THE Protestant Reconciler. PART II. Earnestly persuading the DISSENTING LAITY To join in FULL COMMUNION WITH THE Church of England; And Answering all the Objections of the Non-Conformists against the Lawfulness of their Submission unto the Rites and Constitutions of that CHURCH. By a Wellwisher to the Church's Peace, and a Lamenter of Her Sad Divisions. Anglicanam Ego Ecclesiam exoticis, pravis, superflitiosis cultibus, erroribusque aut impiis, aut periculosis egregiè ex scripturarum coelestium norma purgatam, tot támque illustribus Martyriis probatam, pietate in Deum, in homines Charitate, laudatissimisque bonorum operum exemplis abundantem, laetissimo doctissimorum ac sapientissimor●m virorum preventu jam à Reformationis principio ad hodierna usque tempora florentem, equidem es quo debui loco habui hactenus, ac dum vivam, habebo; ejus nomen, honos, laudes semper apud me manebunt. Dallaeus de cultibus Religiosis Latinorum, part. 2. l. 2. cap. 1. p. 97, 98. LONDON, Printed for Awnsham Churchil, at the Black-Swan near Amen-Corner, 1683. THE PREFACE TO THE Dissenting Laity. The Contents of the PREFACE. Six Arguments from the Book called the Protestant Reconciler, to persuade the Dissenting Laity to submit to the conditions of Communion required of them by the Church of England, viz. 1. That they stand bound to do what lawfully they may in order to it, and that nothing unlawful is required of them, §. 1.2. Because they are to do to their Superiors as in like case they would be dealt with, §. 2.3. From the liberty they take of changing a Ceremony of Christ's own institution, §. 3.4. Because the mischiefs which will follow on their refusal to submit, are greater than those which will ensue on their Conformity, §. 4.5. From the example of St. Paul, §. 5.6. From the pernicious nature of Schism, §. 6. Other Arguments produced, 1. From that of the Apostle, If any man will be contentious, we have no such custom, 1 Cor. 11.16. §. 7. 2. From his command to give no offence to the Church of God, §. 8.3. Because God is not the Author of Confusion, but of Peace, §. 9.4. Because he requires the believing Wife not to desert her unbelieving Husband, & vice versâ; because God hath called us to Peace, §. 10.5. Because, were all things left indifferent, the Minister must impose in some cases, §. 11.6. From the power committed to Church Governors, and the necessity of submission to it, §. 12.7. From the sad result of their refusing this submission, §. 13. Two propositions conducing to this end, 1. That not prejudices or scruples of Dissenters can excuse them from the guilt of Schism in separating from us, till they have done all that lawfully they can for the removal of them, §. 14.2. That their imagination that the Magistrate exceeds, or else unduly doth exert his power in commanding any thing, will not warrant their refusal of Obedience to it, §. 15. Requests to them who cannot fully comply with us, viz. 1. To comply so far as they declare either by words or actions, that they lawfully may do it, §. 16.2. To refrain from censuring, reproaching, or speaking evil of their Governors in Church or State, §. 17.3. To abstain carefully from all Rebellious Principles and Practices, and to confess ingenuously, and hearty renounce what hath been done by men of their persuasions in that kind, §. 18. Brethren, MY hearts desire, and prayer to God in your behalf, is this, That you may fully be united to the Communion of the Church of England; And in pursuance of this passionate desire, I have composed the following Treatise, containing a full Answer to all the scruples obstructing your Communion with us, which I could meet with in the writings of our Dissenting Brethren. And let me, O my Friends, entreat you by the love of God, and your own souls, of the Church of Christ, which is his body, and of her union, peace, edification; by your concern for Christian Religion in the general, and for the Protestant Religion in particular, which, I hope, is very great; by all the motives which Christianity affords to love, peace, unity; by all the blessings it doth promise to the promoters, and all the dreadful evil it doth threaten to the disturbers of them; by the sad experience you have had already of the most fatal consequences of our Divisions, and by your present fears of a more dreadful issue of them: lastly, by all that you are like to suffer in your souls and bodies, by refractory persisting in your Separation; let me, I say, beseech you on my bended knees, by all these weighty motives, to lay to heart what I have offered in this Book, and in this Preface shall farther offer to engage you to conform, and seriously to consider of it, and act according to the convictions it may minister unto you, as you will Answer your neglect to do so, at the great and terrible day of the Lord. Now the considerations I would humbly offer to you are either, 1. Such as are proper to induce you to the desired Conformity; or, 2. Such as may tend to keep you peaceable and conscientious, though you do not Conform; and may preserve you from doing any thing, which may reflect on your Religion towards God, or Loyalty towards your Sovereign. §. 1 1. Then to move you to the desired Conformity, be pleased seriously to consider what hath been offered in a late Book, styled The Protestant Reconciler, to that end. In which Book, as the Author pleads warmly for an indulgence, or mitigation of some lesser things which do obstruct your full Communion with us, (which nothing but a due sense of the great danger, and unsafe condition of your present state, could have induced him to do, and nothing but his fervent love to souls, and his sincere desire of their Salvation can excuse;) so hath he many passages which seem most strongly to conclude for your desired submission to the injunctions of Superiors. For, First, P. 34, 35. He lays down this position, That you stand bound in Conscience to do whatsoever lawfully you may, for the prevention, and removal of our Schisms, and the occasions of them, and for the healing our Divisions. Which is a proposition evident in itself, and there confirmed from plain Scripture testimony, and the concern we ought to have for Christian Faith, the Protestant Religion, the welfare of the Nation, and for the peace, the order, the edification of the Church. Secondly, He adds, That nothing can be unlawful which is not by God forbidden, 1 John 3.4. sin being the transgression of a Law; and the Apostle having told us, Rom. 4.15. P. 198. that where there is no Law, there is no transgression; whence he infers, That Dissenters cannot satisfy their Consciences in their refusal to obey the commands of their Superiors, unless they can show some plain precept which renders that unlawful to be done by them, which is commanded by Superiors. And seeing God in Scripture hath enjoined all persons to obey those that have the rule over them; Heb. 13.17. and submit themselves, Rom. 13.1.5. 1 Pet. 2.13. and to be subject to the higher powers, as to the ordinance of God, and that for Conscience sake, and the Lords sake: He that can satisfy his Conscience in his refusal so to do, must show some Law of God as evidently forbidding his obedience to what Superious do enjoin, P. 197. as do these Scriptures command obedience to them in all lawful things. I having therefore in this Treatise answered all your pretences for such a prohibition of the Holy Scripture forbidding your submission to the Rites and Constitutions of the Church of England enjoined by Superiors, have made it manifest that you can never satisfy your Consciences in your refusal to submit unto them; nor can you, or your Leaders, return a satisfactory Answer to the Questions propounded by that Author to you in these words: P. 58. Do they prefer mercy before Sacrifice, or comply with the forementioned injunctions of Obedience to their Superiors, who will not submit to Rites or Circumstances, or to the use of things no where forbidden in the word, to prevent Schism, and all the dreadful consequences of it? but rather will give cause to their Superiors to judge them scandalous Resisters of Authority, and pertinacious Disturbers of the Church's Peace? 59 Do not they scandalise, offend, and contribute unto the Ruin of Christ's little stock, who do involve them in a wretched Schism on the account of things which they may lawfully submit to? Do not they shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men, who forbidden them to enter when they may? Do not they impose heavy burdens also, who say to their Disciples, Hear not the Common Prayer, Receive not the Sacrament Kneeling, suffer not your Children to be signed with the Cross, Communicate not with that Minister who wears a Surplice, or with that Church which imposeth any Ceremonies or any Constitutions, but concerning the time and place of performing Public Worship? If nothing doth so scandalise Christ's followers as to find their Teachers at discord and divided; can they act as becometh his Disciples, who are not willing to procure Unity and Concord, and to avoid this scandal by their submission to things indifferent in their own nature, and not forbidden in the law of God? §. 2 Thirdly, He pleads for this submission from that great rule of equity which calls upon you to do to others as you would be dealt with; putting the Question to you thus, p. 187. Do not you expect obedience from your Children, and Servants in like cases? Should you command them to come at ten of the Clock into your Parlour to Family Devotions, requiring them to come dressed, and to kneel at their Devotions; would you permit them to refuse to come at the time, and to the place appointed, because all times and places are indifferent to God? or in the garb appointed by you, because God regards not habits? or to refuse to kneel, because they may pray standing? Would you not rather judge them contemners of your lawful authority, and needlessly, and sinfully scrupulous in those matters? And must not you, by the same Rule, be guilty of contemning the lawful Authority of your Civil and Spiritual Fathers, and of the Masters of Christ's Family, by your refusal to submit unto their Constitutions, in matters of like nature, upon the like accounts? or can those Principles derive from him who is the God of order, not of confusion, 1 Cor. 15.33. which would so evidently, should they obtain, fill Families as well as Kingdoms and Churches with confusion, and destroy their order? §. 3 Fourthly, He argues ad hominem, thus. If notwithstanding the evidence produced, p. 289. that Baptism by immersion is suitable both to the institution of our Lord, and his Apostles, and was by them ordained to represent our Burial with Christ, and so our dying unto Sin, Rom. 6.4. Coloss. 2.12. and our conformity to his resurrection by newness of life, as the Apostle clearly doth explain the meaning of that Rite; I say, if notwithstanding this, Dissenters do agree to sprinkle the baptised Infant, why may they not as well submit to the significant ceremonies imposed by our Church? for since it is as lawful to add unto Christ's institutions a significant ceremony, as to diminish a significant ceremony, which he, or his Apostles instituted, and use another in its stead which they did never institute? what reason can they have to do the latter, and yet refuse submission to the former? and why should not the peace and union of the Church be as prevailing with them to perform the one, as is their mercy to the Infant's body to neglect the other. And, §. 4 Fifthly, The said Author shows that our divisions do highly prejudice the Christian Faith, Chap. 1. that they gratify the Infidel and Sceptic, and scandalise the weak and doubting Christian; that they minister to the advantage of the Papist, and to the prejudice of the true Protestant Religion; that they are highly prejudicial to the State; that they have a pernicious influence upon ourselves, by promoting strife, enmity, carnality, and all the evils consequent upon them, by obstructing the love, peace, unity, order and edification of the Church, and the benefit of our Prayers, by hindering the efficacy of the means of Grace, by depriving us of all the blessings of love and peace, and by endangering our eternal peace. And hence he strongly doth infer, That if Dissenters do not think it better, that all these evils should ensue, than that they should comply, or bear with those few ceremonies, P. 22. and scrupled expressions of our Liturgy, then must they in these matters submit to the commands of their Superiors. And p. 29. he puts this serious Question to Dissenters, Whether those ceremonies, and those expressions in our Liturgy, which they at present scruple, be so plainly evil, and so unquestionably forbidden, that for preventing all these dreadful evils, they may not be complied with? adding, That if they be not so clearly and indispensably evil, that these great ends of the promoting the salvation of men's Souls, and the preventing of the forementioned evils, which do inevitably ensue upon them, cannot hollow them; they cannot be excused from being accessary to those evils which ensue upon their separating from, and their dividing of the Church on these accounts. Now that Dissenters cannot rationally judge these things to be thus clearly and indispensably evil, or think it better that all these mischiefs should ensue, than that they should submit unto them, he seems convincingly to prove from these considerations: 1. Chap. 6. §. 1. from p. 167. to p. 170. That the duties of promoting Christian love, peace, unity, and the edification of the Church, and the preventing of Division, Schism, and the disturbance of the Civil Government, are moral and essential duties which will admit no dispensation; so that it is the duty of all Christians to contend earnestly, and strive together with one Soul for the promotion of these duties, and the prevention of the contrary evils. 2ly, p. 176. That the preserving of what is most essential unto the welfare of the Church, and to the interests of piety, is more to be regarded than the omission of what is only circumstantial to them; and that precepts which concern only Rituals, p. 46. are to give place to those which do concern the welfare of men's bodies, and much more to those which do respect the welfare of our Brother's Soul; so that, when both cannot together be observed, we must neglect or violate the former, to observe the latter. Agreeably to which assertion, Divines do generally lay down this, as a certain rule concerning positive commands, requiring things which it is not intrinsically evil to omit, viz. That all such things cease to be duties, when they are inconsistent with others of a greater consequence, there being greater reason and obligation, when we cannot do both, to do the latter with the omission of the former. And this that Author doth confirm, 1. From the example of God himself, who suffered his own ceremonial institutions to be neglected upon accounts of lesser moment, p. 171. viz. circumcision for the convenience of his people's travels in the wilderness, the celebration of the Passover in the 14th day of the first month, when they were in a journey about their temporal concerns. 2ly, From the example and declarations of our Saviour, who taught, that in all such cases, p. 171, 172. God would have mercy and not sacrifice, approved the action of David and his Servants in eating the Shewbread, which was by God's prescription to be eaten only by Aaron and his Sons, and who commanded the impotent man to take up his Bed and walk upon the Sabbath-day; whence he seems evidently to infer, 1. p. 173. That if God was pleased to suffer his own institutions in matters ceremonial to be neglected, when that neglect was needful to promote some higher end; if to preserve the life of man and beast he would permit men to do that, which otherwise would have been deemed a breach of his own institution, and a profanation of his day, it is not to be doubted, but he will permit us to do those things, which in their natures may be inconvenient, when it is necessary to submit unto them, for the promotion of the great ends of love, peace, unity, and the advantage of poor Souls; if our respect unto our Brother's life and health, will warrant our neglect of many outward duties, then surely our respect unto the Church's peace and unity, and to the good of Souls, may warrant our submission to those things for these good ends, which God hath never plainly made it our duty to omit, and our Superiors, whom he most plainly doth command us to obey in lawful matters do enjoin. 2ly, p. 175. That, if the duties mentioned, be of an higher nature than any outward circumstance of worship, it cannot be so much our duty to endeavour that God's worship should be performed, without those rites or circumstances, as that these higher duties should be practised; or to contend for the omission of them with loss or hazard of these more weighty matters, if in these moral duties consists the life and substance of Religion, and the essentials of true Piety; whereas the matters which our Dissenters do contend for, relate not to the being of Religion; but, as they think, only unto the purer exercise of some religious duties; certain it is they ought not so to contend for the omission of these external circumstances, as to impair that charity and peace, that unity and edification, wherein the substance of Religion, and the welfare of the Church consists; which seems to be the very Argument St Paul insists on, when he saith, Rom. 14.17, 19 the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace; wherefore let us follow after the things which make for peace: i. e. Let us not by doing or omitting of these things, obstruct the Church's peace, or hinder the promotion of those things, in which Gods Kingdom more especially consists. 3ly, p. 176. He asks Whether Dissenters can with good conscience say that God's glory is as much concerned, in the administration of his worship, rather in some other way, than in that mode which now obtaineth in the Church of England, as it is certainly concerned in the performance of those moral duties, and in the honour and success of Christian Faith, the salvation of Souls, the welfare of the State, and of the Protestant Religion; and whether by joining with us in our public Ordinances, such mischiefs would ensue? if not, 'tis certainly their duty rather to comply with the commands of their Superiors, p. 177. though they conceive them burdensome and inconvenient, than to administer, by their refusal so to do, occasion to the greater dishonour of their God, and all these dreadful evils both to Church and State, which do ensue on that refusal. §. 5 Sixthly, This Author strongly seems to argue for this submission in prosecution of the ends forementioned from the example of St Paul, who though he were free from all men, 1 Cor. 9.19, 20. yet made himself servant to all that he might gain the more; to the Jew, p. 145. becoming as a Jew, that he might gain the Jew, etc. For sure, saith he, it well becometh our Dissenters to imitate this great example of St. Paul by conforming their wills, as servants do, unto the will of their Superiors, and doing all that lawfully they can, to please and testify their due subjection to them, without respect to their liberty, to do, in order to their being serviceable to the Church in the promotion of the Gospel, and the salvation of Souls, as the Apostle did when he submitted to the circumcision of Timothy, when he undertook a legal purification of himself, and offered sacrifice; against which actions, it is easy to produce more plausible exceptions, than they can bring against our Ceremonies; especially if we consider, that the Apostle did comply, Acts 21.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Acts 28.17. not only with the Law of Moses for this end, but also with the traditions imposed by the Elders, and so did yield unto the very thing which they are so afraid to do. §. 6 Seventhly, This Author proves, That Schism is a most pernicious evil; Chap. 2. §. 1. this he makes good from Scripture, from the concurring suffrage of all the Fathers of the Church, from the mischievous and dreadful consequences of it; and from the opposition that it bears to the great duties of Charity, and Peace, of Union, and Edification. Now certainly it highly must concern us in reason and in Conscience, where our mistakes are like to prove of such a fatal consequence to our immortal souls, and to expose us to such dreadful evils, to be very wary, before we venture upon that which is, by most judicious persons in this Age, and was by all the Primitive Fathers of the Church, pronounced Schismatical; as were all Altars set up in opposition to the Bishop of the Diocese, wherein they were; all Churches separating from, and independent on his Government. This therefore cannot prudently be done by us; nor can we, when we find it done by others, safely join in Communion with them, without plain evidence, and full conviction of our freedom from that guilt. And surely he must have a very good opinion of himself, who confidently dares to say, he hath plain evidence that what all Christians of former Ages, and the most able and judicious persons of the present Age, pronounce a Schism, is indeed the duty of all good and pious Christians. Now to confirm this motive, let me request you to weigh these following Questions well. Q. 1 If Schism in the general be of a dreadful and pernicious nature, Whether the disturbance of the Church's Peace by erecting opposite Communions, to the perpetuating Schism through all succeeding generations, will not much aggravate the guilt of it, and render it more dreadful to every peaceable and pious Christian? consider therefore, I beseech you, that this, if any, is your Schism. Q. 2 Who would not think it safer to yield to any imposition, how heavy or how inconvenient soever, provided that it were not plainly sinful, than run the hazard of contracting such a pernicious guilt? to choose to hazard our exclusion from the body, the Communion of Christ's Church, the privileges of her Ordinances, rather than yield unto a Constitution not directly sinful, is certainly a great imprudence. For seeing in matters of practice the dangerousness, as well as the falsehood of an Assertion is very fitly and conscientiously to be considered, especially when the danger is of offending God, and ruining our souls: Can it be prudent to venture upon that which, if performed without good ground, will certainly expose us to that danger, where there appeareth no such evident conviction for the doing of it, as can make amends for the danger of venturing on it? Q. 3 Is it not reasonable to conceive that the wisdom of Christ should lay down Rules for the government and preservation of his body, proportionably plain unto the moment of them; and give us a full evidence, in matters absolutely needful to be done, or lest undone? If then you only have some probabilities and plausible pretences for setting up, or joining with, these separate Communions, or against joining in Communion with us, but have no evident conviction of the necessity of the one, or the unlawfulness of the other; may you not rationally conclude that neither of them can be needful to be done in order to your everlasting welfare? when then our actions tend so much unto the prejudice of our own souls, and to the damage of the Church of Christ, as doth our present Schism; 'tis Argument sufficient that God never intended to oblige us to it, that he hath given us no clear conviction of that obligation. Q. 4 Lastly, Would any Prudent Legislator think it convenient for the public, that his greatest, and most important commands should be neglected, as often as there might appear some little probable evidence for some lesser duty that were inconsistent with them? would he not, think you, be much better pleased with him that, in such a case, should stick to the greater duty, and neglect the less, than with him who should extremely prejudice the public by his adherence to his scruples about little matters? And if so, can it reflect dishonour upon God to presume him also pleased with that which we have reason to believe would please a good and prudent Governor, in regard of its good influence on the public, for which he is especially concerned? §. 7 To these convincing Arguments collected from that Author, I add these following conderations: First, That St Paul seems clearly to insinuate, that a wilful departure from ordinary practice, in such cases as these are, doth argue a contentious disposition; for when he treats of the dispute arising in the Church of Corinth, whether their Women should be veiled, or covered in the Church, or not; he argues for their being veiled, from decency, and the design of Nature in giving hair unto them for a covering, and thus concludes his Argument, if any man have a mind to be contentious (so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth import) it is sufficient to let him know that he, contending for the appearance of Women in the Church unveiled, contends against the custom of the Church; 1 Cor. 11.16. for we at Jerusalem, and all the other Churches of God have no such custom; and if by this he will not be concluded, he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a lover of contention. Why therefore may it not be said to you, if you are minded to contend for sitting at the Sacrament, for Baptising without the sign of the Cross, and without Godfathers' and Godmothers', for Praying without a stinted Liturgy in public, and without a Surplice, and for separating on the account of all, or any of these things imposed, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God? And if by this you will not be concluded in these matters, how will you scape the charge of being lovers of Contention? And suitable to this determination of St Paul, was both the practice, and advice of the most Holy Fathers of the Church. St Austin truly saith, Ep. 86. ad Casulanum presb. That in those matters concerning which the Scripture hath delivered nothing certain, the customs of the people of God, and the Statutes of our Ancestors are to be received as a Law. Epist. 118. And again, All matters of this kind may freely be observed; nor can a grave and prudent Christian observe a better discipline, Ad quam fortè Ecclesiam veneris, ejus morem serva, si cuiquam non vis esse scandalo, nec quenquam tibi. Ibid. than in these matters to act according to that custom which is observed by the Church to which he cometh. And thus St. Ambrose did himself practise, advising others to whatsoever Church they came to observe its customs, if they would neither give, nor take offence. §. 8 Secondly, Consider that the same Apostle commands all Christians to give no offence to Jew, or Gentile, or the Church of God; that is, 1 Cor. 10.32. as one well descants on the place, whatsoever, without prejudice to Christian piety, you can perform, or leave undone, be careful, for the avoiding of offence to Jew, or Gentile, and much more to the Church of God, to do or to abstain from doing. Now do not you, my Friends, conceive yourselves obliged to abstain from doing of the things enjoined, though lawful in themselves, because they minister unto the scandal of weak Brethren? why therefore should you not much more conceive yourselves obliged to do them on the like supposition, that you may not transgress this precept of St. Paul, by giving scandal to the Church of God, and to Superiors Civil and Sacred, as by omission of them you must do? The wisdom which is from above is impartial. Yea do not many of you submit unto them, when you find it necessary to avoid Civil and Church censures, and to serve the interests of your party; and shall these low concerns prevail more with you than the Church's Peace, the procuring all those blessings which would ensue upon our unity, and the prevention of those mischiefs which follow upon our divisions? Pudet haec opprobria vobis, etc. §. 9 Thirdly, Consider that the Apostle, to quell the Schisms, and Disorders committed in the Church of Corinth, informs them, That God is not the God of confusion, but of Peace, as in all Churches of the Saints, 1 Cor. 14.33. Now it is fully proved here, and by others who have laboured to convince you of the mischief of your Separation; 1. That upon the same principles by which you do excuse your Separation from us, and your erecting opposite Communions, you consequentially do excuse many of the Ancient Schismatics condemned by the Church, you give to others an Apology, not Answerable by you, to separate from yourselves: And lastly, you condemn the practice of the first, and purest Ages of the Church, and must have separated from Communion with her in what Age, following the Apostles, soever you had lived, and so have made disturbance throughout all Churches of the world; and therefore you may rest assured, you do not act agreeably to the good pleasure of that God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. who is the God not of disturbance, but of Peace. And we may speak unto you in the language of Theophylact, In locum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be you ashamed to contradict the customs of all Churches. §. 10 Fourthly, 1 Cor. 7.12, 15. Consider that the same Apostle forbids the believing Brother to separate from his Heathen Wife; and the believing Wife to desert her unbelieving Husband, for this very reason, That God had called us to peace; and yet he elsewhere shows how inconvenient it was to be thus yoked to unbelievers. 2 Cor. 6.14. If then our being called to Peace will warrant, and even sanctify our yielding to so great an inconvenience, and render it our duty to make no separation in our Families on those accounts; will it not hollow our submission to some things inconvenient in the Church, and render it our duty to make no separation from it on the account of such things? §. 11 Fifthly, Consider that if all things indifferent be left so by your Governors, the Minister who officiates must, and therefore may impose upon you in many things relating to God's Public Worship; for, as I have already showed, he must choose some place, and time in which he will officiate; he must do it in some habit; he must choose some Chapters to read, some Psalms to sing, some kind of Bread and Wine to Consecrate, with many other things of a like nature, and if they may do this, why not the Magistrate? If your Ministers may, as Governors, impose these things upon you, why not the Bishops, as their Governors, upon them? why not the Magistrate, as the Supreme Ecclesiastic Governor, upon both? The seal of Government is finally resolved on them who have the power of imposing; so that to deny the Ministers this power over the people, or the Bishops over the Ministers, is to make neither the one nor the other properly Governors. §. 12 Sixthly, That God who hath established the Office Ministerial, and Magistratical, must have consigned that power to them which is sufficient to acquire all the ends for which it was designed; these ends are, among others, the Peace, the Union, the Order, the Edification of the body or society of Christians subject to them. God therefore must have given to these Officers sufficient power for the acquiring of these ends, as far as they are needful for the Church of God, but without a power of silencing disputes when they arise, and do disturb the Church, and making Rules for Uniformity, and Order, when differences do arise, and divisions multiply, and confusion is introduced by variety of practice in indifferent matters, it is apparent they cannot obtain these ends in Church or State, and therefore 'tis not to be doubted but God hath given them a power of making and imposing of such Rules in the forementioned cases to those ends. Seventhly, Consider that since it is for ever necessary that things should be done decently and in order, and to edification; and what is decent, orderly, and tending to edification, will be ever subject to variety, and to a relative uncertainty, seeing that may be so in some place, age, and circumstances, which may in others cease to be so; 'tis necessary that there should be perpetual judges of these things, and they can be no other but the Rulers of the Church, they therefore must have power to judge, and to determine in those cases. Eighthly, Consider that it cannot reasonably be imagined, that the God of Love and Peace, who questionless delights to see men converse peaceably together, Eph. 4.3. Rom. 14.19.12.18. and with one heart and mouth to glorify him; and who so strictly doth command us to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace; to pursue the things which make for Peace, and do as much as in us lies in order to it; should disapprove of what is so expedient, and visibly conducing to this end, if not expressly, or by plain and immediate consequence forbidden by him, or should approve of Separation and division upon trivial accounts. Now how can we be said to do as much as in us lies in order to that end, if we will not comply, in order to the Church's Peace, with constitutions of Superiors, which are not evidently repugnant to his Law, or to the dictates of our natural reason? §. 13 Ninthly, Consider what is like to be the natural result of your refusal of Communion with us, even no less than Excommunication; which though perhaps the fault committed may not in itself deserve, yet can I see no reason, 1. Why you should not dread the Sentence, seeing Pastoris sententia etiam injusta timenda est, even the injust Sentence of Superiors may be dreaded when it doth actually deprive us of Church Privileges; and therefore we stand bound to do what lawfully we can, even all that is not evidently sinful, to avoid it. 2. Nor can I see even why the Sentence may not be valid before God, though not by reason of the moment of the things themselves; yet for that disobedience to lawful Governors, and violation of the Peace which is contained in our refusal to submit unto them. I confess there is an opinion much received in the world, that makes the censures of the Church only declarative, which will excuse you from these fears; for if the confirmation of these censures by God, be wholly resolved into the merit of the cause for which they were inflicted, they can never be feared, nor consequently prove coercive to their subjects, who are not convinced of the badness of their own cause, which in the event will never make them properly coercive at all: Besides, those censures which are supposed only declarative, not operative, are not properly the acts of authorized, but skilful persons, for it is skill, not authority, that is a prudent presumption that any thing is such as it is declared; and therefore the opinions of learned, though but private persons, would in this way of proceeding be more formidable than the peremptory sentences of Ecclesiastical Governors, considered only under that relation. And lastly, were the censures of the Church only declarative, offenders would be as much bound in Heaven, when not bound on Earth, as when they were so, since all God's threats against them will be verified, though they be never censured by the Church; and so Christ's promise, whatsoever you shall bind, etc. will be wholly insignificant. §. 14 Tenthly, Consider, I beseech you, that no prejudices you have contracted, no scruples which do hinder your Communion with the Church of England, can excuse you from the guilt of Schism in separating from her, until you have done all that lawfully you may, and honestly you can, for the removal of those prejudices, and for the satisfaction of those scruples, it being all men's duty, as much as in them lies, to promote the Church's peace, and to prevent her Schisms; and therefore to do all that lawfully and honestly they can, in the pursuit of those good ends. Now, 1. you may impartially examine the grounds on which you do forsake Communion with us in all, or any of our public Ordinances; you may diligently peruse and read those learned Tracts, which have been written to prove the lawfulness of your Communion with her in those Ordinances; you may confer with the most able and judicious of her lawful Ministers, and propound all your scruples to them in order to your satisfaction. And whosoever separates from Communion with us, without a conscientious performance of these things, must certainly contract the guilt of Schism, or criminal separation from us, because he separates before he hath done all that lawfully he may for the prevention of his separation. And surely, my Dear Friends, it highly doth concern you, first to perform these duties, before you do proceed unto a fixed separation from our Church; for seeing what is performed in our Assemblies, is the injunction of those higher powers, to whom God doth require us to be subject in all lawful matters, and that for Conscience sake, Rom. 13.1, 5. and of those spiritual Governors to whom the Gospel doth command obedience and submission, as far as lawfully we may, Heb. 13.7, 17. unless we first examine those injunctions of our Superiors Civil and Sacred, not daring to refuse obedience to them, before we find that they are contrary to the Law of God; we may oppose the will of God, whilst we seem zealous for it, and transgress the command of God, by transgressing the commands of our Superiors. And yet how few are those Dissenters, who first confer with any able Pastors of the Church of England, read any of their learned Tracts, or do impartially weigh the grounds on which they do proceed to separation, it grieves me to consider. God grant this be not laid unto their charge another day. §. 15 Again, to take off all your scruples, which proceed upon your doubtings or suspicions, that the Magistrates Civil or Sacred do exceed their bounds in the imposing of these things, or do impose things doubtful; Consider, I entreat you, 1. that this will never warrant your refusal to obey Superiors, that you conceive the Magistrate exceeds, or else unduly doth exert his power in commanding any thing, provided you may lawfully obey it. Because 'tis not your business or duty to inquire into the reason of the commands of your Superiors, to censure or pass judgement of the expedience of them, or the inexpedience, but only to inquire whether you may lawfully obey what is commanded. For as the Magistrate should lay upon the subject no unnecessary burden; so neither aught the Master or the Parent, to lay such burdens on his Child and Servant; and yet none will excuse a Child from his obedience to his Father, a Servant from obedience to his Master upon this account, that they conceived the injunctions of their Master or their Parents inexpedient or unprofitable, provided they only did require that which might be lawfully performed: much less can Subjects be excused from their obedience to their Spiritual and Civil Parents upon these accounts. To such injunctions we are obliged to submit, though not on the account of any immediate power they have received from God to make them, the power they derive from him, being for edification only; yet on the same account that Christ paid tribute, lest we should offend them, and by our disobedience in lawful matters, should minister Scandal both to them and others, and cause them to suspect that our Religion did countennnce disobedience to Governors in those things, and tend to render us unquiet and unpeaceable; so that although the thing enjoined may be a yoke, and an unnecessary burden, and so unwarrantably be laid upon us; yet our submission to it out of humility, and love to peace, and our respect to God's Vicegerents, may be acceptable to God, and be rewarded by him: And if St. Paul himself, though free, did voluntarily submit unto such things for the promotion of the Gospel, and the good of others; why may not we for the promotion of like Christian ends submit unto them? Lastly, If nothing I have offered can prevail with you to embrace Communion with us, let me entreat you to do all you can to testify that you abstain from our Communion, not out of humour, peevishness, or from a turbulent disposition, and much less from a factious, and rebellious spirit, but purely out of Conscience towards God. Do all that lawfully you can to show that you are of a peaceable temper, desirous of Communion with us, so far as Conscience will permit you; that you do truly reverence your Governors, and are desirous to yield obedience to them in all lawful things, and nothing which may give them just occasion to suspect that you do only Hypocritically pretend Conscience for your disobedience, or that you still retain among you any Factious or Seditious Principles. §. 16 1. Therefore let me entreat you to comply with the established worship of the Church of England, as far as you declare, either by words or actions, that it is lawful so to do: for this you can do if you will, and therefore if you do not do it, you demonstrate, against all pretences to the contrary, that you are not willing to comply with your Superiors as far as lawfully you may. As many of you therefore as do think it lawful to Communicate with us in Prayer, and hearing of the word, and in Receiving of the Sacrament upon occasion, stand bound in Conscience so to do, as oft as by the Magistrate you are required so to do, and it can only be pretence of Conscience which doth induce you to forbear such Communion with us at these times; for seeing negative precepts do bind always, and at all times, so that no man at any time may do what is forbidden by God. It follows that there can be no prohibition against doing that at other times, which we can sometimes do, and which cannot be more or less lawful or unlawful for being done at one time than another, as clearly seems to be the case with reference to your occasional Communion. It therefore is to be suspected that men only pretend Conscience against that Communion with us at all times, which they at sometimes can maintain. And yet I wish there were no instances of men of your persuasions, who when they are presented, or when they find it necessary to qualify them for an Office, or to give a vote in which they may do service to their party; will attend upon the public worship used in our Churches; and will receive the Sacrament according to the order of the Church of England, who before never did, and afterwards neglect to do so. Now whilst men do thus vary in their practice according as their interest, and as their circumstances vary, they tempt men shrewdly to suspect that they act rather out of interest than Conscience in these matters; and that they, notwithstanding all their pretence to Conscience, have either none at all, or a bad Conscience; for if they thought Communion with us in those Ordinances unlawful, by doing it in the forementioned circumstances, they only must be doing evil that good may come, and making Conscience, and Religion, stoop to interest; which is the proper character of Hypocrites: but if they did conceive it lawful, their Separation and refusal of it cannot be excused from Schism, or from transgression of the injunctions of St. Paul, If it be possible, as much as in you lies live peaceably with all men; follow after the things which make for peace; give no offence unto the Church of God; obey Superiors, and submit yourselves. Ah my Dear Brethren! by doing of these things you have given greater scandal unto others, than your submission to the Constitutions of the Church of England could have done; and therefore if you do indeed abstain from our Commuon for fear of giving scandal to weak Brethren, do you more carefully abstain from matters of this nature which carry with them such a plain semblance of Hypocrisy that no pretence can hid, no Charity excuse it. Under this head I cannot pass by your violence in Petitioning His Sacred Majesty against His Royal Proclamation to the contrary; for be it granted that the Law did authorise, or give permission to you to Petition, sure I am it laid upon you no necessity to do so; and so this might have been forborn in compliance with the pleasure of his Majesty: And if you do Reply, That then you may by Proclamations be abridged of that liberty the Law affords you. Consider, I beseech you, what it is that you expect, and call for from Superiors, viz. That for your sakes, and out of pity to your weakness, they would abate the exercise of their own power; and with what equity and justice can you expect they should do this, if you, at their request, will abate nothing of that liberty and power which the Law allows you? §. 17 2. If you cannot conform, let me entreat you Religiously to abstain from censuring, reproaching, or speaking evil of your Governors in Church or State. For this undoubtedly you may do, and it doth very much concern you so to do. For they who, being Christians, do reproach, and do speak evil of their Civil Governors, do that which the Wiseman would not permit the Jew to think of; for his command runs thus, Eccles. 10.20. Curse not the King in thy heart; or, Entertain not any light vain contemptuous or dishonourable thoughts of him; Assemb. Annot. wish thou no evil to his Person, Crown, or Dignity in thy most secret retirements. They do what all good men should tremble to commit; for of such men St. Peter gives this Character, Presumptuous are they, 2 Pet. 2.10. selfwilled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they do not tremble when they speak evil of Dignities. Such persons dare to offer that to God's Vicegerents, to those who bear his Name, or Character on Earth, which Michael the Archangel durst not offer to the vilest, and the worst of Creatures; Judas 8, 9 for he, contending with the Devil, durst not bring against him a railing accusation; and yet it well deserves to be observed, that if this sin was capable of pardon, or excuse in any case or circumstances, it must have been so in the reproaching of the then present Governors, they being, by consent of all Historians, the greatest monsters of mankind, and the most bloody Persecutors of the Christian Faith. Moreover, they who offend in the like kind against their Ecclesiastical Superiors, do that which blessed Paul, when he had ignorantly done to a corrupt Highpriest, acknowledged as a crime condemned in the Law of God. I witted not (saith he) that he was the Highpriest; Acts 23.5. for it is written, thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people: they do that which the Conscience of a Jew could not let pass without just indignation and reproof; for when St. Paul had said, God shall smite thee thou whited wall; v. 3, 4. they presently cry out, Revilest thou God's Highpriest. There lies indeed no obligation on us to call evil good, or flatter our Superiors in their sins, or judge well of them against the clearest evidence of Sense or Reason; but then we are obliged not to cherish evil thoughts, or harbour groundless jealousies of our Superiors; much less must we express our inward apprehensions of them by opprobrious language, or disrespectful carriage towards them. And yet 'tis but too evident that both the Writings and Discourses of Dissenters are too often stuffed with these malevolent reflections, in which they take the liberty of speaking evil of the Rulers of the people, and of blaspheming Dignities, and representing the Reverend Bishops as Popish, Antichristian and Ithacian Prelates. §. 18 Lastly, Let me conjure you by that affection which you bear unto the Name and Doctrine of our common Lord and Saviour, and to the credit of the Protestant Religion, to abstain carefully from all Seditious and Rebellious Principles and Practices, and to do all you can to clear yourselves from all suspicion of maintaining, or approving of them. For to deal plainly with you, this is one great fault among you, that you have many of you vented, and more of you have practised suitably to those Opinions which are Seditious and Rebellious; and these Opinions have been asserted and been made public, not only in the times of the late Civil Wars, but also since the happy Restoration of His Sacred Majesty, whom God preserve. For this great scandal you have hereby ministered both to Religion in the general, and to the Protestant Religion in particular, I verily believe you by just judgement of Almighty God do suffer, and will smart severely. Wherefore my counsel to you is, 1. No longer to defend, to countenance, or to extenuate those wicked principles, and execrable practices which followed from them; but humbly to confess, and take the shame due to your party for them, and patiently bear the indignation of the Lord, because you have thus sinned against him: Be pleased, I pray you, in order to this end, to ponder seriously these words of your admired Mr. Defence of the principles of love, p. 14, 15, 16. Baxter, who speaks thus unto you: I beseech you let us review the effects of the late War, is it possible for any sober Christian in the world to take them to be blameless, or to be little sins? What both the violating the person, and the life of the King, and the change of the fundamental Government or constitution? etc. Was all this lawful, and to do all this, as for God, with dreadful appeals to him? Dare any man, not blinded, and hardened, justify all this? If none of all this was Rebellion, or Treason, or Murder, is there any such crime, think you, possible to be committed? Are Papists insulting over us in our shame? are thousands hardened by these, and such like deal, into a scorn of all Religion? are our Rulers by all this exasperated to the severities which we feel? are we made by it the byword and hissing of the Nations, and the shame and pity of all our friends? and yet is all this to be justified or silenced, and none of it at all to be openly repent of? I openly profess to you, that I believe till this be done, we are never like to be healed or restored? and that it is heinous gross impenitence, that keepeth Ministers and people under their distress; and I take it for the sad prognostic of our future woe, and lengthened affliction, to hear so little open profession of repentance, even for unquestionable heinous crimes, for the saving of those who are undone by these scandals, and for the reparation of the honour of Religion, which is most notoriously injured. Your Commissioners at the Savoy give this account of their faith to his Majesty, whom God preserve, viz. that in things no way against the Law of God, the commands of our Governors must be obeyed; but if they command what God forbids, we must patiently submit to suffering, and every soul must be subject to the higher powers for conscience sake, and not resist; these are our principles. And these must be your principles, or you can never reasonably expect the favour or protection of the Government. For what their Subjects do at present, or may hereafter think forbidden by God in these divided times, and contrariety of various sects, the Higher Powers cannot know; and therefore if they cannot be secured of this (I mean by the ordinary way of security given by oaths, subscriptions, declarations) that when their subjects think God hath forbidden, what the higher powers do command, they patiently will submit to suffering, and not resist; they cannot be secured of the peace and quiet of their Kingdom. I therefore cannot but conceive you are obliged in Conscience, as you desire to avoid the truly odious name of Rebel, and the just imputation of seditious persons, and to wipe off in some good measure, the horrid scandal which lies upon your party for your former practices. That you are bound in justice, as you desire to repair the credit of the Protestant Religion; which hath so deeply suffered by the past Rebellions of men of your persuasions, and give security unto that Government, from which both you and yours expect security. That you are bound in policy and prudence, as you desire to abate the just suspicions which the Government at present hath, and will have of you, till you secure them of the contrary, and to wipe off the manifold reproaches which are cast upon you, as you desire to remove the Prejudices all loyal subjects have against you, from their experience of your seditious principles and practices. I say, I cannot but conceive you highly stand obliged on all these accounts, to publish your sincere repentance for, and your abhorrence of, what men of your persuasion have already done; to make now solemn declarations and protestations of your present loyal principles; to show your readiness to give all satisfaction to the Government, which can be reasonably desired from you; that you do not at present hold, nor ever will maintain rebellious principles; to remonstrate, that if you cannot yet obey in all things the commands of your Superiors, you in no cases will resist the Government, but patiently will suffer under it; and lastly, that you will permit no person to be of your communion, who will not make this declaration hearty and sincerely. Bishop of Winton's Sermon before the King, Nou. 5.67. p. 38. For as a Reverend Prelate of our Church doth truly say, The best and safest way for Prince, State and People, is to protect, cherish and allow of that Religion, and that only which allows of no rising up against, or resisting sovereign power, no not in its own defence, nor upon any other account whatsoever; which most Christian, and most Orthodox profession, if those of the Romish, and those of other persuasions that live among us, but are not of us, would make as frankly, and as ingenuously, and as sincerely as we do, though it would not presently reconcile all other differences betwixt us and them; yet it would perhaps be enough to make us live peaceably, and charitably, and securely together without fear or jealousy of one another, which would be a good step towards an accommodation of all other controversies betwixt us in time also. Now to conclude this Preface with the Prayer of our own Church: Blessed Jesus, our Saviour and our Peace, who didst shed thy precious Blood upon the Cross, that thou mightest abolish and destroy all enmity among men, and reconcile them in one body unto God, look down in much pity and compassion upon this distressed Church and Nation, whose bleeding wounds, occasioned by the lamentable Divisions that are among us, cry aloud for thy speedy help, and saving relief; stir up we beseech thee every Soul of us carefully, as becometh sincere Christians, to root out of our hearts all pride and vainglory, all wrath and bitterness, all unjust prejudice and causeless jealousy, all hatred and malice, and desire of revenge, and whatsoever it is that may exasperate our minds, or hinder us from discerning the things which belong unto our Peace, and by the power of thy Holy Spirit of Peace, dispose all our hearts to such meekness of wisdom, and lowliness of mind, such calm and deliberate long suffering, and forbearance of one another in love, with such due esteem of those whom thou hast set over us to watch for our Souls, as may turn the hearts of the Fathers to the Children, and the hearts of the Children to the Fathers, that so we may become a ready People prepared to live in Peace, and the God of Peace may be with us. Amen. Advertisement. THrough the neglect of the Bookseller and Printer, this Book hath been detained; otherwise, it might have come out six months' sooner. CHAP. I. The CONTENTS. The Design of this Treatise is to persuade our dissenting Laity that they ought to maintain Communion with the Church of England. 1. Because she requires nothing in her public Worship which is unlawful to be done. 2ly, Because they cannot condemn her Communion without condemning the practice of the Universal Church of Christ, §. 1. 3ly, Because they cannot do it without contradicting the Practice and Example of our Lord, who was a Member of the Jewish National Church, §. 2. 2ly, Observed the times of public Prayer, §. 3. 3ly, Was a Member of the Synagogue at Nazareth, §. 4. 4ly, Observed the Customs which by the Jewish Canons were prescribed to be observed by those who entered into the Temple, §. 5. 5ly, Complied with the Rules prescribed by the Jewish Doctors to be observed by the Readers & Preachers in their Synagogue, §. 6. 6ly, Observed the Customs in which the Jewish Doctors varied from, or added to the observation of the Passover, §. 7. 8ly, Admitted Judas both to the Passover, and to the Celebration of the Sacrament, and so declared that Communion with the Professors of Religion was not to be refused for their want of inward Piety, §. 8. 9ly, Paid Tribute when it was not due, and thereby taught us to submit unto those things which were required by Superiors without sufficient grounds in Case of Scandals, §. 9 10ly, Our Lords Commands were suitable to his Practice; For (first) he commanded the Leper to show himself to the Priest, though both the Priesthood was degenerated, and many idle things required of him who was to be pronounced clean. 2ly, He commands even his own Disciples to obey the Scribes and Pharisees because they sat in Moses Chair, §. 10. Corollaries, 1. That corruptions allowed, taught, and practised in a Church are no sufficient grounds of separation from the Communion of that Church, provided that the Members of it be not required, as a condition of Communion with them, to do, teach, practise them, or to profess that they are not corruptions, §. 11. 2ly, That great Corruptions in the lives of our Church-Pastors will not warrant our Separation from Communion with them, or our Refusal to attend upon their Teaching, provided we be not enjoined to allow of, or to comply with them in their Sins, § 12. 3ly, That it is lawful to comply which such Churches as enjoin some significant Ceremonies not mentioned in the Word of God, and for the sake of Peace, Order, Unity, and the avoiding of Scandal, to submit unto them, when by Authority they are enjoined, §. 13. 4ly, That it is not unlawful to use a public Form of Prayer, and that the using of such Forms can be no sinful stinting of the Spirit, §. 14. 5ly, That we stand not obliged in all Punctilios of time, and place, and gesture, to follow the Example of the first Institution of the Holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper, §. 15. 6ly, That the presence of wicked men should not deter us from joining with the Church in the Participation of the Holy Sacrament, §. 16. 7ly, That we stand not obliged to refuse Communion with other Churches in their Sacraments, and other public Offices because of some additions to the Institution, §. 17. 7ly, That our Dissenters have no just cause to fear, or plead for that Refusal of Submission to the Constitutions of our Church, and of Communion with us, that by Communicating municating they should approve of the imposing of these things and should partake with them in that supposed Sin, or countenance them in the imposing things which they do look upon as Grievous Burdens, §. 18. CHAP. I. §. 1 MY Design in this Discourse is, with all the Strength of Reason I can offer, to persuade our Dissenting Laity that lawfully they may, and therefore that they ought to hold Communion with the Church of England in all her constant and solemn parts of public Worship. To prove that lawfully they may, I might Insist on many Topics: As 1. That which doth throw the Burden of proving the unlawfulness of holding Communion with us in the forementioned Worship, upon them, and of this Nature, is the following Argument, Viz. It is lawful to hold Communion with the Church in all her constant and solemn parts of Public Worship, which in those parts of Public Worship requires nothing which is unlawful to be done by those who shall communicate with her in them; but the Church of England in all her constant and solemn parts of Public Worship, requires nothing to be done which is unlawful to be done by those who shall communicate with her in them. Ergo, 'tis lawful to communicate with the Church of England in all her constant and solemn parts of Public Worship. Where by the constant and solemn parts of Public Worship, I understand those parts of Public Worship which she requires all Laymen to join with her in, under the penalty of being liable to be presented, and to be subject to her censures, if they do refuse them, that in these parts of Solemn Worship nothing unlawful is required of them, I shall endeavour to make good by Answering the Objections which they make against them. But I might do it more briefly by calling on them to instance in any thing unlawful to be done, which is required in any constant and solemn part of Public Worship, upon which they are by the Constitutions of the Church obliged to attend under the penalty of being subject to her Censures for their Neglect, or their Refusal so to do. 2ly, I might thus argue with them: That which the Church of Christ hath in all Ages, since the Apostles, required of her subjects, cannot be reasonably conceived unlawful to be done, for otherwise we must condemn the universal Church of Christ through all Ages, since the time of the Apostles, but the Church of Christ throughout all Ages hath required of her Subjects conditions of Communion like unto those required by the Church of England, And therefore these conditions of Communion cannot be reasonably deemed unlawful to be done. In Confirmation of this Argument it would be very easy to instance in multitudes of Ceremonies required of, and used by the members of the Universal Church, throughout all Ages consequent to that of the Apostles, as liable to the exceptions of Dissenters as are any Ceremonies imposed by the Church of England, and also to evince that Liturgies, or Forms of Prayer were always used by the Church from the 3d. Century at least, unto this present Age. And thence to show that our Dissenters do by condemning these things in the Church of England, in effect condemn the Church of Christ throughout all Ages, and all Places; Def. of the principles of love. p. 55. for as Mr. Baxter well observes, they who condemn our Church for reasons common to all the Ages of the Church, must virtually condemn all the foregoing Ages of the Churches. But because Laymen are ignorant of what was practised by Antiquity, and have been taught that Anti-christ began to work in the Apostles days, and therefore have but little Reverence for Arguments of this Nature, I shall endeavour to convince them of the lawfulness of holding Communion with us in these Ordinances, by the Example of our Blessed Lord and Saviour, who in like cases did yield Obedience and Submit to the Prescriptions of the Rulers of the Jewish Church. And 2ly, I shall endeavour to return a full and a perspicuous Answer to all the Arguments they urge from Scripture, or from Reason, to prove that 'tis unlawful to submit unto the things required by the Church of England in order to Communion with her. Beginning first with those Arguments which do suppose the things required by the Church of England, as the Conditions of Lay Communion, to be sinful in themselves, or things forbidden by the Word of God. And 2ly, Proceeding to the Consideration of those Arguments which do allow the things imposed to be lawful in themselves, but yet suppose it is unlawful for them to submit unto them. 1. Because the Imposition of them is a Violation of their Christian Liberty. 2ly, Because by their Submission to them as they imagine, they shall be indirectly guilty of the sin of the Imposers. 3ly, Because they have been abused to Idolatry, and Superstition, and therefore are become unlawful to be used. And 4ly, Because by using of them they may scandalise the Weak, which God having forbidden, no Precept of the Magistrate can oblige them to do. §. 2 And 1. The Practice and Example of our Lord is such a Precedent as our Dissentors cannot reasonably except against, nor can they justify their own Refusal to be Followers of Christ, or to submit unto such Constitutions made by the Rulers of the Church of Christ, as our Dear Lord submitted to, being appointed by the Rulers of the Jewish Church, or to hold Communion with such a Church as he became a Member of. Now 1. Our Blessed Saviour was a Member of the Jewish National Church, and of the Synagogue at Nazareth, the Confirmation of this Assertion I shall deliver in the Words of Doctor Leightfoot who speaks thus: Harm. part. 3. p. 124. What did Christ all the while he lived at Nazareth a private Man? Did he never go to the Synagogue upon Sabbath and Holy Days, and Synagogue-days? Whilst others went to the Congregation, and to the public Service, did he stay at home? did he not appear before the Lord at the appointed Seasons in the place which he had chosen? We are assured he did so, for his Parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover, and when he was twelve years old they went up to Jerusalem after the Custom of the Feast, and the Child went with them, 2. Luke 41, 42, 43. That he went up unto the Feast of Tabernacles we are informed, Joh. 7, 10. And being circumcised he became a Debtor to do the whole Law, Gal. 5, 3. being made under the Law, Gal. 4.4. he was obliged to the Performance of those things which were enjoined by it. Now the great Business of these Feasts was to offer Sacrifice, to rejoice in the Assembly of God's People, to put up Prayers, and Praises for all the Blessings they did then commemorate; at these times all Israel met together, Lam. 2, 22. they heard the Reading of the Law, Deut. 31, 9, 10. and they sang Praises to God, Isai. 30, 29. Ye shall have a Song, as in the Night when a Holy Solemnity is kept; If then our Saviour did observe these Feasts, if he did celebrate the Passover, then certainly he did communicate with the Jewish Church, for these Appearances were Ordinances, and Symbols also of Communion. §. 3 2ly, That Christ himself neglected not the times of public Prayer, that he declared it not unlawful, nor did prohibit his Disciples to attend upon them, is evident from this, that he still owned the Temple as his Father's House, Joh. 2, 16. the House of Prayer, that his Disciples after his Resurrection continued daily in the Temple, and went up to it at the hours of Prayer, Act. 3, 1. And they esteemed it a very commendable Action of the Widow Anna to serve God there continually with Prayer and Fasting. Luke 2.37. Whence we may certainly conclude, that Christ himself did not refuse, nor did advise his own Disciples to refuse Communion with the Jewish Church in common Prayer, but did approve Communion with them in that public Service. Now since the Jews themselves observed no time for Prayer, no number of Prayers, seeing no daily Forms of Prayer were appointed by the Law of Moses, Therefore? saith Dr. Leightfoot, Harm, part. 3. p. 217. the Sanhedrin in several Generations made Canons, and Constitutions to decide and determine upon all these particulars, as their own Reason, and Emergences did lead them, and give occasion, as in one Generation they prescribed such and such times for Morning and Evening Prayer, in process of time they found these times allotted to be too straight, therefore the Sanhedrin of another Generation did give Enlargement, as they thought good; and so concerning the number of Prayers to be said daily, one Sanhedrin appointed so many, but time and experience found afterwards that these did not answer such and such occasions, as it seems was not observed when they were first appointed, therefore the Sanhedrin of another Generation thought good to add more and more still as occasions, unobserved before, did emerge, and so the number of their daily Prayers grew at last to be eighteen. To all which Additions to the Law of Moses, our Lord and his Disciples did submit, attending the public Service of the Temple and the Synagogues where they were used. And §. 4 3ly, That he was particularly a Member of the Synagogue at Nazareth is proved from that Passage of St. Luke, Luke 4, 16. who tells us that he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up, and as his Custom was, he went into their Synagogue, on the Sabbath-day, and stood up for to read, for Illustration of which place observe that there were Seven Readers appointed in their Synagogues, who, Leightf. Harm. part. 3 p. 125. when the Angel of the Church, or Minister of the Congregation, called them out, did read. Now that our Saviour was a Member of this Congregation may be argued thus: ibid. p. 124. You find not in the whole Gospel, though Christ preached in every Synagogue where he came, that he read in any of them but in this, and although strangers were permitted sometimes to preach in Synagogues, yet none did publicly read there, but he that was a Member of it, we find not any Instance to the contrary in all the Jewish Records, saith the Learned Leightfoot, who was a diligent Peruser of them. Moreover the next Verse tells us, that there was delivered to him the Book of Esaias, as was the manner of the Master of the Synagogue to do unto the Reader, which is a farther Argument to show he was a Member of the Synagogue, Ibid. p. 28. for had Christ gone about to read beside, or contrary to the common Custom of the place, it cannot reasonably be conceived that the Minister of the Congregation would so far have complied with him, to give him the Book that he might read irregularly, or besides the Custom, and lastly had Christ intended only to rehearse the Passage of Esaiah to be the Ground of his Discourse, there was no need of giving to him any Book, but only because he was the Reader of the second Lesson that Day in the forementioned Congregation. And §. 5 4ly, Seeing Christ entered into the Temple both as a private Man, Joh. 18, 20. and as a Public Minister, since he was daily teaching in the Temple, as he himself informs us, it must hence follow that he observed the Customs which by the Jewish Canons were prescribed, and in obedience to those Prescriptions, were observed by all who did resort unto the Temple. Now as the Rulers of our Church, by virtue of that Precept of doing all things decently and in order, do impose their Ceremonies, as thinking they conduce to the more decent, and orderly performance of God's Service, so did the Rulers of the Jewish Church, by virtue of that Precept, Thou shalt reverence my Sanctuary, make divers Canons, and Constitutions which they supposed to conduce unto the greater Reverence of God, or of that Temple where he dwelled, as v. g. That no man should go into the Temple with a Staff, Vide Leightf. Temp. Seru. p. 115. it being thought unfit that Instruments of striking should be brought into the place of Peace, on which account, saith Doctor Leightfoot, our Saviour drove not out the Merchandizers, and Money-changers with a Staff, Joh. 2, 15. but with a Scourge of small Cords. 2. p. 116. That none should come into the Temple with his Shoes on, that being Holy Ground, and putting off the Shoes being with them, a sign of Reverence, like to our putting off the Hat. 3ly, ibid. That none who came to worship there should use a Scrip, or bag purse, or come with Money tied up in a purse, or come into the Temple till they had wiped the dust off from their Feet, to teach them to shake off all Worldly Thoughts, and all Encumbrances when they came to worship. 4ly, p. 118. 119. That none must spit in the Temple, nor use an irreverent Gesture there, but go gravely to the place where they were to stand, and there continue, not sitting, leaning, lying, but standing only, because that was a Praying Posture. Now had not Christ submitted to these Customs we cannot rationally think he would have found so free an entrance into the Temple, as he did, and they would have been ready to retort upon him, when he censured their Irreverence toward this House of Prayer, that he also, by his neglect of these Particulars, was guilty of as great Irreverence, had he not put off his she's, as even Kings were wont to do when they came thither for to Worship; they would have made this an exception against him, that he refused to do what even Kings, and Priests, and Prophets did; for that this very Ceremony was used in our Saviour's time, we learn from that of the Poet, Exercent ubi festa mero pede Sabbatha Reges, and from that appellation given to their Sacred Service, that they were Nudipedalia Sacra, or Barefooted Solemnities. And it deserves to be observed that Christ not only did not charge the Rulers of the Jewish Church with Superstition in these Matters, but he himself, in Reverence to that Place of Worship, would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the Temple. Mark 11.16. §. 6 5ly, Seeing Christ was a Reader in their Synagogue, and oftentimes a Preacher too, it may deserve to be considered that he did readily comply with the Rules prescribed by the Sanhedrin, or those who sat in Moses Chair, to be observed by those who should perform the foresaid Offices, Leightf. Harm. part. 3. p. 125. as v. g. the Reader by their Canons is bound to stand, in Honour of the Law. Accordingly the Scripture doth expressly say that as his Custom was, Luke 4, 16. Christ went into the Synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and stood up for to read. ibid. p. 138. It also was the Custom of the Teacher to sit down when he instructed others, and suitably the Scripture saith that our Saviour closed the Book and sat down, v. 20. Yea throughout all the Gospel we never find that he taught the people standing, but on the contrary that he continually used the sitting posture, as v. g. in his Sermon on the Mount, seeing the multitude he went up into a Mountain, and when he was set, Matt. 5, 1.2. he opened his Mouth, and taught them; when he taught them out of a Ship, Matt. 13, 2. he sat and spoke to them in Parables, saith Matthew; he sat in the Sea and taught them, saith St. Mark; Mark. 4, 1. he sat down and taught the people out of the Ship, saith Luke; Luk. 5, 1. Joh. 8, 2. when all the People came unto him in the Temple, he sat down and taught them; this was his constant Custom in that place, as he takes care to let us know, saying I sat daily with you teaching in the Temple; Matt. 26, 55. so far was Christ from scrupling the observation of this Custom, and Institution of the Rulers of the Jewish Church. §. 7 6ly, Our Lord thrice celebrated the Paschal Feast, with his Disciples, besides his constant Celebration of it with his Parents whilst he continued with them; and in this Celebration of it, it may deserve to be considered, 1. That our Lord did not observe the Passover in all its Circumstances according to the Primitive Institution of the Law of Moses. For 1. Exod. 12, 3.6. Whereas the Institution expressly doth require that every man should take up the Paschal-Lamb on the 10th. day, and keep it up till the 14th. day of the same month, the Jewish Doctors taught that this was not required of the future Generations after, Leightf. Temp. Seru. p. 127. nor was it done but at the Passover in Egypt only, at least it was not done by the Masters of Families, but by the Priests in our Saviour's time, who provided Lambs for the people, taking them up in the Market four days before, as Dr. Leightfoot doth conjecture. Now albeit there is no evidence in the Text that this Command was only to be observed at the First Passover, yet doth our Lord comply with the then current Custom, preparing not the Paschal-Lamb until the 14th day, for as St. Luke expressly saith, when the days of unleavened Bread were come, Christ sent Peter and John, Luk. 22, 7.8. saying, Go and prepare us the Passover. 2ly, Whereas the Institution plainly saith, Thus shall you eat it with your Loins girded, Exod. 12, 11. your Shoes on your Feet, and your Staff in your Hand, and ye shall eat it in haste, the Hebrew Doctors teach that this manner of eating was peculiar to the first Passover in Egypt, Ainsw. in locum. nor were the Generations following bound to these Rites, when they were come to their Rest in Canaan: And they appointed, in lieu of it, that they should sit, or rather lie down, leaning on their left Elbow, in sign of their Rest and Security. They used this leaning posture as Freemen do in Memorial of their Freedom, Leightf. Temp. Seru. p. 143. 144. and R. Levi said, because it is the manner of Servants to eat standing, therefore now they eat sitting, and leaning, to show that they were got out of Servitude into Freedom. And again, In every Generation a man is bound to behave himself at the Passover as if he himself had been delivered out of the Bondage of Egypt, and therefore at meat that night a man is bound, to eat, and to drink, and to sit in a posture of Freedom; accordingly they laid their legs under them, sitting upon them, and their feet lying out behind, removing, and acquitting their legs and feet, as far as possible, from the least show of standing to attend, or readiness to go upon any one's Employment which might carry the least colour of Servitude, or contrariety to Freedom with it; and yet to this significant Ceremony added unto the Institution, and imposed as necessary, our Lord and his Disciples did submit, ibid. p. 142. For 1. saith Ainsworth, They stood not girded with Staves in their Hands, but sat or rather lay down, leaning one on another's Breast as was then the Jewish manner. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For he lay down with the Twelve, saith Matthew; Matt. 26, 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Luk. 22.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mark. 14, 18. he fell down upon his legs, and the Twelve with him, saith St. Luke; they lay along and did eat, saith Mark; so punctually do they all relate our Lord's compliance with this Ceremony. Moreover 2ly. our Lord complied with those additions which they had made unto this Sacrament. And 1. they used, saith Ainsworth a thick Sauce, Exod. 12, 8. like to Mustard, which they called Charoseth, in Memory of that thick Clay they made in Egypt for their Bricks; and this is thought by some to be that in which Christ dipped the sop he gave to Judas, And when our Saviour said that one of them who dipped with him in the dish should betray him, he spoke of the unleavened Bread and bitter Herbs which they dipped in the thick Sauce, ibid. p. 150. p. 146. called Charoseth, saith Dr. Leightfoot, (2.) Together with the Paschal-Lamb, they used to drink Wine; every one both Men and Women, saith their tradition, is bound to drink that night four cups of Wine without fail, and this they did because it was a Feast of Joy, at which times it was usual to drink Wine, Numb. 15.5. and because they were then commanded to rejoice before the Lord, Deut. 16, 11, 14. Now albeit we find not in the Institution any Command for drinking Wine at the Passover, yet did our Lord comply with this addition to the Institution as is apparent from his saying, before the Institution of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, I will no more drink of the fruit of the Vine, etc. Luk. 22, 18. Moreover of these four cups the third especially was called the Cup of Blessing, because the Officiator gave thanks over it, and then gave it to be drunk among them; accordingly our Saviour took the Cup, that is, saith Leightfoot, this Cup of Blessing, and having given thanks he said, Take it and divide it among you, Luk. 22, 17. And though this drinking Wine, and the Breaking of the unleavened Cake, which was another Ceremony they used at this time, were both of them things not commanded, yet did our Lord translate these things into a Gospel Sacrament, and thereby show his Approbation of them as things at least in their own Nature's innocent. Leightf. Temp. serv. p. 150. Matt. 26.30. And as it was the Custom of the Jews to close this Supper with a Hymn, or Hallel, so did our Blessed Lord and his Disciples. In a word that he complied with the Customs then usual in Celebration of this Sacrament may very probably be argued from this consideration that he did eat it with his Parents, who doubtless did observe the Jewish Customs in preparing, and partaking of it, and that he spoke to his Disciples to prepare the Passover; for Scripture doth inform us, that even after the Resurrection of our Lord, they still continued zealous for the Customs, and the Traditions of their Nation, and would not vary from them without his special Order. §. 8 7ly, Whereas our Saviour did eat the Passover with his Disciples, and one of them was a Devil, it seems to follow that he would not refuse Communion with those who did profess Religion, by reason of their want of inward Piety. It well deserves to be observed that Satan entered into Judas before the Passover, for so the Scripture doth inform us, saying, Luc. 22, 3. Then entered Satan into Judas, and he consulted with the Chief, Priests, and Scribes, and after that it follows, v. 7. Then were the days of unleavened Bread. Moreover St. John assures us that the Supper mentioned John 13th. Joh. 13, 1. in which the Devil entered into Judas was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, before the Paschal Feast, and when at his Departure our Saviour said unto him, what thou dost do quickly; his Disciples thought that he had said unto him, make preparations for the Feast, v. 29. which is a certain evidence that then the Feast was not begun, much less concluded. Moreover our Saviour did admit this Judas to the participation of the Holy Sacrament; this is apparent from Luke 22. v. 20, 21. for when our Lord had said, taking the Sacramental Cup, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood, immediately he adds, Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table, since therefore Judas was the person by whom he was betrayed, the Hand of Judas must be with him on the Table, when he delivered that Cup of which he also said, Drink ye all of this. St. Matthew also doth inform us Matt. 26, 20. that when the Evening was come, Christ sat down with the Twelve; and when enquiry was made among these Twelve which of them should betray him, Judas particularly asketh, Master is it I? v. 25. Now as these Twelve were eating Jesus took Bread and broke it, and gave it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to these Twelve Disciples, and said to them, Take, eat, this is my Body, v. 26. He also took the Cup, and gave it to the same Persons, saying, Drink ye all of this, he therefore said to Judas, Eat, this is my Body, and bade him drink the Sacramental Cup. 'Tis said indeed, Joh. 13, 30. that Judas having received the Sop, went immediately out, but then, as I have showed, Christ did not celebrate the Passover, but another ordinary Supper before the Passover, v. 1. Before their preparation for the Passover. v. 29. which Dr. Leightfoot farther proves, In locum. because it was not lawful for any Person to departed from that Solemnity, before the whole Solemnity was ended. §. 9 8ly, Our Lord, to cut off all occasion of Offence which the perverse and unbelieving Jew or Pharisee might take against him, submitted to the payment of that Tribute which was not due from him, as he demonstrates, Matt. 17, 25.26. Where 1. observe, The Tribute here demanded was not the Tribute paid to the R. Emperors, but the half Sickle yearly paid by the Jewish Nation to repair the Temple, and buy things useful for the Service of it, as the most skilful Commentators on the place conclude. vid. Leightf. in locum. 2ly, Observe, The Scandal which our Lord was here concerned to avoid, was not a Scandal given by himself, but one that might be taken without ground by them, who hence unduly might conclude, that Christ and his Disciples did contemn the Temple, and so the Efficacy of his Doctrine might through that Scandal be obstructed, he then by this Example doth instruct us to submit unto those things which our Superiors may require, or expect from us, even without sufficient ground, when our Refusal of Submission to them may be cause of Scandal, or make them think we are Contemners of Authority, or disobedient to those God hath enjoined us to obey, and much more must this be our duty when our Divisions and Contests about such Matters do bring a Scandal on the Christian Faith, and we thereby, in opposition to St. Paul's injunction, do give Offence not only to the Jew, and Gentile, but to the Church of God. And this Example seems also as effectually to prove that the Dispensors of the Gospel should be careful not to do any thing, if it be in their power to avoid it, which may give Scandal unto others, or cause them to judge evil of them. §. 