.65. 2 Chron. 7.9, 10. and of the seven days feast in the time of Hezekiah, added to the seven days of unleavened bread, 2 Chron. 30.23. Now it seemeth very reasonable, that Christians whose mercies from God are greater than the Jewish Church enjoyed, should also make use both of weekly and other set times for the Service of God, it being prophesied of the Gentile Church under the Gospel, Isa. 66.23, That from one new Moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before the Lord.  
6. After the Coming of Christ, as the Disciples of John fasted oft, so our Lord declared that his Disciples should fast after his departure. This duty was asterwards practised by the Apostles, and enjoined to all Christians, 1 Cor. 7.5. and was in part exercised in the stationary days of the ancient Christians, two days in the week. And besides other times, 
Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the time of our Lord's passion, which Eusebius calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is evidently asserted by him, (though he misunderstand some words of Philo) to have been observed by the Christians in the days of Philo, and that is from the time of our Saviour's death; and to the observation of the Passion time those words of Tertulli in do manifestly refer, (notwithstanding the divers conjecture of learned men) where he declareth the Christians appointing jejuniis Parasceven, 
Advers. Psye. c. 14. Cont. Cets. l. 8.  and what Origen writeth of their observing the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which probably includeth more than a single day.  
7. There is abundant testimony also of other solemn days of Religious joy besides the Lords days, to have been observed; 
Tert. de Idol. c. 14.  among which Tertullian mentioneth the whole fifty days from Easter to Whitsuntide, with which he saith no Religious Solemnity of the Gnetiles could compare; and Origen undertaketh to justify the Festivals of the Christian Church at Easter time and Whitsuntide, 
Orig. Ibid.  and such like (besides the Lords days) not to be contained under the Apostles censure upon the Galatians, for their observation of days and times. And before their time the observation of some annieversary remembrance of eminent Martyrs is expressed in the Martyrium S. Ignatii, published by Bishop Usher from ancient Manuscripts which he judgeth to have been written by Philo, Gaius, and others, who were present at this Martyrdom, who writ, Manifestavimus vobis diem & tempus, ut secundum tempus martyrii congregati communicemus althletae,— glorificantes in ipsiusee merabili & sancta memoria Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. To the same purpose are the words of Cyprian, 
Cyp. Ep. 34. n  Martyrum passiones & dies anniversaria commemoratione celebramus, and this is the sense also of Tertullian his oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis annua die facimus; for both the Phrase and thing of these ancient oblations, 
De Cor. Mil. c. 3.  did particularly intent an honourable memorial and Communion with the person. And when Eusebius giveth an account of the change of the Empire under Constantine, from Heathenism to Christianity, he saith they then had great respect to the Lords day, 
De Vit Const. l. 4. c. 23.  and honoured the days of the Martyrs, and celebrated the Festivals received in the Church. And I suppose it needeth no proof, that the Apostles and Evangelists had the chief place among the Christian Martyrs, who were the principal Testisiers of Christ, and the particular days wherein a pious remembrance of them was celebrated to the glory of God, are frequently mentioned after the end of the third Century, and are expressedin Constit. Apost. l. 8. c. 33. And though the particular Festivals of the Apostles were, according to the practice of the Church in several parts of the World, celebrated at very different times, as may appear by comparing the practice of the Western Church, with the Constitution of Alexius Comnemus, which concerned the Eastern or Greek Church, and with the several Arabic Kalendars, two of which are exhibited by Mr. Selden, de Syneder. l. 3. c. 15. Yet in all these Churches (as also in the Syriack, as appeareth from the Rubrics for the Lessons on these days in the Syriack Testament; and also in the  and Egyptian Churches, as appeareth from the Computus Aethiopicus, 
De Emend. Temp. l. 7.  and Computus Copticus in Scaliger) they did not only allow and observe such days as lawful, but they appointed and owned them as conducing to the honour and advancement of Christianity, being piously and religiously used.  
8. Amongst the Protestants the Bohaemian Church, 
Rat. Disc. c. 3.  and those of the Augustane Confession, are very much agreeable to us in the observation of Festivals; 
Conf. Boh. c. 15. Conf. Aug. c. 15. Conf. Helu. c. 24.  and their approbation of these days not only as lawful but as useful and requisite is contained in their public Confessions: and the Church of Switzerland alloweth several such days with a Maximopere approbamus, and the Dutch Church observe the Nativity of Christ, and some other Festivals as appeareth from their Canons, ratified by the Synod of Dort. Indeed the Church of Geneva (and that of Scotland (which from 1560. till 1617. did herein follow it) did not admit of any of these days: but this was so little pleasing to Calvin the most eminent Minister of Geneva, that he writing concerning the day of our Lord's Nativity, which was not there celebrated, saith, 
Calo Ep. Hallero,  Sancte testari possum, I can in a sacred manner proiest, that this thing was transacted, when I neither knew of it, nor had any such desire; and he further declared, that it was his endeavour that it might have been there observed. Wherefore the laying aside all these days was even in his eyes the defect and blemish; but not the perfection and b●●●ty of that Church.  
9 Besides all these arguments from authority, to prove the allowableness of Festival days for Religious exerciss; it may be considered that if it be both lawful and good, when we have received some eminent mercy from God, to set some hours or some particular day apart, to praise and magnify the goodness of God, there is the same or greater reason, to give allowance to the observation of these stated Christian Festivals. For I think no man can deny, that not only the benefits flowing from the great actions of our Saviour; but even the advantages accrueing to us from the Apostles and Evangelists, by their faithful preaching the Gospel of Christ, and giving testimony to his Doctrine, and continuing steadfast therein unto the death, is to us more valuable and advantageous than any temporal benefit whatsoever; because our enjoying the knowledge of Christ and being Christians, which is the fruit of the Apostles and Evangelists making known the Gospel to the World, is a greater privilege than any outward advantage in the World. And the benefit of holy exercises, and of being employed in glorifying God is so excellent, that the use of particular times appointed for that purpose, ought not be rejected by pious men, though some men do abuse those means which they should emprove.  
10. But it is here objected, that the fourth Commandment saith, six days shall thou work, and S. Paul blameth the Galatians for observing days and times, and months and years. Concerning which places waving divers other things which might be answered. 1. Let the Objectors consider, whether themselves would be willing to admit this to be the sense of either of these Texts, That it is not lawful to set apart any day of the Week, either for praying, fasting, or for praise and thanksgiving: if this sense be allowed, they must then condemn not only the instances abovementioned both of Jewish and Christian practice, but they must also deny them that liberty, which the prophet Joel commanded them to exercise Joel. 2.15. sanctisy a Fast, call a solemn Assembly, and thereby render God's command of none effect: but if this sense of these Scriptures ought not to be admitted, then cannot the Religious observation of Festival days be thereby condemned. 2. These words, six days shalt thou labour, never were to the Jews a Precept of such an unlimited and unbounded sense, as to admit of no other use of any day, but in labour. Indeed isoth, idleness, and negligence were here condemned; and those days allowed and appointed for labour, in this restrained sense, or with this exception, Unless some reasonable and accountable occasion require the contrary. The reason of this restrained sense will appear necessary, because the solemn days of God's appontment under the Jewish State, aught to be observed, even upon any of those six days, though they required strict rest as the day of atonement did: and because it was also lawful upon a providential occasion to employ a day in voluntary mourning for a sick or dead friend, 2 Sam. 3.31, 33, 35. Ch. 12.16, 17, or in rejoicing for the Circumcision of a Child, or such like cause: and it must be still acknowledged lawful for a Child, Servant or Subject, to employ a day upon the command of his Father, Master or Sovereign, in attendance upon their persons; much more might the Jews keep a Fast or observe a Feast when Esther required, and signal providence directed them thereto. 
August. Conc. Adimant. c. 16.  3. The observing days and times condemned, Gal. 4.10, concerneth wholly the Jewish solemnities as S. Aug. and S. Hierome observe, and the scope of the place demonstrateth; the observing which is opposite to Christianity. 
Hier. in Loc.  Thus he who keepeth the Jewish Sabbath out of Conscience to the Moisaical Law, doth so far oppose Christianity, and return to Judaisme, this being a shadow of good things to come, Col. 2.16, 17, and is condemned by S. Paul; but he who Christianly observeth the Lordsday, acteth for the advancement of Christianity, and the honour of Christ; and is not in this place blamed by the Apostle: And so he who observeth the new Moons out of respect to the Law, standeth charged with Judaizing; but he who setteth apart any day for Christian exercises, acteth as becometh a Christian; for as he is the best Christian who is most frequently exercised in these practices; so he cannot be blamed who especially upon some days engageth himself to these duties. So that the difference between our observeing the Christian Festivals, and the Jewish, is answerable to the difference between Judaisme and Christianity.  
11. As to that Objection, against the observation of the days of the Annunciation (or the Conception of our Saviour) the Nativity, Passion and Ascension of our Lord; that these days are at least the less allowable, because the Lord's day is particularly appointed for the worship of God, and the honourable memorial of the great undertaking and actions of our Saviour; it may be sufficient to observe, 1. That this argument seemeth equally to oppose, the setting apart any other Portion of time besides the Lord's day, to be purposely and particularly employed for the Religious worship of God: which would greatly prejudice the exercise of Religion; or at least the insisting upon this objection, will not allow Christians to engage themselves, to glorify God for Jesus Christ, and to admire the grace of Christ upon any other day; because this would require some other time to be designed for these Religious actions. 2. That though the Jewish Sabbath had a peculiar respect to their deliverance from Egypt, Deut. 5.15. Yet for that mercy (which was far inferior to what Christians enjoy by Christ) they observed also other yearly solemnities, especially the great Feasts of the Passover, and the Feast of Tabernacles. Wherefore though the observation of the Lords day, as it is one day in seven, encludeth a testimony that we worship God the Creator, who made the World in six days and rested the seventh; and as it is the first day of the Week it containeth a a professed owning and honouring of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, who accomplished his humiliation and began his exaltation on that day; yet this doth by no means exclude the lawful use of any other time directed, either by voluntary choice, or Ecclesiastical or political laws, for the advantage of piety in the worship of God, and the more solemn observance of those great actions of our blessed Lord, which ought evermore to be had in remembrance.    

CHAP. V.  
Of the particular Offices in the Liturgy.  

SECT. I.  
Of the direction for Communicants receiving the Lords Supper.  
1. THE first particular office, according to the order of the Book, is, that for the Communion; at the end of which the Rubric requiring every Parishioner to communicate at least three times in the year, is disliked, because many persons may not be duly qualified to receive; 
Presbyt. Excep. p. 21.  and therefore this Rubric was desired either to be left out, or to be altered to this sense, that the Communion should be thrice in the year administered, if there be a convenient number to receive. Now because this exception is thought considerable, whereas indeed the Rubric is herein not only justifiable but very commendable, I shall endeavour to clear this whole matter by these considerations.  
2. Cons. 1. To receive the holy Communion is a very great Christian duty, and cannot be neglected without grievous sin and the displeasure of God. This may appear, by observing that God strictly required all his Sacramental Institutions to be received; when he appointed Circumcision, he declareth concerning the uncircumcised Manchild, that that Soul should be cut of from his people, he hath broken my Covenant, Gen. 17.14. When he ordered the use of the Pass-over, he said the man that is clean, and not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the Passover, the same soul shall be cut off from his people, because he brought not the Offering of the Lord in his appointed season; that man shall bear his sin. Num. 9.13. and even this person who was unclean, was bound to keep the Passover in the next following month. Num. 9.10, 11. Under the New Testament those words, Joh. 3.5. Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God: are by the general testimony of Antiquity to be understood concerning Baptism, and the Pharisees are condemned for rejecting the Counsel of God against themselves, being not baptised of John, Luk. 7.30. Now the reason why God was so greatly offended, at the neglect of these Sacraments, is expressed to be, because he accounted this to be a disowning or dis-esteeming his Covenant, of which his Sacraments were a sign and seal. Gen. 17.14. and because God's appointment and institution therein was not obeyed, Num. 9.13. Luk. 7.30. Wherefore because the Lord's Supper doth exhibit the New Testament in the blood of Christ, and the partaking thereof is particularly commanded by Christ, it must upon the same reasons be as evil and dangerous to neglect this Sacrament, as those other. And if it be further considered, that this is a special Ordinance of eminent Christian profession, showing forth the Lords 〈◊〉 till he come, 1. Cor. 11.26, and exhibiting the Communion of the body and blood of Christ, the right partaking of this Ordinance, must needs be concluded to be a principal action and service of Christianity, whether we consider the duty performed, or the benefits which may be thereby received.  
3. If the practice of the Apostolical and Primitive Church be consulted, the three thousand converted on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Ghost was given, 
Act. 2.42.  did all continue steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of Bread and Prayer. And the receiving the Communion was esteemed so high a part of the Christian service in their public Assemblies, 
Act. 20.7.  that their assembling was called their coming together to break bread. 
Conc. Ant. c. 2.  The Council of Antioch determined them to be cast out of the Church who were present at the reading of the Scriptures, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a disorderly manner went away and received not the Eucharist: 
Can. Ap. 9  and the same was decreed in the Canons of the Apostles, and much to the same purpose in other Councils, which (as that of Antioch) were embraced as part of the Code of the Universal Church. Agreeably hereunto it was Ignatius his desire for the Ephesians, 
Ign. Ep. ad Ephes.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they all of them jointly, and every one of them particularly should meet together, and partake of the same bread. Among the Protestant Churches, 
Syn. Petricor. Sect. 5. 1587.  the Polonian Synod consisting of members who owned three distinct confessions, did unanimously declare, that all Pastors ought to teach and accustom their auditors, that as oft as the Lords Table is prepared in the public Assemblies, for the faithful, they should not neglect every one of them to come unto it. And the vehement expressions in the Geneva Catechism, and in Bucers Censura against them who neglect to come to the Lords Supper, might be here added, with other testimonies of the same nature. Only it must be here observed, that Nonconformity hath run its changes, at such a variance, as if both the extremes were to be preferred to the middle way. The Author of the Admonition esteemed this direction for the Communicants receiving to be too large, 
T. C. Reply p. 117.  and that too much was done in directing them to Communicate, but both Mr. Cartwright the chief opposer of the Liturgy in Queen Elizabeth's time, 
Alt. Damasc. c. 10. p. 727, 728  and the Author of the Altar Damascenum, who was the most violent censurer thereof in King James his time, thought that too little was done herein: for both of them would have all who are in the Church's Communion forced, (even by civil punishments saith the former, and statis temporibus omnes adigendi sunt saith the latter) to receive the Lords Supper, and both of them condemn them who abstain from the Lords Table out of fear, as guilty of superstition, and that they ought not to be born with. But now again the Channel is altered and the stream is returned to the other side. But by the invariable rule of the will of God, which is an unerring guide, it is the duty of all Christians to attend upon the institutions of Christ, which is the first consideration I propound.  
4. Cons. 2. The necessity of being duly qualified for the right receiving the Lords Supper, doth not leave men at all excusable in their ordinary forbearing: for the danger of performing any Religious duty carelessly, is expressed in the holy Scriptures, to quicken men unto the greater piety in their attendance upon those services, but not to give them any liberty of neglecting them. That slothful and wicked servant who hide his talon in a Napkin, had at last no comfort by his pretended excuse for his neglect that he looked upon his Lord as an hard man whom he could not please, 
Mat. 25.24.— 30.  but was cast into outer darkness. It was no way lawful for the Aaronical Priests, to forbear to offer the Sacrifices which God had commanded, because he had declared that he would be sanctified in them that come nigh him, and had destroyed Nadab and Abihu for their undue approach. Though God upbraided the Jews that they did steal, and murder, and commit adultery, etc. and come and stand before him in his House which was called by his name; yet it was still the duty of every male among them, religiously to present themselves there before the Lord three times in the year, Deut. 16.16. and they were all enjoined to keep the Passover, which encluded a yielding themselves to the Lord. 2. Chr. 30.8. and a preparing their heart to seek God, v. 19 And when S. Paul had said, 
1 Cor 11.27, 28, 29.  that whosoever shall eat his bread and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, this giveth no allowance to any to neglect this Ordinance; but the next verse directeth, but let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that Cup: and the following words, For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords body; are laid down as an argument, to show that men ought to examine themselves, and so to eat and drink.  
5. He that heareth or readeth the word of God, or knoweth his will, or professeth the name of Christ, without obedience yielded thereunto, doth increase his sin and condemnation; and yet hearing, reading, knowledge and profession of Christianity are necessary duties, but that which it here only available, and is every man's indispensable duty, is, to join the life of Christianity with its knowledge and profession. So it is a duty to receive this Sacrament, and to be careful not to receive it unworthily, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unsuitably to its nature and institution. Wherefore this Ordinance encluding under the Elements of Bread and Wine, an Heavenly Communion of the body and blood of Christ, whose death is here represented as he offered up himself to God for us, and established the New Testament, with the assurance of all the blessings and promises thereof; the worthy receiving this Sacrament will require that Communion with Christ be both hearty desired and piously embraced; that the death and mediation of Christ be acknowledged, as the only way of atonement and remission of sins; that the Christian Religion established in the New Testament or Covenant, be owned as the only true Religion, and all others rejected; that the promises of eternal life, pardon and grace, be valued and sought after, as the chief objects of desire and hope; and that the Christian practice which the New Testament requireth be undertaken, and resolved upon, with a circumspect care of repentance, and amendment of what is amiss, and with a peculiar respect to peace and love, by reason of this Sacrament of Unity; it being noted by S. Augustine, 
De Consecr. dist. 2. c. Qui manducant.  that he who receiveth the Sacrament of Unity, and doth not hold the bond of peace, doth not receive the Sacrament for his good, but as a testimony against himself; which was also the Doctrine of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 11.17, 18. And though there be too many who do not practise, according to the necessary rules of Christianity, it is absolutely and indispensably necessary for them that their lives be changed and amended, that they may not only be fit to receive this holy Sacrament, but that they may be fit to partake of the blessing of God, and to avoid the dreadful miseries of everlasting torments, and to live answerable to their Baptismal Covenant, that they may be advantaged by their profession of Christianity. And let any man consider, whether it be not as unreasonable a Plea in the sight of God, for any man to avoid the holy Communion, because he is not willing to live according to the Christian rules, when both these things are his duty; as it would be in the sight of a Prince, for a Subject to refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance, upon pretence that he is inclined to undertake practices of Rebellion.  
6. Cons. 3. The Doctrine of our Church and its Rules for Communion, do not allow that any persons should come to the holy Sacrament, otherwise than in a suitable and Religious manner: but it jointly urgeth (as the holy Scriptures do also) the duty of coming, and the necessity of coming preparedly. Amongst our Writers Bishop Cranmer declared, that we ought not unreverently and unadvisedly to approach to the Lords Table— but we ought to come to that Board of the Lord with all reverence, 
Def. of Cath. Doctr. of the Sacr. l. 3. c. 14.  faith, love and charity, fear and dread. Both Bishop Whitgift, and Mr. Hocker, in their defence of the Order for the Communion against T. C. allow, that there may be cause of present forbearance from this Sacrament, because of unfitness, but this aught to be amended: 
B. Whitg. Tr. 9 c. 6. & Tr. 15. c. 2.  and that it is not desirable that men persisting in wickedness, should be constrained to come to the Lords Supper. 
Eccles. Pol. l 5. c. 68  But it is needless to add other testimonies, when the Communion Book itself in the first exhortation saith, If any of you be a blasphemer of God, an hinderer or slanderer of his word, an adulterer, or be in malice or envy, or in any other grievous crime; repent you of your sins, or else come not to that holy Table, lest after the taking of that holy Sacrament, the Devil enter into you as he entered into Judas, and fill you full of all iniquities, and bring you to destruction both of Body and Soul. Wherefore it is acknowledged in our Church, that the receiving the Holy Communion is not a right Christian action, where it is not performed with a Christian spirit and disposition: and partly upon this account, and partly for the disciplinary discountenancing of wickedness, both the twenty sixth Canon and the Rubric before the Communion, do require that no notorious evil liver or malicious man, before their amendment be suffered to come to the Lords Table: and consistently herewith must that Rubric requiring every Parishioner to communicate be understood, so as to be exclusive of such notorious siners until their amendment, but to urge & warn them to amend.  
7. Cons. 4. There is just cause why Christians should be required, at least thrice in the year, to receive the Communion. For whereas God required all males among the Jews to appear before him three times in the year, which appearing included their professing, owning, and engaging to serve the God of Israel, and their accepting and submitting to the Law of Moses, and the Covenant God made with Israel, with their expectation of the benefits thereof; it would be very unreasonable, that Christians who are freed from that severe yoke of bondage which the Jews were under, and enjoy higher privileges than the Jews did, should come short of them in our great duties of Religion; and therefore we should at least so oft express our owning, honouring, and accepting the Gospel-Covenant, and the service of Christ our Lord, in the most solemn manner, approaching to this Sacrament of our Lord's institution.  
8. Amongst the ancient Christians this Sacrament was received ordinarily thrice in the Week, that is upon the Lord's day, and the two Stationary days; some did partake thereof daily whose practice S. Aug. would neither commend nor censure, but he exhorteth them who are duly prepared to receive every Lord's day; with whom agreeth Gennadius, 
Walaf. Strab. de Reb. Eccl. c. 20.  as he is cited by Walafridus Strabo, who further observeth, that they are related to be excommunicate in the Greek Church, who passed two or three Lords days without receiving the Communion. They who required the least among the ancients, did strictly enjoin the communicating thrice in the year, 
De Consecr. d. 2. Seculares. and omnis hosito.  as besides others the Councils of Elvira and Agatha are related to have done. Our later English Constitutions before the Reformation advised it thrice in the year, but insisted upon once at the least; 
Linw. prov. l. 5. Tit. 16.8.16.  and some Reformed Churches have directed it four times yearly; and without all doubt the great neglect of so many amongst us, to partake of that Ordinance, is a manifest evidence of the want and decay, of the ancient spirit of Christian piety and devotion.   

SECT. II.  
Of some other things in the Communion Office.  
1. Some exceptions here tendered are such, that it cannot be conceived, that the Objectors thought them at all considerable: such is the disliking that clause in the Prayer before the Consecration, That our sinful bodies might be made clean by his body, and our souls washed by his most precious blood. This passage is charged, with ascribing a greater efficacy unto the blood of Christ, than to his body; whereas in truth these words as they are here expressed, do no way exclude the efficacy of his blood from washing our bodies, nor the sufferings of his body from cleansing our Souls; and those words used at the delivery of the Elements. The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life, and the like concerning his blood, are a manifest expression, that the benefits both of the body and blood of Christ, do redound to the salvation both of our souls and bodies.  
2. 
Commiss. pap. p. 92.  But with more earnestness and heat, the Ministers delivering the Elements to every Communicants hands, and using the form of words for the distribution, particularly to every one of them, is censured as a thing contrary to the practice of Christ: and the judging this to be expedient, is insinuated to be a studying to be wiser than our Master, and not to be obedient to him. This Objection was urged also by the Authors of the Admonition, 
V Bp. Whitgift. Tr. 13. c. 1. d. 17.  and by Mr. Cartwright formerly; and the ground they build upon is this, that the holy Evangelists relate our Saviour in his institution of the Lords Supper, to have said to his Disciples, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take ye, eat ye, whence they conclude that he neither gave the elements singly to every one, nor used any particular expressions to every Communicant, at the delivery of the Elements. Wherefore that this may be rightly understood, I shall consider what may be collected, concerning the manner of our Saviour's distribution, and the expressions he used in this ordinance.  
3. Touching the distribution of these Elements, as I can find no evidence in the holy Scriptures, to show that it was not particular, (which yet would have been evidently expressed, if it had been designed by our Saviour to be made a necessary duty, in all future Administrations of this Sacrament) so there are some expressions in the Scripture which seem to intimate the contrary. When S. Matthew, 
Mat. 26.26, 27. Mar. 14.22, 23. Luc. 22.19, 20.  S. Mark, and S. Luke reciting the institution of this Sacrament, relate both of the Bread and the Cup, that he gave it to the Disciples, or he gave it to them; these words do more fairly and probably express his giving the Elements to every one of them, than that he either only blessed them and set them before them all, or that he delivered them to one of his Disciples to be given from one to another. And if we consider the manner how the chief person of the family did bless things at the Jewish Passover, it will give some light hereto, it being manifest that our Lord did much comply with the ordinary Jewish Rites. According to their Customs they only blessed some things, and every one present took thereof, which was their usage about the bitter Herbs, which required no action of the Master of the Feast, to give or distribute them; but other things he both blessed and particularly distributed to every one present, and such was their usual practice at the eating of the Cake in the Passover Feast. 
Syn. Jud. c. 13.  The former of these is expressed by Buxtorf on this wise, that after his benediction comedit & alios quoque comedere jubet, and of the latter, he saith comedit & aliis quoque porrigit: and Camero citing the words of the Jewish ritual referring to this latter, 
Camer. in Mat. 26.26.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth well render them, tum singulis dat seu distribuit, than he giveth or distributeth to every one of them. To the former Custom our Saviour manifestly complied, when he blessed the Cup before the Lord's Supper, and commanded them to take it, and divid it among themselves, Luk. 22.17. but his practice was agreeable to the latter Custom, when he gave the Bread and the Cup in the Lord's Supper, to his Disciples.  
4. If we further consider the practice of the ancient Christian Church, in the purer times of Christianity; it is most likely, that their practices were conformable to the practice of Christ, in the manner of distribution, and it is no way probable that they in those early and purer times, did administer the holy Sacrament contrary to Christ's institution, or otherwise then he had delivered it. 
Just. 〈◊〉  Justin Martyr declareth, that after the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief person in Ecclesiastical Office, had given thinks, those who are called Deacons and Ministers, did distribute to every one that was present Bread, and Wine mixed with Water: 
Tert. de Cor. Mil. c. 3.  and Tertullian very clearly declareth, that they received the Eucharist, 〈◊〉 de aliorum manibus quam praesidentium, from the hands of none other persons than those who presided in the Church. And thus far we have plain evidence, that in these ancient times, the Lords Supper was particularly distributed to every Communicant, by the Ministers of the Church.  
5. But the words of Clemens Alexandrinus are produced, 
Commis. pap. ubi sup.  as a testimony that in his time (which was the same with Tertullias) the Church Officers did not distribute this Sacrament to the faithful, but only suffered every one of them to take a part thereof, according to his own choice: he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Strom. l, 1.  The sense of whose words is this, that some persons (to wit Church Officers or Ministers, being here opposed to the people, and supposed to have the power of the Keys, in admitting to the Eucharist) distributing the Eucharist (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here not properly signifying dividing, as the Latin Translation rendereth it, for the Minister can in no proper sense be said to divide the Wine into parts, of which every one may take one, but it signifieth distributing or delivering to every one the Sacrament) do suffer every one of the people to take part thereof. Now it seemeth a strange acuteness from hence to conclude, that the Ministers did not particularly distribute this Sacrament, because the people were suffered to take or receive, as if one man's receiving was wholly inconsistent with another's delivering: Whereas indeed the particular distribution of the Elements, is included in the true sense of this place of Clemens, and is no ways opposed thereby. And this is sufficient to clear the ancient practice of the Church herein, and to show that so far as we can judge thereby, or by the Jewish Customs, or the most probable expressions of Scripture, our blessed Lord at his institution of this Sacrament, did deliver it particularly to every one of his Disciples, and even in that respect was also amongst them as one that serveth.  
6. I proceed now more briefly, to the consideration of the words, which our Saviour spoke at the distribution of this Sacrament. Now these words of command, Take, eat, in S. Matthew and Mark; drink ye all of it in S. Mat.; and do this in remembrance of me, in S. Luke, and S. Paul, as also these words, this is my body which is given for you, and my blood which is shed for you, are all expressed in the plural number, as being directed to more persons than one. Yet considering that these holy Penmen did in short relate the institution of Christ, sufficiently delivering what was necessary for us, but not confining themselves to the very words he spoke, but to the sense thereof, (which is manifest because they all four, relate his words spoken at the distribution, differently from one another) the Evangelists expressions, may well consist with his speaking particularly to every person; because what is spoken to every one, may be briefly and succinctly related as spoken to them all. And though this be not certain (which yet is the more probable from the evidence above given, of the particular distribution of the Sacramental Elements, to every Communicant) let them who manage this Objection consider with themselves, whether they would grant that in other Cases, which they plead for in this. We read that when our Lord gave full Commission to his Apostles, he said to them, Jo. 20.21, 22, 23. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whose sins ye retain they are are retained: and yet I suppose no sober spirited man will from hence infer, that where divers persons are at one time to receive Orders, that no solemn words of ordination may lawfully be expressed to each person, particularly and distinctly, but that they ought to be spoken to them all together, generally and jointly. Our Saviour also commanded his Disciples, Mat. 28.19. to teach all Nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: but will any Christian think it hence deducible, that where divers persons, or great numbers are to be baptised together, the solemn words of baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, may not lawfully be expressed severally to every person? And if the baptismal form of words, may be solemnly and suitably to that Sacrament, applied to every person baptised, by the general acknowledgement of all Christians, there can be no reason why the like may not be allowed in the Lord's Supper. Wherefore the practice of our Church herein is no way unsuitable to the institution of Christ, or the nature of this Sacrament, and the alteration of it would be for the worse, and to the abating the solemnity of its Administration.  
7. Concerning the Communion, I shall only further consider that Rubric, which directeth, that if any of the Bread and Wine that was consecrated do remain, it shall not be carried out of the Church, but the Priest, and such other Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall immediately after the blessing, reverently eat and drink the same. Now this is supposed by some, to give too high an honour to the Sacramental Elements, even after the Communion is ended: to which I answer, 1. That all superstitious or other sinful honour of the Elements, must be founded in the embracing those false apprehensions, and corrupt Doctrines, which our Church rejecteth: and he who nourisheth such corrupt opinions (which none can do unless he forsake the truth, and the Doctrine of our Church) might have more opportunity for such corrupt practices, by the Elements being carried out of the Church, than by their being eaten and drunk in it. 2. That our Church doth sufficiently distinguish the eating and drinking the undistributed Elements, from the Communion itself, both by the formerly allowed use of them, and by the appointing them to be eaten and drunk after the blessing, which endeth the office of the Communion, and by expressing them under the name of Bread and Wine whichh was consecrated. Such remaining Elements have been variously disposed of: 
Hist. Eccles. l. 4. c. 35.  Evagrius relateth it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ancient custom at Constantinople, that they were sent to the Children at School to be received by them, as an acknowledgement of the Christian Religion; before the Council of Laodicea, 
Conc. Laod. c. 14.  they were sometimes sent to other Churches, as Enlogiae and tokens of Communion with them; but this (as some other ways of reserving them) as found to be of ill use. 
Hesych. in Leu. 8.  Hesychius speaketh of a custom of burning them, which custom I suppose took its original from those Commands of God, whereby he enjoined the remainder of the Jewish Passcover, and of the Sacrifices of thanksgiving (and some others) to be burnt with fire, Exod. 12.10. Leu. 7.15, 16, 17. The Council of Mascon directed them to be given in the Church, 
Conc. Matisc. 2. c. 6.  to such Christians as kept their Fasts there, on the fourth and sixth days of the week, which were the old stationary days. The direction in our Rubric is ordered with as much prudence as any of these, if it be not to be preferred before them all; for as there is no reason to doubt but that they may be eaten; so can there be no reason produced, why the Communicants may not as well eat them as any other persons. 3. The eating these Elements in the Church by the Communicants, out of a reverend respect to the Sacrament, for which they were consecrated, is allowable and no way . Both our Articles, and our Rubric after the Communion Service do acknowledge, that the sacramental Bread and Wine even in the Sacrament, do remain in their proper substances, which with other expressions in our Liturgy, sufficiently exclude the Romish corruptions. Yet since we believe this Sacrament to be an excellent Gospel Ordinance, I suppose that out of respect thereunto, devout Christians do generally acknowledge, that even the Vessels particularly appointed for the Bread and Wine at the Communion, and the Communion Table should not be used at men's ordinary meals, and certainly a due respect to God's Ordinance, for which they are set apart, will not allow this, which was also condemned by the ancient Canons: and it appears very reasonable, that those Elements which were consecrated for the Sacrament, may be used with at least as much reverence as the Communion Cup or Patine. 
De Consc. l. 4. c. 31. Sect. 3.  And when Amesius truly asserteth that it necessarily followeth from the Religious honour of God, that those things which have any respect unto God's Worship, aught to receive from us a privative honour, even when they are not used to a holy use, as heh instanceth in Bread and Wine left at the Communion, which is to be honoured privatively, that is, care aught to be taken that it be not used contemptibly, and sacred Phrases (as sacramental words, etc.) not to be used in sport: even hence it will follow, that they may be used with a relative honour; that is, so used as to express a reverence to those holy Ordinances, to which they bear relation.   

SECT. III.  
Of the saving Regeneration of Infants in Baptism, and the grounds upon which it may be asserted.  
1. THE next Office in the Book of Common Prayer is that of Baptism, where that which requireth principal consideration, is that every baptised Infant is declared Regenerate, and thanks is returned to God (after Baptism) that he hath regenerated this Infant by his holy Spirit, and the beginning of the Catechism declareth, that the Child in Baptism was made a Member of Christ, a Child of God, and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven. These expressions have been somewhat differently understood, some applying them to a saving Regeneration of every baptised Infant, others to a federal Regeneration, or a Regeneration Sacramento tenus. And I suppose it evident, that if it can be certainly proved, that every baptised Infant is savingly regenerated, or if on the other side all the expressions in the Liturgy can be fairly and probably interpreted of a federal Regeneration, which is generally acknowledged, there can be then no doubt but all these expressions may be fitly and allowably used shall treat of both these senses, because they both plead an allowance in our Church; and indeed the latter doth not necessarily destroy, but may well consist with the former.  
2. Beginning with the former, I shall first show what evidence there is, that the acknowledging a saving regeneration of every Infant baptised, hath been the Doctrine publicly received in this Church, ever since the Reformation. This is the more probable sense of that Rubric before the Catechism, in the former Book of Common Prayer, and that at the end of Baptism in the present Book, both which declare, that Children baptised are undoubtedly saved; that is (as the first Book of Edw. VI and our present Book do express it) if they die in their infancy, and before they commit actual sin. And our Book of Homilies declareth, 
Hem. of Salvation of Mankind by Christ, Part. 1.  that Infants being baptised, and dying in their infancy, are by his (Christ's) Sacrifice washed from their sins, brought to God's favour, and made his children and inheritors of his Kingdom of Heaven. To these I shall and what Bishop Cranmer, who was a great Instrument in our Reformation, and Bishop Juell a principal Defender thereof write concerning Baptism, complying with the sense here expressed. Bishop Cranmer saith, 
Of the Lord's Supper. lib. 1. c. 12.  For this cause Christ ordained Baptism in water, that as surely as we see, feel, and touch water with our bodies, so assuredly ought we to believe when we be baptised, that Christ is verily present with us, and that by him we be new born again spiritually, and washed from our sins, and graffed in the stock of Christ's own body, so that as the Devil hath no power against Christ, so hath he none against us, so long as we remain graffed in that stock, 
Def. of Apol. Part. 2. c. 11. Sect. 3.  etc. Bishop Juell declareth the Doctrine of the Church of England thus, We confess and have evermore taught, that in the Sacrament of Baptism, by the death and blood of Christ, is given remission of all manner of sin, and that not in half or in part, or by way of imagination or by sancy; but whole, full, and perfect of all together, so that now was S. Paul saith, There is no condemnation to them that be in Christ Jesus.  
3. But it must be here noted, that by the saving regeneration of baptised Infants, it is not intended that their understandings or wills are guided to an high esteem and love of God and the Christian life, which the Infant state is not capable of: but this regeneration is mainly relative, so that being regenerated by Baptism, they are no longer the Children of wrath, and under the curse due to original sin; but are brought into a new state, to be members of the body of Christ, and thereby partakers of the favour of God. And though some small seeds of gracious disposition may be in Infants, who are capable thereof in the same manner as they are of corruption; yet that regeneration or renovation of an Infant in Baptism, whereby he is received into a state of remission and Salvation, is very different from the regeneration of an adult person, whereby his soul and life is moulded according to the form of the Christian Doctrine, and brought into a conformity to the Image of God; 
Aug. de Trin. l. 14. c. 17.  and so S. Augustine distinguisheth them; Renovatio (saith he) quae fit ad imaginem Dei non momento uno fit, sicut momento uno fit illa in baptismo renovatio, remissione omnium peccatorum. And even this benefit of Infant Baptism, is vouchsafed by the Holy Ghost, for by one Spirit we are all baptised into one body, 1 Cor. 12.13. And it must needs be the work of God and of his Grace, to accept an Infant born under Original sin into his favour, or as S. Augustine expresseth it: 
Aug. Retract. l. 1. c. 13.  By the grace of God, the guilt of all sins that are past, is pardoned in them who are baptised into Christ, which is done by the Spirit of Regeneration; and in the Adult their will is cured by the Spirit of Faith and Charity.  
4. Now that all baptised Infants are savingly regenerated, is asserted upon such Arguments as these. 1. Because Baptism doth evidence every person rightly baptised according to Gods will to be received by the will of God, to be under the terms of the Covenant of Grace; but he who is rightly received to be under the Covenant of Grace is in the favour of God, if the conditions of that Covenant on his part be performed, nor doth any thing exclude him from that favour besides the sinning against or the breach of those conditions. But Original sin (of which alone Infants are guilty) was supposed to be the state under which man lay, when the Covenant of Grace was tendered to him, and so is no breach of the conditions of that Covenant, but may be pardoned by the benefits thereof. And no condition can be assigned to be performed on man's part, by or concerning an Infant born in the Church, more than is included in its being baptised (which I shall further clear when I shall treat of the condition of believing which is generally propounded) even as the being circumcised was of old the performing the condition of God's Covenant, by the seed of Abraham, Gen. 17.7, 10, 11, 12, 14. faith and obedience being also necessary in persons adult. But that Baptism doth admit the person baptised aright, to be under the terms of the Covenant of Grace is manifest, because they are baptised into Christ's body, 1 Cor. 12.13. They are baptised into Christ, and have put on Christ, Gal. 3.27. And are baptised into the death of Christ, Rom. 6.3. and even Circumcision itself was a seal of the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4.11.  
5. 2. The Gospel Doctrine and the holy Sacraments do convey saving benefits to them who received them aright, and are partakers of them with due qualifications. That Infants born in the Church are fitly qualified to receive Baptism, is not only manifest from the general practice of the Church from the Apostles times in baptising Infants; but also from the favour of God expressed towards them in the Covenant of Grace, and in that Circumcision was administered to Infants, which was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace. And as the Gospel Doctrine bringeth Salvation to him who rightly receiveth it, and the Lords Supper tendereth Christ and remission of sins to the worthy partakers thereof; so even Baptism conveyeth saving benefits to them who receive it with due qualification: hence S. Paul calleth in the washing of regeneration, by which God saved us, Tit. 3.5. S. Peter commanded them who were pricked in their hearts to repent, and be baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins, Act. 2.37, 38. and Ananias directed Paul to be baptised, and wash away his sins, Act 22.16. Which places both show, that Baptism doth convey remission of sins, to them who are qualified aright to receive it, and also that they who were under a due preparation to receive remission of sins by Baptism, were not partakers thereof without Baptism. And indeed no adult person is ordinarily capable of remission, but by joining inward faith and repentance with outward Baptism, as is expressed, Mar. 16.16. Act. 2.38. Baptism being the instituted Ordinance wherein they must declare repentance in coming to Christ, and profess faith in accepting the Gospel and receive gracious Union with Christ. Wherefore since Baptism doth bring the due receiver thereof into a saving estate; infants must also be acknowledged due receivers of Baptism, and rightly admitted thereto.  
6. 3. Christ hath appointed his word and Sacraments, as the ordinary means of Salvation to the Members of his Church, Eph. 5.26. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. But infants dying in infancy are capable of no other Ordinance of Christ but Baptism, and therefore that is to them the only means of Salvation. And it seemeth injurious to the grace of God, to imagine that he appointeth any only means, which is ineffectual to the end, though it be complied with, as much as is possible it should be, by them who make use thereof: but the infant state can admit no more, but that they should be passive recipients, both of this Ordinance ●●d of Divine Grace, and therefore thereby 〈…〉 obtain Salvation. Now that Baptism is designed to be a means of Salvation, besides the Scriptures , is expressed by S. Peter, 1. Pet 3.21. who saith that Baptism now saveth us. And whereas that Apostle presently addeth, that it is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but that answer of a good Conscience towards God; he doth not thereby look off from the Sacrament of Baptism, to something else as a means of Salvation; but he thereby declareth, that this Christian Sacrament is not as the Jewish Purifications, only a putting away the filth of the flesh, but it is a professed engaging of man to God, or to the Covenant of Grace.  
7. 4. If baptised Infants born in the Church be not in their Baptism in a state of Salvation, it will be hard to show what benefit, any Infant dying in his Infancy, can enjoy thereby. Now to assert that they have no benefit by Baptism, would be to render that Ordinance to them useless and of no effect, which the Scriptures do declare to be of a saving nature; and to include a being buried with Christ, Col. 2.12. Now if it be said that by Baptism they become members of Christ, what advantage can this be to them, if this Membership doth not include the favour of God, and a state of Salvation? If it be said that it may be hoped that God will save the baptised infant; this indeed may be hoped with confidence, if Baptism bring them into a state of salvation; but if Baptism (supposing always the Grace of God tendered therein) do not enstate them in salvation, them must they be saved only by Gods extraordinary grace, not by the ordinary grace of his promise, to them who embrace aright the means of salvation, or by the grace of God in the Ordinance of Baptism, and therefore this Salvation would not be an advantage slowing from their Baptism. But if it be said that by Baptism the Covenant of grace is sealed to such Infants, we must here further consider, that God's Covenant by reason of his faithfulness, goodness and Sovereignty cannot be sealed as men's Covenants are, to make it firm and binding, when it would otherwise be void and of no force. Wherefore there remain two ways, whereby the Sacraments as they are on God's part Seals of the Covenant of Grace, may be of great advantage unto us: the one is, as they give further assurance, of the privileges of that Covenant for our comfort; but of this benefit these infants are not capable, partly because the receiving this comfort, requireth the exercise of judgement and consideration; and partly because the evident sureness of God's Covenant, can be no cause of consolation to them, unless we admit that there is some- ordinary means appointed of God, whereby they may attain the blessings so assured: the other way of advantage is, by the benefits of God's Covenant being sealed, or surely conveyed, as the present interest and privilege of the persons, rightly receiving these Seals, and in this way which encludeth saying regeneration, infants are indeed capable of receiving wonderful benefit thereby.  
8. 5. And (omitting other arguments) even the Prayers of the Church, with faith and confidence, upon the other grounds , not doubting but earnestly believing, that God will favourably receive those infants, and embrace them with the arms of his mercy, doth give further assurance of forgiveness of sin, and a state of salvation, for baptised Infants: For God who hath declared his favour towards them, and encluded them in his Covenant, doth direct. 1. Joh. 5.16. that if any man see his Brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask and shall give life for them that sin not unto death, and this general command encludeth God's gracious answer to such Prayers: and Prayer which is a general means to obtain Grace, is used for the obtaining saving benefits in Baptism, with the greater encouragement, because the blessings prayed for, are tendered in this Ordinance, and by God's promise, unto Infants who receive Baptism. To this purpose S. Augustine saith, that remission of sins in Baptism is obtained per orationem, 
De Bapt. cont. Don. l. 3. c. 18.  i. e. per columbae gemitum, by the Prayers and groans of them who live in Peace, Love and Unity: and our Church in the Prayer before the words of the Gospel, in the Baptismal Office, urgeth God's promise, Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, etc. the usefulness and benefit of Prayer being here the same in Baptism, as it is in the most religiously prepared person for receiving the benefits of the Communion.   

