§. 1 MY Design in this Discourse is, with all the Strength of Reason I can of­fer, to perswade our Dissenting Laity that lawfully they may, and therefore that they ought to hold Communion with the Church of England in all her constant and solemn parts of publick Worship. To prove that lawfully they may, I might Insist on many Topicks: As 1. That which doth throw the Burthen of proving the unlawfulness of holding Commu­nion with us in the forementioned Worship, upon them, and of this Nature, is the following Argument, Viz.

‘It is lawful to hold Communion with the Church in all her constant and solemn parts of Publick Worship, which in those parts of Publick Worship requires nothing which is unlawful to be done by those who shall com­municate with her in them; but the Church of England in all her constant and solemn parts of Publick Worship, requires nothing to be done which is unlawful to be done by those who shall communicate with her in them. Ergo, 'tis lawful to communicate with the [Page 5] Church of England in all her constant and solemn parts of Publick Worship.’ Where by the constant and solemn parts of Publick Worship, I understand those parts of Publick Worship which she requires all Laymen to joyn with her in, under the penalty of being lyable to be pre­sented, and to be subject to her censures, if they do refuse them, that in these parts of Solemn Worship nothing unlawful is required of them, I shall endeavour to make good by Answering the Objections which they make against them. But I might do it more briefly by calling on them to instance in any thing unlawful to be done, which is required in any constant and solemn part of Publick Worship, upon which they are by the Constitutions of the Church obliged to attend under the penalty of being subject to her Censures for their Neglect, or their Refusal so to do.

2ly, I might thus argue with them: That which the Church of Christ hath in all Ages, since the Apostles, required of her subjects, cannot be reasonably conceived unlawful to be done, for otherwise we must condemn the universal Church of Christ through all Ages, since the time of the Apostles, but the Church of Christ throughout all Ages hath required of her Subjects conditions of Communion like unto those required by the Church of England, And therefore these conditions of Communion cannot be reasonably deemed un­lawful to be done. In Confirmation of this Ar­gument it would be very easy to instance in multitudes of Ceremonies required of, and used by the members of the Universal Church, throughout all Ages consequent to that of the Apostles, as lyable to the exceptions of Dissen­ters as are any Ceremonies imposed by the [Page 6] Church of England, and also to evince that Liturgies, or Forms of Prayer were always used by the Church from the 3d. Century at least, unto this present Age. And thence to shew that our Dissenters do by condemning these things in the Church of England, in effect condemn the Church of Christ throughout all Ages, and all Places; Def. of the principles of love. p. 55. for as Mr. Baxter well observes, they who condemn our Church for reasons common to all the Ages of the Church, must virtually con­demn all the fore-going Ages of the Churches. But because Laymen are ignorant of what was practised by Antiquity, and have been taught that Anti-christ began to work in the Apostles days, and therefore have but little Reverence for Arguments of this Nature, I shall endeavour to convince them of the lawfulness of holding Communion with us in these Ordinances, by the Example of our Blessed Lord and Saviour, who in like cases did yield Obedience and Submit to the Prescriptions of the Rulers of the Jewish Church. And 2ly, I shall endeavour to return a full and a perspicuous Answer to all the Ar­guments they urge from Scripture, or from Reason, to prove that 'tis unlawful to submit unto the things required by the Church of England in order to Communion with her. Be­ginning first with those Arguments which do sup­pose the things required by the Church of Eng­land, as the Conditions of Lay Communion, to be sinful in themselves, or things forbidden by the Word of God. And 2ly, Proceeding to the Consideration of those Arguments which do allow the things imposed to be lawful in them­selves, but yet suppose it is unlawful for them to submit unto them. 1. Because the Imposi­tion of them is a Violation of their Christian [Page 7]Liberty. 2ly, Because by their Submission to them as they imagine, they shall be indirectly guilty of the sin of the Imposers. 3ly, Because they have been abused to Idolatry, and Supersti­tion, and therefore are become unlawful to be used. And 4ly, Because by using of them they may scandalize the Weak, which God having forbidden, no Precept of the Magistrate can oblige them to do.

§. 2 And 1. The Practice and Example of our Lord is such a President as our Dissentors cannot reasonably except against, nor can they justify their own Refusal to be Followers of Christ, or to submit unto such Constitutions made by the Rulers of the Church of Christ, as our Dear Lord submitted to, being appointed by the Ru­lers of the Jewish Church, or to hold Commu­nion with such a Church as he became a Mem­ber of. Now

1. Our Blessed Saviour was a Member of the Jewish National Church, and of the Synagogue at Nazareth, the Confirmation of this Assertion I shall deliver in the Words of Doctor Leightfoot who speaks thus: Harm. part. 3. p. 124. What did Christ all the while he liv'd at Nazareth a private Man? Did he never go to the Synagogue upon Sabbath and Holy Days, and Synagogue-days? Whilst others went to the Congregation, and to the publick Service, did he stay at home? did he not appear before the Lord at the appointed Seasons in the place which he had chosen? We are assured he did so, for his Parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover, and when he was twelve years old they went up to Jerusalem after the Custom of the Feast, and the Child went with them, 2. Luke 41, 42, 43. That he went up unto the Feast of Tabernacles we are informed, Joh. 7, 10. [Page 8]And being circumcised he became a Debtor to do the whole Law, Gal. 5, 3. being made under the Law, Gal. 4.4. he was obliged to the Performance of those things which were en­joyned by it. Now the great Business of these Feasts was to offer Sacrifice, to rejoyce ‘in the Assembly of Gods People, to put up Prayers, and Praises for all the Blessings they did then commemorate; at these times all Israel met together, Lam. 2, 22. they heard the Reading of the Law, Deut. 31, 9, 10. and they sang Praises to God, Isai. 30, 29. Ye shall have a Song, as in the Night when a Holy Solem­nity is kept; If then our Saviour did observe these Feasts, if he did celebrate the Passover, then certainly he did communicate with the Jewish Church, for these Appearances were Ordinances, and Symbols also of Communion.’

§. 3 2ly, That Christ himself neglected not the times of publick Prayer, that he declared it not unlawful, nor did prohibit his Disciples to at­tend upon them, is evident from this, that he still owned the Temple as his Fathers House, Joh. 2, 16.the House of Prayer, that his Disciples after his Re­surrection continued daily in the Temple, and went up to it at the hours of Prayer, Act. 3, 1. And they esteemed it a very commendable Action of the Widow Anna to serve God there continually with Prayer and Fasting. Luke 2.37. Whence we may certainly conclude, that Christ himself did not refuse, nor did advise his own Disciples to refuse Communion with the Jewish Church in common Prayer, but did approve Communion with them in that publick Service. Now since the Jews themselves observed no time for Prayer, no number of Prayers, seeing no dayly Forms of Prayer were appointed by the Law [Page 9]of Moses, Therefore? saith Dr. Leightfoot, Harm, part. 3. p. 217. the Sanhedrin in several Generations made Canons, and Constitutions to decide and determin upon all these particulars, as their own Reason, and Emer­gences did lead them, and give occasion, as in one Generation they prescribed such and such times for Morning and Evening Prayer, in process of time they found these times allotted to be too strait, therefore the Sanhedrin of another Gene­ration did give Enlargement, as they thought good; and so concerning the number of Prayers to be said dayly, one Sanhedrin appointed so many, but time and experience found afterwards that these did not answer such and such occasions, as it seems was not observed when they were first appointed, therefore the Sanhedrin of another Generation thought good to add more and more still as occasions, unobserved before, did emerge, and so the number of their dayly Prayers grew at last to be eighteen. To all which Additions to the Law of Moses, our Lord and his Disci­ples did submit, attending the publick Service of the Temple and the Synagogues where they were used. And

§. 4 3ly, That he was particularly a Member of the Synagogue at Nazareth is proved from that Passage of St. Luke, Luke 4, 16. who tells us that he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up, and as his Custom was, he went into their Syna­gogue, on the Sabbath-day, and stood up for to read, for Illustration of which place observe ‘that there were Seven Readers appointed in their Synagogues, who, Leightf. Harm. part. 3 p. 125. when the Angel of the Church, or Minister of the Congregation, call'd them out, did read. Now that our Saviour was a Member of this Congregation may be argued thus: ibid. p. 124. You find not in the whole [Page 10] Gospel, tho Christ preached in every Synagogue where he came, that he read in any of them but in this, and altho strangers were permitted sometimes to preach in Synagogues, yet none did publickly read there, but he that was a Member of it, we find not any Instance to the contrary in all the Jewish Records, saith the Learned Leightfoot, who was a diligent Per­user of them. Moreover the next Verse tells us, that there was delivered to him the Book of Esaias, as was the manner of the Master of the Synagogue to do unto the Reader, which is a farther Argument to shew he was a Member of the Synagogue, Ibid. p. 28. for had Christ gone about to read beside, or contrary to the common Custom of the place, it cannot reasonably be conceived that the Minister of the Congrega­tion would so far have complyed with him, to give him the Book that he might read irregu­larly, or besides the Custom, and lastly had Christ intended only to rehearse the Passage of Esaiah to be the Ground of his Discourse, there was no need of giving to him any Book, but only because he was the Reader of the second Lesson that Day in the forementioned Congre­gation.’ And

§. 5 4ly, Seeing Christ entred into the Temple both as a private Man, Joh. 18, 20. and as a Publick Minister, since he was dayly teaching in the Temple, as he himself informs us, it must hence follow that he observed the Customs which by the Jewish Canons were prescribed, and in obedience to those Prescriptions, were observed by all who did resort unto the Temple. Now as the Rulers of our Church, by vertue of that Precept of doing all things decently and in order, do impose their Ceremonies, as thinking they conduce to [Page 11]the more decent, and orderly performance of Gods Service, so did the Rulers of the Jewish Church, by virtue of that Precept, Thou shalt reverence my Sanctuary, make diverse Canons, and Constitutions which they supposed to con­duce unto the greater Reverence of God, or of that Temple where he dwelt, as v. g. That no man should go into the Temple with a Staff, Vide Leightf. Temp. Serv. p. 115. it being thought unfit that Instruments of striking should be brought into the place of Peace, on which account, saith Doctor Leightfoot, our Saviour drove not out the Merchandizers, and Money-changers with a Staff, Joh. 2, 15. but with a Scourge of small Cords. 2. p. 116. That none should come into the Temple with his Shoes on, that being Holy Ground, and putting off the Shoes being with them, a sign of Reverence, like to our putting off the Hat. 3ly, ibid. That none who came to worship there should use a Scrip, or bag purse, or come with Money tyed up in a purse, or come into the Temple till they had wiped the dust off from their Feet, to teach them to shake off all Worldly Thoughts, and all Incumbrances when they came to worship. 4ly, p. 118. 119. That none must spit in the Temple, nor use an irreverent Gesture there, but go gravely to the place where they were to stand, and there continue, not sitting, leaning, lying, but standing only, because that was a Praying Posture. Now had not Christ submitted to these Customs we cannot ratio­nally think he would have found so free an en­trance into the Temple, as he did, and they would have been ready to retort upon him, when he censured their Irreverence toward this House of Prayer, that he also, by his neglect of these Particulars, was guilty of as great Irreverence, had he not put off his Shees, as even Kings were [Page 12]wont to do when they came thither for to Worship; they would have made this an ex­ception against him, that he refused to do what even Kings, and Priests, and Prophets did; for that this very Ceremony was used in our Sa­viours time, we learn from that of the Poet, Exercent ubi festa mero pede Sabbatha Reges, and from that appellation given to their Sacred Service, that they were Nudipedalia Sacra, or Barefooted Solemnities. And it deserves to be observed that Christ not only did not charge the Rulers of the Jewish Church with Supersti­tion in these Matters, but he himself, in Re­verence to that Place of Worship, would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the Temple. Mark 11.16.

§. 6 5ly, Seeing Christ was a Reader in their Sy­nagogue, and oftentimes a Preacher too, it may deserve to be considered that he did readily comply with the Rules prescribed by the San­hedrin, or those who sate in Moses Chair, to be observed by those who should perform the fore­said Offices, Leightf. Harm. part. 3. p. 125. as v. g. the Reader by their Canons is bound to stand, in Honour of the Law. Ac­cordingly the Scripture doth expresly say that as his Custom was, Luke 4, 16.Christ went into the Syna­gogue on the Sabbath-day, and stood up for to read. ibid. p. 138. It also was the Custom of the Teacher to sit down when he instructed others, and su­tably the Scripture saith that our Saviour closed the Book and sate down, v. 20. Yea throughout all the Gospel we never find that he taught the people standing, but on the contrary that he continually used the sitting posture, as v. g. in his Sermon on the Mount, seeing the multitude he went up into a Mountain, and when he was set, Matt. 5, 1.2.he opened his Mouth, and taught them; [Page 13]when he taught them out of a Ship, Matt. 13, 2. he sate and spake to them in Parables, saith Matthew; he sate in the Sea and taught them, saith St. Mark; Mark. 4, 1.he sate down and taught the people out of the Ship, saith Luke; Luk. 5, 1. Joh. 8, 2. when all the People came unto him in the Temple, he sate down and taught them; this was his constant Custom in that place, as he takes care to let us know, saying I sate dayly with you teaching in the Temple; Matt. 26, 55. so far was Christ from scrupling the observation of this Custom, and Institution of the Rulers of the Jewish Church.

§. 7 6ly, Our Lord thrice celebrated the Paschal Feast, with his Disciples, besides his constant Celebration of it with his Parents whilst he continued with them; and in this Celebration of it, it may deserve to be considered, 1. That our Lord did not observe the Passover in all its Circumstances according to the Primitive Institution of the Law of Moses. For 1. Exod. 12, 3.6. Whereas the Institution expresly doth require that every man should take up the Paschal-Lamb on the 10th. day, and keep it up till the 14th. day of the same month, the Jewish Doctors taught that this was not required of the future Generations after, Leightf. Temp. Serv. p. 127.nor was it done but at the Passover in Aegypt only, at least it was not done by the Masters of Families, but by the Priests in our Saviours time, who provided Lambs for the people, taking them up in the Market four days before, as Dr. Leightfoot doth conjecture. Now albeit there is no evidence in the Text that this Command was only to be observed at the First Passover, yet doth our Lord comply with the then currant Custom, preparing not the Paschal-Lamb until the 14th day, for as St. Luke expresly saith, when the days of unleavened Bread were come, Christ sent Peter [Page 14] and John, Luk. 22, 7.8. saying, Go and prepare us the Pas­sover. 2ly, Whereas the Institution plainly saith, Thus shall you eat it with your Loins girded, Exod. 12, 11.your Shoes on your Feet, and your Staff in your Hand, and ye shall eat it in haste, the Hebrew Doctors teach that this manner of eating was pe­culiar to the first Passover in Aegypt, Ainsw. in lo­cum. nor were the Generations following bound to these Rites, when they were come to their Rest in Canaan: And they appointed, in lieu of it, that they should sit, or rather lye down, leaning on their left Elbow, in sign of their Rest and Security. They used this leaning posture as Free-men do in Memorial of their Freedom, Leightf. Temp. Serv. p. 143. 144. and R. Levi said, because it is the manner of Servants to eat standing, therefore now they eat sitting, and leaning, to shew that they were got out of Servi­tude into Freedom. And again, In every Gene­ration a man is bound to behave himself at the Passover as if he himself had been delivered out of the Bondage of Aegypt, and therefore at meat that night a man is bound, to eat, and to drink, and to sit in a posture of Freedom; accordingly ‘they laid their legs under them, sitting upon them, and their feet lying out behind, re­moving, and acquitting their legs and feet, as far as possible,’ from the least shew of stand­ing to attend, or readiness to go upon any ones Employment which might carry the least colour of Servitude, or contrariety to Freedom with it; and yet to this significant Ceremony added unto the Institution, and imposed as necessary, our Lord and his Disciples did submit, ibid. p. 142. For 1. saith Ainsworth, ‘They stood not girded with Staves in their Hands, but sat or rather lay down, leaning one on anothers Breast as was then the Jewish manner. [...].’ For he lay down [Page 15]with the Twelve, saith Matthew; Matt. 26, 20. [...]. Luk. 22.14. [...]. Mark. 14, 18.he fell down upon his legs, and the Twelve with him, saith St. Luke; they lay along and did eat, saith Mark; so punctually do they all relate our Lords com­plyance with this Ceremony. Moreover 2ly. our Lord complyed with those additions which they had made unto this Sacrament. And 1. they used, saith Ainsworth a thick Sawce, Exod. 12, 8.like to Mustard, which they called Charoseth, in Me­mory of that thick Clay they made in Aegypt for their Bricks; and this is thought by some to be that in which Christ dipped the sop he gave to Judas, And when our Saviour said that one of them who dipped with him in the dish should be­tray him, he spake of the unleavened Bread and bitter Herbs which they dipt in the thick Sawce, ibid. p. 150. p. 146. called Charoseth, saith Dr. Leightfoot, (2.) To­gether with the Paschal-Lamb, they used to drink Wine; every one both Men and Women, saith their tradition, is bound to drink that night four cups of Wine without fail, and this they did because it was a Feast of Joy, at which times it was usual to drink Wine, Numb. 15.5. and be­cause they were then commanded to rejoyce be­fore the Lord, Deut. 16, 11, 14. Now albeit we find not in the Institution any Command for drinking Wine at the Passover, yet did our Lord comply with this addition to the Institution as is apparent from his saying, before the Insti­tution of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, I will no more drink of the fruit of the Vine, &c. Luk. 22, 18. Moreover of these four cups the third especially was called the Cup of Blessing, because the Offi­ciator gave thanks over it, and then gave it to be drunk among them; accordingly our Saviour took the Cup, that is, saith Leightfoot, this Cup of Blessing, and having given thanks he said, Take [Page 16]it and divide it among you, Luk. 22, 17. And tho this drinking Wine, and the Breaking of the unleavened Cake, which was another Ceremony they used at this time, were both of them things not commanded, yet did our Lord translate these things into a Gospel Sacrament, and thereby shew his Appro­bation of them as things at least in their own Natures innocent. Leightf. Temp. serv. p. 150. Matt. 26.30. And as it was the Custom of the Jews to close this Supper with a Hymn, or Hallel, so did our Blessed Lord and his Dis­ciples. In a word that he complyed with the Customs then usual in Celebration of this Sa­crament may very probably be argued from this consideration that he did eat it with his Pa­rents, who doubtless did observe the Jewish Cu­stoms in preparing, and partaking of it, and that he spoke to his Disciples to prepare the Passover; for Scripture doth inform us, that even after the Resurrection of our Lord, they still continued zealous for the Customs, and the Traditions of their Nation, and would not vary from them without his special Order.

§. 8 7ly, Whereas our Saviour did eat the Passover with his Disciples, and one of them was a Devil, it seems to follow that he would not refuse Commu­nion with those who did profess Religion, by reason of their want of inward Piety. It well deserves to be observed that Satan entred into Judas before the Passover, for so the Scripture doth inform us, saying, Luc. 22, 3. Then entred Satan into Judas, and he consulted with the Chief, Priests, and Scribes, and after that it fol­lows, v. 7. Then were the days of unleavened Bread. Moreover St. John assures us that the Supper mentioned John 13th. Joh. 13, 1. in which the Devil entred into Judas was [...], before the Paschal Feast, and when at his Departure [Page 17]our Saviour said unto him, what thou doest do quickly; his Disciples thought that he had said un­to him, make preparations for the Feast, v. 29. which is a certain evidence that then the Feast was not begun, much less concluded.

Moreover our Saviour did admit this Judas to the participation of the Holy Sacrament; this is apparent from Luke 22. v. 20, 21. for when our Lord had said, taking the Sacramental Cup, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood, im­mediately he adds, Behold the hand of him that be­trayeth me is with me on the Table, since there­fore Judas was the person by whom he was be­trayed, the Hand of Judas must be with him on the Table, when he delivered that Cup of which he also said, Drink ye all of this. St. Matthew also doth inform us Matt. 26, 20. that when the Evening was come, Christ sat down with the Twelve; and when enquiry was made among these Twelve which of them should be­tray him, Judas particularly asketh, Master is it I? v. 25. Now as these Twelve were eating Jesus took Bread and brake it, and gave it [...] to these Twelve Disciples, and said to them, Take, eat, this is my Body, v. 26. He also took the Cup, and gave it to the same Persons, saying, Drink ye all of this, he therefore said to Judas, Eat, this is my Body, and bad him drink the Sacra­mental Cup.

'Tis said indeed, Joh. 13, 30. that Judas having received the Sop, went immediately out, but then, as I have shewed, Christ did not ce­lebrate the Passover, but another ordinary Supper before the Passover, v. 1. Before their preparation for the Passover. v. 29. which Dr. Leightfoot farther proves, In locum. because it was not [Page 18]lawful for any Person to depart from that Solemni­ty, before the whole Solemnity was ended.

§. 9 8ly, Our Lord, to cut off all occasion of Offence which the perverse and unbelieving Jew or Pha­risee might take against him, submitted to the payment of that Tribute which was not due from him, as he demonstrates, Matt. 17, 25.26. Where 1. observe, The Tribute here demanded was not the Tribute payd to the R. Emperours, but the half Sickle yearly paid by the Jewish Nation to repair the Temple, and buy things use­ful for the Service of it, as the most skilful Com­mentators on the place conclude. vid. Leightf. in locum. 2ly, Observe, The Scandal which our Lord was here concerned to avoid, was not a Scandal given by himself, but one that might be taken without ground by them, who hence unduly might conclude, that Christ and his Disciples did contemn the Temple, and so the Efficacy of his Doctrine might through that Scandal be obstructed, he then by this Example doth instruct us to submit unto those things which our Superiours may require, or expect from us, even without sufficient ground, when our Refusal of Submission to them may be cause of Scandal, or make them think we are Contemners of Authority, or disobedient to those God hath enjoyned us to obey, and much more must this be our duty when our Di­visions and Contests about such Matters do bring a Scandal on the Christian Faith, and we thereby, in opposition to St. Pauls injunction, do give Offence not only to the Jew, and Gen­tile, but to the Church of God. And this Ex­ample seems also as effectually to prove that the Dispensors of the Gospel should be careful not to do any thing, if it be in their power to avoid it, which may give Scandal unto others, or cause them to judge evil of them.

§. 10 [Page 19]9ly, Our Lords Commands were suitable to his Practice, and he enjoyned to others, what he himself performed. For (1.) our Saviour en­joyned the Leper that was cleansed to shew him­self to the Priest, Matt. 8, 4. See Harm. part. 3. p. 205.and offer the Gift that Moses had commanded. Where it deserves to be con­sidered that altho the Priesthood was much de­generated, both from its Institution, and its Of­fice, yet Christ did not think fit on that account to advise any to a Separation from them, or to re­nounce their Priesthood, but would have all men to repair unto them for the Performance of those Offices which by the Law of Moses were to be performed by the Priests, and to offer by his hands their Gift. And yet it is observable that they to whom Christ sent this Man, had added to the Institution many idle Customs to be per­formed by the cleansed Leper, as you may see in Dr. Leightfoots Notes upon Matt. 8, 4. Moreover in that very Chapter where our Lord giveth such opprobrious Titles to the Scribes and Pharisees, lest that should tempt the mul­titude, or any of his own Disciples to neglect Communion with them in hearing of the Word, & other Ordinances of like Nature, our Saviour, in the Preface of that Chapter, speaks thus unto the multitude, and to his own Disciples, Matt. 23.2, 3.The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Seat, all there­fore whatsoever they bid you observe, that ob­serve and do. Where 1. observe who were these Scribes and Pharisees, they were not always of the Order of the Priests and Levites, for St. Paul tells us that he was a Pharisee, and the Son of a Pharisee. Act. 23.6. Philip. 3, 5. In Matt. 2. v. 4. p. 29. And yet that he was of the Tribe of Benjamin. And Matthew speaks of Scribes of the People who were, saith Dr. Leightfoot, Elders of the Sanhedrin, who [Page 20]were not of the order either of Priests or Le­vites, but were of other Tribes, now albeit none of these men did ever take upon them to be Instructers of the People without an Ordina­tion to that Office, Harm. part. 3. p. 122. as is well noted by that Learned Man, yet may it seem that they could have no just and proper call to be Instructors of the People, this being the peculiar Office of the Priests. Mal. 2, 7. For the Priests Lips should keep Knowledge, saith the Prophet Malachi, and the people should seek the Law at his Mouth, for he is the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts. And yet these Scribes and Pharisees were Publick Teachers in their Schools, and Synagogues, and by this they obtained the Name of Rabbies and Teachers of the Law. 2ly, Observe, that by the Law of Moses nothing is determined touching the Office, the Authority, the manner of Ad­mission of these Scribes of the people, but their whole Function seemeth to depend upon the Churches Constitutions made for Edification, or the Instruction of the People. And thus it also was with those Ministers, and Rulers of their Synagogues who were not of the Sacerdotal Order, or of the House of Levi, for of their Office or Admission to it we can find nothing in the Books of Moses, or in the Writings of the Prophets, and yet these Men received Admis­sion to teach or exercise their Function by Or­dination, say Mr. Selden, and Dr. Leightfoot, and learned Men are of Opinion that Christ and his Disciples so far approved of them as to insti­tute the Governors of his Church according to the Platform of the Synagogue. Leights. Harm. part. 3. p. 120. 3ly, Some think our Lord here speaketh of the Scribes and Pha­risees as being then their Legal Magistrates, or signifying the whole Jewish Sanhedrin and their [Page 21]Authority; so Dr. Leightfoot, In locum. and so the Reve­rend and Learned Dr. Hammond, and so they make the import of the Precept to be this: The Scribes and Pharisees, those that are of the San­hedrin, are by you to be look'd on as your law­ful Rulers, that have Authority over you, suc­ceeding Moses and the seventy Elders, and there­fore do you live in Obedience to all their lawful Commands, and in all Regular Subjection to them. But I suspect this Exposition on these two accounts. 1. Because our Saviour makes mention only of the Scribes and Pharisees, whereas the Sadduces were also Members of the Sanhedrin, and were then numerous and powerful in that Assembly, as we may find, Act. 4.1.5.17. and so there is no Reason to con­ceive the Scribes and Pharisees should signify that whole Assembly. 2ly, Throughout the whole N. Testament, where ever this great As­sembly is spoken of, the Chief Priests, Elders, and Rulers are reckoned as a part thereof, as you may see Matt. 2.4. 16.21. 21.23. 26.47, 59. 27.1, 12, 20, 41. Mark 11.18. Luke 24, 20. Joh. 7.32, 45. Act. 4.5, 6, 23.5.17, 24. here therefore being not one word of Chief Priest, Elders or Rulers of the Jews, it cannot rationally be conceived that Christ here speaks of the great Sanhedrin.

Wherefore the Scribes and Pharisees must signify the Doctors, or Publick Teachers, and Expounders of the Law of Moses to the people. Accordingly we, in the following Verses find that they are called [...] Guides, v. 10. [...], Teachers, v. 8. [...], Leaders, v. 16, 24. are said to have the Key of the Kingdom of Hea­ven, and to shut it up against Men, v. 13. Luke 11, 52. to bind heavy Burthens on others by their [Page 22]Teaching, v. 4, and misinterpret the Law of Moses, v. 16, 22. Lastly we find them sitting in the Temple to resolve Questions of the Law, Luke 2.46. Their sitting therefore in the Chair of Moses must import their Teaching and Ex­pounding of his Law.

3ly, Observe the thing commanded, viz. to observe and do all that they did command, together with the reason of it, viz. because they were the Authorised Teachers and Expounders of the Law of Moses, they sit in Moses Chair, [...], therefore whatever they command observe and do. Where the Words, all things, are not to be restrained to such things only as were con­tained clearly in the Law of Moses, and taught the people from the clear Letter of that Law, for this ascribes to them no more Authority then any other private Jew might challenge, who sate not in the Chair of Moses, since what they clearly proved from this Law, was to be done by all that owned the Jewish Faith; more­over there were many things which by the Law were not sufficiently determined, as v. g. the length of a Sabbath-days journey, the tything of their pot herbs, &c. and yet these things were fit to be determined that the people might be at some certainty concerning them, and therefore in such cases our Lord may rationally be sup­posed to command obedience to their Consti­tutions. And 3ly, from the fourth verse we may learn that even when their heavy Burthens, and Grievous to be born, were bound upon infe­riors, they were obliged, if they were not sin­ful, to submit unto them, for they being in the number of the things commanded by them what could exempt inferiors from doing and observ­ing them according to our Lords Command, if [Page 23]they were lawful to be done. Wherefore, in cases of like Nature, all Christian people ought to observe and do what is commanded and esta­blished by Ecclesiastical Superiors, to whom the Office of Teaching and Interpreting the Laws of Christ is legally committed, tho their Com­mands prove sometimes heavy Burthens, and Grievous to be born, provided that they be not sinful, that is, forbidden by that Law which they are Authorised to expound and teach. And thus I have produced the Practice and Injun­ctions of our Lord. Now to apply them to my purpose, hence I infer,

§. 11 ‘That corruptions allowed, taught, I [...]. 1.and pra­ctised in a Church, if are no sufficient grounds of Separation from the Communion of that Church, provided that the Members of it be not required, as a Condition of Communion with them, to do, teach, practise them, or to prosess that they are not corruptions.’ Our Saviour and his Disciples acted as Members of the Jewish Church, albeit great, and manifold corruptions were allowed, taught, and practised by the Ruling Members of it; as v. g. they had made false, imperfect, and corrupt Glosses on the Law, Matt. 5. had made false Rules touching the observation of the Sabbath, and such as were repugnant to that Precept or Declaration of the God of Heaven, I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice, they taught false Do­ctrines about Oaths, Matt. 5.23.16.22. which made them who did practise according to their teaching Guilty of evil speaking, and false swearing. They trans­gressed, Matt. 15.3, 6. and made the Commandments of God of none effect by their Tradition. They laid aside the Commandments of God for their Tra­ditions, Mark 7.8. they worship'd God in vain, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, Ibid. v. 9. [Page 24]and many things of a like Nature they held. They by their Merchandise had made Gods House of Prayer a Den of Thieves, Matt. 21, 13. And lastly among them their Rulers, and Church Officers were Sadduces, Matt. 16.11. and upon these accounts, Christ cautioned his Disciples against the Doctrine of the Sadduces and Pharisees, advised the people to beware of the Scribes and Pharisees, Mark 13.35. and to take good heed what they heard: But then both he, and his Disciples met with these Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadduces in the same Temple, joyned in the same Prayers, (unless our Saviour was daily in the Temple, but never went to pu­blick Prayers) and in the same Solemnities, not separating themselves or setting up any more pure Communion, nor calling the multitude to separate from the Assemblies of these Men, or to come out from among them, and to renounce Communion with them, on the account of their erroneous Doctrines, those Grievous Bur­thens which they did impose, those many Rites and Ceremonies which they had added to the Law of Moses. But on the contrary, he care­fully commands the Leper to repair unto them, and consequently to submit unto the Ceremonies, concerning his Purification, which they had added to the Law in that particular, and chargeth both the multitude, and his own Disciples to sub­mit to all their lawful Constitutions, and In­junctions. Moreover Christ was a Member of the Synagogue at Nazareth, Matt. 13.56, 58 Luke 4.29. as we have shewed already, and yet what kind of men they were we may learn from their stupendious Infidelity, their Proneness to take Offence at Christ, and their attempt to cast him down a Precipice. I see not what in the World, Harm. part. 3. p. 123.124. saith Dr. Leightfoot, our Separatists, who withdraw from the publick [Page 25]Worship in our Congregations, can say to these Exam­ples. For, was not their publick Worship in the Temple, and in their Synagogues, as corrupt as ours is preten­ded to be in our Congregations? was not the people of Nazareth as corrupt a people as most Congrega­tions now are? and yet, saith he, in all the Scripture we find not that either any that were Holy indeed, or any that took upon them to be Holy, no nor he that was Holiness it self, did separate, or withdraw from the Service of the Congregation, tho 'tis apparent that they had all the plausible pretences which have prevailed on our Dissenting Laity to make an Actual Separation, to move them so to do. Inf. 2. §. 12.

Hence it will also follow, that great Corruptions in the Lives of our Church-Pastors will not war­rant our separation from Communion with them, or our Refusal to attend upon their Teaching, provided we be not enjoyned to allow of, or to comply with them in their sins. Our Saviour sent the Leper to the Priest, to offer by his Hands the accustomed Sacrifices, altho the Priesthood then was much degenerated both in its Office, and in the manners of those who mi­nistred at the Altar, we find that Christ himself was present at their solemn Feasts, and therefore did not come empty, which the Law forbad, but brought his Sacrifice, and by so doing owned their Priesthood, he was a Member of a Synagogue, and so he joyned in the Service of their Synagogues upon the Sabbath, and upon other Solemn Days, and yet their own Josephus tells us, that the whole Jewish Nation were then a very wicked people; they were, saith truth it self, an Evil, Wicked, and Adulterous Generation. The Teachers, and the Rulers of the Church, whom Christ commands the mul­titude, and his Disciples to obey in all things [Page 26]lawful,Matt. 2.7.12.34. Matt. 5.19. Matt. 6.23.7, 8. Matt. 12.14. v. 24. were a Generation of Vipers, they were such whose Righteousness could not qualifie any Person for the Kingdom of God. They were Hypocritical, and Vainglorious in their Prayers, Alms, and Fastings. They consulted how they might destroy the Saviour of the World. They were many of them guilty of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Matt. 23, 13. v. 14. v. 15. v. 23. They shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against Men. They devoured Widows Houses out of pretense of Piety. They made their Prosclytes ten times more the Children of the Devil then themselves. They neglected the more weighty Matters of the Law. They were full of Extortion, Covetousness, Excess. And yet from the Communion of such Men our Lord himself and his Disciples did not separate in matters which concerned Gods Publick Worship, he called none to come out from them and be separate, but rather countenanced their hearing of them with Caution and Discretion, which shews how groundless, and unwarrantable a thing it is to separate from our Legal Pastors upon these accounts.

Hence 3ly, Inf. 3. §. 13. we infer that it is lawful to com­ply with such Churches as enjoyn some significant Ceremonies not mentioned in the Word of God, & for the sake of Peace, Order, Unity, and the avoi­ding of Scandal, to submit unto them, when by Authority they are imposed, for this we find our Saviour, and his Apostles did, he ate the Pas­sover prepared according to the Custom of the Jews, and so he did partake of that thick Sawce, which signifyed the thick Clay which they in Aegypt formed into Brick, he ate the Passover in such a Posture as was used by the Jews to signify their Rest, and their Security in the Good Land of Canaan; He, when he went [Page 27]into the Temple, did put off his Shoes, altho that Ceremony was used to signify their Reverence toward the Temple, or to that God who dwelt in it, he did not go into the Temple with a Staff or Scrip, but did comply with all the Ceremonies enjoyned by the Jewish Sanhedrin to those who dayly came unto it. He, when he read the Law, stood up, as was enjoyned by the Jews in honour of the Law, and when he taught the people, he constantly sate down ac­cording to the Custom which had then obtained. The Imposition of hands in their ordinary Be­nediction was a significant Ceremony, Mark 10.16. it noted properly the Efficacy of the Divine Blessing; the Hand being the instrument of Force and Vigor, it was done also in Testimony of Gods Favor to them, and yet that Ceremony was by our Lord observed in his Benediction of the little Children which were brought to him, tho it was not commanded in the Law of Moses. Inf. 4. §. 14.

Hence 4ly, we infer that it is not unlawful to use a publick Form of Prayer, and that the using of such Forms can be no sinful s [...]in [...]g of the Spirit. For our Lord scrupled not the Time, the Number, the Form, the Matter of the Jewish Prayers; both he, and his Disciples were present at the 18 Prayers used in the publick Service of the Jews; And he himself prescribed a Form of Prayer to be used by his Disciples; He therefore did not think that his own Spirit was stinted by using of a Form, or that he stinted the Spirit of his own Disciples by pre­scribing of it, and yet Christ, and his own Disciples when they attended on these Prayers had a more plentiful Effusion of the Holy Spirit, then we can pretend to.

Hence also we conclude that we stand not obliged in all Punctilios of Time, Inf. 5. §. 15.or Place, or Gesture, to follow the Example of the first Insti­tution of the H. Sacrament of the Lords Supper; For albeit a standing Posture was prescribed at the first Institution of the Passover, and every Master of a Family, by the same Institution, was to keep up his Lamb four days before the Passover, yet Christ complyed with the Custom of the Jewish Church, which, for prudential Reasons, laid aside, or changed these Customs. Even so, altho Christ celebrated the Sacrament after Supper, and albeit he did it in a posture of Recumbency, we do not stand obliged to conform unto these Circumstances, they being done upon such grounds as do not now remain, for we have now no Paschal Supper to be eaten before the Sacrament, nor is it the Custom of our Nations to lye down on Couches when we eat, nor have we any cause to do it in token of our Rest in Canaan. And if we are obliged to use that very Gesture which our Saviour did, why are we not as much obliged to the same time; I mean not only after Supper, but annu­ally on the same Night in which our Saviour was betrayed, why are we not as much obliged to receive in the same place, viz. an Inn, or in an Upper-chamber. And lastly tho it be unque­stionable that in the Primitive Institution Wine was mixt with Water, for so the Primitive Christians testify, and so the Hebrew Custom and their Canons teach, and albeit this seems more fit to represent that Water and that Blood which issued from our Saviours Side, yet, because now it ceaseth to be the Custom to drink Wine mixt with Water, Laightf. Temp. Serv. p. 147. few scruple to receive it without such a Mixture, and therefore, on like grounds, [Page 29]and from our Saviours Aphorism, I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice, I think we should not scruple to baptise by sprinkling, altho our Lords Disciples did baptize by dipping, and that more perfectly! doth represent that Death of Christ into which, saith St. Paul, we are baptized, and the ensuing Resurrection. Inf. 6. §. 16.

Hence do we argue, That the Presence of wicked and ungodly Men should not deter us from joyning with the Church in the Participation of the Holy Sacrament, because Christ did not scruple, as ma­ny Passovers as he participated of, to eat with Ju­das, him he admitted to the Holy Sacrament, as being by Profession one of his true Disciples, and one who had done nothing openly which contradicted that Profession, altho Christ knew that he was a covetous Wretch, into whom Satan had already entred, and who would certainly be­tray him.

Hence also we infer,Inf. 7. §. 17. That we stand not obliged to refuse Communion with other Churches in their Sacraments, and other publick Offices, because of some additions to the Institution which are im­posed for the sake of Order, Uniformity, or Decency, but are declared to be no parts, or necessary appen­dants to the Institution. You see how many things the Jews had added to the Passover, the Wine, because it was a Feast of Joy, the Benedi­ction of the Cup before they drank it, the Breaking the unleavened Cake, the Hymn, and yet our Sa­viour did not scruple to observe these things; And you may see in Dr. Leightfoots Service of the Temple, how many Ceremonies they had added to the observance of the other Festivals, at which our Lord and his Disciples were still present. And therefore on the same account we need not scruple that antient Ceremony of Crossing which [Page 30]we use in Baptism, seeing our Church declares that she doth not intend it as any part of Ba­ptism, or any necessary appendant of it, (on which account she doth command us to omit it in our private Baptisms) but only as a conve­nient Ceremony to testify unto the Congrega­tion that the baptized Person hath Relation to the Society of Christians, and stands obliged to maintain the Christian Faith. As therefore, when the Children of Reuben and Gad had built themselves an Altar, their Brethren were troubled at it, but when they understood it was not built for Sacrifice, or in Rebellion, but to entitle them­selves and their Posterity to a Share in Gods pu­blick and solemn Worship; Josh. 22.16, 30, 31. And to an Interest in his Tabernacle, and Altar, they were well pleased, and declared their hearty Satisfaction; so would our Brethren consider that the Cross in Baptism is enjoyned not as a part, or necessary appendant of that Ordinance, but only to be Ed, a Testimony to the Congregation that the baptized Person had an Interest in the Society of Christians, and was obliged to maintain, and own the Christian Faith, they would have equal reason to be well pleased, and to declare their Satisfaction in the Matter.

Hence it is evident that our Dissenters have no just cause to fear, Inf. 8. §. 18.or plead for the Refusal of Sub­mission to the Constitutions of our Church, and of Communion with us, that by Communicating they should approve of the imposing of these things, and should partake with them in that supposed sin, or countenance them in the imposing of those Grievous Burthens, as they do esteem them; for our Dear Lord, you see, submitted to the Constitutions of the Jewish Church, and enjoyned others so to do, and yet, I hope, they will not say that he ap­proved [Page 31]or countenanced their heavy Burthens, or partook with them in their sins; were then the Impositions of the Church of England such as they imagine them to be, they could have no just cause to fear that their Submission to them would derive this guilt upon them.

FRom what hath been discoursed it clearly ‘follows that all those Texts of Scripture, Corol. and all those Reasons which Dissenters offer from the Old Testament, to prove it is a thing unlawful to use, or to submit unto the Cere­monies appointed by our Church, and that they are forbidden by those Texts to use them, must be meer fallacies and sophisms, seeing our Saviour, who doubtless was acquainted with the true Sense and Import of them, did sub­mit unto the use of Ceremonies of a like Nature to them, when by the Rulers of the Jewish Church they were imposed and prescribed.’ And tho this instance is a sufficient Answer to all that is, or can be urged from the Old Testament, against Submission to the Ceremonies, imposed by the Church of England, yet, for the farther Satisfaction of our Dissenting Brethren, I shall particularly answer all that they have hitherto produced with any shew of Reason to this pur­pose. Which was the second head proposed to be spoken to. And

§ 1 1. It is objected by them, That God in Scri­pture [Page 34] ‘hath commanded that nothing should be added to what he had enjoyned in his Wor­ship; to this effect they cite these Words, Deut. 4.2. Ye shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the Commandments of your God which I command you. And Deut. 12, 32. What thing soever I command you ob­serve to do it, thou shalt not add thereto, or diminish from it; Hence they infer that no humane Ceremonies, or Circumstances of mens devising must be added to what God hath com­manded in his Gospel Worship.’

Answ. 1 To this I answer: That these Words do as much concern Laws made concerning civil and judicial, as concerning Sacred Matters, and do as much prove that our Superiours may add no Laws to the Laws made by God concerning Civil Mat­ters, as that they may make no Laws for Re­gulation of, or ordering any Circumstances of Religious Worship, that is, they are as good Ob­jections against our Statute-Book, as against our Lyturgy. The reason is, because these words are neither in the 4th, nor the 12th Chapter, re­strained to Acts of Divine Worship, but are ex­presly spoken of all the Statutes, and Judg­ments which the Lord had taught them, v. 1. of whatsoever thing God had commanded, Deut. 12.32.

Answ. 2 2ly, If by these Precepts, the Ceremonies used in the Church of England are condemned, then also must the Dissenters from the Church of Eng­land be condemned by them, for they do many things, and they use many Ceremonies in Reli­gious Worship, which are no where commanded, they sing in stinted Meeter, for which they have no Precept or Example in the Word of God, [Page 35]they have a Directory for publick Worship con­taining many precepts or directions no where prescribed in that Word, they, when they take an Oath, do not refuse to lay their hands upon, and kiss the Book; now all agree that Oaths are Solemn Acts of Divine Worship, and know that God no where Commanded these Ceremo­nial additions to it. Moreover when they im­posed the Solemn league and Covenant, they ordered that it should be taken by the whole Congregation, 1st. uncovered, 2ly, standing, Ordin. of the 2 of Febr. 1643. and 3ly, with their right hand lift up and bare, now if they, notwithstanding the Texts in the ob­jection mentioned, might add three uncom­manded Ceremonies unto the taking of an Oath, which is a Solemn Act of Divine Worship, what hinders but that Superiors may do the like in o­ther parts of Divine Worship.

Answer 3 3ly, The Jews themselves never conceived that by these precepts they were restrained from instituting, upon occasion, sacred Rites, or do­ing many things which circumstantially belong­ed to Gods Worship, for which they had no special Warrant from the Word of God, and if we do offend against these Rules, by using our Ceremonies in Gods Service, even the best and wisest of the Jews did equally offend. For what command had Solomon to keep a Feast of Seven days for Dedication of the Temple, 1 Kings 8.65. what Command had he for hallow­ing the middle part of the Court that was before the House of the Lord, to offer Burnt offerings, Meat offerings, and Peace offerings there, v. 64. Dr. Ames indeed sayeth that Solomon did this by Divine Authority, Fresh suit. §. 17 &c. p 33 [...].and instinct of the Holy Ghost; to which vain imagination I return the Answer of Agar, add thou not unto his Words, [Page 36]lest thou be found a liar, Prov. 30.6. The Holy Ghost hath in two places given us a full relation of what King Solomon did, but not one tittle of any instinct of the Holy Ghost commanding him to do it, how then came Dr. Ames to know what no where is revealed, and what cannot be known by any Man without a Revelation? Is it not wonderful that Men who will believe nothing without express Scripture proof, and who so stiffly do contend for the negative Argument from Scripture, should themselves thus add to Scriptures. 2ly, What Warrant had good Heze­kiah for continuing a Feast of Unleavened Bread Seven days longer than the time appointed by the Law? 2 Chron. 30.23. To this instance Dr. Ames Answers, that these Seven other days were not Holy days at all of Institution properly so called, but an oc­casional continuation of free will offerings for that time,Fr. Suit. p. 317.which might be offered any day of the year without new Holy days. To this I Answer:

1st. That were this so, it cannot be denyed but that their observation of other Seven days beside these which were appointed by the Law of Moses, was as much adding to the Law of Moses, as the imposing of our Ceremonies can be accounted adding to the Law of Christ.

