SECT I.
Of the effects of these oppositions, as to the dispositions of the people.

1. THE discerning the weightiness of any matter under present circumstances, doth not only depend upon the direct inspection into the thing it self, but also upon a more com­prehensive view of it, as it taketh in all its necessary consequents and attendants. If the Sea bank be broken, and carried [Page 2]away by an overflowing rage of Waters, the loss would be fondly estimated, by considering only the value of so much earth as would make it up: and it would be some degrees below common folly, to imagine that the advantage of respirati­on in man, is a thing wholly inconsider­able, because the matter of it is only a little ordinary air: for according to that of Damascen, [...], a small matter is then no small matter, when it bringeth in a great conse­quent.

2. Nor can we easily find a more full instance hereof, than in the present sub­ject of Conformity. For the discovering how great the good or evil is, which de­pendeth thereupon, is not to be conclu­ded, chiefly from the bare eying the things required and appointed, many of which are in their own nature things in­different; but from observing its neces­sary attendants, which are of very high consequence and great concernment. Wherefore I shall first take an account, what great and manifold evils flow from these dissentions, and oppositions, where­by this will appear to be a matter deser­ving serious consideration, and that the maintaining such dissentions, unless they proceed upon necessary and justifiable [Page 3]grounds, (which I shall examine) is upon many weighty accounts utterly disallowa­ble, and greatly condemnable.

3. From these contentions doth spring much want of Christian love, and that kindness of affection, which our Lord re­quireth, and by many cogent arguments enforceth upon his Disciples; and in­stead thereof we may hear many con­temptuous, scoffing, and scorning expres­sions, which are an evidence of a frothy and airy vanity and haughtiness of mind, unsuitable to the gravity and humility of the Christian Spirit. Yea, hence much discourse of many men religiously dispo­sed, which might be well improved to a pious proficiency in the Christian life, run­neth up into the wilder branches of con­tention; and that zeal which might be well employed, is oft mis-spent in che­rishing the flames of passionate heats, and heart-burnings, accompanied with too much bitterness, and becometh that [...] which St. James so sharply censureth and condemneth,Jam. 3.14, 15. as being ma­nifestly opposite to those religious pra­ctices unto which Christians are directed from above.

4. This opposition hath also too much promoted many sinful prejudices in the spirits of Men: hence some have their [Page 4]minds unreasonably prepossessed, with so much averseness towards, and dis­esteem of the publick administrations of Gods service, as indisposeth them for a devout performance of that worship, and hindreth the vigorous exercise of Christi­an Graces in their joining therein, to the decay of piety. It occasioneth others to be neglectful in their attendance, even upon the holy Sacramental Institutions of our blessed Saviour; and this same sin of prejudice sometimes ruleth so far, as to promote rashness of judgment and great censoriousness of others, contrary to the Gospel rule, and therein blindeth mens minds, and hurrieth their passions into great excesses. By all which things God is displeased, and Christian Charity is vio­lated, but the greatest hurt befalleth themselves, by their slighting the advan­tages of a Religious life, and either fre­quently neglecting, or negligently per­forming the publick duties of Gods worship, and not entertaining the means of their Salvation; which includeth al­so a want of due respect unto God and his grace.

5. And what strange apprehensions this Sin is prone to raise of the worthiest men, may be best discovered in some particu­lar instances. Hereby they who could [Page 5]not but admire the Works and Doctrine of Christ, did both reject him, and cause­lesly censure him, as breaking the Sabbath, blaspheming God, being an Enemy to Cae­sar, and a greater friend to Publicans and Sinners than was allowable, and at last cryed out, Crucify him, Crucify him. Act. 14.8.19. Hence also the same persons who so ex­cessively admire Paul and Barnabas at Lystra, being possessed with prejudice by the Jews perswasion, were well pleased that they should be stoned to Death, and thereupon they rejected that Doctrine which the Apostles preached.

6. Upon the like ungrounded dis-af­fection, Bas. Ep. 75. St. Basil met with no better repu­tation at Neocesaria (the place of his Fa­thers Family) than to be branded for an Heretick: Naz. Cann. de Vita suâ. and his great Friend Gr. Nazi­anzen at his first coming to Constantinople (the City being in an uproar against him) was stoned by them, who when they un­derstood him better, being freed from their furious passions, yielded him, as his great worth deserved, an high and honour­able respect. And the influence of this evil temper carried so strong a byass to pervert the judgments of the Donatists, that St. Austin himself was misreputed by them, as a seducer and deceiver of Souls; Posidon de vit. Aug c. 9. and they exclaimed against him both pub­lickly [Page 6]and privately, that he was a Wolf, who should be slain for the preservation of the flock. And all this was only because that famous man kept and defended the Communion of the Church, which they rejected, he truly judging that a duty, which they erronesously condemned as a sin. Thus this uneven glass of prejudice, when placed before the minds of men, mis-representeth even what is comely and amiable, as if it was monstrous ugly and deformed.

SECT. II.
Shewing these contentions to disadvantage Christianity, and to gratify Popery and Irreligion.

1. It is manifest that the open appear­ance of such, and indeed of all other open contentions in the Church, have constantly abated the honourable esteem of Christianity in the World, amongst them who do not profess it; and upon that account they ought as much as is possible, to be avoided by those who value the interest of Religion. Ep. ad Co­rinth p. 2. Clemens the Fellow-labourer of St. Paul took no­tice, that in the dissentions fomented at Corinth, about no matters of Doctrine, [Page 7]but only of Order and Government, the hot distractions of a few heady and self pleasing persons, (as he stileth them) oc­casioned the name of that Church, to be greatly reproached and evil spoken of; which was otherwise honourable, renowned, and worthy to be loved. And Socrates averreth,Socr. Hist. Eccl. lib. 4. c. 5. that the controversies (necessary on the Churches part) about Arianism were at­tended with so great a mischief, that the Christian profession it self, was from thence openly derided in the Theaters, even under the Government of a Christian Empe­rour: and Constantine himself observed,Eccl. Hist Eccl. l. 10 c. 5. that the opposition of the Donatists, at its first taking root, did bring forth such dangerous fruit, that they who had their minds estranged from this most holy Reli­gion, had thence an occasion given them to scorn and deride it. And the reflection upon the strange proneness to disagree­ment among Christians, occasioned that reproachful expression against the Christi­an name, related of Solyman the Turkish Emperour, who when it was told him, that the Christians would unite together against him at the last; he lifting up his hand, and stretching out his fingers re­plyed, That there was no more ground to fear, that the Christians should ever unite, than to fear that those singers should grow together.

2. Nor is it hard to shew, that such differences among Protestants, do gratify the interests and desires, and comply with the designs of the Papists. Contz. Po­lit. l. 2. c. 19. It is the known Maxim of their great Politician, Bella haereticorum, pax Ecclesiae, which in his language expresseth, our discords to be their security: And Bishop Whitgift in Queen Elizabeths days,Letter to the Coun­cil in Ful­lers Hist. l. 9. Contz. l. 2. c. 18. expressed it to be a thing notorious, that the opposing Ʋniformity, was in England the Papists ad­vantage, and the Protestants disadvantage: and which way their interests and endea­vours at this time move, may be discern­ed by an observing eye without the help of a Telescope, their hopes being founded in our dissentions.

3. Upon these dissentions also they much insist, to disswade persons thereby from the Protestant profession; though this is indeed no other argument than what the Gentiles of old made use of against Christianity, and is both long since suffi­ciently answered by Clemens Alexandri­nus, Strom. l. 7. Origen against Celsus, and many other Fathers on the behalf of Christians, and hath lately been well returned upon the Papists themselves. However the influ­ence from these divisions is so consider­able, though the argument from them be not valuable,Polit. lib. 9. c. 21. that Contzen relateth it as [Page 9]the complaint of a Protestant Writer of good account, Papistae funestis Evangeli­corum dissidiis absterrentur à Doctrina Evangelicorum, ceu haereticâ, Satanicâ & seditiosâ; That by the lamentable discords of the Protestants, the Papists are frighted from the Doctrine of the Reformed Church­es, as if it was Heretical, Satanical, and Seditious: and in the same place he speak­eth his own thoughts. We, saith he, can not approve the cause of the Protestants, which always some part of themselves, and sometimes the chief and most numerous part doth detest.

4. Nor are their endeavours ordina­rily wanting, to blow up the Coals of contention, that they may be advantaged by the smoak. Letter to the Lord Treasurer in Fuller, ubi supra. That they did animate some dissenters from Conformity in the Queens days, was asserted by Bishop Whitgift, upon his own certain knowledge. And that in these last thirty years and upwards, they were promoters of our di­visions, is more than probable from the informations given to the Archbishop,V. Bibli­oth. Reg. p. 42.1640. by Andreas ab Habernsfield a Bo­hemian of noble descent, and from ma­ny particular passages concerning our late discords published by Mr. Prinne, and Monsieur du Moulin, together with di­verse credible relations of known Roman­ists [Page 10]in the meetings of diverse Sects. Mr. Baxter long since declared, that he be­gan to have a strong suspicion, that the Papists had indeed an hand in the extir­pation of Episcopacy, Grot. Re­lig. Sect. 66. and citeth Bishop Bramhal's words against Meliterius. There was a Bishop in the World (losers may have leave to talk) whose privy Purse and sub­til Counsels did help to kindle that unna­tural War in his Majesties three King­doms.

5. Agreeably hereto it was observed their Policy about two hundred years since, to endeavour to extinguish the sparks of light in the Bohemian Church, by dividing them asunder;Comen. Hi­storiola, Sect. 36. and as Come­nius relateth, admiscebant se personati quidam, qui Papae causam promoturi, dis­sentiones mutuas promovebant. Bulleng. adv. Ana­bapt. and Bul­lenger (as he is cited by Bishop Whitgift in his exhortation before his Answer to the Admonition) declared, that the Ana­baptists in Switzerland, and the parts of Germany, were animated by the subtil Papists.

6. Yet if any will not so much as sus­pect, that these seeds of division, are ei­ther secretly sown, or watered from these hands; considerate men have found cause to conclude, that they expect to reap an harvest by them. This hath not only [Page 11]been expressed by some of themselves, and discerned by others in the Churches of England, Bohemia, and Switzerland, but the same hath been also apprehen­ded in all other Protestant Churches. Hu­bertus Languetus, a man of great autho­rity, and at that time the Duke of Saxo­nies Embassador, resident in the Empe­rours Court at Vienna (as Comenius, who relateth the words of his Epistle, decla­reth) writing to Andreas Stephanus a Bo­hemian Bishop, declared what his obser­vation had discovered, almost an hun­dred years since; saith he, the Pope fear­eth nothing more than our consenting and joining in Ʋnity;—sed sunt inter nos insa­ni quidam Theologi, &c. But there are amongst us some furious Divines, who re­ject all right Counsels, and thereby per­form a work advantagious to the Popes interest.

7. And even Beza in the life of Cal­vin declareth concerning the contro­versies in Saxony about adiaphorous rites, as the Surplice, &c. that Calvin did at first dislike Ph. Melanchthon, (who per­swaded to Conformity) but afterwards he discovered that there was no reason so to do. For at that time it did not appear (saith Beza) with what spirit that evil Genius, and the whole Troop of the Flaci­ans [Page 12](who disdained Conformity) were hur­ried on, which afterward caused so many troubles, and still do hinder the work of God, non aliter sane, nec minus suriose & impudenter, quam si ab ipso Romano Ponti­fice magnas stipendiis esset conducta: with no less impudence and sury, (saith he) than if they had been hired by large sala­ries from the Pope of Rome.Praef. in Apol. Ca­tech. And this contentious spirit of Flacius Illyricus (who was in some other respects a man deser­ving commendation) hath gained him this Character from Ʋrsin, that he was one, qui per complures annos, praestantis­simis atque veris Christianis, & Orthodoxis viris obtrectando, & multas non necessa­rias altercationes excitando, plurimorum conscientias, & passim Ecclesias, in Ger­mania turbavit; Who for divers years, by his discrediting worthy and true Christi­ans, and Orthodox men, and by stirring up many unnecessary contentions, was a troub­ler of divers Consciences and Churches, all over Germany.

8. Nor is it hard to discover, that these dissentions about our publick ser­vice, are made an occasion by some others (I might say by many others) who are more careless than scrupulous in matters of Piety, for their gross neglect­ing the worship of God, and the duties [Page 13]of Religion: as the disputes about the Lords Supper, have in several places ap­parently caused a great carelessness, of attending on that great Ordinance. Letter to the Coun­cil, ubi su­pra. It was Bishop Whitgifts observation con­cerning our former times, that in King Edwards time, and the beginning of Queen Elizabeths, before the heat of these conten­tions, the Gospel mightily prevailed and took great encrease, but since this schism and division, (saith he) the contrary effects have happened. And indeed no other can be well expected, because hereby is ma­nifestly wanting that forcible motive, from the general joining in the service of God with readiness of mind, and with one consent, which might perswade them who are otherwise careless of Religion, to be more serious, by making them ashamed of their negligence.

9. And doubtfulness of Religion in some, and profaneness of life in others, are the woful ordinary consequents of such differences. When the Donatists, who neither erred in the Faith, nor ap­peared vitious in their lives, made a great breach in the Church, about matters of discipline; Optatus noteth,Opt. adv. Parm. l. 5. that while they contended that their separation was lawful, and the Orthodox Church decry­ed it as unlawful, the common people [Page 14]were doubtful, and at a stand in the pra­ctice of Religion. Inter vestrum licet & nostrum non licet, nutant & remigant animae populorum. And that Apostolical man Clemens, expresseth the fruits of the divisions in the Corinthian Church, about their Governours, to be these: [...], your division hath per­verted and turned aside many; Ep. ad Cor. p. 61. [...], it hath discouraged many and made them despond; [...], it bringeth many into doubtfulness, and us all to grief and sor­row.

10. And besides divers others ways men­tioned in the following Sections, where­by Religion is disadvantaged by these op­positions; it is upon this account also ap­parently hindred, because these discords do oft divert many Ministers, from the more directly profitable parts of their employment; and make it necessary for them to spend much time, in satisfying these scruples, and answering objections, with thoughtfullness of the ill consequents of these dissentions; while they have other work enough to do in the worship of God, the edifying his Church, and the opposing other designs of those Enemies who seek to undermine it. This is like the discovery of a fire breaking forth, or [Page 15]inward mutinies appearing at that time, when there is much necessary work to be done at home, and many conflicts to be prepared for both at home and abroad; which must needs put some considerable obstructions to those proceedings.

SECT. III.
Of the dangerous loss of the Churches Peace and Unity by this controversie, and of the sin of Schism.

1. That upon matters referring to this controversie, the Peace and Concord of our Church doth much depend, and that it is and hath been thereby evidently and extreamly hindred, is so apparently visible, that it needeth no proof, and hath been on all hands generally confessed and complained of. Now though it be every Christians duty, to reject that Peace which is inconsistent with Piety, yet there can be no discharge given to these great du­ties of Peace and Ʋnity, where they may be practised consistently with godliness and truth. To be truly Religious, is to enjoy a healthful state of a sound mind, where there is no lethargick stupidness, but an inward and vigorous life, which is not attended with distempered heats [Page 16]and inflammations, but with a calm and sedate composure of a sober spirit; for the fruits of righteousness are sown in peace, Jam. 3.18.

2. This duty is so considerable, that the Holy Ghost seemeth scarce in any thing else, so pathetically to command and urge our practical obedience, as about the Churches Peace, and Christian Ʋnity. If there be any consolation in Christ, Phil. 2.1, 2. (saith the Apostle) if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies: fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like minded, being of one accord, and of one mind. Yea, so generally is this duty pressed, that there is scarce any Book of the holy Scripture, chiefly of the new Te­stament, but doth particularly enjoin or recommend it.

3. If we value the favour and presence of God, even that is no where so much to be found, as where Christian Peace and Unity are most pursued. Where­fore St. Paul commandeth, 2 Cor. 13.11. Be of one mind, live in peace, and the God of love and peace shall be with you. And the same Apostle declareth, that the Church becometh an Holy Temple, Eph. 2.21, 22. and an habitation of God, by being a building joined and united in Christ, and fitly fra­med together, [...] (and some [Page 17]have not amiss observed, that in the framing of that Greek word, there is contained a treble band of Unity. The Jewish Doctors observed, that the Sheci­nah or Divine presence did dwell with the [...] the meek and quiet spirits, but flyeth from the [...] them who were wrathful and angry.Nazianz. Orat. 12. Nazianzen maketh it a considerable Character of one, who is [...], near of God and to what is Divine, that he is a man who embraceth peace, and hateth discord: Ign. Ep. ad Eph. p. 20. & 25. E­dit. Voll. and Ignatius expresseth the great profita­bleness of being [...] in unspoted Ʋnity, that thereby they may always have Communion with God, and prevail against the power of the Devil.

4. If the true exercise of the Christian life and duty be considered, St. Paul de­clareth the divisions and discords of the Church of Corinth, to be an evidence that they were carnal. 1 Cor. 3.3. and to be the cause why their assembling to the Lords Supper, was not advantageous, but hurtful to them. Ch. 11.17, 18. and that the benefits of true Christian growth and encrease are to be expected in Christian Ʋnity, Cyp. de Ʋ ­nit. Eccl. Eph. 4.16. Ch. 2.21. Col. 2.19. And in those words of our departing Saviour,Hil. in Ps. 119. Joh. 14.27. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, the ancient [Page 18]Fathers have conceived, the great bles­sing of peace given by Christ to his Church, and the duty of peace required in it to be chiefly contained.Basil. Mor. Reg. 50. Amb. de Joseph. c. 13. To this sense, St. Cy­prian, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostome, and Theophylact expound that place, (some of them including also the tran­quillity of the Christian mind, and the perfect peace of the life to come) And from that Text St. Augustine concludeth,Serm. 59. de Verb. Dom. that he cannot come to Gods inheritance, who doth not observe Christs Testament; and he can have no concord with Christ, who will be at discord with a Christian.

5. That the want of peace becometh the decay of piety, may be also sufficiently confirmed by particular instances.Ep. ad Cor. p. 3. Cle­mens observed concerning the Corinthian Church, that while they enjoyed peace, they had an unsatiable desire to do good, and received a plentiful effusion of the holy Spi­rit, they were religious in their supplicati­ons to God, and harmless towards one ano­ther: but upon their discord, righteousness, and peace, was banished far from them, they all (who embraced divisions) for­sook the fear of God, P. 5. and became dark sighted in the Faith, and walked after evil affections. And Nazianzen took notice, that Religion had one flourished in the Church, and calculating the season when [Page 19]its decay began,Naz. Orat. 21. he saith, [...], &c. that from the time this contra­dicting spirit as a terrible Disease infected the Church, thence forward its beauty and glory did decline. And there is another Country not unknown to us, where like effects may be observed; and after peace was lost, injustice and unrighteousness, like a mighty torrent, did at once bear down all before it; heretical blasphemies were frequently belched forth, against all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith; and all manner of vile affections were professedly served, under the rant­ing and other names, of pretendedly Re­ligious Sects.

6. Upon this account Christian peace was deservedly esteemed, and honoured in the Primitive Church: to which pur­pose, the judgment and practice of that excellent spirited man, Gr. Nazianzen, is above other worthy our observation. He disswadeth from that peace which is evil and sinful,Orat. 12. but by no means alloweth any discharge to this great duty in other cases: and declareth that his little Church, where he was Bishop before he went to Constantinople, continuing in Unity and concord, when discord and much over­spread the Christian World, was reputed to be as the Ark of Noah, which alone e­scaped [Page 20]the universal deluge, and where Re­ligion was intirely preserved. Ruff. Prol. in Naz. O­rat. 49. And that good man (as both Ruffinus and himself relate) when the Church was like to be embroiled upon his account; cryed out in the words of Jonah;Naz. Cann. de Vit. sua. If this tempest be for me, take me up and cast me into the Sea, and the disturbance shall be at an end. And his readiness by all effectual means to promote Peace, together with his elo­quent discourses to that purpose, had such an influence upon the concord of the second General Council, and the Churches good,Baron. An­nal. An. 381. n. 55. that Baronius thinketh, that thereupon the very place where that Council sate, and these speeches were made, did bear the name of Concordia in after times, which was an evidence how highly Concord was then valued. Indeed it becometh a builder to repair and ce­ment the breaches in the Church, which is the House of God; but he who would widen and encrease them, goeth the way to make the whole to fall, and it may be that part may be first in its ruins which he least desireth.

7. Besides this, the dreadful ruins of Kingdoms and Countries, which are some­times the consequents of Church divisi­ons, are enough to awaken and deeply affect them, who are not senseless and past [Page 21]feeling, to beware thereof. He who read­eth the History of the Turks, and of the Eastern Empire, may see that the Christi­ans State divisions, founded upon, or fo­mented by discords in the Church, laid the foundation on which the Turks erected their Dominion in those places; which was the rooting out their publick Christian profession. And the last words of the Old Testament acquaint us, that the con­tinuance of dissentions, provoketh God to smite the Earth with a Cherem, or a dreadful Curse which includeth an irre­coverable devoting:Prol de Bel. Jud. and Josephus rela­teth that the divisions of Jerusalem and the Jewish Nation, exposed them to the desolation brought upon them by the Romans, [...].Bar. An. 303. n. 29. And it is observed by Baronius, that the dissentions in Africa raised by the Donatists, were the occasion of the great calamities there sustained; first from the Vandals, and after than from the Arabians; to the de­struction of the Country, and the almost final ruine there, both of the other Chri­stians, and of the Donatists themselves.

8. Amongst plenty of other instances, it becometh us to be most affected, as we were most concerned, with the much Christian bloud, unchristianly shed in Eng­land, as a sad consequent of these conten­tions. [Page 22]We made our selves an example to Foreigners, who took notice, that Apud Anglos, integro seculo de Ecclesiae regimine controversia, violenter agitata est, ad status us (que) publici convulsionem; that the violent motions and disturbances in England about Ecclesiastical controversies, wrought us into a convulsive and distracted State. And we who are nearest home, ought to be, if we be not, most sensible and apprehen­sive of this, which others at a distance could not but observe with some amaze­ment. The Lord grant that we may at length learn to mind the ways of Peace, and discern the danger and guilt of need­less running into divisions.

9. The breaking the Churches Peace is peculiarly sinful, when without any just and necessary grounds, contentions run so high, as to appear in open Schism and separation, which hath been long de­signed, and is too much practised by ma­ny opposers of Conformity. And though it be and must be asserted, that separati­on is both lawful and necessary, and there­fore free from the sin of Schism, where Communion, upon a right understanding, cannot be kept without sin; yet even the Writings of many Non-Conformists as well as of others, do express and aggravate the sin of unnecessary separation, and the Ca­nons [Page 23]of the ancient Church declare very severely against it.Can. Ap. 31. Conc. Carth. &c. c. 100. Besides Conc. Ancyr. c. 18. Gang. c. 6. Antioch. c. 5.2. Carth. c. 9. Trull. c. 31. Such separation is con­demned as ambition and tyranny, in the Canons called the Apostles; as a de­structive Sacrilegious sin, in the African Code; as a sin which excludeth from the Kingdom of Heaven, by Ignatius; Ign. ad Philad. Cont. Helv. c. 22. and it is censured to enclude a contempt of true Religion, by the Helvetick confession.

10. It is a known and approved sen­tence of Dionysius Alexandrinus, Eus. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. [...]. That to suffer Martyrdom [...] rather than to divide the Church by Schisms, is not less glorious then to be a Martyr for re­susing to offer Sacrifice unto Idols. Cyp. de Ʋ ­nit. Eccles. And S. Cyprian asserteth that the sin of breaking the Churches peace by Schism, is in divers respects more hainous than the sin of those lapsed Christians, who in the time of perse­cution, yielded to offer Sacrifice to Idols. Because the former bewailed his miscarri­age, and by repentance sought for pardon from God, and communion with his Church, his straights and dangers were the occasion of his sin, and though he miscarried himself, he did not perswade others to do the like, and he might after­wards be honoured as a Martyr; whereas the latter was swelling and pleasing him­self [Page 24]in his sin, did disturb, oppose, and re­ject the Church, his sin was his, of his own free and voluntary choice, and he also beguiled and ensnared others. And all this was expressed by both these ancient Writers with peculiar reference to the Novatian Schism, which them made a breach in the Churches Ʋnity, about mat­ters of Discipline without denying any Articles of the Faith.Ibidem. And S. Cyprian pro­ceedeth so far, as to declare, that if the man who soweth discord in the Church, should lay down his life in the defence of the name of Christ, the stain of his sin could not be wiped out (that is so as to render him honoured in the Church) by the stream of his bloud; but as he goeth on, inexpiabilis & gravis est culpa discordiae nec passione purgatur. [...]. adv. And the same thing is by Optatus urged against the Donatists, Parm. l. 3. and is approved by divers others; as be­ing grounded on the words of S. Paul, If I give my body to be burned, and have not Charity, it presiteth me nothing. And from hence we may discern, that in those Primitive times, when the vital heat of Piety within, was able to prevail against the fiercest flames of Persecution with­out, this duty of minding the Churches Unity, had a mighty commanding force upon the Consciences of Christians, and [Page 25]they accounted unnecessary divisions and Schisms, to be unchristian practices and dreadful sins.

11. Nor can such separation be other­wise accounted of then a great evil, which general experience manifesteth, ordina­rily to eat out Christian love; and doth most directly and openly oppose that Christian Ʋnity, which (as the following Section will evidence) the Gospel com­mandeth, the relation of Membership in the Christian Society requireth, and our blessed Saviour earnestly and affectionate­ly recommended; and hath naturally such other dangerous attendants, as have been above observed to be the result of the breach, or want of the Churches Peace. This sin is to the Church what Sedition is to the State, the most manifest and di­rect means to hinder its Government, and to destroy that Society which is best pre­served in true Ʋnity; and of which as Christ himself hath, so every Christian ought to have a tender regard. It is to the body of Christ what disjointing is to the body of man; it hindreth the actions of the body, and the usefulness of the members to each other; it weakneth the whole, and causeth pain and anxious grief to those other members which are not senseless, and is ordinarily accompanied [Page 26]with swelling tumours in the part ill-af­fected, and out of order.

12. And as it self is contrary to Gods Commandment, so its influence promo­teth all manner of sin, and is called by Ignatius [...] an original of evils. Ign. Ep. ad Smyrn. For besides the evils above mentioned which accompany this sin, as it includeth a breach of the Churches Peace; it is apt to prevail with the Separatist to so much impiety, as to place much of his Religion in that which is his sin; viz. his unwar­rantable separation; and it is oft, if not ordinarily, attended with so great uncha­ritableness, as to be pleased (with respect to the interest of their party) in hearing, if not speaking evil, concerning others who withstand them. It promoteth pro­saneness and disadvantageth Religion in others, by rendring censures and admo­nitions of the Church, when they are administred, the less efficacious upon the offenders; who are the more ready to conclude, that it is no great shame or danger, to be excluded from that Society of Christians, from which many who profess Religion do exclude themselves. And upon this and other easily discerna­ble accounts, it is a probable occasion of remisness in the exercising discipline, which would be more enforced and en­livened [Page 27]by a more general Union; whereby also divers obstacles and impe­diments would be removed.Athan. Sy­nops. in 1. Ep. ad Cor. Thus Atha­nasius was of opinion, that the Corinthian divisions were the cause, why the incestious person was not rejected.

SECT. IV.
Some false Conceptions of Schism refuted.

1. But because there are some notions, or rather misrepresentations of this sin of Schism, designed to excuse many from the guilt thereof, whom the rules of Christianity do envolve under it, I shall endeavour to discover the insufficiency of such Plaisters, either to cover or cure so great and dangerous wounds, as the deep rents made in the Church, to which they are applyed.

2. A first false Conception of Schism, A first No­tion. is the natural result of the New-England Independant Principles of Church-Commu­nion. They assert expresly,Ans. to 32. Qu. quo. 4. that Baptism neither maketh nor admitteth any to be members of the Church; and call it the opinion of Papists and Anabaptists that we enter into the Church by Baptism. But they assert the foundation of Church-Society [Page 28]to be laid in their Church-Cove­nant, which is a particular contract among themselves, binding themselves to God and one to another, to live in Christian Society with that particular Congregation, to which they join themselves by this contract.Apol. for Chur. Co­ven. p. 3, 5, 15. And this Church-Covenant is they say, the Constitutive form of a Church, and joining in it is that which maketh a particular person a member of a Church. And from hence it may be easily infered, that there can be no duty of holding, and therefore no sin of Schism in withdrawing, or neglecting Communion, where they have not made this engagement by that particular Covenant.

3. But this notion of the Ʋnion and Communion of the Church, doth confine it, to such strait limits, as to exclude in a manner all Christians of all ages from Church Society, but themselves; and is thereby uncharitable and no stranger to Schism, and can not consist with the full and due sense of the Churches Catholicism: for the ancient Church did never account the obligation to Christian Communion, to be so narrow a thing, as only to res­pect a particular Congregation, and there­fore never framed any such particular Co­venant. This is also directly contrary to S. Paul, who as an argument to Union and [Page 29]against Schism, saith 1 Cor. 12, 13. By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body: and teacheth us that we are baptized into Christ. Rom. 6.3. and thereby are plan­ted together in the likeness of his death, v. 5. and that they who are baptized into Christ, do put on Christ, Gal. 3.27. Which Scriptures do sufficiently express, that by our Baptism as we undertake the Christi­an life, so we thereby are admitted to be members of the Church or body of Christ, and are engaged as members to Ʋnity therein, and to continue in Communion therewith. Whereas if this notion was admitted, the grounds for the being and Ʋnion of the Church, which the Scriptures lay down, together with the Apostolical and Primitive practice, must be accounted as insufficient, and the necessary support of its being and Union, must be derived from this late invention. All which things are sufficient to manifest the errour of this opinion, and to shew that there may be a sinful breach of the Ʋnity of the Church, among them who never entred into that Church Covenant.

4.A second Notion. Dr. Owen of Love & Church Peace, c. 3. But one of that way of our own Nation, treating of Schism and separation, acknowledgeth Baptism to give Relation to, or entrance into the Catholick Church visible; but still owneth a particular con­tract [Page 30]or joint consent among themselves, to be the only bond for external Eccle­siastical Communion in a particular Church, or (as he expresseth it) to be that wherein the Ʋnion of such a Church doth consist (which will be hereafter fur­ther considered).N. 19, 20. Dr. Owen's Review of Schism, ch. 8, 9. And he giveth us this representation of Schism, That the sin of Schism doth not consist in the want of, or breach of external Ʋnity by separati­on, but in the want of internal Ʋnity by needless divisions of judgment in a parti­cular Congregation, as [...] (he saith) is used 1 Cor. c. 1.11. Hence these as­sertions are laid down. 1. That the de­parting of any man or men from any par­ticular Church, as to the Communion pecu­liar to such a Church is no where (in Scrip­ture) called Schism, nor is so in the nature of the thing it self. 2. One Church refusing to hold that Communion with another which ought to be between them, is not Schism properly so called.

5. But if we here consider the matter or thing it self, we must enquire whether Christian Religion doth allow needless se­parations in the Christian Church. And surely he must have strange thoughts of the earnest commands and frequent argu­ments for Christian Unity, who supposeth them to regard only an inward Ʋnity, [Page 31]and yet to allow of open breaking and di­viding, and visible falling into pieces. Is this to think either honourably or rea­sonably of the designs of Christ, to sup­pose that he should express his Church to be one body compacted and joined toge­ther, Eph. 4.16. intending that its real members might be daily parting asunder by disclaiming the communion of each other? or that the whole Church should be as one building fitly framed together, Eph. 2.21. but with free allowance, that its parts should be at such a manifest di­stance, as never to come so near one ano­ther as to owne their communion? And when our Saviour prayed for his Church, which should believe through his Apo­stles Doctrine, as a consequent upon their believing, that they may be one in us that the world may believe that thou hast sent me, Joh. 17, 20, 21.Cyp. de O­vat. Dom. Christoph. in Joh. 17. Hom. 81. [...]. It is manifest that that Union of the Church, which should tend to convince the World of Christianity, and engage them to the Faith of Christ, must, besides the inward Ʋnity of faith and love, include an open and professed holding communion with each other; which is the most visible testimony of their Unity, and the want of which hath occasioned them who were strangers to Christianity, to decry and [Page 32]loath the Christian Religion, as appear­eth from what is above-mentioned in the second Section.Hier. in Eph. 4. And when S. Paul requi­reth to keep the Ʋnity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, it hath been reasonably of old thence inferred, that separation and breaking the Churches peace, ought to be rejected, because it opposeth and loseth that Ʋnity of the Spirit, Cypr. Ep. 52. which Christians should maintain, by renouncing fellowship with the Church of Christ.

6. And it is manifest that needless with­drawing or not holding communion, with that particular setled Church where we abide, with appearance of causeless di­stast towards it, or the way of its com­munion, was vehemently and with a pa­thetick zeal condemned in S. Peter him­self, withdrawing and separating from the Gentiles; which action included a blame­able forbearance, of manifesting his allow­ance and approbation, of their way of Christian life and serving God. Gal. 2.11.14. And the manifold cautions against divisions oft expressed in the Scriptures, do especially condemn such separation, which is the highest attempt, and most open profession of dividing: and as this separation is expresly condemned in the holy Scripture, so this is that thing which is so greatly condemned by the ancient [Page 33]Canons above named, and that even un­der the term and name of Schism. And it is of no small moment to observe, that the Primitive Church, who received the holy Commandments of the Gospel from the Apostles, did always understand the precepts of peace, to extend mainly to the duties of external communion; especi­ally considering, that whereas the Churches peace can only be broken by Church con­tests, which are managed either by words, writings, or open actions of discord, this latter way of expressing them by actions of separation, and open rendezvous of par­ties, is of all other the highest and most considerable.

7. But if the use of the word (Schism) be here considered, it includeth much of needless strife about words, to deny [...] or Schism, signifying division or renting asunder, to be a fit expression for rents and separations in the Church; when it hath been so used in the common Ecclesi­astical custom of speech, and is that which is according to the direct and proper im­port of the word. And if S. Paul ac­counted the bandying into parties and factions at Corinth, though without sepa­ration (which some account to be their case) to be Schisms, because their Unity was thereby opposed and hindred; much [Page 34]more must separation which is the highest appearance of parties, and breach of Unity, (and was probably the true state at Corinth) be so accounted of.

8.Dr. Owen of Evang. Love and Church Peace, c. 5. And whereas the same person hath of late purposely undertaken to espouse the interest of separation from the present Church of England, and to defend it from the charge of Schism, the pleas and pre­tences made in behalf thereof, will now fall under our enquiry.

9.A third Notion. Its first Plea. P. 167, 171, 172. One principal Plea is, That where things or observances unscriptural, are made the indispensible condition of Communion, there to refuse submission to such things im­posed, and to with hold Communion from that Church, is no Schism but a discharge of a duty. And that we may understand what he meaneth by such expressions, as Ʋnscriptural conditions of Communion; he telleth us in one place,P. 171. We do not dispute the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the things themselves; P. 177. and in another place, that it may be at present granted, that the manner or modes of the performance of Gods wor­ship, with rites and ceremonies for order and decency, may be lawfully appointed (or as it pleased him to call it instituted) by the rulers of the Church; yet (saith he) this will not help in our present enquiry, un­less it be also granted, that what may be [Page 35]lawfully practised in the worship of God, may be also lawfully made a necessary con­dition of Communion. And he saith in another places,P. 205. It is required in this case, not only to produce a warranty from the Scripture for the use of Liturgies, but also for making the constant attendance on them, a necessary condition of Communion. Wherefore his sense is, that with-hold­ing Communion becometh lawful and a duty, where any appointments for order­ly ministration, and the fit and decent performance of Gods service, (though lawful in themselves, but not particularly expressed in Scripture as conditions of Communion) are so determined, that they must be submitted to and complyed with, by them who embrace actual Communion with that particular Church.

10. But this is both false in it self, and would render all setled Church-Commu­nion utterly Ʋnlawful, and would make separation the Universal duty of all Christians, in every Christian Assembly in the World, not excepting them of the Congregational way. For the Scriptures have not injoined the particular time for Sacramental and other administrations, nor the place for publick Assemblies, nor in what method, Prayer, Preaching, Sacra­ments, Psalms, Chapters, Hymns, with [Page 36]other thanksgivings and services are to be performed; nor hath it determined us, either to, or against any particular lawful form, or external rite, as making them either universally necessary, or sin­ful; but these with divers other things of like nature, are left to the rules of Ecclesiastical Liberty and Prudence. Now it concerneth him who made this excep­tion, to discover how there can possibly be any orderly Christian Assemblies, and unconfused performances of Religious services, where such things as these are not determined; as where their Prayers and Services are neither performed with nor without a form, &c. And to the common apprehensions of other men it is very manifest, that unless there be a com­plyance or submission to such determina­tions, by the members of the Church, they can not actually communicate in these administrations, unless they could communicate in what they will not yield to join in. Yet these things with us are not made the conditions of communion, any other way than the submission to lawful determinations (of those things which must be one way or other deter­mined) is necessary for them who will join in such an orderly Society.

11. And they who urge this objection [Page 37]do themselves make their determinations of these things (besides some other things peculiar to their way) as much a condition of Communion in their Congre­gations, as our determinations are with us. They may possibly stamp a divine authority upon those usages of their own, which really have it not; and urge such things for laws of God which he hath not established: but this being much of the same nature, with teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, can never render their communion the more acceptable. And I suppose this follow­ing discourse will sufficiently manifest, that the divine authority doth neither enjoin their way of service without all forms and other rites, nor disapprove of ours. And now the arguments brought in that Treatise to make good this ex­ception, will concern themselves to an­swer as well as others, and may be ea­sily solved. For 1.P. 173. When Christ gave Commission to his Apostles to baptize all Nations and teach them to observe whatso­ever he commanded; he thereby enjoined all his doctrines and precepts to be re­ceived and obeyed of all men, and espe­cially of those who imbrace the Christian baptism; but he doth not thereby forbid rules of decency and order, which are re­quired [Page 38]in the Scripture, to be received in the Communion of Christians. And 2.Lib. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 3. & Ch. 2. Sect. 2, 3. the Apostles practice and 3. their doctrine (with a particular consideration of the fourteenth Chapter to the Romans) will be evidenced in this Treatise, to give both allowance and direction for Eccle­siastical constitutions of order.

12. The fourth argument is from this instance of fact.P. 191. When Victor Bishop of Rome excommunicated the Asian Church­es, for not observing Easter at the same time with the Roman Church, this his a­ction as fixing new bounds to Church-Com­munion, was then disliked much by others, and especially rebuked by one of the most holy and learned men then living, (which was Irenaeus). Ans. Well might Victors actions be censured by Irenaeus, which was not only a directing and retaining that as a sixed rule of order for his own Church,Eus. Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. [...]. which was then the Roman Cu­stom and practice, and which Irenaeus and the French Churches (as well as many others) did allow and judge requisite, in that very Epistle to Victor: but it was the obtruding that which was no Aposto­lical command or institution, to be so far Apostolical, as to be thereupon a doctrine and practice, necessary to be received in all parts of the Christian Church, and that [Page 39]all other whole Churches who received it not, were not to be owned in the Com­munion of the Catholick Church:Ibid. c. [...]. and upon this account he undertook to ex­communicate the Asian Churches [...] as being Heterodox or erring from the Faith. But our Church can be charg­ed with no such practices as these were, for it declareth it self thus;B. of Com. Prayer of Ceremo­nies. In these our doings we condemn no other Nations, nor prescribe any thing but to our own people only: which words with other to the same purpose, are prefixed to our Liturgy. His fifth argument is,P. 194. that hence it would follow, that there is no certain rule of Com­munion amongst Christians, fixed and de­termined by Christ. To which I answer, that in all doctrines of Christianity no­thing can be required as necessary for Communion with any Church, but what Christ hath determined: yet even here every errour in judgment or miscarriage in practice, doth not forfeit the right of Communion; and concerning defaults, they who have the power of the Keys which is managed with Ecclesiastical Prudence,Albasp. Ob­servat. l. 2. Obs. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. are allowed to consider of times and other circumstances: whence the Church of God hath unblameably used sometimes greater and other times less severity about the same crimes. But that there [Page 40]should be different prudential rules of ex­ternal order, in the communion of dif­ferent Churches, hath generally been allowed and acknowledged in the ancient Church, and pleaded for amongst the re­formed Churches.

13.P. 171, 202. Indeed it is in the same Treatise urged, (as a thing included under this exception of Ʋnscriptural conditions of Communion) that Ministers are required to express their approbation of the things in­joined; (as the Liturgy, Articles, and Book of Ordination) by their subscription or declaration. But besides, that these things are not intended for conditions of Christian communion, but requisite for regular administrations, and the preserva­tion of order: it is but reasonable, that they who insist on this Plea, before they blame us, much more before they separate from us upon this account, should them­selves consider whether they would be willing to receive any persons to be Mi­nisters of their Congregations, who do not some way or other express their al­lowance of their way and order: and par­ticularly whether they would entertain him as their Minister, who is resolved to perform all ministerial actions according to the order of the Liturgy. If they be willing to entertain such a Minister and [Page 41] Ministration, they must thereby justifie our way of order and communion, by their submitting to the same terms of in­joying Church-Communion. But if they will admit no person to be a Minister in their Churches, (as indeed they will not) be­fore they are satisfied that he approveth, and will continue in the way and order of their Churches; while they herein blame our Church, they should consider those words of the Apostle, Rom. 2.1. Thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest, for wherein thou judgest ano­ther thou condemnest thy self, for thou that judgest dost the same things.

14. But of the lawfulness of things as enjoined in the Church for order sake, which is the main thing considerable in this exception, and which hath been di­vers times sufficiently justified,Bishop Whitgift Tr. 2. Hccles. Fo­lit. l. 3. Lib. 2. c. 2. by Bishop Whitgift, Mr. Hooker, and many others since them, I shall treat in another place more particularly; and it will be suffici­ent here to add, that God who hath ap­pointed Rulers in his Church to guide and command, hath also made it a duty to obey them who have the rule over us.

15.Its second. Plea. Another Plea for separation from the Church of England, is, That the join­ing in communion therewith, requireth a consent to omit and refuse known duties [Page 42]commanded by Christ. P. 216. P. 218.231. For the proof of which, he giveth two instances. In his first instance he claimeth to every Mini­ster of a particular Congregation, by the ap­pointment of Jesus Christ, the whole im­mediate care of the flock, so that no part of discipline should be exempted from his office, or care (p. 219.) and this he saith by Consormity they must renounce (p. 229.) Which Plea for separation or rejecting Communion, is as much as to say, that no Minister may lawfully communicate and exercise his Ministry in any Church, where this kind of Congregational Inde­pendency is not the fixed Government; or where the Episcopal Power and Au­thority above Presbyters in all or any publick acts of discipline, is preserved. An assertion which favours of great rash­ness, in rejecting all those manifest evi­dences produced by divers, on the be­half of this Episcopal Government and Jurisdiction, with such an height of confi­dence, as professedly to disclaim the law­sulness of Ecclesiastical Ministration and Communion, with those who in practice embrace them. Yea this is such a position as would have engaged all Christian Mi­nisters, to have renounced the Commu­nion of all the ancient Churches in the Christian World, in the times of the most [Page 43]eminent Fathers of the Church, by this new way and method of the Churches Peace and Unity. And therefore instead of a charge against our Church, he hath herein done it this honour, to mention that as a chief matter of exception against it, in which it is conformable to the purest ages of Christianity.

16.Conc: Nic. c. 5. Conc. Ant. c. 6. The Councils of Nice and Antioch (which are part of the Code of the Uni­versal Church) expressing a manifest di­stinction between Bishops and Presby­ters, do declare the disciplinary proceed­ings of Church censures to be under the Bishops ordering and authority; and be­fore them S. Cyprian did the same,Cyp. Ep. 10, 65. both concerning excommunication and pub­lick disciplinary absolution; and Igna­tius frequently required that nothing should be done without the Bishops Autho­rity: to which agree the Scripture ex­pressions concerning Timothy, Titus, and the Apocalyptick Angels. And that the an­cient Churches and the authority of their Bishops were not confined to single Con­gregations (as some would have us be­lieve) is apparent,1. Conc. Neoc. c. 13. Conc. Ant. c. 8. Conc. Sard. c. 6. Athanas. Apol. besides the instances from the Roman and other Churches in Scripture, 1. From the frequent mention of Country-Presbyters and Religious As­semblies, in such places for which no [Page 44]Bishops were appointed. 2. From the multitude of Presbyters in one City; it not being credible that 46. Presbyters for the City of Rome in Cornelius his time,2. Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. [...]. Photii No­mo can. Yit. 1. c. 30. Justin No­vel. Const. [...].60. at Constantinople, (with a greater number both before and after Justinians Constitution) and a numerous Company in other Churches, should be designed, with a Bishop and many Deacons for the service of God in a single Congregation. 3. Because the greatest Cities in the World with the parts adjacent, when Christians were most numerous, had but one regular Bishop: and he who can ima­gine that in the most flourishing times of Christianity, there were never more Christians in those Precincts, than made up a single Congregation (though divers Churches were built at Jerusalem and other places) may as well conceive the same of the present London Diocess. And though there be some expressions in some ancient Writers, as Tertullian, and S. Hierome, which many have thought to assert, the ancient exercise of Ecclesiasti­cal Jurisdiction by a Bench of Presbyters of equal authority, (which would be too large a digression to be here considered) yet even that notion also must fall under the heavy censure of this exception.

17. The other instance concerneth [Page 45] private Members, P. 141.142. and the whole Church being abridged and deprived of that liberty to discharge their duty, which by the law of Christ they are to provide for. Among these duties he nameth reproof, admoni­tion, and exhortation (as if these things were not allowed in our Church, which is an intimation that needeth reproof) and also withdrawing from them that walk disorderly, and putting such obstinate of­fenders from among them. Now this in­stance also is built upon the bottom of Independency, groundlesly supposed to be a divine institution.Decl. of Faith and Ord. of Congr. Ch. Par. 2. Se. 4, 5, 7. Answ. to 32. Quest. qu. 14. & 15. For the Inde­pendents allowing the Ministers the prin­cipal care about the discipline of the Church, do assert an authority and power of Church-Government, to be seated in all the members of the church, together with their Officers; yea that the mem­bers of the Church may censure their Offi­cers; and some of them, as they of New-England express it, that the Keys are com­mitted to all believers, who shall join to­gether according to the ordinance of Christ. And Dr. O. who gives somewhat more authority to Ministers, than many others of them do, yet declareth his non-admit­tance of our discipline, p. 256. upon this account as one, as being in the hands of meerly Ecclesiastical persons, or such as are pre­tended [Page 46]so to be. This late device, of dis­cipline being exercised by an authorita­tive power of all the members of the Church, is claimed here as necessary for embracing Communion; but this is not only contrary to the Church of England, Gillespy Gov. of Ch. of Scot. Part. 2. c. 1. & Post­script. Jus. Div. Reg. Ec­cles. Par. 2. c. 10. with the ancient Churches, and to the French, Dutch, and other reformed Churches abroad, but it is also directly opposed and refuted by the Presbyterians, both of Scotland, and England: and this also is a general argument, for separation from all Christian Assemblies, of the Pri­mitive and Reformed Churches, except a few of themselves.