10 9ly, Our Lords Commands were suitable to his Practice, and he enjoined to others, what he himself performed. For (1.) our Saviour enjoined the Leper that was cleansed to show himself to the Priest, Matt. 8, 4. See Harm. part. 3. p. 205. and offer the Gift that Moses had commanded. Where it deserves to be considered that although the Priesthood was much degenerated, both from its Institution, and its Office, yet Christ did not think fit on that account to advise any to a Separation from them, or to renounce their Priesthood, but would have all men to repair unto them for the Performance of those Offices which by the Law of Moses were to be performed by the Priests, and to offer by his hands their Gift. And yet it is observable that they to whom Christ sent this Man, had added to the Institution many idle Customs to be performed by the cleansed Leper, as you may see in Dr. Leightfoots Notes upon Matt. 8, 4. Moreover in that very Chapter where our Lord giveth such opprobrious Titles to the Scribes and Pharisees, lest that should tempt the multitude, or any of his own Disciples to neglect Communion with them in hearing of the Word, & other Ordinances of like Nature, our Saviour, in the Preface of that Chapter, speaks thus unto the multitude, and to his own Disciples, Matt. 23.2, 3. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Seat, all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do. Where 1. observe who were these Scribes and Pharisees, they were not always of the Order of the Priests and Levites, for St. Paul tells us that he was a Pharisee, and the Son of a Pharisee. Act. 23.6. Philip. 3, 5. In Matt. 2. v. 4. p. 29. And yet that he was of the Tribe of Benjamin. And Matthew speaks of Scribes of the People who were, saith Dr. Leightfoot, Elders of the Sanhedrin, who were not of the order either of Priests or Levites, but were of other Tribes, now albeit none of these men did ever take upon them to be Instructers of the People without an Ordination to that Office, Harm. part. 3. p. 122. as is well noted by that Learned Man, yet may it seem that they could have no just and proper call to be Instructors of the People, this being the peculiar Office of the Priests. Mal. 2, 7. For the Priests Lips should keep Knowledge, saith the Prophet Malachi, and the people should seek the Law at his Mouth, for he is the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts. And yet these Scribes and Pharisees were Public Teachers in their Schools, and Synagogues, and by this they obtained the Name of Rabbis and Teachers of the Law. 2ly, Observe, that by the Law of Moses nothing is determined touching the Office, the Authority, the manner of Admission of these Scribes of the people, but their whole Function seemeth to depend upon the Church's Constitutions made for Edification, or the Instruction of the People. And thus it also was with those Ministers, and Rulers of their Synagogues who were not of the Sacerdotal Order, or of the House of Levi, for of their Office or Admission to it we can find nothing in the Books of Moses, or in the Writings of the Prophets, and yet these Men received Admission to teach or exercise their Function by Ordination, say Mr. Selden, and Dr. Leightfoot, and learned Men are of Opinion that Christ and his Disciples so far approved of them as to institute the Governors of his Church according to the Platform of the Synagogue. Leights. Harm. part. 3. p. 120. 3ly, Some think our Lord here speaketh of the Scribes and Pharisees as being then their Legal Magistrates, or signifying the whole Jewish Sanhedrin and their Authority; so Dr. Leightfoot, In locum. and so the Reverend and Learned Dr. Hammond, and so they make the import of the Precept to be this: The Scribes and Pharisees, those that are of the Sanhedrin, are by you to be looked on as your lawful Rulers, that have Authority over you, succeeding Moses and the seventy Elders, and therefore do you live in Obedience to all their lawful Commands, and in all Regular Subjection to them. But I suspect this Exposition on these two accounts. 1. Because our Saviour makes mention only of the Scribes and Pharisees, whereas the Sadduces were also Members of the Sanhedrin, and were then numerous and powerful in that Assembly, as we may find, Act. 4.1.5.17. and so there is no Reason to conceive the Scribes and Pharisees should signify that whole Assembly. 2ly, Throughout the whole N. Testament, where ever this great Assembly is spoken of, the Chief Priests, Elders, and Rulers are reckoned as a part thereof, as you may see Matt. 2.4. 16.21. 21.23. 26.47, 59 27.1, 12, 20, 41. Mark 11.18. Luke 24, 20. Joh. 7.32, 45. Act. 4.5, 6, 23.5.17, 24. here therefore being not one word of Chief Priest, Elders or Rulers of the Jews, it cannot rationally be conceived that Christ here speaks of the great Sanhedrin. Wherefore the Scribes and Pharisees must signify the Doctors, or Public Teachers, and Expounders of the Law of Moses to the people. Accordingly we, in the following Verses find that they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Guides, v. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Teachers, v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Leaders, v. 16, 24. are said to have the Key of the Kingdom of Heaven, and to shut it up against Men, v. 13. Luke 11, 52. to bind heavy Burdens on others by their Teaching, v. 4, and misinterpret the Law of Moses, v. 16, 22. Lastly we find them sitting in the Temple to resolve Questions of the Law, Luke 2.46. Their sitting therefore in the Chair of Moses must import their Teaching and Expounding of his Law. 3ly, Observe the thing commanded, viz. to observe and do all that they did command, together with the reason of it, viz. because they were the Authorised Teachers and Expounders of the Law of Moses, they sit in Moses Chair, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore whatever they command observe and do. Where the Words, all things, are not to be restrained to such things only as were contained clearly in the Law of Moses, and taught the people from the clear Letter of that Law, for this ascribes to them no more Authority than any other private Jew might challenge, who sat not in the Chair of Moses, since what they clearly proved from this Law, was to be done by all that owned the Jewish Faith; moreover there were many things which by the Law were not sufficiently determined, as v. g. the length of a Sabbath-days journey, the tything of their pot herbs, etc. and yet these things were fit to be determined that the people might be at some certainty concerning them, and therefore in such cases our Lord may rationally be supposed to command obedience to their Constitutions. And 3ly, from the fourth verse we may learn that even when their heavy Burdens, and Grievous to be born, were bound upon inferiors, they were obliged, if they were not sinful, to submit unto them, for they being in the number of the things commanded by them what could exempt inferiors from doing and observing them according to our Lords Command, if they were lawful to be done. Wherefore, in cases of like Nature, all Christian people ought to observe and do what is commanded and established by Ecclesiastical Superiors, to whom the Office of Teaching and Interpreting the Laws of Christ is legally committed, though their Commands prove sometimes heavy Burdens, and Grievous to be born, provided that they be not sinful, that is, forbidden by that Law which they are Authorised to expound and teach. And thus I have produced the Practice and Injunctions of our Lord. Now to apply them to my purpose, hence I infer, §. 11 That corruptions allowed, taught, I●●. 1. and practised in a Church, if are no sufficient grounds of Separation from the Communion of that Church, provided that the Members of it be not required, as a Condition of Communion with them, to do, teach, practise them, or to profess that they are not corruptions. Our Saviour and his Disciples acted as Members of the Jewish Church, albeit great, and manifold corruptions were allowed, taught, and practised by the Ruling Members of it; as v. g. they had made false, imperfect, and corrupt Glosses on the Law, Matt. 5. had made false Rules touching the observation of the Sabbath, and such as were repugnant to that Precept or Declaration of the God of Heaven, I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice, they taught false Doctrines about Oaths, Matt. 5.23.16.22. which made them who did practise according to their teaching Guilty of evil speaking, and false swearing. They transgressed, Matt. 15.3, 6. and made the Commandments of God of none effect by their Tradition. They laid aside the Commandments of God for their Traditions, Mark 7.8. they worshipped God in vain, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, Ibid. v. 9 and many things of a like Nature they held. They by their Merchandise had made God's House of Prayer a Den of Thiefs, Matt. 21, 13. And lastly among them their Rulers, and Church Officers were Sadduces, Matt. 16.11. and upon these accounts, Christ cautioned his Disciples against the Doctrine of the Sadduces and Pharisees, advised the people to beware of the Scribes and Pharisees, Mark 13.35. and to take good heed what they heard: But then both he, and his Disciples met with these Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadduces in the same Temple, joined in the same Prayers, (unless our Saviour was daily in the Temple, but never went to public Prayers) and in the same Solemnities, not separating themselves or setting up any more pure Communion, nor calling the multitude to separate from the Assemblies of these Men, or to come out from among them, and to renounce Communion with them, on the account of their erroneous Doctrines, those Grievous Burdens which they did impose, those many Rites and Ceremonies which they had added to the Law of Moses. But on the contrary, he carefully commands the Leper to repair unto them, and consequently to submit unto the Ceremonies, concerning his Purification, which they had added to the Law in that particular, and chargeth both the multitude, and his own Disciples to submit to all their lawful Constitutions, and Injunctions. Moreover Christ was a Member of the Synagogue at Nazareth, Matt. 13.56, 58 Luke 4.29. as we have showed already, and yet what kind of men they were we may learn from their stupendious Infidelity, their Proneness to take Offence at Christ, and their attempt to cast him down a Precipice. I see not what in the World, Harm. part. 3. p. 123.124. saith Dr. Leightfoot, our Separatists, who withdraw from the public Worship in our Congregations, can say to these Examples. For, was not their public Worship in the Temple, and in their Synagogues, as corrupt as ours is pretended to be in our Congregations? was not the people of Nazareth as corrupt a people as most Congregations now are? and yet, saith he, in all the Scripture we find not that either any that were Holy indeed, or any that took upon them to be Holy, no nor he that was Holiness itself, did separate, or withdraw from the Service of the Congregation, though 'tis apparent that they had all the plausible pretences which have prevailed on our Dissenting Laity to make an Actual Separation, to move them so to do. Inf. 2. §. 12. Hence it will also follow, that great Corruptions in the Lives of our Church-Pastors will not warrant our separation from Communion with them, or our Refusal to attend upon their Teaching, provided we be not enjoined to allow of, or to comply with them in their sins. Our Saviour sent the Leper to the Priest, to offer by his Hands the accustomed Sacrifices, although the Priesthood than was much degenerated both in its Office, and in the manners of those who ministered at the Altar, we find that Christ himself was present at their solemn Feasts, and therefore did not come empty, which the Law forbade, but brought his Sacrifice, and by so doing owned their Priesthood, he was a Member of a Synagogue, and so he joined in the Service of their Synagogues upon the Sabbath, and upon other Solemn Days, and yet their own Josephus tells us, that the whole Jewish Nation were then a very wicked people; they were, saith truth itself, an Evil, Wicked, and Adulterous Generation. The Teachers, and the Rulers of the Church, whom Christ commands the multitude, and his Disciples to obey in all things lawful, Matt. 2.7.12.34. Matt. 5.19. Matt. 6.23.7, 8. Matt. 12.14. v. 24. were a Generation of Vipers, they were such whose Righteousness could not qualify any Person for the Kingdom of God. They were Hypocritical, and Vainglorious in their Prayers, Alms, and Fast. They consulted how they might destroy the Saviour of the World. They were many of them guilty of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Matt. 23, 13. v. 14. v. 15. v. 23. They shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against Men. They devoured Widows Houses out of pretence of Piety. They made their Prosclytes ten times more the Children of the Devil then themselves. They neglected the more weighty Matters of the Law. They were full of Extortion, Covetousness, Excess. And yet from the Communion of such Men our Lord himself and his Disciples did not separate in matters which concerned God's Public Worship, he called none to come out from them and be separate, but rather countenanced their hearing of them with Caution and Discretion, which shows how groundless, and unwarrantable a thing it is to separate from our Legal Pastors upon these accounts. Hence 3ly, Inf. 3. §. 13. we infer that it is lawful to comply with such Churches as enjoin some significant Ceremonies not mentioned in the Word of God, & for the sake of Peace, Order, Unity, and the avoiding of Scandal, to submit unto them, when by Authority they are imposed, for this we find our Saviour, and his Apostles did, he eaten the Passover prepared according to the Custom of the Jews, and so he did partake of that thick Sauce, which signified the thick Clay which they in Egypt form into Brick, he eaten the Passover in such a Posture as was used by the Jews to signify their Rest, and their Security in the Good Land of Canaan; He, when he went into the Temple, did put off his Shoes, although that Ceremony was used to signify their Reverence toward the Temple, or to that God who dwelled in it, he did not go into the Temple with a Staff or Scrip, but did comply with all the Ceremonies enjoined by the Jewish Sanhedrin to those who daily came unto it. He, when he read the Law, stood up, as was enjoined by the Jews in honour of the Law, and when he taught the people, he constantly sat down according to the Custom which had then obtained. The Imposition of hands in their ordinary Benediction was a significant Ceremony, Mark 10.16. it noted properly the Efficacy of the Divine Blessing; the Hand being the instrument of Force and Vigour, it was done also in Testimony of God's Favour to them, and yet that Ceremony was by our Lord observed in his Benediction of the little Children which were brought to him, though it was not commanded in the Law of Moses. Inf. 4. §. 14. Hence 4ly, we infer that it is not unlawful to use a public Form of Prayer, and that the using of such Forms can be no sinful s●in●●●●g of the Spirit. For our Lord scrupled not the Time, the Number, the Form, the Matter of the Jewish Prayers; both he, and his Disciples were present at the 18 Prayers used in the public Service of the Jews; And he himself prescribed a Form of Prayer to be used by his Disciples; He therefore did not think that his own Spirit was stinted by using of a Form, or that he stinted the Spirit of his own Disciples by prescribing of it, and yet Christ, and his own Disciples when they attended on these Prayers had a more plentiful Effusion of the Holy Spirit, than we can pretend to. Hence also we conclude that we stand not obliged in all Punctilios of Time, Inf. 5. §. 15. or Place, or Gesture, to follow the Example of the first Institution of the H. Sacrament of the Lords Supper; For albeit a standing Posture was prescribed at the first Institution of the Passover, and every Master of a Family, by the same Institution, was to keep up his Lamb four days before the Passover, yet Christ complied with the Custom of the Jewish Church, which, for prudential Reasons, laid aside, or changed these Customs. Even so, although Christ celebrated the Sacrament after Supper, and albeit he did it in a posture of Recumbency, we do not stand obliged to conform unto these Circumstances, they being done upon such grounds as do not now remain, for we have now no Paschal Supper to be eaten before the Sacrament, nor is it the Custom of our Nations to lie down on Couches when we eat, nor have we any cause to do it in token of our Rest in Canaan. And if we are obliged to use that very Gesture which our Saviour did, why are we not as much obliged to the same time; I mean not only after Supper, but annually on the same Night in which our Saviour was betrayed, why are we not as much obliged to receive in the same place, viz. an Inn, or in an Upper-chamber. And lastly though it be unquestionable that in the Primitive Institution Wine was mixed with Water, for so the Primitive Christians testify, and so the Hebrew Custom and their Canons teach, and albeit this seems more fit to represent that Water and that Blood which issued from our Saviour's Side, yet, because now it ceaseth to be the Custom to drink Wine mixed with Water, Laightf. Temp. Seru. p. 147. few scruple to receive it without such a Mixture, and therefore, on like grounds, and from our Saviour's Aphorism, I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice, I think we should not scruple to baptise by sprinkling, although our Lords Disciples did baptise by dipping, and that more perfectly! doth represent that Death of Christ into which, saith St. Paul, we are baptised, and the ensuing Resurrection. Inf. 6. §. 16. Hence do we argue, That the Presence of wicked and ungodly Men should not deter us from joining with the Church in the Participation of the Holy Sacrament, because Christ did not scruple, as many Passovers as he participated of, to eat with Judas, him he admitted to the Holy Sacrament, as being by Profession one of his true Disciples, and one who had done nothing openly which contradicted that Profession, although Christ knew that he was a covetous Wretch, into whom Satan had already entered, and who would certainly betray him. Hence also we infer, Inf. 7. §. 17. That we stand not obliged to refuse Communion with other Churches in their Sacraments, and other public Offices, because of some additions to the Institution which are imposed for the sake of Order, Uniformity, or Decency, but are declared to be no parts, or necessary appendants to the Institution. You see how many things the Jews had added to the Passover, the Wine, because it was a Feast of Joy, the Benediction of the Cup before they drank it, the Breaking the unleavened Cake, the Hymn, and yet our Saviour did not scruple to observe these things; And you may see in Dr. Leightfoots Service of the Temple, how many Ceremonies they had added to the observance of the other Festivals, at which our Lord and his Disciples were still present. And therefore on the same account we need not scruple that ancient Ceremony of Crossing which we use in Baptism, seeing our Church declares that she doth not intent it as any part of Baptism, or any necessary appendent of it, (on which account she doth command us to omit it in our private Baptisms) but only as a convenient Ceremony to testify unto the Congregation that the baptised Person hath Relation to the Society of Christians, and stands obliged to maintain the Christian Faith. As therefore, when the Children of Reuben and Gad had built themselves an Altar, their Brethren were troubled at it, but when they understood it was not built for Sacrifice, or in Rebellion, but to entitle themselves and their Posterity to a Share in God's public and solemn Worship; Josh. 22.16, 30, 31. And to an Interest in his Tabernacle, and Altar, they were well pleased, and declared their hearty Satisfaction; so would our Brethren consider that the Cross in Baptism is enjoined not as a part, or necessary appendent of that Ordinance, but only to be Ed, a Testimony to the Congregation that the baptised Person had an Interest in the Society of Christians, and was obliged to maintain, and own the Christian Faith, they would have equal reason to be well pleased, and to declare their Satisfaction in the Matter. Hence it is evident that our Dissenters have no just cause to fear, Inf. 8. §. 18. or plead for the Refusal of Submission to the Constitutions of our Church, and of Communion with us, that by Communicating they should approve of the imposing of these things, and should partake with them in that supposed sin, or countenance them in the imposing of those Grievous Burdens, as they do esteem them; for our Dear Lord, you see, submitted to the Constitutions of the Jewish Church, and enjoined others so to do, and yet, I hope, they will not say that he approved or countenanced their heavy Burdens, or partook with them in their sins; were then the Impositions of the Church of England such as they imagine them to be, they could have no just cause to fear that their Submission to them would derive this guilt upon them. CHAP. II. The CONTENTS. Corol. 1. That the Scriptures of the Old Testament cannot prohibit this Submission: The Objections answered. Obj. 1. Thou shalt not add unto the Word that I command you, Deut. 4, 2. Deut. 12, 32. Answ. 1. That these Words do as much prove that our Superiors may make no Laws about civil, as about Sacred Matters. 2ly, That the Dissenters are as much condemned by them as the Church of England, because they also do use many uncommanded Ceremonies. 3ly, The Jews themselves never conceived that by these Precepts they were restrained from Instituting, upon occasion, sacred rites, as is proved by many Instances. 4ly, To add unto the Word of God is only to avouch such things as the Commandment or Word of God which he hath not commanded. 5ly, Hence it follows that the Dissenters do transgress this Precept, §. 1. Obj. the 2d. That God in Scripture declares that he abhors that way of Worship, which he hath not commanded. Answ. 1. That this Objection is impertinent, as only proving what we deny not. 2ly, That it condemneth the Dissenters. 3ly, Not to command is in the places cited to forbid, §. 2. Obj. 3d. That the 2d. Commandment forbids the likeness of any thing to be made for religious use, andso forbids the use of significant Ceremonies of men's devising. Answ. The 2d. Commandment only forbids the making any Likeness to be the Object of religious Worship or Veneration, §. 3. A 2d. Corol. From the Example of our Lord and his Apostles, §. 4. Obj. 4th. From Christ's Rejecting the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees. Answ. 1. That our Saviour only rejecteth such Traditions as were taught for Doctrines, or held equal to the written Word of God: Particularly their holding these Washings to be necessary to avoid that Defilement which would render them displeasing or unacceptable unto God 3ly. This Text rather condemns them who hold that indifferent Ceremonies may not be submitted to in obedience to Superiors as teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, §. 4. CHAP. II. FRom what hath been discoursed it clearly follows that all those Texts of Scripture, Corol. and all those Reasons which Dissenters offer from the Old Testament, to prove it is a thing unlawful to use, or to submit unto the Ceremonies appointed by our Church, and that they are forbidden by those Texts to use them, must be mere fallacies and sophisms, seeing our Saviour, who doubtless was acquainted with the true Sense and Import of them, did submit unto the use of Ceremonies of a like Nature to them, when by the Rulers of the Jewish Church they were imposed and prescribed. And though this instance is a sufficient Answer to all that is, or can be urged from the Old Testament, against Submission to the Ceremonies, imposed by the Church of England, yet, for the farther Satisfaction of our Dissenting Brethren, I shall particularly answer all that they have hitherto produced with any show of Reason to this purpose. Which was the second head proposed to be spoken to. And § 1 1. It is objected by them, That God in Scripture hath commanded that nothing should be added to what he had enjoined in his Worship; to this effect they cite these Words, Deut. 4.2. Ye shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the Commandments of your God which I command you. And Deut. 12, 32. What thing soever I command you observe to do it, thou shalt not add thereto, or diminish from it; Hence they infer that no humane Ceremonies, or Circumstances of men's devising must be added to what God hath commanded in his Gospel Worship. Answ. 1 To this I answer: That these Words do as much concern Laws made concerning civil and judicial, as concerning Sacred Matters, and do as much prove that our Superiors may add no Laws to the Laws made by God concerning Civil Matters, as that they may make no Laws for Regulation of, or ordering any Circumstances of Religious Worship, that is, they are as good Objections against our Statute-Book, as against our Lyturgy. The reason is, because these words are neither in the 4th, nor the 12th Chapter, restrained to Acts of Divine Worship, but are expressly spoken of all the Statutes, and Judgements which the Lord had taught them, v. 1. of whatsoever thing God had commanded, Deut. 12.32. Answ. 2 2ly, If by these Precepts, the Ceremonies used in the Church of England are condemned, then also must the Dissenters from the Church of England be condemned by them, for they do many things, and they use many Ceremonies in Religious Worship, which are not where commanded, they sing in stinted Meeter, for which they have no Precept or Example in the Word of God, they have a Directory for public Worship containing many precepts or directions no where prescribed in that Word, they, when they take an Oath, do not refuse to lay their hands upon, and kiss the Book; now all agree that Oaths are Solemn Acts of Divine Worship, and know that God no where Commanded these Ceremonial additions to it. Moreover when they imposed the Solemn league and Covenant, they ordered that it should be taken by the whole Congregation, 1st. uncovered, 2ly, standing, Ordin. of the 2 of Febr. 1643. and 3ly, with their right hand lift up and bare, now if they, notwithstanding the Texts in the objection mentioned, might add three uncommanded Ceremonies unto the taking of an Oath, which is a Solemn Act of Divine Worship, what hinders but that Superiors may do the like in other parts of Divine Worship. Answer 3 3ly, The Jews themselves never conceived that by these precepts they were restrained from instituting, upon occasion, sacred Rites, or doing many things which circumstantially belonged to God's Worship, for which they had no special Warrant from the Word of God, and if we do offend against these Rules, by using our Ceremonies in God's Service, even the best and wisest of the Jews did equally offend. For what command had Solomon to keep a Feast of Seven days for Dedication of the Temple, 1 Kings 8.65. what Command had he for hallowing the middle part of the Court that was before the House of the Lord, to offer Burnt offerings, Meat offerings, and Peace offerings there, v. 64. Dr. Ames indeed sayeth that Solomon did this by Divine Authority, Fresh suit. §. 17 etc. p 33●. and instinct of the Holy Ghost; to which vain imagination I return the Answer of Agar, add thou not unto his Words, lest thou be found a liar, Prov. 30.6. The Holy Ghost hath in two places given us a full relation of what King Solomon did, but not one tittle of any instinct of the Holy Ghost commanding him to do it, how then came Dr. Ames to know what no where is revealed, and what cannot be known by any Man without a Revelation? Is it not wonderful that Men who will believe nothing without express Scripture proof, and who so stiffly do contend for the negative Argument from Scripture, should themselves thus add to Scriptures. 2ly, What Warrant had good Hezekiah for continuing a Feast of Unleavened Bread Seven days longer than the time appointed by the Law? 2 Chron. 30.23. To this instance Dr. Ames Answers, that these Seven other days were not Holy days at all of Institution properly so called, but an occasional continuation of free will offerings for that time, Fr. Suit. p. 317. which might be offered any day of the year without new Holy days. To this I Answer: 1st. That were this so, it cannot be denied but that their observation of other Seven days beside these which were appointed by the Law of Moses, was as much adding to the Law of Moses, as the imposing of our Ceremonies can be accounted adding to the Law of Christ. 2ly, When in the Text we read that they kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread with greatgladness, v. 21, and v. 23. that the whole Assembly took Council, and kept other Seven days with gladness, what reason can any person have to think that the last Seven days, should not be Festival, or Holy days, as well as the first Seven? and if they might take Council to keep those other Seven days, why might they not have instituted the keeping of them, when they didobserve them? And 3ly, What reason hath Dr. Ames to affirm that they then only offered Freewill offerings, rather than such which were accustomed to be offered at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and had been offered in the first Seven days of the Solemnity? The descant of other Commentators on the place is this, viz. that this was done not to change the ordinance of the Passeover, but partly to redeem their defect in not observing it for so many years, and partly to detain the People of Israel the longer at Jerusalem, that, by the Preaching of the Word, they might be the better informed, and confirmed in the true Religion, whence the inference is plainly this, that upon such occasions, and for such good ends it is commendable to do more than is required, provided nothing be done against what is required. 3ly, Est. 9.20, 21, 22. What Law had Mordecai and Esther for enjoining the yearly observation of the Feast of Purim to establish this among them, that they should keep the fourteenth day of the month Adar, and the fifteenth day of the same yearly, as the days wherein the Jews rested from their Enemies and the month which was turned to them from sorrow to joy, and from mourning into a good day, that they should make them days of Feasting and joy, and of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor? Dr. Ames saith here again that if any significant ceremony was here instituted, it was by divine direction, p. 317. though neither Scripture, nor Josephus mention one tittle of the matter; and adds, from Dr. Whitaker, that forasmuch as this Feast stands approved in Scripture, there is no doubt but it was done by Divine Authority, though we read nothing of it in the Scripture. Which by the leave of that good Man is a plain begging of the Question. 2ly, He adds that if Josephus may be believed, Joseph. Antiq. Jud. l. XI. c. 6. p. 382. the Heathen King Artaxerxes was the institutor of that Feast, and if so, I hope Christian Kings may do as much; but this is a vile mistake, for in the place cited by him it is expressly said, that Mordecai appointed it. p. 316. 3ly, He adds, that this was a political precept, and instituted no new Religious thing, besides a circumstance of time. Answer, Then must our Christian Festivals be so esteemed, and therefore ought not to be scrupled or represented as Unlawful. 2ly, Was it not an addition to these Words of Moses, These are the Feasts of the Lord even the Holy Convocations which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. Leu. 23.4. 3ly. can any Man of reason think that a Command to Feast, and to Rejoice, give Gifts unto the Poor, and to send portions one to another, is only an institution of a circumstance of time, and that these were not ceremonies truly significant of their internal joy, and their thanksgiving to the Author of this great deliverance. 4ly, What Order or Command from God had Judas and his Brethren, 1 Maccab. 4.59. with the whole Congregation of Israel, to ordain that the days of the Dedication of the Altar should be kept in their season from year to year, for the space of Eight days, from the Twenty fifth day of the Month Chisleu, with Mirth and Gladness? And yet Josephus not only tells us that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Or make a Law that farther Generations should observe this Feast, but also called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or light, because such happiness shone forth upon them on that day; Leight. Temple Service, p. 188. and their own Rituals inform us that they did light up Candles in all their Houses in signification of the same. And notwithstanding all these things our Saviour did not scruple to be present at this very Feast. Joh. 10.22. Now to this instance Dr. Ames Answers as before, that they as Prophets were led by extraordinary, and singular Revelation not to be exemplary therein to us, p. 433. not considering that Prophecy had ceased long before, and that neither Josephus, nor the Book of Macchabees make any mention of this matter. 2ly. He Answers that it hath always been a Question, Ibid. what Feast of Dedication this was? Whether that which was appointed by Solomon, or in the time of Ezra, or that which was appointed by the Macchabees? Answer, That it was that which by the Macchabees was instituted, is evident beyond exception, 1. From the time when it was Celebrated, for the Text tells us that it was then Winter; now the Feast of Dedication instituted by the Macchabees was observed on the Twenty fifth day of the Month Chisleu, or December, whereas that of Solomon was observed in Autumn in the Month Ethanim, that of Ezra in the Spring on the Month Adar. 2. Esdr. 6.15. We do not find in Scripture, or the Jewish Records, that there was any Annual Feast appointed to Celebrate the first, or second Dedication of the Temple, but for the Celebration of this third Dedication of it by the Macchabees, we find express Command that it should still be kept from year to year. 3 He Answers that we only read that Christ walked in Solomon's Porch at this Feast, p. 320. which he might do without observing, or appoving of this Feast. Reply, (1.) Christ knew this was the time when others did present themselves in that place to observe this Feast, since than he also was present in the Temple at this time, he did at least according to our Adversaries, give them occasion to think he owned that Feast, and had Christ then come thither only to Preach, he did more than Dissentors will do, who dare not Preach on Holy days to the People, lest they should seem to countenance the observation of those days. 3ly, Our Lord did not reprove them at that time for the observing of this Feast, whereas had it been vain Worship, and teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, or had it been a violation of the Law of Moses, he who was Zealous for his Father's House, and did so round the Pharisees for these things, in this case would not have neglected so to do. 4ly, He Answers, That after Christ had whipped the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple, they came in again, and continued their Merchandise there, and yet in the mean space our Saviour was often in the Temple without allowance of that their Practice. Repl. (1.) It doth not appear, that Christ was present afterwards when they used this trade, for it was chief, if not only used at the Passover, that they who came up to that Feast might be provided of Cattle without bringing them from home; now our Saviour's zeal against this Profanation of the Temple was showed at that time, John 2.13. Matt. leightf. in v. 5. 21.1. for he came to Jerusalem that very day that the Paschal Lamb was to be taken up. 2ly, Christ might come into the Temple, and not come into that separated place called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which this Merchandise was kept, Leighef. ibid. this being done in the Court of the Gentiles. 3ly, Christ having once declared himself against this action at the beginning of his Office, his coming afterwards into the Temple where these things were done, could not be deemed an allowance of them. Lastly, Our Saviour expressed this Zeal again at the close of his Office. Matt. 21.1. 5ly. The Altar of Witness built without Command, by the two Tribes and half, when they went over Jordan to their own Possessions, Josh. 22.16, 31. as a monumental profession of the true God, and of his Service, was approved of. To this instance Dr. p. 327. Ames Replies that he finds it not evident in the Text, that it was approved by the High Priest, Princes, and all the Congregation of Israel. Repl. It is expressly said, v. 30. that when Phinehas the Priest, and the Princes of the Congregation, and heads of the thousands of Israel which were with him, heard the Words that the Children of Reuben, and Gad, and of Manasseh had spoken, it pleased them: or, as the Hebrew hath it, it was good in their Eyes, and v. 31. they say, This day we perceive that the Lord is amongst us, because ye have not committed this trespass against the Lord, and he that cannot perceive in these expressions an allowance of this fact, cannot see Wood for Trees. 2ly, We do not find that God, who did continually quarrel with the Jews for Sacrificing in the High Places, did ever show the least dislike of this Altar, or Command the pulling of it down, which is sufficient evidence that God himself allowed of it. 2ly, The Doctor adds that this Altar was not in state or use Religious as the Cross is: Repl. p. 322. As the Cross is used to testify to the Church, that the person signed with it belongs to the Congregation of the Faithful, so was this Altar built to be a Witness that they belonged to the Congregation of Israel, and had a portion in the God of Israel, v. 27, 28. If then the Cross be in state and use Religious upon that account, this Altar must be so. 3ly. p. 324. The Doctor adds that it doth not appear out of the Text, that there was intended any use of this Altar for the present Age that then lived, and that the contrary may be gathered out of the 24th and 25th verses. Which as it no way doth invalidate the Force of this Example, so is it very false, the Text expressly declaring that the two Tribes made it to be a Witness betwixt them, and those to whom they then spoke, as well as to the Generations after them, v. 28. Lastly the wearing Sackcloth and Ashes in token of humiliation, Zech. 13.4. Zech. 7.5. the Prophet's rough Garment, the Fast of the 5th month, because the Temple was destroyed then; and of the 7th month, because than Gedaliah and many of the Jews with him were slain, these things had no Appointment that we can find from God, and yet were never scrupled by the Jews, or condemned by God, or by his Holy Prophets. Moreover we find not in the Law of Moses any Direction that a white Garment, or Linen Ephod should be made for any but the Priests, or used by any others in God's Worship, and that we find David dancing before the Lord in a Linen Ephod, 2 Sam. 6.14. and the Levites who carried the Ark clad in linen Roves, or in white Linen, 2 Chron. 5.12. Wherefore to answer positively to the Texts alleged; Answ. 4 4ly, To add unto the Word, or the Command of God, is not to use such Rites and Ceremonies as no where are commanded or forbidden in the Word, when by Superiors, to whom obedience is due in lawful matters, they are at any time prescribed, but it is to avouch such things as the Command and Word of God, which he had not commanded, as the False Prophets did. This will be evident, 1. If we consider, what it is to diminish from the Word; now that undoubtedly is to neglect to do what God had in his Word commanded, under pretence that he doth not require it; We, In locum. say the Assemblies Annotations, diminish from the Word by denying any part of it to be of Divine Authority, or concealing any part of it either for Words or Meaning, or by partial Belief of it, or Obedience to it; And therefore by the Rule of Contraries, to add unto it must be to vouch that to be of Divine Authority which is but humane, or to believe and yield obedience to that as the Will of God which he hath not enjoined. 2ly, This will be farther evident if we compare these Passages with others of the like Nature in the Scripture, as v. g. Add thou not to his Words, saith Augur, Prov. 30.6. lest thou be found a Liar, i. e. lest falsely pretending to deliver his Word, when thou speakest only thy own Inventions, thou be'st found guilty of a Lie, whereas had men been guilty of adding to his Words by the Injunction of things acknowledged to be indifferent in their own Nature, the Words should rather have run thus, Add thou not to his Words, lest thou be found superstitious; And Rev. 22, 18. to add unto these things, is v. 19 to add unto the Words of the Book of that Prophecy. Obj. And whereas Mr. Disp. 5. of Cer. chap. 4. §. 7. Baxter saith, That the Text doth not say, Thou shalt not add to my Command, but, Thou shalt not add to the thing that I command thee, and thence infers that it is the Work, Worship, or Ordinances that we are forbidden to add to, or to diminish from, and not the Word or Law is self only. Answ. 1. This is a great mistake, for the Text plainly saith, Thou shalt not add unto the Word that I command, Deut. 4.2. What I command thou shalt observe to do, thou shalt not add unto it, Deut. 12.32. 2ly, From what is now discoursed 'tis evident that we do not add to the Worship, or the Ordinances of God, by appointing Ceremonies declared to be no parts of his Worship, or of his Ordinances, but only by asserting and proposing such things as his Ordinances, and parts of his Worship, which indeed are not so. Answ. 5 5ly, Hence it doth clearly follow that they who do assert that God forbids kneeling at the Sacrament, hearing Common Prayer, bringing our Children to be signed with the Cross, or joining in that Service which is performed by one that wears a Supplice, etc. If they can show no Word of God which doth forbid these things, are themselves guilty of adding to the Word of God. Obj. 2 2ly, A second plea of our Dissentors, from the Old Testament, §. 2 is this: That God in Scripture declares, that he abominates that way of Worship which he hath not commanded, and, though the thing performed in its own Nature was abominable, God takes no notice of that, but chief reprehends it because not commanded. To this effect they cite Leu. 10.1. where Nadab and Abihu are condemned and punished for offering strange Fire which the Lord commanded them not, Deut. 17.3. If there be found among you Manor Woman that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God in transgressing his Covenant, and hath gone and served other Gods, and worshipped them, either the Sun, or Moon, or any of the Host of Heaven which I have not commanded;— Thou shalt stone them with stones, till they die. Jer. 7.31. They have built the High-Places of Tophet to burn their Sons and their Daughters in the Fire, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my Heart. Jer. 19.5. They have built the High-Places of Baal to burn their Sons with Fire for Burnt-offerings to Baal, which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into my Mind. Now to this weak Objection I answer, Answ. 1 1. That these Texts are all impertinently alleged, because they only prove that God will not be worshipped with any thing which he hath not commanded, which we do not deny, but they do not prove that we may not use any Garment, Posture, or Ceremony uncommanded in the Service of God, provided we declare that we do not esteem these things as parts of Divine Worship. Answ. 2 2ly, These Texts expounded so as to forbid the use of any Ceremony in Public Worship which God hath not particularly enjoined, will condemn our Dissentors as well as us, and even render it impossible to perform any public Service to God, it will condemn our way of Preaching, for where hath God commanded us to take a Text, and Gloss upon it, or the Congregation to sing the Psalms of David in Metre, where hath he enjoined us to meet at ten of the Clock in the morning, or two in the afternoon, for Public Worship on the Lords Days, to pray without a Lyturgy or Form of Prayer? to pray before Sermon, to preach an hour, or in a pulpit? etc. All these things therefore, and many more of the like Nature, by this wild exposition of these Texts, must be abmination to the Lord. Answ. 3 3ly, This Hebrew Phrase That I commanded them not, is only used in Scripture concerning things which he forbade, or did command his people not to do, and upon that account by good Interpreters is styled a Litotes, that is a Figure which in Words diminisheth the thing intended, as when a prohibition is intended by saying such a thing is not commanded. This will appear from a perusal of the places cited: For 1. The strange Fire which Nadab and Abihu offered was forbidden Fire, 'twas Fire not taken from the Altar, to put into their Censers and burn Incense with, Vid. Ainsw. in locum. whereas God had commanded that Fire should be always burning on the Altar to that very End. And if God had not where commanded whence they should take their Fire to burn Incense, and offer Sacrifice withal, and yet would not allow them to use that Fire which he had not commanded, it was not possible that they should offer to him any Incense or Burnt-Offering which was not an abomination to him. As for their Offering their Sons and Daughters unto Baal, or Moloch, God most expressly did forbid it, saying, Leu. 18.21. Thou shalt not let any of thy Seed pass through the Fire to Moloch, that this was the abomination which he hated, Deut. 12.31, 18, 10, 12. and that the Person guilty of it should be stoned with stones, because he had defiled his Sanctuary, and profaned his Holy Name, Levit. 20.2, 3. The Worship of other Gods, or of the Sun and Moon, and Stars which God is said not to have commanded, is most expressly said to be transgressing of his Covenant, Deut. 17.2, 3. And therefore it was doing that which he forbidden, so that the import of these Texts seems only to be this that we must not perform in public Worship, or elsewhere, that which God hath forbidden, or hath enjoined us not to do. Question. But why then is a thing so highly criminal expressed in these mild Words: Which I commanded them not. Answ. The certain reason of this Phrase I cannot promise, only I conjecture thus, that whereas God had imparted to all the Heathen Nations, the Sun, Moon, Stars, and all the Host of Heaven, that is, had left them to the Worship of them, Deut. 4, 19 winking at them in the times of ignorance, he had taken the Jews to be a people of inheritance to himself, v. 20. and therefore saith unto them: I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other Gods but me; wherefore for them to worship any of those Gods which he had not commanded, or imparted to them, was virtually to renounce the true God, and to transgress his Covenant, Deut. 29.25, 26. and hence is that expression in the Book of Deuteronomy they have forsaken the Covenant of the Lord God of their Fathers, which he made with them when he brought them forth out of the Lord of Egypt, for they went and served other Gods, and worshipped them, Gods which he had not given, or imparted to them. §. 6 Add to this that Ingenious Answer which Mr. Eccles. pol. l. 2. Hooker hath returned to this Objection, viz. That, because the Works of God are perfect, and lack nothing for the performance of the thing to which they tend, it followeth that, the End being known to which God directeth his Speech, the Negative Argument is always strong and forcible concerning those things that are apparently requisite to the same End; As u.g. The purpose of God was to teach his people both to whom they should offer Sacrifice, and what Sacrifice was to be offered; to burn their Sons in Fire to Baal, or Moloch, he did not command them, he spoke no such thing, neither came it into his Mind, therefore this they ought not to have done. For when the Lord had once set down a precise Form of executing that in which we are to serve him, the Fault appeareth greater to do that which we are not, than not to do that which we are commanded; in this we seem to charge the Law of God with Hardness only, in that with foolishness; in this we show ourselves weak, and unapt to be Doers of his Will, in that we take upon us to be Controulers of his Wisdom; in this we fail to perform the thing which God sees Meet, Convenient, and Good, in that we presume to see what is Meet and Convenient better than God himself; in those actions therefore the whole Frame whereof God hath on purpose set down to be observed, we may not otherwise do than exactly as he hath prescribed. Thus I suppose the Force of this Objection is sufficiently assoiled. Obj. 3 Moreover it is objected by Dr. Ames, and others, §. 3 p. 298.299. that the second Commandment forbiddeth to make unto ourselves the Likeness of any thing whatsoever for religious use, and therefore forbids us to use significant Ceremonies of man's devising. Answ. 1 The Major of this Argument is false, for the second Commandment doth only forbid us to make any Likeness there mentioned, to be the Object of our Religious Worship by bowing down unto, or worshipping it, the import of it being plainly this: Thou shalt not make any Resemblance, etc. by Picture, Sculpture or Fusion, in Order to religious adoration, and yielding to them any such signification of respect which the Custom or Consent of men hath appropriated to Religion, as bowing, falling down, lying prostrate before them, or the like. That this is the true intent of this Precept is plain by the ground of this prohibition delivered by Moses in these Words: Take ye therefore good heed to yourselves for you saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spoke to you in Horeb: Lest you corrupt, and make you a graven Image, Deut. 4.15, 16. the similitude of any Figure, the Likeness of Male or Female, etc. 2ly, This is apparent from the reason of the prohibition, I am a Jealous God, that is, a God very tender of my Honour, and of my Right, who will by no means suffer any Mate, or Competitor in respect to that outward Worship, which properly belongs to me. I am the Lord, that is my Name, Esa. 42.8. my Glory will I not give to another, neither my Praise to graven Images. For who can, without blushing, say that God is rob of the outward Worship due unto him by our kneeling at the Sacrament, our using the surplice, or making the sign of the Cross upon a Child's Forehead; whereas he himself tells us that he is rob of his Praise and Glory, by giving of Religious Worship unto graven Images, it being only due unto that God to whom every Knee shall bow. But, saith Dr. Ames, p. 302. The very Fantasies or Images of the mind not prescribed by God are by most Interpreters held as well forbidden as outward Real Images. Answ. if so, the most are not always the best Interpreters, there being nothing more absurd and foolish than this Interpretation, never thought of by any of the Ancients, or approved of by any but Dissenters. 2ly, If this be true I know not any thing more forbidden by this Commandment than this Book of Dr. Ames, so full of Fantasies of his own devising, that nothing can be more, all which undoubtedly were intended by him for some religious use. Nay this very Interpretation is forbidden here, it being certainly a fantasy of the Mind without all ground from the Commandment. Nay all our pious Books, our conceived Prayers, our Method in composing Sermons, and an hundred things of like Nature will be here prohibited. The Argument whereby the Dr. Labours to confirm this fond interpretation is, p. 297. that the Word likeness used in the second Commandment is General, and comprehendeth under it all religious similitudes, because they are Homogeneal to Images, they are expressly forbidden. Answ. The Foundation of this Argument is a plain falsehood, for the Word Likeness is not General, but by the Text is plainly, limited to Images, or Likenesses of Male or Female. Deut 4.16, 17, 18. The Likeness of any Beast that is on the Earth; The Likeness of any winged Fowl that flieth in the Air; The Likeness of any thing that creepeth on the Ground; The Likeness of any Fish that is in the Waters. The Likeness which may be seen is that which is forbidden, v. 15. 'Tis the Likeness of any thing in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath, or in the Waters under the Earth, Exod. 20.4. Dr. Ames goes on to Argue from the Affirmative part of the second Commandment thus: p. 299. This Commandment enjoins Obedience to all the Worship appointed by God, all which was significative, for it served to the Example and Shadow of Heavenly things, Heb. 8.5. Heb. 10.1. The Law having a Shadow of things to come: Therefore it forbiddeth any significative Ceremonies to be brought into the Worship of God devised by man. Answ. to omit the Illogicalness of this Argument, and the many terms in the conclusion which are not virtually contained in the premises, which every fresh Man may perceive, I Answ. 1. That it is falsely, or at least precariously affirmed that this Commandment enjoins Obedience to all the Worship appointed by God. It is the first Commandment, which commands us to have God for our God, that is, to give him all the Internal Acts of Devotion, and the External Acts of Piety which are proper to God, and are in Scripture signified by loving God with all our Hearts, by fearing, worshipping, and serving him. The second Commandment doth limit the manner of exercising and expressing our Devotion to the true Object of it, interdicting that mode which in the Practice of Ancient times had so generally prevailed of representing the Deities, they apprehended to be such, in some corporeal shape, & thereto yielding such expressions of respect as they conceived suitable, and acceptable to such Deities. The Affirmative part of this Precept seems therefore to be chief this: Thou shalt give outward Religious Worship by bowing, humbling of thy Body, or falling down to me. so that our kneeling at the Sacrament, or bowing to the Lord Jesus, when we hear his Sacred Name, which minds us of the great Blessings which he hath procured for us, and of the Honour due unto him for them, our bowing of the body to him when we go into the place of Worship, is only doing what in the General is here commanded, which if Dissenters well considered, they would see the vanity of their Exceptions against those laudable Practices of the Church of England. Farther the positive part of this Precept may imply that in our Devotions and Religious Services of God we should raise our mind above gross Sense and Fancy, that we should entertain high and worthy conceptions of God, that we should apprehend him incomparably Superior to all things which we see and know; in a word, that we should worship him in Spirit and in Truth; not as the Samaritans, in the Image of a Dove, who therefore are said to worship they knew not what, nor as the Jews by Types and Shadows of good things to come, and such like Carnal Ordinances. In these two things seem fully to be comprised the special positive Duty of this Commandment. Answ. 2. When Dr. Ames adds, that all the worship appointed by God is here commanded, and that it was all significative, and proveth this from Hebr. 8.5. Hebr. 10.1. Which manifestly speak only of Shadows of things to come, it clearly follows from his Argument that all Worship of God is now abolished, and become unlawful, for all the Worship spoken of, Hebr. 8.5. Hebr. 10.1. is clearly abolished, and rendered unlawful to us by the appearance of the substance of which they were Types and Shadows. 3ly, 'Tis certain that we own Obedience to all the parts of Worship appointed by God, significative, or not significative, but how doth it hence follow that significative Ceremonies which are declared to be no parts of God's Worship, but only accidental Circumstances, may not be required by men any more than it will follow that because God hath commanded Obedience to all the Honour due to my Natural, Spiritual, and Civil Parents, and hath commanded all the Love I own unto my Brother, that therefore I may use no expression of honour to my Parents, or love unto my Christian Brother which he hath not commanded? Thus have I answered all that is considerable in Dr. Ames, on this Head, and all that the Dissenters urge from the Old Testament against Submission to the Ceremonies appointed to be used in the Church of England. § 4 From this Example of our Lord and his Apostles it doth also clearly follow, Coroll. 2. that those Texts of Scripture which our Dissenters urge from the New Testament, and all those reasons which they plead from the fullness of Scripture, the Office, and the Faithfulness of Christ in the discharge of that his Office, can never prove that 'tis a thing unlawful to submit unto, or use the Ceremonies appointed by our Church, seeing our Saviour and his Disciples, whose Practice certainly agreed with their Precepts, and who did nothing repugnant to the fullness of the Scripture, etc. submitted to the use of Ceremonies of a like nature to them, when by the Rulers of the Jewish Church they were imposed, and they found it best conducing to the promotion of the Gospel, to submit unto them. Nevertheless I also shall proceed to answer all that they have produced hitherto with any show of reason from the N. Testament. Obj. 4 To this effect than it is objected, That Christ himself condemned and rejected the washings of the Scribes and Pharisees, although they were but decent Ceremonies imposed by the Elders of the Jewish Church, and not forbidden by the Law of Moses; And he not only doth refuse to conform to them, but also justifyes his own Disciples in their Nonconformity, & doth pronounce of all such things, that being plants which his Heavenly Father had not planted, Matt. 15.13. they should be rooted up; and therefore he hath taught us to refuse Active Obedience to the Traditions of our Elders in matters of like Nature, as humane Constitutions seem to be, and to reject them as vain Worship, and as the Doctrines of men. Answ. 1. Answ. 1 By way of Concession, that they who plant such plants without our Heavenly Father, may be hence induced to consider, that if they will not, he will root them up. For my part I am neither for the planting, nor against the rooting of them up by a Legal Authority, but only for a submission to them for the sake of Peace, Love, and Union, until Authority think fit to do so. Answ. 2 2ly, We must distinguish betwixt their Oral Traditions, here styled the Traditions of the Elders, Mark 7.3, 5. Matt. 15.2. The Traditions of Men, Mark 7.8. Matt. 15.3, 6. And their Interpretations of the Law of Moses, or their Determination of things indifferent, not contained clearly, or expressly in that Law. These Oral Traditions being esteemed by them as the unwritten Word of God, spoken to Moses, as truly as the written Law, and so delivered from him to his immediate Successors, and by them to their Successors, and so on to the very days of the Messiah, our Saviour might well quarrel with them, and reject them, they being plain additions to the Word of God, the setting up another Word besides his written Word, and so teaching for Doctrines of God the Commandments of men, for so they truly were, though they esteemed them as the Word of God delivered to Moses, the planting what their Heavenly Father bade not planted. But their Interpretations of the Ceremonial Law of Moses in matters of Dispute and Controversy, and their determinations of things indifferent for the better observation of that Law, and the preserving men from transgressing of it, which they styled making an hedge unto the Law, seem to have more Authority, God having said, according to the Sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee, Deut. 17.9, 12. and according to the Judgement which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do. And though they might, and did abuse their Power under this pretence by binding heavy Burdens and Grievous to be born, yet doth our Saviour speak thus unto the multitude; and to his own Disciples, the Scribes & Pharisees sit in Moses Chair, Matt. 23.1, 2, 3. all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe & do. Answ. 3 3ly, I answer, That the thing reproved by our Saviour here is not barely their washing, or the prescription of it by the Scribes and Pharisees, but their asserting it as a thing necessary to avoid that defilement which would render them displeasing, or unacceptable to God. For, as the Assemblies Annotations well observe, they thought it a high point of their Religion to wash before Eating, lest they, by touching that which was unclean, should defile themselves and their Meat, and so become abominable; Such Snares had they imposed upon the Consciences of the ignorant people. Pollui cibum mundum arbitrati sunt à cibis immundis, They thought their clean Meats were polluted by what was thus unclean, saith Dr. Leightf. This is apparent 1. From the Doctrine which our Lord opposeth to what he here condemns, which is not this, that to obey the Precepts of Superiors in things indifferent, pertaining to God's Service, was vain & superstitious, which in all reason was the thing chief to be taught, if, as Dr. Ames confidently saith, p. 186. They esteemed some defiling to follow upon the Eating of the Creature, not as it was a Creature (eaten with unwashen hands) but as it was so used against the Tradition of their Elders. But that which by our Saviour is opposed to their Practice, and the Exacting of it, is plainly this, that to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man, Matt. 15, 20. and v. 11. Hear and understand, not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man. And Mark 7.15. Harken to me every one of you, and understand, there is nothing from without a man that entering into him can defile him, but the things which come out of him, those are they which defile the man. This is the Doctrine at which the Pharisees are offended, Matt. 15.12. and which his own Disciples understood not, being accustomed to the Traditions of their Elders, Mark. 7.18, 19 and therefore Christ saith to them, Are ye so without understanding also? do ye not perceive that whatsoever thing from without entereth into a man, cannot defile him, because it entereth not into his heart, but into his belly. Moreover this was the Doctrine of the Pharisees, that to eat with unwashen hands was blame worthy, not only because it was to act contrary to the Traditions of the Elders, but because it was to eat with defiled hands, Mark 7.2. 2ly, This is apparent, because our Saviour plainly intimates that hereby they made the Commandments of men parts of God's Worship, v. 9 Now the Commandments of men are all those things which the Authority of man enjoineth, or forbids us to believe or do, though God hath not enjoined or forbid them, and these Commands are taught for Doctrines, when they are imposed on the Judgement of men in point of Faith as things to be believed, or owned as portions of the Will of God, or on the Consciences of men, as things to be observed as the Commandments of God, or such religious actions as from their Nature are required to please him. One therefore of these two Opinions must be held to justify this charge of worshipping God in vain by teaching for Doctrines the Traditions of men. This 3ly, Mr. Calvin Argues from this consideration, that Christ reproved not the Water pots set after the manner of the purification of the Jews, but wrought a miracle upon the Water poured into them; Therefore, saith he, it was not barely the Command, but the superstitious Opinion, annexed to it which was reproved by our Saviour. And 4ly, This is evident from the Traditions, which their Learned Rabbis had received, and the expressions which they used about this matter. He, that eateth Bread with unwashen hands, saith R. Ascanio, In Sota. sins as grievously as if he lay with a whore. Now Fornication, we all know is sinful in its own Nature, and not only because it is forbidden by Superiors. Maimonides saith, they looked upon it as a peculiar piece of Sanctity, and said that whosoever disesteemed this Custom deserved not only Excommunication, but death also; And therefore R. Akiba, being in Prison, E rub in fol. 21 said that he would rather perish with thirst than want Water to wash his hands. Answ. 4th. This Text is so far from proving the Unlawfulness of using indifferent Ceremonies in Obedience to the Commands of our Superiors, that it condemns all those who teach they cannot lawfully be submitted to, as teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men. For these are the Commands of our Dissenters to their Proselytes: Hear not a form of Prayer, join not with these that use it, or with the Minister who wears a Surplice, kneel not at the Receiving of the Sacrament, do not stand up at the rehearsal of the Creed, bring not your Children to receive the sign of the Cross in Baptism; all these they teach for Doctrines, asserting that they are actions which God hath forbidden, and therefore may not lawfully be used in his Worship, or by them be submitted to, since therefore God hath not forbidden any of these things, and yet they teach he hath forbidden them, they plainly must be guilty of adding to his Word, and teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men, which they who do declare these things to be indifferent, and no where commanded in God's Word, cannot be guilty of. CHAP. III. The CONTENTS. Answering the Objections of Dissenters from reason grounded upon Scripture, as, Obj 1. God would have for the Tabernacle, and the Temple, an exact pattern how he would have all things done and that in writing, and therefore Christ, being faithful in his House as Moses was, must have done as much in Scripture towards the building of his Spiritual House. Answ. 1. This Argument holds as well in Civil Matters as in Sacred, and by arguing from such similitudes many false things may be concluded. Answ. 2. That it is falsely supposed that Moses was so full in his Institutions that nothing afterwards was to be added to them, or ordained by the Rulers of the Church for the better Observation of them. (3) 'Tis certain Christ hath not done what this Objection saith his faithfulness obliged him to do. 4ly, There is a manifest disparity betwixt the Christian and the Jewish State, and thence good reason may be given why, though all things were determined then, it should not be so now. 5ly, The fidelity of Moses, consisted in this, that he concealed nothing of that which God commanded, and suitably the fidelity of Christ in this that he declared to us the whole Will of God. § 1. Obj. 2. The Scripture is a Rule of Ceremonies, for it prescribeth Ceremonies respecting Baptism, and the Lords Supper, if therefore it prescribe not all, it must be an imperfect Rule. Answ. 1. The absurdity of this Argument is shown by instances of a like Nature. (2) The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the perfection of the H. Scriptures is this, viz. that it doth perfectly contain all that is necessary to believed or done in Order to Salvation; Tho' not all Ceremonies in particular, of Decency and Order: That the Scripture is a Rule of all Ceremonies that are good works antecedently to the Command of man. 2. That it is sufficiently perfect in reference to uncommanded Ceremonies by giving general Directions to Superiors in the imposing of them. And 2ly, By Commanding Obedience to their impositions in all lawful matters. The Tenet of some Non-Conformists that no Church-Governors ought to ordain, or introduce into the Service of God any other Rites or Observations than such as God hath in his Word commanded, or Christ and his Apostles by their Examples, which they esteem as Precepts, hath approved, and that if they enjoin such things we must not yield Obedience to them, but must reject them as humane Inventions, Superstition, and Will-worship. The pernicious Consequence of this Tenet. 1. It casts a reproach upon Religion, and gives just cause to Magistrates to scruple the Admission of the Christian Faith. 2. It makes it necessary to disobey all Civil Laws concerning Charity and Justice which are not contained in Scripture, 3ly, This Opinion will force men to be troublesome in all the Churches of the World. 4. It gives a great Advantage to Popery. Mr. Baxters solid Confutation of this Opinion by 8 Arguments. 5ly, They who assert this Tenet do many things in Contradiction to it. §. 2. CHAP. III. HAving thus dispatched the Scriptures produced in this cause, I proceed to consider the Objections of Dissenters from reason grounded upon Scripture; and Obj. 1. It is objected, That there was nothing appertaining in the least to the Worship of God, but was fully set down, even to the pins of the Tabernacle, in the Law of Moses; when Gods Material House was to be built, he gave to Moses for the Tabernacle, and to David for the Temple, a Pattern according to which he would have every thing made, or done; And of this Pattern which God gave to David for the Temple, it is expressly said, God gave it him in Writing. 1 Chron. 28.19. Nothing then might be done by Moses or by Solomon, though they were two of the wisest Men that ever lived, about the Tabernacle, or Temple, or about the whole Service of God performed in them, but according to that Pattern, Exod. 25.9, 40, 39, 42, 40, 16. and this charge the Lord repeats to Moses four times, to show the great Importance of it, and the Author to the Hebrews Notes, that it was said unto him, Hebr. 8.5. see that thou make all things according unto the Pattern, that was showed thee in the Mount. Hebr 3.6. Since therefore Christ was faithful in his House as Moses was, he must, say they, in building his Spiritual House have given us a Pattern according to which he would have all his works done, and that pattern must be contained in the H. Scriptures. Answ. 1 Of this, & almost all the Arguments produced by Dissenters on this Subject, it is observable that they hold as much against all Laws concerning Civil matters, as concerning sacred. For instance Moses as he prescribed those Laws whereby the Jewish Nation was to Act in sacred matters, so did he from God's mouth, prescribe them a Judicial Law, a Law for Civil Government, and he moreover saith of that as well as of those Laws which did concern God's Worship, you shall observe to do as the Lord your God hath Commanded you, you shall not turn aside to the right hand, or the left. If then the Argument here holds from the fidelity of Moses to that of Christ, or from God's care of his Church's Service under the Old Testament, to his care of it under the New. Christ must have given us a form of Civil Government as well as Sacred, a Statute Law by which our Courts of Justice must be regulated, and to which 'tis not in the Power of King and Parliament to add on Statute, or else Christ must be thought less faithful in his House, than Moses was, and God less careful of the Christian than the Jewish Church. And indeed Arguments of this Nature taken from Similitudes may be used to conclude things manifestly false, as V G. God is not less kind to his Ministers under the New Testament than under the Old, and therefore as in the Law of Moses we are told punctually what they should receive from the People, so must we be told also under the New Testament, under the Law there was on Earth an High Priest over the Jews, therefore we must have an universal Bishop over the Christians. Moses appointed a living Judge of Controversies to whom all Jews stood bound to repair in doubtful cases, and according to whose word and information they were obliged to Act, not declining from it to the right hand or to the left, Deut. 17.9, 12. And therefore by this Rule of our Dissenters, God must have left us Christians such a living Judge, or else his care and kindness towards the Christian Church, will be less than was his care and kindness to the Jewish Church. Answer 2 2ly. It is falsely supposed by this Argument that Moses was so exact and full in all his institutions, that nothing afterward was to be added to them, or ordained by the Rulers of the Church; for the better observation of them, the Rulers of the Jewish Church did, notwithstanding his exactness, do many things, Sacred and Civil, for which they had no precept to direct them, nor any other Warrant but the use of reason and prudential discourse, and they made many constitutions which were of things very useful and necessary to be decided for the direction of the practice both of Priests and People. The instances of this Nature are very numerous, and may be seen in Dr. Leightfoots Temple Service, from whence I shall Collect these few: The Law of Moses appoints no Substitute to the High Priest in case of his uncleanness, or any other matter which might render him unfit to do his Office, at the great day of expiation, or any other Solemnity. Provision therefore was made for this, and other occasions of like Nature, by appointing with him a Sagan, or a Substitute who might officiate for him in such cases. Leight. p. 34. p. 169. And of whose officiating for him in the great day of Expiation, we find an instance in Josephus. l. 17. cap. 8. p. 597. They had no Command for sounding their Trumpets every Morning at the opening of the Court Gates, particularly at the opening of the Gate of Nicanor. But though this practice had no express and literal Command, yet was it grounded upon this necessity and reason, because that the Levites and Stationary Men might have notice to come to attend their Desks, and Service and that the People of Jerusalem might hear, Temple Seru. p. 57, 58. and take notice, and those that would come to the Temple; so that this sounding was, as the Bells, to ring them in to the Service. Agreeable to this was also the sounding, striking, or ringing of their great Bell Migrepha: Ibid. p. 111. p. 59 The constant Psalms sung by the Levites every day of the Week, with the reasons why they made choice of them. The four and twenty courses of the Israelites of the station, is not where mentioned, or appointed in the Law of Moses, and yet it was an excellent constitution: p. 63. For there were some sacrifices that were sacrifices of all Israel, and particularly the daily Sacrifice; now it was impossible that all Israel should be present at the Sacrifices that were to be Offered up for all Israel; and therefore it was needful that some Representatives should be chosen, who instead and behalf of all the People, should be present at every Sacrifice that should be Offered up for the whole Congregation. Now because it would be too heavy for one Company of Men to attend continually on this Work, as the daily Sacrifice required, therefore they appointed twenty four Courses of these stationary Men, as well as of the Priests, and Levites, that their attendance in these vicissitudes might be the more easy, for which cause also was made the like division of the Priests and Levites, p. 64. There was Sacrificing in the Temple Service twice a day, and reading of the Law at least twice, and Prayers four times, and it became them, and behoved them, if it had been possible, to have been all attending there, but because this could not possibly be done, they ordained these Courses of Stationary Men, to be as the Deputies of all the People, and a Representative Congregation in their behalf. It had been an open contempt of those ordinances, if being daily Administered, none of the People had attended at them, and it would have been a hazard that in time they might have been neglected by the People, if they had been left to their own liberty to come, or not come to them as they saw good; therefore to prevent this visible contempt that might have accrued, and to provide that there might be always a Congregation of the People, These Stationary Courses were ordained, that if Devotion brought no other of the People to the Service, yet these, their Representatives might be sure to be there. That the High Priest should confess over the Escape Goat all the Iniquities of the Children of Israel, and all their Transgressions, in all their Sins, we read Leu. 16.21. But in the Law of Moses we find no form of Words which the High Priest was to use, and therefore the Rulers of the Church appointed him to say: Ah Lord! thy People, the House of Israel have sinned, and done perversely, p. 173. and transgressed before thee, I beseech thee now Oh Lord, expiate the sins, perversities and transgressions which the House of Israel thy People have sinned, done perversely, and transgressed before thee, etc. in the same Chapter the High Priest is Commanded to Offer a Bullock for a sin Offering for himself, v. 6, 11. to make an Atonement for himself and for his House. Atonement for sin could not be made without confession of it; provided that the sin were known, it was therefore necessary that he should make confession of his sin in order to this Atonement, wherefore, no Words of confession being prescribed by the Law of Moses, p. 171. they ordered him to say: Ah Lord! I have sinned, done perversely and transgressed before thee, I and my House, I beseech thee, oh Lord, expiate the sins, perversities and transgressions whereby I have sinned, done perversely, and transgressed, I and mine House, etc. Moreover by every sin and trespass Offering Atonement was to be made, and so the sin of the offendor was to be confessed, but there being no form of confession mentioned in the Law of Moses, the Rulers ordered the offendor to confess in this wise, I have sinned, p. 69. and done perversely, I have rebelled, and done thus and thus, but I return by repentance before thee, and let this be my expiation. The Law of Moses in many cases appointed a Meat Offering, but neither determined of the quantity of Corn, or Oil to be brought for it, and therefore the Rulers determined that no Meat Offering should consist of less than the tenth part of an Ephah of Corn, p. 95. and a Log of Oil. Moreover a Man that lived at a great distance from Jerusalem was fallen under such an offence for which a Sacrifice was due by the Law, p. 99 the enquiry hereupon was what must he do? must he away presently thither to offer his Offering? must he neglect his Employment at home, and Travel up to Jerusalem, at a charge double or triple to the charge of the Sacrifice which was to be Offered, laying all other things aside till that be done? this being not declared expressly in the Law of Moses, they determined in this case, that he that became liable to any Offering might defer the paying of it till the next Solemn Festival of the three came, when all must appear before the Lord at Jerusalem. The Law had said, thou shalt Reverence my Sanctuary, but had not particularly declared in what Actions that Reverence should be expressed, they therefore ordained, in the pursuance of that general Precept, that no Man should go into the Temple to Worship with a Purse, a Staff, p. 116, 117, 118. or his Shoes on, no Man was to spit, no Man to sit there during the time of Divine Service, nor use any irreverent Gesture. To these we may add the Gizbarin or the three common Treasurers and Overseers of the Temple stock, p. 39 and all consecrated things, and the Catholikin, who were Head Treasurers over them. The singing of the Levites Children with their Fathers, as our Choristers now do. p. 36. p. 53. p. 83, 84. p. 96. p. 103, 105. p. 108. 