2ly, When in the Text we read that they kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread with greatgladness, v. 21, and v. 23. that the whole Assembly took Council, and kept other Seven days with glad­ness, what reason can any person have to think that the last Seven days, should not be Festival, or Holy days, as well as the first Seven? and if they might take Council to keep those other Seven days, why might they not have instituted the keeping of them, when they didobserve them?

And 3ly, What reason hath Dr. Ames to [Page 37]affirm that they then only offered Freewill offerings, rather than such which were ac­customed to be offered at the Feast of Unleaven­ed Bread, and had been offered in the first Se­ven days of the Solemnity? The descant of o­ther Commentators on the place is this, viz. that this was done not to change the ordinance of the Passeover, but partly to redeem their defect in not observing it for so many years, and partly to detain the People of Israel the longer at Jeru­salem, that, by the Preaching of the Word, they might be the better informed, and confirmed in the true Religion, whence the inference is plain­ly this, that upon such occasions, and for such good ends it is commendable to do more than is required, provided nothing be done against what is required.

3ly, Est. 9.20, 21, 22. What Law had Mordecai and Esther for enjoyning the yearly observation of the Feast of Purim to stablish this among them, that they should keep the fourteenth day of the month Adar, and the fifteenth day of the same yearly, as the days wherein the Jews rested from their Enemies and the month which was turned to them from sorrow to joy, and from mourning into a good day, that they should make them days of Feasting and joy, and of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor? Dr. Ames saith here again that if any significant ceremony was here institu­ted, it was by divine direction, p. 317. tho neither Scrip­ture, nor Josephus mention one tittle of the matter; and adds, from Dr. Whitaker, that forasmuch as this Feast stands approved in Scrip­ture, there is no doubt but it was done by Divine Authority, tho we read nothing of it in the Scrip­ture. Which by the leave of that good Man is a plain begging of the Question. 2ly, He [Page 38]adds that if Josephus may be believed, Joseph. Antiq. Jud. l. XI. c. 6. p. 382. the Heathen King Artaxerxes was the institutor of that Feast, and if so, I hope Christian Kings may do as much; but this is a vile mistake, for in the place cited by him it is expresly said, that Mordecai appointed it. p. 316. 3ly, He adds, that this was a political precept, and instituted no new Religious thing, besides a circumstance of time. Answer, Then must our Christian Festi­vals be so esteemed, and therefore ought not to be scrupled or represented as Unlawful. 2ly, Was it not an addition to these Words of Moses, These are the Feasts of the Lord even the Holy Convocations which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. Lev. 23.4. 3ly. can any Man of reason think that a Command to Feast, and to Reioyce, give Gifts unto the Poor, and to send portions one to another, is only an institution of a circumstance of time, and that these were not ceremonies truly signi­ficant of their internal joy, and their thanks­giving to the Author of this great deliverance.

4ly, What Order or Command from God had Judas and his Brethren, 1 Maccab. 4.59.with the whole Con­gregation of Israel, to ordain that the days of the Dedication of the Altar should be kept in their season from year to year, for the space of Eight days, from the Twenty fifth day of the Month Chisleu, with Mirth and Gladness? And yet Josephus not only tells us that they did [...], &c. Or make a Law that farther Generations should observe this Feast, but also call'd it [...] or light, because such happiness shone forth upon them on that day; Leight. Temple Service, p. 188. and their own Rituals inform us that they did light up Candles in all their Houses in signification of the same. And notwithstand­ing all these things our Saviour did not scruple [Page 39]to be present at this very Feast. Joh. 10.22. Now to this instance Dr. Ames Answers as before, that they as Prophets were led by extraordinary, and sin­gular Revelation not to be exemplary therein to us, p. 433. not considering that Prophesie had ceased long before, and that neither Josephus, nor the Book of Macchabees make any mention of this matter. 2ly. He Answers that it hath always been a Question, Ibid.what Feast of Dedication this was? Whether that which was appointed by Solomon, or in the time of Ezra, or that which was appointed by the Macchabees? Answer, That it was that which by the Macchabees was instituted, is evident beyond exception, 1. From the time when it was Celebrated, for the Text tells us that it was then Winter; now the Feast of Dedication instituted by the Mac­chabees was observed on the Twenty fifth day of the Month Chisleu, or December, whereas that of Solomon was observed in Autumn in the Month Ethanim, that of Ezra in the Spring on the Month Adar. 2. Esdr. 6.15. We do not find in Scrip­ture, or the Jewish Records, that there was any Annual Feast appointed to Celebrate the first, or second Dedication of the Temple, but for the Celebration of this third Dedication of it by the Macchabees, we find express Command that it should still be kept from year to year. 3 He Answers that we only read that Christ walked in Solomons Porch at this Feast, p. 320.which he might do without observing, or appoving of this Feast. Reply, (1.) Christ knew this was the time when others did present themselves in that place to observe this Feast, since then he also was present in the Temple at this time, he did at least ac­cording to our Adversaries, give them occasion to think he owned that Feast, and had Christ [Page 40]then come thither only to Preach, he did more then Dissentors will do, who dare not Preach on Holy days to the People, lest they should seem to countenance the observation of those days. 3ly, Our Lord did not reprove them at that time for the observing of this Feast, whereas had it been vain Worship, and teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, or had it been a violation of the Law of Moses, he who was Zealous for his Fathers House, and did so round the Pharisees for these things, in this case would not have neglected so to do. 4ly, He Answers, ‘That after Christ had whipt the Buy­ers and Sellers out of the Temple, they came in again, and continued their Merchandise there, and yet in the mean space our Saviour was often in the Temple without allowance of that their Practise.’ Repl. (1.) It doth not appear, that Christ was present afterwards when they used this trade, for it was chiefly, if not only used at the Passover, that they who came up to that Feast might be provided of Cattle without bringing them from home; now our Saviours zeal against this Prophanation of the Temple was shewed at that time, John 2.13. Matt. leightf. in v. 5. 21.1. for he came to Jerusalem that very day that the Paschal Lamb was to be taken up. 2ly, Christ might come into the Temple, and not come into that separated place called [...] in which this Merchandise was kept, Leighef. ibid. this being done in the Court of the Gentiles. 3ly, Christ having once declared himself against this action at the beginning of his Office, his coming af­terwards into the Temple where these things were done, could not be deemed an allowance of them. Lastly, Our Saviour expressed this Zeal again at the close of his Office. Matt. 21.1.

[Page 41]5ly. The Altar of Witness built without Command, by the two Tribes and half, when they went over Jordan to their own Possessions, Josh. 22.16, 31. as a monumental profession of the true God, and of his Service, was approved of. To this instance Dr. p. 327. Ames Replies that he finds it not evident in the Text, that it was approved by the High Priest, Princes, and all the Congrega­tion of Israel. Repl. It is expresly said, v. 30. that when Phinehas the Priest, and the Princes of the Congregation, and heads of the thou­sands of Israel which were with him, heard the Words that the Children of Reuben, and Gad, and of Manasseh had spoken, it pleased them: or, as the Hebrew hath it, it was good in their Eyes, and v. 31. they say, This day we perceive that the Lord is amongst us, because ye have not committed this trespass against the Lord, and he that cannot perceive in these expressions an allowance of this fact, cannot see Wood for Trees. 2ly, We do not find that God, who did continually quarrel with the Jews for Sa­crificing in the High Places, did ever shew the least dislike of this Altar, or Command the pul­ling of it down, which is sufficient evidence that God himself allowed of it. 2ly, The Doctor adds that this Altar was not in state or use Re­ligious as the Cross is: Repl. p. 322. As the Cross is used to testifie to the Church, that the person signed with it belongs to the Congregation of the Faithful, so was this Altar built to be a Witness that they belonged to the Congregation of Israel, and had a portion in the God of Israel, v. 27, 28. If then the Cross be in state and use Religious upon that account, this Altar must be so. 3ly. p. 324. The Doctor adds that it doth not appear out of the Text, that there was intended [Page 42]any use of this Altar for the present Age that then lived, and that the contrary may be gathered out of the 24th and 25th verses. Which as it no way doth invalidate the Force of this Ex­ample, so is it very false, the Text expresly de­claring that the two Tribes made it to be a Witness betwixt them, and those to whom they then spake, as well as to the Generations after them, v. 28.

Lastly the wearing Sackcloth and Ashes in token of humiliation, Zech. 13.4. Zech. 7.5. the Prophets rough Gar­ment, the Fast of the 5th month, because the Temple was destroyed then; and of the 7th month, because then Gedaliah and many of the Jews with him were slain, these things had no Appointment that we can find from God, and yet were never scrupled by the Jews, or con­demned by God, or by his Holy Prophets. More­over we find not in the Law of Moses any Di­rection that a white Garment, or Linnen Ephod should be made for any but the Priests, or used by any others in Gods Worship, and that we find David dancing before the Lord in a Linnen Ephod, 2 Sam. 6.14. and the Levites who carried the Ark clad in linnen Roves, or in white Linnen, 2 Chron. 5.12. Wherefore to answer positively to the Texts alledged;

Answ. 4 4ly, To add unto the Word, or the Com­mand of God, is not to use such Rites and Ce­remonies as no where are commanded or for­bidden in the Word, when by Superiours, to whom obedience is due in lawful matters, they are at any time prescribed, but it is to avouch such things as the Command and Word of God, which he had not commanded, as the False Pro­phets did. This will be evident, 1. If we consider, what it is to diminish from the Word; now that [Page 43]undoubtedly is to neglect to do what God had in his Word commanded, under pretence that he doth not require it; We, In locum. say the Assemblies An­notations, diminish from the Word by denying any part of it to be of Divine Authority, or con­cealing any part of it either for Words or Meaning, or by partial Belief of it, or Obedience to it; And therefore by the Rule of Contraries, to add un­to it must be to vouch that to be of Divine Au­thority which is but humane, or to believe and yield obedience to that as the Will of God which he hath not enjoyned. 2ly, This will be far­ther evident if we compare these Passages with others of the like Nature in the Scripture, as v. g. Add thou not to his Words, saith Augur, Prov. 30.6. lest thou be found a Lyar, i. e. lest falsly pre­tending to deliver his Word, when thou speakest only thy own Inventions, thou beest found guilty of a Lye, whereas had men been guilty of adding to his Words by the Injunction of things acknowledged to be indifferent in their own Nature, the Words should rather have run thus, Add thou not to his Words, lest thou be found superstitious; And Rev. 22, 18. to add unto these things, is v. 19. to add unto the Words of the Book of that Prophecy. Obj. And whereas Mr. Disp. 5. of Cer. chap. 4. §. 7. Baxter saith, That the Text doth not say, Thou shalt not add to my Command, but, Thou shalt not add to the thing that I command thee, and thence infers that it is the Work, Worship, or Or­dinances that we are forbidden to add to, or to diminish from, and not the Word or Law is self only. Answ. 1. This is a great mistake, for the Text plainly saith, Thou shalt not add unto the Word that I command, Deut. 4.2. What I com­mand thou shalt observe to do, thou shalt not add unto it, Deut. 12.32. 2ly, From what is now [Page 44]discoursed 'tis evident that we do not add to the Worship, or the Ordinances of God, by ap­pointing Ceremonies declared to be no parts of his Worship, or of his Ordinances, but only by asserting and proposing such things as his Or­dinances, and parts of his Worship, which indeed are not so.

Answ. 5 5ly, Hence it doth clearly follow that they who do assert that God forbids kneeling at the Sacrament, hearing Common Prayer, bringing our Children to be signed with the Cross, or joyning in that Service which is performed by one that wears a Supplice, &c. If they can shew no Word of God which doth forbid these things, are themselves guilty of adding to the Word of God.

Obj. 2 2ly, A second plea of our Dissentors, from the Old Testament, §. 2 is this: ‘That God in Scripture declares, that he abominates that way of Wor­ship which he hath not commanded, and, tho the thing performed in its own Nature was abominable, God takes no notice of that, but chiefly reprehends it because not commanded. To this effect they cite Lev. 10.1. where Na­dab and Abihu are condemned and punished for offering strange Fire which the Lord com­manded them not, Deut. 17.3. If there be found among you Manor Woman that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God in transgressing his Covenant, and hath gone and served other Gods, and worshipped them, either the Sun, or Moon, or any of the Host of Heaven which I have not commanded; — Thou shalt stone them with stones, till they dye. Jer. 7.31. They have built the High-Places of Tophet to burn their Sons and their Daughters in the Fire, which I commanded them not, neither came it [Page 45]into my Heart. Jer. 19.5. They have built the High-Places of Baal to burn their Sons with Fire for Burnt-offerings to Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my Mind.’ Now to this weak Objection I answer,

Answ. 1 1. That these Texts are all impertinently alledged, because they only prove that God will not be worshipped with any thing which he hath not commanded, which we do not deny, but they do not prove that we may not use any Garment, Posture, or Ceremony uncommanded in the Service of God, provided we declare that we do not esteem these things as parts of Divine Worship. Answ. 2 2ly, These Texts expounded so as to forbid the use of any Ceremony in Publick Worship which God hath not particularly en­joyned, will condemn our Dissentors as well as us, and even render it impossible to perform any publick Service to God, it will condemn our way of Preaching, for where hath God com­manded us to take a Text, and Gloss upon it, or the Congregation to sing the Psalms of David in Metre, where hath he enjoyned us to meet at ten of the Clock in the morning, or two in the afternoon, for Publick Worship on the Lords Days, to pray without a Lyturgy or Form of Prayer? to pray before Sermon, to preach an hour, or in a pulpit? &c. All these things there­fore, and many more of the like Nature, by this wild exposition of these Texts, must be ab­mination to the Lord. Answ. 3 3ly, This Hebrew Phrase That I commanded them not, is only used in Scripture concerning things which he forbad, or did command his people not to do, and upon that account by good Interpreters is styled a Litotes, that is a Figure which in Words dimi­nisheth [Page 46]the thing intended, as when a prohibi­tion is intended by saying such a thing is not commanded. This will appear from a perusal of the places cited: For

1. The strange Fire which Nadab and Abihu offered was forbidden Fire, 'twas Fire not taken from the Altar, to put into their Censers and burn Incense with, Vid. Ainsw. in locum. whereas God had commanded that Fire should be always burning on the Altar to that very End. And if God had no where commanded whence they should take their Fire to burn Incense, and offer Sacrifice withal, and yet would not allow them to use that Fire which he had not commanded, it was not possible that they should offer to him any Incense or Burnt-Offering which was not an abomination to him. As for their Offering their Sons and Daughters unto Baal, or Moloch, God most ex­presly did forbid it, saying, Lev. 18.21. Thou shalt not let any of thy Seed pass through the Fire to Moloch, that this was the abomination which he hated, Deut. 12.31, 18, 10, 12. and that the Person guilty of it should be stoned with stones, because he had defiled his Sanctuary, and profaned his Holy Name, Levit. 20.2, 3. The Worship of other Gods, or of the Sun and Moon, and Stars which God is said not to have com­manded, is most expresly said to be transgressing of his Covenant, Deut. 17.2, 3. And therefore it was doing that which he forbid, so that the import of these Texts seems only to be this that we must not perform in publick Worship, or elsewhere, that which God hath forbidden, or hath enjoyned us not to do.

Question. But why then is a thing so highly criminal ex­pressed in these mild Words: Which I command­ed them not.

Answ. The certain reason of this Phrase I cannot promise, only I conjecture thus, that whereas God had imparted to all the Heathen Nations, the Sun, Moon, Stars, and all the Host of Hea­ven, that is, had left them to the Worship of them, Deut. 4, 19. winking at them in the times of ignorance, he had taken the Jews to be a people of inheritance to himself, v. 20. and therefore saith unto them: I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other Gods but me; where­fore for them to worship any of those Gods which he had not commanded, or imparted to them, was virtually to renounce the true God, and to transgress his Covenant, Deut. 29.25, 26. and hence is that ex­pression in the Book of Deuteronomy they have forsaken the Covenant of the Lord God of their Fathers, which he made with them when he brought them forth out of the Lord of Aegypt, for they went and served other Gods, and wor­shipped them, Gods which he had not given, or imparted to them.

§. 6 Add to this that Ingenious Answer which Mr. Eccles. pol. l. 2. Hooker hath returned to this Objection, viz. ‘That, because the Works of God are perfect, and lack nothing for the performance of the thing to which they tend, it followeth that, the End being known to which God directeth his Speech, the Negative Argument is always strong and forcible concerning those things that are apparently requisite to the same End; As v.g. The purpose of God was to teach his people both to whom they should offer Sacri­fice, and what Sacrifice was to be offered; to burn their Sons in Fire to Baal, or Moloch, he did not command them, he spake no such thing, neither came it into his Mind, there­fore this they ought not to have done. For [Page 48]when the Lord had once set down a precise Form of executing that in which we are to serve him, the Fault appeareth greater to do that which we are not, than not to do that which we are commanded; in this we seem to charge the Law of God with Hardness only, in that with foolishness; in this we shew our selves weak, and unapt to be Doers of his Will, in that we take upon us to be Controulers of his Wisdom; in this we fail to perform the thing which God sees Meet, Convenient, and Good, in that we presume to see what is Meet and Convenient better than God himself; in those actions therefore the whole Frame where­of God hath on purpose set down to be ob­served, we may not otherwise do than exactly as he hath prescribed.’ Thus I suppose the Force of this Objection is sufficiently assoiled.

Obj. 3 Moreover it is objected by Dr. Ames, and others, §. 3 p. 298.299. that the second Commandment forbiddeth to make unto our selves the Likeness of any thing whatsoever for religious use, and therefore forbids us to use significant Ceremonies of mans devising.

Answ. 1 The Major of this Argument is false, for the second Commandment doth only forbid us to make any Likeness there mentioned, to be the Object of our Religious Worship by bowing down unto, or worshipping it, the import of it being plainly this: Thou shalt not make any Resem­blance, &c. by Picture, Sculpture or Fusion, in Order to religious adoration, and yielding to them any such signification of respect which the Custom or Consent of men hath appropriated to Religion, as bowing, falling down, lying pro­strate before them, or the like. That this is the true intent of this Precept is plain by the [Page 49]ground of this prohibition delivered by Moses in these Words: Take ye therefore good heed to your selves for you saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake to you in Horeb: Lest you corrupt, and make you a graven Image, Deut. 4.15, 16.the similitude of any Figure, the Likeness of Male or Female, &c. 2ly, This is apparent from the reason of the prohibition, I am a Jealous God, that is, a God very tender of my Honour, and of my Right, who will by no means suffer any Mate, or Competitor in respect to that outward Worship, which properly belongs to me. I am the Lord, that is my Name, Esa. 42.8.my Glory will I not give to another, neither my Praise to graven Images. For who can, without blushing, say that God is robbed of the outward Worship due unto him by our kneeling at the Sacrament, our using the surplice, or making the sign of the Cross upon a Childs Forehead; whereas he him­self tells us that he is robbed of his Praise and Glory, by giving of Religious Worship unto graven Images, it being only due unto that God to whom every Knee shall bow. But, saith Dr. Ames, p. 302.The very Phantasies or Images of the mind not prescribed by God are by most Interpreters held as well forbidden as outward Real Images. Answ. if so, the most are not always the best Inter­preters, there being nothing more absurd and foolish than this Interpretation, never thought of by any of the Ancients, or approved of by any but Dissenters. 2ly, If this be true I know not any thing more forbidden by this Com­mandment than this Book of Dr. Ames, so full of Phantasies of his own devising, that nothing can be more, all which undoubtedly were in­tended by him for some religious use. Nay this very Interpretation is forbidden here, it being [Page 50]certainly a Phantasy of the Mind without all ground from the Commandment. Nay all our pious Books, our conceived Prayers, our Method in composing Sermons, and an hundred things of like Nature will be here prohibited. The Argument whereby the Dr. Labors to confirm this fond intepretation is, p. 297. that the Word likeness used in the second Commandment is General, and comprehendeth under it all religious similitudes, because they are Homogeneal to Images, they are expresly forbidden. Answ. The Foundation of this Argument is a plain falshood, for the Word Likeness is not General, but by the Text is plainly, limited to Images, or Likenesses of Male or Female. Deut 4.16, 17, 18.The Likeness of any Beast that is on the Earth; The Likeness of any winged Fowl that flyeth in the Air; The Likeness of any thing that creepeth on the Ground; The Likeness of any Fish that is in the Waters. The Likeness which may be seen is that which is forbidden, v. 15. 'Tis the Likeness of any thing in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath, or in the Waters under the Earth, Exod. 20.4. Dr. Ames goes on to Argue from the Affirmative part of the second Commandment thus: p. 299. This Commandment en­joyns Obedience to all the Worship appointed by God, all which was significative, for it served to the Example and Shadow of Heavenly things, Heb. 8.5. Heb. 10.1. The Law having a Shadow of things to come: Therefore it forbiddeth any significative Ceremonies to be brought into the Worship of God devised by man. Answ. to omit the Illogicalness of this Argument, and the many terms in the conclusion which are not vertually contained in the premisses, which every fresh Man may perceive, I Answ. 1. That it is falsly, or at least precariously affirmed that this Com­mandment [Page 51]enjoyns Obedience to all the Worship appointed by God. It is the first Command­ment, which commands us to have God for our God, that is, to give him all the Internal Acts of Devotion, and the External Acts of Piety which are proper to God, and are in Scripture signified by loving God with all our Hearts, by fearing, worshipping, and serving him. The second Commandment doth limit the manner of exer­cising and expressing our Devotion to the true Object of it, interdicting that mode which in the Practice of Antient times had so generally prevailed of representing the Deities, they ap­prehended to be such, in some corporeal shape, & thereto yielding such expressions of respect as they conceived suitable, and acceptable to such Deities. The Affirmative part of this Precept seems therefore to be chiefly this: ‘Thou shalt give outward Religious Worship by bowing, humbling of thy Body,’ or falling down to me. so that our kneeling at the Sacrament, or bowing to the Lord Jesus, when we hear his Sacred Name, which minds us of the great Blessings which he hath procured for us, and of the Ho­nour due unto him for them, our bowing of the body to him when we go into the place of Worship, is only doing what in the General is here commanded, which if Dissenters well con­sidered, they would see the vanity of their Ex­ceptions against those laudable Practices of the Church of England. Farther the positive part of this Precept may imply that in our Devotions and Religious Services of God we should raise our mind above gross Sense and Phancy, that we should entertain high and worthy conce­ptions of God, that we should apprehend him incomparably Superiour to all things which we [Page 52]see and know; in a word, that we should wor­ship him in Spirit and in Truth; not as the Samaritans, in the Image of a Dove, who there­fore are said to worship they knew not what, nor as the Jews by Types and Shadows of good things to come, and such like Carnal Ordi­nances. In these two things seem fully to be comprised the special positive Duty of this Com­mandment. Answ. 2. When Dr. Ames adds, that all the worship appointed by God is here com­manded, and that it was all significative, and proveth this from Hebr. 8.5. Hebr. 10.1. Which manifestly speak only of Shadows of things to come, it clearly follows from his Argument that all Worship of God is now abolished, and become unlawful, for all the Worship spoken of, Hebr. 8.5. Hebr. 10.1. is clearly abolished, and rendred unlawful to us by the appearance of the substance of which they were Types and Shadows. 3ly, 'Tis certain that we owe Obedience to all the parts of Worship appointed by God, significative, or not significative, but how doth it hence fol­low that significative Ceremonies which are de­clared to be no parts of Gods Worship, but only accidental Circumstances, may not be required by men any more than it will follow that be­cause God hath commanded Obedience to all the Honour due to my Natural, Spiritual, and Civil Parents, and hath commanded all the Love I owe unto my Brother, that therefore I may use no expression of honour to my Parents, or love unto my Christian Brother which he hath not commanded? Thus have I answered all that is considerable in Dr. Ames, on this Head, and all that the Dissenters urge from the Old Testament against Submission to the Ceremonies appointed to be used in the Church of England.

§ 4 ‘From this Example of our Lord and his Apostles it doth also clearly follow, Coroll. 2. that those Texts of Scripture which our Dissenters urge from the New Testament, and all those reasons which they plead from the fulness of Scripture, the Office, and the Faithfulness of Christ in the discharge of that his Office, can never prove that 'tis a thing unlawful to submit unto, or use the Ceremonies appointed by our Church, seeing our Saviour and his Disciples, whose Practice certainly agreed with their Precepts, and who did nothing repugnant to the fulness of the Scripture, &c. submitted to the use of Cere­monies of a like nature to them, when by the Rulers of the Jewish Church they were imposed, and they found it best conducing to the promotion of the Gospel, to submit unto them.’ Nevertheless I also shall proceed to answer all that they have produced hitherto with any shew of reason from the N. Testament.

Obj. 4 To this effect then it is objected, ‘That Christ himself condemned and rejected the washings of the Scribes and Pharisees, altho they were but decent Ceremonies imposed by the Elders of the Jewish Church, and not forbidden by the Law of Moses; And he not only doth re­fuse to conform to them, but also justifyes his own Disciples in their Nonconformity, & doth pronounce of all such things, that being plants which his Heavenly Father had not planted, Matt. 15.13.they should be rooted up; and therefore he hath taught us to refuse Active Obedience to the Traditions of our Elders in matters of like Na­ture, as humane Constitutions seem to be, and to reject them as vain Worship, and as the Doctrines of men.’ Answ. 1. Answ. 1 By way of Con­cession, that they who plant such plants without [Page 54]our Heavenly Father, may be hence induced to consider, that if they will not, he will root them up. For my part I am neither for the planting, nor against the rooting of them up by a Legal Authority, but only for a submission to them for the sake of Peace, Love, and Union, until Au­thority think fit to do so. Answ. 2 2ly, We must di­stinguish betwixt their Oral Traditions, here stiled the Traditions of the Elders, Mark 7.3, 5. Matt. 15.2. The Traditions of Men, Mark 7.8. Matt. 15.3, 6. And their Interpretations of the Law of Moses, or their Determination of things indif­ferent, not contained clearly, or expresly in that Law. These Oral Traditions being esteemed by them as the unwritten Word of God, spoken to Moses, as truly as the written Law, and so delivered from him to his immediate Successors, and by them to their Successors, and so on to the very days of the Messiah, our Saviour might well quarrel with them, and reject them, they being plain additions to the Word of God, the setting up another Word besides his written Word, and so teaching for Doctrines of God the Commandments of men, for so they truly were, tho they esteemed them as the Word of God deli­vered to Moses, the planting what their Hea­venly Father bad not planted. But their Inter­pretations of the Ceremonial Law of Moses in matters of Dispute and Controversy, and their determinations of things indifferent for the better observation of that Law, and the preserving men from transgressing of it, which they stiled making an hedge unto the Law, seem to have more Authority, God having said, according to the Sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee, Deut. 17.9, 12.and according to the Judgement which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do. And tho they might, [Page 55]and did abuse their Power under this pretence by binding heavy Burthens and Grievous to be born, yet doth our Saviour speak thus unto the multitude; and to his own Disciples, the Scribes & Pharisees sit in Moses Chair, Matt. 23.1, 2, 3.all therefore what­soever they bid you observe, that observe & do. Answ. 3 3ly, I answer, That the thing reproved by our Saviour here is not barely their washing, or the pre­scription of it by the Scribes and Pharisees, but their asserting it as a thing necessary to avoid that defilement which would render them dis­pleasing, or unacceptable to God. For, as the Assemblies Annotations well observe, they thought it a high point of their Religion to wash before Eating, lest they, by touching that which was unclean, should defile themselves and their Meat, and so become abominable; Such Snares had they imposed upon the Consciences of the ignorant people. Pollui cibum mundum arbi­trati sunt à cibis immundis, They thought their clean Meats were polluted by what was thus un­clean, saith Dr. Leightf. This is apparent 1. From the Doctrine which our Lord opposeth to what he here condemns, which is not this, that to obey the Precepts of Superiours in things indifferent, pertain­ing to Gods Service, was vain & superstitious, which in all reason was the thing chiefly to be taught, if, as Dr. Ames confidently saith, p. 186. They esteemed some defiling to follow upon the Eating of the Crea­ture, not as it was a Creature (eaten with un­washen hands) but as it was so used against the Tradition of their Elders. But that which by our Saviour is opposed to their Practice, and the Exacting of it, is plainly this, that to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man, Matt. 15, 20. and v. 11. Hear and understand, not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man. And Mark 7.15. Hearken to me every one of [Page 56]you, and understand, there is nothing from with­out a man that entering into him can defile him, but the things which come out of him, those are they which defile the man. This is the Do­ctrine at which the Pharisees are offended, Matt. 15.12. and which his own Disciples understood not, being accustomed to the Traditions of their Elders, Mark. 7.18, 19. and therefore Christ saith to them, Are ye so without understanding also? do ye not per­ceive that whatsoever thing from without en­tereth into a man, cannot defile him, because it entereth not into his heart, but into his belly. Moreover this was the Doctrine of the Pha­risees, that to eat with unwashen hands was blame worthy, not only because it was to act contrary to the Traditions of the Elders, but be­cause it was to eat with defiled hands, Mark 7.2. 2ly, This is apparent, because our Saviour plain­ly intimates that hereby they made the Com­mandments of men parts of Gods Worship, v. 9. Now the Commandments of men are all those things which the Authority of man enjoyneth, or forbids us to believe or do, tho God hath not enjoyned or sorbid them, and these Com­mands are taught for Doctrines, when they are imposed on the Judgment of men in point of Faith as things to be believed, or owned as por­tions of the Will of God, or on the Consciences of men, as things to be observed as the Com­mandments of God, or such religious actions as from their Nature are required to please him. One therefore of these two Opinions must be held to justify this charge of worshipping God in vain by teaching for Doctrines the Traditions of men. This 3ly, Mr. Calvin Argues from this consideration, that Christ reproved not the Water pots set after the manner of the purifica­tion [Page 57]of the Jews, but wrought a miracle upon the Water poured into them; Therefore, saith he, it was not barely the Command, but the superstitious Opinion, annexed to it which was reproved by our Saviour. And 4ly, This is evident from the Traditions, which their Learned Rabbies had received, and the expressions which they used about this matter. He, that eateth Bread with unwashen hands, saith R. Ase, In Sota.sins as grievously as if he lay with a whore. Now Fornication, we all know is sinful in its own Nature, and not only because it is forbidden by Superiours. Maimonides saith, they look'd upon it as a peculiar piece of Sanctity, and said that whosoever disesteemed this Custom deserved not only Excommunication, but death also; And there­fore R. Akiba, being in Prison, E rub in fol. 21 said that he would rather perish with thirst than want Water to wash his hands. Answ. 4th. This Text is so far from proving the Unlawfulness of using indifferent Ceremonies in Obedience to the Com­mands of our Superiours, that it condemns all those who teach they cannot lawfully be sub­mitted to, as teaching for Doctrines the Com­mandments of men. For these are the Com­mands of our Dissenters to their Proselytes: Hear not a form of Prayer, joyn not with these that use it, or with the Minister who wears a Sur­plice, kneel not at the Receiving of the Sacra­ment, do not stand up at the rehearsal of the Creed, bring not your Children to receive the sign of the Cross in Baptism; all these they teach for Doctrines, asserting that they are actions which God hath forbidden, and therefore may not lawfully be used in his Worship, or by them be submitted to, since therefore God hath not for­bidden any of these things, and yet they teach [Page 58]he hath forbidden them, they plainly must be guilty of adding to his Word, and teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men, which they who do declare these things to be indiffe­rent, and no where commanded in Gods Word, cannot be guilty of.

HAving thus dispatched the Scriptures pro­duced in this cause, I proceed to consider the Objections of Dissenters from reason groun­ded upon Scripture; and

Obj. 1. It is objected, ‘That there was nothing appertaining in the least to the Worship of God, but was fully set down, even to the pins of the Tabernacle,’ in the Law of Moses; when Gods Material House was to be built, he gave to Moses for the Tabernacle, and to David for the Temple, a Pattern according to which he would have every thing made, or done; And of this Pattern which God gave to David for the Temple, it is expresly said, God gave it him in Writing. 1 Chron. 28.19. Nothing then might be done by Moses or by Solomon, tho they were two of the wisest Men that ever lived, about the Tabernacle, or Temple, or about the whole Service of God performed in them, but according to that Pattern, Exod. 25.9, 40, 39, 42, 40, 16. and this charge the Lord repeats to Moses four times, to shew the great Importance of it, and the Author to the Hebrews Notes, that it was said unto him, Hebr. 8.5. see that thou make all things according unto the Pattern, that was shewed thee in the Mount. Hebr 3.6. Since therefore Christ was faith­full in his House as Moses was, he must, say they, in building his Spiritual House have given us a Pattern according to which he would have all his works done, and that pattern must be con­tained in the H. Scriptures.

Answ. 1 Of this, & almost all the Arguments produced by Dissenters on this Subject, it is observable that they hold as much against all Laws con­cerning Civil matters, as concerning sacred. For instance Moses as he prescribed those Laws whereby the Jewish Nation was to Act in sacred matters, so did he from Gods mouth, prescribe them a Judicial Law, a Law for Civil Govern­ment, and he moreover saith of that as well as of those Laws which did concern Gods Worship, you shall observe to do as the Lord your God hath Commanded you, you shall not turn aside to the right hand, or the left. If then the Argument here holds from the fidelity of Moses to that of Christ, or from Gods care of his Churches Ser­vice under the Old Testament, to his care of it under the New. Christ must have given us a form of Civil Government as well as Sacred, a Statute Law by which our Courts of Justice must be regulated, and to which 'tis not in the Power of King and Parliament to add on Statute, or else Christ must be thought less faithful in his House, then Moses was, and God less care­full of the Christian than the Jewish Church.

And indeed Arguments of this Nature taken from Similitudes may be used to conclude things manifestly false, as V. G. God is not less kind to his Ministers under the New Testament than under the Old, and therefore as in the Law of Moses we are told punctually what they should receive from the People, so must we be told also under the New Testament, under the Law there was on Earth an High Priest over the Jews, therefore we must have an universal Bishop over the Christians. Moses appointed a living Judge of Controversies to whom all Jews stood bound to repair in doubtful cases, and according [Page 63]to whose word and information they were obli­ged to Act, not declining from it to the right hand or to the left, Deut. 17.9, 12. And there­fore by this Rule of our Dissenters, God must have left us Christians such a living Judge, or else his care and kindness towards the Christian Church, will be less then was his care and kindness to the Jewish Church.

Answer 2 2ly. It is falsly supposed by this Argument that Moses was so exact and full in all his in­stitutions, that nothing afterward was to be added to them, or ordained by the Rulers of the Church; for the better observation of them, the Rulers of the Jewish Church did, notwithstanding his exactness, do many things, Sacred and Civil, for which they had no precept to direct them, nor any other Warrant but the use of reason and prudential discourse, and they made many consti­tutions which were of things very useful and ne­cessary to be decided for the direction of the practice both of Priests and People. The in­stances of this Nature are very numerous, and may be seen in Dr. Leightfoots Temple Service, from whence I shall Collect these few: The Law of Moses appoints no Substitute to the High Priest in case of his uncleanness, or any other matter which might render him unfit to do his Office, at the great day of expiation, or any other So­lemnity. Provision therefore was made for this, and other occasions of like Nature, by ap­pointing with him a Sagan, or a Substitute who might officiate for him in such cases. Leight. p. 34. p. 169. And of whose officiating for him in the great day of Expiation, we find an in­stance in Josephus. l. 17. cap. 8. p. 597. They had no Command for sounding their Trumpets every Morning at the opening of the Court Gates, particularly [Page 64]at the opening of the Gate of Nicanor. ‘But tho this practice had no express and literal Command, yet was it grounded upon this ne­cessity and reason, because that the Levites and Stationary Men might have notice to come to attend their Desks, and Service and that the People of Jerusalem might hear, Temple Serv. p. 57, 58. and take notice, and those that would come to the Temple; so that this sounding was, as the Bells, to ring them in to the Service.’ Agreeable to this was also the sounding, striking, or ringing of their great Bell Migrepha: Ibid. p. 111. p. 59. The constant Psalms sung by the Levites every day of the Week, with the reasons why they made choice of them. The four and twenty courses of the Israelites of the station, is no where mentioned, or appoint­ed in the Law of Moses, and yet it was an ex­cellent constitution: p. 63. ‘For there were some sa­crifices that were sacrifices of all Israel, and particularly the daily Sacrifice; now it was impossible that all Israel should be present at the Sacrifices that were to be Offered up for all Israel; and therefore it was needful that some Representatives should be chosen, who instead and behalf of all the People, should be pre­sent at every Sacrifice that should be Offered up for the whole Congregation. Now be­cause it would be too heavy for one Company of Men to attend continually on this Work, as the daily Sacrifice required, therefore they ap­pointed twenty four Courses of these statio­nary Men, as well as of the Priests, and Le­vites, that their attendance in these vicissitudes might be the more easie, for which cause also was made the like division of the Priests and Levites, p. 64. There was Sacrificing in the Tem­ple Service twice a day, and reading of the [Page 65]Law at least twice, and Prayers four times, and it became them, and behoved them, if it had been possible, to have been all attend­ing there, but because this could not possibly be done, they ordained these Courses of Sta­tionary Men, to be as the Deputies of all the People, and a Representative Congregation in their behalf. It had been an open contempt of those ordinances, if being daily Admi­nistred, none of the People had attended at them, and it would have been a hazard that in time they might have been neglected by the People, if they had been left to their own liberty to come, or not come to them as they saw good; therefore to prevent this visible contempt that might have accrued, and to provide that there might be always a Con­gregation of the People, These Stationary Courses were ordained, that if Devotion brought no other of the People to the Ser­vice, yet these, their Representatives might be sure to be there.’ That the High Priest should confess over the Scape Goat all the Iniquities of the Children of Israel, and all their Transgressions, in all their Sins, we read Lev. 16.21. But in the Law of Moses we find no form of Words which the High Priest was to use, and therefore the Rulers of the Church ap­pointed him to say: Ah Lord! thy People, the House of Israel have sinned, and done perversly, p. 173.and transgressed before thee, I beseech thee now Oh Lord, expiate the sins, perversities and trans­gressions which the House of Israel thy People have sinned, done perversly, and transgressed before thee, &c. in the same Chapter the High Priest is Com­manded to Offer a Bullock for a sin Offering for himself, v. 6, 11.to make an Atonement for himself and [Page 66]for his House. Atonement for sin could not be made without confession of it; provided that the sin were known, it was therefore necessary that he should make confession of his sin in order to this Atonement, wherefore, no Words of confession being prescribed by the Law of Mo­ses, p. 171. they ordered him to say: Ah Lord! I have sinned, done perversly and transgressed before thee, I and my House, I beseech thee, oh Lord, expiate the sins, perversities and transgressions whereby I have sinned, done perversly, and transgressed, I and mine House, &c. Moreover by every sin and trespass Offering Atonement was to be made, and so the sin of the offendor was to be confessed, but there being no form of confession mention'd in the Law of Moses, the Rulers ordered the offendor to confess in this wise, I have sinned, p. 69.and done perversly, I have rebelled, and done thus and thus, but I return by repen­tance before thee, and let this be my expiation. The Law of Moses in many cases appointed a Meat Offering, but neither determined of the quantity of Corn, or Oyl to be brought for it, and there­fore the Rulers determined that no Meat Offer­ing should consist of less than the tenth part of an Ephah of Corn, p. 95. and a Log of Oyl. More­over a Man that lived at a great distance from Jerusalem was fallen under such an offence for which a Sacrifice was due by the Law, p. 99. the en­quiry hereupon was what must he do? must he away presently thither to offer his Offering? must he neglect his Imployment at home, and Travel up to Jerusalem, at a charge double or treble to the charge of the Sacrifice which was to be Offered, laying all other things aside till that be done? this being not declared expresly in the Law of Moses, they determined in this [Page 67]case, that he that became lyable to any Offering might defer the paying of it till the next Solemn Festival of the three came, when all must ap­pear before the Lord at Jerusalem. The Law had said, thou shalt Reverence my Sanctuary, but had not particularly declared in what Actions that Reverence should be expressed, they therefore ordained, in the pursuance of that general Precept, that no Man should go into the Temple to Worship with a Purse, a Staff, p. 116, 117, 118. or his Shoes on, no Man was to spit, no Man to sit there during the time of Divine Service, nor use any irreverent Gesture. To these we may add the Gizbarin or the three common Treasurers and Overseers of the Temple stock, p. 39. and all consecrated things, and the Catholikin, who were Head Treasurers over them. The singing of the Levites Children with their Fa­thers, as our Choristers now do. p. 36. p. 53. p. 83, 84. p. 96. p. 103, 105. p. 108. 119. The suspen­sive Trespass Offering. The Cross upon the Wafer made in Oyl. The manner of their Lotteries for the Service of the Priests. Their Publick and private Prayers, and their Worshipping in time of Prayer. the way of discovering the New Moon before their Feast, p. 122, 123. p. 138, 139. p. 174, 175. p. 180, 181. p. 189. and giving notice of it. The manner of saying the Aegyptian Hallel, and the manner of con­veying the Scape Goat, and giving notice of it, when done. The Branches of Pome-Citron used at the Feast of Tabernacles, and the Psalms then sung. Lastly the time, place and person for reading the Law at the Seventh year.

All these, to omit many more of the like Na­ture, were things needful, or at least useful to be determined, and yet the Law of Moses, hath said nothing of them. If therefore notwith­standing any Precepts forbidding the addition to [Page 68]the Law of Moses, or the exactness of the Pre­scriptions of that Law, the Rulers of the Jews found cause, or at least thought themselves im­powered to appoint, and to determin of these things, why may not Christian Magistrates and Governours use the same Power in the Church of Christ? If doing this was no derogation from the fidelity of Moses, in writing of the Jewish Law, why should we think that doing matters of like Nature is any derogation from the fide­lity of Christ in giving us that Gospel which is stiled the Law of liberty?

Answ. 3 3ly. Certain it is Christ hath done what this objection doth assert his faithfulness obliged him to do, viz. He hath not in the Writings of the New Testament given us a perfect Rule which clearly and expresly mentions all Ceremonies which are needful to be used in his Service, or hath determined all things indifferent in their own Nature, but disjunctively necessary, or af­ter which way or manner, we must Act con­tinually in the performance of his Worship. For instance: He hath said nothing of the time or place where, and when he would have us to Assemble for his Worship, or of the Orna­ments of the place, or the disposal of the Seats for Priest, or People, or whether Men should Sit or Stand during the hearing the Word Read or Preached, or of the Number which should As­semble at one place, or be under the care or the inspection of one Pastor; nor how long we shall continue so Assembled, and when the So­lemnity shall be dismist. And yet he who com­mands us to Assemble for his Solemn Worship, must command some Number to Assemble, with some Minister, in some place, and at some time. He hath enjoyned Publick Prayer, but he hath [Page 69]not determined, whether we must Pray in a set form of words, or only in words premeditated. Or 3ly, without Antecedent Meditation what we shall say, or whether we shall Pray in words composed by our selves, or prescribed by others. He hath not told us who shall pronounce the Prayers, whether the Minister alone, or whether the People may not bear a share in the perform­ance of that duty, by saying with, or after him, or by responses, or alternate sentences, as was the Custom in the Jewish Church? He hath not told us how oft we shall meet publickly for the per­formance of this duty, whether every morning and evening, Wednesday, and Friday, or only on the Lords day: He hath appointed the Scriptures to be read in our Assemblies, but then he hath not told us who shall be appointed for that work, whe­ther a person shall be Ordained for that Office, as in the Latin, and the Eastern Churches, or a Clark as it is usual in our Churches, whether Scripture alone may be read there, or the E­pistles and writings also of Pious Men, as in the Primitive Church they did. He hath not told us what Chapter, or what Book we are to read or in what Method, or how much; whether in the Old or the New Testament, or what Transla­tion shall be approved by any Church. He hath commanded that his word be Preached in our Assemblies, but hath not plainly told us who alone shall Preach, whether ordained persons only, or also gifted Brethren, whether with License, or without, nor in what Method, whether by Doctrine and use, or any other way, whether with Study, or without, whether by chusing of a Text, or only chusing of a Subject to discourse upon, whether with Notes, or only by the help of Memory, whether in a place dedicated to that [Page 70]service, or not dedicated, whether in a Church, or in the open Field, nor lastly hath he told us how often, nor how long we are to Preach.

He hath Commanded us to sing Psalms, but then he hath not told us whether all should sing together, as is the Custom in our Parish Churches, or only some, as in Cathedrals. Whether the Psalms we sing should be in Rythm, or Meeter, or not, whether we should si [...]g with V [...]al only, or with Instrumental Musick also, nor what [...], or what Translations of the Psalms shoul [...] b [...] app [...]ov­ed or allowed to be sung in Churche [...], [...] we should sing before, or only after Ser [...], or whether we should do it standing, or in the sitting Posture.

He hath said, Go and Baptize all Nations, but hath not clearly told us who shall Baptize, and in what cases, whether the Priest alone, or any other Christian, especially in cases of necessity, whether Baptism shall be Administred to Infants is not expresly said in Scripture, but is left to be collected thence by Analogy, and rational deductions, whether all Infants are to be Bap­tized, or only those of Christian Parents, or of true Believers, whether with stipulators, or without, whether we should Baptize in a River, Pond, Spring, Font, or Basin, whether Infants should be Baptized at Eight days old, within a Month, or only at Easter, and Penticost, as was the ancient Custom of the Church of God: Whether Baptism should be Administred by Dipping, or by Sprinkling only, whether by Dipping thrice, as was the Custom of some Churches, or only once, as other Churches did, whether only Men, or Women only, or both indifferently were to assist at the Baptizing of Adult persons.