SECT. iv  
The Doctrine of the ancient, and divers Reformed Churches, herein observed.  
1. In observing the Doctrine of the ancient Church, 
Conc. Milev. c. 2.  I shall begin with Councils. The Council of Milevis condemned those, who denied infants to be baptised for the remission of sin, or who asserted that they did not draw that original sin from Adam, which is purged by the laver of regeneration; and they declare, that by the rule of the Catholic Church, Infants are baptised for the remission of sin, that that may be cleansed by regeneration, which was derived by generation. And this Canon of Milevis is the more considerable, 
Conc. Carth. c. 124.  because it was taken into the African Code, and with that-Code was confirmed by the sixth General Council. 
Conc. Trul. c. ●.  The sixth general Council in another Canon, requireth, that those infants should be baptised without any scruple, concerning whom there can be no sufficient testimony given, that they were baptised before; 
Conc. Trul. c. 84.  and this it enjoineth lest such scruple should deprive them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this Baptismal purging for sanctification. 
Conc. Constant.  And whereas the Creed of the second general Council expresseth a belief of one Baptism for the remission of sins, the Council of Milevis above mentioned avoucheth, 
Conc. Mil. ubi supra.  those expressions to have been always so understood in the Church, as to acknowledge that baptised Infants did thereby obtain actual pardon and remission. And that African Synod whose Epistle is extant amongst S. Augustine's Works, declared, 
Aug. Ep. 90.  that whosoever shall deny that little Children are delivered from perdition, and do obtain Eternal Salvation by the Baptism of Christ, let him be an Anathema.  
2. If we consult the ancient Fathers, it is beyond all contradiction evident, that real remission and regeneration of all baptised Infants, is acknowledged by S. Aug. (Ep. 23. & de peccat. Merit. & Remis. l. 2. c. 28. & passim) by Optatus, Advers. Parm. l. 5. Fulgentius, de fide ad Petr. c. 30. by Prosper, and generally by the succeeding Writers of the Church. But some have pretended, 
Gatak. de Bapt. Infant. vi. & effic. p. 268.  that this position sprung from their eager opposition of the Pelagians, who denied Children to be guilty of original sin; for the removing of which pretence, it will be requisite to give some testimony of the judgement of the Ecclesiastical Writers, who lived before the appearing of the Pelagian tares. S. Cyprian night two hundred years before Pelagius, did not only express the mighty sensible efficacy of his own Baptism for conferring Grace to him, in his Epistle to Donatus, but in his Epistle to Fidus he declareth, that Infants by their Baptism do obtain the grace and favour of God, 
Cyp. Ep. 59  and the remission of their sins; and several expressions of that Epistle do intimate that this is the end for which they are baptised: and comparing the state of an Infant coming to Baptism, with an adult person embracing Christianity and the true Faith, he doth in this respect prefer the state of the Infant, because ad remissam peccatorum hoc ipso facilius accedit, etc. he doth upon this account the more readily obtain the remission of sins, because the sins forgiven to him were not his own acts but another's (or Original sin). 
Orig. in Luc. Hom. 14.  Origen in his Homilies upon S. Luke which were undoubtedly his and translated by S. Hierome, saith that Children are baptised for the remission of sins, but (saith he) of what sins? and when did they sin? and a little after answereth, that by the Sacrament of Baptism, nativitatis sordes, the sins and defilements with which they were born are laid aside: and for this cause (saith he) little ones are baptised, for unless a man be born again of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. The same Doctrine is also asserted by Nazianzen in his 40th. Oration, 
Naz. Orat. 40.  as the comparing some things not far from the beginning, with others towards the middle thereof will manifest; and this he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be sanctified without any sense or apprehension thereof. Wherefore S. Aug. did truly assert, 
De peccat. Mer. & Remis. l. 3. c. 5.  that of old the whole Church did firmly hold, parvulos fideles originalis peccati remissionem per Christi baptismum consecutos esse, that little Children of the Church of Christ, do obtain remission of original sin, by the Baptism of Christ.  
3. Among the public Writings of the Protestants, the first Augustan Confession asserteth, 
Conf. Aug. 1530. Art. 9  that Children being offered to God in Baptism, are received into the favour of God, and condemneth the Anabaptists who say, that Children may be saved (i. e. ordinarily) without Baptism; to which the larger Confession, 1540 addeth, that concerning Children baptised in the Church of God, Christ said, Mat. 18. It is not the will of your Father which is in Heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. 
Conf. Saxon de Baptism.  The Saxon Confession fully expresseth the saving regeneration of baptised Infants, and that these words, I baptise thee, etc. are as much as to say, By this mersion, I testify thee to be washed from thy sins, and to be now received by the true God, who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath redeemed thee by his Son Jesus Christ, and sanctifieth thee by the Holy Ghost: and it declareth, that at that time Infants are truly received of God and sanctified: and to the same purpose is the Confession of Frederick the third, the Prince Palatine. 
Conf. Helu. c. 20.  And the general expressions of the efficacious saving virtue of Baptism, 
Conf. Gal. c. 35.  in the Helvetick, French, and Scotish Confessions, 
Conf. Scot Sect. 21.  are such, that the state of Infants cannot be excluded therefrom. And the Geneva Catechism declareth, that By baptism we are Clothed with Christ, and receive his Spirit, unless by rejecting the promises, which are there tendered to us, we render them unfruitful to ourselves.  
4. To give an account of the particular judgements of Protestant Writers, would be a needless, difficult and endless undertaking. Divers of them manifestly assert the saving regeneration of all baptised Infants; others do embrace another notion of baptismal regeneration, which I shall afterward mention; and some from the use of different ways of expression, and from what they speak with just earnestness, against the errors of the Church of Rome are sometimes misunderstood. 
Cath. Orthod. Tr. 3. qu. 3. Sect. 1.  Rivet averreth that there is no true Protestant, who doth not approve that of Aquinas, 12ae. q. 81. Art. 3. That Original sin is done away in Baptism, as to the guilt thereof, and he there saith, that it is most false, that Calvin and Beza ever said that some baptised Infants are damned, 
Ibid. Sect. 9  dying in their infancy, before they commit any actual sin unrepented of: 
Absters Cal. Calum. 7.  and the same thing is with much passionate earnestness asserted by Beza himself, writing against Tilemannus Heshushius. 
Whit. ad Rat. 8m m Camp.  And Dr. Whitaker against Campian, undertaking herein to declare the Protestant Doctrine, saith, In baptism we receive remission of sins, we are entered into Christ's Family, we have the Holy Ghost given us, we are raised to certain hope of eternal life: what hath your Baptism (saith he to Campian) that ours hath not? hath it grace? hath it the merits of Christ? hath it salvation? all these hath ours. And against Duraeus in defence of his answer to Campian he saith, To the adult Faith is necessary, 
Cont. Duraeum. l. 8.  that Baptism may be a saving Sacrament; but to little ones because they are the Children of believing Parents, and are included in the Covenant, it is the Sacrament of Salvation, though they by reason of their age cannot believe: where, by the Children of believing Parents, his foregoing words declare him to mean, Children born within the Church, in distinction from Turks, Jews and Ethnics. These words do express an actual regeneration of baptised Infants, by the grace of God, and the application of the merits of Christ, for remission and Salvation; but they are very hardly reconcileable with divers passages, in the posthumous Writings of that learned man, especially his Praelections de Sacram. Qu. 4. c. 2, 3.   

SECT. V  
The Objections against the saving regeneration of Infants in Baptism, considered.  
1. Against all baptised Infants being savingly regenerated by their Baptism, it may be first objected, That the Scriptures declare the general necessity of Faith in order to Salvation, and therefore Infants unless they believe cannot be saved by being baptised. In answer to this (it being a matter of obscurity) I shall relate different ways of solution. 
Aug. de pec. Mer. & rem. l. 3. c. 2.  1. Many account Faith the condition for adult persons, 
Aug. Ep. 23.  but not for Infants; but this is discarded by others, both ancient, and modern; 
Kemait. Exam. Part. 2. de Baptism.  partly because by the general practice of the Church at Infant-Baptism, (of which S. Aug. taketh notice) it was declared in the Infant's name (as it is in our Liturgy) Credo, or I believe; and partly because the condition of Faith, seemeth so generally expressed in the Gospel, that they judge that Infants cannot be thence excluded, though the Faith for the infant state cannot be the same, with what is required from the adult. 2. Divers others as Augustine, Bede, Hugo de Victore. Amalanus, and Walafridus Strabo think baptised Infants to be saved, by the Faith of the Church into which they are baptised, or by the Faith of them who offer them unto Baptism; or as many Protestants (and also the Catechismus Romanus) express it, credunt parentum fide by the faith of their Parents; as the Syrophaenician Woman's Daughter, was healed by her Mother's Faith, 
Mat. 15.28.  and the sick of the Palsy was Cured by the Faith of them who brought him to Christ. 
Mat. 9.2.  But this doth not satisfy Kemnitius, and some others, partly because it is every ones one Faith, which is the Gospel condition for his Salvation, though another's Faith may be instrumental for the procuring of divers blessings; and partly because this answer giveth no good account of the Ecclesiastical usage of owning or professing the Creed in the Infant's name at the time of his Baptism. 3. Others assert that there is some Faith wrought in Infants, 
Inst. lib. 4. c. 16. Cath. Orth. Tr. 3. qu. 1. Sect. 12.  which Calvin and Rivet say is not the act but the seed of Faith, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and Kemnitius asserteth this operation of the Holy Ghost in Infants, to be that they call Faith, though they know not what kind of operation it is.  
2. 4. To these I shall add what I conceive most probable, That since Infants are not capable of the Faith of adult persons, which cometh by hearing, and consisteth in the knowledge and assent of the mind, with the engagement to love submission and acceptance of the heart; and since there are different degrees of Faith, in several adult Christians, and different acts of Faith, relating to the object thereof, in the Jewish and Christian Church; it will be sufficient that the Faith which referreth to Infants, have only some general agreement in its notion, with the Faith of the adult. Now since the Faith of the adult is an acceptance of the Covenant of Grace, and the Gospel Doctrine, with a submission thereunto, which in their state requireth an active exercise of the whole Soul, Mind and Will; when an Infant is said to believe, this must consist in such an acceptance of, and submission to the Gospel, as his State is capable of, which is Passively. Thus by being baptised he accepteth Christ, and the Covenant of Grace, being united to and made a Member of that Church, which holdeth Christ as the head, and the Gospel Covenant as the ground of Hope, (or if Baptism cannot be obtained, its being designed may be here considerable) and hereby according to their capacities, Infants do enter upon a profession, and acceptance of the Christian Faith, which their sureties declare, and themselves stand obliged to own, when they come to years of understanding. To this purpose in S. Aug. Infans vocatur fidelis, 
Aug. Ep. 23.  non rem ipsam ment annuendo, sed Sacramentum percipiendo; and in Gratian Credere est infantibus baptizari or they become believers by being baptised into the Faith, and thus S. Aug. giveth an account of the Custom of the Church, declaring Infants at their Baptism to believe, that is to undertake the profession of the Faith, and this he calleth, saluberrimae consuetudinis rationem, an account of a very good Custom.  
3. Obj. 2. If Infants be savingly regenerated by being baptised, then must Infants dying without Baptism be excluded from Salvation. Ans. 1. Though it be certain that S. Aug. Fulgentius, Prosper, Isidoms Hispalensis, Alcuinus, and the whole stream of later Writers before the reformation, do pass a sad sentence upon unbaptized Infants, yet even then some and those none of the meanest, 
Cassand. de Bapt. Inf.  did strive against the stream, as Biel, Gerson, Cajetau, with some others noted by Cassander. And it hath been ordinarily acknowledged in the Christian Church, that where Baptism could not be obtained, adult persons exercising Christian Graces, 
Cont. Don. l. 4. c. 22.  might obtain Salvation without it, even besides the case of Martyrdom: this was asserted by S. Augustin, largely defended by S. Bernard, 
Bern. Ep. 78. Lib. 4. Dist. 4. Amb. de Obits. Valent.  and the Master of the sentences, with his School, is included in S. Ambrose his hopes of Valentinian the Younger, who died without that Baptism which he designed and desired, and is proved by the instance of the Thief upon the Cross. And hence it will follow that though Baptism be an instrument of Salvation, yet it is not in all Cases of absolute necessity thereunto. 2. There is cause to hope well of those dying Infants who cannot obtain Baptism, because the mercy and goodness of God, may account them according to their capacity, passively to accept of the Covenant of Grace, by being born in a Church and of Parents, who designed them for Communion with Christ, and the embracing Christianity. 
Rivetus ubi supra, n. 8, 9 Wardi Resp ad Gat. n. 18.  Of the happy state of such Infants, Rivet and Dr. Ward doubt not, though this latter expresseth his less degree of confidence where Baptism is wanting, through the neglect or contempt of the Parents: yet it must of necessity be acknowledged, that there is greater certainty of the Salvation of Infants baptised, than of those who die without Baptism, because the Ordinances of Christ ought by no means to be looked upon as useless for salvation; and the promise made to Christians and their Seed, is upon condition of their acceptance of the Covenant of Grace, Act. 2.38, 39 as was also the promise to the Seed of Abraham. Gen. 17.7.— 14.  
4. Obj. 3. If Infants be savingly regenerated by Baptism, it would be an excellent piece of Charity to baptise Pagan Infants, and even to murder baptised Infants, because many of these do afterwards by irreligion or debauchery, expose themselves to eternal damnation: but the former is opposite to Christianity and the other to humanity. Ans. There can be no act of Charity, but what is every way conformable to Christian duty, and is no way injurious to the interests of men, and therefore the actions mentioned in this objection are far from being charitable. Because 1. To baptise Pagan Infants, continuing with them under their education; would be to abuse God's Ordinance, by administering it to subjects not duly qualified, according to the will of God; and therefore no saving benefit could be expected thereby to such Infants; because as Mr. Hooker expresseth it, 
Eccles. Pol. l. 5. n. 57  Sacraments are not physical but moral instruments of Salvation, which unless we perform as the Author of Grace requireth they are unprofitable. 2. To take Pagan Infants from them forcibly and unjustly, that they may be baptised, and educated in Christianity, is no right act of Christian Charity: for though those particular persons might obtain that Salvation by embracing the Christian life and doctrine, which they cannot enjoy in the pursuance of Pagan Idolatry: yet such actions being against the right of their Parents, and thereby contrary to that justice and innocency which Christianity recommendeth, would greatly tend to the prejudice of the name of Christ in the World. 3. Pagan Infants undertaken to be brought up in Christianity and as it were adopted into Christian Families, have by reason of that intended education, a right to Christian Baptism, as Abraham's Servants bought with money had to Circumcision, with all others born in his House: and if such an Infant die, so soon as it hath received Baptism, yet Fulgentius declareth him factum esse haeredem Dei, 
Fulg. de Ver. Praed. l. 1. c. 12.  & cohaeredem Christi, that he is made an Heir of God, and joint Heir with Christ.  
5. As to the other part of this Objection, Though it be certain (whatever we judge of Baptismal regeneration) that it had been better for every wicked man, never to have lived to commit those heinous sins, for which the wrath of God cometh upon the Children of disobedience: yet there can be no more horrid and uncharitable action attempted in the World, than the murdering baptised Infants: which would be a wicked acting against the holy command of God, and extremely opposite to the meekness and goodness of Christianity, and such practices would tend to the ruin and extinguishing of the present Church of God, and to render Christianity abhorred in the World, to the prejudice of many thousands of Souls: and to the prejudice of these Infants, both in the loss of their lives, and in hindering them of the opportunity of exercising pious and holy lives in the World; whereby God might be glorified, and themselves qualified through the grace of God, to partake of higher degrees of glory in the World to come; there being good reason to judge, that the Apostles, Martyrs, and eminent Servants of God in this life, have a more excellent glory in the other World, where all that enter in, have perfect joy.  
6. Obj. 4. This position placeth a great efficacy in Order to Salvation, in an outward action of man baptising, yea rather more than in the Grace of God and Predestination: Since it must be supposed, that many who were in a state of Salvation by their Baptism, do yet finally perish; and therefore also all those who assert perseverance in a state of Grace, must disown this opinion of Baptismal saving regeneration. 
Tertul. de Bapt. c. 2.  Ans. 1. That it is certain that some outward actions of men, not as they are their actions, but as they onclude the tenders of the grace of God, and are his institutions, or as they bear respect to the Grace and Promise of God, may be greatly available to our Salvation: such were the Apostles Preaching, and such is the due Administration of Sacraments; and he who will dispute against the efficacious virtue of these things, as means of Grace, must oppose also the saving benefits of the Gospel, and of the institution of Christ. And the advantage by this Ordinance of Baptism is, that it is a performance on man's part, of what the Covenant of Grace requireth concerning Infants, and that it is on God's part an Ordinance of Grace; and therefore the benefits by Baptism, do flow from the Grace and Promise of God, and ought not to be considered in opposition thereto; and even the advantage of baptised Infants dying in their Infancy, is the fruit of the grace of God and Predestination. 
Wardi Thes. n. 36.  2. The Question about Perseverance is well observed by Dr. Ward to be distinct from this present subject: for to persevere in the Infant-regeneration which is chief relative, is no sufficient qualification for the acceptance of the adult, in whom another kind of regeneration, (by inward real conversion, and gracious qualifications and exercises) is necessary, and of whom the Question of Perseverance is in the same place declared to be understood, 
Thes. Salm. de Persever. th'. 39 Ibidem.  and to the same purpose writeth Amyraldus also. And whereas Infant Baptism receiveth the person to be under the Covenant of Grace, it is justly asserted by Dr. Ward, that even those who after Baptism live in wickedness, do continue acquitted and discharged from the Original guilt of the first Covenant, and that bringing destruction upon themselves under the Gospel, they do perish altogether for the breach of the second Covenant, or for not performing the conditions of Christianity, which they undertook in Baptism, which also was asserted by S. Augustine, 
Thes. n. 35.  Fulgentius, Prosper and the African Synods which are by him there produced.   

SECT. VI  
Of the notion of visible regeneration in Baptism.  
1. There is another Notion of Baptismal Regeneration to be considered, That Baptism doth certainly admit persons, into Communion with the Church of Christ, and to visible Membership with him; and that every baptised person whether he be adult or Infant, hath thereupon such titles belonging to him, that he is to be called regenerate, a Child of God, a Member of Christ, upon the account of his being then admitted into the Christian Society, and being received by Baptism to the profession of Christianity, and under the Covenant of Grace, whereby he is visibly such. And this opinion as it referreth to the adult, doth also acknowledge, that Baptism is to them a means of Grace, and of Spiritual Regeneration unto Salvation, when they come to it duly prepared with those gracious qualifications which are necessary to the receiving the saving benefits of God's Covenant, and also as it is well improved by their future holy exercises of life. Indeed there are some men who allow no spiritual efficacy to the Ordinance of Baptism, as an instrument of grace; but this is an opinion so contrary to the nature of a Sacrament, and to the general Doctrine of the Ancients, and the Protestant Churches, that it deserveth to be earnestly exploded.  
2. This notion as it is extended to Infants, as understanding them in this sense to be regenerated in Baptism, was embraced by some in our Church from King Edward's Reign, and seemeth probably favoured by some expressions of Bishop Whit-gift, 
Answ. to the Appeal c. 12.  and is more particularly expressed by Bishop Carlton and divers others. Nor doth the entertaining this way of explication, necessarily deny the saving Regeneration of all baptised Infants. For though some few persons have inconsiderately uttered hard expressions against many dying baptised Infants, as that multi infantes damnantur cum baptismo; such words do appear at least so unadvised and ungrounded, that I presume it will be ordinarily acknowledged by them who embrace this notion to be neither safe nor charitable to imitate them. But most others who proceed this way, though they come not so far as to embrace it as a Doctrine, that all baptised Infants in the Church are in a state of Salvation, yet because they know of nothing wanting towards their Salvation, they conclude that it is at least very hopeful to God-ward, and that the Church by the judgement of Charity, must acknowledge them all in a justified estate.  
3. Bishop Carlton declareth himself to this purpose, 
Vbi supra●  That young Children baptised are delivered from Original sin we doubt not, and if they die before they come to the practice of actual sins, they shall be saved: and that Children baptised are put into the state of Salvation, I make no doubt of it, but, saith he, this we must believe ex judicio charitatis. Which Phrase of believing by the judgement of Charity (which some have thought improper) is I conceive the same with those words of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 13.7. Charity believeth all things; that is, where there is nothing that can determine us to the contrary, Christian Charity requireth us to entertain the most favourable apprehension, and to judge and hope the best. And that Rubric, That Children baptised dying before they commit actual sins are undoubtedly saved, may according to this notion, be acknowledged as certainly true of Children indefinitely, without denying it to be true universally. And they who entertain these apprehensions do acknowledge, that all baptised Infants or others are regenerated and justified Sacramento tenus; or they are visibly such so far as concerneth their profession, and the application of the means of grace; and they may be affirmed to be such, according to the usual language of the Holy Scriptures concerning Sacraments, and the dispensation of the grace of God.  
4. And this notion as it is very true, so it is made use of and manifestly allowed in our Liturgy, in the office for them who are baptised in riper years: where every person then baptised is said to be regenerated and graffed into the body of Christ's Church, to be born again, and made an heir of everlasting Salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, and to have now by Baptism put on Christ, being made a Child of God and of the Light. Yet it is not hereby intended to be dogmatically declared, that every adult person receiving Baptism is thereby in a certain state of Salvation, because true Faith and Repentance which some such persons may possibly want, is in them necessary in order to the spiritual efficacy of the Sacraments, and is so acknowledged by the Doctrine of our Church. 
Artic. 27.  For as our Articles declare, that those who receive Baptism rightly, are thereby as by an instrument graffed into the Church, and obtain remission of sins, so they also assert concerning Sacraments, 
Artic. 25.  that in such only who worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect and operation.  
5. Agreeable hereto are the frequent expressions of the ancient Church, in which it was ordinarily and truly delivered, that Baptism without true Faith and Repentance, cannot avail to the salvation of the adult, nor put them into a present justified state. And though some words in S. Augustine by way of dispute and inquiry, do incline to the contrary, yet that that was none of his fixed judgement, was sufficiently observed by the Master of the Sentences. 
Sent. l. 4. Dist. 4. b. Aug. Cont. Litter. Petit. l. 1. c. 23.  S. Augustine proveth that Baptism is inwardly of no profit to some, from the example of Simon Magus; and from the same instance S. Hierome concludeth, 
Hier. in Ezek. 16.  that he who doth not receive Baptism with a complete Faith, is indeed baptised with water, sed nequaquam baptizatus est in salutem, but is in no wise baptised unto salvation; 
Cyril. Hieros' Procatach.  and cyril of Hieru. expresseth him who cometh with his body to Baptism, and not with his heart, to be nothing profited. And this must needs be acknowledged for truth, because the performance of the conditions of the Covenant of grace by the adult, can in no respect be confined to Baptism only.  
6. Yet these Writers did ordinarily acknowledge, both universally concerning all persons baptised, and particularly concerning any adult person, that they had put on Christ, and were made his Members, and were regenerated by the Holy Ghost, and born again, with other such like expressions. S. Augustine saith, 
Cont. Donat. l. 5. c. 24.  Men put on Christ either ad Sacramenti perceptionem, so far as concerneth the receiving the Sacrament, or usque ad vitae sanctificationem, as far as reacheth to the sanctification of life: which is admitted by P. Lombard, who inferreth thence, that all persons who receive Baptism put on Christ. Cyril telleth every one of those adult persons, who came to be baptised, 
Cyr. Catech. 3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Holy Ghost will seal your Souls. According to the expression of Rabanus, any baptised person à Christo Christianus vocatur, 
De instit. Cleric. l. 1. c. 1.  & Dei Patris & Ecclesiae matris noscitur esse filius: is called from Christ a Christian, and is known to be a Child of God his Father, and of the Church his Mother; and Clemens Alexandrinus accounteth all who are admitted into the Church of Christ, to be called Members of Christ whose body is the Church; and towards them who indulge themselves in Carnal practices and pleasures, 
Strom. l. 7.  he indulgeth himself in this fanciful expression, to esteem them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
7. But above all, the language which the holy Scripture useth, is to be observed, which as it oft speaketh of Children of God, and such like Phrases concerning them who are inwardly renewed by a divine life (which it every where requireth as of absolute necessity) so upon account of visible admission to the Church, and profession of the Faith it oft applieth the like expressions towards every person received into the Church. So 1. 
Gal. 3.27.  S. Paul declareth as many of you as are baptised into Christ, have put on Christ. 2. Concerning baptised persons being Members of Christ. and graffed into his body, the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 12.13. We are all baptised into one body, and v. 27. Ye are the body of Christ and Members in particular: Which words respect every one in the Church of Corinth, who are required from this argument, because they are members of Christ's body, to consult not themselves, but the benefit of the whole Church, and to consider the different proportions of several Members. And when he useth this Argument against Fornication. 1. Cor. 6.15. Shall I take the Members of Christ, and make them the Members of an Harlot? God forbidden; he doth no doubt thereby dissuade every person who had undertaken Christianity, from that filthy sin, because by his Baptism, his body was dedicated to be a Member of Christ. And to this may be added what our Saviour speaketh, Joh. 15.2. of a branch in him that beareth not fruit.  
8. 
V Sect. 9 n. 5.  3. Concerning the titles of being regenerated, born again, and being the Children of God; we may observe that even those circumcised Members of the Jewish Church, who denied the holy one and the just, and killed the Prince of life. Act. 3.14, 15. 
Act. 3.25.  and who as yet had not repent nor were converted, v. 19 were yet called the Children of the Covenant, which God made with Abraham. And of those Jews for whom the Apostle had great sorrow and continual heaviness, and for whom he could wish himself accursed from Christ, he saith, 
Rom. 9.4▪  that to them pertaineth the adoption. By which expressions it is meant, that they were visibly Children of the Covenant by undertaking it, and that they were under the tenders and external privileges of adoption, and under the visible means of the spiritual benefits thereof. Under the Christian profession, the Apostle expressing to his Galatians, the difference between being under the legal Covenant which gendereth to bondage, 
Adu. Marc. l. 5. c. 4.  Ch. 4.24. and the Evangelical Covenant which bringeth forth them that are free, or between Judaismus and Christianismus as Tertullian speaketh, saith, that the Jerusalem which is above (that is the Covenant of Grace, and the Gospel Doctrine as Illyricus rightly glosseth) is the Mother of us all, 
Illyr. Gloss. in Loc.  v. 26. and we are the Children of the promise, v. 28. Which things are mentioned as titles of privilege, which their undertaking the Gospel profession did receive them unto. And when the Apostle telleth them, Gal. 3.26. Ye are all the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus, it is evident from his scope, that by faith is there understood the Gospel dispensation of Faith undertaken by them, in opposition to the Law; and that those who by Baptism are admitted to the profession of the Christian Faith, are called the Children of God, Ch. 3.26, 27. or by way of distinction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sons of God, under great external privileges of Christian freedom, (and also inwardly Sons and Heirs of life if they live as becometh the profession of Christianity) whilst they who were under the Law were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Children under age, being in bondage under the Elements of the World, Gal. 4.1, 3. And since all those who by Baptism do enter upon Christianity, are entitled Sons of God; which Sonship proceedeth not from their natural Generation, but from their entrance into the Covenant of God, persons baptised may according to the same sense, be hence called regenerate and born again: and such expressions also are sufficiently allowed and defended, from the Scripture speaking of being born again of Water and of the Spirit, Joh. 3.5 and calling Baptism the washing of regeneration. Tit. 3.5.  
9 4. Concerning baptised persons being called Heirs of Everlasting Salvation, we may observe, that those Members of the Church visible, who shall be cast into outer darkness, are yet called Children of the Kingdom, Mat. 8.12. And they may well be called Heirs, to whom the promise referring to the inheritance is confirmed, and who are by Baptism received under the Seal of the Covenant of Grace, which alone giveth right of inheriting, Gal. 4.30. On this account the Gentile Church, and every Member embracing the Christian Faith, are called Fellow-Heirs and Members of the same body, Eph. 3.6. they also being now by the Gospel grace received to be the Children of the Covenant. And S. Peter exhorteth Husbands and Wives embracing Christianity, to mind their duties, as being Heirs together of the grace of life. 1 Pet. 3.7. And when S. Paul exhorteth the Thessalonians to walk worthy of him, who hath called them unto his Kingdom and Glory; it is manifest that he speaketh to them all, and even to them who were most negligent of the Christian life; to whom such titles of dignity do belong, from their Christian profession and being under the Gospel Grace; though the inward privileges exhibited under those Titles, are only the portion of those who do perform the Conditions of the Gospel Covenant. And upon the same account that baptised persons may be called the Sons of God, they may be also thence concluded Heirs of Salvation.  
10. 5. On the same manner, may Christians by Baptism be acknowledged to be regenerated by the Holy Ghost, because the entrance into the body of Christ by Baptism, is a privilege obtained by the Grace of God, or by the Holy Spirit. For in Baptism the Minister acteth in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and therefore as Calvin asserteth, Baptism is to be received as from the hand of God; Baptismus accipiendus est quasi ex manu Dei: Wherefore in like manner as Baptism which is performed in the name of the Holy Ghost hath been showed to regenerate, persons may be properly said to be therein regenerated by the Holy Spirit; to which agreeth that Phrase of being born of Water, and of the Spirit, Joh. 3.5. And as all gifts, and diversities of operations in the Christian Church, are derived from the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor. 12.4, 11. So particularly this gift or privilege of being baptised, and received into Membership with the body of Christ, is acknowledged by the Apostle to flow from the holy Spirit, unto whom all benefits of Divine Grace and favour are ascribed. For the Apostle saith, concerning every visible member of the Church of Corinth, as is manifest from the design of that Chapter, 
1 Cor. 12.13.  By one Spirit we are all baptised into one body: to which place Zanchy referring saith, Vi Spiritus Sancti baptizamur, etc. 
De Trib. Eloh. Par. 1. l. 7. c. 5. Sect. 6.  By the power of the Holy Ghost, we are baptised of the Father, into one body of Christ, and thereby regenerated as well by the Spirit, as by the Father and the Son. And again, Haec regeneratio seu insitio in Christum, fit à patre sed per Spiritum Sanctum. And this is agreeable to our Book of Articles, 
Artic. 27.  expressing, that in Baptism the promise of forgiveness of sins, and of adoption to be the Sons of God by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed.  
11. Besides these expressions, the Scriptures speak of persons baptised being buried with Christ, Col. 2.12. and being dead unto sin, and buried with Christ by Baptism unto death, and being planted together in the likeness of his death. Rom. 6.2, 4, 5. And as Zanchy at large observed, 
Tom. 7. de Persever. c. 2. p. 118. & 137, 138.  Notanda est Scripturarum consuetudo, etc. The usual way of the Scriptures is to be observed, they call as many as give up their names to Christ, and are baptised into his name, persons justified, sanctified, and the Sons of God. And in another place he saith, All who are baptised are sealed unto Christ, 
Tom 8. de Relig. Christ. Fides. De. Baptismo. Sect. 1.  as being now incorporated into him by the Holy Ghost, that they may not be under their own power, but under his; by whom they are said to be taken into the fellowship of his Covenant, and to be made one body with him and all Saints, and to be partakers of all spiritual and heavenly good. And in his next Paragraph he saith, All who are baptised tales esse & fieri Sacramentaliter & vere dicuntur, 
Sect. 2.  are sacramentally and truly said to be such and to be made such.  
12. But it may be said, that according to this sense, these expressions of being regenerated, born again, members of Christ, etc. have but a low signification, not suitable to the excellency and dignity of those names. Ans. 1. These expressions even as they are used at the Baptism of the adult, do include a considerable hope and evidence, of true spiritual Communion and Membership with Christ, and of inward regeneration and a right to Eternal Life, which are benefits certainly attained in Baptism, by persons duly qualified for the receiving them. 2. They declare the very high privilege of the Christian calling, the entrance into which is the way to the Communion with Christ, and to the highest enjoyment of the privileges of the Children and Heirs of God, which those persons do enjoy who do neglect the Christian life. And the Scriptures usually mention those who are under the tenders of Salvation, by terms of great privilege and dignity; not to make them secure in the disregarding true piety: but partly to amplify and exalt the Gospel grace and goodness of God whereby so great benefits are set before us; partly to manifest our great engagements to exemplary Piety and Obedience, from so great encouragements; partly to testify that if we perish by wilful neglect of God and disobedience to the Gospel, this will be to fall into dreadful misery, out of that state which encluded excellent means and great opportunities, of obtaining Eternal Salvation; and partly to manifest that wicked practices in such persons are both in themselves more heinous, and more abominable in the sight of God, because this includeth a spiritual sacrilege, or a profanation of what was devoted to God, by the most solemn dedication of Christian Baptism.  
13. Thus under the Old Testament, it was no argument for neglect and security, but an high expression of God's favour to the Jews, and of their deep obligations to serve and honour him, and cleave unto him, 
Jer. 31.9.  when he declared himself; I am a Father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first born; 
Jer. 3.14.  and turn ye back sliding Children, for I am married unto you. And it was the aggravation of their sin and disobedience against God, 
Is. 1.2.  that he had nourished and brought up Children, 
Jer. 31.32.  and they had rebelled against him, and that they broke his Covenant though he was an Husband to them; and that Israel and Judah who had God for their Husband, 
Hos. 2. ● 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.  should play the Harlot, and commit Whoredom and Adultery, in departing from him; and deal treacherously with him, 
Jer. 3.20.  as a Wife treacherously departeth from her Husband. And under the New Testament, 
Mat. 11.23.  when Christ said of Capernaum, that she was exalted to Heaven, but should be brought down to Hell; this both expressed Gods exceeding kindness manifested unto them, and their very unanswerable behaviour, together with the aggravation of their misery, 
1 Cor. 3.16, 17. Ch. 6.15, 19  that after such tenders of Salvation, it should be more tolerable for Sodom than for them And the Apostolical Doctrine abundantly testifieth, that to defile the Temple of God, and profane the members of Christ, are practices execrably impious, and destructively pernicious.   

SECT. VII.  
Of Sureties, and some other things in the Office for Baptism.  
1. The next thing to be considered, is the use of sureties, or of Godfathers and Godmothers. These have been received and appointed by the Bohemian, French, Dutch, and other Protestant Churches, and that the Primitive Church had sponsors for Infants at their Baptism, is evident from divers passages in S. Augustine, and from the author de Hierarchia Ecclesiastica, and also from Tertullian, 
Tertul. de Bap. c. 18.  speaking of the Sponsores circa parvulos in Baptismo. Buxtorf telleth us, 
De Synag. Jud. c. 2.  that the Jews at their Circumcision have a susceptor, or compater; 
Synops. Pur. Theol. Disp. 44. n. 54.  and among others, the Leyden Professors have esteemed that place of the Prophet Esay, Is. 8.2, 3. to be an instance of the ancient use of such witnesses, at the circumcision of their Children, and that from thence this usage in the Primitive Christian Church was received. Now though the use of sureties be not much opposed, yet 1. Some impose a sense upon some expressions of the Liturgy, as if sureties were made thereby a necessary condition, without which Baptism might not be administered to Infants: and 2. it is objected that they do declare and promise the belief of the Faith (and the practice of Christian life) in the Infant's name, and yet they can neither truly say that he now doth believe, nor can they upon sufficient grounds engage that he ever shall believe, etc.  
2. But 1. It is fully evident, that neither the use of sureties, nor their promise is made a necessary condition in our Liturgy, of administering Baptism to Infants, because no sureties are required at the administration of private Baptism, where our batpismal Office declareth, the Child to be lawfully and sufficiently baptised. And though it be directed as expedient, that if the Child which was privately baptised do live, it should be afterward brought into the Church with sureties; yet at that time before any notice is taken of the sureties, the Privileges of Baptism are declared to belong to that Infant; that he is by the Laver of Regeneration in Baptism, received into the number of the Children of God, and Heirs of everlasting life. Wherefore these words in the form for public Baptism of Infants, This Infant must also faithfully for his part promise by you who are his sureties; do only evidence that this which is in itself a thing expedient, must be practised according to the Order and Constitution of the Church, which is grounded upon profitable and useful considerations, for the better assuring the Christian education of the baptised Infant.  
3. The Baptismal Interrogatories which are next objected, are both of greater antiquity, and of allowable and profitable use. That Interrogatories were used in Baptism, from the very time of the Apostles, and that S. Peter's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Pet. 3.21. doth allude thereto, hath been observed by very learned men with much probability. 
Cyp. Epist. 70. & 76.  In S. Cyprians time the particular Forms of Interrogation in Baptism, were so honourably esteemed, that they were inviolably observed without alteration, even by those Heretics and Schismatics who then separated from the Church, although their retaining them, 
Tertul. de Pudic. c. 9 de Bapt. c. 6 Ad Mart. c. 3. de spect. c. 4. de Cor. Mil. c. 3.  encluded what was prejudicial to the designs of their Schism Tertullian also expresseth the custom of using Interrogatories, concerning the Creed and profession of the Christian Faith, and also concerning the renouncing the Devil and undertaking the Christian warfare; and in divers places sufficiently signifieth the set Forms of Interrogations and Answers. In the Greek Church, 
Const. Apost. l. 7. c. 42.  as the Author of the Constitutions hath expressed it, the person to be baptised being asked, if he did renounce the Devil, and engage himself to the warfare of Christ and believe, he answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; I renounce the Devil, etc. I engage under the Banner of Christ and believe. 
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 8.  And the fixed use of certain Interrogatories and Answer is mentioned by Dionysius Alexandrinus, as being observed in Baptism before his time.  
4. The use of Interrogatories, at the Baptism of Infants to be answered by others in their names, was included as part of this ancient Ecclesiastical practice, as may be collected from the place , from Tertullian speaking of the Sponsors of little Children in Baptism: 
Augustin Ep. 23.  but the same is more fully expressed by S. Augustine who declareth his approbation of the usefulness of the answers made to these Interrogatories in the behalf of Children, and undertaketh to give an account how they must be understood, and calleth this an useful Custom; which both intimateth it to be of ordinary practice, and to have been of long continuance. The Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, expresseth the Sponsor for the Child, to declare in his name, 
De Hier. Eccl. c. 7. ad fin.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the Child doth renounce and engage; and Isidorus Hispalensis noteth, that little ones who cannot speak or declare they believe, are baptised alio protestante, with another persons making the profession on their behalf; and this usage hath been also embraced by divers Protestant Churches, 
Rat. Discip. c. 3. Sect. 2.  herein following the Bohemian which was the first reform.  
5. That the true intent and benefit hereof may be understood, we must consider. 1. That every person baptised, thereby undertaketh to renounce the Devil, to embrace the Christian Faith, and to become the Servant of God, and Disciple of Jesus Christ. This is evident from that Command of Christ. mat. 28.19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make them Disciples by baptising them, and from the form of of Baptism, in, or into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and from such expressions as these, concerning them who have undertaken Baptism, That they are dead unto sin, so as that they should not live any longer therein, that they are baptised into Christ, and into the likeness of his death, and that they have put on Christ. 2. That Infants are capable of being engaged to God, and may stand obliged to believe in God, and serve him, and to reject the ways of sin and wickedness. This is manifest from the Circumcision of Children under the Law, and from their little ones entering into Covenant with God, Deut. 29.11, 12, etc. and is included in the Baptism of Infants, which is a dedicating them unto God, and layeth an obligation upon them to entertain and persevere in the Christian Life and Faith, whether they have any Sureties or no: and he that owneth not this obligation from his Baptism, doth go far toward the renouncing of Christianity. 3. That when the Sureties answer in the Child's name, I believe, I renounce, etc. this is a more solemn representation or declaration, of what the Child undertaken by his Baptism, and hereby as the Master of the sentences determineth, 
Sent. l. 4. Dist. 6. g.  parvulus hac sponsione tenebitur non sponsor, the Child and not the surety standeth bound by this engagement: only the Surety is obliged to be careful of admonishing him. This explicit Declaration of what the baptised Infant undertaketh, is fitly used in Baptism, conformably to Antiquity, because it tendeth to express clearly, a considerable part of the design and end of Christian Baptism, and to put all other baptised persons in mind of their engagement that they may live answerably thereto. And the matter of this baptismal vow being expressed in the public Congregation, in the Child's name, where all who are present may bear witness thereto, may be a considerable argument to be urged upon him when he cometh to Age, to induce him to the greater diligence in the Christian life. And these words of the Sureties I believe, etc. are not directly words of promise of what they undertake shall be performed, but words expressing contract and engagement in the baptismal vow, and declaring in what profession and practice, this Infant by his Baptism standeth obliged to live and die.  
6. There is a further advantage by the the use of sureties, in that they are (as is expressed in the exhortation to them) to see that the Child be taught, what a solemn vow, promise and profession, he made in Baptism, that he be virtuously brought up. And that he be instructed in those points of Christianity, which a Christian ought to know and believe to his Soul's health, and to call upon him to hear Sermons. All this (which is in our Church required) may well be performed by the Surety, and imposeth no heavy burden upon him, and (besides the Parent's care which may hereby be quickened) it may be of great advantage to the Religious life of the Child. The ancient Church either did require more than this from the Sureties, 
Tert. de bapt. c. 18. Dionys. ubi supra. De Cons. Dist. 4. Vos ante omnia.  touching their particular ordinary care of the Child's Education, or else their sense was over-severely expressed, by several particular Writers as Tertullian, the Author de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, and some others.  
7. Having thus far discoursed of the use of Sureties, and the intent of the Interrogatories, referring to the baptismal engagement; it may be further observed, that when they are asked, Wilt thou be baptised into this Faith? and they answer in the Child's name, That is my desire; the plain meaning thereof is, to express, that the intent of the Child's being present, is to receive Baptism, which upon its account, and in its right and name they desire for it. And when in the Catechism there are these Questions and Answers. Q. What is required of persons to be baptised? A. Repentance whereby they forsake sin, and Faith whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of God, made to them in that Sacrament. Q. Why then are Infants baptised, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them? A. Because they promise them both by their Sureties; which promise when they come to age themselves are bound to perform: the sense of the former answer is, that he who cometh to Christian Baptism, is not left at liberty to lead a lose life, but he ought to practise faith and repentance, as a previous qualification unto Baptism in the adult, and as a consequent duty upon Baptism, both in them who are baptised in their Infancy, and at riper years. And the sense of the latter Question and Answer is, That though Infants be not capable of the particular acts of faith and repentance in their present state, yet by those expressions of contract, whereby their Sureties in their name only, declare what their Baptism obligeth them unto, it is manifested that they do undertake faith and repentance, as much as is possible for the infant state, and do stand engaged from their Baptism, more particularly to act Faith and Repentance when they come to Age.  
8. Another expression in the baptismal Office hath been misunderstood: viz. Who by the Baptism of thy well-beloved Son Jesus Christ, didst sanctify water to the mystical washing away of sin. Now we may well say that water is sanctified for Baptism, when by divine authority water is selected from all other things, and determined to be the proper matter, or outward Element of Baptism: and that is sanctified which is set apart, or determined, to such a sacred use, to which other common things are not admitted. And Christ's Commission to his Disciples, to baptise all Nations, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is an Authoritative determination of the form of Baptism, or the Sacramental words, and of the extent of its use. And both from thence and from our Saviour's passion doth it receive an efficacious virtue. But water was the matter of Christian Baptism, for the remission of sins, and admission into the number of Christ's Disciples, before either that Commission, or our Saviour's Passion. And as water was appointed for the Disciples of John, by Gods commanding him to baptise with Water, so that this was the Element which was set apart, for the admitting Disciples unto Christ himself, under the Gospel, and for the conveying to them remission of sins, was manifested by Jesus coming to be baptised therewith, from whence forward all who came to be his Disciples, were baptised with water in the Baptism of Christ. To this purpose the ancients frequently speak of Christ's Baptism, sanctifying the water of Baptism. 
Tertul. adv. Jud. c. 8.  So Tertullian Baptizato Christo, i. e. sanctificante aquas in suo baptismate. And the Author de Cardinalib. Christi operibus. Veniebat Christus ad baptismum, 
De Bapt. Christi.  ut Sacramento perennis daretur authoritas. To the same purpose also Nazianzen Orat. 38. & 39, and S. Bernard de Epiph. Serm. and even the Annotations under the Assemblies name, express this as one end of Christ's Baptism, to sanctify the flood Jordan, 
In Mat. 3.15.  and all other waters to the mystical washing away of sin.  
9 The use of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, I here purposely omit, because it will be more fitly discoursed of in the following Book, where also I shall discourse of the Imposition of hands in confirmation, and of the Ring in Marriage.   

SECT. VIII.  
Of the Office for Confirmation, and that for Marriage.  
1. The main things referring to Confirmation, being considered in the following Book; and some things in the Catechism (which are most impugned) being sufficiently cleared from the five foregoing Sections; I shall here only observe that though our Catechism, 
Hom. of Com. Pray. and Sacr. Art. 25.  Homilies, and Articles, do sufficiently declare, that Christ ordained only two Sacraments in his Church, yet some have taken exceptions at those words of the Catechism, which express that there are two only (Sacraments) generally necessary to salvation, as if these words did intimate the contrary: which exception doth manifest how innocent words may be wrested by the force of suspicions.  
2. And some like not that these Sacraments are said to be generally necessary to Salvation: which as it was the Doctrine of the ancient Church, so is it also of the Protestant Churches; 
Conf. Boh. c. 11.  the Bohemian Confession expresseth it to be their Doctrine, that Sacraments are necessary to Salvation; 
Catech. Genev. de Sacram.  and the Geneva Catechism declareth that he who despiseth the use of the Sacraments, is to be accounted of as one who tacitly denyeth the name of Christ, and he who thinking not meet to profess himself a Christian, ought not to be ranked among Christians. And concerning Baptism when our Saviour saith, 
Mar. 16.16.  he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, doth not that besides other Scriptures express it to be ordinarily part of the condition of Salvation? And touching the Lords Supper, if the obeying the great commands and institutions of the Gospel, and the attending to and receiving those excellent means of Grace, and of Communion with Christ which he appointeth in the Gospel, be ordinarily necessary to Salvation, then must the receiving the holy Communion be acknowledged to be so. And let it be considered without prejudice, whether when our Saviour declared, Joh. 6.53. Except you eat the stesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you; these words (though they cannot be confined to that Sacrament not then instituted) do not sufficiently declare, that he who hopeth for eternal life by Christ, may not safety neglect the careful attendance on that Ordinance, which Christ hath particularly appointed, to be the Communion of his body and blood.  
3. Concerning the Office for Matrimony, the words of contract will be most fitly discoursed of in another place, where I treat of the use of the Ring. I shall here only consider such Phrases which some disrelish, that our Liturgy calleth it an holy Estate of Matrimony, and saith that God consecrated the state of Matrimony to such an excellent Mystery, that in it is signified and represented the spiritual marriage and Unity, between Christ and his Church. Now it is manifest, that the Apostle expressing the Marriage institution and Union, Eph. 5.30, 31, 32. calleth it a great Mystery, not as it referreth to the Husband and Wife, but as it mystically representeth Christ and his Church; saying, We are members of his flesh, of his body, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his Father, and Mother, and shall be joined unto his Wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church. And to these words of the Apostle, the Phrase of our Liturgy hath manifest reference.  
4. And when it is said to be consecrated, or to be a holy estate, this is as much as to say, that it is designed for a holy and religious end and purpose. Though the Gentiles lived in lasciviousness and all uncleanness; the Christian marriage as well as the whole Christian life is to be a holy estate, separate from these pollutions: of which the Apostle speaketh, This is the will of God even your sanctification that you abstain from fornication, that every one of you may know how to possess his Vessel in sanctification and honour, not in the lusts of concupiscence, 1 Thes. 4.3, 4, 5. for God hath not called us to uncleanness, but unto holiness.  
5. Christian marriage is also an holy estate, as it is the lawful way, set apart and ordained, according to the will of God, for the increase of his Church. Thus Children born within the Church and under the Covenant, are called Sons and Daughters which are born unto, or for God. Ezek. 16.20. holy Children, 1 Cor. 7.14. and with reference hereunto that the Children may be holy and within the Church, the Apostle saith the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife, and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the believing Husband: and upon this account the Christian marriage may well be esteemed holy and sanctified, as being a marriage in the Lord, 1 Cor. 7.39. and is fitly called, as S. Ambrose expresseth it, 
Amb. Apol. Dau. c. 11.  Sancta copula, a holy bond.  
6. And whereas S. Paul declareth how all things are sanctified by the word of God and Prayer; we have concerning marriage a more especial word of Divine Institution, whereby two are made one flesh, Gen. 2.24. and that no man may put them asunder, because it is God who joineth them together. Mat. 19.6. and also a particular divine benediction which God gave unto the estate of marriage, Gen. 1.28. And this Marriage Union hath been generally attended with the use of Prayers in the Christian Church.  
7. Wherefore Christian Marriage, which as well as the Christian life is designed for the service of God, and for holy ends and an holy use, is upon that account the more fit, to represent the Unity and Marriage between Christ and his Church: and this Union being hereby resembled, is both an argument to the more holy deportment in Christian Marriage, and doth also add to the honour of that holy estate; and therefore it may well be mentioned as a further excellency of that holy relation, that God hath consecrated it to such an excellent mystery, that in it is signified and repent, the spiritual Marriage and Unity, between Christ and his Church.   