119. The suspensive Trespass Offering. The Cross upon the Wafer made in Oil. The manner of their Lotteries for the Service of the Priests. Their Public and private Prayers, and their Worshipping in time of Prayer. the way of discovering the New Moon before their Feast, p. 122, 123. p. 138, 139. p. 174, 175. p. 180, 181. p. 189. and giving notice of it. The manner of saying the Egyptian Hallel, and the manner of conveying the Escape Goat, and giving notice of it, when done. The Branches of Pomecitron used at the Feast of Tabernacles, and the Psalms then sung. Lastly the time, place and person for reading the Law at the Seventh year. All these, to omit many more of the like Nature, were things needful, or at least useful to be determined, and yet the Law of Moses, hath said nothing of them. If therefore notwithstanding any Precepts forbidding the addition to the Law of Moses, or the exactness of the Prescriptions of that Law, the Rulers of the Jews found cause, or at least thought themselves impowered to appoint, and to determine of these things, why may not Christian Magistrates and Governors use the same Power in the Church of Christ? If doing this was no derogation from the fidelity of Moses, in writing of the Jewish Law, why should we think that doing matters of like Nature is any derogation from the fidelity of Christ in giving us that Gospel which is styled the Law of liberty? Answ. 3 3ly. Certain it is Christ hath done what this objection doth assert his faithfulness obliged him to do, viz. He hath not in the Writings of the New Testament given us a perfect Rule which clearly and expressly mentions all Ceremonies which are needful to be used in his Service, or hath determined all things indifferent in their own Nature, but disjunctively necessary, or after which way or manner, we must Act continually in the performance of his Worship. For instance: He hath said nothing of the time or place where, and when he would have us to Assemble for his Worship, or of the Ornaments of the place, or the disposal of the Seats for Priest, or People, or whether Men should Sat or Stand during the hearing the Word Read or Preached, or of the Number which should Assemble at one place, or be under the care or the inspection of one Pastor; nor how long we shall continue so Assembled, and when the Solemnity shall be dismissed. And yet he who commands us to Assemble for his Solemn Worship, must command some Number to Assemble, with some Minister, in some place, and at some time. He hath enjoined Public Prayer, but he hath not determined, whether we must Pray in a set form of words, or only in words premeditated. Or 3ly, without Antecedent Meditation what we shall say, or whether we shall Pray in words composed by ourselves, or prescribed by others. He hath not told us who shall pronounce the Prayers, whether the Minister alone, or whether the People may not bear a share in the performance of that duty, by saying with, or after him, or by responses, or alternate sentences, as was the Custom in the Jewish Church? He hath not told us how oft we shall meet publicly for the performance of this duty, whether every morning and evening, Wednesday, and Friday, or only on the Lord's day: He hath appointed the Scriptures to be read in our Assemblies, but then he hath not told us who shall be appointed for that work, whether a person shall be Ordained for that Office, as in the Latin, and the Eastern Churches, or a Clerk as it is usual in our Churches, whether Scripture alone may be read there, or the Epistles and writings also of Pious Men, as in the Primitive Church they did. He hath not told us what Chapter, or what Book we are to read or in what Method, or how much; whether in the Old or the New Testament, or what Translation shall be approved by any Church. He hath commanded that his word be Preached in our Assemblies, but hath not plainly told us who alone shall Preach, whether ordained persons only, or also gifted Brethren, whether with Licence, or without, nor in what Method, whether by Doctrine and use, or any other way, whether with Study, or without, whether by choosing of a Text, or only choosing of a Subject to discourse upon, whether with Notes, or only by the help of Memory, whether in a place dedicated to that service, or not dedicated, whether in a Church, or in the open Field, nor lastly hath he told us how often, nor how long we are to Preach. He hath Commanded us to sing Psalms, but then he hath not told us whether all should sing together, as is the Custom in our Parish Churches, or only some, as in Cathedrals. Whether the Psalms we sing should be in Rythm, or Meeter, or not, whether we should si●g with V●●al only, or with Instrumental Music also, nor what 〈…〉, or what Translations of the Psalms shoul● b● approved or allowed to be sung in Churche●, 〈…〉 we should sing before, or only after Ser●●●●, or whether we should do it standing, or in the sitting Posture. He hath said, Go and Baptise all Nations, but hath not clearly told us who shall Baptise, and in what cases, whether the Priest alone, or any other Christian, especially in cases of necessity, whether Baptism shall be Administered to Infants is not expressly said in Scripture, but is left to be collected thence by Analogy, and rational deductions, whether all Infants are to be Baptised, or only those of Christian Parents, or of true Believers, whether with stipulators, or without, whether we should Baptise in a River, Pond, Spring, Font, or Basin, whether Infants should be Baptised at Eight days old, within a Month, or only at Easter, and Penticost, as was the ancient Custom of the Church of God: Whether Baptism should be Administered by Dipping, or by Sprinkling only, whether by Dipping thrice, as was the Custom of some Churches, or only once, as other Churches did, whether only Men, or Women only, or both indifferently were to assist at the Baptising of Adult persons. He hath said do this in remembrance of me, but hath not told us on what days the Lords Supper shall be Administered, or how oft, whether it should be received every day, or every Sunday, as in the Primitive Church the Custom was, or every Month, as in Cathedrals it is, or thrice a year, as is required by the Rubric. He hath not told us in plain words whether consecration of the Elements to be received be necessary, and what words must be used in Consecration, nor hath he told us who alone may Consecrate, whether a Deacon, or a Priest only, or who alone shall be admitted to the Sacrament, whether all visible Professors, or sincere Believers only, whether they must be first examined by Church Officers, or only should examine their own Consciences. He hath not told us whether the Bread to be received shall be of Wheat, or of some other Grain, whether one great Loaf, or more. Whether the Wine shall be mixed with Water, or not, or whether it shall be Claret, Muskadine, or any other sort of Wine, whether we shall receive after Supper, as Christ and his Apostles did, or in the Morning, as the Christians under persecution did, whether we should receive it Full, or Fasting, Sitting, Leaning, Standing, or Kneeling, whether we should receive at a Communion Table, or in our Seats, and whether that Table shall be of Wood, or Stone, whether it shall be Round, Long or Square, whether it shall stand in the East or West end, or in the Middle of the Church, whether it shall have Rails or no Rails. All, or many of these things (to omit many other Circumstances respecting Ordination, and Church Discipline) are left by Christ and his Apostles undetermined, and if this Argues in him a defect of care and providence, or of fidelity towards his Church, as this objection doth Blasphemously suppose, what remains but that our Blessed Saviour should be charged with these neglects, it being certain from experience that he hath left us no particular injunctions for the determination of these matters. And if he must be deemed less faithful in his House than Moses was, because he is not so particular in the prescribing of such Rites, I know not how we can excuse him from that guilt, so Blasphemous is the result of this Objection. And lastly seeing these Acts of Worship cannot be performed without some of these Circumstances which are thus left undetermined, if the determination of them by Superiors be a sufficient cause for our Refusal to be present at, or to join with them in these Ordinances, we must have cause sufficient to renounce all Public Worship. Answ. 4 4ly, We say there is a manifest disparity betwixt the Gospel and the Jews state, and that good reason may be given why, though all punctilios were determined then, it should not be so now. For the People of the Jews lived all under one Civil Government, whereas we Christians live under different forms of Government, and are dispersed throughout divers Nations, using divers Customs, and therefore could not, if at all, conveniently practise such an uniformity of Ceremonies as we must have done, if Christ had determined every Circumstance of his Worship as Moses did. v. g. dipping in Baptism might be subject to little inconvenience in hot Countries, but if this should have been enjoined under the frozen Zone it might have hazarded the life of the Baptised person. The Custom of some Countries doth make that decent, and a sign of Reverence, and therefore fit to be imposed, or observed in those Countries, which is in other Countries, where no such Customs do obtain, neither decent, nor a sign of Reverence, and so unfit to be required in those Countries. See many other disparities in the Irenicum of Dr. Stillingfleet. Answ. 5 Lastly, The fidelity of Moses here spoken of, is only this, that he did faithfully declare unto the Jews what God had spoken to him, concealing nothing of what God had commanded from them, he was faithful saith the Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for a Testimony of what was to be spoken. Hebr. 3.5. And therefore the fidelity of Christ compared with it, must not consist in prescribing Ceremonies, but in declaring the whole Will of God discovered to him, which that he punctually performed he himself assures us, saying: The Word which I speak is not mine, Joh. 14.10. Joh. 12.49, 50. but his that sent me. I speak not of myself, but the Father which sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say. As the Father hath said to me, so I speak. Obj. 2 The Scripture is a Rule of even Ceremonies in God's Worship, for it gives prescriptions and directions in the New Testament, concerning the Sacraments of Baptism, and the Lords Supper. Now if it doth not prescribe all Ceremonies requisite and convenient; than it is only a partial, and imperfect Rule of Cemonies in God's Worship, whereas we cannot but hold it to be a perfect, adequate, and total Rule of Ceremonial, as well as Moral Worship, (for) it is able to perfect the man of God, and throughly to furnish him unto all good works, Reply to Dr. Hammond. p. 85 Answ. 1. and so unto all Ceremonies that are good works. So M. jean's. Answ. To show the Absurdity of this Argument take these few Instances of a like Nature. The Scripture is a Rule of Justice, and of Charity betwixt Man and Man, and of Temperance towards ourselves, for it gives prescriptions and directions in the New Testament concerning all those Matters. Now if it doth not prescribe all that is requisite and convenient to be prescribed in respect unto them, than it is only a partial and imperfect Rule of Justice, Charity, and Temperance, whereas we cannot but hold it to be a total, adequate, and perfect Rule of all particulars respecting Justice, Charity, and Temperance; For it is able to perfect the man of God, & throughly furnish him to all good Works, and so to all particular Acts of Justice that are good Works, and so all Humane Laws concerning any Act of Justice, Charity, or Temperance, which are not merely penal, but directive, must be a Derogation from the Sufficiency of Scripture, as well as the prescribing of a Ceremony. Answ. 2 2ly, According to this Argument the Scripture must have prescribed both Time and Place, and all the things which I have mentioned in Answer to the last Objection, or else no Time or Place, or any of those things which are left undetermined by it, can be requisite or convenient to be used in the Worship of God. So monstrously absurd is this way of Arguing. In farther Confutation of this Argument, I shall first lay down plainly the Assertion or Doctrine of the Church of England in reference to the Perfection of the Holy Scriptures, and from it give a direct Answer to this Objection. 2ly, I shall lay down the contrary Tenet of some Non-Conformists which is here asserted in this Argugument. 3ly, I shall endeavour to show the Dangerousness of this Opinion, and the Swarms of evil consequences which do naturally follow from it. And 4ly, That they who hold it did, & do many things repugnant to it. And 5ly, That it doth necessarily make the Holy Scripture an imperfect Rule. 1. Then, when we assert that Scripture is a perfect Rule, we mean it thus, that it doth perfectly contain all that is necessary to be believed, or done, in Order to our acceptance with God here, or to our happiness with him hereafter, not that it doth particularly prescribe what ever Circumstance of Order, Decency or Convenience may be observed in the Service of God. And this doth seem to me to be the true Distinction in this matter betwixt the Protestant of the Church of England, and the Rigid Puritan, that the Protestant of the Church of England asserts the Holy Scripture to be a full and perfect Rule of all the Articles of Christian Faith, and Christian Piety, but notwithstanding he maintains that Holy Scripture hath left it in the Power of the Church Governors Sacred, and Civil, to appoint such Rites and Ceremonies to be used in the Service of God, as they shall judge convenient, and conducing to the ends of Unity, and Order, Peace, and Love, Decency, Uniformity, and the Edification of the Church. And that by virtue of these General Rules, Fellow after the things, Rom. 14.19. Phil. 3.16. 1 Cor. 14.40. which make for Peace, and whereby we may edify one another, Let us walk by the same Rule, let us mind the same thing, Let all things be done decently, and in order, Let all be done to Edification, and to the Glory of God, Give no offence to Jew or Gentile, or to the Church of God, etc. They in the General are authorised to appoint such Rites and Ceremonies as they judge most conducing to these ends, and that all Christian people who live under their Care and Jurisdiction, are bound to yield obedience to them in matters of this Nature by virtue of those Seriptures which command them to obey those that Rule over them, and to submit to them. Hebr. 13.17, ● Pet. 5.5. Rom. 13.1. 1 Pet. 2.13. To be subject to their Elders, and to the higher Powers, and to every Ordinance of man for the Lords Sake. I say their Tenet is that by virtue of these Scriptures they are bound to yield obedience to them in all lawful things, that is, in all those things which God hath not forbidden in his Word, for where there is no Law of God forbidding, there can be no transgression, and therefore to refuse obedience to our Superiors Civil, or Sacred, in those matters, is to refuse obedience in things lawful, and therefore to offend against the Precepts which call upon us to be subject and obedient to them. So that we do assert in Answer unto this Objection, 1. That the Scripture is a perfect Rule of all Ceremonies that are good Works antecedently to the Command of man, so that in Scripture some express for them may be found, but that it is not such a Rule of indifferent Ceremonies. 2ly, That 'tis as perfect a Rule as it needs to be in reference to Ceremonies uncommanded in particular; (1) By giving us the general Rules which should direct Superiors in the imposing of these things indifrent, but not in a particular Prescription of them, as this Objection doth suppose, it being a plain contradiction that any thing should be to us indifferent, and yet prescribed to us in the Word of God. Dissenters therefore must deny that there is any circumstance of Worship, be it Time, Place, Gesture, or the Words in which it is to be performed, left indifferent, or that being so, that circumstance must not be used in God's Worship, or else they must confess the weakness of the Argument produced. And 2ly, Because it doth command us to obey Superiors Civil, and Sacred, in all lawful matters, and so instructs us to submit to what is not forbidden by God's Word, when by Superiors it is commanded. This is our Tenet, and this is a direct, and a sufficient answer to this Argument: But on the other hand the Tenet of some Nonconformists, owned by this Argument, is this: That no Church Governors ought to ordain, or introduce into the Service of God any other Rites or Observations than such as God hath in his Word commanded, or Christ and his Apostles by their Examples, which they esteem as Precepts hath approved, and that if they enjoin such things we must not yield obedience to them, but must reject them as humane inventions, superstition, and will worship. This is that Doctrine in which the Mystery of Puritanism doth consist, and the pernicious consequences of it are so many that any person, who doth weigh them seriously, will, if he be indeed a Lover of Christianity, abhor, and hearty renounce that Doctrine whence they so naturally flow. And 1. This Doctrine casts a reproach upon Religion, it gives just cause to Magistrates to scruple the admission of the Christian Faith, and to the Atheist, and the Politician to represent it as the great instrument of sedition, and disobedience. For this opinion obliges men to thwart the Magistrate in all indifferent matters which he commands with a respect unto God's Worship: If he commands them to come to Church on the Lordsday at such a time, in such a place, they must stand bound in conscience by this Rule to refuse to do so, because in Scripture God hath not determined how oft, what hour, or where they should assemble, if he commands them to be uncovered in the House of God, to stand, or kneel whilst they are praying, to sit whilst hearing, or the like, they must not do it, because God hath not told them in his Word that they should be uncovered in his presence, that they should kneel, or stand whilst they do pray, or sit when they do hear. Now what a Scandal, what a base impeachment is it to our peaceable Religion, to say that it obligeth us to disobey Authority in matters God hath left us all to do or not to do at pleasure, only because he doth command us so to do them, as we might have performed them, had he not commanded us, and that nothing doth so much engage us to be refractory to the higher Powers, as that perfect Law of Liberty which Christ hath left us? 2ly, Upon the same account it must be sinful to obey those Civil Laws which do concern those Laws of Justice, Charity, and Mercy towards our Christian Brother which cannot clearly be collected from the written Word. For it is plain from Scripture that these are the more weighty matters of the Law, Matt. 23.23. viz. Judgement and Mercy; Mark 12.33. That to love God with all our hearts, and our Neighbour as ourselves, is more than all Burnt-offerings and Sacrifices. That to pray, hear, read the Word, receive the Sacrament, to fast, are but the means which God hath in his Word ordained for the increase of Justice, Equity, Mercy, Love, Peace, Humility and Temperance, and such like Christian Graces, and therefore these must be the things in which God is concerned mostly that we should yield obedience. That when the Scripture reckoneth the Graces of the Spirit, Gal. 5.22. it tells us they are Love, Peace, Long-suffering, Gentleness, Goodness, Righteousness, and Temperance, not prayer, fasting, hearing, receiving of the Sacrament, etc. And lastly 'tis observable that we are called to imitate our heavenly Father in acts of Love, and Mercy, our Lord and Saviour in Meekness, and Humility, Bowels of Mercy, Compassion, and Self-denial, but not in prayer, and fasting, and in such like duties. Since therefore God is more concerned for matters of this Nature, than for his outward worship, his Word must be more perfect in prescribing of these duties, than any circumstances of his worship, if then it be unlawful for us to submit to any Ceremonies commanded by man which respect his worship, because God's Word must be a perfect Rule, not only of all parts, but of all modes of Worship; it must be more unlawful to submit to any humane constitutions touching Equity, and Justice, Mercy, and Compassion, Love, Charity, and Peace; because God's Word must be supposed, in these more weighty and substantial matters, to be a Rule more perfect; And therefore all the Laws and Statutes respecting matters of this Nature, which cannot be collected from the Words of Scripture, must, by this doctrine, be cashiered as vain Inventions, and Christians must stand obliged to refuse obedience to them. For instance, I am commanded to worship God in public, but whether I must do it in a Church, or in the Field, in black, or white, or any other garb, by stinted Words, or by Expressions of my own immediate Invention, in this, or that, or a 3d posture, is not expressed in Holy Scripture; If therefore in these cases I must not yield obedience to any power that will command me to worship God in white, to pray in stinted Words, to do it kneeling, or the like, because that Scripture, which is a Rule of Worship, hath not determined of these things, must I not do the like in other cases of an higher Nature? and because Scripture hath commanded that I should be charitable, and give Alms, but hath not said what portion I shall give, nor when, nor in what place, or to what persons, nor in what manner, whether by myself, or by the Overseers of the Poor, am I not bound as much to show my disobedience to those Laws which rate me to the Poor, and which give power to Officers to strain on my refusal to pay that rate. If I must not join with an Assembly that doth use a stinted Form of Words, that riseth up at the rehearsal of the Creed, or with a Pastor that doth officiate in white, because these things are not commanded in the perfect Rule of Worship, how dare I to commence a suit of Law, to arrest a person for a debt, or to indite him for a trespass without Scripture warrant, these things being no where commanded in that perfect Rule of Equity and Justice? The Scripture having said: There is utterly a fault among you that you go to Law one with another, 1 Cor. 6.7. Luk. 6.35. Matt. 5.40. lend, hoping for nothing again, if any man take away thy Cloak let him have thy Coat also, but never said, If any man officiate in white, or by a Form of Words, do not join with him, is it not matter of just admiration that they who never scruple to act contrary unto the letter of the Scripture in the former cases, should be so very scrupulous in things no where forbidden in the Word? 3ly, This dangerous opinion will force men to be troublesome in all the Churches of the World, and to refuse communion even with those Assemblies they are joined with, nay had they lived in the Jewish Church, or any other Age of Christendom, they must have been continual Separatists. For where I pray you could they have found a Precept for all the Jewish Practices and Observations which I have mentioned in the foregoing Arguments? If they had lived in the next Age to the Apostles, with Polycarp and Ignatius, who did converse with the Apostles, where would the Scripture have afforded any warrant for observation of the Feast of Easter, which both the Churches of the East and West observed in the days of Polycarp, L. 5. c. 24. as is recorded by Eusebius; or any Precept for bowing to the East, Resp. ad quest. 118. which Pseudo-Justin mentions as a thing practised in his days; or for the Observation of the days on which their Glorious Martyrs died, Apud Euseb. l. 4. c. 15. which yet the Church of Smyrna mentions as a thing practised by the Christians not long after the death of the Apostles; or for the Water mixed with the Sacramental Wine, of which both Justin, and St. Cyprian speak; Apol. 2. Cypr. Ep. 63. Just. M. ibid. or for the portions of the Sacramental Bread sent to the Sick, and absent, to signify, they were partakers of the same Sacrifice, and belonged to the same Altar; or for their standing in their public worship, from Easter unto Whitsunday, Resp. ad quest. ●15. Can. 19 and every Lordsday to testify their belief of our Lord's Resurrection, which yet by the Great Nicene Council was required to be observed by all Christian People, and which they did accordingly observe. Tertullian gives us a Catalogue of many observations which the Church used in his days, and which she vindicated not from the Scriptures, De Coron. Milit. c. 3 4. but from the Patronage of Custom and Tradition. I will begin, saith he, with Baptism, where coming to the Water we testify before the Precedent (or Bishop) that we renounce the Devil, his Pomp's, and his Angels, then are we thrice dipped, answering something more than Christ commanded in his Gospel; The Sacrament of the Eucharist which our Lord instituted after Supper, we partake of in our Meetings before the day arise; we think it wickedness to fast, or to pray kneeling on the Lord's day; we kneel not from Easter to Whitsunday; whensoever we go forth or come in, or whatsoever we are conversant about, we sign our Foreheads with the sign of the Cross, and if you do require a Law of Scripture for these Observations, you will find none; Tradition will be alleged as the Author, and custom the Confirmer of them. For these are observations which we defend not from Scripture, but from the title of Tradition, and the Patronage of Custom. This was the Practice of the first Ages of the Church, and as it grew more ancient its Constitutions grew more numerous, and so the men of this opinion, had they lived then, (as they did not, none that we read of in those times ever pretending separation from any Church on these accounts) they must have been obliged to separate from all the Churches then in being. Come we to all the Churches of this present Age, and we shall find that this opinion will oblige the Authors of it to separate from them also. For the Church of Rome, and all the Eastern Churches they must much more abominate on this account than any others, because their Ceremonies are more numerous, and many of them superstitious. The Lutheran Churches have not only Liturgies, and other ancient Ceremonies, which we observe, but they have also Images, & many other observations, which these men style Superstitious, Popish, Antichristian Ceremonies. In the Reformed Churches they will find Liturgies of humane invention, and change of Apparel for Divine Service, even at Geneva they will find enjoined a Book of Common Prayer composed by Calvin, the Wafer Cake, the use of Godfathers' in Baptism, bidding of Prayer, with divers other Coremonies, no where commanded in the Holy Scripture; and so as Dr. Durel largely proves, it is in all Reformed Churches of the West. I am not able, saith Mr. Baxter, to bear the thoughts of separating from almost all Christ's Churches upon Earth, but he that separateth from one, or many, Def. of the Princip. of love, p. 55. upon a Reason common to all, doth virtually separate from all. Since than it hath been proved that separating on the Account of this principle is virtually condemning and separating from all the Churches of this and all preceding Ages of the Christian World, the Authors of it must renounce the principle, or bear the blame both of condemning, and separating from the whole Church of Christ throughout all Ages. This Tenet gives a great advantage to Popery, for it asserts that nothing circumstantial must be performed in God's worship without particular direction from the Word. Now it is certain that many circumstances of worship, which concern Prayer, Preaching of the Word, Administration of the Sacraments, Church Government, the Exercise of Church discipline, are not determined in the written Word of God, and therefore it is needful, if this principle be true, either to own Traditions touching matters of this Nature to be received as the Word of God, or to confess he hath appointed some infallible persons, whether Pope, or Councils it is not much material, whose determinations in these matters must be received as the Word of God. Now these two Tenets are the fundamental parts of Popery, on which their other Doctrines, and Practices depend, and which, if we admit, we cannot rationally reject whatsoever these infallible Judges shall determine, or deliver as the unwritten Word of God. I shall conclude this head with a large Passage out of Mr. Baxter, who, in his defence of his principles of Love, speaks thus. There are men, otherwise very honest and truly Godly, who think that the Scripture is intended by God not only as a general Rule, but a particular Law for all the very circumstances of worship, and that the second Commandment in particular condemneth all that is the product or invention of man in or about the Worship of God, and that to deny this is to deny the perfection of the Scriptures; If this opinion prevail, saith he, what abundance of hurt will it do? For 1. It draweth men into the dangerous guilt of adding to the Word of God, under pretence of defending its perfection, and extent. For what is adding to the Word of God, but making that to be commanded or forbidden by that Word, which is not there commanded or forbidden? Since therefore evident it is that all particular circumstances of worship are not by that Word prescribed, as I have proved already, (whence it must necessarily follow that some necessary circumstances not there prescribed cannot be forbidden) it is plain that this opinion which saith that all circumstances of worship are particularly prescribed in Scripture, and that all not prescribed are forbidden there, must add unto the Word of God. 2ly, It prepareth men for Infidelity, and the denial of the Authority of Holy Scripture; for when men are made to believe that Scripture, if it be a perfect Rule, must be a Rule for those things which are not found in it at all, they must be tempted, when they cannot find all Accidents of worship particularly determined in it, to suspect it as a delusory, imperfect thing. The Divine Will say, it tells me not sufficiently, and particularly what Books of Scripture are Canonical, nor which of the various Readins are right, nor whether it be to be divided into Chapters, and Verses, nor into how many, nor in what Metre and Tune I must sing Psalms, nor what persons shall be Pastors of Churches, nor what Text I shall choose next, nor what Words or Method I shall use in my next Prayer or Sermon. 3ly, This opinion which seems to plead for the perfection of the Scripture Rule, doth plainly charge it with imperfection, and obscurity, for it asserts that it is necessary in Order to the perfection of this Rule that it should have prescribed every particular circumstance and mode of worship fit and requisite to be used in God's Service, and it is farther requisite that it should do this clearly in all the instances forementioned, since otherwise we cannot be assured, that we act in all these modes and circumstances according unto its directions. Now seeing it is certain that it hath not done so in all the instances forementioned in answer to the former Arguments, since learned, pious and judicious men can find no such determinations there, and therefore judge, dispute, and act so variously in those matters, because they find nothing delivered in those cases with so great clearness, and particularity as may determine them in all these cases how to act; I say this being so, it must be evident that Scripture cannot be according to this supposition a sufficient, plain and perfect Rule. 4ly, This mistake tends to cast all rational worship out of the Church by deterring men from inventing, or studying how to do Gods Work aright, for if all that man inventeth or deviseth, without a particular direction from the Holy Scripture, be forbidden by it, then must we not study to find out the true Method of Praying or Preaching, nor must we study what to say till we are speaking, nor what time, gesture, place or words to use, there being no particular direction for these things, it being only said in general, Study to show thyself a Workman that needs not be ashamed. Now banish Study, and you banish Knowledge, and rational Religion from the World. 5ly, This opinion will bring in all confusion instead of pure reasonable worship, whilst every man is left to find that in Scripture which never was there, one will think that he findeth one thing there, and another, another thing. Yea every man will be apt to think he findeth that there which his own corrupt mind brings thither. It will bring confusion into Families, as well as Churches, whilst every Child, and Servant will, by this principle, be tempted to reject the Instructions of his Master, or Father who would teach him a Catechisin, or form of Prayer for which the Scripture affords him no particular direction. 6ly, And hereby all possibility of Union among Christians must perish, till this opinion perish; for if we must unite only in that which Scripture doth particularly direct us to, we must not unite at all. If we must all in singing Psalms agree in no Metre, or tune in the Church, but one that Scripture hath prescribed us, we must not sing at all; If we must pray in public only in Words prescribed by Scripture to be used in public, we must not pray at all in public; If we must receive the Sacrament only when it is consecrated in Words prescribed by Scripture, we must not receive at all. 7ly, Hereby Christian love will be quenched, when every man must account his Brother a Transgressor against the perfect Rule of Scripture that cannot show a Text of Scripture for the hour, the place of worship, the bells, the hour-glasses, the pulpit, the utensils which are used in the Service of God. Hereby those pious Men, Calvin, Cartwright, Sibs, Perkins, Hildersham, who used a form of Prayer, yea almost all the Christians in the World must be condemned. 8ly, This Doctrine will rack and perplex the Conscience of all Christians by forcing them to think that they are guilty of sin by every Tune, Metre, Word, Gesture, Time, Place, or any other Circumstance of worship which they use without a Scripture warrant. On this account some dare not pray in their Families, some dare not think what they shall pray, some dare not teach their Children to pray, some dare not hear a studied Sermon, or read a printed Book. To conclude, this Tenet will affright poor people from Scripture and Religion, and make us, our doctrine and worship ridiculous in the sight of all the World. Lastly, I add that they who do assert this Tenet, do many things repugnant to it. As v. g. They introduce Lay Elders unordained, of whom there is no mention in the Scriptures, or in the Church of the first Ages. They sing in stinted Metre Hymns of their own devising, for which no Precept or Example can be produced from the Book of God. Besides where hath our Lord, or his Apostles enjoined a Direrectory for public worship? and that which they imposed, what Authority could it pretend to, but that of man? They when they take an Oath do not refuse to lay their hands upon, and kiss the Holy Scriptures. Now all agree that Oaths are solemn Acts of Divine Worship, for they are Invocations of God, and thereby we acknowledge his Omniscience, and that he knows the uprightness of our intentions, and that his Justice will avenge itself on the false Swearer, and that his Power is able to inflict upon him the severest Judgements, and that he by his promise stands bound to help, and to reward all those who do believe, and act according to the Holy Scriptures. Here therefore is an outward Ceremony of Humane Institution joined with many acts of religious worship. Again when they enjoined the solemn League and Covenant they ordered that the whole Congregation should take it 1. uncovered, 2 standing, 3. with their right hand lift up and bare. Now let any man of reason say, if it be unlawful to submit to our three Ceremonies of kneeling, crossing, and wearing a white Garment in God's Service, why it is less unlawful to use three other Ceremonies in that more solemn act of worship, viz. the taking of an Oath, or if men may appoint these Ceremonies to be used in taking of an Oath, what hinders but in other acts of worship they may do the like? CHAP. IU. The CONTENTS. Obj. 3. It is unlawful to add unto the parts of God's worship, but to add our Ceremonies to God's worship is to add to the parts of God's worship, which they endeavour to prove by 12 Arguments. To this Argument we answer 1. By showing what outward worship in the general is, viz. The Acknowledgement of some Excellency in the Person worshipped, by actions proper to express our Sense or Apprehension of that Excellency. Whence 'tis concluded that our Ceremonies can be no parts of worship, because not in themselves, or by their imposition intended to express our Sense of any Divine Excellency: The Arguments to the contrary are briefly, but fully answered, §. 1. Obj. 4. To impose our Ceremonies without licence from Christ is to invade his Kingly Office, he being the sole Lawgiver to his Church, and derogate from his Prophetic Office, which is the only Teacher of his Church, and the Appointer of all means whereby we should be taught. Answ. 1. That it falsely is supposed that the Rulers of our Church have ordained any Ceremonies to teach Spiritual Duties by their Mystical Signification, or to be Authentic means of Spiritual Teaching. (2) That it can be no derogation from Christ's Prophetic, or his Kingly Office to stir up our minds by things apt to stir them up to the performance of their duty, or to express and signify our duty by things apt to express and signify it. 3ly, That it is not true that Christ in Scripture hath set down all things by which we may be admonished of our duty. 4. That this Argument concludes with equal strength against the imposition of all Ceremonies, even time and place. 5ly, That the Injunction made by Rulers for Decency and Order, if they do truly answer these ends, are made by virtual Commission from Christ, and therefore can be no Entrenchment on his Legislative Power. Mr. Baxter's Objection answered, §. 22. CHAP. IU. §. 1 IT is not lawful to add unto the parts of God's worship; Obj. 3 but to add our Ceremonies to God's worship, is to add to the parts of God's worship, Repl. to Dr. Ham. p. 85. therefore it is not lawful to add our Ceremonies to God's worship. The Minor is proved by Mr. jean's thus: Because our Ceremonies are external worship, and therefore parts of God's worship. That our Ceremonies are external worship he proves by these Arguments: Arg. 1 1. Those external Ceremonies whose proper use is the honouring of God are external worship; but our Ceremonies are such. Ergo. Arg. 2 2. All external Ceremonies in their Nature formally elicited from Religion, are external worship, but our Ceremonies are such. Ergo. Or thus: All mere and immediate actions of Religion are parts of Divine worship; but our Ceremonies are mere and immediate acts of Religion. Another argues in the like manner thus: Arg. 3 1. As the means that God hath appointed to teach obedience be acts of Divine Service, so the means that man deviseth, for that end and purpose, must needs be worship also. Arg. 4 2. Those signs that are devised to be means of Spiritual Instruction by their notable, and mystical signification are essential parts of worship: It being a part and means of his worship, to teach his worship. Arg. 5 3. The public reading of the Scripture for the Edification of the Church is acknowledged to be a part of God's worship, so is the Preaching, Explaining, and Applying of the Word, and if to teach by Word be a worship of God, to teach by Sign, whether significative by the appointment of God, or declaratory by the Invention of man, is worship also. Arg. 6 4. All actions whereby Spiritual Duties are taught in God's solemn worship, are acts whereby God is worshipped, and all acts whereby God is worshipped in his solemn Service, are worship; but significant Ceremonies do teach Spiritual Duties in the worship of God, and consequently God is worshipped by them, and they are worship. Arg. 7 5. The use of Jewish Ceremonies in the solemn worship of God was a part of his true and immediate worship, and service, therefore others also must be a part of his worship; for, agreeing with them in common nature and use, they must needs consent in the common nature of worship, though they differ in their adjuncts. Add to these the Arguments of Mr. William Bradshaw in his Treatise of Divine Worship. Arg. 8 1. All Actions and Services that man performeth directly to God are parts of Divine worship, Chap. 1 §. 2 it being impossible to imagine how the Creature should perform any Service or do any action to the Creator, but worship. But such are the Ceremonies. Arg. 9 2. All Special things done in the Service of God are worship; §. 3 but such are the Ceremonies. Arg. 10 3. All Special actions done in the Service of God must either bring Special honour to God, §. 4 and so be parts of his worship, or they must needs dishonour him, because all actions done in his worship which bring no honour to him, are a profanation of the Name of God. Arg. 11 4. As Civil Ceremonies tned to the honour of them to whom Civil Worship is due, Chap. 5 §. 7 and is a part thereof, so Religious Ceremonies tend to the honour of him to whom Religious Worship is due, and is a part thereof, neither can any man imagine how any thing should be Religious, whether a Substance, or a Ceremony, but it must needs respect him whom Religion itself respecteth. Chap. 7 5. Those peculiar Rites and Ceremonies which are in that manner and form used in the Service of God, § 20 Arg. 12 that if God himself did but ratify, and confirm that present use of them, should then be parts of his true outward worship, must needs, as they are used without his Ordinance be parts of a false outward worship, for whatsoever God toeth in a peculiar manner to his worship is a part thereof. Those Ceremonies therefore in controversy being of this Nature, must be parts of false worship, for else the bare ratifying of them could not make them true worship. Answ. For Answer to all these trifling Arguments, it will be only necessary to lay down plainly what is the Nature, and what are the Requisites of Religious worship, which being done the vanity of these pretended Arguments will be obvious to every discerning Eye. Now outward worship in the general is the Acknowledgement of some Excellency in the Person worshipped by actions proper to express our Sense or Apprehension of that Excellency, so that three things concur unto the Constitution of it, viz. 1. An apprehension of that excellency in a person which deserves to be adored. 2ly, An Act of the will inclining us to do what we conceive is proper to testify our apprehension of that excellency. 3ly, An outward Act, performed for the expression of our Conceptions of that excellency. Where therefore there is no intention to express our apprehension of any excellency in another, Coral. by any Action we perform, nor is there in the Nature of the Action any signification or expression of that excellency, there can be no worship, and therefore no false Worship; it being therefore evident that in wearing of a Surplice, or using the sign of a Cross, there is no Natural signification of any excellency of that God we Worship, nor is there in us, who do use these things, any intention to express our apprehension of any excellence in God, 'tis certain they can be no Worship, and therefore no false Worship of God. 2. This being the Nature of Worship in the general, Religious Worship must be an Act or Service in its own Nature, or the intention of the Worshipper expressive of some excellency, or perfection in the object Worshipped. And hence our knowledge, or conceptions of God, our disputations and disquisitions touching his Nature, and his attributes are no parts of Worship, though they be terminated upon God, and he be the sole object of them, because they do express no Honour, they are not designed as the expression of our apprehensions of his excellency. 3. God being the only object of Religious Worship, all Worship that is truly called Religious, must be either terminated on God, or such as doth express some excellency that properly belongs unto him, if it be terminated on God, and doth express no excellency belonging to him, and give him no real Honour, though it be designed to Honour him, it is then Superstitious Worship of God, if it express some excellency proper to God, but terminated one the Creature, it is then Idolatrous Worship. Those Ceremonies therefore which are not used with a design to express any Honour which we own to God, cannot be superstitious Worship, and If they do not give that Honour to the Creature which is due to God, they cannot be Idolatrous Worship. 4ly, Although those duties which are performed by Christians, relating to the second Table, viz. obedience to Magistrates, love to our Neighbours, and all the Acts of Charity, and Justice, are done for the Lords Sake, 1 Pet. 2.13. and with respect unto God's Glory, Matt. 1 Cor. 10.31. 5.16. and to this end they eat, and drink, and do all other Civil Actions; yet are they not Religious Worship, because the immediate ends of those Actions is not the expression of any excellence in God, but the pleasing of the Magistrate, the doing good to our Neighbour, the refreshing of our Bodies, that therefore any Act may properly be styled Religious, it must proceed from a primary, direct, immediate tendance or intention to give Honour to God, or to express our sense of some of his perfections, or his Holy Attributes, wherefore the primary direct and the immediate intent of the Conformist in submitting to the Ceremonies being the same, viz. Obedience to Superiors in lawful things, he cannot rationally be said to perform Religious Worship by thus using them, though he submit to the injunction for the Lords sake, who hath commanded that obedience. And since the Magistrate commands them not as immediate expressions, or acknowledgements of any excellency in, or Attribute of God, but partly for distinction, partly for decency, and uniformity, and partly for their Antiquity, and lastly as being apt to put us in mind of our duty, they cannot be supposed by commanding of them to these ends to make them parts of Worship. 5ly, External and Bodily Worship is either Substantial, or Circumstantial, and Ceremonial, the Substantial parts of God's outward Worship are vocal Prayer, Praises, hearing of the Word, not as the word of Man, but of God, receiving of the Sacraments, as they import an entering into Covenant with God, and an Eucharistical Oblation of our Souls and Bodies to him. Those Bodily Acts which be performed by us in pursuance of these substantial parts of Worship, and whereby we do signify either our Reverence of that God in whose presence we are, or with whom we have to do, as standing, uncovering the head, kneeling at Prayer, bowing of our Body at our entrance into the place of God's Worship, prostration, lifting up our Hands or Eyes to Heaven, or whereby we do make profession of our Faith in God, as standing up at the Creed, to profession of our Faith in a Crucified Saviour, on which account the Ancients used the sign of the Cross, or lastly whereby we enter into Covenant with God according to his institution, as by receiving of the Sacramental signs. All these are Ceremonial, or Circumstantial parts of Worship. 6ly, These Ceremonial parts of Worship are in the general commanded by God, and they are natural signs of Reverence required by the second Commandment, for that forbidding all outward Religious Worship to be given to that which is not God, and that because it is that Worship which is due to God, the affirmative part of that precept must be supposed to be this, Thou shalt give unto me that outward Worship; when therefore our Church Commands her subjects to Kneel at their receiving of the Sacrament with Prayer; and doth exhort, but not Command them, to Worship God when they do enter into the place of Worship, or bow unto the blessed Jesus, who is God blessed for evermore, when they are by his Name put in Remembrance of that great Salvation which he hath wrought for us, she only doth appoint that to be done at such a time, which God hath in the general Commanded to be done, and so doth institute no uncommanded part of Worship. 7ly, When any thing is by God Commanded to be done in his own Worship which doth not primarily, directly, and immediately tend to express, or signify our sense or apprehension of his excellency, or his Attributes, the doing of it in its own Nature is no part of Worship, but only the doing of it in Obedience to the Command of God, for all obedience is an acknowledgement of God's Sovereign Power, and the subjection which we own unto it. Thus v. g. to receive the person that is to be Baptised, to give the Bread and Wine to the Communicants, are no parts of outward Worship, because they are not directly and immediately designed to express any excellence of God, but only done in order to the Baptising of the person to be received into the Church, or the convenience of the Communicants receiving. Sitting at the receiving of the Sacrament can be no part of Worship in those Churches which retain the gesture, because it is retained only as a most fitting Table gesture, and all those things which God enjoined to be done in his own Temple, the use of the Snuffers, and the Tongues, the cleansing of the Candlesticks, the lighting up of the Candles, the bringing in of the Wood for the offerings, with infinite things of a like Nature, could be no parts of Worship, otherwise than as they were performed directly in obedience to a Divine Command. Now hence 'tis easy to return an Answer to the forementioned objections: For, 1st. Hence it appears, that the proper use of those Ceremonies of the Church of England which are not Natural, or Instituted parts of Worship, is not the Honouring of God by the acknowledgement of any of his excellencies, which is sufficient refutation of the first Argument. 2ly, Hence it appears, that they are not mere and immediate Acts of Religion, or formally elicited from Religion, as the second Argument supposes. 3ly, Hence it is evident, that all the means that God hath appointed to teach Obedience are not Acts of Divine Worship, as Preaching, Reading of the Word, pious Discourse, good Advice, and good Example, which is sufficient Answer to the third Argument, which also falsely doth suggest that our Ceremonies are devised to that end. 4ly, Hence it appears, that it is no part of God's Worship to teach his Worship, teaching being an Action directed not immediately to God, but Men: nor are our Ceremonies devised to be means of Spiritual instruction by their Mystical signification: nor are such signs necessarily essential parts of Worship, (unless afflictions which are signs of God's displeasure designed to be means of Spiritual instruction, be also parts of Divine Worship) as the fourth Argument supposeth. 5ly, Hence it is manifest, that the teaching and reading of the Scriptures for edification of the Church, is no part of God's Worship, for the reason mentioned before, on which false supposition doth the fifth Argument proceed. 6ly, Nor are all Actions whereby Spiritual duties are taught in God's Solemn Worship, Acts whereby God is Worshipped, as is suggested in the sixth Argument. 7ly, Nor was the use of Jewish Ceremonies in the Solemn Worship of God, any part of his true and immediate Worship, unless they were such Jewish Ceremonies as did express, or signify some Divine Excellency, or the acknowledgement thereof in those that used them, as the seventh Argument suggest, but doth not prove. 8ly, Nor are our uncommanded Ceremonies performed directly to God, as is supposed Argument the eighth. 9ly, Nor are all special things done in the Service of God parts of his Worship, as is asserted Argument the ninth. 10ly. Nor must all special Actions done in the Service of God bring special Honour to him, viz. by the signification of any of his excellencies, not the snuffing of the Candles, not the bringing of the Wood to the Temple, as the tenth Argument supposeth, such Actions are indeed performed in order to those things which do bring Honour to God, even as submission to the Ceremonies prescribed by the Church is done in order to the free Preaching of the Word, and to the demonstration of our Obedience to Superiors, and to the preservation of the Church's Peace, by which things God is highly Honoured. 11ly, All Civil Ceremonies, or all the Circumstances of them, are not parts of Civil Worship; not the taking of the Cup, by the Cupbearer, but the Kneeling with it; not the filling out of the Wine, but the tendering it in that humble posture. In a word, only those Ceremonies whereby we do express our sense of some excellency in our Civil Superiors, or which by Nature, or by Custom signify some excellency in the person to whom they are performed, are parts of Civil Worship. And so also is the case with reference to Religious Worship: Nor are our Ceremonies Religious, but only Ceremonies used in Religion. 12ly, Nor would the Command of God to use a Surplice, or sign with the Cross, to signify to the Congregation the Reception of the Baptised Person into the Society of Christians, make these Ceremonies parts of Divine Worship, any otherwise than the doing of them would be an Act of Obedience to God's Command, and therefore the doing of them without that Command, can be no Worship, and therefore no false Worship: Nor is all that God toeth in a particular manner to his Worship, any part thereof. Obj. 4 To bring in any Ceremonies of Ordained and Mystical signification appropriated to the Worship of God, without any Licence from Christ himself, is to Trespass against his Kingly Office, for he is the only Lawgiver to his Church, and hath committed to her no Authority of appointing new things, but a Ministry to observe and do such things as Christ hath appointed with order and decency unto Edification: It also is a derogation from the fullness of Christ's Prophetic Office: For Christ is the only Teacher of his Church, and the Appointer of all means whereby we should be taught and admonished of any holy Duty, and whatsoever he hath thought good to teach his Church, and the means whereby, he hath perfectly set down in Holy Scripture, so that to acknowledge any other means of teaching and admonishing us of our Duty, than such as he hath appointed, is to receive another teacher into the Church besides him, and to confess some imperfection in the means he hath ordained to teach us by. This I would learn, saith Ames, how we can acknowledge and receive any means of Religious teaching with Faith, except it appear to be appointed by an Authentic Teacher and Lawgiver, and how our Prelates in appointing means of Spiritual teaching, which Christ appointed not, can be accounted therein Ministerial Teachers under him as their, and our only Authentic Teacher: As also, if Christ be our Authentic Teacher in all good that we learn about Religion; who taught our Prelates so good manners as to put Fescues of their own making into his hand, and so appoint him after what manner and by what means he shall Teach us? To this objection I Answer: Answ. 1 That this Argument is grounded upon this false supposition, that the Rulers of our Church have instituted any Ceremonies to teach Spiritual Duties, by their Mystical significations, or to be Authentic means of Spiritual Teaching, whereas I know no Ceremonies appointed to be used to that end, so that both the use of the Ceremony and the end, are matter of the Church's Precept, and it were folly for her to make such Constitutions, for since the Church cannot discern whether I have learned that Spiritual Duty by using of her Ceremonies, or not: She cannot punish the Offenders against such an Ordinance, and so must vainly make it: She hath indeed appointed such Ceremonies as she conceiveth apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the remembrance of his Duty, Preface to the C. prayer of Cer. etc. by some notable and special signification, and therefore hath enjoined them, because she so conceiveth of them; but she hath no where said that she enjoins them to Teach Spiritual Duties, or assigned any determinate signification of them, v. g. she hath enjoined her Ministers to wear a Surplice when they Officiate, but hath not said that she enjoins it to Teach them Innocence, or Purity, or any other Spiritual Duty: Rubr. after the Communion. She enjoins her People to Kneel at the Sacrament, and tells us that we should signify thereby our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ; but then she doth not say that she designs thereby to Teach us Humility and Gratitude for those benefits, but only calls upon us to express that humility and gratitude which she supposeth we have learned already. In a Word these Ceremonies are not by her appointed to signify at all, much less to signify what being used without her institution they would not signify, but they are appointed to be used as being apt when used, to mind us of, or, bring into our minds our Duty, or as fit to excite within us Pious meditations and reflections. Answ. 2 2ly, I answer that if it be no derogation from Christ's Kingly or Prophetic Office to stir up our minds to the performance of our duty by things apt to stir them up unto it, or to express and signify our duty by things apt to express and signify it, then can it be no encroachment on those Offices to impose or require such things as have an aptness thus to signify and mind us of our duties, for in itself it cannot be unlawful to require what may be lawfully performed, though it be not required; Now if it be a derogation from Christ's Prophetic, or his Kingly Office to use such things as are apt to put us in mind of our duty, it must be unlawful to toll a bell to put us in mind of going to Prayers, to keep by us a skull or skeleton to mind us of our Mortality, or a of Leathern Breeches, as Dr. Prideaux did, to mind us of our former low Condition, to have our vaults or burying places ready fitted and prepared, as the Eastern Nations had, and some great persons have, because these things are apt to mind us of our latter ends, or to set apart a closet in our Chambers for private devotions, that so our coming thither may mind us of our duty. Moreover, than the ingenious Meditations of pious Mr. boil, and Quarles his Emblems, and all the History of the five Books of Moses graven in Stone in the Chapter House of Sarum, and all things of like Nature which are apt to bring to our Remembrance good things, and are not by our Lord in Scripture appointed to be used to these ends, must be all Sacrilegious usurpations upon Christ's Kingly and Prophetic Office. Again, then must that pack of Cards which Contains the whole History of the Popish Plot, and our deliverance from it be guilty of this Crime, because they were designed to stir up our minds to an abhorrence of their wickedness, and a Thanksgiving to the Author of our Deliverance, and we, with equal reason, may ask that profound Question of Dr. Ames, who taught the Author of them, such good manners as to put Fescues of his own making into our hands to mind us of these things? Lastly, Upon the same account it must be a derogation from Christ's Prophetic and his Kingly Office to require men to come gravely into the House of God, or be uncovered there, or to kneel at their devotions, because these things are apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the Remembrance of the Majesty, and Greatness of that God with whom he hath to do. By these, and many other Instances of a like nature, it appears that, though it may be doubted whether our Ceremonies be indeed apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the Remembrance of his duty to God, yet cannot it be rationally doubted but what is apt to do so may be both practised and imposed, without any derogation from the Kingly or Prophetic Office of our Lord. Answ. 3 3ly, Hath Christ set down in Scripture all things that may any way conduce to excite good affections in us, or give occasion to any pious Meditations, or hath he not? if he hath not, then is not the assertion true on which the Argument is grounded, viz. That Christ in Scripture hath set down all things by which we lawfully may be admonished of our duty. If he hath, then 'tis not possible, that any man should have a good affection, or pious meditation stirred up within him by any other means, or object, than such as is expressly contained in the Word of God: Than which assertion nothing can be be more false. Who knows not that memorable Story of the Cook who from consideration of the heat of his own Fire was moved to reflect on the excessive torments of Hellfire, and thereby to abstain from that iniquity which would expose him to them. Should a Dissenter in his discourse with one of this calling, or in his writings, advise him to make this reflection, would he usurp upon Christ's Regal or Prophetic Office? Answ. 4 4ly, Tho this Objection speaks only of Mystical significant Ceremonies, yet doth it, with equal strength conclude against all Ceremonies, and against the Appointment of time, and place for public worship; for if this be a good Argument, Christ is the only Lawgiver to his Church; and therefore the Rulers of the Church may make no Laws concerning Ceremonies of Mystical Signification, why is not this as good, Christ is the only Lawgiver to his Church, and therefore they may make no Laws touching the time and place of public worship? And if Christ hath committed to his Church no Authority of appointing new things, but only a Ministry to observe and do such things which Christ hath appointed, then either Christ hath appointed time and place, or she hath no Authority to appoint them. To this Dr. Ames answers, that time and place are no new things. But I hope to appoint new time and place, is to appoint new things, and to make Laws determining a time and place not determined before, is to make a new Law about them. Again if this Argument be good, Christ is the only Lawgiver to his Church, and therefore the Rulers of the Church may make no Laws concerning Ceremonies, etc. why is not this as good, Christ is the only Lawgiver to his Church, and therefore the Civil Magistrate may make no Laws concerning the Payment of Tithes, or allowance of maintenance to Ministers, or of making charitable Provisions for the Poor, or touching any other Christian duty. But must leave every man to his Freedom in these matters, as Christ did. Answ. 5 5ly, 1 Cor. 14.40, 10, 31, 32. Christ having by his Apostles given Commandments which only primarily concern the Rulers of the Church, viz. That all things in the Church be done decently and orderly, to the Glory of God, Rom. 14.19. and so as to give none Offence, that Christians should follow after the things, which make for Peace, and whereby they may edify one the other. I say this being so, all the Injunctions made by the Rulers of the Church, pursuant to the ends of Decency, and Order, the Glory of God, the avoiding Scandal, the preservation of Peace, Unity, Edification, and for prevention of the Contrary, are done by virtual Commission from this one Lawgiver, and therefore can be no Entrenchment on his Legislative Power. And if Superiors should mistake in Judging that such things did really conduce unto the decency, and orderly performance of God's Service, or to the other ends forementioned, when indeed they do not so, yet would not their imposing of them for these ends be any usurpation upon Christ's Legislative Power, any more than a Law made by Civil Rulers which proveth inexpedient, or burdensome to the people, though by the Makers of it it was intended for their good, usurps upon the Legislative Power of the God of Heaven; For as it is judiciously said by Mr. Disp. 5. Chap. 2. §. 29. Baxter, if just Authority shall injuriously, (he should have said mistakingly) determine of such things, it may be the Subjects duty to obey, because these are not matters alien to their Power, and without their line, but only this is an imprudent overdoing in a work that belongeth to them. When St. James saith, that there is one Lawgiver, he most plainly speaks of such a Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy, or pass the Sentence of Absolution, and Condemnation upon others, whence he infers that they who take upon them to censure and condemn their Brethren, usurp his Prerogative, but he speaks not about the Laws of Decency and Order, and therefore cannot be supposed to condemn them. And whereas Mr. Answ. to the Commissioners p. 65. Baxter doth plausibly object against the Imposition of our Ceremonies, that they are equally useful to the Church Universal in all Ages as to any Particular Church or Age, and therefore should be the Matter of an Universal Law, if of any, and so should be the Work of the Universal Lawgiver, if of any. I answer, This, if granted, will only prove that there is no such positive decency Expedience, or Edification in these Ceremonies, as is conceived by our Rulers, that should render them fit to be imposed, but doth not prove that they usurp upon Christ's Legislative Power by imposing of them to these ends. But 2ly, This way of Arguing will necessarily condemn the Church of Christ throughout all Ages, she having always used, and by her Canons and Constitutions imposed such Ceremonies as were equally useful in all Ages, and all Churches, as in any, as u.g. standing, upon the Lordsday, at Prayer, receiving of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper fasting, and all the Ceremonies anciently annexed to baptism, to omit many others of like Nature before mentioned. Now saith he in another place: I dare not think or assert that for truth which will condemn all the Christian Churches in the World throughout most Ages of it. Disp. 5. Chap. 2. from §. 7. to the 24. 3ly, The same Judicious Person gives us many instances of matters relating to the Service of God, which Christ hath not determined by Law; as v. g. What utensils to employ about the Public Worship of God: whether we shall receive the Lords Supper at a Table of Wood, or Stone, whether we shall sing in Rythm, or Metre, or in Prose, what Order shall be observed in Reading of the Scripture, or how much of it shall be read at a time, what Method we shall use in Preaching, what Words in Prayer, or what Gesture, with many other things of a like Nature which he most truly saith are all left to humane Determination, ibid. §. 27.28. and to humane Prudence. And yet according to his Argument, seeing no reason can be given why the Determination of most of them would not be equally useful in all Ages and all Churches, they must be the matter of an Universal Law, if of any, and so of an Universal Lawgiver, and so cannot be left to humane Prudence or Determination. Again, when the same Person Argues against the Imposition of our Ceremonies thus: Disp. 5. Chap. 4. §. 3. If these things are needful now, why not throughout all Ages, and all Churches, if therefore Christ did neither by himself, nor his Apostles, institute, and impose these Rites, then either the imposing of them is needless, and consequently noxious, or else you must say that Christ hath omitted a needful part of his Law, which implies that he was either ignorant what to do, or neglective of his Affairs. This Argument again condemns all the Churches of Christ throughout all Ages, since the Apostles times, who have always used some Ceremonies, which neither Christ nor his Apostles thought fit to institute. And 2ly, It also renders it unlawful for humane Prudence to determine any of those things, which, saith he, Christ and his Apostles have left undetermined, they being mostly such as are, or may be equally useful in all Ages of the Church, and such of which it may be said whensoever they are determined by humane Prudence, if they are needful now, why not always? etc. CHAP. V The CONTENTS. Obj. 5. Those Ceremonies which God himself appointed to teach his Church by their signification may not now be used, much less may those which man hath devised, §. 1. Answ. 1. That as St. Paul submitted to some Jewish Rites unlawfully required by the Jewish Christians, that he might gain the Jew and Minister to their Salvation, so may the Christian submit to Ceremonies unfitly imposed by Superiors, for like good ends. Answ. the 2d. This Argument offers nothing against signs Natural and Customary, such as are kneeling at the Sacrament, the Cross in Baptism, standing up at the Creed. But only against signs arbitrary from the imposing of which the Excellent Bishop Taylor doth excuse our Church, §. 2. Obj. 6. The use of the Ceremonies is superstitious, and therefore cannot be submitted to. Answ. By stating the true Notion of Superstition, and showing, 1. That Superstition is a species of false Worship, and therefore where no Worship is exhibited by the act done, or intended by the Doer or Imposer of it, as in the case of our Ceremonies, there can be no Superstition in that Act. 2ly, That Superstitious Worship undue as to the manner of it can only be performed by offering that as acceptable and pleasing to God, or as an Exercise of Religion, or an Acknowledgement of some of God's Perfections which is not so. 3ly, All Superstition consisting Fundamentally in this mistake, and formally in the ensuing Practice; It follows that the Forbearance of an Act upon the like mistake, viz. That we conceive it wellpleasing to God, and tending to his Honour to forbear it when indeed it is not so, is Superstition, §. 3. Hence our Dissenters must be Superstitious, provided that the Rites, that they refuse Submission to, be lawful in themselves. 1. Because they do, and must esteem this their refusal as an Act of special Honour done to God. 2ly, Because they must esteem themselves by this forbearance Preservers of God's Worship pure and spiritual. 3ly, Because they must esteem themselves under a necessity of displeasing God by joining in Communion with us, §. 4. §. 5. What is the true Import of Edification, §. 6. Obj. 7. We must not submit to the Institution or Introduction of New Sacraments; And therefore not to the Institution of the Ceremonies of the Church of England, they having the Nature of Sacraments, §. 7. Answ. 1. That the Ceremonies of the Church of England are not appointed to be signs of Spiritual Grace, or to confirm Grace to us. 2ly, That the designing of these Ceremonies to express, signify, or bring into our minds Spiritual Duties, cannot make them Sacraments: With reasons, why the Representation of some Spiritual Duty by a mystical Rite, cannot as properly pertain to the Nature of a Sacrament, as the sealing some Spiritual Promise doth, §. 8. Many things required in Sacraments which are all wanting in our Ceremonies, §. 9 Mr. Baxters Arguments to prove the Cross, as used in our Church a Sacrament are answered, §. 10. CHAP. V. BUt say Dissenters: Obj. 5 If those Ceremonies which God himself ordained to teach his Church by their signification, may not now be used, §. 1 much less may those which man hath devised; now God hath abrogated his own, not only those that were appointed to prefigure Christ, but such also as served by their signification to teach moral duties, and so as now, without great sin, none of them can be continued in the Church, no not for signification, and therefore to bring in others of like Nature, is to Judaize. To confirm this Argument they add, that if men may impose such Ceremonies, because of their significancy, they may reduce into the Church of Christ all the whole Mass of Jewish Ceremonies, as v. g. 1. Those of moral signification, as the not eating of Blood, to teach us to avoid cruelty towards the life of man and beast; the not eating of unclean beasts, to denote our abhorrence of the impurities and immoralities which by that abstinence the Jews were taught to refrain from; the not touching any thing unclean, to mind us of avoiding all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit, to omit infinite instances of like Nature. 2ly, By the like reason many Jewish Rites which were Types, and Shadows of things to come may be reduced into the Church upon other accounts, as v. g. Circumcision, to mind us of the Circumcision of the Heart, the Paschal Lamb, to signify our Gratitude for passing from Darkness unto Light, or from our Spiritual Thraldom unto sin, into the Liberty of the Sons of God, all Sacrifices of Thanksgiving, and all whereby they owned God to be the Author of Life and Death, and all their temporal Mercies, and did Acknowledge that they deserved to die for sin, and all the Jewish Garments importing Spiritual Duties to be performed by their Priests, with many things of a like Nature. And indeed, saith Bishop Taylor, If the Church might add things, Dust. Dub. l. 3. c. 4. R. 20. §, 7. or rituals of Signification, than the Walls might be covered with the Figures of Doves, Sheep, Lambs, Serpents, Birds, and the Communion Table with Wine, Herbs, Tapers, Pigeons, Raisins, Hony, Milk, and Lambs, and whatsoever else the wit of man can invent. But the manner of teaching these truths, by Symbolical things & actions, is too low, too suspicious, too dangerous, to be mingled with Divine Liturgies. Christ may, as he please, consign his own good things that he gives us, but he consigns no good, and represents none but what he also gives and effects in that Ministration, and under that Sign; but a Symbolical Rite of humane Invention to signify what it doth not effect, and then introduced into the solemn Worship of God, is so like those vain Imaginations, and Representments forbidden in the second Commandment, that the very Suspicion is more against Edification, than their use can pretend to, and it is also unbefitting the Gravity and Spirituality of our Religion. Moreover it is certain that Christ did therefore break the Yoke of Moses and cancel all the Ceremonial Rites contained in that Law, because they were in themselves Burdensome, Acts 15.10. Unprofitable and weak, Hebr. 7.18.13.9. because they were but weak and beggarly Elements, Gal. 4.9. The Rudiments of the World, Col. 2.8, 20. Rudiments to which we were in bondage, Gal. 4.3, 9 And were appointed only till the time of Reformation, whence it doth seem to follow, that to introduce like Rites, as burdensome, unprofitable, weak and beggarly, is to reduce us in some measure to a state of Judaisme. And that we are not to be subject to such Rudiments is proved from Colos. 2.20. Where the Apostle speaking partly of the Jewish Ordinances which were abolished, and partly of the Insittutions of the Essens or Philosophers which others laboured to bring into the Christian Faith, said thus: If ye be dead with Christ from the Rudiments of the World, Serm. of Superst. p. 15. wherefore, as living in the World are ye subject to Ordinances? i.e. saith Dr. Still. If ye are freed from the Yoke of the Law, what reason is there ye should submit to another, which depends only on the Authority and Invention of men, and Dr. In locum. Hammond thus: If ye have received the Christian Faith as you ought to do, and have made that use of the Death of Christ as to have forsaken all other Doctrines, and Practices, to receive him, and so to look upon the Rights of the Jews, and the Philosophy of the Gentiles to be abolished and out-dated, why do you now subject yourselves to such Abstinencies as either out of Heathen, or Jewish Practices are brought in among you? And whereas it is answered, 1. Still. 16. p. 16. That the Apostle speaks not here of those who had Lawful Authority to impose such things, but of Seducers: It may be thus replied: That this is not material, seeing the Apostle doth not reject these things, as being introduced without just Authority, but as being Ordinances to which the Christian ought not to be subject, they being Rudiments of the World, and things which did insinuate that they who practised them were not yet dead unto the World with Christ. 2ly, Ibid. Whereas 'tis answered that the Apostle speaks not of things appointed merely for Decency and Order, but of such things as are supposed by the Imposers to have more of true Perfection and Sanctity in them, more Humility and Mortification, and consequently to be more pleasing to God than bare obedience to the Precepts of Christ, and his Apostles, and that such only are here censured, it is replied; That they who think these Rites fit to be imposed on the account of their Edification, Decency, and Order, must think them more pleasing to God, than bare obedience to Christ's Precepts in Celebration of his Worship, and much more they who being importuned, out of pity to the Souls of their weak Brethren, to abstain from the imposing of these things upon them answer with our Commissioners, that the things they desire to be excused from, §. 8 have a Real Goodness in them, a fitness and decency, §. 7 and that though Charity will move to pity & relieve those that are truly perplexed and scrupulous, yet we must not break God's Command in Charity to them, and therefore we must not perform Gods Public Services undecently or disorderly, for the Ease of tender Consciences. For must not these men think that our Public Service is better and more pleasing to God when performed with, than when performed without our Ceremonies, even abstractly from their Institution, and that the using of these Ceremonies doth add some Real Goodness in the Service, which would be wanting in it otherwise! Ductor Du●it. l. 3. c. 4. R. 20. In a word, We are to remember, §. 8 saith the Reverend Bishop Taylor, That Figures and Shadows were for the Old Testament, but Light and Manifestation is in the New, and the Egyptians indeed did teach Religion by Symbolical Figures, and in the Schools of Plato and Pythagoras, they taught their Scholars by Numbers and Figures, but we that walk in the Light of the Gospel, and rejoice in that Light, have received from Christ and his Apostles an easier way of teaching the People, and are not therefore to return to the Elements and Rituals of Jews, and Pagan Schools, Christ left no sign but two, that did also effect as well as signify, and if they had only signified, and done no other good, we have no reason to believe that they would have been appointed. To this very weighty Argument, I think it very difficult to give a full and Satisfactory Answer, though unto others it seems very slight. What I can honestly reply unto it is to this effect. Answ. 1 1. §. 2 That as St. Paul submitted to some Jewish Rites unlawfully required by the Jewish Christians as necessary to be observed by Jews, that he might gain the Jews, and minister to their Salvation, so may the Christian submit to Ceremonies imposed unduly by Superiors, when this is necessary for Preservation of the Church's Peace, Unity, and Welfare, and to enable us to serve the Church of Christ in ministering to the Salvation of the Souls committed to our Charge, or to whose Service we are devoted by our Ordination; so that this Argument, though it seem strong against the Imposition of our Ceremonies, provided that they be imposed as significant, and teaching Ceremonies, yet doth it not conclude against Submission to them on the foresaid accounts. Answ. 2 2ly, I answer that we must distinguish betwixt Signs natural, and customary, and Signs which are arbitrary, and tropological, A natural Sign is that which naturally, and before any Institution, doth signify to others who perceive them, that which is intended by them, or which they do import, as sighing, smiting of the Breast, importeth Heaviness and Sorrow, A customary Sign is that which custom, antecedently to any Institution, hath determined to this or that signification in the place where such a custom doth obtain; Thus pulling off the Hat with us is now, and pulling off the Shoe among the Eastern Nations, was anciently with them a sign of Reverence; Now of such signs it truly may be said, they rather are Expressions, than Documents of what they do import. Such, v. g. were the ancient Love Feasts, and the Kiss of Charity, approved, or required by the Apostles, viz. Expressions of that sincere affection which they bore towards their Christian Brethren. And such is kneeling, and prostration in prayer, embracing and shaking of hands; Such, saith the Apostle, was that covering of the Woman's Head in time of Public Prayer, even that which Nature taught, 1 Cor. 11.14, 15. Such are the Festivals of the Church, viz. Expressions of our Praises for the Mercies then received. And the standing from Easter to Whitsunday, and on the Lord's day, used in the ancient Church, was not to teach by way of signification any duty, but to express and testify their Belief of our Lord's Resurrection, and for this end we also stand up at the Creed; now that such signs may lawfully be used and required, I know no cause of doubting from any thing which this Objection offers, they being not instructive in, but only expressive of our Faith and Duty, and under this head may be comprised, kneeling at the Sacrament, as an Expression of our inward Reverence, and signing with the Cross, as an Expression of our Faith in, and owning of the crucified Jesus. Signs Arbitrary are such as neither of themselves, nor yet by any antecedent Custom, do signify distincty and determinately to others, that which they are instituted or imposed to teach or signify, such are the Elements of Bread and Wine, for the breaking of Bread doth no more naturally signify the breaking of Christ's Body on the Cross, than the breaking of any other thing would do, and such are all the moral significations of the Rites appointed by the Jewish Law concerning clean Beasts for Sacrifice, and unclean forbidden to be sacrificed or eaten, and such is the wearing of a Surplice to teach, or signify purity, it being naturally, or by any antecedent Custom, no more proper determinately to teach or signify to the Beholder, or ourselves this Grace, than the putting of it on upon black Garments to signify Hypocrisy, and a Pharisaical Temper, and that we are like Scpulchres, white without, but black within. Against the fitness of the Imposition therefore of such arbitrary signs to teach those duties which are more plainly and determinately taught already in the Word of God, I fear this Argument too strongly doth conclude. But then the Excellent Bishop Taylor doth sufficiently excuse our Church from this supposed guilt by saying that, There is reason to celebrate and honour the Wisdom and Prudence of the the Church of England, Ibid. §. 8. p. 327 which hath in all her Offices retained but one Ceremony that is not of Divine Ordinance, or Apostolical Practice, & that is the Cross in Baptism. Which though it be a significant Ceremony, and of no other use, yet as it is a compliance with the Practice of all ancient Churches, so is it very innocent in itself, and being one and alone, is in no regard troublesome or afflictive to those that understand her Power, and her Liberty, and Reason. I said, she hath one only Ceremony of her own appointment, for the Ring in Marriage is the Symbol of Civil, nor a religious Contract, it is a Pledge and Custom of the Nation, not of the Religion, and those other Circumstances of her Worship are but determinations of time and place, and manner of a duty: They serve to other purposes besides signification, they were not made for that, but for Order and Decency, for which there is an Apostolical Precept, and a Natural Reason, and an Evident Necessity, or a great Convenience. Now if, besides these uses, they can be construed to any good signification, or instruction, that is so far from being a prejudice to them, that it is their Advantage, their Principal End being different, and warranted, and not destroyed by their superinduced and accidental use. sect. 3 The use of the Ceremonies is superstitious, O●●. 6. and therefore we, say they, cannot submit unto the Practice of them without sin. That the use of the Ceremonies in Religious Worship is superstitious they prove by Arguments already answered, viz. That it is super statutum or more than God hath in his Word required, and that they are imposed as parts of Worship. Moreover these things, say they, cannot be used without Superstition in the Service of God which have no necessary or profitable use in his Service, for as vain Thoughts, and Words, are forbidden in the Holy Scripture, so is it not to be doubted but that vain actions are forbidden, especially in the Worship of God. Answ. 1 To give a Satisfactory Answer unto this Objection, it will be only necessary to state the Notion, or true import of Superstition, that by applying it to our own Practice, and to the Practice of Dissenters, we may judge who are most guilty of this vice. 1. Therefore Superstition being a species of false Worship, whereby we do exhibit Worship to an Object to which it is not due, or to that Object which deserveth Worship, in an undue manner, it follows plainly that where no Worship is exhibited by the act done, or intended by the Doer, or Imposer of the act, there can be no Superstition in the Exercise of such an act; there may be Vanity, and an abuse of Power in the imposing rites unprofitable, and unnecessary, but there can be no Superstition, or Will Worship, where there is neither any act of Worship, nor any Will to worship God by the Performance of these Rites, nor designation of them unto such an end. 2ly, Superstitious Worship, undue as to the manner of it, can only be performed by offering that as acceptable, and pleasing to God, or as an Exercise of Religion, and honour to God, or an Acknowledgement of some of his perfections, which is not acceptable, or well pleasing to him, which rendereth him no honour, and doth not tend to the Acknowledgement of any of his Attributes or perfections, for by performing that which indeed is pleasing and acceptable to God, or which doth render honour to him, we cannot be superstitious, hence it must follow that when men make those things a part of their Religion which God hath not commanded, or forbidden, and think God is pleased with their mere doing, or abstaining from doing them, they in so doing must be superstitious. Two things are therefore necessary to complete this species of false Worship, viz. 1. That the matter about which it is conversant relate to the doing some supposed Religious Act, that is, some Act of Service acceptable and well pleasing to God, and which directly tends unto his honour. 2ly, That he who doth it do really mistake in judging such an action to be indeed Religious, and tending to his honour, and therefore acceptable to him. 3ly, All Superstition consisting fundamentally in this mistake, and formally in the ensuing practice thereupon, it must with equal reason be concluded that the forbearance of an act upon the like mistake, viz. that we conceive it well pleasing to God, and tending to his honour to forbear it, when indeed it is not so, is Superstition, because by that Forbearance we equally design to please and honour God, and do it as unduly with respect unto the manner. And therefore it is well observed by Dr. Stillingfleet That many Superstitions condemned in Scripture chief consist in the forbearance of things lawful, Serm. of Superst. p. 37. on supposition that the forbearance of them was well pleasing to God. The Superstition condemned, Coloss. 2.22. lay in supposing God to be pleased with their Forbearance of things lawful, with their not touching, tasting, handling them, and therefore was a negative Superstition. And so it was in the dispute between Christ, and the Pharisees, about healing on the Sabbath day, they thought it unlawful, and therefore did abstain, Christ thought it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day, and therefore did it, here was no positive observance on the Pharisees part, yet here was Superstition in them, and therefore the true Notion of Superstition doth extend to the Forbearance of things in themselves lawful, as displeasing to God. §. 4 Now to apply these things, that the Forbearance of the Ceremonies required by the Church of England, on supposition that they are lawful in themselves, and yet are by Dissenters abstained from as unlawful, must be superstitious, will be exceeding evident. 