He hath said do this in remembrance of me, but hath not told us on what days the Lords Supper [Page 71]shall be Administred, or how oft, whether it should be received every day, or every Sunday, as in the Primitive Church the Custom was, or every Month, as in Cathedrals it is, or thrice a year, as is required by the Rubrick. He hath not told us in plain words whether consecration of the Elements to be received be necessary, and what words must be used in Consecration, nor hath he told us who alone may Consecrate, whe­ther a Deacon, or a Priest only, or who alone shall be admitted to the Sacrament, whether all visible Professors, or sincere Believers only, whether they must be first examined by Church Officers, or only should examin their own Con­sciences. He hath not told us whether the Bread to be received shall be of Wheat, or of some other Grain, whether one great Loaf, or more. Whether the Wine shall be mixt with Water, or not, or whether it shall be Claret, Muskadine, or any other sort of Wine, whether we shall receive after Supper, as Christ and his Apostles did, or in the Morning, as the Christians under persecution did, whether we should re­ceive it Full, or Fasting, Sitting, Leaning, Stan­ding, or Kneeling, whether we should receive at a Communion Table, or in our Seats, and whether that Table shall be of Wood, or Stone, whether it shall be Round, Long or Square, whe­ther it shall stand in the East or West end, or in the Middle of the Church, whether it shall have Rails or no Rails. All, or many of these things (to omit many other Circumstances respecting Ordination, and Church Discipline) are left by Christ and his Apostles undetermined, and if this Argues in him a defect of care and providence, or of fidelity towards his Church, as this objecti­on doth Blasphemously suppose, what remains [Page 72]but that our Blessed Saviour should be charged with these neglects, it being certain from ex­perience that he hath left us no particular injuncti­ons for the determination of these matters. And if he must be deemed less faithful in his House than Moses was, because he is not so particular in the prescribing of such Rites, I know not how we can excuse him from that guilt, so Blasphe­mous is the result of this Objection. And lastly seeing these Acts of Worship cannot be perform­ed without some of these Circumstances which are thus left undetermined, if the determination of them by Superiours be a sufficient cause for our Refusal to be present at, or to joyn with them in these Ordinances, we must have cause sufficient to renounce all Publick Worship.

Answ. 4 4ly, We say there is a manifest disparity be­twixt the Gospel and the Jews state, and that good reason may be given why, tho all puncti­lio's were determined then, it should not be so now. For the People of the Jews lived all under one Civil Government, whereas we Chri­stians live under different forms of Government, and are dispersed throughout divers Nations, using divers Customs, and therefore could not, if at all, conveniently practise such an uniformi­ty of Ceremonies as we must have done, if Christ had determined every Circumstance of his Wor­ship as Moses did. v. g. dipping in Baptism might be subject to little inconvenience in hot Coun­tries, but if this should have been enjoyned un­der the frozen Zone it might have hazarded the life of the Baptized person. The Custom of some Countries doth make that decent, and a sign of Reverence, and therefore fit to be im­posed, or observed in those Countries, which is in other Countries, where no such Customs do obtain, [Page 73]neither decent, nor a sign of Reverence, and so unfit to be required in those Countries. See many other disparities in the Irenicum of Dr. Stillingfleet.

Answ. 5 Lastly, The fidelity of Moses here spoken of, is only this, that he did faithfully declare unto the Jews what God had spoken to him, concea­ling nothing of what God had commanded from them, he was faithful saith the Text [...], for a Testimony of what was to be spoken. Hebr. 3.5. And therefore the fidelity of Christ compared with it, must not consist in prescribing Ceremonies, but in declaring the whole Will of God discovered to him, which that he punctu­ally performed he himself assures us, saying: The Word which I speak is not mine, Joh. 14.10. Joh. 12.49, 50.but his that sent me. I speak not of my self, but the Father which sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say. As the Father hath said to me, so I speak.

Obj. 2 ‘The Scripture is a Rule of even Ceremo­nies in Gods Worship, for it gives prescri­ptions and directions in the New Testament, concerning the Sacraments of Baptism, and the Lords Supper. Now if it doth not prescribe all Ceremonies requisite and convenient; then it is only a partial, and imperfect Rule of Ce­monies in Gods Worship, whereas we cannot but hold it to be a perfect, adequate, and total Rule of Ceremonial, as well as Moral Wor­ship, (for) it is able to perfect the man of God, and throughly to furnish him unto all good works, Reply to Dr. Hammond. p. 85 Answ. 1. and so unto all Ceremonies that are good works.’ So M. Jeans. Answ. To shew the Absurdity of this Argument take these few Instances of a like Nature. The Scripture is a Rule of Justice, and of Charity betwixt Man and Man, and of Temperance towards our selves, for it gives prescriptions and directions in the [Page 74] New Testament concerning all those Matters. Now if it doth not prescribe all that is requisite and convenient to be prescribed in respect unto them, then it is only a partial and imperfect Rule of Justice, Charity, and Temperance, whereas we cannot but hold it to be a total, adequate, and perfect Rule of all particulars respecting Justice, Charity, and Temperance; For it is able to per­fect the man of God, & throughly furnish him to all good Works, and so to all particular Acts of Justice that are good Works, and so all Humane Laws concerning any Act of Justice, Charity, or Tem­perance, which are not meerly penal, but dire­ctive, must be a Derogation from the Sufficiency of Scripture, as well as the prescribing of a Cere­mony. Answ. 2 2ly, According to this Argument the Scripture must have prescribed both Time and Place, and all the things which I have men­tioned in Answer to the last Objection, or else no Time or Place, or any of those things which are left undetermined by it, can be requisite or convenient to be used in the Worship of God. So monstrously absurd is this way of Arguing. In farther Confutation of this Argument, I shall first lay down plainly the Assertion or Doctrine of the Church of England in reference to the Perfection of the Holy Scriptures, and from it give a direct Answer to this Objection. 2ly, I shall lay down the contrary Tenet of some Non-Conformists which is here asserted in this Argu­gument. 3ly, I shall endeavor to shew the Dan­gerousness of this Opinion, and the Swarms of evil consequences which do naturally follow from it. And 4ly, That they who hold it did, & do many things repugnant to it. And 5ly, That it doth neces­sarily make the Holy Scripture an imperfect Rule.

1. Then, when we assert that Scripture is a [Page 75]perfect Rule, we mean it thus, that it doth perfectly contain all that is necessary to be believed, or done, in Order to our acceptance with God here, or to our happiness with him hereafter, not that it doth particularly prescribe what ever Circum­stance of Order, Decency or Convenience may be observed in the Service of God. And this doth seem to me to be the true Distinction in this matter betwixt the Protestant of the Church of England, and the Rigid Puritan, that the Pro­testant of the Church of England asserts the Holy Scripture to be a full and perfect Rule of all the Articles of Christian Faith, and Christian Piety, but notwithstanding he maintains that Holy Scripture hath left it in the Power of the Church Governors Sacred, and Civil, to appoint such Rites and Ceremonies to be used in the Ser­vice of God, as they shall judge convenient, and conducing to the ends of Unity, and Order, Peace, and Love, Decency, Uniformity, and the Edification of the Church. And that by virtue of these General Rules, Follow after the things, Rom. 14.19. Phil. 3.16. 1 Cor. 14.40.which make for Peace, and whereby we may edify one another, Let us walk by the same Rule, let us mind the same thing, Let all things be done decently, and in order, Let all be done to Edifica­tion, and to the Glory of God, Give no offence to Jew or Gentile, or to the Church of God, &c. They in the General are authorised to appoint such Rites and Ceremonies as they judge most conducing to these ends, and that all Christian people who live under their Care and Jurisdi­ction, are bound to yield obedience to them in matters of this Nature by vertue of those Seri­ptures which command them to obey those that Rule over them, and to submit to them. Hebr. 13.17, [...] Pet. 5.5. Rom. 13.1. 1 Pet. 2.13.To be sub­ject to their Elders, and to the higher Powers, [Page 76]and to every Ordinance of man for the Lords Sake. I say their Tenet is that by vertue of these Scriptures they are bound to yield obedience to them in all lawful things, that is, in all those things which God hath not forbidden in his Word, for where there is no Law of God for­bidding, there can be no transgression, and there­fore to refuse obedience to our Superiors Civil, or Sacred, in those matters, is to refuse obedience in things lawful, and therefore to offend against the Precepts which call upon us to be subject and obedient to them. So that we do assert in Answer unto this Objection,

1. That the Scripture is a perfect Rule of all Ceremonies that are good Works antecedently to the Command of man, so that in Scripture some ex­press for them may be found, but that it is not such a Rule of indifferent Ceremonies. 2ly, That 'tis as perfect a Rule as it needs to be in reference to Ceremonies uncommanded in particular; (1) By giving us the general Rules which should direct Superiours in the imposing of these things indif­rent, but not in a particular Prescription of them, as this Objection doth suppose, it being a plain contradiction that any thing should be to us in­different, and yet prescribed to us in the Word of God. Dissenters therefore must deny that there is any circumstance of Worship, be it Time, Place, Gesture, or the Words in which it is to be performed, left indifferent, or that being so, that circumstance must not be used in Gods Worship, or else they must confess the weakness of the Ar­gument produced. And 2ly, Because it doth command us to obey Superiors Civil, and Sacred, in all lawful matters, and so instructs us to submit to what is not forbidden by Gods Word, when by Superiors it is commanded. This is our [Page 77]Tenet, and this is a direct, and a sufficient answer to this Argument:

But on the other hand the Tenet of some Nonconformists, owned by this Argument, is this: That no Church Governors ought to ordain, or introduce into the Service of God any other Rites or Observations than such as God hath in his Word commanded, or Christ and his Apostles by their Examples, which they esteem as Precepts hath approved, and that if they enjoyn such things we must not yield obedience to them, but must re­ject them as humane inventions, superstition, and will worship. This is that Doctrine in which the Mystery of Puritanism doth consist, and the pernicious consequences of it are so many that any person, who doth weigh them seriously, will, if he be indeed a Lover of Christianity, abhor, and heartily renounce that Doctrine whence they so naturally flow. And

1. This Doctrine casts a reproach upon Reli­gion, it gives just cause to Magistrates to scruple the admission of the Christian Faith, and to the Atheist, and the Polititian to represent it as the great instrument of sedition, and disobedience. For this opinion obliges men to thwart the Ma­gistrate in all indifferent matters which he com­mands with a respect unto Gods Worship: If he commands them to come to Church on the Lords­day at such a time, in such a place, they must stand bound in conscience by this Rule to refuse to do so, because in Scripture God hath not de­termined how oft, what hour, or where they should assemble, if he commands them to be un­covered in the House of God, to stand, or kneel whilst they are praying, to sit whilst hearing, or the like, they must not do it, because God hath not told them in his Word that they should be un­covered [Page 78]in his presence, that they should kneel, or stand whilst they do pray, or sit when they do hear. Now what a Scandal, what a base im­peachment is it to our peaceable Religion, to say that it obligeth us to disobey Authority in mat­ters God hath left us all to do or not to do at pleasure, only because he doth command us so to do them, as we might have performed them, had he not commanded us, and that nothing doth so much engage us to be refractory to the higher Powers, as that perfect Law of Liberty which Christ hath left us?

2ly, Upon the same account it must be sinful to obey those Civil Laws which do concern those Laws of Justice, Charity, and Mercy to­wards our Christian Brother which cannot clearly be collected from the written Word. For it is plain from Scripture that these are the more weighty matters of the Law, Matt. 23.23. viz. Judgment and Mercy; Mark 12.33.That to love God with all our hearts, and our Neighbour as our selves, is more than all Burnt-offerings and Sacrifices. That to pray, hear, read the Word, receive the Sacrament, to fast, are but the means which God hath in his Word ordained for the encrease of Justice, Equity, Mercy, Love, Peace, Humility and Temperance, and such like Christian Graces, and therefore these must be the things in which God is concerned mostly that we should yield obedience. That when the Scripture reckoneth the Graces of the Spirit, Gal. 5.22. it tells us they are Love, Peace, Long-suffering, Gentleness, Goodness, Righteous­ness, and Temperance, not prayer, fasting, hearing, receiving of the Sacrament, &c. And lastly 'tis observable that we are call'd to imitate our heavenly Father in acts of Love, and Mercy, our Lord and Saviour in Meekness, and Humi­lity, [Page 79]Bowels of Mercy, Compassion, and Self-denyal, but not in prayer, and fasting, and in such like duties. Since therefore God is more concerned for matters of this Nature, than for his outward worship, his Word must be more perfect in prescribing of these duties, than any circum­stances of his worship, if then it be unlawful for us to submit to any Ceremonies commanded by man which respect his worship, because Gods Word must be a perfect Rule, not only of all parts, but of all modes of Worship; it must be more un­lawful to submit to any humane constitutions touching Equity, and Justice, Mercy, and Com­passion, Love, Charity, and Peace; because Gods Word must be supposed, in these more weighty and substantial matters, to be a Rule more perfect; And therefore all the Laws and Statutes respecting matters of this Nature, which cannot be collected from the Words of Scripture, must, by this doctrine, be cashiered as vain In­ventions, and Christians must stand obliged to refuse obedience to them. For instance, I am commanded to worship God in publick, but whether I must do it in a Church, or in the Field, in black, or white, or any other garb, by stinted Words, or by Expressions of my own immediate Invention, in this, or that, or a 3d posture, is not expressed in Holy Scripture; If therefore in these cases I must not yield obedience to any power that will command me to worship God in white, to pray in stinted Words, to do it kneeling, or the like, because that Scripture, which is a Rule of Worship, hath not determined of these things, must I not do the like in other cases of an higher Nature? and because Scripture hath commanded that I should be charitable, and give Alms, but hath not said what portion I shall give, nor when, [Page 80]nor in what place, or to what persons, nor in what manner, whether by my self, or by the Over­seers of the Poor, am I not bound as much to shew my disobedience to those Laws which rate me to the Poor, and which give power to Officers to strein on my refusal to pay that rate. If I must not joyn with an Assembly that doth use a stinted Form of Words, that riseth up at the rehearsal of the Creed, or with a Pastor that doth officiate in white, because these things are not comman­ded in the perfect Rule of Worship, how dare I to commence a sute of Law, to arrest a person for a debt, or to indite him for a trespass without Scripture warrant, these things being no where commanded in that perfect Rule of Equity and Justice? The Scripture having said: There is utterly a fault among you that you go to Law one with another, 1 Cor. 6.7. Luk. 6.35. Matt. 5.40.lend, hoping for nothing again, if any man take away thy Cloak let him have thy Coat also, but never said, If any man officiate in white, or by a Form of Words, do not joyn with him, is it not matter of just admiration that they who never scruple to act contrary unto the letter of the Scripture in the former cases, should be so very scrupulous in things no where forbidden in the Word?

3ly, This dangerous opinion will force men to be troublesome in all the Churches of the World, and to refuse communion even with those As­semblies they are joyned with, nay had they lived in the Jewish Church, or any other Age of Christendom, they must have been continual Separatists. For where I pray you could they have found a Precept for all the Jewish Practises and Observations which I have mentioned in the foregoing Arguments? If they had lived in the next Age to the Apostles, with Polycarp and [Page 81] Ignatius, who did converse with the Apostles, where would the Scripture have afforded any warrant for observation of the Feast of Easter, which both the Churches of the East and West observed in the days of Polycarp, L. 5. c. 24. as is recorded by Eusebius; or any Precept for bowing to the East, Resp. ad quest. 118. which Pseudo-Justin mentions as a thing practised in his days; or for the Observation of the days on which their Glorious Martyrs died, Apud Euseb. l. 4. c. 15. which yet the Church of Smyrna mentions as a thing practised by the Christians not long after the death of the Apostles; or for the Water mixed with the Sacramental Wine, of which both Justin, and St. Cyprian speak; Apol. 2. Cypr. Ep. 63. Just. M. ibid. or for the portions of the Sacramental Bread sent to the Sick, and absent, to signify, they were partakers of the same Sacrifice, and belonged to the same Altar; or for their standing in their publick worship, from Easter unto Whitsunday, Resp. ad quest. [...]15. Can. 19. and every Lords­day to testify their belief of our Lords Resur­rection, which yet by the Great Nicene Council was required to be observed by all Christian People, and which they did accordingly observe. Tertullian gives us a Catalogue of many obser­vations which the Church used in his days, and which she vindicated not from the Scriptures, De Coron. Milit. c. 3 4. but from the Patronage of Custom and Tradition. I will begin, saith he, with Baptism, where com­ing to the Water we testify before the President (or Bishop) that we renounce the Devil, his Pomps, and his Angels, then are we thrice dipt, answering something more than Christ commanded in his Gospel; The Sacrament of the Eucharist which our Lord instituted after Supper, we par­take of in our Meetings before the day arise; we think it wickedness to fast, or to pray kn [...]eling on the Lords day; we kneel not from Easter to [Page 82]Whitsunday; whensoever we go forth or come in, or whatsoever we are conversant about, we sign our Foreheads with the sign of the Cross, and if you do require a Law of Scripture for these Obser­vations, you will find none; Tradition will be al­ledged as the Author, and custom the Confirmer of them. For these are observations which we de­fend not from Scripture, but from the title of Tra­dition, and the Patronage of Custom. This was the Practice of the first Ages of the Church, and as it grew more ancient its Constitutions grew more numerous, and so the men of this opinion, had they lived then, (as they did not, none that we read of in those times ever pre­tending separation from any Church on these ac­counts) they must have been obliged to separate from all the Churches then in being. Come we to all the Churches of this present Age, and we shall find that this opinion will oblige the Au­thors of it to separate from them also. For the Church of Rome, and all the Eastern Churches they must much more abominate on this account than any others, because their Ceremonies are more numerous, and many of them superstitious. The Lutheran Churches have not only Lytur­gies, and other ancient Ceremonies, which we observe, but they have also Images, & many other observations, which these men stile Superstitious, Popish, Antichristian Ceremonies. In the Refor­med Churches they will find Lyturgies of hu­mane invention, and change of Apparel for Di­vine Service, even at Geneva they will find en­joyned a Book of Common Prayer composed by Calvin, the Wafer Cake, the use of God-Fathers in Baptism, bidding of Prayer, with divers other Coremonies, no where commanded in the Holy Scripture; and so as Dr. Durel largely proves, it [Page 83]is in all Reformed Churches of the West. I am not able, saith Mr. Baxter, to bear the thoughts of separating from almost all Christs Churches upon Earth, but he that separateth from one, or many, Def. of the Princip. of love, p. 55.upon a Reason common to all, doth virtually sepa­rate from all. Since then it hath been proved that separating on the Account of this principle is virtually condemning and separating from all the Churches of this and all preceding Ages of the Christian World, the Authors of it must re­nounce the principle, or bear the blame both of condemning, and separating from the whole Church of Christ throughout all Ages.

This Tenet gives a great advantage to Popery, for it asserts that nothing circumstantial must be performed in Gods worship without particular direction from the Word. Now it is certain that many circumstances of worship, which con­cern Prayer, Preaching of the Word, Administra­tion of the Sacraments, Church Government, the Exercise of Church discipline, are not determined in the written Word of God, and therefore it is needful, if this principle be true, either to own Traditions touching matters of this Nature to be received as the Word of God, or to confess he hath appointed some infallible persons, whether Pope, or Councils it is not much material, whose determinations in these matters must be received as the Word of God. Now these two Tenets are the fundamental parts of Popery, on which their other Doctrins, and Practices depend, and which, if we admit, we cannot rationally re­ject whatsoever these infallible Judges shall de­termine, or deliver as the unwritten Word of God. I shall conclude this head with a large Passage out of Mr. Baxter, who, in his defence of his principles of Love, speaks thus. ‘There [Page 84]are men, otherwise very honest and truly Godly, who think that the Scripture is intended by God not only as a general Rule, but a par­ticular Law for all the very circumstances of worship, and that the second Commandment in particular condemneth all that is the pro­duct or invention of man in or about the Worship of God, and that to deny this is to deny the perfection of the Scriptures; If this opinion prevail, saith he, what abundance of hurt will it do?’ For

Lastly, I add that they who do assert this Tenet, do many things repugnant to it. As v. g. They introduce Lay Elders unordained, of whom there is no mention in the Scriptures, or in the Church of the first Ages. They sing in stinted Metre Hymns of their own devising, for which no Precept or Example can be pro­duced [Page 88]from the Book of God. Besides where hath our Lord, or his Apostles enjoyned a Dire­rectory for publick worship? and that which they imposed, what Authority could it pretend to, but that of man? They when they take an Oath do not refuse to lay their hands upon, and kiss the Holy Scriptures. Now all agree that Oaths are solemn Acts of Divine Worship, for they are Invocations of God, and thereby we acknowledge his Omniscience, and that he knows the uprightness of our intentions, and that his Justice will avenge it self on the false Swearer, and that his Power is able to inflict upon him the severest Judgments, and that he by his promise stands bound to help, and to reward all those who do believe, and act accor­ding to the Holy Scriptures. Here therefore is an outward Ceremony of Humane Institution joyned with many acts of religious worship. Again when they enjoyned the solemn League and Co­venant they ordered that the whole Congrega­tion should take it 1. uncovered, 2 standing, 3. with their right hand lift up and bare. Now let any man of reason say, if it be unlawful to submit to our three Ceremonies of kneeling, crossing, and wearing a white Garment in Gods Service, why it is less unlawful to use three other Ceremonies in that more solemn act of worship, viz. the taking of an Oath, or if men may appoint these Ceremonies to be used in taking of an Oath, what hinders but in other acts of worship they may do the like?

Add to these the Arguments of Mr. William Bradshaw in his Treatise of Divine Worship.

Answ. For Answer to all these trifling Arguments, it will be only necessary to lay down plainly what is the Nature, and what are the Requi­sites of Religious worship, which being done the vanity of these pretended Arguments will be obvious to every discerning Eye.

Now outward worship in the general is the Acknowledgment of some Excellency in the Person worshipped by actions proper to express our Sense or Apprehension of that Excellency, so that three things concur unto the Constitution of it, viz.

[Page 94]1. An apprehension of that excellency in a person which deserves to be adored.

2ly, An Act of the will inclining us to do what we conceive is proper to testifie our appre­hension of that excellency.

3ly, An outward Act, performed for the expression of our Conceptions of that excel­lency.

Where therefore there is no intention to ex­press our apprehension of any excellency in ano­ther, Coroll. by any Action we perform, nor is there in the Nature of the Action any signification or expression of that excellency, there can be no wor­ship, and therefore no false Worship; it being therefore evident that in wearing of a Surplice, or using the sign of a Cross, there is no Natural sig­nification of any excellency of that God we Wor­ship, nor is there in us, who do use these things, any intention to express our apprehension of any excellence in God, 'tis certain they can be no Worship, and therefore no false Worship of God.

2. This being the Nature of Worship in the general, Religious Worship must be an Act or Service in its own Nature, or the intention of the Worshipper expressive of some excellency, or perfection in the object Worshipped. And hence our knowledg, or conceptions of God, our disputations and disquisitions touching his Nature, and his attributes are no parts of Wor­ship, tho they be terminated upon God, and he be the sole object of them, because they do ex­press no Honour, they are not designed as the expression of our apprehensions of his ex­cellency.

3. God being the only object of Religious Worship, all Worship that is truly called Religious, must be either terminated on God, or such as [Page 95]doth express some excellency that properly be­longs unto him, if it be terminated on God, and doth express no excellency belonging to him, and give him no real Honour, tho it be designed to Ho­nour him, it is then Superstitious Worship of God, if it express some excellency proper to God, but terminated one the Creature, it is then Ido­latrous Worship. Those Ceremonies therefore which are not used with a design to express any Honour which we owe to God, cannot be super­stitious Worship, and If they do not give that Honour to the Creature which is due to God, they cannot be Idolatrous Worship.

4ly, Altho those duties which are performed by Christians, relating to the second Table, viz. obedience to Magistrates, love to our Neighbours, and all the Acts of Charity, and Justice, are done for the Lords Sake, 1 Pet. 2.13. and with respect unto Gods Glory, Matt. 1 Cor. 10.31. 5.16. and to this end they eat, and drink, and do all other Civil Actions; yet are they not Re­ligious Worship, because the immediate ends of those Actions is not the expression of any ex­cellence in God, but the pleasing of the Magi­strate, the doing good to our Neighbour, the refreshing of our Bodies, that therefore any Act may properly be stiled Religious, it must proceed from a primary, direct, immediate ten­dance or intention to give Honour to God, or to express our sense of some of his perfections, or his Holy Attributes, wherefore the primary direct and the immediate intent of the Confor­mist in submitting to the Ceremonies being the same, viz. Obedience to Superiours in law­ful things, he cannot rationally be said to per­form Religious Worship by thus using them, tho he submit to the injunction for the Lords [Page 96]sake, who hath commanded that obedience. And since the Magistrate commands them not as immediate expressions, or acknowledgments of any excellency in, or Attribute of God, but partly for distinction, partly for decency, and uniformity, and partly for their Antiquity, and lastly as being apt to put us in mind of our duty, they cannot be supposed by command­ing of them to these ends to make them parts of Worship.

5ly, External and Bodily Worship is either Substantial, or Circumstantial, and Ceremonial, the Substantial parts of Gods outward Worship are vocal Prayer, Praises, hearing of the Word, not as the word of Man, but of God, receiving of the Sacraments, as they import an entering into Covenant with God, and an Eucharistical Oblation of our Souls and Bodies to him. Those Bodily Acts which be performed by us in pur­suance of these substantial parts of Worship, and whereby we do signifie either our Reverence of that God in whose presence we are, or with whom we have to do, as standing, uncovering the head, kneeling at Prayer, bowing of our Body at our entrance into the place of Gods Worship, prostration, lifting up our Hands or Eyes to Heaven, or whereby we do make profession of our Faith in God, as standing up at the Creed, to profession of our Faith in a Crucified Savi­our, on which account the Ancients used the sign of the Cross, or lastly whereby we enter into Cove­nant with God according to his institution, as by receiving of the Sacramental signs. All these are Ceremonial, or Circumstantial parts of Worship.

6ly, These Ceremonial parts of Worship are in the general commanded by God, and they are natural signs of Reverence required by the [Page 97]second Commandment, for that forbidding all outward Religious Worship to be given to that which is not God, and that because it is that Worship which is due to God, the affirmative part of that precept must be supposed to be this, Thou shalt give unto me that outward Worship; when therefore our Church Commands her sub­jects to Kneel at their receiving of the Sacra­ment with Prayer; and doth exhort, but not Command them, to Worship God when they do enter into the place of Worship, or bow unto the blessed Jesus, who is God blessed for evermore, when they are by his Name put in Remembrance of that great Salvation which he hath wrought for us, she only doth appoint that to be done at such a time, which God hath in the general Commanded to be done, and so doth institute no uncommanded part of Worship.

7ly, When any thing is by God Commanded to be done in his own Worship which doth not primarily, directly, and immediately tend to ex­press, or signifie our sense or apprehension of his excellency, or his Attributes, the doing of it in its own Nature is no part of Worship, but only the doing of it in Obedience to the Com­mand of God, for all obedience is an acknow­ledgment of Gods Sovereign Power, and the subjection which we owe unto it. Thus v. g. to receive the person that is to be Baptized, to give the Bread and Wine to the Communicants, are no parts of outward Worship, because they are not directly and immediately designed to express any excellence of God, but only done in order to the Baptising of the person to be received in­to the Church, or the convenience of the Com­municants receiving. Sitting at the receiving of the Sacrament can be no part of Worship in [Page 98]those Churches which retain the gesture, be­cause it is retained only as a most fitting Table gesture, and all those things which God enjoyned to be done in his own Temple, the use of the Snuffers, and the Tongs, the cleansing of the Candlesticks, the lighting up of the Candles, the bringing in of the Wood for the Burnt offer­ings, with infinite things of a like Nature, could be no parts of Worship, otherwise than as they were performed directly in obedience to a Divine Command. Now hence 'tis easie to re­turn an Answer to the forementioned objections: For,

1st. Hence it appears, that the proper use of those Ceremonies of the Church of England which are not Natural, or Instituted parts of Worship, is not the Honouring of God by the acknowledgment of any of his excellencies, which is sufficient refutation of the first Argu­ment.

2ly, Hence it appears, that they are not meer and immediate Acts of Religion, or formally elicited from Religion, as the second Argument supposes.

3ly, Hence it is evident, that all the means that God hath appointed to teach Obedience are not Acts of Divine Worship, as Preaching, Read­ing of the Word, pious Discourse, good Advice, and good Example, which is sufficient Answer to the third Argument, which also falsly doth suggest that our Ceremonies are devised to that end.

4ly, Hence it appears, that it is no part of Gods Worship to teach his Worship, teaching being an Action directed not immediately to God, but Men: nor are our Ceremonies devised to be means of Spiritual instruction by their [Page 99] Mystical signification: nor are such signs necessa­rily essential parts of Worship, (unless afflictions which are signs of Gods displeasure designed to be means of Spiritual instruction, be also parts of Divine Worship) as the fourth Argument supposeth.

5ly, Hence it is manifest, that the teaching and reading of the Scriptures for edification of the Church, is no part of Gods Worship, for the reason mentioned before, on which false supposition doth the fifth Argument proceed.

6ly, Nor are all Actions whereby Spiritual du­ties are taught in Gods Solemn Worship, Acts whereby God is Worshipped, as is suggested in the sixth Argument.

7ly, Nor was the use of Jewish Cere­monies in the Solemn Worship of God, any part of his true and immediate Worship, unless they were such Jewish Ceremonies as did ex­press, or signifie some Divine Excellency, or the acknowledgment thereof in those that used them, as the seventh Argument suggest, but doth not prove.

8ly, Nor are our uncommanded Ceremonies performed directly to God, as is supposed Ar­gument the eighth.

9ly, Nor are all special things done in the Service of God parts of his Worship, as is as­serted Argument the ninth.

10ly. Nor must all special Actions done in the Service of God bring special Honour to him, viz. by the signification of any of his excel­lencies, not the snuffing of the Candles, not the bringing of the Wood to the Temple, as the tenth Argument supposeth, such Actions are in­deed performed in order to those things which do bring Honour to God, even as submission [Page 100]to the Ceremonies prescribed by the Church is done in order to the free Preaching of the Word, and to the demonstration of our Obedience to Superiors, and to the preservation of the Churches Peace, by which things God is highly Ho­noured.

11ly, All Civil Ceremonies, or all the Cir­cumstances of them, are not parts of Civil Wor­ship; not the taking of the Cup, by the Cup­bearer, but the Kneeling with it; not the filling out of the Wine, but the tendring it in that humble posture. In a word, only those Cere­monies whereby we do express our sense of some excellency in our Civil Superiors, or which by Nature, or by Custom signifie some excellency in the person to whom they are performed, are parts of Civil Worship. And so also is the case with reference to Religious Worship: Nor are our Ceremonies Religious, but only Cere­monies used in Religion.

12ly, Nor would the Command of God to use a Surplice, or sign with the Cross, to signifie to the Congregation the Reception of the Bap­tized Person into the Society of Christians, make these Ceremonies parts of Divine Wor­ship, any otherwise than the doing of them would be an Act of Obedience to Gods Com­mand, and therefore the doing of them with­out that Command, can be no Worship, and therefore no false Worship: Nor is all that God tieth in a particular manner to his Worship, any part thereof.

Obj. 4 ‘To bring in any Ceremonies of Ordained and Mystical signification appropriated to the Worship of God, without any License from Christ himself, is to Trespass against his Kingly Office, for he is the only Law-giver [Page 101]to his Church, and hath committed to her no Authority of appointing new things, but a Mi­nistry to observe and do such things as Christ hath appointed with order and decency unto Edification: It also is a derogation from the fulness of Christs Prophetick Office: For Christ is the only Teacher of his Church, and the Appointer of all means whereby we should be taught and admonished of any holy Duty, and whatsoever he hath thought good to teach his Church, and the means whereby, he hath per­fectly set down in Holy Scripture, so that to acknowledg any other means of teaching and admonishing us of our Duty, than such as he hath appointed, is to receive another teach­er into the Church besides him, and to confess some imperfection in the means he hath or­dained to teach us by.’ This I would learn, saith Ames, how we can acknowledg and receive any means of Religious teaching with Faith, ex­cept it appear to be appointed by an Authentick Teacher and Law-giver, and how our Prelates in appointing means of Spiritual teaching, which Christ appointed not, can be accounted therein Ministerial Teachers under him as their, and our only Authentick Teacher: As also, if Christ be our Authentick Teacher in all good that we learn about Religion; who taught our Prelates so good manners as to put Fescues of their own making into his hand, and so appoint him after what man­ner and by what means he shall Teach us? To this objection I Answer:

Answ. 1 That this Argument is grounded upon this false supposition, that the Rulers of our Church have instituted any Ceremonies to teach Spiritu­al Duties, by their Mystical significations, or to be Authentick means of Spiritual Teaching, [Page 102]whereas I know no Ceremonies appointed to be used to that end, so that both the use of the Ceremony and the end, are matter of the Churches Precept, and it were folly for her to make such Constitutions, for since the Church cannot discern whether I have learnt that Spiritual Duty by using of her Ceremonies, or not: She cannot punish the Offenders against such an Ordinance, and so must vainly make it: She hath indeed appointed such Ceremonies as she conceiveth apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the remembrance of his Duty, Preface to the C. prayer of Cer. &c.by some notable and special signification, and therefore hath enjoyned them, because she so conceiveth of them; but she hath no where said that she enjoyns them to Teach Spiritual Duties, or assign­ed any determinate signification of them, v. g. she hath enjoyned her Ministers to wear a Surplice when they Officiate, but hath not said that she enjoyns it to Teach them Inno­cence, or Purity, or any other Spiritual Duty: Rubr. after the Communion. She enjoyns her People to Kneel at the Sacrament, and tells us that we should signifie thereby our humble and grateful ac­knowledgment of the benefits of Christ; but then she doth not say that she designs there­by to Teach us Humility and Gratitude for those benefits, but only calls upon us to express that humility and gratitude which she supposeth we have learnt already. In a Word these Ceremonies are not by her appointed to sig­nifie at all, much less to signifie what being used without her institution they would not signifie, but they are appointed to be used as being apt when used, to mind us of, or, bring into our minds our Duty, or as fit to excite with­in us Pious meditations and reflections.

Answ. 2 [Page 103]2ly, I answer that if it be no derogation from Christs Kingly or Prophetick Office to stir up our minds to the performance of our duty by things apt to stir them up unto it, or to ex­press and signify our duty by things apt to ex­press and signify it, then can it be no encroach­ment on those Offices to impose or require such things as have an aptness thus to signify and mind us of our duties, for in it self it cannot be unlawful to require what may be lawfully performed, tho it be not required; Now if it be a derogation from Christs Prophetick, or his Kingly Office to use such things as are apt to put us in mind of our duty, it must be unlawful to toll a bell to put us in mind of going to Prayers, to keep by us a skull or skeleton to mind us of our Mortality, or a pare of Leathern Breeches, as Dr. Prideaux did, to mind us of our former low Condition, to have our vaults or burying places ready fitted and prepared, as the Eastern Nations had, and some great persons have, because these things are apt to mind us of our latter ends, or to set apart a closet in our Chambers for private de­votions, that so our coming thither may mind us of our duty. Moreover, then the ingenious Meditations of pious Mr. Boyle, and Quarles his Emblems, and all the History of the five Books of Moses graven in Stone in the Chapter House of Sarum, and all things of like Nature which are apt to bring to our Remembrance good things, and are not by our Lord in Scripture appointed to be used to these ends, must be all Sacrilegious usurpations upon Christs Kingly and Prophetick Office. Again, then must that pack of Cards which Contains the whole History of the Popish Plot, and our de­liverance [Page 104]from it be guilty of this Crime, be­cause they were designed to stir up our minds to an abhorrence of their wickedness, and a Thanksgiving to the Author of our Deliverance, and we, with equal reason, may ask that pro­found Question of Dr. Ames, who taught the Author of them, such good manners as to put Fescues of his own making into our hands to mind us of these things? Lastly, Upon the same ac­count it must be a derogation from Christs Prophetick and his Kingly Office to require men to come gravely into the House of God, or be uncovered there, or to kneel at their devotions, because these things are apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the Remembrance of the Ma­jesty, and Greatness of that God with whom he hath to do. By these, and many other In­stances of a like nature, it appears that, tho it may be doubted whether our Ceremonies be indeed apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the Remembrance of his duty to God, yet cannot it be rationally doubted but what is apt to do so may be both practised and imposed, without any derogation from the Kingly or Prophetick Office of our Lord.

Answ. 3 3ly, Hath Christ set down in Scripture all things that may any way conduce to excite good affections in us, or give occasion to any pious Meditations, or hath he not? if he hath not, then is not the assertion true on which the Ar­gument is grounded, viz. That Christ in Scri­pture hath set down all things by which we lawfully may be admonished of our duty. If he hath, then 'tis not possible, that any man should have a good affection, or pious meditation stir'd up within him by any other means, or object, then such as is expresly contained in the Word [Page 105]of God: Than which assertion nothing can be be more false. Who knows not that memo­rable Story of the Cook who from consideration of the heat of his own Fire was moved to reflect on the excessive torments of Hell-Fire, and there­by to abstain from that iniquity which would expose him to them. Should a Dissenter in his discourse with one of this calling, or in his writings, advise him to make this reflection, would he usurp upon Christs Regal or Prophe­tick Office?

Answ. 4 4ly, Tho this Objection speaks only of My­stical significant Ceremonies, yet doth it, with equal strength conclude against all Ceremonies, and against the Appointment of time, and place for publick worship; for if this be a good Ar­gument, Christ is the only Lawgiver to his Church; and therefore the Rulers of the Church may make no Laws concerning Ceremonies of Mystical Signification, why is not this as good, Christ is the only Lawgiver to his Church, and therefore they may make no Laws touching the time and place of publick worship? And if Christ hath committed to his Church no Authority of appointing new things, but only a Ministry to observe and do such things which Christ hath ap­pointed, then either Christ hath appointed time and place, or she hath no Authority to appoint them. To this Dr. Ames answers, that time and place are no new things. But I hope to appoint new time and place, is to appoint new things, and to make Laws determining a time and place not determined before, is to make a new Law about them. Again if this Argument be good, Christ is the only Lawgiver to his Church, and therefore the Rulers of the Church may make no Laws concerning Ceremonies, &c. why is not this [Page 106]as good, Christ is the only Lawgiver to his Church, and therefore the Civil Magistrate may make no Laws concerning the Payment of Tythes, or allowance of maintenance to Ministers, or of making charitable Provisions for the Poor, or touching any other Christian duty. But must leave every man to his Freedom in these matters, as Christ did.

Answ. 5 5ly, 1 Cor. 14.40, 10, 31, 32. Christ having by his Apostles given Commandments which only primarily concern the Rulers of the Church, viz. That all things in the Church be done decently and orderly, to the Glory of God, Rom. 14.19.and so as to give none Offence, that Christians should follow after the things, which make for Peace, and whereby they may edify one the other. I say this being so, all the Injunctions made by the Rulers of the Church, pursuant to the ends of Decency, and Order, the Glory of God, the avoiding Scandal, the preservation of Peace, Unity, Edification, and for prevention of the Contrary, are done by virtual Commission from this one Law-giver, and therefore can be no Entrenchment on his Legislative Power. And if Superiours should mistake in Judging that such things did really conduce unto the decency, and orderly perfor­mance of Gods Service, or to the other ends forementioned, when indeed they do not so, yet would not their imposing of them for these ends be any usurpation upon Christs Legislative Power, any more than a Law made by Civil Rulers which proveth inexpedient, or burthen­some to the people, tho by the Makers of it it was intended for their good, usurps upon the Legislative Power of the God of Heaven; For as it is judiciously said by Mr. Disp. 5. Chap. 2. §. 29. Baxter, if just Authority shall injuriously, (he should have [Page 107]said mistakingly) determine of such things, it may be the Subjects duty to obey, because these are not matters alien to their Power, and with­out their line, but only this is an imprudent overdoing in a work that belongeth to them. When St. James saith, that there is one Lawgiver, he most plainly speaks of such a Law-giver who is able to save and to destroy, or pass the Sen­tence of Absolution, and Condemnation upon others, whence he infers that they who take upon them to censure and condemn their Bre­thren, usurp his Prerogative, but he speaks not about the Laws of Decency and Order, and therefore cannot be supposed to condemn them.

And whereas Mr. Answ. to the Commissioners p. 65. Baxter doth plausibly ob­ject against the Imposition of our Ceremonies, ‘that they are equally useful to the Church Uni­versal in all Ages as to any Particular Church or Age, and therefore should be the Matter of an Universal Law, if of any, and so should be the Work of the Universal Law-giver, if of any.’ I answer, This, if granted, will only prove that there is no such positive decency Expe­dience, or Edification in these Ceremonies, as is conceived by our Rulers, that should render them fit to be imposed, but doth not prove that they usurp upon Christs Legislative Power by im­posing of them to these ends. But 2ly, This way of Arguing will necessarily condemn the Church of Christ throughout all Ages, she having always used, and by her Canons and Constitutions im­posed such Ceremonies as were equally useful in all Ages, and all Churches, as in any, as v.g. stand­ing, upon the Lords-day, at Prayer, receiving of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper fasting, and all the Ceremonies anciently annexed to baptism, [Page 108]to omit many others of like Nature before men­tioned. Now saith he in another place: I dare not think or assert that for truth which will con­demn all the Christian Churches in the World throughout most Ages of it. Disp. 5. Chap. 2. from §. 7. to the 24. 3ly, The same Ju­dicious Person gives us many instances of matters relating to the Service of God, which Christ hath not determined by Law; as v. g. ‘What utensils to employ about the Publick Worship of God: whether we shall receive the Lords Supper at a Table of Wood, or Stone, whether we shall sing in Rythm, or Metre, or in Prose, what Order shall be observed in Reading of the Scripture, or how much of it shall be read at a time, what Method we shall use in Preach­ing, what Words in Prayer, or what Ge­sture, with many other things of a like Na­ture which he most truly saith are all left to humane Determination, ibid. §. 27.28. and to humane Pru­dence.’ And yet according to his Argument, seing no reason can be given why the Deter­mination of most of them would not be equally useful in all Ages and all Churches, they must be the matter of an Universal Law, if of any, and so of an Universal Law-giver, and so can­not be left to humane Prudence or Determi­nation.

Again, when the same Person Argues against the Imposition of our Ceremonies thus: Disp. 5. Chap. 4. §. 3. If these things are needful now, why not throughout all Ages, and all Churches, if therefore Christ did neither by himself, nor his Apostles, institute, and impose these Rites, then either the imposing of them is needless, and consequently noxious, or else you must say that Christ hath omitted a need­ful part of his Law, which implyes that he was either ignorant what to do, or neglective of his [Page 109]Affairs. This Argument again condemns all the Churches of Christ throughout all Ages, since the Apostles times, who have always used some Ceremonies, which neither Christ nor his Apostles thought fit to institute. And 2ly, It also renders it unlawful for humane Prudence to determine any of those things, which, saith he, Christ and his Apostles have left undetermined, they being mostly such as are, or may be equally useful in all Ages of the Church, and such of which it may be said whensoever they are determined by humane Prudence, if they are needful now, why not always? &c.

BUt say Dissenters: ‘Obj. 5 If those Ceremo­nies which God himself ordained to teach his Church by their signification, may not now be used, §. 1 much less may those which man hath devised; now God hath abrogated his own, not only those that were appointed to prefigure Christ, but such also as served by their signification to teach moral du­ties, and so as now, without great sin, none of them can be continued in the Church, no not for signification, and therefore to bring in others of like Nature, is to Judaize. To confirm this Argument they add, that if men may impose such Ceremonies, because of their significancy, they may reduce into the Church of Christ all the whole Mass of Jewish Cere­monies, as v. g. 1. Those of moral significa­tion, as the not eating of Blood, to teach us to avoid cruelty towards the life of man and beast; the not eating of unclean beasts, to de­note our abhorrence of the impurities and immoralities which by that abstinence the Jews were taught to refrain from; the not touching any thing unclean, to mind us of avoiding all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit, to [Page 113]omit infinite instances of like Nature. 2ly, By the like reason many Jewish Rites which were Types, and Shadows of things to come may be reduced into the Church upon other accounts, as v. g. Circumcision, to mind us of the Cir­cumcision of the Heart, the Paschal Lamb, to signify our Gratitude for passing from Darkness unto Light, or from our Spiritual Thraldom unto sin, into the Liberty of the Sons of God, all Sacrifices of Thanksgiving, and all whereby they owned God to be the Author of Life and Death, and all their temporal Mercies, and did Acknowledge that they de­served to die for sin, and all the Jewish Gar­ments importing Spiritual Duties to be per­formed by their Priests, with many things of a like Nature.’ And indeed, saith Bishop Taylor, If the Church might add things, Duct. Dub. l. 3. c. 4. R. 20. §, 7.or rituals of Signi­fication, then the Walls might be covered with the Figures of Doves, Sheep, Lambs, Serpents, Birds, and the Communion Table with Wine, Herbs, Tapers, Pidgeons, Raisins, Hony, Milk, and Lambs, and whatsoever else the wit of man can invent. But the manner of teaching these truths, by Symbolical things & actions, is too low, too suspi­cious, too dangerous, to be mingled with Di­vine Lyturgies. Christ may, as he please, con­sign his own good things that he gives us, but he consigns no good, and represents none but what he also gives and effects in that Ministration, and under that Sign; but a Symbolical Rite of humane Invention to signify what it doeth not effect, and then introduced into the solemn Worship of God, is so like those vain Imaginations, and Represent­ments forbidden in the second Commandment, that the very Suspition is more against Edifica­tion, than their use can pretend to, and it is [Page 114]also unbefitting the Gravity and Spirituality of our Religion.