SECT. IX.  
Of the Communion of the sick, and the Office for Burial.  
1. The Communion of the sick is very allowable, because the dying state may need the best supports of Christian Faith, the highest encouragements of Divine Grace, and the chief means to strengthen hope, all which is included in this Ordinance of the Lords Supper; it being a pledge and assurance; yea a tender from Christ, of mercy and forgiveness, to them who truly repent and believe. And though the celebrating this holy Communion in private places, 
Conc. Laod. c. 58.  standeth condemned in ordinary cases by the ancient Canons, 
Conc. Nic. c. 13.  yet in this extraordinary Case sick or dying persons were ordinarily allowed to receive it, and the Council of Nice doth well approve of the sick persons desire thereof. And though it be sufficiently proved by Albaspinus, that the Viaticum frequently given to dying Penitents, did not always include the Eucharist, yet it is manifest that they did frequently partake thereof; 
4. Conc. Carth. c. 76, 78.  as is expressed not only in the Canons of the fourth Council of Carthage but in the more ancient testimony of Dionysius Alexandrinus. 
Eus. Hist. Eccles. l. 6. c. 36.   
2. Divers Protestant Churches besides our own, 
Rat. Disc. c. 3.  have retained the use thereof; and amongst them the Bohaemian, 
Syn. Petric. Sect. 5.  the Polonian, with the consent of the Ministry of the three several Confessions, 
Form. Visit. Aegr. in Bucer.  and that of Strasburgh as it was in Bucers' time. And though this was not practised at Geneva, 
Calv. de quibusd. Ritib. Aug. 12. 1561. Calv. Oleviano. Cal. Dec. 1563.  yet Calvin did in several places, and even towards the end of his life, testify his allowance thereof, and also that there were divers weighty causes, which constrained him to judge that it ought not to be denied.  
3. But against this it is objected, that some persons who have led vicious lives, may earnestly desire the Communion in their sickness, and yet not be truly penitent for their sins, and therefore cannot worthily partake of those holy Mysteries. To which I answer, that even in this Case Christian Charity must incline to the more favourable part, and since man hath no certain evidences to judge of sincere repentance; the infallible discerning thereof, must be reserved to the judgement of God. And if this person hath lived vainly and exorbitantly, the Minister may acquaint him with the nature (if need be) of true Faith and Repentance, and the necessity thereof, both to a dying Man and to a Communicant, and if he appear so far as is in him desirous to practise and exercise those Christian Graces, and to obtain the help of Jesus Christ and his Grace; to deny him this Sacrament, would be to deny him a testimony in God's name, that he will upon these conditions bestow grace and remission of sins, and to shut up the means of Grace and remission from a Sinner who seeketh after it; and certainly it cannot agree with the Ministers Office, to reject those persons, who in a dying state declare they would come to Christ. And in the strict times of Primitive Discipline, he was thought worthy to be deposed from his Ministry, who either rejected or did not receive any Sinner upon his return; and a peculiar Charity towards dying persons was expressed in divers ancient Canons.  
4. In the Office for Burial several expressions are misliked, as being thought unmeet to be spoken of every person dying in the Church's Communion. Where a first expression to be considered is, That Almighty God of his great mercy, hath taken to himself, the Soul of the person departed; When yet we cannot assert that every person dying in our Communion is eternally saved. Ans. Besides what may be said of the judgement of Charity, the wise man telleth us, 
Eccl. 12.7.  that the Spirits of dying men return to God who gave them, that is, to be disposed of according to his righteousness: and our Church in this place acknowledgeth the mercy of God, through the grace of Christ; who now hath the Keys of Hell and Death, that dying persons do not forthwith go into the power of the Devil, who had the power of Death, Heb. 2.14. but do immediately go into the hands of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, to be disposed of by him, according to the promises and conditions of the Gospel Covenant. This is that which all Christians must acknowledge, to flow from the great mercy of God towards man; and that this is the sense intended in this place, I am induced to believe, because in the ancient Offices of Burial, they magnified the Divine Power, whereby the unjust and tyrannous power of the Devil was overcome, and our Lord receiveth us, 
Dioniss de Eccles. Hier. c. 7.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto his peculiar and most righteous judgement. Yet even this sense doth express a general and firm confidence, of the future happy state of all them who hearty embrace the Christian Faith and life; as being consequent upon the gracious mediation, and Sovereign Dominion of Jesus our Saviour.  
5. And whereas this Office calleth the deceased person, Our Brother, and Our dear Brother, these Phrases may undoubtedly be applied to every person, who professing Christianity dyeth in the Church's Communion; And that extensive sense of those words, is sufficiently warranted by the use thereof in Scripture when it commands us to love our Brother, not to put a stumbling block before our Brother, not to defraud our Brother, 1. Thes. 4.6. to forgive our Brother, Mat. 18.34. and when it speaketh of the Brother that walketh disorderly, 2. Thes. 3.6. and of admonishing him as a Brother, v. 14. and of thy Brother trespassing against thee— and if he hear thee thou hast gained thy Brother. 
Chrys. in Heb. 11. Hom. 25.  Mat. 18.15. and if any man that is called a Brother be a Fornicator, 1. Cor. 5.11. from which place S. Chrysostom observeth that every Christian man baptised by the laver of regeneration is there called a Brother. Tertullian in a general sense as they are men, alloweth even the Heathen to be accounted Brethren, 
Apol. c. 39  though they be Mali fratres, evil Brethren; but in a more special sense he so esteemeth of all Christians, 
Praep. Evang. l. 1. c. 4.  who acknowledge one God the Father, and much to the same purpose writeth Eusebius. 
Cyr. Hier. Praef.  And Cyril telleth all those who gave up their names to Christianity, that they become the Sons and Daughters of one Mother. 
V Albasp. Obs. l. 1. c. 19  So that this manner of expression in this Office, is the same which the Scriptures and the ancient Fathers have ordinarily used, or it is approved by those Writings which only are of Divine Authority, and by those which are in the Church of greatest humane Authority.  
6. The expression of his being a dear Brother, doth only include a respect suitable to a Brotherly relation, and expresseth that the Members of the Church of Christ, had real desires of the welfare of such persons as are received into its Communion.  
7. That clause in committing the body to the ground, in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life, doth so evidently express the Faith and Hope of the general resurrection, wherein all Christians are concerned; when (as it followeth) he shall change our vile bodies, and make them like to his glorious body; that it cannot reasonably be understood, with a particular restriction to the party deceased: but it declareth that while this object of mortality is before our eyes, the Faith of the Resurrection to Life remaineth fixed upon our hearts.  
8. When we give thanks to God, that he hath delivered this our Brother out of the miseries of this sinful World, it must be considered, that the en●ling all troubles and miseries, is an act of God's mercy, and aught to be so acknowledged, though some men by their own neglect of the Christian life, deprive themselves of the benefits thereof: as the goodness of God in his patience ought to be owned, though some aggravate their own misery by the mis-emprovement thereof. And some regard may be had in this expression, to the Christian hope of the future estate, which is the more quickened by every instance of our present frailty. And both this and the former expressions may be used with a particular confidence of the eternal bliss of any holy person deceased, and with the exercise of the judgement of Charity in its proper object.  
9 There is only one expression in the latter Prayer, which encludeth particularly our favourable thoughts of the person departed, when we pray that we may rest in him, as our hope is this our Brother doth. In the use of which Phrase, we may well express different degrees of hope, according to the different evidences of Piety in several distinct persons. But even where men were vicious in their lives, there may be in ordinary cases some degree of hope, that they knowing and professing the truth, might at last become truly penitent, though we have no evidence thereof. For some degree of hope doth not include so much as the judgement of Charity, and it may be exercised, where ever we cannot certainly determine the contrary. Yet if there should be any such extraordinary case, where not so much as any degree of hope can be admitted, it is far more , that this expression should be omitted in that singular case alone, (which would be very rarely found) than that all ordinary expressions, of the hopefulness of them who depart this life, in Communion with so excellent a Church as this is, should be expunged and disclaimed. For as this would be an undertaking extremely groundless and deeply uncharitable, so the very sound thereof may be enough to affright Pagans from Christianity, and Papists from the Reformation, if ourselves did not allow ordinarily any hopes of the happy estate of the Members of our Church.  
10. Yet that this may not be misunderstood and mis-emproved, when it is applied to such persons, who have been wanting in the practice of due strictness of Christian life, and too much swerved from the holy Rules and Doctrines delivered in the Gospel and received by our Church; we ought to consider, that this expression of hope, is no encouragement to any others to be guilty of the like neglects. For the bare expression of hope is below any degree of evidence; and only expresseth that our judgements and understandings, cannot conclude it absolutely certain, that he was finally impenitent, though his state may appear extremely hazardous. And whosoever liveth wickedly, and dyeth without sufficient repentance, (of which god can certainly judge where man cannot) it will be no advantage to him in the other World, that his name was mentioned in the Church with some degree of hope; or as the Author of the Constitutions expresseth it, 
Const. Apol. lib. 8. c. 43.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And the state of such a person is not the less miserable, because frail men are not endued with that infallible judgement, whereby they can conclude it utterly desperate.  
11. The Charity of the ancient Christian Church, in expressing their hope of them who died in their Communion, is very manifest; and it is a great mistake which some have entertained, that through the strictness of their Discipline, no persons had their names honourably mentioned by the Church, with hopes of their future happiness, but such who had lived altogether free from any apparent sinfulness of life, or had given severe testimonies of a strict amendment. Indeed some rigorous Canons, neither of general practice, nor of long continuance in the Church, would not allow some offenders, (whatsoever repentance they manifested) to be reconciled to the Church, or admitted to its Communion throughout their whole life, no nor at the hour of death: and yet these Canons have been conceived only to make them perpetual Poenitentes, so that after their death their oblations were received; or they all who were admitted as such Penitents, were then owned among them who had relation to the Church, 
Albasp. Obs. l. 2. c. 4.  and of whom it had hope. but amongst the ordinary rules of Primitive Discipline, these were generally admitted. 1. That whosoever came under any censure of the Church, 
Cyp. Ep. 54. Can. Apost. 52.  whatsoever his crime was, he might upon his supplication be admitted to be one of the Poenitentes or to be under the rules of penance; 
4. Con. Carth. c. 74.  and the not admitting him hereto was accounted an heinous crime, because non fas est Ecclesiam pulsantibus ●laudi. 2. That if any of these Poenitentes were under dangerous sickness, or approaching death, 
Cyp. Ibidem Conc. Nicen. c. 13. Ancyr. can. 6. Araus. can. 3. 4. Carth. c. 77.  it was requisite they should be then admitted to the peace of the Church, and its Communion. 3. That even they, who being under censure, did only in the time of dangerous sickness desire to be admitted Penitents, might thereupon forthwith be both admitted Penitents and receive reconciliation and Communion. 
Conc. Araus. c. 2. Leo. Ep. 91.4. Carth. c. 76.  This is a consequent from the two former, and is included in the Canon of Ancyra now mentioned, and is manifest by divers other particular testimonies, and it was grounded upon this reason, because (as Leo expresseth it) we cannot limit the times, nor determine the measures of God's mercy. 4. That all who were so received into the Church, 
Dion. de Eccles. Hier. c. 7.  with others who died in its Communion, 
Cyp. Ep. 10.  and even Penitents who died without the opportunity of obtaining disciplinary reconciliation, 
Con. Nic. c. 13.  had the memories of their names recommended in the Church's Prayers, 
4. Carth. c. 79.  as persons of whom it hoped well: which is I suppose intended by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Council of Nice though it be otherwise understood by the Greek Canonists and in Albaspinus his explicaton. 
Conc. Arel. 2. c. 12.      

THE SECOND BOOK CONCERNING CEREMONIES, AND Ecclesiastical Constitutions.  

CHAP. I.  
The lawful use of some Ceremonies, in the Christian Church asserted.  

SECT. I.  
What we are here to understand by Ceremonies.  
1. AMong all the things appointed in our service, there is nothing against which a heavier charge is drawn up, than against the Ceremonies, as they are ordinarily called; common custom herein making use of a word which admitted● great variety, and latitude of sense and signification. For 1. The word Ceremonia (Ceremony) primarily encludeth the general exercise of all public Religious Worship and Piety: 
Scal. in Fest.  for as Scaliger noteth Ceremonia was as much as Sanctimonia, being derived from Cerus, which in the old ●atin signifieth the same with Sanctus; and Ser●●us hath been observed to declare, that omnia Sacra apud Latinos Ceremoniae dicuntur: and to this purpose the old Constitutions of the twelve Tables declared, 
Leg. 12. Tab. De Sacerdot. officio.  Sacerdotum duo genera sunto: unum quod praesit Ceremoniis & sacris, etc. intending thereby all sacred actions of Religious service; and in this large sense is this word sometimes used by some later Writers, 
Luth. de piis Cerem. servand. Bucer. Censur. c. ultim.  as Luther and Bucer. 2. This word sometimes among the ancient Christian Writers peculiarly expresseth the most solemn visible Symbols of the Grace of God: in which sense also in the Augustan, Saxon, and Witemberg Confessions, and the Apology of the Church of England, the two New Testament Sacraments are called Ceremonies; and Bishop Saunderson resolveth the sum or main Contents of the Gospel, into these three things, 
De Obl. Cors. Prael. 4. Sect. 32.  the Mysteries of Faith to be believed, the holy Ceremonial and Ecclesiastical Institutions, and the maral Precepts. 
Bishop Whitg. Tr. 2. c. 1.  And these Bishop Whitgist calleth substantial Ceremonies which a ● of the substance of Religion. 3. This word sometimes encludeth all such practices as bear any external respect unto Religion; whence some have called holidays by the name of Ceremonies: and Gotofredus probably supposeth that fasting (at least with some other external observations) is so called, in those words of the Code of Justinian; 
Cod. Justin. l. 3. Titl. 12. Sect. 6.  Quadraginta diebus qui auspicio Ceremoniarum Paschale tempus anticipant, etc. 4. In this present enquiry, by Ceremonies must be understood, some particular external and visible actions and circumstances, which are not instituted by God, but are in themselves things indifferent, and are appointed in the Church for order and decency.  
2. And there is a vast difference between the things called Ceremonies in the Church of England, and the chief part of those things, which by an aequivocal use of the same word, we commonly call Ceremonies, in the Jewish Constitutions, under the Mosaical Law. For those Jewish Ceremonies which consisted in their Sacrifices, Purifications, or the proper Levitical and Temple worship, were such things as used aright with respect to the Messiah, were the way and means whereby God's acceptance was obtained, and his grace and favour vouchsafed, and did partake of a Sacramental nature, and were not amiss by Durandus called the Sacramentalia, 
Rational. div. Offic. Prooem. Sect. 7.  and did also prefigure Christ to come in the flesh. And upon this account no such rites as these, could ever be appointed or lawfully used, but such only as were established by a divine Institution; nor might they be any longer observed, than that institution did either enjoin, or warrant and allow them: and hence both S. 
Aug. Ep. 19  Augustine, and S. Hierome, do justly and vehemently condemn and censure the observation of these things among Christians. And of this nature was the whole pedagogy of the Mosaical Constitutions jointly considered, and every branch thereof so far as it encludeth an owning of Judaisme, as the way of God's acceptance: especially Circumcision, Sacrifice, and such like services of the Jewish Temple: the observing of which under the Gospel, since the clear manifestation of Christianity, would be to deny Christ to become in the flesh; and to close with that, as a way of obtaining grace from God, and finding favour with him, which is contrary to his will, and standeth for ever abrogated by the Gospel. And hence it may appear, that he who would charge the use of all Ecclesiastical Rites appointed for Order, and the promoting reverence in the service of God, as if it encluded the same, with reducing the Ceremonial Law of the Jews, might with a fairer plea of reason, accuse all use of Seals or Ornamental Engraving to be a forging and counterfeiting the King's Broad Seal, and thereby to be deeply criminal.  
3. Yet it may be observed as a truth (though in be not necessary for the just defence, of any of those things commonly called Ceremonies in our Church) that there were many particular things in the Ceremonial Law, which singly taken and by themselves, did only include some rational provisions, and comely and fit Constitutions, and had nothing in themselves, which did necessarily restrain them to the Judaical state: and such things where there is no design of any Jewish signification, may lawfully be still made use of under the Gospel, as still retaining what conveniency or decency they would have had, if they had never been included in the Jewish Constitutions. The appointment of the Jewish Tabernacle in the Wilderness, is no sufficient ground to conclude it a sin, for such Christians who sojourn in deserts, and have minds far from Judaizing, to build an House with boards, for the place of their Christian Assemblies: nor is the building our Churches with hewn stone to be censured as unlawful, because such were the materials of Solomon's Temple: nor is it unlawful to use Vessels of Silver and Gold at the administering the Communion, because such were the Vessels of the Tabernacle and the Temple: and the like may be said of Tithes, and some other things. To this purpose Bucer determined in his Epistle to Alasco, and P. Martyr to Bishop Hooper, and Bishop Saunderson observeth, 
De Oblige. Cons. Pral. 4. Sect. 29.  that all Ceremonials are not to be alike accounted of, but those which concern order and decency, are with prudence to be separated from those which prefigured Christ to come: and that prudent Casuist well resolved, that those things Which concerned order and decency, are not now simply unlawful; yet may they be many times inexpedient, as they become dangerous by their scandal.  
4. And it is acknowledged and declared, that the things with us called Ceremonies, are in themselves indifferent, and no direct parts of worship; because these particular things are only of Ecclesiastical or humane constitution: for since all instituted worship is directly appointed, for the acceptable service of God (which especially considering the fall of man, must be in a way of Grace, and not of Merit) it must be God and not his Creature who must determine, what Institutions will be pleasing to him. 
Serm of good works Par. 2 Serm of Prayer. Par. 2.  And this is the Doctrine of our Homilies: and the Book of Common Prayer speaking of Ceremonies, expressly declareth, that those which remain are for a Godly Discipline and Order, which may be altered and changed; and therefore are not to be esteemed equal with God's law. And our Articles assert, 
Art. 34.  that the Church hath authority to change or abolish Ceremonies, ordained by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying. All which words show that there is no holiness placed in these things, nor are they of themselves made any part of the worship of God, in the Church of England.  
5. Yet even the observation of things indifferent, may by a secondary and consequential respect to other commands of God and duties of men (though not directly from themselves) render our services more acceptable unto God. Thus that gesture of body, which is not particularly determined as a necessary duty, may be pleasing to God; as it includeth a religious respect to those duties, of glorifying God with our bodies, and serving him acceptably with reverence and godly fear: and the observing other decent rites, may be pleasing to God as it expresseth a reverence of God, and his Ordinances and service; an obedient respect to that command, that all things be done decently and in order; a subjection to our Superiors in things lawful; and a care of the Church's Peace. Upon this account Vrsin truly said, 
Vrsin. Explic. Catech. q 96. Loc. Theol. in 2. Praecep.  Adiaphorae actiones possunt Deo placere, liect aliter quam cuttus Dei proprie dictus; that indifferent actions may please God, but in a different manner from that which is properly and directly the worship of God. To such general ends, are those indifferent observations in our Church appointed, which are called Ceremonies, and hence it is with good reason declared in the Book of Common Prayer, that they are as well for a decent Order in the Church, as because they pertain to edification. For as whatsoever exciteth reverend thoughts of God, and his Ordinances, is thereby useful for the Churches edifying; so the Apostle requireth ruies of Order to be made for edification, 1. Cor. 14.26. and S. 
Chrys. in 1 Cor. Ch. 14.40.  chrysostom truly observed, that good Order, Peace and Love are the most useful things to promote edification. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
6. But though external rites should be never so innocent in their own nature, as being neither Jewish, nor owned as parts of Christian Religion, nor as operative means in themselves to convey Grace: yet the introducing a great and unnecessary number of them, would be disadvantageous to Religion, by obscuring and darkening the spiritual duties and privileges thereof; by being needlessly burdensome to Christians; and by diverting men's minds to attend chief unto such external observances. Hence S. 
Aug. Ep. ad Januar. c. 19  Augustin in his time (as is observed in our Liturgy) complained of the excessive number of such rites: and the conditions which Protestant Writers require concerning Ceremonies are such as these that they be in their kind things indifferent, in their number sew, 
Kemnit. Exam. Conc. Trid. de Tradition. 7th, genus. Vrsin Ex. pl. Catech. ad qu. 103.  and in their use godly and profitable for edification. Now in our Church, besides the use of expedient gestures in the service of God, there is nothing which in common Custom of speech is called a Ceremony, which in any proper part of worship, is appointed in our Liturgy, to be used by any other person besides the Minister. And in our ordinary service the Minister is only required to use the appointed habit, which though it be customarily called a Ceremony; is not otherwise such, than the Church, Pulpit, and the Vessels for the Communion, and the Communion-Cloath are to be so esteemed, which are only used in the service of God. And in our particular Offices, we have only the use of the Cross in the Office of Baptism, of imposition of hands in Confirmation, (and the civil rite of the Ring in Marriage): and therefore if the nature of these particular Rites be allowable, (which in due place will be considered) there can be no damage to Religion, nor burden to Christians from the number of them.   

SECT. II.  
The first Argument for the lawfulness of Ecclesiastical Rites, from the liberty herein allowed to the Jewish Church.  
1. Having hitherto endeavoured to prevent mistakes and misapprehensions, about the subject of my present discourse; I shall now lay down such Arguments as will manifest, that some decent external observations in the Church, though they be not particularly instituted of God, are allowably ordered and appointed. The first Argument is from the practise of the Jewish Church, which I shall consider in a threefold respect.  
2. First in their Temple worship. For though they might not lawfully appoint any Sacramental Rite, (which was the the nature of divers of the Temple Rites) and though Solomon's Temple as well as Moses his Tabernacle, 
1. Chr. 28.12, 19  was built according to the pattern which God directed, and divers other external things were determined by divine appointment, yet even here were some things left to the liberty, and determined by the Authority of the Jewish Church, or the Rulers and Governors thereof. I shall not here insist upon Solomon's offering Burnt-Offerings in the middle of the Court, and not only upon the Altar, 1. Kin. 8.64. nor upon Hezekiahs' proclaiming a general Passover, on the second Month, 2. Chr. 30.2. because these were extraordinary Cases, which were only allowable by the weightiness of the present occasions; when Ceremonial Commands of God might be dispensed with, in cases of greater concernment, upon which account it was also lawful for David and them who were with him, to cat the show bread. But it must be acknowledged, that such extraordinary Cases, are no more a sufficient ground for constant and ordinary Constitutions, than the constant keeping a vein open can be concluded allowable, because it may be expediently at some times opened, for the preserving life or health.  
3. The first instance of this liberty among the Jews, concerns the Passover; which was (after the building the Tabernacle and Temple) a proper Tabernacle or Temple Rite. 
Phil. l. 3. de Vita Mos. Lib. de Decalog. Lib. de Septen. & Festis.  Deut. 16.6. and though Philo Judaeus doth in several places express the Passover to be sacrificed by all the people of Israel, and not to be presented to the Priests as other Sacrifices were: both the Talmud, Maimonides, and divers Texts of Scripture do sufficiently evince the contrary, as 2 Chr. 30.3, 16, 17. Ez●. 6.20, and however, it was a principal duty of the Jewish worship. But the Jews (differently from what was commanded, only concerning the first Passover in Egypt) usually prepared the Paschal Lamb upon the fourteenth day of the Month; (which was also observed by Christ and his Apostles, Luk, 22.7, 8.) they used also divers other Rites about their Paschal Cake, their several Cups of Wine and other observations concerning that Feast. And especially 〈◊〉 it may be observed, that the discumbing gesture or leaning on Beds or Couches, was the posture ordained in the later times of the Jewish Church, for their eating the Passover, as appeareth both from their rituals, and the Jerusalem Talmud in Pesachin; 
Phil. de Vit. Contempl.  and Philo who lived about the time of our Saviour's Passion, declareth that this was the gesture of ordinary use at that time, amongst the Jews at their Religious Feasts, which was also manifestly allowable, because it was practised by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles; being expressed by the Evangelists by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mat. 26.20. Mar. 14.18. Luk. 22.14. Joh. 21.20. 
De Emend. Templ. l. 6. p. 573.  And Scaliger so earnestly asserteth, that Christus obstrinxit se ritibus Judaeorum; Christ did oblige himself, to follow and conform to the commonly received rites of the Jewish Passover; that he accounteth all who shall deny it, to be hosts bonarum literarum, Enemies to good learning. But in the first Passover in Fgypt they were commanded to eat with their Loins girt, their Shoes on their feet, and their staves in their hands, which could not consist with their discumbing: and that they stood steadfastly upon their feet is declared by Philo, 
Phil. de Sacr. Abel & Caim.  and that the same gesture was ordinarily observed until the Captivity, 
Baron. Annal. an. 34. n. 41.  is not improbably observed by others. And though that honourable way of discumbing at meat, was of ancient use in the Roman, Grecian, and Persian Empires, especially amongst the Asians: 
Killets Tricaen. l. 1. c. 7. Sect. 13. Exerc. in Baron. 16. n. 22. Grot. in Mat. 26.20.  yet the most ancient instance of its practice and usage, is by one of our own Nation thought to be in those words of Ezek. 23.41. by Casutbone in Am. 2.8. which is also approved by Grotius, unless the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Septuagint in Cant. 2.12. may possibly import, that they esteemed it to be of as great Antiquity, as from the time of Solomon. But all these instances were of a date very far inferior to the Passover Institution.  
4. A second instance concerneth the Garments, used in the attendance upon the Tabernacle or Temple Worship. The holy Garments of the High Priest, and the other Priests, and those only were appointed of God. But when the Ark of God was brought to Zion, David, to express his honour to the Service of God, made use of a peculiar Habit dancing before the Lord, in a Linen Ephod, 2 Sam. 6.14. And the Levites who carried the Ark, and who were Singers in that Solemnity, were also arrayed in Linen Robes or Ephods, 1 Chron. 15.27. as is most clearly and fully expressed by Vatablus, and by the Syriank and Arabic Versions: and Grotius there noteth the ancient and ordinary use of white Garments in Religious Worship. And when the Ark was brought into the Temple, the Levites who were Singers were all of them arrayed in white Linen, 2 Chron. 5.12. 
Ant. Jud. l. 8. c. 2.  And Josephus saith that Solomon made for the Levites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two hundred thousand Garment, of white Linen, Indeed Capellus justly accounteth this number to be incredible, 
Capel. Templ. Delineatio ex Villalpando.  and it is very probably, that either the number is depraved, or else Josephus hyperbolizeth therein (as is frequent with the Talmudists) for the honour of his Nation. But that the use of white Linen Garments for the Levites, was more ancient than the times of David, may be collected from 1 Sam. 2.18. where Samuel being yet a Child, is said to have ministered before the Lord, being girded with a linen Ephod: and yet Samuel was only of the Levitical, but not of the Priestly race, and was not as yet known to be a Prophet of the Lord. Wherefore these Scriptures do speak the allowableness of these Levitical Garments, especially considering that they were used at the removal of the Ark, by David himself and the Levites, after the time that Vzzah was smitten, because they served not the Lord after the due order. Yet is there not so much as as any direction in the Law of Moses, that any such garments should either be made for, or used by any other of the Levites, besides the Priests.  
5. A third instance is the Altar of Witness, built by the two Tribes and half when they went over Jordan to their own pos2ession; which after a jealous inquiry by Phinehas and all the Congregation, was well approved of, when it appeared that it was not a forsaking the God of Israel, or a disobeying his commands, and renouncing his Temple Worship: but was only a monumental Memorial of their profession of the true God, and having a right to do his service at the Temple; and thereupon did include an inciting and engaging them to the true Religion, Jos. 22.31, 32, 33.  
6. A fourth instance is the Temple itself, as it was designed by David, for the greater splendour of God's Service, and higher honour of his Name. For though God had commanded a Tabernacle to accompany Israel in their sojournings, and had given no Commandment concerning a Temple, as himself expresseth, 2 Sam. 7.7. that holy man had designed to build a Temple to the Lord, humbly judging it greatly unreasonable, that he should dwell in an house of Cedar, while the Ark of God dwelled within Curtains, 2 Sam. 7.2. And this design of David was well approved of by Nathan, vers. 3. and God himself declared, that he did well in that it was in his heart, 1 King. 8.17, 18. and thereupon God promised David, that he would make him an house, and set up his seed after him and establish his Kingdom, 2 Sam. 7.11, 12. and did command, that the thing which David purposed should be effected, not by himself who was a man of wars, but by his Son Solomon, 1 Chron. 22.8, 9, 10. Chap. 28.3, 4, 5, 6. And it must be considered, that the Tabernacle of Meses was never enjoined, 
1. Chr. 16. 1. Chr. 17.5.  to be the perpetual habitation of God's presence so long as the Jewish Dispensation should continue: and therefore though David did not build the Temple, yet he pitched another Tent for the Ark of God at Jerusalem, where it abode many years, while the Tabernacle of Moses was at Gibeon, 2 Chron. 1, 3, 4. but neither was that action nor his design to build a Temple, contrary to any command of God; but was only a determination of 2omewhat external, relating to the Service of God, to express his higher honour and reverence of God and Religion; which was therefore approved of God, though it was not particularly commanded by him. 
Seder Olam Rab. c. 11.  And if we may herein credit the Jewish Chronicle, when the house of God was set up at Shiloh, there was a soundation laid of stone (which God had not enjoined nor forbidden) upon which the Tabernacle made of Board's, Curtains, and Skins was erected.  
7. I know that the Jewish Writers do assert, that the Law of Moses did command the building the Temple; (by which I here understand a house of stone and Cedar as distinguished from the Tabernacle) this seemeth to be affirmed by Maimonides, 
Maim in Praec. affirm. 20. Gemar. in San. hedr. c. 2. Sect. 6. Joseph Ant. Jud. l. 7. c. 4.  and is asserted by the Talmud, and Josephus saith, David designed to build a Temple; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Moses had foretold. But this is not agreeable to what God himself declareth to the contrary, 2 Sam. 7.7. Spoke I a word with any of the Judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of Cedar? and the ground upon which these Jewish Writers build is mistaken. For 1. that place which the Gemara insisteth upon, Deut. 12.10, 11. concerning the place which God should choose, only enjoineth a fixed place for the Tabernacle of God and his Service, where he should choose it, after he had placed them in Canaan, as may appear by comparing Deut. 12.1, 5, 11, 12. Josh. 18.1. Jer. 7.12. and the Tabernacle is expressly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the house of choice, in the Seder Olam. 
Seder Olam Rab. ubysupra.  And those words, Exod. 15.2. I will prepare him an habitation, being spoken before the building of the Tabernacle, do refer thereto; and the Tabernacle is expressly called his habitation, 1 Sam. 2.29. 2 Sam. 15.25. and in divers other places: as it was also very frequently called by the name of the Temple, both in the Psalms and in the Books of Samuel: and the Sanctuary in the place produced by Maimonides, Exod. 25.8. and in many others.  
8. Thus I have now showed, that even in the Temple Worship of the Jews, some external Rites not appointed by God, were lawfully practised; and amongst others, a Sacramental gesture, which was not used in the institution of the Sacrament, a decent Vesture of white Linen, for them who attended the Service of God therein, and a memorative and engaging sign of the Altar of Witness or the Altar Ed. and the Reader will easily conceive, how nearly the nature of these three things, resemble and justify our gesture at the Communion, the use of the Surpless and the Cross at Baptism.  
9 Secondly, I shall consider the Synagogue Worship of the Jews, which hath a nearer alliance to the Christian Worship. In their Synagogues they assembled to profess and own God and his Law, to hear his Word, to praise his Name, and call upon him, and to perform other such like Duties. And this was not chief a Ceremonial Worship, as that of the Temple was; but a Moral Worship, or such a Worship as consisted of Duties, which in the general nature of them, are perpetually obligatory upon all the Servants of God in this World, and not upon the Jews only, nor were they peculiar to the Mosaical Constitutions. And concerning this which was their ordinary, weekly, and indeed a principal Worship of God, it is truly observed by Mr. Thorndike, 
Of Religious Assemblies. c. 2.  that there was very little established by God in the Book of the Law. And they were also in some particulars left to their own prudential determinations, where the Christian Church is not.  
10. A first instance I here give of the liberty of the Jewish Church, making determinations concerning things external velating to Religion, is touching the Ordination of the Ecclesiastical Officers of the Synagogal Assemblies, by Imposition of Hands. The Officers Ecclesiastical in these Assemblies, were those who were anciently called the Sons of the Prophets; or their Elders, Scribes, Rabbins and Doctors of the Law. Neither the nature of their Office and Authority, nor especially the manner of their Admission thereto is any where determined in the Law of God, but depended upon the Church's Constitutions, for the preserving order and authority in its Assemblies. And yet that all who were the Synagogal Officers, or who were admitted to teach there, (except the extraordinary case of Prophets) were ordained thereto by Imposition of Hands, and what their different manners of Ordination were, according as they committed to them different power or authority of teaching or judging, is sufficiently from the Jewish Forms declared by Mr. Selden. 
De Syned. l. 1. c. 7. Sect. 2, 4.  And this authority of Ordination was so far approved by our Blessed Saviour, that he declared concerning the Scribes and Pharisees, Mat. 23.2, 3. That they sit in Moses seat; all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do. But though this Ordination of Elders or Rabbis among the Jews, was founded upon no Divine Institution, as is truly asserted by Mr. Selden, 
Seld. ibidem.  the state of the Christian Church is herein under the determination of Divine and Apostolical Constitutions.  
11. A second instance is, concerning the Habit of the Prophets and the Sons of the Prophets. That the Prophets used a rough or hairy garment or Mantle, which was peculiar to them, may be collected by the practice of Elijah, who was known by his hairy garment; and whose Mantle fell from him, when he was taken into Heaven, 1 King. 1.8. Chap. 2.13. and from the appearance of Samuel in his Mantle, 1 Sam. 28 14. And even the Annotations composed by the Members of the Assembly, do probably assert, that when Isaiah is said to go naked, 
Annot. in Is. 20.2.  Isa. 20.2. no more is intended, but that he put off his Prophetical Robe or Mantle, such as fell from Elias. It is also generally acknowledged, that the Prophet Zechary speaking of wearing a rough garment to deceive, 
Zech. 13.4.  doth thereby intent the ordinary Prophetical garment; so Munster, Vatablus, Castalio, Clarius, Drusius, and Grotius do assert, and Calvin calleth that garment, habitum Propheticum; Junius styleth it communem amictum prophetarum; and Bochartus thinketh that it was vestis prophetarum propria. 
Bochart. Hieroz. l. 1. c. 2.  That the Sons of the Prophets used a particular habit, by which they were easily discernible from other men, may be probably collected from 2. Kin. 9.5, 6, 11, 12. and is more manifest from 1. Kin. 20.35, 41. And besides these habits which were of ordinary use in their converse, there may some particular evidence be given, of garments peculiarly used in their Synagogal Assemblies: that such was their practice about our Saviour's time, may appear from Suetonius, 
Sueton. in Tiberio, n. 36.  who declareth that Tiberius commanding all Jews to departed from Rome, forced them Religiosas vestes comburere, to burn their garments which they used in their Religious services, which at Rome could be none other than their Synagogue Worship, or School Assemblies: 
Phil. de Cherubin.  and Philo Judaeus speaketh of their attendance thereupon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arrayed in white apparel. 
Phil. de Vit. Contempl.  And declareth the same concerning their Religious Feasts.  
12. A third instance is, their practices and injunctions, of decent gestures in their Religious Assemblies. At the reading of the Law. Neh. 8.5. Ezra opened the Book in the sight of all the people, and when he opened it all the people stood up. And when they praised and gave glory to God, the Levites commanded the people, Neh. 9.5. stand up and bless the Lord your God, for ever and ever.  
13. A last instance I shall here give, is in the admission of their chief Proselytes, or Members of the Jewish Church from amongst the Gentiles: where besides Circumcision which God particularly enjoined in this very Gaze, Ex. 12.48. and Sacrifice whereby they declared themselves professedly to communicate with the Temple Service, and to be partakers of the Altar; 
Selden. de Syn. l. 1. c. 3.  they also made use of washing, or a kind of Baptism in initiating these Proselytes; 
Hor. Hebr. Mat. 3.6.  of which we have a large account in divers modern Authors. This rite among the ancient Jews did principally express the defilement and pollution of the Gentile World, which could alone be cleansed by undertaking the true Religion, and the right service of God. And though there might be some rational ground for the expediency of this practice, because washing was under the law of frequent use, in many particular Cases of uncleanness, as being a means appointed for their cleansing: yet neither from hence, nor from Moses sprinkling the Israelites, to confirm God's Covenant to them. Ex. 24.8. (which place the Jewish Writers do much urge, though that action was not performed with water, but with the blood of the Covenant which had water mixed therewith, Heb. 9.19.) do contain any special command of God, that washing the Proselytes should be a rite attending their Circumcision: nor do we find that when Abraham and his Family received Circumcision, that any such Attendant rite was joined therewith. And yet it hath been frequently acknowledged, that our Saviour choosing washing or Baptism to be the initiative rite under the Gospel, did show thereby some allowance and approbation, of this way of admission under the Law.  
14. 
Buxt. Syn. Jud. c. 5. etc.  And it is manifest from Buxtorf Synagoga Judaica, that the Jewish practice did receive divers other Synagogal Rites, even such whereof some were questionable and doubtful; and other manifestly vain and ridiculous. But even these miscarriages, under the degeneracy of their Religion, cannot render those other observances unallowable, which have so considerable testimonies of their approbation in the holy Scriptures. And thus in their Synagogue Worship from the instances I have mentioned (to which more might be added) we have evidence of the lawful use of external Rites, which may conduce to preserve the order of Church Society, to the distinction and Ornament of Ministers, reverend behaviour in the service of God, and some expression of solemnity in the sacramental admission into the Church.  
15. Thirdly, We may consider the natural worship among the Jews or Hebrews; or their general Religious profession, which was neither appropriated to their Synagogues or Schools, 
Bux. Syn. Jud. c. 2.  (where they were ordinarily Circumcised as Buxtorf observeth) nor to their public Ceremonial or Temple worship; where divers instances may be produced.  
16. First, in the taking an Oath; Abraham's Servant used the Rite of putting his hand under his Master's thigh, which Aben Ezra observed to be also a Custom among the Indians. Nehemiah upon the like occasion did shake his lap, desiring God so to shake out every man from his house and his labour, who performed not that promise. 
Petit. Var. lect. l. 1. c. 16. Fag. in Gh. Par. Ex. 23.1. Except●ex Hom. Chrys. de Juram. Tom. 6. Fr. Duc.  Neh. 5.12, 13. At other times lifting up the hand was used, in that solemn and Religious invocation, Gen. 14.22. And it hath been observed, that it was an ordinary Rite among the Jews in taking an Oath, to lay their hand upon the Book of the Law, (as the ancient Christians even in S. Chrysostom's time laid their hand upon the Book of the Gospel.) But he must be satisfied with very little evidences, who thinketh that he hath found a divine institution for these observations; which are only outward signs of Religious invocation as our words are; and therefore such expressive signs (so far as expediency and due solemnity shall require) may be lawfully used, though they be not particularly determined, by a Divine command.  
17. Secondly, we may observe Rites of Memorial. Thus we not only read of Samuel setting up a stone as a Monument of God's praise, and a token of remembrance that he had helped them. 1. Sam. 7.12. but Laban and Jacob erected a heap, to be a solemn memorial and testimony of their Oath, Gen. 31.46, 47. and when Joshua made a Covenant with the people of Israel, to serve the Lord, he set up a stone under the Oak by the Sanctuary of the Lord, to be a witness and memorial of their duty and engagement, Jos. 24.26, 27.  
18. To these might be added, the use of sackcloth and ashes, as a testimony of humiliation and repentance; the use of imposition of hands in their ordinary benediction; which also our Saviour practised: and I shall in another Chapter show that the Ring in the contract of Marriage was used among the Jews. And yet none of these things were enjoined in the Law of Moses; further than what concerneth the Priestly benediction of Aaron with hands lifted up, which some conceive to be a rite appointed in the Law.  
19 And from what I have hitherto observed, it may be reasonably concluded, that it is no encroaching upon, or opposing the Authority of God, if some indifferent and expedient things be determined, and received in the Church as things useful, but not as Divine Sanctions. And he who will deny the lawfulness hereof in the Christian Church, must also assert and prove, that the coming of Christ hath deprived his Church, of a very considerable part of that liberty and authority, which the Jewish Church always possessed. But against the rashness of any such positions, the following Sections will be a sufficient defence.   