18. But as under the former instance, he insisted much upon the great usefulness of administring Church-discipline, which if rightly stated, and in its due measures, we heartily admit; so here he reflecteth upon the defects of exercising discipline among us, urging that upon such defects, as by the design of his discourse he re­presenteth ours to be,P. 244, 245. pious men may without the least suspition of the guilt of Schism, forsake the Communion of that Church, and if they have a due care of their own salvation, they will understand it to be a duty. But what he intimately chargeth upon the Church of England, speaking of the Church where wicked persons are [Page 47]admitted without distinction or discrimi­nation unto the Communion of the Church, and tolerated therein without any procedure with them or against them: if this be ge­nerally understood of all wicked persons as those words without distinction or dis­crimination to import, it is untrue and slanderous. But if this be meant only of divers particular persons; it is acknow­ledged that a more vigorous execution of discipline (which I have in the former Section noted to be hindred in the effects thereof, and not helped by divisions and separations) is desireable, and would be advantageous to the Church. Yet here we must observe, 1. That some mens ri­gour would make the rules of Commu­nion overstrict and severe, which was the ground of the Schism of the Novatians, and Donatists, and as some have anci­ently related of the Meletians also: and it is not desireable that the Churches au­thority should be acted by such heats. 2. That real defects in this particular (though they are not to be approved of) are no sufficient ground for separation, since such blemishes were mixed with the beauty of the Apostolical Churches them­selves, as is manifest from almost all the Apostolical Epistles, and particularly from the first Epistle to the Corinthians, [Page 48]in which divers miscarriages were taxed, and yet unity was strictly commanded, and dividing severely rebuked. Yea this very discourse at sometimes will not owne,P. 126. that this thing solely of it self is suf­ficient to justifie a separation; and the Congregational Churches in England, in the Declaration of their Faith and order, affirmed,Of Insti­tution and Order of Churches, Sect. 21. the Church-members upon offen­ces taken by them, having performed their duty, (private admonition and relating it to the Church) ought not to disturb any Church-order, or absent themselves from the publick assemblies, or the administra­tion of any ordinances upon that pretence, but to wait upon Christ in the further pro­ceeding of the Church.

19.Last Plea. Another thing only touched in that discourse, (but which is the main ground of mis-apprehensin) is, that there is (saith he) no Evangelical obligation to lo­cal (or external) Comunion, P. 256, 257. with any particular or parochial Church of this Nati­on; because every man may relinquish it by removing his habitation: which plea floweth from want of a right sense of the Church Catholick. For every Christi­ans obligation to keep Communion with the Church, is founded in his being visi­bly a member of Christs body, which in­cludeth his visible fellowship with the [Page 49]whole Church, which he entreth upon by Baptism, and from hence he standeth obliged to communicate, with that re­gular fixed part of this Church, where he resideth, and from which he hath no warrantable or necessary cause of sepa­ration. In this respect our Parochial As­semblies are of like nature with the Jew­ish Synagogal Assemblies, unto which they were not obliged by any special Synago­gal-Covenant, but partly from Gods gene­ral command of their assembling them­selves together; and partly from their Religious profession and circumcision, en­gaging them to Communion with the whole Church of the Jews, and thereby to their Synagogal-Communion. Here­upon under that dispensation, it was the practice of our Blessed Saviour, (whose example should not be over-looked by us) to attend upon these Synagogal As­semblies, and the Religious worship of God celebrated therein, as appears, Luk. 4.16. At Nazareth where he had been brought up as his custom was, he went into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day.

20. And can it enter into the heart of any Christian to imagine, that the holy Apostles, who in their travells could not be fixed in any particular Congregation, did not stand bound by the duty of [Page 50] Christian Ʋnity, to join themselves in Communion, with the particular fixed Churches or Assemblies of Christians where they came, (as S. Peter at Antioch, S. Paul at Jerusalem, and divers other places) though such Churches were founded by some of the other Apostles? And upon this account of the Ʋnity of the body of Christ, the Primitive Christians when they went abroad into other Regions, and distant parts of the World, did with a Religious care seek the Communion of the Churches where they came, and not to make separate Assemblies. Yea this is a thing so far acknowledged by our Eng­lish Independants themselves, (though they can talk at another rate where it serves their interest) that in their pub­lick Confession of Faith at the Savoy, they say,Conf. Ch. 27. Sect. 2. All Saints are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and Communion, in the worship of God, which communion though especially to be exercised by them, in the relations wherein they stand, whether of Families, or Churches; yet as God afford­eth opportunity, it is to be extended to all those, who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.

21. But the conditions required in any particular fixed Christian Assembly, em­bracing the Christian Faith and Worship, [Page 51]in the place of our residence, to make it our duty, upon the account of the Chri­stian Ʋnity to join therein, are these two. 1. That our communicating therein doth not oblige us, to join in any action or profession which is sinful. This is acknow­ledged on all hands, and needeth no fur­ther proof; because the Christians duty, of keeping in Communion with Christ himself doth require it. 2. That the As­sembly we join in doth not maintain an unwarrantable separation, from the Com­munion of the established Church; for here to join in Communion, is to join in separation, and is like Barnabas and the other Jews, joining with S. Peter, Gal. 2.14. who all walked contrary to the truth of the Gospel, in withdrawing from the Commu­nion of the Gentiles at Antioch: and the communicating with such a separating Assembly, would be a breach of that Apostolical command, of avoiding them who cause divisions, Rom. 16.17. And we may observe, that the joining in needless separations, being a sin against the com­mands of Christ, which require Christi­an Unity and Communion, can not be warranted by any authority upon earth, because that authority can not dispense with the commands of Christ, but ought to be subject to them; and therefore [Page 52]as S. Peter's practice and countenance,Theod. Hift. l. 4. c. 22. Aug. Ep. 166. did not excuse Barnablas and the other Jews; so neither could the indulgence of Valons the Emperour or his Predecessor, execuse the different Sects by them tolerated, from being guilty of Schism and the breach of Christian duty, in their divisions, and se­parations.

22. Another notion of Schism there is,A fourth Notion of Schism. which condemneth separation where ever Communion is lawful; but assumeth, that whereever any thing unlawful or strongly suspected, Mr. H. Tract of Schism, p. 2, 5, 8. is required in order to Commu­nion, there to hold Communion would be to join in conspiracy, and separation is then both lawful and necessary. Concerning which notion (granting that separation is necessary, where any thing unlawful is required in order to Communion) I can not admit for truth, that if any thing suspected be so required, separation be­cometh lawful thereby. For if by suspect­ed, be meant whatsoever the person, who maketh the separation, doth suspect as evil; by this rule, he who through carelessness of enquiry, or prejudice and want of Charity, is needl [...]sly suspicious about any form of service, or way of Church-Ad­ministrations, will be allowed to sepa­rate, and to be therein free from Schism, or sinful breach of Ʋnity, only because [Page 53]he is void of charity and wanting in due Christian care.

23. Nor can it possibly be true, that if some thing be enjoined, which divers persons who appear to be Religious, and are supposed to have considerable abili­ties of judgment, do upon professed en­quiry, both suspect and condemn, that they may lawfully separate, and not be guilty of Schism, if their judgments herein be erroneous and ungrounded. For though diligent enquiry where it is impartially made, is in this case an excuse from the degree of the sin, or from the precipitant or designed breach of Charity or Ʋnity; yet where it is so ill managed, as to take up with an errour, and practice upon it; it can not render that practice allowable. For this would justifie almost every party, which in judgment holdeth an errour, for separating from that Church, who either in her open practice, or in her publick service, requireth a profession of that truth which they oppose: and they must be excused from Schism, only because they acknowledge not the right rules of Reli­gion; and neither Donatists, Novatians, or Anabaptists, could then be blamed for their distance from the Church, provi­ded it be founded in their distance from and disowning of the truth. Yea [Page 54]if any persons be Arians, Futychians, or Nestorians, Ʋbi supra p. 9, 10. in opinion, (all which the author of this notion over-offici­ously excuseth from all Heresie, and saith they were at the worst but Schisms) they must also according to his notion, stand excused from Schism, in separating from the Church, which holdeth the true doctrine and openly in her service re­quireth a profession of it; concerning the person of the Mediator.

24. This would set up the power of an erring judgment, above the will of God, to discharge persons from what is Gods command, and would else have been their duty, (viz. Communion) and to give them authority to do that as a law­ful action, which to others who err not is a grievous sin, (viz. separation from that Church which holdeth the truth, meerly because it doth profess it) as if the crrour of man could render necessary duties, and divine commands, to be of no obli­gation. For though their errour may (till it be removed) entangle them in sin, in joining with the Church, because this en­cludeth a practising what they judge un­lawful; it can not justifie them from sin in separating from it, but this errour (as all other erroneous judgments do, where good and evil are mistaken for each [Page 55]other) doth in their practice every way ensnare them under sin, until it be cured.Lib. 2. c. 2 Sect. 3. But of the principal design of this noti­on, I shall give a further account in con­sidering things under scruples.

25. From what hath been hitherto discoursed, it appeareth, that the consi­deration of Schism, will make it necessary for him who undertaketh separation, to be sure that he acteth upon unerring grounds, and not upon mistakes: because to make separation from a Church, which (however it be misunderstood and cause­lesly censured) requireth nothing in it self absolutely unlawful, to be believed, pro­fessed, practised, or joined in, is to be guilty of the great sin of Schism.

SECT. V.
Of the duty of obedience to Rulers and Go­vernours, and the due exercise of the Ministerial function, which is in this case concerned.

1. The opposing Conformity if mana­ged upon insufficient grounds, hath ordi­narily involved the person opposing under the sin of disobedience, and want of subjection in things lawful to Christian Governours and Rulers, and their Laws and Constitutions; which ought to be obeyed, not only for wrath, but for Conscience sake. [Page 56]It is their duty in their places to shew themselves the servants of God, and to promote his glory, and to that end by their power and authoritative commands, to take care for the promoting and pre­serving the Order, Peace, and Ʋnity of the Church of God: and towards both Ecclesi­astical and secular Rulers, the divine Precepts do very plainly require our obedience. Indeed if any thing any time commanded be really sinful, the instructi­ons given in the Church of England will direct us to believe undoubtedly, Hom. of Obedience. Part. 2. that we may not obey Kings, Magistrates, or any other, though they be our own Fathers, if they would command us to do any thing contrary to Gods Commandment. But if the things be lawful which they command (as in this case I hope to make appear to men of unprejudiced minds) it is a sin of no low degree to disobey; and the duty of obedience is so considerable, that the Compilers of the Strasburgh Confession of Faith,Conf. Ar­gent. c. 23. expressed it to be Inter primi cr­dinis bona opera, in the highest rank and order of good works.

2. Nor can this obedience be thought a matter inconsiderable, which was en­joined of old in the first Commandment of the second table;Phil. de Leg. Spe­piailb. and as Philo obser­ved, encludeth part of the first table, and [Page 57]part of the second, having directly a respect both to God in his Vice-gerent, and also to man. And this is earnestly pressed upon us in the Gospel doctrine, as a means whereby we may bring honour to Reli­gion and Christianity, by S. Peter. 1 Pet. 2.12,—15. and as a necessary practice to express true conversion, from the state of sin to the life of God, by S. Paul Tit. 3.1, — 5. who also warneth against this sin, with respect to the danger of dam­nation thereby. Rom. 13.2. And this obedience to them who are over us, in things lawful and under their authority, is of so high and necessary a consequence, that without it there can be no peace, nor any regular and unconfused state, in any Family, City, Realm, or Church: this being the practice of the grand Maxim for the upholding order in all Societies of the World, which is evident by its own light, and is a principle of the law of nature.

3. Another effect of these disagree­ments about the established order of our Church, hath been this; that divers Mi­nisters have declined the orderly, regu­lar and publick exercise, of their Mini­sterial sunctions. And considering the weightiness of their Commission, with the greatness of their charge and account, and [Page 58]the exceeding advantage to the Church, yea to the honour of Christ and the sal­vation of men, by their labours where they obtain success, together with other their own concernments; it becometh them to be well assured that they have had a warrantable plea to justifie those proceedings. It was not without cause ac­counted a great miscarriage and default in Novatus, Eus. Hist. Eccless. l. 6. [...] that before he openly became the head of a dividing party, he was over-forward for want of a due zeal to Religion, to have relinquished the office of Presbyter, to which he was ordained, and to betake himself to another kind of life.

4. The ancient Church shewed its great dislike and distast, of any Ministers de­clining the orderly execution of his Mi­nistry, by determining that if any Bishop, Can. Ap. 36. Conc. An­tioch. c. 17. Presbyter, or Deacon, being ordained did not undertake his Ministration, he must be separated from the Christian Society, and deprived of Ecclesiastical Communion. And with equal severity they condemned that Minister, who refused the regular work and place of his Ministry, Can. Ap. 58. and him who undertook the place but minded not the work and duty, behaving himself negli­gently in not attending the care of the people.

5. From what I have expressed hi­therto, we may take a short prospect of the evills flowing from these contentions, which are such as these; the prejudicing men against the holy administrations of Gods service, the promoting wrath and strife, and the quenching Christian love; the being a stumbling block to the weak, hardning the careless, and being an oc­casion of much irreligion, grieving the godly, and every way gratifying the Churches Enemies, and hindring its wel­sare and the growth of piety; the hurtful disturbance of the Churches Peace, and en­dangering the Kingdoms interest, and the promoting of dangerous and dreadsul Schisms: nor is the disobedience to Ma­gistrates, and the deserting the Ministerial charge unconcerned herein. And all these things (if God in his mercy put not a stop to them, by directing mens minds to a right understanding, and turn­ing their hearts into a more peaceable and amicable frame and temper) may prove­also very dangerous and hurtful in the next Generation, to the dishonour of God, the discredit of Religion, and the ruine of many thousand souls: which sad con­sequences plainly enough shew these un­happy contests, rather to gratifie the de­signs of the destroyer, than of the Savi­our; [Page 60]and to be fruits growing from a root of bitterness. Ful. Church Hist. l. 7. p. 401. In these respects I think he was not far from the mark, who called this disagreement about Conformi­ty, the saddest difference that ever hap­pened in the Church of England.

SECT. VI.
A proposal concerning due considerateness in this Case; and the design of this treatise manifested.

1. After I have shewed the sad fruits of these dissentions, I must still acknow­ledge, that I doubt not but that there are dissenters, who act out of true prin­ciples of Conscience; and design to walk in piety to God, and in love and peace to­wards men: to such persons though they be of different judgments, (yea though some of them too far indulge their pas­sions) I profess an hearty respect and brotherly love, considering that wise and good men are lyable to mistake and err, still retaining this as a testimony of their integrity, that they are willing to be in­formed, and in practice to embrace what is their duty, when it shall be so evi­denced.

2. S. Cyprian who was a great promo­ter [Page 61]of Truth, Piety, and Peace, and wrote some tracts purposely to correct the fierceness, of them especially who were of his own opinion (viz de bono patientiae, Cyp. in Conc. Carth. & Epist. ad Jubaian. & de zelo & livore) for want of better information, but with openly avowed dislike of breach of communion, lived, and for what appeared to S. Austin died also, in that errour about baptizing Hereticks. Aug. Ep. 48. But had he rightly understood the truth, he would no doubt have re­jected his errour, as those Bishops who were of the same opinion with him are related to have done,Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 3. Hieron. adv. Lucif. Pamel. in Vit. Cypr. both in the Eastern Church and in the African, whereupon the Church enjoyed peace, and was filled with exceeding abundant joy: and Pa­melius thinketh that S. Cyprian himself li­ved to do the same.

3. And the women who out of love, but in their errour, came to anoint Jesus, designing it as a rite belonging to his burial, when they ought according to his doctrine, (which they did not yet under­stand) to have believed that it was the day of his resurrection, meeting with Jesus himself who expressed his favour unto them; were forthwith ready to have their mistakes discovered, and with joy upon conviction to yield both their judg­ments, and thereupon their practices to [Page 62]be rectified. Erring acts from mistake of judgment, are herein of the same nature with other infirmities of Christians, in that the being of them is consistent with the true nature of Christian life; whereas the willful persisting in them, and the designed promoting of them against evi­dence, is contrary thereto. For that is for men to resolve not to deny themselves, or to submit to God; but to oppose his mind and will if it be contrary to their own.

4. Wherefore I must intreat my Reader if he be a person dissatisfied about the matters treated of in this discourse, that he would make a stand, and give me leave to propose, what his own interest will engage him to admit, That before he proceedeth any further, he would se­riously resolve himself these two things. First, whether with reflexion upon what hath been said, he would not be heartily unwilling to stand charged in the sight of God, with being any way sinfully instru­mental unto so much hurt, as is conse­quent upon being unwarrantably engaged, in these contentions and oppositions? Se­condly, whether he be resolvedly willing to lay aside all prejudice, and designed serving any opinion or party;and to aim impartially to keep a good conscience, and [Page 63]in judgment and practice, to entertain all evidences of truth, in this enquiry about Conformity?

5. If any man should answer either of these two things in the Negative, he must be a man of an irreligious Spirit willing to ruine himself, and of a pernicious Spi­rit ready to destroy others; and whilst he remaineth thus strongly prepossessed, he is never like to be advantaged by this dis­course, or any other of the same subject; but it is most necessary for him to become better instructed, in that chief principle of Christian practice, to which he is yet a stranger, viz. The great necessity in or­der to salvation, of minding uprightness to God, and the doing his will, above gratifying his own affections, or the plea­sure of any other men. But as to him who answereth these two things in the affirmative, I only entreat him to pro­ceed in the remaining part of this dis­course, with the same frame and temper of Spirit.

6. I come now to examine the mat­ters themselves, to which Conformity referreth, which from the premises, ap­peareth to be of very considerable use, and tendeth to the resolving divers cases of Conscience, and (if God please to vouchsafe so great a mercy to us) to [Page 64]promote the Churches peace and Ʋnity, the Ministers comfortable discharge of his duty, the common advancement of Chri­stianity, and the Protestant profession, and the particular edification of Christians. In order to the contributing somewhat towards these excellent ends, I have undertaken this discourse, beseeching the God of wisdom and knowledge to guide and lead me, that I may clearly understand and manifest what is truth, and that he would so move on the hearts of others, that they who err by mistake may attain to a right judgment, and that those who act out of any spirit of opposition, may have their hearts reformed, and be made willing to mind their duty.

7. And because among the other things required of Ministers who conform, many dissenters have expressed them­selves to be most dissatisfied about the clauses concerning the Covenant, and some who have undertaken to make a Surveigh of these things,Surveigh of Grand Case, Case 6. (though they may be mistaken in the measure of their ground) have declared, that this is the great moun­tain in their way, to be removed by the Faith of miracles; I shall in the first place take that into consideration, and manifest that there is a ready, safe, and direct pas­sage, without any great difficulty or need [Page 65]of miracles, over that which only appear­eth to them to be a mountain; if we be willing to walk in the plain paths, to which we are directed by the Scripture rules.

8. And whereas in the other particu­lars expressed, there is nothing more (if so much) disliked and opposed, than what is contained in the Liturgy, and particu­larly the Ceremonies; I shall endeavour in the remaining part of this Book, to give a true account of these things, the right understanding whereof, may be very conducible towards the Churches peace, and the general good.

SECT. I.
Of its being an unlawful Oath.

1. THE acknowledgment to be made by Ministers, concern­ing the Covenant, being no permanent Constitution, may require the shorter discourse. Yet it is needful that so much be said as to manifest that while it is for the present continued, and until it shall be withdrawn and abated, it ought not to be an obstacle to any, in the en­trance upon Ecclesiastical administrati­ons (or civil offices.) To this end I shall first consider the Oath it self, that it was n it self unlawful; and then its obligation so far as that is concerned in this acknow­ledgment.

2. Now an Oath may be accounted unlawful in it self, with respect to the wholsom laws of the land: and upon this account any Oath especially concerning publick affairs of Government, is un­lawful in it self, where either the matter, or the constitution and framing, is un­warantable [Page 67]according to the law. That the Covenant (and its Imposition) was in this respect unlawful, will be easily admit­ted by all impartially considering persons, who cannot be supposed to acknow­ledge, that whatsoever (either for, or against their own interest) obtaineth in any wise a vote in the two Houses, but is not assented to, but disallowed by the King, hath a sufficient legal and warrant­able constitution. 13. Car. 2.1. And accordingly by the highest authoritative way of resolution, this Oath is declared Ʋnlawful, by a pub­lick Act in our Statute Laws.

3. And its not having a legal Consti­tution (besides what respecteth the par­ticular matter thereof) is sufficient to render it unlawful in it self, according to the law of God, which establisheth or­der, commandeth obedience to Govern­ment, and subjection to all wholsom hu­mane laws. For by the law of God the Oaths of Subjects against the will of their Rulers for altering matters of Govern­ment must be declared to be unlawful, as not being according to the rule of righte­ousness. And it is not the matter only which maketh an Oath or Promise Ʋnlaw­ful in it self, but all other necessary ingre­dients or attendents, may have the like ef­fect and influence; as the consideration of [Page 68]the person who taketh the Oath, with res­pect to his capacity and authority, and ma­ny other such like things, which the Ca­nonists have expressed in this distick;Sayr. Clav. Reg. l. 5. c. 3. Sit jusjurandum licitum decerne; notato Quis, cui, quid, per quid, ad quid, cur, quomodo, quando. Martin Margarit. Decret. Filiuc. Trac. 25. n. 204. Agreeable hereunto Filiucius a Casuist maketh an express distinction, be­tween pomissio illici [...]a ex parte materiae, and promissio illicita per seipsam; telling us that a promise made by a Son against the prohibition of his Father, may be a lawful promise as to the matter of it, but yet it is an unlawful promise in it self, as encluding in it self an unlawful thing; that is disobedience to his Fa­ther.

4. But touching the matter of the Co­venant being unlawful, I might note, that that clause expressing them who take the Covenant to be of one reformed Religion, and that they had before their eyes the glory of God, and the honour of the King; was either not so true, or not so well known concerning one another, as that they might safely express it in a warrant­able Oath. And what concerned the doctrine, worship, discipline and Govern­ment of Scotland and Ireland, was that which could not be understood, as the matter of an Oath should be, by ordinary [Page 69]persons in England who were required to take it. And that clause, declaring that this Covenant was made according to the commendable practice of these Kingdoms in former times, did not only require them who took it to be well skilled in History, but also declareth former open combina­tions of Subjects by Oath, against the mind and will of their Prince, to alter the affairs of Government, to be com­mendable practices: which is to assert what is contrary unto truth.

5. And how much it was in the matter of it Unlawful, by its designed tendency to promote a civil War (even against the King) may also be considered. For though the King was known to oppose this Oath, yet the Covenant engaged them who took it, according to their pla­ces and callings to assist and defend all those that entred into this League and Covenant in the maintenance and pursuing thereof. And also that they should all the days of their lives coniinue therein against all op­position. And that this phrase according to our places and callings, was not under­stood nor intended in the Covenant, and by the contrivers thereof, in the due li­mited sense (though many private per­sons did so take it)is manifest by consi­dering what kind of assistance to each [Page 70]other was by them practised, before, at, and after the taking the Covenant; and also because the taking this phrase in such a strict restrained sense, would have been utterly inconsistent with what is joined therewith, viz. the assisting and defending all those that enter into this League and Covenant, in the maintain­ing and pursuing thereof, to continue therein against all opposition, and not to be withdrawn from it by whatsoever per­swasion or terrour: since all this was against the Kings known command and open Pro­clamation.

6. As this Covenant had respect to the affairs of the Church, it appeareth un­lawful upon a double account. 1. That endeavour, intended in the Covenant for the alteration of Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, was in the nature thereof an Unlawful endeavour: for thereby Subjects did undertake of themselves, though without legal autho­rity, and without and against the Kings consent, to alter, oppose, and expel what was established by the Laws of the Land. To this purpose the Covenant it self in the beginning thereof declareth, that af­ter other means of supplication, remon­strance, protestation, &c. now at last they enter into a League wherein (Art. 1. [Page 71]and 2.) they engaged themselves to this endeavour. Wherefore that endeavour cannot include such means as supplica­tion to the King, &c. Which are called other means than what they then designed. And according to this sense, the Assem­bly,Pref. to the Direc­tory. notwithstanding the Kings prohibitive Declaration, declared, that to give pub­lick testimony of their endeavour for Ʋni­formity in divine worship, which they pro­mised in the Covenant; they resolved to lay aside the former Liturgy, and agreed on the directory. Ordin. Jan. 3. 1644. And the then two Houses without the Kings consent and against his Declaration, proceeding, as themselves there expressed, according to their Cove­nant to reform Religion, did undertake by their ordinance to abolish the Book of Com­mon-Prayer, and to repeal all statutes which enjoined it, and to establish the di­rectory: and in like manner they pro­ceeded in their other Ordinances of Oct. 9th 1646. for abolishing the name, title,Ordin. Oct. 9. 1646. stile, and dignity of Archbishop and Bishop, Nov. 16. 1648. and of Aug. 29. 1648. for establishing a new way of discipline and ordination And in the two several ordinances for abolish­ing Bishops, and selling their lands, there is a special provision to this purpose, To save and preserve all other rights, titles and interests, other than the King's, and his [Page 72]Heirs and Successors, the Archbishops, and Bishops, &c. Which words carry an ap­pearing indication of some conviction, that those endeavours against Episcopacy were not every way lawful and according to right.

7. The matter of the Covenant was also Unlawful, as it designed the extir­pation of Church-government by Archbish­ops and Bishops. For to engage the root­ing out of all Episcopacy, which ever since the Apostles times hath been estab­lished in the Church, and under which our own Nation received its reformation, is to Covenant, to abolish that, which (after all Books of controversie hitherto written) may fairly plead for a divine institution; and no man (how confident soever) can be sufficiently secure, that he doth not act against the will of Christ, while he designeth to reject it; and therefore an Oath to this end and pur­pose cannot be a lawful Oath. Conc. Chalc. c. 18 Con. Trull. c. 34. Aurel. 3. c. 21. C. 11. q. 1. Conspi­rationum. With what indignation such actings would have been looked upon by the Primitive Christians, may appear by the Canons of the ancient, general, and Provincial Councils, wherein all combinations by Oath (though they were not so high as this of the Covenant) whether by Clergy or Laity against their Bishops were in the highest manner, and [Page 73]with the greatest severity condemned and censured.

8. I know that some have written that the Covenant did not intend wholly to abolish but to regulate Episcopacy.Surveigh of the Grand Case, p. 44. But other Covenanters have earnestly oppo­sed this, and tell us that the Government is to be extirpated, not by mutation, mu­tilation, limitation, or regulation, but utter abolition, una cum stirpe evellere. And that Parliament by whose ordinance the Covenant was taken, when they set upon this extirpation, did design the taking away even the title, stile, name and dig­nity of Arch bishop and Bishop. And as this restrained interpretation (which was the sense of divers particular persons) ma­keth somewhat a violent exposition, of the extirpation expressed in the second Article, so it directly clasheth with the first Article, whereby the Church of Scot­land (over-looking the Bishops there) under its Presbitery, which professed a great opposition to every little appear­ance of any fixed Episcopacy, was made the Idea, according to which, the Church of England must be reformed.Bishop Spotswood Hist. of Ch. of Scotl. l. 3. p. 159, 160. Now in Scotland according to their form of Church Policy, 1560. they had Superintendents or Bishops, who were to use Episcopal power in many things, were chosen and appro­ved [Page 74]by the Ministers, and were subject to the censures of the Ministers and El­ders, and were not required to have Episcopal Ordination: and yet even these Superintendents,Ibid. lib. 6. p. 311. in the modelling their Presbitery (after the new form of policy was introduced 1578.) were rejected, and disclaimed and exploded in the As­sembly at Dundee, 1580. as having neither foundation, ground nor warrant in the word of God.

9. And thus having taken a short, plain, and direct view, of divers things in the Covenant, in must needs seem ex­ceeding strange (unless the interest of parties, or prejudices, have the chief and principal influence upon some mens scruples that divers persons, who pro­fess themselves extreamly scrupulous, concerning the lawfulness of other things which are very justifiable, should be as far in the other extream confident assert­ers of the lawfulness of this Oath, with­out any scruple, and even to impatience of all contradiction.

SECT. II.
That no man is obliged by this Oath to endeavour any alteration fo the Govern­ment.

1. Though some phrases in the Cove­nant, which had respect to the King, were truly declared by himself to be dubious and dangerous, and were to such purpo­ses made use of by some violent Spirits, yet I shall presume it now granted, that no man is by that Oath obliged to endea­vour any alteration of the Government in the State. But I shall here undertake to manifest, that there lyeth no obligation from the Covenant upon any person who took it, to endeavour any alteration of the Government in the Church, though he might intend this in his entring upon that Oath. And this I shall evidence by propound­ing four Rules.

2. The first Rule is, That Superiours just rights may not be violated. But if the voluntary Vows or Oaths of Inferiours, made against the consent and command of their Superiours, concerning things belonging to their Government (which is the present case) did bind them to pro­secute what they did so undertake; then [Page 76]must it be acknowledged lawful, that the Superiours right and authority be taken away, without his own con­sent, and that the duties of Obedience, the divine Or­dinances of Rule and Dominion, and to­gether therewith all peace may be rooted out of the World. This will be manifest by considering the Oath of a Servant, that he will not do such business as he thinketh his Master intendeth for him; of a Child, that he will have none of tho­se orders, nor servants in his Fathers family, which his Father approveth; or of an Army, that they will not engage in a Battel, or undertakeany march though they be thereto commanded. And like to these is the Oath of a Subject, to de­termine matters of publick Government, against the law, and the mind of his So­veraign. And if other inferiours should in the like case as forwardly make con­trary vows; if these should also be sup­posed to necessary obligation against their superiours right, this would perpe­tuate endless quarrels between these par­ties, and banish subjection from them both.

3. And a very great consent of Wri­ters, of different perswasions in other things, ight be produced, to shew that such Oaths of Inferiours cannot be obli­gatory: [Page 77]as Bishop Saunderson de Oblig. Juram. Praelec. 4. sect. 5. & Prael. 7. Sect. Conf. Aug. cap. de Vot. Monach.6. Aquinas 22^ae q. 89. a 9. ad 3^m Grot. de Jur. Bel. & Pac. l. 2. c. 13. Sect. 20. Per­kins Cases of Consc. l. 2. c. 13. q. 3. Ames. Cas. Consc. l. 4. c. 22. n. 26, 30, 35. and the Augustane Confession. Thus God ap­pointed, that if the Father declared against the vow of his Daughter, or the Husband against the vow of his Wife, that vow should be void and of none effect. Num. 30.3, 4,Phil. de leg. speci­al. ad praec. 3^m. &c. which was as Philo Judaeus observeth, because they were un­der the dominion of others, and might vow things incommodious to them.

4. But the King who hath in this Realm the chief Government in matters Ecclesiastical, as well as in others, did disallow and openly declare against this Oath, by his Proclamation of Oct. 9. in the 19th year of his Reign, which may be seen in the Bibliotheca Regia, Judic Acad Oxon. p. 8. being many years since therein reprinted, and was long before urged to this purpose, by the University of Oxford. After this among otehr large concessions, the King decla­red, that he could not consent to the Covenant, both from Newport in the Isle of wight, Sept. 29. 1648. and from Holmby, May 12. 1647. Wherefore the King did several times manifest his disallowing the [Page 78]Covenant, and even with particular res­pect to its endeavouring the alteration of the Government in the Church, as may be collected from the view of his own words: and thereby any intended obli­gation from this Oath, to alter this Go­vernment, became thenceforth void to all his subjects, agreeably to the like case. Num. 39.9, 10, 11, 12, 13.

5. A second Rule is, That the doctrine of Christ should be the guide of our practice. Now it was the tradition of the Scribes and Pharisees, Mat. 15.4, 5, 6. and Mar. 7, 10, 11, 12. That though God com­manded the honouring the Father and Mo­ther, (which encluded the providing for them things convenient) he who had made a vow not consistent with this duty, ought not to relieve them against his vow. And though there be some variety in the critical exposition of the words of the Evangelists; divers taking the [...] in S. Matthew, and the Corban in S. Mark, for the gift or thing devoted it self;Lect. Var. l. 1. c. 4. Pe­titus for Josephus (Ant. l. 4. c. 4.) ac­counteth Corban to be the name of a vo­tary, who had vowed only to mind the Ministry of God;Grot. de Jur. B. & P. l. 2. c. 17. Coce. in Gemar. Sanh. c. 7. others as Grotius, Coc­ceius, and some of our own Writers, af­ter Masius, most probably esteem Corban to be the form of a Vow or Oath, which [Page 79]the Jews express, [...]; yet in all these different ways of resolution, there is a sufficient agreement, concern­ing the substance and sense of the Phari­saical doctrine. But this their doctrine our Saviour condemneth, as a transgres­sing the Commandment of God by their tra­ditions, Mat. 15.3. and making the Com­mandment of God of none effect. v. 6. &c.

6. Now the same command, Honour thy Father and thy Mother (and divers precepts of the Gospel) doth enjoin obe­dience to Governours and Rulers. And our Soveraign and our Laws do establish the present Government in the Church, and thereby do require subjects to sub­mit to it and receive it; and therefore according to the doctrine of Christ, no Vow or Oath ought to be accounted to disoblige men from this duty of obedi­ence, which is enjoined by the Command­ment of God.Second Paper of Proposals 1661. And the pretence made by some, that they are far from thinking that the Covenant obliged them to resist au­thority, but yet it doth undoubtedly oblige to forbear their own consent to what they there renounced; this would agree well with the intent of the Pharisees tradition, while the Son might tell his Father, that he acknowledged his vow could not ob­lige him to do his Father wrong; but yet [Page 80]he was bound that in these present cir­cumstances he might not consent to yield him relief. But such things are of a direct contrary tendency to the doctrines of Christ.

7. A third Rule is, That every obliga­tion of an Oath of contract, ceaseth by the mutual content of the contractors; and therefore, had the Covenant been every way warrantable, the obligation by con­tract therein, to endeavour the alteration of the Government of the Church, would have ceased, by the Parliaments of all these three Nations disclaiming any such obligation.22ae q. 89. a. 9. ad 2^m. De J. B. & P. l. 2. c. 13. Sect. 18. De Obl. Juram. Prael. 7. Sec. 8. De Consc. l. 4. c. 22. Sect. 37. And that such an Oath cea­seth to bind, when we have the desire or consent of them to whose concernment it hath particular reference, is asserted by such Writers as treat of this matter, as Aquinas, Grotius, Bishop Saunderson, Amesius, and divers others; and this hath been also admitted and insisted upon, by some chief defenders of the Covenant, particularly by Mr. Henderson, in his first Paper to the King. And the reason here­of is evident, because every person, so­ciety, or community, may recede from their own right and priviledge. Thus after the two spies had made a general Oath to Rahab, to preserve her and her Fathers house alive (which was a privi­ledge [Page 81]she obtained) by agreement be­tween her and them it was resolved,Jos. 2.12, 13, 17,—21. that this Oath should not bind, if either she or her Fathers family, were not within the doors of her house. And thus if any two Kingdoms should by Oath engage, to trafick in some commodities with none other but among themselves only; if this contract be afterwards judged pre­judicial to both their interests, and the publick authority on both sides yield to have it altered, and quit all claim of any such peculiar right of trade, the obligation of that Oath is thereby dis­solved.

8. That the Covenant was designed to be an Oath of contract, between divers subjects of these Nations appeareth, be­cause as it is all along stiled the solemn League and Covenant, so in the beginning thereof it is declared, We the Noblemen, Barons, &c. determined to enter into a mutual and solemn League and Covenant: and a mutual League cannot be other­wise, than an Oath of contract. And whereas this Oath in the sixth Article thereof, is stiled their Ʋnion and Con­junction, and in the end of it, it is called an association and Covenant, all this doth intimate, that its obligation was intended towards one another. Wherefore since [Page 82]any obligation from the Covenant to al­ter the Government, is disclaimed and rejected by the Parliaments of England and Ireland, and also by the rescissory act (as I find it termed) in Scotland, it must hereby become void, though it had been otherwise binding.

9. A fourth Rule is, That what the ge­neral judgment of the best Christians of all ages have condemned as sin, ought not to be admitted. But they have all acknow­ledged it a sin, that an Oath so far as it is against any right, should be persisted in as being obligatory. And it is as rea­sonable to doubt, of ordinary travellers knowing the road they have long used, as to question whether the most eminent Christians since Christ, did ever arrive at the understanding of those plain duties of Religion, which are of frequent pra­ctice.

10. When Novatus made a Schism in the Roman Church against Cornelius, he, in delivering the Holy Sacrament, gave to his followers this Oath;Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. [...]. Swear to me by the body and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ, that thou wilt never leave me, nor return to Cornelius: and yet both S. Cy­prian and other Catholick Bishops every where, judged these men bound to re­turn, and condemned their continuance [Page 83]with Novatus, in the breach of Peace and Unity. Evagrius relateth,Evagr. Hist. l. 6. c. 6. that when Mauritius the Emperour sent Philippicus to command his Army, they bound them­selves by Oath, not to owne him for their Commander: but when the Emperour persisted in his purpose, and sent a Bishop to treat with them, they were at last sa­tisfied, that they ought to receive him, notwithstanding their Oath. And when Anacletus was set up to govern the Ro­man Church,Vit. S. Bern. lib. 2. c. 5. in opposition to Innocentius the second, some persons told S. Bernard, that they could not receive Innocentius, because they were bound by an Oath to hold to Anacletur against him. But S. Ber­nard answered, insanire eos qui rem illici­tam Sacramenti patrocinio constare existi­mant; that it is a madness to think, that any thing not lawful of it self can be defended by their Oath; Spelm. Conc. Brit. in leg. Alf. 1. Novel. 51. Dig. l. 2. Tit. 14. Ju­risg. whereas (said he) such disorderly agreements, under whatsoever pretence of Religion they be established, are to be accounted void, and by the authority of God to be dissolved.

11. That nothing otherwise unwar­rantable can become a duty by any Oath, was declared in the Ecclesiastical laws of Alfred, and by the Councils of Basil. Sess. 4. of Lerida Can. 7. and of Toledo. 8. Can. 2. and in several places of the civil [Page 84]Law;Cod. l. 9. Tit. 8. Const. 2. and by all our Protestant Writers, treating of the vow of single life, in the who have not the gift of continency. And this is so agreeable to all rational principles, that it was received among the ancient Roman laws, Phil de leg. special. C. 22. q. 3. & 4. lib. 2. Tit. 24. cap. 12. & 19. before the Em­pire became Christian; and is likewise declared by Philo the Jew. And in the Canon Law, Gratian resolved by divers ancient authorities, that an Oath against the duty of obedience being sinful, can­not oblige: and the like is asserted in the Gregorian decretals; both which are in this matter received with good appro­bation by Protestant Writers.

12. Now I shall not think it necessary to answer objections, but shall content my self no note, that whatsoever objecti­on may press some one of the rules above­mentioned, doth still leave the main de­sign secure, unless all these rules could be invalidated. And such objections as carry an appearance of proof, that an Oath may oblige to what otherwise would not be warrantable, have this ma­nifest indication of mistake, because they tend to uphold this monstrous position, that men are bound to observe Gods commands and their duties no longer, than till they shall please to make an Oath against them.

SECT. I.
The lawfulness, antiquity, and expediency, of publick forms.

1. PƲblick Prayer is acknowledged by all Christians, to be a chief part of the worship of God, who hath said, My house shall be called an house of Prayer for all people. But since God hath not expresly declared in his word, whether the ordinary publick duties of Christian Prayer, should be performed with or without a form, the determination of the sittest practice in this case must be made (not without regard to the autho­rity of Governours) by a respect to the rules of order, edification, and the glory of God, and an eye unto approved exam­ples, from which considerations, I shall produce divers evidences, of the requi­siteness of a set form for the publick of­fices of the Church, both from Reason, and from example and authority.

2. The reasons are such as these. 1. That hereby a fit, true, right, and well ordered way of worship, in addresses to God, may be best secured to the Church, in its publick service of God, that neigher God nor his worship may be dishonoured; their being many easily discernable ways, of considerable miscarriage, in the pub­lick offices of the Church, even by them who err not in the doctrines of Religion. 2. That needful comprehensive petitions, for all common and ordinary spiritual and outward wants, of our selves or others, with fit thanksgivings, may not in the publick supplications of the Church be omitted; which (considering men as they are) can no other way be either so well or at all assured. 3. That the affections and hearts of pious and religi­ous men may be more devont, and better united in their presenting their service to God, where they may consider before­hand, what particular Prayers and Thanks­givings they are to offer up, and come the more ready and prepared to join in them. This is an advantage of which many are deprived by a bad temper of mind, either sucked in by prejudice, or swallowed down by carelessness.

3. 4. That such difficult parts of Church Offices, as Baptism and the Lords Supper, [Page 99]the matter of which requireth great con­sideration, that they may be clearly and aright expressed, (as both Conformists, and many Non-Conformists acknowledge, and is evident from the many disputes about them, by men neither of mean parts, nor dangerous designs) may by a more considerate care in the composure of a form, be so framed, that men of greatest understandings may with readi­est assent entertain them, and that they may be sufficiently vindicated against the boldest opposers. 5. To be an evidence to other Churches and future times, after what way and manner we worship God, and that both the matter and expression of our service to him, is sound and pi­ous, in our general and common wor­ship. And this may be a full testimony that such a Church both receiving the true faith, and expressing a right way of worship, is both a true and in its measure a pure and incorrupt Church.

4. The Arguments from example, which in general countenance the law­fulness or expediency of a form are two, which will require a larger Declaration. The first is from the practice and exam­ple of Christ, who directed his Disciples the use of the Lords Prayer, as a set form: and that from thence the custom of the [Page 100]Christian Church,De Eccles. Offic. l. 1. c. 9. in composing and using set forms did take its pattern, is rea­sonably asserted by Isidorous Hispalonsis. That the Lords Prayer was delivered as a form is so manifest; that (was it not for the violent force offered to mens minds, by prejudice and contentious opposition) it could never have been questioned. And it may be sufficiently proved. 1. From the command given by our Sa­viour Luk. 11.2. When ye pray, say Our Father, &c. and the expression in S. Mat­thew, Mat, 6.9. [...] pray sc, or on this manner, is the same with that, when the form of Aaronical benediction was enjoined. Numb. 6.23. On this wise (in the Septuagint [...]) shall ye bless. But the blessing there directed hath been generally acknowledged, to be a constant invariable form of Benediction under the law,Luth. Tom. 3. f. 10. Prec. Ec­cles. Form. Genev. and as such was used in the German Reformation by Luther, and in that also of Geneva. 2. From the ground of the Disciples request. Luk. 11.1. Lord, teach us to pray as John also taught his Disci­ples. That it was ordinary for the Jewish Teachers to compose forms for their Dis­ciples is observed by Dr. Lightfoot, on Mat. 6.9. and the frequent yea constant use of forms in the Jewish Church shall be hereafter manifested, and if this be re­ferred [Page 101]to the words of S. Luke now men­tioned, it is not to be doubted, but that John the Baptist, according to the custom of the Jews, delivered a form of Prayer to his Disciples, and that what John did herein, was both approved, and the like practised by our Saviour, who directed the use of the Lords Prayer to his Dis­ciples at two different times.

5. 3. From the manner of the composure of the Lords Prayer, which is not pro­pounded as a general direction to pray, that Gods name may be hallowed, and that his Kingdom should come; but it is dictated by Christ as it should be expres­sed by us in our persons, Our father, hal­lowed be thy name, &c. 4. The ancient Christian Church near the times of Christ, did acknowledge and use it as a form. S. Cyprian is very large to this purpose;Cyp. de O­rat. Do­min. saith he, Christ consulting the salvation of his people, etiam orandi formam ipse dedit, himself delivered them a form of prayer; and then exhorteth that we pray as our master taught us, that the father when we pray may owne the words of his Son; and saith he, when we have Christ an advo­cate, let us express the words of our advo­cate; and how much more effectually shall we obtain what we ask in Christs name, if we ask by his Frayer. Tertullian before [Page 102]him declared,Tertul. de Orat. c. 1. &c. 9. Christus novam orationis formam determinavit, Christ appointed a new form of prayer, and he saith, that whilst the Christians used other Prayers this was not omitted, praemissa legitima & ordinaria oratione quasi fundamento. And before both these the words of Lu­cian in Trajan's time,Lucian. in Philopat. about reciting the Prayer beginning [...], doth in­timate the ordinary use of this Prayer among Christians. From these testimo­nies I suppose it evident, that the Lords Prayer was used as a form in the ancient Christian Assemblies, and that we have good reason thus far to receive, what some hundred years after was delivered by S. Gregory, Gr. Ep. l. 7. c. 63. and from him by divers other Writers, that the Apostles themselves did always at the Consecration of the Eucharist, make use of the Lords Prayer. Wherefore the Lords Prayer being thus delivered as a form, doth enclude an approbation of the like composures of Prayers among the Jews, and an allowance of the same among Christians, for whom this was in­tended. And that path where we follow our Saviours steps cannot be the way of errour.

6. The other argument from exam­ple, is from the ordinary practice of the Church both Jewish and Christian. Con­cerning [Page 103]the Jewish Church, I might in­stance in the eighteen Prayers, composed for its ordinary use from the time of the Captivity, which are oft mentioned by the Jewish Writers, and in their forms of Prayer for the Passover,De Emen­dar. Tem­por. l. 6. p. 573. of which Sca­liger thinketh that there is as much rea­son to be confident, that the particular Prayers recorded in the Talmud (which he calleth their Digests) were the ancient forms used by the Jews, as that the Roman Digests exhibit to us the true determination of the Roman Lawyers. But I shall rather insist on the Jewish Church making use of set forms of Prayer, from the very times of Moses, and so downwards; which is no new opinion but is ordinarily re­ceived; and it hath been observed by divers learned men, that the Samaritan Chronicle speaketh of a Book of Prayers, used by the Jews at their Sacrifices, from the time of their Legate Moses, until that day. And besides the testimony of that Author (which I urge no further than other proof may be made) let these two things be considered.

7. First, That it is certain from the Scriptures (and oft expressed by Philo Judaeus) that the Jews did use Prayers with their Sacrifices and oblations. The whole multitude were praying without at [Page 104]the time of incense, Luk. 1.10. and the Apostles themselves went up to the Tem­ple, at the hour of Prayer, which was the ninth hour, Act. 3.1. Which was the time of the evening Sacrifice;Mr. Mede Disc. on Ezr. 6.10. and Mr. Mede hath well proved that Sacrifice if self is a rite of supplication. And that the use of such Prayers was as ancient as Moses, is manifest from Lev. 16.21. Where Aaron was commanded to confess over the live Goat, the iniquities of the Children of Israel. Secondly, That there are plain eviden­ces in the Old Testament, of such forms used upon many occasions. Besides the forms of Prayers and praises in the Book of Psalms, enjoined for constant use unto the Levites by Hezekiah, and the Princes, 1 Chr. 29, 30. and besides divers other Hymns and Songs, and such commands for a form of words, as Joel 2.17. Hos. 14.2. there is an express form of Prayer appointed by God, to be used at the Of­fering the Heifer for expiation of uncer­tain murder, Deut. 8.21. and a form of confession at the offering up their first fruits, Deut. 26.3, 4, 5, 6, 7. and a form of Prayer at the presenting the third years Tithe, Deut. 26.13, 14, &c. and some other such like. Whence it is evident, that forms of Prayer were by Gods ap­pointment used, from the beginning of the [Page 105]Jewish Church. Yet if no such thing could have been proved, and if their original had been from John the Baptist, and the direction of our Saviour, this alone might be sufficient to recommend them unto Christians.