‘Moreover it is certain that Christ did there­fore break the Yoke of Moses and cancel all the Ceremonial Rites contained in that Law, because they were in themselves Burthensome, Acts 15.10. Unprofitable and weak, Hebr. 7.18.13.9. because they were but weak and beggarly Elements, Gal. 4.9. The Rudiments of the World, Col. 2.8, 20. Rudiments to which we were in bondage, Gal. 4.3, 9. And were appointed only till the time of Reforma­tion, whence it doth seem to follow, that to in­troduce like Rites, as burthensome, unprofitable, weak and beggarly, is to reduce us in some measure to a state of Judaism.’ And that we are not to be subject to such Rudiments is proved from Colos. 2.20. Where the Apostle speaking partly of the Jewish Ordinances which were abolished, and partly of the Insittutions of the Essens or Philosophers which others labored to bring into the Christian Faith, said thus: If ye be dead with Christ from the Rudiments of the World, Serm. of Superst. p. 15.wherefore, as living in the World are ye subject to Ordinances? i.e. saith Dr. Still. If ye are freed from the Yoke of the Law, what reason is there ye should submit to another, which de­pends only on the Authority and Invention of men, and Dr. In locum. Hammond thus: If ye have received the Christian Faith as you ought to do, and have made that use of the Death of Christ as to have forsaken all other Doctrines, and Practices, to re­ceive him, and so to look upon the Rights of the Jews, and the Philosophy of the Gentiles to be abolished and out-dated, why do you now subject your selves to such Abstinencies as either out of Heathen, or Jewish Practices are brought in [Page 115]among you? And whereas it is answered, 1. Still. 16. p. 16. That the Apostle speaks not here of those who had Lawful Authority to impose such things, but of Seducers: It may be thus replyed: That this is not material, seeing the Apostle doth not reject these things, as being introduced without just Au­thority, but as being Ordinances to which the Christian ought not to be subject, they being Rudiments of the World, and things which did insinuate that they who practised them were not yet dead unto the World with Christ. 2ly, Ibid. Whereas 'tis answered that the Apostle speaks not of things appointed meerly for Decency and Order, but of such things as are supposed by the Imposers to have more of true Perfection and Sanctity in them, more Humility and Mortification, and consequently to be more pleasing to God than bare obedience to the Precepts of Christ, and his A­postles, and that such only are here censured, it is replyed; That they who think these Rites fit to be imposed on the account of their Edifi­cation, Decency, and Order, must think them more pleasing to God, than bare obedience to Christs Precepts in Celebration of his Worship, and much more they who being impor­tuned, out of pity to the Souls of their weak Brethren, to abstain from the imposing of these things upon them answer with our Commissioners, that the things they desire to be excused from, §. 8 have a Real Goodness in them, a fitness and de­cency, §. 7 and that tho Charity will move to pity & relieve those that are truly perplexed and scru­pulous, yet we must not break Gods Command in Charity to them, and therefore we must not perform Gods Publick Services undecently or disorderly, for the Ease of tender Consciences. For must not these men think that our Publick Service is [Page 116]better and more pleasing to God when performed with, than when performed without our Cere­monies, even abstractly from their Institution, and that the using of these Ceremonies doth add some Real Goodness in the Service, which would be wanting in it otherwise! Ductor Du [...]it. l. 3. c. 4. R. 20. In a word, We are to remember, §. 8 saith the Reverend Bishop Taylor, That Figures and Shadows were for the Old Te­stament, but Light and Manifestation is in the New, and the Aegyptians indeed did teach Re­ligion by Symbolical Figures, and in the Schools of Plato and Pythagoras, they taught their Scholars by Numbers and Figures, but we that walk in the Light of the Gospel, and rejoyce in that Light, have received from Christ and his Apostles an easier way of teaching the People, and are not therefore to return to the Elements and Rituals of Jews, and Pagan Schools, Christ left no sign but two, that did also effect as well as signify, and if they had only signified, and done no other good, we have no reason to believe that they would have been appointed. To this very weighty Argument, I think it very difficult to give a full and Satisfactory Answer, tho unto others it seems very slight. What I can honestly reply unto it is to this effect.

Answ. 1 1. §. 2 That as St. Paul submitted to some Jewish Rites unlawfully required by the Jewish Chri­stians as necessary to be observed by Jews, that he might gain the Jews, and minister to their Salvation, so may the Christian submit to Ce­remonies imposed unduly by Superiors, when this is necessary for Preservation of the Churches Peace, Unity, and Wellfare, and to enable us to serve the Church of Christ in ministring to the Salvation of the Souls committed to our Charge, or to whose Service we are devoted by [Page 117]our Ordination; so that this Argument, tho it seem strong against the Imposition of our Cere­monies, provided that they be imposed as signi­ficant, and teaching Ceremonies, yet doth it not conclude against Submission to them on the foresaid accounts.

Answ. 2 2ly, I answer that we must distinguish betwixt Signs natural, and customary, and Signs which are arbitrary, and tropological, A natural Sign is that which naturally, and before any Institution, doth signify to others who perceive them, that which is intended by them, or which they do im­port, as sighing, smiting of the Breast, im­porteth Heaviness and Sorrow, A customary Sign is that which custom, antecedently to any Institution, hath determined to this or that signi­fication in the place where such a custom doth obtain; Thus pulling off the Hat with us is now, and pulling off the Shoe among the Eastern Nations, was anciently with them a sign of Re­verence; Now of such signs it truly may be said, they rather are Expressions, than Documents of what they do import. Such, v. g. were the an­cient Love Feasts, and the Kiss of Charity, ap­proved, or required by the Apostles, viz. Ex­pressions of that sincere affection which they bore towards their Christian Brethren. And such is kneeling, and prostration in prayer, embracing and shaking of hands; Such, saith the Apostle, was that covering of the Womans Head in time of Publick Prayer, even that which Nature taught, 1 Cor. 11.14, 15. Such are the Festivals of the Church, viz. Expressions of our Praises for the Mercies then received. And the standing from Easter to Whitsunday, and on the Lords day, used in the ancient Church, was not to teach by way of signification any duty, [Page 118]but to express and testify their Belief of our Lords Resurrection, and for this end we also stand up at the Creed; now that such signs may lawfully be used and required, I know no cause of doubting from any thing which this Obje­ction offers, they being not instructive in, but only expressive of our Faith and Duty, and un­der this head may be comprised, kneeling at the Sacrament, as an Expression of our inward Re­verence, and signing with the Cross, as an Ex­pression of our Faith in, and owning of the cru­cifyed Jesus.

Signs Arbitrary are such as neither of them­selves, nor yet by any antecedent Custom, do signify distincty and determinately to others, that which they are instituted or imposed to teach or signify, such are the Elements of Bread and Wine, for the breaking of Bread doth no more naturally signify the breaking of Christs Body on the Cross, than the breaking of any other thing would do, and such are all the moral significations of the Rites appointed by the Jewish Law concerning clean Beasts for Sacrifice, and unclean forbidden to be sacrificed or eaten, and such is the wearing of a Surplice to teach, or signify purity, it being naturally, or by any an­tecedent Custom, no more proper determinately to teach or signify to the Beholder, or our selves this Grace, than the putting of it on upon black Garments to signify Hypocrisy, and a Pharisaical Temper, and that we are like Scpulchres, white without, but black within. Against the fitness of the Imposition therefore of such arbitrary signs to teach those duties which are more plainly and de­terminately taught already in the Word of God, I fear this Argument too strongly doth conclude. But then the Excellent Bishop Taylor doth suffi­ciently [Page 119]excuse our Church from this supposed guilt by saying that, ‘There is reason to celebrate and honour the Wisdom and Prudence of the the Church of England, Ibid. §. 8. p. 327 which hath in all her Offices retained but one Ceremony that is not of Divine Ordinance, or Apostolical Practice, & that is the Cross in Baptism. Which tho it be a significant Ceremony, and of no other use, yet as it is a complyance with the Practice of all ancient Churches, so is it very innocent in it self, and being one and alone, is in no regard troublesome or afflictive to those that understand her Power, and her Liberty, and Reason. I said, she hath one only Ceremony of her own appointment, for the Ring in Mar­riage is the Symbol of Civil, nor a religious Contract, it is a Pledge and Custom of the Nation, not of the Religion, and those other Circumstances of her Worship are but deter­minations of time and place, and manner of a duty: They serve to other purposes besides signification, they were not made for that, but for Order and Decency, for which there is an Apostolical Precept, and a Natural Reason, and an Evident Necessity, or a great Conve­nience. Now if, besides these uses, they can be construed to any good signification, or instru­ction, that is so far from being a prejudice to them, that it is their Advantage, their Prin­cipal End being different, and warranted, and not destroyed by their superinduced and ac­cidental use.’

sect. 3 ‘The use of the Ceremonies is superstitious, O [...]. 6. and therefore we, say they, cannot submit un­to the Practice of them without sin.’ That the use of the Ceremonies in Religious Worship is superstitious they prove by Arguments already [Page 120]answered, viz. ‘That it is super statutum or more than God hath in his Word required, and that they are imposed as parts of Worship. Moreover these things, say they, cannot be used without Superstition in the Service of God which have no necessary or profitable use in his Service, for as vain Thoughts, and Words, are forbidden in the Holy Scripture, so is it not to be doubted but that vain actions are forbidden, especially in the Worship of God.’

Answ. 1 To give a Satisfactory Answer unto this Ob­jection, it will be only necessary to state the Notion, or true import of Superstition, that by applying it to our own Practice, and to the Practice of Dissenters, we may judge who are most guilty of this vice.

1. Therefore Superstition being a species of false Worship, whereby we do exhibit Worship to an Object to which it is not due, or to that Ob­ject which deserveth Worship, in an undue manner, it follows plainly that where no Worship is ex­hibited by the act done, or intended by the Doer, or Imposer of the act, there can be no Superstition in the Exercise of such an act; there may be Vanity, and an abuse of Power in the imposing rites unprofitable, and unnecessary, but there can be no Superstition, or Will Worship, where there is neither any act of Worship, nor any Will to worship God by the Performance of these Rites, nor designation of them unto such an end.

2ly, Superstitious Worship, undue as to the manner of it, can only be performed by offering that as acceptable, and pleasing to God, or as an Exercise of Religion, and honor to God, or an Acknowledgment of some of his perfections, [Page 121]which is not acceptable, or well pleasing to him, which rendreth him no honor, and doth not tend to the Acknowledgment of any of his Attributes or perfections, for by performing that which indeed is pleasing and acceptable to God, or which doth render honor to him, we cannot be superstitious, hence it must follow that when men make those things a part of their Religion which God hath not commanded, or forbidden, and think God is pleased with their meer doing, or ab­staining from doing them, they in so doing must be superstitious. Two things are therefore necessa­ry to compleat this species of false Worship, viz.

1. That the matter about which it is con­versant relate to the doing some supposed Reli­gious Act, that is, some Act of Service acceptable and well pleasing to God, and which directly tends unto his honor.

2ly, That he who doth it do really mistake in judging such an action to be indeed Religious, and tending to his honor, and therefore acce­ptable to him.

3ly, All Superstition consisting fundamentally in this mistake, and formally in the ensuing practice thereupon, it must with equal reason be concluded that the forbearance of an act upon the like mistake, viz. that we conceive it well pleasing to God, and tending to his honor to for­bear it, when indeed it is not so, is Superstition, because by that Forbearance we equally design to please and honor God, and do it as unduly with respect unto the manner. And therefore it is well observed by Dr. Stillingfleet ‘That ma­ny Superstitions condemned in Scripture chiefly consist in the forbearance of things lawful, Serm. of Su­perst. p. 37. on supposition that the forbearance of them was well pleasing to God. The Superstition condemned, [Page 122] Coloss. 2.22. lay in supposing God to be pleased with their Forbearance of things lawful, with their not touching, tasting, handling them, and therefore was a negative Supersti­tion. And so it was in the dispute between Christ, and the Pharisees, about healing on the Sabbath day, they thought it unlawful, and therefore did abstain, Christ thought it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day, and therefore did it, here was no positive observance on the Pharisees part, yet here was Superstition in them, and therefore the true Notion of Super­stition doth extend to the Forbearance of things in themselves lawful, as displeasing to God.’

§. 4 Now to apply these things, that the For­bearance of the Ceremonies required by the Church of England, on supposition that they are lawful in themselves, and yet are by Dissen­ters abstained from as unlawful, must be super­stitious, will be exceeding evident.

1. Because they do, and must according to their Principles esteem this their refusal to sub­mit unto them when imposed, as an act of special honor to God, it being a declaration of their minds that they think God dishonoured by such acts, and therefore dare not comply with them, it can be only fear of sinning against God which can engage them with the hazard of their Estates and Ease, &c. thus to refuse obedience to the Commands of their Superiours. They then must look on this refusal as a product of the fear of God, and as an act of true obedience to him in opposition to the unjust Commands of men, or an obeying God more than man, and conse­quently they must esteem themselves more holy, [Page 123]acceptable, and well pleasing to God on the ac­count of this Forbearance than Conformists are.

2ly, Because they do, and must esteem Gods Worship corrupted by the use of these our Rites, as to the Purity, and the Spirituality of it, and so they do esteem themselves by this Forbea­rance, Preservers of his Worship pure and spi­ritual, and free from that Idolatry and Supersti­tion, with which they charge it upon these accounts.

3ly, Because they do, and must according to their principles rather refuse to joyn in the ex­ternal Communion of our Church, and rather bound to set up separate Communions, than to comply with these our Rites; now surely nothing but a necessity of displeasing God by joyning in Communion with us can warrant their refusal of it, nothing but a necessity by God imposed on them of setting up such separate Communions in Order to the acceptable Worship of God, can justify their Separation, if therefore they mi­stake in Judging that such necessity is laid upon them, as they must do, if it be lawful to submit unto these Rites, and hold Communion with us notwithstanding the necessity which lyes upon them to submit unto them, they must be super­stitious in that Practice which follows from this grand mistake.

§. 5 In answer to the Close of this Objection it is said, That these things edify by their Signification, and therefore must be good and profitable, and so not like unto vain Words and Actions. To this it is replyed by Dissenters that many things of a like Nature, when they are used by devout and thinking men, may edify by their Significa­tion, and yet the imposition of them upon that [Page 124]account would scarce exempt them from the ap­pearance of vanity. As v. g. Should a Church Governor command his Subjects to appear in Armor in the Church to signify their Spiritual Warfare, or to put on an Helmet to signify that they would manfully fight under Christs Banner, or to drink Milk in token of their desire to feed on the sincere Milk of the Word, or to use Vinegar and Gall in token of their Resolution to undergo the greatest Hardships for the Sake of Christ, or to put on a pair of Spectacles to signify we are dim sighted in the things of Christ, tho the Signification of these things might tend to edify, the things required could hardly be excused from vanity. 2ly, They add that Edification in the Scripture Sense is quite an­other thing from this obscure way of teaching by Signification. To edify our Brother in the Scripture Sense is to build him up, and to confirm him, and help him forward in the Chri­stian Faith, 1 Tim. 1.4. Jud. 20. The things by which the Church is said to receive Edifica­tion are of a better Nature, viz. Walking in the Fear of God, and in the Comfort of the Holy Ghost, Act. 9, 31. The Preaching of the Word, 1 Cor. 14.3, 4, 5. Christian admonition and discourse Administring Grace unto the Hearer, Eph. 4.29. The Graces of the Holy Spirit descending on Christs Members, Eph. 4.16. Of the Edification of any indifferent and humane Ceremony the Scripture speaketh not one Word. We are then said in Scripture to edify our Bro­ther when we forbear indifferent and unnecessary things which through his weakness do cooperate towards his ruine, Rom. 14.19, 20. We do it by our Charity towards him in these things, for Charity edifyeth, 1 Cor. 8.1. By our Promotion [Page 125]of unity, and so by the removal of such un­necessary things as do obstruct it, [...] Edifie your selves into one, 1 Thes. 5.11.

Answ. But were this granted, that some one or more of our Ceremonies seemed to you unprofitable and unserviceable to the use of Edifying, what is that to you, who only are concerned to know whether what your Superiors Command may lawfully be done by you, and who Transgress your bounds when you presume to judge, whether the things imposed be in their own Natures profitable, edifying, or conve­nient to be imposed; for if they be as you conceive, the fault supposed in the imposing of them is not yours but theirs, whereas the fault in not submitting to them, if lawful, will most certainly be yours.

2ly, Whatsoever they are in themselves, yet your submission to them in obedience to the lawful Commands of your Superiors, for preservation of the Churches Peace, for the pre­vention of Schism, and all its dreadful conse­quents, for the obtaining freedom to joyn in the Communion of the Church, will doubtless highly tend to your Edification and your Profit, as being a Submission to them for such Pious Christian ends, as Christianity most stirictly doth oblige us to aim at, and pursue, and which are in themselves sufficient to sanctifie an action otherwise unprofitable, and render it a Christian Duty. Lastly to Kneel at the re­ceiving of the Sacrament, to express our Reve­rence and Humility, to sign a Child with the Cross, in token to the Congregation that he is listed a­mong Christs Members, or wear a Surplice for decency or distinction, cannot be proved to be vain, by any of the Instances forementioned.

Obj. 7 ‘We cannot, say Dissenters, lawfully submit to the institution, §. 7 or introduction of New Sa­craments into the Church of God, or use them being introduced without Divine Institution: For a Sacrament, according to the Catechism of the Church of England, being an outward visible sign of inward Spiritual grace, and both a means thereof, and a pledg to assure us of it, he only can have power to appoint a Sacramental sign, who has right to promise, and power to Minister that grace; and therefore he alone who is the God of all grace can in­stitute a Sacrament;’ now that our Ceremonies, some at least of them, are Sacraments, they en­deavour to prove by these Arguments. 1. ‘All Mystical Bodily rites and signs of Spiritual grace administred to the Church of God in his Solemn Service, to confirm grace, and that by him who represents the Person of Christ, are Sacraments; but such are the greatest part of our Ceremonies, for they being Administred to Edifie the Soul and Conscience, must be Ad­ministred to confirm grace, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper being for this cause alone a Sacrament, because it is a Mystical Rite where­by the Soul Spiritually feedeth upon Christ, i. e. is Edified in Christ, these being Mystical Rites whereby the Soul is Edified must be also Sacraments.’

2ly, ‘No reason, say they, can be given why the representation of some Spiritual Duty by a Mystical Rite should not as properly pertain to the Nature of a Sacrament, as the shado­wing, or Sealing some Spiritual promise, and it seems altogether as lawful for Man to devise signs for the confirmations of his Faith, as to admonish of, and teach his Duty, for what [Page 127]difference is there between an addition to the means of instruction appointed by God, and to the means of our assurance prescribed by him, the Commandments and Promises being so knit together that we cannot perform our Duty without assurance of some benefit by it from God. Moreover, to be a teacher of the understanding, and exciter of devotion, re­quireth power supernatural no less than to be a confirmer of the heart, and he who hath Authority to ordain means effectual for any of these ends, can bless them all, and Man hath as much power to Seal what he cannot bestow, as to teach by his own sign that which he cannot bless to that end.’

Answ. 1 1. It must be granted that it is not in the power of the Church to introduce new Sacra­ments truly and properly so called, but then unto the Arguments produced to prove our Ceremonies to have the Nature of true Sacra­ments, I Reply: 1. That I know not any Ceremonies which by the Church of England are appointed to be signs of Spiritual grace, or to confirm grace to us, for it is one thing to ap­point or use such Rites as in themselves are apt to signifie, or mind us of Spiritual things, or bring such things to our remembrance, which the Church confessedly doth, and it is another thing to appoint such Rites to be used to that end, which the Church doth not, by the bare using of the thing appointed we comply with the institution in the first sense, but only by using of these Rites to such an end, do we com­ply with it in the Second; now where doth the Church of England require us to use her Cere­monies to such ends? Where doth she say, you shall wear a Surplice to put you in mind of that [Page 128]purity of Conversation which is required by the Ministers of Christ, you shall Kneel to signifie or mind you of that Reverence you owe to God, you shall receive the sign of the Cross to put you in mind of your Duty to confess and own a Cru­cified Saviour: (no sure, that Ceremony is used to Persons not capable of being put in mind of any Duty, only in token to the Congregation that they are listed amongst them who are enga­ged so to confess.) What enquiry doth the Church of England make, whether any of her Mem­bers have used her Ceremonies to these ends or not? When did she ever quarrel with, or pun­ish any for neglecting to use them to these ends? Wherefore the whole foundation of this Argu­ment is, in my judgment, false, and rather grounded upon some fanciful expressions of some Writers of the Church of England, than upon any of her own institutions, and decrees; she having no where said that she administers any of the forementioned Rites to confirm grace, or doth appoint them to be signs of grace, but only that she doth appoint them as being apt, and proper in themselves to put good thoughts into us, or to express our Reverence, as beating on the Breast, or sighing, is apt to signifie, or to express our Godly sorrow, and looking up to Heaven, to mind us of the wisdom, and the power of the great Creator, and of that Majesty who dwelleth there.

Answer 2 2ly, If the design of these Ceremonies to signifie, express, or bring into my mind Spiri­tual things, would make them Sacraments: Then 1. the kiss of Charity, and the love Feasts used, and approved in the Apostles time, and all the Ancient Ceremonies of the Church de­signed to signifie, or represent Spiritual things, [Page 129]must also be esteemed Sacraments, they being all designed to Edifie the Soul, and consequent­ly the whole Church of Christ, from the be­ginning to this present day, must justly be ob­noxious to this Sacrilegious guilt of adding to the Sacraments of Christ. 2ly, Then must all visible Creatures become Sacraments, they being all designed by God to Edifie us by instructing us in, and minding us of the Almighty power and Majesty of God. Then 3ly, Every Cru­cifix, and Picture relating to Spiritual things, every piece of Tapestry, or Turky-work which contains, any piece of sacred History, where­by we may be Edified, Every good Ballad, Pious Book, and Frontispiece set before it, and even that Pack of Cards which lately was contri­ved to mind us of the Popish Plot, must be a Sacra­ment: If, as the first Objection saith, all Rites and Signs whereby the Soul is Edified, or which have been designed to that end, are Sacraments, then all the Moral signs of the whole Jewish Law must be reputed Sacraments: The Taber­nacle, the Altar, the Sacrifices, the Golden Candle­stick, the Lamp, and Snuffers, the Priests Garments, the Phylacteries and Fringes which God Com­manded them to wear for a Memorial, the clean Beasts appointed to be Eaten, and Offered, and the unclean to be abstained from, must all be Sacra­ments according to this Rule, they being Rites ap­pointed to signifie Spiritual things, or Duties, and so to Edifie the Soul and Conscience, yea every good word we speak, every instruction we de­liver to our Child, or Friend, or our Parishi­oners, every Publick Prayer must be a Sacra­ment, for words are signs, and these are words, and therefore signs designed to Edifie the Soul.

Lastly, If every thing designed to teach the understanding, or to excite devotion only as objects, and as occasions which the mind of Man may use, or may reflect on to that end, must be a Sacrament, then every Gibbet set up to mind us of the Punishment of evil doers, and every person executed on them, must be Sacra­ments, they being objects proper to Minister oc­casion to our minds to reflect upon the shame and punishment of such offences as bring Men to the Gibbet, then all Gods judgments upon wicked Persons, and all the mercies he vouch­safes unto his Servants, as Testimonies of his kindness to them, and the examples of all Pious Men, must be accounted Sacraments, they be­ing all designed to teach our understanding, or excite devotion in us; and it will be as much unlawful, when I wash my hands, to reflect up­on my obligation to purity of heart and life, or when I tast the sweetness of my food, or think upon my care and labour to procure it, to reflect upon the sweetness of the bread of life, and how much more I am concern'd to labour after it, as to use the imposed Ceremonies as the oc­casions of devout conceptions: And lastly, then to smite upon my Breast to excite Godly sorrow, to Pray prostrate, to encrease, or to express my humility, or perform any other actions of like Nature, must be to add unto the Sacraments of Christs appointment.

And whereas the objection adds that no reason can be given why the representation of some Spi­ritual Duty by a Mystical Rite should not as pro­perly pertain to the Nature of a Sacrament, as the shadowing or sealing some Spiritual promise: I Answer, the disparity is very plain, for these Rites, falsly stiled Mystical, may of themselves [Page 131]be apt to express, or put me in mind of my Du­ty, but cannot of themselves be apt, without Gods pleasure signified, to seal his promise, or to assure me of his grace. I can by meditation, or by reflection upon the meanest object, move my self to the performance of my Duty, but cannot by the like reflections move the Au­thor of every good and perfect gift to give me what he never promised, or seal unto me any Spiritual blessing.

§. 9 Lastly, If we may take an estimate of Sa­craments from those recorded in the Old, or the New Testament, we shall find many things re­quired to Sacraments which are all wanting in our Ceremonies, supposing that they were injoyned to these very ends. For, 1. A Sacramental sign of Duty obliges us to the performance of the Duty signified, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to thankfulness for the blessings repre­sented by the Elements, and to walk as becomes the Members of Christ's Body, whereas a Cere­mony, tho apt to signifie, doth not oblige us to the performance of the Duty signified, nor do I sin against God, provided I live holily and purely, tho the consideration of a Surplice do never move me so to do, or be by me improved to that end. 2ly, All Sacraments import a Covenant established betwixt God and Man, a Stipulation on each part, and by partaking of them we either enter into, or else renew our Covenant with God, and make profession that we are in Covenant with him: And by just con­sequence a Sacrament is Sacrae rei signum in quantum est significans, a sacred sign which sanctifies, and separates the receiver from others who do not receive, or own such Rites, thus by the Sacraments of Circumcision, and the Passo­ver [Page 132]the Jews were made a separate People from all other Nations, and the neglect of either of these ordinances was Cutting off from Gods People, be­cause this was a breaking of Gods Covenant, Numb. 9.13. Gen. 17.14. likewise we Christi­ans are by Baptism received into Covenant with God, by eating at Gods Table we make pro­fession of our adherence to that Covenant, and also by participating in the Blood of the New Co­venant, and to exclude a Person from the Sa­crament of the Lords Supper, is to exclude him from the Communion of the Body of Christ. 3ly, All Sacraments contain a promise on the part of God, and Stipulation on the part of Man, and upon this account they do not only mind us of our Duty, but also lay upon us fresh obligations to perform it, and also they oblige our God to give us grace sufficient to perform that Duty to which he doth oblige us by these Sacraments: Now there is nothing of all this in our three Ce­remonies; we do not by them enter into Co­venant with God, nor are we by them Sanctified, or Separated from other Christians who use them not, nor doth God by them promise any Blessings to us, nor do we oblige our Souls to any Duties towards him, nor do we enter into any Stipulati­ons with him, or he with us, they who do most, do only take occasion from them to reflect upon their Duty, as Men of Phancy, and Devout affections may do from any other thing which doth occasionally present it self unto their minds: And whereas it is more particularly excepted against the sign of the Cross, that as it is imposed it hath the Nature of a Sacrament, from this discourse we may return an easie Answer to the objections made against it, as v. g.

§. 10 Here is, saith Mr. Baxter, the outward vi­sible sign, the Cross:Di [...]p. 5. of Cer. chap. 2. §. 56.Answ. Just such another as is made in the Air by Preaching, we may see the Minister making a Cross, but who ever saw an Aerial Cross after it was made? 2ly, The inward and Spiritual Grace, saith he, is a Holy resolu­tion to fight Manfully under the banner of Christ, and to persevere therein. Answ. An Holy re­solution in an Infant is a Spiritual grace indeed: Here is, saith he, 1st. A signification of grace to be wrought on the Soul, and given us by God. 2ly, An engagement to perform the Duties of the Covenant our selves, on Gods part we are to re­ceive by this sign both qualitative, and actual grace, and relative grace. Answ. All this is said with­out all ground from any thing delivered by the Church of England, it is no sign assuring us of Gods grace, as all true Sacraments are, 'tis no engaging sign either on Gods part, or on ours, but only an Indicatory sign to the Congre­gation, that the Baptized Person is listed among those who are to fight under Christ's Banner: The Cross, saith he, is to Teach our Understandings, and help our Memories, and quick [...]n our dull Affections by minding us of a Crucified Christ, and the benefits of his Cross, so that this, §. 57 and such other Ceremonies are appointed to Teach the understanding by their Signification. Answ. The Book of Common Prayer, saith not they are appointed to teach, but only that the things ap­pointed are apt to stir up the dull mind, the difference of which two Phrases I have shew'd already. And that this, saith he, §. 58 is the way of working grace as Gods word, and Sacraments do, is undeniable. Answ. We are discoursing here not of Gods Word, but of his Sacraments, and that they only work grace Morally, and as things [Page 134]apt to stir up the dull mind of Man, and by objective Teaching, is a false assertion, which ren­ders the Sacraments unnecessary, and no more operative than is a Meditation on the things they represent, whereas indeed they seal grace, they have a promise of grace annexed to them, and they confer it Physically on the due re­ceiver: §. 59 And then, saith he, for relative grace, it is plain, that by the sign of the Cross, as well as by Baptism, we are entred into a state of Christianity, and so it is an investing Sacramen­tal sign, it listeth us under the Banner of Christ Crucified: And that is the very essential Nature of the Sacrament of Baptism it self. Answ. It is not true that the Cross used by the Church of England is an investing sign, or that we by the Cross are entred into a state of Christianity, it being only a declarative sign to others that we have been entred by Baptism: §. 60, 61. If, saith he, you judge it essential to a Sacrament to be an en­gaging sign in the very Covenant of grace it self, the Cross is instituted to this end, it is to engage our selves to a Crucified Christ as our Captain and Saviour by his Cross, and to bind our selves to the Duty of Souldiers or Christians to our lives end, and consequently to teach us to expect the privileges of faithful Servants and Souldiers from a Crucified Christ; all this he gathers from these words of the Common-Prayer, we sign this Child with the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ Crucified, &c. But these words, rightly Interpreted, give him no Colour for any of his inferences, the token there spoken of, relating not to the Child, who is uncapable of taking notice of it, but to the Congregation into which he is received, so that it is as much [Page 135]as if it were said, we receive this Child into the Congregation present, in token to them, that he is now by Baptism become one of them who are Members of the Crucified Jesus, and so hereafter shall not be ashamed to confess that Faith; this will be evident from the sub­scription made by Dr. Burges in these words, where the Book saith, Defence of Dr. Morton p. 24, 25.And do sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token, &c. I understand the Book not to mean that the figure of the Cross hath any virtue in it to effect, or further this Duty, but only to intimate and express by that Ceremony, by which the Ancients did avow their profession of Christ Crucified, what the Congregation hopeth and expecteth hereafter from that Infant, viz. that he shall not be ashamed to profess the Faith of Christ Crucified, into which he was even now Baptized.

And therefore also when the 30th. Canon saith, that the Infant is by that sign Dedicated unto the Service of Christ, I understand that Dedication to import, not a real consecration of the Child, which was done in Baptism it self, but only a Ceremonial declaration of that Dedi­cation; like as the Priest is said to make clean the Leper, whose being clean he only declared.

These Interpretations King James accepted, p. 26.and my Lords Grace of Canterbury affirmed them to be the true sense and intention of the Church of England.

And again p. 477, 478. The Child, saith he, must first be Baptized, and upon that Baptism be acknow­ledged by the Minister, speaking then in the Name of the whole Congregation in the Plural Number, we receive this Child, &c. to be now made a visi­ble Member of the Church of Christ by Baptism, before he may use this Ceremony of the Cross: [Page 136]And, when he doth use it, he is bound at that instant to profess, and tell why it is done, name­ly, in token that hereafter he shall not be asham­ed, &c. that is, not be ashamed of that Covenant whereinto he is by Baptism now entred: So as no Man can say that this is done to add either vertue to the Sacrament, or capacity of grace to the Child, but only for intimation to the whole Congregation for their instruction, what it is to which Baptism once received, binds all Christians that come to age convenient; which Ceremony the Church of England thought good to retain, because it had such an use in the purer times. If any Man doth yet stumble, as I con­fess my self to have done, at those words of the 30th. Canon, that by this Lawful Ceremony, and Honourable Badg, this Child is Dedicated to the Service of Christ; I pray such a one to know, and I have good warrant to assure him, that the word Dedicated doth here import no more than declared by that Ceremony to be de­dicated, like as the Priest is said to have cleansed the Leper whom he only declared to be clean, Levit. Disp. the 5. of Cer. chap. 3. [...]. 18, 16. 14.11. Now to this end, saith Mr. Bax­ter, and on these terms was the sign of the Cross used heretofore by Christians, and there­fore I durst not have reproved any of the Anci­ent Christians that used the sign of the Cross meerly as a professing signal action, to shew to the Heathen, and Jews about them, that they believed in a Crucified Christ, and were not ashamed of his Cross. The occasional indifferent use of this when it is meerly to this end, I durst not have con­demned.

§. 1 I Have now finished my Answer to those Arguments whereby Dissenters to endeavour to prove the Rites required by the Church of England, as the Conditions of Communion, to be sinful in themselves, and by the Word of God forbidden.

I proceed therefore in the last place to answer those Pretences which do, and must proceed on this Concession, That the things required are in themselves indifferent, and not forbidden by the Word of God, and yet they who grant this contend that they are rendred sinful, or such as they cannot with a good Conscience do, by reason of some circumstances which attend the Rites imposed, the imposition of them, or their Practice of them.

And 1. The imposition of these things in­different is represented by them as a Viola­tion of their Christian Liberty, in which they are commanded to stand fast, and consequently are obliged not to betray by their Submission to these Impositions.

2ly, The Rites imposed, say they, tho law­ful in themselves, have been abused by others to Superstition and Idolatry,; now things in­different and unnecessary, having been thus a­bused, become unlawful to be used.

3ly, We are required, say they, to abstain not only from all kinds, but also from all ap­pearances of Evil; now the imposed Rites have [Page 142] [...] [Page 143] [...] [Page 144]in them an appearance of Evil at the least, 1 Thess. 5.22 and therefore are to be avoided.

4ly, We, say they, are commanded to for­bear the Practice even of things indifferent, when by the doing of them we minister occasion of Scandal to the Weak; now by the Practice of the imposed Rites we shall be sure to minister oc­casion of Scandal to our Weak dissenting Brethren, and therefore we conceive our selves obliged in Conscience to forbear the Practice of them.

Lastly, We must not, say they, be partakers of the sins of others; now by imposing of these Rites, as the Conditions of Communion, we cannot but conceive that our Superiors do very grievously sin, and should we tamely yield Sub­mission to them, when imposed, we should en­courage and harden them in that iniquity. And therefore think our selves obliged to forbear the Practice of them. Now unto these Pre­tences I shall endeavour to return a full, plain, and I hope, satisfactory Answer, beginning with the first.

Obj. 1 And 1. It is objected that the Imposition of these Rites bereaves them of their Christian Li­berty in reference to things indifferent, §. 2 upon these several accounts.

1. Because it doth restrain their Practice in matters wherein Christ hath left them free, and therefore, say they, ‘The Apostle by saying if you be dead with Christ to the Rudiments of the World, Coloss. 2.20.wherefore are ye subject to Ordi­nances? Touch not, taste not, handle not, after the Commandments and Doctrines of Men, con­demns not only humane decrees concerning Rites and Ceremonies, but also our Subjection to such Ordinances of Men, as take from us Liberty of Practice in the use of things in­different; [Page 145]for otherwise not touching, not tasting, not handling, being things indifferent, might have been submitted to:’ And whereas it is said, that Christian Liberty consists only in Li­berty of Judgment, but not of Practice, touching matters of this Nature; ‘We see, say they, that when the Apostle giveth Instance of such hu­mane Ordinances as violate our Christian Li­berty, he saith not: You must not think, you may not touch, but touch not, &c. Telling us, that when the Practice is restrained from touching, tasting, handling, by the Ordinances of Men, then is Christian Liberty violated, tho the Con­science be left free.’

2ly, Because obedience to these Impositions renders us the Servants of Men, which St. Paul will not permit, saying: 1 Cor. 7.23. Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the Servants of Men? ‘Where, say they, the Apostle forbids the doing any thing for the Will and Pleasure of Men, when our Conscience can find no other reason for the doing of it, what therefore is press'd upon men by naked Will and Authority, with­out giving any reason to satisfy the Con­science cannot by Christians be submitted to, because they must not be the Servants of Men.’

Answ. In order to the Refutation of this vain Pre­tence, §. 3 I shall endeavour 1. To shew the Ab­surdity of this Doctrine or Opinion, and 2ly, To answer what is offered to confirm it.

I say then, that it is most absurd to think and teach that the determining of any thing indiffe­rent relating to the Worship of God should be re­pugant to our Christian Liberty.

For Explication of the terms of this Asser­tion, consider, that a thing indifferent is such a thing or action which in it self is neither good nor evil, neither commanded nor forbidden by God; And that to determine of such actions, is to require us to do, or to omit the Practice of them.

2ly, Consider that there are many actions of this Nature which must be done in Celebration of Gods Worship, tho God hath no where given Rules touching the circumstance, and manner of performance of them. As v. g. We must, if we will meet for Publick Worship, do it in some place, and in some hour of the day, but at what place, or at what hour we should meet, God hath not told us. The Minister, who doth officiate, must do it in some Habit, but in what Habit he shall do it God hath not determined. The Priest, who consecrates the Sacrament, must consecrate some Kind of Wine and Bread, but whether he shall consecrate Claret, or Tent, unleavened, or leavened Bread, round Wafers, or round Loaves, or else flat Cakes, or Rowls, is not declared by the Word of God. The Sacrament received by the Communicant must be received in some Posture, but whether standing, sitting, or kneeling shall be the Posture, our Lord hath not informed us. To sing in Publick is declared to be a duty, [Page 147]but whether we shall sing in Metre, or in Prose; with Instruments of Musick, or without, plain song, or pricked, the Scripture gives us no di­rections. These therefore, with all matters of like Nature, already mentioned, are things in­different, that is, neither commanded, nor for­bidden, and they do all relate unto Gods Worship. And our Assertion is this:

That the determination of any matters of this Nature by our Superiors, Civil, or Sacred, pro­vided they do not impose them as things in their own Nature necessary, or parts of our Religious Worship, doth no ways violate our Christian Li­berty. For

1. A Restraint is by the Scripture laid upon our Liberty in matters of this Nature when by the Practice of it we may scandalize our weak Brother, 1 Cor. 8.9. Take heed lest by any means this Liberty of yours become a stumbling block to the weak. And also when, by restraint of this our Liberty in things indifferent, we serve the ends of Love and Charity, Gal. 5.13. Ye are called to Liberty—yet by Love serve one another. Why therefore may not the Authority of Gods Vicegerents, or of Christs Ambassadors, lay like restraints upon our Liberty in matters of this Nature? Why may we not do that for Reve­rence and Love to them, which Love unto our Neighbour requires us to perform? why should we not be careful that our Superiors be not scan­dalized, as by our disobedience to them in law­ful matters they will be, as well as that we do not scandalize our weaker Brother. Since by abstaining from any thing indifferent for fear of giving scandal to, or out of Love to others, a restraint is put upon our Liberty of Practising these things, as well as by the Precepts of Supe­riors, [Page 148]why should the one be deem'd more in­consistent with our Christian Liberty, than is the other?

2ly, Were this restraint in matters of indiffe­rency relating to the Service of God, a Violation of our Christian Liberty, than all our Vows and Promises respecting things indifferent, relating to the Service of God, must be a Violation of that Liberty, since by them we restrain our Freedom as to those matters, as much as 'tis re­strained by the Commands of our Superiors Ac­cording therefore unto this opinion, should I vow to keep a fast in Lent, to kneel at the Receiving of the Sacrament, to set apart a Room in my own house for private Devotion, or to do any other thing relating to the Service of God which he hath not determined, I could not be obliged to perform those Vows, as being Violations of my Christian Liberty.

3ly, That which I may do, tho no Injunction of the Magistrate required it of me, cannot be therefore sin when done, because he doth require it, but any thing indifferent relating to Gods Worship may be done by me, tho no Injunction of the Magistrate required it, for if it be a thing indifferent, it cannot be forbidden, and what is not forbidden, it cannot be unlawful to per­form; now to assert that what I lawfully may do, must be my sin, if done because the Magi­strate commands it, is in effect to say what is the plainest Contradiction, viz. That 'tis unlawful to yield obedience to Gods Vicegerents in any law­ful matter. Moreover thô the Magistrate should not determine in matters of this Nature, if we will practise any of these duties, we must our selves determine of them; v. g. If we will meet for Publick Worship, we must appoint some [Page 149]time, and place in which to do it, if we will mi­nister in Sacred Things, we must be clothed with some Habit, a cloak, a gown, or surplice, which we do thus minister. If we will conse­crate the Sacrament, we must determine upon some kind of Wine, and Bread in which to do it, and if we will receive the Sacrament, we must pitch upon some Posture in which we will receive, if we will sing, it must be done in Prose, or Meire, and the like. If therefore a necessity doth lie upon us to determine in matters of this Nature before we do perform them, how can it be a Violation of our Christian Liberty, for the Su­perior Power to do that which we must do our selves, and which when once the Minister de­termines for himself, the Peoples Liberty is equally restrained, as it would be by the Com­mand of their Superior.

4ly, If by imposing of these things indifferent relating to Gods Service, which we may leave undone, the Magistrate so violates our Christian Liberty that we may not do them, because he thereby doth restrain our Liberty of leaving these things undone, then by like reason should the Magistrate forbid the doing of the things enjoyned, we must not leave undone what he forbids, because he thereby doth restrain our Liberty of doing of these things, for it is easy to perceive that 'tis as great a Violation of our Li­berty to have indifferent things forbidden us, as to have them commanded, that 'tis no less En­crochment on our Liberty to be tyed up from what we antecedently to the Command of our Superiors might do, as to be bound to the per­formance of what we might omit. If then Dis­senters think themselves obliged to refuse Sub­mission to these things indifferent because com­manded [Page 150]by the Magistrate, 'tis but forbidding them to yield obedience to them, and then, by their own Principle, they must become exact Conformists. Now is not this a Foolish Liberty which tends to make men humoursome and cross to their Superiors, so that what he desires they should do he must forbid, what he desires they should leave undone, he must command, if this be worthy of the name of Christian Liberty, let any Reasonable Person judge.

5ly, If by imposing of a thing indifferent, relating to the Service of God, the Magistrate doth violate our Christian Liberty, and we stand bound not to obey, or to perform the thing commanded, then is it in the power of the Ma­gistrate to cut off all that Liberty we have in matters of this Nature, and to oblige us not to do what ever we are left at Liberty by God to do, as v. g. If he commands us to meet for Pu­blick Worship at such a place, or time, we must be bound to do it at another place and time. If he commands the Minister to consecrate such Wine and Bread, he must be bound to conse­crate some other kind of Bread and Wine. If he require the people to stand, or sit, at the re­ceiving of the Sacrament, they must be bound to kneel, or use some other Posture, and so in other cases of like Nature. So that this Doctrine puts it into the power of the Magistrate to re­strain both our Consciences, and Practices in matters of this Nature, and to determine them to one, and so to take away that Liberty which is so eagerly contended for. And

6ly, This pretended Liberty is the occasion of lamentable mischiefs to the Church of God, whereas the good which can accrue unto her Members by it is but little, the disadvantage [Page 151]they can suffer by the want thereof is inconsi­derable. We can receive but little good by such a Liberty from the Commands of our Superiors in things indifferent, because they being such, if we do them we are not the better, or more ac­ceptable to God, and if we do them not we are not the worse, or the less pleasing to him, for otherwise they could not rationally be stiled things indifferent; If then our Freedom from obedience in such matters can only be a Freedom of doing or omitting that which, whether we omit or do, we are neither worse, nor better, what good can we receive by such a Freedom? what disadvantage by the want thereof? Is it not the whole design of the Gospel to make us obedient to the Laws of Christ, to make us holy, and free from the Dominion and the Power of sin? and may we not be therefore certain that those actions which are neither good nor evil in themselves, neither commanded nor forbidden by Christ, and therefore no way tend to the obstructing our obedience to Christ, our Holiness of life, or to the depraving of our Souls, and bringing them in bondage to sin, cannot be prejudicial to any interest or design of Christian Doctrine, whether they be performed or omitted? Now is it not absurd to think our Lord should purchase for his Church a Liberty to disobey Superiors in mat­ters wherein their obedience would bring no dis­advantage to them, their disobedience will do them no good? Moreover our obedience to our Superiors in such matters, visibly doth rend to the promoting Love, Peace, Unity, Humili­ty, Self denyal, orderly Walking, and such like Christian Virtues, and therefore it is most im­probable Christ should have purchased our Free­dom from it. Our disobedience, as we by sad [Page 152]experience see, doth tend to the promoting Schisms, Dissentions, Uncharitableness, Ca­lumnies, Wrath, Strife, Contention, it procures Strokes for the Backs of Fools, exposes both the Persons, and Families of disobedient Persons to temporal and spiritual Evils, it excludes them from Sacred Ordinances, and the Communion of the Church, and therefore such a Liberty from doing things not evil, or displeasing to God, must be so far from being worthy of our Saviours purchase, that it doth contradict his great Design, that Love, Peace, Union might flourish in his Church, and that the contrary fruits of the flesh, might be entirely banished from among his Members.