1. Because they do, and must according to their Principles esteem this their refusal to submit unto them when imposed, as an act of special honour to God, it being a declaration of their minds that they think God dishonoured by such acts, and therefore dare not comply with them, it can be only fear of sinning against God which can engage them with the hazard of their Estates and Ease, etc. thus to refuse obedience to the Commands of their Superiors. They then must look on this refusal as a product of the fear of God, and as an act of true obedience to him in opposition to the unjust Commands of men, or an obeying God more than man, and consequently they must esteem themselves more holy, acceptable, and well pleasing to God on the account of this Forbearance than Conformists are. 2ly, Because they do, and must esteem God's Worship corrupted by the use of these our Rites, as to the Purity, and the Spirituality of it, and so they do esteem themselves by this Forbearance, Preservers of his Worship pure and spiritual, and free from that Idolatry and Superstition, with which they charge it upon these accounts. 3ly, Because they do, and must according to their principles rather refuse to join in the external Communion of our Church, and rather bound to set up separate Communions, than to comply with these our Rites; now surely nothing but a necessity of displeasing God by joining in Communion with us can warrant their refusal of it, nothing but a necessity by God imposed on them of setting up such separate Communions in Order to the acceptable Worship of God, can justify their Separation, if therefore they mistake in Judging that such necessity is laid upon them, as they must do, if it be lawful to submit unto these Rites, and hold Communion with us notwithstanding the necessity which lies upon them to submit unto them, they must be superstitious in that Practice which follows from this grand mistake. §. 5 In answer to the Close of this Objection it is said, That these things edify by their Signification, and therefore must be good and profitable, and so not like unto vain Words and Actions. To this it is replied by Dissenters that many things of a like Nature, when they are used by devout and thinking men, may edify by their Signification, and yet the imposition of them upon that account would scarce exempt them from the appearance of vanity. As v. g. Should a Church Governor command his Subjects to appear in Armour in the Church to signify their Spiritual Warfare, or to put on an Helmet to signify that they would manfully fight under Christ's Banner, or to drink Milk in token of their desire to feed on the sincere Milk of the Word, or to use Vinegar and Gall in token of their Resolution to undergo the greatest Hardships for the Sake of Christ, or to put on a pair of Spectacles to signify we are dim sighted in the things of Christ, though the Signification of these things might tend to edify, the things required could hardly be excused from vanity. 2ly, They add that Edification in the Scripture Sense is quite another thing from this obscure way of teaching by Signification. To edify our Brother in the Scripture Sense is to build him up, and to confirm him, and help him forward in the Christian Faith, 1 Tim. 1.4. Jud. 20. The things by which the Church is said to receive Edification are of a better Nature, viz. Walking in the Fear of God, and in the Comfort of the Holy Ghost, Act. 9, 31. The Preaching of the Word, 1 Cor. 14.3, 4, 5. Christian admonition and discourse Administering Grace unto the Hearer, Eph. 4.29. The Graces of the Holy Spirit descending on Christ's Members, Eph. 4.16. Of the Edification of any indifferent and humane Ceremony the Scripture speaketh not one Word. We are then said in Scripture to edify our Brother when we forbear indifferent and unnecessary things which through his weakness do cooperate towards his ruin, Rom. 14.19, 20. We do it by our Charity towards him in these things, for Charity edifyeth, 1 Cor. 8.1. By our Promotion of unity, and so by the removal of such unnecessary things as do obstruct it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edify yourselves into one, 1 Thes. 5.11. Answ. But were this granted, that some one or more of our Ceremonies seemed to you unprofitable and unserviceable to the use of Edifying, what is that to you, who only are concerned to know whether what your Superiors Command may lawfully be done by you, and who Transgress your bounds when you presume to judge, whether the things imposed be in their own Nature's profitable, edifying, or convenient to be imposed; for if they be as you conceive, the fault supposed in the imposing of them is not yours but theirs, whereas the fault in not submitting to them, if lawful, will most certainly be yours. 2ly, Whatsoever they are in themselves, yet your submission to them in obedience to the lawful Commands of your Superiors, for preservation of the Church's Peace, for the prevention of Schism, and all its dreadful consequents, for the obtaining freedom to join in the Communion of the Church, will doubtless highly tend to your Edification and your Profit, as being a Submission to them for such Pious Christian ends, as Christianity most stirictly doth oblige us to aim at, and pursue, and which are in themselves sufficient to sanctify an action otherwise unprofitable, and render it a Christian Duty. Lastly to Kneel at the receiving of the Sacrament, to express our Reverence and Humility, to sign a Child with the Cross, in token to the Congregation that he is listed among Christ's Members, or wear a Surplice for decency or distinction, cannot be proved to be vain, by any of the Instances forementioned. Obj. 7 We cannot, say Dissenters, lawfully submit to the institution, §. 7 or introduction of New Sacraments into the Church of God, or use them being introduced without Divine Institution: For a Sacrament, according to the Catechism of the Church of England, being an outward visible sign of inward Spiritual grace, and both a means thereof, and a pledge to assure us of it, he only can have power to appoint a Sacramental sign, who has right to promise, and power to Minister that grace; and therefore he alone who is the God of all grace can institute a Sacrament; now that our Ceremonies, some at least of them, are Sacraments, they endeavour to prove by these Arguments. 1. All Mystical Bodily rites and signs of Spiritual grace administered to the Church of God in his Solemn Service, to confirm grace, and that by him who represents the Person of Christ, are Sacraments; but such are the greatest part of our Ceremonies, for they being Administered to Edify the Soul and Conscience, must be Administered to confirm grace, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper being for this cause alone a Sacrament, because it is a Mystical Rite whereby the Soul Spiritually feedeth upon Christ, i. e. is Edified in Christ, these being Mystical Rites whereby the Soul is Edified must be also Sacraments. 2ly, No reason, say they, can be given why the representation of some Spiritual Duty by a Mystical Rite should not as properly pertain to the Nature of a Sacrament, as the shadowing, or Sealing some Spiritual promise, and it seems altogether as lawful for Man to devise signs for the confirmations of his Faith, as to admonish of, and teach his Duty, for what difference is there between an addition to the means of instruction appointed by God, and to the means of our assurance prescribed by him, the Commandments and Promises being so knit together that we cannot perform our Duty without assurance of some benefit by it from God. Moreover, to be a teacher of the understanding, and exciter of devotion, requireth power supernatural no less than to be a confirmer of the heart, and he who hath Authority to ordain means effectual for any of these ends, can bless them all, and Man hath as much power to Seal what he cannot bestow, as to teach by his own sign that which he cannot bless to that end. Answ. 1 1. It must be granted that it is not in the power of the Church to introduce new Sacraments truly and properly so called, but then unto the Arguments produced to prove our Ceremonies to have the Nature of true Sacraments, I Reply: 1. That I know not any Ceremonies which by the Church of England are appointed to be signs of Spiritual grace, or to confirm grace to us, for it is one thing to appoint or use such Rites as in themselves are apt to signify, or mind us of Spiritual things, or bring such things to our remembrance, which the Church confessedly doth, and it is another thing to appoint such Rites to be used to that end, which the Church doth not, by the bare using of the thing appointed we comply with the institution in the first sense, but only by using of these Rites to such an end, do we comply with it in the Second; now where doth the Church of England require us to use her Ceremonies to such ends? Where doth she say, you shall wear a Surplice to put you in mind of that purity of Conversation which is required by the Ministers of Christ, you shall Kneel to signify or mind you of that Reverence you own to God, you shall receive the sign of the Cross to put you in mind of your Duty to confess and own a Crucified Saviour: (no sure, that Ceremony is used to Persons not capable of being put in mind of any Duty, only in token to the Congregation that they are listed amongst them who are engaged so to confess.) What enquiry doth the Church of England make, whether any of her Members have used her Ceremonies to these ends or not? When did she ever quarrel with, or punish any for neglecting to use them to these ends? Wherefore the whole foundation of this Argument is, in my judgement, false, and rather grounded upon some fanciful expressions of some Writers of the Church of England, than upon any of her own institutions, and decrees; she having no where said that she administers any of the forementioned Rites to confirm grace, or doth appoint them to be signs of grace, but only that she doth appoint them as being apt, and proper in themselves to put good thoughts into us, or to express our Reverence, as beating on the Breast, or sighing, is apt to signify, or to express our Godly sorrow, and looking up to Heaven, to mind us of the wisdom, and the power of the great Creator, and of that Majesty who dwelleth there. Answer 2 2ly, If the design of these Ceremonies to signify, express, or bring into my mind Spiritual things, would make them Sacraments: Then 1. the kiss of Charity, and the love Feasts used, and approved in the Apostles time, and all the Ancient Ceremonies of the Church designed to signify, or represent Spiritual things, must also be esteemed Sacraments, they being all designed to Edify the Soul, and consequently the whole Church of Christ, from the beginning to this present day, must justly be obnoxious to this Sacrilegious guilt of adding to the Sacraments of Christ. 2ly, Then must all visible Creatures become Sacraments, they being all designed by God to Edify us by instructing us in, and minding us of the Almighty power and Majesty of God. Then 3ly, Every Crucifix, and Picture relating to Spiritual things, every piece of Tapestry, or Turkywork which contains, any piece of sacred History, whereby we may be Edified, Every good Ballad, Pious Book, and Frontispiece set before it, and even that Pack of Cards which lately was contrived to mind us of the Popish Plot, must be a Sacrament: If, as the first Objection saith, all Rites and Signs whereby the Soul is Edified, or which have been designed to that end, are Sacraments, than all the Moral signs of the whole Jewish Law must be reputed Sacraments: The Tabernacle, the Altar, the Sacrifices, the Golden Candlestick, the Lamp, and Snuffers, the Priest's Garments, the Phylacteries and Fringes which God Commanded them to wear for a Memorial, the clean Beasts appointed to be Eaten, and Offered, and the unclean to be abstained from, must all be Sacraments according to this Rule, they being Rites appointed to signify Spiritual things, or Duties, and so to Edify the Soul and Conscience, yea every good word we speak, every instruction we deliver to our Child, or Friend, or our Parishioners, every Public Prayer must be a Sacrament, for words are signs, and these are words, and therefore signs designed to Edify the Soul. Lastly, If every thing designed to teach the understanding, or to excite devotion only as objects, and as occasions which the mind of Man may use, or may reflect on to that end, must be a Sacrament, than every Gibbet set up to mind us of the Punishment of evil doers, and every person executed on them, must be Sacraments, they being objects proper to Minister occasion to our minds to reflect upon the shame and punishment of such offences as bring Men to the Gibbet, than all God's judgements upon wicked Persons, and all the mercies he vouchsafes unto his Servants, as Testimonies of his kindness to them, and the examples of all Pious Men, must be accounted Sacraments, they being all designed to teach our understanding, or excite devotion in us; and it will be as much unlawful, when I wash my hands, to reflect upon my obligation to purity of heart and life, or when I taste the sweetness of my food, or think upon my care and labour to procure it, to reflect upon the sweetness of the bread of life, and how much more I am concerned to labour after it, as to use the imposed Ceremonies as the occasions of devout conceptions: And lastly, then to smite upon my Breast to excite Godly sorrow, to Pray prostrate, to increase, or to express my humility, or perform any other actions of like Nature, must be to add unto the Sacraments of Christ's appointment. And whereas the objection adds that no reason can be given why the representation of some Spiritual Duty by a Mystical Rite should not as properly pertain to the Nature of a Sacrament, as the shadowing or sealing some Spiritual promise: I Answer, the disparity is very plain, for these Rites, falsely styled Mystical, may of themselves be apt to express, or put me in mind of my Duty, but cannot of themselves be apt, without God's pleasure signified, to seal his promise, or to assure me of his grace. I can by meditation, or by reflection upon the meanest object, move myself to the performance of my Duty, but cannot by the like reflections move the Author of every good and perfect gift to give me what he never promised, or seal unto me any Spiritual blessing. §. 9 Lastly, If we may take an estimate of Sacraments from those recorded in the Old, or the New Testament, we shall find many things required to Sacraments which are all wanting in our Ceremonies, supposing that they were enjoined to these very ends. For, 1. A Sacramental sign of Duty obliges us to the performance of the Duty signified, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to thankfulness for the blessings represented by the Elements, and to walk as becomes the Members of Christ's Body, whereas a Ceremony, though apt to signify, doth not oblige us to the performance of the Duty signified, nor do I sin against God, provided I live holily and purely, though the consideration of a Surplice do never move me so to do, or be by me improved to that end. 2ly, All Sacraments import a Covenant established betwixt God and Man, a Stipulation on each part, and by partaking of them we either enter into, or else renew our Covenant with God, and make profession that we are in Covenant with him: And by just consequence a Sacrament is Sacrae rei signum in quantum est significans, a sacred sign which sanctifies, and separates the receiver from others who do not receive, or own such Rites, thus by the Sacraments of Circumcision, and the Passover the Jews were made a separate People from all other Nations, and the neglect of either of these ordinances was Cutting off from God's People, because this was a breaking of God's Covenant, Numb. 9.13. Gen. 17.14. likewise we Christians are by Baptism received into Covenant with God, by eating at God's Table we make profession of our adherence to that Covenant, and also by participating in the Blood of the New Covenant, and to exclude a Person from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, is to exclude him from the Communion of the Body of Christ. 3ly, All Sacraments contain a promise on the part of God, and Stipulation on the part of Man, and upon this account they do not only mind us of our Duty, but also lay upon us fresh obligations to perform it, and also they oblige our God to give us grace sufficient to perform that Duty to which he doth oblige us by these Sacraments: Now there is nothing of all this in our three Ceremonies; we do not by them enter into Covenant with God, nor are we by them Sanctified, or Separated from other Christians who use them not, nor doth God by them promise any Blessings to us, nor do we oblige our Souls to any Duties towards him, nor do we enter into any Stipulations with him, or he with us, they who do most, do only take occasion from them to reflect upon their Duty, as Men of Fancy, and Devout affections may do from any other thing which doth occasionally present itself unto their minds: And whereas it is more particularly excepted against the sign of the Cross, that as it is imposed it hath the Nature of a Sacrament, from this discourse we may return an easy Answer to the objections made against it, as v. g. §. 10 Here is, saith Mr. Baxter, the outward visible sign, the Cross: Di●p. 5. of Cer. chap. 2. §. 56. Answ. Just such another as is made in the Air by Preaching, we may see the Minister making a Cross, but who ever saw an Aerial Cross after it was made? 2ly, The inward and Spiritual Grace, saith he, is a Holy resolution to fight Manfully under the banner of Christ, and to persevere therein. Answ. An Holy resolution in an Infant is a Spiritual grace indeed: Here is, saith he, 1st. A signification of grace to be wrought on the Soul, and given us by God. 2ly, An engagement to perform the Duties of the Covenant ourselves, on God's part we are to receive by this sign both qualitative, and actual grace, and relative grace. Answ. All this is said without all ground from any thing delivered by the Church of England, it is no sign assuring us of God's grace, as all true Sacraments are, 'tis no engaging sign either on God's part, or on ours, but only an Indicatory sign to the Congregation, that the Baptised Person is listed among those who are to fight under Christ's Banner: The Cross, saith he, is to Teach our Understandings, and help our Memories, and quicken our dull Affections by minding us of a Crucified Christ, and the benefits of his Cross, so that this, §. 57 and such other Ceremonies are appointed to Teach the understanding by their Signification. Answ. The Book of Common Prayer, saith not they are appointed to teach, but only that the things appointed are apt to stir up the dull mind, the difference of which two Phrases I have showed already. And that this, saith he, §. 58 is the way of working grace as God's word, and Sacraments do, is undeniable. Answ. We are discoursing here not of God's Word, but of his Sacraments, and that they only work grace Morally, and as things apt to stir up the dull mind of Man, and by objective Teaching, is a false assertion, which renders the Sacraments unnecessary, and no more operative than is a Meditation on the things they represent, whereas indeed they seal grace, they have a promise of grace annexed to them, and they confer it Physically on the due receiver: §. 59 And then, saith he, for relative grace, it is plain, that by the sign of the Cross, as well as by Baptism, we are entered into a state of Christianity, and so it is an investing Sacramental sign, it listeth us under the Banner of Christ Crucified: And that is the very essential Nature of the Sacrament of Baptism itself. Answ. It is not true that the Cross used by the Church of England is an investing sign, or that we by the Cross are entered into a state of Christianity, it being only a declarative sign to others that we have been entered by Baptism: §. 60, 61. If, saith he, you judge it essential to a Sacrament to be an engaging sign in the very Covenant of grace itself, the Cross is instituted to this end, it is to engage ourselves to a Crucified Christ as our Captain and Saviour by his Cross, and to bind ourselves to the Duty of Soldiers or Christians to our lives end, and consequently to teach us to expect the privileges of faithful Servants and Soldiers from a Crucified Christ; all this he gathers from these words of the Common-Prayer, we sign this Child with the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ Crucified, etc. But these words, rightly Interpreted, give him no Colour for any of his inferences, the token there spoken of, relating not to the Child, who is uncapable of taking notice of it, but to the Congregation into which he is received, so that it is as much as if it were said, we receive this Child into the Congregation present, in token to them, that he is now by Baptism become one of them who are Members of the Crucified Jesus, and so hereafter shall not be ashamed to confess that Faith; this will be evident from the subscription made by Dr. Burges in these words, where the Book saith, Defence of Dr. Morton p. 24, 25. And do sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token, etc. I understand the Book not to mean that the figure of the Cross hath any virtue in it to effect, or further this Duty, but only to intimate and express by that Ceremony, by which the Ancients did avow their profession of Christ Crucified, what the Congregation hopeth and expecteth hereafter from that Infant, viz. that he shall not be ashamed to profess the Faith of Christ Crucified, into which he was even now Baptised. And therefore also when the 30th. Canon saith, that the Infant is by that sign Dedicated unto the Service of Christ, I understand that Dedication to import, not a real consecration of the Child, which was done in Baptism itself, but only a Ceremonial declaration of that Dedication; like as the Priest is said to make clean the Leper, whose being clean he only declared. These Interpretations King James accepted, p. 26. and my Lord's Grace of Canterbury affirmed them to be the true sense and intention of the Church of England. And again p. 477, 478 The Child, saith he, must first be Baptised, and upon that Baptism be acknowledged by the Minister, speaking then in the Name of the whole Congregation in the Plural Number, we receive this Child, etc. to be now made a visible Member of the Church of Christ by Baptism, before he may use this Ceremony of the Cross: And, when he doth use it, he is bound at that instant to profess, and tell why it is done, namely, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed, etc. that is, not be ashamed of that Covenant whereinto he is by Baptism now entered: So as no Man can say that this is done to add either virtue to the Sacrament, or capacity of grace to the Child, but only for intimation to the whole Congregation for their instruction, what it is to which Baptism once received, binds all Christians that come to age convenient; which Ceremony the Church of England thought good to retain, because it had such an use in the purer times. If any Man doth yet stumble, as I confess myself to have done, at those words of the 30th. Canon, that by this Lawful Ceremony, and Honourable Badge, this Child is Dedicated to the Service of Christ; I pray such a one to know, and I have good warrant to assure him, that the word Dedicated doth here import no more than declared by that Ceremony to be dedicated, like as the Priest is said to have cleansed the Leper whom he only declared to be clean, Levit. Disp. the 5. of Cer. chap. 3. ●. 18, 16. 14.11. Now to this end, saith Mr. Baxter, and on these terms was the sign of the Cross used heretofore by Christians, and therefore I durst not have reproved any of the Ancient Christians that used the sign of the Cross merely as a professing signal action, to show to the Heathen, and Jews about them, that they believed in a Crucified Christ, and were not ashamed of his Cross. The occasional indifferent use of this when it is merely to this end, I durst not have condemned. CHAP. VI The CONTENTS. The Arguments against the Rites established by the Church of England by which Dissenters do endeavour to show, that though they may be lawful in themselves, yet are they not to be submitted to by reason of some Circumstances which attend them, are reduced to their respective Heads, viz. 1. The supposed Violation of Christian Liberty. 2ly, The abuse of them by others to Superstition and Idolatry. 3ly The appearance of Evil that is in them. 4ly, The Scandal which they minister to the Weak. And lastly, That by submitting to them they should partake of the supposed sin of the Imposer, §. 1. Objection the 1st. They violate our Christian Liberty, because they render us subject to Ordinances, which is the thing forbidden, 2 Coloss. 20. 2ly, The Servants of men, which is forbidden, 1 Cor. 7.23. 3ly, Because they bind the Conscience. And 4ly, Because they are urged on those who in their Consciences condemn them, §. 2. In answer to this Objection it is asserted that the determination of any thing indifferent by our Superiors, provided they do not impose it as a thing necessary in its own Nature, or as a part of our Religious Worship, can no ways violate our Christian Liberty. And that 1. Because Scripture lays Restraints upon our Liberty in matters of this Nature. 2ly, Then all our Vows and Promises respecting things indifferent relating to the Service of God, would violate our Christian Liberty. 3ly, Because what we may do, though no Injunction of the Magistrate required it, cannot be sin when done, because he doth require it. 4ly, Then, should the Magistrate forbidden the doing of the things enjoined, we must not leave undone what he forbids. 5ly, Then is it in the Power of the Magistrate to cut off all that Liberty we have in matters of this Nature, and to oblige us not to do what ever we are left at Liberty by God to do. 6ly, Because this pretended Liberty is the occasion of lamentable Mischiefs to the Church of God, whereas the good which can accrue unto her Members by it, is but little. 7ly, Because such a pretended Liberty is contrary to the Practice of Church Governors laid down in Scripture, and to the Rules prescribed for their Government, §. 3. Corollaries: 1. Hence it is evident, that Christian Liberty cannot be violated by these impositions, because Conscience is bound to yield obedience to them, when they are imposed. Nor 2. By requiring Persons to do that of which their Conscience being erroneous, doubts, or which it doth condemn. A direct Answer is returned. 1. To that Passage of St. Paul, ye are bought with a price, be not ye the servants of men, 1 Cor. 7.23. 2ly, To that of Coloss. 2.20. If ye be dead with Christ from the Rudiments of the World, wherefore are ye subject to Ordinances? §. 4. Obj. 2. Our Ceremonies have been abused to Superstition and Idolatry, and therefore, being not of necessary use, should be abolished; and cannot be submitted to without disobedience to many Precepts of the Old and New Testament, requiring the abolition of things so abused, §. 5. Answ. 1. That these Commands were given only to the Jewish Nation, and where no Natural Analogy, or moral reason can be showed for their perpetual Obligation, cannot be binding to the Christian, and that the contrary Tenet will be very mischievous to Christian Kingdoms and People. Ans. 2. That it cannot rationally be supposed that God, by any of the Texts alleged, forbids the doing of a lawful action merely because it hath been, is, or may, by others, be abused to Superstition or Idolatry, provided we do not continue to be ensnared by it, nor is there any ground of fear that we should be so; 1. Because this Interpretation of them would rob us of our Churches, and our Bells, and many other things which the Dissenters do allow of. 2ly, Because then many things which both Jews and Christians practised would be unlawful. 3ly, Because neither the Jews nor our Lord Jesus, nor his Disciples, did scruple such material Conformity with Heathens in indifferent matters as our Dissenters do condemn. Ans. 3. That Superstition and Idolatry can cleave no longer to such Actions than the mistake of men's opinions of them doth remain. Ans. 4. That though it be not necessary to impose our Ceremonies, yet when they are imposed by Authority, they become necessary in their use, and so are not to be accounted things unnecessary in respect of us, §. 6. A direct Answer is given to the Text objected; 1. By showing that the things in which the Jewish Nation are forbid to do after the manner of the Canaanites, or the Egyptians, are either Idolatrous Actions or Ceremonies, or Actions tending to Idolatry, or contrary to the Service of God. As in Exod. 23.24. Leu. 18.3. Deut. 12.4. Not to Name their Gods, Exod. 23.13. is not to Worship, enter into covenant with, or to swear by them. 3. The import of that Phrase thou shalt call me no more Baal. Hos. 2.16. 4. The reason why God commanded his own People to destroy the Altars, and the Images of Heathens, and not to take unto themselves the Silver, Gold, and other Furniture belonging to them was the prevention of their erecting of them, and preserving them to give Idolatrous Worship to them, or make them Instruments of Idolatry. As Exod. 34.13. Deut. 7.25. Esa. 30.22. 5. Why the Jews were forbid to round the Corners of their Heads, or mar the Corners of their Beards, Leu. 19.27, 28. 6ly, 2 Cor. 6.17. Touch not the unclean thing,. And Judas. 23. Hate even the Garments spotted with the Flesh, are impertinently produced against the using of our Ceremonies. 7ly, The eating of things sacrificed to Idols condemned, Revel. 2.14.20. was only eating of them in the Idol Temples, and at the Feasts of Idols so as to be Partakers of the Table of Devils, or to commit Idolatry by the Participation of them, §. 7. Answer to the Examples objected, as 1. To that of Jacob causing his Family to give him the Earrings which were in their Ears. 2ly, Of Daniel who would not defile himself with the portion of the King's Meat, Dan. 1.8. 3ly, Of Mordecai refusing to bow to Haman. 4ly, Of Hezekiah who broke the Brazen Serpent when it was abused to Idolatry, §. 8. Obj. 3. We must abstain from all appearance of evil, 1 Thess. 5.22. Now the Ceremonies, at least have an appearance of evil in them. Answ. 1. The Words may be well rendered thus, abstain from every sort or kind of evil, or thus, from every appearance that is evil. A. 2. The Apostle only adviseth us to abstain from that which after trial seemeth evil to ourselves, and not from that which only doth appear to others to be evil. The absurdity and mischief of the Exposition of these Words obtruded on us by Dissenters. And the Argument retorted, §. 9 CHAP. VI §. 1 I Have now finished my Answer to those Arguments whereby Dissenters to endeavour to prove the Rites required by the Church of England, as the Conditions of Communion, to be sinful in themselves, and by the Word of God forbidden. I proceed therefore in the last place to answer those Pretences which do, and must proceed on this Concession, That the things required are in themselves indifferent, and not forbidden by the Word of God, and yet they who grant this contend that they are rendered sinful, or such as they cannot with a good Conscience do, by reason of some circumstances which attend the Rites imposed, the imposition of them, or their Practice of them. And 1. The imposition of these things indifferent is represented by them as a Violation of their Christian Liberty, in which they are commanded to stand fast, and consequently are obliged not to betray by their Submission to these Impositions. 2ly, The Rites imposed, say they, though lawful in themselves, have been abused by others to Superstition and Idolatry,; now things indifferent and unnecessary, having been thus abused, become unlawful to be used. 3ly, We are required, say they, to abstain not only from all kinds, but also from all appearances of Evil; now the imposed Rites have in them an appearance of Evil at the least, 1 Thess. 5.22 and therefore are to be avoided. 4ly, We, say they, are commanded to forbear the Practice even of things indifferent, when by the doing of them we minister occasion of Scandal to the Weak; now by the Practice of the imposed Rites we shall be sure to minister occasion of Scandal to our Weak dissenting Brethren, and therefore we conceive ourselves obliged in Conscience to forbear the Practice of them. Lastly, We must not, say they, be partakers of the sins of others; now by imposing of these Rites, as the Conditions of Communion, we cannot but conceive that our Superiors do very grievously sin, and should we tamely yield Submission to them, when imposed, we should encourage and harden them in that iniquity. And therefore think ourselves obliged to forbear the Practice of them. Now unto these Pretences I shall endeavour to return a full, plain, and I hope, satisfactory Answer, beginning with the first. Obj. 1 And 1. It is objected that the Imposition of these Rites bereaves them of their Christian Liberty in reference to things indifferent, §. 2 upon these several accounts. 1. Because it doth restrain their Practice in matters wherein Christ hath left them free, and therefore, say they, The Apostle by saying if you be dead with Christ to the Rudiments of the World, Coloss. 2.20. wherefore are ye subject to Ordinances? Touch not, taste not, handle not, after the Commandments and Doctrines of Men, condemns not only humane decrees concerning Rites and Ceremonies, but also our Subjection to such Ordinances of Men, as take from us Liberty of Practice in the use of things indifferent; for otherwise not touching, not tasting, not handling, being things indifferent, might have been submitted to: And whereas it is said, that Christian Liberty consists only in Liberty of Judgement, but not of Practice, touching matters of this Nature; We see, say they, that when the Apostle giveth Instance of such humane Ordinances as violate our Christian Liberty, he saith not: You must not think, you may not touch, but touch not, etc. Telling us, that when the Practice is restrained from touching, tasting, handling, by the Ordinances of Men, then is Christian Liberty violated, though the Conscience be left free. 2ly, Because obedience to these Impositions renders us the Servants of Men, which St. Paul will not permit, saying: 1 Cor. 7.23. Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the Servants of Men? Where, say they, the Apostle forbids the doing any thing for the Will and Pleasure of Men, when our Conscience can find no other reason for the doing of it, what therefore is pressed upon men by naked Will and Authority, without giving any reason to satisfy the Conscience cannot by Christians be submitted to, because they must not be the Servants of Men. 3ly, The Imposition of these Rites, say they, doth take away our Christian Liberty, because Conscience itself is bound thereby, at least in the Opinion of the Imposers, for the obliging of the Conscience for the time to assent, is the binding of it. 4ly, Because these Impositions are urged upon such as in their Conscience to condemn them, and so they have not the Liberty preserved of abstaining from doing that of the lawfulness whereof their Conscience doubts. Answ. In order to the Refutation of this vain Pretence, §. 3 I shall endeavour 1. To show the Absurdity of this Doctrine or Opinion, and 2ly, To answer what is offered to confirm it. I say then, that it is most absurd to think and teach that the determining of any thing indifferent relating to the Worship of God should be repugant to our Christian Liberty. For Explication of the terms of this Assertion, consider, that a thing indifferent is such a thing or action which in itself is neither good nor evil, neither commanded nor forbidden by God; And that to determine of such actions, is to require us to do, or to omit the Practice of them. 2ly, Consider that there are many actions of this Nature which must be done in Celebration of God's Worship, though God hath no where given Rules touching the circumstance, and manner of performance of them. As v. g. We must, if we will meet for Public Worship, do it in some place, and in some hour of the day, but at what place, or at what hour we should meet, God hath not told us. The Minister, who doth officiate, must do it in some Habit, but in what Habit he shall do it God hath not determined. The Priest, who consecrates the Sacrament, must consecrate some Kind of Wine and Bread, but whether he shall consecrate Claret, or Tent, unleavened, or leavened Bread, round Wafers, or round Loaves, or else flat Cakes, or Rowls, is not declared by the Word of God. The Sacrament received by the Communicant must be received in some Posture, but whether standing, sitting, or kneeling shall be the Posture, our Lord hath not informed us. To sing in Public is declared to be a duty, but whether we shall sing in Metre, or in Prose; with Instruments of Music, or without, plain song, or pricked, the Scripture gives us no directions. These therefore, with all matters of like Nature, already mentioned, are things indifferent, that is, neither commanded, nor forbidden, and they do all relate unto God's Worship. And our Assertion is this: That the determination of any matters of this Nature by our Superiors, Civil, or Sacred, provided they do not impose them as things in their own Nature necessary, or parts of our Religious Worship, doth no ways violate our Christian Liberty. For 1. A Restraint is by the Scripture laid upon our Liberty in matters of this Nature when by the Practice of it we may scandalise our weak Brother, 1 Cor. 8.9. Take heed lest by any means this Liberty of yours become a stumbling block to the weak. And also when, by restraint of this our Liberty in things indifferent, we serve the ends of Love and Charity, Gal. 5.13. Ye are called to Liberty— yet by Love serve one another. Why therefore may not the Authority of God's Vicegerents, or of Christ's Ambassadors, lay like restraints upon our Liberty in matters of this Nature? Why may we not do that for Reverence and Love to them, which Love unto our Neighbour requires us to perform? why should we not be careful that our Superiors be not scandalised, as by our disobedience to them in lawful matters they will be, as well as that we do not scandalise our weaker Brother. Since by abstaining from any thing indifferent for fear of giving scandal to, or out of Love to others, a restraint is put upon our Liberty of Practising these things, as well as by the Precepts of Superiors, why should the one be deemed more inconsistent with our Christian Liberty, than is the other? 2ly, Were this restraint in matters of indifferency relating to the Service of God, a Violation of our Christian Liberty, than all our Vows and Promises respecting things indifferent, relating to the Service of God, must be a Violation of that Liberty, since by them we restrain our Freedom as to those matters, as much as 'tis restrained by the Commands of our Superiors According therefore unto this opinion, should I vow to keep a fast in Lent, to kneel at the Receiving of the Sacrament, to set apart a Room in my own house for private Devotion, or to do any other thing relating to the Service of God which he hath not determined, I could not be obliged to perform those Vows, as being Violations of my Christian Liberty. 3ly, That which I may do, though no Injunction of the Magistrate required it of me, cannot be therefore sin when done, because he doth require it, but any thing indifferent relating to God's Worship may be done by me, though no Injunction of the Magistrate required it, for if it be a thing indifferent, it cannot be forbidden, and what is not forbidden, it cannot be unlawful to perform; now to assert that what I lawfully may do, must be my sin, if done because the Magistrate commands it, is in effect to say what is the plainest Contradiction, viz. That 'tis unlawful to yield obedience to God's Vicegerents in any lawful matter. Moreover though the Magistrate should not determine in matters of this Nature, if we will practise any of these duties, we must ourselves determine of them; v. g. If we will meet for Public Worship, we must appoint some time, and place in which to do it, if we will minister in Sacred Things, we must be clothed with some Habit, a cloak, a gown, or surplice, which we do thus minister. If we will consecrate the Sacrament, we must determine upon some kind of Wine, and Bread in which to do it, and if we will receive the Sacrament, we must pitch upon some Posture in which we will receive, if we will sing, it must be done in Prose, or Meire, and the like. If therefore a necessity doth lie upon us to determine in matters of this Nature before we do perform them, how can it be a Violation of our Christian Liberty, for the Superior Power to do that which we must do ourselves, and which when once the Minister determines for himself, the People's Liberty is equally restrained, as it would be by the Command of their Superior. 4ly, If by imposing of these things indifferent relating to God's Service, which we may leave undone, the Magistrate so violates our Christian Liberty that we may not do them, because he thereby doth restrain our Liberty of leaving these things undone, then by like reason should the Magistrate forbidden the doing of the things enjoined, we must not leave undone what he forbids, because he thereby doth restrain our Liberty of doing of these things, for it is easy to perceive that 'tis as great a Violation of our Liberty to have indifferent things forbidden us, as to have them commanded, that 'tis no less Encrochment on our Liberty to be tied up from what we antecedently to the Command of our Superiors might do, as to be bound to the performance of what we might omit. If then Dissenters think themselves obliged to refuse Submission to these things indifferent because commanded by the Magistrate, 'tis but forbidding them to yield obedience to them, and then, by their own Principle, they must become exact Conformists. Now is not this a Foolish Liberty which tends to make men humoursome and cross to their Superiors, so that what he desires they should do he must forbid, what he desires they should leave undone, he must command, if this be worthy of the name of Christian Liberty, let any Reasonable Person judge. 5ly, If by imposing of a thing indifferent, relating to the Service of God, the Magistrate doth violate our Christian Liberty, and we stand bound not to obey, or to perform the thing commanded, then is it in the power of the Magistrate to cut off all that Liberty we have in matters of this Nature, and to oblige us not to do what ever we are left at Liberty by God to do, as v. g. If he commands us to meet for Public Worship at such a place, or time, we must be bound to do it at another place and time. If he commands the Minister to consecrate such Wine and Bread, he must be bound to consecrate some other kind of Bread and Wine. If he require the people to stand, or sit, at the receiving of the Sacrament, they must be bound to kneel, or use some other Posture, and so in other cases of like Nature. So that this Doctrine puts it into the power of the Magistrate to restrain both our Consciences, and Practices in matters of this Nature, and to determine them to one, and so to take away that Liberty which is so eagerly contended for. And 6ly, This pretended Liberty is the occasion of lamentable mischiefs to the Church of God, whereas the good which can accrue unto her Members by it is but little, the disadvantage they can suffer by the want thereof is inconsiderable. We can receive but little good by such a Liberty from the Commands of our Superiors in things indifferent, because they being such, if we do them we are not the better, or more acceptable to God, and if we do them not we are not the worse, or the less pleasing to him, for otherwise they could not rationally be styled things indifferent; If then our Freedom from obedience in such matters can only be a Freedom of doing or omitting that which, whether we omit or do, we are neither worse, nor better, what good can we receive by such a Freedom? what disadvantage by the want thereof? Is it not the whole design of the Gospel to make us obedient to the Laws of Christ, to make us holy, and free from the Dominion and the Power of sin? and may we not be therefore certain that those actions which are neither good nor evil in themselves, neither commanded nor forbidden by Christ, and therefore no way tend to the obstructing our obedience to Christ, our Holiness of life, or to the depraving of our Souls, and bringing them in bondage to sin, cannot be prejudicial to any interest or design of Christian Doctrine, whether they be performed or omitted? Now is it not absurd to think our Lord should purchase for his Church a Liberty to disobey Superiors in matters wherein their obedience would bring no disadvantage to them, their disobedience will do them no good? Moreover our obedience to our Superiors in such matters, visibly doth rend to the promoting Love, Peace, Unity, Humility, Self denial, orderly Walking, and such like Christian Virtues, and therefore it is most improbable Christ should have purchased our Freedom from it. Our disobedience, as we by sad experience see, doth tend to the promoting Schisms, Dissensions, Uncharitableness, Calumnies, Wrath, Strife, Contention, it procures Strokes for the Backs of Fools, exposes both the Persons, and Families of disobedient Persons to temporal and spiritual Evils, it excludes them from Sacred Ordinances, and the Communion of the Church, and therefore such a Liberty from doing things not evil, or displeasing to God, must be so far from being worthy of our Saviour's purchase, that it doth contradict his great Design, that Love, Peace, Union might flourish in his Church, and that the contrary fruits of the flesh, might be entirely banished from among his Members. 7ly, Such a pretended Liberty is contrary to the Practice of the Church Governors laid down in Scripture, and to the Rules prescribed for their Government; 'tis contrary to that Liberty the Rulers of the Jewish Church did exercise, as I have showed already in many instances of things no where determined by the Law of Moses, and yet enjoined by them, 'tis also contrary to the Apostles Practise, who forbade the using of things strangled and blood, though they not only were things in themselves indifferent, but things required by that Ceremonial Law from which our Lord had freed his Servants, and therefore more might have been pleaded against submitting unto that Decree, than to the Constitutions of the Church of England concerning other things indifferent. Lastly, St. Paul requires that all things which relate unto God's Public Worship, of which he there discourseth, should be done decently and orderly, but how shall Rulers be able to order matters so, if it be an Infringement of our Christian Liberty to have any thing imposed upon us by our Governors for decency and order's sake? Particular Rules being not given us in Scripture about this matter, which to be sure would have been done, were they not left to the determination of the Rulers of the Church. Wherefore to give a brief, but a sufficient Answer to the Objections mentioned, §. 4 1. From what hath been discoursed it is evident, that Christian Liberty cannot be violated by these Impositions, because the Conscience is obliged by them, that is, 'tis bound to yield obedience to them when they are imposed; for if this maketh the Commands of our Superiors to violate our Christian Liberty, Then 1. All the Commands of Masters, Parents and Superiors respecting things indifferent, civil or sacred, must be repugnant to that Liberty, because we are, if Servants, Children or Subjects, obliged to obey them in all lawful matters, even for Conscience sake. 2ly, Then our own vows, and resolutions concerning any thing indifferent, must violate our Christian Liberty, because we are obliged in Conscience to perform them. 3ly, Then can we not abstain from any thing indifferent in case of Scandal, as St. Paul Commands us, without infringing of our Christian Liberty, because our Conscience is then bound, for fear of Scandal, to abstain from what is in itself indifferent. 2ly, It also is exceeding evident that Christian Liberty cannot be violated by requiring Persons to do that of which their Conscience, being erroneous, doubts, or which it doth Condemn, as is insinuated in the fourth Objection. For were this so, Then 1. our Laws must violate true Christian Liberty when they command the Quaker to pay Tithes, for he not only doubts the lawfulness thereof, but peremptorily pronounceth it unlawful so to do. Then 2ly, our Laws Commanding all Papists to come to Church, to obey the King in opposition to the Pope, to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, must violate his Christian Liberty, because he doubts the lawfulness of yielding obedience to them. 3ly, By the same Rule my Christian Liberty must be infringed much more, when Magistrates Command me to abstain from what my Conscience tells me I should do; now seeing an Erroneous Conscience may urge Men to the greatest wickedness, since it may make them verily believe they ought to do many things contrary to the Name of Jesus, Acts 26.9. and that by killing his Disciples, they would do God Service, Joh. 16.2. no Laws according to this Doctrine, can be laid on Men whose Conscience is Erroneous to, bind them not to do the worst of Evils. 3ly, In Answer to that passage of St. Paul, we are bought with a Price, 1 Cor. 7.23. and therefore must not be the Servants of Men. I say, 1. That it is only an advice unto those Christians who being Slaves to Heathens, had once bought their Liberty, or by the bounty of their Friends had been redeemed from Slavery, not to sell themselves again, or to return to the condition of their former Servitude, but to continue in that Liberty; it therefore should be thus Translated, are ye bought with a Price? Be not ye the Servants of Men: To make this clear, consider, that the Apostle is there instructing Christians how to behave themselves in their particular stations and callings, and not upon pretence of Christianity to think themselves obliged to alter their condition, or to neglect those Duties their proper station did require; thus from v. 12th. to the 16th. he requires the believing ●usband not to desert the unbelieving Wife, and the believing Wife not to part from her unbelieving Husband, but to abide in that condition in which the Lord had called them: In the 18th. and 19th. verses he advises the Circumcised Christian, not to desire to be Uncircumcised, & vice versa, but to abide as they were; from v. 21. to v. 24. he gives advice to those who were believing Servants, thus; Art thou called being a Servant? care not for it, think it not a disparagement to Christianity that thou art still a Bondman, but if thou mayst be made Free, prefer Freedom before Bondage. Are you bought with a Price? (as by the Charity of Christians many believers than were) be not then the Servants of Men, return not any more to the condition of your former Slavery: This without doubt is the true import of the words. But 2ly, according to the ordinary reading, and interpretation of them, viz. ye are bought with a Price, even with the Blood of Christ, be ye not the Servants of Men; it giveth no Commission to the Christian, to refuse obedience to his Superiors in lawful matters, for to be the Servants of Men, which is the thing forbidden to Christ's Servants, is only not to yield obedience to Men in any thing repugnant to that Service which they own to Christ, and therefore it is so far from being prejudicial to that obedience we own unto Superiors for the Lords sake, that for this very reason we are required to obey them in all lawful things, because 'tis part of that obedience which Christ requires from us as his Servants, and which we are required to do for the Lords sake: So Col. 3.20. Children obey your Parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord, and v. ●● Servants obey your Masters in all things, and whatsoever you do, do it hearty as to the Lord; for, in serving them, you serve the Lord Christ; it being his ordinance that you obey in yielding to them in all lawful things. And again 1 Pet. 2.13, 16. Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake, as the servants of God: So that you see our being bought with a Price being that which maketh us Christ's servants, even when we are free from Slavery to Men, it must engage us the more strictly to Obedience to Masters, Parents, and Superiors, this being that we own unto them in all lawful matters, for the Lords sake, and which we are obliged to perform as the servants of Christ. Lastly, In Answer to that enquiry of St. Paul, If you be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the World, Coloss. 2.20. wherefore as living in the World are ye subject to Ordinances? Touch not, taste not, handle not, etc. I say, 1. That the Apostle speaks not there of Rites, or Constitutions required by Authority, and owned as things indifferent in their own Nature, but of Doctrines, Dogmas, and Commands of Jews, and of Philosophers, and false Apostles, who could have no Authority to require from them submission to these Doctrines, and Commands, but on supposal of the goodness, and excellency of the things Commanded: He therefore speaketh of such things as the Colossians could not be Subject to on any grounds but such as in themselves were Superstitious, and were reproachful to the Gospel, and to Christ the Author of it, as representing him deficient in wisdom by his neglecting to Command things so exceeding good and excellent. 2ly, The things here mentioned are manifestly things which, in the judgement of these Dogmatisers, were things by which God would be better Worshipped, and his Religion be advanced, or the Professors of it would be rendered more Perfect and Sublime, and for neglect of which they were to be Condemned, though no Authority of Man did interpose for their injunction, as will be evident. 1. From this consideration, that they were things for the neglect of which the false Apostles did condemn the Christian, as is insinuated in these words, let no Man judge, censure, or condemn, you in meats or in drinks, v. 16. yea they were things for want of which Christianity itself was represented as imperfect, and inferior in Wisdom to the Promoters of these institutions; whence the Apostle, in opposition to these false Apostles, declares that in Christ were hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, v. 3. and adds, that this I say, lest any Man should belie you with enticing words, v. 4. Hence he exhorts them to beware lest any Man spoil them through Philosophy and vain Deceit, v. 8, 9 after the Traditions of Men, after the Rudiments of the World, and not after Christ, and gives this reason of his caution, that in him did all fullness dwell, and that we were complete in him. v. 23 2ly, Because these things are styled Will-Worship, they therefore who did introduce them must look upon them as things conducing to the more acceptable service of God, or the advancement of his Worship. 3ly, Because they who performed them did it out of pretence of that Humility, Mortification, and Austerity which they conceived highly acceptable, and well pleasing to God, v. 23. wherefore the Church, which doth acknowledge that the things enjoined by her in their own Nature are indifferent, and such as in themselves do not conduce to make our service more acceptable, and well pleasing to God, can be no ways concerned in this prohibition. Obj. 2 All things, and Rites which have been notoriously abused to Idolatry, §. 5 and Superstition, if they be not such as either God or Nature hath made to be of necessary use, should be utterly abolished, and purged away from Divine Worship, so as not to be used by us, as sacred things, or Rites pertaining to the same, but the Cross, Surplice, Kneeling in the act of receiving, are such Rites as have been thus abused, and therefore, being not of necessary use, they ought, say they, to be abolished. The Major they prove: 1. From many Texts of Scripture which enjoined the Israelites not to do after the works of the Canaanites, Exod. 23.24. or of the Egyptians, or to walk in their Ordinances, Levit. 18.3. not to do so unto the Lord their God, as they did Deut. 12.4. and in particular not to Name their Gods, Exod. 23.13. not to use the Name of Baal, because it had been given to Idols, Hos. 2.16. but to destroy their Altars, break their Images, and cut down their Groves, Exod. 34.13. to burn the Graven Images of their Gods with fire, and not to take unto themselves the Silver and Gold that is upon them, Deut. 7.15. to defile the covering that is upon their Graven Images of Silver, and the ornaments of their molten Images of Gold, to cast them away as menstruous , and say unto them get ye hence, Isa. 30.22. and also from those places which Command them not to round the corners of their Heads, nor mar the corners of their Beards, not to make any cuttings in their Flesh for the dead, nor Print any marks upon their Bodies, Levit. 19.27, 28. to which they add those Texts of the New Testament which require us not to touch the unclean thing, 2 Cor. 6.17. but to hate the Garments spotted with the Flesh, Judas 23. 2ly, Rov. 2.14, 20. Because the Churches of Pergamus and Thyatira are by Christ reproved for suffering Men to teach their Children to eat things offered unto Idols, which in themselves were not unlawful to be eaten, but only did become unlawful because they were abused to Idolatry. And, 3ly, From examples of good Men in Scripture, who abstained from things in themselves lawful upon this account, v. g. the example of Jacob who abolished the Earrings of his Family, as being Ensigns of Superstition, Gen. 35.4. of Hezekiah who broke in pieces the Brazen Serpent, being abused to Idolatry; of Mordecai, who would not bow to Haman, Esth. 3.2. of Daniel who would not eat of the King's meat, which was converted to an Idolatrous use, lest he should be defiled, Dan. 1.8. Now that our Ceremonies have been notoriously abused to Idolatry they prove, because they have been consecrated to the service of Idols, and commonly employed in Idolatrous Worship by the Papists: To this Objection I Answer, Answ. 1 That these Commands of the Old Testament were given only to the Jewish Nation, where no Natural Analogy, §. 6 or Moral reason can be showed for their perpetual obligation, I know not why they should be binding to the Christian any more than other Laws of the like Nature, which do not now oblige, by the confession of our Adversaries; as v. g. they were to kindle no fire on the Sabbath day, Exod. 35.3. but must we therefore kindle none on the Lord's day; they were forbid to take Usury of their Brethren, and yet Dissenters do not Scruple the taking usury one of the other. They were to destroy the places wherein the Inhabitants of Canaan served their Gods, Deut. 12.2. and yet Dissenters did not Scruple to use the Churches which the Papists had abused to Idolatrous Worship: They were to make no Covenants with the Idolaters of Canaan, Exod. 23.32.34.12. Deut. 7.2. may therefore Protestant Princes make no Leagues with Papists? They were utterly to destroy them, Deut 7.2. and that lest they should teach them to do after their abominations. Deut. 20.16, 18. not to have mercy on them, ibid. may we therefore, without mercy, destroy all Papists out of our Dominions, lest they should teach us to do after their abominations, or might they, when they had the power in their hands, deal so unmercifully with us whom they deem guilty also of Idolatry, and an abominable Worship? Lastly, They were obliged to kill the Person who enticed them to Idolatry, Deut. 13.9. and utterly to destroy all who did Sacrifice to any other Gods, save to the Lord only, Exod. 22.20. If any of their Cities were withdrawn from God unto Idolatry, they were obliged to smite it with the Edge of the Sword, utterly destroying it, with the Infants and the Cattle thereof, Deut. 13.15. and to burn the City, and the spoil thereof, and must we therefore deal so unmercifully with any Parish or City that is seduced to Popery? Did our Dissenting Rebels think it necessary to burn our Houses, and the Spoils they took? wherefore we see what mischief will ensue upon applying of things commanded to be observed by the Jews towards Idolaters, to Christian Kingdoms and People. Answ. 2 2. It cannot rationally be supposed that God by these, or any other Texts of the like nature, forbids the doing any lawful action barely on this account that it hath been, or is, or may by others be abused to Idolatry or Superstition, or any other sin, provided we do not continue to be ensnared by it: Nor is there any ground of fear we should be so; for if so, 1. This Interpretation and Application of these places would robus of our Churches and our Bells, and many other things which the most strict Dissenters did allow of, for every Church in which Idolatrous Religion is performed, doth seem as much defiled thereby as any kind of action or gesture can be defiled by this, that others do abuse them to Idolatry, and yet even the Directory saith, that Such places are not subject to such pollution by any Superstition formerly used in them, and now laid aside, as may render them unlawful, or inconvenient: It is well known that the Bells, Fonts, Pews and Desks of our Churches were charmed by Popish Prayers in a superstitious manner, and yet our late Reformers did not think it reasonable that they should be disused upon that account. Now, Defence of Dr. Morton p. 569. as the Reverend Doctor Burges puts the question; Did God ordain Bells to call men to Church? or Churchyards to bury in? or a Font of Stone to baptise in? or a Silver Cup to administer the Wine of the Supper in? or fitting upright at the Communion-Table in token of our familiarity with Christ? or one particular place built on purpose for his people to meet in for his Worship, now under the New Testament, and that separate only to sacred Uses, or this or that prescript Form of Prayer, except the Lord's Prayer, in calling on him? Speak man, are any of these things in their particulars divine, and not humane? are all these such as may not well be spared upon occasion? is there any of these which hath not been superstitiously abused by Papists, or other Idolaters? as the posture of fitting by the Arians; flinch not, dally not, speak the truth, as in the sight of him that shall judge you and us at the last day, and then you shall be forced to confess that some of those Rites and Ceremonies which yourselves either practice, or allow, are as merely humane, have been as much abused as those you impugn, and are not so necessary, but that all, or some of them might well be spared, and yet you allow them. 2ly, If this were so, it must be unlawful to bow our knees and bodies to God, 2 Kings 5.18. because the Heathens bowed their knees to Baal, and their bodies to Rimmon, 1 Kings 19.18. or to prostrate the body to him, as the Heathens did to Idols, Exod. 23.24. or to lift up our eyes to God, Ezek. 18.12. ●● 25. or to stretch forth our hands unto him, because the Heathens lifted up their eyes to Idols, and stretched forth their hands to a strange God, Psal. 44.20. or sit at the Lords Supper because the Heathens sat when they feasted on their Sacrifices in the Idols Temples. I●●● 32.6. 1 〈◊〉 ●●. 19. Whereas we find these signs of Reverence and Gestures still used both by Jews and Christians who bowed their Knees and Bodies to God, 2 Chron. 6.13. Ezra 5.2. 2 Chron. 7.3. Act. 20.36. Eph. 3.14. prostrated their whole bodies to him, Josh. 7.6. Exod. 4.31. Mat. 26.39. Lifted up their eyes, and stretched forth their hands unto him, Psal. 123.1. Mat. 6.11. and lay down at the Paschal Supper, not fearing the transgression of the Precept, Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God. 3ly, The Jews themselves, and that with approbation from God, used many things like unto those which were observed in general by Heathens, and by the Nations in particular, which the Objection mentions, and our Lord Jesus and his Disciples did not scruple such a material conformity with Heathens in indifferent matters, as our Dissenters do condemn. For u.g. the Jews placed the Tabernacle on a great high place in Gibeon, 1 Kings 3.4. where God appeared to Solomon, Verse 5. they placed the Ark in the house of Aminadab on the hill, 1 Sam. 7.1. their Synagogues are called the houses of God, Psal. 74.8. and they were always built upon the Hills, or higher ground of the Cities, although the Heathens did superstitiously choose such places for the performance of their Idolatrous Worship, and set up their Idols and Altars on every mountain and hill, conceiving that they were then nearer to their Gods. And our dear Lord went up unto a mountain to pray, and therefore did not think that all material conformity with Heathens in such matters was forbidden in these Texts, nor did that abuse of Gardens to Idolatry, which by the Prophet Isaiah is noted in these words, Thou shalt be ashamed of the oak, and thy gardens which thou hast chosen, Isai. 1.29. deter our Saviour from praying in a Garden, Joh. 18.1, 26. Mat. 26.39. Again, the Idolatrous Heathens at their Festivals did lie along, or lean on their left sides, They laid themselves down on by every altar, Amos 2.8. They feasted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lying down in their Idol temples, 1 Cor. 8.10. and yet the Jews, though God no where commanded them to do so, did at the eating of their Passover, lie down in token of the rest that God had given them in that good Land, and Christ and his Apostles did conform themselves unto this custom, as I have showed already, and thereby they demonstrated that none of all these Texts forbade material conformity with any Heathen Rites which in their nature were indifferent. Ainsw. in Deut. 7.5. Nor were the Jews themselves so nice and scrupulous as our Dissenters in this matter, for they declare, That if an House was built, or a Tree planted purposely for an Idol, it must be destroyed, and may not be turned to common use, but if the House was first built, or the Tree planted for common civil use, and an Idol hath after been placed in that House, or under that Tree, these may revert unto their first intended use, the Idol being removed. Since than our Ceremonies were used without any Superstition or Idolatry by the Fathers of the Church, before they were abused by Papists to those ends, why may they not return unto their former use, the Superstition and Idolatry adhering to them, being first removed? Answ. 3 4ly, Seeing all Superstition and Idolatry, in persons who do ignorantly commit them, doth fundamentally require a mistake in the conception of the person guilty of it, these vices can no longer cleave unto such actions than this mistake remains, when then the action is freed from the superstitious opinion or mistake, it is also purged from all Superstition and Idolatry, since therefore the Imposers of our Ceremonies have purged them from all those mistaken Doctrines and opinions of the Church of Rome; which made them Superstitious and Idolatrous, they cannot be abused to those ends. Now when the Idolatry and Superstition, or the abuse adhering to an action is totally removed, there remains nothing which can make that action unlawful to be done, and therefore nothing which can render it unlawful in itself to be required to be done: Since than we are only commanded to departed from Babylon, Rev. 18.4. that we partake not with her in her sins, and so no farther than is requisite for the avoidance of Communion with her in sin; when we have purged these actions from all those Superstitions and Idolatries which adhered to them as they were exercised in that Church, we have done all that Christ and his good Spirit thought needful to require of us in respect to our departure out of Babylon. Answ. 4 5ly, Whereas 'tis said in the Objection, that things abused to Superstition, if they be not necessary, must not be done: I Answer, That though it be not necessary to impose our Ceremonies, yet when they are imposed by Authority, they become necessary in their use, and so are not to be accounted things unnecessary in respect of us: For if Temples, Bells, Fonts, Desks, and other sacred Utensils shall be preserved as necessary, because, as the Dissenter saith, so much Money is spared to other good uses; why are not our Ceremonies more necessary to us in their use, seeing upon submission to them depends the maintenance of many Ministers, and their Families, the obedience of the King, and his Laws, Civil, and Ecclesiastilcal, the peace of the Church of Christ, and the free Preaching of the Gospel, which sure are things more necessary, than the sparing of our Purses. Wherefore to give a positive and a perspicuous Answer to the Objected Texts, I say, 1. That the things in which the Jewish Nation are forbid to do after the manner of the Canaanites, or the Egyptians, are either Idolatrous Actions and Ceremonies, or actions contrary to the service of God, or else things tending to Idolatry. Thus Exod. 23.24. thou shalt not do after the works of the Canaanites, is a command not to bow down to their Gods, and serve them, but to overthrow them utterly, and quite break down their Images, and then it follows, v. 25. ye shall serve the Lord your God; the works forbidden therefore by that Phrase were contrary to the service of God. And v. 33. the reason of this Prohibition is thus given, for if thou serve their Gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee; So again, Levit. 18.3. After the do of the Land of Egypt wherein you dwell, shall you not do, neither shall you walk in their ordinances. Why? Because, as Ainsworth well observes, Egypt was an Idolatrous Land, and there Israel had been defiled. Ezek. 20.8. they Rebelled, against me, saith God, they did not every Man cast away the abominations of his Eyes, neither did they forsake the Idols of Egypt, Ezek. 23.8. and of the Land of Canaan: God saith unto them Levit. 20.23. Ye shall keep my Statutes and Judgements to do them, ye shall not walk in the manners of the Nations which I cast out before you, for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them: So that to do after the do of the Land of Canaan, is to do contrary to God's Judgements and Statutes, and to commit the abominable things which they did; and this is so evident through the whole Chapter that he who runs may read it: For 1. The reason why God forbids them to do after the manner of Egypt and Canaan, is this; I am the Lord your God, v. 2. 2ly, The opposite command is this, v. 4, 5. Ye shall do my Judgements, and keep my Ordinances to walk therein; I am the Lord your God, ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and my Judgements, I am the Lord. And v. 26. Ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and Judgements, and shall not commit any of these Abominations. And again, v. 30. Therefore shall ye keep mine Ordinance, that ye commit not any of the Abominable Customs which were committed before you, that you defile not yourselves therein; I am the Lord your God. 3ly, You shall not do so to the Lord your God, Deut. 12.4. is in effect, you shall not Worship God by those Idolatrous Images by which the Canaanites Worshipped their Gods, but you shall hue down the Graven Images of their Gods, v. 3. you shall not Worship him on their Altars, or in their Groves, but you shall overthrow their Altars, and break their Pillars, and burn their Groves with fire, v. 3. and you shall Worship God in the place that he shall choose, v. 5. and this is very evident from v. 30.31. whe●● God speaks thus unto them, thou shalt not inquire after their Gods, saying, how did these Nations serve their Gods, even so will I do likewise; thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God, for every abomination to the Lord which he hateth, have they done unto their Gods. So that in all these places, to do after the manner of the Heathens, which is the thing forbidden, is to do after their Idolatrous, or their unnatural and unclean Rites in opposition to the Laws, Statutes and Judgements of the Lord: And this is farther evident from 2 Kings 17.15. where God Complains that his People rejected his Statutes, and his Covenant that he made with their Fathers, and his Testimonies, and they followed vanities and became vain, and went after the Heathen round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them that they should not do like them. So that to do like them, was to follow vanity, and become vain, that is, Idolaters, as that Phrase plainly signifies in Holy Scripture, and so it is expounded in the following verse by making Molten Images, and the two Calves, and Groves, and Worshipping the Host of Heaven, and serving Baal. 4ly, To name the name of other Gods, which is forbidden Exod. 23.13. is only not to own, to worship or enter into covenant with them, and in particular not to swear by them, so that phrase seems to signify, Psalm. 16.4. their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another God, their drink offerings of Blood will I not offer, nor take up their names upon my Lips. i.e. I will not forsake thee by partaking with them in their abominable Sacrifices who serve other Gods, nor by swearing by the name of their false Gods, so Dr. Hammond and Dr. Patrick. So, to name the name of Christ 1. Tim. 2.19. is to own the true Messiah, and profess the Christian faith, and that this is the certain import of the words we learn from Josh. 23.7. where this Phrase is repeated, and by the following words is thus explained, Be ye courageous to keep, and do all that is written in the Law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom, to the right hand or to the left, that ye come not among these nations that remain among you, neither make mention of the name of their Gods, nor swear by them, nor serve them, nor bow yourselves to them. 5ly, When God saith, thou shalt call me Jehi, Hos. 2.16. and shall call me no more Baal, his meaning is not that they should never use that word, because it was used by Idolaters, or was applied to Idols, for then God was not to be called Jah, because the Heathens had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lord, because they gave that name to Baal, nor King: because the Heathens had their Milcom, nor would God have encouraged his people to use that name by styling himself Baal, as he doth in the Prophet Isaiah Chap. 54.5.62.5. but God by this expression signifies he would not be unto his people a hard imperious Lord, as Baal was unto his Worshippers, but he would rather treat them with the affections of an Husband, or that they should no more revolt from him to Baal as hitherto they had done, but should cleave faithfully to their Covenant made with him, as the Wife promiseth, forsaking other Lords, to cleave unto her Husband. 6ly, The reason why God commanded his own people to destroy the Altars and the Images of Heathens, and not to take unto themselves the Silver, Gold and other Furniture belonging to them, was the prevention of their erecting of them, and preserving them to give Idolatrous worship to them, as they were very prone to do: Thus do the very Texts declare, ye shall destroy their Altars, break their Images, cut down their Groves, Exod. 34.13. mark the reason v. 14. for thou shalt worship no other God, for the Lord whose name is Jealous, is a Jealous God. And Deut. 7.25. Thou shalt not take to thyself the Silver or Gold of their Graven Images, left thou be snared therein. There being then no fear lest we should be ensnared by the use of Ceremonies already purged from the Foundations of all Romish Superstition and Idolatry, we cannot be concerned in these Precepts, and much less in that passage of Isaiah, chap. 30.22. where this only is foretold, that when the Jews did truly turn unto the Lord, they should obey this Precept which commands them not to take unto themselves the Silver, and the Gold, and other Furniture of Idols. And truly if these Precepts did oblige the Christian, they would Condemn all our Reformed Churches, and the Dissenters themselves, for turning into their private Purses, or their common Treasuries, or any way retaining for their use, that Silver, and that Gold which formerly made Romish Images, or which was dedicated to Romish Saints, or offered at their Shrines, or using any of the Utensils, or Garments which have been so abused, and if we are obliged punctually to follow these Prescriptions, we must not only destroy Popish Images, but cast away the Silver, Gold, and other Furniture belonging to them, since in these places all usage of such things, Civil, or Sacred, is apparently forbid, and even the desire of them. 7ly, When the Jews are forbid to round the corners of their Heads, or mar the corners of their Beards, they only are forbid that rounding of the corners of their heads which was done in honour of Demons, and that marring of the corners of their Beards, which Heathen Priests used in honour of their Idols, Baruch 6.31. Their Priests sit in their Temples having their Heads and their Beards shaved. And therefore this making baldness upon their Heads, this shaving of the Corners of their Beards, is forbidden as that whereby they would profane the name of God, and as opposite to owning God to be their Lord, Levit. 21.6.19.25, 28. Moreover that cutting of the Flesh which God forbids in the same place, for the same reasons, was the cutting of the Flesh for the dead, which was by Heathens used partly from Superstition, Gratificari se aliquo modo defunctis putantes, Thereby conceiving that they did some way gratify the dead, and partly from Idolatry, to appease the Infernal Deities. And Lastly, that printing marks upon their Flesh, which the same Text forbids, was such, Quâ se ad Idololatriam signabant, whereby they marked themselves for the service of such or such an Idol, saith Maimonides; so that the import of all these passages is only this; Thou shalt not by any of these ways make a profession of Idolatry, or an acknowledgement of Heathen Deities, or use those Customs which in their common use do signify the owning of them. And if the naming of their Gods, the shaving of their Beards or Heads in such a manner, had been absolutely forbidden, and not only as Testimonies of Idolatry, I know not why they should concern us more than the Prohibition of a Linsey-Woolsey Garment, or the sowing of their Fields with divers Seeds, which no Man thinks unlawful to be done by Christians. Now, 8ly, To the Objection from these words mentioned, 2 Cor. 6.17. viz. Touch not the unclean thing, I Answer, that it cannot in the least concern our Ceremonies; for, what in them, thus purged from Popish Superstition, and Idolatry, can be esteemed the unclean thing? Is it the thing itself? What can the abuse of other Men defile to our use the very Nature of things which God hath not made to us unclean? How then saith Paul that to the clean all things are clean? Tit. 1.15. How dared he allow Men not only to touch, but to eat of meats offered before to Idols without scruple of Conscience in that respect? 1 Cor. 10.23, 27. But if they shall grant that the uncleanness is in the Superstitious abuse of such things, then let them know that he who useth the same thing without the same, or other Superstition, may be said to touch the thing, but not to touch the unclean thing, as he that touched Naaman cleansed from his Leprosy, touched the same Man, but not the same Leper. 2ly, The command to be separated, and touch not the unclean thing, is made the condition of Gods receiving us, v. 17, 18. and being unto us a Father, and owning us as Sons and Daughters, if therefore Dissenters will assert our Ceremonies to be the unclean thing there intended, or something parallel to them, they must fly into the Camp of the Brownists, and say that God cannot receive, or own our Church, or be a Father to it, or own any of its Members as his Sons or Daughters, till we have laid aside their use. And 3ly, What is here, not to touch the unclean thing, is only to purge ourselves from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit, as is evident from the context of the words, for the Apostle having mentioned the promises God had made to those who did separate themselves, and touch not the unclean thing, viz. that God would receive them, and be a Father to them, he infers, wherefore beloved let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit, chap. 7.1. So that this Text cannot concern our Ceremonies, unless it be asserted that whilst we use them we cannot cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit. And 4ly, The unclean thing here spoken of is plainly the Idolatry of the Heathens, as that expression intimates, what conjunction hath the Christian, who is the Temple of God, with Idols, to touch this unclean thing, is to Communicate with them in their Idolatry, by eating of their Idol Feasts in the Temple of their Idols; which is, saith the Apostle, to have Communion with Devils, 1 Cor. 10.20. to partake of the Table of Devils, v. 21. let us not therefore, saith he, who have taken upon us the Yoke of Christianity be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, drawing in a contrary Yoke with the unfaithful; for that the Apostle cannot by the unclean thing, mean Marriage with an Infidel, is evident because he saith, the unbelieving Husband is sanctified to the believing Wife; 1 Cor. 7.14. if then these Ceremonies which we use cannot be proved to be Idols, they must be unconcerned in this prohibition. To the Argument from the Apostle Judes' exhortation to hate the Garments spotted with the Flesh, Defence of Dr. Morton, p. 437. it is well Answered by Dr. Burges. That as a Garment spotted with the Flesh of the unclean, was no longer to be hated than till it was washed, and being washed might again be used; so is it with Ceremonies of indifferent nature which have been defiled. 2ly, To hate, or fly the Garments spotted with the Flesh, is only to hate every thing that doth defile, though in the least degree, for so the Leprous and Unclean Garments did. Hate, saith the Reverend Dr. Hammond, all the beginnings, and the least degrees of impurity and uncleanness; when therefore it can be proved that there is any degree of impurity or uncleanness in the use of our Ceremonies, then only may this Text be urged against them. And 3ly, The refusal to Submit unto them, tending to Disobedience and Schism, and all the dreadful consequences which do follow from them, may seem more likely to be forbidden by this Text, than our Submission to them in Obedience to Authority. Again whereas it is Objected, That Christ reproved the Church of Pergamus and Thyatira for suffering Men to teach her Children to eat things Sacrificed to Idols; Rev. 2.14, 20. I Answer, 1. That St. Paul hath taught us that it was not necessary in itself to eat Flesh offered to Idols, for the Earth, saith he, is the Lords, and the fullness thereof, 1 Cor. 10.28. and so we may sufficiently be fed by other meat; and yet he tells us, that this meat may lawfully be eaten by the Christian, that it is clean to the clean, Tit. 1.15. and that 'tis only through weakness that it can defile the Conscience, and only is unclean to him that thinketh it to be so, Rom. 14.14. and he gives free commission to all Men to eat it, ask no question for Conscience sake, 1 Cor. 10.27. and bids us, as it were in flat contradiction to this Objection, not to inquire, or be follicitous whether the meat we eat have been by others so abused to Idolatry, and if the offering of Flesh to an Idol doth not debar our freedom of using it to the sustaining of our Bodies, why should the Superstitious use of a Ceremony make it unlawful to be used by others without that Superstition; the eating therefore of things Sacrificed to Idols, and teaching others so to do, which was the thing condemned in those Churches by our Lord, was only eating of them in the Idol Temples, and at the Feasts of Idols; so as to be partakers of the Table of Devils, or to commit Idolatry by the participation of them which is so evident from the Context that he who runs may read it. For 1. They are there also said to teach their Children to commit Fornication, and to eat things offered to Idols, Revel. 