SECT. III.  
Showing Ecclesiastical Constitutions particularly concerning Ceremonial Rites, to be warranted by the Apostolical Doctrine and practice.  
1. The second main argument, is deduced from the Apostles practice and doctrine. Now though what they appointed in the Church about any matters external, cannot be easily proved to be determined by humane prudence and Ecclesiastical Authority; because they were so wonderfully inspired and guided by the holy Spirit: yet if it can be showed, that the Apostles themselves appointed external Rites, attendant on the service of God, which were of an alterable and mutable nature, this will manifest that the use of such things is well consistent with the Gospel worship: and thence it will follow, that the Christian Church hath liberty (as well as the Jewish Church had) to determine such observations, since God hath give no special command to abridge that liberty. Here I shall consider.  
2. 1, The holy kiss, or kiss of Charity. It was a common friendly salutation for men to kiss each other, both among the Jews; and in other Eastern Countries as hath been observed from Xenophon and Herodotus, and was also used in the Western parts of the Empire in the time of Tiberius. But both S. Paul, Rom. 16.16. and and S. Peter, 1. Pet. 5.18. required the practice of this holy kiss, as a peculiar Christian Rite and observation; but when and how it was used we must discover from the relation of the ancient Christian Writers. That it was used at their public Assemblies, at the time of their solemn Prayers, 
Grot. in Rom. 16. c. 16.  is proved by Grotius from the testimonies of Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian who calleth it signaculum orationis the seal of Prayer; and speaking of it as it was their ordinary expressive attestation of Unity, Peace, 
Tertul. de Orat. c. 14.  and Love, he saith, Quae oratio cum divortio Sancti, s●uli integra? What Prayer can be perfect, which is separated from the holy kiss? 
Cassand. Liturg. c. 39  And Cassander hath evidenced from S. Austin, Innocent, and divers other particular Authors, and ancient Offices, that it was especially used at the time of the holy Communion, sometimes before but for the most part after the Consecration of the elements and before their distribution; by which Ceremony Christians expressed their consent to those administrations, and their love to each other: and of this kiss at the Lords Supper, Calvin supposeth S. Paul to speak, 
Calv. in 1 Cor. 16. ●0.  when he commandeth the Corinthians to greet one another with an holy kiss. Indeed several modern Ritualists being willingly so short sighted, as to discern no further than the dusky and false light of the Romish Decretals doth discover, do ascribe the use of the kiss 〈◊〉 the Communion to a later original; some from Leo the second, others from Innocent the first: but this appeareth to be a fond and vain imagination, because this Custom was not only mentioned by S. chrysostom, but evidently referred to by the Laodicean Council, 
Conc. Laod. Can. 19 Just. Mart. Ap. 2.  and is also expressed by Jestin Martyr in his Apology, written within less than an hundred years after the Apostolical Epistles of S. Paul, and S. Peter. Yet that this was an external mutable Rite, is so far agreed upon and acknowledged, as that it is generally disused, because through the vanity of men's minds it was discovered at length to promote impurity and obscenity, rather than holiness and Christian love. And the Romish Custom introduced instead hereof, of kissing the tabellam pacis, or the Table of Saints Pictures, is quite another thing from the Apostolical Rite, and cannot be excused from superstition, from the relation it beareth to their Doctrine of the Adoration of Saints. And if we inquire how this ancient use of the holy kiss was most ordinarily practised, it is manifest from the testimony of the Author of the Constitutions, 
Const. Apost. l. 8. c. 11.  concerning the more early times of Christianity, and from Amalarius describing its use about 800. Years ago, 
Amalar. de Deccl. Offic. l. 3. c. 32.  that it was not promiscuously used, by men and women towards each other, but separately and distinctly by men towards one another, and by women among themselves alone.  
3. 2. Their Agapae or Feasts of Charity (which were appointed in part for the relief of the poor, 
Zonar. in Conc. Trul. 74. Gang. 11. Chrys. in 1 Cor.  but especially to express, continue, and increase Christian love and fellowship, which is also one great design of the Lords Supper) were in and after the Apostles times used either immediately before as some affirm, concerning some Churches, or immediately after it, as others assert, and which was the more general practice, and even in the places of public Assemblies. That they were celebrated at the same time and place with the Lords Supper, hath been usually observed and collected from 1. Cor. 11.20.— 23. and from Act. 2.42, 46. and from thence appeareth to have been used as an Ecclesiastical Rite. The use of these Feasts of Charity was mentioned with approbation by S. Judas, v. 12. and according to some Greek Copies by S. Peter, 2 Pet. 2.13. and amongst the ancient Writers by Ignatius Ep. ad Smyr. Tertullian, Apol. c. 39 Clemens Alexand. Paedag. l. 2. c. 1. Orig. Cont. Celsum l. 1. Conc. Gangr. c. 11. and by S. Chrysostom, Augustine, and divers others, some placing them (as the Passover was eaten) before the Lord's Supper others comparing them to the Jewish Feasts eaten after the Passover. But when these Feasts of Charity became greatly abused, the Canons both of Provincial and general Councils, 
Conc. Laodic. c. 28.3. Carth. 30. Trul. 74.  excluded them from the public places of Church Assemblies; and as Baronius observeth they were abolished in Italy, by S. Ambroses Authority; as they were also not long afterwards in Africa, by S. Augustine and the other Bishops of the Carthaginian Province: 
Baron. an. 377. n. 14: Aug. Ep. 64.  and they became generally disused, though some appearances thereof may possibly be discerned in later times, in the Communion upon Maundy Thursday in divers Churches, and in the practice of the Greek Church upon the day of the Resurrection or Easter Day, 
Cassand. Liturg. c. 4.  when (as Cassander relateth) after the holy Communion, allatis in Ecclesiam epulis communiter convivantur, they have a common Banquet brought into the Church, of which they all partake.  
4. But against that part of this observation that the Agapae were anciently joined with the holy Communion, it may be objected; 
Albasp. Obj. lib. 1. Obj. 18.  that Albaspinus doth on purpose undertake to prove, that in Tertullia's time, the Agapae and the Eucharist were not observed together, but that the former was celebrated at night, from Tertul. Apol. c. 39 and the latter in the Morning, from Tertul. lib. 2. ad Vxor. c. 5. and de Coron. Mil. c. 3. But in answer to this we may consider, that in that very observation, Albaspinus himself admitteth, with a Non inficias iverim, that the Agapae were in the time of the Apostles celebrated with the Eucharist: and concerning the time of Tertullian, he neither undertaketh to prove that there were no Agapae in the Morning, nor no Communion in the Evening: for those very words of Tertullian de Corona militis. c. 3. Eucharistiae Sacramentum etiam antelucanis caetibus sumimus, do intimate, that that Sacrament was administered also at other times, besides those early Morning Assemblies, and S. Cyprian as Pamelius noteth, 
Cyp. Ep. 63. n. 48.  expresseth their communicating the that Carthaginian Church both in the Morning and the Evening; 
Socr. Hist. Eccl. l 5. c. 21.  as Socrates long after relateth the Custom of Evening Communions in the Churches of Egypt, and those nigh to Thebais. And therefore the Eucharist and Agapae might be and were joined together, as is manifest from another place of Tertullia's Apology. 
Apol. c. 7, & 8.   
5. And that these things were mutable Rites, and no perpetual Laws to the Christian Church, is manifest not only from general Ecclesiastical practice, but also because the Scriptures give no command for the love Feasts, though they mention that practice with approbation: and the kiss which was a token of love and friendship according to the Custom of those Countries, was thence directed to be observed by those Christians, only as a token of their Christian greeting and salutation, and a testimony of their Unity and Communion. Yet because these things were used at the time of the holy Communion, as outward actions representing part of that Christian duty, practice, and engagement, which was signified by that holy Ordinance itself, and undertaken therein, they were in this use properly Ecclesiastical Rites, and do justify the use of such external actions in the service or duties of Religion, which are useful to excite or promote Christian practice.  
6. And besides these, the Apostles direction for men to pray or prophesy with their heads uncovered, 
1 Cor. 11.4.  was the determining an external Rite for order and decency, and not without some respect to the common expressions of Reverence in Greece, and other parts of the Roman Empire. The Jewish Priests performed their Temple service with their heads covered with their Bonnets, as did the High Priest also in his Mitre, and it was his honour and dignity that he might not uncover his head, Leu. 21.10. he representing hereby the glory and honour of the Messiah. In the Jewish Synagogue worship, their men constantly prayed with their faces vailed, 
V Hor. Hebr. in 1. Cor. 11.4.  in token of shame; as is manifest from divers testimonies of the Talmudists: agreeably to which Custom, the holy Angels in Isaiah's Vision, are represented standing before God, and worshipping with their faces covered. 
Is. 6.1, 2, 3.  The ancient Romans used uncovering the head as an expression of honour to great men; but yet from the time of Aeneas, 
Plutarch. Prob. Rom. q. 10, 11, 13.  as Plutarch affirmeth, they had their heads covered in most of their Religious solemnities. The Grecians worshipped with their heads uncovered, as did the Romans also in their adoration of Saturn. But S. Paul considering the Christians relation and encouragements, and the customary use of vailing among women, as fitly becoming and expressing their shamefacedness, modesty, and subjection; he thence from the consideration of comeliness determineth that the expression of reverence which most befitteth the state of men, in their Religious service is to uncover their heads, and not to veil them both in praying and in prophesying (or praising and glorifying God chief under extraordinary or prophetic raptures; in which sense the Chaldee Paraphrast oft expoundeth the Phrase of prophesying in the Old Testament, and R. D. Kimchi, 
Ch. Par. in 1. Sam. 10.5, 6, 10, 11, 13. Ch. 19, 20, 21, 23, 24. Drus. in 1. Sam. 10.6.  also as he is cited by Drusius). And the consequence hereof is this, that such outward actions as tend to express a comely reverence in the service of God, may be filty appointed and used therein, under the Gospel dispensation.  
7. But because I shall in the following Chapter give some other instances of Apostolical practice, I forbear in this place to urge any more, and therefore shall not insist upon S. Peter submitting to have his feet washed at our Saviour's command; which some have noted to be a Jewish Paschal Rite, then practised under an Evangelical signification; nor upon the observations enjoined to the Gentile Christians by the Council at Jerusalem, Act. 15. nor upon those other manifestly ancient Rites which are not mentioned in the Scriptures, but were by the Fathers of the Primitive Church called Apostolical Rites, or Apostolical Traditions. But instead of prosecuting what is contained in this last instance, I shall observe that it was a current position, among the chief Protestant Writers of the Churches beyond the Seas, that in points of external rite, order, and decency, some things were appointed by the Apostles in the Churches of Christ, which were not recorded in the holy Scriptures. 
Kemnit. Exam de Tradit. 7 m. Genus.  Thus Kemnitius asserteth, that it is manifest from the Apostles writings, that they did ordain and deliver some Rites unto the Church, & verisimile est quosdam etiam alios externos ritus qui in scriptura annotati non sunt, to Apostolis traditos esse. And it seemeth true that there were other external Rites delivered by the Apostles, which are not mentioned in the Scripture. Beza upon those words of S. Paul. The rest will I set in order when I come, 1 Cor. 11.34. granteth that the Apostle did in that Church detemine other things, not mentioned in that Epistle, but pertinent ad ordinem Ecclesiasticum, non ad dogmata; they were not matters of Doctrine but of Ecclesiastical Order. And upon the same words he saith that they appointed things referring to order, as time, place, forms of Prayer and such like; as times, places, and persons did require. 
Zanch. Tract. de Sacr. Script. Qu. 8.  Zanchy also citing the same Text by way of Objection, in his Treatise of the holy Scripture answereth, That concerning matters of order and decency, we acknowledge many things to have been appointed in the Churches by the Apostles, which are not written. Concedimus multa fuisse instituta ab Apostolis in Ecclesiis quae non sunt scripta.  
8. That command of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done decently and in order; doth manifestly suppose a power, and command its exercise in the Church of Corinth, for the appointing what is requisite to those ends: and is to this purpose urged, not only in the Church of England, but by those other modern Writers, who are in high esteem with most Non-Conformists. 
Infst. l. 4. c. 10. Sect. 27.  Calvin in his institutions, from this Scripture asserteth, a necessity of laws made by Ecclesiastical Constitutions, because order and decency cannot otherwise be kept, nisi additis observationibus tanquam vinculis quibusdam: and in his Commentaries he thence asserteth, 
In 1. Cor. 14.40.  that God hath left external Rites unto our liberty that we might not account his worship to consist in them. Zanchy, 
Zanch. Compend. Doct. Christianae Loc. 16.  considering this Text, enquireth what the Apostle meaneth by decency and order? and saith among other things, one end of decency is, that while certain Rites are made use of to conciliate reverence to sacred things, we should by such helps be the more excited unto piety. Illyricus himself declareth this command, to be a foundation, 
Gloss. Illyrici in Loc.  first Frinciple or Rule, upon which Church Government and Polity is to be built, and according to which it is to be modelled. 
Part. 2. Ch. 4.  And the same commandment is produced by the London Ministers, in their Jus divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, as giving allowance for the ordering the circumstantials of Church Government. And then it must especially warrant the orderly determining things circumstantial, concerning Ecclesiastical Assemblies and divine worship, which is the special matter about which the Apostle treateth in that Chapter.   

SECT. iv  
The practice and judgement of the Primitive, and many Protestant Churches concerning Ceremonies.  
1. The third Argument is, from the judgement and practice of the Church of God in all Ages, both in its Primitive Purity, and since the Reformation. And, as Christian Prudence and Sobriety requireth a reverend esteem of the judgement or the Universal Church; so Christian Charity, Humility, and Modesty, will forbid the razed censuring the generally received practices in the best times of Christianity. In the Primitive times, all their Canonical Constitutions of Synods supposed a liberty reserved to the Church of determining things expedient; their observation of some Rites appointed by the Apostles is clear enough from the foregoing Section; and of their use of the sign of the Cross, of distinct Garments in Religious Worship, of their gesture at the Communion, and of imposition of hands in Confirmation, and the Ring in Marriage, 
Ch. 4.  I shall give a particular account when I come to consider the particular Rites of our Church. And that in the early times of Christianity they stood at Prayer on the Lords Days, and from Easter to Whitsunday, as professing the hope of the Resurrection; that they prayed with their faces to the East (while in the Jewish Temple Worship they always worshipped with their faces to the West); that they used various impositions of hands on the Penitents; and gave some initiatives Symbols, as Salt, Hony and Milk to the Catechumen, and newly baptised persons, with others of the like nature; is so manifest, that no man who hath read the ancient Writers can possibly make any doubt thereof. And such Rites as were orderly and fitly established by Ecclesiastical Authority, without any divine institution, were frequently justified and defended by divers of the Fathers; as Tertullian, S. Ambrose, Basil, Austin, as their testimonies might be largely produced.  
2. For instance sake I shall single out S. Austin, who (though he piously complained of the overgreat number of Ceremonies in his time, when they were indeed very numerous) in his Epistle to Casulanus writing concerning fasting on the Saturday, 
Aug. Ep. 86.  he giveth this general Rule; that in those things where the divine Scriptures determine nothing certainly, the custom of the people of God, or the institution of our Ancestors is to be reputed as a Law. And afterwards he adviseth to be careful, lest the clearness or calmness of Charity, be (about such things) Clouded over with the tempests of contention and disputation. 
Ep. 118. c. 2.  And in his Epistle to Januarius, after many other things to the same purpose, he expresseth the advice of S. Ambrose, which he always esteemed as a Divine Oracle; that in things which neither opposed Faith nor a holy life, every one was to conform to the Observations and Custom of that Church, where he had his present abode: cum Romae sum jejuno Sabbato, cum hic sum non jejuno; sic etiam tu, ad quam forte Ecclesiam veneris, ejus morem serva, si cuique non vis esse scandalo, nec quenquam tibi. 
Ep. 119. c. 18.  (and in his next Epistle he giveth a like direction about the same matter, which is by him called saluberrima regula.) And he saith he had oft perceived with grief and sorrow, much disturbance of the weak, per quorundam fratrum contentiosam obstinationem, & superstitiosam timiditatem; through the contentious obstinacy, and superstitious fearfulness of some brethren, who stir up such contentious questions, (about Ecclesiastical Rites of an indifferent nature in particular Churches) that they judge nothing right, but what themselves do: and in the same Epistle, 
Ep. 118. c. 6.  he defendeth the Custom of the Church in his time of receiving the Eucharist fasting, which Christ instituted after meat, but gave no command that it should be afterwards so celebrated.  
3. Amongst the Protestant Writers Calvin at Geneva, 
Calvin Tom. 7. Ver a Ecclesiae Reform. Ratio.  maketh this formal protestation: Lest any man should raise a calumny,— I would have all pious Readers here to bear me witness, that I do not contend about Ceremonies, which do serve only for decency and order, nor yet against such which are either Symbols of, or incitements to, that reverence which we bear to God. 
Vrsin Eaepl. Catec. q. 103.  Vrsin in the Palatinate asserteth the Ecclesiastical appointment of some Rites not only to be lawful, but to be a duty; potest (saith he) ac debet Ecclesia quasdam Ceremonias instituere. Rivet in the Dutch Church saith that in the Church we use Ceremonies, 
Cathol. Orth. Tr. 2. q. 37.  ut gestibus, & actionibus solennibus; Ceremonies, as gestures and actions of solemnity: and concerning such things which are appointed for decency and order, he declareth his approbation of that Rule of S. Austin, above expressed from Ep. 118 c. 2. Among the Lutherans, Kemnitius not only asserteth the Church's liberty, 
Exam. Conc. Trid. de Sacram. Can. 13.  in appointing adiaphorous Rates: but also for order sake he disalloweth all liberty of varying from them: Et sane ordinis & decori gratia etiam in externis adiaphoris, non est cuivis sine Ecclesiae judicio & consensu permittendum, ut ex petul●nlie pro libidine, quid vis vel omittat vel permutet. 
Ger. Conf. Cathol. Lib. 1. Gener. Par. 2. c. 5. de Traditionibus.  Gerard both acknowledgeth the Authority of the Church for the ordaining samethings about the external part of worship, and yieldeth that not only the Church, but even the Apostles themselves, did institute in the Church, ritus quosdam liberos, some free indifferent rites, appertaining to order and decency, which in specie and in particular are neither written, nor imposed by a perpetual Law, as necessary for the whole Church. And in another place he showeth that they readily receive these adiaphorous things for order and decency, 
C. 12. de consuetudine Eccles.  etiamsi sola Ecclesiae consuetudine nitantur; though they only depend upon the Custom of the Church. 
Illyr. Glos. in 1. Cor. 11.16.  And Flacius Illyricus himself when he was out of the humour of opposition, did at last in his Gloss published from Strasburgh 1570. upon those words of the Apostle. If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such Custom, nor the Churches of God writ thus. The Apostle (saith he) rejecteth morose and contentious answerers, showing that profitable rites received by grave authority, aught by no means to be contemned or plucked in pieces, though they be not built on solid demonstrations. But if any man will be stiff in his opinion, the Apostle will not contend any longer with him, but will acquiesce in the Custom of Godly and worthy men, and of the Churches of God themselves; idemque (saith he) alios omnes pios facere debere, and that all pious men ought to do the same is acknowledged there to be an Apostolical direction by Illyricus when he was out of the heat of contention in a cool and calm temper.  
4. If we view the pulick writings of the Reformed Churches, 
Conf. Bohem. Ars. 15.  the Bohemian Confession declareth them to teach, that humane Traditions, Rites, and Customs, which do not hinder Piety, are to be preserved in the public Christian Assemblies. And in their account of the Discipline and Order of their Churches, they divide the matters of Religion into three heads; the Essentialia, which contain the matters of Faith, Love, and Hope; the Minisierialia which include the means of Grace, as the word of God, 
Rat. Difc. & Ord. c. 1.  the Sacraments, and power of the Keys; and the Accidentalia by which they say they mean what others call Adiaphora, or external Ceremonies and Rites of Religion. In these matters Adiaphorous, they say, they may have some things in use among them which are different from other Churches, and yet are they not willing, upon any small occasions, to allow any alteration therein; neque ob leves causus quicquam mutare aequum putamus, & nemini apud nos licet insuetas ceremonias inahoare. 
Ibid. c. 2.  And in their Ordination both of their Bishop, and their Consenior (who is designed to represent the Chorepiseopus in some ancient Churches) whose Office is like that of our Arch Deacon, and their Minister, and their Deacon; those of the same Order give to the person then ordained, their right hand of fellowship, and those of the inferior Order (when one is ordained to any of the higher degrees) give him their right hand, in token of subjection testified and assured by that external Rite.  
5. The Augustane Confession, in several expressions, asserteth it lawful for the Bishops or Pastors, 
Conf. August. de Ecc●● 〈◊〉. & Art●●●, & 21 & de descrimine cibor.  to appoint things for Order in the Church; and declareth that they do retain many ancient Rites or Ceremonies, though they complain also of the abuse of others in the Romish Church, as the Church of England doth: and it asserteth also ritus illos servandos esse qui sine peccato servari possunt, & ad tranquillitatem & bonum ordinem Ecclesiae conducunt. 
Conf Saxon. de Tradition.  The Saxon Confession treating of Rites appointed in the Church by humane Authority, declareth, that nothing ought to be appointed against God's word, or in the way of superstition, but that some blameless Rites for good order, both aught to be and by them are observed; ritus aliquos honestos boni ordinis causa factos, & servamus & servandos esse docemus. And the Ceremonies most opposed in the Church of England, with more besides them, are retained both in that and in other Lutherane Churches. 
Conf. Helu. c. 27.  The Helvetick Confession asserteth, that the Church hath always used a liberty about Rites, as being things of a middle or indifferent nature. The French Church alloweth, that there be singulis locis peculiaria instituta, 
Conf. Gallic. c. 32.  prout commodum visum fuerit; peculiar Constitutions for several places, as it shall appear profitable. And the Strasburgh Confession discoursing about humane Traditions, or external Rites and Observations, which conduce to profit, though they be not expressed in the Scriptures, 
Conf. Argent. c. 14.  saith, that many such the Church of God at this day doth rightly observe, and as there is occasion doth make new ones; adding these sharp words, quas qui rejecerit, is non hominum sed Dei, cujus traditio est quaecunque utilis est, authoritatem contemnit, that whosoever rejecteth these things, doth not contemn the authority of men but of God, of whom is every profitable Constituion. Wherefore he who will yet disclaim all Ceremonial Rites under Christianity, and will esteem them to be a pestilential and dangerous Contagion in the Church, must undertake to affix both to the ancient, and latter most famous Churches, a Miserere nostri.   

SECT. V  
The ill consequences, of denying the lawfulness of all Ecclesiastical Rites and Constitutions in things indifferent observed.  
1. Though the condemning the practice and rule of the Church in all Ages, and even in the time of the holy Apostles and Prophets, be inconvenience sufficient for any opinion to stand charged with: yet besides this (which hath been evidenced in the two former Sections) the denying the lawfulness of any external Rites. 1. Debarreth the Church of what is really advantageous unto it: for some fit external Rites of order and decency, (provided they be not over-numerous) do promise solemnity in the service of God, and tend to excite a greater degree of seriousness, reverence, and attentiveness. It was S. Augustine's observation, 
De Curia pro mortuis c. 5.  that in Religion the outward actions of bowing the knee, stretching forth the hands, and falling on the ground, though they be not performed without the preceding actions of the Soul, do much increase the inward affections of the heart. In the common affairs of the World, the boaring his Ear with an Awl, who was willing to undertake a perpetual service; the giving possession among the Jews by the pulling of the shoe, and amongst us by divers other ways, of livery and seisin; the delivering some ensign of authority at the enstallment of a Magistrate, and the giving the hand as a pledge of fidelity, have by the common prudence of men been judged useful Rites, to render those undertake and actions the more solemn and observable. Nor can there be any reason, why some external actions may not obtain the like effect in matters of Religion; especially considering that both Prophets and Apostles in delivering their extraordinary Messages from God, thought fit frequently to make use of visible representations, that their words might thereby take the deeper impression. Thus Ezekiel carried out his stuff in their sight, and Isaiah walked naked (without his ordinary Garments) when they denounced Captivity; and Agabus foretelling the imprisonment of S. Paul, bound himself with his girdle; 
Act. 13.51. Mar. 6.11.  and the Apostles according to the commandment of Christ shook of the dust of their feet, as a testimony against those Cities who received them not, 
V Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 10.14.  which was a rite the Jews made use to towards the Cities of the Gentiles, to express their defilement and uncleanness.  
2. 2. The denying the lawful use of external Rites, and humane observations in the worship of God, is ordinarily attended with partiality of judgement. For it is almost generally acknowledged, that in taking a Religious Oath, some external Ceremony addeth a solemnity and reverence to that sacred action: whence when other Ceremonies in public worship were laid aside, there was an Act of Parliament as it was entitled, that in taking an Oath it might be lawful for any man, either to lay his hand upon the Book, or to hold up his right hand (which was the way made use of in taking the Covenant.) And Bishop Saunderson to this purpose judiciously declareth, 
DeJuram. Obl. Pral. 5. Sec. 12.  that he could never receive any satisfaction, though he had oft considered with himself, and enquired of others, why a prescribed form of words, and the use of the solemnity of external Rites, either ought not as things superstitious to be removed from the Religious use of an Oath; or else may not as useful helps of piety, be retained in the other parts of God's worship. I know that some have told us, that an Oath is not a part of the natural worship of God, belonging to the first commandment; nor of the instituted worship in the second Commandment; but of the reurend use of God's name in the third Commandment; and that the principal use of an Oath is to confirm truth and end strife, and therefore it is not primarily an act of worship, but secondarily and consequentially. But indeed all this is but a plausible mistake. For an Oath as it is distinguished from a bare assertion, encludeth a direct profession and particular acknowledgement of the Omniscience of God, and his searching the heart of man, and of the justice of God in the punishing evil, and that he is a God of truth, and invocateth him as such: and this is part of the natural worship of God, or of the honour which is due to God, as being founded in the nature of God, and the natural estate of man. And since God hath instituted this way of Religious appeal to himself, an Oath must be acknowledged to include also part of the instituted worship of God. And the Rite of laying the hand upon the Book, and kissing it, or holding up the hand, being designed as a testimony to others, of a man's appeal to God's Omniscience and Justice; the end of that Ceremony, is primarily to manifest this religious application to God, and therefore it is attendant upon an Oath, as it is properly an act of worship.  
3. 3. If no external observations not commanded by God, might lawfully be admitted in the worship of God, then must the public exercise thereof cease. For God who did expressly determine the time and place, for the Jewish Tabernacle and Temple worship, hath not prescribed the same circumstances for the Christian service. Nor hath he prescribed in all things the method and gesture for our Religious addresses, nor the kind of Bread and Wine at the Lords Supper: yet these things must necessarily be determined, where these Ordinances are celebrated. 
Disp. of Humane Cerem. c. 2.  Wherefore Mr. Baxter acknowledgeth that such things as these, and the decent habit for the service of God, be left to humane prudence to order, and may be determined for order, decency, and edification. But Mr. Rutherford undertaking to fix the right bounds for the Church's authority, distinguisheth things moral, 
Introd. to Diu. Right of Gh. Govern. Sec. 1.  and Physical circumstances; and these latter only he granteth may be determined and ordered by the Church, but not the former. These Physical circumstances he saith are only eight and there can be no more enumerated. viz. time, place, person, name, family, condition, habit, gesture. Now to omit the examining the terms of that distinction, and the considering that most of our Ceremonies (as they are called) are included under habit, and gesture, it is manifest that he hath pitifully shackled himself, in endeavouring the undue confinement of the Church's Power. For as there can be no possible account, why those eight things and no more can be determined by the Church, so it is very obvious to discern how monstrous this enumeration is; having needless redundancy, in adding as distinct circumstances from the person, the name, family, and condition; to which he might with as much reason have added, the age, stature, and complexion of the person: and they have likewise a great deficiency, since according to his position it is unlawful to determine, what version of the Bible shall be read in the Church, what Vessels shall be used in administering the Sacraments, and in what method Prayers, Praises, Psalms, Sermons, and other Offices shall succeed to each other; the appointing of which was a chief design of the Directory. And some men who undertook to decry every think referring to the worship of God as unlawful, unless it was particularly enjoined in the Scripture, did advance this false position so far, 
In Edw. Gangrena. Par. 2. Er. 172.  as to assert that the Directory was a breach of the second Commandment; and that there was no word of God to warrant the making that Book, more than Jeroboam had, when he set up two high places, the one at Da●, and the other at Bethel. Nor can such a charge be avoided, nor Religion be secured from confusion, unless it be admitted (which is certainly true) that some things ●●ternal may lawfully be appointed, about the exercise thereof, though may be not particularly enjoined of God.  
4. The reason why I have in this Section conjoined the inconveniency attending the disallowing Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Observations, together with those consequent upon the disclaiming external Rites and Ceremonies, is, because both these are equally impugned by almost all the arguments produced with special respect to the latter of them.   

SECT. VI  
Some Objections from Reason, and from the Old Testa●●●● examined.  
1. Against the 〈◊〉 use of some Ceremonies in the Christian Church, there are mustered up a 〈◊〉 Army of Objections (if a weak 〈…〉 be so called); a particular answer 〈◊〉 every of which, would be tedious and needless. For the affirming that such establishments oppose the Sovereignty of Christ, or accuse him of negligence or unfaithfulness; and that they make men the Masters of our Religion and such like; manifestly appear to be false accusations, by considering that these external Rites are such things of an indifferent nature, that their appointment by humane authority hath been allowed of God, both under the Old and New Testament, as hath been above evidenced. To assert that the allowance of any Ceremonies ordered by Ecclesiastical Prudence, 
V Hooker. Eccles Pol. l. 3.  chargeth the Scripture with insufficiency, and leaveth us at a loss (as some tell us it doth) for a Rule of Faith Proceedeth from a gross misunderstanding; as if these indifferent things particularly considered, were matters of Faith, and that the Scripture could not be a sufficient Rule. For Faith and Holy Life, unless it include a determination of all prudential circumstances, that none should be ordered in the Church which are not there appointed. To decry all such things as Unlawful, because in our Church there hath been much strife and contention about them, to the breach of the Church's Peace; may appear to be a very weak argument, from observing that both the Jewish and the Apostolical and Primitive Christian Churches, and several Lutheran Churches of late have enjoyed a very peaceable state, together with such Ecclesiastical Constitutions: but the more manifest cause of strife and contention, is from misunderstanding in some, and from want of humility and obedience in others; and these persons have found matter sufficient for them to make a breach of the Church's Peace, in other points besides Ceremonies.  
2. As to that Objection, that the allowing any Authority for the appointing such things in the Church, will leave its power in a boundless and unlimited state; if this was of any force, it would equally oppose all other commanding Authority in every superior relation in the World. And as secular Rules have Authority to make Laws for the Peace and Order of Kingdoms, but not to exercise oppression nor to change the nature of Good and Evil, nor to make any divine Precepts; so Rulers in the Church are allowed to direct and appoint what tendeth to good order and decency; but may not deliver any thing as Gods command which is not, nor alter any of his Precepts and Institutions, nor to enjoin things needlessly burdensome. How the allowing some Ceremonies in the Christian Church is a quite different thing from the reducing the Ceremonial law of the Jews, hath been showed in the first Section of this Chapter; Wherefore I now come to examine the Scripture evidence which some plead against Ecclesiastical Rites and Constitutions.  
3. Obj. 1. The sin of Nadab and Abihu, for which fire came out from the Lord and devoured them, was their offering strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. Leu. 10.1, 2. And this is supposed by them who urge this Objection, to be only an outward rite or circumstance of worship, in making use of that fire in the service of God which was not enjoined, and about which he had made no determination.  
Ans. 1. 
Cypr. Ep. 73. & de Vnit. Eccl.  It was much more truly acknowledged of old, that the sin of Nadab and Abihu was, that what they did, was Dei traditione contempta, 
Iren. adv. Haer. l. 5. c. 44.  in despite of what God had declared to the contrary; and therefore their sin hath been frequently paralleled, with the sin of Corah, Dathan, and Abiram. And whereas the Scripture declareth their sin, to be a doing that which God commandeth them not: that Phrase in the holy Scriptures (which I commanded them not) doth not denote, gods having enjoined nothing about that particular action, but ordinarily by a Meiosis intimateth, Gods having severely prohibited it. Thus God declared their building high places of Tophet and of Baal, to burn their Sons and their Daughters, to be things he commanded them not, Jer. 7.31. Jer. 19.5. and the same expression is used, concerning committing Adultery with their Neighbour's Wives, and speaking lying words in the name of the Lord, Jer. 29.23. and concerning the serving other Gods, and worshipping the Sun, Moon, and the Host of Heaven, Dent. 17.3. all which things were vehemently forbidden in the Law of God. Wherefore some have thought that the sin of Nadab and Abihu consisted in Offering strange Incense, 
Fag. in loc.  which God had expressly forbidden, Ex. 30.9. Which opinion is declared by Fagius; and doubtless this was the judgement of Josephus, though the ordinary Copies of Josephus express it to be their Offering other (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Sacrifices than Moses had commanded; 
Joseph. Ant. l. 3. c. 10.  but that it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Incense, is manifest by comparing Josephus with the Hebrew, and the Septuagint. Others have observed, that before that time God had appointed Aaron only, and not his Sons to offer any incense unto him; and therefore it might be an act of great presumption in them: and when Corah presumed to invade the Priest's Office to offer incense, botht he Samaritan Version, and the Septuagint, reading the Hebrew with a little variation of the points in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 16.37. called that which he offered, strange fire. And some others have thought them so boldly irreverent, as against the command of God, to thrust themselves into the holy of holies. This is collected by some of the Jewish Doctors from Leu. 16.1, 2, 3. and is admitted by Junius. 
Jun. in Leu. 10.1.   
4. Ans. 2. But admitting that their sin consisted in making use of that fire which God did not allow, we must further assert with Munster, that God having caused fire miraculously to consume the Sacrifice von the Altar, Leu. 9.24. and commanded that the fire upon the Altar should be continually burning (to wit, for the use of God's service) and should never go out, Leu. 6.12, 13. their offering other fire, was an opposing of God's command. For if any should imagine that when God had commanded incense to be offered, which must be offered with fire; he did leave it undetermined what fire they should make use of: and that in this case the choice of any sort of fire, because it was not commanded was a grievous sin; this would represent the holy and righteous will of God, as contradictory to itself, and as inevitably forcing the Priests to be guilty of sin, because upon this unreasonable supposition their offering incense with fire, which was their duty and commanded of God, must necessarily be accounted a sin and displeasing to God And if such positions were admitted, they will bring after them a numerous train of manifest absurdities and contradictions; as that the Priest ought as God had commanded to burn wood upon his Altar, but might in no wise make use of any sort or kind of wood to that purpose, because God had not particularly enjoined it; and the like may be said of the kind of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper; and of divers other things under the time of Christianity.  
5. Obj. 2. God commanded Deut. 12.32. Whatsoever I command you observe and do, thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Ans. 1. That these words do properly condemn on the one hand superstition, of the making any thing a part of Religion and the Law of God, which indeed is not; and on the other hand want of Religious reverence, in neglecting obedience to what God had enjoined and commanded. But that divers things referring to the worship of God, were allowably under the J●●●sh despensation ordered, as matters 〈…〉 expediency, by humane prude●●● 〈◊〉 ●●ve in a former Section given su●●●● 〈◊〉 ●●●●mony: and if such appointment 〈…〉 been allowable, their Synagogue w●●●●● which was thereby guided and d●●●cted, must necessarily have been altogether impracticable, or at least utterly confesed. 
Tr. 2. Ch. 6. div. 1.  And it is not amiss observed by B●●hop Whitgist, that that command Divi 12. did as well concern the Judicial part of the Mosaical Law as the Ceremonial; and therefore it may with as much plausibleness be urged, to prove that no se●●●●ar laws may be made under Christianity, as that no Ecclesiastical Constitutions should be therein established; unless it can be showed, that under the Gospel the Divine Law hath particular 〈◊〉 joined all circumstances of worship, and Rules of Order in all Ecclesiastical Cases, where it is presumed he hath not prescribed a Platform of civil polity. And yet even in matters judicial also the Jewish Doctors, as is manifest from their Bava Kama, Sanbedrin, Maccoth, and other Talmudical Treatises, did give divers resclutions of various particular Cases and circumstances, not expressed in the Law of Moses: and both these decisions, and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or their Constitutions to be a bedge of the Law, 
Macc. c. 1. Sect. 1, 3.  (as when the Law did not allow above forty stripes to him who was to be adjudged to be scourged, their Doctors required them never to exceed thirty nine, not thereby altering God's Law, but taking care lest it should by mistake be violated) are well allowed of by Christian Writers. However, 
Grot. in Deut. 25.3. & 2. Cor. 11.24. Coccei in Mac. c. 3. n. 12.  Since the Gospel requireth a care of order and decency in the Christian Church, to deny this liberty, would be a diminishing from its commands, but to grant it is no addition to them. Wherefore though superstitious placing Religion where we ought not, and irreverent neglect, or making no Conscience of any Divine Institution, are sinful, prudential Constitutions remain lawful.   

SECT. VII.  
Other Objections from the New Testament cleared.  
1. From the New Testament it hath been objected. 1. That our Saviour defended his Disciples, for not obeying the tradition of the elders, which required them to wash before meat. Mat. 15.2. Ans. As this tradition did not refer to the order of the public worship of God, in Religious Assemblies: so the true reason why our Saviour defended his Disciples in their practising against this tradition, was because washing before meat was enjoined by them, as a proper rule of Religion and of Purity. 
In Loc.  For as to general it hath been observed by Drusius and Dr. Lightfoot, that many of the Jews esteemed not the written Law, but that given by tradition to be their foundation, and chief Rule of Doctrine, and declared, that he who transgressed the words of the written Law was not guilty, but he who transgressed the words of the Scribes was guilty: so in this particular discourse our Saviour chargeth them with teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men, v. 9 and declareth against their error and falt● Doctrine, v. 20. that to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man. So that the question between our Saviour and the Scrib●s and Parisees was this, Whether it was to be admitted as a Doctrine, that eating with unwashen hands defileth the man? and our Saviour's justifying his Disciples in this Case. doth declare, that wheresoever  Doctrines are obtruded as parts of the Law of God, it can be no man's duty to receive them, and practise upon them: which is that our Church also professeth.  
2. But our Saviour was so far from opposing prudential Rules and Observations, for the orderly performance of Religious services; that himself frequently practised such things, according to the Custom and Constitutions of the Jews. Thus as the Jewish Doctors sat in their Synagogues when they taught the people, our blessed Lord ordinarily used the same gesture in teaching. He also ordinarily joined in their Synagogue worship, which was ordered by the Rules of Ecclesiastical Prudence, and observed the gesture and other Rites of the Jewish Passover, which the Authority of their Elders had established for order and decency. And whereas in the Jewish Synagogues, and Schools, their Doctors used to sit about in a Semicircle; and their Scholars before them upon lower Seats, to whom the ask of Questions was allowed: our Saviour also n the Temple (which in the holy Scriptures oft encludeth the whole Court and building of the Temple, among which were Religious Schools and Synagogues) sat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the middle of the Doctors hearing them and ask them Questions. Luk. 2.46.  
3. Some have also against the use of external Rites in the worship of God, urged those words of our Saviour. Joh. 4.23. The hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers, shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: collecting thence, that the Gospel worship is so wholly spiritual, that it doth not admit outward Rites and signs. Ans. 1. This must needs be a false construction of these words, which would tend to disclaim the two New Testament Sacraments, the open and visible profession of Faith, the public meeting in Church Assemblies, the praising of God and praying with the voice, the reading and hearing God's word, reverend gesiures in Religious service, and such like necessary parts of Religious duty, in all which there is use of bodily actions and external signs. 2. Our blessed Lord by these words of worshipping the Father in spirit and truth, expresseth that worship which the Gospel directeth; this is often called the truth, and the worshipping of God in the Spirit. Gal. 3.3. Phil. 3.3. and is opposite to the false worship of the Samaritans, and different from the serving of God in Jewish Figures, yet it both admitteth and requireth external expressions of reverence. And in this place our Saviour declareth, that under the Gospel, the worship of God should be so properly suitable to God who is a Spirit, that it should not be confined to any one particular place, and therefore neither the Jewish Temple nor Mount Gerizim (about which places of worship Christ then discoursed with the Samaritan Woman) should be the peculiar place for divine adoration. Because God who is a Spirit would under the Gospel be so spiritually known and honoured, that he would not in any singular and peculiar place, six any special outward Symbol of his divine presence, as in the Jewish dispensation he had done in the Temple, over the mercy Seat: nor would he endure to be worshipped under the representation of a corporeal image, as the Samaritans in Mount Gerizim did worship God, in the form or image of a Dove; as hath been observed by Mr. Mede, 
Mede Disc. en Jo. 3.23.  and is declared concerning them in the Talmud in Cholin, and by the Jewish Chronicler in Tzemach David, whose testimonies and words are produced by Bochartus. 
Bochart. Hieroz. Part. pester. l. 1. c. 1. Vossius de Idololatr. l. 1. c. 23.  Indeed the Learned Eochartus (as did also Vossius) accounteth this charge upon the Samaritans to be a Fable, because it could not consist with their owning the Law of Moses, and is not mentioned either in the Scriptures, or in Josephus. But considering how little Josephus wrote, that hath any kind of relation to the Samaritan worship, and that our Saviour chargeth them with a miscarriage about the object of their worship, 
Joh. 4.22.  Ye worship, saith he, ye know not what; considering also that the worshippers at Bethel, by whom the Samaritans were instructed, did before their Captivity worship God there by an Image, and that the Assyrians, Syrians, and others Neighbouring upon the Samaritans, as Bochartus showeth, 
Bochart. ibidem.  did choose the form of a Dove to be the Image and resemblance of God; there is no just reason to question the evidence of the Jewish Writers concerning the Samaritans.  
4. It hath been also objected against all Ecclesiastical Constitutions, that the Apostle blamed the Colossians, Col. 2.20, 21. Why as though living in the World are ye subject unto Ordinances, such as he mentioneth in the next verse, Touch not, (or eat not) taste not, handle not. Ans. This place concerneth not prudential Rules of order, 
Davenant. & Zanch. In Loc.  but it blameth the Colossians, that they should suffer their minds to be deluded, 
Whitak. Cont. 4. Qu. 7. c. 3.  and their practices to be enshared and perverted, by false positions delivered as Doctrines; and this is observed to be the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 20. and these things were called the Commandments and Doctrines of men, v. 22. and will-worship, v. 23 because they were delivered as proper divine Commandments. And that this was the cause of the Apostles reproving the Colossians, may be further manifest, because the Apostles themselves upon a prudential and Christian account, enjoined the Gentiles to forbear some sorts of meal, the observing of which Apostolical Constitution (which did not doctrinally declare those things themselves to be unclean) was in no wise condemned by S. Paul writing to his Colossians.  
5. That place of S. James. Jam. 4.12. There is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy, doth appropriate to God the Authority of establishing, and executing such Laws, the obeying or disobeying which, is the sure way to eternal life or destruction, because they are his Laws: but this Scripture having no peculiar respect, to the worship of God in public Assemblies, doth no more condemn Ecclesiastical Constitutions of Creder in the Church, than either the civil sanctions of secular Governors, or the Domestic commands of Parents or Masters. 
Inst. l. 4. c. 10. Sect. 7, & 30.  And even Calvin with some respect to this place of St. James, aserteth in his Institutions, that in the great matters of Christianity, there is unicus vitae magister, one only who is to rule and command our life; but in externa Disciplina & Ceremoniis, in matters external concerning Discipline and Ceremonies, he hath not thought sit to prescribe every particular thing, but hath left us to be guided by general rules.  
6. I know that some who urge this place of S. James, would thence conclude that none besides God, have any power or Authority, by their commands, to him●●●● Consciences of men. Now though this TExe speaketh nothing expressly of Conscience or its obligation, I shall concerning that matter add, that Ecclesiastical Constitutions do not otherwise bind the Consciences of men (so far as concerneth the nature of the obligation) than the commands of Magistrates, Parents and Masters do, though they have ordinarily the stronger motives, with direct respect to the Peace and Order of the Church, and the edification of its Members And it must be acknowledged that no humane Authority, can bind the ●●●ing power of Conscience, so that it is 〈…〉 that a duty, which is whereby ●●●●●●ded, without having liberty 〈…〉 of its lawfulness: and this is manifestly the sense of several 〈…〉 Writers, when they say that Go●●●●ly hath power to bind the Conscience. But that humane Laws and commands do secondarily and consequentially bind the Conscience, to take care of practising what is lawfully commanded, is that which can 〈◊〉 be denied. It would certainly sound harshto a Christian Ear, if any shall assert, that a Child is not bound in Conscience, to do any particular lawful thing which his Father commandeth him; it being all one to assert that it is not his duty, and that he is not bound in Conscience to do it. But if he be bound in Conscience to do that upon his Father's command, which he was not bound to undertake without that command, it must needs be his command, which layeth that obligation upon Conscience, secondarily and consequentially, or with a respect unto Gods general command of obedience.  
7. In this sense it is not unusual with Protestant Writers beyond the Seas, (as well as with divers of our own Nation, as particularly Bishop Saunderson de Obligatione Conscientiae, 
Dust. Dubit. l. 3. c. 1. rule 1.5. & Ch. 4. rule 5.  and Bishop Taylor very largely in his Ductor Dubitantium) to assert, that the injunctions of our Superiors bind the Conscience, Vrsin in his Explicatio Catechetica, asserteth the Constitution of the Magistrate to bind the Conscience, that is (saith he) by reason of the command of the Magistrate, 
Ex. Cat. qu. 96.  it becometh necessary to be performed, and cannot be neglected without the offence of God, though it be no case of scandal. 
In praec. 2. de Cultu Dei.  And in his Loci Theologici he to the same purpose declareth, edicta Magistratûs obligant conscientias, and absque scandalo obligatur conscientia ad harum legum observationem. To the same purpose may Paraeus be produced. 
Alsted Theol. Cas. c. 2. Reg. 2.  And Alsted very well noteth that humane laws mediately or under God do bind the Conscience even as an Oath, Vow, or promise made by a man's silly doth.  
8. I shall not insist upon that objection from Heb. 3.5, 6. which expresseth the faithfulness of Christ to be more glorious than the faithfulness of Moses, from whence it hath been with more manifest violence, than strength of argument, concluded, that under the Gospel which is perfectly and completely delivered by Christ, there is no place left for any prudential Constitutions, which were (say they) wholly excluded under the Mosaical law. But I suppose I have beyond all contradiction evinced, that under the Mosaical Law, there were divers things appointed by Ecclesiastical Authority. And that Moses' faithfulness consisted in delivering the Law as he received it, and not in the compleatness of enjoining every particular circumstance in the Church, will appear evident; because otherwise he could not be accounted as faithful, with respect to their Synagogue worship as to their Temple worship. And it may be further noted, that the numerous divine commands about matters external, referring to the Temple worship, 
V Sanders. de Obl. Cons. prael. 6. Sect. 30.  which was the Law of Commandments contained in Ordinances, was no part of the privilege but of the bondage of the Jewish church, in which the Gospel Church was not designed to be conformable thereto.  
9 What is usually produced upon this subject from the fourteenth Chapter to the Romans will fall more directly under consideration in the following Chapter where I design to give a particular account of the true sense thereof.  
10. But what hath been here said, can be no pretence of excuse for the Rites of the Romish Church; where besides their unreasonable and burdensome number, divers of them are evil in their nature: many of them being Sacramental and designed to be operative of Grace and spiritual help: and others being opposite to plain duties of Religion, such are the making images of the Trinity; and of the Saints for adoration; the suppressing the Cup to the Laity, a Rite of Christ's appointment in the Eucharist; the adoration of the Sacrament as transubstantiated: and divers others being manifestly superstitious, as might be evidenced in their various consecrations (as they account them of Bells, Candles, Water, Salt, Chrysm, etc.) Processions and such like.    

CHAP. II.  
Of external Rites and Constitutions, as significant, enjoined, scrupled, or having been abused.  