8. In considering the general practice of the Christian Church, it must be ac­knowledged, that in that extraordinary case (which reacheth not the ordinary condition of the Church) when the mi­raculous gifts of the Holy Ghost were communicated; both Prayer, prophesying, and singing were frequently thereby per­formed, as is evident from 1. Cor. 14. And I yield it most probable (though even Protestant Writers do herein differ) that the ancient Roman, Jerusalem, and Alexandrian Offices, were called the Li­turgies of S. Peter, S. James, and S. Mark, because of their certain early use in the Churches where they presided; though it is not certain that they were composed by them, this being mentioned by no an­cient Writer of the first Centuries. Nor do I doubt but the Liturgy or Anaphora of S. John, and that of the twelve Apo­stles are suppositious, which with the former are related by Gabriel Sionita, Gab. Sio­nit. de Ri­tib. Maron. to be exhibited amongst the Syriack Offices: for of these we have no mention in any [Page 106]ancient Ecclesiastical Writer, unless the words of Epiphanius, Epiph. Haer, 79. expressing all the Apostles with S. James the Brother of our Lord, to be [...] (that is, chief Dispensers or Stewards of the Chri­stian Mysteries) might allowably be rack­ed, to speak them all Composers of Litur­gical forms, Allatius de Liturg. S. Jacob. according to the violence offered to those words by Leo Allatius. But if it can yet be proved, that at least since the ceasing of the frequent distri­bution of the miraculous gifts of the Spi­rit, the Church of Christ hath in all Ages used and approved forms, this will be as considerable a testimony in behalf of Liturgies, as can reasonably be re­quired.

9. That forms of Prayer were of use in the Church, about 1300 years since, is acknowledged by them who plead most against them, from Conc. Laod. c. 18.3. Carth. c. 23. and Conc. Mil. c. 12. and that they have continued from that time downward, cannot be denied. In the fourth Century, there is frequent mention in some parcels of Liturgy, in the Wri­tings of the Fathers: and there are so many testimonies that S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and S. Basil were framers of Li­turgies, that I do not see how any can rationally doubt of the truth thereof. [Page 107]But that these Liturgies have undergone divers alterations in succeeding Ages, is both apparent, and is very reasonable to be imagined. And he who shall compare the Greek Copy of S. Basils Liturgy, with the Syriack or its version, both which are represented together by Cassander, Cassand. Liturgie. will find them so vastly different from each other, that he must either conclude great alterations to have passed upon them, or that they never were originally the same. But from these I shall now look back, into the more early times of the Christian Church, where for the most part, I shall only briefly mention the te­stimonies, which have been fully produ­ced by others.

10. It is not probable,Euseb. de Laud. Con­stant. au­temed. that Constantine the Emperour would have composed [...], godly Prayers, for the use of his Souldiers, if such forms had not then been used in the Christian Church:De Vit. Const. l. 4. c. 19, 20. Eu­sebius accounting this an admirable thing that the Emperour should be [...], a teacher of the words of Prayer. But Eusebius in another place, giving a particular account of some expressions suited to the Souldiery, in those set forms of Prayer, which he calleth [...] the constituted Prayers; doth a little be­fore that declare Constantines own pra­ctice, [Page 108]that he would take Books into his hands, either for contemplating the holy Scriptures, or for the expressing with his Court [...] the Prayers that were constituted and appointed: and this Euse­bius there calleth his ordering his Court [...], according to the manner of the Church of God: and this is a mani­fest evidence of forms in the Christian Church in his time.Orig. Hom. 11. in Je­rom. Cont. Cel­sum l. 6. Origen manifestly citeth a piece of the usual Liturgy, an hundred years before Constantine saying, Frequenter in oratione dicimus Da omnipo­tens, da nobis partem cum prophetis, &c. We frequently say in our Prayers, Give, O Almighty God, give us a part with the Pro­phets, &c. and in his Books against Celsus he declareth Christians to use [...] Prayers which were ordained or con­stituted. S.Cyp. de Orat. Dom. Cyprian sufficiently intimateth the use of some forms in the Carthaginian service in his time, by describing the en­trance or beginning thereof, the Priest saying sursum corda, lift up your hearts; and the people answering Habemus ad Dominum, We lift them up unto the Lord. And the that considereth, that Tertullian plainly intimateth a form of abrenuncia­tion in Baptism, De Cor. Mil. c. 3. and that they had set Hymns then appointed for particular times and hours, upon their [Page 109]stationary days,Albasp. Ob­serv. l. 1: c. 16. as Albaspinus interpre­teth him, Adv. Psych. c. 13. will think it not improbable, that what he mention­eth of the particular heads of Prayer, in the usual Assemblies of the Christians, should have reference to some constant forms by them used:Tert. Ap. c. 39. and their use is fa­voured by the expressions of [...] and [...] in Justin Martyr, and Ignatius. And many have thought,V. Dr. Hammond in 1. Tim. 2.1. that the Apostle had a special eye to the composure of such forms of Prayer, agreeably to what the Baptist and our Saviour prescribed to their Disciples, in commanding Timothy the Governour of the Church, that (among the things which concerned his behaviour in the Church of God, Ch. 3.15.) first of all, prayers, intercessions, supplica­tions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men, &c. For though the Phrase [...] may either signifie that Prayers be put up to God, or that they be composed, in this place it may well intend both. And it is thought by S. Augustine, Aug. Ep. 59. that these various words of the Apostle, Prayers, Supplications, Intercessions, and giving of thanks, did direct to a compre­hensive fulness of all such Prayers, in the fixed models of the publick service of the Church, when the Communion was administred, and that the publick offices [Page 110]of the Church were accordingly compo­sed,De Vocat. Gentium l. 1. c. 4. and the same sense is also favoured by Prosper.

11. Since the reformation, the Saxon and other Lutheran Churches have their Liturgies, the Bohemian had its Liber Ri­tualis, and the Palatinate its Agenda (as Ʋrsin stileth it) by which the right or­der of its publick administrations,Ʋrsin. Praef. in Apolog. Ca­techis. might be vindicated from the Calumnies of de­tractors. And the Churches of France, Holland, and others, have their forms for the publick service of God. And after the Order at Geneva had established a form of publick service for the Lords day, with some appearance of a liberty of variation (which some relate not to have been so manifest in their practice, as in their rule; which was Dominico die mane haec ut plurimum adhibetur formula) I say after this was established at Geneva, Calv. Ep. 87. Calvin who composed it expressed his judgment to be for the strict use of set forms, in his Letter to the Lord Protector in England: Wherein he writeth to this purpose. For so much as concerneth the form of Prayers and Ecclesiastical rites, valde probo, I much approve, that it be de­termined, so that it may not be lawful for the Ministers in their administrations, to vary from it. And this he judgeth ne­cessary [Page 111]for these reasons, that it may be an help to the weakness of some, that it may be a testimony of the Churches consent, and that it may slop the desultorious le­vity of those who are for new things.

12. And these very expressions of Cal­vin, are cited with great approbation by the Walachrian Classis of Zealand, in what they wrote in the time of our late Wars, to the Assembly at London, and they fur­ther declare their great distast against them, who condemn the use of forms, in these words;Consid. Contr. in Angl. c. 7. qu. 2. Durum putamus omnes illas pias Ecclesias condemnare, quae ab Aposto­licis & primitivae Ecclesiae temporibus, us (que) ad hodiernum diem, cultum Dei publicum ex praescriptis certis (que) formulis celebrarunt,— pr [...]inde hominum illorum praecisam singu­laritatem arguimus, qui omnes praescriptas formulas ex cultu divino eliminant. Say they, We account it grievous, to condemn all those holy Churches, which from the Apo­stolical times, and the primitive Church, unto this day, have celebrated the publick worship of God out of prescribed forms, — Wherefore we blame the precise singularity of those men, who would cast out all pre­scribed forms from divine worship: So they. And indeed it must be a rash sen­tence to condemn forms of Prayer as evil and sinful, which were embraced by the [Page 112] ancient Church, while it retained its soundness, and before the corruptions and distempers of the Church of Rome took place, and by the Protestant Churches since their recovery there from. And in the determining what is expedient, or in­expedient, he had need have strong foun­dations to erect his high confidence up­on, who will oppose his own judgment, with some very few persons besides, against the concurrent judgment and pra­ctice of the Church of Christ, in so many several Ages and Nations, and against the determination of God himself under the Old Testament, and our blessed Savi­our under the New.

SECT. II.
Objections against set forms answered.

1. What is opposed against the former Section, must be here considered, both concerning the antiquity, lawfulness, and expediency of set forms. It is acknow­ledged, that publick Prayer even at the Celebration of the Holy Communion, was at the beginning of Christianity, performed by the extraordinary and wonderful effusion of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, when also prophesying and [Page 113]singing were performed by the same. But some attempt hath been made to prove that there was no ordinary use of forms of Prayer in the three first Centu­ries, and that they were not established till the end of the fourth Century.

2 To this purpose Justin Martyr is first produced,Apol. 2. prope fin. p. 98. who declareth concerning his time, that at the Communion [...]: the chief Minister sendeth forth Pray­ers and Thanksgivings according to his abi­lity, or rather, with all his might. Now all the proof here dependeth on the use of the Phrase [...], which the Ob­jectors understand, according to his ability in composing a Prayer. But this is a sense not consistent with the use of the same Phrase in another place of the same Apo­logy, where he discourseth also of their Prayers at the Eucharist,p. 60. and speaketh of all Christians (who were not all to compose Prayers according to their abi­lity for that service) that they were [...] praising God with Prayers and Thanksgivings with all their might; that is, with the greatest intention and fervency of heart and spirit; and this is properly the sense of [...] as may be evinced from the use thereof in other places, and from the use of [Page 114]like expressions referring to Prayer.

3. It was Nazianzens exhortation,Naz. Orat. 3. Let us being cleansed in soul and body, [...] with all our might sing that song, which the Israelites sung when the Egyptians were destroyed; where the [...] implies affectionateness and earnestness of mind in the use of a set form of words.Lex Rab. in [...] Buxtorf noteth it as an ex­pression used among the Jews, that he who shall say Amen [...] with all his might (which answereth to [...]) the Gates of Paradise shall be opened to him: but here could be no variety of expres­sion, but (as he interpreteth it) by this Phrase is meant, omni intentione & de­votione, a joining with all earnestness of intention and heartiness of devotion. Linw. Prov. l. 3. Tit. 23. Sect. 1. About 450. years since was framed an English Canon, requiring the daily publick Pray­ers and service to be performed religi­ously, prout Deus dederit, and again, prout Deus inspiraverit (which are Phrases as plausible and pregnant as [...]) and yet these Phrases were used concerning the set diurnal and nocturnal offices, re­quiring that they should behave them­selves therein with Religious devoutness, according as God should give them ability, and breath by his spirit. Wherefore this citation from Justin Martyr, though ma­naged [Page 115] [...], or with the utmost might, will prove nothing but the weak­ness of the attempt of the Ʋndertakers.

4. Another place objected is from Ter­tullian, Apol. c. 30. who saith the Christians did pray, sine monitore quia de pectore, without a monitor or prompter, because from their heart. The sense of these words of Ter­tullian hath been variously apprehended by divers learned men; some judging that they intend praying by heart (as we call it) and therefore by a form; others that they expressed the readiness of Christians to put up hearty and devout supplications to God,Bishop Bil­son, of Christian subjection. Part. 4. from the Religious inclinations of their own spirits, and some very worthy men have thought that sense of these words, which is closed with in the management of this objection, not to be improbable concerning Tertullians time. And it is not much of be wondred, if some obscure Phrases of so dark a Writer as Tertullian be either not well understood, or sometimes misunderstood; among this number I account this Phrase, which I suppose to refer to an ancient custom in the Primitive Church. But

5. In answer to this objection, it might be sufficient to observe, that sine monitore, can in no propriety of speech be construct, without a form; since the [Page 116]Monitor must needs be a person not a Book, whose words were to guide and direct others. Now I suppose they who object this place, would not from hence infer, that in the publick Prayers of the Church, there was no Minister who ex­pressed the words of Prayer, with which the rest joined in affection. This is in­deed most properly to pray sine moni­tore, but this could not be practised in publick Prayers, save only in the use of a known form, in which they should all conspire with one heart and voice: and according to this sense (in which it is most fairly understood, if it be referred to the publick Prayers of the Church) this place is a considerable testimony for the use of set forms.

6. But it seemeth to me very proba­ble (which I leave to the consideration of others) that these words peculiarly concern the Stationary days of the anci­ent Church. These days were the fourth and sixth days of the Week, in which the Christians attended the publick As­semblies of the Church,Albasp. Obs. l. 1. obs. 16. beginning very early in the Morning, and continuing till three a Clock in the Afternoon, and these were accounted the chief days of Christian supplication and humiliation, and the observance of them was esteemed the [Page 117]most effectual means, to obtain Gods blessing and favour. On these days, be­sides their joining in publick Prayers which Tertullian intimateth to be per­formed about the hours of nine, twelve, and three, a considerable portion of the days was allotted for their exercising themselves in private Prayers, and in­ward and fervent supplications, humbly performed upon their knees, with fasting and tears in the place of publick Assemblies; with regard to what was needful either to themselves in particular, or to the publick welfare of the Church or Em­pire. Of the ordinary use of these re­tired, but solemn supplications and devo­tions in the Christian Church, there are (as I suppose) divers sufficient testimo­nies.

7. Tertullian (who in his Book De Ora­tione, De Orat. c. 13. hath peculiar respect to their Sta­tionary days) speaketh hereof; Quid amplius referunt isti qui clarius adorant, nisi quod proximis obstrepant? imo pro­dendo petitiones suas quid minus faciunt, quam si in publico orent? Cyp. de Orat. Dom. v. Pamel. in Cypria­num. And S. Cyprian requireth them who are gathered toge­ther in the Assemblies with the brethren, and do celebrate divine Sacrifices with Gods Priest, that they would avoid indigest­ed and tumultuous speaking, and setteth [Page 118]before them the example of Hannah, who prayed not by loud petition, sed tacite & modeste, intra ipsas pectoris latebras pre­cabatur. That there were such Prayers used in the Jewish Church, appeareth from the example of Hannah, and of the Pharisee and Publican. To understand this Phrase of Tertullian concerning such Prayers in the Christian Churches, is most agreeable to the literal sense of these words, sine monitore quia de pectore, and to zephyrus thus paraphrasing upon it. We do not conceive Prayers dictated by a Priest, but all the Christian Assembly, as if we all conspired together, to express our desires with sighs and groans, out of the very seat of our minds and spirit. So that he under­standeth this place, of that inflamed de­votion kindled from a fervency of in­ward heat, which needed not the help of the wind without to blow it up; or of those active desires which received not their efficacy from the breath or voice of another, but from the inward motions of the soul.

8. After these are produced, the Coun­cil of Laodicea Can. 18.3. Conc. Carth. c. 23. and Conc. Milev. c. 12. as if they gave the original to set forms of Prayer, when they only established some sanctions concerning them. The Laodicean Canon [Page 119]enjoineth the use of these services Morn­ing and Evening. The Canon of Car­thage in one part of it requireth that quas­cun (que) sibi preces aliquis describit, whatso­ever Prayers any one shall transcribe for himself, he shall not use them till he hath conferred with the understanding brethren. Now tramcribing (properly here inten­ded) supposeth a form, and care is taken by this Canon, that no Copy for the pub­lick use of the Church, (which could then be only had by transcribing) should be received until it was carefully exa­mined.V. Medes Christian Sacr. Sec. 3. The other part of that Canon­requireth, that at the Communion (where Christs offering up himself to the Father is commemorated) their Prayers should always be directed to the Father. This doth not suppose that there were no forms then in use, but might well be intended either to put a stop to what was then en­tring, or to regulate what was amiss in any of their set forms, especially consi­dering that in the vast territories of the Carthaginian jurisdiction, various forms of Prayer were about that time used; some of which were composed by Here­ticks, as is evident from S. Augustin, Cont. Don. l. 6. c. 25. who was a member of that Council. The Canon of Milevis declareth against the use of any other forms, than those estab­lished [Page 120]by the Council: but we may as well conclude from our Act of Ʋniformity, as from any of these Councils, that it gave the first Original to forms of Prayer, because they are thereby established. And thus having viewed these chief objecti­ons, I may well conclude that the evi­dence for the great antiquity of set forms remaineth inviolable.

9. The argument against the lawful­ness of set forms, because they limit the use of gifts, needeth not much considera­tion; since it is manifest, that by the will of God, bounds and limits were to be set even to the use of the extraordinary gifts of Gods spirit, that the Church might be edifyed. 1 Cor. 14.26, 27, 28, 30, 33. Whereas now no such miraculous emana­tion of the Holy Ghost can be pretended; nor doth the establishing a form for the pub­lick Offices of the Church deny the liber­ty in due place of using other Prayers, ac­cording to the practice of our and the an­cient Church.

10. It is further objected, that forms of Prayer are disadvantageous to piety and devotion, and the Non-Conformists oft plead experience as a testimony, that they are the cause of much deadness in mens spirits, and the hindrance of the lively exercise of Religion. Here on [Page 121]the other hand, others by experience assert the advantage of set forms to pro­mote devotion, when attended without prejudice, and with a Religious design of joining in Gods worship. To discern the truth in this difference, it may be useful to consult the judgment of such persons as are least partial in this Case, and yet are able to make a true estimate of damage or advantage; and then especi­ally to consider the evidence of reason which may be produced.

11. The Leyden Professors declare concerning set forms,Synopl. Pu­rior. Theol. Disp. 36. Sect. 33. non tantum licitas sed & valde u [...]les esse contendimus, We defend against any persons that they are not only lawful, but exceedingly advantageous and this they assert not only because every Christian cannot fitly conceive new Prayers upon every occasion, but because in great Assemblies, attentio auditorum per usitatas formulas non parum juvatur, the attentive­ness of the hearers is not a little helped forward by usual forms. Consid. Contr. Ang. c. 7. q. 2. The Walachrian Classis of Zealand, do in like manner de­clare publick forms to be lawful, and profitable for the helping and directing the attention of the auditors, and the pre­serving Uniformity: and that in good forms of Prayer, Christians may pray with a humble sense of their wants, with [Page 122]holy affection, desire, zeal, faith, and a Re­ligious acting of the heart to God, suitable to their own cases, nobis expertis certissi­mum est, is a thing (say they) most cer­tain to us who have experienced it.

12. But the surest way of tryal, where­by forms of Prayer may be manifested to bring no disadvantage to the Church of themselves, is from considering several arguments to that purpose, as 1. because (as I have shewed) God himself prescri­bed a constant form of Prayer for the Jewish Offrings, and a form of Priestly blessing; and our Saviour directed the Lords Prayer as a form, and presented a form of words for the administring Bap­tism: but it must be at the least a great misapprehension and sin, to think that the holy God and our blessed Saviour, should command and enjoin what is of its own nature a hindrance to godliness, Piety and true Religion, and a disadvantage to the Church.De Orat. Dom. S. Cyprian said well, what Prayer can be more spiritual than that which was given to us by Christ, by whom the holy Spirit himself was sent? 2. Because it is generally acknowledged that the singing Psalms of Prayer or praise, may be ad­vantageously performed in a set form of words, and the holy Scriptures are not the less edifying nor the less applicable to our [Page 123]selves because they are contained in a set form of words, & both in reading the Scrip­tures and in Prayer our hearts ought to be religiously moved towards God though in somewhat a different manner. 3. Because all the ages of the Christian Church from the first Centuries, have used them as an advantage to Religion; and it is not at all probable, that such excellently devout and judicious men, as the fourth and fifth Centuries abounded with, should be so stupid and dull spirited, as not any of them to discern between the helps and hindrances of religious devotion, in mat­ters of most ordinary practice. Where­fore though many mens minds may be most pleased and delighted with variety of expression, there is no prejudice to piety from a set form, further than this is caused by prejudice against such a form, or by want of a Religious temper to join in it. Here I shall note what Mr. Baxter observeth (though he yield not so much use of forms as I plead for.) He saith,Disp. of Li­turgy Prop. 10. the constant disuse of forms is apt to breed a giddiness in Religion, and it may make men Hypocrites, who shall delude themselves with conceits that they delight in God, when it is but in these novelties, and varieties of expression that they are delighted: and therefore he adviseth forms to fix Christi­ans [Page 124]and make them sound. And the argu­ments in the foregoing Section do evi­dence the benefits of their constant use.

SECT. III.
Of the manner of composing the Prayers in our Liturgie; chiefly of Responsals and short Prayers.

1. Coming now to a particular consi­deration of that form of Prayer enjoined in this Church, I shall wave such things where the force and matter of the ob­jections is cut of, by the alterations au­thoritatively made in the new establish­ment of our Liturgy; and beginning with the Prayers themselves in the daily ser­vice, there are two things especially to be treated of concerning their general frame and contexture. The first is that the people are required to bear a part in this service, not only in that they are by voice to join in the Confession and Doxo­logy, but that several Petitions are requi­red to be expressed, by the united voice of all the Assembly. This is condemned by the Non-Conformists,Except of Presbyter p. 4. who say that the Minister is appointed for the people, in all publick services appertaining to God, and that the people hereby seem to invade that sacred office; the Scriptures making the Minister the mouth of the people to God in Prayer, and intimating the peoples part to be only to say, Amen.

2. But since our Saviour condemneth the teaching, or receiving for doctrines the commandments of men; we may not em­brace that as a Scripture doctrine, where the Scripture delivereth no such thing. Indeed under the law there was a special command of God, that whatever legal Sacrifices were offered to him (some few extraordinary cases only excepted) that service was to be performed by the hand of the Priest; but there is no constitution under the Gospel, that spiritual Sacrifi­ces of Prayer, thanksgiving, or the ex­pression of a contrite broken heart, may be offered up to God in no other way than by the mouth of a Minister, though it be in a publick Assembly. And what they assert is (sufficiently to other mens understandings) contradicted by them­selves, who allow the people liberty by their voices to join in singing those Psalms which contain both Prayers, praises, and Confessions.

3. The truth is, all such Prayers as have particular reference to the Conse­cration, and Administration of the Sacra­ments, and to the Ministerial absolution and benediction, ought to be performed by the Minister alone (though it be in a private place, and upon a particular oc­casion) because these things enclude the [Page 126] power of the Keys. But as for others the rules of order and edification will direct, that Prayers and Confessions which are considerably long should be expressed by one, that the rest may the better under­stand and join in them; and the autho­rity of the Ecclesiastical office, and its order and degree in the Church, will require this to be performed by some in the Ministry. For this we have the ex­amples of the Scripture times, to which agreeth the practice of the following ages;De Eccles. Dogm. c. 30. and the author under S. Aug. name saith, that those who are of authority in the Church, tota fere Ecclesia secum congemis­cente postulant & precantur, do put up their requests and Prayers almost all the Church joining with their sighs and groans. Yet this practice doth no way disallow the peoples vocal joining, in short Ejacula­tions or in other generally known Peti­tions, since this may be of good use to unite their affections more firmly, to quick­en their minds into a greater fervency, and to fix their spirits in a more diligent attending to the service they are about, and more particularly to express their joining therein, whereby they may both incite others, and use their tongues as in­struments of Gods glory.

4. Indeed S. Paul speaketh of him who [Page 127]occupieth the room of the unlearned, saying Amen, at their blessing or giving of thanks. 1. Cor. 14.16. But the very phrase of blessing and giving of thanks, makes it probable that this Text is to be under­stood as Mr. Thorndike expoundeth it, of the Consecration of the Communion. And at that time the people did ordina­rily answer Amen, and nothing more, as appeareth from the early testimonies of Justin Martyr, and Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria. 2. But if this sense be not admitted, this Text of the Apostle doth neither mention, nor in the context more nearly refer to Prayer than to singing, in which latter the peoples bare saying Amen is not contended for, nor allowed as a constant rule for the Churches pra­ctice, though it was probable the usual method in the Christian Assemblies in those Apostolical days, when the duty of singing was performed by the immediate inspiration of the spirit, upon some par­ticular persons: and that these extraor­dinary motions of Gods spirit in those times, were only vouchsafed to the Clergy or Ministry, is not probable from the con­tents of that very Chapter. And there­fore this place of Scripture doth not con­fine the whole vocal service of God (excepting an Amen) to the Ministry, [Page 128]the people being altogether debarred and excluded.

5. But that all the servants of God may allowably be interested, (where the due rules of order and edification are observed) in the outward joint expression of praise and Prayer to God, is very agree­able to the holy Scriptures, where the holy Angels are represented to cry one to another and say, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of Hosts, the whole Earth is full of his glory, Is 6.3. and all Israel praised God and said, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever. 2. Chr. 7.3. And as S. Paul exhorteth that with one mind and one mouth Christians should glorifie God. Rom. 15.6. S. John in his Vision be­held and heard the four living things, the Elders, the Angels, and every Creature in Heaven and Earth, expressing blessing, ho­nour, glory and power unto God. Rev. 4.8.—11. Ch. 5, 8.—14. and a great mul­titude whom no man could number, crying with a loud voice and saying, Salvation to our God, which sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb. Rev. 7, 9, 10. and he heard also the voice of the 144000. who were with the Lamb on Mount Sion, as the voice of many Waters, and as the voice of a great thunder, singing a new Song. Rev. 14.1, 2, 3. and these places last mentioned [Page 129]are the more considerable, because they contain representative Visions, of the service acceptably performed to God in the Christian Church.

6. If we consult Ecclesiastical practice, there is very probable evidence, that under the Old Testament the people did vocally join by responsals, in the ordi­nary service of God, in the Sanctuary and Synagogues. V. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 6.13. Both the Joma and other Tracts of the Talmud, mention the people in the period of their Prayers, expressing [...] &c. Blessed be the name of the glory of his Kingdom for ever and ever. In Ch. Par. in Deut. 10.16. And the particular res­ponsals used by the Jews at Circumcision, are expressed by Fagius. The use of al­ternate singing among the Essens is suffici­ently known, but that this was of very ancient use in the Jewish Church, is very likely, because the word [...] which pro­perly signifieth to answer, is an usual ex­pression of singing even in the holy Scrip­tures. And there appeareth considera­ble evidence, from Ex. 15. v. 1. & v. 20. that that Song of Moses and the Children of Israel, Phil. de Vit. Mos. l. 3. was uttered as Philo Judaeus averreth, [...] with respon­sal melodies alternately repeated.

7. In the Christian Church, the Ori­ginal of the Antiphona, or the alternate [Page 130]singing of Hymns by two quires, is as­cribed by Socrates to Ignatius; the like use of Davids Psalms is declared by Theo­doret, to have had its beginning at Anti­och from Flavianus and Diodorus. Their Original in the Latin Church is referred by Platina to Damaseus, and by Walafri­dus Strabo to S. Ambrose: Is. Hisp. de Eccl. Offic. l. 1. c. 7, 8. but both Isido­rus Hispalensis, and Rabanus Maurus, do testifie that long before this, the Respon­soria wherein the whole Quire answered to one Man,Rab. Maur. de Inst. Cler. l. 2. c. 50, 51. were known by that name and used in the Latin Church. And sometimes the whole Assembly joined in their Hymns and Psalms, sometimes they were sung by one alone all the rest join­ing to eccho forth the [...] or end of the Hymn, Conc. La­od. c. 15: and by the Laodicean Coun­cil the wholy Assembly were not allowed to join in their publick singing, which was required to be performed by the appointed singers only. Thus the Eccle­siastical practice hath varied, according to what was thought prudent and conve­nient.

8. Concerning Prayers and Confessions, S. Basil declareth it to have been in his time the ordinary practice of divers Eastern Churches, Bas. Ep. 63. that every man by his own words did profess repentance, and make confession. Naz. Or. 3. And Gr. Nazianzene ac­quainteth [Page 131]quainteth us that Julian in imitation of the Christians did appoint amongst the Gentiles [...] a form of Prayer to be said in parts, or by way of Respon­sals. Hierom also relateth, that populus cum sacerdote loquitur in precibus, the peo­ple did speak with the Priest in the Prayers; and Gregory the great noteth,Gr. Ep. l. 7. c. 63. that in the Greek Church the Lords Prayer was ordi­narily said by all the people together: and as anciently as we can meet with any par­cels of Liturgy or particular Offices, the use of responsals may be easily discerned, even as far as S. Cyprians sursum Corda, and Habemus ad Dominum. Wherefore the use of responsals, and the people joining in some expressions in the publick service of god, was a thing thought use­ful by the ancient Church, as well as by our own, and is allowable by the rules of the Scripture, and the Order of the publick worship of God: and whosoever assert that the vocal joining of the peo­ple, in any expressions of Prayer, in the publick Assembly, is as Ʋzziahs action was, an intrenching upon the Priests Of­fice; doth set up such Bars about the service of God, which do keep Gods people at a greater distance from the throne of Grace, than the nature and priviledge of Christian liberty will al­low. [Page 132]Yet the composing or directing par­ticular Prayers for the publick use of Christian Assemblies, is the proper work of the Church Officers who are to be the guides thereof; as also teaching and instructing (being an act of authority) doth ordinarily belong to the Ministers of the Church: and this is that speaking which is forbidden to Women in the Church, because it is an act of authority, 1. Cor. 15.34. 1. Tim. 2.12. Whereas the joint expressing some words of confession or supplication, is wholly an act of humility, and is not forbidden by those places of S. Paul, which purposely provide, that women may not usurp authority over the man, but be under obedience.

9. The next thing to be considered in the composure of our publick service, is, that it doth not contain one continued Prayer only, for a particular Office, which God hath no where commanded, but se­veral short Prayers which he hath no where forbidden. This hath been thought by many considering and Religious men, to be advantagious, for the quickning our affections and pious desires towards God, and for preserving the mind from deadness and dulness. But the shortness of these Prayers were censured formerly by the Non-Conformists, to be short cuts [Page 133]and shreadings, and of late was stiled by the Presbyterians, an affected empty tossing Gods name in mens mouths, vain repetiti­on [...] and and tautologies, which are not the [...] but the worse because Gods name is [...] the matter of them. Presbyter. Papers p. 47, 48. But surely [...] expressions, whereby they indulge themselves to make sport with Religious [...]rvice, is not a thing well becoming so­ [...]r men and Christians; and is so much the worse when they thereby cast re­proach, even upon the devout using the holy name of God in pious addresses to him. It is an easie thing for the vain fan­cies of men, if they be not more Chri­stianly principled, to make use of scorn­ful and deriding speeches, concerning any method of service whatsoever, and in­deed concerning any good thing: the effect of which would be to bring con­tempt upon Religion and dishonour to him whom it should be our endeavour to glorifie.

10. But if we consider soberly; the main difference between the use of one continued long Prayer, and divers short ones to the same purpose, is this, that in these short Prayers the name and attri­butes of God are more frequently men­tioned in the beginning, as the ground of our adoration and dependance; and [Page 134]the merits of Christ are often mentioned in the end thereof, as the only way and means of our access to God, and ob­taining grace and help from him; with a more frequent saying Amen, as an ex­pression of confidence and joint consent in these Prayers. Since therefore the serious sense of God, and an application to him, and confidence in him, with an eye to the merits of Christ, ought to take place in our minds throughout every pe­tition in our Prayer; I cannot see how the vocal expressing them if solemnly performed, and not beyond what is de­cent and convenient, can possibly fall un­der any just censure, unless it could be sinful to express that with the mouth in publick service, which is both pious and requisite to be conceived in the heart: especially since it cannot be denied, but that God is honoured by us if we think of him frequently, provided it be also piously; and no imaginable account can be given, why he should not be also ho­noured by us when we oft express his name in Religious invocation of him, but not without a due gravity, reverent devoutness, and pious affection.

11. Indeed our Saviour condemneth battology or vain repetitions, where they think to be heard for their much speaking. [Page 135] Mat. 6.7. which is, when true Re­ligion is neglected, and confidence placed in the sound and multitude of words; as the Worshippers of Baal cryed from Morning to Noon saying, O Baal hear us. 1. Kin. 18.26. But the expressing our ap­plication to God and dependence upon Christ for several distinct blessings in the Liturgy, is not a repetition of the same sense but of that which is different: and yet where the very same words and sense are piously repeated, this is as far from the vain repetition our Saviour condemn­ed, as vanity is from Piety. Such repe­titions were frequently practised by the Psalmist, and our Saviour himself praying thrice in a very short distance of time, did use the same words as the Evange­lists relate. Mar. 14.39. Mat. 26.44. And it is very observable, that these re­peated Prayers were the Prayers of his agony, when he prayed more earnestly as is manifest from Luk. 22.42, 43, 44. and with special reference to these Prayers, the Apostle declareth, that in the days of his flesh, he offered up Prayers and Suppli­cations, with strong cries and tears, unto him who was able to save him from death. Heb. 5.7. So that affectionate repetiti­ons are no vain repetitions. And this may be sufficient to justifie the repeated [Page 136]use of the Lords Prayer, both before the use of the Psalms, Hymns, Scriptures and Creed, and after them in the daily service, as also in the deprecatory Prayers of the Litany, and in other particular Offices appointed.

12. But it is objected,Pr. Pap. ibid. Pres­byt. Excep. p. 9. that we have in Scripture some examples of the sup­plications of holy men, where they are not composed of several distinct short Prayers, but the whole matter of their address is comprised in one entire one. But here it is to be considered, 1. That there is as much or more reason to admit, that it is our necessary duty to observe no other method in Preaching, then what was used by the Prophets and Apostle, some of whose Sermons are probably ex­tant in the Scriptures, as they were de­livered to the Jewish and Christian Assem­blies; as there is to conclude that the method of our publick Prayers must be conformable to the Prayers of some holy men in Scripture, though we have pro­bably no one Prayer comprised in the Scriptures, which was the entire service of the Jewish or Christian publick Assem­blies at that time. But the Non-Con­formists themselves do not judge them­selves obliged to follow the method of the Apostles Sermons, who ordinarily [Page 137]took no texts, and usually made a conti­nued discourse, without dividing it into first and secondly. 2. Divers Prayers recorded in the holy Scriptures, which were either directed for the use of, or declared to have been used in their pub­lick Assemblies, were short Prayers, such besides the Lords Prayer, was the Prayer of Hezekiah referring to the Passover. 2. Chr. 30.18, 19. the Prayer of humilia­tion directed for the Temple service, Joel, 2.17, 18. and that of Hos. 14.2, 3. and the time of these solemnities being con­sidered, it cannot in reason be doubted, but that they used other Prayers besides these, at the same time. 3. That the Psalms of David were of ordinary use among the Jews as Hymns of praise, is acknowledged by the Jewish Writers, and is declared 2. Chr. 29.30. and that divers Psalms were used one after ano­ther, at the Passover and other Temple services is generally owned, but why should not the beginning one Psalm af­ter another be as much disliked, as the beginning one Prayer after another? 4. There are some examples in the Scrip­ture, of one Prayer following another, in the same service of God and supplication to him. So besides the Prayers in our Saviours agony above-mentioned, Solo­mon [Page 138]at the Dedication of the Temple, immediately after the end of one Prayer upon his knees, 1. Kin. 8.54. beginneth another Prayer of benediction standing, v. 56, 57. and when the Gospel service was represented by a Vision of Angels, Elders, and other Creatures, Rev. 4.8, 11. Ch. 5.9, 12, 13, 14. Ch. 7, 10, 12. the worship of God was not there expressed in one continued Prayer, but in several distinct short expressions of adoration. 5. No rule of Religion declareth any particular method of Prayer to recom­mend us to Gods acceptance and blessing, which is done by inward grace and piety which is not tyed to a certain model of expression.

13. It hath been also objected, that it would be unseemly and imprudent, for any man who petitioneth a great King, di­vers times to begin and end and then begin again, and therefore this is not to be al­lowed in our address to God by that rule, Mal. 1.8. Offer it now unto thy Governour. But 1. the expressing divers Prayers one after another, is not to begin and end but to continue in Prayer. 2. Nor is there any indecorum, if he who is to speak to a King about several matters, shall when he passeth to a new head give the King some fit honourable title. 3. And [Page 139]chiefly those words in Malachi do require, that that respect and reverence which we are to express to God, must not be less, but always greater than that which we give to any authority upon earth; but it no way directs us to the same course in honouring and worshipping God, which we use in giving respect to our Gover­nour. It is most proper for a mean man who would present a Petition to a King, not to attempt to come himself directly to the King or the Prince, but to make some favourite who is also a meer sub­ject his friend to present his Petition; yet will not this plead for the Popish ad­dress to God by Saints and Angels: and it would be accounted intolerable impu­dence, if a subject should every day of his life twice, four times, or seven times a day, come into his presence and prefer his suit to him in a great measure to one and the same effect at all times; whilst this frequent practice of supplication to God is a Religious devoutness. These things besides divers others manifest, that the measuring divine service and wor­ship, by the standard of any humane respect, in all the particulars of our address to God, is the way to commit an error as great as from Earth to Hea­ven.

14. But besides this, if the ordinary practice of the Church of God be consi­dered, it may be of use to discover what hath been accounted expedient, in a mat­ter where God hath given no particular command.Buxt. Lex. Rab in [...] Hor. Heb. in Mat. 6.9. It hath been observed by divers learned men from both the Tal­muds, that in and before the time of our Saviour the Jews had eighteen distinct Prayers, appointed for ordinary daily use of them who were most devout, when they who had not liberty to attend to them were to use the [...] or summary of them. And the ordinary custom of ce­lebrating the Jewish Passover,Idem in Mat. 26.26, 27. did con­tain several distinct Prayers and benedicti­ons: which is a practice manifestly as an­cient as the time of our Saviour.

15. In the Christian Church the Li­turgy framed by S. Chrysostom, Bax. Syn. Jud. c. 13. and be­fore him that of S. Basil (though they have passed through cousiderable chan­ges) sufficiently appear to have been composed, after the manner of distinct short Prayers: Bas. Ep. 63. and S. Basil declareth it to have been in his time the usual practice at Caesaria, and divers other Churches in the East, that even in the midst of their Psalmody, or between their singing Psalms or Hymns, they did frequently intermix Prayers, [...]. And in the [Page 141] Latine Church the like use of short Prayers is evident, from the composure of the Ambrosian and other very ancient Offices, divers of whose particular Prayers are collected, and exhibited in a distinct Treatise by Cassander. Cass. Pre­ces Eccle­siast. These things (besidew what might be observed from Clemens his Constitutions, and the Prayers used by the Brethren in Egypt, Aug. Ep. 121. c. 10. which were very short as S. Augustin rela­teth) do give considerable evidence of the ancient practice of the Christian Church, and render it very probable that the like methods of Prayer were used before the time of these Fathers, because it is very unlikely, that a perfect new method and model of the service of God, of a quite different nature from what was of former use amongst any Christians, should about the same time be introduced into places so remote from each other, as Italy, Cappadocia, Egypt, Syria and others. And as that architect who disparageth a Fabrick which him­self cannot equal, doth thereby display his own imprudence; so it can be no part of wisdom, for persons in the present age, to condemn the prudence of the an­cient Christians, in ordering their Reli­gious service, when they were as well before us in the devoutness of their Re­ligious piety, as in time.

16. The last thing to be considered, concerning the composure of the Liturgy, is, that it standeth charged by some, who have greater regard to the serving an interest than to truth, to be wholly Ro­mish, and to be taken out of the Romish Breviary Missal and their other Rituals. Whereas in truth the doctrine of no Protestant Church differeth so much from that of the Church of Rome, as the mo­del of our Liturgy doth from their Mass and other Offices; where our reformers have rejected all things that were corrupt or inconvenient in themselves, which were very many, and have added much which was though necessary or expedient, and have put the whole service into a different and more regular frame. In­deed several pious Prayers (of which the Lords Prayer is one) with some ancient and approved Hymns, and the Creed (be­sides Psalms and Scriptures) which were by them used, are by us retained. And as for such persons who assert, that every thing made use of in the Romish service though never so innocent, ought to be rejected,V. Zanch. ad Aria­num Resp. de Anti­thes. Chri­sti & Anti-Christ. let them consider that upon this principle there were some who as­serted it necessary to disclaim our Creed, and renounce the doctrine of the Trinity, beacuse it might not be acknowledged [Page 143](said they) that the Romanists did retain any true belief concerning God. And that strange design of rash rejecting those things in Religion, (though useful and good) which they embrace, as it hath unchristianly engaged some to deny the Divinity of Christ; so if it be without all bounds entertained, it may engage others impiously to disown the holy Scrip­tures, and the true God: wherras our Caristian profession requireth us to prove [...] things, 1. Thes. 5.21. and to hold fast that which is [...].

SECT. IV.
Of the Doxology, Athanasian Creed, and some particular expressions in the Li­tany.

1. The frequent use of that Doxolo­gy, Glory be to the Father, &c. which is so much disliked by some, is sufficiently vindicated from Battology, or a vain and superstitious multiplying of words, in the foregoing Section.N. 11. To which I shall here add these considerations. 1. That it seemeth unreasonable and partial that they who allowed themselves in the con­clusion of their own Prayers, to use that Doxology, To whom (Christ) with the [Page 144]Father and the Holy Ghost be Glory, fre­quently four or five times in the same Assembly, should undertake to deter­mine,Except. of Presbyt. p. 16. that this other Doxology (more expresly acknowledging divine glory eternally due to all the three persons of the Trinity) is unsit to be used more than once in the Morning, and once in the Evening. 2. That since in all our Chri­stian service, and especially in Hymns and Psalms of praise, it is our duty to give glory to the holy Trinity, it cannot be blamable to express that with our mouths, which is at that time the most fit and proper exercise of our minds. 3. That it is manifest from divers passa­ges of the Psalms, and other Scriptures, as 2. Chr. 5.13. Ch. 7.3. Ch. 20.21. Ezr. 3.11. Jer. 33.11. That with their Hymns or Psalms, the Jews ordinarily used some such Doxology as this, Hallelujah or praise ye the Lord, for he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever. Delph. Phoenic. c. 6. Hence it is probably conjectured that preparation to the Paea­nism among the Gentiles [...] or [...] had its original (being the corruption of Hallelujah.) And from this use of the Jews the Arabian Church their Neigh­bours did probably derive their practice, of expressing Hallelujah at the end of every Psalm, as appeareth in the Arabick [Page 145]version of the psalms, who also make use of this Doxology to the three persons distinctly, which is expressed in the Ara­bickversion at the end of every tenth Psalm, but was probably in practice at the end of every Psalm. And that the Western Church used this Doxology, Glory be to the Fa­ther, Cassian Col. l. 1. c. 8. and at the end of every Psalm we have the testimony of Cassian, for about thirteen hundred years since. Wherefore since this is of so ancient original in the Christian Church, so agreeable to the practice of the Jewish Church approved by the Holy Scriptures, and a practice so reasonable in it self, it may be piously used, but not justly blamed in our Liturgy.

2. The reading the Athanasian Creed, to some (though not the generality of Non-Conformists) who heartily owne the doctrine of the Trinity, hath been thought a matter not free from difficulty. For that Creed expressing, what must be be­lieved of every one who would be saved, doth contain deep mysteries (as for in­stance.) that the Son is not made nor crea­ted but begotten, and that the Holy Ghost is neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. Now since believing things as necessary to Salvation, is not an assent to the use of Phrases and expressions, but to the sense contained in them, it must [Page 146]enclude that there is some difference understood between what is affirmed and what is denied. But the difference be­tween the Eternal Generation, and Eter­nal Procession, being a Mystery where the greatest Divines see but darkly, they are justly affraid to condemn all persons as uncapable of Salvation, who cannot reach to so high a pitch.

3. But here it is to be considered, that in that Creed commonly called the Atha­nasian, there are some things contained and expressed as necessary points of Faith; and other things for a more clear and useful explication of the truth, though they be not of equal necessity to be un­derstood, adn believed even by the meanest capacities. Thus if we first con­sider the contexture of that Creed, the Faith declared necessary concerning the Trinity, is thus expressed in the begin­ing thereof, The Catholick Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Ʋnity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. After this followeth an explication, useful to set forth the true Christian Doctrine, which beginneth, For there is one person of the Father, &c. after which explica­tion, the same necessary doctine to be known and believed, is thus again ex­pressed [Page 147]pressed, and distinguished from that ex­plication in these words, So that in all things as is aforesaid, the Ʋnity in Trinity, and Trinity in Ʋnity is to be worshipped, he therefore who will be saved must thus think of the Trinity. So that the acknow­ledging and worshipping the Trinity of persons, and Ʋnity of Godhead, is that which only is declared necessary in the former part of that Creed; and this must be acknowledged necessary, since we are baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and we must be­lieve and worship according as we are bap­tized.

4. What is contained in this considera­tion is the more clear (both with refe­rence to the instance mentioned, and to the Ʋnion of the two natures in Christ,) by this following observation: viz. That our Church doth both here and in her Articles, evidently receive the Athanasian Creed: and yet from the manner of using the Apostles Creed, in the form of Baptisin, as containing the profession of that Faith into which we are baptized; in the Cate­chism as containing all the Articles of the Christian Faith; and in the Visitation of the sick, as being a rule to try whether he believe as a Christian man should or not; it is manifest that no more is esteem­ed [Page 148]in our Church, of necessity to salvation for all men to believe, than that only which is contained and expressed in the Apostles Creed.

5. I proceed to consider some expres­sions in the Litany. In the way to which I shall only reflect upon that objection, (which if it had not been mistaken had been very inconsiderable) framed by Mr. Cartwright against the Litany in General; That it being chiefly a deprecatory Pray­er against evils was framed by Mamertus Bishop of Vienna (or rather Vienne in France) upon a special occasion of the calamities of that Country. This was a very strange and gross mistake, for the Litaniae which were ordered by Mamer­tus were days of supplication in Rogation Week, which days were called Litania minor, triduanae Litaniae, and by some Litania major, Alcuin de Div. offic. Tit. dieb. Rogat. Amal. de Eccl. Offic. l. 1. c. 37. Stra. de Reb. Eccl. c. 28. Mur. c. 57. as is manifest from Aleui­nus, Amalarius, Strabo, Mictologus, Ruper­tus Tintiensis, Johannes Beleth; besides other latter ritualists, and the French Historians especially Gregorius Turonen­sis, who all mention what Mamertus did, in appointing days of Prayer, which were called Litaniae, to be yearly obser­ved, for the obtaining Gods mercy in their distress, occasioned by wild Beasts and frequent Earthquakes. But that de­precatory [Page 149]Prayers which are called Lita­nies also, and were so called by S. Basil, and were of so great use in the stationary days of the ancient Church, should have their original from Mimertus, who lived many hundred years after, is a notion built upon no other foundation, but the manifest mis-apprehending the sense of that word Litania.

6. Amongst the particular expressions in the Litany, disliked by many Non-Conformists the first is where we pray to be delivered from fornication, and all other deadly sin. But the phrase of deadly sin is sufficiently warranted from these places of Scripture, Rom. 6.23. the wa­ges of sin is death. Jam. 1.15. Sin when it hath conceived bringeth forth death. Jam. 3.8. The tongue is full of deadly poison. And the sense of this phrase in this place is this, that we here pray to be kept from all such sins as are most destructive and pernicious (which is all one with deadly) and to be delivered from all sin (the na­ture of all fin encluding a tendency to death) and this extensive sense of this phrase, is both suitable to the pious de­sires of a Christian, and agreeable to the comprehensiveness of the following words, From all the deceits of the World, the flesh and the Devil, Good Lord deliver us.