2.14, 20. Now all Men know that Fornication, in the spiritual sense, imports Idolatry. 2ly, They of the Church of Pergamus who taught her Children to eat things Sacrificed to Idols, are said to hold the Doctrine of Balaam who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the Children of Israel, that is, to Sacrifice to their Gods, to eat, and to bow down unto them, or to entice them by the Daughters of Moab to this sin, Numb. 25.1, 2, 3. Lastly, The Woman who seduced the Church of Thyatira to commit Fornication, and to eat things Sacrificed to Idols, is called Jezabel, a Woman famous for her promotion of Idolatry. Proceed we now to Answer the examples propounded in the Objection. And, §. 8 1. Gen. 35.4. To that of Jacob who caused his Family to give unto him the Earrings which were in their Ears, I Answer, 1. That these Earrings were, say some Interpreters, the Earrings which adorned their Gods, and so were parts of their strange Gods; they were, say others, Earrings in which were graven the effigies of their Gods after the manner of the Gentiles, and so they were plain Idols, which ought to be abolished, they were, say others, dedicated to some Numen according to the manner of the Syrians, and the Phaenicians, and so were actual instruments of Idolatry. Now what doth this concern the Ceremonies of the Church of England, which, as she useth them, are neither Idols, nor instruments of Idolatry? 2. Dan. 1.8. To the example of Daniel who would not defile himself with the portion of the King's Meat, nor with the Wine which he drank. I Answer, that it is on many accounts impertinent. 1. Because, according to the judgement of Mr. Calvin, the pollution spoken of was not a Ceremonial pollution arising from the Idolatrous use of the meats, but only Moral and occasional, by their being Bats and Allurements to draw him to an irreligious forgetfulness of the service of God. 2ly, If the pollution was Ceremonial, it might arise from a mixture of Meats forbidden by the Jewish Law with others lawful to be eaten, and which if he refused, he would not have eaten the full portion allowed by the King. 3ly, Esth. 3.2. To the example of Mordecai, refusing to bow to Haman. 1. If he himself may be believed, he did not refuse what he conceived lawful in itself, because it was by others abused to Idolatry, but because the Worship which by Haman was required, was in itself Idolatrous, as being Worship proper to the God of Heaven: For thus he speaks, Thou knowest Lord that it was neither out of Pride, nor in contempt, nor for any desire of vain Glory that I did not bow down to Proud Haman, but I did this that I might not prefer the Honour of Man above the Glory of God, neither will I Worship any, but thee, O God, Esth. 13, 12, 14. Josephus also tells us that, Antiq. l. XI. c. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He durst not give that Honour to Haman which he gave to God, and is this a fit instance to prove that things indifferent may not be used in God's service, when they by others are abused to Superstition and Idolatry? If it proves any thing, it proves we may not give Civil Worship to Princes and Grandees when others give it to them. Lastly, whereas to the same purpose is objected the example of good Hezekiah who broke the Brazen Serpent, 2 Kings 18.4. though it was made by God's appointment, when it was once abused to Idolatry; I Answer, 1. That all that with any show of reason can be drawn from this example is only this, That Magistrates may, and perhaps ought in divers cases, to remove those things which have been abused to Idolatry, but it can never rationally be concluded hence, that Men may never use them any more, provided they do use them without all abuse; as v. g. it will not follow that no private Jew, might look upon the Brazen Serpent as a monument of God's mercy to the Jews or a Symbol or Representation of that Jesus, who freeth us, and was to free them from the Sting of the Old Serpent, because others did then abuse it to Idolatry. 2ly, The reason which the Scripture renders why Hezekiah broke this Serpent is, because even to those days the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it; v. 4. let it be therefore proved that even in these days we use our Ceremonies to Superstition and Idolatry, and then our Magistrates by this example may be moved to abolish them: Dr. Ames tells us that the French, Spanish, English Papists passing by the Cross, suppose at the Cheapside, do Worship, and do reverence unto it; but what is that to our Ceremonies? What is it to the Aerial Cross we make upon the Forehead of an Infant? Did ever any of them Worship that? 2ly, Must we therefore pull down and deface all our Churches, because of their Crosses, and Cross Isles, if a Papist will reverence them Superstitiously. Obj. 3 We are required to abstain from all appearance of evil; §. 9 now the imposed Rites, at least, have an appearance of Evil, they being, in the judgement of so many sober Godly persons Evil, and so they ought to be abstained from, 1 Thess. 5.22. Answ. 1. That this Objection, depends upon a groundless Interpretation of the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which may be better rendered thus, abstain from every sort or kind of Evil; for so the Syriack doth render them; so Chrysostom, St. Basil, Leontius and Theophylact, who descant thus upon them, flee not from this or that only, but from every sin, and then submission to our Ceremonies cannot be here forbidden, till it be made evident that they are Evil in themselves. Or 2ly, They may be rendered according to the vulgar, Tigurin, and Beza thus, abstain from all appearance which is Evil; and so cannot concern those Ceremonies which in their Nature are indifferent, and have no appearance which is Evil. And 3ly, Should we grant that the Apostle here exhorts us to abstain from all appearance of Evil, he may be well conceived to advise us to abstain from that which, after trial, seems evil to ourselves, or what we judge to be so, and not from that which only doth appear to others to be Evil, but not unto ourselves; for the Apostle makes these two precepts, the holding what is good, and the abstaining from all appearance of Evil, the consequent of trying all things, for to what end should Men try all things, but that they may hold, what, upon trial, seemeth to them good, and abstain from that which to them, after trial, seemeth evil? And wherefore doth he bid them try all things in order to these ends, if after all they must Act not by their own, but by the judgement of another, and must abstain not only from what seemeth evil to themselves who try, but from that which appeareth so to others? 4ly, It seems most absurd that the Apostle should command all Christians to abstain from all indifferent things which appear Evil unto others, even though they be commanded by a just Authority, because he would require a thing impossible, for it is impossible for me to know what appears to another Evil, since I cannot know his thoughts, and therefore cannot discern what appears to him Good or Evil, much less can I know all that appears so to him; and yet the Apostle requires Christians to abstain from all appearance of Evil, without distinction, or exception of any Man. 2ly, This precept in this sense will lay upon us an intolerable Yoke, evacuate our Liberty in things indifferent, and create in our minds continual perplexities, there being scarcely any thing a Man can do, though never so indifferent, which unto some or other Infidel, or Christian, Weak, or Strong, Ignorant, or Superstitious, may not be deemed evil, or appear to be so; the Eating of our Meats, the Clothing of our Bodies, and all the recreations which we customarily do use appearing Evil unto some or other, we must either do nothing of this Nature, or else be filled with perplexing fears that what we do appears to others Evil, and so makes us Transgressor's of this Precept. And Lastly, To retort this Argument; we are commanded to abstain from all appearance of Evil, but the refusal of submission to the Rites enjoined hath an appearance of Evil, for it appeareth to be such, not only to Superiors, but to all sober Conformists, Ergo, Dissenters are obliged to abstain from refusing any longer to submit unto the Rites enjoined. CHAP. VII. The CONTENTS. Obj. 4th. That which doth Minister Scandal to weak Brethren must not be done at the Command of our Superiors, because God hath forbidden it, but by submitting to, and using the imposed Ceremonies, we Minister Scandal to weak Brethren. Answ. In the following propositions; 1. That Scandal is an action whereby occasion is Ministered to the sin, fall, or ruin of our weak Brother. 2ly, That this Scandal may be Ministered as well by doing of our Duty, as by doing Evil, 3ly, That Scandal, sin, or fall of others which is occasioned through their weakness, by doing of my Duty, cannot be my sin. Coral. I cannot therefore sin by obedience to the Lawful Commands of my Superiors, though others may be Scandalised at it. 4ly, The Objection from the case of Scandal must proceed on this supposition, that the things imposed are in themselves indifferent. 5. Our submission to things indifferent, enjoined by Superiors, can only Minister Scandal, 1. By Ministering occasion to the rash censures of weak Brethren: Or 2ly, By moving them, by our example, to conform with doubting Consciences: Or 3ly, By grieving them: Or 4ly, By causing them to separate from our Communion. 6ly, We are not to abstain from that indifferent action which may Scandalise our Brother, when by forbearance of that action as great, if not a greater Scandal is Administered to others; this proved to be the case in our refusal to comply with the Commands of our Superiors in Lawful matters. 7ly, The Scandal caused by the Dissenter, refusing to do what Lawfully he may, is Scandal given, the scandal Ministered by the Conformist can be only Scandal received. §. 1.9. Objections of Amesius and Mr. jean's Answered, §. 2. Some unsatisfactory Answers to the Objection from Scandal noted, as v. g. 1. That the Scandal which the weak conceive at our Conformity is passive, whereas 'tis only active Scandal which we are concerned to avoid. 2ly, That Scandal is an action done with intent to ensnare Men in sin, since therefore none can judge that by imposing or submitting to our Ceremonies this is intended, they cannot truly be Scandalised. 3ly, That we can give no sinful Scandal by using of our Ceremonies, because we give a reason of our action. 4ly, That they are to be deemed obstinate who after a reason given are still Scandalised, and so their Scandal is Pharisaical and not to be regarded §. 3. CHAP. VII. Obj. 4 THAT which doth Minister Scandal to weak Brethren must not be done, §. 1 saith the Dissenter, no not at the Command of our Superiors, but by submitting to, and using the imposed Ceremonies, we minister Scandal to weak Brethren. And therefore we must not submit unto them. To lay foundations of a full, and satisfactory Answer unto this Objection; I lay down these ensuing Propositions. 1. That Scandal is an action whereby occasion is ministered to the sin, fall, or ruin of our weak Brother; it is any thing saith St. Paul, by which our Brother stumbleth, or is offended, Rom. 14.21. it is a stumbling block, or an occasion to fall put in our Brother's way, v. 13. Where note 1. That under the Word action, is comprehended: 1. words tending to the same effect: And 2ly, omissions of actionswhich have the same consequence. 2ly, This Scandal may be Ministered as well by doing of our Duty, as by doing Evil. So the Preaching of the Cross was to the Jews a stumbling block, 1 Cor. 1.23. 2 Cor. 2.16. the Gospel Preached is to many a savour of death, and Christ himself is said to be to many a Stone of stumbling, 1 Pet. 2.8. and a Rock of offence, and the occasion of their fedling. It therefore is erroneously said that our action, Coral. though it may displease, yet cannot minister occasion of Scandal to both parties, for though 'tis true, I cannot give a just occasion of offence by doing, or omitting the same action, for than I must lie under a necessity of sinning, it being necessary for me either to do, or to omit the doing of it. It is as true that some weak Persons may take offence at my performing, and others be as much offended at my omitting the same action. Prop. 2 That Scandal, sin, or fall of others which is occasioned by doing of my Duty, cannot be my sin, and so I cannot be obliged to avoid it, the reason is, because I cannot sin in doing of my Duty, and because I must not do Evil, Rom. 3.8. as the neglect of Duty is, that good may come. Hence it doth clearly follow, Coral. that by obedience to the lawful commands of my Superiors, I cannot be guilty of sinful Scandalising of my Brother, because obedience, in such cases, is my Duty. Obj. No human ordinance can take away the condition of Scandal from that action which would otherwise be Scandal, that is, which being not commanded would be Scandal. Answ. It is sufficient if it can take away the sin of Scandal, and that it doth by making that become my Duty which Scandalizeth my weak Brother: We do not say the sin of Scandal is avoided simply by the Lawfulness of the action which we do, for though all meats were lawful in the Apostles time, yet this would not excuse the Gentile Christian from sin, in eating of those meats which gave offence to his weak Brother; but then, say we, the sin of Scandal is avoided when the action being lawful in itself, is necessary in obedience to Superiors, and for the exercise of our Ministry, and for the peace of the Church, and the prevention of Schisms and separations in, and from it, with all their fatal consequences, it being all men's Duty by all lawful means to prosecute these good ends. Prop. 3 They who Object the case of Scandal as the ground of their refusal to submit unto these Constitutions must confess or dispute against them from this Topick, upon this supposition, that they are in themselves indifferent, and that 'tis only the mistake of our weak Brother which can lay this restraint upon our practice in such matters, because from matters in themselves evil, or forbidden, we are obliged to abstain, though no such Scandal should ensue upon the practice of them. Prop. 4 As far as I am able to discern, we cannot Minister occasion of Scandal to our weak Brother by submitting to these commands of our Superiors, but either, 1st. By Ministering occasion to his rash judgement, and censure of our action as an Evil deed: Or 2ly, By moving him, by our example, to conform, even while he doubts the lawfulness thereof, and so to do it with a doubting Conscience, and therefore to his own damnation, Rom. 14.23. which seems to be the Scandal mentioned, 1 Cor. 8.10, 11. Or 3ly, By grieving him to see those things are practised by us which he condemneth in his Conscience, which seems to be the Scandal spoken of, Rom. 14.15. Or 4ly, By causing him to separate from our Communion, upon these accounts, and by so doing to incur the guilt of Schism. Prop. 5 We are not, saith Mr. jean's, obliged to abstain from that indifferent action which may Scandalise our Brother, when by forbearance of that action, as great, Scholast. dispute p. 102. if not a greater Scandal is Administered to others, for as St. Bernard truly saith, Prudenter anim advertendum est Scandalum Scandalo non emendari, qualis emendatio erit, si, ut aliis Scandalum tollas, alios Scandalizas. We are prudently to mark that one Scandal is not mended by another, which kind of emendation we should practise, if to take off offence from one party, we give offence unto another; for in this case we must have as much reason, on the account of Scandal, to do, as to forbear the action: Now it is certain that our refusal to comply with our Superiors Command in lawful matters, doth Minister occasion of like Scandal in all particulars forementioned. For 1. The Magistrate, and they who think themselves obliged to submit to his injunctions, are as much grieved to see Men stiffly to persist in disobedience to his commands in lawful matters, as our weak Brethren can be to see us yield obedience to him in such things. 2ly, Others will be as prone to censure our refusal of Obedience as Turbulent, Sehismatical, as disobedience to the Higher Powers, and disorderly walking, as the weak Brother is to censure our Conformity as Popish, Superstitious, and the like. And 3ly, Why may not others be as well tempted by their refusal to conform, to separate, and to do as they do with a doubting Conscience, as the weak Brother may by our conformity be tempted likewise to conform with a doubting Conscience: Moreover whosoever doth consider the temper of the Nonconformists will find occasion to believe that there is little fear of drawing them, by our examples, to conform, but rather that they will be apt to censure us for our Conformity, and could we do so, we should only tempt them to perform their Duty, though against their Conscience. Prop. 6 The Scandal caused by the Dissenter on supposition that he refuses where he may lawfully obey, which is the case in question, is Scandalum datum, i.e. Scandal arising from the omission of his Duty, the Scandal ministered by the Conformist can be only Scandalum acceptum, sed non datum; or Scandal arising not from the action of him that doth conform, but from the ignorance and weakness of him who is offended at his doing so, for certainly by doing of my Duty, in things lawful, I give to my weak Brother no just occasion to be grieved at what I do, or to pass censure on me as an Evil doer, or to Separate from Communion with me, or to do, with a doubting Conscience, what he sees me do, but by omission of my Duty to Superiors, I shall give just occasion both to them, and all who peaceably conform to grieve at my action, to pass their censures on me as a disobedient Person. And if I do by my example, occasion the omission of my Brother's Duty, and his separation, I shall be justly charged with his guilt, as Ministering temptation to him, by that example, to neglect what lawfully he might, and by God is Commanded to perform, and so I must offend him more, in the Apostles sense, by tempting him to sin, or to continue in sin: The sum is this, by refusing to conform, in such a lawful case, lest we should offend our weak Brother, we seem directly to sin ourselves, to avoid an occasion of sin in him, we do, as far as I can judge, offend God, the King, the Law, the Church, and Conscience too, by not doing our Duty, lest we should offend our Brother by doing it. Now sure it must concern us more to avoid a Scandal given, with these circumstances, then to avoid a Scandal which is only taken: Now from these Propositions it is easy to return an Answer to all that is Objected by Amesins, Scholast. disp. p. 42, 43. and transcribed by Mr. jean's, to prove the unreasonableness of this Assertion, That Authority is to be obeyed in things Lawful, even though Scandal should ensue; against this Doctrine, which he ascribeth to our Prelates, he disputes thus: Obj. 1 A Scandal in the nature of it is Spiritual murder; §. 2 now suppose a Superior should command a thing in itself indifferent, whereupon Murder were like to follow, as to run a Horse, or a Cart in a certain way, at a certain time, when, it may be unwitting to the Commander, little Children were playing in the way, would any Man's Conscience ferve him to do it? Answ. Yes, if he saw there were more, or like danger of as great mischief by running of this Horse, or driving of this Cart in any other way, which, as I have already showed, is the present case with reference to our refusal of Obedience to the Commands of our Superiors concerning things indifferent, and Lawful in themselves. Obj. 2 Avoiding of Scandal is a main Duty of Charity; may Superiors at their pleasure appoint how far I shall show my Charity towards my Brother, then surely, an Inferior Earthly Court may cross the determination of the High Court of Heaven. Answ. This argument I thus retort; Obedience to Superiors, Civil and Sacred, is a main Duty of Christianity, and to avoid all Schisms, and Divisions of the Church, which is Christ's Body, all disturbance of her Peace, all needless Separations from her Communion, are all important Duties of Christianity; may then the ignorance, and consequential weakness of my Brother, appoint how far I shall be obedient to God's Vicegerent, or Christ's Messengers, how far I shall avoid dividing and disturbing of the Church's Peace, then surely may my Brother's ignorance and error, cross the determinations of the High Court of Heaven: what if they be offended at my paying Tribute in that Quotum which the Law of our Superiors prescribes; will Charity oblige me to refuse to pay it? Or is it not as much my Duty to obey Gods Vice-Gerents in all other Lawful matters, as in the ease of Tribute? Is not the precept as express for the one as for the other? 2ly, This strongly proveth it our Duty in the present circumstances to conform, since by refusal so to do we only exercise our Charity towards our weak Brother, but by conforming we exercise like Charity, and care to avoid Scandal towards more, and more deserving Persons, and also do avoid dividing and disturbing of the Church's Peace. By our refusal to conform to lawful institutions of Superiors that so we may avoid the Scandal of weak Brethren, we disobey them whom God Commands us to obey; we harden our weak Brother in his Disobedience, and Schism; we rob ourselves of the benefit of the Public Ordinances, bring Penalties and Excommunications on ourselves; we rob the Church of her Unity, Peace, and Love, and if we be Ministers, we deprive ourselves of opportunity to exercise our calling to the good of Souls; now to avoid the Scandal of a weak Brother by incurring all this guilt, is so far from being a main Duty of Charity, that it doth flatly contradict the ground and measure of all Charity, Self-Love, and seemeth to be only doing many Evils, that one good may come. Obj. 3 Superiors have no power given them for destruction, but for Edification, if therefore they Command Scandals, they go beyond their Commission, neither are we tied therein to do as they bid, but as they should bid. Answ. 1. If they Command us to do that which of its own Nature giveth Scandal by being a direct and an immediate cause of sin, 'tis true we must not do as they bid, but as they should bid, or rather as their great Superior bids, but not if they Command what only, through the sin or ignorance of others, proves to them a Scandal, especially when our refusal to obey them will Minister an equal Scandal which is apparently the present case. 2ly, I Answer, That it belongs not to private persons to inquire whether their Superiors do go beyond their Commission in Commanding of these things, but only, whether what they do Command, though it should exceed the power given them by God, may without sin be done, and if they find it may, they cannot without sin refuse obedience, no not in case of accidental Scandal. Obj. 4 If determination of Superiors were sufficient to take away the sin of Scandal, than they do very ill that they do not (so far as is possble) determine all things indifferent, that so no danger may be left of giving of offence by the use of them. Then the Church of Rome is to be praised in that she hath determined so many indifferents, than Paul, with the other Apostles, might have spared a great deal of Labour in admonishing the Churches how they should avoid offences about some indifferent things, a far shorter way had been either to determine the matter fully, or else to have given order that the Churches should among themselves determine it at home, Answ. 1. We do not say that the determination of Superiors will always take away the sin of Scandal, but that it certainly will do it when upon that determination an equal Scandal follows on the other hand. 2ly, It will not follow hence, that they do ill in not determining all things indifferent that so no danger may be left of giving of offence by the use of them. Because the remedy may be much worse than the Disease, as being 1. To bring a Yoke of bondage on the necks of Christians which they could hardly bear, for if the Council at Jerusalem thought fit to style their Imposition of a few necessary things, a Burden, how well might the determination of all things indifferent deserve that appellation. And 2ly, As tending to distract men's devotions by their attendance to such a multitude of Ceremonies as must be then imposed, and as are actually imposed by the Church of Rome. 3ly, As tending to Minister occasion to endless divisions in the Church, and scruples in the minds of her weak Members, for if three Ceremonies determined by the Church are so much scrupled, if by occasion of their Imposition such Divisions and Separations have so long continued, as we by sad experience see, what might be then expected should all indifferent circumstances be determined by her; and for these reasons it by no means will follow that the Church of Rome is to be praised in that she hath determined so many matters of this Nature. Nor 3ly, Will it follow that the Apostles might have spared a great deal of Labour in admonishing the Churches how they should avoid offence about some things indifferent, even by determining them fully, or by giving order that the Churches should among themselves determine them; for this which he here styles a shorter way, might have been far more dangerous, by Ministering to great contentions in the Church, and causing the weak Jews to fly off from the profession of the Gospel, or from Communion with their fellow Christians, and so that course would not have hindered the perishing of the weak Brother, but rather would have tended to the promotion of his ruin. Obj. 5 But say that the Archbishop of Corinth, for now I suppose such a one, had called his Congregation, and with consent of his Clergy had determined that Men might, and for testifying of Liberty should at a certain time eat of such and such meats which Men formerly doubted of, would not yet the Apostle have given the same direction he did? Would not good Christians still have had care of their Brother's Consciences? Can the determination of a Superior be a sufficient Plea at the Bar of God's Judgement seat for a Man that, by virtue or force thereof alone, hath done any action that his Conscience telleth him will Scandalise his Brother? I Answer, 1. That no Man's Conscience can tell him certainly that he will, but only that he may Scandalise his Brother by conforming to the Commands of his Superiors, and it may also tell him that he is in danger to Scandalise them more by not conforming, and in this Case the Plea holds good, the Scandal being equal on both sides; I durst not disobey Superiors against a plain Command, and to the manifest dividing and disturbing of the Church, to avoid the Scandal of a weak Brother, arising not from my action, but his ignorance. And 2ly, Hence I return an Answer to the Questions contained in the Objection to the first; viz. Would not St. Paul in case of the determination of the Archbishop of Corinth, that all Meats should indifferently be eaten have given the same direction as he did? Answ. Had he so done there would have been no obligation on the Corinthians to obey their Archbishop in opposition to St. Paul, because the power Apostolical was much Superior to that of Bishops, and Arch-Bishops, they must have therefore in this case obeyed St. Paul by virtue of the general Command to obey Superiors, but whether in this case St. Paul would have delivered the same direction is uncertain; but this is certain, and a sufficient Answer to the Question, that St. Paul would have considered where the Scandal would have been greatest, both with respect unto the number of Persons offended, and the destructive Nature and consequences of the offence, and would accordingly have given his directions, and and so accordingly do we. To the second Question, Would not good Christians still had care of their Brother's Consciences? Answer, They would have showed their care both of their Brother's Conscience, and their own, by giving him by their example no occasion to disobey those that Ruled over them in Lawful matters, to the dividing and the disturbing of the Church's Peace. To the third Question, Can the determination of Superiors be a sufficient Plea at the Bar of God's judgement seat, for doing, any action that his Conscience telleth him will Scandalise his Brother? I Answer, Why not? if doing of his Duty will be a Plea sufficient? But on the other hand, can the pretence of Scandalising a weak Brother be a sufficient Plea for disobedience to God's Vice-Gerents in a Lawful matter, and for dividing and disturbing of the Church's Peace, and thereby ministering a greater Scandal both to Superiors and to all peaceable Conformists? Obj. 6 I would fain know whether those Superiors do not give a great Scandal which take upon them to impose unnecessary Rites which they know many good Men will be Scandalised by. Answ Good Mr. Doctor it concerns you more to know, and practise your own Duty, then to be censuring, and curiously searching into the actions of Superiors; for which not you, but they must Answer if they do offend. Obj. 7 It seems then in case the Magistrate Command it, we may wound the weak Conscience of our Brother, and destroy with our indifferences the work of God, and him for whom Christ died. Answ. True; we may do that which hath an accidental tendency to these unhappy ends: As v. g. suppose the Nonconformists are grieved at our Preaching, and submission to Superiors, and our continuance in our Ministerial function, and thereupon do judge of us as of Time-Servers, and Separate from our Communion, and become guilty of that Schism which accidentally procures their ruin, must we not therefore submit to Authority, Obey them that have the Rule over us, or feed our Flocks? When therefore things indifferent in their own Nature become necessary to these ends, we may perform them, though accidentally they tend unto the ruin of our Brother. 1. Because disobedience to our Superiors in Lawful matters is a sin, and we must not do evil that good may come. 2ly, Because the Scandals following from our refusal to obey will in this case be greater, and more destructive to Souls than are the Scandals which are ministered by our obedience. Obj. 8 It is good, saith Paul, neither to eat Flesh nor drink Wine, nor to do any thing whereby thy Brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak, Rom. 14.22. But our Prelatists determine quite otherwise, if Authority enjoin, it is good, say they, to eat Bread, drink Wine, wear a Surplice, use the sign of the Cross in Baptism, though never so many Brethren stumble, or are offended, or made weak thereby. Answ. This Tenet is injuriously imposed upon them, whom he contemptuously styles Prelatists; they do not say that the determination of Superiors will always take away the sin of Scandal in these matters, but that it will then do it, when upon that Determination an equal, or a greater Scandal follows on the other hand, and where the thing is Lawful, and the Scandal equal, what reason can there be on the account of Scandal for our refusal to obey. Obj. 9 But can then the Law of Superiors be greater than the Law of Charity which is God's Law? Answer, Is not the Law of Obedience to our Rulers equally Gods Law? Put the case that after the Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, some particular Persons should have been offended that their Brethren refused to eat meats offered to Idols, pleading that was Superstition in them, or a betraying of their Christian Liberty or that the things enjoined by that decree were not Commanded of the Lord, and so were Human inventions, Will-Worship, and addition to God's Word, would Christians than have been obliged to suspend their obedience to this Decree lest they should offend such Scrupulous Persons? I trow not. §. 3 There be other Answers usually offered to take off the Objection of Scandal ministered by our Ceremonies, which I cannot approve of, and therefore dare not offer, as v. g. 1. It is said, the Scandal which the weak conceive at our Conformity is passive, and not active, that is, the nature of our action doth not give occasion to it, but they are only Scandalised through ignorance or weakness: Now say they, it is only Scandal given which we are Concerned to Avoid; in opposition to this Plea, I say, That it is not sufficient to excuse us from being Guilty of sinful Scandalising our weak Brother, that what we do is Lawful in itself, and therefore ministers no just occasion to the sin, full or ruin of our Brother. For the Apostle doth declare that he was taught by the Lord Jesus that no meats were of themselves Rom. 14.14. unclean, and therefore that the eating of them could minister no just occasion of offence to the weak Jew, 1 Cor. 8.7. and that it was for want of knowledge, and through the weakness of his conscience, that the weak Brother was offended at it, and yet he doth as positively declare that it was evil to eat them with offence, that the strong by thus eating of them, did walk uncharitably, and sin against Christ; Rom. 14.15, 20. 1 Cor. 8.12. Matt. 17.27. moreover our Lord himself paid tribute, though he might Lawfully not have done it, lest he should Scandalise, where, Even Maldonate observes, that Christ, in paying tribute to avoid Scandal, shunned a Scandal which was merely passive, because the exactors of Tribute ought not to have been Ignorant that Christ was free from any obligation to the payment of it; whence he concludes, that this is no sure Rule, that Scandal only given, and not Scandal taken is to be avoided. 3ly, The keeping of the Brazen Serpent, as a monument of Divine mercy, was a thing Lawful in itself and yet when Scandal arose out of it, 'twas necessary to remove it, as being in itself a thing unnecessary. Lastly, If Scandal passive tends to God's dishonour by ministering unto my Brother's sin, if his Soul suffers by a passive, as well as by an active Scandal, surely the Love of God, and of my Neighbour's Soul, should be sufficient motive to engage me to do all that Lawfully I can for the prevention of it, provided that I know, or have good reason to suspect that it will follow from my action, though through my Brother's fault. For are we not obliged to preserve a Drunken Man from falling down a Precipice, or into a River, because he is made Drunk by his own fault? Why therefore are we not obliged, if Lawfully we can, to preserve our Brother's Soul from perishing by his own fault? I fear this will be found at the last day too true, that he doth Criminally Scandalise, who doth, or who enjoineth that which is unnecessary and which he knows will through the weakness of his Brother Minister occasion of his sin and ruin, having no benefit from what he doth require or do, equal unto the mischief which it doth to others. 2ly, It is said by Dr. Womack, that Scandal is an action done with intent to ensnare Men in sin, Melius Inquir. p. 106. or set up as a Mousetrap on purpose to entrap them; whence it will follow that no Man in the judgement of Charity can say that by the Ceremonies, we Scandalise our weak Brother, because they cannot Charitably judge that these Ceremonies are imposed with an intent to draw Men to sin. But with submission to better judgements, I humbly conceive, that it will not excuse us from the guilt of Scandal, that we do not designedly and actually intent to make our Brother sin, provided that the action doth, through our Brother's weakness, Admister occasion to his sin and ruin, and we do either by experience find it to be so, or may, if we be careful, see that this is like to be the issue of it, and yet, when no necessity is laid upon us, will proceed to do it. For although Peter did not intent to cause the Gentiles to sin, or to compel them to judaize by his withdrawing from them at the coming of the Jews from Jerusalem, for the Text tells us he did it for another reason, viz. Gal. 2.11. fearing those of the Circumcision, yet was he to be blamed, saith St. Paul Gal. 2.11. he was a Transgressor v. 18. and that because by his Authority and example, though not by his intention, he compelled the Gentiles to live as did the Jews, v. 14. 2ly, He who doth venture on that action whence he either doth or may know such offence will follow, as truly may be guilty of the Scandal following, as if he had intended it, because by doing of it without necessity, and with such knowledge, he may be virtually said to intent it, though actually he doth not so. 3ly, The secret intention of the agent doth not make the offended Person less or more subject unto fall, sin, and ruin, and so it cannot hinder the sinfulness of the offence which, he may easily foresee, will follow from it; wherefore Spalleto doth determine well, De Rep. Eccles. l. 1. cap. XI. N. 18. Est Scandalum, & cum peccato, quando quis, licet non intendat peccatum alterius, facit tamen opus aut ex se malum, aut apparenter, ex quo scit, aut scire debet consecuturum alterius peccatum, aut quodcunque malum, nam etiam dicitur illud voluntarium interpretatiuè. 3ly, Whereas it is affirmed that we can give no sinful Scandal by using or imposing of the ceremonies, because we give a reason of our action, so that they who are offended at them may know the lawfulness of our action, I humbly conceive that this will not excuse us from the guilt of Scandal. For the Apostle doth not say, him that is weak receive, Rom. 14.1. till you have given him a reason of of your action, but receive him, without disputing of the lawfulness, or the unlawfulness of what is done. He doth not say, If my Brother be offended I will eat no Meat, till I have given him a reason why I eat, but I will eat no meat whilst the World stands. 2ly, After your reason, he through weakness in not perceiving the strength of it, or through the prejudice of plausible objections to the contrary, may still be grieved, may stumble or offend, may perish and be ruined as much as ever, and so all the Apostles Arguments for the forbearance of the weak on these accounts, must be as strong as ever to engage us not to Scandalise him. In a word if this be true, saith Parker, Of the Cross part. 2. p. 57 that they are blameless who Scandalise their Brethren, provided that they give a reason of their Action, then see we an end of all the Duty of bearing with the weak, of forbearing our own liberty, power, and Authority in things indifferent, for their sakes, yea an end of all the care to prevent their offence by giving them occasion either of condemning our action, or imitating it against their Conscience, which we have so oft, so seriously, with so many reasons, obtestations, yea woes; and threaten commanded to us throughout the word; what needed St. Paul to write so much against the Scandal of meats; this one Precept might have sufficed, let the strong give a reason of his eating. But though he had given many reasons to them of Corinth for the Lawfulness of taking Wages, and for the lawfulness of all sorts of meat to them of Rome, yet neither would he take wages himself, nor suffer others to eat all sorts of meat when others were offended. 4ly, Whereas it is confidently said that they are to be deemed obstinate who after a reason given are still Scandalised, and so their Scandal is Pharisaical, and not to be regarded, This also I conceive will not hold Water. For 1. It seems with equal reason to be said that they are obstinate in Scandalising who perceiving the Scandal to remain notwithstanding their reasons given will not take away the Scandal, when it is in their power to do it, 2ly, It seemeth hard, and uncharitable to judge them obstinate who solemnly profess before God, that, notwithstanding all the reasons given, they cannot conform, because they are not satisfied with them. 3ly, Then must we peremptorily conclude there is not one Conformist who is not obstinate against the clear convictions of his Conscience. 4ly, Then may we say that all who Anciently contended about Ceremonies were obstinate, and so we must condemn, as obstinate, all who contended about the time of Celebrating Easter, the Lent Fast, the observation of the Sabbath, or the Baptising of Heretics, because reasons sufficient were also offered against their mistakes. And 5ly, Then the weak Christians of whom St. Paul speaks, must be obstinate, and therefore not to be regarded, because he gives them a sufficient reason against their weakness, declaring by his Apostolic Authority, and the Authority of Christ himself, that it was lawful to eat those meats at which they scrupled. 6ly, We are obliged to abstain, where lawfully we may, as well from the Scandal of the Malicious, as of the weak. For 1. A Scandal is of a Soul destroying Nature, Rom. 14.15. and who so wicked and malicious upon the face of the Earth whose Soul a true Christian Charity will exclude from its care, mercy, and compassion, or who so wicked as to add to his ruin? 2ly, The Apostles motive reacheth to the wicked and Malicious, viz. destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died, for they may be in the number of those for whom Christ died, who for their present state and condition are most Malicious and wicked. 3ly, We are obliged to love all, even our most Malicious and persecuting Enemies, Matt. 5.44. we are to do good to all, Gal. 6.10. we are to exercise patience, and meekness even towards those that oppose themselves, 2 Tim. 2.14, 15. and whom then may we Scandalise. 4ly, The Jews and Gentiles were the most Malicious Enemies of Christians, yet saith the Apostle give no offence to Jew or Gentile, 1 Cor. 10.32. 5ly, Doth not our Saviour forgo his Liberty to please the Malicious, as when he paid Tibute, lest he should offend them, Matt. 17.27. they were Malicious at Corinth, and seekers of occasion against Paul, that were likely to be offended at his taking wages there, 2 Cor. 11.12. yet, the thing being no necessary Duty, he thinketh it his Duty to forbear his power therein. And whereas against this it is objected, that our Lord did not regard the Scandal of the Pharisees, but said let them alone, Matt. 15.12, 13, 14. this Answer is returned by Parker: If this be all the Warrant we have not to forbear in a thing indifferent for the Malicious, than have we no Warrant at all, because the Scandal there not cared for, is when the Pharisees were offended at his abstaining from their washings, and Preaching a true Doctrine, both of which were necessary Duties for him to do, and when he defendeth his healing on the Sabbath, and his disciples plucking of the Ears of Corn, upon this reason that they were Duties of necessity and Charity, he plainly insinuates that there is no defence for deeds unnecessary when the Malicious are offended. CHAP. VIII. The CONTENTS. Obj. 5. That their Submission to the imposed Rites will render them partakers of the sin of others. 1. By countenancing Superiors in the imposing of these unnecessary Burdens upon others, and doing of those things which tend to the division of the Church. Answ. 1. By retorting the Argument, and showing that their disobedience to the Commands of their Superiors in Lawful things, more likely renders them partakers of the sin of others. 2ly, That our Submission to Superiors in these matters cannot render us partakers of their supposed sin. §. 1. This farther proved from the consideration of all the ways which render us partakers of the sins of others directly, or indirectly. Directly, 1. By actually consenting to, willing or approving the sin of others. 2ly, By commanding the doing of it. 3ly, By persuading, encouraging, warranting or alluring others to the performance of sin, by applauding the action, or rejoicing in the doing of it. 4ly, By teaching false Doctrines which do encourage others to sin. §. 2. Indirectly 1. When we do that which is a culpable occasion of their sin. As 1. By neglecting of that Duty, or by committing of that Evil action which doth directly give occasion to the sin of others. 2ly, When by our ill example we minister occasion to their sin. 3ly, When we do use our Liberty in things indifferent to the offence or sin of our weak Brother. §. 3. That our submission to things Lawful in themselves, commanded by Superiors can neither directly nor indirectly involve us in guilt. §. 4. Jnst. 2. By partaking with you in the Holy Sacrament, who do not separate the Precious from the Vile, we should approve of your neglect of discipline, and by partaking with them become partakers in their sins. Answered §. 5. CHAP. VII. §. 1 IN the last place it is objected that their Submission to the imposed Rites will render them purtakers of the sin of others, and therefore ought not to be done. This they endeavour to make good upon a double ground. And, 1. We dare not join with you, say they, in Public Worship, or the participation of the Holy Sacraments: Because some things are by Superiors required of all those who are permitted to join with you in those Ordinances, which though they are not evil in themselves, yet ought they not to be required as the conditions of Communion, they being things unnecessary; now should we, say they, yield obedience to them in these things, we should countenance them in their imposing these unnecessary burdens upon others, and harden them in that which we suppose to be their sin, and should encourage their persistance in it, and so should be partakers in that Gild: Moreover the Rigid imposition of these things, say they, tends to divide the Church to make men Schismatics, and so it ministers to the destruction of poor Souls; we dare not therefore submit unto the practice of them, lest by so doing we approve of those Unchristian practices. To this pretence I Answer, 1. By Retorting of the Argument; for the refusal of obedience to Superiors in Lawful matters hath the like and more pernicious consequences, and therefore, they at least have equal cause to yield obedience to such constitutions of Superiors on this account, lest by refusing that obedience they approve the more Unchristian practices of those who rend the Church, desert Communion with her, Schismatically separate themselves, disturb the Unity, the Peace, the Charity, and the Edification of her Members, and cast a vile reproach upon Christianity, by representing it as that which doth forbid obedience to Superiors in Lawful matters, and harden others in these sins; all which is manifestly done by their refusal to obey the Constitutions of Superiors in Lawful matters. 2. Did our Submission to any thing which our Superiors should not command, make us partakers of their sin, than every Burdensome and Grievous Act of Parliament which after it is made, tends more unto the prejudice, then to the good of the Community, not only Lawfully might, but must be disobeyed for Conscience sake, lest by submitting to it we should encourage our Superiors to impose Grievous burdens on the Subject, so that this scruple will lead to Faction in the State, as well as to Sedition in the Church. And 2ly, If this were so that by submitting to any thing Commanded by Superiors which we do not approve of, or they should not impose, we become Guilty of the Sin of the Imposers, then must our Lord and his Apostles be Guilty of like sin, for they did ordinarily join with the People of the Jews in their Public Service on the Sabbath day, and at their other Festivals, as I have showed already, although they, who then sat in Moses chair, imposed more Rites and Ceremonies to be observed in those parts of Public Worship, then are imposed in our Church. 3ly. Then also must St. Paul be Guilty of approving those who did impose the Jewish Ceremonies as necessary to be observed by the Jew converted to Christianity, because, for peace sake, he himself submittedto them, and to the Jew became as a Jew that he might gain the Jew: He also must himself approve, and advise others to approve the judgement, and the practice of those Jews, who thought the Meats forbidden by the Law of Moses unlawful to be eaten, the days appointed by that Law, still necessary to be observed, because he did himself, and he advised others to comply with them in their weakness, or to abstain from eating of those meats when that would minister occasion of Offence to their weak Brethren, and so, according to the Grounds of this objection, he himself encouraged, and hardened other persons in their sin, and he advised others so to do. But, §. 2 3ly, To give more ample satisfaction to this scruple, I shall consider all the ways whereby we become guilty of the sin of others, and then apply them to the case in hand. We therefore may become partakers of the sin of others either directly, when we do actually consent unto, will, or approve the evil action which is done by others, or indirectly, when though we do not actually consent unto the sin of others, yet do we that which is a culpable occasion of it. 1. Directly, when we do actually consent unto, will, or approve the sin of others: Now this is done two ways, 1. Antecedently to the Evil action, as when 'tis done by our command, direction, or persuasion, or consequently, when though we had no hand in doing of it, yet we do afterwards censent unto, approve or do rejoice in any Evil done by others. 2ly, Directly we partake with others in their sin, and Antecedently are guilty of it, when having power over them, we do command the doing of it, for this Command is a plain evidence that we do will the Evil action, and desire that it may be done: Thus Absalon slew Amnon, because he commanded his servants, saying, when I say unto you smite Amnon, then kill him, fear not, have not I Commanded you? 2 Sam. 13.30.28. thus David numbered the People, 2 Sam. 24.10. by commanding Joab so to do, v. 4. He killed Uriah the Hittite with the Sword, 2 Sam. 12.9. because at the command of David he was put into the front of the Battle that he died. 3ly, We are directly partakers with another in his sin, and Antecedently are guilty of it, when we persuade, encourage, warrant, allure, or set him on to the performance of it, for by all these actions we show that we are willing and desirous that the sin be done, which in the sight of God is to commit it: Thus Jeroboam made Israel to sin by providing his two Golden Calves, and saying to them, it is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem; behold thy Gods O Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt, 1 Kings 12.28, 30. and chap. 13.34. 1 Cor. 2.8. thus the chief Rulers crucified the Lord of Glory, though the Soldiers did it, because they sought false witness against him, Matt. 26.59. they pronounced him guilty of death, v. 66. they persuaded the multitude to ask Barrabas, and destroy Jesus, Matt. 27, 20. Thus did the People kill the Prince of Peace, Act. 3.15. Because they, harkening to these persuasions of the chief Priests, cried out to Pontius Pilate, let him be crucified: thus also are we guilty of the sin of others upon the same account, by counselling, or by advising them to what is Evil, by consenting to, or by approving it before 'tis done. 4ly, We are directly partakers with another in his sin, and become guilty of it consequentially, when we consent unto, or do approve the Evil done, when we applaud the action, or rejoice that it is done, because in all these cases we show our willingness, that what is Evil should be done. Ep. 2. v. 10. He saith St. John, who bids the Heretic good speed is partaker of his Evil deeds, for by this wish he showeth his good liking to his Heresy, expressing his desire that it may prosper and prevail, whence it must follow by like reason, that whosoever doth approve, or show good liking to, or doth desire, or wish that they may prosper, or prevail who are engaged in a wicked action, become partakers of its guilt. Hence is he charged as one who hates instruction and casts God's Law behind his back, who when he seethe a Thief consenteth to him, Psal. 50.18. and this is made an aggravation of the guilt of Heathens, that knowing the judgement of God that they who did such things were worthy of death, they not only did the same, but had pleasure in them that did them, Rom. 1.32. The reason is, because he who doth praise an Evil action, doth approve it as good, and worthy of his commendation, and therefore shows that he is willing that it should be done, and so doth also he who doth rejoice at, or taketh pleasure in the commission of it. 5ly, They do, almost in all these ways, incur the guilt of others sins who teach false Doctrines which do encourage others in a course of sin, who plead for that as good, and Righteous, which is Wicked, and teach that to be innocent and harmless, which indeed is sinful, and so incur the Woe denounced against them who call evil good, and good evil, Esa. 5.20. for that by such erroneous Doctrines Men may in all these ways contract the guilt of others sins, is evident from this consideration, that if Men call evil good, they by so doing must encourage, persuade, and warrant others to commit it, and justify them in their wicked practices, and if they call good evil, they must deter them from the performance of their Duty, and must encourage them to sin by the neglect of that performance. And therefore they who do deter Men from joining with our Congregations, as being guilty of Superstitious Worship, or doing things forbidden by the word of God, if they prove guilty in this matter of false accusation, as I think they are, must be partakers of that Schism which others, resting on their judgements, are encouraged to make, for they must then Command them not to do what 'tis their Duty, in obedience to their Superiors, and love unto their Church's Peace, and Unity, to do, and must encourage them in and praise them for that disobedience, and Separation which is indeed their sin. §. 3 2ly, We become indirectly guilty of the sin of others, when though we do not actually consent unto, or will their sin, nor have we any purpose or design to tempt them to it, or ensnare them in it, yet do we that which is a culpable occasion of their sin, and where 'tis through our fault that others sin, we cannot be wholly excused from the guilt of their iniquity: Now thus we may be charged with the sin of others. 1. By neglecting of that Duty, or by committing of that Evil action which doth directly give occasion to the sin of others, for most assuredly that sin which doth immediately happen through my neglect of Duty, or is the plain result of my Transgression, must be mine offence. For even Heathens have declared, that qui non vetat peccare cum potest, jubet, He that when he hath Power to restrain Men from committing Evil, and hath Authority from God committed to him for that end, neglects to do it, he becomes guilty of those sins which through neglect of his Authority, and Duty, others do commit; thus, If the Watchman do not warn the sinner, who dies in his iniquity, his Blood will be required at the Watchman's hands, Ezek. 33. v. 8. Thus the iniquity of Eli's Sons is charged upon him, 1 Sam. 3.13. because they made themselves vile, and he restrained them not. And since it is the Christians Duty to admonish his offending Brother, and not to suffer sin upon him, therefore he by neglecting of this Duty becomes guilty of his sin; hence we thus Read, Levit. 19.17. Thou shalt reprove thy Brother, and not bear sin for him, or that thou be not punished for his iniquity. Now where the Righteous judge doth threaten to punish us for other men's Transgressions, we may be sure that we are truly guilty of them. 2ly, We become indirectly guilty of the sin of others, when by our ill example we minister occasion to their sin, and by our freedom to commit an Evil action, we encourage others, though we do not intent it, to commit the like, for hereby we, at least, if we be persons of Authority and credit, do put a stumbling block, or an occasion to fall in our Brother's way, and therefore walk not Charitably, nor suitably unto that Precept which Commands us to give none offence to Jew or Gentile. 3ly, We become indirectly guilty of the sin of others, when we do use our liberty in things indifferent to the offence, or sin of our weak Brother, i. e. when, though we know that our weak Brother is like to be offended, or tempted by our practice of that indifferentaction to do evil, we will not, though we have it in our power so to do, abstain from the performance of it: Hence the Apostle doth exhort all Christians to take heed lest by using of their Liberty in matters of this Nature, they become a stumbling block to those that are weak, 1 Cor. 8.9. That no Man put a stumbling block, or an occasion to fall in his Brother's way, Rom. 14.13. declaring it is good neither to eat Flesh, nor to drink Wine, nor to do any other thing by which their Brother is offended, or made weak, Rom. 14.21. that though all meats are pure, and lawful to be eaten, yet is it evil for that Man who eateth with offence, v. 20. that if our Brother be grieved with our meat we walk not Charitably towards him, with many things of the like import, whence it is evident that in all matters of indifferency, it is the Christians Duty, as much as in him lies, to avoid the causing of his Brother's sin by using of his Liberty in doing of them, and therefore that he must incur the guilt of sin by the neglect of this his Duty. §. 4 Now to apply these things to the case in hand it will appear by a sincere reflection on the forementioned ways which render us partakers of the sins of others, that our submission to things lawful in themselves, Commanded by Superiors, cannot involve us in the guilt of the Imposer, although he should offend in the impofing them as the conditions of Communion; For, 1. By our submission to these Constitutions for the sake of Peace, and to prevent the Schisms, and the Divisions of the Church of God, we cannot properly be said to command the imposing of them. Nor 2ly, Can we be said to persuade, encourage, warrant, allure, or set them on to the imposing of these things. Nor 3ly, can we be said to consent unto, or rejoice in, or praise the action of Imposers, this only can be truly said that we consent unto the using of, or to submission to them for the forementioned pious ends, though not to the imposing of them; all which is evident from this consideration, that many do, and have consented to the using of them, who have remonstrated, and declared their judgements against the imposition of them, and all have Liberty to do so, now sure that action which may be done, though we declare by word or writing against the imposition of these things, can be no virtual consent unto, or approbation of that imposition, or any encouragement to others to continue so to do. 2ly, We cannot be partakers of the supposed guilt of others in this matter indirectly, by the neglecting of our Duty: Not by neglecting of our power to restrain Superiors from thus imposing, for we have no such power over them, but are commanded to be subject to them in all lawful matters, even for Conscience sake; nor from neglect of any Duty incumbent on us to admonish our Superiors of the supposed fault in continuing to impose these things, for they who do conceive this is their Duty, may with all due submission to, and reverence of their Superiors, discharge that Duty by humbly offering the reasons of their judgement in that case, and notwithstanding may submit unto the things enjoined for the ends forementioned. Nor 3ly, Can we be thus guilty by any ill example or Evil action, which gives occasion to their sin, for our Conformity to the Commands of our Superiors in lawful matters is not Evil, nor can we be obliged to abstain from, but rather to perform that action. Lastly, We cannot indirectly be partakers of the sin of others by using this our Liberty in things indifferent to the offence of our weak Brother. For 1. The action in which we are obliged not to minister to the offence of our weak Brother must be indifferent, not only in its own Nature, but also in respect to us, that is, there must be no command or obligation by Superiors laid upon us to the practice of it: For, when the case stands thus, we are not to refrain obedience to Authority to avoid the Scandal of our weak Brother, except in cases wherein it may be rationally presumed that our Superiors would permit us so to do. The reason is, because obedience to Authority in lawful matters is a moral Duty, and the neglect thereof is sin, since therefore God cannot be reasonably supposed to oblige us to neglect our Duty, or commit sin to gratify our Brother in his weakness, he cannot rationally be supposed to command us to refuse obedience to the injunctions of Superiors for that end. And this doth plainly follow from what St. Paul asserts, 1 Cor. 8.8. For therefore he requires the Corinthians to abstain from eating of things offered to Idols, when that would prove a Scandal to the weak, because by eating they were not the better, or not more acceptable to God, and by abstaining from it, they were not the worse, whence we may rationally infer that when the doing of an action will commend us to God, as our obedience to God's Vice-Gerents in all lawful matters most certainly will do, and when the neglecting of an action will render us the worse, as the neglect of that obedience which God in Scripture hath required will do, there we are not obliged to refrain the doing of that action, though it may minister unto the Scandal of our weaker Brother, because we must not do evil that good may come. Moreover in matters of this Nature we cannot disobey but we must minister occasion of far greater Scandal by our disobedience than we can do by our submission to the command of our Superiors; as I have showed already. For, 1. By disobedience to our Superiors in Lawful matters we give occasion to others to traduce the Gospel, by representing it as that which teacheth Christians to refuse obedience to the commands of their Superiors in Lawful matters. 2ly, We provoke Superiors to punish this our disobedience; now either we deserve that punishment, or not; if we deserve it we must confess that we are evil doers by not affording this Submission to the commands of our Superiors, and therefore cannot truly Plead the Scandal of the weak for our justification in so doing; if we deserve it not, then do we give occasion to the sin of Magistrates in punishing us unjustly, and so have the same reason to avoid their Scandal. 3ly, By disobedience to our Superiors in these matters we provoke others to judge, censure, and condemn us as disobedient and seditious Persons. Now either they do judge aright, when they do pass this sentence on us, and then we must be truly disobedient, and therefore sinful in our refusal to submit to the injunctions of Authority in Lawful matters, or they do judge amiss, and so we give occasion to their sin, and therefore truly Scandalise them by our disobedience. Thus have we by induction prov●●, that we by yielding such Submission, as is required, to the commands of our Superiors touching the Rites imposed, cannot be partakers with them in the guilt supposed to be in their injunctions. Obj. 2 2. And whereas others do pretend, They dare not join with us in Celebration of the Holy Sacrament, §. 5 because we do not separate the Precious from the Vile, or we do not exclude unworthy Persons from the Sacrament; and so by joining with us in this Ordinance, when they can join with others who do keep up Discipline, they should approve of our neglect of Discipline, and by partaking with such Persons, become partakers with them in their sin. Answ. Admit that Discipline is too much wanting in our Church, and that Sufficient care is seldom taken for the exclusion of unworthy Persons from that Holy Ordinance, how is it, I beseech you, that you by your participation of this Ordinance among us, become partakers of this guilt? Do you by thus receiving either command, rejoice in, or take pleasure in this supposed neglect? No, your objection shows it is your trouble; do you consent to this neglect by joining with us in this ordinance? If so then our Lord Christ, and his Apostles must be supposed to have consented to all neglects, and all miscarriages in the whole Public Worship of the Jews, because they joined with them in that Worship. Then must the Regular Members of the Church of Corinth have approved the disorders of that Church touching the Sacrament, and the abuse of their Spiritual Gifts by Communicating with those who were then guilty of them and so they must have been obliged to Separate on that account, whereas the Apostle never doth exhort them so to do, but only doth advise the parties guilty to amend these disorders, and to do all things decently and orderly. Then also are we guilty of all the imperfections both in Prayer or preaching, of which that Minister is guilty with whom we join in the performance of those duties. Lastly do we contract this guilt by the neglecting of our duty in reforming these defects, Alas if there be reason to complain of such defects, it must belong unto the Governors of Church and State, and not to private Persons to reform them. CHAP. IX. The CONTENTS. The posture of Kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament is lawful and convenient, and Separation because it is imposed is Schismatical, §. 1. To the Objection from Christ's example, it is Answered. 1. That it concludes as much against Sitting as Kneeling. 2ly, That we are not obliged to imitate it. 3ly, That Christ himself consented to a like change of the Paschal Gesture ibid. to the Objection that Kneeling before a Creature is Idolatrous, it is Answered 1. That the foundation of it is false, it being not the sight of the Elements which doth induce us to Kneel. 2ly, That then the Dissenters are Idolaters. 3ly, That then the Jews must be Idolaters in Worshipping God before the Ark or Mercy seat. 4ly, That in this action, no Worship being tendered to a Creature, there can be no Idolatry. §. 2. the difference betwixt us and the Church of Rome consists in this, that we only make the Creature the occasion, they the object of Worship; the Custom of our Church in bowing at our entrance into the Church or Chancel, and at the Name of Jesus, cleared from all appearance of Idolatry. ibid. To the Objection that we must not Communicate in this Ordinance with Wicked Men, it is Answered 1. ad hominem that it is to be feared that they do Communicate with Schismatics, with those that speak evil of dignities, and Rebels who have not publicly repent of that sin. 2ly, That this Argument will drive them as well from other Ordinances as the Sacrament. 3ly, That private persons may unblamably Communicate in such Assemblies, the Precept to exclude them being not directed to them, but to the Rulers of the Church. 4ly, That private persons only are obliged to withdraw from such Persons in familiar and unnecessary converse not in Public Duties. §. 3. The great objection from the neglect of Discipline proposed in these Propositions. 1. That the excluding notorious wicked Persons from the Communion of the Church is the express Ordinance of Christ. 2ly, That the exercise of this Discipline doth highly tend to the glory of God, and to the credit of Christianity. 3ly, That it is necessary to preserve the Members of Christ's Body from the danger of pollution. 4ly, That probably this is requisite to preserve the Church God's Temple, and to continue the assistance of his Holy Spirit with her. 5ly, That the neglect of this great Duty tends much unto the detriment of the Church by exposing her to God's judgements. §. 4. To which objection it is Answered. 1. That in case Church Officers do not perform their Duty with respect to this great Ordinance, yet is it not the People's Duty to separate on that account. 2ly, That although Excommunication be the Duty of Church Officers, yet is it not a Duty necessary to be exercised at all times, on all offenders, in all circumstances. 3ly, That though it be the Christians Duty to withdraw from, and to avoid the Scandalous Offender, yet is this only then a Duty when we can serve no higher ends of Piety and Mercy in holding correspondence with them. 4ly, That it may be doubted whether all Scandalous professors deserve immediately to be excluded from Communion with us. §. 5. 5ly, That our Church Officers cannot be truly said to own, or to approve of this supposed neglect of discipline, and that if the Rules of Discipline prescribed by them were duly practised, this Objection would vanish. §. 6. That the continuance of God's presence by his Spirit with his Church cannot be proved entirely to depend upon the separation of wicked Persons and Scandalous Offenders from her. §. 7. The Objection against these words used in confirmation that this is done to certify them by this sign of God's favour and gracious goodness to them, Answered, §. 8. Other Ceremonies defended from the ensuing Propositions. 1. That the laudable Customs of the Catholic Church, which are of present observation, are fit to be observed by all Christians; whence is justified, 1. The Custom of delivering the Sacramental Elements into the hands of the Communicants, and speakto them severally. 2ly, The retaining of Godfathers' and Godmothers'. 3ly, The Answering of the sureties in Baptism. 4ly, The use of the Ring in Matrimony, §. 9 Prop. 2. That it concerneth not Inferiors to know the reason why Superiors do Command one thing rather than another, but only whether, what they do Command be not forbidden, §. 10. Prop. 3. That bodily Worship is required both in the Old and the New Testament, which is sufficient to justify, 1. Kneeling at Prayer. 2. Bowing at the Name of Jesus. 3. Uncovering our heads in the House of God. And 4ly, Standing up at the Gospel, the reason of that Custom, §. 11. The Church's Festivals considered, and the Lawfulness of some of them proved from Propositions laid down by Mr. Baxter, §. 12. Three other Arguments for the expediency of them. 1. From the consideration of the end for which they have been instituted by the Wisdom of the Church. 2. From the benefit which may redound unto us by the observation of them. 3. From the continued Custom of The whole Church of Christ. §. 13. Five Arguments of Mr. Baxter against the Feasts of Christmas, Easter, the Ascension, etc. Answered §. 14. The Objection from Gal. 4.9, 10. Coloss. 2.16. Answered §. 15. CHAP. IX. HAving thus Answered all the considerable Objections of Dissenters which they plead in general against Submission to the Ceremonies appointed by the Church of England to be used in her Solemnities; I proceed to a particular consideration of those Ceremonies of which I have not had a fit occasion to discourse in the foregoing Chapters; And they are those, viz. Kneeling at the Receiving of the Sacrament. The Bishop's imposition of hands at confirmation, and standing up at the Creed, and at the reading of the Gospel, at the saying Gloria patri, Kneeling at Prayer, etc. And, §. 1 1. Concerning Kneeling at the Sacrament I say, 1. That since some posture is then necessary, and none by God determined, it cannot reasonably be doubted but that the Church hath power to determine in this matter as she conceives most proper and convenient. 2ly, I know no posture more convenient than that of Kneeling, it being a very fit expression of our humility, and of the sense of our unworthiness of the great blessings there received. And 2ly, A posture fit for Prayer which we do use at the Receiving of the Sacrament 3ly, I add, That if it be lawful to receive in such a humble posture, then must it be unlawful to refuse Communion with our Church in the participation of this Ordinance, because she doth require us to use this posture in receiving. For on this supposition, we must refuse to hold communion with her in a lawful matter, and so must separate from her communion in this Ordinance without cause, which is the sin of Schism, Now that it is lawful to receive Kneeling will appear by answering the Arguments produced by Dissenters against this posture. And, 1. It is objected, That Kneeling at the Sacrament is contrary to the Practice and Example of Christ, and his Apostles, for they received sitting. Answ. 1 It is confessed that the Greek words by which the posture of our Lord, and his Disciples at their Receiving is expressed, are translated so as to seem to countenance their opinion who hold the sitting posture to be most agreeable to the Example of our Lord, and his Disciples, but yet 'tis certain, from the Original, that Christ, and his Disciples did neither sit, nor Kneel, but did lie down on Couches at the Receiving of this Ordinance, for 'twas administered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they lying down, Mark. 14.18. of Christ himself 'tis said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he lay down with the twelve. Matt. 26.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he fell down with them, Luk. 22.14. If therefore this Objection be of any force, it unavoidably will prove, that we must neither sit, nor stand, nor Kneel, but must lie down at the Receiving of this Sacrament, and so our Lord's Example will be as strong against sitting, which is the posture our Dissenters use, as against kneeling, which is the posture they reject. Answ. 2 2ly, I Answer that in such things as these which accidentally were done by Christ and his Apostles, and had no real goodness in them, we cannot be obliged to imitate them. This men do generally acknowledge in things of a like nature to this gesture, for they conceive that we are not obliged to receive this Sacrament in a like place, viz an upper Room, or Inn, nor at the same time, after the passover, or after supper, nor in the same habit, in Sandals, or a seemless coat; why therefore should they think it necessary to be received in a like Gesture, that being not commanded any more than is the time, or place, or habit. Moreover St Paul, when he informeth his Corinthians what he received from the Lord to be delivered to them touching this holy Sacrament, 1 Cor. 11.23. maketh no mention of this Gesture, and thereby doth assure us that it was not necessary to be observed. And Bishop Jewel noteth well, Repl. to Hard Artic. 2. that our Lord said do this, but said not do it after supper, do it sitting, do it with twelve Disciples, nor did the Apostles so understand him. Answ. 3 The Gesture in which the Passover, even by God's Command, was celebrated at the first, was altered by the Jewish Church, for in the first Passover they were Commanded to eat it with their loins Girt, their shoes on their feet, Ex. 12.11. and their staves in their hands, as men standing ready, and in haste to be gone, but being entered into their rest, the land of Canaan, they changed this posture into lying down, and yet our Saviour, and his Apostles did not scruple to conform unto it, how much less should we scruple the varying from an uncommanded Gesture used occasionally, and not of choice, by our Dear Lord. 2ly. It is objected that Kneeling at the Sacrament maketh us Guilty of Idolatry by worshipping God before, or by, or with Relation to a Creature, For the Elements, say they, are the motive of your kneeling, for if they were not there you would not kneel. Answ. It is to be lamented that such false, Groundless, and frivolous suggestions as these are, should keep men from Communion with their Brethren in this Holy Ordinance; for 1. The matter of fact is in this Argument Extremely false, it being not the Sight of the Elements which doth induce us then to Kneel: But we receive them Kneeling, saith our Lyturgy, Rubr. after the Commun. for a signification of our humble acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ there tendered, and because Kneeling is a proper posture to tender our devotion in. The Elements do only bring these things to our remembrance, they do it to our eyes, as the words used in a Sermon, Prayer Book, or by the Minister, do bring them to remembrance by our hearing; if then it be Idolatry to worship God when these things by the Symbols are brought to our remembrance, it must be so to worship God when we do hear a Sermon, Prayer, or a discourse concerning them. 2ly. If this be Idolatry, than our Dissenters must be Gross Idolaters, for Surely inward worship, unduly tendered, is as Gross Idolatry as outward worship by which it is expressed; now do not they, when they behold the bread broken, and the wine poured out, put forth an act of inward worship, viz. an act of praise, thanksgiving, love, affiance? do they not do this before a creature as much as we? are not the Elements seen by them the motive of their doing so as much as of our Kneeling? If then we are Idolaters for Kneeling to God before them, why must not they be equally Idolaters by tendering all this inward worship to him before, and on occasion of the same Elements. 3ly, Were this Idolatry, the Jews must be Idolaters by worshipping the Lord before the Ark or Mercy Seat, before the Temple at Jerusalem, and before the Tabernacle, for by so doing they worshipped God before a creature, and would not have done so, had they not been before these creatures, since the command runs thus to worship him, Ps. 99.5, 9 and to fall down before his footstool; moreover how often do we find them falling down and worshipping at the appearance of that cloud, or fire which was the Symbol of God's presence? When they saw the fire fall and consume the offerings, they fell upon their faces. 1 Kings 18 38, 39 When they saw the fire of God come down, and the Glory of the Lord upon the house, they bowed themselves with their faces to the Ground, 2 Chron. 7.3. And yet because they did this not to the cloud, or fire, but to God, there could be no Idolatry in this their action. 4ly, It is a thing impossible that such an action as this is should any ways be Guilty of Idolatry, for Idolatry is false worship of a creature, now where there is no worship of the creature, as in this action there is not, there can be no false worship of the creature. And to evidence to every rational Capacity, that nothing used in the Service of our Church can rationally be charged with any semblance of Idolatry, and manifest the great and signal difference there is betwixt the actions of our Church which our Dissenters call Idolatrous, and those which in the Church of Rome we do accuse as such, I lay down this distinction, viz: 1. That we may Kneel, bow down, or may perform like acts of outward worship before any creature, either so as to make that creature only the circumstance, or the occasion of that worship, or else so as to make that creature the object of those acts of worship. When any Creature is rendered the object of our worship, the mind doth actually, or virtually intent to worship, or pay an act of Reverence to the Creature which is thus made the object of our worship, but when the Creature is only made the Circumstance, or the occasion of the worship, the mind intends to pay the act of worship only to another object, in such a place, or upon intimation, or apprehension of the object which I worship, which apprehension or intimation is caused by that Creature. Thus when I come to Common Prayer read in the Church, the Church is the circumstance of place, the hour, of time, for the performance of that worship, but God is the sole object of it, when at the hearing of the Ave Mary Bell, the Roman Catholic gins his Ave Mary, the Blessed Virgin is the object, the Bell is only the occasion of it, and when they then Kneel down, and bow, they do not Kneel unto the consecrated Bell, but to the Blessed Virgin. 2ly, This being so, it is ridiculous to say we worship any thing, because it is before us when we direct our outward worship to another object. Since on the same account the Wisemen of the East who worshipped Christ before the Manger, must be supposed to pay their worship to the Manger, and they who meeting Christ Riding upon an Ass, Saluted him with their Hosannas, and bowed towards him, must also pay their worship to the Ass. And if upon appearance of the Devil we should fall upon our Knees, and beg of God to be delivered from him, we must be said to worship the very Devil by that action. Moreover when we lift up our eyes, and voices to the Heavens, we also lift them up towards the Clouds, and Stars, but will it follow thence that by so doing we do not only worship God, but the Material Heavens, and those Glorious lights we see, as was objected by the Pagans against the People of the Jews? Wherefore to say that Protestants worship the Altar, or the Eucharistick Elements, because they worship God before them, is to calumniate the Protestants as anciently the Heathens did the Christians, affirming that they worshipped the Sun, because they worshipped God toward the East, and so by consequence towards the Rising Sun. Wherefore to give a clear and Satisfactory Answer to all the instances of this nature, which are alleged by Dissenters to prove the Church of England Guilty of this crime, I say, 1. That when we bow towards the Altar, as we enter into, or come out of the Church, Chancel, or Chapel, where we worship God, the Altar is not the object of our worship, but only an accidental circumstance of it, for we do not in the least intent by this obeisance to do an act of worship to the Communion Table, or any thing placed there, or elsewhere, but to God alone, for this the Church of England hath solemnly declared in these words: Constit. and Canons: A.D. 1640. Can. 7. Whereas the Church is the house of God dedicated to his Holy worship, and therefore ought to mind us both of the greatness and goodness of his Divine Majesty, certain it is that the acknowledgement thereof, not only inwardly in our hearts, but also outwardly with our bodies, must needs be pious in itself, profitable to us, and Edifying to others; we therefore think it very meet and behoveful, and hearty commend it to all good and well affected People, Members of this Church, that they be ready to tender to the Lord the said acknowledgement, by doing reverence and obeisance both at their coming in, and going out of the said Churches, Chancels, or Chapels, according to the most Ancient Custom of the Primitive Church in the purest times, and of this Church also for many years in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. The reviving therefore of this Ancient and laudable Custom, we hearty commend to the serious consideration of all good People, not with any intention to exhibit any Religious Worship to the Communion Table, the East, or Church, or any thing contained therein in so doing, or to perform the said gesture in Celebration of the Holy Eucharist upon any opinion of a Corporal Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Holy Table, or in the Mystical Elements, but only for the advancement of God's Majesty, and to give him Alone that honour and glory which is due unto him, and no otherwise. Which Canon as it declares this act of Worship not to be given, or intended to the Altar, so doth it give us the true Reason why it is accidentally done towards the Altar; viz. Because it is performed at our entrance into the immediate place of Worship, to which entrance the Altar standeth opposite. 2ly, When at the name of Jesus we are wont to bow, that bowing is not intended by us to the very name, which is the occasion only of the Worship by putting us in mind of him that is named, and of our highest obligation to him, as being Jesus, a Saviour, to whom therefore we address ourselves, and recognize him as our only Saviour by that especial and peculiar act of devotion. So that the adoration then performed is wholly and absolutely directed to the Lord Jesus, as is declared by the Church in these words: Constit. & can. A. 1603. can. 18 When in time of divine service the Lord Jesus Christ shall be mentioned, due, and lowly Reverence shall be done by all persons present, as it hath been accustomed, testifying by these outward Ceremonies and Gestures, their inward Humility, Christian Resolution, and due Acknowledgement that the Lord Jesus Christ, the true and Eternal Son of God, is the only Saviour of the world, in whom alone all the Mercies, Graces, and Promises of God to mankind for this life, and the life to come, are fully and wholly comprised. And, 3ly, When we Kneel at the Reception of the Blessed Sacrament, Rubric after the Communion we do not pay that outward act of Worship to the Elements of Bread and Wine, but to that Saviour whom they represent; for the Church of England hath declared that thereby no adoration is intended, or aught to be done unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received. So that from the express declarations of the Church of England it appears, that none of these things are by her made the objects of Religious Worship, but only the occasions of tendering that Worship which we own to God, and therefore there is no appearance of Idolatry in the performance of these things. Obj. 3 We are commanded to Separate from every Brother that walks disorderly, 2 Thessal. 