SECT. I.  
Of external Rites as significant.  
1. 
Com. Pray. of Ceremonies.  OUR Liturgy declareth the Ceremonies retained in our Church, to serve to a decent order and godly Discipline, and to be such as are apt to stir up the dull mind of man, to the remembrance of his duty to God, by some notable and special signification, whereby he might be edified. Thus kneeling at the Communion is designed to express Humility and Reverence; the Cross at Baptism to be a memorative taken of engagement to the Christian Life, and the Ministerial Habit to be a testimony of peculiar respect and honour, to the worship and service of God. And if any from the White Linen take occasion to meditate, and think of the purity of Divine Worship, and the Christian Life; and that as White Linen is changed from its natural greenness and moisture, to become useful and comely, through much industry, washing, and the influence of the Sun; so the corrupt state of fallen man, may become renewed unto holiness by the power of divine Grace, and serious Christian diligence: such considerations as this, though not commanded in this Church, may well be approved and defended.  
2. 
T. C. Repl. p. 136. Linc. Apol. 1605. Alt. Damasc. c. 9 p. 522. Mr. Baxt. Disp. of Cerem. c. 2. Excep. of Presb. p. 9  But such external instituted signs which by their signification do either teach any duty, or excite to the performance thereof, have been generally decried with some earnestness by the Non-Conformists, under the name of Mystical teaching signs, sometimes as Jewish Rites, and sometimes as new Sacraments. Whereas it seemeth very strange that an useful significancy, or its conducibleness to promote good, should become a crime. Surely it is altogether as reasonable, that such an Ornament of the body which might otherwise be approved, should become utterly intolerable, if it be of any advantage for warmth or health; as that any appointment for order and decency in matters of Religion, should be thought altogether insufferable, because of its tendency towards edification, or any spiritual benefit. Wherefore  
3. Consider. 1. That the denying all lawfulness of using any external thing not commanded of God, as a sign either to help our understandings or excite our affections, doth very much tend to the prejudice of Religion and Christianity. For this would condemn the use of Parables and Similitudes, which our Saviour following the Custom of the Jewish Teachers, did frequently express. And this would condemn a very useful part of Christian meditation; as if he who looketh upon the Earth no otherwise than the Beast doth, might be well approved of; while he who fixing his eyes thereupon, considereth that he was taken out of the Earth, and must return thither, and thence entereth upon in humble thoughtfulness of his own frailty, must be condemned; or as if it was a heinous thing for a Christian when he looketh up to Heaven, immediately to entertain thoughts thereupon, of Christ's being ascended thither, and how much he is obliged that his affections and conversation should be above.  
4. Cons. 2. The lawful use of some other visible signs besies gestures, is necessarily allowed in the right exercise of Christianity. I suppose none will condemn our kneeling at Prayer, though it be primarily designed to testify our lowlyness, reverence, and humility; and to own and acknowledge the Sovereignty and Majesty of God; or standing to hear, thereby to express or excite Christian attention: the lifting up the hands or eyes in Prayer out of true devotion, is not therefore , because it is a sign of a stedsast hope and confidence in God, and of expectation from him; nor may the Publicans smiting his hand upon his breast, be thought the worse of, because it encluded a pathetic and affectionate acknowledgement, of his unfeigned humiliation and sorrow for sin. 
Act. 21.40. Ch. 26.1.  We often read of the Apostle beckoning with his hand, to move his Aditors to attention; and I suppose few will be so bold, as to censure the Custom of the Primitive Christians, 
Tertul. Apol. c. 30.  who prayed as Tertullian declareth, manibus expansis quia innocuis, capite nuclo quia non erubescimus, and who frequently stretched out their hands in Prayer composing themselves thereby to a suitableness to Ch●●● dying on the Cross, 
Tertul. de Grat. c. 13.  Dominica passion●●● 〈◊〉 and having in that posture an 〈◊〉 intea●uess of mind upon our Saviour's Passion, when his hands were stretched out. But dare any undertake to blame that woman, whom our Saviour commanded and approved, who kissed the feet of our Lord, and anointed them with Ointment, 
Luk. 7. 38.-50.  and who washed them with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, as a testimony of religious reverence, honour and vehement love to the Son of God by whom she obtained remission of sins? or to condemn her who to a like purpose poured that Ointment of spikenard upon his head, concerning which he declared, that wherever the Gospel should be preached, throughout the whole World, that which she had done should be spoken of for a memorial of her Mar. 14.3,— 9 Wherefore outward voluntary actions, designed to signify some Religiovis thing, ought not universally to be disclaimed. And it will concern them who condemn external Rites merely upon account of their signification, which might otherwise be admitted; to consider how they can allow according to this opinion, the use of proper and expressive words in the service of God, to be preferred before nonsense and impertinencies: (since words are properly signs of things as S. Aug. and Rabanus have noted, 
Aug. de Doctr. Christ. l. 3. c. 1, 2, 3. Rab. Maur. de Inst. Cler. l 3. c. 8. etc.  and the particular words appropriated to all parts of Divine worship are not enjoined by God himself) and whether this position will not go far, toward the condemning Religious and devout behaviour in Christian Assemblies, because it is an outward and visible expression of a pious frame of mind; whereas such external actions rightly used with a due significancy are testimonies and incentives of Piety and Religion, but without such a signification, are either Hypocritical, or at least vain and empty.  
5. But some distinguish here between such things which have a natural significancy, as Religious gestures; and such things as signify by humane Constitutions and consent; the former they do admit but not the latter. But this distinction is to little purpose; partly because there can be no sufficient reason given, why the latter should be universally disallowed, while the former are approved; partly because most things supposed to have a natural significancy, did derive their original signification from humane custom and consent, as reverend gestures, and uncovering the head; and partly because divers particular things , which cannot be disapproved, cannot be pretended to have a natural signification, to which laying the hand on the Book in an Oath, and others more may be added.  
6. Cons. 3. The disallowing all external significative Rites in God's service, is a thing opposite to the general sense of the Church of God in all former Ages. That divers signfiicative Rites were lawfully used in the Jewish Church without any divine Institution, is sufficiently manifest from the instances given in the former Chapter, and such were also the Apostolical Rites of the Love-kiss, the Feasts of Charity, and the having men's heads uncovered, and not veiled. The judgement of Calvin and Zanchy approving such Ceremonies of Ecclesiastical appointment were also in that Chapter produced; and the same may be observed in Vrsin Explic. Catech. q. 103. and P. Martyr, Ep. Hoopero. 
Art. 15.  The Bohemian Confession teacheth that such Rites by whomsoever they were introduced, aught to be preserved which advantage Faith, the worship of God and other things that are good amongst Christians; with which agreeth the Strasburgh Confession Cap. 14. Some significative Rites of the Ancient Christian Church, were also mentioned in the foregoing Chapter, to which may be added, the frequent use of the Trinal Mersion in Baptism, as a profession of the Trinity and of Conformity to the Death of Christ, which continued three days; and this is used in divers Protestant Churches at this day: they also sometimes purposely used the single Merscon, to testify the Unity of the Godhead. 
In c. 2. q. 1. c. legum.  Sometimes as appeareth by the words of Hincmarus the person to be baptised (supposing him adult) was to give up his name in writing, to signify by that action his willingness and desire to undertake Christianity; and to obtain Baptism. And very anciently the person receiving Baptism did then change his Garments, arraying himself in white, as an admonition to him that he then changed his state, and undertook the innocency of the Christian profession: 
De Consecr. Dist. 4. c. post baptismum & Accepisti.  this Custom was observed by Gratian, from Rabanus, and S. Ambrose; and is thought by a learned man of our own Nation, to be as ancient as the Apostles themselves, and to be alluded unto, in the use of those Scripture Phrases, 
Mr. Thorndike Right of the Church c. 4.  of putting of the old man with his deeds, and putting on the new man. Col 3.9, 10.  
7. The main Objection peculiarly directed against signisicant Ceremonies, is, that such things have a resemblance of Sacraments; but no Ecclesiastical Authority, nor any person below Christ himself, can constu●●te or appount a Sacrament. 
Cont. Faust. l. 10. c. 16.  Indeed S. Augusline sometimes speaketh of Sacraments as being nothing else but verba visibili●, visible words; and other where saith, 
Ep. 5 Marc.  that signs referring to divine things are called Sacraments: but these expressions were noted by Kemnitius as instances to show, 
Kemnit. Exam. de Sacram. Can. 1.  that S. Augustine used the word Sacrament, in a great latitude of sense; this being an Ecclesiastical word, not always taken in the same strictness of signification. And S. Aug. doth there peculiarly speak of a certain kind of signs, viz. the Jewish Ceremonies appointed by the Divine Law, which I have above observed to include somewhat Sacramental.  
8. But that we may rightly apprehend, 〈…〉 significative signs are lawfully 〈…〉 in the Church, I shall distinguish 〈◊〉 signs referring to matters of Religion, into so many several ranks or Classes, as may be sufficient for the clearing my present enquiry. Wherefore  
9 First, Some external signs are appointed to ratify, seal and confirm the Covenant of God, and to tender and exhibit the Grace of that Covenant, or Christ himself unto us. And these signs are properly Sacraments, according to the definition thereof in our Church Catechism; to be outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual Grace, given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof. Accordingly Baptism as a means of Grace doth exhibit remission of sins. Act. 22.16. and Salvation. 1 Pet. 3.21. and the Lords Supper exhibiteth the New Testament in Christ's blood, and is the Communion of the body and blood of Christ. 1 Cor. 10.16. Ch. 11.25. And Rabanus Maurus describing a Sacrament, saith, 
De Instit. Cler. l. 1. c. 24.  that therein sub integumento rerum corporalium, virtus divina secretius operatur salutem. And that this is the common Doctrine of the Protestant Writers concerning Sacraments, (which they defend, against the Calumnies of the Papists, who charge them with asserting the Sacraments to be only significative signs, but not exhibitive; and also against the fond opinion of the Anabaptists and other Sectaries, accounting Sacraments to be chief professing signs) may be evidenced by perusing Bishop Cranmer in his Preface to his Book of the Sacrament. Bishop Ridley de Coena Dom. p. 28, 29. Bishop Jewel Apol. & Reply Art. 8. Dr. Whitaker de Sacr. Qu. 1. c. 3. Bucer. Conf. de Euchar. Sect. 45. & Epist. ad Michael. N. Hispan. Kemnit. Exam. de Sacr. Can. 5, 6, 7. Ursini Apol. Catech. ad 3m m Calumn. & adv. Anabapt. Chamier de Sacram. l. 1. c. 10. Sect. 13. Rivet. Cath. Orth. Tr. 3. q. 1. with many others. Now none can appoint any such sign as this, but he who hath power of giving the Grace exhibited thereby: and if any humane authority constitute any sign to this end and purpose, it would therefore be an high entrenchment upon the Sovereignty of God, and the authority of Christ; and the expecting this Grace from any such sign is great superstition.  
10. Secondly, There are signs appointed, not to exhibit and tender the Grace of God's Covenant, but to testify in God's name the certainty of some point of Faith, (as the Star in the East was a witness of Christ's Birth, and an assurance thereof to the Wise men) or to tender some particular special favour or help from God, or to give assurance thereof in his name: and such were the Priestly Unctions under the Law, and the anointing of a King by God's special Commandment; the brazen Serpent in the Wilderness, and the sign of gideon's Fleece, and the shadow going back on the Dial of Ahaz. And though these signs were not properly Sacraments, they were a kind of Sacramentalia, and upon the same account with the former sort of signs, these could never be appointed by any power upon Earth.  
11. Thirdly, There are some properly called Mystical teaching signs; intended to inform the understanding of man, concerning some mystical or spiritual divine truth, by Hieroglyphical or visible representations. 
Sacerdotalis Par. 3. de processione in Parasc. & in die Pasch.  Thus in the Romish Church to declare the death and resurrection of Christ, in a formal Procession on Good Friday, the Host is laid in the Sepulchre, and the Sepulchre shut and sealed; but the Priest on Easter-Day in the Morning, with other of the Clergy taketh the Host out of the Sepulchre, and leaveth it open: whither when the Clergy and people do come in a solemn Procession and find the Sepulchre open, and the Host not there; their Rector declareth that Christ is risen, which they hear with joyfulness. But how manifest is it that this procedure, is more sitted to confirm the Jewish error, that his Disciples came by night and stole him away, than to express the glory of the divine power in raising Christ from the dead. And some as hath been declared by Balsamon have let fly a Dove, 
Balls. in Conc. Trul. c. 82.  to represent the coming of the Holy Ghost, and dressed a bed to express the ineffable Generation of Jesus Christ: but these are such fond and foolish things, that (besides the great sin of resembling God by an image) they are justly called by Bishop Taylor, Theatrical gaieties; and such things tend to darken and debase the divine Mysteries, and to render Religion contemptible, by the sordid lowness of such representations. Such things as these might justly be exploded by Didoclavius; 
Altar Damasc.  but it is falsely insinuated that herein he hath matter of controversy with the Church of England (as if all significant Rites were of a like nature) whereas it neither practiseth nor approveth such irreligious vinity. Spiritual Mysteries of Christianity, can be fitly exprissed by the words of divine truth, but the more spiritual they are in their own nature, the more they are adulterated and depraved by visible corporcal representations.  
12. Fourthly, Others are professing and engaging signs. Such signs whereby we visibly profess the Christian Faith, and Doctrine in general, cannot reasonably be disallowed, by them who acknowledge the visible profession of Christianity to be a duty. And though such a profession is included in receiving the Sacraments, yet it is not so peculiar thereto, that it should not be usefully made in such other outward actions, as the lifting up the hands or eyes, and bowing the knee to God in the name of Jesus Christ, standing at the Creed, particular attendance upon a Christian Assembly, or (where the state of Religion requireth it) the yielding to be Confessors or Martyrs for Christianity. Nor are such external signs condemnable, whereby a profession of some particular doctrine of Religion, is upon a weighty occasion expressed; as the Rite used in an Oath, containeth an acknowledgement of the righteousness and Omnisciency of God; the imposition of hands frequently used of old towards Penitents, encluded a declaring, that Christ and the Gospel Doctrine doth graciously receive Sinners, upon their hearty and unfeigned repentance; and to testify the same, 
Fus. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. ●●.  S. John the Apostle kissed the hand of that Ephesian Penitent, of whom we have an account in Eusebius, from Clemens Alexandrinus. And as outward actions are ordinarily fit, with many advantages to give evidence of the mind and profession of men; so some Now Conformists have accounted it a thing expedient, that those who receive the Holy Sacrament, should by their subscription profess their resolution, to believe and live as becometh the Gospel: and the Author of the Admonition in the first edition thereof, 
In Ris●●p Wb●●ft Tr. 15. Ch. 1.  did declare sitting 〈◊〉 the Lords Supper to be the more commendable, because it signified rest, and therefore might include a profession of the Ceremonial law being finished, and that a perfect work of redemption is wrought which giveth rest for ever. Some professing signs have principally expressed the Communion of Christians amongst themselves, which must also be allowed lawful; such were the love Feasts, the kiss of Charity; the ancient manner of Christians owning one another as brethren, and receiving them as such in their Houses and dismissing them with peace. And of this nature were the Symbols anciently given to the Catechumen, 
Albasp. Observe. l. 2. Obj. 36.  (which Albas' pinns very probably proveth, to be taken out of the Oblations of the Christians) which encluded an acknowledgement, that they (though they were not yet complete Christians) had some relation to the Church of Christ, as a more full right of Communion was owned among the Fideles by the Feasts of Charity.  
13. Other professing signs do include some solemn engagement of persons, either to undertake or to prosecute true Christianity: this (if we charitably separate it from other attendant mistakes) is designed in the way of the Independent Church-Covenant, and in the conclusory part of the Presbyterian League and Covenant, and some persons have done the like by some particular writing of their own. All I shall say concerning these signs, is, that such a serious engaging profession can be no other way so allowably and usefully pertormed, as in attendance upon and with reference unto the Holy Sacraments; because they are Gods own institutions; because the proper and principal act and work of him who receiveth the Sacrament, is to profess his owning, and to engage himself unto the Faith, Hope, and practice of true Christianity; and because divine grace and fellowship with Christ, is also in the Gospel Sacraments tendered unto us. And it is to the honour of the Church of England, that it appointeth no other way of solemn engagement to Christianity, besides the use of the two Sacraments of the New Testament, and Confirmation, which as it is an Apostolical Rite, so it containeth a ratifying and confirming the baptismal vow, by persons come to some capacities of understanding; and therefore it is to be considered with reference unto Baptism, so far as concerneth the solemnity of Engagement.  
14. Fifthly, There are exciting signs, which should recall to our memories some profitable object or duty, and stir up our hearts and affections to a more serious practice of Religion. Such was Joshua's stone set up, to be a witness or testimony of their profession, lest they should deny their God. Jos. 24.26, 27. and the trinal Mension in Baptism was to mind Christians that their Baptism engaged them to acknowledge and worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 
Baxt. Disp. of Gerem. c. 2. Sect. 58.  And whereas it is objected against the use of any such external signs, that this is to set up something to work Grace in the same manner that the Sacraments do, which do only objectively teach, remember, and excite; and thereby work on the understanding, will, memory, and affections: all this is grounded upon manifest misapprehensions. For the holy Sacraments do not only stir us up to the exercise of Grace already received, but do tender to us a Communion with Christ, and a Communication of further Grace from him; which not humane Rites can do: 
Artic. 25.  Whence our Articles declare them to be effectual signs of Grace and Gods good will towards us: by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him: 
In Sect.  and agreeably hereunto is the Doctrine of all the Protestant Writers . But to condemn all objective incitements to the exercise of Grace, as humane Sacraments; where there is no pretence of their being direct means of conveying further Grace from God; would include a censuring any particular becoming actions, gravity, and due expression of affectionateness in the Minister or people in Christian Assemblies, because it is a means to excite others to the greater reverence, and Religious devotion; and would condemn any actions as sinful and evil, merely from their being useful to promote good. And for example, hereupon he who looking into a Register Book, where his Baptism is recorded, shall only take notice of his Age, should be commended: but he who upon the sight of his name in that Book, is put in memory concerning his Baptismal Covenant, and excited to a care of answering that Covenant, by a Christian and pious life, should be guilty of grievous sin, as if this was to make that Book to be a kind of Sacrament. And they who reject all exciting signs as being Sacramental, may find almost all the same pretences to dislike all words not instituted of God, which do excite men to Religious Piety; especially when they are accompanied with any outward action though it be but a gesture: because not only Sacramental signs but Sacramental words in their Sacramental Use, as in Baptism, I baptise thee in the name, etc. do both exhibit and excite Grace as an essential part of that Sacrament; and there is not much more reason to conclude all exciting signs to be Sacramental signs, than to account all exciting words to be Sacramental words.  
15. Sixthly, Other external things in God's worship are properly significant of reverence towards him, and of high esteem of him, and his Ordinances. Such are a humble and devout behaviour and gesture, which are Hypocritical actions, where no such signification is intended; but when designed to this end, they are truly religious, but far from being Sacramental. O● this nature are the preparing and preserving decent structures, and other things comely (as Communion Table, Cup, etc.) which are set apart for Religious service. And to this sixth head, belongeth the use of the Ministerial Garments appointed in our Church, as the use of the Cross in the Office of Baptism, is of the nature of a memorative and exciting sign, under the former head. And to dislike these things solely because of such signification, is to account the actions of man (who in God's worship acts as a reasonable Creature) to be the worse, merely because he is able to give a good and rational account why he doth perform them.   

SECT. II.  
Of Ecclesiastical appointments, considered as imposed, and enjoined.  
1. Having proved in the former Chapter the lawfulness of some external Rites, and having showed in this Chapter that they do not become unlawful by being significant, we may hence infer, that nothing can be said against the enjoining some such lawful Rites but what will equally oppose all Ecclesiastical Injunctions and Constitutions in things indifferent. For if these things be in themselves both lawful and in their due circumstances useful, (as I have above shown) and if there be a power in the Church of enjoining lawful things to useful purposes, then cannot the establishing these things thus directed be disallowed. But to deny the lawfulness of Ecclesiastical Sanctions and Constitutions is to charge all the ancient famous known parts of the Church of Christ, with a sinful usurpation of Authority in the Church: for that they enjoined what they judged useful, both in General and Provincial Synods, is manifest from the Canons of the Code of the Universal Church, and of the Roman and African Churches; and from the more ancient Canons among those called the Apostles, and from other Ecciesiastical Rules of Discipline frequently mentioned in Tertullian. S. Cyprian, and other ancient Writers. And that this practice of the Church was used ever since the Apostles, is not only manifest from the instances given in the former Chapter; 
Sect. 3.  but is also evident from the Synod at Jerusalem and its decisions concerning somethings indifferent mentioned, Act. 15.  
2. Concerning the Decrees of that Council at Jerusalem, I shall Observe, 1. That some part of the matter of them, was not contained under the Divine Precepts of perpetual obligation, but was enjoined only as Ecclesiastical laws of mutable Constitution. I should willingly acknowledge, that not only that part of the Apostolical Decree, which concerned Fornication, but that also which concerned things offered unto Idols, did contain an immutable Law to all Christians, and that what S. Paul writeth upon this subject, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, did not at all invalidate or dispense with the Decree of the Apostolical Synod (as divers worthy men have judged) but only declareth how far that Decree intended to oblige. That which renders this opinion probable, is because it is evident by comparing Act. 15.20. with Act. 15.29. that the Apostles in commanding to abstain from meats offered to Idols, designed only to prohibit the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pollutions of Idols; and because after the writing the Epistles to the Corinthians, it was still in as general terms as that Synod did express it, accounted a duty to abstain from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or things sacrificed to Idols; not only by divers particular ancient Writers, but by one of the Canons of the Greek Code, 
Conc. Gangr. Can. 2.  and even by S. John in the Revelations. Rev. 2.14. But that that Decree concerning things strangled and blood, was not perpetually binding Law of God, may be evinced from the general judgement of the Church of God, 
Aug. count. Faust. l. 32. c. 13. Binius in 4. Syn. Apost. de Immolatis.  which doth not now account it binding; (some very few persons excepted) from such general expressions of holy Scripture as that nothing is unclean in itself, and to the pure all things are pure; and from the Apostles expressing their Decree to be a laying a burden upon the Churches. Act. 15.28. Wherefore when the whole matter of this Decree, is in that verse called necessary things; we must thereby understand, that some things indifferent, yea under the Gospel inconvenient in their own nature, being judged of use for the avoiding scandal, and promoting Peace and Unity in the Church, became necessary to be practised in the Church, after that Decree and Injunction. And though the end of designing the Unity and increase of the Church, did require, that in some things the Gentile Christians should yield a compliance to the Jews; yet in what particulars this compliance should consist, was determined by the authority of this Apostolical Synod, whereby the practice thereof became necessary.  
3. Obs. 2. That Apostolical Decree concerning these matters indifferent, was designed to lay an obligation upon the practice of all Gentile Christians, in those Apostolical times. There are indeed some very learned men who have reputed this Decree to be a local constitution, confined to Syria, Cilicia and the Territories of Antioch and Jerusalem. And if it had extended no further, it had been a sufficient instance of an injunction in things indifferent; but if it was intended to oblige all the Gentiles, it is thereupon to be esteemed a more full and large example. Now that this Decree contained in the first Canonical and Apostolical Epistle of the New Testament, was of general concernment to the Gentile Christians, though its inscription referred 〈◊〉 those places , may be concluded, because S. James declared it in general to have respect to the believing Gentiles, Act. 21.25.; because S. Paul, Silas, and Timotheus delivered this Decree even unto the Cities of Lycaonia, Phrygia, and Galatia, to be observed by them. Act. 16.1, 3, 4, 6. and because the Primitive Christians did in all places, account themselves bound by this determination of the Apostles, to abstain from blood, and things strangled, as appeareth from the testimonies of Tertullian, 
Tertul. Apol. c. 9 Minut. in Oct. Orig. count. Cells. l. 8 Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 1.  Minutius Felix, Origen, the Epistle from France, concerning their Martyrs recorded in Eusebius, and the Canon of the Greek Code .  
4. Obs. 3. It is acknowledged upon good grounds (and granted by the Presbyterians,) that this Apostolical Sanction doth evidence a power in the Church, of enjoining in lawful things, what may be conducible to the good and welfare of the Church; both because the successive practice of the Church did thenceforward exercise such a power; and because (though the Apostles might be inspired extraordinarily after they met together in this Synod), yet they did not account a particular divine inspiration, necessary to make an Ecclesiastical Constitution; but in that great question whether and how far the Gentiles should undertake the Law of Moses, they came together to consider of this matter. Act. 15.5, 6. and proceeded therein by way of disputation, v. 7. Hence Gillespy in his assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, 
Gillesp. Par. 2. Ch. 4. & Ch. 8.  concludeth the authority of Synodical Assemblies, and that they have a diatactick power to make Decrees. The London Ministers in their Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, 
Part. 2. c. 14.  declare this Apostolical Synod to be a pattern and platform for others, and thence allow a Synodical power of imposing things on the Church, which they assert to be included in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 15.28. And the Assemblies Confession doth from hence assert a power in Synods, to make Decrees and determinations, 
Conf. c. 31.  which ought to be received with reverence, as from God's Ordinance; and to set down rules and directions, for the better ordering the public worship of God. Yet it may be observed, that some of that way have in this particular manifested great partiality: as Mr. Rutherford, 
Ruth. Introd. to Diu. Right of Ch. Gou. Sect. 5. p. 81. Disp. of Candale & Libert. qu. 5.  when he disputes against our Church, and against the lawfulness of external Rites, he denyeth any power in the Church, to prescribe Laws touching things indifferent: 
Plea for Presbyt. Ch. 14. p. 199.  but in his Plea for Presbytery, he asserteth their Synods, to have power to make Ecclesiastical Canons and Decrees, which tie and bind particular Congregations to observe and obey them  
5. Wherefore if the Apostles did make injunctions concerning things indifferent, and imposed them upon all the Churches of the Gentiles, and accounted their authority of Ecclesiastical Government, guided by prudential consideration, to be sufficient without extraordinary inspiration, to establish such a Sanction: then must this power remain in the Church, (taking in the Prince's supremacy) where the Authority of Church Government abideth permanent.  
6. And if we consider the Church under the General Notion of a Society; as it is ordinary in all Societies, for the Rulers thereof to exercise a power of making Rules and Constitutions, not contradictory to any superior Government, for preserving a due order in that Society; so this doth especially take place in the Christian Church, where there are special divine Laws, which require care to be taken for order and decency, and command Christians to obey them who have the rule over them. And that those who will enjoy the Communion of any particular Church, must submit to the Rules of order appointed therein, is but the proper result of orderly Constitution, and is of general practice; insomuch that the French Reformed Churches, as hath been observed by Mr. durel, 
Durelli Vindic. Eccl. Angl. c. 22. & in Praf.  would not suffer Mr. Welch who came thither from Scotland, to continue in administering the Sacrament, without using the prescribed form of Prayer, and admitting the standing gesture, according to the order of that Church, but he being enjoined Conformity by the Synod at S. Maixant, 1609, left that Church and Realm rather than he would embrace it.  
7. But it is by some pleaded against the lawfulness of Constitutions Ecclesiastical, that these are an infringing of Christian liberty. But whereas Ecclesiastical Rites and Constitutions are in themselves lawful, as hath been proved; prudential determinations about such indifferent things, can no more encroach upon Christian liberty, than do the political Sanctions of Civil Laws, and the Domestic commands of Parents and Masters. And surely every man's apprehension must needs acknowledge it a gross mistake to imagine, that when the Precepts of Christianity do earnestly enjoin the practice of self-denial, meekness, submission, and obedience to superiors, it should be the privilege of Christian liberty to disoblige men from any or these things, which would represent our most excellent Religion as contradicting itself. But true Christian liberty conveyeth a privilege of freedom, from that which the Christian Doctrine abolisheth, (the Mosaical Covenant and Ceremonies of the Law) from that which its Precepts prohibit and disclaim, (the life of sin, and bondage to the Devil, and being under any other as our Sovereign and supreme Lord besides Jesus Christ) and from that, from which its promises tend to secure us, (the curse, and wrath to come, and thereby from Hell and Death.) But it was S. Peter's Doctrine, that we should obey every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake,— as free, 
Conf. Ch. 20. Sect. 4.  1 Pet. 2.13.— 16. And it was truly expressed in the Assemblies Confession, That they who upon pretence of Christian Liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be Civil or Ecclesiastical, resist the Ordinance of God. And as for those strange spirited men, who account the practising things indifferent to be the worse, because they are enjoined; they are guided by such dangerous Principles, of false imaginary Liberty, as would teach Children and Servants that things otherwise lawful are sinfully performed, when they are commanded by their Parents and Masters.  
8. 
Ruth. Introd to Doctr of Scandal.  But Mr. Rutherford objecteth that the nature of things indifferent are not capable of being enjoined by a Law. For (saith he) what wise man will say, the Church may make a law that all men should cast stones into the water, or (as he in another place instanceth) that a man should rub his beard. Whether these and other such like words, proceeded from gross mistake of the Question about things Indifferent, or from wilful misrepresentation thereof, to please the humours of scornful men, I cannot affirm. For things called Indifferent in this Question, are not such as can tend to no good, but are a mispending time, when purposely undertaken as a designed business; and include also such a levity and vanity as is inconsistent with gravity and seriousness, and much more with Religious Devotion. But the things here called matters indifferent are such, where many things singly taken are in their general nature useful, but because no one of them is particularly established by any Divine Law, the appointing any one in particular is called the determination of a thing Indifferent, because some other might have been lawfully appointed. Thus the use of one special form of Prayer prescribed, not condemning all others as unlawful is the use of an indifferent thing to an useful end. And the ordering some proper Hymns or Psalms of praise for the glorifying God, and decent gestures of reverence in God's service; and the appointing a fit translation of the Bible for public use, and a particular visible sign of Christian profession, are things of good use, but are called Indifferent, because these particular things are not so established by Divine Precepts, but that some other Prayers, Hymns, Gestures, Translation, or token of profession, might have been (without sin and breach of any particular divine commands) chosen and appointed in the Church: and the like may be said of other things. So that such things as these which may manifestly have a profitable use, where they are observed without misunderstanding and prejudice, but are no special matters enjoined by any Divine Laws immediately given from God himself, are the most proper and most accountable matter for Ecclesiastical Laws and Constitutions, and are fit to be ordered by those who are invested with Power and Authority; especially when the particular things so established, may be peculiarly recommended upon good considerations, of Antiquity or manifest usefulness.  
9 But some have further Questioned, whether things concerning the Church and the order thereof, may be established by secular Sanctions, the transgression of which is attended with civil penalties? This Authority hath been exercised by the most Religious Kings and Rulers of Israel, in the Old Testament, who were therefore commended in the Holy Scriptures; and also by the Christian Emperors as appears by their Laws in the Codex and Novellae; and by divers Kings of our own and Foreign Nations in former times; it is acknowledged by the Articles of our Church, 
Article 37.  and by the Doctrine and practice of the ancient Church; is established by our Laws, and hath been defended by divers good Writers concerning the King's Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical. But some there are both at home and abroad, joining herein with the Spirit of the Anabaptists who have undertaken to deny the lawfulness of any such proceed, under pretence of advancing Christianity thereby, and of pleading for due liberty in matters of Religion: but their grounds and reasons on which they build, are not strong enough to bear the weight they lay upon them.  
10. For they who tell us, that the use of such civil Laws and penalties, tendeth to declare, that the motives and arguments of the Gospel are weak, and insufficient to recommend the Christian truth, and preserve the order of the Church, without the help of the secular power; do seem not to consider that Treasons, Murders, Adulteries, Thefts, and Perjuries, with other great crimes, are vehemently prohibited by the Precepts of Christ, and yet are upon good grounds punished by the power of the Sword, which is also God's Authority; not because of any insufficiency of the arguments propounded by the Doctrine of Christ, but because the corruptness of many men's Spirits is such, that divers persons are prone to overlook the most weighty motives and arguments, which are of an Heavenly and spiritual nature, when they are more affected with sensible things of much less concernment.  
11. And as for them who say, that all temporal laws and penalties about Church matters, will never make men truly Religious, but may make them Hypocrites, and cause them to profess and practise what they do not hearty approve; this is manifestly untrue; for though I grant that these means have sometimes accidentally this ill effect upon some men, yet even Laws ad Penalties rightly dispensed, are a proper and effectual means in themselves to make men seriously and rightly Religious. 
Aug. Ep. 48.  This effect as S. Augustine upon his own knowledge declareth, they obtained both in his own Church, and divers other African Churches, where many of the Donatists from thence took occasion, seriously to consider and embrace the truth, and rejoiced that by this means they were brought to the right knowledge thereof. And thus all well-ordered Government in a Realm or Family, the encouraging what is good, and the discountenancing errors, profaneness, and all disorders, by great men or others, may have this accidental ill consequence upon some men, that it may occasion them hypocritically to pretend to be better than they are, out of affection of applause, and designs of advantage: yet these things being duties, (as the Magistrates care to promote Religion is also) they ought not to be neglected, because they may possibly be abused.  
12. And whereas some urge, that in the Apostolical times which were the best, there were no secular sanctions or outward penalties used in matters of Religion: they might also have observed, that Kings and Emperors were then no countenancers, favourers, nor yet Professoes of Christianity; which is not to be a pattern for succeeding times, when it must be esteemed a blessing to the Church, to have Kings her nursing Fathers, and a duty to all Rulers upon earth to acknowledge their subjection to Jesus Christ. And yet even in the Apostles times, there were corporal punishments miraculously inflicted, to awaken men to mind the practice and careful exercise of Christianity, not only in the particular instances of Saul going to Damascus, of Ananias and Sapphira, and of Elymas: but the delivering a person to Satan hath been ordinarily observed to include with the sentence of the Church, a giving him over to some outward bodily calamities, to be inflicted on him by the evil spirit, of which a particular instance is given concerning the Servant of Stilico, 
Paulin in Vit. Ambr. prope fin.  by Paulinus in the life of S. Ambrose.  
13. But that this Question may be resolved, we must note, 1. That it concerneth only secular authority when it is rightly informed in these matters of Religion about which such Laws are established. For according to the Rules of Conscience, as no authority upon earth may lawfully countenance or join in the profession of an error, so neither may it by commands, constitutions or penalties, design to advance it. But it is as unreasonable, that the use of secular authority to advance what is good and commendable, should hence be condemned, as that the holy action of Abraham. Gen. 18.19. commanding his Children to keep the way of the Lord, should be disliked, because it is certainly unlawful for any Parents to command and enjoin their Children, to entertain sin and embrace error. For it is every man's duty to close with that which is good, and to favour and prefer it, but it is his sin to oppose it, or to make use of his interest in the behalf of that which is evil. 2. 
Bishop whitgift's Defence of his Ex. to Magist. ion fin.  Nor is this Question about the lawfulness of designing the ruin and destruction of any persons, only because they err in matters of Religion, which is a thing by no means allowable: and not only the use of Fire and Faggot for pretended Heresy, but the inflicting capital punishments for the sole crimes even of real Heresy, or notorious errors in Religion, have been sufficiently disclaimed by the great defenders of our Political and Ecclesiastical Constitutions.  
14. 3. To establish such Laws backed with penalties, about good and useful matters Ecclesiastical, which may be a proper and fit motive (respect being had by the prudence of Superiors, to the nature of the things enjoined, and to the temper of the persons to be dealt with) to excite men to consider and mind their duty, is not only allowable, but it is the natural result of Rulers discountenancing evil, designing their subjects good, being careful of the Church's welfare, and of serving God in the use of their authority; and is contained under that Apostolical Rule, Rom 13.4. If thou do that which is evil be affr●●d of the power. But if any shall to word that outward punishments are no way useful, to direct men's minds to a sense of their duty, he must contradict the common experience of a considerable part of Mankind, and must disclaim any advantage for amendment of life from paternal correction, the constitution of Magistracy, and divers providential chastisements of God, against the frequent expressions of holy Scripture. And he must also undertake to assert, that the condition of Israel was not better, when all the people engaged themselves to the service of God, moved by the zeal for true Religion in their Kings, attended with their denouncing temporal punishments on them who neglected or refused, than when every one 〈◊〉 and professedly walked in the 〈◊〉 of his own heart.  
15. And whereas several expressions 〈◊〉 Writers speak against the use of external force in matters of Religion: divers of them are intended against the Pagan or Heretical powers oppressing the truth; others against overrigorous severities and extremities towards some persons under error; some were the expressions of those who were themselves abetters of Schism, as Socretes was; and there are some few expressions of others who were men of greater affection than consideration, whose words may be overbalanced both by reason and other Authorities.   