7ly, Such a pretended Liberty is contrary to the Practice of the Church Governors laid down in Scripture, and to the Rules prescribed for their Government; 'tis contrary to that Liberty the Rulers of the Jewish Church did exercise, as I have shewed already in many instances of things no where determined by the Law of Moses, and yet enjoyned by them, 'tis also contrary to the Apostles Practice, who forbad the using of things strangled and blood, tho they not only were things in themselves indifferent, but things re­quired by that Ceremonial Law from which our Lord had freed his Servants, and therefore more might have been pleaded against submitting unto that Decree, than to the Constitutions of the Church of England concerning other things in­different. Lastly, St. Paul requires that all things which relate unto Gods Publick Worship, of which he there discourseth, should be done decently and orderly, but how shall Rulers be able to order matters so, if it be an Infringement of our Christian Liberty to have any thing imposed [Page 153]upon us by our Governours for decency and orders sake? Particular Rules being not given us in Scripture about this matter, which to be sure would have been done, were they not left to the determination of the Rulers of the Church. Wherefore to give a brief, but a sufficient An­swer to the Objections mentioned,

§. 4 1. From what hath been discoursed it is evi­dent, that Christian Liberty cannot be violated by these Impositions, because the Conscience is obliged by them, that is, 'tis bound to yield obedience to them when they are imposed; for if this maketh the Commands of our Superiors to violate our Christian Liberty, Then 1. All the Commands of Masters, Parents and Supe­riors respecting things indifferent, civil or sa­cred, must be repugnant to that Liberty, be­cause we are, if Servants, Children or Subjects, obliged to obey them in all lawful matters, even for Conscience sake. 2ly, Then our own vows, and resolutions concerning any thing in­different, must violate our Christian Liberty, because we are obliged in Conscience to perform them. 3ly, Then can we not abstain from any thing indifferent in case of Scandal, as St. Paul Commands us, without infringing of our Christian Liberty, because our Conscience is then bound, for fear of Scandal, to abstain from what is in it self indifferent.

2ly, It also is exceeding evident that Christi­an Liberty cannot be violated by requiring Per­sons to do that of which their Conscience, be­ing erroneous, doubts, or which it doth Con­demn, as is insinuated in the fourth Objection. For were this so, Then 1. our Laws must violate true Christian Liberty when they command the Qua­ker to pay Tythes, for he not only doubts the [Page 154]lawfulness thereof, but peremptorily pronounceth it unlawful so to do. Then 2ly, our Laws Com­manding all Papists to come to Church, to obey the King in opposition to the Pope, to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, must vio­late his Christian Liberty, because he doubts the lawfulness of yielding obedience to them. 3ly, By the same Rule my Christian Liberty must be infring'd much more, when Magistrates Com­mand me to abstain from what my Conscience tells me I should do; now seeing an Erroneous Conscience may urge Men to the greatest wic­kedness, since it may make them verily believe they ought to do many things contrary to the Name of Jesus, Acts 26.9. and that by killing his Disciples, they would do God Service, Joh. 16.2. no Laws according to this Doctrine, can be laid on Men whose Conscience is Errone­ous to, bind them not to do the worst of Evils.

3ly, In Answer to that passage of St. Paul, we are bought with a Price, 1 Cor. 7.23. and therefore must not be the Servants of Men. I say,

1. That it is only an advice unto those Chri­stians who being Slaves to Heathens, had once bought their Liberty, or by the bounty of their Friends had been redeemed from Slavery, not to sell themselves again, or to return to the con­dition of their former Servitude, but to con­tinue in that Liberty; it therefore should be thus Translated, are ye bought with a Price? Be not ye the Servants of Men: To make this clear, consider, that the Apostle is there in­structing Christians how to behave themselves in their particular stations and callings, and not upon pretence of Christianity to think them­selves obliged to alter their condition, or to neglect those Duties their proper station did [Page 155]require; thus from v. 12th. to the 16th. he re­quires the believing [...]usband not to desert the unbelieving Wife, and the believing Wife not to part from her unbelieving Husband, but to abide in that condition in which the Lord had called them: In the 18th. and 19th. verses he advises the Circumcised Christian, not to desire to be Uncircumcised, & vice versa, but to abide as they were; from v. 21. to v. 24. he gives advice to those who were believing Servants, thus; Art thou called being a Servant? care not for it, think it not a disparagement to Chri­stianity that thou art still a Bondman, but if thou maist be made Free, prefer Freedom be­fore Bondage. Are you bought with a Price? (as by the Charity of Christians many believers then were) be not then the Servants of Men, return not any more to the condition of your former Slavery: This without doubt is the true import of the words. But 2ly, according to the or­dinary reading, and interpretation of them, viz. ye are bought with a Price, even with the Blood of Christ, be ye not the Servants of Men; it giveth no Commission to the Christian, to refuse obedience to his Superiors in lawful matters, for to be the Servants of Men, which is the thing forbidden to Christs Servants, is only not to yield obedience to Men in any thing re­pugnant to that Service which they owe to Christ, and therefore it is so far from being prejudicial to that obedience we owe unto Superiors for the Lords sake, that for this very reason we are required to obey them in all lawful things, because 'tis part of that obedi­ence which Christ requires from us as his Ser­vants, and which we are required to do for the Lords sake: So Col. 3.20. Children obey [Page 156]your Parents in all things, for this is well plea­sing to the Lord, and v. [...] Servants obey your Masters in all things, and whatsoever you do, do it heartily as to the Lord; for, in serving them, you serve the Lord Christ; it being his ordinance that you obey in yielding to them in all lawful things. And again 1 Pet. 2.13, 16. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake, as the servants of God: So that you see our being bought with a Price being that which maketh us Christs servants, even when we are free from Slavery to Men, it must engage us the more strictly to Obedience to Masters, Parents, and Superiors, this be­ing that we owe unto them in all lawful mat­ters, for the Lords sake, and which we are ob­liged to perform as the servants of Christ.

Lastly, In Answer to that enquiry of St. Paul, If you be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the World, Coloss. 2.20.wherefore as living in the World are ye subject to Ordinances? Touch not, taste not, handle not, &c. I say,

1. That the Apostle speaks not there of Rites, or Constitutions required by Authority, and owned as things indifferent in their own Na­ture, but of Doctrins, Dogma's, and Commands of Jews, and of Philosophers, and false Apo­stles, who could have no Authority to require from them submission to these Doctrines, and Commands, but on supposal of the goodness, and excellency of the things Commanded: He therefore speaketh of such things as the Colos­sians could not be Subject to on any grounds but such as in themselves were Superstitious, and were reproachful to the Gospel, and to Christ the Author of it, as representing him deficient in wisdom by his neglecting to [Page 157]Command things so exceeding good and ex­cellent.

2ly, The things here mentioned are manifestly things which, in the judgment of these Dog­matisers, were things by which God would be better Worshipped, and his Religion be advan­ced, or the Professors of it would be rendred more Perfect and Sublime, and for neglect of which they were to be Condemned, tho no Au­thority of Man did interpose for their injunction, as will be evident.

1. From this consideration, that they were things for the neglect of which the false A­postles did condemn the Christian, as is insinu­ated in these words, let no Man judg, censure, or condemn, you in meats or in drinks, v. 16. yea they were things for want of which Chri­stianity it self was represented as imperfect, and inferior in Wisdom to the Promoters of these institutions; whence the Apostle, in opposition to these false Apostles, declares that in Christ were hid all the treasures of wisdom and know­ledg, v. 3. and adds, that this I say, lest any Man should belie you with inticing words, v. 4. Hence he exhorts them to beware lest any Man spoil them through Philosophy and vain Deceit, v. 8, 9.after the Traditions of Men, after the Rudiments of the World, and not after Christ, and gives this reason of his caution, that in him did all fulness dwell, and that we were compleat in him. v. 23 2ly, Because these things are stiled Will-Worship, they therefore who did introduce them must look up­on them as things conducing to the more ac­ceptable service of God, or the advancement of his Worship. 3ly, Because they who per­formed them did it out of pretence of that Hu­mility, Mortification, and Austerity which they [Page 158]conceived highly acceptable, and well pleasing to God, v. 23. wherefore the Church, which doth acknowledg that the things enjoyn­ed by her in their own Nature are indifferent, and such as in themselves do not conduce to make our service more acceptable, and well pleasing to God, can be no ways concerned in this prohibition.

Obj. 2 ‘All things, and Rites which have been no­toriously abused to Idolatry, §. 5 and Superstition, if they be not such as either God or Nature hath made to be of necessary use, should be utterly abolished, and purged away from Di­vine Worship, so as not to be used by us, as sacred things, or Rites pertaining to the same, but the Cross, Surplice, Kneeling in the act of receiving, are such Rites as have been thus abused, and therefore, being not of necessary use, they ought, say they, to be abolished. The Major they prove: 1. From many Texts of Scripture which enjoyn'd the Israelites not to do after the works of the Canaanites, Exod. 23.24. or of the Aegyptians, or to walk in their Ordinances, Levit. 18.3. not to do so unto the Lord their God, as they did Deut. 12.4. and in particular not to Name their Gods, Exod. 23.13. not to use the Name of Baal, because it had been given to Idols, Hos. 2.16. but to destroy their Altars, break their Images, and cut down their Groves, Exod. 34.13. to burn the Graven Images of their Gods with fire, and not to take unto themselves the Silver and Gold that is upon them, Deut. 7.15. to defile the covering that is upon their Graven Images of Silver, and the ornaments of their molten Images of Gold, to cast them away as menstruous Cloths, and say unto them get ye [Page 159]hence, Isa. 30.22. and also from those places which Command them not to round the corners of their Heads, nor mar the corners of their Beards, not to make any cuttings in their Flesh for the dead, nor Print any marks upon their Bodies, Levit. 19.27, 28. to which they add those Texts of the New Testament which re­quire us not to touch the unclean thing, 2 Cor. 6.17. but to hate the Garments spotted with the Flesh, Jude 23.’

2ly, Rov. 2.14, 20. ‘Because the Churches of Pergamus and Thyatira are by Christ reproved for suffering Men to teach their Children to eat things offered unto Idols, which in themselves were not un­lawful to be eaten, but only did become un­lawful because they were abused to Idolatry. And,’

3ly, ‘From examples of good Men in Scri­pture, who abstain'd from things in them­selves lawful upon this account, v. g. the ex­ample of Jacob who abolished the Ear-rings of his Family, as being Ensigns of Superstition, Gen. 35.4. of Hezekiah who brake in pieces the Brazen Serpent, being abused to Idolatry; of Mordecai, who would not bow to Haman, Esth. 3.2. of Daniel who would not eat of the Kings meat, which was converted to an Ido­latrous use, lest he should be defiled, Dan. 1.8.’

Now that our Ceremonies have been notori­ously abused to Idolatry they prove, because they have been consecrated to the service of Idols, and commonly imployed in Idolatrous Worship by the Papists: To this Objection I Answer,

Answ. 1 That these Commands of the Old Testament were given only to the Jewish Nation, where no Natural Analogy, §. 6 or Moral reason [Page 160]can be shewed for their perpetual obligation, I know not why they should be binding to the Christian any more than other Laws of the like Nature, which do not now oblige, by the con­fession of our Adversaries; as v. g. they were to kindle no fire on the Sabbath day, Exod. 35.3. but must we therefore kindle none on the Lords day; they were forbid to take Usury of their Brethren, and yet Dissenters do not Scru­ple the taking usury one of the other. They were to destroy the places wherein the Inhabi­tants of Canaan served their Gods, Deut. 12.2. and yet Dissenters did not Scruple to use the Churches which the Papists had abused to Ido­latrous Worship: They were to make no Co­venants with the Idolaters of Canaan, Exod. 23.32.34.12. Deut. 7.2. may therefore Prote­stant Princes make no Leagues with Papists? They were utterly to destroy them, Deut 7.2. and that lest they should teach them to do after their abominations. Deut. 20.16, 18. not to have mercy on them, ibid. may we there­fore, without mercy, destroy all Papists out of our Dominions, lest they should teach us to do after their abominations, or might they, when they had the power in their hands, deal so un­mercifully with us whom they deem guilty also of Idolatry, and an abominable Worship? Lastly, They were obliged to kill the Person who inticed them to Idolatry, Deut. 13.9. and utterly to destroy all who did Sacrifice to any other Gods, save to the Lord only, Exod. 22.20. If any of their Cities were withdrawn from God unto Idolatry, they were obliged to smite it with the Edge of the Sword, ut­terly destroying it, with the Infants and the Cat­tle thereof, Deut. 13.15. and to burn the City, [Page 161]and the spoil thereof, and must we therefore deal so unmercifully with any Parish or City that is seduced to Popery? Did our Dissenting Rebels think it necessary to burn our Houses, and the Spoils they took? wherefore we see what mis­chief will ensue upon applying of things com­manded to be observed by the Jews towards Ido­laters, to Christian Kingdoms and People.

Answ. 2 2. It cannot rationally be supposed that God by these, or any other Texts of the like nature, forbids the doing any lawful action barely on this account that it hath been, or is, or may by others be abused to Idolatry or Superstition, or any other sin, provided we do not continue to be ensnared by it: Nor is there any ground of fear we should be so; for if so,

1. This Interpretation and Application of these places would robus of our Churches and our Bells, and many other things which the most strict Dis­senters did allow of, for every Church in which Idolatrous Religion is performed, doth seem as much defiled thereby as any kind of action or gesture can be defiled by this, that others do abuse them to Idolatry, and yet even the Directory saith, that Such places are not subject to such pollution by any Superstition formerly used in them, and now laid aside, as may render them unlawful, or inconvenient: It is well known that the Bells, Fonts, Pews and Desks of our Churches were charmed by Popish Prayers in a superstitious manner, and yet our late Reformers did not think it reasonable that they should be disused upon that account. Now, Defence of Dr. Morton p. 569. as the Reverend Doctor Burges puts the question; ‘Did God ordain Bells to call men to Church? or Church-yards to bury in?’ or a Font of Stone to baptize in? or a Silver Cup to administer the Wine of the Supper [Page 162] ‘in? or fitting upright at the Communion-Table in token of our familiarity with Christ? or one particular place built on purpose for his people to meet in for his Worship, now under the New Testament, and that separate only to sacred Uses, or this or that prescript Form of Prayer, except the Lords Prayer, in calling on him? Speak man, are any of these things in their particulars divine, and not humane? are all these such as may not well be spared upon occasion? is there any of these which hath not been superstitiously abused by Papists, or other Idolaters? as the posture of fitting by the Arians; flinch not, dally not, speak the truth, as in the sight of him that shall judge you and us at the last day, and then you shall be forced to confess that some of those Rites and Cere­monies which your selves either practise, or allow, are as meerly humane, have been as much abused as those you impugn, and are not so necessary, but that all, or some of them might well be spared, and yet you allow them.’

2ly, If this were so, it must be unlawful to bow our knees and bodies to God, 2 Kings 5.18. because the Heathens bowed their knees to Baal, and their bodies to Rimmon, 1 Kings 19.18. or to prostrate the body to him, as the Heathens did to Idols, Exod. 23.24. or to lift up our eyes to God, Ezek. 18.12. [...] 25. or to stretch forth our hands unto him, because the Heathens lifted up their eyes to Idols, and stretched forth their hands to a strange God, Psal. 44.20. or sit at the Lords Supper because the Heathens sate when they feasted on their Sacrifices in the Idols Tem­ples. I [...] 32.6. 1 [...] [...].19. Whereas we find these signs of Reverence and Gestures still used both by Jews and Chri­stians who bowed their Knees and Bodies to God, 2 Chron. 6.13. Ezra 5.2. 2 Chron. 7.3. [Page 163] Act. 20.36. Eph. 3.14. prostrated their whole bodies to him, Josh. 7.6. Exod. 4.31. Mat. 26.39. Lifted up their eyes, and stretched forth their hands unto him, Psal. 123.1. Mat. 6.11. and lay down at the Paschal Supper, not fearing the transgression of the Precept, Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God.

3ly, The Jews themselves, and that with ap­probation from God, used many things like un­to those which were observed in general by Hea­thens, and by the Nations in particular, which the Objection mentions, and our Lord Jesus and his Disciples did not scruple such a material conformity with Heathens in indifferent matters, as our Dissenters do condemn. For v.g. the Jews placed the Tabernacle on a great high place in Gibeon, 1 Kings 3.4. where God appeared to Solomon, Verse 5. they placed the Ark in the house of Aminadab on the hill, 1 Sam. 7.1. their Synagogues are called the houses of God, Psal. 74.8. and they were always built upon the Hills, or higher ground of the Cities, altho the Hea­thens did superstitiously chuse such places for the performance of their Idolatrous Worship, and set up their Idols and Altars on every mountain and hill, conceiving that they were then nearer to their Gods. And our dear Lord went up unto a mountain to pray, and therefore did not think that all material conformity with Heathens in such matters was forbidden in these Texts, nor did that abuse of Gardens to Idolatry, which by the Prophet Isaiah is noted in these words, Thou shalt be ashamed of the oak, and thy gardens which thou hast chosen, Isai. 1.29. deter our Saviour from praying in a Garden, Joh. 18.1, 26. Mat. 26.39. Again, the Idolatrous Hea­thens at their Festivals did lie along, or lean on [Page 164]their left sides, They laid themselves down on cloaths by every altar, Amos 2.8. They feasted [...], lying down in their Idol temples, 1 Cor. 8.10. and yet the Jews, tho God no where commanded them to do so, did at the eating of their Passover, lie down in token of the rest that God had given them in that good Land, and Christ and his Apostles did conform themselves unto this custom, as I have shewed already, and thereby they demonstrated that none of all these Texts forbad material confor­mity with any Heathen Rites which in their na­ture were indifferent. Ainsw. in Deut. 7.5. Nor were the Jews them­selves so nice and scrupulous as our Dissenters in this matter, for they declare, ‘That if an House was built, or a Tree planted purposely for an Idol, it must be destroyed, and may not be turned to common use, but if the House was first built, or the Tree planted for common civil use, and an Idol hath after been placed in that House, or under that Tree, these may revert unto their first intended use, the Idol being removed.’ Since then our Ceremonies were used without any Superstition or Idolatry by the Fathers of the Church, before they were abused by Papists to those ends, why may they not return unto their former use, the Supersti­tion and Idolatry adhering to them, being first removed?

Answ. 3 4ly, Seeing all Superstition and Idolatry, in persons who do ignorantly commit them, doth fundamentally require a mistake in the con­ception of the person guilty of it, these vices can no longer cleave unto such actions than this mistake remains, when then the action is freed from the superstitious opinion or mistake, it is also purged from all Superstition and Idolatry, since [Page 165]therefore the Imposers of our Ceremonies have purged them from all those mistaken Doctrines and opinions of the Church of Rome; which made them Superstitious and Idolatrous, they cannot be abused to those ends. Now when the Idolatry and Superstition, or the abuse ad­hering to an action is totally removed, there remains nothing which can make that action un­lawful to be done, and therefore nothing which can render it unlawful in it self to be required to be done: Since then we are only command­ed to depart from Babylon, Rev. 18.4.that we partake not with her in her sins, and so no farther than is requisite for the avoidance of Communion with her in sin; when we have purged these actions from all those Superstitions and Idolatries which adhered to them as they were exercised in that Church, we have done all that Christ and his good Spirit thought needful to require of us in respect to our departure out of Babylon.

Answ. 4 5ly, Whereas 'tis said in the Objection, that things abused to Superstition, if they be not necessary, must not be done: I Answer, That tho it be not necessary to impose our Ceremonies, yet when they are imposed by Authority, they become necessary in their use, and so are not to be accounted things unnecessary in respect of us: For if Temples, Bells, Fonts, Desks, and other sacred Utensils shall be preserved as necessary, because, as the Dissenter saith, so much Money is spared to other good uses; why are not our Ceremonies more necessary to us in their use, seeing upon submission to them depends the maintenance of many Ministers, and their Fa­milies, the obedience of the King, and his Laws, Civil, and Ecclesiastilcal, the peace of the Church of Christ, and the free Preaching of the Gospel, [Page 166]which sure are things more necessary, than the sparing of our Purses. Wherefore to give a positive and a perspicuous Answer to the Ob­jected Texts, I say,

1. That the things in which the Jewish Na­tion are forbid to do after the manner of the Canaanites, or the Aegyptians, are either Ido­latrous Actions and Ceremonies, or actions con­trary to the service of God, or else things tend­ing to Idolatry. Thus Exod. 23.24. thou shalt not do after the works of the Canaanites, is a command not to bow down to their Gods, and serve them, but to overthrow them utterly, and quite break down their Images, and then it fol­lows, v. 25. ye shall serve the Lord your God; the works forbidden therefore by that Phrase were contrary to the service of God. And v. 33. the reason of this Prohibition is thus given, for if thou serve their Gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee; So again, Levit. 18.3. Af­ter the doings of the Land of Aegypt wherein you dwell, shall you not do, neither shall you walk in their ordinances. Why? Because, as Ains­worth well observes, Aegypt was an Idolatrous Land, and there Israel had been defiled. Ezek. 20.8. they Rebel'd, against me, saith God, they did not every Man cast away the abominations of his Eyes, neither did they forsake the Idols of Aegypt, Ezek. 23.8. and of the Land of Ca­naan: God saith unto them Levit. 20.23. Ye shall keep my Statutes and Judgments to do them, ye shall not walk in the manners of the Nations which I cast out before you, for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhor'd them: So that to do after the doings of the Land of Canaan, is to do contrary to Gods Judgments and Statutes, and to commit the abominable [Page 167]things which they did; and this is so evident through the whole Chapter that he who runs may read it: For 1. The reason why God for­bids them to do after the manner of Aegypt and Canaan, is this; I am the Lord your God, v. 2. 2ly, The opposite command is this, v. 4, 5. Ye shall do my Judgments, and keep my Or­dinances to walk therein; I am the Lord your God, ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and my Judgments, I am the Lord. And v. 26. Ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and Judgments, and shall not commit any of these Abominations. And again, v. 30. Therefore shall ye keep mine Or­dinance, that ye commit not any of the Abomi­nable Customs which were committed before you, that you defile not your selves therein; I am the Lord your God.

3ly, You shall not do so to the Lord your God, Deut. 12.4. is in effect, you shall not Worship God by those Idolatrous Images by which the Canaanites Worshipped their Gods, but you shall hew down the Graven Images of their Gods, v. 3. you shall not Worship him on their Altars, or in their Groves, but you shall overthrow their Altars, and break their Pillars, and burn their Groves with fire, v. 3. and you shall Wor­ship God in the place that he shall chuse, v. 5. and this is very evident from v. 30.31. whe [...] God speaks thus unto them, thou shalt not en­quire after their Gods, saying, how did these Nations serve their Gods, even so will I do likewise; thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God, for every abomination to the Lord which he hateth, have they done unto their Gods. So that in all these places, to do after the manner of the Heathens, which is the thing forbidden, is to do after their Idolatrous, or their unnatural [Page 168]and unclean Rites in opposition to the Laws, Statutes and Judgments of the Lord: And this is farther evident from 2 Kings 17.15. where God Complains that his People rejected his Statutes, and his Covenant that he made with their Fathers, and his Testimonies, and they fol­lowed vanities and became vain, and went af­ter the Heathen round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them that they should not do like them. So that to do like them, was to follow vanity, and become vain, that is, Idolaters, as that Phrase plainly signifies in Ho­ly Scripture, and so it is expounded in the fol­lowing verse by making Molten Images, and the two Calves, and Groves, and Worshipping the Host of Heaven, and serving Baal.

4ly, To name the name of other Gods, which is forbidden Exod. 23.13. is only not to own, to worship or enter into covenant with them, and in particular not to swear by them, so that phrase seems to signifie, Psalm. 16.4. their sorrows shall be multiplyed that hasten after another God, their drink offerings of Blood will I not offer, nor take up their names upon my Lips. i.e. I will not forsake thee by partaking with them in their abominable Sacrifices who serve other Gods, nor by swearing by the name of their false Gods, so Dr. Hammond and Dr. Patrick. So, to name the name of Christ 1. Tim. 2.19. is to own the true Messiah, and profess the Christian faith, and that this is the certain import of the words we learn from Josh. 23.7. where this Phrase is repeated, and by the following words is thus ex­plained, Be ye couragious to keep, and do all that is written in the Law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom, to the right hand or to the left, that ye come not among these nations that remain [Page 169]among you, neither make mention of the name of their Gods, nor swear by them, nor serve them, nor bow your selves to them.

5ly, When God saith, thou shalt call me Jehi, Hos. 2.16. and shall call me no more Baal, his meaning is not that they should never use that word, because it was used by Idolaters, or was applyed to Idols, for then God was not to be called Jah, because the Heathens had their [...], nor [...] or Lord, because they gave that name to Baal, nor King: because the Heathens had their Milcom, nor would God have incouraged his people to use that name by stiling himself Baal, as he doth in the Prophet Isaiah Chap. 54.5.62.5. but God by this expression signifies he would not be unto his people a hard imperious Lord, as Baal was unto his Worshippers, but he would rather treat them with the affections of an Husband, or that they should no more revolt from him to Baal as hitherto they had done, but should cleave faith­fully to their Covenant made with him, as the Wife promiseth, forsaking other Lords, to cleave unto her Husband.

6ly, The reason why God commanded his own people to destroy the Altars and the Images of Heathens, and not to take unto themselves the Silver, Gold and other Furniture belonging to them, was the prevention of their erecting of them, and preserving them to give Idolatrous worship to them, as they were very prone to do: Thus do the very Texts declare, ye shall destroy their Altars, break their Images, cut down their Groves, Exod. 34.13. mark the reason v. 14. for thou shalt worship no other God, for the Lord whose name is Jealous, is a Jealous God. And Deut. 7.25. Thou shalt not take to thy self the Silver or Gold of their Graven Images, left thou be sna­red [Page 170]therein. There being then no fear lest we should be ensnared by the use of Ceremonies already purged from the Foundations of all Ro­mish Superstition and Idolatry, we cannot be concerned in these Precepts, and much less in that passage of Isaiah, chap. 30.22. where this only is foretold, that when the Jews did truly turn unto the Lord, they should obey this Pre­cept which commands them not to take unto themselves the Silver, and the Gold, and other Furniture of Idols. And truly if these Precepts did oblige the Christian, they would Condemn all our Reformed Churches, and the Dissenters themselves, for turning into their private Purses, or their common Treasuries, or any way retain­ing for their use, that Silver, and that Gold which formerly made Romish Images, or which was dedicated to Romish Saints, or offered at their Shrines, or using any of the Utensils, or Garments which have been so abused, and if we are obliged punctually to follow these Pre­scriptions, we must not only destroy Popish Images, but cast away the Silver, Gold, and other Fur­niture belonging to them, since in these places all usage of such things, Civil, or Sacred, is apparently forbid, and even the desire of them.

7ly, When the Jews are forbid to round the cor­ners of their Heads, or mar the corners of their Beards, they only are forbid that rounding of the corners of their heads which was done in honour of Demons, and that marring of the corners of their Beards, which Heathen Priests used in ho­nour of their Idols, Baruch 6.31. Their Priests sit in their Temples having their Heads and their Beards shaven. And therefore this making baldness upon their Heads, this shaving of the [Page 171]Corners of their Beards, is forbidden as that whereby they would profane the name of God, and as opposite to owning God to be their Lord, Levit. 21.6.19.25, 28. Moreover that cut­ting of the Flesh which God forbids in the same place, for the same reasons, was the cut­ting of the Flesh for the dead, which was by Heathens used partly from Superstition, Grati­ficari se aliquo modo defunctis putantes, Thereby conceiving that they did some way gratifie the dead, and partly from Idolatry, to appease the Infernal Deities. And Lastly, that printing marks upon their Flesh, which the same Text forbids, was such, Quâ se ad Idololatriam signabant, where­by they marked themselves for the service of such or such an Idol, saith Maimonides; so that the im­port of all these passages is only this; Thou shalt not by any of these ways make a pro­fession of Idolatry, or an acknowledgment of Heathen Deities, or use those Customs which in their common use do signifie the owning of them. And if the naming of their Gods, the shaving of their Beards or Heads in such a manner, had been absolutely forbidden, and not only as Testimonies of Idolatry, I know not why they should concern us more than the Prohibition of a Linsey-Woolsey Garment, or the sowing of their Fields with divers Seeds, which no Man thinks unlawful to be done by Christians. Now,

8ly, To the Objection from these words mentioned, 2 Cor. 6.17. viz. Touch not the unclean thing, I Answer, that it cannot in the least concern our Ceremonies; for, what in them, thus purged from Popish Superstition, and Ido­latry, can be esteemed the unclean thing? Is it the thing it self? What can the abuse of other [Page 172]Men defile to our use the very Nature of things which God hath not made to us unclean? How then saith Paul that to the clean all things are clean? Tit. 1.15. How durst he allow Men not only to touch, but to eat of meats offered before to Idols without scruple of Conscience in that respect? 1 Cor. 10.23, 27. ‘But if they shall grant that the uncleanness is in the Superstitious abuse of such things, then let them know that he who useth the same thing without the same, or other Superstition, may be said to touch the thing, but not to touch the unclean thing, as he that touched Naaman cleansed from his Leprosie,’ touch­ed the same Man, but not the same Leper. 2ly, The command to be separated, and touch not the unclean thing, is made the condition of Gods receiving us, v. 17, 18. and being unto us a Fa­ther, and owning us as Sons and Daughters, if therefore Dissenters will assert our Ceremonies to be the unclean thing there intended, or some­thing parallel to them, they must flie into the Camp of the Brownists, and say that God can­not receive, or own our Church, or be a Father to it, or own any of its Members as his Sons or Daughters, till we have laid aside their use. And 3ly, What is here, not to touch the un­clean thing, is only to purge our selves from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit, as is evident from the context of the words, for the Apostle ha­ving mentioned the promises God had made to those who did separate themselves, and touch not the unclean thing, viz. that God would receive them, and be a Father to them, he in­fers, wherefore beloved let us cleanse our selves from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit, chap. 7.1. So that this Text cannot concern our Ceremo­nies, unless it be asserted that whilst we use them [Page 173]we cannot cleanse our selves from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit. And 4ly, The unclean thing here spoken of is plainly the Idolatry of the Heathens, as that expression intimates, what conjunction hath the Christian, who is the Tem­ple of God, with Idols, to touch this unclean thing, is to Communicate with them in their Idolatry, by eating of their Idol Feasts in the Temple of their Idols; which is, saith the Apo­stle, to have Communion with Devils, 1 Cor. 10.20. to partake of the Table of Devils, v. 21. let us not therefore, saith he, who have taken upon us the Yoke of Christianity be [...], drawing in a contrary Yoke with the unfaithful; for that the Apostle cannot by the unclean thing, mean Marriage with an Infidel, is evident because he saith, the unbe­lieving Husband is sanctified to the beliving Wife; 1 Cor. 7.14. if then these Ceremonies which we use cannot be proved to be Idols, they must be uncon­cerned in this prohibition. To the Argument from the Apostle Judes exhortation to hate the Garments spotted with the Flesh, Defence of Dr. Morton, p. 437. it is well Answered by Dr. Burges. ‘That as a Gar­ment spotted with the Flesh of the unclean, was no longer to be hated than till it was washed, and being washed might again be used; so is it with Ceremonies of indifferent nature which have been defiled. 2ly, To hate, or flie the Garments spotted with the Flesh, is only to hate every thing that doth defile, tho in the least degree, for so the Leprous and Un­clean Garments did.’ Hate, saith the Reve­rend Dr. Hammond, all the beginnings, and the least degrees of impurity and uncleanness; when therefore it can be proved that there is any de­gree of impurity or uncleanness in the use of [Page 174]our Ceremonies, then only may this Text be urged against them. And 3ly, The refusal to Submit unto them, tending to Disobedience and Schism, and all the dreadful consequences which do follow from them, may seem more likely to be forbidden by this Text, than our Submission to them in Obedience to Authority.

Again whereas it is Objected, That Christ re­proved the Church of Pergamus and Thyatira for suffering Men to teach her Children to eat things Sacrificed to Idols; Rev. 2.14, 20. I Answer, 1. That St. Paul hath taught us that it was not necessary in it self to eat Flesh offered to Idols, for the Earth, saith he, is the Lords, and the fulness thereof, 1 Cor. 10.28. and so we may sufficiently be fed by other meat; and yet he tells us, that this meat may lawfully be eaten by the Christian, that it is clean to the clean, Tit. 1.15. and that 'tis only through weakness that it can defile the Conscience, and only is unclean to him that thinketh it to be so, Rom. 14.14. and he gives free commission to all Men to eat it, asking no question for Conscience sake, 1 Cor. 10.27. and bids us, as it were in flat contradiction to this Objection, not to enquire, or be follicitous whether the meat we eat have been by others so abused to Idolatry, and if the offering of Flesh to an Idol doth not debar our freedom of using it to the sustaining of our Bodies, why should the Superstitious use of a Ceremony make it unlawful to be used by others without that Superstition; the eating therefore of things Sa­crificed to Idols, and teaching others so to do, which was the thing condemned in those Churches by our Lord, was only eating of them in the Idol Temples, and at the Feasts of Idols; so as to be partakers of the Table of Devils, or to [Page 175]commit Idolatry by the participation of them which is so evident from the Context that he who runs may read it. For 1. They are there also said to teach their Children to commit For­nication, and to eat things offered to Idols, Revel. 2.14, 20. Now all Men know that For­nication, in the spiritual sense, imports Idolatry. 2ly, They of the Church of Pergamus who taught her Children to eat things Sacrificed to Idols, are said to hold the Doctrine of Balaam who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the Children of Israel, that is, to Sacrifice to their Gods, to eat, and to bow down unto them, or to entice them by the Daughters of Moab to this sin, Numb. 25.1, 2, 3. Lastly, The Wo­man who seduced the Church of Thyatira to commit Fornication, and to eat things Sacrificed to Idols, is called Jezabel, a Woman famous for her promotion of Idolatry. Proceed we now to Answer the examples propounded in the Ob­jection. And, §. 8

1. Gen. 35.4. To that of Jacob who caused his Family to give unto him the Ear-rings which were in their Ears, I Answer, 1. That these Ear-rings were, say some Interpreters, the Ear-rings which adorned their Gods, and so were parts of their strange Gods; they were, say others, Ear-rings in which were graven the effigies of their Gods after the manner of the Gentiles, and so they were plain Idols, which ought to be abolished, they were, say others, dedicated to some Numen according to the manner of the Syrians, and the Phaeni­cians, and so were actual instruments of Ido­latry. Now what doth this concern the Ceremo­nies of the Church of England, which, as she useth them, are neither Idols, nor instruments of Idolatry?

[Page 176]2. Dan. 1.8. To the example of Daniel who would not defile himself with the portion of the Kings Meat, nor with the Wine which he drank. I Answer, that it is on many accounts imperti­nent. 1. Because, according to the judgment of Mr. Calvin, the pollution spoken of was not a Ceremonial pollution arising from the Idolatrous use of the meats, but only Moral and occasional, by their being Bates and Allure­ments to draw him to an irreligious forgetful­ness of the service of God. 2ly, If the pollu­tion was Ceremonial, it might arise from a mixture of Meats forbidden by the Jewish Law with others lawful to be eaten, and which if he refused, he would not have eaten the full portion allowed by the King.

3ly, Esth. 3.2. To the example of Mordecai, refusing to bow to Haman. 1. If he himself may be be­lieved, he did not refuse what he conceived law­ful in it self, because it was by others abused to Idolatry, but because the Worship which by Haman was required, was in it self Idolatrous, as being Worship proper to the God of Hea­ven: For thus he speaks, Thou knowest Lord that it was neither out of Pride, nor in con­tempt, nor for any desire of vain Glory that I did not bow down to Proud Haman, but I did this that I might not prefer the Honour of Man above the Glory of God, neither will I Worship any, but thee, O God, Esth. 13, 12, 14. Josephus also tells us that, Antiq. l. XI. c. 6. [...], He durst not give that Honour to Haman which he gave to God, and is this a fit instance to prove that things indifferent may not be used in Gods ser­vice, when they by others are abused to Su­perstition and Idolatry? If it proves any thing, [Page 177]it proves we may not give Civil Worship to Princes and Grandees when others give it to them.

Lastly, whereas to the same purpose is ob­jected the example of good Hezekiah who brake the Brazen Serpent, 2 Kings 18.4. tho it was made by Gods appointment, when it was once abused to Idolatry; I Answer,

1. That all that with any shew of reason can be drawn from this example is only this, That Magistrates may, and perhaps ought in diverse cases, to remove those things which have been abused to Idolatry, but it can never ra­tionally be concluded hence, that Men may never use them any more, provided they do use them without all abuse; as v. g. it will not follow that no private Jew, might look upon the Brazen Serpent as a monument of Gods mercy to the Jews or a Symbol or Representation of that Jesus, who freeth us, and was to free them from the Sting of the Old Ser­pent, because others did then abuse it to Idolatry.

2ly, The reason which the Scripture renders why Hezekiah brake this Serpent is, because even to those days the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it; v. 4. let it be therefore proved that even in these days we use our Ceremonies to Superstition and Idolatry, and then our Ma­gistrates by this example may be moved to abo­lish them: Dr. Ames tells us that the French, Spanish, English Papists passing by the Cross, suppose at the Cheapside, do Worship, and do reverence unto it; but what is that to our Ce­remonies? What is it to the Aerial Cross we make upon the Forehead of an Infant? Did ever any of them Worship that? 2ly, Must we therefore pull down and deface all our Churches, because of their Crosses, and Cross Isles, if a Papist will reverence them Superstitiously.

Obj. 3 We are required to abstain from all appear­ance of evil; §. 9 now the imposed Rites, at least, have an appearance of Evil, they being, in the judg­ment of so many sober Godly persons Evil, and so they ought to be abstained from, 1 Thess. 5.22.

Answ. 1. That this Objection, depends upon a groundless Interpretation of the Original [...], which may be better rendred thus, abstain from every sort or kind of Evil; for so the Syriack doth render them; so Chrysostom, St. Basil, Leontius and Theophylact, who descant thus upon them, flee not from this or that only, but from every sin, and then sub­mission to our Ceremonies cannot be here for­bid, till it be made evident that they are Evil in themselves. Or 2ly, They may be rendred according to the vulgar, Tigurin, and Beza thus, abstain from all appearance which is Evil; and so cannot concern those Ceremonies which in their Nature are indifferent, and have no ap­pearance which is Evil. And 3ly, Should we grant that the Apostle here exhorts us to abstain from all appearance of Evil, he may be well conceived to advise us to abstain from that which, after tryal, seems evil to our selves, or what we judg to be so, and not from that which only doth appear to others to be Evil, but not unto our selves; for the Apostle makes these two precepts, the holding what is good, and the abstaining from all appearance of Evil, the consequent of trying all things, for to what end should Men try all things, but that they may hold, what, upon tryal, seemeth to them good, and abstain from that which to them, after tryal, seemeth evil? And wherefore doth he bid them try all things in order to these ends, if after all they must Act not by their own, [Page 179]but by the judgment of another, and must ab­stain not only from what seemeth evil to them­selves who try, but from that which appeareth so to others? 4ly, It seems most absurd that the Apostle should command all Christians to abstain from all indifferent things which appear Evil unto others, even tho they be commanded by a just Authority, because he would require a thing impossible, for it is impossible for me to know what ap­pears to another Evil, since I cannot know his thoughts, and therefore cannot discern what appears to him Good or Evil, much less can I know all that appears so to him; and yet the Apostle requires Christians to abstain from all appearance of Evil, without distinction, or exception of any Man.

2ly, This precept in this sense will lay upon us an intolerable Yoke, evacuate our Liberty in things indifferent, and create in our minds continual perplexities, there being scarcely any thing a Man can do, tho never so indifferent, which unto some or other Infidel, or Christian, Weak, or Strong, Ignorant, or Superstitious, may not be deemed evil, or appear to be so; the Eating of our Meats, the Cloathing of our Bodies, and all the recreations which we custo­marily do use appearing Evil unto some or o­ther, we must either do nothing of this Na­ture, or else be filled with perplexing fears that what we do appears to others Evil, and so makes us Transgressors of this Precept. And Lastly, To retort this Argument; we are command­ed to abstain from all appearance of Evil, but the refusal of submission to the Rites enjoyned hath an appearance of Evil, for it appeareth to be such, not only to Su­periors, but to all sober Conformists, Ergo, [Page 180] Dissenters are obliged to abstain from refusing any longer to submit unto the Rites en­joyned.

Obj. 4 ‘THAT which doth Minister Scandal to weak Brethren must not be done, §. 1 saith the Dissenter, no not at the Command of our Superiors, but by submitting to, and using the imposed Ceremonies, we minister Scandal to weak Brethren.’ And therefore we must not submit unto them. To lay foundations of a full, and satisfactory Answer unto this Ob­jection; I lay down these ensuing Propositions.

1. That Scandal is an action whereby occa­sion is ministred to the sin, fall, or ruine of our weak Brother; it is any thing saith St. Paul, by which our Brother stumbleth, or is offend­ed, Rom. 14.21. it is a stumbling block, or [Page 183]an occasion to fall put in our Brothers way, v. 13. Where note 1. That under the Word action, is comprehended: 1. words tending to the same effect: And 2ly, omissions of actionswhich have the same consequence.

2ly, This Scandal may be Ministred as well by doing of our Duty, as by doing Evil. So the Preaching of the Cross was to the Jews a stumbling block, 1 Cor. 1.23. 2 Cor. 2.16. the Gospel Preached is to many a savour of death, and Christ himself is said to be to many a Stone of stumbling, 1 Pet. 2.8.and a Rock of offence, and the occasion of their fedling.

It therefore is erroneously said that our action, Coroll. tho it may displease, yet cannot minister oc­casion of Scandal to both parties, for tho 'tis true, I cannot give a just occasion of offence by doing, or omitting the same action, for then I must lie under a necessity of sinning, it being necessary for me either to do, or to omit the doing of it. It is as true that some weak Persons may take offence at my perform­ing, and others be as much offended at my omitting the same action.

Prop. 2 That Scandal, sin, or fall of others which is occasioned by doing of my Duty, cannot be my sin, and so I cannot be obliged to avoid it, the reason is, because I cannot sin in doing of my Duty, and because I must not do Evil, Rom. 3.8. as the neglect of Duty is, that good may come.

Hence it doth clearly follow, Coroll. that by obedi­ence to the lawful commands of my Superiors, I cannot be guilty of sinful Scandalizing of my Brother, because obedience, in such cases, is my Duty.

Obj. ‘No human ordinance can take away the condition of Scandal from that action which would otherwise be Scandal, that is, which [Page 184]being not commanded would be Scandal.’ Answ. It is sufficient if it can take away the sin of Scandal, and that it doth by making that become my Duty which Scandalizeth my weak Brother: We do not say the sin of Scan­dal is avoided simply by the Lawfulness of the action which we do, for tho all meats were lawful in the Apostles time, yet this would not excuse the Gentile Christian from sin, in eating of those meats which gave offence to his weak Brother; but then, say we, the sin of Scandal is avoided when the action being lawful in it self, is necessary in obedience to Superiors, and for the exercise of our Ministry, and for the peace of the Church, and the prevention of Schisms and separations in, and from it, with all their fatal consequences, it being all Mens Duty by all lawful means to prosecute these good ends.

Prop. 3 They who Object the case of Scandal as the ground of their refusal to submit unto these Constitutions must confess or dispute against them from this Topick, upon this supposition, that they are in themselves indifferent, and that 'tis only the mistake of our weak Brother which can lay this restraint upon our practice in such matters, because from matters in them­selves evil, or forbidden, we are obliged to ab­stain, tho no such Scandal should ensue upon the practice of them.

Prop. 4 As far as I am able to discern, we cannot Minister occasion of Scandal to our weak Bro­ther by submitting to these commands of our Superiors, but either, 1st. By Ministring oc­casion to his rash judgment, and censure of our action as an Evil deed: Or 2ly, By moving him, by our example, to conform, even while he doubts the lawfulness thereof, and so to do [Page 185]it with a doubting Conscience, and therefore to his own damnation, Rom. 14.23. which seems to be the Scandal mentioned, 1 Cor. 8.10, 11. Or 3ly, By grieving him to see those things are practised by us which he condemneth in his Conscience, which seems to be the Scandal spoken of, Rom. 14.15. Or 4ly, By causing him to separate from our Communion, upon these accounts, and by so doing to incur the guilt of Schism. Prop. 5

‘We are not, saith Mr. Jeans, obliged to abstain from that indifferent action which may Scandalize our Brother, when by forbearance of that action, as great, Scholast. dis­pute p. 102. if not a greater Scan­dal is Administred to others, for as St. Bernard truly saith, Prudenter anim advertendum est Scandalum Scandalo non emendari, qualis emen­datio erit, si, ut aliis Scandalum tollas, alios Scandalizas. We are prudently to mark that one Scandal is not mended by another, which kind of emendation we should practise, if to take off offence from one party, we give offence unto another;’ for in this case we must have as much reason, on the account of Scandal, to do, as to forbear the action: Now it is cer­tain that our refusal to comply with our Supe­riors Command in lawful matters, doth Mi­nister occasion of like Scandal in all particulars forementioned. For

1. The Magistrate, and they who think themselves obliged to submit to his injunctions, are as much grieved to see Men stifly to persist in disobedience to his commands in lawful mat­ters, as our weak Brethren can be to see us yield obedience to him in such things.

[Page 186]2ly, Others will be as prone to censure our refusal of Obedience as Turbulent, Sehismatical, as disobedience to the Higher Powers, and dis­orderly walking, as the weak Brother is to cen­sure our Conformity as Popish, Superstitious, and the like. And 3ly, Why may not others be as well tempted by their refusal to conform, to se­parate, and to do as they do with a doubting Conscience, as the weak Brother may by our conformity be tempted likewise to conform with a doubting Conscience: Moreover whosoever doth consider the temper of the Nonconformists will find occasion to believe that there is little fear of drawing them, by our examples, to con­form, but rather that they will be apt to cen­sure us for our Conformity, and could we do so, we should only tempt them to perform their Duty, tho against their Conscience.