7. That Petition against sudden death, hath also been much excepted against, and Drusius seemed to have an eye to this,Drus. in Job. 21.13. writing upon that expression in Job, concerning the wicked, They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave; that is (saith he) they dye cita morte quam aliqui deprecantur, sed vi­derint an recte. But if that learned man had any design from this text to censure this Prayer of our Liturgy, he hath greatly miscarried in his attempt. For if he with others be right in the exposition of that phrase (which may well be understood that the life of the wicked was so prospe­rous, that it seemed not to them tedious and long) I say if his sense be embraced, these words cannot be allowed to contain such blessings, as were really advantage­ous to the wicked, and truly desireable for him; but only such things at the best, as appeared good to them who have their eye no farther than the things of this life; unless his being in a moment cut off from all hopes of the time of grace and repentance, could be a blessing.

8. I doubt not but the intent of pray­ing against sudden death, is this, that whereas many dangers might daily sur­prize us, and by a sudden stroke end our lives, if divine providence did not protect [Page 151]us, we here commit our selves to Gods keeping, to be preserved by his care from such judgments and dangers. And such a sudden death is a dreadful estate to the wicked, and to dye as Josiah or Ʋzzah did, is not desirable to the most holy and pious men, who according to the exam­ple of Jacob, David, and our blessed Sa­viour himself, by their holy instructions at the time of their death, may become useful for the bettering the lives of them who survive.

9. But they tell us, there may be sud­den death in a lawful War or Martyrdom, To which I answer. 1. That sudden un­expected death is chiefly intended in this Prayer, and in this sense Martyrdom is not always a sudden death. 2. That the ex­ample of our Saviour, who prayed with submission to his Fathers will, that that Cup might pass from him, will warrant the like submissive Prayer in any of his Disciples. 3. And chiefly it is upon di­vers accounts both lawful and fit, to pray that we may not be suddenly taken away, either by Martyrdom or War. For though Christianity tendeth to prepare men to be willing and ready, upon just occasions to hazard or lay down their lives; yet touching Martyrdom, true Christian charity towards all men, and sin­cere [Page 152]love to the Church of God, will direct us to pray, that the truth of God may ever be so countenanced in the World (if God see it good) and espe­cially amongst us, that the Church of God may be free from persecution, and that none in the World may be so wick­ed, as to oppose Religion, with design to take away the lives of its Professors; and that the true members of the Church of God may be preserved from such cruel­ties as were exercised in divers horrid measures, and were designed in the Gun­powder-treason. And so far as concerneth sudden death in lawful Wars, the peace­ableness of the doctrine of Christianity, will not only allow bt excite us to pray, that righteousness and love may so far prevail in the World, that none may through any injustice, pride, or inordi­nate affections promote Wars, and that Swords may be turned into Plow-shares rather than sheathed in one anothers bowells.

10. However to be preserved in the day of Battel, is a mercy which as it de­serveth thankful acknowledgment when enjoyed, so it may without all blame be desired with submission to the divine will, to which purpose there are divers passa­ges in the Book of Psalms. If we fur­ther [Page 153]consider the state of the most pious man even upon his own account; it is acknowledged that it is not considerable ferrum an febris de corpore solverit as S. Aug. expresseth it,Aug. Ep. 122. whether he die in his bed or be slain in the field: yet even so holy a man as S. Austen himself was, did both value and make good use of the time of his sensibly approaching death, that he might be found well doing, Posid. in Vit. Aug. c. 31. and be the better prepared to die, by affectionate renewing the exercise of repentance, hum­ble confession, and lively faith. But in short, to return to the proper and direct sense of this Petition in the Litany, let that man alone who judgeth it unfit to commit himself to the protection of God; to be preserved from dangers which may as­sault his life, condemn and reject this pe­tition against sudden death.

11. Another Petition which meeteth with opposition, is this,Fap. [...] Com. [...]. That it may please thee to preserve all that travel by land or by water: for this is supposed to enclude the praying for Thieves and Robbers, and Pirates and Traitors going on such errands as Faux did. But this objection is a violent detorting these words; for he is properly a traveller who goeth up­on his allowable or ordinary occasions. If the meanest man in the Country should [Page 154]hear of an Act of Parliament, for secure­ing the safe passage of all travellers, he would never thence conclude, that they intended or provided for the safety of Robbers, Highway-men and Traitors, who are the great disturbers of safety. Might not the instances objected be alledged against S. Paul, commanding that Prayer be made for all men? and against the Ge­neva form,Prec. Eccl. Genev. post Conc. & in Ca. Dom. commending to Gods care, singulos etiam homines, all particular men in prison, banishment, &c. as well as against this Phrase in the Litany? espe­cially if that comprehensive sense be al­lowed in this Petition, which charity will admit, that God would not only preserve the bodies of them that travel from out­ward danger, but their souls also from sin and their whole man from destruction. And in this sense if this Petition should be supposed to enclude (which in the proper sense of the words it doth not) even Traitors and Robbers, can we be blamed to pray even for them that God would preserve them from further sin and so keep them that they may have time and grace for repentance, and that there­by they may be preserved from eternal destruction, (according to Mat. 5.44.)

12. That Petition that God would have mercy upon all men, is condemned by some, [Page 155]but is certainly commanded by S. Paul, requiring us to make Prayers for all men: for nothing can be prayed for, which doth not enclude Gods mercy. But such light objections, which are easily made against the best words, that the wisdom and piety of man can devise, I think not worthy the further naming, but shall now proceed to some other matters of greater moment.

SECT. V.
Considerations concerning the publick read­ing Apocryphal Chapters.

1. The reading the Apocryphal Chap­ters in our Church, hath been severely censured, as if it was a forsaking the holy Scriptures which are the waters of life, to drink of other unwholsom streams: but that this matter may be rightly under­stood, without prejudice or mistake, it will be requistie to take notice of these following considerations.

2. Cons. 1. The excellent authority of the Canonical Books of Holy Scripture, as they are distinguished from the Apo­cryphal, is fully and clearly acknowledg­ed by this Church in her Articles,Art. 6. where it declareth concerning the Apocryphal [Page 156]Books, that the Church (as S. Hierome saith) doth read them for example of life, and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine: which Article plainly disclaimeth them from being accounted Canonical Books of the Holy Scripture. That the Jews do not owne these Books as any part of the Old Testament, is manifest from their Bibles which contain them not, and the particular evidences from the Jewish Rab­bins, against every one of those seven Books of the Apocrypha, which are forged to be Canonical by the Council of Trent, are some of them exhibited by Hollinger. Thes. Phil. l. 2. c. 2. Sect. 1. And that neither the ancient Church of the Jews before the destruction of Jeru­salem, nor Christ and his Apostles, nor the several Ages of the Christian Church till some late Romish Councils, did acknow­ledge or make use of these Books as Ca­nonical, is solidly and learnedly eviden­ced by the Bishop of Durham, Schol. Hist. of Can. of Scripture throughout. with refe­rence to the sixth Article of this Church. Wherefore though it would be injurious to the holy Scriptures, that any other Books which are not of divine inspira­tion, should be accounted of equal au­thority with them; yet it is far from being a dishonour either to them, or to they holy Spirit who indited them, if ei­ther [Page 157]these Apocryphal or any other good Books, be esteemed useful and profitable, and acknowledged to contain things that are true and good.

3. Cons. 2. It was can usual practice in the ancient Christian Church, that some of these Apocryphal Books, and other good writings besides the holy Scriptures, were publickly read, as instructive Lessons in their Assemblies, but with such variation as the prudence of every Church thought meet. In the second Century, both the Fpistle of Clemens [...] according to the then ancient Custom, In Eus. Hist. l. 4. c. [...]. and some other Ecclesiastical Epistles were publickly read even on the Lords days, for their instructi­on, as Dionysius of Corinth testifieth. And in Euscbius his time as well as before it,Ibid. l. 3. c. 15. was the Epistle of Clemens publickly read [...] in the greatest number of Churches. Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 22. c. 8. Hom. de Sanct. de S. Steph. Ser. 7. In the African Church in S. Augustins time, the Histories of the passi­ons of Martyrs, (v. Hom. 26. inter 50.) and accounts of miraculous works by the efficacy of Christian Prayer, were read in their Churches, which Custom though it was very pious in the beginning, was at last intolerably abused to the bringing in legend stories. And more particularly the publick reading several Apocryphal Books; as Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, [Page 158]Judith and the Maccabees, was ordered in one of the Carthaginian Councils in S. Augustins time,3. Carth. c. 47. Cont. Carth. c. 27. and that Canon was taken into their Code; and besides what S. Hierom oft speaketh of these Books be­ing read in the Church, (but distinguish­ed from their Canon) Ruffinus his con­temporary, who was first his friend, and then his adversary, having given first an acount of the Canonical Books, proceed­eth to these Books which he saith are not Canonical but Ecclesiastical, Ruff. in Symb. as Ecclesiasti­cus, Wisdom, Tobit, Judith, &c. and de­clareth the judgment of the ancient Fa­thers before his time concerning them, quae omnia legi quidem in Ecclesiis volue­runt, sed non proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam, that they would have them all to be read in the Churches, but not to be produced as of authority to confirm any matters of Faith. And that in after Ages these Books were read in the Church,Isid. de Ec­cl. off. l. 1. c. 11, 12. Rab. de Inst. Cler. l. 2. c. 53. is evident from Isidonss His­palensis, and in the very same words from Rabanus Maurus, and might be shewed from very many others, if that was needful.

4. Cons. 3. These Books called the Apo­crypha have been greatly esteemed, both in the ancient Church, and by the chief Protestant Writers, as very useful (though [Page 159]not divine) writings. Divers of the an­cients have cited them under the title of the holy Scripture using that Phrase in so great a latitude, as to signifie only holy writings though not divinely inspired. The Council of Carthage above-named doth there call them Canenical Books, as doth also S. Augustin who was in that Council;De Doct. Christ. lib. 2. c. 8. using the word Canonical in a large sense: for it is manifest from that and divers pla­ces of S. Aug. that they were not esteem­ed of equal authority, with those Books properly called. Canonical. And there­fore Cajetan for the interpretation of the right sense of there words,Caj. Com. in Esth. in fin. hath well de­clared concerning these Books, Non sunt Canonici i. e. regulares ad firmandum ea quae sunt fidei; possunt tamen dici Cano­nici hoc est regulares ad aedificationem fide­lium, or they are not Canonical as contain­ing a rule to direct our faith an belief, though they may sometimes be called Cano­nical as containing rules to better our lives. In the Greek Church, where they were not (at least so much) publickly read as in the Latin, they were accounted use­ful for instruction, as appeareth (besides the Citations of the Greek Fathers) from that very Epistle of Athanasius, Fragm. Epist. 39. in Tom. 2. Athanas. where he purposely declareth them to be no part of the Canon of Scripture. [Page 160]And amongst the Protestants Dr. Reinolds who wrote so largely against the autho­rity of the Apocrypha Books, Censura de Lib. Apocr. Prael. 7. in his Censura, yet in one of his Praetections declareth of some of them, chiefly Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, valde bonos & utiles esse & om­nibus tractationibus praeferendos, that they are exceeding good and profitable, and to be preferred before all Treatises of other Writers, Prael. 74. and in another Praelection ex­pressing his judgment of the same Books, saith, proximum illis locum deberi post scripturam sacram, that they ought to have the next place after the holy Scripture; in the former of which expressions, he fol­loweth the steps of S. Aug. de praedestin. Sanctorum. Exam. post. 1. de Scrip. Can. And Chemnititus alloweth them to be Books, quae à fidelibus in Ecclesiis leguntur, Which are read in the Churches by the faithful, and non esse abjectos & damnatos, that they are not condemned writings and off-casts, but may be received in the number of the holy writings (or sacrae scripturae) sobeit they be not reputed the Canon of Faith: and this saith he we willingly both yield and teach.

5. Cons. 4. And it is in this Case espe­cially to be considered, that in our Church no Apocryphal Chapter is appointed for any Lords Day throughout the Year: not is any directed for any Holy-day, [Page 161]but only out of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which are Books of great esteem with all those who have well considered them. And also upon those Week-days when some Apocryphal Chapters are read, there are always other Canonical Scriptures read likewise:Directory of reading the holy Script. whereas they who do op­pose Conformity (so far as we may take the Directory for their rule) did never appoint or direct any Scriptures, to be ordinarily and publickly read upon any of these week days; but ordered that where the reading on either Testament end­eth on one Lords day, it should begin on the next. Wherefore it is to be well noted and observed, that our Church doth not herein differ from the dissenters, as if they did require the Canonical Scriptures to be more frequently read in publick than our Kalendar appointeth, but our Kalendar requireth the Holy Scriptures to be much more frequently read in publick, (almost six Chapters for one besides the Epi­stles and Gospels) than the Directory did; and besides them these Apocryphal Les­sons for profitable instruction.

6. But if any persons shall decry in the general, the hearing any thing in the Church, besides the holy Scriptures of im­mediate infallible inspiration, this would either from unadvisedness or from what [Page 162]is worse, reject and disown, to the great disadvantage of Religion, the use of Sermons, Exhortations, and Catechism. Nor is it any sufficient cause to condemn the reading Apocryphal Chapters, be­cause they are read as one of the Lessons: For our Church manifestly declareth these Lessons not to be Canonical Scrip­ture; nor can any command of God be produced, which either directly or by consequence, requireth that in every daily Assembly of Christians, there must be two Lessons read out of the Canoni­cal Scripture, or that none may be ta­ken out of any other approved Book. And it is manifest that the censuring this practice condemneth divers, if not all the ancient Churches, before the decaying and degeneracy of the Christian Profession.V. Bishop Durhams Schol. Hist. of Can. of Scrip. Sect. 60. For though it be admitted that the Laodi­cean Council did appoint that none but the Canonical Books should be read in the Church, and that Baruch and the Epi­stle of Jeremy there mentioned are in­tended for parts of the Prophecy of Je­remy, yet long before that did even the Greek Church read the Epistles of Cle­mens, &c. above mentioned and the Book of Hermas. And it is not to be won­dered that there should be different practices observed in the Church, in mat­ters of order and liberty.

7. Cons. 5. Whereas this Church is the more blamed, for using some Apocryphal Chapters, while some others acknow­ledged to be Canonical Scripture, are not appointed to be read by the Kalendar (which are mostly either some Prophe­cies hard to be understood, or matters of Genealogy or Jewish Observations, or some Histories for the mostpart ex­pressed in other Scriptures appointed to be read) it must be considered, that even hence it is evident that the Kalendar was never intended to be a Determina­tion, or Declaration of what is Canonical Scripture, and of certain divine autho­rity, but only a direction for useful and profitable reading. Nor was it the Cu­stom of the ancient Christian Church,Conc. Laod. c. 60. that the Canon of the Scripture should be described by what was publickly read: the rule of the Laodicean Council which cometh nearest thereto, did not direct the Revelation to be read. The ancient Jews who divided the Old Testament into the Law, the Prophets, and the Ha­giographa; Bux. Syn. Jud. c. 11. Salian An­nal. Eccl. A. M. 3447. n. 16. did for a long time only read the Law in the Synagogues, after which only a Section of the Prophets was added: but that the Hagiograph [...]a (which inclu­ded all the Books from the beginning of the Chronicles to the end of the Canti­cles, [Page 164]besides Ruth, Lamentations, and Da­niel) were not read in the Jewish Syna­gogues,Hor. Heb. in Joh. 4.15. hath been observed from the Tal­mudists: and this is agreeable to divers passages of the New Testament. Luk. 4.16. Act. 13.15, 27 Act. 15.21. Yet Christ and his Apostles blamed not the Jews but joined with them in this service.

8. Cons. 6. That which is objected from the matter of these Apocryphal Chap­ters, which are appointed to be read, is not sufficient either to prove them hurt­ful or not useful, as will appear from the following Section.

SECT. VI.
The Objections from the matter of the Apocrypha disoussed.

1. Among the particular Objections from the matter of these books.

Obj. 1. Judith, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon are thought to be sabulous, because no certain time can be easily fixed for Judith, S. Hierome calleth the other susannae Belis & Draconis fabulas, Prol. in Dan. & Com. in Dan. 13. & 14. and Josephus maketh no mention of them. But first, if these Books should be admitted to be parabo­lical discourses, to express the great op­position of many wicked men against [Page 165]God, and his Worship, the Vanity and Folly of their Pride and evil designs, and the mighty protection that God can give to his people by his Almighty Power, they might still be allowed to be of very considerable use. The frequent use of Parabolical Instructions among the Jews, is both manifest from their Talmudical Writers, and allowed by the practice of our Saviur. And besides this, they had another Custom of Clothing real Histo­ries under different names which expres­sed a resemblance of the things intended:Targ. in Cant. c. 6. v. 7, 8. whence the Targum mentioning the ex­pedition against Antiochus, speaketh of him under th ename of Alexander, and the Prophet speaketh to the Jews under the stile of the Rulers of Sodom and the Elders of Gomorrha.

2. And secondly the Objection is not sufficient to disprove the Historical truth of these Books, if we consider, 1. That the fixed time of the life of Job, and the time to which divers Prophecies refer is not easily determined, which yet is no good argument against the truth of ei­ther: as it is a bad argument against the credit of ancient History, either of our own or other Nations, that it is hard to fix the scituation of divets ancient pla­ces, mentioned by names now unknown. [Page 166]2. That both Josephus and other Histo­rians, do make no mention of divers considerable things, which were certainly true, as for Josephus, some of the Pro­phets, and the matter of divers Canoni­cal Books, and some remarkable Histo­ries, as particularly all that referred to the framing the Golden Calf are omitted by him. 3. That the ancient Christians who had the use of divers ancient Jewish Writers, and other Histonary now lost, and had thereby greater opportunity of searching into the Historical truth of these things, did esteem them to be true Relations. Bel and the Dragon is cited as a true Narration, containing an ex­ample for Martyrdom, and an instance of the sureness of Gods provision for them that trust in him, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, S. Cyprian and Gr. Nazianzen and divers others.V. Lit. Afri­can. in Crit. Sacr. Tom. 8. p. 46, 47. And Ori­gen particularly undertook the defence of the truth of the History of Susanna in answer to the Letter of Africanus which containeth the sum of all the Objections against it,Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. [...]. which were fully and mani­festly satisfied by Origen, saith Eusebius. S. Hierome also wrote a Comment upon Susanna and upon Bel, and declareth Ori­gen to have written upon the same. And S. Hierome calling these fabulaes, useth [Page 167]that word here as he doth elsewhere (V. Epist. ad Castrutium) for true Narrations which we also sometimes call stories; and these very things he particularly acknow­ledgeth for truths. Apol. 2. ad Ruff. & Proleg. in Habbacuc. ad Chromatium. And Judith is propounded as a true Narrati­on and example of love to her people or courage, by Hierome, Origen, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Clem. Ep. ad Corinth. p. 70. and even by Cle­mens Romanus the Companion of St. Paul in that his undoubted Epistle to the Co­rinthians. And these testimonies are the more considerable, because several of these Writers, and particularly Tertulli­an, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen and Hierome, were men of great knowledge in all ancient learning. Wherefore there is ve­ry considerable evidence that these relati­ons are true Histories, though it would be inconsiderable matter of Objection, if they were acknowledged to be only Parables.

3. Obj. 2. Judith approveth the fact of Simeon against the Sichemites, by desiring the like assistance from God. Ch. 9. and spake things untrue, Ch. 10. v. 12, 13, 14. and Ch. 11. and yet she was commended highly, and blessed by Joacim and the El­ders. Ans. Both in these Books and even in the Canonical Scriptures, we must di­stinguish between things Historically rela­ted, [Page 168]which are many times evil; and the matters of precept and command which are always good. The main design of this Book of Judith, being to shew Gods wonderful Providence in preserving his Church; divers things are mentioned in the carriage of Judith, which are neither to be allowed in her, nor imitated by us. And in the Canonical Scriptures we read of good men uttering expressions in Prayer, which were unadvised and blamerble; such were Elijahs intercession against Israel, and both his and JOnah's passionate desire of Death. We also read of Jacob by false speaches procuring his Fathers blessing, which were allowed by Rebecca; and of the contrivance of Jacobs other Sons against Joseph, with their lying devices to paliate their own sin, and of the like wiles which Jehu used to destroy the Worshippers of Baal; and in some things both Jehu and Judith de­served commendation, but in other things their practices (as the other now men­tioned and divers more) are not exam­ples for our imitation, but rather warnings to us to take heed of the like miscarriages.

4. Obj. 3. From Tobit there are divers things objected. (Of what is said against any thing contained in the fifth Chapter, which is purposely left out of our Kalen­dar, [Page 169]I shall take no notice.) But Ch. 6.9, 10. The using the heart and liver of a Fish is declared (as from an Angel) to be a Cure for one vexed with an evil Spi­rit, and the Gall thereof to be a reme­dy for the whiteness of the eyes. Con­cerning which place two ways of in­terpretation are propounded by Drusius: Dr [...] Tob. theone that these words concern a Di­sease or distemper of body, occasioned by the operation or influence of an evil spi­rit, which yet may be healed by natural remedies, which the Angel did direct; and he sheweth that some parts of fishes are reputed to have medicinal vertue; and it is ordinarily acknowledged that some distempers curable by Medicine may be promoted by evil spirits. But the other which I chiefly embrace is to this purpose, that it is no ways improbable, that God who more frequently manifest­ed himself by Angels before the coming of Christ, should by the Ministry of one of them, vouchsafe an extraordinary help and cure, to one who religiously served him, though by the use of means otherwise inconsiderable, that his mercy and mighty power should be manifested, by the effecting such a Cure. By wash­ing in Jordan, according to the Prophets direction, the Leprosie of Naaman was [Page 170]miraculously cleansed; by washing in Siloam at our Saviours command, the blind man obtained a wonderful Cure. So small a thing as Moses his r [...]d ordered by Gods power, was an instrument of working divers miracles, and by Elijah's Mantle smiting the Waters, they were twice divided. 2. Kin. 2.8, 14. and in Egypt at the sprinkling of bloud the de­stroying Angel passed over. Now can any man think it either impossible, or al­together incredible, that God should pro­duce great effects by small appearances, at the direction of an Angel, who had oft done the like at the direction of a Pro­phet. And this direction of the Angel is manifestly designed, for a particular pre­servation to Tobit, and a Cure to his Fa­ther, and the following Chapters declare the effect of both: nor ought it to be doubted, but that our great and eternal God hath done many great things, be­sides what was thought necessary to be expressed in the Canonical Scriptures.

5. Obj. 4. In the sixth, seventh, and ninth Chapters of Tobit, the Angel who is said to Accompany him, is spoken to under the name of Azarias (viz. the Son of Ananias) and seemeth to owne that name, whereas it could not be true that the Angel was this Azarias. But here it must [Page 171]be considered,V. Ambr. de Abr. Patr. l. 1. c. 6. Drus. in gen. 18.3. V. Gen. 18.2. 16. 22. that it is the usual practice even of the Holy Scriptures, to call An­gels by the name of such as they repre­sent or resemble. The two Angels that came to Sodom in the appearance of men, are called [...] men Gen. 19.12. The Angel that appeared to Manoah's Wife, being asked if he was [...] the man who appeared to the Woman declared that he was. Jud. 13.11. the Angel in the Sepul­chre, who gave tidings of the resurrecti­on of Christ, is called [...] a young man Mar. 16.5. and the two Angels who appeared at the Ascension of our Lord, are called by S. Luke [...] men in white apparel, Act. 1.10. Now it is not agree­able to religious piety, to condemn such ways of expression as evil and sinful, which are allowed in the holy word of God; nor is it unseemly for an holy An­gel, to owne that manner of expression, which the holy Spirit himself useth. And besides this,Estius in loc. diffic. Scrip. in Tob. that which is hinted by Estius may well be admitted, that the name of Azarias the Son of Ananias, might be ta­ken by the Angel upon himself, to ex­press by the signification of these names, what was the business he came to effect. (Azarias signifying the help of God, and Ananias the grace and favour of God) that by the Angel the help of God was [Page 172]vouchsafed, which is the effect of the Fa­vour of God

Obj. 5. The last Objection from To­bit and the most considerable is, Tob. 12.15. Where the Angel is reported to say, I am Raphael one of the seven holy An­gels, which present the Prayers of the Saints, and go in and out before the glory of the holy one. For the clearing of this place; touching the Phrase of the seven holy An­gels, (which yet is neither in Munsters Hebrew Copy of Tobit, nor in the Sy­riack) it may be taken for an definite number as the like Phrase is used, Mat. 12.45.Mede Disc. on Zech. 4.10. And Mr. Mede's Notion is known, who asserteth it as an evident truth in his judgment, (and for which he giveth con­siderable proof) that there are only seven principal Angels or Arch-Angels, to which these words refer. But whether these words be understood definitely for seven only, or indefinitely for an uncer­tain number, we have the like expression in the Canonical Scripture, Zec. 4. 10. Rev. 5.6.

7. What is here said concerning Angels presenting the Prayers of the Saints, this being a point of truth or matter of be­lief, may not be received (accordin gto the judgment both of the ancient Church and our present Church) upon the au­thority [Page 173]of an Apocryphal Book, further than it is grounded upon the evidence of the Canonical Scripture, and in such a ense only as is agreeable to the Doctrine of those holy Scriptures. Indeed if these words be acknowledged to be the words of an holy Angel, as they are related in this Book according to some versions, then must they be as certainly true, as if they had been spoken by a Prophet or Apostle. But admitting that an holy An­gel did converse with Tobit, yet might his words be either misapprehended, or in this passage misrepresented. And that they are so may be hence with some pro­bility conjectured, because in this place Tob. 12.15 there is no mention of Angels presenting the Prayers of the Saints, either in the Hebrew Copy of Munster, or Fagius, or in the Syriack Version, or in the Latin which S. Hierome translated out of the Chaldee, but it is only expressed in the Greek, which our Translation followeth; and this very place was above 1400. Years ago thrice cited by Cyprian, Cyp [...] de Orat. Do­min & de Mortalita­te Adv. Jud. l. 1. n. 20. with­out this clause on this manner, Ego sum Raphael unus ex septem Angelis Sanctis, qui adsistimus & conversamur ante clari­tatem Dei. Indeed in the twelfth Verse, both according to the Greek, the He­brew, and the Latin, the Angel spake of [Page 174]his bringing the remembrance of their Prayers before the holy one, but even there the Syriack mentioneth no such thing.

8. But because these words are in our version; and taken in a restrained sense have been ordinarily admitted as a truth, by divers ancient Christian Writers, I shall give a double account, in what sense these words may be taken agreeably to the Canonical Scriptures, and the anci­ently received Doctrine in the Christian Church, who owned not the Angels as Mediators, nor did allow that Prayers should be put up to Angels. 1. They judged that the holy Angels who are fre­quently present with us, do join in our Religious worship and Prayers to God; and as all who join in Prayers do present those Prayers to God, so particularly do the holy Angels, who enjoy a nearer Com­munion with God then we have yet at­tained.Cont. Cels. l. 5. p. 273, & 238. Lib. 8. p. 401. So Origen who expresly decla­reth against praying to Angels, or to any who do themselves supplicate, addeth afterward that the Christians particular Angel, [...] presenteth the Prayers joining in them; P. 420. and in ano­ther place of the same Book,V. D. Ham­mond An­not. in 1. Cor. 11.10. saith, that many myriads of Angels [...] do join in Prayer with them who [Page 175]pray to God. And as holiness disposeth an Angel to be ever ready to join in glo­rifying God, so love maketh them ready to desire our good,Luk. 15.10. since there is joy in the presence of the Angels of God over one sinner that repenteth. And S. John in his Vision of the Churches worship de­clareth the holy Angels about the Throne to join in their Amen thereto. Rev. 7.10, 11, 12.

9. 12. That the holy Angels being Gods Messengers as their name imports, are both Ministers of conveying much good to us from God, which divine Providence could bbestow without their Ministry, and of representing our state and desires to God as his Servants and our friends, which are fully and immediately manifest to God who is Omniscient. And this may be performed partly as they are testifiers and witnesses of our actions,Ad fr. in Erem. Ser [...]. 68. with desire of our good, and such S. Aug. judgeth them certainly to be, and S. Paul giveth Timothy a charge before the elect Angels, 1. Tim. 5.21. and speaketh of their pre­sence in the Church, 1. Cor. 11.10. and if Satan be the accuser of the brethren before God, Rev. 12.10. the holy An­gels may well be thought truly to repre­sent what is good: and partly as they are ministring Spirits attending on God [Page 176]and desiring our good, they declare our Prayers not as Mediators but as Mini­sters, non quia Deum doceant (as S. Aug. expresseth) sed quia voluntatem ejus super his consulunt, desiring to know what com­mands God will give them to Minister for our good according to our Petitions.Ep. 120. c. 22. Ep. 121. c. 9. This sense is oft expressed by S. Augustin, and in the Book under his name De di­ligendo Deo, and seemeth well to agree with the expressions of others of the an­cient Fathers, and with the notion of the ancient Jews as it is mentioned by Philo: Phil. de Plant. Nae. & de Gi­gantibus. and thus much seemeth to be encluded in these words of the New-Testament, Heb. 1.14. Are they not all ministring spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be Heirs of Salvation, And Mat. 18.10. Take heed that you despise not one of these little ones, for I say unto you that their Angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in Heaven. And this notion expresseth an honourable mini­stration of the holy Angels,De Cu. Dei l. 9.6. 15. which hath respect to the Church of God, but doth not allow them (as S. Aug. would not) to be accounted Mediators, nor to receive Religious worship from us; but to be ho­noured by us Charitate non servitute, De Ver. R [...]elig. c. 55. by an high degree of respectful love, but not by Religious service and subjection.

10. As to that passage of Ecclus. 46.22. Which mentioneth Samuel prophecy­ing after his death, it is sufficient here to observe, that that that part of that Chap­ter is by our Kalendar directed to be omit­ted. And from all this it may appear, that nothing is in our service appointed to be read out of the Apocrypha, which being rightly understood is any way hurtful, or of ill influence upon practice. Yet it is to be further noted, that he who shall acknowledge that there is much good contained, and no evil or sin ad­vised in any of the Apocryphal Books, is still far from admitting them to be equal to the Canonical Scriptures. For though there may be divers Books free from actual error; yet it is the Prerogative of the holy Scriptures alone, to be immedi­ately indited by that holy Spirit who can never err, and to be tendered of God and received of his Church, as the perpetual and infallible rule, to manifest the will of God and the Doctrines of Faith.

SECT. VII.
Considerations about that Translation of the Psalms used in the Liturgy.

1. The next thing to be treated of is the ue of the Psalms, according to the version in the Common-Prayer-Book, con­cerning which, Consid. 1. The use of this Translation doth not require us to judge it the best English Translation. For as for­merly the sentences out of the Psalms, before Morning Prayer and at the Com­munion, were expressed according to another ancient and distinct translation, so both the Epistles and Gospels, and the sentences out of the Psalms at the begin­ning of Morning and Evening Prayer, are now altered according to our last al­lowed English Translation, which alterati­on seemeth to prefer that Translation as the best.

2. Cons. 2. The Translation of the Psalms used in our Liturgy, is from the Hebrew, to which it generally agreeth, sometimes using the liberty of a para­phrastical stile. And the Hebrew being the Original is doubtless more pure than any Translation which differeth fromit. And though the Septuagint in the Book [Page 179]of Psalms (which of all other hath been of most (frequent publick use in the Christian Church) doth vary less from the Hebrew, than in any other Poetical Book of holy Scripture, yet a Catalogue may be given of at least an hundred and fifty places, wherein the Septuagint dif­fereth from the Hebrew (not in any Christian Doctrine, but in the manner of expressing the sense of those Texts) in all which the version in the Liturgy ac­cordeth with the Hebrew, and dissent­eth from the Septuagint. Indeed in some phrases and clauses our version followeth the Septuagint, where the matter is un­blameable: and three entire verses which are not in the Hebrew, Chaldee, or Syri­ack, are in the fourteenth Psalm added in this English Version, according to the ordinary Copies of the 70,Grot. in Ps. 14. and of many (but as Grotius intimateth not all) of the Aethiopick, Vulgar Latin and Arabick, and which are not in the Greek Manu­script from Alexandria: but these Verses being the same with what is cited by the Apostle out of the Old Testament, Rom. 3.12, 13, — 18. cannot be disallowed as to the matter of them, and the Psalms in the Liturgy being chiefly used as Hymns of praise, or our words of bles­sing God (agreeably to the practice of [Page 180]the Jewish and ancient Christian Church) may well admit in that use of such a variation from the Hebrew Text.

3. If we observe the practice of the ancient Christian Churches, we shall find, that the Greek Church publickly used the Psalms according to the Septuagint, and the Latin, Arabian, and Aethiopick Churches,V P. Pi­thaeum de Latin Bib­lior. Inter­pret. had their Psalms of publick use translated from the Septuagint, or with a little tincture from Lucian the Martyr, wherein they also followed some evident corruptions of the Greek Copies, as the Arabick in admitting [...] Ps. 17.14. the Aethiopick in reading [...] for [...] Ps. 39.5.Ps. 92.10. and the Vulgar in tran­slating [...] instead of [...] The Sy­riack Version was translated out of the Hebrew, but hath suffered some altera­tions by being revised according to the Septuagint, from whence among other things it received its frequent use of [...]; but this Version hath many imperfections, as chiefly its leaving out sometimes a whole verse, as in Ps. 34.9. and sometimes some part thereof as Ps. 58.9. The result of this consideration is this, that the Psalms publickly used in the Church of England, are more fully agree­ing to the Original Hebrew, than any of those known Versions were, which were [Page 181]used in the ancient Christian Churches; and he who thinketh that he may not lawfully join or Minister in the Church of England, because of our use of this version of the Psalms, might have dis­cerned greater cause in this very particu­lar, to have kept him at a greater di­stance from all the famous ancient Chri­stian Churches in the World.

4. Cons. 3. The particular places most blamed in this Version of the Psalms, do afford no sufficient cause, when our supe­riours enjoin the use of this Translation, to withhold our hearty consent thereto. I shall instance in three places which are chiefly urged. 1. One is Ps. 106.30. where this Translation readeth it, then stood up Phinees and prayed: and so the Plague ceased. But the Version in our Bibles rendreth it, Then stood up PHinehas and executed judgment. The word in the Hebrew is [...] the Verbs of which Root being most used in the form Hith­pahel, do generally signifie to pray, and in this form of Pihel they are rarely used, and do sometimes signifie judging or the judge interposing between men and men to end their strife. But in this place the Chaldee Paraphrast, and the Syriack Inter­preter (who both of them translated from the Hebrew and well understood it) [Page 182]render it Phinees stood up and prayed. Buxt. Conc. Hebr. in [...]. And Buxtorf in his Hebrew Concordan­ces citeth this verse twice under the dif­ferent significations of the same root, once as expressing Phinees praying, and afterwards as expressing him executing judgment.

5. If we compare this place with the History to which it relateth, Num. 25. we there find the Congregation of Is­rael, and Phinchas the Son of Eleazar the Priest, in a deep humiliation weeping be­fore the Tabernacle of the Congregation. V. 6. Which solemn weeping was to doubt accompanied with the Prayers of the Priest, as was directed and comman­ded in a like case, Joel 2.17. Let the Priests, the Ministers of the Lord weep be­tween the proch and the Altar, and let them say spare thy people, &c. and in its own nature Religious weeping doth enclude Confession and Prayer. Then we find Phinehas v. 7, 8. slaying Zimri and Cozbi in their Adultry, which was his executing judgment according to the particular commandment given, v. 5. and this was an act of his zeal, which accompanying his Humiliation, Prayer, and Confession, did render them more acceptable also: and besides this, very probably Phine­has either offered incense, (as Aaron did [Page 183]to make atonement in the like Case of the Plague, Num. 16.46, 47.) or Sacrifice, because v. 13. he is said to have made an atonement (which is a Priestly action) for the Children of Israel: Sect. 1. n. 7. and that all such Offerings and Sacrifices did enclude Prayer, hath been above in some part observed. And by Phinehas his zeal (which might well be expressed in all these things, and chiesly in his slaying Zimri and Cozbi) and by his executing judgment, and making atonement, the wrath of God was turned away from Is­rael, Num. 25.8, 11, 13. Now the Sep­tuagint in this place of the Psalms use the same word [...], which they used Num. 25.13. for Phinehas making the atonement, as if the Psalmist had special reference thereunto. And indeed all Phinehas his acting whereby he interpo­sed between God and the Israeltes to stop his wrath, may well be intended and en­cluded in this word [...] in this Psalm: and therefore as it is well translated he excuted judgment, so it is not blameably rendred, he prayed neither of these being the whole, and both of them being parts of what Phinehas did in interposing. And I suppose all Christians will acknowledge, that devout Prayer with reference to the atonement, accompanied with true repen­tance [Page 184]and real resormation, is a very es­fectual means to appease the Prayer of the Priest in a solemn Assembly was di­rected, under a promise of obtaining the favour and pity of God, Joel. 2.17, 18.

6. Another place is Ps. 58.8. which this Version in the Liturgy rendreth, Or ever your Pots be made hot with Thorns, so let indignation vex him even as a thing that is raw: and this by the Non-Con­formists in King James his time was cen­sured for a translation senseless and ab­surd. They who have better considered the Original in this place, acknowledge it a difficulty to clear the manner of its expression: our last and best English Translation expresseth it thus, He shall take them away as in a Whirlwind both li­ving and in his wrath: which yet doth not clear all the difficulty in the expres­sion of the Original. It is manifest from the context, that this verse encludeth a resemblance of the speediness of Gods judgments coming down upon the wicked; which according to this Version in the Li­turgy, shall be as the snatching of flesh which is yet raw, out of the Pot set on a sire of Thorns, which is torn in pieces [Page 185]and devoured greedily in a time of fa­mine, even before it hath felt the heat of the sire: and this explication and manner of resolving the words and phrases of the Hebrew, is owned by Vatablus, and di­vers and good expositors; and this general sense of them relating to the swift de­struction of the ungodly, is the undoubt­edly true meaning and intent of this place; but as to the manner of the ex­plication and unfolding of the Original phrases, among the very great variety of conjectures, it is hard to say which is to be preserred before all the rest. But this translation is so far from being (as it hath been charged) senseless and absurd, that it is certainly agreeing to the true sense, intent and design of the Psalmist.

7. But no place is more insisted on, than Psal. 105.28. where the Psalmist speaking of Gods wonderful works against Egypt, saith [...] (according to our last English Version and divers others) they rebelled not against his word; that is, either Moses and Aaron, or the Israelites; or as Junius and Tremellius un­derstand it, his signs rebelled not against his word. But the Version in our Li­turgy, agreeably to the greatest number of Latin Copies in S. Augustins time,Aug. in Ps. 104. and to the Septuagint, the Arabick and Aethio­pick, [Page 186]and to the last Greek Version in the Octopta, and also to the Syriack, ex­presseth it, they were not obedient unto his word, understanding this Verse to aim at the Egyptians (of whom the Psalmist was speaking) continuing disobedient un­der the mighty signs and works of God; which sense containeth an eviaent truth, and very suitable to the History, and clearly reconcileable to the Hebrew, if [...] be admitted to include an interroga­tion as the same word doth. Ex. 8.26. and as divers other like phrases are con­ceived to do, as our Learned Fuller hath observed.Miscel. l. 3. c. 10. And these words, and did they not rebel against his word? are of the same import with these, they were not obedient to his word.

8. And they who are versed in the va­riety of Translations do well know, that several particular expressions of Scrip­ture, upon different accounts are by some rendred in the negative, and by others in the affirmative, and yet both of them are consistent with the Principles of Religi­on; and neither of those Translations can thence be condemned as hurtful or useless. For instance, we with almost all other Versions, read 2. Kin. 8.10. thou maist certainly recover, but Junius in his latter Editions, altering the sense of [Page 187]his former, Non omnino revalesces. Where we, Gen. 2.5, 6. with most other Versions express, there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the Earth. Junius and Tremellius agreeing with the Arabick Version (which in the Pentateuch is translated from the Hebrew) render it, there was not a man to till the ground: nor a mist that went up out of the earth. Yet here is no difference about any matter of Doctrine, or rule of life, abut only about the time of the first mist, into which no man hath so clear a sight, as to see fur­ther than the light of this Text will dis­cover. Divers other instances may be observed, such as in the Syriack transla­tion reading. Ps. 7.11. God is not angry every day; to which the Greek agreeth; and in the Syriack, and Arabick, which in the Historical Books translateth from the Syriack expressing. 2. Kin. 18.27. That they may not eat their own dung, Mr. Thorn. Epil. l. 1. c. 32. (which sense is well allowed by a learned man of our own Nation); and in the Septuagint with the vulgar Arabick and Aethiopick who are guided by it, rendring Ps. 35.20. They spake peace to me; and also in the Samaritan translating, Gen. 41.16. God will not give answer without me. The difference of divers translations may [Page 188]be noted in such places as these, Num. 11.25. where some have, They did not cease, and others, They did not proceed; and in Job 34.30. Dent. 20.19. and Deut. 21.12. Where some read, She shall pare or cut off her nails, others; She shall nourish her nails or suffer them to grow; and our last English Translation doth in the Text embrace the former, and in the margent the latter; but it would be a great folly thence to conlude that that Translation of the Bible is either useless or hurtful. See the like, 2. Kin. 19.25. Ps. 121.11. Yet the various ways of rendring some particular expres­sions of Scripture, where it may be diffi­cult to determine that sense which must exclude all other, is very far from ac­knowledging the sense of Scriptures an­certain, in matters of Faith and Christian life; which are frequently and manifest­ly therein expressed; and to which the general consent of the purest times of Christianity (and in matters of life the very principles of Reason and Consci­ence) do agree. All that can be hence concluded, is, that there is sufficient mat­ter in divers passages of Scripture, for the exercise of the learnedest Criticks and greatest Students, as there is abundant plainness of instruction in the [Page 189]most necessary things for the meanest capacities.

SECT. VIII.
Of Holy-days, or Festival-days.

1. These days are acknowledged to have no particular divine institution, but have been allowed and appointed by the Church of God, and are established by the civil Sanctions of our laws.5. & 6. Edw. 6.3. The end of their appointment is, for the promoting the service of God and Religious exercises Injunct. n. 20. Can. 13. as is at large expressed in that Statute, by which they were particularly con­firmed, and in the Queens Injunctions, and in the Book of Canons; which re­quireth them to be employed in hearing Gods word read and taught, in private and publick Prayers, in acknowledging our of­sences to God, and amendment of the same, in being reconciled to our neighbours where there hath been displeasure, in oft receive­ing the Communion, in visiting the poor and sick persons, and using all sober and godly conversation. If such fruits of Christian Piety were more plentifully and abundantly brought forth, they would by their pleasant sweetness both recom­mend themselves, and those times and [Page 190]seasons, the good use of which, more especially contributed to their ripeness and maturity.

2. Now these Duties being the prin­cipal business of the Christian life, it must either be asserted that no particular time may be peculiarly set apart thereto, un­less it can be proved that God hath par­ticularly instituted that time, which is an evil Principle whereby men would be taught to reject daily Christian exercises, and to live in disobedience to Gods com­mands, and in much impiety and irreligion: or else it must be granted (which is truth) that God having commanded these Du­ties, doth both allow and expect, that fit and seasonable times in the whole course of life, be allotted to the practice thereof; whence some portions of every day, and some especial days, may be profitably and advantagiously imployed, in these Reli­gious exercises. And such times may allowably the called Holy hours and days, from the holy actions of Gods Service and Religion, for which they are reserved, and to which they are appointed.2. Kin. 12.18. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 2. For For that is properly holy which is set apart to God; and also according to cl. Alexan­drinus [...] all that is a holy time in which we receive the knowledge of God: but [Page 191]the use of the word Holiday is no more but the ancient English and Saxon word for Church-festivals.

3. But whereas many persons mispend these days in vanity and intemperance, which by the direction of the Church and the prescription of the Law, ought to be (and by others are) used piously and de­voutly: these mens miscarriage con­demneth their abuse, but not the appoint­ment of these times to other good ends and purposes. The Jews in Isaiahs time, abused their fasting days in hypocrisie and to wicked ends, fasting for strife and envy, and to smite with the fist of wicked­ness, Isa. 58.4. and yet the appointing fasting days to a better end, was not only allowed at other times, but even in his time also in Isa. 22.12. Indeed the cor­ruptions of many men are prone to make a bad improvement of the best things; The three solemn Feasts of the Jews,Tract. Kid­dush. in which all their Males must appear before the Lord, were through their abuse of them acknowledged by their own Talmud to be become [...] the Ʋlcer of the year. Buxtorf. Lex Rab. in [...]. The Feasis of Par [...]x were religiously appointed, though amongst the debauch­ed Spirits of the Jews they were turned into meer Baccanalia or voluptuousness and vanity. And the want of care in [Page 192]many persons of the Service of god upon the Lords days, hath administred just cause for that great complaint in our Homilies,Hom. of time and place of Prayer. Part. 1. That God is greatly dishonoured, and the Devil served upon that day. And in my apprehension it is not improbable, that the oposition maintained against the observing these Holidays, may have this forcible influence upon many, who are easily withheld from good, but hardly perswaded ot it, to make them the more neglectful therein of Religious exercises.

4. It was the practice of the Jewish Church, and was in many instances allow­ed by the holy Scriptures, to set apart voluntarily some days for Religious Ser­vice, which God had not particularly enjoyned. I might mention their usual Fasts of the first-born before the Passe­over, and their Fasts after the days of unleavened bread, and after Pentecost. The annual Fasts for many years of the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months are men­tioned by the Prophet Zechariah (Zech. 8.19.). We read also of a particular Fast proclaimed by Jehosaphat, 2 Chron. 20.3. and of another in Josiahs time, Jer. 36.9. and another in Josiahs time, Jer. 36.9. and another commanded by Ezar, Ezr. 8.21. and of a three days Fast appointed by Esther, which the Chaldee Paraphrast with some probability observeth, to be [Page 193]kept within the days of unleavened bread. See Esth. 3.12. with Chap. 4.8, 16.Chal. par in Est. 4.17. and it may be easily inferred, that if it be lawful to set days apart for humbling themselves before God with sasting and prayer, without any particular divine Commandment; it must needs also be lawful where there is sufficient occasion, to appoint the like for the Service of God, with Religious praise and thanks­giving, with joy and gladness of heart.