SECT. III.  
Of Ecclesiastical Constitutions about things scrupled.  
1. That such things which some persons scruple, oppose and dispute against, may be practised without sin, by them who discern and are well satisfied of their lawfulness, is a thing that needeth not much proof. For if this be denied Christianity must be accounted a state of bondage, where every man's mistaken apprehensions would lay an obligation on the Consciences of others. Wherefore in that Case, when some Christians judged it unlawful to eat all sorts of meat, S Paul allowed him who discerned his liberty to make use thereof. Rom. 14.2, 6. Yet because both in that Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and in 1 Cor. 10. he giveth command to Christians to beware of grieving and offending their brethren the general case of Scandal in things Indifferent will in this place come under some consideration, concerning which it may be sufficient to observe three things.  
2. First, That the offending others prohibited in those places by the Apostle, consisted not in displeasing others only, but in performing such actions which tended to occasion some to fall from Christianity, or others not to embrace it This sense of these Precepts, 
Right of the Church c. 4.  is observed as a thing manifest by Mr. Thorndike. Thus S. Paul declareth the using liberty about things offered to Idols, so as to be a stumbling block to the weak. 1 Cor. 8 9 to consist in emboldening them towards the Idol, v. 10. whereby the weak Brother perisheth, v. 11. And though the Apostle sometimes mentioneth this sin of offending others, under the name of grieving them, Rom. 14.15. he thereby intendeth an occasioning them to disgust the Christian Religion; and therefore in the same verse commandeth Destroy not him with thy meat, etc. And when he recommendeth in this Case the pleasing of others, it is in designing their profit that they may be saved. 1 Cor. 10.33. Yet it must be further acknowledged, that according to the expressions of other Scriptures, it is a sinful scandal or giving offence, when any one by the use of his liberty, doth knowingly induce others to the commiting any sin, being under no obligation to determine this use of his liberty: for according to S. Hierome that is scandal where a man dicto vel facto occasionem rui nae cuiquam dederit.  
3. But the mere displeasing or grieving others about matters indifferent, is not always a sin; for our Saviour himself greatly grieved his Apostles, when he told them that one of them should betray him, but as yet concealed the man. Mat. 26.21, 22. Yet Christianity will not allow a morose and peevish temper; but directeth men to be loving, amicable, and kind, and to be ready to please others, where duty or prudence do not otherwise engage us: but out of compliance to the mind of others, to neglect due reverence to God, or Rules of order in the Church of God, is not allowable. And there lieth a much higher obligation upon us to please others, where we are engaged thereto by the bond of justice, subjection and obedience, than where we are only inclined thereto by the influence of love and common kindness; whence the Child or Servant who will provoke his Father or Master, by acts of disobedience contrary to his duty, merely to please other persons, acteth irregularly and sinfully; and upon the same account, he who will displease and disobey his Rulers and Governors, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical, to gratify other persons of inferior capacity, acteth contrary to Christian duty.  
4. Secondly, The Plea of scandal must then necessarily be ill used, when what is undertaken under pretence of avoiding offence, doth itself become the greater offence. In the Case mentioned in the Epistles to the Romans and the Corinthians there was no giving offence to the Jews, Gentiles, or the Church of God, by their present forbearance of any sort of meat, under the circumstances in which they then were; and therefore this forbearance out of charity to others became a duty. But when S. Peter and Barnabas at Antioch, did for a time forbear to eat with the Gentiles, which seemingly included an urjust censure of the way of Christianity, as it was embraced among the Gentiles; and was like to be a great offence to the Gentiles; this action though undertaken out of an appearance of charitable respect to the Jews, that they might not be offended, was sinful and contrary to the Gospel. And upon the like account the disobeying Ecclesiastical Constitutions, but of respect to some other persons, while it encludeth an appearance of ungrounded censuring of our Rulers who appointed them, and the Church who practiseth them, and a want of care of its order, Peace, and Unity, besides other ill consequents above expressed is not allowable, nor can it be justified by the rules of Religion, but by the bad example of neglect of duty it giveth the greatest occasion of offence.  
5. And if any persons shall in such a case take offence so far as to distaste the Religious worship of God, 
V Tertullian. de Virgin Vel. c. 3.  because others observe established Orders, this is an offence taken but not given. For in matters indifferent and left altogether to our liberty, he who without any care of his Brothers good, acteth what he knoweth will occasion him to fall, is guilty of a scandal, against the rule of charity: but he who acteth nothing but what is his duty, lawfully commanded by his superior, or undertaken with respect to the greater good and order of the Church, is guilty of no scandal nor breach of charity, though others may take occasion to fall thereby. 
22ae. qu. 43. Art. 2.  It is well resolved by Aquinas that every scandal or offence encludeth sin; that which is a scandal given or an active scandal is the sin of him who giveth the occasion; but the scandal taken or the passive scandal is the sin of him only who taketh the occasion to fall. Thus there were divers things which our Saviour spoke and did, at which the Pharisees were offended, the sin of which must be charged upon themselves, in being alienated thereby from the Doctrine of Christ.  
6. Thirdly, The duty of forbearing the use of some things lawful and expedient, because others account them sinful, hath likewise peculiar respect to that case when the erring persons have not had sufficient opportunity of being fully instructed, and steadfastly established in the truth. Thus in the time of the Apostles when the Doctrine of the Gospel was first divulged, the Jews could not be presently satisfied concerning the liberty and freedom of Christians from the rites of the law of Moses; and many of the Gentiles were not so firmly established in all the Doctrines of Christianity, that they might not be led aside by mistaking the practices of other Christians: and in such cases the use of things lawful and indifferent, must be restrained from the consideration of others weakness. But where there hath been sufficient means and opportunity for better instruction; if some still retain their erroneous opinions, they who understand the truth are not obliged in this case, to forbear their practising according to their true principles, in matters of indifferency and Christian liberty: because this practice is in this case a profession of truth against error, and the forbearance thereof may frequently be interpreted a compliance with error. 
Vrsin Loc. Theol in 3m. Prac.  And it is truly observed by Vrsin that it is scandalum datum in rebus adiaphoris errores in animis infirmorum confirmare, to add confirmation to erroneous opinions in the minds of the weak about indifferent things, is a giving offence, or being guilty of an active scandal. Upon this account though our Saviour knew that his heating, and commanding the man who was healed to take up his bed on the sabbath day, his eating with Publicans and Sinners, and his Disciples eating with unwashen hands, were things in the highest manner offensive to some of the Jews; he practised and allowed these things in opposition to the Scribes and Pharisees, who in their censures of him proceeded upon erroneous and corrupt Doctrines vented by them for divine dictates.  
7. But it may deserve a more full enquiry, whether Ecclesiastical Constitutions and legal Injunctions, may be allowed concerning things which either are or may become matter of dispute and opposition? 
Commis. Papers passim.  because this is a thing which is in the substance of it much insisted upon. In order to the resolution hereof I shall assert, 1. The peace and Unity of a Church (which must both respect the Union of its members among themselves, and with the Universal Church) is of so great value, that to that end, it would be very desirable that any particular constitution about matters merely indifferent should be altered, where peace with a well ordered state of the Church can only by that means be firmly secured: because the principal end of them is to promote Unity, order and edification.  
8. Assert. 2. Where minds are prone to raise disputes, and entertain prejudices and jealousies about matters of God's worship; the most innocent things cannot be long secured, from being opposed and scrupled. For in this case when men of greater parts do without just cause propound doubts and arguments against a thing, (which may easily be done about any subject) men of lesser understanding, if they have also unsettled and unestablished minds, are apt either out of weakness of judgement, to take their fallacies to be solid reasons; or from the earnestness of their affections, to esteem such persons to be the ablest and faithfullest guides. And he who observeth the World, will discern that there is scarce any truth of Religion even in matters most Fundamental, which hath not been disputed and opposed by men of corrupt minds, who have by this means drawn Disciples after them. For besides the consideration of Papists and other Sectaries abroad, where multitudes of their followers have really believed their errors, and with a misguided zeal opposed the truth, as S. Paul did while he continued in Judaisme: we have also sufficient evidence hereof at home in our former times of licentiousness. 
Saints Rest. Part. 1. Ch. 7. Sect. 14.  Insomuch that Mr. Baxter then complained, that professors of Religion did oppose and deride, almost all that worship of God, out of Conscience (which must then be grolly depraved and corrupted) which others did out of profaneness. And the provincial Assembly (as it was called) at London, then declared, That there was scarce any truth of Christ but was charged in those unhappy times, 
Jus. div. Min. Evangel. Pas. 2. c. 3.  (so they called them) as Antichristians; and that the Doctrine of the Trinity, of Christ being equal with the Father, of the immortality of the Soul, of repentance, humiliation, sanctification, and good works out of obedience to God's commands, with other Doctrines were condemned as Antichristian: and also that the places where they met together to worship God, the worship they there performed, their Church-Government and Ministry was also (say they) called Antichristian. Now if (amongst other things opposed and condemned) the most essential Doctrines of Christian Religion have not escaped these vehement and unjust censures; it cannot be expected that the best Constitutions of the Church should be generally entertained, without all scruple and suspicion; especially so long as through the itch of of dispute, things ordered in the Church are thought  for being significant (that is useful; (for all insignificant things are here useless) and for being enjoined, that is recommended by the highest authority which God hath set in and over 〈◊〉 Church.  
9 Assert. 3. As all Ecclesiastical Constitutions must be in themselves certainly lawful, not needlessly burdensome, and such as the Governors of the Church judge to be unquestionably useful and expedient; so where they are such, their lawfulness would not be so much contended against, as it is, by them who are concerned to obey, provided they humbly and calmly made use of the best rules to direct their own practice: which rules are here the same, which must be received in other practical controversies of Religion. viz. First, That he who hath sufficient capacity of understanding, to judge clearly and solidly of the things questioned, and of the strength of the arguments produced, should without any prejudice or passion, embrace and entertain what appeareth manifestly allowable: and such an understanding so proceeding, can neither condemn the right way, nor embrace the wrong, because truth only can be clearly evidenced, to an  and able judgement; and for such a man to follow any authority whatsoever, against this manifest evidence of truth, is to put himself under the blind Leaders of the blind. Secondly, Men ought to be so humble, as not to account their own judgements sufficient rationally to decide any matters of dispute, or determine the force of any argument, when they really are not; and this will direct men of mean capacities, not over-forwardly to engage in controversies above their reach; nor violently to espouse what may be wrong, or oppose what may be right, but humbly to desire and seek for clearer apprehensions, or the best directions and informations. Thirdly, That in these matters, those whose own weakness of understanding is not able to conduct them through the mists of dispute, aught to make use of the best and safest guides to direct and lead them, and should follow their counsel and advice. 
Aug. de Vtilit. credendi c. 12. etc.  For it is manifestly the case of great multitudes of adult Christians in the World, as hath been long observed, that their judgements are not so strong and clear, but that especially in divers matters of dispute (which are no part of the Christian Creed) they must and do follow the guidance of others, and are led by their judgement, direction, and authority, where themselves have not capacities to judge of the evidence of proofs. But here as the man who chooseth an ill guide for his way, or an ignorant Physician to advise for his health, or an unskilful Lawyer for his Estate; so he that followeth a bad Leader in matters concerning Religion, must bear in some respects the consequents of his own bad choice.  
10. And whereas some would have persons to forbear practising in matters of dispute, until themselves be able by the capacities of their own judgements, throughly to solve the difficulties objected: they ought to have considered, that in most practical disputes (as concerning Infant Baptism, the observing rules of order, and keeping Communion with a particular Church, and obeying the commands of Rulers) to forbear practising what ought to be performed, is to yield to sin, and with choice to act against a duty; and to require this is also to proceed upon a principle, which will leave such men's Consciences under inextricable difficulties. For instance, if men were taught that none ought to bring their Infant-childrens to be baptised, until they were able themselves judiciously to answer all that is urged to the contrary by the Anabaptists; this (if practised) would tend to make considerable numbers of weak Christians, whose heads are not capable of managing disputes, to neglect their ●●ry herein, and in practice to close 〈…〉 ●abaptists. But if again they were taught (which must needs be as reasonable as the other) that they may not safely choose to forbear the bringing their Infants to Baptism, (because even that choice is a moral action) unless they could clearly refute all those great arguments, which prove this to be their duty; it will be manifest, that in this case there can be no way to disentangle the Consciences of such men of mean capacities, but only by following the directions above given. And the like may be said concerning other instances.  
11. But that such persons who cannot themselves search into disputes, may not be dangerously misguided, two rules are to be observed. 
V Aue. count. Crescon. l. ●. c. 33.  First That for them to be directed by the general judgement, principles, and practices of the primitive Church, where that can be evidently and without contradiction discovered, by skilful and faithful relaters thereof, is a more safe course in any matter of dispute, which themselves cannot fathom, than to be led merely by the judgement and authority of any men, or company of men, who oppose the same; because the greater authority is to be preferred before the less: and by this rule many errors of Papists and Sectaries may be rejected. Secondly, That where such persons of weak judgements cannot clearly understand either the grounds of truth under present debate, or the judgement and practice of the ancient Church (whether through defect, or diversity of information) it is their best and surest way, ordinarily to be directed and led by their superiors who are over them in the Church, in the things they command, or the truths they recommend, rather than by the opinions of any other persons whomsoever. 1. Because God hath appointed them to be teachers, leaders, and guides to us: and therefore it is against the duty of our relation to them, and of the due submission we own to them, and inconsistent with the duty of honouring our Rulers, to censure their appointments or instructions as evil, merely upon the credit of any other persons contrary opinion. 2. Because they who disobey the Constitutions of their Superiors, only out of respect to the contrary judgement of any other persons, do not disobey out of Conscience, but out of prejudice and disaffection: because no principle of Conscience can ordinarily bind men, who are not able to judge fully of the Case, to conclude their superiors or Ecclesiastical Governors to be in the wrong, and those who oppose them to be in the right: and Gods command to obey them who have the rule over us, cannot safely be overlooked, out of respect to men's own prejudices and disaffections. 
Disp. of Cerem. c. 15. Sect. 3.  In this case it was well declared by Mr. Baxter, that the duty of obeying being certain, and the sinfulness of the thing commanded being uncertain and only suspected, we must go on the surer side, with much more to the same purpose. Now the observing these rules abovementioned, 
See Dr. Ferne's Considerations of concernment. c. 1.  will both preserve the true freedom of judgement and Conscience, which when it proceedeth upon unerring evidence, is to be preferred before any humane authority, and it will also provide for the establishing of Truth, Unity, and Peace in the Church, and will be the best security to the Souls and Consciences of men: because they who hold fast the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and Life, though in matters of a lesser nature they should mistake, where they sincerely design to practise their duty, so far as they can understand of themselves, or are instructed by their teachers, without any willing neglect of duty towards God or Man; such mistakes or errors are not destructive to Salvation.  
12. Indeed S. Paul telleth his Romans, Rom. 14.23. that he that doubteth is domned (or condemned, which some expound self condemned) if he eat, and that whatsoever is not of Faith is sin. But as the Rules above-expressed are means for the satisfying doubts, so this Apostolical Rule requiring a full and well satisfied persuasion, of a man's own judgement and knowledge in what he acteth, must be applied to the special case intended, which is this; That wheresoever the omitting any action is certainly free from sin, and the practice of it appeareth to any person doubtful, there to do that action is a very dangerous and evil practice; because it containeth in it a choosing to run the hazard of sin; which choice is always a sin: in such a Case the Apostle alloweth no man to engage upon any such action, until he be certainly persuaded by an undoubting knowledge of the lawfulness thereof: And the same rule must take place when the practice of any thing is manifestly lawful, and the omission doubtful. But the Case is very much different when both acting and forhearing may be doubted of; where the one of them is a duty; and it is impossible that both should be forborn: and such to some persons is the question  concerning Infant Baptism, obedience to Rulers, etc. Nor doth the Apostle in this place design in general, that no Servant, Child, or Subject, may eat any thing, observe any time religiously, obey any command, or perform any other action; till he hath obtained so much knowledge, as to discern by an undoubting judgement, how these actions in their particular circumstances are allowable by the rules of Christianity: for then the ignorant person should be directed (till he becometh knowing) to be idle and do nothing, and to be disobedient and under no command; but would scarce be allowed to live so long as to obtain knowledge. But God having commanded Superiors to rule, and Inferiors to obey, to suspend all action here, is to perform an inward moral action of choice about a matter of duty, which if it be not regularly managed, is a sin. And in this case so far as concerneth the obedience of a Child, Servant, or Subject, they ought to account their superiors command to lay such an obligation upon them to duty, that they must be guided thereby, unless they be able to prove themselves bound to act the contrary.  
13. Assert. 4. It is neither necessary nor possible that Ecclesiastical Constitutions should not be liable to be scrupled or suspected, where those suspicions and scruples are admitted without sufficient evidence of evil in the things themselves. 
Mr. H. Tract of Schism.  I know that some have asserted that the Church and its Officers are guilty of Schism if they appoint any thing not necessary (or indifferent) which is by others suspected. But that things in themselves lawful and expedient may lawfully be commanded, though they be groundlessly suspected or scrupled, appeareth. I. Because otherwise all rules of Ecclesiastical order would be unlawful, where people are needlessly suspicious and scrupulous; and a great part of the authority of Princes, Parents, and Masters would be abridged, if it must be limited by all the unnecessary suspicions of inferiors.  
14. Arg. 2. From the Apostolical practice. When S. Paul had directed his Corinthians, that the men should pray uncovered, and the women covered, adding 1 Cor. 11.16. that if any man will be contentious we have no such Custom nor the Churches of God; he doth plainly enough express, that what is duly and orderly established in the Church, must take place notwithstanding contentions and oppositions. And when the Apostolical Synod required the Gentiles to abstain from blood and things strangled; even that constitution might have been scrupled, and opposed; especially considering that many Primitive Christians were not presently satisfied, by the Declaration of the Apostles, concerning Christian liberty, as is manifest from Rom. 14.2, 14, 20. Had not Christians then been of another temper than many now are, and made up more of Unity, humility, meekness, and peace, than of heats, parties, and controversies; they might have objected, that this was an encroachment upon Christian liberty, whereby they were free from the whole Yoke of Mosaical Ceremonies; that it might seem to countenance the distinction of things clean and unclean, and to give occasion to the Gentile Christians to Judaize, as the Galatians did. It might also have been said, that that Decree had an appearance of establishing Christianity upon Judaisme because the Jews had a sort of Proselytes called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Proselytes of converse, 
Gemar. Sanhedr. c. 7. Sect. 5. Cocceius ibidem. Buxt. Lexic Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  who were not circumcised, but only enjoined to observe the seven Precepts of the Sons of Noah, to whom blood was prohibited. And this Apostolical Decree together with other Christian Precepts, did bind the Gentile Christians to all the same observations. And it might also have been said, that the forbidding blood seemed a Rite peculiarl, typical of Christ to come, it being forbidden to the Jews upon this account, because God had then appointed it to be the means of making an atonement upon the Altar, Leu. 17.10, 11, 12. But notwithstanding these things which are far from solid arguments, and yet to an indifferent person may possibly seem as plausible, as many exceptions used by some men in other Cases; that Apostolical Sanction was both lawful and honourable, yea though it concerned things indifferent, and was established (as many think) by that Ecclesiastical authority which they committed to their Successors in the Church.  
15. Arg. 3. Because there are many Cases where somewhat is necessary in genere to be determined; and yet every particular under that general is liable to the like inconvenience of opposition. Here I shall choose to give a Foreign instance of that great unnecessary dispute, about the use of leavened or unleavened bread at the Eucharist, where the one sort is necessary to be determined before the administration, or otherwise the Ordinance itself must be omitted. This hath occasioned so great contest between the Greek Church, (who with the Ruthenick or Russian contend for Leavened bread) and the Latin who would allow none other but unleavened bread, 
Maxim. Margunius in Dialog● adv. Lat. Humbertus in Baron. Tom. 11. in Appendice. Rup. Tuitien. de Diu. Offic. l. 1. c. 22.  that they of the Greek Church have nick named the Latins Azymitas, and give this difference as one account, why they refused Communion with them, and did at Constantinople denounce an Anathema upon the use of Unleavened bread. The Latin Church did give many testimonies of its like fierceness for the use of Unleavened Bread only so far, that Leo the Ninth undertook in this quarrel to excommunicale Michael the Patriarch of Constantinople. The main grounds of this controversy (waving some frivolous things mentioned in Gemma Animae, Rupertus Ti●tiensis, Durandux, 
Casaub. in Baron. Exerc. 16.  and other Ritualists) are these. 1. The Greek Church in a peculiar notion, as Casaubon relateth their opinion from Cedrenus and Xanthopulus, think that Christ did eat the Passover, and institute the Lords Supper the day before the Jews kept their Passover, 
Durand. Ration. l. 4. c. 41. n. 10.  and therefore they suppose he used leavened bread. But though divers Christian Writers, as Scaliger, Casauhon, Grotius, Hospinian, Kellet, and others both ancient and modern referred to by them, 
Hieroz. P. 1. lib. 2. ●. 50.  have thought that Christ did not eat the Passover the same day with the Jews; yet even that opinion is opposed by many others, and the arguments for it are fully answered by Bocharius. And however the strict prohibitions both of the Law. Ex. 12.18. Num. 9.11. 
Maccoth. c. 3. Sect. 2.  Deut. 16.3. and of the Talmud, against eating the Passover at any time with leavened bread, are evidences sufficient, that this sort of bread was not used by our Saviour. 2. The Greek Church also urgeth that unleavened bread was one of the Ceremonial institutions of the Law of Moses, 
Can. Ap. 70. Conc. Laod. c. 38. Con. Trul. c. 11.  and several ancient Canons of the Greek Church have forbidden them to have so much Communion with the Jews, as to eat of their unleavened bread, as a Jewish Rite; and Maximus Margunius a late Writer and Bishop of that Church, out of a strange disgust, supposeth that he smelleth the savour of many ancient Heresies in Unleavened bread.  
16. So that here is a Case, where some determination is necessary to the due order and the regular administration of God's Ordinance, where either leavened or unleavened Bread must be received; both these have been hotly opposed; the one side seeming to be favoured by the institution of Christ, and the other by the abrogation of the law, but neither of their arguments are conclusive, against the lawfulness of the others practice. In like manner to administer the Sacraments and other public Offices with a form of Prayer, may be opposed and scrupled by some; and to perform this without a form may as reasonably be disliked by others. And an Unform appointed gesture at the Sacrament, and a decent fixed habit for Ministers may be suspected by some, who are ready to take all occasions for suspicion; and the want of these things are deemed irreverent and disorderly, and therefore unlawful by others. Both the French and Dutch (as well as other Protestant) Churches, have these things determined; though both in the habit and gesture, they differ from us, and from each other: and yet there may be objections and pretences of dislike raised against those particular habits and gestures, as well as against ours (as may in another place be showed): Wherefore either some things which may become or have been matters of dispute may lawfully be ordered by Ecclesiastical Authority, or else there can be no security for the orderly exercise of Religion.  
17. To these arguments it may be added, that the prudence of the Church would appear very contemptible to its adversaries, if either its rules or practices about matters of order, should be as mutable and various, as the uncertain and different thoughts of suspicious or scrupulous persons.  
18. And the practice of all the Protestant Churches, who defended their established Orders both against Anabaptists, and other opposers thereof, do manifest their general judgement in this particular. And amongst other Churches when divers persons especially the Flacians raised vehement disputes and contentions both against the Doctrine and the Ecclesiastical Ordinations (or as Reuterus expresseth it, 
Quirin. Reuterus in Praefat. praefix Ursini Oper.  de rebus quibusdam externis) received in the Reformation of the Palatinate: Frideric the third in his Confessession of Faith, contained in his last Will and Testament, and received among the Corpus or Syntagma Confessionum declareth, how he had with good success withstood these oppositions, and maketh it in that his last Testament his principal admonition to his Sons after him, to beware of such persons, 
Casimir. in Praef. Conf in Corp Conf. & in Vrsin. Vol. 3. in fol.  with other earnest expressions both of his and of his Son Casimire.  
19 And besides all this, this position that nothing may be established or imposed, about which any persons pretend scruple, is destructive of itself, or inconsistent with itself. For as its natural result tendeth to promote an Universal toleration, of all practices and opinions, about which any persons may pretend Conscience which would include all manner of Sects and Heresies: so the urging such a toleration, where Governors either of Church or state judge, (as they have reason to do) that it would be sinful in them to admit it and countenance it; is not only to undertake to impose upon their Governors, what is scrupled and opposed by them; but even to urge them to approve and allow what is really sinful, and is rightly so esteemed by them.  
20. But the main objection to be here considered, is, that S. Paul Rom. 14.1, etc. commandeth to receive them who are weak in the Faith, but not to doubtful disputations; 
Commiss. Papers p. 70.  and alloweth no judging or despising one another, for eating or not eating meats; and for observing or not observing days: and hence it is urged that no such things indifferent ought to be imposed but to be made the matter of mutual forbearance. Now it must be granted that Christian Charity requireth a hearty and tender respect, to be had to every truly conscientious person, so far as it may consist with the more general interest of the Church of God: yet it is manifest that the Apostle is not in this Chapter treating about, and therefore not against the rules of order in the service of God. But in order to a right understanding of this place I shall note three things.  
21. First, that these directions given by the Apostle, in the beginning of this Chapter, so far as they give allowance to the different practices therein mentioned have a peculiar respect to those times only of the first dawning of Christianity; when most of the Jews who believed in Christ did as yet zealously retain the Mosaical Rites; abstaining from certain meats as judging them unlawful and unclean, Rom. 14.2, 14. and observing Jewish days and times out of a peculiar esteem for them, v. 5. and yet this for a time was in this Chapter allowed and indulged by the Apostle. But afterwards the Rules and Canons of the Church severely condemned all Christians whether of Jews or Gentiles, 
August. Ep. 19 Conc. Gangr. c. 2. Conc. Laod. c. 29.  who observed the Mosaical Law, and the Rites and distinction of meats contained therein, out of Conscience thereunto: yea S. Paul himself vehemently condemned the Galatians who were Gentiles, for observing such distinctions of days out of Conscience to the Law, Gal. 4.10, 11. and passeth the like censure upon the Colossians who distinguished meats upon the same account, Col. 2.20, 21, 22. Wherefore we must further observe, that in the Apostles times and according to the Rules they delivered to the Church, The Gentile Christians were in these things with others prohibited the observation of the Law of Moses and its Ceremonies, though many of them (as the Galatians and Colossians) were prone to judge this to be their necessary duty. Act. 21.25. Gal. 5.2. The Jews among the Gentiles, who did not yet understand that the Law of Moses was abrogated, were allowed to observe its Rites, and to practise according to the Jewish Customs, Act. 21.21, 24. Gal. 2.12, 13. Act. 16.3. But the Jews who lived in Judea (and S. Paul himself when he was there) were obliged or enjoined, to observe the Mosaical Rites, though they were satisfied, that the binding power of the Law was abrogated. Act. 21.24. Gal. 2.12. Now in these different practices allowed, determined, and ordered by the directions and rules given by the Apostles, as temporary provisions for the several sorts or different Churches of Christians; the Apostle requireth the Romans to receive and not to judge one another.  
22. 2. When the Apostle commandeth them to receive them who are weak in the Faith he thereby intendeth that they ought to be owned & judged as Christians notwithstanding these different Observations. v. 1. And when he commandeth that he that eateth should not despise him that eateth not, and that he that eateth not should not judge him that eateth. v. 3. he forbiddeth the weaker Jews to condemn the other Jews or Gentiles, as if they were not possessed with the fear of God, because they observed not the Law of Moses: and prohibiteth those others from despising or disowning these weaker Jews as not having embraced Christ (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 3. signifying here so to despise as withal to reject and disclaim; as Mar. 9.12. Act. 4.11. 1 Cor. 1.28.) because they observed the Rites of Judaisme. And to this sense are manifestly designed the Apostles Arguments whereby he enforceth these Precepts. V 3. For God hath received him, v. 4. to his own Master he standeth or falleth, for God is able to make him stand. v. 6. he acteth with Conscience to God; and v. 10. Why dost thou judge thy Brother, or why dost thou set at naught thy Brother? We shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ. So that the main design of this part of this Chapter is this, To condemn them who press their own practices or judgements in things unnecessary, as being the essential and necessary points of Religion and Christianity; and thereupon do undertake to censure all those who differ from them in such lesser things, as having no true Religion or inward relation to, or Communion with Jesus Christ, though they live never so conscientiously, and act according to the best apprehensions they can attain. 
Aug. Exp. prop. 78. ad Rom.  To this purpose S. Austen expounded these words, Non far audeamus sententiam de alieno cord, quod non videmus: 
Beza in Loc.  and Beza saith upon them, Rudes non debent ut extra salutis spem positi, damnari. And this which is the true intent and scope of the Apostle in that place, doth in no wise impugn the use of Ecclesiastical Authority, in appointing what is orderly and expedient about things indifferent: but he will by no means allow, that lesser things should be esteemed the main matters of Religion and Christianity, to which purpose he layeth down that excellent Rule, in v. 17. The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.  
23. 3. The considering the Apostolical practice; in making Decrees at the Council of Jerusalem; in S. Paul's setting orderly bounds to the use of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, in the Church of Corinth, or limiting the exercise thereof to avoid confusion; and his not allowing S. Peter, Barnabas and other Jews, to practise without control what agreed with their present apprehensions, under those circumstances, but was the way to disadvantage the peace and welfare of the Church; and his giving commands for order and decency, with things of like nature; do evidence that it is a great misunderstanding of the Apostles Doctrine in this place, to conceive that he condemneth the establishing useful rules, for the order and edification of the Church, though they do not always comply with every particular persons apprehension.  
24. But if it be further objected, that if those things may be commanded or enjoined, which some, persons though through mistake, judge unlawful, either they must practise against their own judgements which would be sinful; or their being conscientious, will be their disadvantage, which is not . To which I answer. 1. That if in some particular things, certain persons through mere mistake accompanied with humility and designs of peace, should judge things lawful and expedient to be unlawful, upon such evidence which they apprehend to be full and sufficient; and thereupon cannot yield to practise these things: it must be considered, that it is but the common attendant of man's being fallible, that he should (out of respect to a greater good) bear some outward inconvenience, as the result even of his most innocent errors. Thus in secular matters, he who merely mistaketh the right way of legal proceed about his own cause, may suffer some damage thereby; and though his case may herein deserve pity, yet it is better he should sustain this consequent of his own mistake, than that no rules and orders of Law should be observed. And the same may be said of matters Ecclesiastical.  
25. 2. If the Rules  be observed, they will direct how men may generally practise things lawfully enjoined, according to right principles of Conscience. But if they be not observed, men must either resolve to follow their own imaginations, in things they understand not, which is a manifest way of error and walking in the dark; or else they must in these things practise according to the directions of those, who speak most plausibly and takingly to their affections, and are also strict in their lives: but this both over-looketh the duty of obedience and the due relation to guides and teachers, and is a very probable way to misguide men both in this and in other Cases. By following this rule, or rather by being taken in this snare, many anciently embraced the monstrous positions of manicheism, persuaded thereto by Faustus who had eloquium seductorium (as S. Aug. ealleth it) the enticing eloquence of seducing; 
Aug. Conf. l. 6. c. 3, 6, 13.  and whose words were observed by the same Father to have a more pleasing and delightful sweetness than the eloquence of S. Ambrose which was more learned and substantial: 
Baron. ad An. 377. n. 7.  and those who embraced that impious Heresy were always talking of God and Christ, and the holy Spirit the Comforter. And to be guided in opinions or doctrines by such respect to persons can be no safe way of conduct, because God hath not directed Christians thereto; for as to expression, Luther accounted Julian the Pelagian to be a better speaker and Orator than S. Augustine; 
Luther. Judicium de Erasmo. Tom. 2.  and as to practice Nazianzene declared even of the Macedonians who denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, 
Naz. Orat. 44.  that they were persons whose lives were to be admired, though their Doctrines were not to be allowed. And therefore that more ancient rule of Tertullian is of necessary use; Non ex personis probamus fidem, sed ex fide personas, that we are not to examine and esteem the Faith by the persons, but the persons by their Faith. Therefore the best way to be rightly established, is by having a Conscientious regard in the first place to the evidence of manifest truth clearly discerned, and in the next place to spiritual guides and teachers, it being one end why God appointed Church Officers. Eph. 4.11.— 14. that we be henceforth no more Children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of Doctrine.   

SECT. iv  
Of Ecclesiastical Rites which have been abused in any corrupt way of worship.  
1. It is acknowledged that some gesture, garment, and action (though not the same individually, but of the like kind or physical nature) established in the Church of England, hath been ill used in the Church of Rome; and this hath been much of old and by some of late objected against these appointments. Now we do assert that the worship of God who is a jealous God, is to be preserved pure, and not mixed with any sinful defilement whatsoever, whether of Idolatry or superstition; and that things otherwise indifferent, which either in the design of them who use them, or in their own present tendency, do directly promote or propagate such corruptions, do in that Case become things unlawful. Hence that which was in itself indifferent; and was used in the Pagan Idolatry, might upon good grounds be disclaimed as unlawful to Christians, (by Tertullian and other ancient Writers) where the present use among Christians might appear to countenance and confirm those Idolatrous practices. But that the use of things in themselves lawful and expedient, and known to be ordered to a lawful end and purpose, should be condemned as sinful; because these things or the like, are or have been, otherwhere sinfully abused, is a position by no means to be admitted. Concerning which in general, (besides what shall be added concerning our particular Rites, Ch. 4.) I shall content myself with these three Observations.  
2. Obs. 1. This position is not consistent with the principles of Christian practice. It is a ground of hope in the Gospel Regeneration, that those bodies and Souls which were once abused to the service of false Gods and Devils (as according to Gr. Nazianzen was once the Case of S. Cyprian; 
Naz. Orat. 18.  and according to S. Paul, of the Corinthians, Thessalonians, and others. 1 Cor. 12.2. 1 Thes. 1.9.) and to the service of sin (as were the members of the Roman Church, Rom. 6.17, 18, 19) may yet find acceptance with God in serving him. Surely none can think that S. Paul's tongue was not to be allowed to preach the Gospel, because it had been abused to blaspheme: nor is it amiss observed by Durandus, 
Dur. Rational. l. 1. c. 1. Sect. 33.  that among other Scriptures there is a principal use made in the Church of God, of what was written by David who was guilty of Adultery, S. Matthew who was a Publican, and S. Paul who was a persecutor and blasphemer; and among the Fathers of S. Augustine who was a Manichee. And surely it is much more incredible, that through the ill use of some, the whole Species of actions, gestures, and things should become unlawful and unclean. Can any possibly imagine, that if other men have or do lift up their Eyes to Heaven, to adore the Sun or Moon, or bow down their knees to give religious worship to an Idol, or to Saints and Angels, this must render our lifting up our eyes to Heaven in the worshipping of God, or bowing our knees in Prayer to him, to be sinful? Or may not one man lawfully make use of the light of the Sun to read the holy Scriptures, because another maketh use of it to commit Villainies? or did Judas his Kiss make the kiss of Charity sinful?  
3. As Sozomen reporteth, 
Sozom. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  single Mersion in Baptism was used by Eunomius, who disowned the Trinity; and the threefold Mersion which was the more general ancient Custom, was abused in Spain, as Walafridus Strabo relateth, to express thereby a denial of one Essence in the three Persons of the Trinity; upon which occasion the Council of Toledo enjoined single Mersion in Spain; 
Conc. Tol. 4. c. 5.  still declaring according to S. Gregory, that in the use either of single or trinal Mersion there is sufficient Baptism. And it is well observed by Strabo, that if we must relinquish the use of all things which have been perverted, there will nothing of this nature remain allowable. And whereas God loseth no right of Sovereignty to any Creature by man's abuse, it was not without good reason acknowledged and asserted by S. Austen, that the Christians did lawfully use those Fountains, where the Gentiles drew Water for their Sacrifices; 
Theod. Hist. l. 3. c. 14.  and as Theodoret declareth they owned the same liberty under Julian the Emperor, who designed to defile the Fountains and meats with Pagan pollutions.  
4. Obs. 2. This position if granted, would be such an Engine which would do more work, than they who place it would willingly allow of, and would extirpate divers useful things referring to religious worship, which are ordered by humane Wisdom and Prudence. Of all external things the individual Temple or Church, in which corrupt Religion was performed, may seem as much defiled thereby as any species of action or gesture can be; and yet even the Directory declared, 
Direct. of the day and place of worship.  that such places are not subject to any such pollution, by any superstition formerly used and now laid aside, as may render them Unlawful or inconvenient; and S. Austen declareth, 
Aug. Ep. 154.  that even Idols Temples, when their use is changed to the honour of God, may be lawfully so employed, as well as persons may be received to God, who are converted to the true Religion. Ecclesiastical revenues for the support of the Ministry and Universities, have been, and in the Romish Church still are abused, as much as any other external thing, to be the great support of a corrupt Religion: and yet the continuance of these things is well allowed of, by dissenters from this Church. The same may be said, concerning the times of attending upon the public service of God, Morning and Evening. And notwithstanding the gross abuse of Bells in the time of Popery, Mr. Rutherford declareth it unreasonable and groundless, 
Of Scandal. Qu. 5. & Qu. 6.  that thereupon they should be disused. And if this position was admitted as doctrinally true; the pretence of their convenient usefulness would be no better excuse on their behalf; than was that Plea for sparing the best of the Amalakites , that they might be a Sacrifice, when God had utterly devoted them to destruction; and therefore the admitting this position itself, would be as the coming down of a violent torrent, which instead of scouring the Channel, will overflow and drown all the Country.  
5. Obs. 3. Where this is admitted, the general grounds of the Protestant Reformation must be disowned. 
Conf. Boh. Art. 15.  The Bohemian Church which led the Van, openly professeth that such Rites and Ceremonies ought to be retained, which do advantage Faith, the worship of God, Peace and order; whomsoever they had for their Author, Synodum, Pontificem, Episcopum, 
Luth. Formul. Commun. pro Eccl. Witemb.  aut alium quemvis. And both Luther and the Augustan Confession, declare the like purpose and practice to have been in the Germane Reformation. 
Conf. August. c. 3. Abus. de Missa. Zanch. Epist. l. 1. in Ep. ad Craton.  And Zanchy asserteth, that this is the true way of reforming the Church, (which he wisheth all would mind, after the example of the Bohemian Brethren) not to root out every thing that was found in the Church of Rome, but to reject what was fit to be rejected, and to preserve what was fit to be preserved. That this was designed in the Reformation of the Church of England, appeareth from the Preface in the Book of Common-Prayer concerning Ceremonies, from the Apology of the Church of England, and from the Book of Canons, 
Can. 30.  expressing according to that Apology a very plain Declaration hereof.  
6. The Arguments urged for the proof of this position, are such as do not need any long answer. For whereas Jehn his breaking down the House of Baal is commended in the Scripture, and neither he nor Jehoiada reserved the House of Baal, to be a place of Synagogue worship. This action might be necessary for the effecting a reformation, and the disentangling the people from their Idolatry, and upon a like account Hezekiah broke in pieces the brazen Serpent, 
Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 10. c. 8.  which God himself had appointed, when the people did colere eum tanquam idolum, give worship to it as to an Idol, as S. Aug. expresseth it: and to the same end the ancient Christians, in some special Cases, where they feared that the continuance of the Idols Temples, might tend to uphold the honour of the Idol, 
Eus. de Vit. Const. l. 4. c. 39  did raze them to the foundations, and sometimes erected anew Christian Churches in their places. But besides this the Jews had such positive Laws as these, Thou shalt quite pluck down all their high places. Num. 33.52. Ye shall utterly destroy all the places where the Nations served their Gods. Deut. 12.2. Ye shall destroy all their graven images. Deut. 7.25. Ch. 12.3. and the proper extent of these Laws enjoined them utterly to destroy all Monuments and places formerly used to Idolatry, out of the land of Israel. But whereas no such positive commands are given to Christians, if they should think themselves bound to follow these Jewish Patterns, 
Tr. of Scandal. Q 6.  Mr. Rutherford himself condemneth them as Judaizing in this particular.  
7. And when God commandeth the Israelites that they shall not do after the do of the land of Egypt, and the Land of Canaan. 
Ibid. Q 7.  Leu. 18.3. which Mr. Rutherford objecteth against our Rites: The design of that place is, that the Israelites ought to be guided by the holy Laws and Commandments of God, in their Conversations, and not to follow the debauched examples of other Nations, mentioned in the following part of that Chapter, nor the abominable idolatries of their worship. 
Hook. Eccles. Polity l. 4. Sect. 6.  But in matters in themselves lawful, where God had given them no particular Ceremonial commands to the contrary, they were not tied to disclaim all expedient things practised by other Nations: in civil actions they might eat bread and drink water, yea plough and reap in the same manner with other Nations; 
Ex. 34.13. Num. 25.2.  and in circumstances of Religion, though sacrificing and bowing were manifestly rites of adoration, used by idolatrous Nations, before the giving the Law, they were still received under the Law, and appointed thereby; and though the Philistines had long before the time of David an House or Temple of Dagon, for the place of their Sacrifice, Judg. 16.23, 29, 30. 1 Chr. 10.10. David's purpose of building an House or Temple to the Lord was never the less allowable.  
8. But besides this, it is chief to be considered, that the things designed for the matter of this objection, are quite of a different nature, from the Case and Question to which they are applied. It is acknowledged, that for any persons purposely to design to model the Christian worship, according to the Rites of Pagan and idolatrous original and use, (which would be to run parallel with what is aimed at in this objection) is certainly wicked and intolerable. But since the intent of the present enquiry, concerneth ancient Christian Rites used by us, and abused in the Romish degeneracy; it would be nearer to our state to inquire, Whether ever God gave any command, that his Church should relinquish, whatsoever even the Pagans imitated, abused, or profaned? as Belshazzer profaned the Temple Vessels, many of which were only voluntarily dedicated, 2 Chron. 15.18.; 
Nazianz. Or. 3. Sozom. l. 5. c. 15.  and Julian appointed among the Gentiles a resemblance of the order of the public Christian service; and many things especially in the Grecian Idolatry, have been proved a kind of apish imitation of some things in the Jewish worship. 
Delft. Phaenic. cap. 11.  Yet since the Papists are not Pagans, but Christians of a corrupt profession, that the Case of the Jews may fully answer ours, it must be thus stated: Whether the things laudably used in the service of God, in the ancient times of the Jewish Church, which were not directly instituted of God (as their rules for the ordering their Synagogue worship, and Officers) ought to be rejected in the reformation of Hezekiah or Josiah, so far as these things were received or imitated in the corrupt worship of the ten Tribes? and this is that which I presume no man will have the confidence to assert. And as it is manifest, that the ten Tribes did in their worship designedly imitate many things in the Jewish Temple worship, Amos. 4.4, 5. Ch. 5.21, 22, 23. so they retaining among them the Sons of the Prophets, it is not to be doubted, but they reserved an imitation of the Jewish Synagogue worship, or Weekly Assemblies.  
9 But it is time to consider the particular things, actions, or gestures, appointed in our service. Gestures are so necessary, as inseparable attendants to the body, that there is no reason to place expedient gestures among the number of Ceremonies: yet because kneeling at the Lords Supper is especially so esteemed, and thereupon by some opposed, it will be requisite to express somewhat concerning gestures as well as other Rites; and to manifest how little reason there is for the Censures passed upon these particular Rites, by divers at home, and some few persons abroad, who for the most part proceeded upon some misinformation, or misunderstanding of our affairs.    

CHAP. III.  
Of devout and becoming gestures, in the service of God.  

SECT. I.  
Of the Gesture at Prayer, praise, and Christian profession of Faith.  
1. THat a reverend behaviour is a duty, in our approaches to God in Prayer and other religious exercises, is ordinarily acknowledged, but by many too much neglected. And as the most devout and humble gestures were ordinarily used in Prayer under the Old Testament, so under the new our Saviour himself prayed upon his knees, Luk. 22.41. and so did S. Paul with the Disciples both of Ephesus and Tyre. Act. 20.36. Ch. 21.5. And though the Primitive Church, upon the Lords days, and from Easter to Whitsunday prayed standing, manifesting thereby their abundant joy and hope by Christ's Resurrection; yet kneeling was esteemed their ordinary gesture of Prayer? 
Euseb. Ec. Hist. l. 5. c. 5.  whence Eusebius declaring the admirable effect of the Prayers of the Christian Legion, (called the thundering Legion) in the Army of Aurelius, saith, that they kneeled down upon the ground, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the ordinary custom the Christians used in Prayer; 
Ad Scapul. c. 4.  upon which account Tertullian calleth their Prayers Geniculationes, or their falling on their knees; and from hence divers Christians contracted upon their knees an hard brawniness like that of the Camels, as S. Hierome relateth concerning S. James, and S. Gregory, 
Greg. in Evang: Hom. 38.  concerning Tarsilla his Father's Sister. And that the great and good Emperor Constantine, did in his Closet four times every day put up his Prayers to God upon his knees, 
De Vita Const. l. 4. c. 21.  is expressed by Eusebius; and these things are the more worthy our imitation because it needeth no other proof but common experience, that where there is a neglect of external reverence in the service of God it tendeth to abate the inward fear of God, and the devoutness of Religion, and therefore Kneeling at Prayer which is enjoined with us, is very useful.  
2. The injunction of this gesture in Prayer was esteemed so warrantable by Calvin, that he declareth it to be such an humane Constitution, as is grounded on the word of God; and to be so humane, 
Inst. l. 4. c. 10. Sect. 30.  that it is also divine, being a part of that decency the Apostles commended. But no more need be added in so plain a Case: only it may be here observed, that the expediency of kneeling at the absolution, at the commandments, and the receiving imposition of hands is hence also manifested; because (besides what may be said from the proper subject matter of each of them) to every Commandment, in our Liturgy is adjoined an humble Petition for pardon and grace; the absolution is intended to include a concomitant Prayer, as may be collected from the Rubric following the absolution in the Morning Service; and the imposition of hands encludeth a benedictory supplication.  
3. Standing to praise and give glory to God is sometimes enjoined in our Liturgy. Now this duty of giving glory to God, is sometimes performed in a way of humiliation and Confession, under a sense of the glorious Sovereignty, majesty, and justice of God, in which respect the gesture of kneeling or falling down is suitable thereto, being practised Rev. 4.10, 11. And frequently in the Christian Assemblies, the giving glory to God is performed in magnifying the Glorious Trinity in a way of joy, praise, and thankfulness, and with reference to the grace and mercy of God; and to this end the gesture of standing up hath been thought proper to be practised and enjoined both under the Old and the New Testament. The Levites were appointed by David to stand every Morning to thank and praise the Lord, and also at even. 2 Chr. 23.30. the Jews were commanded by the Levites to stand up and praise the Lord. Neh. 9.5. and in S. John's Vision of the increase of the Christian Church to so great a multitude, which no man could number of all Nations, Kindred's, and people, he saw them standing before the Throne and the Lamb, and saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the Throne and to the Lamb. Rev. 7.9, 10. In the former times of the Christian Church when the Psalms were sung by all the Assembly, they ordinarily performed this service in a standing posture as Amalarius declareth, Dum cantamus Psalmos, 
Amalarius de Eccles. Offic. l. 4. c. 3.  solemus stare: but when they were sometimes sung by one person alone (the usage of the Church in such indifferent things not being always the same) in the Western Church, 
Cassian. Inst. l. 2. c. 8.  in the time of Cassian they all stood up at the end of the Psalms, with joint voices to render glory to God.  
4. Standing at the Creed is a visible sign or token of the profession of the Faith therein contained; which profession is a duty much required in the holy Scripture, and is one part of our glorifying God, for which Religious Assemblies of Divine Worship are intended. In the Creed we professedly acknowledge the three persons in the glorious Trinity to be the only true God, and our only Lord; and a standing posture well becometh a Servant, in his professed owning and attending upon his Master: we openly declare every one for ourselves (I believe, etc.) the ground of our Christian hope and comfort, that believing in the Father who made the World; in the Son who died, rose again, ascended, and shall judge all men; and in the Holy ghost we have expectation in the Church of God, and the Communion of Saints, of obtaining forgiveness of sins, resurrection and everlasting life; and do also acknowledge all these Articles of the Christian Faith: and a standing gesture is very suitable to any solemn Declaration of our minds, in matters of moment and concernment. And as the profession of Faith encludeth a steadfast resolution, to continue firm in the acknowledgement of the Christian Doctrine, this is so properly signified by the standing gesture, according to the general apprehensions of the World, that both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek (which are words expressing the standing gesture) are in the holy Scripture used to signify an asserting with resolution, Deut. 25.8. 1 Chr. 34.32. 1 Cor. 16.13. 2 Thes. 2.15. and the like Idioms of speech are in some other languages as well as our own designing to express what we resolve to stand to.   

SECT. II.  
Of standing up at the Gospel.  
1. Standing at the Gospel is appointed in our Liturgy, of which a very reasonable, true, and good account may be given. Some Ritualists have told us that the Western Church stood up at the Gospel and not at the Epistle, because the Gospel containeth matters of Faith and belief, the Epistle consisteth of Rules of life and practice; and that the Gospel and not the Epistle expresseth the very words spoken by Christ. But I account not these reasons sufficient, partly because the Gospels for some days do not contain, and the Epistles for some days do contain, the points of Christian Faith, and the express words of Christ, and partly because by insisting on these things alone, we can have no reason antecedent to the appointment, why standing at the Gospel should be required with us, and not at the second Lesson in the Morning Service.  
2. Wherefore I observe, 1. That in the devouter times, both of the Jewish and Christian Church it was frequently observed by the people to manifest their reverence unto the holy Scriptures by standing up at the reading thereof When Ezra opened the Book of the Law, 
Salian. Annal. Eccles. A. M. 3447. n. 16.  all the people stood up. Neh. 8.5. and the Children of Israel stood up in their places to read the Law of the Lord, Neh. 9.3. and our blessed Saviour who according to the Custom of the Jewish Doctors taught sitting, stood up to read the words of the Prophet. 
Ecclesiastici lib. 1. c. 4.  Luke 4.16, 20. Junius observeth this as one thing wherein the practice of the Jewish Synagogue and the Christian Church did agree, si verbum Dei ipsum legitur stat erecta Auditorum corona, that when the word of God was read the whole Assembly stood up; which observation was true concerning sometimes of the Jewish Church and of the principal parts of the Christian Church. 
Sozom. l. 7. c. 19  Wherefore though Sozomen relateth that the Alexandrian Bishop did not stand up at the reading the Gospel; yet he noteth it as such a peculiar usage, that he had not seen nor heard the like any where else.  
3. And though in the Jewish Church the people (and among them our Saviour, Luk. 2.46.) usually sat to hear their Doctors; and the ancient Christians sometimes heard their Sermons and Exhortations in the same gesture, as may be collected from Justin Martyrs second Apology; 
Euseb. de Vit. Const. l. 4. c. 33.  yet Eusebius acquainteth us that Constantine that famous Emperor (whose practice doubtless was not singular) would not hear a Sermon or Treatise about divine things in a sitting, but only in a standing posture, as judging it not allowable to do otherwise. And that in the African Churches they did even until S. Austin's days generally stand, 
Aug. Hom. 26.  both at Sermons and all Lessons out of the Scriptures, is manifest from what he expresseth to that purpose. And such respect was showed even among barbarous Nations to what was dictated from God, that Eglon King of Moab, when Ehud told him he had a message from God unto him, did arise out of his seat. Jud. 3.20.  
4. Obs. 2. Out of tenderness to the weakness and infirmity of many Christians, liberty was granted to them that they might hear the longer Lessons, or portions of holy Scripture sitting; 
Aug. ibidem.  but as a testimony of their honour to the whole, they were required at the reading other portions of Scripture to stand up. S. Austen telleth us how he gave Counsel and in some sort made supplication, that those who were infirm and not well able to stand, might humbly and attentively hear the longer Lessons sitting: but in the same place he maketh complaint, that this liberty granted only to the infirm in those African Churches, was taken by others more generally than was intended or allowed. And to somewhat a like liberty the words of Amalarius in the ninth Century seem to refer, 
Amalar. de Eccles. Offic. l. 4. c. 3.  who saith in recitatione lectionis sedere solemus aut silendo stare, it is our Custom either to sit, or to stand with silence when the Lesson is read. And whereas in the Christian Church, the Law and Prophets (with some of the Apocrypha) and the Gospels and Epistles were publicly read in their Assemblies, as is manifest both from Councils, Fathers, and Ritual Writers: the Latin Church enjoined standing up at the Gospel only (which was ordinarily short) for many hundred years past, 
Microl. c. 9  the Greek Church as Micrologus relateth, stood up also at the Epistle which was likewise short, 
Cassand. Liturg. c. 5.  and so did also the Churches of Russia as Cassander observeth from the History of Sigismundus Liberus. For though a posture of reverend respect to the word of God is very suitable whensoever it is read; yet that the Church should allow a liberty to hear the longer Lessons sitting while this particular reverence is expressed only at the reading some shorter portion of the Scripture, 
De Eccl. Offic. l. 3. c. 11.  is very allowable; because it is well observed by Amalarius, that the Apostles themselves did sometimes hear the Scriptures read in the Jewish Synagogue sitting, as is evident from Act. 13.14, 15, 16. Where they entered into the Synagogue and sat down, and after the reading the Law and the Prophets, Paul stood up.  
5. Obs. 3. Standing at a short portion of the Gospel, rather than at any other portion of the Scripture, is reasonably chosen to express reverence to the holy word of God, because the actions and words of our blessed Saviour are for the most part therein contained. In the Primitive Church while the fervour of true devotion did continue, they heard the Writings of the Apostles read with that high esteem and veneration, as if they had then seen the Apostles faces and received those words from their mouths; which Tertullian thus expresseth, 
Tertul. de Praescrip. c. 36.  Authenticae literae eorum (sc. Apostolorum) recitantur sonantes vocem, & representantes faciem uniuscujusque eorum. And in like manner they heard the words of the Gospel as if they had seen Christ himself, and received these words from his mouth. And though all divine truth be therefore highly valuable because it is from God; yet so far as concerneth the deliverer, it was requisite (and warranted by the Scriptures. Mat. 21.37. Heb. 2.1, 2, 3. Ch. 3.3.) that those who lived when Christ was in the flesh, should show the higher respect of the two, to Christ himself speaking (whose words are ordinarily in the Gospel) than to his Apostles who were sent by him. 
Ign. Ep. ad Philadelph.  Wherefore Ignatius accounteth the Gospel to have this excellency in it, viz. the presence of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and his suffering and resurrection. And out of special respect to our Lord and Saviour, it was the Custom of the ancient Greek Church, to stand up when ever the Book of the four Evangelists was opened, 
Chrysost. de Circo. Const. Apost. l. 2. c. 57  or any Lesson read from thence, though the gesture of sitting was allowed at the hearing any other Books of Scripture: so that the liberty of sitting even at any Lessons from the Gospel was not there indulged (the practice of divers Churches being in these things not always the same) where the same liberty was allowed concerning the other Scriptures.  
6. Wherefore to show that outward respect to the holy Scriptures, which both the Jewish and Christian Churches have owned, and wherein our blessed Lord hath given us an example to stand up at the reading them, is reasonable and unblameable. And the liberty allowed for sitting at the other Scriptures, which for order sake is sit to be used, doth not countenance any want of high respect to all Divine truth, which is expressed by manifesting this respect to a particular short part thereof; and that part is to this purpose chosen wherein the words and actions of our Lord and Master do frequently occur.   