Prop. 6 The Scandal caused by the Dissenter on supposition that he refuses where he may law­fully obey, which is the case in question, is Scandalum datum, i.e. Scandal arising from the omission of his Duty, the Scandal ministred by the Conformist can be only Scandalum accep­tum, sed non datum; or Scandal arising not from the action of him that doth conform, but from the ignorance and weakness of him who is offended at his doing so, for certainly by doing of my Duty, in things lawful, I give to my weak Brother no just occasion to be griev­ed at what I do, or to pass censure on me as an Evil doer, or to Separate from Communion with me, or to do, with a doubting Conscience, what he sees me do, but by omission of my Duty to Superiors, I shall give just occasion both to them, and all who peaceably conform to grieve at my action, to pass their censures on me as a [Page 187]disobedient Person. And if I do by my ex­ample, occasion the omission of my Brothers Duty, and his separation, I shall be justly charg­ed with his guilt, as Ministring temptation to him, by that example, to neglect what law­fully he mought, and by God is Commanded to perform, and so I must offend him more, in the Apostles sense, by tempting him to sin, or to continue in sin: The sum is this, by re­fusing to conform, in such a lawful case, lest we should offend our weak Brother, we seem directly to sin our selves, to avoid an occasion of sin in him, we do, as far as I can judge, offend God, the King, the Law, the Church, and Conscience too, by not doing our Duty, lest we should offend our Brother by doing it. Now sure it must concern us more to avoid a Scandal given, with these circumstances, then to avoid a Scandal which is only taken: Now from these Propositions it is easie to return an Answer to all that is Objected by Amesins, Scholast. disp. p. 42, 43. and transcribed by Mr. Jeans, to prove the unrea­sonableness of this Assertion, That Authority is to be obeyed in things Lawful, even tho Scan­dal should ensue; against this Doctrine, which he ascribeth to our Prelates, he disputes thus:

Obj. 1 ‘A Scandal in the nature of it is Spiritual murther; §. 2 now suppose a Superior should com­mand a thing in it self indifferent, whereupon Murther were like to follow, as to run a Horse, or a Cart in a certain way, at a certain time, when, it may be unwitting to the Comman­der, little Children were playing in the way, would any Mans Conscience ferve him to do it?’

Answ. Yes, if he saw there were more, or like danger of as great mischief by running of this Horse, or driving of this Cart in any other way, [Page 188]which, as I have already shewed, is the present case with reference to our refusal of Obedience to the Commands of our Superiors concern­ing things indifferent, and Lawful in themselves.

Obj. 2 ‘Avoiding of Scandal is a main Duty of Charity; may Superiors at their pleasure ap­point how far I shall shew my Charity towards my Brother, then surely, an Inferior Earthly Court may cross the determination of the High Court of Heaven.’

Answ. This argument I thus retort; Obedience to Su­periors, Civil and Sacred, is a main Duty of Christianity, and to avoid all Schisms, and Di­visions of the Church, which is Christs Body, all disturbance of her Peace, all needless Se­perations from her Communion, are all im­portant Duties of Christianity; may then the ignorance, and consequential weakness of my Brother, appoint how far I shall be obedient to Gods Vice-Gerent, or Christs Messengers, how far I shall avoid dividing and disturbing of the Churches Peace, then surely may my Brothers ignorance and error, cross the determinations of the High Court of Heaven: what if they be offended at my paying Tribute in that Quo­tum which the Law of our Superiors prescribes; will Charity oblige me to refuse to pay it? Or is it not as much my Duty to obey Gods Vice-Gerents in all other Lawful matters, as in the ease of Tribute? Is not the precept as express for the one as for the other? 2ly, This strongly proveth it our Duty in the present circumstan­ces to conform, since by refusal so to do we only exercise our Charity towards our weak Brother, but by conforming we exercise like Charity, and care to avoid Scandal towards more, and more de­serving Persons, and also do avoid dividing and [Page 189]disturbing of the Churches Peace. By our re­fusal to conform to lawful institutions of Su­periors that so we may avoid the Scandal of weak Brethren, we disobey them whom God Commands us to obey; we harden our weak Brother in his Disobedience, and Schism; we rob our selves of the benefit of the Publick Ordinances, bring Penalties and Excommunica­tions on our selves; we rob the Church of her Unity, Peace, and Love, and if we be Ministers, we deprive our selves of opportunity to exer­cise our calling to the good of Souls; now to avoid the Scandal of a weak Brother by in­curring all this guilt, is so far from being a main Duty of Charity, that it doth flatly con­tradict the ground and measure of all Charity, Self-Love, and seemeth to be only doing many Evils, that one good may come.

Obj. 3 ‘Superiors have no power given them for destruction, but for Edification, if therefore they Command Scandals, they go beyond their Commission, neither are we tied therein to do as they bid, but as they should bid.’

Answ. 1. If they Command us to do that which of its own Nature giveth Scandal by being a di­rect and an immediate cause of sin, 'tis true we must not do as they bid, but as they should bid, or rather as their great Superior bids, but not if they Command what only, through the sin or ignorance of others, proves to them a Scan­dal, especially when our refusal to obey them will Minister an equal Scandal which is appa­rently the present case.

2ly, I Answer, That it belongs not to private persons to enquire whether their Superiors do go beyond their Commission in Commanding of these things, but only, whether what they do Com­mand, [Page 190]tho it should exceed the power given them by God, may without sin be done, and if they find it may, they cannot without sin re­fuse obedience, no not in case of accidental Scandal.

Obj. 4 ‘If determination of Superiors were sufficient to take away the sin of Scandal, then they do very ill that they do not (so far as is possble) determin all things indifferent, that so no dan­ger may be left of giving of offence by the use of them. Then the Church of Rome is to be praised in that she hath determined so many in­differents, then Paul, with the other Apostles, might have spared a great deal of Labour in admonishing the Churches how they should avoid offences about some indifferent things, a far shor­ter way had been either to determin the matter fully, or else to have given order that the Churches should among themselves determin it at home,’

Answ. 1. We do not say that the determination of Superiors will always take away the sin of Scan­dal, but that it certainly will do it when upon that determination an equal Scandal follows on the other hand.

2ly, It will not follow hence, that they do ill in not determining all things indifferent that so no danger may be left of giving of offence by the use of them. Because the remedy may be much worse than the Disease, as being 1. To bring a Yoke of bondage on the necks of Christians which they could hardly bear, for if the Council at Je­rusalem thought fit to stile their Imposition of a few necessary things, a Burthen, how well might the determination of all things indifferent deserve that appellation. And 2ly, As tending to distract Mens devotions by their attendance [Page 191]to such a multitude of Ceremonies as must be then imposed, and as are actually imposed by the Church of Rome. 3ly, As tending to Minister occasion to endless divisions in the Church, and scruples in the minds of her weak Members, for if three Ceremonies determined by the Church are so much scrupled, if by occasion of their Im­position such Divisions and Separations have so long continued, as we by sad experience see, what might be then expected should all indifferent circumstances be determined by her; and for these reasons it by no means will follow that the Church of Rome is to be praised in that she hath determined so many matters of this Nature. Nor 3ly, Will it follow that the Apostles might have spared a great deal of Labour in admoni­shing the Churches how they should avoid of­fence about some things indifferent, even by de­termining them fully, or by giving order that the Churches should among themselves determin them; for this which he here stiles a shorter way, might have been far more dangerous, by Ministring to great contentions in the Church, and causing the weak Jews to flie off from the profession of the Gospel, or from Communion with their fellow Christians, and so that course would not have hindred the perishing of the weak Brother, but rather would have tended to the promotion of his ruin.

Obj. 5 ‘But say that the Arch-Bishop of Corinth, for now I suppose such a one, had called his Con­gregation, and with consent of his Clergy had determined that Men might, and for testi­fying of Liberty should at a certain time eat of such and such meats which Men formerly doubt­ed of, would not yet the Apostle have given the same direction he did? Would not good [Page 192] Christians still have had care of their Bro­thers Consciences? Can the determination of a Superior be a sufficient Plea at the Bar of Gods Judgment seat for a Man that, by virtue or force thereof alone, hath done any action that his Conscience telleth him will Scandalize his Brother?’ I Answer,

1. That no Mans Conscience can tell him certainly that he will, but only that he may Scandalize his Brother by conforming to the Commands of his Superiors, and it may also tell him that he is in danger to Scandalize them more by not conforming, and in this Case the Plea holds good, the Scandal being equal on both sides; I durst not disobey Superiors against a plain Command, and to the manifest dividing and di­sturbing of the Church, to avoid the Scandal of a weak Brother, arising not from my action, but his ignorance. And 2ly, Hence I return an Answer to the Questions contained in the Ob­jection to the first; viz. Would not St. Paul in case of the determination of the Arch-Bishop of Co­rinth, that all Meats should indifferently be eaten have given the same direction as he did? Answ. Had he so done there would have been no ob­ligation on the Corinthians to obey their Arch-Bishop in opposition to St. Paul, because the power Apostolical was much Superior to that of Bishops, and Arch-Bishops, they must have therefore in this case obeyed St. Paul by virtue of the gene­ral Command to obey Superiors, but whether in this case St. Paul would have delivered the same direction is uncertain; but this is certain, and a sufficient Answer to the Question, that St. Paul would have considered where the Scandal would have been greatest, both with respect unto the number of Persons offended, and the destructive [Page 193]Nature and consequences of the offence, and would accordingly have given his directions, and and so accordingly do we. To the second Questi­on, Would not good Christians still had care of their Brothers Consciences? Answer, They would have shewed their care both of their Brothers Con­science, and their own, by giving him by their example no occasion to disobey those that Ruled over them in Lawful matters, to the dividing and the disturbing of the Churches Peace. To the third Question, Can the determination of Supe­riors be a sufficient Plea at the Bar of Gods judg­ment seat, for doing, any action that his Consci­ence telleth him will Scandalize his Brother? I Answer, Why not? if doing of his Duty will be a Plea sufficient? But on the other hand, can the pretence of Scandalizing a weak Brother be a sufficient Plea for disobedience to Gods Vice-Gerents in a Lawful matter, and for dividing and disturbing of the Churches Peace, and thereby ministring a greater Scandal both to Superiors and to all peaceable Conformists?

Obj. 6 ‘I would fain know whether those Superiors do not give a great Scandal which take upon them to impose unnecessary Rites which they know many good Men will be Scanda­lized by.’

Answ Good Mr. Doctor it concerns you more to know, and practise your own Duty, then to be censuring, and curiously searching into the actions of Superiors; for which not you, but they must Answer if they do offend.

Obj. 7 ‘It seems then in case the Magistrate Com­mand it, we may wound the weak Conscience of our Brother, and destroy with our indiffe­rences the work of God, and him for whom Christ died.’

Answ. True; we may do that which hath an acci­dental tendency to these unhappy ends: As v. g. suppose the Nonconformists are grieved at our Preaching, and submission to Superiors, and our continuance in our Ministerial function, and thereupon do judge of us as of Time-Servers, and Separate from our Communion, and become guilty of that Schism which accidentally pro­cures their ruine, must we not therefore submit to Authority, Obey them that have the Rule over us, or feed our Flocks? When therefore things in­different in their own Nature become necessary to these ends, we may perform them, tho ac­cidentally they tend unto the ruin of our Bro­ther. 1. Because disobedience to our Superiors in Lawful matters is a sin, and we must not do evil that good may come. 2ly, Because the Scan­dals following from our refusal to obey will in this case be greater, and more destructive to Souls then are the Scandals which are ministred by our obedience.

Obj. 8 ‘It is good, saith Paul, neither to eat Flesh nor drink Wine, nor to do any thing whereby thy Brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak, Rom. 14.22. But our Prelatists deter­mine quite otherwise, if Authority enjoyn, it is good, say they, to eat Bread, drink Wine, wear a Surplice, use the sign of the Cross in Baptism, tho never so many Brethren stumble, or are of­fended, or made weak thereby.’

Answ. This Tenet is injuriously imposed upon them, whom he contemptuously stiles Prelatists; they do not say that the determination of Su­periors will always take away the sin of Scandal in these matters, but that it will then do it, when upon that Determination an equal, or a greater Scandal follows on the other hand, and [Page 195]where the thing is Lawful, and the Scandal equal, what reason can there be on the account of Scandal for our refusal to obey.

Obj. 9 But can then the Law of Superiors be greater then the Law of Charity which is Gods Law? Answer, Is not the Law of Obedience to our Ru­lers equally Gods Law? Put the case that after the Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, some particular Persons should have been offended that their Bre­thren refused to eat meats offered to Idols, pleading that was Superstition in them, or a betraying of their Christian Liberty or that the things en­joyned by that decree were not Commanded of the Lord, and so were Human inventions, Will-Worship, and addition to Gods Word, would Christians then have been obliged to suspend their obedience to this Decree lest they should offend such Scrupulous Persons? I trow not.

§. 3 There be other Answers usually offered to take off the Objection of Scandal ministred by our Ceremonies, which I cannot approve of, and therefore dare not offer, as v. g.

1. ‘It is said, the Scandal which the weak con­ceive at our Conformity is passive, and not active, that is, the nature of our action doth not give occasion to it, but they are only Scandali­zed through ignorance or weakness: Now say they, it is only Scandal given which we are Concerned to Avoid; in opposition to this Plea, I say,’

That it is not sufficient to excuse us from being Guilty of sinful Scandalizing our weak Brother, that what we do is Lawful in it self, and therefore ministers no just occasion to the sin, full or ruin of our Brother. For the Apo­stle doth declare that he was taught by the Lord Jesus that no meats were of themselves Rom. 14.14.[Page 196]unclean, and therefore that the eating of them could minister no just occasion of offence to the weak Jew, 1 Cor. 8.7. and that it was for want of know­ledg, and through the weakness of his con­science, that the weak Brother was offended at it, and yet he doth as positively declare that it was evil to eat them with offence, that the strong by thus eating of them, did walk uncharitably, and sin against Christ; Rom. 14.15, 20. 1 Cor. 8.12. Matt. 17.27. moreover our Lord him­selfe paid tribute, though he might Lawfully not have done it, lest he should Scandalize, where, Even Maldonate observes, that Christ, in paying tribute to avoid Scandal, shun'd a Scandal which was meerly passive, because the exactors of Tribute ought not to have been Ig­norant that Christ was free from any obligation to the payment of it; whence he concludes, that this is no sure Rule, that Scandal only given, and not Scandal taken is to be avoided. 3ly, The keeping of the Brazen Serpent, as a monument of Divine mercy, was a thing Lawful in it self and yet when Scandal arose out of it, 'twas ne­cessary to remove it, as being in it self a thing unnecessary. Lastly, If Scandal passive tends to Gods dishonour by ministring unto my Bro­thers sin, if his Soul suffers by a passive, as well as by an active Scandal, surely the Love of God, and of my Neighbours Soul, should be suffici­ent motive to engage me to do all that Lawfully I can for the prevention of it, provided that I know, or have good reason to suspect that it will follow from my action, tho through my Bro­thers fault. For are we not obliged to pre­serve a Drunken Man from falling down a Pre­cipice, or into a River, because he is made Drunk by his own fault? Why therefore are we not ob­liged, if Lawfully we can, to preserve our Bro­thers [Page 197]Soul from perishing by his own fault? I fear this will be found at the last day too true, that he doth Criminally Scandalize, who doth, or who enjoyneth that which is unnecessary and which he knows will through the weakness of his Brother Minister occasion of his sin and ruine, ha­ving no benefit from what he doth require or do, equal unto the mischief which it doth to others.

2ly, It is said by Dr. Womack, that Scandal is an action done with intent to ensnare Men in sin, Melius Inquir. p. 106.or set up as a Mouse-Trap on purpose to entrap them; whence it will follow that no Man in the judg­ment of Charity can say that by the Ceremonies, we Scandalize our weak Brother, because they can­not Charitably judg that these Ceremonies are im­posed with an intent to draw Men to sin. But with submission to better judgments, I humbly con­ceive, that it will not excuse us from the guilt of Scandal, that we do not designedly and actually in­tend to make our Brother sin, provided that the acti­on doth, through our Brothers weakness, Admi­ster occasion to his sin and ruine, and we do either by experience find it to be so, or may, if we be care­ful, see that this is like to be the issue of it, and yet, when no necessity is laid upon us, will proceed to do it. For although Peter did not intend to cause the Gentiles to sin, or to compel them to judaize by his withdrawing from them at the coming of the Jews from Jerusalem, for the Text tells us he did it for another reason, viz. Gal. 2.11.fearing those of the Circumcision, yet was he to be blamed, saith St. Paul Gal. 2.11. he was a Transgressor v. 18. and that because by his Au­thority and example, tho not by his intention, he compel'd the Gentiles to live as did the Jews, v. 14.

2ly, He who doth venture on that action whence he either doth or may know such offence will [Page 198]follow, as truly may be guilty of the Scandal following, as if he had intended it, because by doing of it without necessity, and with such knowledge, he may be virtually said to intend it, tho actually he doth not so. 3ly, The secret intention of the agent doth not make the offended Person less or more subject unto fall, sin, and ruine, and so it cannot hinder the sinfulness of the offence which, he may easily foresee, will follow from it; wherefore Spalato doth determin well, De Rep. Ec­cles. l. 1. cap. XI. N. 18. Est Scandalum, & cum peccato, quando quis, licet non intendat peccatum alterius, facit tamen opus aut ex se malum, aut apparenter, ex quo scit, aut scire debet consequuturum alterius pec­catum, aut quodcunque malum, nam etiam di­citur illud voluntarium interpretativè.

3ly, Whereas it is affirmed that we can give no sinful Scandal by using or imposing of the ce­remonies, because we give a reason of our action, so that they who are offended at them may know the lawfulness of our action, I humbly conceive that this will not excuse us from the guilt of Scan­dal. For the Apostle doth not say, him that is weak receive, Rom. 14.1.till you have given him a reason of of your action, but receive him, without dis­puting of the lawfulness, or the unlawfulness of what is done. He doth not say, If my Brother be offended I will eat no Meat, till I have given him a reason why I eat, but I will eat no meat whilst the World stands. 2ly, After your reason, he through weakness in not perceiving the strength of it, or through the prejudice of plau­sible objections to the contrary, may still be grieved, may stumble or offend, may perish and be ruined as much as ever, and so all the Apostles Arguments for the forbearance of the weak on these accounts, must be as strong as ever to [Page 199]engage us not to Scandalize him. In a word if this be true, saith Parker, Of the Cross part. 2. p. 57.that they are blame­less who Scandalize their Brethren, provided that they give a reason of their Action, then see we an end of all the Duty of bearing with the weak, of forbearing our own liberty, power, and Au­thority in things indifferent, for their sakes, yea an end of all the care to prevent their offence by giving them occasion either of condemning our acti­on, or imitating it against their Conscience, which we have so oft, so seriously, with so many reasons, obtestations, yea woes; and threatnings command­ed to us throughout the word; what needed St. Paul to write so much against the Scandal of meats; this one Precept might have sufficed, let the strong give a reason of his eating. But tho he had given many reasons to them of Corinth for the Lawfulness of taking Wages, and for the lawfulness of all sorts of meat to them of Rome, yet neither would he take wages himself, nor suf­fer others to eat all sorts of meat when others were offended.

4ly, Whereas it is confidently said that they are to be deemed obstinate who after a reason gi­ven are still Scandalized, and so their Scandal is Pharisaical, and not to be regarded, This also I conceive will not hold Water. For 1. It seems with equal reason to be said that they are ob­stinate in Scandalizing who perceiving the Scan­dal to remain notwithstanding their reasons given will not take away the Scandal, when it is in their power to do it, 2ly, It seemeth hard, and uncharitable to judge them obstinate who solemn­ly profess before God, that, notwithstanding all the reasons given, they cannot conform, because they are not satisfied with them. 3ly, Then must we peremptorily conclude there is not one [Page 200] Conformist who is not obstinate against the clear convictions of his Conscience. 4ly, Then may we say that all who Anciently contended about Ceremonies were obstinate, and so we must con­demn, as obstinate, all who contended about the time of Celebrating Easter, the Lent Fast, the observation of the Sabbath, or the Baptizing of Hereticks, because reasons sufficient were also of­fered against their mistakes. And 5ly, Then the weak Christians of whom St. Paul speaks, must be obstinate, and therefore not to be regarded, be­cause he gives them a sufficient reason against their weakness, declaring by his Apostolick Authority, and the Authority of Christ himself, that it was lawful to eat those meats at which they scrupled. 6ly, We are obliged to abstain, where lawfully we may, as well from the Scandal of the Mali­cious, as of the weak. For 1. A Scandal is of a Soul destroying Nature, Rom. 14.15. and who so wicked and malicious upon the face of the Earth whose Soul a true Christian Charity will exclude from its care, mercy, and compassion, or who so wicked as to add to his ruine? 2ly, The Apostles motive reacheth to the wicked and Malicious, viz. destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died, for they may be in the number of those for whom Christ died, who for their present state and condition are most Mali­tious and wicked. 3ly, We are obliged to love all, even our most Malicious and persecuting Enemies, Matt. 5.44. we are to do good to all, Gal. 6.10. we are to exercise patience, and meekness even towards those that oppose them­selves, 2 Tim. 2.14, 15. and whom then may we Scandalize. 4ly, The Jews and Gentiles were the most Malicious Enemies of Christians, yet saith the Apostle give no offence to Jew or [Page 201]Gentile, 1 Cor. 10.32. 5ly, Doth not our Saviour forgo his Liberty to please the Malicious, as when he payed Tibute, lest he should offend them, Matt. 17.27. they were Malicious at Corinth, and seekers of occasion against Paul, that were likely to be offended at his taking wages there, 2 Cor. 11.12. yet, the thing be­ing no necessary Duty, he thinketh it his Duty to forbear his power therein. And whereas against this it is objected, that our Lord did not regard the Scandal of the Pharisees, but said let them alone, Matt. 15.12, 13, 14. this Answer is returned by Parker: If this be all the War­rant we have not to forbear in a thing indifferent for the Malicious, than have we no Warrant at all, because the Scandal there not cared for, is when the Pharisees were offended at his abstaining from their washings, and Preaching a true Doctrine, both of which were necessary Duties for him to do, and when he defendeth his healing on the Sab­bath, and his disciples plucking of the Ears of Corn, upon this reason that they were Duties of necessi­ty and Charity, he plainly insinuates that there is no defence for deeds unnecessary when the Ma­licious are offended.

§. 1 ‘IN the last place it is objected that their Sub­mission to the imposed Rites will render them purtakers of the sin of others, and ther­fore ought not to be done. This they endea­vour to make good upon a double ground. And,’

1. ‘We dare not joyn with you, say they, in Publick Worship, or the participation of the Holy Sacraments: Because some things are by Superiors required of all those who are permit­ted to joyn with you in those Ordinances, which tho they are not evil in themselves, yet ought they not to be required as the conditions of Com­munion, they being things unnecessary; now should we, say they, yield obedience to them in these things, we should countenance them in their imposing these unnecessary burthens upon others, and harden them in that which we sup­pose to be their sin, and should encourage their persistance in it, and so should be partakers in that Guilt: Moreover the Rigid imposition of these things, say they, tends to divide the Church to make men Schismaticks, and so it ministers to the destruction of poor Souls; we dare not therefore submit unto the practise of them, lest by so doing we approve of those Unchristian practices.’ To this pretence I Answer,

1. By Retorting of the Argument; for the refu­sal of obedience to Superiors in Lawful matters hath the like and more pernitious consequences, [Page 205]and therefore, they at least have equal cause to yield obedience to such constitutions of Superi­ors on this account, lest by refusing that obedi­ence they approve the more Unchristian practi­ses of those who rend the Church, desert Com­munion with her, Schismatically separate them­selves, disturb the Unity, the Peace, the Cha­rity, and the Edification of her Members, and cast a vile reproach upon Christianity, by repre­senting it as that which doth forbid obedience to Superiors in Lawful matters, and harden others in these sins; all which is manifestly done by their refusal to obey the Constitutions of Superi­ors in Lawful matters.

2. Did our Submission to any thing which our Superiors should not command, make us parta­kers of their sin, then every Burthensome and Grievous Act of Parliament which after it is made, tends more unto the prejudice, then to the good of the Community, not only Lawful­ly might, but must be disobeyed for Conscience sake, lest by submitting to it we should encou­rage our Superiors to impose Grievous burthens on the Subject, so that this scruple will lead to Faction in the State, as well as to Sedition in the Church. And 2ly, If this were so that by sub­mitting to any thing Commanded by Superiors which we do not approve of, or they should not impose, we become Guilty of the Sin of the Im­posers, then must our Lord and his Apostles be Guilty of like sin, for they did ordinarily joyn with the People of the Jews in their Publick Ser­vice on the Sabbath day, and at their other Fe­stivals, as I have shewed already, altho they, who then sat in Moses chair, imposed more Rites and Ceremonies to be observed in those parts of Publick Worship, then are imposed in our [Page 206] Church. 3ly. Then also must St. Paul be Guilty of approving those who did impose the Jewish Ceremonies as necessary to be observed by the Jew converted to Christianity, because, for peace sake, he himself submittedto them, and to the Jew became as a Jew that he might gain the Jew: He also must himself approve, and advise others to approve the judgment, and the practice of those Jews, who thought the Meats forbidden by the Law of Moses unlawful to be eaten, the days appointed by that Law, still ne­cessary to be observed, because he did himself, and he advised others to comply with them in their weakness, or to abstain from eating of those meats when that would minister occasion of Of­fence to their weak Brethren, and so, according to the Grounds of this objection, he himself en­couraged, and hard'ned other persons in their sin, and he advised others so to do. But,

§. 2 3ly, To give more ample satisfaction to this scruple, I shall consider all the ways whereby we become guilty of the sin of others, and then apply them to the case in hand.

We therefore may become partakers of the sin of others either directly, when we do actually consent unto, will, or approve the evil action which is done by others, or indirectly, when tho we do not actually consent unto the sin of others, yet do we that which is a culpable occasi­on of it.

1. Directly, when we do actually consent unto, will, or approve the sin of others: Now this is done two ways, 1. Antecedently to the Evil action, as when 'tis done by our command, di­rection, or perswasion, or consequently, when tho we had no hand in doing of it, yet we do afterwards censent unto, approve or do rejoyce in any Evil done by others.

[Page 207]2ly, Directly we partake with others in their sin, and Antecedently are guilty of it, when having power over them, we do command the doing of it, for this Command is a plain evidence that we do will the Evil action, and desire that it may be done: Thus Absalom slew Amnon, because he commanded his servants, saying, when I say unto you smite Amnon, then kill him, fear not, have not I Commanded you? 2 Sam. 13.30.28. thus David numbred the People, 2 Sam. 24.10. by commanding Joab so to do, v. 4. He kill'd Uriah the Hittite with the Sword, 2 Sam. 12.9. because at the command of David he was put into the front of the Battel that he died.

3ly, We are directly partakers with another in his sin, and Antecedently are guilty of it, when we perswade, encourage, warrant, allure, or set him on to the performance of it, for by all these actions we shew that we are willing and desirous that the sin be done, which in the sight of God is to commit it: Thus Jeroboam made Israel to sin by providing his two Golden Calves, and say­ing to them, it is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem; behold thy Gods O Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Aegypt, 1 Kings 12.28, 30. and chap. 13.34. 1 Cor. 2.8. thus the chief Rulers crucified the Lord of Glory, tho the Soul­diers did it, because they sought false witness a­gainst him, Matt. 26.59. they pronounced him guilty of death, v. 66. they perswaded the multi­tude to ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus, Matt. 27, 20. Thus did the People kill the Prince of Peace, Act. 3.15. Because they, hearkning to these perswasions of the chief Priests, cryed out to Pontius Pilate, let him be crucified: thus also are we guilty of the sin of others upon the same account, by counselling, or by advising them [Page 208]to what is Evil, by consenting to, or by ap­proving it before 'tis done.

4ly, We are directly partakers with another in his sin, and become guilty of it consequentially, when we consent unto, or do approve the Evil done, when we applaud the action, or rejoyce that it is done, because in all these cases we shew our willingness, that what is Evil should be done. Ep. 2. v. 10. He saith St. John, who bids the Here­tick good speed is partaker of his Evil deeds, for by this wish he sheweth his good liking to his Heresie, expressing his desire that it may pro­sper and prevail, whence it must follow by like reason, that whosoever doth approve, or shew good liking to, or doth desire, or wish that they may prosper, or prevail who are engaged in a wicked action, become partakers of its guilt. Hence is he charged as one who hates instruction and casts Gods Law behind his back, who when he seeth a Thief consenteth to him, Psal. 50.18. and this is made an aggravation of the guilt of Heathens, that knowing the judgment of God that they who did such things were worthy of death, they not only did the same, but had plea­sure in them that did them, Rom. 1.32. The reason is, because he who doth praise an Evil action, doth approve it as good, and worthy of his commendation, and therefore shews that he is willing that it should be done, and so doth also he who doth rejoyce at, or taketh pleasure in the commission of it.

5ly, They do, almost in all these ways, incur the guilt of others sins who teach false Doctrines which do encourage others in a course of sin, who plead for that as good, and Righteous, which is Wicked, and teach that to be innocent and harmless, which indeed is sinful, and so [Page 209]incur the Wo denounced against them who call evil good, and good evil, Esa. 5.20. for that by such erroneous Doctrines Men may in all these ways contract the guilt of others sins, is evident from this consideration, that if Men call evil good, they by so doing must encourage, per­swade, and warrant others to commit it, and justi­fie them in their wicked practices, and if they call good evil, they must deter them from the per­formance of their Duty, and must encourage them to sin by the neglect of that performance. And therefore they who do deter Men from joyning with our Congregations, as being guilty of Superstitious Worship, or doing things forbid­den by the word of God, if they prove guilty in this matter of false accusation, as I think they are, must be partakers of that Schism which o­thers, resting on their judgments, are encoura­ged to make, for they must then Command them not to do what 'tis their Duty, in obedience to their Superiors, and love unto their Churches Peace, and Unity, to do, and must encourage them in and praise them for that disobedience, and Separation which is indeed their sin. §. 3

2ly, We become indirectly guilty of the sin of others, when tho we do not actually consent unto, or will their sin, nor have we any purpose or design to tempt them to it, or ensnare them in it, yet do we that which is a culpable occasion of their sin, and where 'tis through our fault that others sin, we cannot be wholly excused from the guilt of their iniquity: Now thus we may be charged with the sin of others.

1. By neglecting of that Duty, or by commit­ting of that Evil action which doth directly give occasion to the sin of others, for most assured­ly that sin which doth immediately happen [Page 210]through my neglect of Duty, or is the plain result of my Transgression, must be mine of­fence. For even Heathens have declared, that qui non vetat peccare cum potest, jubet, He that when he hath Power to restrain Men from com­mitting Evil, and hath Authority from God committed to him for that end, neglects to do it, he becomes guilty of those sins which through neglect of his Authority, and Duty, others do commit; thus, If the Watch-man do not warn the sinner, who dies in his iniquity, his Blood will be required at the Watch-mans hands, Ezek. 33. v. 8. Thus the iniquity of Eli's Sons is charged upon him, 1 Sam. 3.13. because they made themselves vile, and he restrained them not. And since it is the Christians Duty to admonish his offending Brother, and not to suffer sin upon him, there­fore he by neglecting of this Duty becomes guilty of his sin; hence we thus Read, Levit. 19.17. Thou shalt reprove thy Brother, and not bear sin for him, or that thou be not punished for his ini­quity. Now where the Righteous judg doth threa­ten to punish us for other Mens Transgressions, we may be sure that we are truly guilty of them.

2ly, We become indirectly guilty of the sin of others, when by our ill example we minister occasion to their sin, and by our freedom to commit an Evil action, we encourage others, tho we do not intend it, to commit the like, for hereby we, at least, if we be persons of Autho­rity and credit, do put a stumbling block, or an occasion to fall in our Brothers way, and therefore walk not Charitably, nor sutably unto that Precept which Commands us to give none offence to Jew or Gentile.

3ly, We become indirectly guilty of the sin of others, when we do use our liberty in things [Page 211]indifferent to the offence, or sin of our weak Bro­ther, i. e. when, tho we know that our weak Brother is like to be offended, or tempted by our practice of that indifferentaction to do evil, we will not, tho we have it in our power so to do, abstain from the performance of it: Hence the Apostle doth exhort all Christians to take heed lest by using of their Liberty in matters of this Na­ture, they become a stumbling block to those that are weak, 1 Cor. 8.9. That no Man put a stumbling block, or an occasion to fall in his Bro­thers way, Rom. 14.13. declaring it is good neither to eat Flesh, nor to drink Wine, nor to do any other thing by which their Brother is offended, or made weak, Rom. 14.21. that tho all meats are pure, and lawful to be eaten, yet is it evil for that Man who eateth with offence, v. 20. that if our Brother be grieved with our meat we walk not Charitably towards him, with ma­ny things of the like import, whence it is evi­dent that in all matters of indifferency, it is the Christians Duty, as much as in him lies, to a­void the causing of his Brothers sin by using of his Liberty in doing of them, and therefore that he must incur the guilt of sin by the neglect of this his Duty. §. 4 Now to apply these things to the case in hand it will appear by a sincere re­flection on the forementioned ways which ren­der us partakers of the sins of others, that our sub­mission to things lawful in themselves, Command­ed by Superiors, cannot involve us in the guilt of the Imposer, altho he should offend in the impo­fing them as the conditions of Communion; For,

1. By our submission to these Constitutions for the sake of Peace, and to prevent the Schisms, and the Divisions of the Church of God, we can­not properly be said to command the imposing [Page 212]of them. Nor 2ly, Can we be said to perswade, encourage, warrant, allure, or set them on to the imposing of these things. Nor 3ly, can we be said to consent unto, or rejoyce in, or praise the action of Imposers, this only can be truly said that we consent unto the using of, or to submission to them for the forementioned pious ends, tho not to the imposing of them; all which is evident from this consideration, that many do, and have consented to the using of them, who have remonstrated, and declared their judgments against the imposition of them, and all have Li­berty to do so, now sure that action which may be done, tho we declare by word or writing a­gainst the imposition of these things, can be no virtual consent unto, or approbation of that imposition, or any encouragement to others to continue so to do.

2ly, We cannot be partakers of the supposed guilt of others in this matter indirectly, by the neglecting of our Duty: Not by neglecting of our power to restrain Superiors from thus im­posing, for we have no such power over them, but are commanded to be subject to them in all lawful matters, even for Conscience sake; nor from neglect of any Duty incumbent on us to admo­nish our Superiors of the supposed fault in con­tinuing to impose these things, for they who do conceive this is their Duty, may with all due submission to, and reverence of their Superiors, discharge that Duty by humbly offering the rea­sons of their judgment in that case, and not­withstanding may submit unto the things enjoyn­ed for the ends forementioned. Nor 3ly, Can we be thus guilty by any ill example or Evil acti­on, which gives occasion to their sin, for our Con­formity to the Commands of our Superiors in [Page 213]lawful matters is not Evil, nor can we be obliged to abstain from, but rather to perform that action.

Lastly, We cannot indirectly be partakers of the sin of others by using this our Liberty in things indifferent to the offence of our weak Brother. For 1. The action in which we are obliged not to minister to the offence of our weak Brother must be indifferent, not only in its own Nature, but also in respect to us, that is, there must be no command or obligation by Su­periors laid upon us to the practice of it: For, when the case stands thus, we are not to refrain obedience to Authority to avoid the Scandal of our weak Brother, except in cases wherein it may be rationally presumed that our Superiors would permit us so to do. The reason is, because obe­dience to Authority in lawful matters is a moral Duty, and the neglect thereof is sin, since there­fore God cannot be reasonably supposed to ob­lige us to neglect our Duty, or commit sin to gratifie our Brother in his weakness, he cannot rationally be supposed to command us to refuse obedience to the injunctions of Superiors for that end. And this doth plainly follow from what St. Paul asserts, 1 Cor. 8.8. For therefore he requires the Corinthians to abstain from eat­ing of things offered to Idols, when that would prove a Scandal to the weak, because by eating they were not the better, or not more acceptable to God, and by abstaining from it, they were not the worse, whence we may rationally infer that when the doing of an action will commend us to God, as our obedience to Gods Vice-Ge­rents in all lawful matters most certainly will do, and when the neglecting of an action will render us the worse, as the neglect of that obe­dience which God in Scripture hath required will [Page 214]do, there we are not obliged to refrain the do­ing of that action, tho it may minister unto the Scandal of our weaker Brother, because we must not do evil that good may come.

Moreover in matters of this Nature we can­not disobey but we must minister occasion of far greater Scandal by our disobedience than we can do by our submission to the command of our Superiors; as I have shewed already. For,

1. By disobedience to our Superiors in Law­ful matters we give occasion to others to traduce the Gospel, by representing it as that which teacheth Christians to refuse obedience to the commands of their Superiors in Lawful matters.

2ly, We provoke Superiors to punish this our disobedience; now either we deserve that punishment, or not; if we deserve it we must confess that we are evil doers by not affording this Submission to the commands of our Su­periors, and therefore cannot truly Plead the Scandal of the weak for our justification in so doing; if we deserve it not, then do we give occasion to the sin of Magistrates in punishing us unjustly, and so have the same reason to avoid their Scandal.

3ly, By disobedience to our Superiors in these matters we provoke others to judge, censure, and condemn us as disobedient and seditious Persons. Now either they do judge aright, when they do pass this sentence on us, and then we must be truly disobedient, and therefore sinful in our refusal to submit to the injunctions of Authority in Lawful matters, or they do judge amiss, and so we give occasion to their sin, and therefore truly Scandalize them by our disobedience. Thus have we by induction prov [...], [Page 215]that we by yielding such Submission, as is re­quired, to the commands of our Superiors touching the Rites imposed, cannot be par­takers with them in the guilt supposed to be in their injunctions.

Obj. 2 2. And whereas others do pretend, ‘They dare not joyn with us in Celebration of the Holy Sacrament, §. 5 because we do not separate the Precious from the Vile, or we do not exclude unworthy Persons from the Sacrament; and so by joyning with us in this Ordinance, when they can joyn with others who do keep up Discipline, they should approve of our neglect of Discipline, and by partaking with such Per­sons, become partakers with them in their sin.’

Answ. Admit that Discipline is too much wanting in our Church, and that Sufficient care is sel­dom taken for the exclusion of unworthy Persons from that Holy Ordinance, how is it, I beseech you, that you by your parti­cipation of this Ordinance among us, become partakers of this guilt? Do you by thus recei­ving either command, rejoyce in, or take plea­sure in this supposed neglect? No, your obiection shews it is your trouble; do you consent to this neglect by joyning with us in this ordi­nance? If so then our Lord Christ, and his Apostles must be supposed to have consented to all neglects, and all miscarriages in the whole Publick Worship of the Jews, because they joy­ned with them in that Worship. Then must the Regular Members of the Church of Corinth have approved the disorders of that Church touching the Sacrament, and the abuse of their Spiritual Gifts by Communicating with those who were then guilty of them and so they [Page 216]must have been obliged to Separate on that ac­count, whereas the Apostle never doth exhort them so to do, but only doth advise the parties guilty to amend these disorders, and to do all things decently and orderly. Then also are we guilty of all the imperfections both in Prayer or preaching, of which that Minister is guilty with whom we joyn in the performance of those duties. Lastly do we contract this guilt by the neglecting of our duty in reforming these defects, Alas if there be reason to com­plain of such defects, it must belong unto the Governors of Church and State, and not to private Persons to reform them.

HAving thus Answered all the considerable Objections of Dissenters which they plead in general against Submission to the Ceremonies appointed by the Church of England to be used in her Solemnities; I proceed to a particular consideration of those Ceremonies of which I have not had a fit occasion to discourse in the foregoing Chapters; And they are those, viz. Kneeling at the Receiving of the Sacrament. The Bishops imposition of hands at confirmation, and standing up at the Creed, and at the reading of the Gospel, at the saying Gloria patri, Kneeling at Prayer, &c. And,

§. 1 1. Concerning Kneeling at the Sacrament I say,

1. That since some posture is then necessary, and none by God determined, it cannot reason­ably be doubted but that the Church hath power to determine in this matter as she conceives most proper and convenient.

2ly, I know no posture more convenient than that of Kneeling, it being a very fit expression of our humility, and of the sense of our unworthiness of the great blessings there received. And 2ly, A posture fit for Prayer which we do use at the Receiving of the Sacrament

[Page 222]3ly, I add, That if it be lawful to receive in such a humble posture, then must it be unlaw­ful to refuse Communion with our Church in the participation of this Ordinance, because she doth require us to use this posture in receiving. For on this supposition, we must refuse to hold com­munion with her in a lawful matter, and so must separate from her communion in this Or­dinance without cause, which is the sin of Schism, Now that it is lawful to receive Kneel­ing will appear by answering the Arguments produced by Dissenters against this posture. And,

1. It is objected, That ‘Kneeling at the Sacra­ment is contrary to the Practice and Example of Christ, and his Apostles, for they received sitting.’

Answ. 1 It is confessed that the Greek words by which the posture of our Lord, and his Disciples at their Receiving is expressed, are translated so as to seem to countenance their opinion who hold the sitting posture to be most agreeable to the Example of our Lord, and his Disciples, but yet 'tis certain, from the Original, that Christ, and his Disciples did neither sit, nor Kneel, but did lye down on Couches at the Receiving of this Ordinance, for 'twas administred [...], they lying down, Mark. 14.18. of Christ himself 'tis said that [...], he lay down with the twelve. Matt. 26.20. [...], he fell down with them, Luk. 22.14. If therefore this Objection be of any force, it unavoidably will prove, that we must neither sit, nor stand, nor Kneel, but must lye down at the Receiving of this Sacrament, and so our Lords Example will be as strong a­gainst sitting, which is the posture our Dissenters use, as against kneeling, which is the posture they reject.

Answ. 2 [Page 223]2ly, I Answer that in such things as these which accidentally were done by Christ and his Apostles, and had no real goodness in them, we cannot be obliged to imitate them. This men do generally acknowledge in things of a like nature to this gesture, for they conceive that we are not obliged to receive this Sacrament in a like place, viz an upper Room, or Inn, nor at the same time, after the passover, or after supper, nor in the same habit, in Sandals, or a seemless coat; why therefore should they think it necessary to be received in a like Gesture, that being not commanded any more than is the time, or place, or habit. Moreover St Paul, when he informeth his Corinthians what he received from the Lord to be delivered to them touching this holy Sacrament, 1 Cor. 11.23. maketh no men­tion of this Gesture, and thereby doth assure us that it was not necessary to be observed. And Bishop Jewel noteth well, Repl. to Hard Artic. 2. that our Lord said do this, but said not do it after supper, do it sitting, do it with twelve Disciples, nor did the Apostles so understand him.

Answ. 3 The Gesture in which the Passover, even by Gods Command, was celebrated at the first, was altered by the Jewish Church, for in the first Passover they were Commanded to eat it with their loins Girt, their shoes on their feet, Ex. 12.11.and their staves in their hands, as men standing ready, and in hast to be gone, but being en­tred into their rest, the land of Canaan, they changed this posture into lying down, and yet our Saviour, and his Apostles did not scruple to conform unto it, how much less should we scruple the varying from an uncommanded Ge­sture used occasionally, and not of choice, by our Dear Lord.

[Page 224]2ly. It is objected that Kneeling at the Sacra­ment maketh us Guilty of Idolatry by worshipping God before, or by, or with Relation to a Creature, For the Elements, say they, are the motive of your kneeling, for if they were not there you would not kneel.

Answ. It is to be lamented that such false, Ground­less, and frivolous suggestions as these are, should keep men from Communion with their Brethren in this Holy Ordinance; for 1. The matter of fact is in this Argument Extreamly false, it being not the Sight of the Elements which doth induce us then to Kneel: But we receive them Kneeling, saith our Lyturgy, Rubr. after the Commun.for a signification of our hum­ble acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ there tendred, and because Kneeling is a proper po­sture to tender our devotion in. The Elements do only bring these things to our remembrance, they do it to our eyes, as the words used in a Ser­mon, Prayer Book, or by the Minister, do bring them to remembrance by our hearing; if then it be Idolatry to worship God when these things by the Symbols are brought to our remem­brance, it must be so to worship God when we do hear a Sermon, Prayer, or a discourse con­cerning them. 2ly. If this be Idolatry, then our Dissenters must be Gross Idolaters, for Surely in­ward worship, unduly tendred, is as Gross Idola­try as outward worship by which it is express'd; now do not they, when they behold the bread broken, and the wine poured out, put forth an act of inward worship, viz. an act of praise, thanksgiving, love, affiance? do they not do this before a creature as much as we? are not the Elements seen by them the motive of their doing so as much as of our Kneeling? If then we are Idolaters for Kneeling to God before them, why [Page 225]must not they be equally Idolaters by tendring all this inward worship to him before, and on occa­sion of the same Elements. 3ly, Were this Ido­latry, the Jews must be Idolaters by worshipping the Lord before the Ark or Mercy Seat, before the Temple at Jerusalem, and before the Taber­nacle, for by so doing they worshipped God be­fore a creature, and would not have done so, had they not been before these creatures, since the command runs thus to worship him, Ps. 99.5, 9. and to fall down before his footstool; moreover how often do we find them falling down and worshipping at the appearance of that cloud, or fire which was the Symbol of Gods presence? When they saw the fire fall and consume the burnt offerings, they fell upon their faces. 1 Kings 18 38, 39. When they saw the fire of God come down, and the Glory of the Lord upon the house, they bowed themselves with their faces to the Ground, 2 Chron. 7.3. And yet because they did this not to the cloud, or fire, but to God, there could be no Idolatry in this their action. 4ly, It is a thing impossible that such an action as this is should any ways be Guilty of Idolatry, for Idolatry is false worship of a creature, now where there is no worship of the creature, as in this action there is not, there can be no false worship of the creature. And to evidence to every rational Capacity, that nothing used in the Service of our Church can rationally be charged with any semblance of Idolatry, and manifest the great and signal difference there is betwixt the actions of our Church which our Dissenters call Idolatrous, and those which in the Church of Rome we do accuse as such, I lay down this distinction, viz:

1. That we may Kneel, bow down, or may perform like acts of outward worship before any [Page 226]creature, either so as to make that creature only the circumstance, or the occasion of that wor­ship, or else so as to make that creature the ob­ject of those acts of worship. When any Crea­ture is rendred the object of our worship, the mind doth actually, or virtually intend to wor­ship, or pay an act of Reverence to the Crea­ture which is thus made the object of our wor­ship, but when the Creature is only made the Circumstance, or the occasion of the worship, the mind intends to pay the act of worship only to another object, in such a place, or upon intimation, or apprehension of the object which I worship, which apprehension or inti­mation is caused by that Creature. Thus when I come to Common Prayer read in the Church, the Church is the circumstance of place, the hour, of time, for the performance of that worship, but God is the sole object of it, when at the hearing of the Ave Mary Bell, the Roman Catholick begins his Ave Mary, the Blessed Virgin is the object, the Bell is only the occasion of it, and when they then Kneel down, and bow, they do not Kneel unto the conse­crated Bell, but to the Blessed Virgin.