5. They had also the Feast of Purim established by the Letters of Mordecai, Esth. 9.21. when the Jews ordained and took upon themselves to do after this wri­ting, vers. 27. after which Esther and Mordecai wrote with all authority to con­firm these days of Purim, vers. 29.31. and it is expresly declared, that the Decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim, vers. 32. The Feast of Dedication was appointed by Judas Maccabaeus and his Brethren, and the Children of Israel 1 Mac. 4.59. to be observed annually for eight days, in remembrance of the cleansing of the Temple from the profa­nations of Antiochus, and the restoring the liberty of the performing the Service of God therein; and at this Feast was our blessed Saviour himself present at the Temple, Joh, 10.22, 23. And that the [Page 194]Feast of Dedication was that Feast ap­pointed by Judas Maccabaeus (though some ancient Christian Writers did other­wise interpret it) is proved by Junius, Buxtorf, but especially and very largely and fully by Mr. Selden. De Syned. l. 3. c. 13. Sect. 7. &c. Ibid. Sect. 12. Divers other Feasts are mentioned in the various Jew­ish Kalendars, as may be seen in Scaliger, and in that Kalendar exhibited by Mr. Selden, which I shall not insist upon. Yet it may be considered, that Scasiger divi­deth the Jewish Feasts into the Legalia or Feasts appointed by Gods Law, and Poli­tica or such as were established by their own consent; and that those of this last sort, were some of them appointed before the time of Fsdras, and some after, of both which he undertaketh to give particular instances:De Emend. Temp. l. 7. and it is thought by Mr. Thorn­dike, that the Feast of the Wood-offering, expressed in the Jewish Kalendars, Of Religi­ous Assem­blies, c. 8. is refer­red unto in Neb. 10.34. and Chap. 13.31. both which places speak of the Wood-offer­ing at the time appointed. But the instances above mentioned are sufficient to manifest, that it was lawful under the time of the Jewish Church, to appoint days of Reli­gious Solemnity to be annually observed, though they were not enjoyned by any divine Institution. Wherefore I forbear to insist upon the seven days feast which [Page 195] Solomon kept before the Lord, imme­diately before the Feast of Tabernacles, 1 King. 8.65. 2 Chron. 7.9, 10. and of the seven days feast in the time of Heze­kiah, added to the seven days of unleave­ned bread, 2 Chron. 30.23. Now it seemeth very reasonable, that Christians whose mercies from God are greater than the Jewish Church enjoyed, should also make use both of weekly and other set times for the Service of God, it being prophesied of the Gentile Church under the Gospel, Isa. 66.23, That from one new Moon to another, and from one Sab­bath to another, shall all flesh come to wor­ship before the Lord.

6. After the Coming of Christ, as the Disciples of John fasted oft, so our Lord declared that his Disciples should fast after his departure. This duty was aster­wards practised by the Apostles, and en­joyned to all Christians, 1 Cor. 7.5. and was in part exercised in the stationary days of the ancient Christians, two days in the week. And besides other times,Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. [...]. the time of our Lords passion, which Euse­bius calleth [...], is evi­dently asserted by him, (though he mis­understand some words of Philo) to have been observed by the Christians in the days of Philo, and that is from the time of [Page 196]our Saviours death; and to the observa­tion of the Passion time those words of Tertulli in do manifestly refer, (notwith­standing the divers conjecture of learned men) where he declareth the Christians appointing jejuniis Parasceven, Advers. Psye. c. 14. Cont. Cets. l. 8. and what Origen writeth of their observing the [...] which probably includeth more than a single day.

7. There is abundant testimony also of other solemn days of Religious joy besides the Lords days, to have been ob­served;Tert. de Idol. c. 14. among which Tertullian menti­oneth the whole fifty days from Easter to Whitsontide, with which he saith no Re­ligious Solemnity of the Gnetiles could compare; and Origen undertaketh to justifie the Festivals of the Christian Church at Easter time and Whitsontide, Orig. Ibid. and such like (besides the Lords days) not to be contained under the Apostles censure upon the Galatians, for their observation of days and times. And before their time the observation of some annieversary re­membrance of eminent Martyrs is expres­sed in the Martyrium S. Ignatii, published by Bishop Ʋsher from ancient Manuscripts which he judgeth to have been written by Philo, Gaius, and others, who were present at this Martyrdom, who write, Manifestavimus vobis diem & tempus, ut [Page 197]secundum tempus martyrii congregati com­municemus althletae, — glorificantes in ipsiusee merabili & sancta memoria Domi­num nostrum Jesum Christum. To the same purpose are the words of Cyprian, Cyp. Ep. 34. n Martyrum passiones & dies anniversaria commemoratione celebramus, and this is the sense also of Tertullian his oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis annua die facimus; for both the Phrase and thing of these ancient oblations,De Cor. Mil. c. 3. did particularly intend an honourable memorial and Communion with the person. And when Eusebius giveth an account of the change of the Empire under Constantine, from Heathe­nism to Christianity, he saith they then had great respect to the Lords day,De Vit Const. l. 4. c. 23. and honoured the days of the Martyrs, and celebrated the Festivals received in the Church. And I suppose it needeth no proof, that the Apostles and Evangelists had the chief place among the Christian Martyrs, who were the principal Testi­siers of Christ, and the particular days wherein a pious remembrance of them was celebrated to the glory of God, are frequently mentioned after the end of the third Century, and are expressedin Constit. Apost. l. 8. c. 33. And though the particular Festivals of the Apostles were, according to the practice of the Church [Page 198]in several parts of the World, celebrated at very different times, as may appear by comparing the practice of the Western Church, with the Constitution of Alexius Comnemus, which concerned the Eastern or Greek Church, and with the several Arabick Kalendars, two of which are ex­hibited by Mr. Selden, de Syneder. l. 3. c. 15. Yet in all these Churches (as also in the Syriack, as appeareth from the Rubricks for the Lessons on these days in the Syriack Testament; and also in the Aethiopick and Egyptian Churches, as appeareth from the Computus Aethiopicus, De Emend. Temp. l. 7. and Computus Copticus in Scaliger) they did not only allow and observe such days as lawful, but they appointed and owned them as conducing to the honour and advancement of Christianity, being piously and religiously used.

8. Amongst the Protestants the Bohaemi­an Church,Rat. Disc. c. 3. and those of the Augustane Confession, are very much agreeable to us in the observation of Festivals;Conf. Boh. c. 15. Conf. Aug. c. 15. Conf. Helv. c. 24. and their approbation of these days not only as lawful but as useful and requisite is contained in their publick Confessions: and the Church of Switzerland alloweth several such days with a Maximopere ap­probamus, and the Dutch Church observe the Nativity of Christ, and some other Fe­stivals [Page 199]as appeareth from their Canons, ratified by the Synod of Dort. Indeed the Church of Geneva (and that of Scot­land (which from 1560. till 1617. did herein follow it) did not admit of any of these days: but this was so little pleasing to Calvin the most eminent Minister of Geneva, that he writing concerning the day of our Lords Nativity, which was not there celebrated, saith,Calo Ep. Hallero, Sancte testari possum, I can in a sacred manner proiest, that this thing was transacted, when I nei­ther knew of it, nor had any such desire; and he further declared, that it was his endeavour that it might have been there ob­served. Wherefore the laying aside all these days was even in his eyes the de­fect and blemish; but not the perfection and b [...]ty of that Church.

9. Besides all these arguments from authority, to prove the allowableness of Festival days for Religious exerciss; it may be considered that if it be both law­ful and good, when we have received some eminent mercy from God, to set some hours or some particular day apart, to praise and magnifie the goodness of God, there is the same or greater reason, to give allowance to the observation of these stated Christian Festivals. For I think no man can deny, that not only [Page 200]the benefits flowing from the great actions of our Saviour; but even the advanta­ges accruing to us from the Apostles and Evangelists, by their faithful preaching the Gospel of Christ, and giving testi­mony to his Doctrine, and continuing stedfast therein unto the death, is to us more valuable and advantageous than any temporal benefit whatsoever; be­cause our enjoying the knowledge of Christ and being Christians, which is the fruit of the Apostles and Evangelists making known the Gospel to the World, is a greater priviledge than any outward ad­vantage in the World. And the benefit of holy exercises, and of being employed in glorifying God is so excellent, that the use of particular times appointed for that purpose, ought not be rejected by pious men, though some men do abuse those means which they should em­prove.

10. But it is here objected, that the fourth Commandment saith, six days shall thou work, and S. Paul blameth the Gala­tians for observing days and times, and months and years. Concerning which places waving divers other things which might be answered. 1. Let the Object­ors consider, whether themselves would be willing to admit this to be the sense of [Page 201]either of these Texts, That it is not lawful to set apart any day of the Week, either for praying, fasting, or for praise and thanksgiving: if this sense be allow­ed, they must then condemn not only the instances abovementioned both of Jew­ish and Christian practice, but they must also deny them that liberty, which the prophet Joel commanded them to exer­cise Joel. 2.15. sanctisy a Fast, call a so­lemn Assembly, and thereby render Gods command of none effect: but if this sense of these Scriptures ought not to be admitted, then cannot the Religious ob­servation of Festival days be thereby condemned. 2. These words, six days shalt thou labour, never were to the Jews a Precept of such an unlimited and un­bounded sense, as to admit of no other use of any day, but in labour. Indeed isoth, idleness, and negligence were here condemned; and those days allowed and appointed for labour, in this restrained sense, or with this exception, Ʋnless some reasonable and accountable occasion require the contrary. The reason of this re­strained sense will appear necessary, be­cause the solemn days of Gods appont­ment under the Jewish State, ought to be observed, even upon any of those six days, though they required strict rest as [Page 202]the day of atonement did: and because it was also lawful upon a providential occasion to employ a day in voluntary mourning for a sick or dead friend, 2 Sam. 3.31, 33, 35. Ch. 12.16, 17, or in re­joicing for the Circumcision of a Child, or such like cause: and it must be still acknowledged lawful for a Child, Ser­vant or Subject, to employ a day upon the command of his Father, Master or Soveraign, in attendance upon their per­sons; much more might the Jews keep a Fast or observe a Feast when Esther required, and signal providence directed them thereto.August. Conc. Adi­mant. c. 16. 3. The observing days and times condemned, Gal. 4.10, con­cerneth wholly the Jewish solemnities as S. Aug. and S. Hierome observe, and the scope of the place demonstrateth; the observing which is opposite to Christia­nity.Hier. in Loc. Thus he who keepeth the Jewish Sabbath out of Conscience to the Moisai­cal Law, doth so far oppose Christianity, and return to Judaism, this being a sha­dow of good things to come, Col. 2.16, 17, and is condemned by S. Paul; but he who Christianly observeth the Lords-day, acteth for the advancement of Christianity, and the honour of Christ; and is not in this place blamed by the Apostle: And so he who observeth the new Moons out [Page 203]of respect to the Law, standeth charged with Judaizing; but he who setteth apart any day for Christian exercises, acteth as becometh a Christian; for as he is the best Christian who is most frequently ex­ercised in these practices; so he cannot be blamed who especially upon some days engageth himself to these duties. So that the difference between our observe­ing the Christian Festivals, and the Jew­ish, is answerable to the difference be­tween Judaism and Christianity.

11. As to that Objection, against the observation of the days of the Annun­ciation (or the Conception of our Savi­our) the Nativity, Passion and Ascension of our Lord; that these days are at least the less allowable, because the Lords day is par­ticularly appointed for the worship of God, and the honourable memorial of the great undertaking and actions of our Saviour; it may be sufficient to observe, 1. That this argument seemeth equally to oppose, the setting apart any other Portion of time besides the Lords day, to be purposely and particularly employed for the Reli­gious worship of God: which would greatly prejudice the exercise of Religion; or at least the insisting upon this objection, will not allow Christians to engage them­selves, to glorifie God for Jesus Christ, and [Page 204]to admire the grace of Christ upon any other day; because this would require some other time to be designed for these Religious actions. 2. That though the Jewish Sabbath had a peculiar respect to their deliverance from Egypt, Deut. 5.15. Yet for that mercy (which was far infe­riour to what Christians enjoy by Christ) they observed also other yearly solemni­ties, especially the great Feasts of the Passover, and the Feast of Tabernacles. Wherefore though the observation of the Lords day, as it is one day in seven, en­cludeth a testimony that we worship God the Creator, who made the World in six days and rested the seventh; and as it is the first day of the Week it containeth a a professed owning and honouring of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, who accom­plished his humiliation and began his ex­altation on that day; yet this doth by no means exclude the lawful use of any other time directed, either by voluntary choice, or Ecclesiastical or political laws, for the advantage of piety in the worship of God, and the more solemn observance of those great actions of our blessed Lord, which ought evermore to be had in re­membrance.

SECT. I.
Of the direction for Communicants receive­ing the Lords Supper.

1. THE first particular office, ac­cording to the order of the Book, is, that for the Commu­nion; at the end of which the Rubrick re­quiring every Parishioner to communicate at least three times in the year, is disliked, because many persons may not be duly qualified to receive;Presbyt. Excep. p. 21. and therefore this Rubrick was desired either to be left out, or to be altered to this sense, that the Communion should be thrice in the year ad­ministred, if there be a convenient num­ber to receive. Now because this excep­tion is thought considerable, whereas in­deed the Rubrick is herein not only ju­stifiable but very commendable, I shall en­deavour to clear this whole matter by these considerations.

2. Cons. 1. To receive the holy Com­munion [Page 206]is a very great Christian duty, and cannot be neglected without grievous sin and the displeasure of God. This may appear, by observing that God strictly required all his Sacramental Institutions to be received; when he appointed Cir­cumcision, he declareth concerning the uncircumcised Manchild, that that Soul should be cut of from his people, he hath broken my Covenant, Gen. 17.14. When he ordered the use of the Pass-over, he said the man that is clean, and not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the Pass­over, the same soul shall be cut off from his people, because he brought not the Offring of the Lord in his appointed season; that man shall bear his sin. Num. 9.13. and even this person who was unclean, was bound to keep the Passover in the next following month. Num. 9.10, 11. Un­der the New Testament those words, Joh. 3.5. Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God: are by the general te­stimony of Antiquity to be understood concerning Baptism, and the Pharisees are condemned for rejecting the Counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of John, Luk. 7.30. Now the reason why God was so greatly offended, at the neg­lect of these Sacraments, is expressed to [Page 207]be, because he accounted this to be a disowning or dis-esteeming his Covenant, of which his Sacraments were a sign and seal. Gen. 17.14. and because Gods appointment and institution therein was not obeyed, Num. 9.13. Luk. 7.30. Wherefore because the Lords Supper doth exhibit the New Testament in the blood of Christ, and the partaking thereof is particularly commanded by Christ, it must upon the same reasons be as evil and dangerous to neglect this Sacrament, as those other. And if it be further consi­dered, that this is a special Ordinance of eminent Christian profession, shewing forth the Lords [...] till he come, 1. Cor. 11.26, and exhibiting the Communion of the body and blood of Christ, the right par­taking of this Ordinance, must needs be concluded to be a principal action and service of Christianity, whether we con­sider the duty performed, or the bene­fits which may be thereby received.

3. If the practice of the Apostolical and Primitive Church be consulted, the three thousand converted on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Ghost was given,Act. 2.42. did all continue stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of Bread and Prayer. And the receiving the Communion was esteemed so high a [Page 208]part of the Christian service in their pub­lick Assemblies,Act. 20.7. that their assembling was called their coming together to break bread. Conc. Ant. c. 2. The Council of Antioch determi­ned them to be cast out of the Church who were present at the reading of the Scrip­tures, but [...] in a disorderly manner went away and received not the Eucharist: Can. Ap. 9. and the same was decreed in the Canons of the Apostles, and much to the same purpose in other Councils, which (as that of Antioch) were embraced as part of the Code of the Universal Church. Agreeably hereunto it was Ignatius his desire for the Ephesians, Ign. Ep. ad Ephes. [...], that they all of them jointly, and every one of them particularly should meet together, and par­take of the same bread. Among the Pro­testant Churches,Syn. Petri­cor. Sect. 5. 1587. the Polonian Synod con­sisting of members who owned three di­stinct confessions, did unanimously de­clare, that all Pastors ought to teach and accustom their auditors, that as oft as the Lords Table is prepared in the publick As­semblies, for the faithful, they should not neglect every one of them to come unto it. And the vehement expressions in the Ge­neva Catechism, and in Bucers Censura against them who neglect to come to the Lords Supper, might be here added, with [Page 209]other testimonies of the same nature. Only it must be here observed, that Non-Conformity hath run its changes, at such a variance, as if both the extreams were to be preferred to the middle way. The Author of the Admonition esteemed this direction for the Communicants receive­ing to be too large, T. C. Reply p. 117. and that too much was done in directing them to Communi­cate, but both Mr. Cartwright the chief opposer of the Liturgy in Queen Eliza­beths time,Alt. Da­masc. c. 10. p. 727, 728 and the Author of the Altare Damascenum, who was the most violent censurer thereof in King James his time, thought that too little was done herein: for both of them would have all who are in the Churches Communion forced, (even by civil punishments saith the former, and statis temporibus omnes adigendi sunt saith the latter) to receive the Lords Supper, and both of them condemn them who ab­stain from the Lords Table out of fear, as guilty of superstition, and that they ought not to be born with. But now again the Chanel is altered and the stream is return­ed to the other side. But by the invaria­ble rule of the will of God, which is an unerring guide, it is the duty of all Christians to attend upon the institutions of Christ, which is the first consideration I propound.

4. Cons. 2. The necessity of being du­ly qualified for the right receiving the Lords Supper, doth not leave men at all excusable in their ordinary forbearing: for the danger of performing any Religious duty carelesly, is expressed in the holy Scriptures, to quicken men unto the grea­ter piety in their attendance upon those services, but not to give them any liberty of neglecting them. That slothful and wicked servant who hid his talent in a Napkin, had at last no comfort by his pre­tended excuse for his neglect that he looked upon his Lord as an hard man whom he could not please,Mat. 25.24.—30. but was cast into outer darkness. It was no way law­ful for the Aaronical Priests, to forbear to offer the Sacrifices which God had com­manded, because he had declared that he would be sanctified in them that come nigh him, and had destroyed Nadab and Abihu for their undue approach. Though God upbraided the Jews that they did steal, and murder, and commit adultery, &c. and come and stand before him in his House which was called by his name; yet it was still the duty of every male among them, religiously to present themselves there before the Lord three times in the year, Deut. 16.16. and they were all enjoined to keep the Passover, which encluded a [Page 211] yielding themselves to the Lord. 2. Chr. 30.8. and a preparing their heart to seek God, v. 19. And when S. Paul had said,1 Cor 11.27, 28, 29. that whosoever shall eat his bread and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, this giveth no allowance to any to neg­lect this Ordinance; but the next verse directeth, but let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that Cup: and the following words, For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords body; are laid down as an argument, to shew that men ought to examine themselves, and so to eat and drink.

5. He that heareth or readeth the word of God, or knoweth his will, or profes­seth the name of Christ, without obedi­ence yielded thereunto, doth encrease his sin and condemnation; and yet hearing, reading, knowledge and profession of Chri­stianity are necessary duties, but that which it here only available, and is every mans indispensable duty, is, to join the life of Christianity with its knowledge and profession. So it is a duty to receive this Sacrament, and to be careful not to receive it unworthily, or [...] unsuita­bly [Page 212]to its nature and institution. Where­fore this Ordinance encluding under the Elements of Bread and Wine, an Hea­venly Communion of the body and blood of Christ, whose death is here represented as he offered up himself to God for us, and established the New Testament, with the assurance of all the blessings and pro­mises thereof; the worthy receiving this Sacrament will require that Communion with Christ be both heartily desired and piously embraced; that the death and mediation of Christ be acknowledged, as the only way of atonement and remission of sins; that the Christian Religion estab­lished in the New Testament or Covenant, be owned as the only true Religion, and all others rejected; that the promises of eternal life, pardon and grace, be valued and sought after, as the chief objects of desire and hope; and that the Christian practice which the New Testament re­quireth be undertaken, and resolved up­on, with a circumspect care of repen­tance, and amendment of what is amiss, and with a peculiar respect to peace and love, by reason of this Sacrament of Uni­ty; it being noted by S. Augustine, De Consecr. dist. 2. c. Qui man­ducant. that he who receiveth the Sacrament of Ʋnity, and doth not hold the bond of peace, doth [Page 213]not receive the Sacrament for his good, but as a testimony against himself; which was also the Doctrine of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 11.17, 18. And though there be too many who do not practise, according to the necessary rules of Christianity, it is abso­lutely and indispensably necessary for them that their lives be changed and amended, that they may not only be fit to receive this holy Sacrament, but that they may be fit to partake of the blessing of God, and to avoid the dreadful mise­ries of everlasting torments, and to live answerable to their Baptismal Covenant, that they may be advantaged by their pro­fession of Christianity. And let any man consider, whether it be not as unreasona­ble a Plea in the sight of God, for any man to avoid the holy Communion, be­cause he is not willing to live according to the Christian rules, when both these things are his duty; as it would be in the sight of a Prince, for a Subject to refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance, upon pretence that he is enclined to undertake practices of Rebellion.

6. Cons. 3. The Doctrine of our Church and its Rules for Communion, do not allow that any persons should come to the holy Sacrament, otherwise than in [Page 214]a suitable and Religious manner: but it jointly urgeth (as the holy Scriptures do also) the duty of coming, and the neces­sity of coming preparedly. Amongst our Writers Bishop Cranmer declared, that we ought not unreverently and unadvisedly to approach to the Lords Table — but we ought to come to that Board of the Lord with all reverence, Def. of Cath. Doctr. of the Sacr. l. 3. c. 14. faith, love and charity, fear and dread. Both Bishop Whitgift, and Mr. Hocker, in their defence of the Order for the Communion against T. C. allow, that there may be cause of present forbearance from this Sacrament, because of unfitness, but this ought to be amended: B. Whitg. Tr. 9. c. 6. & Tr. 15. c. 2. and that it is not desirable that men persisting in wick­edness, should be constrained to come to the Lords Supper. Eccles. Pol. l 5. c. 68. But it is needless to add other testimonies, when the Communion Book it self in the first exhortation saith, If any of you be a blasphemer of God, an hinderer or slanderer of his word, an adul­terer, or be in malice or envy, or in any other grievous crime; repent you of your sins, or else come not to that holy Table, lest after the taking of that holy Sacrament, the Devil enter into you as he entred into Ju­das, and fill you full of all iniquities, and bring you to destruction both of Body and Soul. Wherefore it is acknowledged in [Page 215]our Church, that the receiving the Ho­ly Communion is not a right Christian action, where it is not performed with a Christian spirit and disposition: and part­ly upon this account, and partly for the disciplinary discountenancing of wicked­ness, both the twenty sixth Canon and the Rubrick before the Communion, do require that no notorious evil liver or ma­licious man, before their amendment be suffered to come to the Lords Table: and consistently herewith must that Rubrick requiring every Parishioner to communi­cate be understood, so as to be exclusive of such notorious siners until their amend­ment, but to urge & warn them to amend.

7. Cons. 4. There is just cause why Christians should be required, at least thrice in the year, to receive the Com­munion. For whereas God required all males among the Jews to appear before him three times in the year, which ap­pearing encluded their professing, own­ing, and engaging to serve the God of Israel, and their accepting and submitting to the Law of Moses, and the Covenant God made with Israel, with their ex­pectation of the benefits thereof; it would be very unreasonable, that Christi­ans who are freed from that severe yoke [Page 216]of bondage which the Jews were under, and enjoy higher priviledges than the Jews did, should come short of them in our great duties of Religion; and there­fore we should at least so oft express our owning, honouring, and accepting the Gospel-Covenant, and the service of Christ our Lord, in the most solemn manner, approaching to this Sacrament of our Lords institution.

8. Amongst the ancient Christians this Sacrament was received ordinarily thrice in the Week, that is upon the Lords day, and the two Stationary days; some did partake thereof daily whose practice S. Aug. would neither commend nor cen­sure, but he exhorteth them who are duly prepared to receive every Lords day; with whom agreeth Gennadius, Walaf. Strab. de Reb. Eccl. c. 20. as he is cited by Walafridus Strabo, who further ob­serveth, that they are related to be ex­communicate in the Greek Church, who passed two or three Lords days without re­ceiving the Communion. They who re­quired the least among the ancients, did strictly enjoin the communicating thrice in the year, De Consecr. d. 2. Secu­lares. and omnis ho­sito. as besides others the Councils of Elvira and Agatha are related to have done. Our later English Constitutions before the Reformation advised it thrice [Page 217]in the year, but insisted upon once at the least;Linw. prov. l. 5. Tit. 16.8.16. and some Reformed Churches have directed it four times yearly; and without all doubt the great neglect of so many amongst us, to partake of that Ordinance, is a manifest evidence of the want and decay, of the ancient spirit of Christian piety and devotion.

SECT. II.
Of some other things in the Commu­nion Office.

1. Some exceptions here tendred are such, that it cannot be conceived, that the Objectors thought them at all consi­derable: such is the disliking that clause in the Prayer before the Consecration, That our sinful bodies might be made clean by his body, and our souls washed by his most precious bloud. This passage is charged, with ascribing a greater efficacy unto the bloud of Christ, than to his body; whereas in truth these words as they are here expressed, do no way exclude the efficacy of his bloud from washing our bodies, nor the sufferings of his body from cleansing our Souls; and those words used at the delivery of the Elements. The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was [Page 218]given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life, and the like concern­ing his bloud, are a manifest expression, that the benefits both of the body and bloud of Christ, do redound to the sal­vation both of our souls and bodies.

2.Commiss. pap. p. 92. But with more earnestness and heat, the Ministers delivering the Elements to every Communicants hands, and using the form of words for the distribution, particu­larly to every one of them, is censured as a thing contrary to the practice of Christ: and the judging this to be expedient, is in­sinuated to be a studying to be wiser than our Master, and not to be obedient to him. This Objection was urged also by the Authors of the Admonition,V. Bp. Whit­gift. Tr. 13. c. 1. d. 17. and by Mr. Cartwright formerly; and the ground they build upon is this, that the holy Evan­gelists relate our Saviour in his institution of the Lords Supper, to have said to his Disciples, [...] take ye, eat ye, whence they conclude that he neither gave the elements singly to every one, nor used any particular expressions to every Com­municant, at the delivery of the Ele­ments. Wherefore that this may be rightly understood, I shall consider what may be collected, concerning the manner of our Saviours distribution, and the ex­pressions he used in this ordinance.

3. Touching the distribution of these Ele­ments, as I can find no evidence in the holy Scriptures, to shew that it was not particular, (which yet would have been evidently expressed, if it had been de­signed by our Saviour to be made a ne­cessary duty, in all future Administra­tions of this Sacrament) so there are some expressions in the Scripture which seem to intimate the contrary. When S. Mat­thew, Mat. 26.26, 27. Mar. 14.22, 23. Luc. 22.19, 20. S. Mark, and S. Luke reciting the institution of this Sacrament, relate both of the Bread and the Cup, that he gave it to the Disciples, or he gave it to them; these words do more fairly and probably express his giving the Elements to every one of them, than that he either only blessed them and set them before them all, or that he delivered them to one of his Disciples to be given from one to another. And if we consider the man­ner how the chief person of the family did bless things at the Jewish Passover, it will give some light hereto, it being manifest that our Lord did much comply with the ordinary Jewish Rites. According to their Customs they only blessed some things, and every one present took thereof, which was their usage about the bitter Herbs, which required no action of the Master of the Feast, to give or distri­bute [Page 220]them; but other things he both bles­sed and particularly distributed to every one present, and such was their usual practice at the eating of the Cake in the Passover Feast.Syn. Jud. c. 13. The former of these is expressed by Buxtorf on this wise, that after his benediction comedit & alios quo (que) comedere jubet, and of the latter, he saith comedit & aliis quo (que) porrigit: and Camero citing the words of the Jew­ish ritual referring to this latter,Camer. in Mat. 26.26. [...] doth well render them, tum singulis dat seu distribuit, then he giveth or distribu­teth to every one of them. To the former Custom our Saviour manifestly complyed, when he blessed the Cup before the Lords Supper, and commanded them to take it, and divid it among themselves, Luk. 22.17. but his practice was agree­able to the latter Custom, when he gave the Bread and the Cup in the Lords Sup­per, to his Disciples.

4. If we further consider the practice of the ancient Christian Church, in the purer times of Christianity; it is most likely, that their practices were conform­able to the practice of Christ, in the man­ner of distribution, and it is no way pro­bable that they in those early and purer times, did administer the holy Sacrament contrary to Christs institution, or other­wise [Page 221]then he had delivered it.Just. [...] Justin Mar­tyr declareth, that after the [...] the chief person in Ecclesiastical Office, had given thinks, those who are called Deacons and Ministers, did distribute to every one that was present Bread, and Wine mixed with Water: Tert. de Cor. Mil. c. 3. and Tertullian very clearly declar [...]th, that they received the Eucha­rist, [...] de aliorum manibus quam praesi­dentium, from the hands of none other persons than those who presided in the Church. And thus far we have plain evidence, that in these ancient times, the Lords Supper was particularly distributed to every Communicant, by the Ministers of the Church.

5. But the words of Clemens Alexan­drinus are produced,Commis. pap. ubi sup. as a testimony that in his time (which was the same with Ter­tullians) the Church Officers did not distribute this Sacrament to the faithful, but only suf­fered every one of them to take a part thereof, according to his own choice: he saith [...].Strom. l, 1. The sense of whose words is this, that some per­sons (to wit Church Officers or Mini­sters, being here opposed to the people, and supposed to have the power of the Keys, in admitting to the Eucharist) di­stributing the Eucharist ( [...] here [Page 222]not properly signifying dividing, as the Latin Translation rendreth it, for the Mi­nister can in no proper sense be said to divide the Wine into parts, of which every one may take one, but it signifieth distributing or delivering to every one the Sacrament) do suffer every one of the people to take part thereof. Now it seem­eth a strange acuteness from hence to conclude, that the Ministers did not par­ticularly distribute this Sacrament, be­cause the people were suffered to take or receive, as if one mans receiving was wholly inconsistent with anothers deli­vering: Whereas indeed the particular distribution of the Elements, is encluded in the true sense of this place of Clemens, and is no ways opposed thereby. And this is sufficient to clear the ancient pra­ctice of the Church herein, and to shew that so far as we can judge thereby, or by the Jewish Customs, or the most pro­bable expressions of Scripture, our bles­sed Lord at his institution of this Sacra­ment, did deliver it particularly to every one of his Disciples, and even in that res­pect was also amongst them as one that serveth.

6. I proceed now more briefly, to the consideration of the words, which our Saviour spoke at the distribution of this [Page 223]Sacrament. Now these words of com­mand, Take, eat, in S. Matthew and Mark; drink ye all of it in S. Mat.; and do this in remembrance of me, in S. Luke, and S. Paul, as also these words, this is my body which is given for you, and my bloud which is shed for you, are all expressed in the plural number, as being directed to more persons than one. Yet considering that these holy Pen-men did in short re­late the institution of Christ, sufficiently delivering what was necessary for us, but not confining themselves to the very words he spake, but to the sense thereof, (which is manifest because they all four, relate his words spoken at the distribution, dif­ferently from one another) the Evange­lists expressions, may well consist with his speaking particularly to every person; be­cause what is spoken to every one, may be briefly and succinctly related as spoken to them all. And though this be not cer­tain (which yet is the more probable from the evidence above given, of the particular distribution of the Sacramental Elements, to every Communicant) let them who manage this Objection consider with themselves, whether they would grant that in other Cases, which they plead for in this. We read that when our Lord gave full Commission to his Apostles, he [Page 224]said to them, Jo. 20.21, 22, 23. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whose sins ye retain they are are retained: and yet I suppose no sober spirited man will from hence infer, that where divers persons are at one time to receive Orders, that no solemn words of ordination may law­fully be expressed to each person, particu­larly and distinctly, but that they ought to be spoken to them all together, gene­rally and jointly. Our Saviour also com­manded his Disciples, Mat. 28.19. to teach all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: but will any Christian think it hence deducible, that where di­vers persons, or great numbers are to be baptized together, the solemn words of baptizing them in the name of the Fa­ther, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, may not lawfully be expressed severally to every person? And if the baptismal form of words, may be solemnly and suitably to that Sacrament, applyed to every person baptized, by the general acknowledg­ment of all Christians, there can be no reason why the like may not be allowed in the Lords Supper. Wherefore the pra­ctice of our Church herein is no way un­suitable [Page 225]to the institution of Christ, or the nature of this Sacrament, and the altera­tion of it would be for the worse, and to the abating the solemnity of its Admi­nistration.

7. Concerning the Communion, I shall only further consider that Rubrick, which directeth, that if any of the Bread and Wine that was consecrated do remain, it shall not be carried out of the Church, but the Priest, and such other Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall imme­diately after the blessing, reverently eat and drink the same. Now this is supposed by some, to give too high an honour to the Sacramental Elements, even after the Communion is ended: to which I answer, 1. That all superstitious or other sinful ho­nour of the Elements, must be founded in the embracing those false apprehensions, and corrupt Doctrines, which our Church rejecteth: and he who nourisheth such corrupt opinions (which none can do unless he forsake the truth, and the Doc­trine of our Church) might have more opportunity for such corrupt practices, by the Elements being carried out of the Church, than by their being eaten and drunk in it. 2. That our Church doth sufficiently distinguish the eating and drinking the undistributed Elements, from [Page 226]the Communion it self, both by the for­merly allowed use of them, and by the appointing them to be eaten and drunk after the blessing, which endeth the office of the Communion, and by expressing them under the name of Bread and Wine whichh was consecrated. Such remaining Elements have been variously disposed of:Hist. Ec­cles. l. 4. c. 35. Evagrius relateth it as [...] an ancient custom at Constantinople, that they were sent to the Children at School to be received by them, as an acknowledgment of the Christian Religion; before the Council of Laodicea, Conc. Laod. c. 14. they were some­times sent to other Churches, as Enlogiae and tokens of Communion with them; but this (as some other ways of reserving them) as found to be of ill use.Hesych. in Lev. 8. Hesy­chius speaketh of a custom of burning them, which custom I suppose took its original from those Commands of God, whereby he enjoyned the remainder of the Jewish Passcover, and of the Sacrifices of thanksgiving (and some others) to be burnt with fire, Exod. 12.10. Lev. 7.15, 16, 17. The Council of Mascon directed them to be given in the Church, Conc. Ma­tisc. 2. c. 6. to such Christians as kept their Fasts there, on the fourth and sixth days of the week, which were the old stationary days. The direction in our Rubrick is ordered with as much pru­dence [Page 227]as any of these, if it be not to be preserred before them all; for as there is no reason to doubt but that they may be eaten; so can there be no reason produ­ced, why the Communicants may not as well eat them as any other persons. 3. The eating these Elements in the Church by the Communicants, out of a reverent re­spect to the Sacrament, for which they were consecrated, is allowable and no way blameable. Both our Articles, and our Rubrick after the Communion Ser­vice do acknowledge, that the sacramen­tal Bread and Wine even in the Sacrament, do remain in their proper substances, which with other expressions in our Liturgy, sufficiently exclude the Romish corrupti­ons. Yet since we believe this Sacrament to be an excellent Gospel Ordinance, I sup­pose that out of respect thereunto, de­vout Christians do generally acknow­ledge, that even the Vessels particularly appointed for the Bread and Wine at the Communion, and the Communion Table should not be used at mens ordinary meals, and certainly a due respect to Gods Ordinance, for which they are set apart, will not allow this, which was also con­demned by the ancient Canons: and it appears very reasonable, that those Ele­ments which were consecrated for the Sa­crament, [Page 228]may be used with at least as much reverence as the Communion Cup or Patine. De Consc. l. 4. c. 31. Sect. 3. And when Amesius truly assert­eth that it necessarily followeth from the Religious honour of God, that those things which have any respect unto Gods Worship, ought to receive from us a privative honour, even when they are not used to a holy use, as heh instanceth in Bread and Wine left at the Communion, which is to be honoured privatively, that is, care ought to be ta­ken that it be not used contemptibly, and sacred Phrases (as sacramental words, &c.) not to be used in sport: even hence it will follow, that they may be used with a re­lative honour; that is, so used as to ex­press a reverence to those holy Ordinan­ces, to which they bear relation.

SECT. III.
Of the saving Regeneration of Infants in Baptism, and the grounds upon which it may be asserted.

1. THE next Office in the Book of Common Prayer is that of Ba­ptism, where that which requireth prin­cipal consideration, is that every baptized Infant is declared Regenerate, and thanks is returned to God (after Baptism) that [Page 229]he hath regenerated this Infant by his holy Spirit, and the beginning of the Catechism declareth, that the Child in Baptism was made a Member of Christ, a Child of God, and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Hea­ven. These expressions have been some­what differently understood, some apply­ing them to a saving Regeneration of eve­ry baptized Infant, others to a federal Regeneration, or a Regeneration Sacramen­to tenus. And I suppose it evident, that if it can be certainly proved, that every baptized Infant is savingly regenerated, or if on the other side all the expressions in the Liturgy can be fairly and probably interpreted of a federal Regeneration, which is generally acknowledged, there can be then no doubt but all these ex­pressions may be fitly and allowably used shall treat of both these senses, because they both plead an allowance in our Church; and indeed the latter doth not necessarily destroy, but may well consist with the former.

2. Beginning with the former, I shall first shew what evidence there is, that the acknowledging a saving regeneration of every Infant baptized, hath been the Doctrine publickly received in this Church, ever since the Reformation. This is the more probable sense of that Rubrick [Page 230]before the Catechism, in the former Book of Common Prayer, and that at the end of Baptism in the present Book, both which declare, that Children baptized are undoubtedly saved; that is (as the first Book of Edw. VI. and our present Book do express it) if they dye in their infancy, and before they commit actual sin. And our Book of Homilies declareth,Hem. of Salvation of Man­kind by Christ, Part. 1. that Infants being baptized, and dying in their infancy, are by his (Christs) Sacrifice washed from their sins, brought to Gods fa­vour, and made his children and inheritors of his Kingdom of Heaven. To these I shall and what Bishop Cranmer, who was a great Instrument in our Reformation, and Bishop Juell a principal Defender thereof write concerning Baptism, com­plying with the sense here expressed. Bishop Cranmer saith,Of the Lords Sup­per. lib. 1. c. 12. For this cause Christ ordained Baptism in water, that as surely as we see, feel, and touch water with our bodies, so assuredly ought we to believe when we be baptized, that Christ is verily present with us, and that by him we be new born again spiritually, and washed from our sins, and graffed in the stock of Christs own body, so that as the Devil hath no pow­er against Christ, so hath he none against us, so long as we remain graffed in that stock, Def. of Apol. Part. 2. c. 11. Sect. 3. &c. Bishop Juell declareth the [Page 231]Doctrine of the Church of England thus, We confess and have evermore taught, that in the Sacrament of Baptism, by the death and blood of Christ, is given remission of all manner of sin, and that not in half or in part, or by way of imagination or by sancy; but whole, full, and perfect of all together, so that now was S. Paul saith, There is no condemnation to them that be in Christ Jesus.

3. But it must be here noted, that by the saving regeneration of baptized Infants, it is not intended that their understandings or wills are guided to an high esteem and love of God and the Christian life, which the Infant state is not capable of: but this regeneration is mainly relative, so that being regenerated by Baptism, they are no longer the Children of wrath, and under the curse due to original sin; but are brought into a new state, to be mem­bers of the body of Christ, and thereby par­takers of the favour of God. And though some small seeds of gracious disposition may be in Infants, who are capable there­of in the same manner as they are of cor­ruption; yet that regeneration or renova­tion of an Infant in Baptism, whereby he is received into a state of remission and Salvation, is very different from the re­generation of an adult person, whereby [Page 232]his soul and life is moulded according to the form of the Christian Doctrine, and brought into a conformity to the Image of God;Aug. de Trin. l. 14. c. 17. and so S. Augustine distinguish­eth them; Renovatio (saith he) quae fit ad imaginem Dei non momento uno fit, si­cut momento uno fit illa in baptismo reno­vatio, remissione omnium peccatorum. And even this benefit of Infant Baptism, is vouchsafed by the Holy Ghost, for by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, 1 Cor. 12.13. And it must needs be the work of God and of his Grace, to accept an Infant born under Original sin into his favour, or as S. Augustine expresseth it:Aug. Re­tract. l. 1. c. 13. By the grace of God, the guilt of all sins that are past, is pardoned in them who are baptized into Christ, which is done by the Spirit of Regeneration; and in the Adult their will is cured by the Spirit of Faith and Charity.

4. Now that all baptized Infants are savingly regenerated, is asserted upon such Arguments as these. 1. Because Baptism doth evidence every person rightly baptized according to Gods will to be received by the will of God, to be under the terms of the Covenant of Grace; but he who is rightly received to be un­der the Covenant of Grace is in the fa­vour of God, if the conditions of that [Page 233]Covenant on his part be performed, nor doth any thing exclude him from that favour besides the sinning against or the breach of those conditions. But Original sin (of which alone Infants are guilty) was supposed to be the state under which man lay, when the Covenant of Grace was tendered to him, and so is no breach of the conditions of that Covenant, but may be pardoned by the benefits thereof. And no condition can be assigned to be per­formed on mans part, by or concerning an Infant born in the Church, more than is encluded in its being baptized (which I shall further clear when I shall treat of the condition of believing which is gene­rally propounded) even as the being cir­cumcised was of old the performing the condition of Gods Covenant, by the seed of Abraham, Gen. 17.7, 10, 11, 12, 14. faith and obedience being also necessary in persons adult. But that Baptism doth admit the person baptized aright, to be under the terms of the Covenant of Grace is manifest, because they are baptized into Christs body, 1 Cor. 12.13. They are ba­ptized into Christ, and have put on Christ, Gal. 3.27. And are baptized into the death of Christ, Rom. 6.3. and even Circumci­sion it self was a seal of the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4.11.

5. 2. The Gospel Doctrine and the holy Sacraments do convey saving benefits to them who received them aright, and are partakers of them with due qualifications. That Infants born in the Church are fitly qualified to receive Baptism, is not only manifest from the general practice of the Church from the Apostles times in bapti­zing Infants; but also from the favour of God expressed towards them in the Cove­nant of Grace, and in that Circumcision was administred to Infants, which was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace. And as the Gospel Doctrine bringeth Salvation to him who rightly receiveth it, and the Lords Supper tendereth Christ and re­mission of sins to the worthy partakers thereof; so even Baptism conveyeth sa­ving benefits to them who receive it with due qualification: hence S. Paul calleth in the washing of regeneration, by which God saved us, Tit. 3.5. S. Peter commanded them who were pricked in their hearts to repent, and be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus, for the remissi­on of sins, Act. 2.37, 38. and Ananias di­rected Paul to be baptized, and wash away his sins, Act 22.16. Which places both shew, that Baptism doth convey remission of sins, to them who are qualified aright to receive it, and also that they who [Page 235]were under a due preparation to receive remission of sins by Baptism, were not partakers thereof without Baptism. And indeed no adult person is ordinarily ca­pable of remission, but by joyning inward faith and repentance with outward Baptism, as is expressed, Mar. 16.16. Act. 2.38. Baptism being the instituted Ordinance wherein they must declare repentance in coming to Christ, and profess faith in ac­cepting the Gospel and receive gracious Union with Christ. Wherefore since Baptism doth bring the due receiver thereof into a saving estate; infants must also be acknowledged due receivers of Baptism, and rightly admitted thereto.

6. 3. Christ hath appointed his word and Sacraments, as the ordinary means of Salvation to the Members of his Church, Eph. 5.26. That he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. But infants dying in infancy are capable of no other Ordinance of Christ but Baptism, and therefore that is to them the only means of Salvation. And it seemeth injurious to the grace of God, to imagine that he appointeth any only means, which is ineffectual to the end, though it be complyed with, as much as is possible it should be, by them who make use thereof: but the infant state [Page 236]can admit no more, but that they should be passive recipients, both of this Ordi­nance [...]d of Divine Grace, and therefore thereby [...] obtain Salvation. Now that Baptism is designed to be a means of Salvation, besides the Scriptures above­mentioned, is expressed by S. Peter, 1. Pet 3.21. who saith that Baptism now saveth us. And whereas that Apostle presently addeth, that it is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but that answer of a good Conscience towards God; he doth not thereby look off from the Sacrament of Baptism, to something else as a means of Salvation; but he thereby declareth, that this Christian Sacrament is not as the Jewish Purifications, only a putting away the filth of the flesh, but it is a professed engaging of man to God, or to the Cove­nant of Grace.

7. 4. If baptized Infants born in the Church be not in their Baptism in a state of Salvation, it will be hard to shew what benefit, any Infant dying in his Infancy, can enjoy thereby. Now to assert that they have no benefit by Baptism, would be to render that Ordinance to them useless and of no effect, which the Scriptures do declare to be of a saving nature; and to enclude a being buried with Christ, Col. 2.12. Now if it be said that by Baptism [Page 237]they become members of Christ, what ad­vantage can this be to them, if this Mem­bership doth not enclude the favour of God, and a state of Salvation? If it be said that it may be hoped that God will save the baptized infant; this indeed may be hoped with confidence, if Baptism bring them into a state of salvation; but if Baptism (supposing always the Grace of God tendred therein) do not enstate them in salvation, them must they be sa­ved only by Gods extraordinary grace, not by the ordinary grace of his promise, to them who embrace aright the means of salvation, or by the grace of God in the Ordinance of Baptism, and therefore this Salvation would not be an advantage slowing from their Baptism. But if it be said that by Baptism the Covenant of grace is sealed to such Infants, we must here further consider, that Gods Covenant by reason of his faithfulness, goodness and Soveraignty cannot be sealed as mens Co­venants are, to make it firm and binding, when it would otherwise be void and of no force. Wherefore there remain two ways, whereby the Sacraments as they are on Gods part Seals of the Covenant of Grace, may be of great advantage unto us: the one is, as they give further assurance, of the priviledges of that Co­venant [Page 238]for our comfort; but of this bene­fit these infants are not capable, partly be­cause the receiving this comfort, requi­reth the exercise of judgment and consi­deration; and partly because the evident sureness of Gods Covenant, can be no cause of consolation to them, unless we admit that there is some-ordinary means appointed of God, whereby they may at­tain the blessings so assured: the other way of advantage is, by the benefits of Gods Covenant being sealed, or surely conveyed, as the present interest and pri­viledge of the persons, rightly receiving these Seals, and in this way which enclu­deth saying regeneration, infants are in­deed capable of receiving wonderful be­nefit thereby.

8. 5. And (omitting other arguments) even the Prayers of the Church, with faith and confidence, upon the other grounds above-mentioned, not doubting but earnestly believing, that God will fa­vourably receive those infants, and em­brace them with the arms of his mercy, doth give further assurance of forgive­ness of sin, and a state of salvation, for baptized Infants: For God who hath de­clared his favour towards them, and en­cluded them in his Covenant, doth di­rect. 1. Joh. 5.16. that if any man see [Page 239]his Brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask and shall give life for them that sin not unto death, and this ge­neral command encludeth Gods gracious answer to such Prayers: and Prayer which is a general means to obtain Grace, is used for the obtaining saving benefits in Baptism, with the greater encourage­ment, because the blessings prayed for, are tendred in this Ordinance, and by Gods promise, unto Infants who receive Baptism. To this purpose S. Augustine saith, that remission of sins in Baptism is obtained per orationem, De Bapt. cont. Don. l. 3. c. 18. i. e. per columbae gemitum, by the Prayers and groans of them who live in Peace, Love and Ʋnity: and our Church in the Prayer before the words of the Gospel, in the Baptismal Office, urgeth Gods promise, Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, &c. the usefulness and benefit of Prayer being here the same in Baptism, as it is in the most religiously prepared person for receiving the benefits of the Com­munion.

SECT. IV.
The Doctrine of the ancient, and divers Reformed Churches, herein observed.