3.6. §. 3 And are forbidden to keep Company with any man who being called a Brother is a Fornicator, or Covetous, or an Idolater, or a Railer, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner, with such a one we must not Eat, 1 Cor. 5.11. And if we may not Eat with Such a Person at our own Table, may we Eat with him at the Holy Table of the Lord? Now, through the want of Discipline, such Persons are admitted amongst you, saith the Dissenter, and therefore we dare nor join with you in that Ordinance. Answ. 1 I pray God this objection doth not make you meet together, as the Apostle saith of the Corinthian Schismatics, 1 Cor. 11.17. not for the better, but the worse, For I much fear there may be found in those Assemblies which you resort to as more pure, besides a crew of Schismatics, with whom according to the Discipline observed in the purest Ages of the Church, the Christian ought not to communicate, many who rail against Superiors, and speak evil of Dignities, and many who have once been open Rebels, and have not publicly repent of those crimes; and if you can communicate with them, why not with such as usually do meet at our Communion Tables? The wisdom which is from above is impartial. Answ. 2 Consider, I beseech you, that this argument will drive you as well from our Assemblies, and from our Prayers, as from our Communion Table, for you may as well Argue thus; him that I may not keep company with at home, I may not keep company with at Church; him that I must not join with in my Civil Converse, I must not hold Communion with in Sacred; him that I may not Eat with, I may not Pray with, as you do Argue thus, him that I may not Eat with at my own, I may not Eat with at the Table of the Lord. This is apparent from the occasion of the objected Precept, viz. The Incestuous Person, who was to be taken from among them: v. 2. To be delivered to Satan for the destruction of the Flesh, v. 5. To be purged out from the new lump, v. 7. To be put away from among them, v. 13. If therefore, after admonition, they continue obstinate, and Refractory Offenders, they are to be excluded from all Christ's ordinances, and to be esteemed as Publicans and Heathens, Matt. 18.17. Accordingly they, by the discipline observed in the purest Ages of the Church, were actually excluded from Communion with her in all her Offices; if then we may not join with them in one, we may not join with them in other Ordinances, till they have satisfied the Church, they being by this precept equally to be excluded from them all. Scripture may also be as plausibly produced for the declining of Communion with them in public Prayer, and family devotions, in hearing of a Sermon, and the like, as in receiving of the Sacrament, for doth not David make it the Character of good and blessed men, that they stand not in the Congregation of Sinners? Doth he not say, Psal. 1.1. Psal. 101.4. I will not know a wicked Person? Answ. 3 That even wicked Persons, who are not Scandalously, and Notoriously such, but make profession of Obedience to the laws of Christ, and are not by the Church cast out for acting contrary to their profession, may be unblamably communicated with, seems undeniable from the Example of our Saviour, by whom Judas was certainly admitted to that Passover, which spiritually did signify, and represent Christ to them, 1 Cor. 10.3. And by which rite they owned themselves the servants of the God of Israel, v. 18. Whence none might eat thereof who were not Circumcised, Exod. 12.48. That he was also present at the supper of our Lord I have fully proved already, If then a person so unworthy, and so regardless of the Law of Moses, that he had actually resolved to take a reward to betray Innocent-blood. If a Thief, Psal. 15.5. and a Covetous person, was by our Lord admitted to the Passover; If one who by our Lord was known to be in heart a Murderer, and a Betrayer of his Master, was yet admitted by him to his Sacrament, you see that sinners must be first notorious before they ought to be excluded, and when they are so, our Rubric, and our Canons give every Minister Authority to withhold the Communion from them, and therefore Authorize them to exercise the Discipline required in this case. Hence also we may learn that to communicate with those, whom we know to be wicked, in this duty, derives upon us no Communion in their Gild, for otherwise our Lord, and his Disciples, would not have joined in Communion with that wicked one. Answ. 4 This precept is not directed to particular persons, but to the Church of Corinth in the General, as you may learn from v. 4. And therefore hence it only follows, that it is the duty of Church Governors to exclude such persons from Communion with her, but not that private persons should refrain Communion with the Church, because they judge that they neglect their duty. And therefore we do never read that Christ, or his Apostles refused Communion with the Jewish Church, or did neglect to go unto the Temple, or the Synagogue, because the Scribes and Pharisees neglected to perform their duty, and our Apostle here doth never call the members of the Church of Corinth to separate from them who caused disorders in the Celebration of this Sacrament, but only calls upon them to reform those disorderly proceed. And I beseech you to consider what a Gap would be laid open to perpetual Schisms, if private persons were permitted to judge when their Superiors did neglect their duty in any part of public worship, and were permitted to separate from them, and join in opposite Communions, as oft as they imagined that others better did acquit themselves in Prayer, or Preaching, or in Administration of the Sacraments, or any other duty which belongs unto the Ministerial Office. Answ. 5 Lastly this Text only engages Private Christians to separate from persons Guilty of such crimes, as to familiar converse in things unnecessary, but never to decline their presence so as to neglect the doing or receiving good to their own souls or bodies. For 1. Divines agree in this, that Christ and his Apostles do not in this, or other places, prescribe such separation as is injurious to any, or takes off any duties which by the law of nature we do owe unto them, or our Relation to them calls for. A Wife must not, by virtue of this Precept, separate from her ungodly Husband, no, though he be an unbeliever, let her not leave him, saith St. Paul. 1 Cor. 7.15. A child must not deny subjection to a wicked Parent, nor a Servant to an evil Master, but must be subject with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the Froward, 1 Pet. 2.18. If then this Precept will not oblige us to perform what is injurious to another's temporals, it cannot lay upon us an obligation to do that which is prejudicial to our own Spiritual concerns: Much less what prejudicieth the concernments of the Church, our Spiritual Mother, and makes us disobedient to our Spiritual Fathers. 2ly, This Precept doth not bind in case of signal damage, for I am not obliged to renounce his Company by whom my Trade is carried on, my goods go off, because I judge him wicked or Profane, or to refuse a Customer because he is no Saint, for then no Trade could lawfully be managed, and there would be no living in the world. I do not mean, saith Paul, to for bid your keeping Company, as your occasions serve, with the Fornicators, Covetous, Idolaters of the world, for than you must go out of the world, v. 9.10. If then, as far as the concernments of our worldly callings warrant us, we may enjoy their Company, much more when this is necessary to the concernments of our Souls, or our Spiritual Callings. 3ly, When I am called as a Guest, where accidentally I meet with such a one, I am not then obliged to departed, and leave the Company because I find him there, for this can be no evidence of my familiarity with him: Much less am I obliged to departed on his account, when I am graciously invited to this heavenly banquet, and called to feast upon the Supper of the Lamb. And 4ly, Our Lord did, notwithstanding this duty of avoiding the Company of wicked men, familiarly converse with Publicans and Sinners, in order to their reformation and spiritual advantage, Matt. 9 13. and justified his so doing by this Rule, I will have mercy and not Sacrifice, why therefore may not we by the same Reason justify our converse with them in order to our own Spiritual Good? But because this Objection of the want of Discipline is the great Scruple of Dissenters, and some even among ourselves seem to speak slighter of it, than they ought to do, I will endeavour in some few Propositions to show how much it doth concern all Churches to endeavour to keep up their Discipline, by the exclusion of notorious evil livers from the Church, and how far the neglect thereof can be imputed to our Church, and whether any separation from her can be justified on this account. And therefore I assert, That the Secluding of profane and wicked Persons, who after admonition by the Church, Prop. 1. continue such, from the Communion of that Church of which they formerly were Members, is the express Ordinance of Christ. For 1. Matt. 18.15, 16, 17. Our Lord himself commanded that if by private admonition we cannot gain our Brother, we should tell the Church, and if he did neglect to hear the Church, he should by Christians be esteemed as a Publican and Heathen, adding, that whatsoever ye (the Church Governors) shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven. Whence it appears that as it is the Duty of the private Christian, who cannot gain his Brother by the private admonitions prescribed by Christ, to complain of him to the Church, so is it the Duty of the Church to admonish, and reprove, and call him to repentance, and if he will not hearken unto her voice, to bind him here on Earth, and that the Brother thus bound is afterwards to be looked upon, as to Communion in sacris, as a Heathen and a Publican. And although no express could be produced from Christ to this effect, yet even the constitution of Church Government must necessarily infer it, for Government, in Church or State, there cannot be without a power of punishing unruly Members, now the Government of the Church being Spiritual, her punishments can be only such, even seclusion of her Members from spiritual things; moreover there can be no Peace and Order under any Government without a Power of secluding, by some means or other, such Persons from that Government as obstinately persist in the disturbance of it, and violation of its fundamental Laws: On Luc. 6.22. And therefore, as Grotius truly saith, Christ having once constituted a Church (and that to be a holy and undefiled Temple to himself) must be supposed to command all those things without which this his Temple could not be kept pure. But it is plain that a Power of censuring Offenders against this Pure and Holy Institution, and of ejecting those who by their wicked conversations do defile this Temple, is necessary for the preservation of the Church in purity. And indeed I cannot understand how the Church should be a Society without Union, or how she can have Union without some Rules of Government and Order, or what those Rules can signify without a Power to punish, nor what Power of punishing the Church, as such, can have, except it be by debarring of her Members from some, or all of their Church Privileges; nor do I understand how it should be the Duty of Christians to withdraw from every Brother that walks disorderly, if the Church Officers have not a power to pronounce such persons fit to be withdrawn from, especially seeing not hearing of the Church must go before his being deemed, or treated as a Publican and Heathen. Nor last, can I understand St. Paul's discourse unless he Argue thus; Vide sclater. in locum. The whole body of the Christian Assemblies ought to be a new Lump, and purged from old Leaven, or from such Persons as notoriously commit such Crimes as manifestly are repugnant to the profession of Christianity, and inconsistent with true piety; he therefore who, being called a Brother, that is, making profession of Christianity, is guilty of such Wickedness, should be cast out of the Society of Christians; for as when the Paschal Lamb was offered among the Jews, no Leaven was to be found among the People of Israel: So Christ our Paschal Lamb being now Offered, no Leaven of Malice and Wickedness, and consequently no such wicked Persons, aught to be left in the Church of the true Israelites, but wholly purged out of it. That the exercise of this Discipline doth highly tend to the Glory of God, Prop. 2. and to the credit of Christianity. And surely this cannot be doubted by them who know that this alone is that by which the Church can be preserved pure, and like unto that God who will have no Communion with the works of Darkness, with whom no Person can have fellowship who walks not in the light, as he is in the light, 1 Joh. 1.7. That this alone can make the light of Christians to shine forth so as to Glorify their Father which is in Heaven, Matt. 5.16. and cause them to show forth the virtues of him that hath called them from darkness into his marvellous light; 1 Pet. 2.9. and that this only can render us able to commend Christianity to others from the prevailing topic of the Strict and Holy lives of the allowed professors of it, by which it chief was promoted in the first and purest Ages of the Church: In nobis Christus patitur opprobrium, l 4. p. 140. v. p. 139. 141. That the Name and Doctrine of our Lord is Blasphemed among Heathens, Atheists, Sceptics, and profane Persons by the ungodly lives of its Professors, as Salvian sadly doth complain, and by finding many who are owned as Christians, and permitted to partake of the highest Ordinances, and Privileges of Christians, who lead lives worse than Heathens, and who were constantly rejected from the Communion of Christians in the best Ages of the Church. When if at any time it was Objected by the Heathens that such persons bore the Name of Christians, her Answer was, they went out from us but they are not of us, nor owned, or † Just. M. p. 70.253.306.308. vid. Tertull. ad Scap. cap. 4. allowed of by us but are excluded by the Church's censures, or by their voluntary separations; which may deserve to be considered. The exercise of this Discipline is necessary to perserve the Members of Christ's Body from the danger of pollution. Prop. 3. This cannot easily be questioned, 1. By him who well considers that enquiry of St. Paul, Know you not that a little Leaven leaveneth the whole lump; 1 Cor. 5.7. purge therefore the Old Leaven from you, that you may be a new lump, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the neglected evil may defile the whole Body of the Church, say Oecumenius, and Theophylact. 2. By him who knows how properly is the shame and punishment inflicted upon others for confessed or palpable enormities, to restrain us from the like practices, and how exceeding apt Men are to run into those vices without fear, which by experience they find connived at by Superiors. As then the Man who was defiled by Leprosy, or by an Issue, Numb. 5.2, 3. or dead Body, was by God's command to be removed out of the Camp of Israel, that they defiled not the Camp in the midst of which God dwelled; so on the same account should the Spiritual Leper, when the marks evidently do appear upon him, be excluded from the Christian Camp that he defile not that Church in which God dwelleth now as in his Temple. It seemeth probable that the exercise of this Discipline is that which will alone preserve the Church God's Temple, Prop. 4. and consequently will continue his presence with her Assemblies, by the influences of his Holy Spirit on them in greater efficacy, and measure. And that on these considerations: 1. That every Christian Church, or Assembly is in the Scripture represented as God's Temple, the place in which he dwelleth, as he of Old dwelled in Jerusalem, for by inspection of the places where this Phrase, God's Temple, is used in the New Testament, it seemeth evident that it is not so much each private Christian, as the Assemblies, and Churches of them, which are styled God's Temple. So the Apostle speaks to the Corinthians in the general, Know you not that you are the Temple of God, and that the Spirit of God doth dwell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among you, 1 Cor. 3.16. and v. 17. The Temple of God is Holy, which Temple you are. So also 2 Cor. 6.16. What Communion hath the Temple of God with Idols? For you are the Temple of the living God, as God hath said, I will dwell, and walk among them, and they shall be to me a People, and I will be their God. Which words are manifestly taken from Leu. 26.11.12. and therefore they must speak of God's presence with his Christian Churches, the Israel of God, in such a manner as he was present with the Jewish Church by placing of his Tabernacle among them, and giving demonstrations of his gracious presence with them. Accordingly we find this promise made, with respect unto the Gospel times, I will set my Sanctuary in the midst of them for ever, my Tabernacle also shall be with them, yea I will be their God, and they shall be my People, Ezek. 37.26, 27. Thus also the Apostle speaks to the Church of Ephesus saying, You are fellow Citizens of the the Saints, and of the Household of God, and are built upon the foundations of the Apostles, and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief Corner Stone, in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth into an holy Temple in the Lord, in whom also you are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit, Ephes. 2.19, 20, 21, 22. Hence Lastly, the Members of Christ's Body, or the Community of Christians, seems to be styled Christ's house, Heb. 3.6. his Spiritual house, 1 Pet. 2.5. 2ly, That the condition of Gods continuing to dwell in, or to abide with this his Temple, as it was this of Old, that the Lords People should be Holy, that is, be free from Ceremonial pollution, and from such sins as were committed wilfully, and with an High hand, against the Law of Moses, and so deserved cutting off; that they should be to him an Holy Nation, Exod. 19.6. a Holy People, Deut. 7.6. an Elect peculiar People, Deut. 14.2.26.18. So it seems plainly now under the New Testament to be the same. For Christians under the New Testament are in like manner called the Elect of God, 1 Pet. 1.2. Col. 3.22. a chosen Generation, 1 Pet. 2.9. a Holy Nation, and Peculiar People, ibid. And they are in like manner called to come out from the Sons of Belial, the Children of Darkness, and Unrighteousness, with whom they can have no Communion, and to be separate, that the Lord God may dwell among them, 2 Cor. 6.16, 17, 18. and consequently the continuance of God's Spirit with his Church, and his assistance in the Dispensation of its Ordinances, seems likewise to depend on their continuance to be such a People, and therefore on the execution of the censures of the Church on them who are notoriously otherwise, they are Commanded to purge out the Old Leaven that they may be a new Lump, and to look diligently that no root of bitterness spring up among them, Heb. 12.15. whereby others may be in danger of defilement. And as to them who sinned with an High hand, was threatened destruction by the hand of God, so the Apostle saith, that him who defileth the Temple of the Lord will God destroy, 1 Cor 3.17. And as God declared that he would not be with the Church of Israel when it was defiled, except they did destroy the accursed thing from among them, that is, the person who Transgressed his Covenant, Josh. 7.11, 12. So we may also fear that he will not vouchsafe his presence with us, unless we also do remove those from among us who defile his Temple, and openly transgress their Christian Covenant. As than Jehojada set Porters at the Gates of the House of the Lord, that none who was unclean in any thing should enter, 2 Chron. 23.19. So also should the Rulers of Christ's Church, Act. 20.28. Jer. 15.19. who are Commanded to take heed unto the Flock, and whose concern it is to separate the precious from the vile. That the neglect of this great Duty tends very much unto the detriment of the Church, Prop. 5. not only as it endangers the infection of her Members, and brings a Scandal on her, but also as it doth expose her to God's judgements for the neglect of this his Ordinance; this may be gathered 1. from the close of the 5th. Chapter of the first Epistle to the Church of Corinth, where the discourse of the Apostle on this subject concludeth with these words, do not ye judge them that are within, that is, saith Dr. Hammond, you know it is the practice among you to inflict censures on Church Members, and ye shall put away the evil from among you: That is, by doing this you shall free yourselves from those punishments which the neglect of your Duty in permitting such offenders to go unpunished, and unreformed, may bring upon you. 2ly, From Christ's reproof unto the Church of Thyatira, because her Rulers suffered the Woman ealled Jezabel to teach, Rev. 2.14, 15. and to seduce his Servants to commit Fornication and to eat things Offered to Idols, Rev. 2.20. and from his threaten against the Church of Pergamos, that he would come against her quickly, and fight against her with the Sword of his Mouth. for suffering those among her who taught the Doctrine of Balaam, and the Nicolaitans, if she did not repent, that is, saith Dr. Hammond, There is gotten among you, and permitted, and not punished by your Bishops, N. B. that unclean Doctrine, and Practice of the Nicolaitans, which being odious to me, ought most strictly to have been punished by you, and if this lenity be not speedily mended, I will visit, and destroy you suddenly by judgement's parallel to the Sword that fell on the Israelites, that were corrupted by Balaams' Counsel, Numb. 25.5. And as when Magistrates neglect their Duty in punishing Offenders, and bear the Sword in vain, God is provoked to take it into his own hand, and punish such Offenders by his immediate power, so when Church Discipline is neglected, it may be rationally expected God should immediately punish that neglect. Now on these propositions depends the great Objection of Dissenters against Communion with, and for their Separation from our Church. For, say they, seeing it is certain, that a Church in which this Duty is performed is better than a Church which doth neglect it, since we have cause to hope God's presence will be more vouchsafed to such a Church, and his good Spirit will more powerfully assist them, seeing in such a Church the danger from God's judgements, and the pollution of her Members, will be certainly the less, we think it reasonable to prefer a Church in which this Discipline obtains in some good measure, as it doth in our Communions, before Communion with that Church in which it is apparently, if not confessedly neglected, and therefore till the Church of England will restore this Discipline, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we shall continue as we are. §. 5 In Answer to this considerable Objection I add these following Propositions. That in case Church Officers do not perform their Duty with reference to this great Ordinance of Chris, Prop. 6. yet is it not the * Praecidendae unitatis nulla est justa necessitas cum sibi nequaquam nocituros malos ideo tolerent boni, ne spiritualiter sejungantur à bonis, cum Disciplinae severitatem, consideratio cusiodiendae pacis refrenat aut differt. August. contr. Epist. Parm. l. 2. c. 11. p. 39 People's Duty to Separate from their Communion, except in the ensuing Cases: 1. That they require those who Communicate with them to own, or to approve of this defect, in which Case it is evident that our Communion with them must be unlawful, because it cannot be obtained without sin. Or 2ly, When we, without dividing of the Church, or disturbing of her Peace, or disobedience to, or Separation from her Governors, or any other greater evil to ourselves, or to the Church of God, can Communicate with other Church Officers, legally called, who conscientiously endeavour to perform that Duty, which others do neglect, for, from the Reasons offered in the foregoing Propositions, and the confession of our own Church that this is a Godly Disciplne, and that the Restoration of it is much to be desired, it rationally seems to follow, that if this can be done without a greater evil to ourselves, or to the Church of God, we should prefer a Church, Caeteris paribus, in which this Discipline of Christ obtains in some good measure, before Communion with the Church in which it is confessedly neglected. For proof of the proposition thus laid down, let us consider, 1. That the Scribes and Pharisees rejected Christ's Doctrine, Luk. 7.30. and the Baptism of John, which was an Ordinance of God, and yet our Saviour bids both the People, and his own Disciples, Mat. 23.1. hear them sitting in the Chair of Moses, which doth imply Communion with those Scribes and Pharisees. And though both Priest and People were exceedingly corrupted, though he declares the Scribes and Pharisees to be a Generation of Vipers, v. 33. and the Generality of the People to be of their Father the Devil, Joh. 8.44. and the Sadduces who joined in Public Worship with the rest, Mark 12.27. to be greatly erroneous, yet neither did he Separate himself, nor command others to Separate from the Communion of the Jewish Church, or Synagogues, on those accounts. 2ly, St. Paul declareth of the Church of Corinth, that it was their fault that the incestuous Person was not separated from their Communion, 1 Cor. 5.1. and commands them to separate him, v. 13. But he chides none for Communicating with them whilst he was not Separated, which sure he would have done, had that Communion been their sin. He tells them that the Supper of the Lord was Celebrated so among them, that they came together for the worse, v. 17. that some of them were drunk, v. 21. that they despised the Church of God, v. 22. that they did eat judgement to themselves, v. 29. not discerning the Lords Body, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this very cause many were sick among them, many weak, and many fallen asleep, v. 30. yet did he not reprove any for Communicating with them in that Ordinance, or counsel them to cease to do so till these things were reform, but rather doth suppose it was their Duty still to come to eat together, v. 33. He adds that they did so administer the public ordinances of Prayer, and Praises, 1 Cor, 14.14. v. 33. that they became unfruitful, and unedifying, but knowing that God was the God of Order, and not of Confusion, he adviseth none to Separate for greater Edification. Lastly, He speaks his fears, that at his coming he should sinned among them, envyings, zeal, commotions, contentions, evilspeaking, whisper, puffing up, and many who had lived a long time in Uncleanness, Fornication and Lasciviousness, and had not yet repent of those sins, 2 Cor. 12.21, 22. such he foretells he will not spare, 2 Cor. 13.2. and thereby tacitly insinuates the fault of the Church Officers in sparing of them, but never intimates that they Communicated with them in their guilt, who joined in Communion with them; since then in all these cases we find not the least intimation of the Duty, of the sound Members of the Church to separate on these accounts, we may be sure that no such Duty was incumbent on them. 3. In his Epistle to the Church of the Galatians he intimates that some of them were removed from him that called them to the grace of Christ, unto another Gospel, Gal. 1.6. That among them was taught that Doctrine of justification by the Law of Moses, and of the necessity of Circumcision, and the observance of the Ceremonial Law by which the Gospel was perverted, v. 7. the death of Christ made vain, Gal. 2.21. by embracing of which they were fallen from grace, Gal. 5.5. and Christ was made of none effect unto them, and would profit them nothing, v. 2. and by which they who had begun in the Spirit, were made perfect in the Flesh. Gal. 3.3. That having run well, they were so hindered and bewitched by their false Teachers as not to obey the truth, Gal. 3.1.5.7. that being known of God, they again returned to weak and beggarly Elements, desiring to be in bondage to them, Gal. 4.9. that they observed Months, and Times, and Years, v. 10. that upon this account he was afraid lest he should have laboured in vain among them, v. 11. he doubted of them, v. 20. he again travelled with them till Christ should be form in them, v. 19 He therefore minds them of their danger from these perverters of the Gospel saying, a little Leaven leaveneth the whole Lump, Gal, 5.9. of their Duty, saying, cast out the Bondwoman and her Son, Gal. 4.30. of his desire that such Men were excluded from them saying, I wish they were cut off that trouble you, Gal. 5.12. But after all this he adviseth none of the sound Members of the Church to desert the Public Assemblies, or separate, on the account of the perverted, from them. But only doth advise the spiritual Persons to restore them in the spirit of meekness who were overtaken with a fault, and to bear one another's Burdens, Gal. 6.1, 2. 4. In his Epistle to the Colossians, he intimates there were among them Men who being dead with Christ from the Elements of the World, did notwithstanding dogmatise after the Commandments, and Doctrines of Men, Coloss. 2.20, 21, 22. and thereby tacitly accused the Doctrine of Christ as insufficient, and imperfect without the Doctrines which they superadded to it, and chargeth them with Superstition, and Will-Worship v. 23. which is the very charge that our Dissenters do injuriously make against the Church of England. But do they find one word of Counsel or advice to any to separate from the Assemblies at Coloss, because these Superstitious Persons were crept in among them? 5. Our Saviour in his Epistles to the Seven Churches doth charge them with great faults and the permission of most notorious corruptions crept in among them, for which he threatneth the severest of his Judgements, if they did not repent, but yet the Communion of the sound Members of the Church with Men so criminal in the Assemblies of the Saints, is never mentioned among the faults of any of those Churches, nor doth Christ thunder out one threat against them upon that account. Rev. 2.14. Of the Church of Pergamus he complains, that they had there them that held the Doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the Children of Israel, to eat things Sacrificed unto Idols, v. 15. and to commit Fornication, and also them who held the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans which he hated, and therefore he declares, v. 16. if she repent not, that he would come against her quickly, and fight against her with the Sword of his Mouth. To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira he speaks thus: I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest the Woman Jezebel, v. 20. which calleth herself a Prophetess, to teach, and to seduce my Servants to commit Fornication, and to eat things Sacrificed unto Idols. To the Angel of the Church of Sardis he writes thus: Chap. 3.1. Thou hast a Name that thou livest and art dead; And that there were but a few Names in Sardis which had not defiled their Garments, that therefore, if she did not repent, and watch, v. 4. he would come unto her as a thief in the night. To the Angel of the Church of Laodicea he v. 3. speaks thus: Because thou art neither cold nor hot, v. 16. v. 17. I will spew thee out of my mouth, adding that though they said, I am rich, and increased with Goods, and have need of nothing, yet were they indeed wretched, poor, miserable, blind, and naked. He also doth commend the Church of Ephesus because she could not bear them that were evil, Rev. 2.2. v. 6 and because she had tried them who said they were Apostles, and were not, and had found them Liars: And Lastly, Because they hated the deeds of the Nicolaitans. And he speaks kindly unto them of Thyatira who had not that doctrine of Jezebel, for which the Rest were reprehended. But yet we find not the least word of Reprehension of any in these Churches for joining in Communion, or in the public Worship with men thus faulty, nor any Counsel, or advice to separate from the Communion of these Churches upon those Accounts: The neglect of the Angel of the Church of Pergamos, and Thyatira in suffering such to be among them, is severely taxed, but the Neglect of others to separate on that account, is never in the least insinuated, this therefore, Principles of love. p, 44. saith Mr. Baxter to his dissenting Brethren, you may observe, that no one Member is in these Scriptures, or any other commanded to come out, and separate from any one of all these Churches, as if Communion with them in Worship were unlawful, and therefore, before you separate from any, as judging Communion with them unlawful, be sure that you bring greater reasons for it than any of these recited were. And, to confirm this Answer, it deserves to be considered that we find in the New Testament express injunctions directed to the whole body of the Christian Churches, requiring them to refuse Communion in their private conversations with such persons, or to renounce familiarity with them, not to company with them. 1 Cor. 5.9. Not to eat with them, v. 11. To mark them who cause divisions, and scandals contrary to the Doctrine which they had received, and avoid them. Rom. 16.17. To withdraw from every Brother that walks disorderly, Thess. 2.3, 6. To have no company with them, that they may be ashamed. v. 14. We also find the Angels or Officers of the Church oft blamed for this neglect by Christ, and his Apostles, as in the case of the Incestuous Person, the case of Pergamos, and Thyatira, where they were suffered who taught the Doctrines of the Nicolaitans, of Balaam, and of Jezebel, that is both spiritual, and carnal fornication. This I have against thee, O Thyatira, that thou permittest Jezebel, Vid. Synops. in locum. quod eam non coerces censuris Ecclesiae, that thou dost not execute the censures of the Church upon her; this against thee, O Pergamos, that thou hast those who teach the Doctrine of Balaam, whereas thou being the Angel of the Church, shouldst have fought against them with the Spiritual Sword, as did the Angel who resisted Balaam, because his way, Numb. 22.22, 23. Hebr. 12.15. was perverse before God. We find them called upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to execute the Office of a Bishop by looking diligently that no such persons be among them, and warned of the great danger that the Whole lump might be exposed to by such Sour Leaven: We lasty find our Saviour praising the Angel of the Church of Ephesus that he could not bear them, but never do we find our Lord, or his Apostles calling the People to come out from them, or to be separate, but only in such cases as did oblige them to touch the unclean thing, 2 Cor. 6.17. that is, to join in their Idolatries, or partake with them in their Sins. From which Considerations, Rev. 18.4. it follows, as Estius well notes, that the Governors of the Church which tolerate Such Persons in the Church offend, and that the People who use familiar converse with them, do likewise offend, but it by no means follows that they who do perform the public duties of Religion where they are present, do offend, and as the Reverend and Learned Dr. Unreas. of Sep. p. 217. Stillingfleet well notes; There be many Reasons to break off private familiarity, which will not hold as to Public Communion, and which may render it the Christians duty to do the first, and not the latter. For our Communion in Public is a thing which Chief Respects God, and is a necessary duty of his own appointing, the benefit whereof depends upon his promises, and all the Communion we have with other men therein is only (that of Christ, and his Apostles with Judas at the Paschal Supper) joining together for the performance of a Common Religious duty. But private familiarity is a thing which wholly respects the persons we converse with, it is a thing of mere choice, and of much danger, it being hardly to be imagined without approbation, at least, if not imitation of their wickedness. And to this the concurrent judgement of the Old Nonconformists who did not think this want of Discipline sufficient cause of separation from Communion with us; for having laid this as a foundation, that no man ought to separate from a true Church requiring nothing sinful of him, Grav. confut. p. 18. in order to Communion with them, they add, that although it were Granted that we wanted both the exercise of the Church's Censures, and some of those Officers which Christ hath appointed to exercise them by, yet might we be a true Church notwithstanding, as there was a true Church in Judah all the days of Asa, and Jehosaphat, yet was not the Discipline reform there till the latter end of Jehosaphats' Reign. The Church of Corinth was a true Church even when the Apostle blamed them for want of Discipline, the Congregation of Samaria is called a Church before the Discipline was established there, and even in Jerusalem there was a famous visible Church of Christ long before Sundry parts of the Discipline (for want whereof they condemn us) were established there, yea it is evident that by the Apostles themselves divers Churches were Gathered, some Good space of time before the Discipline was settled, or exercised, by all which it is manifest that howsoever those parts of the Discipline, which we want, be necessary to the beauty and well being, and preservation of the Church, yet are they not necessary to the being thereof, but a true Church may be without them. 2ly, They add, Ibid. p. 51.52. That it doth not belong to private persons to set up the Discipline of the Church against the will and consent of the Christian Magistrate, and Governors of the Church, yea, they declare that in so doing they should highly offend, they are bound, saith Giffard, P. 59, 95, 100, 101, 102. by the bands of Conscience, and the fear of God, from presuming to take upon them public Authority. And if so, it is evident that they cannot choose Pastors for themselves, and set up other Churches, and Church Governors to exercise the Church's Discipline because they do conceive it is neglected by the Christian Magistrate, and other Governors of the Church. Yea last let me ask our dissenting Brethren if on account of this supposed neglect of Discipline they think themselves obliged to desert Communion with the Church of England, whether will they go? The Church of Rome they know, besides her other errors, is more Guilty of this crime than we, men may be any thing in their Communion, provided that they be not Heretics, and still be owned as Genuine Members of their Church. The rest of the Reformed Churches are as lose as we, their Members Generally are as corrupt in manners as ours are; the same may be affirmed of the Eastern Churches: they therefore must acknowledge that they cannot lawfully maintain Communion with any other Church on this account, and that there always was even since the reformation, a necessity of separation from all Christian Churches in the world for this neglect of Discipline, or that they, notwithstanding this supposed neglect, may hold Communion with the Church of England; now have they not just reason to suspect that opinion which will force them to deny Communion with all the Churches of the world besides themselves, and that not on the score of any Idolatrous Worship exercised by them, or of any false doctrine required to be assented to as the condition of Communion, but barely on the account of some supposed defect as to her Discipline? 2ly, Have they not reason to suspect the truth of that opinion which will render Union and Communion with any of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas a thing unlawful, and as things do now stand, impossible. For as the Reverend and Learned Dr. Vnreas. of separ p. 190, 191. Still. doth put the Question, Do we want Discipline? And do not they in other Churches abroad? The Transylvanian Divines in their discourse of the Union of Protestant Churches declared that little or none was observed among them; Irenic. Tract. p. 55. will they then separate from all Protestant Churches? Will they shut them out from any possibility of Union with them? For what union can be justifyable with those whose terms of Communion are unlawful, since Union supposeth such a Communion of Churches that the Members of one may Communicate in another; or if they notwithstanding this defect can hold Communion with them, will they be so unjust as not to allow the same favour and kindness to their own Church? 3ly, Have they not reason to suspect that doctrine which is so like to some of the old Heresies, or Schisms exploded by the Church of Christ that 'tis not easy to perceive a difference betwixt the principles of our Dissenters, and those which moved those condemned Schismatics to separate from the Communion of the Church. Vide Petau. ad Haer. 59 Novat. p. 226. 227. For though I cannot exactly Parallel them with the Novatians who did not properly desert the Church because she did not exercise the power of the Keys upon Offenders, but because she afterwards admitted them upon Repentance, and so they did not separate on the pretence of the defect of Discipline, but on pretence that the Church exercised a part of Discipline which did not properly belong unto her, Meletiani nolentes orare cum conversis Schisma fecerunt. Aug. de Haer. c. 48. Epiph. Haer. 68 §. 2. Luciferiani poenitentiam clerici post ordinem in Ecclesia, & gradum acceptum lapsis denegant, Dan. in Haer. 81. p. 2●9: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 6. c. 45. nor yet with the Meletians and Luciferians who did not separate from the Church because Offenders were not censured by her, but because after Censures executed, the lapsed Clerks were readmitted to their Stations in the Church, and who with the Novatians did without cause pretend corruption in the Church's Discipline, whereas I fear there may be too much cause to Charge our Churches with defect of Discipline, yet will not these disparities excuse them wholly from Communion with them in their Schism. For 1. 'tis certain that the Novatians did separate out of zeal for the purity of Ecclesiastical Discipline, and yet Dionysius of Alexandria tells the Author of that Schism, that he had better have suffered any thing than thus to have made a rent in the Church, and therefore he had better suffered a defect in the Purity of Discipline; now this comes home unto the case of our Dissenters. 2ly, The Meletians would not pray with the lapsed after their renovation by repentance, & therefore separated from that Church which did so; they therefore must divide upon presumption that the Church was polluted by Communion with them, and that her Discipline required their separation, Com. in August. de Her. p. 161. Epiph. Haer. 68 §. 3. and therefore as Danaeus notes from Epiphanius, this Schism spread itself among the Monks, Praetextu severioris cujusdam in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciplinae, & zeli in Deum Majoris under pretence of zeal for God, and severity of Discipline against those who denied him. Com. in August. Haer. 50 p. 169. Epiph. Haer. 70. §. 1. p. 812. contr Epist. par. l. 2. c. 10.21. 3ly, As for the Audians, since as Danaeus saith from Epiphanius, propter hominum vitia caetum Orthodoxae Ecclesiae deserebant, they left the Church for the vices of those that were in it; as for the Donatists, since, among others, this was their peculiar tenet, that no wicked person was to be tolerated in the Church, no tares continued with the wheat, and that those Churches were not to be communicated with, which did not cast them out because they were defiled by Communion with them, as appears fully by St. Augustine's disputations against the Donatists, and more especially by his three Books against Parmenianus the Donatist, I see not how our Brethren will be able to Escape their condemnation. That although excommunication be the Duty of Church Officers, Prop. 7. and they are by the Author to the Hebrews strictly required 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to look diligently that none among them fail of the Grace of God, Hebr. 12.15, 16 that there be no root of bitterness springing up among them by which many may be defiled, that there be among them no Fornicator, or profane person, yet is not this a duty necessary to be exercised at all times, on all Offenders, in all Conjunctures, but only when it is likely to do more Good than hurt, and therefore is the exercise of the power which the Lord hath given them for edification, and not for destruction. For all Agree that Affirmative duties do not bind ad semper, for though that which is evil must never be done, yet that which, generally considered, is good, may sometimes be omitted, especially when it is only Matter of Discipline, and when the danger of exercising of it is greater than the hope of doing good thereby. Upon the equity of which case it is determined by the Canon Law, that a Kingdom, a Corporation, a Community, or Body Politic, ought not to be excommunicated, nor in the whole New Testament do we find any Rules, or Precepts for the Excommunication of such multitudes. Now the harm our Church might suffer by the strict exercise of these her Censures in this age of General looseness upon all Offenders, even those of highest Rank, and quality among us, is threefold. 1. That hereby they may be exasperated against the Government, and Office which inflicts these Censures, and be induced to use their power to undermine, and overthrow it, and to set up her enemies upon the Ruins of it. 2ly, That they may, some of them, be tempted to fly off from her government to one of the two potent factions now among us, and so may strengthen them, and weaken us. Or 3ly, That being Sceptically, or Atheistically inclined, as practically we are sure the wicked of our Nation are, and have great cause to fear too many of them are in speculation also, they would but rally on the execution of these censures, and we by executing of them only should rebuke the Scorner which the Wiseman forbids. Prov. 9.8. Here then our Saviors Rule seems to take place, Give not that which is Holy unto Dogs, Matt. 7.6. lest they turn again and rend you. Such persons ought therefore only to be excluded from the Sacrament according to the Counsel and Direction of the Church of England, but not entirely, and without exception, excommunicated from the Church. Prim. Christian Part 3. p. 377. To this effect it is observed by Dr. Cave, that the Primitive Church Relaxed the severity of their Discipline when great multitudes were concerned, or such persons as were like to draw great numbers after them; in this case, saith He, they thought it prudent and reasonable to deal with persons by somewhat milder and gentler methods, lest by holding them to terms of Rigour and Austerity, they should provoke them to fly off either to Heathenism or to Heresy. This Course St. Cyprian and his Brethren took, for as the concord of his Colleagues, and the benefit of uniting the Fraternity, and healing the wound in the Church required, they (1) Necessitati temporum succubuisse, p. 52. §. 3. yielded to the necessity of the times, and admitted the lapsed to Communion upon tolerable hopes of their true repentance, (2) Ad gentiles see vias & saecularia opera convertat, vel ad Hereticos & Schismaticos rejectus ab Eccle. transeat, ibid. §. 10. v §. 3, 9 lest being excluded from the Church, they out of desperation should fly back to the Worldy, or join with Heretics, or Schismatics. And in like manner, saith he, did our Brother (3) Cornelius yield to the necessity of the times; Cornelius necessitati succubuit. ibid. §. 6. Admitting to Communion plebis maximam partem maximum Fratrûm numerum, a great part of the common people, or the Brethren which separated with him, upon the satisfaction and repentance of Trophimus alone, with whom; as they first separated, they returned. Moreover to this accords the judgement of St. Austin who declareth that (4) Neque enim potest esse Salutaris. à multis correptio, nisi cum ille corripitur qui non habet sociam multitudinem, cum autem idem morbus plurimos occupaverit, nihil aliud bonis restat quàm dolour & gemitus. Contr. Epist. Parmen. l. 3. p. 61. B. Correption cannot be salutary, when the offendor hath many partners, and that when the same disease hath seized on many, there remains no other Remedy for Good men to use but Prayers, and Sighs, and Sorrow. And again that when (5) Et revera, si contagio peccandi multitudinem invaserit, Divinae Disciplinae severa misericordia necessaria est, nam Consilia separationis & inania sunt, & perniciosa, atque Sacrilega, quia & impia & superba fiunt, & plus perturbant infirmos bonos; quam corrigunt animosos malos, ibid. lit. D. the Contagion of sin hath ceased the whole multitude, the severe mercy of Divine Discipline is necessary, for then all Councils of separation are vain, pernicious, wicked and Sacrilegious, because they will more disturb the pious that are weak, then correct the wicked that are sturdy. And to confirm the judgement of St Austin the (6) Synop Pur. Theol. disp. 48, §. 30. Authors of the Dutch Synopsis have observed that the Prophets; and pious Priests among the Jews did never, in a general declension of the people, recur to these severer Methods. And * Neque enim duris remediis locus est ubi tota Ecclesia in morbo cubat. Grot. 2 Cor. 12.6. Grotius and Estius observe from these words of St Paul to the Corinthians, that he was in a Readiness to revenge all disobedience, when their obedience was fulfilled, that there was no place for severe Remedies, when the disease had infected the whole Church. And that the Apostle was forced to yield to this necessity, Esth. in locum. because the Offenders in the Church of Corinth being many, Compan. to the Temple part 4. p. 548.549. they could not easily be excommunicated. I conclude therefore with the judicious Dr. Cumber that till men be so humble as to be willing to suffer shame, and undergo severities in this world, that their Souls may be saved in the next, we may advise them to private and particular acts of mortification and repentance, but it will be in vain to impose them on this untractable generation, since by imposing them in these circumstances the Church would make this holy means of Reformation rather despised, then obeyed. Prop. 8 Although it is the Christians duty to withdraw from, and to avoid the scandalous Professor, and the disorderly Walker, yet is this only then a duty when we can serve no Higher ends of piety or mercy in holding correspondence with them. For he that doth command us to withdraw from him that walks disorderly, doth leave it still our duty to admonish him as ae Brother, and therefore still to maintain that correspondence with him which is necessary to that admonition, 2 Thess. 3.14, 15. and to all other good endeavours to reclaim and gain our Brother. And therefore, though our Lord knew well the obligation of this duty, and the great scandal which the Scribes and Pharisees would take at his free converse with Publicans and Sinners, he doth not only justify the fact as being done in order to their reformation and conversion, but also represents it as an higher duty, and more incumbent on him, than the avoiding the familiarity of wicked men, and bids those Pharisees who reckoned it their duty to renounce all familiarity with such men, learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not Sacrifice. And though St. Paul permits not his Corinthians to have any fellowship with Unbelievers, Matt. 9.13. or go unto their Idol Temples, or their feasts, yet he allows the coming of the unbeliever into their Assemblies, 1 Cor. 14.23. as being that which might be instrumental to his conviction and conversion. And, v. 24, 25. which is more observable, St. Judas speaking of those impure Dreamers who defiled the Flesh, etc. saith thus, v. 8. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you; they therefore did intrude into these feasts, and consequently joined with them at the Table of the Lord, of which these feasts were an Appendix; and yet St. Judas prescribes no separation of the Saints from these Assemblies on that account. Lastly though Eli's Sons were Sons of Belial, Sam. 1.2, 12. and knew not the Lord, Although they caused the People to abhor the offering of the Lord, v. 17. and therefore to neglect to come to Shilo with them, v. 24. yet are they also said to make the Lords People to transgress, viz. By this neglect, it therefore was the People's duty still to attend upon these Ordinances of the Lord, though this could not be done, under these circumstances, without Communion with these Sons of Belial, and Ministering, though Accidentally, and by Performing their own duty, occasion to the Sin of Eli's Sons. What therefore I may do for the procuring the Spiritual Good of others from whom I am commanded to withdraw, may be more certainly performed for the procuring of my own Spiritual Good by my participation of the Ordinances of Christ from Persons authorized by him, and his Vicegerents, to administer them, what may be done in order to their welfare who are unworthy of Communion with us, that may much more be done in order to the Churches Good, for the promotion of her Peace and Unity, and the prevention of those Schisms by which she is so much endangered, and if those words, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, will warrant our Communion with wicked persons, with whom we are forbid to eat, when it may be a means of their conversion, why then may it not warrant our Communion with them in Sacred things, when this Communion is a means of our salvation, and of the Church's Peace, which is one of the chiefest ends of Discipline. If Christians were not called to separate on the account of those impure Gnostics who did feast among them, and eat at the Lords Table with them, why should they separate from the same Ordinances on the account of some profane Professors who are mixed with our Assemblies? And lastly, If the People did transgress who came not up to Shilo to offer their accustomed oblations there, though they to whom they were to be presented, and by whom they were to be offered, were Sons of Belial, and they alone did sanctify, and offer the Peace-offerings of which the People were afterwards to eat, I fear they also will transgress who upon less pretences will not come unto our Shilo's, the places of our public Worship. It may be doubted whether all those men whose presence with us in our Church Assemblies doth so much offend Dissenters, Prop. 9 deserve immediately to be secluded from Communion with us, seeing they seem not to have been both privately and publicly admonished by the Church, for how can it be said they will not hear the Church, when they have never been admonished by her to reform, or threatened with her censures if they will not do it, they therefore cannot be esteemed contumacious, or such as will not hear the Church, and so they are not presently to be excluded by Excommunication from Communion with her. Mr. Baxter, having cited, Principles of love, p. 87.88.89. Matt. 18.15, 16. Tit. 3.10. Saith thus Note here that no sin will warrant you to cast out the sinner, unless it be seconded with impenitency, it is not simply as a Drunkard, or a Fornicator, that any one is to be rejected, but as an Impenitent Drunkard, or Fornicator. Note 2ly, That it is not all impenitency which will warrant their rejection, but only impenitency after the Church's admonition. Note 3ly, That no private person may expect that any Offender be cast out, either because his sin is known to him, or because he is commonly famed to to be guilty, till the thing be proved by sufficient witnesses. Note 4ly, That the admonition given him must be proved, as well as the fault which he committed. Yea last, If all The town do know him to be guilty, and witness prove that he hath been privately admonished, he may not be rejected till he be heard speak for himself, and till he refuse also the public admonition. This is Christ's order, whose wisdom, mercy and authority are such as may well cause us to take his way as best. Now were this doctrine true without exception it would, 1. Answer the Objection by showing that Dissenters do unreasonably separate for the Non-execution of the Church's Censures upon them who at the present are not the proper objects of them. And 2. It would in a great measure cast the blame of this neglect of Discipline on the Complainants, for, if they know of any such, why do they not first privately admonish them, and if they cannot by so doing gain their Brother, why do they not then tell it to the Church? But if they do not know of any such, nor ever told the Church of any such, that she might know, and knowing might admonish them, and if they should refuse to Hear her, might proceed to censure them, why do they then complain? But to confess the truth ingenuously, this Doctrine contradicts, the general practice of the Church of Christ whilst Discipline remained among them, more especially the practice of the most Primitive, and Purest Ages of the Church, when all Notorious Offenders, of what degree soever, were, without farther admonition immediately censured, and separated from the faithful, See Dr. Cave 's prim. christian. part. 3. cap. 5. p. 367. till by long and strict penances of fasting and mortification, by which they evidenced their sorrow for, and their reformation of their crimes, they were thought fit to be again admitted to the peace of God, and of his Church. This doctrine therefore must admit of some restriction to make it consonant to truth. 1. Therefore if the crime be such as is consistent with Christianity, and doth not prove the Author of it to be Carnal, this admonition must precede the censures of the Church, because in such a case, 'tis not so much the fact itself, as the ensuing contumacy which deserves her censure. 2ly, If the crime committed be private, and brings no infamy to the Church, and the offender show good signs of penitence, the crime being not committed before many, it seems not reasonable that it should be punished before many, unless where such a public censure may do good to many, in which case that of the Apostle seemeth to take place, them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. 3ly, 1 Tim. 5.20. If it be an act of injustice to some private person for which full satisfaction may be made, and admonition may prevail upon him so to do, which seems to be the case in which our Lord requires a threefold admonition: adding that if our admonition do prevail our Brother is Gained, and so the Church hath no occasion to proceed to censures. Or 4ly, If it be an offence of judgement and not of practice against judgement, in which case the Apostles words are plain for a first and second admonition, I say in all these cases this previous admonition seemeth reasonable. But 2ly, If the Crimes committed be of an heinous nature, Tit. 3.10. and Christians cannot well be ignorant that they are so, as in the cases of Apostasy, Murder, Incest, Adultery, etc. Or if they be so publicly committed as to give scandal to the Church, and the Crime be notorious or confessed, then without farther admonition, I suppose, the Criminal should be excluded from the Communion of the Church, till by repentance and mortification they have made satisfaction to the Church, and have made reparation for the Scandal of their sin. These Propositions do fully Answer this Objection even upon supposition that the Neglect is such as is suggested, and that the Church of England may be charged with it: I now proceed by way of farther Answer to it, to consider of that Charge, and therefore say, Prop. 10 That our Church Officers cannot be truly said to own, or to approve of this supposed neglect of Discipline in suffering the notoriously profane and Scandalous Offender to remain uncensured by the Church. For 1. The Rulers of the Church do openly acknowledge and declare even in their Public Lyturgy, Preface to Commin. That the putting those to open Penance who stood convicted of notorious crimes is both a Primitive and Godly Discipline, and that the restoring of the said Discipline is much to be wished. 2ly, They call upon all sinners with the greatest seriousness and affection to repent of those iniquities which render them obnoxious to her censures, which call would they give ear unto, they would be fit for her Communion, and so exempted from the severity of her Discipline; this call we find both in the Commination Read upon Ash-Wednesday, and in the exhortation Read at the giving notice of a Sacrament, where she thus speaks, If any of you be a Blasphemer of God, a 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. 3ly, They make all Persons whom they admit unto the Priestly Office, solemnly to promise to give faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded. And 4ly, Can. 26. They require every Minister in no wise to admit to the receiving of the Holy Communion, any of his Cure or Flock which he openly knows to live in sin notorious without repentance, and they moreover Authorize them, Rubr. before the Commun. To advertise all open and notorious evil livers, and all who have done any wrong to their Neighbours by word or deed, so that the Congregation be thereby offended, to call them, and to advertise them that by no means they presume to come to the Lords Table, till they have openly declared themselves to have truly repent and amended their former naughty life, that the Congregation may be thereby satisfied, and say that he shall not suffer them to be partakers of the Lords Table, betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign, until he know them to be reconciled. Since than it is apparent from these considerations, that our Church daily calls upon these persons to repent both in the Public Preaching of the Word, and in the Office styled Commination, and in her Homily upon repentance. And 2ly, that she doth Authorize all her Parochial Ministers to call, and advertise such Persons as they know privately to be unworthy, not to presume to come unto the Holy Sacrament, and doth require them, when they give notice of a Sacrament, to read an exhortation to that effect; seeing she also grants them power to put back any Scandalous Offenders from the Sacrament, whose faults are so notorious as to give offence to the Congregation, and doth allow both them and the Churchwardens, or rather charge them to prosecute such Men in order to their Amendment, or Excommunication; seeing at their admission to their Sacred Function, she doth strictly charge them to give faithful diligence so to minister the Discipline of Christ as he hath commanded. Since Lastly, Private Persons in her Communion may avoid familiar conversing with them, and withdraw from their company, and so avoid being polluted by the corruption of their manners; I say seeing these things are so, I see not but the Objections made against the Discipline of our Church might be removed, if the things allowed, and required by the Rules of it, were duly practised. §. 7 Hitherto I have discoursed in Answer to this Objection as if the Scriptures, and Reasons produced to confirm it were all true, and well applied, whereas indeed the grounds of this Objection are uncertain, and infirm, for to omit the uncertainty of the exposition of 1 Cor. 5.13. you shall take away the evil from you, and not the evil Person, which sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth rather signify, and the uncertainty of Dr. Hammonds exposition of Rev. 2.20. I say, Tently, Prop. 10. That the continuance of God's presence by his Spirit with his Church, and her Assemblies, cannot be proved to depend entirely upon the Separation of wicked Persons, and scandalous offenders from her. The Place produced to this Effect from 2 Cor. 6.16, 17. only concerns the Christians Separation from Communion with Heathens in their Idolatrous Worship, or their Idol feasts, this is the touching the unclean thing there spoken of, as I have fully proved in the foregoing Chapters; it therefore is impertinently alleged to prove, that God requires us to separate from the Communion of wicked Persons in celebrating of his Public worship, that so we may enjoy the presence of his Spirit with us. Moreover God may destroy the person who defiles this Temple as he threatens 1. Cor. 3.17. and yet may not withdraw his Spirit from them that do assemble with such Persons purely to serve God, and to enjoy Communion with him in his Public Ordinances. And indeed were this so that the presence of a known wicked Person would cause the Holy Spirit to departed from the Assemblies of pious Persons, than Christ and his Disciples had not the presence of the holy Spirit with them when they assembled with Judas to eat the passover, and to receive the holy Sacrament. 2ly, Then seeing Covetous, malicious Persons, since secret Hypocrites, and Atheists, are as odious to God as Persons otherwise notoriously wicked and profane, they also must pollute the Church, and cause the holy Spirit to departed from her Assemblies, and if so the Church can never be assured of his presence with her. Then 3ly, much less would the holy Spirit be present at those Public offices designed to convey this Spirit, when they were celebrated by wicked Priests, and so we could have no assurance of his gracious influence upon us at the preaching of the Word, the celebration of the Sacrament of Baptism, and of the Supper of the Lord, because we can have no assurance of the sincerity of him who doth officiate. For if the presence of wicked Persons who do only join with the Officiator, will cause the holy Spirit to departed from that Assembly, much more the wickedness of the Officiator. And 4ly, than we must have cause to fear that this good Spirit hath wholly left the Church of Christ, and doth no longer move upon the waters of the Sanctuary, there being in these latter Ages of the Church such a neglect of Discipline, as that scarce any one of her Assemblies can be supposed free from some mixture of profane and even notorious wicked Persons, which yet seems plainly to contradict Christ's promise to be with his Church unto the end. Obj. 2 The Bishop when he lays his hands on those who come to be confirmed, declareth, §. 8 Office of confirm. that he doth it to certify them by this Sign of God's favour and gracious goodness towards them, which, say Dissenters, we fear is more than he can warrantably do. For as no Person by administering the Elements of Bread and Wine, which are the Eucharistick Signs, or by Baptising with water, could certify the Communicant, or the Baptised Person of Remission of Sins, if God had not where Promised Pardon to those who duly use those Signs, so can no Person certify another of God's favour, and of his gracious goodness to them by this Sign of laying on of hands, if God hath no where promised this grace and favour shall be annexed to the due use of that Sign. And as he who would set my Sign or mark unto a Paper to certify another of any act of favour I would do unto him, without commission from me so to do, would do that which he could not justify, so unless some commission can be showed from God which authorizeth Bishops thus to act, and certify by such a Sign, we know not, say they, how the doing of it can be justified, or how it can be well excused from being an humane Sacrament. Now if such a Divine Commission can be showed, why is it by the Church declared that confirmation hath not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God, Can. 25. and therefore hath not the like nature of a Sacrament with Baptism and the Lords Supper, shrewdly intimating that had it such a Sign, there would be nothing left to distinguish it from having the like nature of a Sacrament. 2. If this be a divinely instituted Sign for the forementioned ends, how can any Person promise to himself the favour of God who never hath received this Sign, or never was Confirmed, any more than he can promise to himself admission into the Covenant of Grace, or Pardon of his Sins if he neglect to be partaker of the Signs used in Baptism, and in the Supper of the Lord to which these Blessings are annexed? So that as far as we are able to discern, this must be either a very Necessary Ceremony, or else a Superstitious, or too much magnified Ceremony. Answ. Can I return no other Answer to this Argument, it were sufficient to inform the Lay Communicant, that this concerns the Bishop only, it is no Part of the Prayer to which the Person Confirmed is to say Amen, but only a Ceremony used by the Bishop in the time of Prayer, and so can Minister no just occasion to him to neglect this very ancient, excellent, and pious practice of solemn owning our Baptismal Covenant. 2ly, The Judicious Mr. Lib. Eccles. p. 534. Faulkner saith in Answer to this Argument, 1. That to testify God's 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, which is very true. But then 'tis very difficult to apprehend how any Person can certify another of God's grace and favour to him by such a Sign which is no means of tendering, or of conveying of the same, especially if God hath no where said that such a Sign shall signify or certify this favour to us. 2ly, This Imposition of hands, saith he, Ibid. is a Sign of Benediction in God's name from the Officer of the Church. For we have an instance of this Rite in the Priestly Benediction, Leu. 9.22. In jacob's Blessing the Sons of Joseph, Gen. 48.14, 16. whence it was ever practised by the Jews in all Benedictions, and conferring of Offices. Thus Moses constituted Joshua the son of Nun, the Governor over Israel, by laying of his hand upon him, Numb. 27.18, 23. and that by virtue of this imposition of Hands Joshua received the Holy Ghost, seems evident from these words, And Joshua the Son of Nun, was full of the Spirit of Wisdom: For, Moses had laid his hands upon him, Deut. 34.9. this Rite was also used in the Ordination of their Elders, and the constant use thereof in particular Benedictions by men 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, Matt. 19.13. And our Saviour made use of the same Rite, when he Blessed his Apostles before his Ascension Luke. 24.50. And his Apostles adopted it to be the Rite for the Communicating of the Holy Ghost, Act. 8.17. which is the Reason why the Bishop saith this laying on of hands is done after the example of the Holy Apostles: Biblioth Sacr. voc. manus. Moreover the end and design of imposition of hands in Benediction was, saith Ravanellus, to be in testimony of the help, favour and grace of God to be given to him who receiveth imposition of hands. Ainsworth upon these words Numb. 6.27. And they shall put my name upon the Children of Israel, and I will bless them, writes thus, It seems to be meant of the Priest's Gesture, that they should lift their hands towards his People, as did Aaron, Levit. 9.22. for a Sign that the name, and Blessing of God was imposed upon them, And Masius, out of Junius, doth Comment thus upon the Text. Duobus Signis solitis testatum facient Populo gratiam meam, nominis mei invocatione, & manuum suarum impositione publica & solenni: By two usual Signs they shall testify my favour to the People, viz. By the Invocation of my name, and by solemn imposition of hands. Hence than I Argue thus: Either this Ceremony was used in vain, or had some certain import and signification; if it were used in vain, then must our Lord and his Apostles and all the Jews that used it be charged with using a vain Ceremony in Gods solemn Worship, the invocation of God, and blessing others in his name; if it were used by God's appointment, and our Lord's practice to signify any thing, the hand being the Symbol of power and Efficacy, what can it signify more naturally than the power of God in giving of the blessings prayed for? why then may we not certify them whom we pray for by this Sign, if they be duly qualified, of the engagement of God's power to confer it? If Hands were by God's institution, the practice of our Lord, the Patriarches, and Apostles, imposed in testimony of God's help, favour and grace to be given to him, on whom they were imposed, why not to certify what they do testify? If this were a Sign whereby they did testatum facere populo Gratiam Dei, why may not our most Reverend Bishops, who are by Christ appointed to bless, use the same Sign, testatum facere confirmato Gratiam Dei, to certify the confirmed person of God's Grace and favour to him. It being therefore certain that God will give his Grace and Spiritual aid to all who do sincerely promise and engage to live according to their Baptismal Vow, and this Sign being apt to signify that aid and favour, and used throughout so many Ages to that end, I see not why the Bishop may not certify the confirmed person of this truth by such a Sign. And 2. It being only an indicatory Sign, or Adumbration of this grace, not an exhibitory Sign, cannot be properly a Sacrament. Having thus Answered the Objections against those Ceremonies which have been scrupled most, and with most colour and pretence of Reason by Dissenters, it will be easy to Answer, or to show the vanity of their remaining scruples by attending to these following Propositions. That the laudable Customs of the Catholic Church which are of present observation, Prop. 1. Bishop Taylor Dust. Dubit. l. 3. c. 4. R. 15. §. 1. are fit to be observed by all Christians. This we learn from St. Paul who reproves the Contentiousness of those who, against the usages of Christians, and of the Places where they lived, would wear long hair, with this, We have no such Custom, 1 Cor. 11.16.14, 36. and pleads for order, from the practice of all Churches of the Saints. And also from the evidence of Reason, for in such cases where there is no law, the manners of Christians introduce a Law, so far that we cannot recede from it without some probable cause, i. e. we cannot do it without scandal, and indeed it is an act of love to conform to the Customs of Christians with whom we do converse, who either will think you blame their Customs, or despise their persons, if you comply not. And that you look upon them as a company of ignorant persons who know not what they should do or as wicked persons, who inconsiderately will do what they should not. Besides it is a piece of Singularity to thwart, and Cavil at, and to refuse compliance with the Customs of the Churches where we are, which have in them no apparent evil, now Singularity is only laudable in matters that are excellent, and pious, never in matters of indifferency. And therefore, This is sufficient reason for the Custom of our Church in delivering the Sacramental Elements into the hand of the Communicant and Speaking to them severally: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ap. 2. p. 97. E. For Justin Martyr declareth that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop having given thanks, those who were called Deacons did distribute to every one that was present, Bread and Wine mixed with Water, and Tertullian informs us that they received the Eucharist non de aliorum manibus quàm presidentium, De Cor. mil. c. 3. from the hands of no other persons than those who presided in the Church. Moreover it was the Custom of the Priest to say to every on of them, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. August. Resp. ad Oars. q. 49. Ambros. de sacram. l. 4. c. 5. And of the People severally to say Amen when they received it, this was said every where saith Austin, and so the Custom of distributing to all, and of receiving severally by all, must be the constant custom of the Church of Christ. 2ly, This is sufficient Reason for the retaining of Godfathers' and Godmothers', Compan. part. 3 p. 400. for in the Primitive Church the use of them was so early, saith the Learned Dr. Comber, that 'tis not easy to fix the time of their beginning the most Ancient Fathers who speak of Baptism do mention them, under the name of Offerers of them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Justin Martyr, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Susceptores as Donysius Areop. of Sponsores as Tertullian, of Fideijussores or Suretys', as St. Austin. 2ly, p. 399. This Custom was derived from the Jews, as also was that of Infant Baptism, for it is certain that the Rector of the house of judgement was to take care to Baptise the Infants of Proselytes, and accordingly was to be called their Father. And there was one appointed to hold the Child in Circumcision, called the Master of the Covenant, and by the Modern Jews, who still retain this custom, the Surety. And very learned men believe this custom to be as ancient among the Jews as the times of Isaiah, it being highly probable that those Witnesses mentioned, chap. 8.2. at the naming of his Son, were of the same nature with those we call Godfathers' & Godmothers'. And 3ly, Tho one of the Reasons which made them the more necessary in the first Ages of the Church, (viz. those persecutions which cut off the Parents, and so left the poor Infants uncapable of Christian education without the help of Sureties) hath long since ceased, yet are they still continued for Good ends. As 1. To convenant in behalf of those Infants who cannot enter into covenant by themselves. 2ly, For the Security of the Church, that the Children may be brought to Confirmation, and own their covenant hereafter, whence they are called Sureties. 3ly, That every Christian may have a Monitor, who was present and concerned in his Vow, whence they are styled Witnesses. And 4ly, Whereas some object that the use of Sureties is made a necessary condition in our Lyturgy of administering Baptism to Infants, because it is said, This Infant must also faithfully for his part promise by you that are his Sureties: The contrary to this is evident, because no Sureties are required at the administration of private Baptism, where our Baptismal Office declareth the child to be lawfully, and sufficiently Baptised, and so those words can only intimate, that this which is in itself a thing expedient, must be practised according to the Order, and Constitution of the Church. And 5ly, Whereas it farther is objected that by these Sponsors the Parents are excluded, and the Child is not admitted to Baptism in the Parents right. Answer, To this it is judiciously Answered by the Excellent Dr. Still. Vnrens. of S●p● p. 381. That the Church by requiring Sponsors doth not exclude any title to Baptism which the child hath by the right of his Parents, for the Sponsors may be supposed to appear in a threefold Capacity. 1. As representing the Parents in offering up the Child to Baptism, and so whatever right the Parents have, that is challenged when the Child is brought to be Baptised. 2ly, As Representing the Child in the Answers that are made in Baptism. And 3ly, In their own Capacity when they promise to take care of the Good Education of the Child in the Principles of the Christian faith. 3ly, Ibid p. 404. This is sufficient Reason for the Answering of the Sureties, in Baptism. For as it is judiciously observed by Dr. Comber, ' the Baptismal covenant was always made by Question and Answer; which is taken notice of by many of the Ancients, and seems to have been the Method in the Apostles days, because St. Peter calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Answer, or, as the word rather signifies, the Ask of, or concerning a good Conscience. 1 Pet. 3.21. For there were always Queries put to the party baptised, which Adult persons did Answer themselves, and Children by their Representatives. In St. Cyprians time, Ep. 705.765. we twice find mention of them, and that they were observed even by those Heretics, and Schismatics who separated from the Church. Tertullian also expresseth the Custom of using interrogatories concerning the Creed, De Pud. c. 9 De Bapt. c. 6. ●d ●art. c. 3. the spect c. 4. de Cor●mil. cap. 3. l. 7. c. 41. the profession of Christian faith, the renouncing the Devil, and undertaking the Christian Warfare. The Author of the Constitutions saith the same, and the fixed use of certain Interrogatories and Answers, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 8. is mentioned by Dionysius Alexandrinus as a thing observed in Baptism before his time. And truly Baptism being in the nature of the thing a covenant to renounce the Devil, and to embrace the Christian faith. And 2ly, Children being capable of entering into covenant with God, as appears by Circumcision, and by express Scripture, Deut. 29.11, 12. And 3ly, the Answers of the Sureties being a solemn declaration of that covenant: And 4ly, they being of good use to mind all present of their own engagement, and consequently of their obligation to perform it, I judge the custom to be very expedient and profitable. 4ly, This is sufficient reason to retain the usage of the Ring in Matrimony. For 1. It was of very early use in all the Churches of the East, and West. As for the East, Clemens of Alexandria saith, Paedag; l. 3. cap. 11. p. 245. We give unto our Wives a Ring. And for the West, 'tis mentioned not only by St. Ambrose, but by Tertullian also in the third Century, Neque annulus de alicujus Idoli honore descendit de Idololatr. c. 16. who also Answers the exception made against it as being a corrupt imitation of an Heathen custom, by saying that the Wedding Ring did not arise from the Honour given to any Idol. 2ly! It only is of Humane Institution, to be a token and pledge of the covenant made betwixt them, which when they look upon may mind them of their obligation to perform the same, and is like to the earnest, or pledge we give in making of contract, Dust. Dub. l. 3. c. 4. R. 20 §. 8. p. 327. and so is rather a a Political or Civil, than Religious Ceremony, as Bishop Taylorsaith. That it concerneth not Inferiors to know the Reasons why Superiors do command one thing rather than another, Prop. 2. §. 10. but only whether what they do command, be not forbidden. Because they are obliged in all such cases to obey their Superiors without farther reason. These therefore are impertinent, and unbecoming Questions, Why must we bow at the name of Jesus rather than at the name of Christ, or Saviour? Why must we stand up at the reading of the Gospel, rather than at the reading of the Epistle? why must we wear a Surplice, rather than a Gown in reading of the public Service? For though a General Answer may be given to all these Questions, viz that the one hath Customarily obtained in the Church, as for the other we have no such Custom; in doing of the one we comply with the practice of the Church of God, and do as in all Churches of the Saints, by doing of the other we should innovate; yet is this more than we need Answer to these and such like Questians, Inferiors being not concerned to know why these things be commanded, but only whether they can lawfully obey what is commanded. That bodily worship is a thing required both in the old, and the New Testament. Prop. 3. This outward Worship is enjoined by the second Commandment, which saith of Images and Idols, Thou shall not bow down to them, nor Worship them, forbidding both these acts of outward Worship to be given to false Gods; if then this be the Negative part of the Command, the Affirmative must be this, All Signs of outward Reverence and Worship shall be given to me. 2ly, Why is it God forbids the giving of these outward Signs of Worship to an Idol? Is it not because he is a jealous God, and will admit no Rival, nor give his honour to another? Whence it must follow, that all these Signs of outward Worship are due to him, and that we rob him of his honour by our neglect to pay them to him, as well as by our giving them to any thing besides him. And suitably to this Command our Saviour doth inform us, that this Worship is still due to God, and to him only; for being tempted by the Devil to fall down and Worship him, he gives this reason why He could not do it, Mat. 4.10. because it was said, Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Rev. 19.10. And when St. John fell down before the Angel, the Angel saith unto him, See thou do it not, Worship God: and St. Paul lets us know that he did bow the knee to God the Father. 