SECT. III.  
Of the fitness of kneeling at the Communion, and the gesture at the institution of that Sacrament considered.  
1. To kneel at the receiving the holy Communion, hath been judged a gesture very expedient and commendable upon divers respects. 1. Because this Sacrament doth in a special manner exhibit a mystical and spiritual Communion with Christ, or the Communion of his body and blood; and the greatest reverence and most humble gesture is very convenient for so solemn an Ordinance, and so near an approach to Jesus Christ, especially since in this great Ordinance there ought to be a devout religious worship performed unto Christ himself. Kneeling therefore is a fit gesture of adoration performed in this Ordinance unto God and Jesus Christ, which is the more inoffensively performed, because our Church hath openly declared against any adoration either of the Sacramental Bread and Wine, 
Rubr. after Communion.  or of any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood therein. 2. Because of the greatness of the benefits conveyed in this Ordinance to the worthy receiver, such as the Grace of God and remission of sins in the blood of Christ: and if he who receiveth some great gift, or some great pardon from his Prince, doth fitly receive it kneeling; and the Poenitentes in the ancient Church, always received Ecclesiastical absolution from the Rulers of the Church upon their knees, in token of their submissive humility; much more he who cometh unto Christ in this Sacrament, to receive from him the remission of his sins, tendered in his blood of the New Testament, should appear before him with humility. 
Ibidem.  To this purpose, Kneeling at the Sacrament is in our Liturgy declared to be for a signification of an humble and grateful acknowledgement, of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers: and Mr. Hooker saith very well coming as receivers of inestimable Grace at the hand of God, 
Eccles. Pol. l. 5. c. 68  what doth better beseem our bodies at that hour, than to be sensible witnesses of minds unfeignedly humbled?  
2. 3. Kneeling is a suitable gesture for solemn Prayer and humble thanksgiving, both which may be fitly exercised at the receiving this Sacrament. For religious Prayer becometh him who there affectionately desireth to be made partaker of the benefits of Christ's Passion: and therefore the Communicant should devoutly join in, and in heart say Amen to those Petitions at the delivery of the Elements, which peculiarly refer to himself. The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy Body and Soul to everlasting life, and The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. And humble thanksgiving at the holy Eucharist for the benefits of the New Testament there tendered, the love of Christ in his sufferings here remembered, and for the means of Communion with the Father and the Son in this Ordinance included, with reflection on our own guilt, 
Ans. to Admenit. Tr. 15. c. 1. div. 11.  pollution, and infirmity; is a fit exercise for this Ordinance. And upon this consideration Bishop Whitgift declared, the kneeling gesture to be very meet for the receiving this Sacrament.  
3. But against the lawfulness of this gesture, divers things are objected. 1. That Kneeling is no Table gesture as sitting is, nor doth it so properly express our fellowship with Christ, 
Rutherf. Divine Right of Ch. Gou. p. 196.  and the honour and privilege of Communion with him as Coheirs. Ans. 1. As the Lord's Supper is no common Feast, but a Heavenly Banquet prepared by Jesus Christ, which principally consisteth of spiritual graces and benefits, and Communion with Christ, signified by and tendered under the outward Elements; so the administration and participation of this great Ordinance, ought not to be guided by the Rules of common Table fellowship, but by more religious considerations. At other Tables the attendants are in office inferior to the guests; but in the institution of this Ordinance he who was Lord and greatest, was among them as one who served, and all after administrations of that Ordinance must be performed by the special Officers of Christ's Church, because the consecration of the Elements encludeth the power of the Keys and a solemn benediction. Nor may this Communion be lawfully taken separately of every single Family, or by any single person as other Suppers may be: and whereas men having the head covered, is an ordinary posture at other Tables; to assert that men men ought to have their Hats on at the Holy Communion, 
Gangr. Part. 2. error. 112.  was justly condemned, as an error vented by some wild Spirits, in our former times of licentiousness: and yet this cannot be avoided, by those who will assert, that the postures of the Lords Supper ought to be correspondent to those at ordinary Tables. Wherefore this objection though earnestly insisted upon, is built upon an unsound Foundation. But when S. Paul reproved the abuses at Corinth about their Agapae which attended the Lords Supper, 
1 Cor. 11.22.  saying, Have ye not Houses to eat and to drink in? it was well from thence observed by Zanchy, 
Zanch. Tom. 4. in 2. Precept. c. 16.  that not only internal but even external reverence ought to be expressed at the holy Sacrament, otherwise than at our common Tables, out of respect to Christ who instituted it. 2. It is acknowledged that the great privilege of Communion with Christ, as Members and joint Heirs (which yet is not a Communion of equality to him, but still encludeth deriving from him, and subjection to him as our head and Lord) is included in the right partaking of this Ordinance, and is sufficiently signified by the Ordinance itself in whatsoever sit and becoming gesture it be administered. And in all Christian services in which we have access to God by the mediation of his Son, Christians enjoy some considerable degree of Communion with God as his Children, which is an high privilege; but still they are his Servants and Creatures, and must humble themselves before him, and kneeling is still a fit and proper gesture for Prayer, and therefore so it may be at the Communion.  
4. Obj. 2. But it is more generally by many amongst us objected, that kneeling at this Sacrament is contrary to the example and practice of Christ and his Apostles, who sat at the institution of the Lords Supper. Ans. 1. There is no certainty concerning the gesture used by Christ and his Apostles at the Lords Supper. There are some good Writers both ancient and Modern, who speak either variously or doubtfully, concerning his gesture at the Passover: but I think it sufficiently evident, especially from S. Luke 22. v. 14, 15. and John 21.20. that he did eat the Passover with his Disciples in a discumbing gesture (which gesture because it is wholly out of use with us, is expressed in our English Translation by sitting, because it was a Table gesture). Now they who urge this Objection take for granted, because the Lord's Supper was instituted before the Paschal Solemnities were fully ended, that our Saviour continued all that time in the same gesture; against the certainty, yea or probability of which, I allege three things. 1. That it was the ordinary Custom of the Jews, 
V Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 26.20.  to change their gesture during the continuance of the Paschal Feast. At the beginning of their Feast, they did discumb and so continued till they had eaten the Cake of Unleavened Bread, and drunk the two former Cups of Wine, as both the Talmud and Buxtorf do relate; 
Buxt. Synag. Judaic. c. 13.  but at the time of the two latter Cups of Wine, and at the eating their bitter Herbs the same gesture was not required, nor used, as the Talmud in Berachoth, and Pesachin doth express; and here Buxtorf saith, reclinati non comedunt. 2. That the Jews who in their solemn Feasts did eat discumbing, yet in their giving thanks before those Feasts, 
Phil. de Vit. Contempt.  they were (as Philo relateth) in a standing gesture, with their eyes and hands lifted up towards Heaven; and therefore it is no way probable, that Christ and his Apostles should continue in their Table gesture, (which this objection must suppose) at the blessing the holy Supper, which is an higher Ordinance than the Passover was, because this would be very unsuitable to so great a solemnity. 3. That there anpeareth no footsteps of any Custom of the Primitive Church, of receiving the Lords Supper either sitting or discumbing, (of which the following Section will give some further account.)  
5. Ans. 2. There is no obligation of duty upon the Christian Church, to keep to that gesture in the Lord's Supper, which was used by Christ and his Apostles, though it could be evidently discovered: because 1. Christ hath given no command concerning the gesture, and S. Paul when he telleth his Corinthians, what he had received from the Lord and delivered unto them concerning this holy Sacrament, maketh no mention at all therein of any gesture. 1 Cor. 11.23, 24, 25. Bishop Jewel therefore well asserteth, that Christ said not. 
Reply to Hard. Art. 2.  Do this after Supper, or sitting, or being so many together, neither did the Apostles ever so understand him. 2. Christ and his Apostles observed that Passover gesture which was usually received among the Jews though it was different from the gesture at its first institution; of which I have discoursed somewhat in a former Chapter. 3. Other circumstances of like nature attendant upon the institutution of the Lords Supper, 
Ch. 1. Sect. 2. n. 3.  are generally acknowledged to be of no necessary obligation unto Christians in after times. Bishop Saunderson noteth that whereas those four last predicaments, ubi, 
De Oblige. Consc. Prael. 3. Sect. 16, etc.  quando, situs, habitus; where, when, the gesture, and the habit, are of a like nature; it is almost generally acknowledged that we are not obliged to make use of a like place for the celebrating the Lords Supper, (an upper room) nor the same time, (at night at the end of Supper) nor of the same habit, (a seemless Coat woven throughout) but only the gesture is urged as necessary, for which there can be no more reason than for the other; yea though there be more uncertainty concerning the gesture, than concerning any of the other three.  
6. Ans. 3. There is no reason at all to conclude that Christ and his Apostles sat at this institution. Now though I know no evidence against our Saviour his using a gesture of Prayer and Worship at the time of celebrating the Lords Supper; which is the more probable, because such was the general practice of the ancient Primitive Church, I shall for the present suppose that he used the same gesture at the Lords Supper, and at the Passover; yet than I must observe, 1. That this discumbing gesture was vastly different from sitting. 2. That if this supposed gesture used at the institution was essential or of necessity to the Sacrament, they who undertake to change discumbing into sitting, upon pretence that that is the ordinary Table gesture in these Countries, must undertake to assert that the introducing new Customs among men-may have power to alter the necessary and essential duties of God's Ordinances; which is a position destructive to Religion and Christianity: for if any Company of men should enure themselves to a diet wherein they ordinarily allow themselves neither Bread nor Wine, this will in no wise warrant their undertaking to celebrate this Sacrament in any other Elements, where these Elements may be as easily had and used, as men may compose themselves to a reclining or discumbing gesture.  
7. Wherefore he who urgeth the necessity of any gesture at this Sacrament, upon pretence that it was used by Christ and his Apostles, doth declare, that for a duty which is none; and pretendeth to follow their example where probably he may be mistaken in it; but he who conformeth to that gesture which is by authority established, 
Dr. Kellets Tricaen. l. 3. c. 5. Sect. 3, 6. Ch. 7. Sect. 1.  though it were certainly different from the gesture at the institution, (which yet some have conjectured to have been a kneeling gesture) doth manifestly follow the example of Christ and his Apostles, who did embrace that Passover gesture which was at that time of common practice among the Jews, but could not be pretended to be the gesture at the first celebration thereof.   

SECT. iv  
Of the Communion gesture observed in the Christian Church, both in the purer and the more degenerate times thereof.  
1. Obj. 3. It is urged by some Non-Conformists, that the Universal Church in the Primitive times used sitting and not kneeling; 
Holy Table Ch. 5. p. 134.  and that the holy Communion was then received sitting, is thought not improbable by some others. 
Of Relig: Assemb. c. 4.  Now though this if it were true, would not prove our gesture unlawful, because the Church is not bound to observe always the same indifferent rites and gestures: for though Christ, and his Apostles after his Ascension, sat when they taught the people, Act. 16.13. all Ministers are not thereby obliged to the same gesture. Yet I further assert. 1. There is no evidence that ever the Primitive Church used any ordinary Table gesture, at the receiving the Lords Supper; but considerable proof may be made of the contrary. We read indeed of the seats for the Bishop and Presbyters in the Christian Assemblies; but as this cannot respect the whole Assembly, so it giveth no more evidence of their gesture at the Communion, than the same thing with us doth of our gesture. 
Apol. c. 39  That place of Tertullian which Rhenanus sometime understood of the Eucharist. (Non prius discumbitur quam oratio ad Deum praegustetur, etc. that they do not discumb, 
V Pamel. ibid.  or use the reclining gesture till they have first prayed) doth manifestly refer to their love feast only, whereas it followeth in Tertullian, they eat as much as satisfieth hunger, and drink as much as becometh sober persons. 
Cyp. Ep 42.  When Cyprian writeth to Cornelius, that he would not allow the Letters of the Novatian party to be read, considentibus sacerdotibus Dei, & altari posito, while the Priests of God were sat together, and the Altar prepared; he doth not express their usual gesture at the Lords Table, but the manner of their holding Synods, as may be collected from that and the foregoing Epistle. 
Ep. 41. Petit. Var. Lect. l. 3. c. 4.  And it is well observed by Petitus, that the Canons and practice of the ancient Church, required their annual Synods to assemble upon the stationary days at the close of which stations they always received the Communion.  
2. But that the Primitive gesture at the Communion was not such as they used at their ordinary Tables, may be partly collected from Tertullian, 
Tertul. Apol. c. 8.  who relating and refelling the impudent slander of the Gentiles, occasioned as Eusebius saith by the Gnostics; first against the Eucharist, 
Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 7.  and then against the Love Feasts, (as is manifest by comparing this with Cap. 7. and with Minucius Felix) he proceedeth from the former to the latter saying, 
Minuc. Fel. edit. Oxon. p. 26, 98, etc.  interea discumbens, etc. or then falling to a Table gesture, etc. which showeth, that such a gesture was used at their Love Feasts, but not at the holy Communion. This is also expressed by Justin Martyr, 
Just. Mart. Ap. 2.  who declareth, that after the end of their Sermon or Exhortation, they all rise up and give thanks, and receive the holy Sacrament: which words show that though they sat before at the time of the Sermon, they changed that gesture on purpose, when they came to attend the receiving the holy Communion.  
3. I assert. 2. The Primitive Church did practise and require at the receiving the Communion, such a gesture as was usual to express humility and reverence, and worship towards God. 
Cyr. Hieros. Cat. Myst. 5.  Cyrill directeth the Communicant to take the Cup, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bowing down, after the manner of worshipping and adoring. 
Chrys. Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  S. chrysostom required more worship and reverence to be expressed towards Christ at the receiving the Sacrament, than the wise men of the East shown to him; when they fell down and worshipped him with fear and trembling. A humble frame and behaviour was thought so agreeable to this Ordinance by Origen, 
Orig. in Divers. Hom. 5.  (if that Homily be his and not some other ancient Writers) that he exhorteth the Communicant to imitate the humility of the Centurion, who said, Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof. And that the Christians usually expressed adoration at the receiving this Sacrament, is manifest from S. Augustine's, 
Aug. in Ps. 98. Ep. 120. c. 27. Amb. de Sp. Sanc. l. 3. c. 12.  Nemo manducat nisi prius adoraverit, and from other like expressions both of his and S. Ambroses.  
4. Now whereas the twentieth Canon of Nice, according to a more ancient Custom, enjoined all Prayers upon the Lords days, and from Easter to Whitsunday, to be performed in a standing gesture; which 8. Augustin saith was the general practice upon those days at the Eucharistical, 
Aug. Ep. 119. c. 15.  or Communion Prayers, it is not to be doubted but that their gesture of reverence, used upon those days at this Sacrament, was a standing gesture; especially since Tertullian earnestly declareth against the use of a sitting posture in adoration, 
Tertul. de Orat. c. 12.  as being irreverent; and also acquainteth us that it was not allowed in those times, 
DeCor. Milit. c. 3.  de geniculis; adorare, to perform any adoration kneeling upon the Lords days. Wherefore when Dionysius of Alexandria speaketh of a Communicant in his Church, 
Eus. Hist: Eccl. l. 7. c. 8.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we may properly render it standing at the Lords Table, and the testimony of Justin Martyr above produced, giveth a very probable intimation of the same gesture. But when as the ancient Churches had two stationary days in a Week (that is the sourth, and sixth days; with which the seventh day was also joined at Caesaria, as is manifest from S. Basil) upon which the holy Communion was administered; it is probable, 
Basil. Ep. ad Caesariam.  that as upon those days they prayed kneeling, so they did in the same gesture receive this Sacrament, in attendance upon which they thought an humble gesture of adoration to be very suitable; this Sacrament being accounted by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the dreadful mysteries.  
5. 
Albasp. Obs. l. 1. Obs. 15.  Indeed Albaspinus undertaketh to assert, without any proof, that the chief reason why anciently they stood in their Prayers upon the Lords days and the Pentecost, was because upon those days they received the holy Communion, and it was requisite they should use none other than a gesture of Joy upon that day, in which they communicated in that Sacrament. But besides the improbability of supposing daily Communions (where we have no testimony thereof) from Easter to Whitsunday, this observation is very plainly contradicted by Albaspinus himself in his very next observation, 
Obs. 16.  where he declareth that the Eucharist was constantly celebrated upon the stationary days, and yet upon those days he yieldeth that the ancient Christians did pray kneeling: 
Conc. Trul. c. 90.  and this his conjecture is also contrary to what is asserted by the sixth general Council, by Zonaras and Balsamon, upon the twentieth Council of Nice, and by S. Hierom, Austen, 
Hieron. Prooem. in lib. 1. Com. in Eph.  Basil, and other Fathers, who unanimously assert that their joyfulness to the wonder of the Gentiles, for the Resurrection of Christ; and their professing themselves to be risen with him, and to expect resurrection by him, was the cause of their standing gesture at those times in their Religious Prayers. But that the most humble gesture was not thought inconsistent with the Eucharist may appear. 
Gr. Nazianz. Orat. in Gorgon:  Besides the testimonies above produced from what Gregory Nazianzen relateth of his Sister Gorgonia who privately fell down prostrate before the Altar with the Sacrament in her hand.  
6. Wherefore kneeling at the holy Sacrament, or receiving it in a gesture of Prayer and Religious Worship unto God, was no way disallowed as unlawful by the Primitive Church; but our practice herein, is but a building upon their Foundations who themselves used a gesture of Adoration, or the same gesture with that of Prayer.  
7. Obj. 4. Kneeling is a gesture which hath been grossly abused by the Papists, in worshipping the Host, according to their Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and to that end it was enjoined by Honorius the third. Ans. 1. NO sinful use of any gesture, though it be in the most manifest idolatry, doth render that gesture unlawful in Religious service to God, as was showed in the former Chapter. Though the Israelites sat down to eat and drink, when they had offered Sacrifices to the golden Calf. Ex. 32.6. it was still allowable in the days of Samuel to sit down to feast upon the Sacrifices of God. 1 Sam. 9.13, 22. And though the discumbing or reclining gesture, was anciently used in Idolatrous Feasts (Amos 2.8. Ezek 23.41.) and so continued in some places very common till the times of Christ, (being designed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sit, or rather discumb in the Idols Temple. 1. Cor. 8.10. 
Conc. Ancyr. Can. 51 ) and for some hundred years after as appears from the Council of Ancyra, yet Christ himself made use of this gesture at the Jewish Passover, according to the Custom and Canons of the Jewish Church.  
8. Ans. 2. Though it be true that many Papists (but not all) do receive and adore the Host kneeling; yet the Decree of Honorius so oft insisted upon, is herein mistaken and misapplyed. That Decree commandeth that the people cum elevatur hostia salutaris se reverenter inclinet, 
Decret. Greg. Lib. 3. Tit. 41. c. 10.  idem faciens cum eam deferat Presbyter ad infirmum, which words speak not the gesture of communicating, or at the time of receiving the Sacrament; but only concerns their behaviour as spectators, when the Host immediately after the Consecration is elevated, or when it is carried abroad to the sick. And though the old Gloss supposeth that kneeling was thereby at such times enjoined, which the practice of many in that Communion cannot admit; Espencaeus a more learned man than the Author of the Gloss, 
Espencaeus De Adorat. Euch. l. 2. c. 16.  accounteth that Decree rather to prohibit kneeling, and to direct (as the words se reverenter inclinet, may import) a standing gesture with expression of reverence. And Espencaeus telleth us in the same place, that in 1555. the kneeling gesture had not obtained in the Church of Lions, and that when some endeavoured to obtrude it upon that Metropolis, a stop was put to their proceeding by the Royal Authority: and in the same place in that Book, purposely written for the adoration of the Sacrament, he declareth, that it is not much material in what gesture it is performed, whether sitting, standing, lying, or kneeling.  
9 Ans. 3. They who will lay aside all gestures grossly abused, must upon the same account reject all those, which are in this Sacrament ordinarily received in the Protestant Churches, both standing, and sitting, as well as kneeling. That standing was a gesture used in the Romish adoration of the Host, by many of the ordinary sort of Papists is evident from Espencaeus now cited. 
Sacr. Cerem. lib. 1. Sect. 2. Cap. 1. f. 22.  And if he who is elected Pope be not Bishop or Priest; at his Priestly Ordination he receiveth the Sacrament standing: for then as their Book of Ceremonies informs us, Ordinator communicat electo stanti in ipso cornu, de corpore & sanguine Christi; 
Ibid. c. 2. f. 28.  and the same gesture is used by him at his Episcopal Ordination, Communionem sumet sub utraque specie stans, etc. and as this is the gesture of the Pope in that great solemnity of the Pope's being invested with his Papal dignity, 
V Durand. Rat. l. 4. c. 54. n. 45.  so upon the great Mass upon Christmas day, if the Pope himself celebrate the Mass, the Deacon who attendeth upon him receiveth it at the Pope's hand in a standing gesture, Diaconus slans, inclinato capite ex ejus manibus de Corpore Christi communicate, 
Ibid. Lib. 2. Sect. 1. Cap. 14. — calamo slans sanguinis partem sugit; and in the same gesture the consicient Priest usually receiveth.  
10. 
Sacerdotal. Par. 1. Tract. 4. c. 35.  But because sitting is most contended for amongst us, I shall observe that this hath been many ways also grossly abused. First it was the ordinary gesture of worship in the Romish Pagan Idolatry. The ancient laws of their Pagan worship required, ut adoraturi sedeant, which as Plutarch affirmeth, 
Plut. in Numa.  was appointed by Numa Pompilius; and Tertullian informeth us that at their Gentile solemnities even in his time, they worshipped their images sitting, 
Tertul. de Orat. c. 12.  adoratis sigillaribus suis residendo.  
11. And in the Romish Church, it is by some asserted, and appeareth very probable, that the Pope himself at some solemnities receiveth the Eucharist sitting. When the Emperor receiveth his Coronation, their Master of Ceremonies telleth us, that at the time of Mass, the Pope with the Emperor following him in the place of a Sub-Deacon goeth to the Altar, whence Pontifex ad sedem eminentem communicaturus revertitur, 
Sacr. Cerem. l. 1. Sect. 5. Cap. 3.  the Pope (who at that time doth himself celebrate) goeth to his seat of eminency therein to receive the Communion. And a Book called the Quench-Coal, written many years since as an Answer to Dr. Heylins' Coal from the Altar, produceth this testimony from William Thomas in his History of Italy, who declared himself an eye witness thereof, in the year 1547. that the Altar in the Cathedral Church of Rome, 
Quench Coal p. 12.  even in the time of Mass when the Pope received the Sacrament, was standing in the midst of the Choir, and the Pope sitting in a Chair of State about it. And Didoclavius telleth us, (which is the only instance he produceth out of any History for sitting at the Sacrament, (and he may be mistaken in that) that the Benedictine Monks receive the Sacrament sitting upon the Thursday before Easter: 
Altar. Damasc. c. 10.  and yet I suppose (if his observation be true) he will not imagine that they receive it with less adoration of the Host, than other Papists do.  
12. And sitting at the Sacrament hath yet been much more abused by the Arians in Poland (as their Synods called the Socinians) who as denying the Divinity of Christ, 
In Synodis Cracoviens. Petricoviens. Wlodislav. & Toruniens. in Corp. Confessionum.  and not giving due reverence to him, were the first Authors known to those Churches of this sitting gesture: upon which account the Churches both of the Bobaemian, Augustan and Helvetick Confessions, residing in Poland and Lithuania, disclaimed the use of that gesture (though they esteemed it lawful in itself) as being upon this occasion scandalous. Wherefore to assert that every gesture grossly abused by others ought to be utterly relinquished, is not only contrary to truth, and to the practice of the Church of England; but is herein opposite to the use of all the reformed Churches, and it would make void Christ's institution of the Sacrament, by admitting no gesture to be lawful to communicate therein.  
13. Yet that we may discern the various working of men's minds, in their arguments against this kneeling gesture, and how copiously every thing affordeth matter to them who will take up with any thing; we may observe, 
Diu. Right of Ch. Gou. Ch. 2. q. 1. p. 195.  that as kneeling is sometimes disliked as having been Idolatrously abused, so sitting is sometimes pleaded for, as being the gesture practised and allowed by Christ, because it was the gesture (say they) in the Idols Temple. Thus Mr. Rutherford in these strange expressions, undertaketh to prove that Christ did sit at the Lords Supper, because sitting at the Idols Table, 1 Cor. 8.10. declareth that in Religious Feasts sitting was ordinary, and a sign indicant of honouring the spiritual Lord of the Banquet, and a religious Communion with the Lord of the Feast was hence signified.  
14. Another thing urged against kneeling at the Sacrament, 
Obj. 5. Rutherf. Divine Right of Ch. Govern. Ch. 1. Qu. 5. Sect. 1, 3.  which of the others is most strange and uncharitable, is this, that kneeling at the Sacrament is Idolatry, and is parallel with worshipping god by an Image, and even with the Pagan Idolatry itself, upon this ground, 
Altar. Damasc. c. 10 p. 801.  because to kneel before any Creature as a memorative object of God, though there be no intention of giving divine adoration to that Creature, is Idolatry, in the opinion of some men.  
15. Ans. 1. This rash position tendeth to make the Jews worshipping God before the Ark or mercy Seat, and before the Temple at Jerusalem, or the Tabernacle in the Wilderness, to have been equally Idolatrous with the serving Jeroboams Calves, or worshipping Baal; which was so far from that great sin, that it was then a necessary duty of Religion. And the cause of this gross mistake, is the want of considering the vast difference, of worshipping a false God; or making use of a memorative object to represent the likeness of the divine being, which is contrary to his nature, and forbidden by his Precepts; and of using such a memorative object in worship, as is to be a memorial of the Covenant and grace of God and Christ, and his Communion with us, being to that end appointed and instituted as a remembrance of him. If these things be not accounted vastly different, it must be concluded not very considerable, whether we do things appointed of God or forbidden of him; and things agreeable to the nature of God or apposite thereto. And besides this to worship God alone, making use of such memorative objects as an help thereto, which do properly call to our minds Gods mighty works, and glorious Attributes, is far from being either Idolatrous, or . If a pious man taking a view of the mighty works of God's Creation, or any part thereof, should upon this sight be put in mind of the power and wisdom of their Creator, and thence should glorify admire and worship, not the Creature but God alone; such actions are not evil, but devout and religious.  
16. 2. This assertion is of so dangerous consequence, as to disown this holy Sacrament, from being an Ordinance of Christian worship, and to hinder the principal duties therein to be performed. For it is directly contrary to the duties of this Sacrament, to condemn the worshipping of Christ as sinful, at the view of this memorial of Christ's Death in this Sacrament; when Christians here ought to magnify his grace, mercy, and love, to glorify him for the wonderful Salvation and Atonement effected by his Death, to implore his grace and spirit, with all the blessings and benefits of the New Testament, to acknowledge him, and submit to him, as our only Sovereign Lord, with other such like, which are proper actions of our worshipping and inwardly adoring him. And it is unreasonable as well as uncharitable, where these inward acts of Religion are necessary and a duty, to condemn the outward expression thereof, as either Idolatrous, or any was sinful, being directed to him who is Lord both of our Souls and Bodies.  
17. And though some men's fierceness carrieth them very far, yet if we consult the judgement of the Protestant Churches, who all admit an uniform gesture in their several churches; not only the Lutheran Churches make use of kneeling at the Communion, as an expression and excitement of devotion, but the Bohaemian Church which also used kneeling, declared that this gesture being piously received, 
Ratio Discipl. Cap. 3. Sect. 4.  devotionem ipsam & in conspectu Dei humilitatem, adcoque gaudium cum tremore auget; increaseth devoutness of mind, humility in the sight of God, and awful rejoicing. Those of the Helvetick Confession in Poland, who themselves used standing, did approve of kneeling in the Polish Synods above-mentioved, nor hath it ever been condemned by any Protestant Church abroad: but is particularly approved and well allowed of also by divers of the most eminent Ministers of the Reformed Churches, as hath been manifested by Mr. Durel Zanchy declareth, 
Zanch. in Sec. praec. c. 17.  that there is no doubt but that they act holily, and according to the will of God, who come to handle and partake of the holy Sacrament, with external reverence also. And Hospinian declareth, that the Sacraments ought to be handled with great Religion and reverence, 
Hospin Hist. Sacram. l. 5. c. 8.  according to the Custom of every Church, with a comely habit, modest behaviour, soberly and devoutly, with the head uncovered, and with bended knees.    

CHAP. IU.  
Of other particular Rites appointed in the Church of England.  

SECT. I.  
Of the Surpless.  
1. A Decent habit in the service of God is generally allowed to be expedient, and Bucer observed, that whether men will or no, they must acknowledge that the distinct Garments and Ornaments of Magistrates, doth procure a singular respect to their Magistracy. And a decent habit used by Ministers in the worship of God, doth express a reverend esteem of the service of God, and promoteth a due respect to them and their Ministration, with men of unprejudiced minds. Upon which account a particular comely attire for the Levites under the Law, 
Ch. 1. Sect. 2.  (as hath been above-shewed) and for Christian Ministers both in the Primitive, and reformed Churches, was ordered and appointed by Ecclesiastical Authority: and to this end with us as with many other Churches anicent and modern reform the use of the Surpless is received, the decency of which is to be considered.  
2. As the service of God in Religious ministrations is excellent and honourable, 
Baron. A. 44. Casaub. Exercit. 16. n. 73. Selden. de Synod. l. 1. c. 3.  so the general sense of a great part of the World, both Jews and Gentiles, have accounted white garments to be honourable and comely, and they are also approved as such by the wisdom of God himself, in the description of the most excellent persons and things. The glorious attire of the Lambs wise, and some of the Apocalyptick Angels, is expressed by their being arrayed in white linen. Rev. 19.8. Chap. 15.6. the glorious state of the whole Church of God, and its Members, and of the Elders before the Throne, is signified by their being clothed in white raiment. Rev. 7.9. Chap. 3, 4, 19 chap. 4.4. and the appearance of Angels, the Transfiguration of Christ, and the vision of the glory of God, are represented in white garments, Mark 16.5. Act. 1.10. Mark 9.3. Dan. 7.9. and the Holy Ghost would certainly not make use of things indecent and unseemly, as representations of such great and glorious excellencies. And therefore they who will condemn or deride a vesture of white linen, as being in itself uncomely, must first undertake to give evidence, 
Zanch. in 2. Pracept. c. 16.  that they have better judgements concerning what is decent in the Church, than the rest of the World have, 
P. Martyr. Ep. ad Hoop.  or than he hath who gave the being both to the World and to the Church. And it hath been acknowledged by Protestant Writers of good note, that the use of white linen hath hereby this special advantage, that from the natural simplicity of the colour, the special consideration of white linen above expressed, and the use of these expressions in Scripture, it may aptly direct us to the meditation and consideration of purity.  
3. Yet because it must be acknowledged, that things in themselves otherwise unblamable, may become unlawful when they are made use of upon evil principles, or in any evil way, or to bad ends and purposes; and whereas the use of the Surpless is charged by some with Judaizing, and by others with too much compliance with the degenerate state of the Christian Church under Popery, I shall take these things into consideration.  
4. Though such things as have a natural comeliness or conveniency, do not become unlawful to Christians at all times, because they were made use of or enjoined in the Law of Moses, as hath been manifested; yet I further observe, 
Ch. l. Sect. 1.  that the Surpless was no Aaronical garment, as hath been ordinarily supposed and granted. Among the high Priests garments, his Ephod which was made of blue, Purple, Scarlet and sine twined linen, and his Robe which was all of blue, can have no affinity with the Surpless, neither of them being white linen, and both of them of a different shape, and his linen Breeches, Bonnet, Mitre, and Girdle bear not the least resemblance thereto: it remaineth therefore that none other of their garments can be like to our Surpless, unless either the Coat of the high Priest, or the Coats of the inferior Priests, (which are sometimes called Ephods) should agree thereto. The high Priests Coat was ordinarily an under-garment, worn next to his skin, upon which he put on his Robe, Ephod, and other attire, as may be collected from Moses his consecration of Aaron, Leu. 8.7, 8. and is plainly expressed by Josephus, who was himself a Priest, 
Josep. Ant. l. 3. c. 8.  and at Jerusalem whilst this attire was yet worn.  
5. But it must be owned, that upon the day of atonement, which was the tenth day of the seventh mouth, the high Priest went into the Holy of Holies in a linen Coat, without his other ordinary Priestly garments, 
Philo. de Somn. Targ. Jonath. in Leu. 16.4. Salian. An. 2545. n. 54.  as is affirmed by Philo Judaeus (who also saith that this was a white Coat, though others as well as our English Translators in Exod. 28.39. suppose it was embroidered) by one of the Chaldee Paraphrasts, and by divers others both Jewish Writers and Modern Christians. 
Cun. de Rep. Heb. l. 2. c. 1.  And though Cunaeus representeth the contrary opinion which he opposeth, as the common opinion of those Christian Writers, which went before him: yet it must be acknowledged as manifestly true, from Leu. 16.4, 23, 24, 32. that the high Priest entered the Holy of Holies without his glorious attire only in a linen Coat, with linen Breeches, Mitre, and Girdle: which might well signify that humble purity was more fit to appear before God, than the greatest splendour and glory; and also that when the true atonement should be made by the Messiah, the glory of the Aaronical Priesthood should be done away. And to this purpose an obscure place, 
Joseph. de Belt. Jud. l. 8. c. 1●.  probably corrupted in the ordinary Copies of Josephus, may with a little transposition be corrected, to become both plain, and agreeable with other Jewish Writers, if we read them, after his description of the high Priests glorious garments, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the high Priest did put on a plainer garment than his glorious apparel, when he went into the Holy of Holies, which garment he did not wear at any other time.  
6. Yet if this linen Coat of the high Priest, and those of the other Priests were white, as is probable, they were very different from the Surpless in three respects. First, in their fashion; for those Coats of the Aaronical Priests were straight in the arms, and so close to the body, that they admitted of no gathers or folds, 
Josep. Ant. l. 3. c. 8. Hieron. ad Fabiol. Alcuinus de Diu. office. c. de fingulis vestibus.  as Josephus informs us, whence S. Hierom and Alcuinus compared them to the Soldier's garments, which were so strictly fitted to their bodies, that they were not hindered in shooting, but strengthened thereby. And this difference was observed by Amalarius Fortunatus, that under the old Law, 
Amal. de Eccles. office. l. 2. c. 18.  the white garment used in the service of God was a straight one, but under the Gospel a lose one: and common reason will further evidence, that such a lose garment as our Surpless is, was no way convenient for the employment of the Levitical Priest in killing and offering Sacrifices, sprinkling and wring out blood, and such like actions. Secondly, those Aaronical Coats were girded about them with a girdle, as both the Scriptures, Leu. 8.13. Chap. 16.4. and Josephus in the place above mentioned do express, and the linen girdle for the inferior Priests, was according to Josephus his testimony, wrought with blue, purple, and scarlet, as was also that of the high Priest for his most holy garments, as may be observed from Exod. 39.29. Thirdly, those Priestly garments under the Law were no upper ornamental garments, but those Coats were the only vesture upon the upper part of their naked bodies, as were also their linen Breeches upon their lower parts, and no common garments might be worn with them. Hence they were appointed to cover their nakedness, Exod. 28, 42. and Philo saith, 
Phil. de Monarch. l. 2.  that in their ministrations they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without any other apparel besides their Priestly Coats; and the same may be inferred from Leu. 6.11. Ezek. 44.17, 18, 19 In all these things which are considerable differences, in the esteem of those who impartially observe them, these Aaronical Vestments and the Surpless do disagree: which may therefore evidence, that this garment was not received under Christianity as a thing Aaronical, but only as a decent Vestment in Religious Service.  
7. And if we consider that while the Priesthood of Aaron was yet standing, though blue Purple and fine Linen were used in the high Priests Ephood, and in the Veil of the Temple; yet Mordecai did lawfully wear a garment of these colours of another fashion from the Ephod, and to a different end, Esth. 8.15. and that though God appointed holy linen garments for the Priests, the Levites lawfully used other linen garments not enjoined by the Law, in their praising God, which were probably lose garments, and were called Robes, 
Middoth. c. 5. Sect. 3. Seld. de Synedr. l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 7. ex Solom. ben Wirga.  1 Chron. 15.27. this (besides what is related of other white garments used by the Priests in other joyful Solemnities) is sufficient to show, that God's Commandments concerning the Priestly garments under the Law, did not take away the liberty of using other linen garments for comeliness, either in, or out of Religious service.  
8. Concerning the Antiquity of the Christian use of this white linen garment its ordinary use at the end of the fourth Century is manifest, from the testimonies commonly produced from S. Hierom, 
Hier. adv. Pelag. l. 1. c. 9  who speaketh of the Bishop, Presbyter, Deacon, and the whole Ecclesiastical Order, being in a white garment, at the time of sacred administrations; 
Chrys. Hom. 83. in Mat.  from S. Chrysostom, warning the Clergy to mind their duty, and not to think it enough for them when the Sacraments are administered, to walk in a white shining garment; and from the Council of Carthage, 
Conc. Carth. 4. Can. 41.  whereby the Deacon was required at the time of the oblation and lesson, to wear the white garment. Now these places evidencing that this vesture was then used, in very distant parts of the Christian World, it may be thence in all likelihood concluded, that it had a much more early original. 
Walaf. Strab. de Reb. Eccles. c. 24.  Walasridus Strabo relateth, that in the beginning of Christianity, communi indumento vestiti missas agebant, divine offices were performed in their ordinary apparel, and the first, saith he, who ordained the contrary was Stephen Bishop of Rome, which was about 250 years after Christ. And if this relation was admitted as true, these garments would be thence concluded to have been used in the Church above 1400 years since; and in matters of outward ornament, it is not desirable that the first times which were under persecution, should be made the rule for the more flourishing times of Christian Religion: for they then had no such fixed revenues for the support of the Ministry, or honourable structures for Church-assemblies, as we now enjoy. 
Steph. Epist. Decr. ad Hilarium.  But indeed the Decretal Epistle of Stephen, upon which Walasridus relieth, is a manifest forgery, and in the very reading it, it smelleth rank of the Superstition of much later times. But that the use of a linen attire was at that time an ensign of the Ecclesiastical Officers, seemeth the main design of that observation of Pontius the Deacon, 
Pontius Diac. in Vit. Cypr.  concerning S. Cyprian; who a little before his Martyrdom being allowed to sit down in a retiring place, about the Judgment-hall; Sedile (saith he) erat fortuito linteo tectum, ut sub ictu passionis Episcopatus honore frueretur; The seat was casually covered with linen, so that upon the stroke of his passion he enjoyed the Episcopal honour. And if we further consider what probable evidence hath been above given, that white garments were used both in the Jewish Synagogues, and their other solemn Services, this maketh it appear probable, that they were of very ancient use under Christianity, upon the account of Decency.  
9 And since the degeneracy of the Romish Church, though they still use the Surpless, it is none of their proper Massing garments, being never worn by the Priest who consecrateth, 
Durand. Ration. l. 3. c. 1. etc. Durant. de Rit. l. 2. c. 9  (or their conficient Priest) at the Mass, as is manifest from Durandus, Durantus, and the Roman Missal in its praeparatio ad Missam. But his Massing attire is made up of these six Vestments, according to their ordinary description, the Amictus, alba, cingulum, stola, manipulus, and casula, all which are far different from the Surpless: 
Benedict. divers. sec. usum sarum.  and these six garments only are accounted the holy garments used by their Priests, and all of them have their particular Consecrations, as the Surpless even in the Romish Church hath not; and therefore this garment hath been far less abused among them, than either Churches, Communion , and other things, which by reason of their manifest conveniency or decency, are ordinarily admitted to be of lawful use.  
10. And if any persons will decry the use of such Habits, which have been abused as unlawful and unclean, let them consider whither this Spirit will lead them: for they must hereby oppose S. Paul's doctrine of all things being pure, and instead thereof must introduce a far greater distinction of things clean and unclean under Christianity, than ever was admitted under the Jewish pedagogy: since almost the same abuses may be objected against any other kind of Vesture, as against the use of white Linen. 
Alt. Damasc. c. 10. p. 895.  Some opposers of our conformity have averred, that the white garments used by the Gentile Sacrificers were white woollen, and the Romish Book of Ceremonies saith, 
Sacr. Cerem. l. 1. Sect. 1. cap. 5. Dur. Ration. l. 3. c. 18.  that among the peculiar garments of the Pope, the gown of white woollen is one. And as the Mass attire in the Romish Church is upon many days required to be white; so upon divers other yearly days, this attire must be red, upon others green, and upon others violet-coloured. And for more particular instance, 
Sacerdotal. Par. 1. Tract. 4. cap. 42.  the use of black garments (which are in themselves nevertheless lawful) may be argued against with as much plausibleness from the Topick of abuse, as can be urged against the white. For that the ancient Pagan Priests used a black habit, 
Buxt. Lex. Rab. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and were thence called Chemarim (which Junius usually rendereth atratos, or those who wear black) is declared by Buxtorf; and hath been observed from R. D. Kimchi on Zeph. 1.4. and is generally acknowledged. But I further observe, that among the Papists their anniversary Solemnities for the last Pope, 
Sacerdotal ibidom.  and for all other deceased Popes and Cardinals, their commemoration of all Souls, and all their particular Masses for the dead (which are none of the least of their enormities) are required to be performed in a black attire only. 
Sacr. Cerem. l. 2. Sect. 2. cap. 26, 31, 34, 35.  Yet where all such corruptions are disclaimed, either such things as are in themselves otherwise allowable and expedient, may be lawfully used, notwithstanding the abuse of others, or else men must have disputed themselves out of God's Creation, since both Heaven and Earth, and all sorts of Creatures therein, have been idolatrously abused, as is abundantly manifest from Vossius his Books, De Idolatriae origine & progressu.  
11. Wherefore this habit being of ancient use in the Christian Church, which esteemed it decent, and being no Jewish attire; and being so far from an attendant upon the Romish Transubstantiation, and their Sacrifice of the Mass (as some have falsely suggested) that if it did not reach to the Apostles times (who in the Arabic language are oft called Alhavarin, 
V.D. Hammonds Parap. Rev. 4.4. Seld. de Syned. l. 3. c. 11. Sect. 3.  which some tender albicantes, others viri albis induti vestibus) it was certainly used long before these corruptions took place, and while the primitive purity of doctrine was retained; and it is a garment which is not appointed, nor allowed to be used to consecrate the Mass therein; and hath also escaped those superstitious Consecrations, which have been used among them towards Communion-cloaths of linen, and Patins and Chalices or Cups, all which are retained by Protestants: there is then no reason why its use among us should be condemned. Among the Protestant Churches, some in Germany with those in Denmark and Norwey retain this with other vestments; divers other Writers and men of Note declare the use of this vestment to be innocent and allowable; others, 
Calv. Ep. 117. & Ep. 120.  and among them Calvin dislike the heat of contention against the use hereof. And though some, as the Synod of Weissenburg in Transylvania, 
Concord. Confil. Syn. Alb Juliacens 1634.  disapprove the use of the linen garment, as being not a thing of an indifferent nature; yet they proceeded upon insufficient grounds, relying altogether upon these mistakes, that this garment was Aaronical, and brought into the Christian church in the late and corrupt times thereof; which mistakes are sufficiently discovered, and therefore what is built upon them can be of no force, and therefore needs no further answer.   