1. In observing the Doctrine of the an­cient Church,Conc. Mi­lev. c. 2. I shall begin with Coun­cils. The Council of Milevis condemned those, who denyed infants to be baptized for the remission of sin, or who asserted that they did not draw that original sin from Adam, which is purged by the laver of re­generation; and they declare, that by the rule of the Catholick Church, Infants are baptized for the remission of sin, that that may be cleansed by regeneration, which was derived by generation. And this Canon of Milevis is the more considerable,Conc. Carth. c. 124. be­cause it was taken into the African Code, and with that-Code was confirmed by the sixth General Council.Conc. Trul. c. [...]. The sixth general Council in another Canon, re­quireth, that those infants should be bap­tized without any scruple, concerning whom there can be no sufficient testimony given, that they were baptized before; Conc. Trul. c. 84. and this it enjoineth lest such scruple should deprive them, [...] of this Baptismal purging for sanctification. Conc. Con­stant. And whereas the Creed of the second general [Page 241]Council expresseth a belief of one Bap­tism for the remission of sins, the Council of Milevis above mentioned avoucheth,Conc. Mil. ubi supra. those expressions to have been always so understood in the Church, as to acknow­ledge that baptized Infants did thereby ob­tain actual pardon and remission. And that African Synod whose Epistle is ex­tant amongst S. Austins Works, declared,Aug. Ep. 90. that whosoever shall deny that little Chil­dren are delivered from perdition, and do obtain Eternal Salvation by the Baptism of Christ, let him be an Anathema.

2. If we consult the ancient Fathers, it is beyond all contradiction evident, that real remission and regeneration of all baptized Infants, is acknowledged by S. Aug. (Ep. 23. & de peccat. Merit. & Re­mis. l. 2. c. 28. & passim) by Optatus, Advers. Parm. l. 5. Fulgentius, de fide ad Petr. c. 30. by Prosper, and generally by the suceeding Writers of the Church. But some have pretended,Gatak. de Bapt. In­fant. vi. & effic. p. 268. that this posi­tion sprung from their eager opposition of the Pelagians, who denied Children to be guilty of original sin; for the removing of which pretence, it will be requisite to give some testimony of the judgment of the Ecclesiastical Writers, who lived before the appearing of the Pelagian tares. S. Cyprian night two hundred years before [Page 242] Pelagius, did not only express the mighty sensible efficacy of his own Baptism for con­ferring Grace to him, in his Epistle to Dona­tus, but in his Epistle to Fidus he declareth, that Infants by their Baptism do obtain the grace and favour of God, Cyp. Ep. 59. and the remission of their sins; and several expressions of that Epistle do intimate that this is the end for which they are baptized: and comparing the state of an Infant coming to Baptism, with an adult person embra­cing Christianity and the true Faith, he doth in this respect prefer the state of the Infant, because ad remissam peccatorum hoc ipso facilius accedit, &c. he doth upon this account the more readily obtain the re­mission of sins, because the sins forgiven to him were not his own acts but anothers (or Original sin).Orig. in Luc. Hom. 14. Origen in his Homilies up­on S. Luke which were undoubtedly his and translated by S. Hierome, saith that Children are baptized for the remission of sins, but (saith he) of what sins? and when did they sin? and a little after an­swereth, that by the Sacrament of Baptism, nativitatis sordes, the sins and defilements with which they were born are laid aside: and for this cause (saith he) little ones are baptized, for unless a man be born again of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. The same Doctrine is [Page 243]also asserted by Nazianzen in his 40th. Oration,Naz. Orat. 40. as the comparing some things not far from the beginning, with others towards the middle thereof will mani­fest; and this he calleth [...] to be sanctified without any sense or appre­hension thereof. Wherefore S. Aug. did truly assert,De peccat. Mer. & Remis. l. 3. c. 5. that of old the whole Church did firmly hold, parvulos fideles originalis peccati remissionem per Christi baptismum consecutos esse, that little Children of the Church of Christ, do obtain remission of original sin, by the Baptism of Christ.

3. Among the publick Writings of the Protestants, the first Augustan Confession asserteth,Conf. Aug. 1530. Art. 9. that Children being offered to God in Baptism, are received into the fa­vour of God, and condemneth the Ana­baptists who say, that Children may be saved (i. e. ordinarily) without Baptism; to which the larger Confession, 1540. ad­deth, that concerning Children baptized in the Church of God, Christ said, Mat. 18. It is not the will of your Father which is in Heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. Conf. Sax­on de Bap­tism. The Saxon Confession fully expresseth the saving regeneration of bap­tized Infants, and that these words, I baptize thee, &c. are as much as to say, By this mersion, I testifie thee to be washed from thy sins, and to be now received by [Page 244]the true God, who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath redeemed thee by his Son Jesus Christ, and sanctifieth thee by the Holy Ghost: and it declareth, that at that time Infants are truly received of God and sanctified: and to the same purpose is the Confession of Frederick the third, the Prince Palatine.Conf. Helv. c. 20. And the general ex­pressions of the efficacious saving vertue of Baptism,Conf. Gal. c. 35. in the Helvetick, French, and Scotish Confessions,Conf. Scot. Sect. 21. are such, that the state of Infants cannot be excluded there­from. And the Geneva Catechism de­clareth, that By baptism we are Cloathed with Christ, and receive his Spirit, unless by rejecting the promises, which are there tendered to us, we render them unfruitful to our selves.

4. To give an account of the particu­lar judgments of Protestant Writers, would be a needless, difficult and endless undertaking. Divers of them manifestly assert the saving regeneration of all bapti­zed Infants; others do embrace another notion of baptismal regeneration, which I shall afterward mention; and some from the use of different ways of expression, and from what they speak with just earn­estness, against the errors of the Church of Rome are sometimes misunderstood. Cath. Or­thod. Tr. 3. qu. 3. Sect. 1. Ri­vet averreth that there is no true Prote­stant, [Page 245]who doth not approve that of Aqui­nas, 12ae. q. 81. Art. 3. That Original sin is done away in Baptism, as to the guilt thereof, and he there saith, that it is most false, that Calvin and Beza ever said that some baptized Infants are damned, Ibid. Sect. 9. dying in their infancy, before they commit any actual sin unrepented of: Absters Cal. Ca­lum. 7. and the same thing is with much passionate earnestness asserted by Beza himself, writing against Tilemannus Heshushius. Whit. ad Rat. 8^m Camp. And Dr. Whita­ker against Campian, undertaking here­in to declare the Protestant Doctrine, saith, In baptism we receive remission of sins, we are entred into Christs Family, we have the Holy Ghost given us, we are raised to certain hope of eternal life: what hath your Baptism (saith he to Campian) that ours hath not? hath it grace? hath it the merits of Christ? hath it salvation? all these hath ours. And against Duraeus in defense of his answer to Campian he saith, To the adult Faith is necessary, Cont. Du­raeum. l. 8. that Baptism may be a saving Sacrament; but to little ones because they are the Children of be­lieving Parents, and are encluded in the Covenant, it is the Sacrament of Salvation, though they by reason of their age cannot believe: where, by the Children of be­lieving Parents, his foregoing words de­clare him to mean, Children born within [Page 246]the Church, in distinction from Turks, Jews and Ethnicks. These words do ex­press an actual regeneration of baptized In­fants, by the grace of God, and the ap­plication of the merits of Christ, for re­mission and Salvation; but they are very hardly reconcileable with divers passa­ges, in the posthumous Writings of that learned man, especially his Praelections de Sacram. Qu. 4. c. 2, 3.

SECT. V.
The Objections against the saving regenera­tion of Infants in Baptism, considered.

1. Against all baptized Infants being savingly regenerated by their Baptism, it may be first objected, That the Scriptures declare the general necessity of Faith in order to Salvation, and therefore Infants unless they believe cannot be saved by being baptized. In answer to this (it being a matter of obscurity) I shall re­late different ways of solution.Aug. de pec. Mer. & rem. l. 3. c. 2. 1. Ma­ny account Faith the condition for adult persons, Aug. Ep. 23. but not for Infants; but this is discarded by others, both ancient, and modern;Kemait. Exam. Part. 2. de Baptism. partly because by the general practice of the Church at Infant-Baptism, (of which S. Aug. taketh notice) it was [Page 247]declared in the Infants name (as it is in our Liturgy) Credo, or I believe; and partly because the condition of Faith, seemeth so generally expressed in the Gospel, that they judge that Infants can­not be thence excluded, though the Faith for the infant state cannot be the same, with what is required from the adult. 2. Divers others as Augustine, Bede, Hugo de Victore. Amalanus, and Walafridus Strabo think baptized Infants to be saved, by the Faith of the Church into which they are baptized, or by the Faith of them who offer them unto Baptism; or as many Protestants (and also the Catechis­mus Romanus) express it, credunt paren­tum fide by the faith of their Parents; as the Syrophaenician Womans Daughter, was healed by her Mothers Faith, Mat. 15.28. and the sick of the Palsie was Cured by the Faith of them who brought him to Christ.Mat. 9.2. But this doth not satisfie Kemnitius, and some others, partly because it is every ones one Faith, which is the Gospel condition for his Salvation, though anothers Faith may be instrumental for the procuring of divers blessings; and partly because this answer giveth no good account of the Ecclesiastical usage of owning or pro­fessing the Creed in the Infants name at the time of his Baptism. 3. Others as­sert [Page 248]that there is some Faith wrought in Infants,Inst. lib. 4. c. 16. Cath. Orth. Tr. 3. qu. 1. Sect. 12. which Calvin and Rivet say is not the act but the seed of Faith, by the inspira­tion of the Holy Spirit, and Kemnitius as­serteth this operation of the Holy Ghost in Infants, to be that they call Faith, though they know not what kind of operation it is.

2. 4. To these I shall add what I con­ceive most probable, That since Infants are not capable of the Faith of adult per­sons, which cometh by hearing, and con­sisteth in the knowledge and assent of the mind, with the engagement to love submission and acceptance of the heart; and since there are different degrees of Faith, in several adult Christians, and different acts of Faith, relating to the ob­ject thereof, in the Jewish and Christian Church; it will be sufficient that the Faith which referreth to Infants, have only some general agreement in its notion, with the Faith of the adult. Now since the Faith of the adult is an acceptance of the Covenant of Grace, and the Gospel Doctrine, with a submission thereunto, which in their state requireth an active exercise of the whole Soul, Mind and Will; when an Infant is said to believe, this must consist in such an acceptance of, and submission to the Gospel, as his State [Page 249]is capable of, which is Passively. Thus by being baptized he accepteth Christ, and the Covenant of Grace, being united to and made a Member of that Church, which holdeth Christ as the head, and the Gospel Covenant as the ground of Hope, (or if Baptism cannot be obtained, its being designed may be here considerable) and hereby according to their capacities, Infants do enter upon a profession, and acceptance of the Christian Faith, which their sureties declare, and themselves stand obliged to owne, when they come to years of understanding. To this pur­pose in S. Aug. Infans vocatur fidelis, Aug. Ep. 23. non rem ipsam mente annuendo, sed Sacramen­tum percipiendo; and in Gratian Credere est infantibus baptizari or they become be­lievers by being baptized into the Faith, and thus S. Aug. giveth an account of the Cu­stom of the Church, declaring Infants at their Baptism to believe, that is to under­take the profession of the Faith, and this he calleth, saluberrimae consuetudinis ra­tionem, an account of a very good Cu­stom.

3. Obj. 2. If Infants be savingly rege­nerated by being baptized, then must In­fants dying without Baptism be excluded from Salvation. Ans. 1. Though it be certain that S. Aug. Fulgentius, Prosper, [Page 250]Isidoms Hispalensis, Alcuinus, and the whole stream of later Writers before the reformation, do pass a sad sentence upon unbaptized Infants, yet even then some and those none of the meanest,Cassand. de Bapt. Inf. did strive against the stream, as Biel, Gerson, Cajetau, with some others noted by Cassander. And it hath been ordinarily acknowledg­ed in the Christian Church, that where Baptism could not be obtained, adult per­sons exercising Christian Graces,Cont. Don. l. 4. c. 22. might obtain Salvation without it, even besides the case of Martyrdom: this was asserted by S. Augustin, largely defended by S. Bernard, Bern. Ep. 78. Lib. 4. Dist. 4. Amb. de Obit. Va­lent. and the Master of the sentences, with his School, is encluded in S. Am­brose his hopes of Valentinian the Younger, who died without that Baptism which he designed and desired, and is proved by the instance of the Thief upon the Cross. And hence it will follow that though Bap­tism be an instrument of Salvation, yet it is not in all Cases of absolute necessity thereunto. 2. There is cause to hope well of those dying Infants who cannot obtain Baptism, because the mercy and goodness of God, may account them ac­cording to their capacity, passively to ac­cept of the Covenant of Grace, by be­ing born in a Church and of Parents, who designed them for Communion with [Page 251]Christ, and the embracing Christianity.Rivetus ubi supra, n. 8, 9. Wardi Resp ad Gat. n. 18. Of the happy state of such Infants, Rivet and Dr. Ward doubt not, though this lat­ter expresseth his less degree of confidence where Baptism is wanting, through the neglect or contempt of the Parents: yet it must of necessity be acknowledged, that there is greater certainty of the Salvation of Infants baptized, than of those who dye without Baptism, because the Ordi­nances of Christ ought by no means to be looked upon as useless for salvation; and the promise made to Christians and their Seed, is upon condition of their acceptance of the Covenant of Grace, Act. 2.38, 39. as was also the promise to the Seed of Abraham. Gen. 17.7.—14.

4. Obj. 3. If Infants be savingly rege­nerated by Baptism, it would be an excel­lent piece of Charity to baptize Pagan In­fants, and even to murder baptized In­fants, because many of these do after­wards by irreligion or debauchery, ex­pose themselves to eternal damnation: but the former is opposite to Christianity and the other to humanity. Ans. There can be no act of Charity, but what is eve­ry way conformable to Christian duty, and is no way injurious to the interests of men, and therefore the actions men­tioned in this objection are far from being [Page 252]charitable. Because 1. To baptize Pa­gan Infants, continuing with them under their education; would be to abuse Gods Ordinance, by administring it to sub­jects not duly qualified, according to the will of God; and therefore no saving be­nefit could be expected thereby to such Infants; because as Mr. Hooker expresseth it,Eccles. Pol. l. 5. n. 57. Sacraments are not physical but moral instruments of Salvation, which unless we perform as the Author of Grace requireth they are unprofitable. 2. To take Pagan Infants from them forcibly and unjustly, that they may be baptized, and educated in Christianity, is no right act of Christi­an Charity: for though those particular persons might obtain that Salvation by embracing the Christian life and doctrine, which they cannot enjoy in the pursuance of Pagan Idolatry: yet such actions being against the right of their Parents, and thereby contrary to that justice and inno­cency which Christianity recommendeth, would greatly tend to the prejudice of the name of Christ in the World. 3. Pa­gan Infants undertaken to be brought up in Christianity and as it were adopted in­to Christian Families, have by reason of that intended education, a right to Chri­stian Baptism, as Abrahams Servants bought with money had to Circumcision, [Page 253]with all others born in his House: and if such an Infant dye, so soon as it hath received Baptism, yet Fulgentius decla­reth him factum esse haeredem Dei, Fulg. de Ver. Praed. l. 1. c. 12. & co­haeredem Christi, that he is made an Heir of God, and joint Heir with Christ.

5. As to the other part of this Objecti­on, Though it be certain (whatever we judge of Baptismal regeneration) that it had been better for every wicked man, never to have lived to commit those hai­nous sins, for which the wrath of God cometh upon the Children of disobedience: yet there can be no more horrid and un­charitable action attempted in the World, than the murdering baptized Infants: which would be a wicked acting against the holy command of God, and extream­ly opposite to the meekness and goodness of Christianity, and such practices would tend to the ruin and extinguishing of the present Church of God, and to render Christianity abhorred in the World, to the prejudice of many thousands of Souls: and to the prejudice of these Infants, both in the loss of their lives, and in hindring them of the opportunity of exercising pious and holy lives in the World; where­by God might be glorified, and them­selves qualified through the grace of God, to partake of higher degrees of glory in the [Page 254]World to come; there being good reason to judge, that the Apostles, Martyrs, and eminent Servants of God in this life, have a more excellent glory in the other World, where all that enter in, have per­fect joy.

6. Obj. 4. This position placeth a great efficacy in Order to Salvation, in an out­ward action of man baptizing, yea rather more than in the Grace of God and Pre­destination: Since it must be supposed, that many who were in a state of Salva­tion by their Baptism, do yet finally pe­rish; and therefore also all those who assert perseverance in a state of Grace, must disown this opinion of Baptismal saving regeneration. Tertul. de Bapt. c. 2. Ans. 1. That it is certain that some outward actions of men, not as they are their actions, but as they onclude the tenders of the grace of God, and are his institutions, or as they bear respect to the Grace and Promise of God, may be greatly available to our Salvati­on: such were the Apostles Preaching, and such is the due Administration of Sacraments; and he who will dispute against the efficacious vertue of these things, as means of Grace, must oppose also the saving benefits of the Gospel, and of the institution of Christ. And the advantage by this Ordinance of Baptism [Page 255]is, that it is a performance on mans part, of what the Covenant of Grace requireth concerning Infants, and that it is on Gods part an Ordinance of Grace; and there­fore the benefits by Baptism, do flow from the Grace and Promise of God, and ought not to be considered in opposition there­to; and even the advantage of baptized Infants dying in their Infancy, is the fruit of the grace of God and Predestination.Wardi Thes. n. 36.2. The Question about Perseverance is well observed by Dr. Ward to be distinct from this present subject: for to perse­vere in the Infant-regeneration which is chiefly relative, is no sufficient qualifica­tion for the acceptance of the adult, in whom another kind of regeneration, (by inward real conversion, and gracious qua­lifications and exercises) is necessary, and of whom the Question of Perseve­rance is in the same place declared to be understood,Thes. Salm. de Perse­ver. th. 39. Ibidem. and to the same purpose writeth Amyraldus also. And whereas Infant Baptism receiveth the person to be under the Covenant of Grace, it is just­ly asserted by Dr. Ward, that even those who after Baptism live in wickedness, do continue acquitted and discharged from the Original guilt of the first Covenant, and that bringing destruction upon them­selves under the Gospel, they do perish [Page 256]altogether for the breach of the second Covenant, or for not performing the con­ditions of Christianity, which they un­dertook in Baptism, which also was as­serted by S. Augustine, Thes. n. 35. Fulgentius, Pros­per and the African Synods which are by him there produced.

SECT. VI.
Of the notion of visible regeneration in Baptism.

1. There is another Notion of Baptis­mal Regeneration to be considered, That Baptism doth certainly admit persons, in­to Communion with the Church of Christ, and to visible Membership with him; and that every baptized person whether he be adult or Infant, hath thereupon such ti­tles belonging to him, that he is to be cal­led regenerate, a Child of God, a Member of Christ, upon the account of his being then admitted into the Christian Society, and being received by Baptism to the profession of Christianity, and under the Covenant of Grace, whereby he is visibly such. And this opinion as it referreth to the adult, doth also acknowledge, that Baptism is to them a means of Grace, and of Spiritual Regeneration unto Salvation, [Page 257]when they come to it duly prepared with those gracious qualifications which are necessary to the receiving the saving be­nefits of Gods Covenant, and also as it is well improved by their future holy ex­ercises of life. Indeed there are some men who allow no spiritual efficacy to the Ordinance of Baptism, as an instru­ment of grace; but this is an opinion so contrary to the nature of a Sacrament, and to the general Doctrine of the An­cients, and the Protestant Churches, that it deserveth to be earnestly exploded.

2. This notion as it is extended to In­fants, as understanding them in this sense to be regenerated in Baptism, was embra­ced by some in our Church from King Edwards Reign, and seemeth probably fa­voured by some expressions of Bishop Whit-gift, Answ. to the Appeal c. 12. and is more particularly expressed by Bishop Carlton and divers others. Nor doth the entertaining this way of expli­cation, necessarily deny the saving Re­generation of all baptized Infants. For though some few persons have inconside­rately uttered hard expressions against many dying baptized Infants, as that multi infantes damnantur cum baptismo; such words do appear at least so unad­vised and ungrounded, that I presume it will be ordinarily acknowledged by [Page 258]them who embrace this notion to be nei­ther safe nor charitable to imitate them. But most others who proceed this way, though they come not so far as to em­brace it as a Doctrine, that all baptized Infants in the Church are in a state of Salvation, yet because they know of no­thing wanting towards their Salvation, they conclude that it is at least very hopeful to God-ward, and that the Church by the judgment of Charity, must ac­knowledge them all in a justified estate.

3. Bishop Carlton declareth himself to this purpose,Ʋbi supra [...] That young Children bapti­zed are delivered from Original sin we doubt not, and if they dye before they come to the practice of actual sins, they shall be saved: and that Children baptized are put into the state of Salvation, I make no doubt of it, but, saith he, this we must believe ex judicio charitatis. Which Phrase of be­lieving by the judgment of Charity (which some have thought improper) is I conceive the same with those words of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 13.7. Charity believeth all things; that is, where there is nothing that can determine us to the contrary, Christian Charity requireth us to enter­tain the most favourable apprehension, and to judge and hope the best. And that Rubrick, That Children baptized dy­ing [Page 259]before they commit actual sins are un­doubtedly saved, may according to this notion, be acknowledged as certainly true of Children indefinitely, without denying it to be true universally. And they who entertain these apprehensions do acknowledge, that all baptized Infants or others are regenerated and justified Sacramento tenus; or they are visibly such so far as concerneth their profes­sion, and the application of the means of grace; and they may be affirmed to be such, according to the usual language of the Holy Scriptures concerning Sacra­ments, and the dispensation of the grace of God.

4. And this notion as it is very true, so it is made use of and manifestly allow­ed in our Liturgy, in the office for them who are baptized in riper years: where every person then baptized is said to be regenerated and graffed into the body of Christs Church, to be born again, and made an heir of everlasting Salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, and to have now by Ba­ptism put on Christ, being made a Child of God and of the Light. Yet it is not here­by intended to be dogmatically declared, that every adult person receiving Ba­ptism is thereby in a certain state of Sal­vation, because true Faith and Repen­tance [Page 260]which some such persons may pos­sibly want, is in them necessary in order to the spiritual efficacy of the Sacraments, and is so acknowledged by the Doctrine of our Church.Artic. 27. For as our Articles de­clare, that those who receive Baptism rightly, are thereby as by an instrument graffed into the Church, and obtain remissi­on of sins, so they also assert concerning Sacraments,Artic. 25. that in such only who wor­thily receive the same, they have a whole­som effect and operation.

5. Agreeable hereto are the frequent expressions of the ancient Church, in which it was ordinarily and truly deli­vered, that Baptism without true Faith and Repentance, cannot avail to the salva­tion of the adult, nor put them into a present justified state. And though some words in S. Augustine by way of dispute and inquiry, do incline to the contrary, yet that that was none of his fixed judg­ment, was sufficiently observed by the Master of the Sentences. Sent. l. 4. Dist. 4. b. Aug. Cont. Liter. Pe­tit. l. 1. c. 23. S. Augustine pro­veth that Baptism is inwardly of no pro­fit to some, from the example of Simon Magus; and from the same instance S. Hierome concludeth,Hier. in Ezek. 16. that he who doth not receive Baptism with a compleat Faith, is indeed baptized with water, sed nequaquam baptizatus est in salutem, [Page 261]but is in no wise baptized unto salvation; Cyril. Hie­ros Proca­tach. and Cyrill of Hieru. expresseth him who cometh with his body to Baptism, and not with his heart, to be nothing profited. And this must needs be acknowledged for truth, because the performance of the conditions of the Covenant of grace by the adult, can in no respect be confined to Baptism only.

6. Yet these Writers did ordinarily acknowledge, both universally concern­ing all persons baptized, and particularly concerning any adult person, that they had put on Christ, and were made his Members, and were regenerated by the Ho­ly Ghost, and born again, with other such like expressions. S. Augustine saith,Cont. Do­nat. l. 5. c. 24. Men put on Christ either ad Sacramenti perce­ptionem, so far as concerneth the receiving the Sacrament, or usque ad vitae sanctifica­tionem, as far as reacheth to the sanctifi­cation of life: which is admitted by P. Lombard, who inferreth thence, that all persons who receive Baptism put on Christ. Cyril telleth every one of those adult persons, who came to be baptized,Cyr. Ca­tech. 3. [...], the Holy Ghost will seal your Souls. Accord­ing to the expression of Rabanus, any baptized person à Christo Christianus vo­catur, De instit. Cleric. l. 1. c. 1. & Dei Patris & Ecclesiae matris [Page 262]noscitur esse filius: is called from Christ a Christian, and is known to be a Child of God his Father, and of the Church his Mother; and Clemens Alexandrinus ac­counteth all who are admitted into the Church of Christ, to be called Members of Christ whose body is the Church; and towards them who indulge themselves in Carnal practices and pleasures,Strom. l. 7. he indul­geth himself in this fanciful expression, to esteem them [...].

7. But above all, the language which the holy Scripture useth, is to be obser­ved, which as it oft speaketh of Children of God, and such like Phrases concern­ing them who are inwardly renewed by a divine life (which it every where re­quireth as of absolute necessity) so upon account of visible admission to the Church, and profession of the Faith it oft applyeth the like expressions towards every person received into the Church. So 1.Gal. 3.27. S. Paul declareth as many of you as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. 2. Concerning baptized persons being Members of Christ. and graffed into his body, the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 12.13. We are all baptized into one body, and v. 27. Ye are the body of Christ and Mem­bers in particular: Which words respect every one in the Church of Corinth, who [Page 263]are required from this argument, because they are members of Christs body, to consult not themselves, but the benefit of the whole Church, and to consider the different proportions of several Members. And when he useth this Argument against Fornication. 1. Cor. 6.15. Shall I take the Members of Christ, and make them the Members of an Harlot? God forbid; he doth no doubt thereby disswade every person who had undertaken Christianity, from that filthy sin, because by his Bap­tism, his body was dedicated to be a Member of Christ. And to this may be added what our Saviour speaketh, Joh. 15.2. of a branch in him that beareth not fruit.

8.V. Sect. 9. n. 5. 3. Concerning the titles of being regenerated, born again, and being the Children of God; we may observe that even those circumcised Members of the Jewish Church, who denyed the holy one and the just, and killed the Prince of life. Act. 3.14, 15.Act. 3.25. and who as yet had not repented nor were converted, v. 19. were yet called the Children of the Cove­nant, which God made with Abraham. And of those Jews for whom the Apostle had great sorrow and continual heaviness, and for whom he could wish himself accursed from Christ, he saith,Rom. 9.4▪ that to them pertain­eth [Page 264]the adoption. By which expressions it is meant, that they were visibly Chil­dren of the Covenant by undertaking it, and that they were under the tenders and external priviledges of adoption, and under the visible means of the spiritual benefits thereof. Under the Christian profession, the Apostle expressing to his Galatians, the difference between being under the legal Covenant which gendreth to bondage, Adv. Marc. l. 5. c. 4. Ch. 4.24. and the Evangelical Covenant which bringeth forth them that are free, or between Judaismus and Christi­anismus as Tertullian speaketh, saith, that the Jerusalem which is above (that is the Covenant of Grace, and the Gospel Do­ctrine as Illyricus rightly glosseth) is the Mother of us all, Illyr. Gloss. in Loc. v. 26. and we are the Children of the promise, v. 28. Which things are mentioned as titles of privi­ledge, which their undertaking the Gos­pel profession did receive them unto. And when the Apostle telleth them, Gal. 3.26. Ye are all the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus, it is evident from his scope, that by faith is there understood the Gos­pel dispensation of Faith undertaken by them, in opposition to the Law; and that those who by Baptism are admitted to the profession of the Christian Faith, are called the Children of God, Ch. 3.26, [Page 265]27. or by way of distinction, [...], Sons of God, under great external priviledges of Christian freedom, (and also inwardly Sons and Heirs of life if they live as be­cometh the profession of Christianity) whilst they who were under the Law were [...], Children under age, being in bondage under the Elements of the World, Gal. 4.1, 3. And since all those who by Baptism do enter upon Christianity, are entituled Sons of God; which Sonship proceedeth not from their natural Gene­ration, but from their entrance into the Covenant of God, persons baptized may according to the same sense, be hence cal­led regenerate and born again: and such expressions also are sufficiently allowed and defended, from the Scripture speak­ing of being born again of Water and of the Spirit, Joh. 3.5 and calling Baptism the washing of regeneration. Tit. 3.5.

9. 4. Concerning baptized persons be­ing called Heirs of Everlasting Salvation, we may observe, that those Members of the Church visible, who shall be cast into outer darkness, are yet called Children of the Kingdom, Mat. 8.12. And they may well be called Heirs, to whom the pro­mise referring to the inheritance is con­firmed, and who are by Baptism received under the Seal of the Covenant of Grace, [Page 266]which alone giveth right of inheriting, Gal. 4.30. On this account the Gentile Church, and every Member embracing the Christian Faith, are called Fellow-Heirs and Members of the same body, Eph. 3.6. they also being now by the Gospel grace received to be the Children of the Co­venant. And S. Peter exhorteth Husbands and Wives embracing Christianity, to mind their duties, as being Heirs together of the grace of life. 1 Pet. 3.7. And when S. Paul ex­horteth the Thessalonians to walk worthy of him, who hath called them unto his Kingdom and Glory; it is manifest that he speaketh to them all, and even to them who were most negligent of the Christian life; to whom such titles of dignity do belong, from their Christian profession and being under the Gospel Grace; though the in­ward priviledges exhibited under those Titles, are only the portion of those who do perform the Conditions of the Gospel Covenant. And upon the same account that baptized persons may be called the Sons of God, they may be also thence con­cluded Heirs of Salvation.

10. 5. On the same manner, may Christians by Baptism be acknow­ledged to be regenerated by the Holy Ghost, because the entrance into the body of Christ by Baptism, is a priviledge ob­tained [Page 267]by the Grace of God, or by the Holy Spirit. For in Baptism the Minister acteth in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and therefore as Calvin assert­eth, Baptism is to be received as from the hand of God; Baptismus accipiendus est quasi ex manu Dei: Wherefore in like manner as Baptism which is performed in the name of the Holy Ghost hath been shewed to regenerate, persons may be pro­perly said to be therein regenerated by the Holy Spirit; to which agreeth that Phrase of being born of Water, and of the Spirit, Joh. 3.5. And as all gifts, and diversi­ties of operations in the Christian Church, are derived from the Holy Spi­rit. 1 Cor. 12.4, 11. So particularly this gift or priviledge of being baptized, and received into Membership with the body of Christ, is acknowledged by the Apo­stle to flow from the holy Spirit, unto whom all benefits of Divine Grace and favour are ascribed. For the Apostle saith, concerning every visible member of the Church of Corinth, as is manifest from the design of that Chapter,1 Cor. 12.13. By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body: to which place Zanchy referring saith, Vi Spiritus Sancti baptizamur, &c. De Trib. Eloh. Par. 1. l. 7. c. 5. Sect. 6. By the power of the Holy Ghost, we are baptized of the Father, into one body of Christ, and [Page 268]thereby regenerated as well by the Spirit, as by the Father and the Son. And again, Haec regeneratio seu insitio in Christum, fit à patre sed per Spiritum Sanctum. And this is agreeable to our Book of Articles,Artic. 27. expressing, that in Baptism the promise of forgiveness of sins, and of adoption to be the Sons of God by the Holy Ghost are vi­sibly signed and sealed.

11. Besides these expressions, the Scrip­tures speak of persons baptized being bu­ried with Christ, Col. 2.12. and being dead unto sin, and buried with Christ by Baptism unto death, and being planted together in the likeness of his death. Rom. 6.2, 4, 5. And as Zanchy at large observed,Tom. 7. de Persever. c. 2. p. 118. & 137, 138. Notanda est Scripturarum consuetudo, &c. The usual way of the Scriptures is to be observed, they call as many as give up their names to Christ, and are baptized into his name, persons justified, sanctified, and the Sons of God. And in another place he saith, All who are baptized are sealed unto Christ, Tom 8. de Relig. Christ. Fi­des. De. Baptismo. Sect. 1. as be­ing now incorporated into him by the Holy Ghost, that they may not be under their own power, but under his; by whom they are said to be taken into the fellowship of his Covenant, and to be made one body with him and all Saints, and to be parta­kers of all spiritual and heavenly good. And in his next Paragraph he saith, All who [Page 269]are baptized tales esse & fieri Sacramenta­liter & vere dicuntur, Sect. 2. are sacramentally and truly said to be such and to be made such.

12. But it may be said, that according to this sense, these expressions of being regenerated, born again, members of Christ, &c. have but a low signification, not suitable to the excellency and dignity of those names. Ans. 1. These expressions even as they are used at the Baptism of the adult, do enclude a considerable hope and evidence, of true spiritual Commu­nion and Membership with Christ, and of inward regeneration and a right to Eternal Life, which are benefits certain­ly attained in Baptism, by persons duly qualified for the receiving them. 2. They declare the very high priviledge of the Christian calling, the entrance into which is the way to the Communion with Christ, and to the highest enjoyment of the pri­viledges of the Children and Heirs of God, which those persons do enjoy who do neglect the Christian life. And the Scriptures usually mention those who are under the tenders of Salvation, by terms of great priviledge and dignity; not to make them secure in the disregarding true piety: but partly to amplify and exalt the Gospel grace and goodness of God where­by so great benefits are set before us; [Page 270]partly to manifest our great engagements to exemplary Piety and Obedience, from so great encouragements; partly to te­stifie that if we perish by willful neglect of God and disobedience to the Gospel, this will be to fall into dreadful misery, out of that state which encluded excel­lent means and great opportunities, of obtaining Eternal Salvation; and partly to manifest that wicked practices in such persons are both in themselves more hai­nous, and more abominable in the sight of God, because this includeth a spiritual sacriledge, or a profanation of what was devoted to God, by the most solemn de­dication of Christian Baptism.

13. Thus under the Old Testament, it was no argument for neglect and security, but an high expression of Gods favour to the Jews, and of their deep obligations to serve and honour him, and cleave un­to him,Jer. 31.9. when he declared himself; I am a Father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first born; Jer. 3.14. and turn ye back sliding Children, for I am married unto you. And it was the aggravation of their sin and disobe­dience against God,Is. 1.2. that he had nourish­ed and brought up Children, Jer. 31.32. and they had rebelled against him, and that they broke his Covenant though he was an Husband to them; and that Israel and Judah who had [Page 271]God for their Husband,Hos. 2. [...] 2, 3, 4, 5, 7. should play the Harlot, and commit Whoredom and Adul­tery, in departing from him; and deal treacherously with him, Jer. 3.20. as a Wife treache­rously departeth from her Husband. And under the New Testament,Mat. 11.23. when Christ said of Capernaum, that she was exalted to Heaven, but should be brought down to Hell; this both expressed Gods exceeding kindness manifested unto them, and their very unanswerable behaviour, together with the aggravation of their misery,1 Cor. 3.16, 17. Ch. 6.15, 19. that after such tenders of Salvation, it should be more tolerable for Sodom than for them And the Apostolical Doctrine abun­dantly testifieth, that to defile the Temple of God, and prophane the members of Christ, are practices execrably impious, and de­structively pernicious.

SECT. VII.
Of Sureties, and some other things in the Office for Baptism.

1. The next thing to be considered, is the use of sureties, or of Godfathers and Godmothers. These have been received and appointed by the Bohemian, French, Dutch, and other Protestant Churches, and that the Primitive Church had spon­sors for Infants at their Baptism, is evi­dent from divers passages in S. Augustine, and from the author de Hierarchia Eccle­siastica, [Page 272]and also from Tertullian, Tertul. de Bap. c. 18. speaking of the Sponsores circa parvulos in Baptis­mo. Buxtorf telleth us,De Synag. Jud. c. 2. that the Jews at their Circumcision have a susceptor, or compater; Synops. Pur. Theol. Disp. 44. n. 54. and among others, the Leyden Professors have esteemed that place of the Prophet Esay, Is. 8.2, 3. to be an in­stance of the ancient use of such witnes­ses, at the circumcision of their Children, and that from thence this usage in the Primitive Christian Church was received. Now though the use of sureties be not much opposed, yet 1. Some impose a sense upon some expressions of the Litur­gy, as if sureties were made thereby a necessary condition, without which Bap­tism might not be administred to Infants: and 2. it is objected that they do declare and promise the belief of the Faith (and the practice of Christian life) in the In­fants name, and yet they can neither tru­ly say that he now doth believe, nor can they upon sufficient grounds engage that he ever shall believe, &c.

2. But 1. It is fully evident, that nei­ther the use of sureties, nor their promise is made a necessary condition in our Li­turgy, of administring Baptism to Infants, because no sureties are required at the administration of private Baptism, where our batpismal Office declareth, the Child [Page 273]to be lawfully and sufficiently baptized. And though it be directed as expedient, that if the Child which was privately baptized do live, it should be afterward brought into the Church with sureties; yet at that time before any notice is taken of the sureties, the Priviledges of Baptism are declared to belong to that Infant; that he is by the Laver of Regeneration in Ba­ptism, received into the number of the Chil­dren of God, and Heirs of everlasting life. Wherefore these words in the form for publick Baptism of Infants, This Infant must also faithfully for his part promise by you who are his sureties; do only evi­dence that this which is in it self a thing expedient, must be practised according to the Order and Constitution of the Church, which is grounded upon profita­ble and useful considerations, for the better assuring the Christian education of the baptized Infant.

3. The Baptismal Interrogatories which are next objected, are both of greater an­tiquity, and of allowable and profitable use. That Interrogatories were used in Baptism, from the very time of the Apo­stles, and that S. Peter's [...], 1 Pet. 3.21. doth allude thereto, hath been ob­served by very learned men with much probability.Cyp. Epist. 70. & 76. In S. Cyprians time the par­ticular [Page 274]Forms of Interrogation in Ba­ptism, were so honourably esteemed, that they were inviolably observed with­out alteration, even by those Hereticks and Schismaticks who then separated from the Church, although their retaining them,Tertul. de Pudic. c. 9. de Bapt. c. 6 Ad Mart. c. 3. de spect. c. 4. de Cor. Mil. c. 3. encluded what was prejudicial to the designs of their Schism Tertullian also expresseth the custom of using Inter­rogatories, concerning the Creed and pro­fession of the Christian Faith, and also concerning the renouncing the Devil and undertaking the Christian warfare; and in divers places sufficiently signifieth the set Forms of Interrogations and Answers. In the Greek Church,Const. A­post. l. 7. c. 42. as the Author of the Constitutions hath expressed it, the person to be baptized being asked, if he did renounce the Devil, and ingage him­self to the warfare of Christ and believe, he answered [...]. and [...]; I renounce the Devil, &c. I ingage under the Banner of Christ and believe. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 8. And the fixed use of certain Interrogatories and Answer is mentioned by Dionysius Alexandrinus, as being observed in Baptism before his time.

4. The use of Interrogatories, at the Ba­ptism of Infants to be answered by others in their names, was encluded as part of this ancient Ecclesiastical practice, as may [Page 275]be collected from the place above-men­tioned, from Tertullian speaking of the Sponsors of little Children in Baptism: Augustin Ep. 23. but the same is more fully expressed by S. Augustine who declareth his approba­tion of the usefulness of the answers made to these Interrogatories in the be­half of Children, and undertaketh to give an account how they must be under­stood, and calleth this an useful Custom; which both intimateth it to be of ordina­ry practice, and to have been of long continuance. The Author of the Eccle­siastical Hierarchy, expresseth the Sponsor for the Child, to declare in his name,De Hier. Eccl. c. 7. ad fin. [...], that the Child doth renounce and engage; and Isidorus Hispalensis noteth, that little ones who cannot speak or declare they believe, are baptized alio protestante, with ano­ther persons making the profession on their behalf; and this usage hath been also em­braced by divers Protestant Churches,Rat. Dis­cip. c. 3. Sect. 2. herein following the Bohemian which was the first reformed.

5. That the true intent and benefit hereof may be understood, we must con­sider. 1. That every person baptized, thereby undertaketh to renounce the De­vil, to embrace the Christian Faith, and to become the Servant of God, and Disciple [Page 276]of Jesus Christ. This is evident from that Command of Christ. mat. 28.19. [...] make them Disciples by baptizing them, and from the form of of Baptism, in, or into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and from such expressions as these, concern­ing them who have undertaken Baptism, That they are dead unto sin, so as that they should not live any longer therein, that they are baptized into Christ, and into the likeness of his death, and that they have put on Christ. 2. That Infants are capa­ble of being engaged to God, and may stand obliged to believe in God, and serve him, and to reject the ways of sin and wickedness. This is manifest from the Circumcision of Children under the Law, and from their little ones entring into Covenant with God, Deut. 29.11, 12, &c. and is encluded in the Baptism of Infants, which is a dedicating them unto God, and layeth an obligation upon them to entertain and persevere in the Christi­an Life and Faith, whether they have any Sureties or no: and he that owneth not this obligation from his Baptism, doth go far toward the renouncing of Christi­anity. 3. That when the Sureties answer in the Childs name, I believe, I renounce, &c. this is a more solemn representation [Page 277]or declaration, of what the Child under­taken by his Baptism, and hereby as the Master of the sentences determineth,Sent. l. 4. Dist. 6. g. par­vulus hac sponsione tenebitur non sponsor, the Child and not the surety standeth bound by this engagement: only the Surety is ob­liged to be careful of admonishing him. This explicite Declaration of what the baptized Infant undertaketh, is fitly used in Baptism, conformably to Antiquity, be­cause it tendeth to express clearly, a con­siderable part of the design and end of Christian Baptism, and to put all other baptized persons in mind of their engage­ment that they may live answerably there­to. And the matter of this baptismal vow being expressed in the publick Congrega­tion, in the Childs name, where all who are present may bear witness thereto, may be a considerable argument to be urged upon him when he cometh to Age, to induce him to the greater diligence in the Christian life. And these words of the Sureties I believe, &c. are not di­rectly words of promise of what they undertake shall be performed, but words expressing contract and engagement in the baptismal vow, and declaring in what profession and practice, this Infant by his Baptism standeth obliged to live and die.

6. There is a further advantage by the the use of sureties, in that they are (as is expressed in the exhortation to them) to see that the Child be taught, what a solemn vow, promise and profession, he made in Baptism, that he be vertuously brought up. And that he be instructed in those points of Christianity, which a Christian ought to know and believe to his Souls health, and to call upon him to hear Sermons. All this (which is in our Church required) may well be performed by the Surety, and imposeth no heavy burden upon him, and (besides the Parents care which may here­by be quickned) it may be of great ad­vantage to the Religious life of the Child. The ancient Church either did require more than this from the Sureties, Tert. de bapt. c. 18. Dionys. ubi supra. De Cons. Dist. 4. Vos ante om­nia. touching their particular ordinary care of the Childs Education, or else their sense was over-severely expressed, by several par­ticular Writers as Tertullian, the Author de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, and some others.

7. Having thus far discoursed of the use of Sureties, and the intent of the In­terrogatories, referring to the baptismal engagement; it may be further obser­ved, that when they are asked, Wilt thou be baptized into this Faith? and they ans­wer in the Childs name, That is my de­sire; [Page 279]the plain meaning thereof is, to ex­press, that the intent of the Childs being present, is to receive Baptism, which up­on its account, and in its right and name they desire for it. And when in the Ca­techism there are these Questions and Answers. Q. What is required of persons to be baptized? A. Repentance whereby they forsake sin, and Faith whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God, made to them in that Sacrament. Q. Why then are Infants baptized, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them? A. Because they promise them both by their Sureties; which promise when they come to age themselves are bound to perform: the sense of the former answer is, that he who cometh to Christian Baptism, is not left at liberty to lead a loose life, but he ought to practise faith and repentance, as a previous qualification unto Baptism in the adult, and as a consequent duty upon Baptism, both in them who are bap­tized in their Infancy, and at riper years. And the sense of the latter Question and Answer is, That though Infants be not capable of the particular acts of faith and repentance in their present state, yet by those expressions of contract, whereby their Sureties in their name only, declare what their Baptism obligeth them unto, [Page 280]it is manifested that they do undertake faith and repentance, as much as is possi­ble for the infant state, and do stand en­gaged from their Baptism, more particu­larly to act Faith and Repentance when they come to Age.

8. Another expression in the baptismal Office hath been misunderstood: viz. Who by the Baptism of thy wel-beloved Son Jesus Christ, didst sanctifie water to the mystical washing away of sin. Now we may well say that water is sanctified for Baptism, when by divine authority water is selected from all other things, and de­termined to be the proper matter, or outward Element of Baptism: and that is sanctified which is set apart, or deter­mined, to such a sacred use, to which other common things are not admitted. And Christs Commission to his Disciples, to baptize all Nations, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is an Authoritative determination of the form of Baptism, or the Sacramental words, and of the extent of its use. And both from thence and from our Saviours passion doth it receive an efficacious ver­tue. But water was the matter of Christi­an Baptism, for the remission of sins, and admission into the number of Christs Disciples, before either that Commission, [Page 281]or our Saviours Passion. And as water was appointed for the Disciples of John, by Gods commanding him to baptize with Water, so that this was the Element which was set apart, for the admitting Disciples unto Christ himself, under the Gospel, and for the conveying to them remission of sins, was manifested by Jesus coming to be baptized therewith, from whence forward all who came to be his Disciples, were baptized with water in the Baptism of Christ. To this purpose the ancients frequently speak of Christs Baptism, sanctifying the water of Baptism. Tertul. adv. Jud. c. 8. So Tertullian Baptizato Christo, i. e. sancti­ficante aquas in suo baptismate. And the Author de Cardinalib. Christi operibus. Veniebat Christus ad baptismum, De Bapt. Christi. ut Sacra­mento perennis daretur authoritas. To the same purpose also Nazianzen Orat. 38. & 39, and S. Bernard de Epiph. Serm. and even the Annotations under the Assem­blies name, express this as one end of Christs Baptism, to sanctifie the flood Jor­dan, In Mat. 3.15. and all other waters to the mystical washing away of sin.

9. The use of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, I here purposely omit, because it will be more fitly discoursed of in the following Book, where also I shall discourse of the Imposition of hands [Page 282]in confirmation, and of the Ring in Marriage.

SECT. VIII.
Of the Office for Confirmation, and that for Marriage.

1. The main things referring to Con­firmation, being considered in the follow­ing Book; and some things in the Cate­chism (which are most impugned) being sufficiently cleared from the five forego­ing Sections; I shall here only observe that though our Catechism, Hom. of Com. Pray. and Sacr. Art. 25. Homilies, and Articles, do sufficiently declare, that Christ ordained only two Sacraments in his Church, yet some have taken exceptions at those words of the Catechism, which express that there are two only (Sacra­ments) generally necessary to salvation, as if these words did intimate the contrary: which exception doth manifest how in­nocent words may be wrested by the force of suspicions.

2. And some like not that these Sacra­ments are said to be generally necessary to Salvation: which as it was the Doctrine of the ancient Church, so is it also of the Protestant Churches;Conf. Boh. c. 11. the Bohemian Con­fession expresseth it to be their Doctrine, [Page 283]that Sacraments are necessary to Salvation; Catech. Genev. de Sacram. and the Geneva Catechism declareth that he who despiseth the use of the Sacraments, is to be accounted of as one who tacitly de­nyeth the name of Christ, and he who think­ing not meet to profess himself a Christian, ought not to be ranked among Christians. And concerning Baptism when our Savi­our saith,Mar. 16.16. he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, doth not that besides other Scriptures express it to be ordinarily part of the condition of Salvation? And touching the Lords Supper, if the obeying the great commands and institutions of the Gospel, and the attending to and re­ceiving those excellent means of Grace, and of Communion with Christ which he appointeth in the Gospel, be ordina­rily necessary to Salvation, then must the receiving the holy Communion be ac­knowledged to be so. And let it be considered without prejudice, whether when our Saviour declared, Joh. 6.53. Except you eat the stesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud, ye have no life in you; these words (though they cannot be con­fined to that Sacrament not then institu­ted) do not sufficiently declare, that he who hopeth for eternal life by Christ, may not safety neglect the careful atten­dance on that Ordinance, which Christ [Page 284]hath particularly appointed, to be the Communion of his body and bloud.