1 Cor. 6.20. 3ly, We are enjoined in the New Testament to Glorify God with our Souls and bodies; now, as to Glorify him with our Soul is to perform such actions of our Souls whereby we do acknowledge and express our sense of some of those most Glorious Attributes which render him exceeding excellent, and therefore worthy to be glorified, even so to Glorify him with our bodies must be to do those bodily actions whereby we testify our apprehensions of his Majesty, and of his absolute dominion, and that we do conceive him worthy of all adoration, one to whom every knee should bow. 4ly, This was the practice of God's servants throughout all Ages. Even before the Law the Patriarches did from the light of nature tender this Worship to God: When Lot beheld the Angel who represented God, Gen. 19.2. Gen. 24.26. he bowed his knee to the Ground, and so did Abraham, Gen. 18.2. Thus did his servant Worship God, and when the Children of Israel had heard that the Lord had looked upon their affliction, they bowed their heads, Exod. 4.31. and Worshipped; this was a thing so constantly performed by them, that to bow down, is in the Hebrew phrase, to Worship: We will go yonder and bow down, that is, will Worship, Gen. 22.5. Moreover, that we might not think that this was any part of Ceremonial Worship, it is enjoined upon eternal Grounds of Reason, Let us bow down before his footstool, Psal. 99.5, 9 for the Lord our God is Holy. And doth not Reason tell us that God is more worthy to be reverenced and honoured than the chiefest of his creatures, and that we have far greater reason, because of the vast distance that there is betwixt us and him, to come into his presence in an humble manner. Sith than we do perform these outward acts of reverence to our Superiors on earth in token of the honour which we own to them, much more ought we to do so to the Majesty of Heaven. Hence than it naturally follows, Coral. that whatsoever is a proper act of outward Worship, and fitly doth express our inward Reverence of God by any outward gesture of the body, may very laudably be required by Superiors, seeing by these injunctions they only do require us to do in this or that particular what is in general our duty. And therefore, 1. To require us to Kneel at Prayer, and at the Absolution which concludes with Prayer, and at the Commandments, and Imposition of hands, and at the Receiving of the Sacrament, is only to require us to pay to God the Worship due unto him, to use that posture in our Devotions which our Saviour used at Prayer, Luk. 22.41. and which doth properly express our Reverence to him to whom we pray, and which was, saith Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 5. the Common Custom of the Christian, from whence their Prayers had the name of Ingeniculations. 2. To require us to bow at the name of Jesus is only to require us to pay that Service in that instance to him to whom God hath declared that all knees shall bow, Rom. 10.11. and to whom, on account of his Divinity, Worship is due by virtue of our obligation to Glorify him with our bodies, which are his. To require us to do this at the name of Jesus rather than at the name of Christ, or Saviour, when we design to recognize him as our only Saviour by that act of worship, seems also reasonable, seeing the name of Christ doth rather signify his unction to his office than the blesing which accrue unto us by the execution of it. The name of Saviour is also, common to him with the Father, whereas the Name of Jesus is appropriated to our Lord. 3ly, To require us to uncover our Heads in the House of God, and whilst we wait upon him in his presence, is only to require us to pay that Reverence unto the Majesty of Heaven which we yield to his Vicegerents here on Earth. 4. Since 'tis a part of Christian duty, by which our God is glorified, to make public Profession of our Faith, and this is done as well by other signs, as Vocal, by the sign of the Cross, as well as by the Tongue proclaiming our belief of Christ crucified, by standing up at the Rehearsal of the Creed, as well as by saying these words, I believe, the standing Gesture is very suitable at such a solemn declaration of the Articles of Christian Faith, in token of our Cordial assent, and Resolution to stand firm unto it: And indeed this is so properly signified (saith Mr. Lab. Eccles. p. 459. Faulkner,) by the standing Gesture according to the general apprehensions of the World, that both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, which words express the standing Gesture, are used in Scripture to signify an asserting with resolution, Deut. 25.8. 1 Chron. 34, 32. 1 Cor. 16.13. 2 Thess. 2.15. And the like Idioms of Speech are in some other Languages as well as our own, whence stare dictis in the Latin, to stand to our words in our Dialect. Lastly, To give you hence some rational account why standing up at the Gospel is required, rather than at the Epistle, I must proceed by these degrees. 1. That in the devouter times both of the Jewish, and the Christian Church, the People, to manifest their Reverence unto the Word of God, the Message sent from God unto them, did hear it standing; thus when Ezra opened the Book of the Law all the People stood up, Nehem. 8.5. and the Children of Israel stood up in their places to read the Law of the Lord, Neh. 9.3. 2ly. When the Gospel was read in the Assemblies of the Christian Church, the People were required, to stand up. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, When the Gospel is read, let all the Presbyters, and Deacons, L. 2. C. 57 L. 7. C. 19 and all the People stand, say the Constitutions of St. Clement. And Sozomen speaks of it as a peculiar usage of the Bishop of Alexandria, the like to which he had not seen, or heard of, that he stood not up at the Reading of the Gospel, See to this purpose, Philostorgius, l. 3. Cap. 5. Chrysostom. de Circo. Isid. Pelusiota, l. 1. Ep. 136. Niceph. l. 9, 18, 12, 34. If you have the curiosity to ask why at the Gospel rather than the Epistle? I answer, that this custom was used out of an especial respect to our Lord and Saviour, whose words are ordinarily rehearsed in the Gospel, to express, I say, an higher respect to Christ himself speaking there, than to his Apostles who were sent by him: on which account Ignatius saith the Gospel hath this excellency in it, viz. the Presence of our Saviour Jesus Christ, Epist. ad Philadelph. and his Suffering, and Resurrection. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, §. 9 it hath something more excellent in it than the Writings of the Prophets, though they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all very good: In Joh Tom. 1 P. 4. C. And Origen, that the Epistles were not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of equal esteem among Christians with those Writings of which it was said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this saith the Lord. If you ask further, Why then do we not stand up at the Second Lesson, as well as at the Gospel in the Second Service? I answer, That out of tenderness unto the weakness and infirmity of many Christians, v. Mr. Faulkner 's, Lib. Eccles. p. 146. 462. liberty was granted to them to hear the longer Lessons, sitting, provided they would show the Reverence when a less portion of it was read at second Service. §. 12 Lastly, Whereas some doubt the lawfulness of our observing the Festivals appointed by the Church of England; I shall endeavour to give them satisfaction in the point in some few Propositions laid down by Mr. Divine appoint, of the Lord's Day. C. 13. Baxter in that case, and then proceed to Answer the Objections which he, and others make against them. And, 1. p. 148. Few, saith He, question but that whole days of Humiliation and of Thanksgiving may, and must be kept upon great and extraordinary occasions of Judgements, and of Mercies, and that many Churches may agree in these; and I know no just Reason why the Magistrate may not (with Charity and Moderation to the weak) impose them, and command such an Agreement among his Subjects. 2ly, Few, saith he, doubt but the Commemoration of Great Mercies or Judgements may be made Anniversary and of long continuation, p. 149. as the observation of the Fifth of November is made annual among us, to preserve the Memorial of the deliverance from the Powder Plot, the Second of September for the Anniversary humbling Remembrance of the Firing of London, the Thirtieth of January a Day of Humiliation for the Execrable Murder of our R. Martyr, Charles the First. And that none can have just cause to doubt, if they consider, Est. 9.28. 1 Macch. 4.59. Zech. 7.5. that the Feasts of Purim and of Dedication were lawfully appointed by the Jews for an Ordinance for ever; and that they had their stated Fasts of the Fifth, and the Seventh Month, to humble themselves at the remembrance of the Judgements God then brought upon them. 3. He adds, that the Great Blessings of an Apostolic Ministry, and of the stability of the Martyrs in their Sufferings for Christ, being so rare, and notable a Mercy to the Church, I confess I know no reason why the Churches of all succeeding Ages may not keep an Anniversary Day of Thanksgiving to God for Peter, or Paul, or Stephen, as well as for the Powder-Plot deliverance; I know not where God hath forbidden it directly or indirectly; if his instituting the Lord's-day were a virtual Prohibition for Man to separate any more, or if the Prohibition of adding to God's Word were against it, they would be against other Days of Humiliation or Thanksgiving, especially Anniversary Days, which we confess they are not, if the Reason be Scandal, lest men should have the Honour instead of God; I answer, 1. An honour is due to Apostles and Martyrs in their places in due subordination to God. 2ly. Where the Case of Scandal is notorious, it may become by that accident unlawful, Const. & Can. An. 1640. Can. 7. and yet not be so in other times and places. 3ly, Our Church expressly hath declared that she gives Religious Worship unto God alone, and doth observe these Days to God, and in them celebrate his Praises for his Apostles, and for the assistance of his Grace and Spirit vouchsafed to them, and the Great things done through that assistance by them, for the good of men, and so can Minister no Ground for such a Scandal. 4ly. p. 150. He saith that in the lawful Observation of Days, it is most orderly to do as the Churches do which we live among, and are to join with. Especially if they do only that which hath been done by all the Churches of Christ about Twelve hundred years and upward, as we do in the Observation of all our public Festivals, or that which hath been done from the beginning, as in the Observation of the Easter Festival. 5ly. p. 151. He saith, That it is long ago decided by the Holy Ghost, Rom. 14.15. That we must not be contentious, contemptuous, nor censorious against one another about things of no Greater Moment than the Jewish Days were, though some observed them without just cause, because the Kingdom of God consisteth not in Meats, and Drinks, and Days, but in Righteousness, and Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost, and he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men; we must follow therefore after the things which make for Peace, and wherewith one may edify another, which by submitting to the Constitutions of our Church concerning Festivals, Dissenters certainly would do, if they are capable of Edification by hearing and joining in Good Prayers, and Praises, by reading of the Word, by hearing of good Sermons, and by commemoration of the Mercies we then celebrate. § 13 And whereas Mr. Baxter adds, that the Controversy, whether it be lawful to keep Days as Holy in celebrating the Memorial of Christ's Nativity, Circumcision, Ascension, etc. p. 151, 152. Disp. 5. of Cer. Cap. 2. § 46. is the hardest part of this Question, which he is not sufficient to determine: I shall first lay down some few Arguments to justify the Observation of these, and other holidays prescribed by the Church of England: And consider the Scruples he, and others have against them. And, 1. I argue for the expedience of these holidays from the consideration of the end for which they have been instituted by the Wisdom of the Church, for those things, saith St. Austin, are celebrated by the Church's Anniverssaries, which were very excelelnt when done, Contra Faustum Manichaun, Lib. 32. Cap. 12. and by their excellency have signalised certain Days, that so the celebration of the Festival may preserve the whole some remembrance of them in our Hearts. Now even Reason teacheth, that the Day on which these things were done, tends to excite the mind to more intent consideration of, and so to effectual remembrance of the Mercies which we have received upon that Day: Whence God himself requires his People to Remember that day in which they came out from Egypt, out of the Land of Bondage, Exod. 13.3. And of that very Night he saith, It is a Night to be much observed unto the Lord, for bringing them out of Egypt, this is that Night to be observed of all the Children of Israel in their Generations, Exod. 12.42. Now if for the Remembrance of that Mercy, God did not only order his People Israel to be continually meditating and discoursing of it, Exod. 12.26, 13, 14. but also to observe the very Day for a Memorial, Exod. 12.14 if he appointed the Feast of Pentecost to be observed in Memory of the Law then given from Mount Sinai to them, the Feast of Tabernacles in remembrance of their sustentation Forty years in the Wilderness, why may not Christians, though obliged daily to have these things in their remembrance, observean Annual Festivity for the more full Commemoration of the Mercies they enjoy by virtue of our Lord's Nativity, Ascension, etc. Again, these Feasts have been instituted and observed by the Wisdom of the Church, to give thanks to God for the benefits vouchsafed to us at those times, and by such Persons: now public benefits are publicly to be acknowledged and celebrated with public thanks, which cannot better be performed than by prescribing stated Days for publicly Assembling to these ends. And as St. Paul declares, that the great liberality of the Corinthians would Glorify God by causing many thanksgivings to him for that Grace, 2 Cor. 9.12. so will the Institution of such Festivals tend to his Glory by causing many thanksgivings for the Grace vouchsafed to us upon these Days, both to us and to those Martyrs and Apostles, whose Memories we celebrate. Moreover, no Man can deny bu● the benefits flowing from the great actions of ou● Saviour, and the advantages accrueing to us fro● the Apostles, and Evangelists by their faithful preaching the Gospel of Christ, and giving testimony by their Sufferings to the Truth of the sam● Doctrine, is to us more valuable, and advantageous than any temporal benefit whatsoever. If then 〈◊〉 be esteemed highly convenient to celebrate o●● deliverance from the Gun-powder-Plot, th● happy Restoration of our Prince, our Laws, an● Liberties, with constant Anniverssaries, have w● not equal reason to celebrate the Memory o● those great Spiritual Mercies by like Anniverssaries. 2ly. This may be further argued from th● utility and benefit which may redound unto us from the Observation of these Festivals unto the ends for which they are appointed by the Church; now she appointeth them to be employed in hearing of God's Word read and taught, in public Prayers, Can. 13. & Injunct. Q Eliz. 1559. N. 20. in acknowledging our offences 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, and using all sober and Godly conversation. Which Christian fruits of Piety, were they more plentifully brought forth, they would sufficiently recommend those times and seasons which gave occasion to them. And surely the benefit of such Holy Exercises is so great, that the use of particular times appointed for that purpose ought not to be rejected, though some men do abuse them to far other ends. And if Dissenters have thought fit to appoint weekly Lectures for some of these good ends, Why may not our Church Governors appoint these Anniverssaries for the promotion of them all? Especially if we consider, that they are so exceeding profitable unto the weaker sort of Christians who are instructed by them in many Articles of Christian Faith, and caused to reflect on many signal Mercies which they might entirely forget, did not these Days return to strengthen and rub up their Memories. The common sort of those who seem to be Believers want these Remembrances, saith Origen, Contra Celsum, l. 8. p. 393. That such things may not slip out of their Minds, and so these Festivals must needs be useful to them for this end. And since the Wisdom of the Church prescribeth Days to be observed for the Commemoration of the chief things that either were performed by, or happened to our Saviour: if the plain Man, saith Bishop Hall, would but ply well his Almanac, that alone would teach him so much Gospel as to show him the History of his Saviour; Remains. Serm. on 1 Joh. 15. for there upon the Feast of the Annunciation might he see his Saviour's conception declared by an Angel, upon the Feast of 〈◊〉 Nativity, he might understand that he was bo●● of the Virgin Mary, and at last, after infinal and beneficial Miracles, he would see him capacified on Good Friday, rising from the dead 〈◊〉 Easter, and ascending to Heaven on Holy Thu●●day, and might be well instructed in these thi●●● by coming to the Church, which hath excellently fitted these Solemnities with Services which 〈◊〉 explain their meaning, and the use we are to m●●● of them. If then we are to follow after the thi●● whereby we may edify one another, Rom. 14.19. we must continued the Observation of these Festivals. 3ly. That 'tis expedient to observe these 〈◊〉 is evident from the continued custom of the w●●●● Church of Christ, it being laudable and de●●●● to observe the Customs of the whole Church 〈◊〉 Christ, and to conform to her Example 〈◊〉 in things no where forbidden by the Word of 〈◊〉 and being reasonable to judge she had good 〈◊〉 to do what was so universally performed; who●● St. 1 Cor. 14.33. & 11.16. Paul doth admonish his Corinthians to do as 〈◊〉 all Churches of the Saints was done, and doth pronounce him a Contentious Person who 〈◊〉 thwart her customs. Now all these Festivals of Christ's Nativity, his Passion, Resurrection cension, and of the Advent of the Holy Ghost are by * Illa autem quae non scripta, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto terrarum orbe observantur, dantur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenariis conciliis— 〈…〉 atque statuta retineri, slucti quod Domini passio & Resurrectio & 〈…〉 in Caelum, & adventus de Caelo Spiritsis Sancti anniversaria sole●●●●e celbrantur, & st quid aliud cale occurrerit quod servatur ab universa quacunque se diffundit Ecclesia. Epist. 1.18. Cap. 1. vid. Epist. 119. Cap. 1. St. Austin reckoned among those things which were observed ab universa quacunque se diffundit Ecclesia, by the whole Universal Church, and which he therefore doth conjecture, that the Observation of them derived itself from the Apostles or the Decrees of General Councils. Since therefore it is evident unto all learned men, that all the holidays prescribed by the Church of England, from the Fourth Century at least, were universally observed by the Church of Christ, it must be fit and laudable to conform to her Example by observing of them as she did. Now to return an answer to the Objections of Mr. Disp. 5. of Cer. cap. 2. §. 46. Baxter against the holidays of which the First is: Object. 1 Object. 1. §. 14 That the occasion of these holidays was existent in the Apostles days, if therefore God would have had such days observed, he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles in Scripture, as he did other the like things. Answer. 1. This Argument confutes his former grant, that the Festivals of the Holy Martyrs, and Apostles might lawfully be observed; For of the Protomartyr St. Stephen, and of James the Brother of John, Killed by the Sword, Act. 12.2. the Scripture maketh mention, and yet saith nothing of the observation of their Festivals, nor doth the Beloved Disciple, though He survived the rest of Christ's Apostles, mention in his Epistles, or his Revelations any thing touching the observation of them which notwithstanding Mr. Baxter, and which is more considerable, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 the Universal Church of God even from the second Century approved of, observing Martyrum Natalitia, the Birth days of the Martyrs, that is, the days when they were crowned with Martyrdom, with Great Solemnity, witness the * Epistle of the Church of Smyrna touching the Martyrdom of Polycarp. 2ly, By this Argument no places may be set apart for Celebration of God's public Worship, no Churches, and no Tabernacles may be erected for that end, no time appointed for that Worship. No Synods may convene, no Presbyterian Classes may assemble to determine any matter, or make any Rules for the due Government of Christians, no forms of Prayer, excepting the Lord's Prayer may be used in Publck, no words in Celebration of the Lords Supper, or the Sacrament of Baptism, (to omit many other things of a like nature) but what by the Apostles were prescribed in Scripture, for if God would have had such things done, the occasion of them was existent in the Apostles days, and he could as easily and fitly by his Apostles have given command concerning them as touching other the like things. 3ly, This Argument condemneth the Decrees of the great Nicene Council for praying standing on the Lord's day, the occasion of it being as old as our Lord's Resurrection, and it condemneth the whole Church of Christ in the exercise of her Discipline concerning Penitents, her Stationary days, and almost all her other rites, the occasions of which were as well existent in the Apostles days as in succeeding Ages, and which must therefore be unlawful according to this Argument, because prescribed by no Apostle in the Holy Scriptures. This is a business which if it were necessary would be equally necessary to all Ages, Ob. 2. Ibid. and parts of the Catholic Church, and therefore it cannot be necessary, but it must be the matter of an universal law; now God hath made no such law in Scripture, and so Scripture sufficiency as the Catholic Rule of faith, and universal obedience is utterly overthrown. Answer. The Answers given to the first objection do also manifestly show the vanity of this, for may it not as well be said of the Festivities of the Apostles, and first Martyrs of the Church, as of the feast of Christmas, the Ascension, of our Lord, etc. That, If they are necessary to be observed, they must be necessary to all Ages, that God in Scripture hath made no law concerning them, etc. May it not as well be said that if Public Assemblies are necessary to be set apart now, that if any unprescribed forms of Prayer are necessary to be used now, or any words, in Scripture not prescribed, in consecration, or celebration of the Sacraments, that if standing on the Lord's day in time of Prayer, if Stationary days, if the Penitential Discipline observed in the Primitive Church were necessary in any Age or part of the Church, they must be necessary in all Ages and parts of the Catholic Church, and that God hath in Scripture made, no laws concerning them, and so Scripture sufficiency is, and was by the observation of them, overthrown. 2ly, Tho we do judge the observation of these Festivals expedient, yet we by no means hold it necessary; not by necessity of precept, for we pretend not to any precept of this kind; not as a necessary means, for we acknowledge God may be duly praised and Worshipped and magnified for the mercies we then celebrate, on other days, and therefore we confess that, * Non putandum Ecclesiam Christianam aliquancessitate astringi ad obser vationem immotam festorum dierum, sed statuendum dies hosee humanâ authoritateconstitutos eddem posse tolli & mutari, etc. Dau. in Coloss. 2. v. 16. if the Church thinks fit, she may leave all men to their liberty in the observing, or not observing of these days; only we add, that sure the General Rule of doing all things for edification will warrant her appointment of them for the forementioned ends, as well as the appointment of a Lecture-day, or of a Sermon before the Assizes. God himself hath appointed a day for the same purposes as these are pretended for, Ob. 3. Ibid. for the Lords day is to commemorate the Resurrection, as the great triumphant act of the Redeemer, implying all the Rest of his works, so that though it be principally for the resurrection above any single work of Christ, yet also for all the work of Redemption, and the whole is on that day to be commemorated with Holy joy and praise, now when God himself hath set apart one day in every week to commemorate the whole work of Redemption, it seems an accusing of his Institutions of insufficiency, to come after him to mend them, and say we must have an Anniversary day for this or that part of the work. Answer. 1. That God did institute the Lord's day for the particular Commemoration of the whole work of the Redemption is Gratis dictum; what Scripture, or what declaration of Any, Father of the Church saith so? 2ly, This Argument makes it unlawful to set up a lecture upon any day but the Lord's day, for that day being appointed for public reading and hearing of God's Holy word, for men to set up another day for that end is to accuse his institutions of insufficiency. 3ly, This Argument condemns the universal Church of Christ from the Apostles days, for they did then observe the feast of Easter, and so, though God had set apart a weekly Commemoration of the resurrection of our Lord, they did come after him, and observe an Anniversary day for the same thing, and so according to this way of Arguing did more apparently accuse his institutions of insufficiency. 4ly, This objection seems to accuse the wisdom of Gods own institutions, for though the Jewish Sabbath was instituted with a peculiar respect to their deliverance out of Egypt, Deut. 5.15. (yet for that mercy which was far inferior to those which Christians do enjoy by our Lord's Birth, his Death, his Resurrection, and Ascension) he required other solemnities to be observed yearly, viz. The great feast of the Passover; why therefore may not the wisdom of the Church, in imitation of this pattern, besides the Lord's day weekly set apart for celebrating the work of our Redemption, require other solemnities to be observed yearly for a peculiar Commemoration of the most Signal parts of that Redemption? Obj. 4 The fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue seems to be of so High a nature that man must not presume to make the like, Ibid. but it seems a doing the same, or of like nature to what God hath done in the fourth Commandment, if any man will make a necessary stated Holy day to the universal Church. Answer. 1. Who goes about to make a Necessary stated Holy day to the Universal Church, sure none besides the Church of Rome pretendeth to give laws unto her. But what the Universal Church hath thought fit to observe, I hope our Church may prudently comply with, and call upon her Children so to do. 2ly, Is not this done as much by the stated Festivals which you allow of, as by those you do condemn; was it not done as much by appointing the feast of Purim to be observed yearly, and by ordaining that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every Generation, Esth. 9.27, 28. every Family, every Province, and every City, and that these days of Purim should not fail from among the Jews, nor the memorial of them perish from their seed? was it not done as much by the whole Congregation of Israel when they ordained that the days of the Dedication of the Altar should be observed from year to year by the space of eight days. And yet neither our Lord, 1 Macc. 4.59. nor any of the Prophets, charged them with violation of the 4th Commandment on that account, or with presuming to do the like to that which God had done in the institution of it. Object. 5 Where there is no law, sure we are, there is no transgression, but there is no law of God Commanding Christmas, or other holidays, therefore there is no trangression in not keeping them: But than it is not sure that there is no transgression in keeping them, therefore the surer side is to be taken. Answer. 1. That this Argument plainly destroys his former grant of the expedience of observing, and enjoining other holidays, for which no law of God commanding them can be produced. 2ly, That this Argument may be retorted thus: Where there is no law forbidding, sure we are, there is no transgression, but there is no law forbidding the observation of Christmas, and other Festivals of our Church, and therefore there is no transgression in observing them, and if our assurance that there is no transgression in not observing of these days depends on this, that no law doth command their observation, why are we not as sure that we transgress not in observing them being as sure that no law doth forbid their observation; wherefore we being sure of this that there is a law commanding us to yield obedience to the guidance and appointment of our Superiors in all lawful things; and sure, from what hath been discoursed, that the Religious observation of these days for the forementioned ends, is not only lawful, but expedient, let any Reasonable person judge which is the surer side, the observation of these days, as by Authority we are required, or the Refusal so to do. Object. 6 Others object against the observation of these days, §. 15 that St. Paul condemneth his Galatians for observing Months and Times and Years, Gal. 4.9, 10. And saith to his Colossians, let no man judge you on the account of a Feast or a New Moon, or a Sabbath-day, Coloss. 2.16. Answer. It is exceeding manifest that both these places only do concern the observation of those Jewish Festivals which were commanded by the Law of Moses, by Gentile Converts to Christianity. For 1. the Apostle in the beginning of the fourth Chapter to the Galatians saith, Gal. 4.3, 5. that Christ came to redeem those from the Law who were in bondage to its beggarly Elements that they might receive the adoption of sons, and then puts the Question to his Galatians thus, how therefore turn you again unto those weak and beggarly Elements to which you desire again to be in bondage? v. 9 v. 10. And as an instance of their relapsing to that bondage he adds, You observe Days and Months, and Times and Years, viz. Those Months and Days and Yearly Festivals which were prescribed by the Law of Moses, and therefore saith, I am afraid of you lest I may have laboured among you in vain. v. 11. And farther saith, tell me, you that desire to be under the Law, v. 12. do you not hear the law? Plainly demonstrating that he reprehends them for their desire to join the observation of the Law of Moses to Christianity. In the 2d. Chapter to the Colossians he speaks expressly of New Moons, and Sabbaths which were proper to the Jewish Pedagogy, v. 16, 17. and of such Festivals as were Shadows of things to come, and such were properly the Jewish Festivals, and they only. 2ly, That he speaks only of the observation of them by the Gentile Convert to Christianity, is evident from the severity of his reprehension of them, as being a reducing them to bondage, and that which made his labour vain among them, whereas he being an Hebrew of the Hebrews did himself observe the feast of Pentecost, and did permit the observation of them for a season to the weaker Jew, Rom. 14.5, 6. Hence also 3ly, Act. 18.21.20.16. It is evident that he speaks only against the observation of these days from the opinion of their necessity to the justification of the Gentile Christian, or from an opinion of their obligation to observe the Law of Moses, as his whole disputation in his Epistle to the Galatians doth plainly show, wherefore our Festivals being not Jewish, nor such as were commanded by the Ceremonial Law, nor Shadows of things future, nor observed by us out of opinion of any such necessity as hath been mentioned, they cannot be concerned in those words of the Apostle, nor can they with any colour be esteemed Yokes of bondage, or weak and beggarly Elements; as were these Jewish Feasts, any more than weekly Lectures, or stated fasts for public judgements, or stated Festivals for the remembrance of public mercies can be so accounted. But though this Exposition of these places be so evident that he who runs may read it, yet do dissenters thus object against it: Object. If the Apostle speak only of Judaical days, either he condemneth the observation of the same feasts materialiter that is, the observing of the same days the Jews observed, or formaliter, that is, he condemns the observing of them with such a meaning, after such a manner, and to such an end as the Jews did; if the former, then, say they, their own feasts of Easter and Whitsunday will be condemned, because they were observed by the Jews, if they assert the latter, this cannot be true, for the Apostle condemns, that observation of these days which was done by those Galatians who believed that Christ was already come, and therefore could not keep them as figures of his coming, as the Jews did, but rather as memorial, saith Cartwright, Disp. p. 48. 49. that he was already come; so Gillespy. Answer. The Apostle plainly condemns the observation of these days by Gentile Converts, whether Colossians, or Galatians, upon account of any obligation lying on them from the Law of Moses so to do; now I hope Mr. Gillespy will grant that the Galatian Christians might think themselves obliged to observe the Law of Moses by being circumcised, and keeping of the Festivals prescribed by it. 2ly, He also condemns the observation of them by Gentiles to the same end, the Passover in memory of their deliverance from Egypt, the feast of Pentecost in memory of God's kindness in giving his Law to them at that time, the feast of Tabernacles in memory of their Divine protection in the wilderness, their weekly Sabbaths in memory of their deliverance from Egyptian Thraldom, and to these ends the Judaizing Gentile Converts might observe them. 3ly, The Judaizing Christians, believed that the Messiah was already come, and yet conceived themselves obliged to observe these Festivals, not as Shadows of things to come, but as Festivals commanded by the Law of Moses, and so might also those Gentile Converts whom they had perverted. CHAP. X. The Contents. The Proposition that a prescribed Form of Liturgy may lawfully be used in public Worship, 1. Because such a Form is not forbidden, either directly or indirectly in the word of God. Not, 1. by the command to pray always in the Spirit, Eph. 5.18. and in the Holy Ghost, Judas 20.2. Not by our Lords command to his Disciples, when they were brought before Kings and Rulers for his sake, not to meditate what they should say, Matt. 10.19. Nor, 3. by the promise of the Spirit to help our infirmities, Rom. 8.26, 27. Nor, 4. by the commands not to neglect our Gifts, 1 Tim. 4.14. but as we have received the Gift, so to minister, 1 Pet. 4.10. Rom. 12.6. Nor, 5. from Gods Promise to pour out upon his People the Spirit of Supplication. §. 1. To pray in the Spirit, 1 Cor. 14.15. is, 1. to pray by the immediate Assistance and Operations of the Holy Spirit. 2 To use the gift of Tongues in Prayer, and pray in words not understood by him that prayed. §. 2. To the Objection that forms of Prayer do stint the Spirit, it is answered, 1. That if this be meant of the Spirit of the Minister, it may, and in some cases must be stinted by Precept Apostolical. 2. That Christ did stint the Spirit of his Disciples by prescribing them a form of Prayer. 3. That the Directory doth the same by prescribing the matter of Prayer, if the Objectors mean that a Form of Prayer doth stint the Holy Spirit. 1. That it cannot be proved that the Spirit is injured by prescribing a Form. 2. That the Directory and all premeditated Prayers do the same thing. §. 2. Secondly, Because our Blessed Lord hath commanded, and approved of a Form of Prayer. §. 3. Four Corollaries thence, ibid. Thirdly, Because Forms of Prayers have constantly been used in the Church of God from the third Century. §. 4. Fourthly, Because all premeditated Prayer is in effect a form, so that we must either pray without consideration, or by form. §. 5. Six advantages of Praying by a prescribed Liturgy in the public service of God. §. 6. THE Ceremonies required by the Church being owned as lawful, and her Festivals approved as such, no Exceptions can be farther made against Communion with her, besides those which do concern her Liturgy, and those I shall consider in handling these two Propositions, 1. That a prescribed Liturgy is lawful. 2ly, That there is nothing in the prescribed Liturgy of the Church of England, to which her Lay Members may not yield obedience, or which can render their Communion with her sinful, or unlawful to them. §. 1 That a stinted Liturgy, containing a prescribed Form of words is lawful; Prop. 1 and that Dissenters therefore cannot reasonably scruple to join in Prayer with the Congregation where such a Liturgy is used. This I prove Argum. 1 1. Because such a Liturgy is not forbidden in the Word of God; now Sin being the transgression of the Law, there can be no transgression in doing that which is forbidden by no Law. Moreover, where there is no command, there is no duty, and therefore no transgression by neglect of Duty, but holy Scripture doth afford no Precept commanding us to Pray without a Form, and therefore we cannot transgress by the neglect of Duty, though we do not so Pray. Now that a stinted Liturgy is not forbidden, needs no other proof than this, that no such prohibition can be showed from Scripture; but yet, ex abundanti, I thus argue, that which is not sorbidden in general, by virtue of the Precept which commands us, not to add unto the word of God, nor in particular by any Precept which in words direct, or consequential, forbidden us, when we Pray, to use a form, is not at all forbidden. But thus it is with reference to a stinted Liturgy, Ergo. And 1. That the use of stinted Forms of Prayer, not prescribed in Scripture, is not forbidden by virtue of this Precept, which commands us not to add unto the word of God, is evident, 1. From the exposition I have already given of those words. 2ly, Because no reason can be given, why praying by a Form should be esteemed adding to the word of God, rather than Praying without a Form; God having in the Old Testament commanded Prayer by Form, but never Prayer without it. 3ly, The Jews to whom this prohibition of adding to the Word was given, did, as I have observed from Dr. Leightfoot, and as the Learned Mr. Selden hath informed us, Not. in E●tych. p. 43. p. 41, 42. use eighteen Prayers or Benedictions called in the Gemara, composed or appointed Prayers, that these were instituted by Ezra and his consistory, to be used by every one daily by Law, or received custom; and that this remedy was applied by the men of the great Synagogue, Ezra and his hundred and twenty Colleagues after the Babylonish Captivity, that they might not recede, either in the matter of their Prayers, or their expressions, from the Form of Piety commanded them by God. They also prescribed a Form of Confession to be used by the People when they offered their Trespass-Offerings, Leight. Temple-Service, p. 69. p. 173. and by the Highpriest, when he confessed over the live Goat the Iniquities of the Children of Israel: And lastly, it was ordinary for their Teachers to compose Forms for their Disciples, as is observed by Dr. Leightfoot; In Mat. 6.9. by all which considerations, it is evident that they conceived not such Forms forbidden by the prohibition, to add unto the word of God. And, 4ly, John taught his Disciples a Form of Prayer, and Christ, not only joined with the Forms which were appointed to be used in the Jewish Church, but did himself prescribe a Form of Prayer for his Disciples; by all which instances, it is demonstratively evident that Forms of Prayer were not forbidden by virtue of the Precepts commanding the Jews not to add unto the Word of God. 2ly, That there is no especial Precept in the Old, or the New Testament, which doth in words direct or consequential forbidden the Christian, when he prays, to use a Form, will be apparent from an impartial consideration of what is offered from Scripture, by way of objection against the use of Forms, viz. that they are contrary to Scripture, Precept, Promise and Example. 1. To Scripture Precept, for that, say they, Judas 20. commands us to pray always in the Spirit, Ephes. 6.18. and in the Holy Ghost, which in the Scripture Language is Praying by the Gift, and the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost, and so is not consistent with Praying by prescribed Forms. Answ. 1 The same Persons who are here bid to pray in the Spirit, are in the foregoing Chapter exhorted to be filled with the Spirit, speaking to themselves in Psalms, and Hymns, Eph. 5.18, 19 and spiritual Songs: And yet Dissenters dare not hence conclude that they must sing ex tempore, and not in stinted Metre; why therefore do they plead from the like words in the forecited places, that they are bound to Pray ex tempore, and not in stinted words? do they not sing the Psalms of David as they have been translated into English Metre, and other Hymns composed by Pious Men? do not these Psalms and Hymns contain Prayers and Petitions, as well as thanksgivings? yea, is not thanksgiving itself in Scripture reckoned as one part of Prayer, as is apparent from these words, the Pharisee prayed thus, God I thank thee that I am not as other men are, Luk. 18.11. I will pray with the understanding, else how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, say Amen at thy giving of thanks? 1 Cor. 14.15, 16. Now I would gladly know why, notwithstanding these Scriptures, it should be lawful to use a Form of Prayer in Verse, and not in Prose; whether the Spirit be not as able to assist them in the first as in the latter? or by what passage in these Texts the latter is forbid more than the former? Answ. 2 2ly, If Praying by a Form be inconsistent with Praying in the Spirit, and in the Holy Ghost, then must the use of the Lords Prayer be so, and consequently we cannot use it in our Public Worship without transgressing of these Precepts. Answ. 3 3ly, I answer, that Praying by the Spirit, and in the Holy Ghost, in the forementioned places, may only signify praying for such things, and in such a manner as God hath by his Spirit taught us in the Holy Scripture; and with such Spiritual Fervency, and Constancy, and other Christian Graces as he exciteth in us: that this most likely is the import of the words in both these places, may be argued from this consideration, that in both places all good Christians are exhorted to pray in the Spirit, and in the Holy Ghost; now praying by the Spirit, as it importeth praying by the immediate assistance of the Holy Spirit, or the Spiritual Gift mentioned in Scripture, is praying with the Gift of Tongues, to which all Christians could not be exhorted, because saith the Apostle, all could not speak with Tongues, 1 Cor. 12.30. 2ly. Because Tongues being for a sign not to believers, but to unbelievers, v. 22. It cannot rationally be supposed this Gift should be vouchsafed to Believers in their private Prayers, of which here the Apostles seem to speak. 3ly. The Apostle here exhorteth the Ephesians to pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, always in the Spirit; whereas the miraculous assistance of the Spirit in this duty being free, what assurance could the Ephesians have of praying always by it. Moreover he prescribes the matter of their Prayer, exhorting them to pray for him that utterance might be given him, V 19 that he might open his mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the Gospel, which he would scarce have done, had he conceived that they were still to pray by the immediate assistance of that Spirit, who needed no directions what he should suggest. In the Epistle of St. Judas, praying with the Holy Ghost, is joined with building up themselves in their most holy faith, and keeping themselves in the love of God; these being therefore duties put into our power, and to be improved by our industry, not to be given by the miraculous assistance of the Holy Ghost without our industry; why should we think otherwise of that praying by the Holy Ghost, to which we here are equally exhorted? if than this be the import of praying by the Spirit, certain it is that we may pray thus by the Spirit though we use a Form; for the matter of the Form may contain only what is good, and acceptable in the sight of God; and he that useth it, and they who do join with him, may do it in Faith and Fervency, and with all other requisites unto an acceptable Prayer. But, 2ly, If by praying in the Spirit, and in the Holy Ghost, we are to understand praying by that Spiritual Gift, which was vouchsased to some Christians in the Apostles days, by which they were enabled by the immediate, and the miraculous assistance of the Holy Spirit, to indite, or use such Prayers as suited to the wants of the Christians of those times, as Grotius and Dr. Hammond think: Let it be then observed, that these miraculous Gifts being now ceased, we are no more concerned in these Precepts, than we are to anoint the sick with oil, when we pray over them according to the prescription of St. James. James 5.14. Now that these Gifts are ceased, and that no man can now pretend to the miraculous, extraordinary, immediate infusions of the Gift of Prayer; and therefore that the Holy Ghost doth only now assist us by those ordinary and external means, which do improve our understanding, and instruct us what we ought to do; and therefore to desire Grace to do, is evident from these considerations: 1. That were this otherwise, our Prayers would be of Divine Inspiration, and therefore as Canonical as Holy Scripture, and as fit to be preserved as a Guide or Rule of Faith, or at the least, of Prayer; which yet Dissenters have not the confidence to say. 2ly, Then also the same Persons may pretend to sing, and Prophesy, and Preach by the miraculous, and the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost; for where the Apostle maketh mention of praying by this Gift of the Good Spirit, he also speaketh of Singing and Prophesying by the Spirit, whereas Dissenters have not the confidence to pretend unto the latter, and therefore have no reason to lay claim unto the former. Now hence it follows, That diligent perusal of the Holy Scriptures, and meditation of those things which we do chief want, and it doth most concern us to desire, is the best way to purchase the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and to obtain that which is called the Gift of Prayer; and therefore that to Pray by a premeditated Form, must be more properly to Pray by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, than to pray ex tempore. Our Saviour forbiddeth his Disciples, when they shall be brought before Kings and Princes, to take thought, Matt. 10.19. or meditate, how or what to speak, Mark 13.11. because it shall be given them in that hour what they shall speak, and because it is not they that speak, but the Spirit of his Father that speaketh in them. Now hence they argue à fortiori thus, would God assist them to plead at an Heathen Tribunal, and not at the Throne of Grace? Answ. 1 That the Persons with whom we have to do, though they will not prescribe a Form, yet do they allow of meditating before we Pray; nay, they prescribe the matter of the Prayer, saying, Directory, p. 14. the Minister is to call upon God to this effect; now both these are as much against this promise, as is the using of a Form, for the Text saith, do not ye meditate, take you no thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, how or what you shall speak; and the promise is peculiar for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it shall be given what you shall speak: it therefore is unreasonably urged against Forms, by them who do allow of meditation, and of prescribing the materials of Prayer. Answ. 2 This promise belongs not to us, but to the Primitive Martyrs and Confessors of Christianity before the Heathen World, who were to be converted to it; and then there is no reason to extend it to other cases, for otherwise it may as plausibly be urged thus for an immediate assistance in preaching of the Word, would God assist men in speaking for themselves, and not for him? in speaking for the preservation of their Bodies from temporal, and not in speaking for the preservation of the Souls of others from external destruction; and so we must not only Pray, but Preach also ex tempore, and from immediate assistance of the Holy Spirit. Answ. 3 Thirdly, The words which these men spoke, were not their own, but were the dictates of the Holy Ghost, and therefore their Apologies were of Divine Authority, and many of them are to this day received as parts of Scripture, or the Word of God; but will any man in his wits admit or urge this consequence, our Lord promised to assist his Apostles when arraigned before Heathen Judges for his sake, by miraculous inspiration; therefore in every ordinary case of Prayer, he will assist all the faithful by the same inspiration; or will these very Persons arrogate thus much to themselves, or their own Prayers, that they proceed from the same special and divine assistance? Object. 3 God, say they, hath promised his good Spirit to help our infirmities, Rom. 8.26, 27. when we know not how to Pray as we ought; and therefore by tying of ourselves to a prescribed Form, we prejudice the assistance of this Holy Spirit, and do not suffer him to help our infirmities by teaching us to Pray, when we ourselves do not know how to do it. Answ. 1 The Spirit is here said to help our infirmities, by making intercession for us with sighs and groans unutterable, and therefore cannot be a spirit of utterance: yea, it is farther intimated, v. 27. that he alone who is the searcher of the heart doth understand the meaning of the spirit: the Person therefore whom he thus assists, is one who doth not understand his meaning; and therefore neither can, nor should thus Pray in public, where he is obliged to Pray, not only with the spirit, 1 Cor. 14.15. but with the understanding also; this therefore certainly can be no promise or example of the assistance of the Spirit, in pouring forth extemporary Prayers in public. 2ly. The assistance of the Spirit promised here, is only in the time of great temptations and afflictions, and when we know not what to Pray for, and therefore can with no show of reason be extended to the continual assistance of the Spirit at all times. 3ly. Chap. 5. §. 6. from p. 218. to 230. That excellent Person who hath writ with great accuracy of Judgement, touching the operations of the Holy Ghost, hath made it evident beyond all possible exception, that this Text makes nothing for the pretence of uttering the suggestions of the Spirit in extemporary Prayer; but that, if by the intercession of the Spirit we understand his interceding for us in the proper sense, the import of the Words is this, viz. The Gospel of Christ affords us this relief against impatience under afflictions, that whereas we know not whether afflictions, or deliverance and ease be best for us at present, and consequently as to these respects know not what to pray for in particular, the Spirit of Christ intercedes for us with unuttered groans, i. e. earnestly and powerfully (for by an inexpressible desire we commonly understand one that is vehement) and God who searcheth our hearts, and understands that we do sometimes desire such things as tend not to our advantage, knoweth also what the Spirit intercedeth for, and that he requests in our behalf better things for us than we do ourselves; for we are ever ready to desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such things as seem best to man, but he asks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what God knows to be best for us. But if the Holy Ghost is only said to intercede for us, by enabling us to do so, then will the words admit this Paraphrase, Whereas, when we pray for deliverance from afflictions, we know not whether it be best for us to have our desires granted; the Holy Spirit inclines us to an entire submission of ourselves to the Divine Will, and together with our most earnest prayers of that kind, there is all along mingled that secret and more vehement desire of what God seethe best for us, which is a Grace of the Holy Spirit, whereby the forwardness of our appetites after the ease and comforts of this World is corrected and governed: Now though this earnest request be not uttered, the particular matter of it being not yet known, since we are ignorant what will be most profitable for us; yet he that searcheth the heart, understands it perfectly, and knows that we vehemently desire not so much that deliverance or worldly advantage, which is the matter of our uttered groans and prayers, as that good which the Spirit moveth us to pray for, and which we cannot particularly utter, that namely which God seethe best for us. This indeed is a desire of the heart, which proceeds from a Divine cause, and God is so pleased with it, that he will not fail to grant it; so that if afflictions continue, we know they shall work together for good, and thus the Holy Spirit relieveth us under our infirmities and distresses, by bringing all our worldly appetites under submission to the pleasure of Divine Wisdom and Goodness. Object. 4 Moreover it is objected, that we are required to use the Gifts vouchsafed to us 1 Pet. 4.10. not to neglect our Gifts, 1 Tim. 4.14. Rom. 12.6. Having Gifts different vouchsafed to us according to the different Grace of God, to employ them for the public good. Having therefore, say Dissenters, such a Gift of prayer, we are engaged to employ it in the public Worship for the benefit of others, and therefore cannot submit unto those Forms which lay upon us a necessity of neglecting this our Gift. Answ. 1 That though these places are produced in favour of the supposed gift of prayer, yet do they speak of no such thing, but all of them touching the gift of public teaching of the Word of God. Thus v. g. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Gift of Timothy is, say Interpreters, munus publicè docendi, the gift of public teaching; and this doth the connexion of the words most fairly plead for, viz. V 13. give attendance to reading, exhortation and doctrine, neglect not the gift, etc. The Speaker in St. Peter is, say the Commentators on that place, the instructor and teacher of the People, is, qui praedicat verbum Dei in Ecclesia, he that preacheth the word of God in the Church. The gifts in the 12th of the Romans, are prophesying, teaching, V 6. exhortation; since then Dissenters think not themselves obliged to perform these things ex tempore, by virtue of these precepts, but choose to do them in a Form of words, why should they think themselves obliged to pray ex tempore by virtue of these words? for that prophesying, preaching and exhortation are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or spiritual gifts, these Texts inform us more plainly than any other do, that prayer is so; quis tum discrevit? who therefore made the difference, that the one should be performed ex tempore, the other not? Answ. 2 All these Texts seem to speak not of such ordinary gifts as are invention and elocution, but of the extraordinary gifts vouchsafed then unto the Church; for in all the forecited places the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which doth most properly import such gifts. Such also was undoubtedly the gift vouchsafed to Timothy; such were prophecy, teaching, exhortation, 1 Cor. 12.10, 29.14.3. such also was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ministry, for the Deacons were to be men full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom. Acts 6.3. and they most likely are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, helps mentioned among spiritual gifts, 1 Cor 12.28. and if so, all these places must be impertinently alleged to prove that ordinary gifts may not be stinted. Answ. 3 These precepts cannot rationally be supposed to enjoin the use of any of these gifts, farther than may consist with order and edification, the peace and union of the Church, and with subjection to the Prophets; and then they cannot so enjoin their exercise as to disturb her order, peace and union, and to oppose ourselves to the prescriptions of her Prophets, especially considering that the Church doth not wholly lay restraint upon the use of this supposed gift; no, not in public, but doth permit us to exercise it in our Prayers before and after Sermon. Object. 4 4ly, It is objected thus, That God promised under the Gospel times to pour out upon his people the Spirit of grace and supplication; Zech. 12.10. and such a Spirit being given, as are all the gifts of God, for the edification of the Church, must not be hindered. Answ. 1 There is no certain evidence that God here speaketh any thing of Prayer, for what we render supplication, is by divers Interpreters, the Chaldee Paraphrast, the Septuagint, the Syriack and Arabic Versions, agreeably to the derivation of the word, rendered mercies and compassions; by others, the spirit of lamentation. Answ. 2 There is no evidence that God here promiseth the gift of praying fluently, by the immediate assistance of the Holy Spirit; for the effect of what is promised here, is not Spiritual Hymns or Prayers, not that they shall fluently express themselves in prayer, but that they shall look on him whom they have pierced, and shall mourn; so that men may with equal reason argue hence for extemporary sorrow, and against such considerations as serve to work this sorrow in us, as for extemporary prayer, and against such considerations as may prepare us to put up our addresses duly to the God of Heaven. Answ. 3 There is no evidence, that if the Spirit of prayer be promised here, this promise doth respect our Age; and men may argue with equal reason, from the promise made by Joel, Joel. 2.28. that in the latter days God would pour out his spirit upon all flesh, etc. that we may now expect Prophetic Visions, Dreams and Prophesying, as from this promise of the Prophet Zechary, that we may now expect the miraculous assistance of God's Spirit in prayer. Object. 5 It is said, 1 Cor. 14, 15. I will pray with the spirit; §. 2 now though there is no shadow of an Argument in these words, to countenance extemporary prayer, yet may it be useful for undeceiving some of our Dissenters to observe, 1. That there was, when this Epistle was indicted, a spiritual gift of prayer which Christians exercised in their Assemblies, by the immediate assistance and operation of the Holy Spirit. For the Apostle in the 12th Chapter of this Epistle, propounds to treat touching spiritual gifts, beginning of his treatise thus, concerning spiritual gifts, 1 Cor. 12.1. Brethren, I would not have you ignorant; and this discourse he carries on to the end of the 14th Chapter, where in the 15th v. we read these words, I will pray with the spirit, I will pray with the understanding also; to pray then with the spirit, is to pray with this spiritual gift, for of those Gifts the Apostle speaketh in the whole discourse; and forasmuch as he applieth this spiritual gift to prayer, saying, I will pray with the spirit, 'tis certain he affirms that there was then a spiritual gift in the Church enabling them, to whom it was given, to pray in words suggested by the holy spirit; or to make and utter upon the sudden, a new prayer suiting the condition of the then present Church of God. 2ly, It is extremely evident, that praying with the spirit then, was using of the gift of tongues in prayer, as is apparent from these words; if I pray with an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, v. 14. i. e. my spiritual gift is exercised. And 2ly, because the Idiot could not say Amen to him that prayed by the spirit, because he understood not what he said, v. 16. 3ly, From these words of the Apostle, I speak with tongues more than you all, and yet had rather speak five words in the Church with my understanding, that I might teach others, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue, v. 18, 19 Moreover, that it was also praying what he understood not, is evident, 1. Because praying with the understanding is opposed to it. 2. Because the mind of him who prayed by the Spirit was unfruitful, v. 14. 3. V 13. Because he is bid to pray that he may interpret; if then Dissenters desire thus to pray, let them do it, let us hear them pray in unknown tongues, and when they do so, they will only pray after the Roman manner disapproved of by St Paul, who commands such persons to be silent in the Church, vers. 28. 3ly, When this Spiritual Gift was exercised, the Apostle plainly saith, that it was better to pray with the understanding, i. e. with words that might be understood by others, than to pray with this spiritual Gift, V 19.28. where there was no Interpreter, and in that case commands them who enjoined this Gift to keep silence in the Church. And hence it follows avoidable, that in some cases it was not only lawful, but even necessary, in order to edification, that they should stint this Gift; if therefore the immediate operations of the Holy Spirit may be stinted in the Church, much more the Gift of Elocution. Moreover these Gifts were to be stinted by a Revelation made to another person, vers. 30 by subjection to the Prophets, verse. 32. by the Rules of order, vers. 33, 40. and they were to give place to Charity, and the edification of the Church, vers. 1, 4, 12. if therefore Charity, Edification, Order, were to be preferred before these Gifts of the Good Spirit, much more should Charity, the Peace, the Union, the Order of the Church prevail to cut off our pretences to the exercising of this meanest of all Gifts; if blessed Paul so undervalved that Praying by the Spirit which was the fruit of his immediate assistance, that he preferred Edifying the Church a thousand degrees beyond it, I suppose he would have preferred the edification of the Church before that Praying by the Spirit which men usually learn, and do obtain to by the help of Dr. Wilkins' Discourse upon the Gift of Prayer. Now sure 'tis matter of concern towards the Edification of the Church to obey Superiors, to preserve Peace, Order, Union in the Church, as much as may be, to consent together in our Petitions, and with one mouth to glorify God, to secure the public Service from dark, extravagant, erroneous Petitions, too oft put up by the contenders for, and practisers of this Extemporary Devotion. If therefore care aught to be taken that our public Sacrifice should be, as near as can be, without blemish, and that we do not offer unto God the lame and the blind, Mal. 1.13, 14. I think this cannot be done better than by prescribing of a well composed form of prayer to be daily offered up unto God as our Morning and our Evening Sacrifice. Lastly, Whereas it is objected, That in set Forms of prayer we restrain and confine the Spirit, and in conceived prayers the Spirit is free, unlimited, and unconstrained. I Answer, That by restraining of the Spirit, the Objectors mean the restraining of their own Spirits, or of the blessed Spirit: If by restraining of the Spirit they mean restraining the spirit of the Minister, I ask, 1. Why his Spirit may not be restrained by the wisdom of his Superiors, as well as the spirit of the people by his conceived prayer? And tell me, Is not their spirit restrained when the whole Congregation is confined to the form of this one man's composing, or unto words which on a sudden he doth utter? 2. Did not Christ restrain the Spirit of his own Disciples when he taught them to pray the Lords Prayer? if he had only said pray thus, after this manner, and given only a Directory for the matter of prayer, this was a restraint: but if he said, pray this, or pray these words, as I shall prove he did, he then prescribed both the matter and words too; and therefore did restrain the Spirit of his Disciples as truly as any other form could do. 3. The Spirit of the Minister must in some cases be restrained, and that by precept Apostolical, for otherwise what means St Paul, by saying, 1 Cor. 14.32. the Spirit of the Prophets must be subject to the Prophets; what greater restraint than subjection? for if subjected, than they must be ruled; if ruled, then limited or prescribed unto, and as much under restraint as the Spirit of the superior Prophets shall judge convenient. In fine, when the Assembly of Divines appointed the matter of prayers to all particular Ministers, was that appointment by the Spirit or no? if no, then, for aught appears, the Directory, not being made by God's Spirit, may be an enemy to it. But if this appointment were by the Spirit, than the determination, and limitation of the Spirit in either sense is by the Spirit himself, and such indeed is every pious and prudent constitution of the Church in matters spiritual; such was that of St Paul to the Corinthians when he prescribed orders for public Prophesying, and Interpretation, and speaking with Tongues. All these are Answers to this Objection transcribed from the excellent Bishop Tailors Discourse concerning Prayer ex tempore. And it seems reasonable to suppose with him, that after all these Answers, this Objection should trouble us no more. If by the Spirit, they mean the Holy Spirit, I inquire, 1. By what Argument shall any man make it so much as probable, that the Holy Ghost is injured, if every private Minister's Spirit shall be guided, and so by necessary consequence limited by the Authority of the Church? What prohibition, what Law, what Reason, or Revelation is against it, what inconvenience in the nature of the thing? for can any man be so weak as to imagine a despite is done to the Spirit of Grace, when men pray by such well composed Forms as the whole Church approves of, and doth not, in opposition to them, use his private Gift? 2. Is not the Holy Spirit as much restrained by premeditated prayers, since the design of that premeditation is only to consider after what form, or manner, they should pray, for what, and in what words, so that the Holy Spirits assistance is restrained to their conceptions and meditations; men therefore must be bound to pray they know not what, or else, according to this Objection, must lay restraints upon the Holy Spirit. 3. Doth not the Directory that thing which is here called restraining of the Spirit? Doth it not appoint every thing but the words, and after this, is it not a goodly Palladium which is contended for, and a princely liberty they leave unto the Spirit, to be free only in supplying the place of a Vocabulary, or a Copia Verborum, for as for the matter it is all there described and appointed, and to these determinate senses the Spirit must assist, or not at all, only for the words he shall take his choice. Now I inquire, which is the most considerable of the two, Sense or Language, matter or words? if the former, is it not a greater injury to the Spirit to restrain his matter, than to appoint his words; so that in the greater of the two the Spirit is restrained when his matter is appointed, and to make him amends for not trusting him with the matter without our directions and limitations, we trust him to say what he pleaseth, so it be to our sense. 4. Is it not as much a restraint of the Spirit to sing a Psalm in Metre by appointment, as to use a Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving by appointment? & yet this is done daily by Dissenters without any scruple made, which seems to argue great partiality, or want of judgement. There being then no Scripture precept, no evidence of reason against Forms of prayer, we may hence rationally conclude that they are lawful; For had it been the will of God that public prayers should be performed by Christians in an extemporary manner, and not by forms, we may rationally conceive the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of supplication, would somewhere have admonished us to pray ex tempore, and to beware of Book-prayers and the use of Forms, as well as of neglecting this duty altogether, or performing it in a careless and undue manner; and this the rather because Forms of Prayer and Thanksgiving were used in the Jewish Church, and because the modesty of many good Christians, and the inabilities of many more would naturally prompt them to the use of so ready a help to Devotion as pious and useful Forms of prayer are, but so far are we from finding any command in Scripture to pray upon sudden invention, that we find no preference given to this way in Scripture above the use of Forms, but rather the contrary, for when our Saviour taught his Disciples to pray, he enjoined them the use of a form. As for all other vices by which this duty is corrupted, or rendered less acceptable to God, the Holy Ghost hath fully cautioned us against them, Matt. 6.7. v. 5. Matt. 15.8. Luke 18.10. 1 Cor. 14. James 1.6. 1 Tim. 2.8. John 9.31. putting in caveats against Battology, or much speaking, against performing of this duty for ostentation, against honouring God with our lips, when our hearts are far from him; against vainglorious and Pharisaical addresses, against prayers used in an unknown tongue, or not put up in Faith, or put up in wrath; against the prayer of him who lifts not up pure hands, or who continues in his sin; but the whole Scripture affords us not one caution against Forms of prayer either in public or in private, and therefore we may rationally suppose that they are not displeasing to him, or unacceptable at the throne of Grace. Argum. 2 Moreover our blessed Lord hath both commanded, and approved a Form of prayer, and therefore it unquestionably must be lawful. His command to use a Form is evident, 1. From those positive words, Luke 11.2. when you pray, say, Our Father, etc. and though St Matthew varies the words of the command, informing us that our Lord said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pray so; yet may that please be very well consistent with the other, and may import that those words should be used in our prayers; for in the form of the Aaronical Benediction the command runs thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, on this wise shall ye bless, Numb. 6.23. whereas the blessing was pronounced in the very form of words prescribed there. And when God put the words into the mouth of Balaam which he was to speak, he saith unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the Prophets, Numb. 23.5. Thus saith the Lord, thus shall you say unto the house of Israel, always imports these words shall you say, or the Lord saith. 2. The request of Christ's Disciples was, that He would teach them to pray as John had taught his Disciples: Vid. Leight in Matt. 6.9. Now it being ordinary for the Jewish Doctors to compose Forms of prayer for their Scholars; it is not to be doubted but that St John did so, and consequently that our Lord did so for his Disciples. And, Thirdly, This is farther evident from the words of the Lords Prayer, they being not directed to man, but God, for 'tis not said, pray to your Father in Heaven that his Name may be hallowed, but Our Father— hallowed be thy Name. And as such did the Ancient Church of Christ receive and use it. Christ, saith Tertullian, De Orat. c. 1. Novam orandi formulam determinavit, appointed a new form of prayer, and this we Christians do begin with: In the Apostolic constitutions it is required to be used thrice a day; and Austin saith, l. 7. c. 25. Ep. 59 ad Paul. Qu. 5. that almost the whole Church concluded the Communion Service with it. So that if our Dissenters be not men of greater abilities than the Apostles were, at least before Christ's Resurrection, and than the greatest Worthies of the Church after the Resurrection, they cannot look upon it as a thing below them to observe this Form of Prayer. Again our Lord approved of a Form of prayer, by his using the Hymn called the Hallel with his Disciples at the Passover, Matt. 26.30. by his presence at the Forms used in the Jewish Service, V 44. and by his thrice repeating the same words, even when He used the greatest fervency in prayer. Now hence do naturally flow such Corollaries as evidently show the falsehood of the reasonings of the Dissenters against the lawfulness of Forms; as v. g. 1. Hence it follows that such Forms cannot be unlawful worship, forbidden by the Second Commandment, unless our Lord did both prescribe, and by his practice did approve unlawful worship. 2. Hence it must follow that the using of a Form can be no hindrance to our Devotion, attention, fervency in prayer, unless our Lord can be supposed to have prescribed that which was thus prejudicial to his Service. 3. Hence it will also follow that the using of a Form cannot be prejudicial to the duty of using our own Gifts: for had our Lord intended it to be the duty of all Ministers of the Gospel to use their own abilities in public prayer, in opposition to a Form, sure He himself would not have given them such a Form to be used in their public addresses to God; De Orat. Dom. p. 141. wherein saith Cyprian, we say, Our Father, because publica nobis est & communis oratio, it is our Common Prayer. 4. Hence it is evident, that praying by a Form is well consistent with praying by the Spirit; for otherwise our use of the Lords Prayer would be repugnant to prayer by the Spirit: Moreover the Saints of the Old Testament, and Christ himself and his Disciples prayed, as I have showed, by Forms; and yet dare any say they prayed not by the Spirit? yea all the Churches of Christ from the third Century, and the devoutest persons of all the following ages, have ever used Forms in public; and dare we say that none of all these Churches or persons ever prayed in public by the Spirit! yea do not France, Geneva, Holland, and almost all Reformed Churches pray by Forms; and when the Minister conceives a Prayer, is not that prayer a Form unto the people who are confined to pray according to the words he utters, as much as by the words prescribed by the Common Prayer? and yet dares any one affirm that all these pray without the Spirit of God? Argum. 3 But Thirdly, Forms of prayer have constantly been used, even by the confession of those who plead against them, throughout the universal Church of Christ from the Third Century, that is above 1300 years, and are retained and approved by almost all Reformed Churches; and therefore to condemn them as unlawful, forbidden by the Second Commandment, or by plain precept in the New Testament, as impediments to attention, and fervency in prayer, and to the exercise of the Gifts vouchsafed to the Ministers of Christ to fit them for the work; and lastly, as false and unacceptable worship, is to cast all these reproaches on the whole Church of Christ for so long time at least, and to charge all her eminent and pious Clergy as persons guilty, through their whole lives, of tendering to God a false, forbidden worship, and being always guilty, in their public service of him, of all the crimes forementioned; which, Nam hoc quin ita faciendum sit, disputare, insolentissimae insaniae est. Ep. 118. p. 558. D. as St Austin truly saith, is such a charge as will pronounce the Authors of it guilty of the most insolent madness. The confessions of Dissenters to this effect may be seen in Smectymnuus * Answ. to the Remonstr. p. 7. p. 11. Thes. Salm. part 3. loc. come. 47. N. 49. , and the grand debate, and the Assertion of Capellus, that the use of public forms obtained in the Universal Church through the whole world for above 1300 years, will be made good from these considerations: 1. That even Pliny † Epist. l. 10. ep. 97. apud Euseb. l. 7. c. 30. p. 281. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. doth inform us that the Christians in his time did sing an Hymn to Christ as God. That Dionysius of Alexandria makes mention of the Hymns used by the Christians in his time; now these were Forms of Prayer or Praises. De Orat. Dom. p. 152. That Cyprian doth sufficiently intimate the use of some Forms in the Carthaginian Church, by describing the entrance, or beginning thereof, saying, Sursum corda, Lift up your hearts; and the people Answering, Habemus ad Dominum, We lift them up unto the Lord. That Eusebius informs us concerning Constantine, that he would take Books in his hands for the expressing with his Court 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, De vita Constant. l. 4. c. 17. the appointed Prayers; and that he by so doing ordered his Court 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the manner of the Church of God. That the Council of Laodicea decreed, that there should be always the very same Service of Prayers Morning and Evening; i. e. that there should be the same Morning Service, Can. 18. and the same Evening Service continually, And to assure us that the Council had a particular respect to FOrms of Prayer then in use in the next Canon, Can. 19 it gives an account of some part of the order of that Service, viz. that after the Sermon, or Homily they had first the Prayer for the Catechumeni, than the Prayer for the Penitents, than three Prayers for the Faithful. And that this Canon was received into the Code of Canons of the universal Church, which was cited, confirmed, and established in the General Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451. Can. 1. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the three prayers of the faithful were then so well known, L. 2. cap. 59 that in the constitutions of the Apostles they are represented, as saying the three Prayers standing every Lord's Day, without reciting what they were. That when Paulus Samosatenus, about the year 262. Euseb. ubi supra. took away the Psalms and Hymns which had been used to be sung in the Church, pretending they were new and made by men of later date, by a numerous Council called at Antioch, he was censured for it, and cast out of the Church of God. Lastly, that whereas the Constitutions Apostolical were first composed, saith our incomparably Learned Bishop Pearson, from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vindic. Ignat. p. 60, 61, 62. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the instructions, orders and constitutions made by Apostles, and Apostolic men, much changed indeed and interpolated; in the seventh and eighth Books of those Constitutions, we find Forms of prayers under their names, for all Church Offices, for the Catechumeni, the Baptised, the Penitents, the Faithful, the Ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, the Celebration of the Lords Supper: So that unless this whole eighth Book be wholly spurious, and not only interpolated, Haer. 45. n. 5.11, 12.80. n. 7. we must have evidence of Forms of prayer like ours, still used in the Church, not only from the Fourth Century, when Epiphanius citys thess constitutions, but even from the days of the Apostles; and haply these were the Liturgies of the Apostles so much spoken of, and since so much increased. §. 8 Moreover, to convince men from plain evidence of reason in this matter, it only will be needful to advertise them. 1. That all premeditated Prayer in which we do consider what to say, and in what words we should express our thoughts to God, is in effect a stinted prayer; for it is not the Writing, or the Printing, but the ordering and composing of the words which makes the Prayer a Form: if therefore this be be done before we pray, our prayer must be a Form. 2. This being so, the true state of the Question can be only this, whether in our addresses to the most immense, infinite, eternal God, we should use consideration, or pray and praise him inconsiderately? Whether we should deliberate, and take good heed that we offend not with our tongues, or speak without deliberation whatsoever cometh first into our thoughts? Hos. 14.2. Whether we should take unto ourselves words, and speak unto him, as the Prophet Hoseah doth advise; or should present ourselves before him not knowing what to say? And for our better satisfaction the Wise man doth advise us, Eccles. 5.2. not to be rash with our mouths, nor let our hearts be hasty to utter any thing before God; and that for an eternal reason, viz. because God is in Heaven and we are on Earth. Now what man in the world is hasty to offer any thing before God, if he be not, who prays ex tempore, or who speaks rashly with his mouth, if he doth not who speaks without deliberation or consideration what to say? Secondly, our own experience will inform us how natural it is to all mankind to take such good advice before hand, when they present their thanks, or their petitions to an Earthly Prince, as may secure them that they deliver their requests in grave and decent Forms of words; and can it therefore stand with the reverence we own to the most Glorious Majesty of Heaven and Earth, to use to him what we durst not present unto a Prince or prudent Governor, in such a serious matter as aught to be the subject of our Prayers? This is the Argument by which God pleads against the lame and the imperfect sacrifices of his people, saying, if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if you offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? Mal. 1.8. offer it now unto thy Governor, will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? implying that the great King of Heaven and Earth must be served with the best sacrifices we can tender to him, and therefore with the best prayers and praises which we can conceive; and that what earthly Princes may slight as beneath them, must be unworthy to be offered to the King of Kings. Moreover, if we compare together both these kinds of prayer by Form, and by extemporary effusions, we shall find the former to be more expedient in our public Worship, for several momentous reasons concerning both ourselves and others. For 1. The Apostle doth require us, 1 Cor. 14.15. and even reason doth inform us, that we should pray with the understanding, and that we cannot say Amen to that Prayer we understand not; now what assurance can the people have in joining with a Minister who prays ex tempore, and oft in mystical expressions of the Old Testament, that he shall understand the meaning of his words? whereas, if constant Liturgies be used, we may be well assured, by our own reading, or by the information of others, of the meaning of them. 2ly, The Apostle intimates, that 'tis the duty of the hearer to say Amen to the Prayers offered up in public, and indeed otherwise we cannot well be said to join with the Minister in Prayer; now this we cannot do sincerely, unless we do approve the matter of the Prayer; now what assurance can the people have, in that great difference of judgements and opinions that there is among us, and that great liberty men take to vent their private sentiments in Prayer, when they are not restrained, that they shall honestly be able to say Amen to a conceived Prayer; whereas in a set Form of Liturgy this inconvenience is avoided, seeing we know before hand, to what we are to say Amen; and therefore if we do not like it, may absent ourselves. 