2ly, This being so, it is ridiculous to say we worship any thing, because it is before us when we direct our outward worship to another object. Since on the same account the Wise­men of the East who worship'd Christ before the Manger, must be supposed to pay their wor­ship to the Manger, and they who meeting Christ Riding upon an Ass, Saluted him with their Hosannas, and bowed towards him, must also pay their worship to the Ass. And if upon appearance of the Devil we should fall upon our Knees, and beg of God to be deli­vered [Page 227]from him, we must be said to worship the very Devil by that action. Moreover when we lift up our eyes, and voices to the Heavens, we also lift them up towards the Clouds, and Stars, but will it follow thence that by so doing we do not only worship God, but the Material Heavens, and those Glorious lights we see, as was objected by the Pagans against the People of the Jews? Wherefore to say that Protestants worship the Altar, or the Eucharistick Elements, because they worship God before them, is to calumniate the Protestants as antiently the Hea­thens did the Christians, affirming that they worshipped the Sun, because they worshipped God toward the East, and so by consequence towards the Rising Sun. Wherefore to give a clear and Satisfactory Answer to all the instances of this nature, which are alledged by Dissenters to prove the Church of England Guilty of this crime, I say,

1. That when we bow towards the Altar, as we enter into, or come out of the Church, Chancel, or Chappel, where we worship God, the Altar is not the object of our worship, but only an accidental cir­cumstance of it, for we do not in the least intend by this obeysance to do an act of worship to the Commu­nion Table, or any thing placed there, or elsewhere, but to God alone, for this the Church of England hath solemnly declared in these words: Constit. and Canons: A.D. 1640. Can. 7. Whereas the Church is the house of God dedicated to his Holy wor­ship, and therefore ought to mind us both of the great­ness and goodness of his Divine Majesty, certain it is that the acknowledgment thereof, not only in­wardly in our hearts, but also outwardly with our bodies, must needs be pious in it self, profitable to us, and Edifying to others; we there­fore think it very meet and behoveful, and heartily commend it to all good and well affected [Page 228]People, Members of this Church, that they be ready to tender to the Lord the said acknowledgment, by doing reverence and obeisance both at their coming in, and going out of the said Churches, Chancels, or Chappels, according to the most Ancient Custom of the Primitive Church in the purest times, and of this Church also for many years in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. The re­viving therefore of this Ancient and laudable Custom, we heartily commend to the serious con­sideration of all good People, not with any inten­tion to exhibit any Religious Worship to the Com­munion Table, the East, or Church, or any thing contained therein in so doing, or to perform the said gesture in Celebration of the Holy Eu­charist upon any opinion of a Corporal Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Holy Table, or in the Mystical Elements, but only for the ad­vancement of Gods Majesty, and to give him Alone that honor and glory which is due unto him, and no otherwise. Which Canon as it declares this act of Worship not to be given, or inten­ded to the Altar, so doth it give us the true Reason why it is accidentally done towards the Altar; viz. Because it is performed at our en­trance into the immediate place of Worship, to which entrance the Altar standeth opposite.

2ly, When at the name of Jesus we are wont to bow, that bowing is not intended by us to the very name, which is the occasion only of the Worship by putting us in mind of him that is named, and of our highest obligation to him, as being Jesus, a Saviour, to whom therefore we address our selves, and recognize him as our only Saviour by that especial and peculiar act of devotion. So that the adoration then per­formed is wholly and absolutely directed to the [Page 229] Lord Jesus, as is declared by the Church in these words: Constit. & can. A. 1603. can. 18 When in time of divine service the Lord Jesus Christ shall be mentioned, due, and lowly Reverence shall be done by all persons present, as it hath been accustomed, testifying by these out­ward Ceremonies and Gestures, their inward Hu­mility, Christian Resolution, and due Acknowledg­ment that the Lord Jesus Christ, the true and Eternal Son of God, is the only Savior of the world, in whom alone all the Mercies, Graces, and Promises of God to mankind for this life, and the life to come, are fully and wholly comprised. And,

3ly, When we Kneel at the Reception of the Blessed Sacrament, Rubrick after the Communion we do not pay that outward act of Worship to the Elements of Bread and Wine, but to that Savior whom they represent; for the Church of England hath declared that thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received. So that from the express decla­rations of the Church of England it appears, that none of these things are by her made the ob­jects of Religious Worship, but only the occasions of tendring that Worship which we owe to God, and therefore there is no appearance of Ido­latry in the performance of these things.

Obj. 3 ‘We are commanded to Separate from every Brother that walks disorderly, 2 Thessal. 3.6. §. 3 And are forbidden to keep Company with any man who being call'd a Brother is a Fornicator, or Covetous, or an Idolater, or a Rayler, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner, with such a one we must not Eat, 1 Cor. 5.11. And if we may not Eat with Such a Person at our own Table, may we Eat with him at the Holy Table of the Lord? Now, through the want of Disci­pline, such Persons are admitted amongst you, [Page 230]saith the Dissenter, and therfore we dare nor joyn with you in that Ordinance.’

Answ. 1 I pray God this objection doth not make you meet together, as the Apostle saith of the Corinthian Schismaticks, 1 Cor. 11.17.not for the better, but the worse, For I much fear there may be found in those Assemblys which you resort to as more pure, besides a crew of Schismaticks, with whom according to the Discipline observed in the purest Ages of the Church, the Christian ought not to communicate, many who rail against Superiors, and speak evil of Dignities, and many who have once been open Rebels, and have not publickly repented of those crimes; and if you can communicate with them, why not with such as usually do meet at our Commu­nion Tables? The wisdom which is from above is impartial.

Answ. 2 Consider, I beseech you, that this argument will drive you as well from our Assemblies, and from our Prayers, as from our Communion Ta­ble, for you may as well Argue thus; him that I may not keep company with at home, I may not keep company with at Church; him that I must not joyn with in my Civil Converse, I must not hold Communion with in Sacred; him that I may not Eat with, I may not Pray with, as you do Argue thus, him that I may not Eat with at my own, I may not Eat with at the Table of the Lord. This is apparent from the occasion of the objected Precept, viz. The Incestuous Person, who was to be taken from among them: v. 2. To be delivered to Satan for the destruction of the Flesh, v. 5. To be purged out from the new lump, v. 7. To be put away from among them, v. 13. If therefore, after ad­monition, they continue obstinate, and Re­fractory [Page 231]Offenders, they are to be excluded from all Christs ordinances, and to be esteemed as Publicans and Heathens, Matt. 18.17. Ac­cordingly they, by the discipline observed in the purest Ages of the Church, were actually excluded from Communion with her in all her Offices; if then we may not joyn with them in one, we may not joyn with them in other Ordinances, till they have satisfyed the Church, they being by this precept equally to be exclu­ded from them all. Scripture may also be as plausibly produced for the declining of Com­munion with them in publick Prayer, and fa­mily devotions, in hearing of a Sermon, and the like, as in receiving of the Sacrament, for doth not David make it the Character of good and blessed men, that they stand not in the Congregation of Sinners? Doth he not say, Psal. 1.1. Psal. 101.4. I will not know a wicked Person?

Answ. 3 That even wicked Persons, who are not Scan­dalously, and Notoriously such, but make profession of Obedience to the laws of Christ, and are not by the Church cast out for acting con­trary to their profession, may be unblameably communicated with, seems undenyable from the Example of our Saviour, by whom Judas was certainly admitted to that Passover, which spiritually did signify, and represent Christ to them, 1 Cor. 10.3. And by which rite they owned themselves the servants of the God of Israel, v. 18. Whence none might eat thereof who were not Circumcised, Exod. 12.48. That he was also present at the supper of our Lord I have fully proved already, If then a person so unworthy, and so regardless of the Law of Moses, that he had actually resolved to take a reward to betray Innocent-blood. If a Thief, Psal. 15.5. and [Page 232]a Covetous person, was by our Lord admitted to the Passover; If one who by our Lord was known to be in heart a Murtherer, and a Be­trayer of his Master, was yet admitted by him to his Sacrament, you see that sinners must be first notorious before they ought to be exclu­ded, and when they are so, our Rubrick, and our Canons give every Minister Authority to with-hold the Communion from them, and there­fore Authorise them to exercise the Discipline required in this case. Hence also we may learn that to communicate with those, whom we know to be wicked, in this duty, derives upon us no Communion in their Guilt, for otherwise our Lord, and his Disciples, would not have joyned in Communion with that wicked one.

Answ. 4 This precept is not directed to particular persons, but to the Church of Corinth in the General, as you may learn from v. 4. And therefore hence it only follows, that it is the duty of Church Governors to exclude such persons from Communion with her, but not that private persons should refrain Communion with the Church, be­cause they judge that they neglect their duty. And therefore we do never read that Christ, or his Apo­stles refused Communion with the Jewish Church, or did neglect to go unto the Temple, or the Sy­nagogue, because the Scribes and Pharisees negle­cted to perform their duty, and our Apostle here doth never call the members of the Church of Corinth to separate from them who caused disorders in the Celebration of this Sacrament, but only calls upon them to reform those disor­derly proceedings. And I beseech you to con­sider what a Gap would be laid open to per­petual Schisms, if private persons were per­mitted to judge when their Superiors did neglect [Page 233]their duty in any part of publick worship, and were permitted to separate from them, and joyn in opposite Communions, as oft as they imagined that others better did acquit them­selves in Prayer, or Preaching, or in Admini­stration of the Sacraments, or any other duty which belongs unto the Ministerial Office. Answ. 5

Lastly this Text only engages Private Chri­stians to separate from persons Guilty of such crimes, as to familiar converse in things un­necessary, but never to decline their presence so as to neglect the doing or receiving good to their own souls or bodies. For 1. Divines agree in this, that Christ and his Apostles do not in this, or other places, prescribe such separa­tion as is injurious to any, or takes off any duties which by the law of nature we do owe unto them, or our Relation to them calls for. A Wife must not, by virtue of this Precept, se­parate from her ungodly Husband, no, tho he be an unbeliever, let her not leave him, saith St. Paul. 1 Cor. 7.15. A child must not deny subjection to a wicked Parent, nor a Ser­vant to an evil Master, but must be subject with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the Froward, 1 Pet. 2.18. If then this Precept will not oblige us to perform what is injurious to anothers temporals, it cannot lay upon us an obligation to do that which is prejudicial to our own Spiritual concerns: Much less what prejudicieth the concernments of the Church, our Spiritual Mother, and makes us disobedient to our Spiritual Fathers. 2ly, This Precept doth not bind in case of signal damage, for I am not obliged to renounce his Company by whom my Trade is carried on, my goods go off, because I judge him wicked or Profane, [Page 234]or to refuse a Customer because he is no Saint, for then no Trade could lawfully be mana­ged, and there would be no living in the world. I do not mean, saith Paul, to for bid your keeping Company, as your occasions serve, with the Fornicators, Covetous, Idolaters of the world, for then you must go out of the world, v. 9.10. If then, as far as the concern­ments of our worldly callings warrant us, we may enjoy their Company, much more when this is necessary to the concernments of our Souls, or our Spiritual Callings. 3ly, When I am called as a Guest, where accidentally I meet with such a one, I am not then obliged to depart, and leave the Company because I find him there, for this can be no evidence of my familiarity with him: Much less am I obli­ged to depart on his account, when I am gra­ciously invited to this heavenly banquet, and call'd to feast upon the Supper of the Lamb. And 4ly, Our Lord did, notwithstanding this duty of avoiding the Company of wicked men, familiarly converse with Publicans and Sinners, in order to their reformation and spiritual advan­tage, Matt. 9 13. and justified his so doing by this Rule, I will have mercy and not Sacrifice, why therefore may not we by the same Reason justifie our converse with them in order to our own Spiritual Good?

But because this Objection of the want of Discipline is the great Scruple of Dissenters, and some even among our selves seem to speak slighter of it, than they ought to do, I will endeavor in some few Propositions to shew how much it doth concern all Churches to endea­vor to keep up their Discipline, by the exclu­sion of notorious evil livers from the Church, and how far the neglect thereof can be impu­ted [Page 235]to our Church, and whether any separa­tion from her can be justified on this account. And therfore I assert,

That the Secluding of profane and wicked Per­sons, who after admonition by the Church,Prop. 1.con­tinue such, from the Communion of that Church of which they formerly were Members, is the express Ordinance of Christ. For 1. Matt. 18.15, 16, 17. Our Lord himself commanded that if by private admoni­tion we cannot gain our Brother, we should tell the Church, and if he did neglect to hear the Church, he should by Christians be esteemed as a Publican and Heathen, adding, that whatso­ever ye (the Church Governours) shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven. Whence it appears that as it is the Duty of the private Christian, who cannot gain his Brother by the private admonitions prescribed by Christ, to complain of him to the Church, so is it the Duty of the Church to admonish, and reprove, and call him to repentance, and if he will not hearken unto her voice, to bind him here on Earth, and that the Brother thus bound is after­wards to be looked upon, as to Communion in sacris, as a Heathen and a Publican. And altho no express could be produced from Christ to this effect, yet even the constitution of Church Government must necessarily infer it, for Go­vernment, in Church or State, there cannot be without a power of punishing unruly Members, now the Government of the Church being Spiritual, her punishments can be only such, even seclusion of her Members from spiritual things; moreover there can be no Peace and Or­der under any Government without a Power of secluding, by some means or other, such Per­sons from that Government as obstinately per­sist [Page 236]in the disturbance of it, and violation of its fundamental Laws: On Luc. 6.22. And therefore, as Grotius truly saith, Christ having once constituted a Church (and that to be a holy and undefiled Temple to himself) must be supposed to command all those things without which this his Temple could not be kept pure. But it is plain that a Power of censuring Offenders against this Pure and Holy Institution, and of ejecting those who by their wicked con­versations do defile this Temple, is necessary for the preservation of the Church in purity.

And indeed I cannot understand how the Church should be a Society without Union, or how she can have Union without some Rules of Government and Order, or what those Rules can signifie without a Power to punish, nor what Power of punishing the Church, as such, can have, except it be by debarring of her Mem­bers from some, or all of their Church Privi­ledges; nor do I understand how it should be the Duty of Christians to withdraw from every Bro­ther that walks disorderly, if the Church Officers have not a power to pronounce such persons fit to be withdrawn from, especially seeing not hearing of the Church must go before his being deem'd, or treated as a Publican and Heathen. Nor Lastly, can I understand St. Pauls discourse unless he Argue thus; Vide sclater. in locum. ‘The whole body of the Christian Assemblies ought to be a new Lump, and purged from old Leaven, or from such Persons as notoriously commit such Crimes as manifestly are repugnant to the profession of Christianity, and inconsistent with true piety; he therefore who, being call'd a Brother, that is, making profession of Christianity, is guilty of such Wickedness, should be cast out of the Society of Christians; for as when the Paschal [Page 237]Lamb was offered among the Jews, no Lea­ven was to be found among the People of Is­rael: So Christ our Paschal Lamb being now Offered, no Leaven of Malice and Wickedness, and consequently no such wicked Persons, ought to be left in the Church of the true Isra­elites, but wholly purged out of it.’

That the exercise of this Discipline doth highly tend to the Glory of God, Prop. 2.and to the credit of Christianity. And surely this cannot be doubted by them who know that this alone is that by which the Church can be preserved pure, and like unto that God who will have no Communi­on with the works of Darkness, with whom no Person can have fellowship who walks not in the light, as he is in the light, 1 Joh. 1.7. That this alone can make the light of Christians to shine forth so as to Glorifie their Father which is in Heaven, Matt. 5.16. and cause them to shew forth the virtues of him that hath called them from darkness into his marvellous light; 1 Pet. 2.9. and that this only can render us able to commend Christianity to others from the pre­vailing topick of the Strict and Holy lives of the allowed professors of it, by which it chiefly was promoted in the first and purest Ages of the Church: In nobis Christus pati­tur opprobri­um, l 4. p. 140. v. p. 139. 141. That the Name and Doctrine of our Lord is Blasphemed among Heathens, Atheists, Scepticks, and profane Persons by the ungodly lives of its Professors, as Salvian sadly doth com­plain, and by finding many who are owned as Christians, and permitted to partake of the highest Ordinances, and Priviledges of Christians, who lead lives worse than Heathens, and who were constantly rejected from the Communion of Christians in the best Ages of the Church. When if at any time it was Objected by the Heathens that such persons bore the Name of Christians, [Page 238]her Answer was, they went out from us but they are not of us, nor owned, or † Just. M. p. 70.253.306.308. vid. Ter­tull. ad Scap. cap. 4. allowed of by us but are excluded by the Churches censures, or by their voluntary separations; which may de­serve to be considered.

The exercise of this Discipline is necessary to perserve the Members of Christs Body from the danger of pollution. Prop. 3. This cannot easily be que­stioned, 1. By him who well considers that enquiry of St. Paul, Know you not that a little Leaven leaveneth the whole lump; 1 Cor. 5.7.purge therefore the Old Leaven from you, that you may be a new lump, [...], for the neglected evil may defile the whole Body of the Church, say Oecu­menius, and Theophylact. 2. By him who knows how properly is the shame and punishment in­flicted upon others for confess'd or palpable en­ormities, to restrain us from the like practices, and how exceeding apt Men are to run into those vices without fear, which by experience they find connived at by Superiors. As then the Man who was defiled by Leprosie, or by an Issue, Numb. 5.2, 3.or dead Body, was by Gods command to be removed out of the Camp of Israel, that they defiled not the Camp in the midst of which God dwelt; so on the same account should the Spiri­tual Leper, when the marks evidently do appear upon him, be excluded from the Christian Camp that he desile not that Church in which God dwelleth now as in his Temple.

It seemeth probable that the exercise of this Dis­cipline is that which will alone preserve the Church Gods Temple,Prop. 4.and consequently will con­tinue his presence with her Assemblies, by the in­fluences of his Holy Spirit on them in greater effi­cacy, and measure. And that on these conside­rations:

[Page 239]1. That every Christian Church, or Assembly is in the Scripture represented as Gods Temple, the place in which he dwelleth, as he of Old dwelt in Jerusalem, for by inspection of the places where this Phrase, Gods Temple, is used in the New Testament, it seemeth evident that it is not so much each private Christian, as the Assemblies, and Churches of them, which are stiled Gods Temple. So the Apostle speaks to the Corinthians in the general, Know you not that you are the Temple of God, and that the Spirit of God doth dwell [...] among you, 1 Cor. 3.16. and v. 17. The Temple of God is Holy, which Temple you are. So also 2 Cor. 6.16. What Communion hath the Temple of God with Idols? For you are the Temple of the living God, as God hath said, I will dwell, and walk among them, and they shall be to me a People, and I will be their God. Which words are manifestly taken from Lev. 26.11.12. and therefore they must speak of Gods presence with his Christian Churches, the Israel of God, in such a manner as he was present with the Jewish Church by placing of his Tabernacle among them, and giving de­monstrations of his gracious presence with them. Accordingly we find this promise made, with re­spect unto the Gospel times, I will set my Sanctu­ary in the midst of them for ever, my Taberna­cle also shall be with them, yea I will be their God, and they shall be my People, Ezek. 37.26, 27. Thus also the Apostle speaks to the Church of Ephesus saying, You are fellow Citizens of the the Saints, and of the Household of God, and are built upon the foundations of the Apostles, and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief Corner Stone, in whom all the building fitly framed to­gether groweth into an holy Temple in the Lord, [Page 240]in whom also you are builded together for an ha­bitation of God through the Spirit, Ephes. 2.19, 20, 21, 22. Hence Lastly, the Members of Christs Body, or the Community of Christi­ans, seems to be stiled Christs house, Heb. 3.6. his Spiritual house, 1 Pet. 2.5.

2ly, That the condition of Gods continuing to dwell in, or to abide with this his Temple, as it was this of Old, that the Lords People should be Holy, that is, be free from Ceremonial pollution, and from such sins as were committed wilfully, and with an High hand, against the Law of Moses, and so deserved cutting off; that they should be to him an Holy Nation, Exod. 19.6. a Holy People, Deut. 7.6. an Elect peculiar People, Deut. 14.2.26.18. So it seems plainly now under the New Testament to be the same. For Christians under the New Testament are in like manner called the Elect of God, 1 Pet. 1.2. Col. 3.22. a chosen Generation, 1 Pet. 2.9. a Holy Nation, and Peculiar People, ibid. And they are in like manner called to come out from the Sons of Belial, the Children of Darkness, and Unrighteousness, with whom they can have no Communion, and to be separate, that the Lord God may dwell among them, 2 Cor. 6.16, 17, 18. and consequently the continuance of Gods Spi­rit with his Church, and his assistance in the Dis­pensation of its Ordinances, seems likewise to de­pend on their continuance to be such a People, and therefore on the execution of the censures of the Church on them who are notoriously otherwise, they are Commanded to purge out the Old Lea­ven that they may be a new Lump, and to look diligently that no root of bitterness spring up a­mong them,Heb. 12.15.whereby others may be in danger of defilement. And as to them who sin'd with an [Page 241]High hand, was threatned destruction by the hand of God, so the Apostle saith, that him who defileth the Temple of the Lord will God destroy, 1 Cor 3.17. And as God declared that he would not be with the Church of Israel when it was defiled, except they did destroy the accursed thing from among them, that is, the person who Trans­gressed his Covenant, Josh. 7.11, 12. So we may also fear that he will not vouchsafe his presence with us, unless we also do remove those from a­mong us who defile his Temple, and openly transgress their Christian Covenant. As then Jehojada set Porters at the Gates of the House of the Lord, that none who was unclean in any thing should enter, 2 Chron. 23.19. So also should the Rulers of Christs Church, Act. 20.28. Jer. 15.19. who are Command­ed to take heed unto the Flock, and whose con­cern it is to separate the precious from the vile.

That the neglect of this great Duty tends very much unto the detriment of the Church, Prop. 5.not only as it indangers the infection of her Members, and brings a Scandal on her, but also as it doth expose her to Gods judgments for the neglect of this his Ordinance; this may be gathered 1. from the close of the 5th. Chapter of the first Epistle to the Church of Corinth, where the dis­course of the Apostle on this subject concludeth with these words, do not ye judg them that are within, that is, saith Dr. Hammond, you know it is the practice among you to inflict censures on Church Members, and ye shall put away the evil from among you: ‘That is, by doing this you shall free your selves from those punish­ments which the neglect of your Duty in per­mitting such offendors to go unpunished, and unreformed, may bring upon you.’ 2ly, From Christs reproof unto the Church of Thyatira, [Page 242]because her Rulers suffered the Woman ealled Jezabel to teach, Rev. 2.14, 15.and to seduce his Servants to commit Fornication and to eat things Offered to Idols, Rev. 2.20. and from his threatnings against the Church of Pergamos, that he would come against her quickly, and fight against her with the Sword of his Mouth. for suffering those among her who taught the Doctrine of Balaam, and the Nicolaitans, if she did not repent, that is, saith Dr. Hammond, ‘There is gotten among you, and permitted, and not punish'd by your Bishops, N. B. that unclean Doctrine, and Practice of the Nicolaitans, which being odious to me, ought most strictly to have been punished by you, and if this lenity be not speedily mended, I will visit, and destroy you suddenly by judgments parallel to the Sword that fell on the Israelites, that were corrupted by Balaams Counsel, Numb. 25.5.’ And as when Magistrates neglect their Duty in punish­ing Offenders, and bear the Sword in vain, God is provoked to take it into his own hand, and punish such Offenders by his immediate power, so when Church Discipline is neglected, it may be rationally expected God should immediately punish that neglect.

Now on these propositions depends the great Objection of Dissenters against Communion with, and for their Separation from our Church. For, say they, seeing it is certain, that a Church in which this Duty is performed is better than a Church which doth neglect it, fince we have cause to hope Gods presence will be more vouch­safed to such a Church, and his good Spirit will more powerfully assist them, seeing in such a Church the danger from Gods judgments, and the pollution of her Members, will be certainly [Page 243]the less, we think it reasonable to prefer a Church in which this Discipline obtains in some good measure, as it doth in our Communions, before Communion with that Church in which it is ap­parently, if not confessedly neglected, and therefore till the Church of England will restore this Discipline, [...], we shall con­tinue as we are.

§. 5 In Answer to this considerable Objection I add these following Propositions.

That in case Church Officers do not perform their Duty with reference to this great Ordinance of Chris, Prop. 6.yet is it not the Praecidendae unitatis nulla est justa necessitas cum sibi nequaquam nocituros malos ideo tolerent boni, ne spiritualiter sejungantur à bonis, cum Disciplinae seve­ritatem, consideratio cusio­diendae pacis refrenat aut dif­fert. August. contr. Epist. Parm. l. 2. c. 11. p. 39.Peoples Duty to Separate from their Com­munion, except in the ensuing Cases: 1. That they require those who Communicate with them to own, or to approve of this defect, in which Case it is evident that our Communion with them must be unlawful, because it cannot be obtained without sin. Or 2ly, When we, without dividing of the Church, or disturbing of her Peace, or disobedience to, or Se­paration from her Governours, or any other great­er evil to our selves, or to the Church of God, can Communicate with other Church Officers, le­gally called, who conscientiously endeavor to per­form that Duty, which others do neglect, for, from the Reasons offer'd in the foregoing Pro­positions, and the confession of our own Church that this is a Godly Disciplne, and that the Re­storation of it is much to be desired, it rationally seems to follow, that if this can be done with­out a greater evil to our selves, or to the Church of God, we should prefer a Church, Caeteris paribus, in which this Discipline of Christ ob­tains [Page 244]in some good measure, before Communion with the Church in which it is confessedly neg­lected. For proof of the proposition thus laid down, let us consider,

1. That the Scribes and Pharisees rejected Christs Doctrine, Luk. 7.30. and the Baptism of John, which was an Ordinance of God, and yet our Saviour bids both the People, and his own Dis­ciples,Mat. 23.1.hear them sitting in the Chair of Moses, which doth imply Communion with those Scribes and Pharisees. And tho both Priest and People were exceedingly corrupted, tho he de­clares the Scribes and Pharisees to be a Genera­tion of Vipers, v. 33. and the Generality of the People to be of their Father the Devil, Joh. 8.44. and the Sad­duces who joyn'd in Publick Worship with the rest, Mark 12.27. to be greatly erroneous, yet neither did he Separate himself, nor command others to Sepa­rate from the Communion of the Jewish Church, or Synagogues, on those accounts.

2ly, St. Paul declareth of the Church of Co­rinth, that it was their fault that the incestuous Person was not separated from their Commu­nion, 1 Cor. 5.1. and commands them to sepa­rate him, v. 13. But he chides none for Communi­cating with them whilst he was not Separated, which sure he would have done, had that Com­munion been their sin. He tells them that the Supper of the Lord was Celebrated so among them, that they came together for the worse, v. 17. that some of them were drunk, v. 21. that they despised the Church of God, v. 22. that they did eat judgment to themselves, v. 29.not discerning the Lords Body, that [...] for this very cause many were sick among them, many weak, and many fallen asleep, v. 30. yet did he not reprove any for Communicating with them in that Ordinance, [Page 245]or counsel them to cease to do so till these things were reformed, but rather doth suppose it was their Duty still to come to eat together, v. 33. He adds that they did so administer the publick ordinances of Prayer, and Praises, 1 Cor, 14.14. v. 33. that they became unfruitful, and unedifying, but knowing that God was the God of Order, and not of Con­fusion, he adviseth none to Separate for greater Edification. Lastly, He speaks his fears, that at his coming he should sind among them, envyings, zeal, commotions, contentions, evilspeaking, whisper­ings, puffing up, and many who had lived a long time in Uncleanness, Fornication and Lasciviousness, and had not yet repented of those sins, 2 Cor. 12.21, 22. such he foretels he will not spare, 2 Cor. 13.2. and thereby tacitly insinuates the fault of the Church Officers in sparing of them, but never intimates that they Communicated with them in their guilt, who joyned in Communion with them; since then in all these cases we find not the least intimation of the Duty, of the sound Members of the Church to separate on these ac­counts, we may be sure that no such Duty was incumbent on them.

3. In his Epistle to the Church of the Gala­tians he intimates that some of them were re­moved from him that called them to the grace of Christ, unto another Gospel, Gal. 1.6. That among them was taught that Doctrine of justi­fication by the Law of Moses, and of the ne­cessity of Circumcision, and the observance of the Ceremonial Law by which the Gospel was perverted, v. 7. the death of Christ made vain, Gal. 2.21. by embracing of which they were fallen from grace, Gal. 5.5. and Christ was made of none effect unto them, and would profit them nothing, v. 2. and by which they who [Page 246]had begun in the Spirit, were made perfect in the Flesh. Gal. 3.3. That having run well, they were so hindred and bewitched by their false Teachers as not to obey the truth, Gal. 3.1.5.7. that being known of God, they again returned to weak and beggerly Elements, desiring to be in bondage to them, Gal. 4.9. that they observed Months, and Times, and Years, v. 10. that up­on this account he was afraid lest he should have laboured in vain among them, v. 11. he doubted of them, v. 20. he again travel'd with them till Christ should be formed in them, v. 19. He therefore minds them of their danger from these perverters of the Gospel saying, a little Lea­ven leaveneth the whole Lump, Gal, 5.9. of their Duty, saying, cast out the Bond-woman and her Son, Gal. 4.30. of his desire that such Men were excluded from them saying, I wish they were cut off that trouble you, Gal. 5.12. But after all this he adviseth none of the sound Members of the Church to desert the Publick Assemblies, or separate, on the account of the perverted, from them. But only doth advise the spiritual Persons to restore them in the spirit of meekness who were overtaken with a fault, and to bear one anothers Burthens, Gal. 6.1, 2.

4. In his Epistle to the Colossians, he intimates there were among them Men who being dead with Christ from the Elements of the World, did notwithstanding dogmatize after the Command­ments, and Doctrines of Men, Coloss. 2.20, 21, 22. and thereby tacitly accused the Doctrine of Christ as insufficient, and imperfect without the Doctrins which they superadded to it, and chargeth them with Superstition, and Will-Worship v. 23. which is the very charge that our Dissenters do injuriously make against the [Page 247] Church of England. But do they find one word of Counsel or advice to any to separate from the Assemblies at Coloss, because these Superstitious Persons were crept in among them?

5. Our Saviour in his Epistles to the Seven Churches doth charge them with great faults and the permission of most notorious corruptions crept in among them, for which he threatneth the severest of his Judgments, if they did not repent, but yet the Communion of the sound Members of the Church with Men so criminal in the Assemblies of the Saints, is never men­tioned among the faults of any of those Churches, nor doth Christ thunder out one threat against them upon that account. Rev. 2.14. Of the Church of Pergamus he complains, that they had there them that held the Doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the Chil­dren of Israel, to eat things Sacrificed unto Idols,v. 15.and to commit Fornication, and also them who held the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans which he hated, and therefore he declares, v. 16. if she repented not, that he would come against her quickly, and fight against her with the Sword of his Mouth. To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira he speaks thus: I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest the Woman Jezebel, v. 20. which calleth her self a Prophetess, to teach, and to se­duce my Servants to commit Fornication, and to eat things Sacrificed unto Idols. To the Angel of the Church of Sardis he writes thus: Chap. 3.1. Thou hast a Name that thou livest and art dead; And that there were but a few Names in Sardis which had not defiled their Garments, that therefore, if she did not repent, and watch, v. 4.he would come unto her as a thief in the night. To the Angel of the Church of Laodicea he v. 3. [Page 248]speaks thus: Because thou art neither cold nor hot, v. 16. v. 17.I will spew thee out of my mouth, ad­ding that tho they said, I am rich, and increa­sed with Goods, and have need of nothing, yet were they indeed wretched, poor, miserable, blind, and naked. He also doth commend the Church of Ephesus because she could not bear them that were evil, Rev. 2.2. v. 6 and because she had tried them who said they were Apostles, and were not, and had found them Lyars: And Lastly, Be­cause they hated the deeds of the Nicolaitans. And he speaks kindly unto them of Thyatira who had not that doctrine of Jezebel, for which the Rest were reprehended. But yet we find not the least word of Reprehension of any in these Churches for joyning in Communion, or in the publick Worship with men thus faulty, nor any Counsel, or advice to separate from the Communion of these Churches upon those Accounts: The neglect of the Angel of the Church of Pergamos, and Thyatira in suffering such to be among them, is severely taxed, but the Neglect of others to separate on that account, is never in the least insinuated, this therefore, Principles of love. p, 44. saith Mr. Baxter to his dissenting Bre­thren, ‘you may observe, that no one Member is in these Scriptures, or any other commanded to come out, and separate from any one of all these Churches, as if Communion with them in Wor­ship were unlawful, and therefore, before you separate from any, as judging Communion with them unlawful, be sure that you bring greater reasons for it than any of these recited were.’

And, to confirm this Answer, it deserves to be considered that we find in the New Te­stament express injunctions directed to the whole body of the Christian Churches, requiring them [Page 249]to refuse Communion in their private conver­sations with such persons, or to renounce fami­liarity with them, not to company with them. 1 Cor. 5.9. Not to eat with them, v. 11. To mark them who cause divisions, and scandals contrary to the Doctrine which they had recei­ved, and avoid them. Rom. 16.17. To with­draw from every Brother that walks disorderly, Thess. 2.3, 6. To have no company with them, that they may be ashamed. v. 14. We also find the Angels or Officers of the Church oft blamed for this neglect by Christ, and his Apostles, as in the case of the Incestuous Person, the case of Pergamos, and Thyatira, where they were suf­fered who taught the Doctrins of the Nicolaitans, of Balaam, and of Jezebel, that is both spiri­tual, and carnal fornication. This I have against thee, O Thyatira, that thou permittest Jezebel, Vid. Synops. in locum. quod eam non coerces censuris Ecclesiae, that thou doest not execute the censures of the Church upon her; this against thee, O Pergamos, that thou hast those who teach the Doctrine of Ba­laam, whereas thou being the Angel of the Church, shouldst have fought against them with the Spiritual Sword, as did the Angel who re­sisted Balaam, because his way, Numb. 22.22, 23. Hebr. 12.15.was perverse before God. We find them call'd upon [...], to execute the Office of a Bishop by looking diligently that no such persons be among them, and warned of the great danger that the Whole lump might be exposed to by such Soure Lea­ven: We lasty find our Saviour praising the Angel of the Church of Ephesus that he could not bear them, but never do we find our Lord, or his Apostles calling the People to come out from them, or to be separate, but only in such cases as did oblige them to touch the unclean thing, 2 Cor. 6.17. [Page 250]that is, to joyn in their Idolatries, or partake with them in their Sins.

From which Considerations, Rev. 18.4. it follows, as Estius well notes, that the Governors of the Church which tolerate Such Persons in the Church offend, and that the People who use familiar converse with them, do likewise offend, but it by no means follows that they who do per­form the publick duties of Religion where they are present, do offend, and as the Reverend and Learned Dr. Unreas. of Sep. p. 217.Stillingfleet well notes; There be many ‘Reasons to break off private familiarity, which will not hold as to Publick Communion, and which may render it the Christians duty to do the first, and not the latter. For our Communion in Publick is a thing which Chiefly Respects God, and is a necessary duty of his own ap­pointing, the benefit whereof depends upon his promises, and all the Communion we have with other men therein is only (that of Christ, and his Apostles with Judas at the Paschal Supper) joyning together for the performance of a Common Religious duty. But private familiarity is a thing which wholly respects the persons we converse with, it is a thing of meer choice, and of much danger, it being hardly to be imagined without approbation, at least, if not imitation of their wickedness.’

And to this the concurrent judgment of the Old Nonconformists who did not think this want of Discipline sufficient cause of separation from Communion with us; for having laid this as a foundation, that no man ought to separate from a true Church requiring nothing sinful of him, Grav. confut. p. 18.in order to Communion with them, they add, that ‘altho it were Granted that we wanted both the exercise of the Churches Censures, and [Page 251]some of those Officers which Christ hath ap­pointed to exercise them by, yet might we be a true Church notwithstanding, as there was a true Church in Judah all the days of Asa, and Jehosaphat, yet was not the Discipline reform­ed there till the latter end of Jehosaphats Reign. The Church of Corinth was a true Church even when the Apostle blamed them for want of Discipline, the Congregation of Samaria is called a Church before the Discipline was established there, and even in Jerusalem there was a fa­mous visible Church of Christ long before Sun­dry parts of the Discipline (for want whereof they condemn us) were established there, yea it is evident that by the Apostles themselves divers Churches were Gathered, some Good space of time before the Discipline was setled, or exercised, by all which it is manifest that howsoever those parts of the Discipline, which we want, be necessary to the beauty and well being, and perservation of the Church, yet are they not necessary to the being thereof, but a true Church may be without them.’

2ly, They add, Ibid. p. 51.52. That it doth not belong to pri­vate persons to set up the Discipline of the Church against the will and consent of the Christian Magistrate, and Governors of the Church, yea, they declare that in so doing they should highly offend, they are bound, saith Giffard, P. 59, 95, 100, 101, 102. by the bands of Conscience, and the fear of God, from presuming to take upon them publick Au­thority. And if so, it is evident that they can­not chuse Pastors for themselves, and set up other Churches, and Church Governors to exer­cise the Churches Discipline because they do conceive it is neglected by the Christian Ma­gistrate, and other Governors of the Church.

Yea lastly let me ask our dissenting Brethren if on account of this supposed neglect of Dis­cipline they think themselves obliged to desert Communion with the Church of England, whe­ther will they go? The Church of Rome they know, besides her other errors, is more Guil­ty of this crime than we, men may be any thing in their Communion, provided that they be not Hereticks, and still be owned as Genuine Members of their Church. The rest of the Reformed Churches are as loose as we, their Members Generally are as corrupt in man­ners as ours are; the same may be affirmed of the Eastern Churches: they therfore must ac­knowledge that they cannot lawfully maintain Communion with any other Church on this ac­count, and that there always was even since the reformation, a necessity of separation from all Christian Churches in the world for this ne­glect of Discipline, or that they, notwith­standing this supposed neglect, may hold Com­munion with the Church of England; now have they not just reason to suspect that opinion which will force them to deny Communion with all the Churches of the world besides themselves, and that not on the score of any Idolatrous Worship exercised by them, or of any false doctrine required to be assented to as the condition of Communion, but barely on the account of some supposed defect as to her Discipline? 2ly, Have they not reason to sus­pect the truth of that opinion which will ren­der Union and Communion with any of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas a thing un­lawful, and as things do now stand, impossible. For as the Reverend and Learned Dr. Vnreas. of separ p. 190, 191.Still. doth put the Question, ‘Do we want Discipline? And [Page 253] do not they in other Churches abroad? The Transylvanian Divines in their discourse of the Union of Protestant Churches declared that little or none was observed among them; Irenic. Tract. p. 55. will they then separate from all Protestant Churches? Will they shut them out from any possibility of Union with them? For what union can be justifyable with those whose terms of Communion are unlawful, since Union supposeth such a Com­munion of Churches that the Members of one may Communicate in another; or if they notwithstanding this defect can hold Commu­nion with them, will they be so unjust as not to allow the same favor and kindness to their own Church?’ 3ly, Have they not reason to suspect that doctrin which is so like to some of the old Heresies, or Schisms exploded by the Church of Christ that 'tis not easie to perceive a difference betwixt the principles of our Dis­senters, and those which moved those condem­ned Schismaticks to separate from the Commu­nion of the Church. Vide Petav. ad Haer. 59. Novat. p. 226. 227. For tho I cannot exactly Parallel them with the Novatians who did not properly desert the Church because she did not exercise the power of the Keys upon Offenders, but because she afterwards admitted them upon Repentance, and so they did not separate on the pretence of the defect of Discipline, but on pretence that the Church exercised a part of Discipline which did not properly belong unto her, Meletiani no­lentes orare cum conversis Schisma fece­runt. Aug. de Haer. c. 48. Epi­ph. Haer. 68. §. 2. Luciferiani poe­nitentiam cle­rici post ordi­nem in Ecclesia, & gradum ac­ceptum lapsis denegant, Dan. in Haer. 81. p. 2 [...]9: [...]. Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 6. c. 45. nor yet with the Meletians and Lu­ciferians who did not separate from the Church because Offenders were not censured by her, but because after Censures executed, the lapsed Clerks were readmitted to their Stations in the Church, and who with the Novatians did without cause pretend corruption in the Churches Discipline, [Page 254]whereas I fear there may be too much cause to Charge our Churches with defect of Discipline, yet will not these disparities excuse them wholly from Communion with them in their Schism. For 1. 'tis certain that the Novatians did sepa­rate out of zeal for the purity of Ecclesia­stical Discipline, and yet Dionysius of Alexan­dria tells the Author of that Schism, that he had better have suffered any thing than thus to have made a rent in the Church, and therefore he had better suffered a defect in the Purity of Discipline; now this comes home unto the case of our Dissenters. 2ly, The Meletians would not pray with the lapsed after their renovation by repentance, & therefore separated from that Church which did so; they therefore must divide upon pre­sumption that the Church was polluted by Communion with them, and that her Discipline required their separation, Com. in August. de Her. p. 161. Epiph. Haer. 68. §. 3. and therefore as Da­naeus notes from Epiphanius, this Schism spread it self among the Monks, Praetextu severioris cujusdam in [...] Disciplinae, & zeli in Deum Majoris under pretence of zeal for God, and seve­rity of Discipline against those who denyed him. Com. in August. Haer. 50 p. 169. Epiph. Haer. 70. §. 1. p. 812. contr Epist. par. l. 2. c. 10.21.

3ly, As for the Audians, since as Danaeus saith from Epiphanius, propter hominum vitia caetum Or­thodoxae Ecclesiae deserebant, they left the Church for the vices of those that were in it; as for the Donatists, since, among others, this was their peculiar tenet, that no wicked person was to be tolerated in the Church, no tares continued with the wheat, and that those Churches were not to be communicated with, which did not cast them out because they were defiled by Communion with them, as appears fully by St. Austins disputa­tions against the Donatists, and more especially by his three Books against Parmenianus the Do­natist, [Page 255]I see not how our Brethren will be able to Escape their condemnation.

That altho excommunication be the Duty of Church Officers, Prop. 7.and they are by the Author to the Hebrews strictly required [...] to look diligently that none among them fail of the Grace of God, Hebr. 12.15, 16that there bo no root of bitterness springing up among them by which many may be defiled, that there be among them no Fornicator, or profane person, yet is not this a duty necessary to be exercised at all times, on all Offenders, in all Conjunctures, but only when it is likely to do more Good than hurt, and there­fore is the exercise of the power which the Lord hath given them for edification, and not for destruction. For all Agree that Affirmative du­ties do not bind ad semper, for tho that which is evil must never be done, yet that which, ge­nerally considered, is good, may sometimes be omitted, especially when it is only Matter of Discipline, and when the danger of exercising of it is greater than the hope of doing good there­by. Upon the equity of which case it is deter­mined by the Canon Law, that a Kingdom, a Corporation, a Community, or Body Politick, ought not to be excommunicated, nor in the whole New Testament do we find any Rules, or Precepts for the Excommunication of such mul­titudes. Now the harm our Church might suffer by the strict exercise of these her Cen­sures in this age of General looseness upon all Offenders, even those of highest Rank, and quality among us, is threefold.

1. That hereby they may be exasperated against the Government, and Office which in­flicts these Censures, and be induced to use their power to undermine, and overthrow it, and to set up her enemies upon the Ruins of it.

[Page 256]2ly, That they may, some of them, be tempted to fly off from her government to one of the two potent factions now among us, and so may strengthen them, and weaken us. Or

3ly, That being Sceptically, or Atheistically inclined, as practically we are sure the wicked of our Nation are, and have great cause to fear too many of them are in speculation also, they would but rally on the execution of these cen­sures, and we by executing of them only should rebuke the Scorner which the Wiseman forbids. Prov. 9.8. Here then our Saviors Rule seems to take place, Give not that which is Holy unto Dogs, Matt. 7.6.lest they turn again and rent you. Such persons ought therefore only to be excluded from the Sacra­ment according to the Counsel and Direction of the Church of England, but not entirely, and without exception, excommunicated from the Church. Prim. Christian Part 3. p. 377. To this effect it is observed by Dr. Cave, that ‘the Primitive Church Relaxed the severity of their Discipline when great multi­tudes were concerned,’ or such persons as were like to draw great numbers after them; in this case, saith ‘He, they thought it prudent and reasonable to deal with persons by somewhat milder and gentler methods, lest by holding them to terms of Rigor and Austerity, they should provoke them to fly off either to Heathenism or to Heresy.’ This Course St. Cyprian and his Bre­thren took, for as the concord of his Collegues, and the benefit of uniting the Fraternity, and healing the wound in the Church required, they (1) Necessitati temporum succu­buisse, p. 52. §. 3. yeelded to the necessity of the times, and admitted the lapsed to Communion upon tolerable hopes of their true repentance, (2) Ad gentiles se vias & sae­cularia opera convertat, vel ad Hereticos & Schismaticos rejectus ab Eccle. transeat, ibid. §. 10. v §. 3, 9. lest being excluded from the [Page 257]Church, they out of desperation should fly back to the Worldy, or joyn with Hereticks, or Schismaticks. And in like manner, saith he, did our Brother (3) Cornelius yield to the necessity of the times; Cornelius ne­cessitati succu­buit. ibid. §. 6. Admitting to Communion plebis maximam partem maximum Fratrûm numerum, a great part of the common people, or the Brethren which separated with him, upon the satisfaction and repentance of Trophimus alone, with whom; as they first separated, they returned.