3. Concerning the Office for Matrimony, the words of contract will be most fitly discoursed of in another place, where I treat of the use of the Ring. I shall here only consider such Phrases which some disrelish, that our Liturgy calleth it an holy Estate of Matrimony, and saith that God consecrated the state of Matri­mony to such an excellent Mystery, that in it is signified and represented the spiritual marriage and Ʋnity, between Christ and his Church. Now it is manifest, that the Apo­stle expressing the Marriage institution and Union, Eph. 5.30, 31, 32. calleth it a great Mystery, not as it referreth to the Husband and Wife, but as it mystically representeth Christ and his Church; say­ing, We are members of his flesh, of his body, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his Father, and Mother, and shall be joined unto his Wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great my­stery; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church. And to these words of the Apo­stle, the Phrase of our Liturgy hath ma­nifest reference.

4. And when it is said to be consecra­ted, or to be a holy estate, this is as much as to say, that it is designed for a holy and [Page 285]religious end and purpose. Though the Gentiles lived in lasciviousness and all uncleanness; the Christian marriage as well as the whole Christian life is to be a holy estate, separate from these pollu­tions: of which the Apostle speaketh, This is the will of God even your sanctifica­tion that you abstain from fornication, that every one of you may know how to possess his Vessel in sanctification and honour, not in the lusts of concupiscence, 1 Thes. 4.3, 4, 5. for God hath not called us to unclean­ness, but unto holiness.

5. Christian marriage is also an holy estate, as it is the lawful way, set apart and ordained, according to the will of God, for the increase of his Church. Thus Children born within the Church and under the Covenant, are called Sons and Daughters which are born unto, or for God. Ezek. 16.20. holy Children, 1 Cor. 7.14. and with reference hereunto that the Children may be holy and within the Church, the Apostle saith the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife, and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the believing Husband: and upon this ac­count the Christian marriage may well be esteemed holy and sanctified, as being a marriage in the Lord, 1 Cor. 7.39. and is fitly called, as S. Ambrose expresseth it,Amb. Apol. Dav. c. 11. Sancta copula, a holy bond.

6. And whereas S. Paul declareth how all things are sanctified by the word of God and Prayer; we have concerning marriage a more especial word of Divine Institution, whereby two are made one flesh, Gen. 2.24. and that no man may put them asunder, because it is God who joineth them together. Mat. 19.6. and also a particular divine benediction which God gave unto the estate of marriage, Gen. 1.28. And this Marriage Union hath been generally attended with the use of Prayers in the Christian Church.

7. Wherefore Christian Marriage, which as well as the Christian life is de­signed for the service of God, and for holy ends and an holy use, is upon that account the more fit, to represent the Ʋnity and Marriage between Christ and his Church: and this Union being hereby resembled, is both an argument to the more holy deportment in Christian Mar­riage, and doth also add to the honour of that holy estate; and therefore it may well be mentioned as a further excellency of that holy relation, that God hath con­secrated it to such an excellent mystery, that in it is signified and repented, the spiri­tual Marriage and Ʋnity, between Christ and his Church.

SECT. IX.
Of the Communion of the sick, and the Office for Burial.

1. The Communion of the sick is very allowable, because the dying state may need the best supports of Christian Faith, the highest encouragements of Divine Grace, and the chief means to strengthen hope, all which is encluded in this Ordi­nance of the Lords Supper; it being a pledge and assurance; yea a tender from Christ, of mercy and forgiveness, to them who truly repent and believe. And though the celebrating this holy Com­munion in private places, Conc. Laod. c. 58. standeth con­demned in ordinary cases by the ancient Canons,Conc. Nic. c. 13. yet in this extraordinary Case sick or dying persons were ordinarily al­lowed to receive it, and the Council of Nice doth well approve of the sick per­sons desire thereof. And though it be sufficiently proved by Albaspinus, that the Viaticum frequently given to dying Penitents, did not always enclude the Eucharist, yet it is manifest that they did frequently partake thereof;4. Conc. Carth. c. 76, 78. as is expres­sed not only in the Canons of the fourth Council of Carthage but in the more [Page 288]ancient testimony of Dionysius Alexan­drinus. Eus. Hist. Eccles. l. 6. c. 36.

2. Divers Protestant Churches besides our own,Rat. Disc. c. 3. have retained the use thereof; and amongst them the Bohaemian, Syn. Pe­tric. Sect. 5. the Po­lonian, with the consent of the Ministry of the three several Confessions,Form. Vi­sit. Aegr. in Bucer. and that of Strasburgh as it was in Bucers time. And though this was not practised at Geneva, Calv. de quibusd. Ritib. Aug. 12. 1561. Calv. Ole­viano. Cal. Dec. 1563. yet Calvin did in several pla­ces, and even towards the end of his life, testifie his allowance thereof, and also that there were divers weighty cau­ses, which constrained him to judge that it ought not to be denied.

3. But against this it is objected, that some persons who have led vitious lives, may earnestly desire the Communion in their sickness, and yet not be truly peni­tent for their sins, and therefore cannot worthily partake of those holy Mysteries. To which I answer, that even in this Case Christian Charity must encline to the more favourable part, and since man hath no certain evidences to judge of sincere repentance; the infallible discern­ing thereof, must be reserved to the judg­ment of God. And if this person hath lived vainly and exorbitantly, the Mini­ster may acquaint him with the nature (if need be) of true Faith and Repentance, [Page 289]and the necessity thereof, both to a dying Man and to a Communicant, and if he appear so far as is in him desirous to pra­ctise and exercise those Christian Graces, and to obtain the help of Jesus Christ and his Grace; to deny him this Sacrament, would be to deny him a testimony in Gods name, that he will upon these conditions bestow grace and remission of sins, and to shut up the means of Grace and remis­sion from a Sinner who seeketh after it; and certainly it cannot agree with the Ministers Office, to reject those persons, who in a dying state declare they would come to Christ. And in the strict times of Primitive Discipline, he was thought wor­thy to be deposed from his Ministry, who either rejected or did not receive any Sinner upon his return; and a peculiar Charity towards dying persons was ex­pressed in divers ancient Canons.

4. In the Office for Burial several ex­pressions are misliked, as being thought unmeet to be spoken of every person dy­ing in the Churches Communion. Where a first expression to be considered is, That Almighty God of his great mercy, hath ta­ken to himself, the Soul of the person de­parted; When yet we cannot assert that every person dying in our Communion is eternally saved. Ans. Besides what may [Page 290]be said of the judgment of Charity, the wise man telleth us,Eccl. 12.7. that the Spirits of dying men return to God who gave them, that is, to be disposed of according to his righteousness: and our Church in this place acknowledgeth the mercy of God, through the grace of Christ; who now hath the Keys of Hell and Death, that dy­ing persons do not forthwith go into the power of the Devil, who had the power of Death, Heb. 2.14. but do immediate­ly go into the hands of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, to be dis­posed of by him, according to the pro­mises and conditions of the Gospel Co­venant. This is that which all Christi­ans must acknowledge, to flow from the great mercy of God towards man; and that this is the sense intended in this place, I am induced to believe, because in the ancient Offices of Burial, they magnified the Divine Power, whereby the unjust and tyrannous power of the Devil was overcome, and our Lord re­ceiveth us,Dioniss de Eccles. Hier. c. 7. [...], un­to his peculiar and most righteous judg­ment. Yet even this sense doth express a general and firm confidence, of the fu­ture happy state of all them who heartily embrace the Christian Faith and life; as being consequent upon the gracious me­diation, [Page 291]and Soveraign Dominion of Je­sus our Saviour.

5. And whereas this Office calleth the deceased person, Our Brother, and Our dear Brother, these Phrases may undoubt­edly be applyed to every person, who professing Christianity dyeth in the Churches Communion; And that exten­sive sense of those words, is sufficiently warranted by the use thereof in Scripture when it commands us to love our Brother, not to put a stumbling block before our Bro­ther, not to defraud our Brother, 1. Thes. 4.6. to forgive our Brother, Mat. 18.34. and when it speaketh of the Brother that walketh disorderly, 2. Thes. 3.6. and of admonishing him as a Brother, v. 14. and of thy Brother trespassing against thee — and if he hear thee thou hast gained thy Brother. Chrys. in Heb. 11. Hom. 25. Mat. 18.15. and if any man that is called a Brother be a Fornicator, 1. Cor. 5.11. from which place S. Chrysostom observeth that every Christian man bap­tized by the laver of regeneration is there called a Brother. Tertullian in a general sense as they are men, alloweth even the Heathen to be accounted Brethren, Apol. c. 39. though they be Mali fratres, evil Brethren; but in a more special sense he so esteemeth of all Christians,Praep. E­vang. l. 1. c. 4. who acknowledge one God the Father, and much to the same [Page 290] [...] [Page 291] [...] [Page 292]purpose writeth Eusebius. Cyr. Hier. Praef. And Cyril tel­leth all those who gave up their names to Christianity, that they become the Sons and Daughters of one Mother. V. Albasp. Obs. l. 1. c. 19. So that this manner of expression in this Office, is the same which the Scriptures and the ancient Fathers have ordinarily used, or it is ap­proved by those Writings which only are of Divine Authority, and by those which are in the Church of greatest humane Authority.

6. The expression of his being a dear Brother, doth only enclude a respect suit­able to a Brotherly relation, and ex­presseth that the Members of the Church of Christ, had real desires of the welfare of such persons as are received into its Communion.

7. That clause in committing the body to the ground, in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life, doth so evi­dently express the Faith and Hope of the general resurrection, wherein all Christi­ans are concerned; when (as it follow­eth) he shall change our vile bodies, and make them like to his glorious body; that it cannot reasonably be understood, with a particular restriction to the party de­ceased: but it declareth that while this object of mortality is before our eyes, the Faith of the Resurrection to Life remaineth fixed upon our hearts.

8. When we give thanks to God, that he hath delivered this our Brother out of the miseries of this sinful World, it must be considered, that the en [...]ling all trou­bles and miseries, is an act of Gods mercy, and ought to be so acknowledged, though some men by their own neglect of the Christian life, deprive themselves of the benefits thereof: as the goodness of God in his patience ought to be owned, though some aggravate their own misery by the mis-emprovement thereof. And some regard may be had in this expression, to the Christian hope of the future estate, which is the more quickned by every in­stance of our present frailty. And both this and the former expressions may be used with a particular confidence of the eternal bliss of any holy person deceased, and with the exercise of the judgment of Charity in its proper object.

9. There is only one expression in the latter Prayer, which encludeth particu­larly our favourable thoughts of the per­son departed, when we pray that we may rest in him, as our hope is this our Brother doth. In the use of which Phrase, we may well express different degrees of hope, according to the different eviden­ces of Piety in several distinct persons. But even where men were vitious in their [Page 294]lives, there may be in ordinary cases some degree of hope, that they knowing and professing the truth, might at last be­come truly penitent, though we have no evidence thereof. For some degree of hope doth not enclude so much as the judg­ment of Charity, and it may be exercised, where ever we cannot certainly determine the contrary. Yet if there should be any such extraordinary case, where not so much as any degree of hope can be ad­mitted, it is far more desireable, that this expression should be omitted in that sin­gular case alone, (which would be very rarely found) than that all ordinary ex­pressions, of the hopefulness of them who depart this life, in Communion with so excellent a Church as this is, should be expunged and disclaimed. For as this would be an undertaking extreamly groundless and deeply uncharitable, so the very sound thereof may be enough to affright Pagans from Christianity, and Papists from the Reformation, if our selves did not allow ordinarily any hopes of the happy estate of the Members of our Church.

10. Yet that this may not be misunder­stood and mis-emproved, when it is applyed to such persons, who have been wanting in the practice of due strictness of Christi­an [Page 295]life, and too much swerved from the holy Rules and Doctrines delivered in the Gospel and received by our Church; we ought to consider, that this expres­sion of hope, is no encouragement to any others to be guilty of the like neglects. For the bare expression of hope is below any degree of evidence; and only ex­presseth that our judgments and under­standings, cannot conclude it absolutely certain, that he was finally impenitent, though his state may appear extreamly hazardous. And whosoever liveth wick­edly, and dyeth without sufficient repen­tance, (of which god can certainly judge where man cannot) it will be no advantage to him in the other World, that his name was mentioned in the Church with some degree of hope; or as the Au­thor of the Constitutions expresseth it,Const. Apol. lib. 8. c. 43. [...]. And the state of such a person is not the less mi­serable, because frail men are not endued with that infallible judgment, whereby they can conclude it utterly desperate.

11. The Charity of the ancient Chri­stian Church, in expressing their hope of them who dyed in their Communion, is very manifest; and it is a great mistake which some have entertained, that through the strictness of their Discipline, no per­sons [Page 296]had their names honourably mention­ed by the Church, with hopes of their fu­ture happiness, but such who had lived altogether free from any apparent sinful­ness of life, or had given severe testi­monies of a strict amendment. Indeed some rigorous Canons, neither of gene­ral practice, nor of long continuance in the Church, would not allow some of­fenders, (whatsoever repentance they manifested) to be reconciled to the Church, or admitted to its Communion throughout their whole life, no nor at the hour of death: and yet these Canons have been conceived only to make them perpetual Poenitentes, so that after their death their oblations were received; or they all who were admitted as such Peni­tents, were then owned among them who had relation to the Church,Albasp. Obs. l. 2. c. 4. and of whom it had hope. but amongst the ordinary rules of Primitive Discipline, these were generally admitted. 1 1. That whosoever came under any censure of the Church,Cyp. Ep. 54. Can. Apost. 52. whatsoever his crime was, he might upon his supplication be admitted to be one of the Poenitentes or to be under the rules of penance;4. Con. Carth. c. 74. and the not admitting him hereto was accounted an heinous crime, because non fas est Ecclesiam pulsantibus [...]laudi. 2. That if any of these Poeniten­tes [Page 297]were under dangerous sickness, 2 or ap­proaching death,Cyp. Ibidem Conc. Ni­cen. c. 13. Ancyr. can. 6. Araus. can. 3. 4. Carth. c. 77. it was requisite they should be then admitted to the peace of the Church, and its Communion. 3. That even they, who being under censure, did only in the time of dangerous sickness desire to be admitted Penitents, might thereupon forthwith be both admitted Penitents and receive reconciliation and Communion. 3 Conc. Araus. c. 2. Leo. Ep. 91.4. Carth. c. 76. This is a consequent from the two former, and is encluded in the Canon of Ancyra now mentioned, and is manifest by divers other particular te­stimonies, and it was grounded upon this reason, because (as Leo expresseth it) we cannot limit the times, nor determine the measures of Gods mercy. 4 4. That all who were so received into the Church,Dion. de Eccles. Hier. c. 7. with others who died in its Communion,Cyp. Ep. 10. and even Penitents who dyed without the op­portunity of obtaining disciplinary recon­ciliation, Con. Nic. c. 13. had the memories of their names recommended in the Churches Prayers,4. Carth. c. 79. as persons of whom it hoped well: which is I suppose intended by [...] in the Council of Nice though it be other­wise understood by the Greek Canonists and in Albaspinus his explicaton.Conc. Arel. 2. c. 12.

SECT. I.
What we are here to understand by Ceremonies.

1. AMong all the things appointed in our service, there is nothing against which a heavier charge is drawn [Page 300]up, than against the Ceremonies, as they are ordinarily called; common custom herein making use of a word which ad­mitted [...] great variety, and latitude of sense and signification. For 1. The word Ceremonia (Ceremony) primarily enclu­deth the general exercise of all publick Religious Worship and Piety:Scal. in Fest. for as Sca­liger noteth Ceremonia was as much as Sanctimonia, being derived from Cerus, which in the old [...]atin signifieth the same with Sanctus; and Ser [...]us hath been ob­served to declare, that omnia Sacra apud Latinos Ceremoniae dicuntur: and to this purpose the old Constitutions of the twelve Tables declared,Leg. 12. Tab. De Sacerdot. officio. Sacerdotum duo genera sunto: unum quod praesit Ceremoniis & sacris, &c. intending thereby all sa­cred actions of Religious service; and in this large sense is this word sometimes used by some later Writers,Luth. de piis Cerem. servand. Bucer. Cen­sur. c. ul­tim. as Luther and Bucer. 2. This word sometimes among the ancient Christian Writers peculiarly expresseth the most solemn visible Sym­bols of the Grace of God: in which sense also in the Augustan, Saxon, and Witemberg Confessions, and the Apology of the Church of England, the two New Testament Sacraments are called Cere­monies; and Bishop Saunderson resolveth the sum or main Contents of the Gospel, [Page 301]into these three things,De Obl. Cors. Prael. 4. Sect. 32. the Mysteries of Faith to be believed, the holy Ceremonial and Ecclesiastical Institutions, and the ma­ral Precepts. Bishop Whitg. Tr. 2. c. 1. And these Bishop Whitgist calleth substantial Ceremonies which a [...] of the substance of Religion. 3. This word sometimes encludeth all such practices as bear any external respect unto Religion; whence some have called Holy-days by the name of Ceremonies: and Gotofre­dus probably supposeth that fasting (at least with some other external observa­tions) is so called, in those words of the Code of Justinian; Cod. Ju­stin. l. 3. Titl. 12. Sect. 6. Quadraginta diebus qui auspicio Ceremoniarum Paschale tem­pus anticipant, &c. 4. In this present enquiry, by Ceremonies must be under­stood, some particular external and visi­ble actions and circumstances, which are not instituted by God, but are in them­selves things indifferent, and are appoin­ted in the Church for order and de­cency.

2. And there is a vast difference be­tween the things called Ceremonies in the Church of England, and the chief part of those things, which by an aequivocal use of the same word, we commonly call Ce­remonies, in the Jewish Constitutions, un­der the Mosaical Law. For those Jewish Ceremonies which consisted in their Sa­crifices, [Page 302]Purifications, or the proper Le­vitical and Temple worship, were such things as used aright with respect to the Messias, were the way and means where­by Gods acceptance was obtained, and his grace and favour vouchsafed, and did partake of a Sacramental nature, and were not amiss by Durandus called the Sacramentalia, Rational. div. Offic. Prooem. Sect. 7. and did also prefigure Christ to come in the flesh. And upon this account no such rites as these, could ever be appointed or lawfully used, but such only as were established by a divine Institution; nor might they be any lon­ger observed, than that institution did either enjoin, or warrant and allow them: and hence both S.Aug. Ep. 19. Augustine, and S. Hie­rome, do justly and vehemently condemn and censure the observation of these things among Christians. And of this nature was the whole paedagogy of the Mo­saical Constitutions jointly considered, and every branch thereof so far as it en­cludeth an owning of Judaism, as the way of Gods acceptance: especially Cir­cumcision, Sacrifice, and such like servi­ces of the Jewish Temple: the observing of which under the Gospel, since the clear manifestation of Christianity, would be to deny Christ to become in the flesh; and to close with that, as a way of obtaining [Page 303]grace from God, and finding favour with him, which is contrary to his will, and standeth for ever abrogated by the Gos­pel. And hence it may appear, that he who would charge the use of all Ecclesi­astical Rites appointed for Order, and the promoting reverence in the service of God, as if it encluded the same, with re­ducing the Ceremonial Law of the Jews, might with a fairer plea of reason, accuse all use of Seals or Ornamental Engravings to be a forging and counterfeiting the Kings Broad Seal, and thereby to be deeply criminal.

3. Yet it may be observed as a truth (though in be not necessary for the just defence, of any of those things common­ly called Ceremonies in our Church) that there were many particular things in the Ceremonial Law, which singly taken and by themselves, did only include some ra­tional provisions, and comely and fit Con­stitutions, and had nothing in themselves, which did necessarily restrain them to the Judaical state: and such things where there is no design of any Jewish signifi­cation, may lawfully be still made use of under the Gospel, as still retaining what conveniency or decency they would have had, if they had never been included in the Jewish Constitutions. The appoint­ment [Page 304]of the Jewish Tabernacle in the Wil­derness, is no sufficient ground to con­clude it a sin, for such Christians who sojourn in deserts, and have minds far from Judaizing, to build an House with boards, for the place of their Christian Assemblies: nor is the building our Churches with hewen stone to be censured as unlawful, because such were the mate­rials of Solomons Temple: nor is it un­lawful to use Vessels of Silver and Gold at the administring the Communion, be­cause such were the Vessels of the Ta­bernacle and the Temple: and the like may be said of Tithes, and some other things. To this purpose Bucer determi­ned in his Epistle to Alasco, and P. Mar­tyr to Bishop Hooper, and Bishop Saun­derson observeth,De Oblig. Cons. Pral. 4. Sect. 29. that all Ceremonials are not to be alike accounted of, but those which concern order and decency, are with pru­dence to be separated from those which pre­figured Christ to come: and that prudent Casuist well resolved, that those things Which concerned order and decency, are not now simply unlawful; yet may they be many times inexpedient, as they become dangerous by their scandal.

4. And it is acknowledged and decla­red, that the things with us called Cere­monies, are in themselves indifferent, and [Page 305]no direct parts of worship; because these particular things are only of Ecclesiasti­cal or humane constitution: for since all instituted worship is directly appointed, for the acceptable service of God (which especially considering the fall of man, must be in a way of Grace, and not of Merit) it must be God and not his Crea­ture who must determine, what Institu­tions will be pleasing to him.Serm of good works Par. 2 Serm of Prayer. Par. 2. And this is the Doctrine of our Homilies: and the Book of Common Prayer speaking of Ce­remonies, expresly declareth, that those which remain are for a Godly Discipline and Order, which may be altered and changed; and therefore are not to be esteemed equal with Gods law. And our Articles assert,Art. 34. that the Church hath authority to change or abolish Ceremonies, ordained by mans authority, so that all things be done to edify­ing. All which words shew that there is no holiness placed in these things, nor are they of themselves made any part of the worship of God, in the Church of England.

5. Yet even the observation of things indifferent, may by a secondary and con­sequential respect to other commands of God and duties of men (though not di­rectly from themselves) render our ser­vices more acceptable unto God. Thus that [Page 306]gesture of body, which is not particu­larly determined as a necessary duty, may be pleasing to God; as it includeth a religious respect to those duties, of glorifying God with our bodies, and serving him acceptably with reverence and godly fear: and the observing other decent rites, may be pleasing to God as it ex­presseth a reverence of God, and his Or­dinances and service; an obedient respect to that command, that all things be done decently and in order; a subjection to our Superiours in things lawful; and a care of the Churches Peace. Upon this account Ʋrsin truly said,Ʋrsin. Ex­plic. Ca­tech. q 96. Loc. Theol. in 2. Prae­cep. Adiaphorae actiones pos­sunt Deo placere, liect aliter quam cuttus Dei proprie dictus; that indifferent actions may please God, but in a different manner from that which is properly and directly the worship of God. To such general ends, are those indifferent observations in our Church appointed, which are called Ce­remonies, and hence it is with good rea­son declared in the Book of Common Prayer, that they are as well for a decent Order in the Church, as because they pertain to edification. For as whatsoever exci­teth reverend thoughts of God, and his Ordinances, is thereby useful for the Churches edifying; so the Aposile requi­reth ruies of Order to be made for edi­fication, [Page 307]1. Cor. 14.26. and S.Chrys. in 1 Cor. Ch. 14.40. Chrysostome truly observed, that good Order, Peace and Love are the most useful things to promote edification. [...].

6. But though external rites should be never so innocent in their own nature, as being neither Jewish, nor owned as parts of Christian Religion, nor as opera­tive means in themselves to convey Grace: yet the introducing a great and unne­cessary number of them, would be dis­advantageous to Religion, by obscuring and darkning the spiritual duties and pri­viledges thereof; by being needlesly bur­densom to Christians; and by diverting mens minds to attend chiefly unto such external observances. Hence S.Aug. Ep. ad Janu­ar. c. 19. Augustin in his time (as is observed in our Litur­gy) complained of the excessive number of such rites: and the conditions which Pro­testant Writers require concerning Cere­monies are such as these that they be in their kind things indifferent, in their num­ber sew, Kemnit. Exam. Conc. Trid. de Tradi­tion. 7^th, genus. Ʋrsin Ex. pl. Catech. ad qu. 103. and in their use godly and profi­table for edification. Now in our Church, besides the use of expedient gestures in the fervice of God, there is nothing which in common Custom of speech is called a Ceremony, which in any proper part of worship, is appointed in our Li­turgy, [Page 308]to be used by any other person besides the Minister. And in our ordi­nary service the Minister is only required to use the appointed habit, which though it be customarily called a Ceremony; is no otherwise such, than the Church, Pul­pit, and the Vessels for the Communion, and the Communion-Cloath are to be so esteemed, which are only used in the service of God. And in our particular Offices, we have only the use of the Cross in the Office of Baptism, of imposition of hands in Confirmation, (and the civil rite of the Ring in Marriage): and there­fore if the nature of these particular Rites be allowable, (which in due place will be considered) there can be no dam­mage to Religion, nor burden to Christi­ans from the number of them.

SECT. II.
The first Argument for the lawfulness of Ec­clesiastical Rites, from the liberty herein allowed to the Jewish Church.

1. Having hitherto endeavoured to prevent mistakes and mis-apprehensions, about the subject of my present discourse; I shall now lay down such Arguments as will manifest, that some decent external [Page 309]observations in the Church, though they be not particularly instituted of God, are allowably ordered and appointed. The first Argument is from the pactice of the Jewish Church, which I shall consi­der in a threefold respect.

2. First in their Temple worship. For though they might not lawfully appoint any Sacramental Rite, (which was the the nature of divers of the Temple Rites) and though Solomons Temple as well as Moses his Tabernacle,1. Chr. 28.12, 19. was built according to the pattern which God directed, and divers other external things were deter­mined by divine appointment, yet even here were some things left to the liberty, and determined by the Authority of the Jewish Church, or the Rulers and Go­vernours thereof. I shall not here insist upon Solomons offering Burnt-Offerings in the middle of the Court, and not only upon the Altar, 1. Kin. 8.64. nor up­on Hezekiahs proclaiming a general Pass­over, on the second Month, 2. Chr. 30.2. because these were extraordinary Cases, which were only allowable by the weigh­tiness of the present occasions; when Ceremonial Commands of God might be dispensed with, in cases of greater con­cernment, upon which account it was al­so lawful for David and them who were [Page 310]with him, to cat the shew bread. But it must be acknowledged, that such extra­ordinary Cases, are no more a sufficient ground for constant and ordinary Con­stitutions, than the constant keeping a vein open can be concluded allowable, because it may be expediently at some times opened, for the preserving life or health.

3. The first instance of this liberty among the Jews, concern [...]th the Passover; which was (after the building the Taber­nacle and Temple) a proper Tabernacle or Temple Rite. Phil. l. 3. de Vita Mos. Lib. de Decalog. Lib. de Septen. & Festis. Deut. 16.6. and though Philo Judaeus doth in several places ex­press the Passover to be sacrificed by all the people of Israel, and not to be pre­sented to the Priests as other Sacrifices were: both the Talmud, Maimonides, and divers Texts of Scripture do sufficiently evince the contrary, as 2 Chr. 30.3, 16, 17. Ez [...]. 6.20, and however, it was a principal duty of the Jewish worship. But the Jews (differently from what was commanded, only concerning the first Passover in Egypt) usually prepared the Paschal Lamb upon the fourteenth day of the Month; (which was also observed by Christ and his Apostles, Luk, 22.7, 8.) they used also divers other Rites about their Paschal Cake, their several Cups of [Page 311]Wine and other observations concerning that Feast. And especially [...] it may be observed, that the discumbing gesture or leaning on Beds or Couches, was the posture ordained in the later times of the Jewish Church, for their eating the Pass­over, as appeareth both from their ritu­als, and the Jerusalem Talmud in Pesachin; Phil. de Vit. Con­templ. and Philo who lived about the time of our Saviours Passion, declareth that this was the gesture of ordinary use at that time, amongst the Jews at their Religious Feasts, which was also manifestly allowable, be­cause it was practised by our blessed Savi­our and his Apostles; being expressed by the Evangelists by [...], and [...]. Mat. 26.20. Mar. 14.18. Luk. 22.14. Joh. 21.20.De Emend. Templ. l. 6. p. 573. And Scaliger so earnestly asserteth, that Christus obstrinxit se ritibus Judaeorum; Christ did oblige himself, to follow and conform to the commonly recei­ved rites of the Jewish Passover; that he accounteth all who shall deny it, to be hostes bonarum literarum, Enemies to good learning. But in the first Passover in Fgypt they were commanded to eat with their Loins girt, their Shooes on their feet, and their staves in their hands, which could not consist with their discumbing: and that they stood stedfastly upon their feet is declared by Philo, Phil. de Sacr. Abel & Caim. and that the same [Page 312]gesture was ordinarily observed until the Captivity, Baron. An­nal. an. 34. n. 41. is not improbably observed by others. And though that honourable way of discumbing at meat, was of an­cient use in the Roman, Grecian, and Per­sian Empires, especially amongst the Asians: Killets Tricaen. l. 1. c. 7. Sect. 13. Exerc. in Baron. 16. n. 22. Grot. in Mat. 26.20. yet the most ancient instance of its pra­ctice and usage, is by one of our own Nation thought to be in those words of Ezek. 23.41. by Casutbone in Am. 2.8. which is also approved by Grotius, un­less the use of the word [...] in the Septuagint in Cant. 2.12. may possibly import, that they esteemed it to be of as great Antiquity, as from the time of So­lomon. But all these instances were of a date very far inferiour to the Passover Institution.

4. A second instance concerneth the Garments, used in the attendance upon the Tabernacle or Temple Worship. The holy Garments of the High Priest, and the other Priests, and those only were appointed of God. But when the Ark of God was brought to Zion, David, to express his honour to the Service of God, made use of a peculiar Habit dancing be­fore the Lord, in a Linen Ephod, 2 Sam. 6.14. And the Levites who carried the Ark, and who were Singers in that So­lemnity, were also arrayed in Linen Robes [Page 313]or Ephods, 1 Chron. 15.27. as is most clearly and fully expressed by Vatablus, and by the Syriank and Arabick Versi­ons: and Grotius there noteth the ancient and ordinary use of white Garments in Religious Worship. And when the Ark was brought into the Temple, the Levites who were Singers were all of them ar­rayed in white Linen, 2 Chron. 5.12.Ant. Jud. l. 8. c. 2. And Josephus saith that Solomon made for the Levites [...] two hun­dred thousand Garment, of white Linen, Indeed Capellus justly accounteth this number to be incredible, Capel. Templ. De­lineatio ex Villalpan­do. and it is very probably, that either the number is de­praved, or else Josephus hyperbolizeth therein (as is frequent with the Talmu­dists) for the honour of his Nation. But that the use of white Linen Garments for the Levites, was more ancient than the times of David, may be collected from 1 Sam. 2.18. where Samuel being yet a Child, is said to have ministred before the Lord, being girded with a linen Ephod: and yet Samuel was only of the Levitical, but not of the Priestly race, and was not as yet known to be a Prophet of the Lord. Wherefore these Scriptures do speak the allowableness of these Levitical Garments, especially considering that they were used at the removal of the Ark, by David [Page 314]himself and the Levites, after the time that Ʋzzah was smitten, because they served not the Lord after the due order. Yet is there not so much as as any dire­ction in the Law of Moses, that any such garments should either be made for, or used by any other of the Levites, besides the Priests.

5. A third instance is the Altar of Wit­ness, built by the two Tribes and half when they went over Jordan to their own pos2ession; which after a jealous inquiry by Phinehas and all the Congre­gation, was well approved of, when it appeared that it was not a forsaking the God of Israel, or a disobeying his commands, and renouncing his Temple Worship: but was only a monumental Memorial of their profession of the true God, and having a right to do his service at the Temple; and thereupon did in­clude an inciting and ingaging them to the true Religion, Jos. 22.31, 32, 33.

6. A fourth instance is the Temple it self, as it was designed by David, for the greater splendour of Gods Service, and higher honour of his Name. For though God had commanded a Tabernacle to accompany Israel in their sojournings, and had given no Commandment concern­ing a Temple, as himself expresseth, 2 Sam. [Page 315]7.7. that holy man had designed to build a Temple to the Lord, humbly judging it greatly unreasonable, that he should dwell in an house of Cedar, while the Ark of God dwelt within Curtains, 2 Sam. 7.2. And this design of David was well appro­ved of by Nathan, vers. 3. and God him­self declared, that he did well in that it was in his heart, 1 King. 8.17, 18. and thereupon God promised David, that he would make him an house, and set up his seed after him and establish his Kingdom, 2 Sam. 7.11, 12. and did command, that the thing which David purposed should be effected, not by himself who was a man of wars, but by his Son Solomon, 1 Chron. 22.8, 9, 10. Chap. 28.3, 4, 5, 6. And it must be considered, that the Taberna­cle of Meses was never enjoyned,1. Chr. 16. 1. Chr. 17.5. to be the perpetual habitation of Gods presence so long as the Jewish Dispensation should continue: and therefore though David did not build the Temple, yet he pitched another Tent for the Ark of God at Jeru­salem, where it abode many years, while the Tabernacle of Moses was at Gibeon, 2 Chron. 1, 3, 4. but neither was that a­ction nor his design to build a Temple, contrary to any command of God; but was only a determination of 2omewhat ex­ternal, relating to the Service of God, [Page 316]to express his higher honour and reve­rence of God and Religion; which was therefore approved of God, though it was not particularly commanded by him.Seder O­lam Rab. c. 11. And if we may herein credit the Jewish Chro­nicle, when the house of God was set up at Shiloh, there was a soundation laid of stone (which God had not enjoyned nor forbidden) upon which the Tabernacle made of Boards, Curtains, and Skins was erected.

7. I know that the Jewish Writers do assert, that the Law of Moses did command the building the Temple; (by which I here understand a house of stone and Cedar as distinguished from the Tabernacle) this seemeth to be affirmed by Maimonides, Maim in Praec. affirm. 20. Gemar. in San. hedr. c. 2. Sect. 6. Joseph Ant. Jud. l. 7. c. 4. and is asserted by the Talmud, and Jose­phus saith, David designed to build a Tem­ple; [...], as Moses had fore­told. But this is not agreeable to what God himself declareth to the contrary, 2 Sam. 7.7. Spake I a word with any of the Judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of Cedar? and the ground upon which these Jewish Writers build is mistaken. For 1. that place which the Gemara insisteth upon, Deut. 12.10, 11. concerning the place which God should chuse, only enjoyneth a fixed place for [Page 317]the Tabernacle of God and his Service, where he should chuse it, after he had placed them in Canaan, as may appear by comparing Deut. 12.1, 5, 11, 12. Josh. 18.1. Jer. 7.12. and the Tabernacle is expresly called [...] the house of choice, in the Seder Olam. Seder Olam Rab. ubysu­pra. And those words, Exod. 15.2. I will prepare him an habitation, being spoken before the build­ing of the Tabernacle, do refer thereto; and the Tabernacle is expresly called his habitation, 1 Sam. 2.29. 2 Sam. 15.25. and in divers other places: as it was also very frequently called by the name of the Temple, both in the Psalms and in the Books of Samuel: and the Sanctuary in the place produced by Maimonides, Exod. 25.8. and in many others.

8. Thus I have now shewed, that even in the Temple Worship of the Jews, some external Rites not appointed by God, were lawfully practised; and amongst others, a Sacramental gesture, which was not used in the institution of the Sacra­ment, a decent Vesture of white Linen, for them who attended the Service of God therein, and a memorative and ingaging sign of the Altar of Witness or the Altar Ed. and the Reader will easily conceive, how nearly the nature of these three things, resemble and justifie our gesture [Page 318]at the Communion, the use of the Sur­pless and the Cross at Baptism.

9. Secondly, I shall consider the Syna­gogue Worship of the Jews, which hath a nearer alliance to the Christian Worship. In their Synagogues they assembled to profess and owne God and his Law, to hear his Word, to praise his Name, and call upon him, and to perform other such like Duties. And this was not chiefly a Ceremonial Worship, as that of the Temple was; but a Moral Worship, or such a Wor­ship as consisted of Duties, which in the general nature of them, are perpetually obligatory upon all the Servants of God in this World, and not upon the Jews only, nor were they peculiar to the Mo­saical Constitutions. And concerning this which was their ordinary, weekly, and indeed a principal Worship of God, it is truly observed by Mr. Thorndike, Of Religi­ous Assem­blies. c. 2. that there was very little established by God in the Book of the Law. And they were al­so in some particulars left to their own prudential determinations, where the Christian Church is not.

10. A first instance I here give of the liberty of the Jewish Church, making determinations concerning things exter­nal velating to Religion, is touching the Ordination of the Ecclesiastical Officers of [Page 319]the Synagogal Assemblies, by Imposition of Hands. The Officers Ecclesiastical in these Assemblies, were those who were anciently called the Sons of the Prophets; or their Elders, Scribes, Rabbins and Do­ctors of the Law. Neither the nature of their Office and Authority, nor especially the manner of their Admission thereto is any where determined in the Law of God, but depended upon the Churches Constitutions, for the preserving order and authority in its Assemblies. And yet that all who were the Synagogal Of­ficers, or who were admitted to teach there, (except the extraordinary case of Prophets) were ordained thereto by Im­position of Hands, and what their different manners of Ordination were, according as they committed to them different power or authority of teaching or judg­ing, is sufficiently from the Jewish Forms declared by Mr. Selden. De Syned. l. 1. c. 7. Sect. 2, 4. And this au­thority of Ordination was so far approved by our Blessed Saviour, that he declared concerning the Scribes and Pharisees, Mat. 23.2, 3. That they sit in Moses seat; all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do. But though this Or­dination of Elders or Rabbies among the Jews, was founded upon no Divine Insti­tution, as is truly asserted by Mr. Selden, Seld. ibi­dem. [Page 320]the state of the Christian Church is here­in under the determination of Divine and Apostolical Constitutions.

11. A second instance is, concerning the Habit of the Prophets and the Sons of the Prophets. That the Prophets used a rough or hairy garment or Mantle, which was peculiar to them, may be collected by the practice of Elijah, who was known by his hairy garment; and whose Mantle fell from him, when he was taken into Heaven, 1 King. 1.8. Chap. 2.13. and from the appearance of Samuel in his Mantle, 1 Sam. 28 14. And even the Annotations composed by the Members of the Assembly, do probably assert, that when Isaiah is said to go naked, Annot. in Is. 20.2. Isa. 20.2. no more is intended, but that he put off his Prophetical Robe or Mantle, such as fell from Elias. It is also generally acknow­ledged, that the Prophet Zechary speak­ing of wearing a rough garment to deceive, Zech. 13.4. doth thereby intend the ordinary Pro­phetical garment; so Munster, Vatablus, Castalio, Clarius, Drusius, and Grotius do assert, and Calvin calleth that garment, habitum Propheticum; Junius stileth it communem amictum prophetarum; and Bochartus thinketh that it was vestis pro­phetarum propria. Bochart. Hieroz. l. 1. c. 2. That the Sons of the Prophets used a particular habit, by which [Page 321]they were easily discernable from other men, may be probably collected from 2. Kin. 9.5, 6, 11, 12. and is more ma­nifest from 1. Kin. 20.35, 41. And be­sides these habits which were of ordinary use in their converse, there may some par­ticular evidence be given, of garments peculiarly used in their Synagogal Assem­blies: that such was their practice about our Saviours time, may appear from Sue­tonius, Sueton. in Tiberio, n. 36. who declareth that Tiberius com­manding all Jews to depart from Rome, forced them Religiosas vestes comburere, to burn their garments which they used in their Religious services, which at Rome could be none other than their Synagogue Worship, or School Assemblies:Phil. de Cherubim. and Philo Judaeus speaketh of their attendance thereupon. [...] arrayed in white apparel.Phil. de Vit. Con­templ. And declareth the same con­cerning their Religious Feasts.

12. A third instance is, their practices and injunctions, of decent gestures in their Religious Assemblies. At the reading of the Law. Neh. 8.5. Ezra opened the Book in the sight of all the people, and when he opened it all the people stood up. And when they praised and gave glory to God, the Levites commanded the people, Neh. 9.5. stand up and bless the Lord your God, for ever and ever.

13. A last instance I shall here give, is in the admission of their chief Proselytes, or Members of the Jewish Church from amongst the Gentiles: where besides Cir­cumcision which God particularly en­joined in this very Gase, Ex. 12.48. and Sacrifice whereby they declared them­selves professedly to communicate with the Temple Service, and to be partakers of the Altar; Selden. de Syn. l. 1. c. 3. they also made use of wash­ing, or a kind of Baptism in initiating these Proselytes;Hor. Hebr. Mat. 3.6. of which we have a large account in divers modern Authors. This rite among the ancient Jews did princi­pally express the defilement and pollution of the Gentile World, which could alone be cleansed by undertaking the true Reli­gion, and the right service of God. And though there might be some rational ground for the expediency of this practice, because washing was under the law of frequent use, in many particular Cases of uncleanness, as being a means appointed for their cleansing: yet neither from hence, nor from Moses sprinkling the Is­raelites, to confirm Gods Covenant to them. Ex. 24.8. (which place the Jewish Wri­ters do much urge, though that action was not performed with water, but with the bloud of the Covenant which had wa­ter mixed therewith, Heb. 9.19.) do con­tain [Page 323]any special command of God, that washing the Proselytes should be a rite at­tending their Circumcision: nor do we find that when Abraham and his Family received Circumcision, that any such At­tendant rite was joined therewith. And yet it hath been frequently acknowledg­ed, that our Saviour chusing washing or Baptism to be the initiative rite under the Gospel, did shew thereby some allow­ance and approbation, of this way of ad­mission under the Law.

14.Buxt. Syn. Jud.c. 5. &c. And it is manifest from Buxtorf Synagoga Judaica, that the Jewish pra­ctice did receive divers other Synagogal Rites, even such whereof some were questionable and doubtful; and other ma­nifestly vain and ridiculous. But even these miscarriages, under the degeneracy of their Religion, cannot render those other observances unallowable, which have so considerable testimonies of their ap­probation in the holy Scriptures. And thus in their Synagogue Worship from the instances I have mentioned (to which more might be added) we have evidence of the lawful use of external Rites, which may conduce to preserve the order of Church Society, to the distinction and Ornament of Ministers, reverend beha­viour in the service of God, and some [Page 324]expression of solemnity in the sacramental admission into the Church.

15. Thirdly, We may consider the na­tural worship among the Jews or Hebrews; or their general Religious profession, which was neither appropriated to their Synagogues or Schools,Bux. Syn. Jud. c. 2. (where they were ordinarily Circumcised as Buxtorf obser­veth) nor to their publick Ceremonial or Temple worship; where divers instan­ces may be produced.

16. First, in the taking an Oath; Abra­hams Servant used the Rite of putting his hand under his Masters thigh, which Aben Ezra observed to be also a Custom among the Indians. Nehemiah upon the like occasion did shake his lap, desiring God so to shake out every man from his house and his labour, who performed not that promise. Petit. Var. lect. l. 1. c. 16. Fag. in Gh. Par. Ex. 23.1. Except [...]ex Hom. Chrys. de Juram. Tom. 6. Fr. Duc. Neh. 5.12, 13. At other times lifting up the hand was used, in that solemn and Religious invocation, Gen. 14.22. And it hath been observed, that it was an ordinary Rite among the Jews in taking an Oath, to lay their hand upon the Book of the Law, (as the ancient Christi­ans even in S. Chrysostomes time laid their hand upon the Book of the Gospel.) But he must be satisfied with very little evi­dences, who thinketh that he hath found a divine institution for these observations; [Page 325]which are only outward signs of Religi­ous invocation as our words are; and therefore such expressive signs (so far as expediency and due solemnity shall re­quire) may be lawfully used, though they be not particularly determined, by a Divine commmand.

17. Secondly, we may observe Rites of Memorial. Thus we not only read of Samuel setting up a stone as a Monument of Gods praise, and a token of remem­brance that he had helped them. 1. Sam. 7.12. but Laban and Jacob erected a heap, to be a solemn memorial and testi­mony of their Oath, Gen. 31.46, 47. and when Joshua made a Covenant with the people of Israel, to serve the Lord, he set up a stone under the Oak by the San­ctuary of the Lord, to be a witness and me­morial of their duty and engagement, Jos. 24.26, 27.

18. To these might be added, the use of sackcloath and ashes, as a testimony of humiliation and repentance; the use of imposition of hands in their ordinary be­nediction; which also our Saviour pra­ctised: and I shall in another Chapter shew that the Ring in the contract of Mar­riage was used among the Jews. And yet none of these things were enjoined in the Law of Moses; further than what [Page 326]concerneth the Priestly benediction of Aa­ron with hands lifted up, which some conceive to be a rite appointed in the Law.

19. And from what I have hitherto ob­served, it may be reasonably concluded, that it is no encroaching upon, or oppo­sing the Authority of God, if some in­different and expedient things be deter­mined, and received in the Church as things useful, but not as Divine Sanctions. And he who will deny the lawfulness hereof in the Christian Church, must al­so assert and prove, that the coming of Christ hath deprived his Church, of a very considerable part of that liberty and authority, which the Jewish Church al­ways possessed. But against the rashness of any such positions, the following Secti­ons will be a sufficient defence.

SECT. III.
Shewing Ecclesiastical Constitutions particu­larly concerning Ceremonial Rites, to be warranted by the Apostolical Doctrine and practice.

1. The second main argument, is de­duced from the Apostles practice and do­ctrine. Now though what they appoin­ted [Page 327]in the Church about any matters ex­ternal, cannot be easily proved to be de­termined by humane prudence and Eccle­siastical Authority; because they were so wonderfully inspired and guided by the holy Spirit: yet if it can be shewed, that the Apostles themselves appointed external Rites, attendant on the service of God, which were of an alterable and mutable nature, this will manifest that the use of such things is well consistent with the Gospel worship: and thence it will follow, that the Christian Church hath liberty (as well as the Jewish Church had) to determine such observations, since God hath give no special command to abridge that liberty. Here I shall con­sider.