3ly, How can we solicit any persons, or persuade any strangers to come to our Churches, or join in Communion with us, where we cannot promise them that the Devotions to be used there shall be innocent; we cannot show them how we worship God, and thereby put them in a condition to judge for themselves, or promise them, as in the Primitive Church they might, whilst prayer by the Spirit lasted, that all our prayers shall be agreeable unto the mind of God; or how can this be done without producing some prescribed Form by which we pray. This seems to be one reason why all the Churches of the World have had their public Forms of prayer, that they might let every-body know how God is served by them. And why the best men in the Reformed Churches have wished those happy days might come, Thes. Salm. de Liturg. part 3. n. 46. in which the same Form of Divine Worship might be observed in the Church, and all her members with one heart and mouth might glorify God, that so the unity of the spirit, and charity among Believers, might be preserved as far as may be. 4ly, By set Forms many mischiefs are prevented, to which conceived prayer doth stand obnoxious; for hereby care is taken, that nothing, through the ignorance of some, or the negligence of others, should be offered up to God, which is contrary to the Faith, or unworthy of his Divine Majesty; on which account, it was long since resolved by the Milevitan Council, Cap. 12. that no prayers should be used in the Church, but those which had been weighed by the most prudent, or approved in a Synod. And this the wisdom of the Heathens saw, whence Plato adviseth, De. Legibus l. 7. that whatsoever prayers or Hymns, the Poets composed to the Gods, they should first show them to the Priests before they published them, lest they should ask evil things instead of good. L. 4. c. 17. And Alexander ab Alexandro saith, that the Gentiles read their prayers out of a book before their sacrifices; ne quid preposterè dicatur, that nothing might be spoken preposterously, which two may pass for Christian Reasons, as seasonable with us as they were among them, these times being very subject to these infirmities, as our experience hath too sadly found. 5ly. Our Saviour saith, Matt. 18.19, 20. where two or three were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, agreeing in the same voice, to request any thing, it should be granted; and the Apostle prays, Rom. 15.6. that with one mouth as well as heart we may glorify God: now sure there is more Symphony in a good Form of prayer, jointly put up by a whole Nation, than there would be in men's extemporary effusions, and in it we may be better said to glorify God with one mouth, than by the great variety of prayers conceived; and so the use of well composed Forms in public Worship, are upon this account to be preferred before extemporary effusions. And, Lastly, To confess my own infirmities, I find one great advantage in a form of prayer, that being naturally thoughtful and apt to make deductions from what I read or hear, I very often make some observations from the Psalms, and Lessons of the day, as I attend unto them, and my thoughts eagerly pursuing them, my Devotions are too often interrupted with wand'ring thoughts, which though they may be pious in themselves, yet must be my infirmities, as far as they withdraw my heart from diligent attention to the prayers than put up to God: Now when this happens to me, whilst others are using their conceived prayers, I know not what are the desires I have neglected, and so I cannot, when I recall myself, offer up those desires to God, begging his pardon for my wander; but when I find my thoughts thus wand'ring in any part of the Church Service, I presently recollect where they began to wander, what the petitions were which thus escaped me; and either presently, if I have any opportunity, or when I make up my accounts with God in my retirements, I humbly offer them up to God, beseeching his forgiveness of my wand'ring thoughts. This to me seems a kind of satisfaction made to my good God, and is a satisfaction to my mind; and therefore whatsoever others may think of it, it seems to me no small advantage of a Form above a new conceived prayer, though no man that I know of hath taken any notice of it; since therefore by the use of Forms we may best pray with understanding, and more securely and assuredly may join with him that doth officiate, and say Amen to his petitions; since hereby others may be assured beforehand, that they can join sincerely with us in the public service, and may particularly prepare their hearts beforehand so to do. Seeing hereby the benefit which is promised to the Church, from the Symphony of her petitions is best acquired, and both people and Ministers may be relieved best against their various distractions; and seeing hereby all unbecoming scandalous expressions, which disturb the most devout, and minister occasion of derision to the loser Christian, are, in the most considerable and solemn parts of Divine Worship best prevented; seeing a Form may be used, no probability of any prohibition of them being made apparent, and Christians stand bound to yield obedience to their Superiors in lawful matters; seeing a Form must be used in our public Prayers, by virtue of our Lords command, to say Our Father, and in our public Hymns and Psalmody, by reason of our inability to conceive them suddenly; and lastly, seeing the whole Church of God, hath constantly used Forms in the performance of her public service, for thirteen hundred Years; upon all these accounts, I think it is highy convenient, that they should be retained in the Church of God, especially if we consider that our Church doth not wholly exclude the use of any Ministers pretended gift in this kind, but gives him liberty to use it both before, Dr. Whitnal of Gifts in public; Worship, p. 48. and after Sermon, provided we acknowledge this habit to be what it is, and use it according to the Laws of God, with reverence to the Divine Majesty; and care we speak not unadvisedly of him, or to him, according to the Laws of the Church, with sobriety, modesty, peaceableness and order, so as not to disturb or divide the Church, by bringing thereby the public and stated order into disesteem; and finally, with justice to ourselves, and the common Christianity, so as not to make this the sole way of praying in a due or Christian sort, and by a disuse of any other, to incapacitate our own and our admirers devotions for the other, and make both ourselves and them uncharitably censorious of all Forms of Prayer, and those who use them, that is of the whole Catholic Church, except a new and inconsiderable party. CHAP. XI. The Contents. The Proposition, That there is nothing in the Liturgy prescribed by the Church of England, to which her Lay Communicants may not yield obedience. The general Objections against it Answered, are 1. That the phrase throughout the several Offices is such, as presumes all persons in the Communion of the Church to be regenerate, and in an actual state of Grace, §. 1. The falseness of which suggestion is showed in ten instances, and the phrase of the Liturgy is justified from like expressions of the Holy Scripture. ibid. 2. Obj. That the people do not only say, Amen, but bear a part in the Prayers. Answ. This is justified from the practice of the Jews, and Primitive Christians, and the benefit of so doing, §. 2. 3. That the same Prayers are oft repeated, which seems to be the vain Repetition forbidden by Christ, Matth. 6.7, 8. Answ. These Repetitions are justified from Scripture-Examples, and the practice of Christ, §. 3. Objections against several parts or expressions of the Liturgy Answered; As 1. That in several parts of the Liturgy all profess to put their trust in God; whereas it is to be feared that many in our Congregations do not so, §. 4. 2. That we all profess to Repent and be hearty sorry for our sins. We all say on Sexagesima Sunday, that God seethe that we put no trust in any thing that we do; after the Communion we all give thanks to God that he hath assured us of his favour and goodness to us: And in the Third Collect after Trinity we all profess that God hath given us an hearty desire to pray; which professions cannot be thus generally made in truth, §. 5.3. That we pray that God would give to all Nation's Unity, Peace, and Concord; that he would save among the remnant of true Israelites, all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics; that he would have mercy upon all men: which petitions cannot be put up in Faith, there being no promise of so large extent in Scripture, §. 6.4. That we pray to God to secure, help, and comfort all that are in danger, necessity, and tribulation; to preserve all that travail by land, or by water, all Women labouring of child, all Prisoners and Captives; and so we pray for Robbers, Pirates, Whores, etc. §. 7. Some passages in the Liturgy which seem obscure, or Metaphorical, explained: As 1. There is no health in us. 2. Give peace in our time, O Lord: Because there is no other that fighteth for us but only thou, O God. 3. Lighten our darkness. 4. From Fornication, and all other deadly sins. 5. From sudden Death, Good Lord deliver us. 6. By the Mystery of thy Holy Incarnation, by thy Holy Nativity and Circumcision, and by the coming of the Holy Ghost: Good Lord deliver us. 7. That our bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed by his most precious blood. 8. That God by the Baptism of his Wellbeloved Son, did sanctify water to the mystical washing away of Sin. 9 The Prayer after the Fourth Commandment, Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this Law. 10. With this Ring I the Wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly Goods I thee endow, §. 8. The Conclusion. THAT there is nothing in the stinted Liturgy prescribed by the Church of England, to which her Lay Communicants may not yield obedience, or which can render their Communion with her sinful, or unlawful to them. As will be evident by answering the scruples Dissenters do suggest against the whole, or any portion of that Service in which they are obliged to join with us. And to begin with the Objections which respect the whole body of the Liturgy, §. 1 1. It is Objected, That in the whole Common Prayer there is not any Petition or Confession which imports any doubt, Dr. Chambers paper of unaffected scruples. or fear that any of those who join in that Service are in a state of unregeneration, or enmity to God; whereas there are many in our Congregations, of whom the Lord hath cause to complain, as of the Jews, that they hold fast deceit, and refuse to return, Jer. 3.5.11.15. To this effect runs the Objection of the Commissioners at the Savoy, viz. P. 7. That throughout the several Offices, the phrase is such, as presumes all persons within the Communion of the Church to be regenerated, converted, and in an actual state of Grace: which had Ecclesiastical discipline been truly and vigorously executed, in the exclusion of scandalous and obstinate sinners, might be better supposed; but there having been, and still being a confessed want of that, as in the Liturgy is acknowledged, it cannot rationally be admitted in the outmost latitude of Charity. Answer. This plainly seems to be a great mistake, or false suggestion against the frame and constitution of our Liturgy. For, 1. The Sentences of Scripture appointed to be read at the beginning of Morning and Evening Prayer, are fitted to the state of unregenerate and wicked persons, and call upon them to turn from their wickedness that they have committed, Ezek. 18.27. and do that which is lawful and right; that they may save their souls alive. To rend their hearts, Joel 2.13. Dan. 9.9, 10. and turn unto the Lord their God: To acknowledge that they have rebelled against the Lord their God: And have not obeyed the voice of the Lord, to walk in his ways which he set before them. Luke 15, 18, 19 And that they have sinned against their heavenly Father, so as to be no more worthy to be called his servants. 2. The Exhortation calls upon them to confess their manifold sins and wickednesses; and not to dissemble or cloak them— but confess them with an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; to the end, that they may obtain forgiveness of the same, through God's infinite goodness and mercy; and so it manifestly doth suppose, that many of them who are thus exhorted, have not yet obtained forgiveness of their sins. 3. The General Confession doth acknowledge that we are miserable offenders, and that there is no health in us; and prays that God would restore them that are penitent, according to his promises declared to mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord; and so suggests that they have need of Repentance to interest them in those promises. 4. The Absolution gins with a declaration that God desires not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live: adding that God will pardon and absolve all those that truly repent; and therefore calls upon us to beseech him to grant us true repentance, and his Holy Spirit, and doth suppose that many present want the grace of true Repentance, and the sanctifying operations of the Spirit. 5. The Venite, or Psalm first read unto the people, exhorts them not to harden their hearts— lest God should swear in his wrath that they should not enter into his rest. 6. The Litany prays for mercy upon us miserable sinners; for deliverance from Hypocrisy, and all other deadly sins, from hardness of heart, and contempt of God's word and Commandments; and begs that God would give us true Repentance. 7. There is a Prayer appointed to be used before the two final Prayers of Morning and Evening Service, desiring that though we be tied and bound with the chain of our sins, we may be loosed from them by God's mercy. 8. The Prayer to be said during the time of Advent, is, that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light: the Prayer to be said every day in Lent, begs, that God would create and make in us new and contrite hearts. 9 The Exhortation to the Communion supposeth, that many of the Congregation to which it is read, are grievous sinners who have need to repent and amend before they come unto the table; that many of them may be Blasphemers of God, or hinderers and slanderers of his word, Adulterers, or such as live in malice, envy, or other grievous sins. And therefore they are charged not to come unto that Table, till they have repent of them. Lastly, The Church hath appointed her Office of Commination on purpose to awaken such notorious Sinners to Repentance. Let therefore any reasonable person judge whether there be no Petition or Confession in the Common Prayer, which imports any doubt, or fear, that any who join in our Service may be unregenerate? whether there be no Prayer made to the Lord with special relation to such persons? or whether the whole phrase of all our Offices be such as presumes all persons within the Communion of the Church to be regenerate, as is suggested? and whether it be not matter of just admiration, that such exceptions as are so grossly, and manifoldly false, should with such confidence be made against our Liturgy. Add to this that all our Congregations being mixed of good and bad, it seemeth to have been great wisdom in our Church, that she hath so composed her Confessions and Petitions, as that they may be applicable in some good sense to both; and therefore they betray their ignorance and folly, who upon this account do blame her. 2. N. 15. To this Objection it is Answered by our Commissioners, That the Church in her Prayers useth no more offensive phrase than St. Paul useth when he writes, Rom. 1.7. to all that are in Rome, beloved of God, Saints called. Giving thanks to God for them all, vers. 8. telling them that they were grafted into the good Olive tree; 17. and were partakers of its root and fatness; that they stood by Faith, Rom. 11.17. vers. 20. that they had obtained mercy, vers. 30. To the Church of God in Corinth, the sanctified in Christ Jesus, 1 Cor. 1.2. the Saints called, giving thanks to God who had enriched them in all wisdom and knowledge. So that they came behind in no gift, V 5, 7: waiting for the revelation of Jesus Christ; and saith unto them, all are yours, and you are Christ's; Chap. 3.22, 23. V 16. Chap. 6.15. 1 Cor. 3.13. Chap. 4.6. Chap. 6.8. that they were the Temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwelled in them; that their bodies were the members of Christ, of some of whom he, notwithstanding, saith, that they were carnal; that they were puffed up one against another; that they did wrong and defrauded even their brethren; that they walked not charitably, chap. 8. that some of them were guilty of Idolatry, and partaking of the table of Devils, chap. 10. that they came together to the Lords Table for the worse, not for the better; that some of them were drunken, did eat and drink unworthily, not discerning the Lords Body, and that for this cause many were weak, and many sick among them, and many fallen asleep, chap. 11. 1 Cor. 15.12. that some of them said there was no resurrection of the dead; that some of them did look on the Apostles as men who walked after the flesh; that he was afraid of them, 2 Cor. 10.2. lest that as the serpent had deceived Eve, so their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity of Christ; Chap. 11.3. Chap. 12.20, 21. that he was afraid, lest when he came unto them, he should find them such as he would not; lest there should be among them wrath, contentions, etc. To the Saints in Ephesus, Eph. 1.1, 4, 5.13. and the faithful in Christ Jesus elected before the world, predetermined to sonship, sealed with the spirit of promise, with many other things of a like nature, which he, without distinction, speaketh of them. To the Saints in Coloss, Coloss. 1.2, 5, 8.3.— 12. and to the faithful brethren in Christ Jesus; And notwithstanding there were many, who by their known sins declared themselves to be otherwise, yet he gives the denomination to the whole from the greater part, to whom in charity it was due, and puts the rest in mind what they have by their Baptism undertaken to be, and what they profess themselves to be; and our Prayers, and the phrase of them surely suppose no more, than that they are Saints by calling, sanctified in Christ Jesus, by their Baptism admitted into Christ's congregation, and so to be reckoned members of that society, till either they shall separate themselves by wilful schism, or be separated by legal excommunication. Now to this it is replied, That there is a great difference between the titles given to the whole Church from the better part, Reply. Reply to the Comiss. p. 45. and the titles given to individual members, where there is no such reason, that a field may be called a cornfield, though there be tares in it, but none of these tares may be called by the name of corn; that they will not persuade the people, that every notorious drunkard, fornicator, worldling, etc. that is buried, is a Brother, of whose resurrection to life eternal, we have sure and certain hope. Answer. I am humbly confident, that no one instance of this nature can be produced, where any individual member of our Church, Dr. Combers Comp. part. 4. p. 474, 475. who is notoriously wicked, is represented as a Saint, or a regenerate person; We bury those who do departed this life, in sure and certain hope of the resurrection in the general, not of the resurrection of the deceased person in particular, to life eternal; and though the common use of the word eternal life, apply it to the better part, yet the word strictly considered, signifies both the state of the good and evil after the Resurrection; and so it is expounded by those who consider it in the Creed, and therefore may be used here in same latitude. 3ly, If any large expressions were used in our Liturgy concerning wicked men, they might be justified by our Lord's Parable, which calls the man who had not on his wedding garment, friend, Matt. 22.12. because by coming to the wedding supper he professed himself a Friend; by his saying to the Traitor Judas, Matt. 26.50. friend wherefore art thou come? when he professed friendship to him by a Kiss; by St. Paul's saying to the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 12.27. that they were the body of Christ, and members in particular; and to the Galatians, Gal. 3.26, 27, 28. ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus; for as many as are baptised into Christ, have put on Christ, you are all one in Christ Jesus: and many other like expressions. Object. 2 2ly, It is objected, that the Apostle Paul setting out a meet Form of Congregational Praises, and by proportion of Prayers also, showeth that it is the will of the God of Order, that for order's sake one should be as the mouth of the Congregation to speak for them, and from them to the Lord, and the rest give their assent by yielding their Amen to what is spoken by him; but the Common-Prayer Book proceeding much in another Form, ordereth all the people syllabically to repeat many petitions after the Minister, as if they did not acknowledge him to be their mouth to God. Thus also do the Presbyterian Commissioners except, P. 4. desiring that the repetitions and responsals of the Clerk and People may be omitted, the Minister being appointed for the people in all public services appertaining to God, and the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, intimating the people's part in public prayers, to be only with silence and reverence to attend thereunto, and to declare their consent in the close by saying Amen. Answ. 1 That the Apostle showeth that it is the will of God, that one should so be the mouth of the Congregation in her Prayers and Praises, as that the rest should only say Amen, cannot be proved; for in the place referred to, viz. 1 Cor. 14.16. the Apostle only intimates, that at least the Idiot should say Amen, not that he may never say more. 2ly, He speaketh there not of the ordinary service to be continued always in the Church, but of extraordinary Prayers and Blessings performed by the gift of tongues, to which indeed it was impossible, the people, who were not inspired as the speaker was, should do more than say Amen, as in prescribed Forms they may. 3ly, that this was not the only Form for Congregational Praises, is evident because they had their Tehillim, or Psalms of Praises, which they sang together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eph. 5.19. saith Paul; sibi invicem canentes, saith Pliny, singing one to, and with another. Answ. 2 Though in those parts of Liturgy which are employed in benediction, consecration, or administration of the Sacraments, or in the exercise of the power of the Keys, it is reasonable that the people should not bear a share, because all these are acts appropriated to the Ministerial Office; yet do I see no reason, why they who are to join with the Minister in Prayer, and who are a spiritual Priesthood, 1 Pet. 2.5, 9 to offer such spiritual Sacrifices to God, should bear no share in uttering any part thereof, to signify the joint consent and union of their Spirits with him in that duty, but rather much to plead in favour of the custom of our Church, 1. From examples of such Responsals and Petitions occasionally used in the Jewish Church: for as the Psalmist in the general doth call upon all men to exalt God's name together; so, Psal. 34.3. though the Levites were appointed to sing in the Public Service, yet did the people also praise the Lord, and say, For his mercy endureth for ever, 2 Chron. 7.3. Moreover, De vita Mosis l. 3. Philo Judaeus doth inform us that the Song of Miriam was uttered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with alternate melodies; and the words in the Seventy plead fairly for the same; for thus they run, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Exod. 15.21. and Miriam began unto them, saying, Let us sing: and of the Essenes', he saith, Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 17. p. 57 vid. Philon. de vit. contempl. non procul à fine. That the Precedent of them standing up, sung an Hymn composed in praise of God, and after him did others, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in their orders, in convenient manner; and when they come unto the close of the Hymns, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than all both Men and Women sing together. So of Judith it is said, Judith 16.1. That she began her Confession to all Israel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and all the people sang after her the same Song. 2. Because this practice hath obtained from the purest Ages of the Church, this custom being introduced, saith Socrates, L. 6. c. 8. by the great Ignatius, did universally obtain; on which account Eusebius concludeth of the Essenes', Ibid. that they must be Christians because they sang by turns, answering one another: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orat. 3. p. 107. And Gregory Nazianzen saith, That Julian the Apostate, in imitation of the Christians, did appoint among the Heathens, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Form of Prayer to be said in parts. Moreover in the Constitutions, styled Apostolical, we find this injunction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 2. c. 57 l. 8. c. 5. that one should sing the Psalms of David, and that the people should sing after the ends of the verses; that they should all answer, and with thy Spirit; that they should servently pray for those that are baptised thus, Lord have mercy upon them; Cap. 8. Save them, O God, and lift them up by thy mercy, that when the Priest hath said, Cap. 12. lift up your hearts, they should Answer, We lift them up unto the Lord; when he saith, Let us give thanks unto the Lord, they should Answer, Adding that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ep. 63. ad Cler. Neocaes. It is meet and right so to do, that they should all say, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts, Heaven and Earth is full of thy Glory; that when the Bishop said, Holy things to holy persons, they should all Answer, There is one Holy, one Lord, one Jesus Christ to the Glory of God the Father blessed for evermore, Amen. St. Basil tells us, That in his time they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sing alternately; and then permitting one to begin the melody, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the rest sing after him. Athanasius, Apol. de suga, p. 717. that he commanded the Deacon to read the Psalm, and the people to Answer, For his mercy endureth for ever. Sozomen saith, that they who were skilful, l. 5. c. 19 were Praecentors, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that the multitude answered by consent. And lastly, Chrysostom saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. 36. in. 1 Ep. ad. Cor. p. 487. l. 3.24. 484. l. 5. that one may be said to sing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though all sing after him, so that the voice comes as it were from one mouth; all which testimonies sufficiently convince us that what we do in this particular, is suitable to the practice of the whole Church of God in Ancient times. 3. This custom doth commend itself unto us from the consideration of the benefit which may accrue unto us by it: For, 1. We hereby show that Symphony which Christ requires in our prayers, Matt. 18.19. that they may be prevailing, and that we fully do agree to the Petitions that are made in our behalf, Rom. 15.6. and praise God with the Minister, not only with one heart but with one mouth. 2. Our attention is hereby both quickened and engaged, which might be apt to stray the more, if we should bear no part in the whole Service; for when the people bear a share in the performance of this duty; Combers Comp. part. 1. p. 177. They must expect before it come, that they may be ready; when it is come, they must observe that they may be right; and after, take heed to prepare against the next Answer they are to give. How pious therefore and prudent is this order of the Church, thus to intermix the people's duty, that they may be always exercised in it, or preparing for it, and never have leisure to entertain those vain thoughts which will set upon us especially in the house of God, if we have nothing to do. Object. 3 Our Saviour reprehends the vain Repetitions of the Heathens in these words, When you pray, §. 3 use not vain repetitions as the Heathens do, for they think to be heard for their much speaking; be not ye therefore like unto them, Matt. 6.7, 8. Now of these vain repetitions the Common Prayer seems to be guilty, say Dissenters, 1. In the frequent use of the Lords Prayer, that being there appointed to be used four times in the Morning Service, viz. after the Absolution, the Creed, the Litany, and in the beginning of the Communion Service. 2. In those words used in the close of the Litany, O Christ hear us; Lord have mercy upon us; Christ have mercy upon us; Lord have mercy upon us; and in the frequent repetitions of the Gloria Patri. To this Objection I Answer, Answ. 1 That our Saviour cannot be supposed to reprehend such repetitions as these are, proceeding from a fervency of Spirit: 1. Because he himself used the like expressions when He prayed most fervently; for the Evangelist St. Luke informs us, That being in an Agony, he prayed more earnestly, Luk. 22.44. And Matthew doth assure us that He repeated thrice the same Petition, for he (saith Matthew) prayed the third time, saying the same words, Chap. 26. vers. 44. This therefore cannot be vain Repetition, unless our Lord himself did practise it in contradiction to his own command. Moreover our Saviour sung an Hymn with his Disciples at the conclusion of the Sacrament according as the Jews were wont to do at their Paschal Supper, Censent viri eruditi cantatos à Christo hymnos qui paschate cani solerent, à Psal. 113. ad Psal. 118. inclusiué. Synopsi. Cum in plurali dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, inde colligi ipsos una hymnum omnibus notum cecinisse, & quomodo Christo accinere potuissent discipuli si ille novum & insuetum hymnum cecinisset? Buxt. de coen. Dom. §. 84. which Hymn began at Psal. 113. and ended with the 118 Psalms: This, saith the Learned Buxtorf, was a very Ancient custom mentioned in the Jewish Talmud, and there delared to be prescribed by the Prophets. Now that our Saviour sung this very Hymn is highly probable, say the Learned, because he did in other things comply with the Rites used by the Jews in celebrating of the Paschal Supper, and therefore may be well supposed to have done so also in this Case. Now in this Hymn Psal. 118. we find the same words in the four first Verses, viz. for his mercy endureth for ever, parallel to those in the end of our Litany, and in the last Verse, we find the same words again, and indeed the whole Psalm is full of Repetitions, as you may see v. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. as also Psal. 115.9, 10, 11, 12. The sweet Singer of Israel affords us many like Examples, so, Psal. 119. we have this Prayer, teach me thy statutes, v. 26, 64, 68, 124, 135. teach me the way of thy statutes, v. 33. teach me thy judgements, v. 108. O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes, v. 5. make me to go in the path of thy commandments, v. 35. let my heart be sound in thy statutes, v. 80. so that upon the matter we find him ten times repeating the same thing. Six times, in the same Psalm, he prays that God would quicken him according to his word, and loving kindness, viz. v. 37. 88 107. 149. 156. 159. And he professes his love of, and delight in God's Law in the same Psalm as oft as there be Letters in the Alphabet. In Psalm 42, 43. which are assuredly twins, their matter being alike, and they having no title to distinguish them, we find the same thing thrice repeated, viz. why art thou cast down O my soul, etc. Psal 42.5, 11.43.5. In Psal. 107. we find this Prayer four times repeated, Oh that men would therefore praise the Lord for his goodness, viz. v. 8, 15, 21, 31. and lastly in Psalm 136. we find these words, O Give thanks unto the Lord, for his mercy endureth for ever, four times repeated, and that Clause, for his mercy endureth for ever, twenty six times. To these Examples it is Answered, Reply. Presb. Commission, p. 85. that there is a great difference betwixt what is unusual, and what is our daily course of worship. Answer. Be it so, nevertheless once usage is sufficient to show that the thing cannot be unlawful, or forbidden by the Text forementioned, since Negative Precepts always do oblige, and so that which they forbidden can never be done without sin. 2. The Assemblies Annotations tell us that some of these were common constant forms as well for ordinary daily praises in divine service, as for extraordinary occasions, and this appears from 1 Chron. 16.34. where it is said that Heman and Jeduthun, and other men were chosen to give thanks to the Lord, because his mercy endureth for ever. So also 2 Chron. 5.13. they praised the Lord saying, Psalm 136. for he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever. So Ezr. 3.1. they sang together in course, praising, and giving thanks to God because he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever. And Jer. 33.11. is mention made of them that should say praise ye the Lord, for the Lord is good, for his mercy endureth for ever, from all which places it seemeth evident that Psalm 136. as well as the Paschal Hymn was part of their usual devotions. 3. Whereas Dissenters say there is great difference betwixt a Psalm of praises, 〈◊〉 ● 15. and our ordinary Prayers, and that more liberty may be taken in Psalms and be an Ornament. (1.) This is said without proof, no reason being given why I may not say four times, Glory be to the Father, as well as, Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodness. 2. Some of the instances here given are of perfect Prayers, as those from Psalm 119. and our Divines acknowledge that thanksgiving is a part of Prayer: and 3. in the Prayer of Daniel we have the same thing four times repeated in three Verses, O our God hear the prayer of thy servant, ch. 9.17. O my God incline thine ear and hear, v. 18. O Lord hear, v. 19 whence this Conclusion will arise that the Repetitions used in our Church's Liturgy, cannot be charged as vain Repetitions, without reflecting upon the practice of our Lord and of the Royal Psalmist. Wherefore the thing reproved by our Lord under the name of vain repetition, and much speaking, is not all length of Prayer, or repetition of the same words from such a fervency of spirit as quickens and inflames devotion, but it is a lengthening out the time with tautologies, out of a vain Opinion, that we shall be heard for our much speaking, our frequent using the same words, and crying out from Morning unto Noon, O Baal hear us; 1 Kings 18.26. or for the multiplicity of words, the time, and labour which we spend in Prayer, though it be only the labour of the lip. The scruples which concern our Liturgy in general being thus dispatched, I proceed to the consideration of the Objections made against the several Portions of it, and of those more especially which do concern the daily or the weekly service of our Church, against which it is thus objected, viz. Object. 1 That whereas Christians are obliged to pray in Faith, §. 4 and utter words of truth in their addresses to God, there be many passages in our Liturgy which cannot be put up to him in faith and truth, as v. g. In the Te Deum it is said, O Lord in thee have I trusted; in the close of the Litany, Dr. Chambers. Let thy mercy O Lord be showed upon us, like as we put our trust in thee. In the form of the solemnisation of Matrimony, of Visitation of the sick, of Churching of Women, and in the Commination is appointed to be said, O Lord save thy servant, who putteth his trust in thee. Now, say Dissenters, putting trust in the Lord is one discriminating Character of Gods truly holy people, Psal. 34.8. Psal. 121.1. Nah. 1.7. in which number no man of understanding can conceive that all Married Persons, all Women delivered from Childbirth, all sick persons, yea all that join in our Congregational Worship, are to be ranked, who yet are plainly, and with personal particularity of times avouched to be persons trusting in the Lord; no Charity, say they, will justify these professions made with respect to particular persons, many of which persist in such ignorance and wickedness, as testifieth to their faces that they neither truly know, nor trust in the Lord their God. Answer. It is confessed even by those Dissenters who do thus object, that in public Prayers, made in a mixed Congregation, Dr. Chambers. it sufficeth that the words, though uttered in general forms, be suited to the state of some particulars in such Congregations, and indeed otherwise there could be no public professions of our sense of our sin and misery, our shame and sorrow for them, our repentance for our past sins; no professions of our good desires, no promises of amendment, or of a thankful remembrance of God's mercies, if he be pleased to vouchsafe them to us; no public thanks returned for spiritual mercies, for regenerating and sanctifying Grace; and no expressions of our hope, our faith, our trust in God: Whereas we find expressions of this nature frequent in the Holy Scriptures. As for instance, 1. By way of Confession and acknowledgement, our transgressions are with us, and as for our iniquities we know them, Esa. 59.12. We acknowledge, O Lord, our wickedness, and the iniquity of our Fathers, Jer. 14.20. 2. By way of promise of amendment, and that they will return no more to folly, Return we beseech thee O Lord God of Hosts, look down from heaven, behold and visit this Vine, Ps. 80.14. So will not we go back from thee, quicken us and we will call upon thy Name, v. 18. thus doth the Prophet Hoseah counsel all Israel to say, take away all iniquity and receive us graciously, so will we render thee the calves of our lips, Hos. 14.2. We will not say any more to the works of our hands, you are our Gods, v. 3. Help us O God of our salvation for the glory of thy name, Ps. 79.9. So we thy people, and sheep of thy pasture, will give thee thanks for ever, we will show forth thy praise to all Generations, Vers. 13. 3. By way of profession of their waiting upon him for mercy, Psal. 123.2. Behold as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their Masters, and as the eyes of a Maiden to the hand of her Mistress, so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God until that he have mercy upon us: where note that this is one of those Psalms of degrees which were sung before the people upon some Ascent or Desk, Vid. Hamm. in Psal. 120. and it is a profession that they all thus diligently waited upon God, therefore will we wait upon thee, for thou hast done all these things, saith Jeremiah, in the name of all Israel, Jer. 14.22. by profession of their steadfastness in God's service notwithstanding all the Calamities they suffered, thus the Psalmist, having complained that God had cast them off, caused their Enemies to triumph over them, given them to be eaten up, that he had given them up for a reproach and spoil unto the Heathens, and scattered them among them, etc. Psal. 44.9.16. He saith, all this is come upon us, yet have not we forgotten thee, nor have we dealt falsely in thy Covenant, our heart is not turned back, neither are our steps declined out of thy way, v. 17, 18. if then, according to these instances, the Jews in general might make profession of their diligent waiting upon God, of their steadfastness in his service under all Calamities, and of the undeclining straightness of their steps, if they might generally promise that they would not go back from God, that they would call upon his name (to the performance of which duty a promise of salvation is annexed Rom. 10.13. Act. 2.21.) that they will render him the calves of their lips, and will show forth his praise, though these things actually were done, these promises performed only by some, why may not we profess in general our trust in God, though some who do present themselves before him are defective in that Grace? why may not we say of our people, as David doth of his, let thy mercy O Lord be showed upon us, like as we put our trust in thee. Psalm 33.22. Secondly, I Answer that as there is a fear and a faith which in some is only temporary, and in others permanent. Exod. 14.31. Exod. 15 14. a joy which in some is only for a season, ●n others lasting, Luke 8.13, 16. a remembrance of God, and turning to him, and enquiring early after him, by men whose hearts are not right with him, nor are they steadfast to his Covenant, Psal. 78.34, 35, 37. as well as by those persons who perform these duties in sincerity, so is their a trust in God which is a discriminating mark of God's upright Servants, and a trust proper to such persons as have only some desires wrought within them to forsake their evil ways, and turn unto the Lord. Wherefore we say it is sufficient to justify the use of these Petitions that we in charity stand bound to judge that they who do present themselves to be partakers of these Ordinances, or call upon us to perform them, do indeed trust in God according to the exigency of their present state, viz. that wicked persons trust God will be merciful to them upon their repentance, and pious persons, that God will still continue his favour and his goodness to them. Object. 2 Thirdly, It is objected that those Prayers are appointed to be used by all, §. 5 which truly, and in faith can be said only by some few in our Assemblies, v. g. Dr. Chamber●. in the Communion Service it is said of all that do participate, we do earnestly repent, and are hearty sorry for these our misdoings, the remembrance of them is grievous to us, the burden of them is intolerable, and after the receiving of the Holy Sacrament, is this Prayer used, we most hearty thank thee for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed US, who have duly received these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of thy son, and dost assure us thereby of thy favour and goodness towards us, and that we are very members incorporate into the mystical body of thy son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people, and are also Heirs, through hope of thine everlasting Kingdom. Now, say Dissenters, how few there be of Communicants who do earnestly repent, and are hearty sorry for their misdoings, to whom the remembrance of them is grievous, the burden is intolerable; it is matter of lamentation to all men to consider, who behold the little amendment that is in their lives after the participation of the Holy Sacrament; nor can we apprehend how all Communicants can be warrantably directed to speak of themselves in God's presence as persons who have duly received the Holy Mysteries at God's Table, and are thereby assured of God's favour and goodness to them, etc. whereas it is a known Scripture truth that Men and Women may eat and drink at the Lords Table unworthily, and that they who do so, drink damnation to themselves, and that there are no such unworthy Receivers in our Congregations, no Charity should, or doth persuade any considerate person, betwixt God and his own Soul, to believe, as we ought to think charitably of others, so also to speak truly of ourselves, and not vainly to boast ourselves beyond our measure in the presence of the Lord. Moreover in the Prayer for Sexagesima Sunday, all present are directed to say, Lord God who seest that we put no trust in any thing that we do, whereas, say they, what roots and fruits of self dependence are in multitudes of our people the Lord seethe, and Ministers cannot but see great cause sadly to bewail, rather than to profess before the Lord that it is otherwise with them. In the Collect for the third Sunday after Trinity, all are directed to say, Grant that we to whom thou hast given an hearty desire to pray may by thy mighty aid be defended, whereas an hearty desire to pray is a special disposition of the renewed Children of God, Rom. 8.15. Act. 9.11. humbly to be prayed for, rather than boldly professed by many in our Congregations. Answ. In reference to this Petition, and that of duly receiving the Holy Mysteries, the Objector seems to be mistaken in putting an unnecessary sense upon them. For they are no profession that all present have this hearty desire, no intimation that all Communicants have duly received; but the first is only a Petition that as many as God hath given this hearty desire to, he would vouchsafe his aid, the other is only an intimation, with thanksgiving, that as many as duly receive may rest assured of God's favour and goodness towards them, etc. Moreover there are Prayers in Scripture so like these two, that the objections here produced against them seem as strongly to conclude against those Scripture Prayers. Thus Nehemiah saith, O Lord I beseech thee let thine ear be attentive to the prayer of thy servants who desire to fear thy name, Neh. 1.11. which is as much as this, to whom thou hast given a hearty desire to pray. And Daniel prayeth thus, concerning a people as prone to trust in their own righteousness as others are, we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousness, but for thy great mercies, Dan. 9.18. It therefore may not be denied but that in mixed Congregations men may be said to do what they do outwardly profess, and inwardly stand bound to do, and many of them truly in some good measure do. Thus Solomon declares, that it is better to go to the house of mourning than of feasting, for this is the end of all men, Eccles. 7.2. and the living will lay it to heart; and yet alas how few do so indeed? And God doth by his own Example teach us to judge thus charitably, for having sent his Son unto the Jews, Matt. 21.37. he saith, they will reverence my son, whereas these Murderers of the Lord of Life, did very scurvily express their reverence unto him. Answ. 2 Secondly, Such Arguments as these will not permit us to obey our Saviour's Precept by saying the Lords Prayer in public Congregations, in which too many cannot say Our Father, they being of their Father the Devil, too many cannot truly say that they forgive them that trespass against them; much less can they say it as St. Luke records it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for we forgive every one that is indebted to us, Luke 11.2. nor must we, if these niceties prevail, use in a mixed Assembly any expressions of our desires to repent, or to amend, or of our sorrow for our past offences, there being many, all too many, in them who are not truly sorry for them, nor do desire to reform them. Answ. 3 Besides what I have said to satisfy the former scruple, which is here applicable also, it may deserve to be observed farther, 1. That the Hallel was sung over at the Passover from Ps. 113. to Psal. 118. inclusiuè; and yet it cannot reasonably be thought that all the Jews could truly say all that those Psalms contained. Can they all say, I love the Lord because he hath heard my prayer, because he hath inclined his ear unto me, therefore will I call upon him as long as I live, v. 1, 2. return unto thy rest O my soul, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee. Psal. 116.7. I will pay my vows unto the Lord, v. 14. O Lord truly I am thy Servant, vers. 16. Can they all truly join in those expressions of the 118 Psalms, I called upon the Lord in distress; the Lord answered me and set me in a large place, vers. 5. The Lord is on my side, I will not fear what man can do unto me, vers. 6. The Lord is my strength, my song, and is become my salvavation, vers. 14. I will praise thee, for thou hast heard me; and art become my salvation, vers. 21. Thou art my God, and I will praise thee; thou art my God, I will exalt thee, vers. 28. If all these expressions would not suit with many of the Jews, who were all bound to celebrate the Passover, Leight. Temp. serve. p. 139. Buxt. exercit, de coen. Dom. §. 84. and so to join in singing of this Hymn; which by their Constitutions was not to be omitted; if lastly, Christ himself with Judas sung this Hymn, as most Interpreters conceive; then doubtless may such Hymns and Prayers be offered in a mixed Assembly, which do not properly agree to all who meet in that Assembly. Moreover the 92 Psalms was the Psalm used in the solemn Service of the Jews upon the Sabbath Day, as by the Title we may learn; and yet perhaps all of them could not truly say, the Lord is my rock, vers. 15. nor with good ground cry out, My horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an Unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh Oil. Mine eye also shall see my desire on mine Enemies, etc. vers. 10, 11. The 94 Psalms was sung, saith Dr. Lightfoot, every Wednesday; Temp. serve. p. 59 and yet it may be doubted whether all the Stationary men, and all that came unto the Temple Service, could say, When I said my foot slippeth, thy mercy, O Lord, held me up. In the multitude of my thoughts within me, thy comforts delight my soul, vers. 18, 19 much less, The Lord is my defence, and my God is the rock of my refuge, vers. 22. And therefore this can be no good exception against the Service of our Church, that every passage in it will not suit with the condition of all that hear it, or join in it. Object. 3 It is objected, That some petitions in the Common Prayer seem to be without any promise in the word, §. 6 Dr. Chambers. upon which to bottom them; That they may be put up in Faith, as when we are directed to pray that God would give unto all Nation's Unity, Peace, and Concord; for the word gives us no hope of any such state in the world, but teacheth us to expect the contrary, Gen. 3.15. Matt. 24.7. And when in the Collect on Good-Friday we are directed to pray, that God would have mercy on all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics; and take from them all ignorances', hardness of heart, and contempt of his word; and so fetch them home to his flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of true Israelites. Whereas the word, say they, gives us no hope of any such universal conversion to be obtained from the Lord; but assures us of multitudes of obstinate Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics among whom are such as sin against the Holy Ghost, Matt. 12.32. that they shall never be brought unto the fold of Christ, and be saved among the remnant of true Israelites; but that the Lord will be glorified in their justly deserved destruction; as may be seen Rom. 9.27. 2 Thess. 2.10, 11, 12. Rev. 13.16. compared with Revel. 14.9, 10. Such also, say they, is that petition that the Lord would have mercy upon all men, there being no promise in the word on which to found such a Petition, That the Lord would have mercy upon all men to Salvation. And since the Lord hath plainly declared in his word, That he will leave multitudes of the world to perish in their own ways and wickedness, to the glory of his justice; we see not, say they, how any, except the Origenists, can pray either in Faith or Hope, that the Lord would have mercy upon all men, when they know assuredly from his own mouth that he will not have mercy upon all men; but will make some the vessels of his wrath. We know from Scripture, that he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and the rest he hardeneth, Rom. 9.15, 18. by giving them up to their own hearts lusts, and leaving them to walk in their own Counsels, Psalms 81.2. Rom. 1.24. The Prophet David in Faith and Charity, no doubt, made his Prayer in direct contradiction to this general Prayer of our Liturgy, Psal. 59.4. And therefore we can look on this no otherwise than as a groundless Petition, which hath some shadow of Charity, but no substance of Faith or Hope in it; without which Prayer is weak and worthless before God, Jam. 1.6. Now to the first instance in this Objection, I Answer, Answ. 1 That this is an Objection against the general Petition of the whole Church of God, for the Liturgy of St. James runs thus, See Dr. Combers Compan. p. 126, 127, 128. we beg of thee, ut totus mundus pace fruatur, That the whole world may have Peace and Concord. The Liturgy of St Chrysostom, and Basil thus, We pray unto thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the Peace and Unity of the whole world. Secondly, It is prophesied of our Lord Jesus, That he should rule among the Nations, and cause them to beat their Swords into Ploughshares, and their Spears into Pruning-hooks; so that Nation should not rise up against Nation, neither should they learn War any more, Isa. 2.4. But shall sit every man under his own Vine, and under his own Figtree; and none should make them afraid, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it, Mich. 4.3, 4. For the accomplishment of which predictions surely we may pray in Faith, because the mouth of him that cannot lie hath spoken them. Again, the Lord hath promised, that none shall hurt in all his Holy Mountain; and that because the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the Earth, as the Waters cover the Sea, Isa. 11.9.65.25. Hab. 2.14. and therefore we may pray that this may be accomplished in all Christian Nations. 1 Tim. 2.1. Thirdly, Christianity was to be planted in all the Nations of the world by promise; and being planted so, all Christians are obliged by precept to pray for Kings and all that are in Authority; that under them they might live peaceable and quiet lives: Which could not be, if Peace and Concord could not obtain amongst those Nations where they dwell. That precept therefore doth in effect oblige us, to put up that Prayer which our Dissenters do except against. 'Tis true indeed so long as Satan and evil Men do sow the seeds of discord, this is an happiness scarcely to be expected; yet because it is an happiness to be wished for, and because God alone is able to procure it, we ought to beg it of him. In this distracted State of Christendom we have but slender expectations that she should be a City wholly at unity within herself; but yet I hope we may pray with our dear Lord, that they may be one, John 17.11, 21. that they may be made perfect in one, v. 23. and with blessed Paul, that they may be like minded one towards another according to Christ Jesus; Rom. 15.6. that they may with one mind and mouth glorify God. As to the second instance of the Good-Friday Collect, I answer, Answ. 2 That it doth perfectly accord with the devotion of the Ancient Church of Christ, See Comber, p. 139, 140. which put up their petitions for those that were without, and were deceived, that God would convert them; saith the Liturgy of Clemens, Sacram. p. 104. For Pagans, and the calling of the Gentiles; saith S. Ambrose and Gregory, * Praesules tota secum congemiscente Ecclesia postulant, & precantur, ut infidelibus donetur fides, ut Idololatrae ab impietatis suae liberentur erroribus, ut Judaeis, ablato cordis velamine, lux veritatis appareat, ut Haeretici Catholicae fidei perceptione resipiscant, ut schismatici spiritum redivivae charitatis accipiant. Gennad. de dogmat. Eccles. c. 30. For Heretics and Schismatics: so that to quarrel with this Form of Prayer, is to reproach the universal practice of the Church of Christ. Secondly, Since Scripture clearly saith, that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved, Rom. 11.25, 26. And that God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all, v. 32. seeing the Psalmist prays, Psal. 67.2. that God's way may be known upon Earth, his saving health among all Nations. Seeing the Prophet Isaiah doth foretell, that all the ends of the Earth shall see the salvation of God, Isai. 52.10. and the Divine, that all the kingdoms of the world, should become the kingdoms of the Lord, and of his Christ, Rev. 11.15. since God hath promised to give unto his Son the Heathen for his inheritance, Psal. 2.8. and the outmost part of the Earth for his possession, and sent this great diffusive light into the world, to enlighten every one that comes into the world, John 1.9. even those that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death, Luke 1.79. and to guide their feet into the way of peace. I say, seeing these things are so, I know not how we can scruple the praying for all Jews, Turks, Infidels, without disputing the veracity of these Divine Predictions, or the propriety of these Prayers. And yet if there were any need of a distinction, it is wonderful that they who do relieve themselves, when pressed hard with the evidence of Scripture, by the well known distinction of singula generum, and genera singulorum, will not allow the Church the benefit of that distinction, and suffer her to mean in this most charitable collect, All the Tribes or the dispersions of the Jews, all sorts of Infidels, all Nations professing themselves Servants of the great Prophet Mahomet, all Sects of Heretics, and then their little scruples will have no shadow of appearance left. To the third scruple, the Prayer continued in the Litany, that it may please God to have mercy upon all men, Answ. 3 I answer as before. First, L. 4. p. 152. That this also was the Prayer of the whole Church of Christ, in which pax cunctis & venia postulatur, saith Arnobius, whose Litany ran thus, pour out the riches of thy mercy upon all men and women; so the Liturgies of St. Basil, Quam legem supplicationis (sc. quâ preces fiunt pro omnibus hominibus) ita omnium sacerdotum, & omnium fidelium devotio concorditer tenet, ut nulla pars mundi sit in qua hujusmodi orationes non celebrentur à populis Christianis, de vocat. Gent. l. 1. c. 12. p. 798. Siquidem Apostolus cujus ista sententia est (ut omnes homines salvi fiant, Deum velle) sollicitissimè praecepti, quod in omnibus Ecclesiis piissimè custoditur, ut Deo pro omnibus hominibus supplicetur, Idem ad Object. Vincent. Ob. 2. p. 336. chrysostom,,, St. James. This rule of supplication, saith Prosper, the devotion of all Priests, and all the faithful, do so unanimously observe, that there is no part of the world, wherein such prayers are not celebrated by Christian people; and therefore they cannot be scrupled or pronounced disagreeable to the mind of God in Scripture, without accusing the whole Church of Christ, as being guilty of that crime. Secondly, Seeing the Royal Psalmist saith, that God is good to every man, and that his tender mercies are over all his works, Psal. 145.9. and the Apostle, that he is the Saviour of all men, 1 Tim. 4.10. I rather think with the Apostle, that it is very sit, that prayers, intercessions, 1 Tim. 2.1. and giving of thanks be made for all men; and that this, notwithstanding the exceptions of Dissenters, is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved, v. 3, 4. Moreover, must not all faithful Pastors pray that God would bless their labours, and render them successful to the salvation of them that hear them; and if this may be done acceptably, why may they not then pray thus for all the members of other Congregations? doth not God peremptorily command all men in all places to repent? Acts 17.30. and may we not then pray that all may do what he commandeth? yea, doth not God himself thus wish concerning them, whose carcases fell in the wilderness through unbelief; O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and their Children for ever, Deut. 5.29. and of them who walked after their own lusts: O that they were wise, that they would consider this; that they would understand their latter end, Deut. 32.29. And may not Christians comply with the example of their God, and wish what he doth wish? or can such wishes be contrary to his dispensations of hardening obstinate and stubborn sinners? Dr. Comber. Having then so good Authority, so great Examples, and so excellent Reason for this Universal Charity, we ought not to be moved at the trifling objections of those men who scruple this Petition, because it will not suit their systems of absolute Election and Reprobation. And truly it is no wonder if they who believe the greatest part of mankind condemned from all Eternity by absolute decrees, cannot hearty pray for the conversion of all men; since this is to desire God to reverse what he hath absolutely determined. Wherefore to Answer their Objection, Object. That the Psalmist prays in direct contradiction to this general Prayer of our Liturgy, that God would not be merciful to them that offend of malicious wickedness. Psal. 59.4. Answer. I Answer, 1. That Examples out of the Old Testament are no Rule for us under the New: Witness that saying of our Lord, you have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy Neighbour, Matt. 5.43, 44. and shalt hate thine Enemies; but I say unto you, love your Enemies, bless them that curse you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, etc. 2. Theodoret upon the place, saith, that the Psalmist doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, foretell, not pray; and so the Septuagint, agreeably enough unto the Hebrew, translate the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou wilt not be merciful to them that offend of malicious wickedness. And the phrase thus interpreted hath no appearance of contradiction to our Liturgy. Object. 4 Some Petitions in the Common Prayer seem to exceed the bounds of Christian Charity, §. 7 Dr. Chambers. as when we are directed to pray that it may please God to succour, help, and comfort all that are in danger, necessity, or tribulation; whereas many notorious malefactors are in danger, necessity, and tribulation: For whom it were more necessary to pray in Christian Charity, that the Lord would turn their laughter into mourning, and their joy into heaviness, and one way or other cause their wickedness to come to an end, rather than that he would be pleased to succour, help, and comfort them. Again we are, say they, directed to pray, That it may please God to preserve all that travail by land or by water; all Women labouring with Child; all sick persons, and young Children; and to show his pity upon all prisoners and captives: Whereas it is evident that there be many travailing by Land and Water, as Robbers, and Pirates, for whose preservation no Christian Charity binds us to pray; but rather for the suppression, and overthrow of them and all their wicked machinations; and there be many bloody Harlots labouring of Child, for whose repentance and restraint from their murderous intentions Christian Charity doth call us to pray, rather than for their preservation in common with the honest Matrons in that condition; and there are many Prisoners for heinous crimes, and who continue hardened and impenitent in them, for whom we cannot in any other sense pray in Christian Charity that God would show pity on them, than that he would smite their souls with terror, and make them sensible of their wickedness, and give them penitently to accept the punishment of their iniquity; which if it doth lie within the compass of this Petition of the Liturgy, it seems to be too obscurely, seeing the Petition in express words doth equally respect, and wrap up together all Prisoners, whether for vice or virtue, and is offered up indefinitely for mercy to be extended to them all; which Petition therefore seems to be dark and confused at the best, if Charity can make, and take that excuse for it. Answ. 1 In our Petition that it may please God to secure, help, and comfort all that are in danger, necessity, and tribulation; we follow the example of the whole Eastern Church, which in the Liturgy of St Basil prayeth thus, Be mindful, O God, of all that are in any affliction, necessity, or tribulation. And in the Liturgy of St. James, For all afflicted and miserable Christians who need the mercy, and the help of God. And what, I pray you, is more proper than to make this request unto that God who knoweth every man's desires and necessities? whose tender mercies are over all his works; who is kind even to the wicked and unthankful, Luke 6.35. and is long suffering towards them; not being willing they should perish. 2 Pet. 3.9. Sure I am the Holy Ghost in Scripture showeth no such niceness; but doth in general stile this gracious God, that God who comforteth those that are cast down; who raiseth up the poor out of the dust, 1 Cor. 7.6. and lifteth up the needy out of the Dunghill. Psal. 113.7. Psal. 145.14. Who upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all that are cast down. Why therefore may not we, without exception, pray unto him so to do? Answ. 2 When we desire that it may please God to preserve all that travail by Land or by Water, etc. we also use the Prayer of the whole Christian Church, even from the purest Ages of it; for in the Liturgies of St. Mark, St. Clemens, St. Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, they pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for all that travail by land or by water. They also prayed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for all afflicted with sickness, maladies, and diseases, for the aged, weak, infirm and sick; so the Liturgy of St. James, Chrysostom, and Ambrose: For young Children, in the Liturgy of St. Basil: For Prisoners and Captives, in the Liturgy of Basil, Clemens, Chrysostom, and in the Constitutions Apostolical. And whereas this Objector condemns all Antiquity, together with our Church; as if they and we prayed for Thiefs and Pirates, because the words run generally for all that travail, etc. This is a false Comment on a good Text; For do not all men by Travellers understand honest Travellers? Dr. Comber. or who can properly call a Thief a Traveller? Though therefore it is evident that we mean here no other but just and honest persons: Yet, Secondly, should we desire God to preserve a Thief, a Pirate, etc. the meaning would be, not to prosper them in their Robberies; but to prevent them, to keep them from executing their wicked purposes, to convert them, and so preserve them from the death which man's Law appoints for them on Earth, and from that Damnation which God himself threatneth to them in Hell-fire: And what harm were it, if we did in plain words ask, or secretly intent all this. To conclude, This Petition is suitable to the example of the Psalmist, Psal. 79.11. who prays thus, Let the sighing of the prisoner come before thee, according to the greatness of thy power; preserve thou those that are appointed to die: And to the injunction of St. Paul, to remember those that are in bonds, as bound with them; and those that are in adversity, as being also in the body, Hebr. 13.3. And whether wicked Women who travail with a Bastard-Child, are not in a condition most unfit to die, and therefore for whose preservation we have cause to pray, I leave it even to Dissenters, after mature consideration, to determine. §. 8 But, say they, we must pray with underderstanding; now there be many phrases in the Common Prayer Book which we understand not, or at the least we understand not how they can be said with any certainty of truth. And, Q 1 What, say they, is the meaning of that Metaphor in the Confession, There is no health in us? Answer. The meaning is, That we have no power to help, or save ourselves out of the misery which by our sins we have deserved; that there is nothing in ourselves which can preserve us from perishing under the guilt of our iniquities; this is the frequent import of the word health in Scripture. So Psal. 42.11.43.1. God is the health of my countenance, i. e. the help of my countenance, Psal. 42.5. Salvation is far from the wicked, Psal. 119.155. N. Transl. Health is far from them, saith the Old. And again, Trust not in Princes, or in any sons of men; for there is no help in them, Psal. 146.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is no health, or no Salvation, in them, say the Seventy. Q 2 What is the meaning, or at least the appositeness of that Respons. Give Peace in our time, O Lord. Resp. Because there is none other that fighteth for us but only thou, O God? Answer. To lay the foundation of a perspicuous Answer to this Question, consider, 1. Vide Comber, part 1. p. 363, 364. 1 Chron. 22.9. Isai. 39.8. That it was one of God's gracious Promises to his pious Servants of old, that he would give peace in their days; and so this is fit matter of our Prayer. 2. Consider, That God is in the Scripture styled the God of Peace, that it is He who makes peace in our borders, and by his providence preserveth peace among Nations, Psal. 46.9. breaking the Bow, and knapping the Spear asunder. Consider, 3. That this God is our only sure defence against our Enemies, and that our Armies and Navies will be unsuccessful to defend us without his good providence, or to procure peace for us: And therefore it behoves us to apply ourselves unto him for these mercies. Conlider, 4. That the end of all just War is Peace; men therefore sighting in their own defence that they may oblige their neighbours to live peaceably by them: This being so, what is more proper than this Prayer, Give peace in our time, O Lord, thou God of Peace, (either by keeping us from War, or rendering our Arms so happy and successful, that they may procure us a lasting peace.) This do we beg of thee, because there is none other who can keep us from War, or save us in it, or make our fight tend unto our lasting future peace, but only thou, O Lord. Q 3 What is the meaning of that Metaphor, Lighten our darkness, O Lord? Answ. I Answer, It is a Scripture phrase used Psal. 18.28. Job 29.3. importing our desire, that by the goodness of our God we may be kept in a joyful, comfortable, prosperous state; (which state in Scripture is usually signified by the word light) being preserved still from all calamities and miseries, if we at present are free from them; or else delivered from them by his power and mercy, if we labour under any kinds or degrees of them; and the ensuing clause is but an explication and application of it to the then present night. Q. 4 What mean you by your Prayer for deliverance from Fornication, and all other deadly sins? Do you not by it seem to approve that Popish Doctrine, which holds that some sins in their nature are venial? that is, do not deserve Eternal Death. Answer. This cannot rationally be suspected of that Church, whose Doctrine it is, That all sin is in its own nature deadly, though all in the event do not, and according to the tenor of the Covenant of Grace, will not prove deadly to the Christian. For that New Covenant declares God will accept of our sincere obedience; that is, of such obedience as is consistent with sins of ignorance and weakness, and that such sins will not exclude us from God's favour; but will be pardoned upon our general Repentance, and our desire to be cleansed from our secret sins. The import therefore of this phrase is this, That God would graciously deliver us fromall those sins which are therefore deadly: 1. Because they do declare him who commits them to be unregenerate, or dead in trespasses and sins: And thus it is declared concerning Fornicators, Eph. 5.5. For no Fornicator hath any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ, but is a son of disobedience, vers. 6. He is yoked with the profane, Heb. 12.16. and doth commit that sin which is contrary to his cleaving to Christ; and which permiteth not his body to be the Temple of the Holy Ghost. And, 2. 1 Cor. 6.16, 19 Because they leave us under the sentence of death, so that whosoever dies without particular Repentance for, and reformation of them, will be obnoxious to Eternal Death; they being sins for which the wrath of God comes upon the Children of disobedience: So is it said of Fornication, Coloss. 3.6. and to all Fornicators it is threatened, That they shall have their portion in the lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second death, Rev. 21.8. and St Paul plainly saith, Fornicators and Adulterers God will damn, Heb. 13.4. And, 3. Because they usually end in death, few ever escaping from them, or being renewed to Repentance; such is too frequently the fate of him who goeth to the Harlot's House. For none that goeth to her house, saith Solomon, Prov. 2.19. returns again, or takes hold of the paths of life. The mouth of a strange Woman being a deep pit, Prov. 22.14. into which he that is abhorred of the Lord doth fall. Now these sins being too many to be named particularly, and being difficult to be exactly stated and enumerated, are comprehended under this general appellation, To humble the bold committers of them by minding them that if they be not speedily repent of, which is but rarely done, they will end in their Damnation, or Eternal Death. Q. 5 Why pray you for deliverance from sudden death, which, if it happen to the prepared Christian, seems to be no evil. Answer. Though some, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euchol. p. 776. who it seems, think that they are always sit to die, do inconsiderately blame this petition of our Liturgy, as unbecoming Christians, and thereby blame the Church of God, which for a long time hath made use of this petition; yet I suppose that none of them would wish, or if they well considered, be as much contented to die by the immediate sudden hand of God, as to have time to recollect themselves before death, to die as did Jobs children, or they on whom the Tower of Siloam fell, but rather would conceive it were a mercy worthy of their thanks to be delivered from such a death: And that, 1. Comber, part 2. p. 61, 62. Because this sudden death affords no time to settle our Estates, but leaves our temporal concerns entangled, and involves our Relations in Lawsuits and contests. 2. Because these kinds of Death are more uncomfortable to our surviving Friends, who in these cases have no time allowed by their consideration to wean themselves from our enjoyment, and do receive no benefit from our latter ends, as from our dying counsels and meditations they might do. 3. Because they who die thus, want their viaticum, which is provided by the word of God, and the compassion of the Church, to fit them for their journey to the great Tribunal; and doubtless it is no small comfort to the dying Christian, to enjoy an opportunity to confess his sins, unburthen his Soul of them, to hear the Prayers, and to receive the absolution of the Ambassadors of Christ, and to partake of that most comfortable Sacrament, which sealeth the love of God unto him, and doth assure him who faithfully doth eat this Bread, and drink this Blood of Christ, that he will raise him up at the last day. 4. No man is so prepared to appear at God's Tribunal, but he both may, and aught to be prepared better, and therefore may desire to have time for further preparation. O spare me a little before I go hence, saith the man after Gods own heart; and who will not join with him in that Prayer? we aught indeed to be always prepared for death, and 'tis our wisdom so to be; but who is so well fitted as he ought, or he desires to be? and who cannot be better fitted by a more leisurely summons for his change? If we observe how ardently the dying person prays, how humbly he confesseth his forepast offences, how hearty he doth bewail his former sins, what resolutions he doth make of living more unto the glory of God, if providence shall raise him up again; we cannot reasonably doubt but that it is to have these opportunities vouchsafed of doing good to our own souls, before we go hence and be no more seen. Q. 6 What is the meaning of those words in the Litany, by the mystery of thy holy Incarnation, by thy holy Nativity and Circumcision, by thy Baptism, Fasting and Temptation, by thy Agony and bloody Sweat, by thy Cross and Passion, by thy precious Death and Burial, by thy glorious Resurrection and Ascension, and by the coming of the Holy Ghost, Good Lord deliver us: Do not you seem to conjure here? These expressions may have two very plain and obvious meanings. 1. By applying them so as to make them a request, that by means of all these meritorious or beneficial acts of our Lord Jesus, we may be delivered from all the aforesaid miseries, Temporal, Spiritual and Eternal; that he who took our nature on him, Heb. 2.14, 18.4.15, 11. that he might be in all things like us, and so a more compassionate High Priest to us under our natural infirmities, and that by death he might destroy him who had the power of death, viz. the Devil; that he who came into the world, that we might live through him; he who was circumcised and became obedient to the Law, to save us from the curse of it; that he who was baptised, Gal. 3.13. Matt. 3.15. that by his own example he might teach us to fulfil all righteousness, and who was tempted, that he might be a merciful High Priest to secure us when tempted; that he who suffered such Agonies for our iniquities, as caused in him a bloody sweat, and a most ignominious Death upon the Cross for our Redemption; that he who was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4.25. and is ascended to the right hand of God, Heb. 7.25. there to intercede for ever for us; and being thus ascended, sent his Holy Spirit to be our comforter and sanctifier; that he would by the merit, efficacy, and beneficial influences of all these gracious acts, deliver us 〈◊〉 all those dreadful evils mentioned in the foregoing words. 2. All these considerations may be here urged, as so many motives to our dear Redeemer, taken from the consideration of his former goodness and loving kindness to us, to work deliverance for us now; and so the import of them will be this, by the endearing love which thou hast showed unto us in all these gracious dispensations, we beseech thee to deliver us from all the forementioned evils both of sin and punishment. Q. 7 What mean you by those words in the Communion Service, viz. that our bodies may be made clean by Christ's body, and our souls washed by his most precious blood; do you not hereby seem to ascribe a greater efficacy to the blood, than to the body of Christ, and to restrain the virtue of the latter only unto the cleansing of the Body? Answ. 1 That the words used at the delivery of the Elements, the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for to preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life; and the like concerning his blood, are a manifest evidence that the Church intended no such thing, but that we hearty believe that the benefits both of the body and blood of Christ, do redound to the Salvation, and consequently to the Sanctification both of our Souls and Bodies. He who desires to see more to this effect, may consult Dr. Womacks' Letter, from p. 66. to p. 74. Q. 8 Why do you say, That God by the Baptism of his Wellbeloved Son in the River Jordan, did sanctify water to the Mystical washing away of sin? was not this rather done by Gods own institution of that ordinance to such an end, than by the Baptism of his Son who knew no Sin, and therefore upon whom Baptism could have no such effect? Answer. I Answer this is an expression frequently used by the Ancient Fathers, Tertullian, 1 Adu. Jud. c. 8. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 153. 3 Orat. 38, 39 Epiphanius, Nazianzen, St. Jerom, and allowed by the Assemblys Annotations * Iu. Matt. 3. , where one end of Christ's Baptism is assigned to be this, viz. To sanctify the flood Jordan, and all other waters to the mystical washing away of sin: Now for explication of the phrase, consider, that to sanctfie in Scripture signifies first to declare any thing to be holy, to own, and to acknowledge it as such: Sanctificetur nomen tuum, hallowed be thy name, that is, say Interpreters, Sanctum declaretur, Sancte praedicetur, let it be declared and agnized as holy. So when God saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will sanctify my Great name, Ezek. 36.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will be sanctified before the Heathens, Ezek. 38.23.39, 27. the meaning is, He will declare his Holy Name to them, and they shall acknowledge it. And in this sense God by ordering the Baptism of his Son in the River Jordan, that so he might fulfil all righteousness, (submit as well unto the Christians Baptism, as to the Circumcision of the Jews) declared that Baptism was sacred, or set apart by him unto this use, and Christ by his submission to it, owned it as sacred; and whereas, if a thing be sanctified already, or set apart unto a sacred use, to sanctify it then is only usurpare prout sanctitatem ejus decet, to use it suitably unto its holiness; in which sense we are said to sanctify the Sabbath day, etc. Christ by thus using the Baptism of John appointed for the remission of sin, did in this sense also sanctify it, and by thus making use of it, he did encourage, saith Epiphanius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 153. and provoke others to use it to that end. Q. 9 Why do you say after the Repetition of the Fourth Commandment, Lord have mercy upon us; and incline our hearts to keep this Law. Are you turned Sabbatarians? Answer. Our Prayer then to God prescribed in the Liturgy, is not to beseech him to incline our hearts to keep this Law, according to the special form and circumstance of time there spoken of, viz. the seventh day from the Creation, but in such a manner as is agreeable to the state of the Gospel. 1. By duly considering of, and bringing to our remembrance the great and glorious works of God performed for the good of men, viz. of creation, redemption, the passion, resurrection and exaltation of our Lord, which are actions no less considerable to us both in respect of glory due to God, and benefit accrueing to us, than was the creation formerly to the Jews. 2. That upon the Lord's Day, and all other days appointed for public Assemblies to worship God and Christ, and to hear his holy word, and receive his Sacraments, we may by the assistance of Divine Grace be enabled devoutly, reverently and holily to engage in those duties, to the Glory of God, and the edification of ourselves in faith and true obedience. Q. 10 What mean you by these words in the office of Matrimony, with this Ring I thee wed? were they not man and wise, and therefore wedded before? what by this phrase, with my body I thee worship? is not the man the head of the woman, and so not to use any sign, which may import subjection to her as that of worship doth? what lastly by those words, with all my worldly goods I thee endow? will you leave nothing for their Children? Answer. 1. This phrase, with this Ring I thee wed, doth not import that they were not man and wife before, but only is a declaration of the fact, as is apparent from the following words, Forasmuch as N. and N. have consented together in holy wedlock, and have declared the same by giving and receiving a Ring, etc. 2ly, That phrase, with my body I thee worship, may have these three senses: 1. I give unto thee honour according as God's Law requires in these words, husbands live with your wives according to knowledge, giving honour to the wife, 1 Pet. 3.7. Or, 2ly, I vouchsafe thee the honour of my Body, i. e. I deem thee worthy of the honour belonging to my person, as Mr. Selden doth explain the words. Uxor Hebr. l. 2. c. 27. Or, 3ly, I promise to thee due benevolence, as H. L'Estrauge saith this old word imports, and so it is only a promise to obey St Paul's command, 1 Cor. 7.2. 3ly, This phrase, with all my worldly goods I thee endow, bears this sense, I promise thee a share in all my wealth, and give thee right and liberty to use it as there is occasion. But then the Husband being dead, the Wife according to the common Law of England cannot lay claim unto the whole, but only to the thirds of her deceased Husband's estate, if he leave any Children or others who have right to any part of his inheritance. Other things have been scrupled in the office for the visitation of the sick, the form of burial, and of commination; but since the Church's constitutions, do not oblige the Laity to use, or to be present at them, I wave the consideration of them, and beseeching God to give a blessing to what I have written, and make it successful to the desired end, and to pardon the errors I may unwittingly have committed in it, I humbly submit it to my ever honoured Superiors, and so conclude. FINIS.