Moreover to this accords the judgment of St. Austin who declareth that (4) Neque enim potest esse Sa­lutaris. à multis correptio, nisi cum ille corripitur qui non habet sociam multitudinem, cum autem idem morbus plurimos occupave­rit, nihil aliud bonis restat quàm dolor & gemitus. Contr. Epist. Parmen. l. 3. p. 61. B. Correption cannot be salutary, when the offendor hath many partners, and that when the same disease hath seiz'd on many, there remains no other Remedy for Good men to use but Prayers, and Sighs, and Sorrow. And again that when (5) Et revera, si contagio pec­candi multitudinem invaserit, Divinae Disciplinae severa miseri­cordia necessaria est, nam Consi­lia separationis & inania sunt, & perniciosa, atque Sacrilega, quia & impia & superba fiunt, & plus perturbant infirmos bonos; quam corrigunt animosos malos, ibid. lit. D.the Conta­gion of sin hath ceased the whole multitude, the severe mercy of Divine Discipline is necessary, for then all Councils of separa­tion are vain, pernicious, wicked and Sacrilegious, because they will more disturb the pious that are weak, then correct the wicked that are sturdy.

And to confirm the judgment of St Austin the (6) Synop Pur. Theol. disp. 48, §. 30. Authors of the Dutch Synopsis have obser­ved that the Prophets; and pious Priests among the Jews did never, in a general declension of the people, recur to these severer Methods. And Neque enim du­ris remediis lo­cus est ubi tota Ecclesia in mor­bo cubat. Grot. 2 Cor. 12.6. Grotius and Estius observe from these words of St Paul to the Corinthians, that he was in a Readiness to revenge all disobedience, when their obedience was fulfilled, that there was no place [Page 258]for severe Remedies, when the disease had in­fected the whole Church.

And that the Apostle was forced to yield to this necessity, Esth. in locum. because the Offendors in the Church of Corinth being many, Compan. to the Temple part 4. p. 548.549.they could not easily be excommunicated. I conclude therefore with the judicious Dr. Cumber that ‘till men be so hum­ble as to be willing to suffer shame, and un­dergo severities in this world, that their Souls may be saved in the next, we may advise them to private and particular acts of mortification and repentance, but it will be in vain to impose them on this untractable ge­neration, since by imposing them in these circum­stances the Church would make this holy means of Reformation rather despised, then obeyed.’

Prop. 8 Altho it is the Christians duty to withdraw from, and to avoid the scandalous Professor, and the disorderly Walker, yet is this only then a duty when we can serve no Higher ends of piety or mercy in holding correspondence with them. For he that doth command us to withdraw from him that walks disorderly, doth leave it still our duty to admonish him as ae Brother, and therefore still to maintain that correspon­dence with him which is necessary to that admonition, 2 Thess. 3.14, 15. and to all other good endeavors to reclaim and gain our Brother. And therefore, tho our Lord knew well the obligation of this duty, and the great scandal which the Scribes and Pharisees would take at his free converse with Publicans and Sinners, he doth not only justify the fact as being done in order to their reformation and conversion, but also represents it as an higher duty, and more incumbent on him, then the avoiding the familiarity of wicked men, and bids those Pharisees who [Page 259]reckoned it their duty to renounce all familiarity with such men, learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not Sacrifice. And tho St. Paul permits not his Corinthians to have any fellowship with Unbelievers, Matt. 9.13. or go unto their Idol Temples, or their feasts, yet he allows the com­ing of the unbeliever into their Assemblies, 1 Cor. 14.23. as being that which might be instrumental to his conviction and conversion. And, v. 24, 25. which is more observa­ble, St. Jude speaking of those impure Drea­mers who defiled the Flesh, &c. saith thus, v. 8. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you; they therefore did intrude into these feasts, and consequently joyned with them at the Table of the Lord, of which these feasts were an Appendix; and yet St. Jude prescribes no separation of the Saints from these Assemblies on that account.

Lastly tho Eli's Sons were Sons of Belial, Sam. 1.2, 12. and knew not the Lord, Altho they caused the People to abhor the offering of the Lord, v. 17. and therefore to neglect to come to Shilo with them, v. 24. yet are they also said to make the Lords People to transgress, viz. By this neglect, it therefore was the Peoples duty still to attend upon these Ordinances of the Lord, tho this could not be done, under these circumstances, without Communion with these Sons of Belial, and Ministring, tho Accidentally, and by Per­forming their own duty, occasion to the Sin of Eli's Sons. What therefore I may do for the procuring the Spiritual Good of others from whom I am commanded to withdraw, may be more certainly performed for the procuring of my own Spiritual Good by my participa­tion of the Ordinances of Christ from Persons authorized by him, and his Vicegerents, to ad­minister [Page 260]them, what may be done in order to their welfare who are unworthy of Commu­nion with us, that may much more be done in order to the Churches Good, for the pro­motion of her Peace and Unity, and the pre­vention of those Schisms by which she is so much endangered, and if those words, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, will warrant our Communion with wicked persons, with whom we are forbid to eat, when it may be a means of their conversion, why then may it not war­rant our Communion with them in Sacred things, when this Communion is a means of our sal­vation, and of the Churches Peace, which is one of the chiefest ends of Discipline. If Chri­stians were not call'd to separate on the ac­count of those impure Gnosticks who did feast among them, and eat at the Lords Table with them, why should they separate from the same Ordinances on the account of some profane Pro­fessors who are mix'd with our Assemblies? And lastly, If the People did transgress who came not up to Shilo to offer their accustomed oblations there, tho they to whom they were to be pre­sented, and by whom they were to be offered, were Sons of Belial, and they alone did sanctifie, and offer the Peace-offerings of which the People were afterwards to eat, I fear they also will trans­gress who upon less pretences will not come unto our Shilo's, the places of our publick Worship.

It may be doubted whether all those men whose presence with us in our Church Assemblies doth so much offend Dissenters, Prop. 9.deserve immediately to be secluded from Communion with us, seeing they seem not to have been both privately and pub­lickly admonish'd by the Church, for how can it be said they will not hear the Church, when [Page 261]they have never been admonished by her to re­form, or threatned with her censures if they will not do it, they therefore cannot be esteemed contumacious, or such as will not hear the Church, and so they are not presently to be excluded by Excommunication from Commu­nion with her. Mr. Baxter, having cited, Principles of love, p. 87.88.89. Matt. 18.15, 16. Tit. 3.10. Saith thus ‘Note here that no sin will warrant you to cast out the sinner, unless it be seconded with impeni­tency, it is not simply as a Drunkard, or a For­nicator, that any one is to be rejected, but as an Impenitent Drunkard, or Fornicator. Note 2ly, That it is not all impenitency which will war­rant their rejection, but only impenitency after the Churches admonition. Note 3ly, That no private person may expect that any Offen­der be cast out, either because his sin is known to him, or because he is commonly famed to to be guilty, till the thing be proved by suffi­cient witnesses. Note 4ly, That the admonition given him must be proved, as well as the fault which he committed. Yea lastly, If all The town do know him to be guilty, and wit­ness prove that he hath been privately admo­nished, he may not be rejected till he be heard speak for himself, and till he refuse also the publick admonition. This is Christs order, whose wisdom, mercy and authority are such as may well cause us to take his way as best.’

Now were this doctrine true without excep­tion it would,

1. Answer the Objection by shewing that Dissenters do unreasonably separate for the Non­execution of the Churches Censures upon them who at the present are not the proper objects of them. And

[Page 262]2. It would in a great measure cast the blame of this neglect of Discipline on the Complai­nants, for, if they know of any such, why do they not first privately admonish them, and if they cannot by so doing gain their Brother, why do they not then tell it to the Church? But if they do not know of any such, nor ever told the Church of any such, that she might know, and knowing might admonish them, and if they should refuse to Hear her, might pro­ceed to censure them, why do they then complain?

But to confess the truth ingenuously, this Doctrin contradicts, the general practice of the Church of Christ whilst Discipline remained among them, more especially the practice of the most Primitive, and Purest Ages of the Church, when all Notorious Offenders, of what degree soever, were, without farther admonition im­mediately censured, and separated from the faithful, See Dr. Cave's prim. christian. part. 3. cap. 5. p. 367. till by long and strict penances of fasting and mortification, by which they evi­denced their sorrow for, and their reformation of their crimes, they were thought fit to be again admitted to the peace of God, and of his Church. This doctrine therefore must admit of some restriction to make it consonant to truth.

1. Therefore if the crime be such as is con­sistent with Christianity, and doth not prove the Author of it to be Carnal, this admonition must precede the censures of the Church, because in such a case, 'tis not so much the fact it self, as the ensuing contumacy which deserves her censure.

2ly, If the crime committed be private, and brings no infamy to the Church, and the offen­der shew good signs of penitence, the crime being not committed before many, it seems not reasonable that it should be punished before [Page 263]many, unless where such a publick censure may do good to many, in which case that of the Apostle seemeth to take place, them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

3ly, 1 Tim. 5.20. If it be an act of injustice to some pri­vate person for which full satisfaction may be made, and admonition may prevail upon him so to do, which seems to be the case in which our Lord requires a threefold admonition: adding that if our admonition do prevail our Brother is Gained, and so the Church hath no occasion to proceed to censures.

Or 4ly, If it be an offence of judgment and not of practice against judgment, in which case the Apostles words are plain for a first and second admonition, I say in all these cases this previous admonition seemeth reasonable.

But 2ly, If the Crimes committed be of an heinous nature, Tit. 3.10. and Christians cannot well be ignorant that they are so, as in the cases of Apostasy, Murther, Incest, Adultery, &c. Or if they be so publickly committed as to give scandal to the Church, and the Crime be noto­rious or confessed, then without farther ad­monition, I suppose, the Criminal should be excluded from the Communion of the Church, till by repentance and mortification they have made satisfaction to the Church, and have made reparation for the Scandal of their sin.

These Propositions do fully Answer this Ob­jection even upon supposition that the Neglect is such as is suggested, and that the Church of England may be charged with it: I now pro­ceed by way of farther Answer to it, to consi­der of that Charge, and therefore say,

Prop. 10 That our Church Officers cannot be truly said to own, or to approve of this supposed neglect [Page 264]of Discipline in suffering the notoriously prophane and Scandalous Offender to remain uncensured by the Church. For 1. The Rulers of the Church do openly acknowledg and declare even in their Publick Lyturgy, Preface to Commin. ‘That the putting those to open Penance who stood convicted of notorious crimes is both a Primitive and Godly Discipline, and that the restoring of the said Discipline is much to be wished.’ 2ly, They call upon all sinners with the greatest seriousness and affection to repent of those iniquities which render them obnoxious to her censures, which call would they give ear unto, they would be fit for her Commu­nion, and so exempted from the severity of her Discipline; this call we find both in the Commina­tion Read upon Ash-Wednesday, and in the ex­hortation Read at the giving notice of a Sacra­ment, where she thus speaks, If any of you be a Blasphemer of God, a Hinderer or Slanderer of his Word, an Adulterer, or be in malice or envy, or in any other grievous crime, repent you of your sins, or else come not to that Holy Table. 3ly, They make all Persons whom they admit unto the Priestly Office, solemnly to promise to give faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded. And 4ly, Can. 26. They require every Minister in no wise to admit to the receiving of the Holy Communion, any of his Cure or Flock which he openly knows to live in sin notorious without repentance, and they moreover Authorise them, Rubr. before the Commun. ‘To advertise all open and notorious evil livers, and all who have done any wrong to their Neighbours by word or deed, so that the Congregation be thereby offended, to call them, and to adver­tise them that by no means they presume to [Page 265]come to the Lords Table, till they have openly declared themselves to have truly repented and amended their former naughty life, that the Congregation may be thereby satisfied, and say that he shall not suffer them to be partakers of the Lords Table, betwixt whom he perceiv­eth malice and hatred to reign, until he know them to be reconciled.’ Since then it is ap­parent from these considerations, that our Church daily calls upon these persons to repent both in the Publick Preaching of the Word, and in the Office stiled Commination, and in her Homily upon repentance. And 2ly, that she doth Au­thorise all her Parochial Ministers to call, and advertise such Persons as they know privately to be unworthy, not to presume to come unto the Holy Sacrament, and doth require them, when they give notice of a Sacrament, to read an exhortation to that effect; seeing she also grants them power to put back any Scandalous Offen­ders from the Sacrament, whose faults are so no­torious as to give offence to the Congregation, and doth allow both them and the Church-War­dens, or rather charge them to prosecute such Men in order to their Amendment, or Excom­munication; seeing at their admission to their Sacred Function, she doth strictly charge them to give faithful diligence so to minister the Discipline of Christ as he hath commanded. Since Lastly, Private Persons in her Communion may avoid familiar conversing with them, and with­draw from their company, and so avoid being polluted by the corruption of their manners; I say seeing these things are so, I see not but the Objections made against the Discipline of our Church might be removed, if the things al­lowed, and required by the Rules of it, were duly practised.

§. 7 Hitherto I have discoursed in Answer to this Objection as if the Scriptures, and Reasons pro­duced to confirm it were all true, and well applyed, whereas indeed the grounds of this Objection are uncertain, and infirm, for to omit the uncertainty of the exposition of 1 Cor. 5.13. you shall take away the evil from you, and not the evil Person, which sure [...] doth rather signifie, and the uncertainty of Dr. Hammonds exposition of Rev. 2.20. I say,

Tently, Prop. 10. That the continuance of Gods presence by his Spirit with his Church, and her Assemblies, cannot be proved to depend entirely upon the Separation of wicked Persons, and scandalous offenders from her. The Place produced to this Effect from 2 Cor. 6.16, 17. only concerns the Christians Separation from Communion with Heathens in their Idolatrous Worship, or their Idol feasts, this is the touching the unclean thing there spoken of, as I have fully proved in the foregoing Chapters; it therefore is impertinently alledged to prove, that God re­quires us to separate from the Communion of wicked Persons in celebrating of his Publick worship, that so we may enjoy the presence of his Spirit with us. Moreover God may destroy the person who defiles this Temple as he threatens 1. Cor. 3.17. and yet may not withdraw his Spirit from them that do assemble with such Per­sons purely to serve God, and to enjoy Com­munion with him in his Publick Ordinances. And indeed were this so that the presence of a known wicked Person would cause the Holy Spirit to depart from the Assemblies of pious Persons, then Christ and his Disciples had not the presence of the holy Spirit with them when they assembled with Judas to eat the passover, [Page 267]and to receive the holy Sacrament. 2ly, Then seeing Covetous, malitious Persons, since secret Hypocrites, and Atheists, are as odious to God as Persons otherwise notoriously wicked and profane, they also must pollute the Church, and cause the holy Spirit to depart from her Assemblies, and if so the Church can never be assured of his presence with her. Then 3ly, much less would the holy Spirit be present at those Pub­lick offices designed to conveigh this Spirit, when they were celebrated by wicked Priests, and so we could have no assurance of his gracious influence upon us at the preaching of the Word, the celebration of the Sacrament of Baptism, and of the Supper of the Lord, because we can have no assurance of the sincerity of him who doth officiate. For if the presence of wicked Persons who do only joyn with the Officiator, will cause the holy Spirit to depart from that Assembly, much more the wickedness of the Officiator. And 4ly, then we must have cause to fear that this good Spirit hath wholly left the Church of Christ, and doth no longer move upon the waters of the Sanctuary, there being in these latter Ages of the Church such a neglect of Discipline, as that scarce any one of her Assemblies can be supposed free from some mixture of pro­fane and even notorious wicked Persons, which yet seems plainly to contradict Christ's promise to be with his Church unto the end.

Obj. 2 ‘The Bishop when he lays his hands on those who come to be confirmed, declareth, §. 8 Office of con­firm. that he doth it to certifie them by this Sign of God's favour and gracious goodness towards them, which, say Dissenters, we fear is more than he can warrantably do. For as no Person by administring the Elements of Bread and Wine, [Page 268]which are the Eucharistick Signs, or by Bap­tizing with water, could certifie the Commu­nicant, or the Baptized Person of Remission of Sins, if God had no where Promised Pardon to those who duly use those Signs, so can no Per­son certifie another of God's favour, and of his gracious goodness to them by this Sign of laying on of hands, if God hath no where promised this grace and favour shall be annexed to the due use of that Sign. And as he who would set my Sign or mark unto a Paper to certifie another of any act of favour I would do unto him, without commission from me so to do, would do that which he could not justifie, so unless some commission can be shewed from God which authorizeth Bishops thus to act, and certifie by such a Sign, we know not, say they, how the doing of it can be justified, or how it can be well excused from being an humane Sacra­ment. Now if such a Divine Commission can be shewed, why is it by the Church declared that confirmation hath not any visible Sign or Cere­mony ordained of God,Can. 25.and therefore hath not the like nature of a Sacrament with Baptism and the Lords Supper, shrewdly intimating that had it such a Sign, there would be nothing left to distinguish it from having the like na­ture of a Sacrament. 2. If this be a divinely instituted Sign for the forementioned ends, how can any Person promise to himself the favour of God who never hath received this Sign, or never was Confirm'd, any more than he can promise to himself admission into the Covenant of Grace, or Pardon of his Sins if he neglect to be partaker of the Signs used in Baptism, and in the Supper of the Lord to which these Blessings are annexed? So that as far as we are [Page 269]able to discern, this must be either a very Ne­cessary Ceremony, or else a Superstitious, or too much magnified Ceremony.’

Answ. Could I return no other Answer to this Ar­gument, it were sufficient to inform the Lay Communicant, that this concerns the Bishop only, it is no Part of the Prayer to which the Person Confirmed is to say Amen, but only a Ceremony used by the Bishop in the time of Prayer, and so can Minister no just occasion to him to ne­glect this very ancient, excellent, and pious practice of solemn owning our Baptismal Cove­nant.

2ly, The Judicious Mr. Lib. Eccles. p. 534. Faulkner saith in Answer to this Argument, 1. ‘That to testifie God's gracious acceptance, either by our words or actions, of mens undertaking the exercise of Christianity, is a thing greatly different from the tendering the Divine Grace of God's cove­nant, as exhibited by any Sign, as a means to convey the same, which is the Proper nature of a Sacrament, which is very true.’ But then 'tis very difficult to apprehend how any Person can certifie another of God's grace and favour to him by such a Sign which is no means of tendring, or of conveighing of the same, espe­cially if God hath no where said that such a Sign shall signifie or certifie this favour to us.

2ly, This Imposition of hands, saith he, Ibid. is a Sign of Benediction in God's name from the Officer of the Church. For we have an instance of this Rite in the Priestly Benediction, Lev. 9.22. In Jacobs Blessing the Sons of Joseph, Gen. 48.14, 16. whence it was ever practised by the Jews in all Benedictions, and conferring of Offices. Thus Moses constituted Joshua the son of Nun, the Governor over Israel, by laying of [Page 270]his hand upon him, Numb. 27.18, 23. and that by virtue of this imposition of Hands Joshua receiv'd the Holy Ghost, seems evident from these words, And Joshua the Son of Nun, was full of the Spirit of Wisdom: For, Moses had laid his hands upon him, Deut. 34.9. this Rite was also used in the Ordination of their Elders, and the constant use thereof in particular Bene­dictions by men of Great eminency among the Jews is reasonably esteemed the cause why the Jews brought little Children to Christ, that he might put his hands on them and pray, Matt. 19.13. And our Saviour made use of the same Rite, when he Blessed his Apostles before his Ascension Luke. 24.50. And his Apostles adop­ted it to be the Rite for the Communicating of the Holy Ghost, Act. 8.17. which is the Reason why the Bishop saith this laying on of hands is done after the example of the Holy Apo­stles: Biblioth Sacr. voc. manus. Moreover the end and design of imposition of hands in Benediction was, saith Ravanellus, to be in testimony of the help, favour and grace of God to be given to him who receiveth imposition of hands. Ainsworth upon these words Numb. 6.27. And they shall put my name upon the Children of Israel, and I will bless them, writes thus, It seems to be meant of the Priests Gesture, that they should lift their hands towards his Peo­ple, as did Aaron, Levit. 9.22. for a Sign that the name, and Blessing of God was imposed upon them, And Masius, out of Junius, doth Com­ment thus upon the Text. Duobus Signis solitis testatum facient Populo gratiam meam, nominis mei invocatione, & manuum suarum impositione publica & solenni: By two vsual Signs they shall testifie my favour to the People, viz. By the Invocation of my name, and by solemn imposi­tion of hands.

Hence then I Argue thus: Either this Ceremo­ny was used in vain, or had some certain im­port and signification; if it were used in vain, then must our Lord and his Apostles and all the Jews that used it be charged with using a vain Ceremony in Gods solemn Worship, the invocation of God, and blessing others in his name; if it were used by Gods appointment, and our Lords practice to signifie any thing, the hand being the Symbol of power and Effi­cacy, what can it signify more naturally than the power of God in giving of the blessings prayed for? why then may we not certifie them whom we pray for by this Sign, if they be duly qualified, of the engagement of Gods power to confer it? If Hands were by Gods institution, the practise of our Lord, the Pa­triarchs, and Apostles, imposed in testimony of Gods help, favor and grace to be given to him, on whom they were imposed, why not to certifie what they do testifie? If this were a Sign where­by they did testatum facere populo Gratiam Dei, why may not our most Reverend Bishops, who are by Christ appointed to bless, use the same Sign, testatum facere confirmato Gratiam Dei, to certifie the confirmed person of Gods Grace and favor to him. It being therefore certain that God will give his Grace and Spiritual aid to all who do sincerely promise and engage to live according to their Baptismal Vow, and this Sign being apt to signifie that aid and favor, and used throughout so many Ages to that end, I see not why the Bishop may not certifie the confirmed person of this truth by such a Sign. And 2. It being only an indicatory Sign, or Adumbration of this grace, not an exhibitory Sign, cannot be properly a Sacrament.

Having thus Answered the Objections against those Ceremonies which have been scrupled most, and with most color and pretence of Rea­son by Dissenters, it will be easy to Answer, or to shew the vanity of their remaining scru­ples by attending to these following Propositions.

That the laudable Customs of the Catholick ‘Church which are of present observation, Prop. 1. Bishop Taylor Duct. Dubit. l. 3. c. 4. R. 15. §. 1.are fit to be observed by all Christians. This we learn from St. Paul who reproves the Conten­tiousness of those who, against the usages of Christians, and of the Places where they lived, would wear long hair, with this, We have no such Custom, 1 Cor. 11.16.14, 36. and pleads for order, from the practice of all Churches of the Saints. And al­so from the evidence of Reason, for in such cases where there is no law, the manners of Christians introduce a Law, so far that we cannot recede from it without some probable cause, i. e. we cannot do it without scan­dal, and indeed it is an act of love to con­form to the Customs of Christians with whom we do converse, who either will think you blame their Customs, or despise their persons, if you comply not.’ And that you look upon them as a company of ignorant persons who know not what they should do or as wicked persons, who inconsiderately will do what they should not. Besides it is a piece of Singularity to thwart, and Cavil at, and to refuse com­plyance with the Customs of the Churches where we are, which have in them no appa­rent evil, now Singularity is only laudable in matters that are excellent, and pious, never in matters of indifferency. And therefore,

This is sufficient reason for the Custom of our Church in delivering the Sacramental Ele­ments [Page 273]into the hand of the Communicant and Speaking to them severally: [...]. Ap. 2. p. 97. E. For Justin Martyr declareth that the [...] or Bishop having given thanks, those who were called Deacons did di­stribute to every one that was present, Bread and Wine mixt with Water, and Tertullian in­forms us that they receiv'd the Eucharist non de aliorum manibus quàm presidentium, De Cor. mil. c. 3.from the hands of no other persons than those who presided in the Church. Moreover it was the Custom of the Priest to say to every on of them, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c. August. Resp. ad Ores. q. 49. Am­bros. de sacram. l. 4. c. 5. And of the People severally to say Amen when they received it, this was said every where saith Austin, and so the Custom of distributing to all, and of receiving severally by all, must be the constant custom of the Church of Christ.

2ly, This is sufficient Reason for the retaining of God-Fathers and God-Mothers, Compan. part. 3 p. 400. for ‘in the Primitive Church the use of them was so early, saith the Learned Dr. Comber, that 'tis not easie to fix the time of their beginning the most Ancient Fathers who speak of Bap­tism do mention them, under the name of Offerers of them,’ [...], as Justin Mar­tir, [...] or Susceptores as Donysius Areop. of Sponsores as Tertullian, of Fideijussores or Sure­tys, as St. Austin.

2ly, p. 399. ‘This Custom was derived from the Jews, as also was that of Infant Baptism, for it is certain that the Rector of the house of judgment was to take care to Baptize the In­fants of Proselytes, and accordingly was to be called their Father. And there was one ap­pointed to hold the Child in Circumcision,’ called the Master of the Covenant, and by the ‘Modern Jews, who still retain this custom, the Surety. And very learned men believe this [Page 274]custom to be as ancient among the Jews as the times of Isaiah, it being highly probable that those Witnesses mentioned, chap. 8.2. at the naming of his Son, were of the same nature with those we call God-Fathers & God-Mothers.’

And 3ly, Tho one of the Reasons which made them the more necessary in the first Ages of the Church, (viz. those persecutions which cut off the Parents, and so left the poor Infants uncapable of Christian education with­out the help of Sureties) hath long since ceased, yet are they still continued for Good ends. As

1. 'To convenant in behalf of those Infants who cannot enter into covenant by themselves.

2ly, ‘For the Security of the Church, that the Children may be brought to Confirma­tion, and own their covenant hereafter, whence they are called Sureties.’

3ly, ‘That every Christian may have a Monitor, who was present and concerned in his Vow, whence they are stiled Witnesses.’

And 4ly, Whereas some object that the use of Sureties is made a necessary condition in our Lyturgy of administring Baptism to In­fants, because it is said, This Infant must also faithfully for his part promise by you that are his Sureties: The contrary to this is evident, because no Sureties are required at the admi­nistration of private Baptism, where our Bap­tismal Office declareth the child to be law­fully, and sufficiently Baptized, and so those words can only intimate, that this which is in it self a thing expedient, must be practised ac­cording to the Order, and Constitution of the Church. And

5ly, Whereas it farther is objected that ‘by these Sponsors the Parents are excluded, and the Child is not admitted to Baptism in the Parents right.’

Answer, ‘To this it is judiciously Answered by the Excellent Dr. Still. Vnrens. of S [...]p [...] p. 381. That the Church by re­quiring Sponsors doth not exclude any title to Baptism which the child hath by the right of his Parents, for the Sponsors may be sup­posed to appear in a threefold Capacity. 1. As representing the Parents in offering up the Child to Baptism, and so whatever right the Parents have, that is challenged when the Child is brought to be Baptized. 2ly, As Representing the Child in the Answers that are made in Baptism. And 3ly, In their own Capacity when they promise to take care of the Good Education of the Child in the Principles of the Christian faith.’

3ly, Ibid p. 404. This is sufficient Reason for the An­swering of the Sureties, in Baptism. For as it is judiciously observed by Dr. Comber, 'the Baptismal covenant was always made by Que­stion ‘and Answer; which is taken notice of by many of the Ancients, and seems to have been the Method in the Apostles days, be­cause St. Peter calls Baptism [...], the Answer, or, as the word rather signifies, the Asking of, or concerning a good Conscience. 1 Pet. 3.21. For there were always Queries put to the party baptized, which Adult per­sons did Answer themselves, and Children by their Representatives.’ In St. Cyprians time, Ep. 705.765. we twice find mention of them, and that they were observed even by those Hereticks, and Schismaticks who separated from the Church. Tertullian also expresseth the Custom of using interrogatories concerning the Creed, De Pud. c. 9. De Bapt. c. 6. [...]d [...]art. c. 3. de spect c. 4. de Cor [...]mil. cap. 3. l. 7. c. 41. the pro­fession of Christian faith, the renouncing the Devil, and undertaking the Christian Warfare. The Author of the Constitutions saith the same, and the fixed use of certain Interrogatories and [Page 276]Answers, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 8. is mentioned by Dionysius Alexandri­nus as a thing observed in Baptism before his time. And truly Baptism being in the nature of the thing a covenant to renounce the Devil, and to embrace the Christian faith. And 2ly, Children being capable of entring into cove­nant with God, as appears by Circumcision, and by express Scripture, Deut. 29.11, 12. And 3ly, the Answers of the Sureties being a solemn declaration of that covenant: And 4ly, they being of good use to mind all present of their own engagement, and consequently of their obligation to perform it, I judge the custom to be very expedient and prositable.

4ly, This is sufficient reason to retain the usage of the Ring in Matrimony. For 1. It was of very early use in all the Churches of the East, and West. As for the East, Clemens of Alexandria saith, Paedag; l. 3. cap. 11. p. 245. We give unto our Wives a Ring. And for the West, 'tis mentioned not only by St. Ambrose, but by Tertullian also in the third Century, Neque annulus de alicujus Idoli honore descen­dit de Idololatr. c. 16. who also Answers the ex­ception made against it as being a corrupt imi­tation of an Heathen custom, by saying that the Wedding Ring did not arise from the Honor given to any Idol.

2ly! It only is of Humane Institution, to be a token and pledge of the covenant made be­twixt them, which when they look upon may mind them of their obligation to perform the same, and is like to the earnest, or pledge we give in making of contract, Duct. Dub. l. 3. c. 4. R. 20 §. 8. p. 327. and so is rather a a Political or Civil, than Religious Ceremony, as Bishop Taylor-saith.

That it concerneth not Inferiors to know the Reasons why Superiors do command one thing rather than another, Prop. 2. §. 10.but only whether what they do command, be not forbidden. Because [Page 277]they are obliged in all such cases to obey their Superiors without farther reason. These there­fore are impertinent, and unbecoming Que­stions, Why must we bow at the name of Jesus rather than at the name of Christ, or Saviour? Why must we stand up at the read­ing of the Gospel, rather than at the reading of the Epistle? why must we wear a Surplice, rather than a Gown in reading of the publick Service? For tho a General Answer may be given to all these Questions, viz that the one hath Customarily obtained in the Church, as for the other we have no such Custom; in doing of the one we comply with the practice of the Church of God, and do as in all Chur­ches of the Saints, by doing of the other we should innovate; yet is this more than we need Answer to these and such like Questians, Infe­riors being not concerned to know why these things be commanded, but only whether they can lawfully obey what is commanded.

That bodily worship is a thing required both in the old, and the New Testament. Prop. 3. This out­ward Worship is enjoyned by the second Com­mandment, which saith of Images and Idols, Thou shall not bow down to them, nor Worship them, forbidding both these acts of outward Worship to be given to false Gods; if then this be the Negative part of the Command, the Affirmative must be this, All Signs of out­ward Reverence and Worship shall be given to me. 2ly, Why is it God forbids the giving of these outward Signs of Worship to an Idol? Is it not because he is a jealous God, and will admit no Rival, nor give his honor to another? Whence it must follow, that all these Signs of outward Worship are due to him, and that we rob him of his honor by our neglect to [Page 278]pay them to him, as well as by our giving them to any thing besides him. And sutably to this Command our Saviour doth inform us, that this Worship is still due to God, and to him only; for being tempted by the Devil to fall down and Worship him, he gives this reason why He could not do it, Mat. 4.10. because it was said, Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Rev. 19.10. And when St. John fell down before the Angel, the Angel saith unto him, See thou do it not, Worship God: and St. Paul lets us know that he did bow the knee to God the Father. 1 Cor. 6.20. 3ly, We are enjoyned in the New Testament to Glorify God with our Souls and Bodys; now, as to Glorify him with our Soul is to perform such actions of our Souls whereby we do acknowledge and express our sense of some of those most Glorious Attributes which render him exceeding excellent, and therefore worthy to be glorified, even so to Glorify him with our Bodys must be to do those bodily actions whereby we testifie our apprehensions of his Majesty, and of his absolute dominion, and that we do conceive him worthy of all adoration, one to whom every knee should bow. 4ly, This was the practice of Gods servants throughout all Ages. Even before the Law the Patriarchs did from the light of nature tender this Worship to God: When Lot beheld the Angel who represented God, Gen. 19.2. Gen. 24.26. he bowed his knee to the Ground, and so did Abraham, Gen. 18.2. Thus did his servant Worship God, and when the Children of Israel had heard that the Lord had look'd upon their affliction, they bowed their heads, Exod. 4.31.and Worshipped; this was a thing so constantly performed by them, that to bow down, is in the Hebrew phrase, to Wor­ship: We will go yonder and bow down, [Page 279]that is, will Worship, Gen. 22.5. More­over, that we might not think that this was any part of Ceremonial Worship, it is enjoy­ned upon eternal Grounds of Reason, Let us bow down before his footstool, Psal. 99.5, 9.for the Lord our God is Holy. And doth not Reason tell us that God is more worthy to be reverenced and honored than the chiefest of his creatures, and that we have far greater reason, because of the vast distance that there is betwixt us and him, to come into his presence in an humble manner. Sith then we do perform these out­ward acts of reverence to our Superiors on earth in token of the honor which we owe to them, much more ought we to do so to the Majesty of Heaven.

Hence then it naturally follows, Coroll. that what­soever is a proper act of outward Worship, and fitly doth express our inward Reverence of God by any outward gesture of the body, may very laudably be required by Superiors, seeing by these injunctions they only do require us to do in this or that particular what is in gene­ral our duty. And therefore,

1. To require us to Kneel at Prayer, and at the Absolution which concludes with Prayer, and at the Commandments, and Imposition of hands, and at the Receiving of the Sacrament, is only to require us to pay to God the Worship due unto him, to use that posture in our Devotions which our Saviour used at Prayer, Luk. 22.41. and which doth properly express our Reverence to him to whom we pray, and which was, saith Eusebius [...], Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 5. the Common Custom of the Christian, from whence their Prayers had the name of Ingeniculations.

2. To require us to bow at the name of Je­sus is only to require us to pay that Service in [Page 280]that instance to him to whom God hath decla­red that all knees shall bow, Rom. 10.11. and to whom, on account of his Divinity, Worship is due by virtue of our obligation to Glorifie him with our Bodys, which are his.

To require us to do this at the name of Jesus rather than at the name of Christ, or Saviour, when we design to recognize him as our only Saviour by that act of worship, seems also rea­sonable, seeing the name of Christ doth rather signifie his unction to his office than the ble­sings which accrue unto us by the execution of it. The name of Saviour is also, common to him with the Father, whereas the Name of Je­sus is appropriated to our Lord.

3ly, To require us to uncover our Heads in the House of God, and whilst we wait upon him in his presence, is only to require us to pay that Reverence unto the Majesty of Heaven which we yield to his Vicegerents here on Earth.

4. Since 'tis a part of Christian duty, by which our God is glorifyed, to make publick Profession of our Faith, and this is done as well by other signs, as Vocal, by the sign of the Cross, as well as by the Tongue proclaiming our belief of Christ crucified, by standing up at the Rehearsal of the Creed, as well as by saying these words, I believe, the standing Gesture is very suitable at such a so­lemn declaration of the Articles of Christian Faith, in token of our Cordial assent, and Reso­lution to stand firm unto it: ‘And indeed this is so properly signified (saith Mr. Lab. Eccles. p. 459. Faulkner,) by the standing Gesture according to the general apprehensions of the World, that both [...] in Hebrew and [...] in Greek, which words express the standing Gesture, are used in Scripture to signifie an asserting with resolution, Deut. 25.8. [Page 281]1 Chron. 34, 32. 1 Cor. 16.13. 2 Thess. 2.15. And the like Idioms of Speech are in some other Languages as well as our own, whence stare dictis in the Latin, to stand to our words in our Dialect.’

Lastly, To give you hence some rational account why standing up at the Gospel is requi­red, rather than at the Epistle, I must proceed by these degrees. 1. That in the devouter times both of the Jewish, and the Christian Church, the People, to manifest their Reve­rence unto the Word of God, the Message sent from God unto them, did hear it stand­ing; thus when Ezra opened the Book of the Law all the People stood up, Nehem. 8.5. and the Children of Israel stood up in their places to read the Law of the Lord, Neh. 9.3. 2ly. When the Gospel was read in the Assemblies of the Christian Church, the Peo­ple were required, to stand up. [...], When the Gospel is read, let all the Presbyters, and Deacons, L. 2. C. 57. L. 7. C. 19.and all the People stand, say the Constitutions of St. Clement. And Sozomen speaks of it as a peculiar usage of the Bishop of Alexandria, the like to which he had not seen, or heard of, that he stood not up at the Reading of the Gospel, See to this purpose, Philostorgius, l. 3. Cap. 5. Chrysostom. de Circo. Isid. Pelusiota, l. 1. Ep. 136. Niceph. l. 9, 18, 12, 34.

If you have the curiosity to ask why at the Gospel rather than the Epistle? I answer, that this custom was used out of an especial respect to our Lord and Saviour, whose words are ordinarily rehearsed in the Gospel, to ex­press, I say, an higher respect to Christ him­self speaking there, than to his Apostles who [Page 282]were sent by him: on which account Ignatius saith the Gospel hath this excellency in it, viz. the Presence of our Saviour Jesus Christ, Epist. ad Phi­ladelph. and his Suffering, and Resurrection. [...], §. 9 it hath something more ex­cellent in it than the Writings of the Pro­phets, though they were [...], all very good: In Joh Tom. 1 P. 4. C. And Origen, that the Epistles were not, [...], of equal esteem among Christians with those Writings of which it was said, [...], this saith the Lord. If you ask further, Why then do we not stand up at the Second Lesson, as well as at the Gospel in the Second Service? I answer, That out of tenderness unto the weakness and infirmi­ty of many Christians, v. Mr. Faulk­ner's, Lib. Eccles. p. 146. 462. liberty was granted to them to hear the longer Lessons, sitting, pro­vided they would shew the Reverence when a less portion of it was read at second Ser­vice.

§. 12 Lastly, Whereas some doubt the lawfulness of our observing the Festivals appointed by the Church of England; I shall endeavour to give them satisfaction in the point in some few Propositions laid down by Mr. Divine ap­point, of the Lord's Day. C. 13. Baxter in that case, and then proceed to Answer the Obje­ctions which he, and others make against them. And,

1. p. 148. Few, saith He, question but that whole days of Humiliation and of Thanksgiving may, and must be kept upon great and extraordina­ry occasions of Judgments, and of Mercies, and that many Churches may agree in these; and I know no just Reason why the Magistrate may not (with Charity and Moderation to the weak) impose them, and command such an Agreement among his Subjects.

2ly, Few, saith he, doubt but the Commemorati­on [Page 283]of Great Mercies or Judgments may be made Anniversary and of long continuation,p. 149.as the observation of the Fifth of November is made annual among us, to preserve the Memorial of the deliverance from the Powder Plot, the Se­cond of September for the Anniversary hum­bling Remembrance of the Firing of London, the Thirtieth of January a Day of Humilia­tion for the Execrable Murder of our R. Martyr, Charles the First. And that none can have just cause to doubt, if they consider, Est. 9.28. 1 Macch. 4.59. Zech. 7.5. that the Feasts of Purim and of Dedication were law­fully appointed by the Jews for an Ordinance for ever; and that they had their stated Fasts of the Fifth, and the Seventh Month, to hum­ble themselves at the remembrance of the Judg­ments God then brought upon them.

3. He adds, that the Great Blessings of an Apostolick Ministry, and of the stability of the Martyrs in their Sufferings for Christ, being so rare, and notable a Mercy to the Church, I confess I know no reason why the Churches of all succeeding Ages may not keep an Anniver­sary Day of Thanksgiving to God for Peter, or Paul, or Stephen, as well as for the Powder-Plot deliverance; I know not where God hath forbidden it directly or indirectly; if his institu­ting the Lord's-day were a virtual Prohibition for Man to separate any more, or if the Prohibi­tion of adding to God's Word were against it, they would be against other Days of Humilia­tion or Thanksgiving, especially Anniversary Days, which we confess they are not, if the Reason be Scandal, lest men should have the Honour instead of God; I answer, 1. An honour is due to Apostles and Martyrs in their places in due subordination to God. 2ly. Where the Case of Scandal is notorious, it may become by that ac­cident [Page 284]unlawful,Const. & Can. An. 1640. Can. 7.and yet not be so in other times and places. 3ly, Our Church expresly hath declared that she gives Religious Worship unto God alone, and doth observe these Daies to God, and in them celebrate his Praises for his Apostles, and for the assistance of his Grace and Spirit vouchsafed to them, and the Great things done through that assistance by them, for the good of men, and so can Mi­nister no Ground for such a Scandal.

4ly. p. 150. He saith that in the lawful Observation of Days, it is most orderly to do as the Churches do which we live among, and are to join with. Especially if they do only that which hath been done by all the Churches of Christ about Twelve hundred years and upward, as we do in the Observation of all our publick Festi­vals, or that which hath been done from the beginning, as in the Observation of the Easter Festival.

5ly. p. 151. He saith, That it is long ago decided by the Holy Ghost, Rom. 14.15. That we must not be contentious, contemptuous, nor censorious against one another about things of no Greater Moment than the Jewish Days were, though some observed them without just cause, because the Kingdom of God consisteth not in Meats, and Drinks, and Days, but in Righteousness, and Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost, and he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men; we must fol­low therefore after the things which make for Peace, and wherewith one may edify another, which by submitting to the Constitutions of our Church concerning Festivals, Dissenters certainly would do, if they are capable of Edification by hearing and joining in Good Prayers, and Praises, by reading of the Word, [Page 285]by hearing of good Sermons, and by commemo­ration of the Mercies we then celebrate.

§ 13 And whereas Mr. Baxter adds, that the Con­troversy, whether it be lawful to keep Days as Ho­ly in celebrating the Memorial of Christ's Nativi­ty, Circumcision, Ascension, &c. p. 151, 152. Disp. 5. of Cer. Cap. 2. § 46. is the hardest part of this Question, which he is not sufficient to deter­mine: I shall first lay down some few Arguments to justifie the Observation of these, and other Ho­ly-days prescribed by the Church of England: And consider the Scruples he, and others have against them. And,

1. I argue for the expedience of these Holy­days from the consideration of the end for which they have been instituted by the Wisdom of the Church, for those things, saith St. Austin, are cele­brated by the Churches Anniversaries, which were very excelelnt when done,Contra Fau­stum Manichaū, Lib. 32. Cap. 12.and by their excellency have signalized certain Days, that so the celebration of the Festival may preserve the whole some remem­brance of them in our Hearts. Now even Reason teacheth, that the Day on which these things were done, tends to excite the mind to more intent con­sideration of, and so to effectual remembrance of the Mercies which we have received upon that Day: Whence God himself requires his People to Remember that day in which they came out from Egypt, out of the Land of Bondage, Exod. 13.3. And of that very Night he saith, It is a Night to be much observed unto the Lord, for bringing them out of Egypt, this is that Night to be observed of all the Children of Israel in their Generations, Exod. 12.42. Now if for the Remembrance of that Mercy, God did not only order his Peo­ple Israel to be continually meditating and di­scoursing of it, Exod. 12.26, 13, 14. but also to observe the very Day for a Memorial, Exod. 12.14 [Page 286]if he appointed the Feast of Pentecost to be ob­served in Memory of the Law then given from Mount Sinai to them, the Feast of Tabernacles in re­membrance of their sustentation Forty years in the Wilderness, why may not Christians, though obli­ged daily to have these things in their remem­brance, observean Annual Festivity for the more full Commemoration of the Mercies they enjoy by virtue of our Lord's Nativity, Ascension, &c. Again, these Feasts have been instituted and observed by the Wisdom of the Church, to give thanks to God for the benefits vouchsafed to us at those times, and by such Persons: now publick benefits are publickly to be acknowledged and celebrated with publick thanks, which cannot better be perfor­med than by prescribing stated Days for publickly Assembling to these ends. And as St. Paul declares, that the great liberality of the Corinthians would Glorifie God by causing many thanksgivings to him for that Grace, 2 Cor. 9.12. so wil the Institution of such Festivals tend to his Glory by causing many thanksgivings for the Grace vouchsafed to us upon these Days, both to us and to those Martyrs and Apostles, whose Memo­ries we celebrate. Moreover, no Man can deny bu [...] the benefits flowing from the great actions of ou [...] Saviour, and the advantages accruing to us fro [...] the Apostles, and Evangelists by their faithful preaching the Gospel of Christ, and giving testi­mony by their Sufferings to the Truth of the sam [...] Doctrine, is to us more valuable, and advantageous than any temporal benefit whatsoever. If then [...] be esteemed highly convenient to celebrate o [...] deliverance from the Gun-powder-Plot, th [...] happy Restoration of our Prince, our Laws, an [...] Liberties, with constant Anniversaries, have w [...] not equal reason to celebrate the Memory o [...] those great Spiritual Mercies by like Anniversaries.