2. 1, The holy kiss, or kiss of Charity. It was a common friendly salutation for men to kiss each other, both among the Jews; and in other Eastern Countries as hath been observed from Xenophon and Herodotus, and was also used in the We­stern parts of the Empire in the time of Tiberius. But both S. Paul, Rom. 16.16. and and S. Peter, 1. Pet. 5.18. required the practice of this holy kiss, as a peculiar Christian Rite and observation; but when and how it was used we must discover from the relation of the ancient Christian [Page 328]Writers. That it was used at their pub­lick Assemblies, at the time of their solemn Prayers, Grot. in Rom. 16. c. 16. is proved by Grotius from the testimonies of Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian who calleth it signaculum orationis the seal of Prayer; and speaking of it as it was their ordi­nary expressive attestation of Unity, Peace,Tertul. de Orat. c. 14. and Love, he saith, Quae oratio cum divortio Sancti, s [...]uli integra? What Prayer can be perfect, which is separated from the holy kiss? Cassand. Liturg. c. 39. And Cassander hath evi­denced from S. Austin, Innocent, and di­vers other particular Authors, and anci­ent Offices, that it was especially used at the time of the holy Communion, sometimes before but for the most part after the Con­secration of the elements and before their distribution; by which Ceremony Chri­stians expressed their consent to those ad­ministrations, and their love to each other: and of this kiss at the Lords Sup­per, Calvin supposeth S. Paul to speak,Calv. in 1 Cor. 16. [...]0. when he commandeth the Corinthians to greet one another with an holy kiss. Indeed several modern Ritualists being willingly so short sighted, as to discern no further than the dusky and false light of the Ro­mish Decretals doth discover, do ascribe the use of the kiss [...] the Communion to a later original; some from Leo the se­cond, [Page 329]others from Innocent the first: but this appeareth to be a fond and vain ima­gination, because this Custom was not only mentioned by S. Chrysostome, but evidently referred to by the Laodicean Council, Conc. Laod. Can. 19. Just. Mart. Ap. 2. and is also expressed by Jestin Martyr in his Apology, written within less than an hundred years after the Apo­stolical Epistles of S. Paul, and S. Peter. Yet that this was an external mutable Rite, is so far agreed upon and acknowledged, as that it is generally disused, because through the vanity of mens minds it was discovered at length to promote impu­rity and obscenity, rather than holiness and Christian love. And the Romish Custom introduced instead hereof, of kissing the tabellam pacis, or the Table of Saints Pictures, is quite another thing from the Apostolical Rite, and cannot be excused from superstition, from the relation it beareth to their Doctrine of the Adoration of Saints. And if we en­quire how this ancient use of the holy kiss was most ordinarily practised, it is manifest from the testimony of the Author of the Constitutions, Const. Apost. l. 8. c. 11. concerning the more early times of Christianity, and from Amalarius describing its use about 800. Years ago,Amalar. de Deccl. Offic. l. 3. c. 32. that it was not promiscuously used, by men and women towards each [Page 330]other, but separately and distinctly by men towards one another, and by women among themselves alone.

3. 2. Their Agapae or Feasts of Charity (which were appointed in part for the re­lief of the poor,Zonar. in Conc. Trul. 74. Gang. 11. Chrys. in 1 Cor. but especially to express, continue, and increase Christian love and fellowship, which is also one great design of the Lords Supper) were in and after the Apostles times used either immedi­ately before as some affirm, concerning some Churches, or immediately after it, as others assert, and which was the more general practice, and even in the places of publick Assemblies. That they were celebrated at the same time and place with the Lords Supper, hath been usually ob­served and collected from 1. Cor. 11.20.—23. and from Act. 2.42, 46. and from thence appeareth to have been used as an Ecclesiastical Rite. The use of these Feasts of Charity was mentioned with approbation by S. Jude, v. 12. and according to some Greek Copies by S. Peter, 2 Pet. 2.13. and amongst the anci­ent Writers by Ignatius Ep. ad Smyr. Ter­tullian, Apol. c. 39. Clemens Alexand. Pae­dag. l. 2. c. 1. Orig. Cont. Celsum l. 1. Conc. Gangr. c. 11. and by S. Chrysostom, Augustine, and divers others, some placing them (as the Passover was eaten) before [Page 331]the Lords Supper others comparing them to the Jewish Feasts eaten after the Pass­over. But when these Feasts of Charity became greatly abused, the Canons both of Provincial and general Councils,Conc. La­odic. c. 28.3. Carth. 30. Trul. 74. ex­cluded them from the publick places of Church Assemblies; and as Baronius obser­veth they were abolished in Italy, by S. Ambroses Authority; as they were also not long afterwards in Africa, by S. Au­gustine and the other Bishops of the Car­thaginian Province:Baron. an. 377. n. 14: Aug. Ep. 64. and they became ge­nerally disused, though some appearances thereof may possibly be discerned in later times, in the Communion upon Maundy Thursday in divers Churches, and in the practice of the Greek Church upon the day of the Resurrection or Easter Day,Cassand. Liturg. c. 4. when (as Cassander relateth) after the holy Communion, allatis in Ecclesiam epu­lis communiter convivantur, they have a common Banquet brought into the Church, of which they all partake.

4. But against that part of this obser­vation that the Agapae were anciently joined with the holy Communion, it may be objected;Albasp. Obj. lib. 1. Obj. 18. that Albaspinus doth on pur­pose undertake to prove, that in Tertul­lians time, the Agapae and the Eucharist were not observed together, but that the former was celebrated at night, from Ter­tul. [Page 332]Apol. c. 39. and the latter in the Morn­ing, from Tertul. lib. 2. ad Ʋxor. c. 5. and de Coron. Mil. c. 3. But in answer to this we may consider, that in that very ob­servation, Albaspinus himself admitteth, with a Non inficias iverim, that the Aga­pae were in the time of the Apostles cele­brated with the Eucharist: and concern­ing the time of Tertullian, he neither un­dertaketh to prove that there were no Agapae in the Morning, nor no Communion in the Evening: for those very words of Tertullian de Corona militis. c. 3. Eucha­ristiae Sacramentum etiam antelucanis cae­tibus sumimus, do intimate, that that Sa­crament was administred also at other times, besides those early Morning As­semblies, and S. Cyprian as Pamelius no­teth,Cyp. Ep. 63. n. 48. expresseth their communicating the that Carthaginian Church both in the Morning and the Evening; Socr. Hist. Eccl. l 5. c. 21. as Socrates long after relateth the Custom of Even­ing Communions in the Churches of E­gypt, and those nigh to Thebais. And therefore the Eucharist and Agapae might be and were joined together, as is mani­fest from another place of Tertullians Apology. Apol. c. 7, & 8.

5. And that these things were mutable Rites, and no perpetual Laws to the Chri­stian Church, is manifest not only from [Page 333] general Ecclesiastical practice, but also be­cause the Scriptures give no command for the love Feasts, though they mention that practice with approbation: and the kiss which was a token of love and friendship according to the Custom of those Countries, was thence directed to be observed by those Christians, only as a token of their Christian greeting and salutation, and a testimony of their Ʋnity and Communion. Yet because these things were used at the time of the holy Com­munion, as outward actions representing part of that Christian duty, practice, and engagement, which was signified by that holy Ordinance it self, and undertaken therein, they were in this use properly Ecclesiastical Rites, and do justifie the use of such external actions in the service or duties of Religion, which are useful to excite or promote Christian practice.

6. And besides these, the Apostles di­rection for men to pray or prophesie with their heads uncovered, 1 Cor. 11.4. was the determi­ning an external Rite for order and de­cency, and not without some respect to the common expressions of Reverence in Greece, and other parts of the Roman Empire. The Jewish Priests performed their Temple service with their heads co­vered with their Bonnets, as did the High [Page 334]Priest also in his Mitre, and it was his honour and dignity that he might not uncover his head, Lev. 21.10. he repre­senting hereby the glory and honour of the Messias. In the Jewish Synagogue wor­ship, their men constantly prayed with their faces vailed, V. Hor. Hebr. in 1. Cor. 11.4. in token of shame; as is manifest from divers testimonies of the Talmudists: agreeably to which Custom, the holy Angels in Isaiah's Vision, are represented standing before God, and worshipping with their faces covered. Is. 6.1, 2, 3. The ancient Romans used uncovering the head as an expression of honour to great men; but yet from the time of Aeneas, Plutarch. Prob. Rom. q. 10, 11, 13. as Plu­tarch affirmeth, they had their heads co­vered in most of their Religious solem­nities. The Grecians worshipped with their heads uncovered, as did the Romans also in their adoration of Saturn. But S. Paul considering the Christians relation and encouragements, and the customary use of vailing among women, as fitly be­coming and expressing their shamefast­ness, modesty, and subjection; he thence from the consideration of comeliness de­termineth that the expression of reve­rence which most befitteth the state of men, in their Religious service is to un­cover their heads, and not to vail them both in praying and in prophesying (or [Page 335]praising and glorifying God chiefly under extraordinary or prophetick raptures; in which sense the Chaldee Paraphrast oft expoundeth the Phrase of prophesying in the Old Testament, and R. D. Kimchi, Ch. Par. in 1. Sam. 10.5, 6, 10, 11, 13. Ch. 19, 20, 21, 23, 24. Drus. in 1. Sam. 10.6. also as he is cited by Drusius). And the con­sequence hereof is this, that such outward actions as tend to express a comely reve­rence in the service of God, may be filty appointed and used therein, under the Gos­pel dispensation.

7. But because I shall in the following Chapter give some other instances of Apostolical practice, I forbear in this place to urge any more, and therefore shall not insist upon S. Peter submitting to have his feet washed at our Saviours command; which some have noted to be a Jewish Paschal Rite, then practised under an Evangelical signification; nor upon the observations enjoined to the Gentile Christians by the Council at Je­rusalem, Act. 15. nor upon those other manifestly ancient Rites which are not mentioned in the Scriptures, but were by the Fathers of the Primitive Church called Apostolical Rites, or Apostolical Tra­ditions. But instead of prosecuting what is contained in this last instance, I shall observe that it was a current position, among the chief Protestant Writers of the [Page 336]Churches beyond the Seas, that in points of external rite, order, and decency, some things were appointed by the Apostles in the Churches of Christ, which were not recor­ded in the holy Scriptures. Kemnit. Exam de Tradit. 7^m. Genus. Thus Kemni­tius asserteth, that it is manifest from the Apostles writings, that they did ordain and deliver some Rites unto the Church, & ve­risimile est quosdam etiam alios externos ritus qui in scriptura annotati non sunt, to Apostolis traditos esse. And it seemeth true that there were other external Rites deli­vered by the Apostles, which are not men­tioned in the Scripture. Beza upon those words of S. Paul. The rest will I set in or­der when I come, 1 Cor. 11.34. granteth that the Apostle did in that Church dete­mine other things, not mentioned in that Epistle, but pertinent ad ordinem Ecclesi­asticum, non ad dogmata; they were not matters of Doctrine but of Ecclesiastical Or­der. And upon the same words he saith that they appointed things referring to order, as time, place, forms of Prayer and such like; as times, places, and persons did require. Zanch. Tract. de Sacr. Script. Qu. 8. Zanchy also citing the same Text by way of Objection, in his Treatise of the holy Scripture answereth, That con­cerning matters of order and decency, we acknowledge many things to have been ap­pointed in the Churches by the Apostles, which [Page 337]are not written. Concedimus multa fuisse instituta ab Apostolis in Ecclesiis quae non sunt scripta.

8. That command of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done de­cently and in order; doth manifestly sup­pose a power, and command its exercise in the Church of Corinth, for the appoint­ing what is requisite to those ends: and is to this purpose urged, not only in the Church of England, but by those other modern Writers, who are in high esteem with most Non-Conformists. Infst. l. 4. c. 10. Sect. 27. Calvin in his institutions, from this Scripture asserteth, a necessity of laws made by Ecclesiastical Constitutions, because order and decency cannot otherwise be kept, nisi additis obser­vationibus tanquam vinculis quibusdam: and in his Commentaries he thence assert­eth,In 1. Cor. 14.40. that God hath left external Rites unto our liberty that we might not account his worship to consist in them. Zanchy, Zanch. Compend. Doct. Christianae Loc. 16. consi­dering this Text, enquireth what the Apostle meaneth by decency and order? and saith among other things, one end of decency is, that while certain Rites are made use of to conciliate reverence to sacred things, we should by such helps be the more excited unto piety. Illyricus himself de­clareth this command, to be a foundation, Gloss. Illy­rici in Loc. first Frinciple or Rule, upon which Church [Page 338]Government and Polity is to be built, and according to which it is to be modelled. Part. 2. Ch. 4. And the same commandment is produced by the London Ministers, in their Jus divi­num Regiminis Ecclesiastici, as giving allowance for the ordering the circumstan­tials of Church Government. And then it must especially warrant the orderly de­termining things circumstantial, concern­ing Ecclesiastical Assemblies and divine worship, which is the special matter about which the Apostle treateth in that Chapter.

SECT. IV.
The practice and judgment of the Primi­tive, and many Protestant Churches con­cerning Ceremonies.

1. The third Argument is, from the judg­ment and practice of the Church of God in all Ages, both in its Primitive Purity, and since the Reformation. And, as Christian Prudence and Sobriety requi­reth a reverend esteem of the judgment or the Ʋniversal Church; so Christian Charity, Humility, and Modesty, will forbid the rast censuring the generally re­ceived practices in the best times of Chri­stianity. In the Primitive times, all their [Page 339]Canonical Constitutions of Synods suppo­sed a liberty reserved to the Church of determining things expedient; their ob­servation of some Rites appointed by the Apostles is clear enough from the fore­going Section; and of their use of the sign of the Cross, of distinct Garments in Religious Worship, of their gesture at the Communion, and of imposition of hands in Confirmation, and the Ring in Mar­riage,Ch. 4. I shall give a particular account when I come to consider the particular Rites of our Church. And that in the early times of Christianity they stood at Prayer on the Lords Days, and from Easter to Whitsunday, as professing the hope of the Resurrection; that they prayed with their faces to the East (while in the Jew­ish Temple Worship they always wor­shipped with their faces to the West); that they used various impositions of hands on the Penitents; and gave some initiatives Symbols, as Salt, Hony and Milk to the Catechumens, and newly baptized per­sons, with others of the like nature; is so manifest, that no man who hath read the ancient Writers can possibly make any doubt thereof. And such Rites as were orderly and fitly established by Eccle­siastical Authority, without any divine institution, were frequently justified and [Page 340]defended by divers of the Fathers; as Tertullian, S. Ambrose, Basil, Austin, as their testimonies might be largely pro­duced.

2. For instance sake I shall single out S. Austin, who (though he piously com­plained of the over-great number of Ce­remonies in his time, when they were indeed very numerous) in his Epistle to Casulanus writing concerning fasting on the Saturday, Aug. Ep. 86. he giveth this general Rule; that in those things where the divine Scri­ptures determine nothing certainly, the custom of the people of God, or the insti­tution of our Ancestors is to be reputed as a Law. And afterwards he adviseth to be careful, lest the clearness or calmness of Charity, be (about such things) Clouded over with the tempests of contention and disputation. Ep. 118. c. 2. And in his Epistle to Janu­arius, after many other things to the same purpose, he expresseth the advice of S. Ambrose, which he always esteemed as a Divine Oracle; that in things which nei­ther opposed Faith nor a holy life, every one was to conform to the Observations and Custom of that Church, where he had his present abode: cum Romae sum jejuno Sab­bato, cum hic sum non jejuno; sic etiam tu, ad quam forte Ecclesiam veneris, ejus morem serva, si cui (que) non vis esse scandalo, [Page 341]nec quenquam tibi. Ep. 119. c. 18. (and in his next Epi­stle he giveth a like direction about the same matter, which is by him called sa­luberrima regula.) And he saith he had oft perceived with grief and sorrow, much disturbance of the weak, per quorundam fratrum contentiosam obstinationem, & su­perstitiosam timiditatem; through the con­tentious obstinacy, and superstitious fear­fulness of some brethren, who stir up such contentious questions, (about Ecclesiastical Rites of an indifferent nature in particu­lar Churches) that they judge nothing right, but what themselves do: and in the same Epistle,Ep. 118. c. 6. he defendeth the Custom of the Church in his time of receiving the Eucharist fasting, which Christ instituted after meat, but gave no command that it should be afterwards so celebrated.

3. Amongst the Protestant Writers Calvin at Geneva, Calvin Tom. 7. Ver a Ec­clesiae Re­form. Ra­tio. maketh this formal protestation: Lest any man should raise a calumny, — I would have all pious Rea­ders here to bear me witness, that I do not contend about Ceremonies, which do serve only for decency and order, nor yet against such which are either Symbols of, or incite­ments to, that reverence which we bear to God. Ʋrsin Eae­pl. Catec. q. 103. Ʋrsin in the Palatinate asserteth the Ecclesiastical appointment of some Rites not only to be lawful, but to be a [Page 342] duty; potest (saith he) ac debet Ecclesia quasdam Ceremonias instituere. Rivet in the Dutch Church saith that in the Church we use Ceremonies, Cathol. Orth. Tr. 2. q. 37. ut gestibus, & actioni­bus solennibus; Ceremonies, as gestures and actions of solemnity: and concerning such things which are appointed for decency and order, he declareth his approbation of that Rule of S. Austin, above expres­sed from Ep. 118 c. 2. Among the Lu­therans, Kemnitius not only asserteth the Churches liberty, Exam. Conc. Trid. de Sacram. Can. 13. in appointing adiapho­rous Rates: but also for order sake he dis­alloweth all liberty of varying from them: Et sane ordinis & decori gratia etiam in externis adiaphoris, non est cuivis sine Ec­clesiae judicio & consensu permittendum, ut ex petul [...]nlie pro libidine, quid vis vel omittat vel permutet. Ger. Conf. Cathol. Lib. 1. Ge­ner. Par. 2. c. 5. de Traditioni­bus. Gerard both ac­knowledgeth the Authority of the Church for the ordaining samethings about the ex­ternal part of worship, and yieldeth that not only the Church, but even the Apo­siles themselves, did institute in the Church, ritus quosdam liberos, some free indiffe­rent rites, appertaining to order and de­cency, which in specie and in particular are neither written, nor imposed by a per­petual Law, as necessary for the whole Church. And in another place he shew­eth that they readily receive these adia­phorous [Page 343]things for order and decency,C. 12. de consuetudi­ne Eccles. etiamsi sola Ecclesiae consuetudine nitantur; though they only depend upon the Cu­stom of the Church.Illyr. Glos. in 1. Cor. 11.16. And Flacius Illyri­cus himself when he was out of the hu­mour of opposition, did at last in his Gloss published from Strasburgh 1570. upon those words of the Apostle. If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such Custom, nor the Churches of God write thus. The Apostle (saith he) rejecteth morose and contentious answerers, shewing that profita­ble rites received by grave authority, ought by no means to be contemned or plucked in pieces, though they be not built on solid de­monstrations. But if any man will be stiff in his opinion, the Apostle will not contend any longer with him, but will acquiesce in the Custom of Godly and worthy men, and of the Churches of God themselves; idem (que) (saith he) alios omnes pios facere debere, and that all pious men ought to do the same is acknowledged there to be an Apostolical direction by Illyricus when he was out of the heat of contention in a cool and calm temper.

4. If we view the pulick writings of the Reformed Churches,Conf. Bo­hem. Ars. 15. the Bohemian Confession declareth them to teach, that humane Traditions, Rites, and Customs, which do not hinder Piety, are to be pre­served [Page 344]in the publick Christian Assemblies. And in their account of the Discipline and Order of their Churches, they divide the matters of Religion into three heads; the Essentialia, which contain the matters of Faith, Love, and Hope; the Minisie­rialia which enclude the means of Grace, as the word of God,Rat. Difc. & Ord. c. 1. the Sacraments, and power of the Keys; and the Acciden­talia by which they say they mean what others call Adiaphora, or external Cere­monies and Rites of Religion. In these matters Adiaphorous, they say, they may have some things in use among them which are different from other Churches, and yet are they not willing, upon any small occasi­ons, to allow any alteration therein; ne (que) ob leves causus quicquam mutare aequum pu­tamus, & nemini apud nos licet insuetas ceremonias inahoare. Ibid. c. 2. And in their Ordi­nation both of their Bishop, and their Con­senior (who is designed to represent the Chorepiseopus in some ancient Churches) whose Office is like that of our Arch Dea­con, and their Minister, and their Dea­con; those of the same Order give to the person then ordained, their right hand of fellowship, and those of the inferiour Order (when one is ordained to any of the higher degrees) give him their right hand, in token of subjection testi­fied [Page 345]and assured by that external Rite.

5. The Augustane Confession, in seve­ral expressions, asserteth it lawful for the Bishops or Pastors, Conf. Au­gust. de Ec­c [...] [...]. & Art [...], & 21 & de descri­mine cibor. to appoint things for Order in the Church; and declareth that they do retain many ancient Rites or Cere­monies, though they complain also of the abuse of others in the Romish Church, as the Church of England doth: and it asserteth also ritus illos servandos esse qui sine peccato servari possunt, & ad tranquil­litatem & bonum ordinem Ecclesiae condu­cunt. Conf Sax­on. de Tra­dition. The Saxon Confession treating of Rites appointed in the Church by hu­mane Authority, declareth, that nothing ought to be appointed against Gods word, or in the way of superstition, but that some blameless Rites for good order, both ought to be and by them are observed; ritus ali­quos honestos boni ordinis causa factos, & servamus & servandos esse docemus. And the Ceremonies most opposed in the Church of England, with more besides them, are retained both in that and in other Lutherane Churches. Conf. Helv. c. 27. The Helvetick Confession asserteth, that the Church hath always used a liberty about Rites, as being things of a middle or indifferent nature. The French Church alloweth, that there be singulis locis peculiaria instituta, Conf. Gal­lic. c. 32. prout [Page 346]commodum visum fuerit; peculiar Consti­tutions for several places, as it shall appear profitable. And the Strasburgh Confession discoursing about humane Traditions, or external Rites and Observations, which conduce to profit, though they be not expressed in the Scriptures,Conf. Ar­gent. c. 14. saith, that many such the Church of God at this day doth rightly observe, and as there is occa­sion doth make new ones; adding these sharp words, quas qui rejecerit, is non ho­minum sed Dei, cujus traditio est quae­cun (que) utilis est, authoritatem contemnit, that whosoever rejecteth these things, doth not contemn the authority of men but of God, of whom is every profitable Constitu­ion. Wherefore he who will yet dis­claim all Ceremonial Rites under Chri­stianity, and will esteem them to be a pestilential and dangerous Contagion in the Church, must undertake to affix both to the ancient, and latter most famous Churches, a Miserere nostri.

SECT. V.
The ill consequences, of denying the law­fulness of all Ecclesiastical Rites and Constitutions in things indifferent ob­served.

1. Though the condemning the pra­ctice and rule of the Church in all Ages, and even in the time of the holy Apostles and Prophets, be inconvenience sufficient for any opinion to stand charged with: yet besides this (which hath been evi­denced in the two former Sections) the denying the lawfulness of any external Rites. 1. Debarreth the Church of what is really advantagious unto it: for some fit external Rites of order and decency, (provided they be not over-numerous) do promise solemnity in the service of God, and tend to excite a greater de­gree of seriousness, reverence, and atten­tiveness. It was S. Austins observation,De Curia pro mortuis c. 5. that in Religion the outward actions of bowing the knee, stretching forth the hands, and falling on the ground, though they be not performed without the preceding actions of the Soul, do much encrease the inward affections of the heart. In the common affairs of the World, the boaring his Ear [Page 348]with an Awle, who was willing to under­take a perpetual service; the giving pos­session among the Jews by the pulling of the shoe, and amongst us by divers other ways, of livery and seisin; the delivering some ensign of authority at the enstallment of a Magistrate, and the giving the hand as a pledge of fidelity, have by the com­mon prudence of men been judged use­ful Rites, to render those undertakings and actions the more solemn and obser­vable. Nor can there be any reason, why some external actions may not ob­tain the like effect in matters of Religion; especially considering that both Prophets and Apostles in delivering their extraor­dinary Messages from God, thought fit frequently to make use of visible repre­sentations, that their words might thereby take the deeper impression. Thus Eze­kiel carried out his stuff in their sight, and Isaiah walked naked (without his ordina­ry Garments) when they denounced Captivity; and Agabus foretelling the imprisonment of S. Paul, bound himself with his girdle; Act. 13.51. Mar. 6.11. and the Apostles accord­ing to the commandment of Christ shook of the dust of their feet, as a testimony against those Cities who received them not,V. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 10.14. which was a rite the Jews made use to towards the Cities of the Gentiles, [Page 349]to express their defilement and unclean­ness.

2. 2. The denying the lawful use of external Rites, and humane observations in the worship of God, is ordinarily at­tended with partiality of judgment. For it is almost generally acknowledged, that in taking a Religious Oath, some external Ceremony addeth a solemnity and reve­rence to that sacred action: whence when other Ceremonies in publick worship were laid aside, there was an Act of Par­liament as it was entituled, that in taking an Oath it might be lawful for any man, either to lay his hand upon the Book, or to hold up his right hand (which was the way made use of in taking the Covenant.) And Bishop Saunderson to this purpose judiciously declareth,DeJuram. Obl. Pral. 5. Sec. 12. that he could never receive any satisfaction, though he had oft considered with himself, and enquired of others, why a prescribed form of words, and the use of the solemnity of external Rites, either ought not as things superstiti­ous to be removed from the Religious use of an Oath; or else may not as useful helps of piety, be retained in the other parts of Gods worship. I know that some have told us, that an Oath is not a part of the natural worship of God, belonging to the first commandment; nor of the instituted wor­ship [Page 350]in the second Commandment; but of the revrend use of Gods name in the third Commandment; and that the prin­cipal use of an Oath is to confirm truth and end strife, and therefore it is not pri­marily an act of worship, but secondarily and consequentially. But indeed all this is but a plausible mistake. For an Oath as it is distinguished from a bare asser­tion, encludeth a direct profession and particular acknowledgment of the Omnisci­ence of God, and his searching the heart of man, and of the justice of God in the punishing evil, and that he is a God of truth, and invocateth him as such: and this is part of the natural worship of God, or of the honour which is due to God, as be­ing founded in the nature of God, and the natural estate of man. And since God hath instituted this way of Religi­ous appeal to himself, an Oath must be acknowledged to enclude also part of the instituted worship of God. And the Rite of laying the hand upon the Book, and kissing it, or holding up the hand, being designed as a testimony to others, of a mans appeal to Gods Omniscience and Justice; the end of that Ceremony, is primarily to manifest this religious appli­cation to God, and therefore it is atten­dant upon an Oath, as it is properly an act of worship.

3. 3. If no external observations not commanded by God, might lawfully be admitted in the worship of God, then must the publick exercise thereof cease. For God who did expresly determine the time and place, for the Jewish Taberna­cle and Temple worship, hath not pre­scribed the same circumstances for the Christian service. Nor hath he prescri­bed in all things the method and gesture for our Religious addresses, nor the kind of Bread and Wine at the Lords Supper: yet these things must necessarily be de­termined, where these Ordinances are celebrated.Disp. of Humane Cerem. c. 2. Wherefore Mr. Baxter ac­knowledgeth that such things as these, and the decent habit for the service of God, be left to humane prudence to order, and may be determined for order, decency, and edi­fication. But Mr. Rutherford undertaking to fix the right bounds for the Churches authority, distinguisheth things moral, Introd. to Div. Right of Gh. Go­vern. Sec. 1. and Physical circumstances; and these latter only he granteth may be determined and ordered by the Church, but not the for­mer. These Physical circumstances he saith are only eight and there can be no more enumerated. viz. time, place, person, name, family, condition, habit, gesture. Now to omit the examining the terms of that distinction, and the considering that most [Page 352]of our Ceremonies (as they are called) are encluded under habit, and gesture, it is manifest that he hath pitifully shackled himself, in endeavouring the undue con­finement of the Churches Power. For as there can be no possible account, why those eight things and no more can be determined by the Church, so it is very obvious to discern how monstrous this enumeration is; having needless redun­dancy, in adding as distinct circumstances from the person, the name, family, and condition; to which he might with as much reason have added, the age, stature, and complexion of the person: and they have likewise a great deficiency, since ac­cording to his position it is unlawful to determine, what version of the Bible shall be read in the Church, what Vessels shall be used in administring the Sacraments, and in what method Prayers, Praises, Psalms, Sermons, and other Offices shall succeed to each other; the appointing of which was a chief design of the Dire­ctory. And some men who undertook to decry every think referring to the worship of God as unlawful, unless it was particularly injoined in the Scripture, did advance this false position so far,In Edw. Gangrena. Par. 2. Er. 172. as to assert that the Directory was a breach of the second Commandment; and that [Page 353]there was no word of God to warrant the making that Book, more than Jeroboam had, when he set up two high places, the one at Da [...], and the other at Bethel. Nor can such a charge be avoided, nor Religion be secured from confusion, unless it be admitted (which is certainly true) that some things [...]ternal may lawfully be ap­pointed, about the exercise thereof, though may be not particularly enjoined of God.

4. The reason why I have in this Se­ction conjoined the inconveniency attend­ing the disallowing Ecclesiastical Constitu­tions and Observations, together with those consequent upon the disclaiming external Rites and Ceremonies, is, because both these are equally impugned by almost all the arguments produced with special re­spect to the latter of them.

SECT. VI.
Some Objections from Reason, and from the Old Testa [...] examined.

1. Against the [...] use of some Cere­monies in the Christian Church, there are mustred up a [...] Army of Objecti­ons (if a weak [...] be so called); a particular answer [...] every of which, would be tedious and needless. For the affirming that such establishments oppose [Page 354]the Soveraignty of Christ, or accuse him of negligence or unfaithfulness; and that they make men the Masters of our Reli­gion and such like; manifestly appear to be false accusations, by considering that these external Rites are such things of an indifferent nature, that their appoint­ment by humane authority hath been al­lowed of God, both under the Old and New Testament, as hath been above evi­denced. To assert that the allowance of any Ceremonies ordered by Ecclesi­astical Prudence,V. Hooker. Eccles Pol. l. 3. chargeth the Scripture with insufficiency, and leaveth us at a loss (as some tell us it doth) for a Rule of Faith Proceedeth from a gross misunder­standing; as if these indifferent things particularly considered, were matters of Faith, and that the Scripture could not be a sufficient Rule. For Faith and Holy Life, unless it enclude a determination of all prudential circumstances, that none should be ordered in the Church which are not there appointed. To decry all such things as Ʋnlawful, because in our Church there hath been much strife and contention about them, to the breach of the Churches Peace; may appear to be a very weak argument, from observing that both the Jewish and the Apostolical and Primitive Christian Churches, and [Page 355]several Lutheran Churches of late have enjoyed a very peaceable state, together with such Ecclesiastical Constitutions: but the more manifest cause of strife and contention, is from misunderstanding in some, and from want of humility and obe­dience in others; and these persons have found matter sufficient for them to make a breach of the Churches Peace, in other points besides Ceremonies.

2. As to that Objection, that the al­lowing any Authority for the appointing such things in the Church, will leave its power in a boundless and unlimited state; if this was of any force, it would equally oppose all other commanding Authority in every superior relation in the World. And as secular Rules have Authority to make Laws for the Peace and Order of Kingdoms, but not to exercise op­pression nor to change the nature of Good and Evil, nor to make any divine Pre­cepts; so Rulers in the Church are allowed to direct and appoint what tendeth to good order and decency; but may not deliver any thing as Gods command which is not, nor alter any of his Precepts and Institutions, nor to enjoin things need­lesly burdensom. How the allowing some Ceremonies in the Christian Church is a quite different thing from the reducing [Page 356]the Ceremonial law of the Jews, hath been shewed in the first Section of this Chap­ter; Wherefore I now come to examine the Scripture evidence which some plead against Ecclesiastical Rites and Consti­tutions.

3. Obj. 1. The sin of Nadab and Abihu, for which fire came out from the Lord and devoured them, was their offering strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. Lev. 10.1, 2. And this is sup­posed by them who urge this Objection, to be only an outward rite or circum­stance of worship, in making use of that fire in the service of God which was not enjoined, and about which he had made no determination.

Ans. 1.Cypr. Ep. 73. & de Ʋnit. Eccl. It was much more truly ac­knowledged of old, that the sin of Na­dab and Abihu was, that what they did, was Dei traditione contempta, Iren. adv. Haer. l. 5. c. 44. in despite of what God had declared to the contrary; and therefore their sin hath been fre­quently parallel'd, with the sin of Corah, Dathan, and Abiram. And whereas the Scripture declareth their sin, to be a do­ing that which God commandeth them not: that Phrase in the holy Scriptures (which I commanded them not) doth not denote, gods having enjoined nothing about that particular action, but ordinarily by a [Page 357] Meiosis intimateth, Gods having severely prohibited it. Thus God declared their building high places of Tophet and of Baal, to burn their Sons and their Daugh­ters, to be things he commanded them not, Jer. 7.31. Jer. 19.5. and the same ex­pression is used, concerning committing Adultery with their Neighbours Wives, and speaking lying words in the name of the Lord, Jer. 29.23. and concerning the serving other Gods, and worshipping the Sun, Moon, and the Host of Heaven, Dent. 17.3. all which things were vehemently for­bidden in the Law of God. Where­fore some have thought that the sin of Nadab and Abihu consisted in Offring strange Incense, Fag. in loc. which God had expresly forbidden, Ex. 30.9. Which opinion is declared by Fagius; and doubtless this was the judgment of Josephus, though the ordinary Copies of Josephus express it to be their Offring other ( [...]) Sacrifi­ces than Moses had commanded; Joseph. Ant. l. 3. c. 10. but that it should be read [...] Incense, is ma­nifest by comparing Josephus with the Hebrew, and the Septuagint. Others have observed, that before that time God had appointed Aaron only, and not his Sons to offer any incense unto him; and there­fore it might be an act of great presump­tion in them: and when Corah presumed [Page 358]to invade the Priests Office to offer in­cense, botht he Samaritan Version, and the Septuagint, reading the Hebrew with a little variation of the points in [...] Num. 16.37. called that which he offered, strange fire. And some others have thought them so boldly irreverent, as against the command of God, to thrust themselves into the holy of holies. This is collected by some of the Jewish Do­ctors from Lev. 16.1, 2, 3. and is admit­ted by Junius. Jun. in Lev. 10.1.

4. Ans. 2. But admitting that their sin consisted in making use of that fire which God did not allow, we must further as­sert with Munster, that God having caused fire miraculously to consume the Sacrifice uon the Altar, Lev. 9.24. and comman­ded that the fire upon the Altar should be continually burning (to wit, for the use of Gods service) and should never go out, Lev. 6.12, 13. their offering other fire, was an opposing of Gods command. For if any should imagine that when God had commanded incense to be offered, which must be offered with fire; he did leave it undetermined what fire they should make use of: and that in this case the choice of any sort of fire, because it was not commanded was a grievous sin; this would represent the holy and righteous [Page 359]will of God, as contradictory to it self, and as inevitably forcing the Priests to be guilty of sin, because upon this un­reasonable supposition their offring incense with fire, which was their duty and com­manded of God, must necessarily be ac­counted a sin and displeasing to God And if such positions were admitted, they will bring after them a numerous train of manifest absurdities and contradictions; as that the Priest ought as God had com­manded to burn wood upon his Altar, but might in no wise make use of any sort or kind of wood to that purpose, because God had not particularly enjoined it; and the like may be said of the kind of Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper; and of divers other things under the time of Christianity.

5. Obj. 2. God commanded Deut. 12.32. Whatsoever I command you observe and do, thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Ans. 1. That these words do properly condemn on the one hand super­stition, of the making any thing a part of Religion and the Law of God, which in­deed is not; and on the other hand want of Religious reverence, in neglecting obe­dience to what God had enjoined and commanded. But that divers things re­ferring to the worship of God, were al­lowably [Page 360]under the J [...]sh despensation ordered, as matters [...] expe­diency, by humane prude [...] [...] [...]ve in a former Section given su [...] [...] [...]mony: and if such appointment [...] been allowable, their Synagogue w [...] which was thereby guided and d [...]cted, must necessarily have been altogether impra­cticable, or at least utterly confesed. Tr. 2. Ch. 6. div. 1. And it is not amiss observed by B [...]hop Whit­gist, that that command D [...]ui 12. did as well concern the Judicial part of the Mo­saical Law as the Ceremoni [...]l; and there­fore it may with as much plausibleness be urged, to prove that no se [...]ar laws may be made under Christianity, as that no Ecclesiastical Constitutions should be there­in established; unless it can be shewed, that under the Gospel the Divine Law hath particular [...] joined all circumstan­ces of worship, and Rules of Order in all Ecclesiastical Cases, where it is presumed he hath not prescribed a Platform of civil polity. And yet even in matters judici­al also the Jewish Doctors, as is manifest from their Bava Kama, Sanbedrin, Mac­coth, and other Talmudical Treatises, did give divers resclutions of various particu­lar Cases and circumstances, not expressed in the Law of Moses: and both these de­cisions, and their [...] or their Con­stitutions [Page 361]to be a bedge of the Law, Macc. c. 1. Sect. 1, 3. (as when the Law did not allow above forty stripes to him who was to be adjudged to be scourged, their Doctors required them never to exceed thirty nine, not thereby altering Gods Law, but taking care lest it should by mistake be violated) are well allowed of by Christian Writers. However,Grot. in Deut. 25.3. & 2. Cor. 11.24. Coccei in Mac. c. 3. n. 12. Since the Gospel requireth a care of order and decency in the Chri­stian Church, to deny this liberty, would be a diminishing from its commands, but to grant it is no addition to them. Wherefore though superstitious placing Religion where we ought not, and irre­verent neglect, or making no Conscience of any Divine Institution, are sinful, pruden­tial Constitutions remain lawful.

SECT. VII.
Other Objections from the New Testa­ment cleared.

1. From the New Testament it hath been objected. 1. That our Saviour de­fended his Disciples, for not obeying the tradition of the [...]lders, which required them to wash before meat. Mat. 15.2. Ans. As this tradition did not refer to the order of the publick worship of God, [Page 362]in Religious Assemblies: so the true rea­son why our Saviour defended his Dis­ciples in their practising against this tra­dition, was because washing before meat was enjoined by them, as a proper rule of Religion and of Purity.In Loc. For as to gene­ral it hath been observed by Drusius and Dr. Lightfoot, that many of the Jews esteemed not the written Law, but that given by tradition to be their foundation, and chief Rule of Doctrine, and declared, that he who transgressed the words of the written Law was not guilty, but he who transgressed the words of the Scribes was guilty: so in this particular discourse our Saviour chargeth them with teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men, v. 9. and declareth against their errour and falt [...] Doctrine, v. 20. that to eat with un­washen hands defileth not the man. So that the question between our Saviour and the Scrib [...]s and Parisees was this, Whe­ther it was to be admitted as a Doctrine, that eating with unwashen hands defileth the man? and our Saviours justifying his Disciples in this Case. doth declare, that wheresoever salse Doctrines are obtruded as parts of the Law of God, it can be no mans duty to receive them, and pra­ctise upon them: which is that our Church also professeth.

2. But our Saviour was so far from op­posing prudential Rules and Observations, for the orderly performance of Religious services; that himself frequently practised such things, according to the Custom and Constitutions of the Jews. Thus as the Jew­ish Doctors sat in their Synagogues when they taught the people, our blessed Lord ordinarily used the same gesture in teach­ing. He also ordinarily joined in their Synagogue worship, which was ordered by the Rules of Ecclesiastical Prudence, and observed the gesture and other Rites of the Jewish Passover, which the Authority of their Elders had established for order and decency. And whereas in the Jewish Synagogues, and Schools, their Doctors used to sit about in a Semicircle; and their Scholars before them upon lower Seats, to whom the asking of Questions was al­lowed: our Saviour also n the Temple (which in the holy Scriptures oft enclu­deth the whole Court and building of the Temple, among which were Religious Schools and Synagogues) sate [...] in the middle of the Doctors hearing them and asking them Questions. Luk. 2.46.

3. Some have also against the use of external Rites in the worship of God, urged those words of our Saviour. Joh. 4.23. The hour cometh and now is when [Page 364]the true worshippers, shall worship the Fa­ther in spirit and truth: collecting thence, that the Gospel worship is so wholly spi­ritual, that it doth not admit outward Rites and signs. Ans. 1. This must needs be a false construction of these words, which would tend to disclaim the two New Testament Sacraments, the open and visible profession of Faith, the publick meeting in Church Assemblies, the praising of God and praying with the voice, the reading and hearing Gods word, reverent gesiures in Religious service, and such like necessary parts of Religious duty, in all which there is use of bodily actions and external signs. 2. Our blessed Lord by these words of worshipping the Father in spirit and truth, expresseth that worship which the Gospel directeth; this is often called the truth, and the worshipping of God in the Spirit. Gal. 3.3. Phil. 3.3. and is opposite to the false worship of the Sa­maritans, and different from the serving of God in Jewish Figures, yet it both admitteth and requireth external expres­sions of reverence. And in this place our Saviour declareth, that under the Gos­pel, the worship of God should be so pro­perly suitable to God who is a Spirit, that it should not be confined to any one par­ticular place, and therefore neither the [Page 365] Jewish Temple nor Mount Gerizim (about which places of worship Christ then dis­coursed with the Samaritan Woman) should be the peculiar place for divine adoration. Because God who is a Spirit would under the Gospel be so spiritually known and honoured, that he would not in any singular and peculiar place, six any special outward Symbol of his divine presence, as in the Jewish dispensation he had done in the Temple, over the mercy Seat: nor would he endure to be wor­shipped under the representation of a corporeal image, as the Samaritans in Mount Gerizim did worship God, in the form or image of a Dove; as hath been observed by Mr. Mede, Mede Disc. en Jo. 3.23. and is declared concerning them in the Talmud in Cholin, and by the Jewish Chronicler in Tzemach David, whose testimonies and words are produced by Bochartus. Bochart. Hieroz. Part. pester. l. 1. c. 1. Vossius de Idololatr. l. 1. c. 23. Indeed the Learn­ed Eochartus (as did also Vossius) account­eth this charge upon the Samaritans to be a Fable, because it could not consist with their owning the Law of Moses, and is not mentioned either in the Scriptures, or in Josephus. But considering how lit­tle Josephus wrote, that hath any kind of relation to the Samaritan worship, and that our Saviour chargeth them with a miscarriage about the object of their [Page 366]worship,Joh. 4.22. Ye worship, saith he, ye know not what; considering also that the wor­shippers at Bethel, by whom the Samari­tans were instructed, did before their Captivity worship God there by an Image, and that the Assyrians, Syrians, and others Neighbouring upon the Sama­ritans, as Bochartus sheweth,Bochart. ibidem. did chuse the form of a Dove to be the Image and resemblance of God; there is no just rea­son to question the evidence of the Jewish Writers concerning the Sama­ritans.

4. It hath been also objected against all Ecclesiastical Constitutions, that the Apostle blamed the Colossians, Col. 2.20, 21. Why as though living in the World are ye subject unto Ordinances, such as he mentioneth in the next verse, Touch not, (or eat not) tast not, handle not. Ans. This place concerneth not prudential Rules of order,Davenant. & Zanch. In Loc. but it blameth the Colossians, that they should suffer their minds to be de­luded,Whitak. Cont. 4. Qu. 7. c. 3. and their practices to be enshared and perverted, by false positions delivered as Doctrines; and this is observed to be the sense of [...] v. 20. and these things were called the Commandments and Doctrines of men, v. 22. and will-worship, v. 23 because they were deli­vered as proper divine Commandments. [Page 367]And that this was the cause of the Apo­stles reproving the Colossians, may be fur­ther manifest, because the Apostles them­selves upon a prudential and Christian account, enjoined the Gentiles to forbear some sorts of meal, the observing of which Apostolical Constitution (which did not doctrinally declare those things them­selves to be unclean) was in no wise condemned by S. Paul writing to his Colossians.

5. That place of S. James. Jam. 4.12. There is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy, doth appropriate to God the Authority of establishing, and exe­cuting such Laws, the obeying or dis­obeying which, is the sure way to eter­nal life or destruction, because they are his Laws: but this Scripture having no peculiar respect, to the worship of God in publick Assemblies, doth no more con­demn Ecclesiastical Constitutions of Creder in the Church, than either the civil san­ctions of secular Governours, or the Do­mestick commands of Parents or Masters.Inst. l. 4. c. 10. Sect. 7, & 30. And even Calvin with some respect to this place of St. James, aserteth in his Insti­tutions, that in the great matters of Christianity, there is unicus vitae magister, one only who is to rule and command our life; but in externa Disciplina & Ceremo­niis, [Page 368]in matters external concerning Dis­cipline and Ceremonies, he hath not thought sit to prescribe every particular thing, but hath left us to be guided by general rules.

6. I know that some who urge this place of S. James, would thence conclude that none besides God, have any power or Authority, by their commands, to him [...] Consciences of men. Now though this TExe speaketh nothing expresly of Conscience or its obligation, I shall con­cerning that matter add, that Ecclesiasti­cal Constitutions do no otherwise bind the Consciences of men (so far as con­cerneth the nature of the obligation) than the commands of Magistrates, Pa­rents and Masters do, though they have ordinarily the stronger motives, with direct respect to the Peace and Order of the Church, and the edification of its Members And it must be acknowledged that no humane Authority, can bind the [...]ing power of Conscience, so that it is [...] that a duty, which is whereby [...]ded, without having li­berty [...] of its lawfulness: and this is [...]if [...]tly the sense of several [...] Writers, when they say that Go [...]ly hath power to bind the Consci­ence. But that humane Laws and com­mands do secondarily and consequentially [Page 369]bind the Conscience, to take care of pra­ctising what is lawfully commanded, is that which can [...] be denyed. It would certainly sound harshto a Christian Ear, if any shall assert, that a Child is not bound in Conscience, to do any particu­lar lawful thing which his Father com­mandeth him; it being all one to assert that it is not his duty, and that he is not bound in Conscience to do it. But if he be bound in Conscience to do that upon his Fathers command, which he was not bound to undertake without that com­mand, it must needs be his command, which layeth that obligation upon Consci­ence, secondarily and consequentially, or with a respect unto Gods general com­mand of obedience.

7. In this sense it is not unusual with Protestant Writers beyond the Seas, (as well as with divers of our own Nation, as particularly Bishop Saunderson de Obliga­tione Conscientiae, Duct. Du­bit. l. 3. c. 1. rule 1.5. & Ch. 4. rule 5. and Bishop Taylor very largely in his Ductor Dubitantium) to assert, that the injunctions of our Supe­riours bind the Conscience, Ʋrsin in his Explicatio Catechetica, asserteth the Con­stitution of the Magistrate to bind the Con­science, that is (saith he) by reason of the command of the Magistrate, Ex. Cat. qu. 96. it becometh necessary to be performed, and cannot be [Page 370]neglected without the offence of God, though it be no case of scandal. In praec. 2. de Cultu Dei. And in his Loci Theologici he to the same purpose decla­reth, edicta Magistratûs obligant conscien­tias, and abs (que) scandalo obligatur consci­entia ad harum legum observationem. To the same purpose may Paraeus be produ­ced.Alsted Theol. Cas. c. 2. Reg. 2. And Alsted very well noteth that humane laws mediately or under God do bind the Conscience even as an Oath, Vow, or promise made by a mans sely doth.

8. I shall not insist upon that objection from Heb. 3.5, 6. which expresseth the faithfulness of Christ to be more glorious than the faithfulness of Moses, from whence it hath been with more manifest violence, than strength of argument, con­cluded, that under the Gospel which is perfectly and compleatly delivered by Christ, there is no place left for any pru­dential Constitutions, which were (say they) wholly excluded under the Mosai­cal law. But I suppose I have beyond all contradiction evinced, that under the Mosaical Law, there were divers things appointed by Ecclesiastical Authority. And that Moses's faithfulness consisted in delivering the Law as he received it, and not in the compleatness of enjoining every particular circumstance in the Church, will appear evident; because otherwise [Page 371]he could not be accounted as faithful, with respect to their Synagogue worship as to their Temple worship. And it may be further noted, that the numerous divine commands about matters external, refer­ring to the Temple worship,V. San­ders. de Obl. Cons. prael. 6. Sect. 30. which was the Law of Commandments contained in Ordinances, was no part of the priviledge but of the bondage of the Jewish church, in which the Gospel Church was not de­signed to be conformable thereto.