SECT. II.  
Of the sign of the Cross in the Office for Baptism.  
1. Among other Ceremonies, 
Mr. Baxt. Disp. of Cerem. c. 2. v. 52.  the sign of the Cross (which if rightly understood, would appear to be of very good and profitable use) hath been most opposed; and though some more modestly doubt of its lawfulness, suspecting this rather than any other Rite of our Church to be unlawful, but not daring to condemn them who use it; others have more rashly but very falsely charged it, 
Admonition.  as containing a wicked and superstitious institution of a new Sacrament. The lawfulness and usefulness hereof will be best vindicated by a right understanding of its use: and because it is received amongst us as a laudable Rite of the Primitive Church which we retain (as the thirtieth Canon declareth) I shall first give some account of the practice of the Primitive Church in the use of this sign, which I think was anciently observed for a threefold end and purpose.  
2. 1. As a professing sign, whereby they testified openly their honouring Christ crucified, either before them who denied the Christian name, or among themselves; or as our Canon expresseth it, they hereby made an outward show and profession even to the astonishment of the Jews, that they were not ashamed to acknowledge him for their Lord and Saviour, who died upon the Cross. S. Austin saith, usque adeo de cruce non erubesco, 
In Psalm 141.  etc. I am so far from being ashamed of the Cross, that I do not put the Cross of Christ in some hidden place, but carry it on my forehead; and in another place he speaketh of the Christian, 
De verb. Ap. Serm. 8.  that lest he should be ashamed of the Cross of Christ, he placeth it upon his forehead, which is the seat of shamefacedness. Cyril exhorteth, Let us not be ashamed to confess him who was crucified, let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the sign of the Cross) be confidently made upon the forehead with the finger. 
Catech. 13. Amalar. de Eccl. Offic. l. 3. c. 18.  And Amalarius saith, we believe that we shall be saved by him who was crucified, of whose name the Jews are ashamed,— and therefore we make the sign in our forehead, which is the seat of shame. And to this purpose the use of this sign by some of the Soldiers under Julian is accounted in Theodoret to be an expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Christian profession. 
Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 16.  And indeed  the ancient Christians used this sign publicly (especially when any one signed himself therewith) it always included a profession of Christ: yet since through the blessing of God we live not among the Gentiles or Jews, who oppose the name of Christ, and have other sufficient visible signs of professing the faith of Christ, in public Assemblies of the Church; the use of this Rite to this end is no way needful to be continued amongst us; but because it is liable to the same danger with what I mention in the following particular, the disuse hereof is useful and commendable in the present state of the Church.  
3. Secondly, This sign was most frequently used as an expression of hope and and trust in Christ crucified, and of confidence in him, expectation of blessing from him, and supplication unto God by him. To this purpose both Latin and Greek Writers have paralleled this, with Moses lifting up his hands when Israel was engaged with Amalek, which was a manifestation of devout application to God and holy confidence in him. 
De Cor. Mil. c. 3. Ad Vxor. l. 2. c. 5. Chrys. ad pop. Ant. Hom. 21.  And this use of this sign was anciently very common in the actions of life, even in retirement and privacy, as is expressed by Tertulian. Thus S. Chrysostom directed the Christian when he went abroad, that he might be in safety under the divine protection, to disclaim the Devil, and express his adhering to Christ, with using the sign of the Cross. When Julian, after his Apostasy, was affrighted and terrified while he sought to consult with the Devil, as a remedy against his fears, he signed himself with the sign of the Cross, 
Naz. Orat. 3.  which Nazianzen expresseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which words show his use of that sign, to be a declaration of flying for aid, and expecting help from Christ whom he persecuted. Upon this account this sign was sometimes anciently used in the working Miracles (as is expressed by Nazianzen, Epiphanius, and other Fathers) as a visible testimony of confidence in Christ, which Casaubone well expresseth, 
Casaub. Exerc. 13. in Baron. n. 33.  Opem à Christo petiit, facto signo crucis, quod Primitivae Ecclesiae fuit symbolum ejus fiduciae quam in Christo, & cruse ipsius & passione ponebant. And whereas this sign was long since used in every sacramental administration, and some expressions of the Ancients have mentioned spiritual aid and grace, to be conveyed per signum crucis by the use of this sign, they hereby only meant that these benefits flowed from Christ's Passion, and were obtained by a Religious application unto him, as Cassander asserteth, 
Cassand. in Hymn. Eccles. p. 220.  Haud dubiè nil aliud significare volebant, quam omnem tutelam & salutem in morte Christi esse constitutam, & sacramenta omnia vim atque efficaciam suam, non aliunde quam à morte Christi haurire. In like manner the Christian Emperors from Constantine and downwards, made use of the Banner of the Cross, as an expression of their trust in Christ crucified, and the same is related by Bede, 
Bed. Eccl. Histl. l. 3. c. 2.  concerning Oswaldus in England in his engagement against the Britain's.  
4. Yet because this sign which hath been grossly abused to superstition, by placing an operative virtue and essicacy in the mere outward use thereof, would in this ordinary practice be still very liable to the same abuse by many persons, or to be so misunderstood by others; because they cannot upon every such action declare their intent and end in that usage, as is done in our Liturgy, when it maketh use of the Cross in Baptism: therefore the disuse of this outward sign as an expression of Christian confidence, in order to the avoiding of that which is properly scandal (the producing corruption in Religion, and the sin of man which is therein included) is altogether as reasonable and fit, as was the ancient forbearance of the Love-kiss and the Agapae upon the same account.  
5. Thirdly, The sign of the Cross as also generally made upon the foreheads of them who were received unto the Church. Hence in the instruction of the Catechumeni, 
Aug. de Catech. Rudib. c. 20.  they were every one of them told at their due time, Passionis & crucis signo in front hodie signandus es, omnesque Christiani signantur; that he must then be signed in the forehead with the sign of the Cross, according to the manner of all Christians. And that this sign was constantly attendant upon the admission of members in the regular administrations of the Church is declared by S. Augustin upon John, 
Tr. in Johan. 118.  and the same usage is reckoned by S. Basil among the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Bas. de Spir. Sanct. c. 27.  or the fixed Laws and Constitutions of the Church; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when S. Cyprian saith, 
Cyp. de Vnit. Eccles.  in front signantur qui Dominum promerentur, he thereby meaneth that they who are though worthy to be admitted to Christianity, are so signed in their foreheads.  
6. The intent of this sign in this use thereof, was that the Church did hereby solemnly testify those persons having relation to the Christian society, to stand obliged to mainain the Christian profession and life; and so far as concerned her authority, did hereby dedicated or engage them thereto, and charge and require them to be mindful thereof; and this was a token to admonish them that they must not be ashamed to confess the Christian Faith, and to fight under Christ's Banner, and to serve and honour him. Upon this account the sign of the Cross was ordinarily called Signum, or Signaculum Dei by the Latin Writers; and by the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the seal or mark whereby these persons were declared to be set apart to God, so far as the Church had any right over, 
Cyp. Ep. 56.  or interest in them of her communion. Thus those words of S. Cyprian, Muniatur frons ut signum Dei incolume servetur, do exhort to Christian constancy and resolution, that they might thereby keep inviolable what was intended by this sign on their forehead, which engaged them thereto. 
Aug. in Psal. 85.  And when S. Austin checketh the Donatists, who confined the Kingdom of Christ to the narrow limits of some parts of Africa, saying, Dost thou call thyself a Christian, that thou mayst envy the glory of Christ, cujus signum in front te portare asseris, whose sign thou clarest thyself to bear in thy forehead, he thereby showeth, that this sign was accounted to include an engagement or admonition, to promote and advance the honour of Christ. And that it might be a more plain Memorial of the Christian faith and duty; when it was used to the Catechumen, 
Confess. l. 1. c. 11. De pec. Mer. & Remis. l. 2. c. 26. Aug. de Symb. l. 2. c 1.  some distant time before their Baptism, (of which S. Austin maketh frequent mention) the abrenunciation and profession of faith were then joined therewith, as appeareth from S. Aug. de symbolo ad Catechum. (the like unto which appeareth in our office of private Baptism) and when it was used at the time of the administration of Baptism, it immediately followed upon the persons professing to undertake the Christian life, 
Dionys. de Hier. Eccl. c. 2.  as is expressed by the Author, De Hierarchia Ecclesiastica. And some dark intimation of this Primitive use of this sign, may be discerned remaining in the corruptions of the Papacy, but the more clear expression thereof is exhibited in our reformation.  
7. This sign used in our Church upon any person in the office of Baptism, is declared to be in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed, to confess the faith of Christ Crucified, and manfully to fight under his Banner, against sin, the World, and the Devil, etc. Which words speak this sign to be a token by way of remembrance of his duty to the person baptised, and a testimony of engagement upon him, and expectation concerning him from the Church. Which sense of these words is made more manifest by the Canon, 
Can. 30.  which declareth that it is apparent in the Communion Book that the infant baptised is by virtue of Baptism, before it be signed with the sign of the Cross, received into the Congregation of Christ's stock, as a perfect member thereof, and not by any power ascribed unto the sign of the Cross,— and it after addeth, that this Church accounteth this sign a lawful outward Ceremony and honourable badge, whereby the infant is dedicated to the service of him that died upon the Cross. Now dedicating a person being an engaging or setting him apart unto God, and it being evident from the Canon, that this dedicating is wholly distinct from the baptismal dedication to be a Member of Christ's Church, we must hereby understand the Church to engage this Member upon her account to the service of Christ, in like manner as when any Father shall give himself to the Lord, as the Macedonians did, 
2 Cor. 8.5.  and with diligent care shall warn and charge his Children, to yield and devote themselves to God, this is properly called his dedicating himself and his to the service of God. And this sense is yet more evident from the office of Baptism, where the Minister baptising (acting in the name of God) saith in the singular number, N. I baptise, etc. but saith in the plural number, We receive this Child, and do sign him, etc. acting herein in the name of the Rulers, and other Members of the Catholic Church in Communion with us, the whole body desiring and seeking the good of every member. So that hereby there is as great an obligation laid upon this person baptised, as the members of Christ's body, and the power of his Church can lay upon him, by their relation to him, interest in him and authority over him.  
8. 
Defence of three Cerem. Par. Ch. 2. Sec. 7.  With much agreeableness to this sense, Bishop Morton declared, that the Child is dedicated to God by consecration in Baptism, which is a Sacrament of Grace: but the dedication which is signified by the sign of the Cross, is not by any proper consecration to God, or tender of grace received from God, by such a sign made: but is a declarative token of duty, which afterwards the person baptised aught to perform, concerning his constant and visible profession of the Christian Faith. Bishop Fern saith, 
Consider. of Concernment. Gh. 7. n. 7. Eccles. Polit. l. 5. Sec. 65.  it signifieth the duty of the baptised and is to mind him of it; and Mr. Hooker termeth it, an admonition to glory in the service of Christ, and a memorial of duty, and a bar or prevention to keep from Apostasy.  
9 Now besides the Sacraments themselves, it is very useful and needful, to admit other means of memorial and solemn charge, to engage men to the faithful service of God, who are too prone to be negligent therein. Though all Abraham's Family were circumcised, God had a special favour for Abraham, because he would command his Children and Household after him, 
Gen. 18.18, 19  and they would keep the way of the Lord. And though in Joshua's time the Israelites were circumcised, 
Josh. 24.22.27.  and kept the Passover, and had their Sacrifices, and public general Assemblies before the Tabernacle; yet Joshua did further solemnly engage them to God, and set up a stone as a witness thereof. And when S. Paul mentioned the good profession which Timothy made before many witnesses, 
1 Tim. 6.12, 13.  he thought fit to add a solemn charge unto Timothy in the sight of God and Jesus Christ; which requireth him to answer that profession. Wherefore since such a charge is in itself very useful; if as members we have that due value we ought to have for the body of Christ's Church, that engagement, charge or expectation, which hath a concurrent force and influence, both from the Rulers and from multitudes of other members of that body, must be thought the most solemn and weighty of all other.  
10. That in so considerable a Case some significant rite is very expedient, to add to the solemnity thereof, is sufficiently proved by the common wisdom of Mankind, when they commit to others any great charge; and by the prudence of the ancient Church in this very particular. And this rite of the sign of the Cross, is upon many accounts very proper for this purpose; because it is apt to suggest to our minds the remembrance of the name of Christ, (which was anciently signified by chi, the first letter of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the old form of which letter was this (†) as appeareth from an ancient Inscription produced by Scaliger) and of the Passion of our blessed Saviour upon the Cross, 
Scalig. Animad. in Euseh. p. 110, 120.  and of the nature of Christianity in taking up his Cross; and also because it was a sign to this end honourably used by the Primitive Christians. And our Church hath taken abundant care to prevent all superstitiousness in the use hereof, both by appointing it after the person is baptised, and received, as both the Office of Baptism and the Canon expresseth, and by the Declaration of its true intent and end, which is therewith expressed.  
11. I know that some persons have asserted as from Irenaeus, 
Iren. adv. Haer. l. 1. c. 1.  that the Original use of the sign of the Cross, was received in the Church from the Valentinians, who used it as the fan of Christ to purge away sin: but these things are much misrepresented, there being nothing at all in Irenaeus to this purpose. Only concerning the Valentinians (who indeed were no Christians, but by a strange medley from names used in Christianity, and Gentilism, and from their own fancies they framed a Theogonia of Aeones, which they called their Pleroma) Irenaeus, with whom Tertullian agreeth, 
Tertul. adv Valentin. c. 9  saith that the Keeper of this Pleroma was Horus, who among other names was also called Stauros or Crux, Lytrotes or Redemptor, and of him they interpreted those words of S. Matthew; his fan is in his hand. So that all this referred not to the sign of the Cross, but to an imaginary person, who was an Idol of Valentinus his brain.  
12. But though the true original of the Christian use of this sign be above expressed, 
Justin. Apol. 2. & adv. Tryphon. Tertul. de Bapt. c 8. Adu. Jud. c. 10. Barnab. Ep. p. 136.  what is produced by the ancient Writers, of this sign being prefigured in the Old Testament, by the roasting the Paschal Lamb, the Serpent upon the Pole, the form of the hands of Jacob in blessing the Sons of Joseph, and of Moses hands being lifted up, which Barnabas expresseth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is far more considerable than the mistaken matter of this objection. And whereas the mark upon the forehead, Ezek. 9.4. was accounted by Theodotion (and by Aquila, as Origen relateth) by the Vulgar Latin, and the ancient latin Version used by Tertullian to be the mark of the Letter Thou, which is the word there used in the Hebrew: both S. Hierom who himself understood the Samaritan Character, which was anciently used by the Jews, and Origen from the relation of a converted Jew, declare that the old form of 〈…〉 Thou, was in the figure of a 〈◊〉 And though Scaliger in his learned ●●●●dversions upon Eusebius averreth, 
Animad. v. p. 117.  that this was their mistake concerning the Samaritan Character; yet the truth of what they asserted, may appear from the old Alphabet collected out of their ancient Medals by Bishop Walton, which is different from the Vulgar Characters. And I may add that the Aaronical Priesthood under the Law which prefigured Christ, 
Kerith. f. 5. in Buxt. Lex. Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  received their Unction in the form of a Cross, or the Greek Chi, as both the Talmud and all the Jewish Rabbins do declare, those Rabbins who seem to descent being reconciled to this assertion, by the reasonable interpretation of Simeon de Muis. 
S. de Muis Var. Sacr. in Abarb. in Ex. 30. Sozom. l. 7. c. 15. Baron. an. 389. n. 99 Just. Mart. Apol. 2. & Sylburg. ibidem.  And the form or sign of a Cross was an Hieroglyphic of the life to come among the Egyptians, and a character of wisdom among the Platonists. And all these things speaking an honourable use of this sign before the time of Christ, though they were not chief reasons of the Christians usage, might well be providentially ordered for the advantage of Christianity, it being particularly related by Sozomen, that the Conversion of divers Pagans was occasioned thereby.  
13. Obj. 2 As for them who would charge this Rite, because of its signification, with being a new Sacrament, I have sufficiently discovered the palpable erroneousness of that conceit in a former Chapter. 
Ch. 2. Se. 1.   
14. And whereas some disapprove this sign because it hath been abused by the Church of Rome, I have given a sufficient answer to this in the fourth Section of the same Chapter. And he who would censure an useful and piously ordered sign of admonition and memorial, because a superstitious operative use of the same transient sign is not allowable, must condemn things greatly different, as if they were the same. As if because gideon's Ephod was abused, when it was made an Idol, the use of an Ephod by Samuel, and David, for the decent service of God must be also insufferable; and because the image of Caesar set up to be worshipped is abominable, therefore his image stamped upon the Coin must not be tolerated. And there is as much reason to condemn wholesome and profitable words, from some persons making an ill use thereof, as to condemn useful actions and gestures for the same cause.  
15. They who censure this Rite, because it is used so soon after Baptism itself, as an attendant thereupon, supposing that no significative rite may be lawfully received so nearly attending upon any Sacrament; they also build upon a very false and groundless supposition: as if the Love-kiss and the Agapae were not so used in the Apostolical times, with reference to the Lords Supper; and the trinal mersion in Baptism both in the Primitive and most reformed Churches. Yea I would appeal to every indifferent man's Conscience, whether if a Father being solicitously careful of the eternal welfare of his Son, and having nurtured him in the fear of God, and lived to see him receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; should give his Son some token so soon as be cometh from that Sacrament, requiring him to keep the same, as a memorial of his Father's charge upon him, to mind the service of God, and the Christian life and Unity, to which he is further obliged by the receiving that Sacrament; I say, I would appeal to such a man, whether he durst condemn this action as sinful, merely because this charge and token hath some reference to the Sacrament. And this rite of our Church hath many advantages above this instance, both in the higher authority of the Church, the greater simplicity of the rite itself, and the relation it beareth to the pattern and example of Primitive Christianity.  
16. Among the Protestants, the Lutheran Churches retain not only this, but some other Rites in the office of Baptism, which are not received in the Church of England. And though many other Reformed Churches do not use this sign, yet they condemn it not; nor do they herein censure either the Church of England, or those of the Augustane Confession. It hath been observed partly by Mr. Hooker, and partly by Mr. Durel, 
Goulart. in Ep. 56. Cypr. c. 7.  that Goulartius declared this Ceremony to be indifferent in its nature, but said it was not necessary now for all Christians to observe it; by those words rather modestly defending the practice of Geneva (as Mr. Hooker expresseth it, in a way of excuse) than expressing any dislike of them who without superstition do retain it. 
Exercit. in Bar. 13. n. 33.  Isaac Casaubone when he wrote his exercitations, expresseth an approbation of this Rite in the Church of England. 
Buc. Cens. c. 11.  And Bucer in his Censura, declareth it to be an ancient and simplex ritus, apure or innocent Rite, and that he judgeth the use thereof to be neither indecent nor unprofitable.  
17. I know there are some, who think their own apprehensions so much above all others, that they are no otherwise moved by testimonies which are produced against them, than to express their censures, 
Altar. Damasc. c. 10. p. 830.  and sometimes their contempt o● the most worthy Writers; and on this manner doth Didoclavius deal with the testimony of Bucer which I now produced; saith he, it is frigida & diluta censura, nec satis expendisse videtur it was his dull and weak judgement about this matter, and he did not seem to have considered what he wrote. But let not such think, that their authority is of any value to be put in the balance against the Primitive Church, and so many reformed Churches and Writers, and therefore as there being no just cause from the consideration of this rite itself, and the use thereof to condemn it, the censure of such persons is unjust and uncharitable; and the dislike of others who are more modest in their opposition is also groundless.   

SECT. III.  
Of laying on hands in Confirmation.  
THis Imposition of hands is the more opposed, 
Didocl. Altar. Damasc. c. 5. p. 359. Except. of Presbyt. p. 29.  because of those Declarative words in the Prayer used at Confirmation, Upon whom after the example of the holy Apostles, we have now laid our hands, to certify them by this sign, of thy favour and gracious goodness to them. The Non Conformists here will neither allow, that the Apostles practice should be accounted any example for laying on hands in Confirmation, nor that this sign may be used to certify God's grace and favour, which seemeth (say they) to speak it a Sacrament.  
2. Wherefore we are first to consider, what Warrant this imposition of hands in Confirmation may claim from the practice of the Apostles. We read, Act. 8.15, 17, 18. that after Philip had baptised at Samaria, by the Apostles prayer accompanied with imposition of hands, they received the Holy Ghost: and the same is related concerning the Disciples at Ephesus, Act. 19.6. Here we have an Apostolical practice evident, that they imposed hands and prayed, and thereupon the Holy Ghost was received. It is indeed acknowledged, that in those instances there was a visible and miraculous testimony of the presence of the Holy Spirit, by speaking with Tongues, etc. but the chief blessing of God's Spirit consisteth in the inward Graces of the Spirit, which were not peculiar to that time; and that the obtaining the strengthening grace of the Spirit, was in an especial manner designed by the Apostles imposition of hands, is declared by Irenaeus; 
Iren. adv. Haeres. l. 4. c. 75. Aug. Tract. 6. in Ep. 1. Johan.  and it was justly esteemed by S. Austin, that the Holy Ghost is here received, where no miraculous gifts are bestowed, but the gracious dispositions of love, peace, and unity are entertained. And prayer, especially the most solemn Prayer of the Bishop, or chief Officer of the Church, joined with imposition of hands (which was a testimony of peculiar benediction used by dying Jacob and others under the Old Testament, and by Christ and his Apostles under the New) is a means to obtain this blessing, to such who are disposed and qualified for the receiving thereof: but that those who indulge and give way to their corruptions and passions, (as the Corinthians did by their divisions) could not receive the increase of the grace and strength of the Holy Spirit, by the Apostolical imposition of hands, is also asserted in the place  by Irenaeus. And if any persons will contend, that the imposition of hands now received in the Church, cannot be a practice according to the example of the Apostles, because in those times the Holy Ghost was oft miraculously received, which cannot now be expected; he may as well assert that the imposition of hands for Ordination, is not continued in the Church from the example of the Apostles, because then the Holy Ghost was sometimes extraordinarily given thereby; or that our praying and preaching is not a doing that, for which we have the Apostles for an example, because we cannot by them expect such wonderful gifts as sometimes were conferred under the Apostles doctrine and by their prayer.  
3. And by the searching into Antiquity we may discern the general use of this Imposition of hands in the Church as from the Apostles. When the Apostle, Heb. 6.2. speaketh of the Foundation of the Doctrine of Baptisms, and of laying on of hands, the ordinary exposition of the Greek and Latin Fathers, refer those words unto Confirmation, and in the same sense are they understood by Calvin, Beza, Illyricus, and many other Protestants. Eusebius ralateth a story, 
Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  wherein Confirmation was used under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, while S. John was yet alive: and Cornelius noted it as a defect in Novatus the Schismatic, that he never obtained Confirmation from the Bishop for receiving the Holy Ghost, which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Eus. Hist. l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as his words are related in Eusebius. Tertullian in his short account of the Rites of the Church, 
Tertul. de Resur. Cam. c. 8. De Baptism. c. 8.  after he had mentioned Baptism, expresseth Confirmation in these words, Caro manus impositione adumbratur, ut anima Spiritu illuminetur: and in his Book De Baptisma, saith that after Baptism is used imposition of hands, calling for and inviting the holy Spirit by that benediction. 
Cypr. Ep. 73.  S. Cyprians testimony is yet more full, who saith that for those whom Philip baptised, that which lacked was performed by Peter and John, by whose prayer and imposition of hands, the Holy Ghost was invocated and poured forth upon them: which also (saith he) is now practised among us, that those who are baptised in the Church, are presented to the chief Officers of the Church, that by our prayer and imposition of hands, they may obtain the Holy Ghost, and may by Confirmation attain to the highest Order of Christians (or signaculo dominico consummentur.) S. Ambrose speaketh of Confirmation, 
Amb. de Sacr. l. 3. c. 2. Hieron. adv. Lucif. Aug. Cont. l. 3. c. 16. l. 5. c. 23. & in Psal. 130.  that the holy Spirit is thereby obtained by prayer, S. Hierom approveth it for Apostolical; and S. Austin in divers places defendeth the practice hereof, with relation to the Apostolical imposition of hands, and for the receiving the Holy Ghost, even when the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were no more communicated, and this imposition of hands was enjoined by the ancient Council of Elvira, 
Conc. Elib. c. 38.  unto them who being baptised in case of necessity, did afterwards recover their health. And therefore this practice of the Primitive Church, as from the Apostles, is abundantly sufficient not only to justify, but to commend herein the order of the Church of England, which agreeth thereto.  
4. The use of Confirmation in our Church, besides the leaving out things superstitious, hath two great advantages in its external administration. The first advantage, is in the time when it is performed, which is when the person is come to some years of discretion, and being instructed in the main Principles of the Christian Doctrine, doth by his own actual consent and promise renew his baptismal vow, and ratify and confirm it in his own person. For the increase and strength of grace, which is then implored, and the being received to a higher rank of Christian profession, doth reasonably suppose a capacity of knowledge and understanding. Indeed in the early times of Christianity, while Baptism was ordinarily administered to persons adult, the Profession of their Faith, together with their taking upon them the practice of the Christian life, went before their Baptism; and thence not only Confirmation, but the Lords Supper was soon after administered to them: and yet it is not amiss observed by Kemnitius, 
Exam. Conc. Trid. Part. 2. de Confir.  that before hands were imposed by S. Paul upon the Disciples at Ephesus, there was some kind of exploratio fidei, or an examining of their Faith into which they were baptised. And acknowledged it must be, that even in Infants, confirmation was anciently in some Churches used soon after Baptism; but then the Lords Supper was also received by such Infants, which was a blemish in some Churches as ancient as the time of S. Cyprian, 
Cyp. de Laps. Aug. de Eccles. Dogm. c 〈◊〉 Alcu. de Divin 〈◊〉 fie. Tet 〈◊〉 Sab●● 〈…〉  is oft mentioned by S Augustin, and four hundred years after S. Augustins' time, the administering the Lords Supper to Infants was directed by Alcuinus,  
5. The Western Church in the later Centuries, hath ordinarily required in most of its Offices several days distance between the administration of Baptism and Confirmation, 
Ration. l. 6. c. 84.  as Durandus declareth; who also in the same place is of opinion, that the ordinary custom of the more ancient Church required a perfect age, or (as he expresseth it) the age of twelve or fifteen years, 
De Consec. dist. 5. c. ut Jejuni.  in them who received confirmation; which opinion he groundeth upon the Canon, ut jejuni ad confirmationem veniant perfectae aetatis. And that persons who receive confirmation should have arrived at some capacity of understanding, was judged convenient by Cassander, 
Consult. Cas. Art. 9 & de Hymn. Eccles.  who also declareth the consent of divers others of the Romish Communion. And herein the Church of Rome, since the Protestant Reformation, yea since the establishment of the English Liturgy, hath receded from her former Rule of confirming Infants; and in the first Synod of Milan, 
Conc. Mediol. 1. de Confirm. Catech. Rom. de Confirm.  which followed that of Trent, and in the Roman Catechism, it is required that those who are to be confirmed, should be at the least seven years old, if not twelve, and should be instructed with reference to their confirmation; 
De Ritib. lib. 1. c. 20. Sect. 14.  and this alteration is approved by Durantus, with summa ratione receptum est. And herein the afterwit of the Romish Church hath entertained, what was with some derision rejected, in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent, as we are informed in the Hist. Conc. Trident. lib. 2 p. 194.  
6. And somewhat analagous' to Confirmation at the years of discretion, may be observed from the Jewish Church; where when the child came to be thirteen years old, 
Buxt. Syn. Jud. c. 3.  the Father in a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a sacred Assembly of a complete number for solemn occasions, presenteth the child before them, who having been taught both prayers and precepts of duty, 
Aben Ezr. in Gen. 17.14.  he than undertaketh to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one who taketh upon himself the obedience to the commands of the Law, and prayer is then made for him, that he may grow up in good works.  
7. A second advantage of our confirmation is, that here is a reducing the ancient primitive Rite of imposition of hands, which for many hundred years hath been extruded from the Romish confirmation, by other superstitious Ceremonies. 
Durand. ubi supra.  And though Durandus be so frivolous, as to imagine that imposition of hands is contained in the blow upon the cheek (which was used in many Romish Churches after confirmation, but was not directed at all in the Office secundum usum Sarum) and Bellarmine be so vain as to assert it to be contained in Chrysming the forehead, 
Bellarm de Confirm. l. 2 c. 2.  (which is the principal Romish Rite of confirmation) wise men might see, that there is no more agreement in these things, than that the hand is made use of about them all. Wherefore this Rite of imposition of hands, was no Rite either abused or used under the corruptions of the Church of Rome, but was an innocent and useful primitive Rite, restored in the Reformation of the Church of England. 
Belarm. ibid. c. 2, 13.  And even the Bishop holding up his hands to pray over them which receive confirmation, which the Cardinal would have to include imposition of hands, is neither required at all in the Office of Confirmation secundum usum Sarum, nor is it mentioned among the present Rites of confirmation by Durantus, 
Dur. de Ritib. lib. 1. c. 20.  and therefore it may as reasonably be said, that Imposition of hands is included in all their prayers, as that it is contained in their confirmation.  
8. 
Ratio Discip. c. 3. Sect. 3.  Among the Reformed Churches, the Bohemian had confirmation with Imposition of hands, which they did account an Apostolical Rite, and they (much after the manner of the Church of England) used therewith invocation of the divine grace, and a renewing their baptismal Covenant: wherewith they also joined Absolution. And this Comenius both commendeth as the primitive practice, 
Comen. Annot. in Rat. Discip.  and saith that this way of Confirmation is still piously used in some Churches. In the Lutheran Churches, even they who retained not this use of Confirmation, 
Conf. Sax. de Conf.  (as in Saxony) did yet esteem it when administered with imposition of hands and prayer, unto persons who being come to years of understanding, did make actual profession of their engaging to Christianity; to be agreeable to the purest Antiquity, 
Exam. Conc. Trid. Par. 2. de Confirm.  and the Apostles practice, and to have exceeding great profitableness both for the edification of the Youth, and of the whole Church, as we may learn from Kemnitius, who was one of their chief Writers. 
Calv. Inst. l. 4. c. 19 n. 4, 13.  And Calvin himself expresseth a like approbation of the same, declaring withal his desire that such Confirmation with Imposition of hands might be restored.  
9 But it remaineth to be inquired, how the Church can certify the persons confirmed, by the sign of Imposition of hands, of God's favour and gracious goodness towards them. For the answering of which, waving other considerations, I shall observe two things. First, that as this imposition of hands is a testimony of admitting persons, to a higher rank of Christian Professors, who ratify their baptismal Covenant by their own action, (intimating also an approbation of this profession) it includeth the power of the Keys, whereby the Officers of the Church are enabled by God's authority, to declare particularly his favour and gracious goodness to them who embrace the conditions of Christianity, and to direct them thereunto; and to this purpose was Imposition of hands on the Penitents, at divers times, used in the ancient Church. And to testify Gods gracious acceptance (either by our words or actions) of men's undertaking the exercise of Christianity, is a thing greatly different, from the tendering the divine grace of God's Covenant as exhibited by any sign, as a means to convey the same, which is the proper nature of a Sacrament.  
10. Secondly, This Imposition of hands is a sign of a Benediction in God's name from the Officer of God's Church. The Levites, and especially the Priests under the Law, were required to bless the people in the name of God, Deut. 10.8. 1 Chron. 23.13. which blessing was performed in a way of benedictory prayer or supplication, Numb. 6.23. and this blessing in God's name, was a testimony of Gods giving his blessing to them, (supposing them not to render themselves uncapable thereof) Num. 6.27. The external testimony of their general blessing all the people, 
Targ. Jonath. in Num. 6.23.  was most probably by lifting up their hands towards them, as is declared by one of the Chaldee Paraphrasts, and is observed by Baronius; 
Baron. Annal. Eccl. An. 34. n. 220.  and we have an instance of this Rite, attending the Priestly benediction, Leu. 9.22. and our Saviour made use of the same, Luk. 24.50. But in their solemn particular benedictions, in the Old Testament they used Imposition of hands, of which we have an example, Gen. 48.14.16. in jacob's blessing the Sons of Joseph; this Rite was also used in their Ordination of their Elders; and the constant use hereof in the particular benedictions by persons of great eminency among the Jews, is reasonably esteemed the cause why the Jews brought little Children to Christ, that he might put his hands on them, and pray, Mat. 19.13. 
Great. in Mat. 19.13.  And from the frequent practice of this Rite Junius and Tremellius have ventured to admit a Paraphrase into their Translation, concerning the Priestly benediction, wherein they express the use of Imposition of hands, in Num. 6.27. (which can only be allowed concerning particular benedictions.) The end and design of imposition of hands in benediction, 
〈…〉. voc. 〈◊〉. J●n. in Num. 6. c. 7.  is declared by Ravanellus to be in testimony of the help, favour, and grace of God to be given to him who receiveth imposition of hands, and Junius saith, by this sign they were to testify to the people God's grace, which are Phrases much like those in this Prayer at Confirmation in our Liturgy. Yet this Rite was only a sign of God's favour in this use, with respect to the Benediction or Prayer for that person, supposing and hoping him to be duly qualified, for the receiving the benefit therein desired, and therefore is of no Sacramental nature.  
11. Now ●lessing (including nothing Ceremonial, and peculiar to the Law, and the Ministry of the Old Testament) is very suitable to the Gospel, which is in an especial manner a Dispensation of Blessing And this benediction or praying 〈◊〉 for God's blessing, was the 〈…〉 designed in this Apostolical 〈◊〉 of hands with prayer, and from their time this use hath been continued in the Christian Church, as hath been showed; and it would be a strange, unreasonable, and uncharitable thing, if those who come to renew their baptismal Covenant, might not receive the Church's blessing in God's name, with prayer for their Christian growth and perseverance. And the dignity of Office in the Church, chief giving authority to bless, (according to that rule of the Apostle, Heb. 7.7. without all contradiction the less is blessed of the greater) this solemn benediction at Confirmation, hath thereupon been justly reserved to the Bishop or chief Officer of the Church, by whom alone it was performed in the time of S. Cyprian and S. Hierom.  
12. Confirmation in our use thereof, is called by Bishop Whitgift, 
Bishop Whitg. Defence p. 785. Eccl. Pol. l. 5. Sect. 66.  The Bishop's benediction by laying on of hands; by Mr. Hooker, This special benediction the Rite or Ceremony of Confirmation; and when Confirmation was restored in Scotland, in the fourth Article of the Assembly of Perth, it was declared concerning children who had been catechised, that the Bishop should bless them, with prayer for the increase of their knowledge, and the continuance of God's heavenly grace with every one of them. And the ancient Confirmation was accounted a Benediction by Tertullian, 
Tertul. de Bapt. c. 8. Conc. Eliber. c. 77.  and a Benediction of the Bishop, by the Council of Elvira. And since the Gospel-dispensation is a Ministration of Blessing, and the great blessing of the Gospel is to receive the promise of the Spirit, Gal. 3.14. This benedictory prayer upon a solemn occasion, for the grace and strength of that Spirit, was suitably accompanied in the practice of the Apostles and the Christian Church, with the ancient and proper token of benediction, the Imposition of hands.  
13. 
Presbyt. Except. p. 29.  But it hath been urged, that the Articles of our Church declare imposition of hands in Confirmation, to be a corrupt imitation of the Apostles practice; and that Confirmation hath no visible sign appointed by God. Artic. 25. and therefore Imposition of hands cannot therein certify children, of God's favour and gracious goodness towards them: and thus contradictions are injuriously imposed upon the Church. The words of the Article to which they refer are these, 
Article 25.  Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, 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 sense of the former part of which words is, That the Church of Rome accounting Confirmation, Penance, Orders, and Extreme Unction for proper Sacraments of the Gospel, their error herein proceedeth from their corrupting those things which were practised by the Apostles; but their esteeming Marriage to be a Sacrament, is a misrepresenting a state of life allowed in the Scripture to be a Gospel-Sacrament.  
14. The latter clause of those words of the Article, do manifestly alike deny Confirmation and Ordination to have any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God, or that God hath not appointed in them any such properly Sacramental sign as Baptism and the Lords Supper hath. For in both these, the Imposition of hands is immediately a representation of a benediction, and of being thereby received into a higher degree among Christians, by the ministerial power of the Church; and though further grace from God is needful in this higher degree, and humble and devout persons may receive grace from God suitable to whatsoever state he calleth them; yet grace is in these cases to be expected in the use of Prayer, and from the Promises of God's assistance to, and presence with his people, and his Ministry; but not immediately from God, by the use of Imposition of hands, as an outward sign, whereby that grace is directly exhibited and conveyed: and moreover, proper Sacraments are seals of Gods whole Covenant, and means whereby he conveyeth both pardoning and satisfying grace. And I further add, that the acknowledging the sign of Imposition of hands in Confirmation, not to have any divine institution or immediate command, hindereth not its being of Apostolical practice, and that in the use thereof we may both follow the example of the Apostles, and certify God's favour and gracious goodness to persons confirmed, according as is above expressed.   

SECT. iv  
Of the Ring in Marriage. And the Conclusion.  
1. The Ring was by the old Nonconformists called a Sacramental Sign, and a new Sacrament, and others since have expressed some fear, lest the use of these words with the delivery of the Ring, In Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost should favour them who account Marriage a Sacrament. But if this was an intimation of a Sacrament, a last Will and Testament, beginning In the Name of God, etc. and being signed and sealed, must be accounted a Sacrament. And even among the Romanists who esteem Marriage for a Sacrament, the Ring is not fixed upon for the sign or matter thereof, but some fix upon the persons contracting, others upon all those words and actions whereby consent is signified, others (as Estius speaketh) doubt which of these to close with, 
Bellarm. de Matrim Sacr. c. 6.  and Bellarmine admitteth them both.  
2. Now though Marriage be in some sense a Religious Constitution, as having its original institution from God; yet both the nature of this society and the end of it, speak it a civil state of God's appointment, even as the state of Government and Subjection is: and therefore as other civil contracts are established by words of consent, ordinarily attended with real signs or tokens; as with us some Livery and Seisin is used in the passing over an Estate, and by the general consent of the World, an Earnest attendeth ordinary Bargains; so by a large consent of Nations, hath a Ring been thought fit to establish the Matrimonial contract, as a pledge or earnest thereof. Whence it was an ordinary custom among the Jews to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ring of Espousing; the manner of its use among the modern Jews is expressed by Buxtorfe in his Synagogua Judaica, 
Syn. Jud. c. 28.  and the ancient practice thereof is mentioned in the Talmud in Kiddushin. 
Buxt. Lex. Radbin in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Among the ancient and laudable customs of the Roman Empire, 
Tertul. Apol. c. 6.  Tertullian reckoneth this for one, that women than wore gold only on that one finger, quem sponsus oppignorasset annulo pronubo, where the Bridegroom had put the pledge of the Matrimonial Ring: 
Baron. An. 57 n. 51.  and Pamelius upon that place of Tertullian (and Baronius also) observeth the like use of the Ring to be expressed by Pliny; to which purpose also are the words of Juvenal, who describing Marriage, saith — Et digitis pignus fortasse dedisti. 
Juven. Sat. 6.  and Theosebius in Photius calleth the Ring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the conjoiner of conjugal society. But though the use of this Rite in Marriage was very ancient, 
Tertul. de Idolatr. c. 16.  even among the Pagan Nations, Tertullian assureth us it was no part of their Paganism; saith he, Neque annulus, neque conjunctio maritalis de alicujus idoli honore descendit: but this pledge, and other common earnests, were prudently used long before the time of Christ, and are still continued under Christianity.  
3. And that the principal use of this Rite is under the Christian state continued, to be an earnest of this Matrimonial Contract, is not only manifest from those ancient ritual words, mentioned by Durantus Durandus and many others, Annulo suo subarravit me sibi Dominus, but from S. Augustin, 
Aug. Tr. 2. in 1. Ep. Johan.  who calleth it arram sponsi, the pledge or earnest of the Husband; and the same intent hereof is expressed in several testimonies cited in Gratians Decretum, c. 30. q. 5. c. nostrates. Foeminae. V Gloss in c. 27. q. 2. si quis. And in our Liturgy, the giving and receiving a Ring is declared to be a pledge of the Vow and Covenant, made between the persons who enter upon this state of Marriage. And whereas these words, In the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, have some relation to the pledge of Wedlock by the Ring (in our Office of Marriage) as it is a testimony of consent to the Covenant of Marriage; the sense and design thereof is to express thus much, That this Contract of Marriage in the Church, is undertaken with respect to the Rules of the Christian Doctrine, and the Institution of God concerning Marriage, and by Authority therefrom, and in Subjection thereunto; and that by reason of this institution, the expressed consent of the persons contracting must stand firm and inviolable; and therefore it is fitly and solemnly declared to be, In the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in that being now joined together by God, no man can put them asunder.  
4. But besides this principal end of the Ring, the delivery thereof did also include a giving authority to the Wife, to command and take care of the goods of the house, and the provisions which the ancient Romans usually sealed; and hence the Ring given in Marriage was a Seal-ring. 
Paed. l. 3. c. 11.  Thus Clemens Alexandrinus calleth it a Ring of Gold, given to the Woman but not for ornament, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but to set a seal upon what requireth safe custody: and in the same Chapter he saith, that the care of the house is fitly committed to the Wife, and those who have no wives may use the Seal-ring themselves. So he expresseth this ancient usage of giving a Seal-ring: which may also not improbably be designed in the comprehensiveness of Tertullia's language, 
Tertull. ad Vxor. l. 2. c 9  by his Phrase of Matrimonium obsignatum. Concerning the custom of the Romans sealing their household provisions, Pliny telleth us, 
Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 33. c. 1.  Cibi & potus annulo vindicantur à rapina; Their meats and drinks were by the use of the Ring secured from robbery: and that the most ancient use of Rings was wholly designed for sealing, is declared by Macrobius, 
Macr. Satum. l. 7. c. 13.  Veteres non ornatûs sed signandi causa annulum circumferebant. And that the giving a Ring was of old a testimony both of special favour, and of committing authority, appeareth by the instances of the Rings given by Pharaoh to Joseph, and by Ahasuerus to Mordecai; both which are confidently and probably asserted by Boetius Epo to have been Seal-rings; saith he, 
Boet. Epo. Quest. Heroine. l. 2. qu. 5. n. 21.  Quod de annulo dicitur, utrobique de signatorio sumendum est proculdubio, ad extollendam tam Josephi quam Mardochaei authoritatem, ut quibus rex uterque concrederet omnia. And though the custom of sealing things belonging to the house, and the use of a Seal-ring in Marriage is not with us continued; yet with reference to this ancient usage, the delivery of the Ring may still fitly import, the Husbands committing the things and affairs of his house, to the care and authority of his Wife.  
5. This Rite also did probably express not only an honourable estate, (as Marriage is) but also a state of freedom and liberty (the Ring in Marriage being used by them only in the former times of the Roman Empire, who were Freemen and not Slaves and Vassals whence it is declared by Macrobius in the place above-cited, that no persons under servitude might by the Laws of the Empire wear a Ring; 
Cod. l. 6. T●t. 8. Se. 2. Digest. lib. 40. Tit. 10. Sect 5. & Lib. 38 Tit. 2. Se. 3. n. 1.  Jus annulorum famuli non habebant. And the civil Law itself doth in divers places declare, (treating De jure aureorum annulorum) that if any person who was no Freeman, obtained the right of wearing a Ring, he thereupon all his life time enjoyed the Privileges of the Ingenui or Freemen, though he might not dispose of what he had at his death. And Gotofredus giveth an instance from Dio, 
Gotofr. ibidem.  concerning Musa a Physician, to whom Augustus gave a Ring, that he might enjoy this freedom. Agreeably hereto, the Ring in Marriage may among us in some kind intimate a state of civil freedom from vassalage and villainage in the persons contracting, and may more particularly express, that by the Matrimonial Contract, there is made over to the Wife a right of Copartnership in the Immunities, and that degree of honourable estate, which the Husband possesseth. But though these things last mentioned may well be admitted and allowed, the main intent of the use of the Ring, is to be a pledge or earnest of the Marriage covenant, as is expressed in these words; With this Ring I thee wed. 
Buc. Censur. c. 20. Disp. of Cerem. c. 2. Sect. 43.  And this use of it was approved by Bucer as a thing very convenient, and Mr. Baxter hath declared, that he saw no reason to scruple its lawfulness.  
6. And hence a good account may be given of these words, used with the Ring, With my body I thee worship. Which not only includeth the Husband's honouring his Wife, but also declareth that he taketh his Wife with her issue by him, into participation of that degree of civil Worship, Dignity, or Freedom which himself hath: and as this suiteth well the nature of their Union in being one flesh; 
L. Coke Reports 5. Part. Cawdreys' Case.  so it agreeth with the usage of the common Law of England, wherein (otherwise than in the Civil Law) both the freedom and honour of the whole Family, dependeth on the Husband. And more especially these words design to express, the man's receiving this woman to be his Wife, in the honourable estate of Matrimony, so as she should enjoy that degree of civil worship and other Matrimonial Privileges (as authority of guiding the House, and commanding the Family, and a right of her issue being Heirs) whereby the honourable condition of a Wise or Materfamilias', was distinguished from a Concubine taken in the best sense, for one under a Matrimonial Contract (and therefore sometimes called a Wife) but without the right to these Privileges. Of such Concubines in the times of the Old Testament, we have a frequent account in the holy Scriptures; 
Grat. Decret. Dist. 34. c. 3, 4, 5.  the Canon Law giveth intimation of such under Christianity, and Gellius among the old Romans maketh a difference between some women, who were received into a state of Marriage, but not in the most honourable degree thereof, and to these he alloweth the name of Matrons; and other Wives who were their Matres-familias, 
Noct. Attict. l. 18. c. 6.  as having a disposal of the Family, and a relation to the right of inheriting. And this Phrase may also be allowed to signify that the Husband hath not power over his own body but the Wife, as the Apostle speaketh, 1 Cor. 7.4. And therefore the sense of these words appeareth to be very considerable.  
7. And as to the word (Worship) it is here evidently taken for an expression of civil honour, respect, and eminency, which was a more usual acceptation of that Phrase in the last Age, than now it is, as may appear from these words of Mr. Tyndal: 
Tyndall against Sir Tho. More.  Concerning worshipping or honouring, which two terms (saith he) are both one; the words which the Scripture doth use, in the worshipping or honouring of God are these, to love God, cleave to him, etc. all which words (saith he) we use also in the worshipping of man, howbeit diversely, and the difference thereof doth all the Scripture teach. Nor is the word Worship in its common use so perticuliarly now referred to divine Worship; but that besides the ordinary title of Worship in a civil sense given to men, we also read in the last Translation of our Bibles, such Phrases as these, 1 Chron. 29.20. they worshipped God and the King; i. e. gave due honour, reverence, and obeisance both to God and the King. Luk. 14.10. then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. Rev. 3.9. I will make them come and worship before thy feet: and in the ancienter Versions there occurreth a much more frequent use of such Phrases. And therefore these words, With my body I thee worship are not unallowable in the Phrase, and are very significant, comprehensive, and of great moment, in their sense, design and intent.  
8. And now having impartially and diligently considered those appointments in our Church, which for an hundred years past have been by divers persons so severely censured and opposed, (though by others worthily defended and justly valued) the result is this.  
9 First, That if these things were rightly and truly understood and apprehended, they would be well approved; and the vehement outcries against them, and the open separation from this Church upon this account, would appear unreasonable and sinfully uncharitable. And this right understanding is a matter of no great difficulty to intelligent persons, (by whom others might be directed) who shall impartially make inquiry, having their spirits possessed with humility, meekness, calmness, and charity, unto which Christianity obligeth all men.  
10. Secondly, That though misunderstanding and mistakes, or prejudices and a strong affection to one party of men, and over-suspicious thoughts of, and designed oppositions against others, may and do engage many to disclaim these things established, even to the present dangerous breach of the Church's peace and unity, and the extreme hazard of its future welfare: yet nothing hath been, nor indeed can be produced, against the way of worshipping God, established in our Church●, which either aught upon Principles of Conscience, or according 〈◊〉 the Rules of Christian and Moral prudence, to hinder pious men from hearty joining therein, or yielding unfeigned assent and consent thereto.  
11. Thirdly, That those persons who will resolvedly oppose with violence, these establishments in the Church of England, and renounce its Communion upon any accounts referring to the Liturgy, and way of Worship appointed therein, may observe that almost all the same things which they blame in our Church, and for which they injuriously depart from it, have been received and appointed (with many other things, which their Principles do equally or more severely condemn) in the Primitive Church, and especially in the third, fourth, and fifth Centuries, (of the Rites and way of Worship, in which Ages we have more ample records than of the the times foregoing) and had they then lived, they must upon the same accounts, according to their present Principles and practices, have disclaimed the Communion of all the famous known Churches of the Christian World in those Ages, which have been, and deserve to be greatly renowned. And this, besides the former considerations which refer to the things themselves, is of so great moment, that he who would have rejected the Communion of those Churches, must have thereby disowned Membership with the Body of Christ, and could never have reconciled such practices with endeavouring to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace.    
FINIS.   

Errata.  
Pag. 160. lin. 4. & 10. for pretection read prelection, p. 166. l. 11. for Histonery r. Histories, p. 177. l. 4. deal that, p. 197. l. 3. for ipsiusve verabile r. ipsius venerabili, p. 222. l. 32. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 229. l. 20. r. I shall, p. 302. l. 30. for become r. be come, p. 311. l. 2. deal if, p. 354 l. 20. r. sufficient rule for faith, p. 355. l. 18. for rules r. Rulers. pag. 460. l. 27. for sometimes r. sometimes, p. 481. l. 7. r. may appear, besides, p. 497. l. 28. for springling r. sprinkling, Other less mistakes must be left to the ingenuity and pardon of the Reader.