of the same Church and tho' the Universal Church for Man's conveniency be divided into several parts or Congregations yet it cannot be divided into two or more Churches So that two Churches which are not Members of each other cannot partake in the same Covenant but the divider forfeits his interest in it A Prince indeed may grant the same Charter to several Corporations but if he confine his Charter to the Members of one Corporation those who separate from the Corporation forfeit their interest in the Charter Thus has God granted a Charter or Covenant and declares that by this one Covenant he Unites all Christians into one Church into which we are admitted by Baptism and therefore if we separate from this one Church we forfeit our interest in it God has not made a particular Covenant with the Church of Geneva France or England but with the one Catholic Church and therefore if we do not live in unity with the Catholic Church we have no right to the blessings promis'd to it II. By Church-Communion I mean Church-Society To be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it And this is call'd Communion because all Church-members have a common right to Church-privileges and a common obligation to the duties of Church-Members 'T is true this word Communion is commonly us'd to signify Praying hearing and receiving the Sacrament together but strictly speaking those Offices are not Communion but an exercise of Communion church-Church-Communion is Church-Union for as a member must be united to the Body before it can perform the natural action of a member so a man must be in Communion with the Church before he has a right to Pray c. And therefore tho' a man that is not in Union or Communion with the Church shou'd perform those Offices yet the performance of them do's not make him a Member of the Church but an Intruder Such Offices are acts of Communion if perform'd by Church-Members but not otherwise So that to be in communion with the Church is to be a Member of it and by being a Member a man has a right to the blessings promis'd to it and an obligation to perform the Offices of Church-Society viz. obedience to the Churches authority joining in Prayers c. and he that acts otherwise renounces his Communion with it From what has been said I observe 1. That church-Church-Communion principally respects not a particular but the Universal Church which is but one all the World over For Membership may extend to the remotest parts of the World if the body whereof we are Members reach so far and Baptism makes us members of the Universal Church because it admits us into the Covenant which God made with the Universal Church 2. That every act of Christian Communion such as praying c. is an act of Communion with the whole Catholic Church tho' it must be perform'd in a particular Congregation because all Christians cannot meet in one place Thus do we as Fellow-Members Pray to God the Common Father of Christians in the Name of Christ the Common Saviour of Christians for the same Common blessings for our selves and all other Christians Thus also the Supper of the Lord is not a private Supper but the Common Feast of Christians and an act of Catholic Communion 3. That the only reason why I am bound to live in Communion with any particular Church is because I am a Member of the whole Christian Church For I must live in Communion with the whole Christian Church and this cannot be done without actual Communion with some part of it So that I have nothing else to do but to consider whether that part of the Catholic Church wherein I live be so sound that I may lawfully live in Communion with it and if it be I am bound to do so under peril of Schism from the Catholic Church 4. That those Churches which are not Members of each other are separate Churches because the Catholic Church being but one all particular Churches ought to be Members of it To make this plain I shall lay down some few Rules whereby we may certainly know what Churches are in Communion with each other and which are Schismatical Conventicles 1. There must be but one Church in one place because private Christians ought to join with those Christians with whom they live and to withdraw our selves from ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into separate Societies is to renounce its Communion and when there is not a necessary cause for it is a Schismatical separation Every particular Church must have its limits as every Member in the Body has its proper place but when there is one Church within the bowels of another it is a notorious Schism This is the case of our Dissenters who refuse to worship God in the same assemblies with us Distinct Churches at a distance may be of the same Communion but distinct Churches in the same place can never be of the same Communion for then they wou'd naturally unite So that all separation from a Church wherein we live unless there be necessary reasons for it is Schism 'T is true a Nation may permit those Foreigners that are among them to model their Congregations according to the Rules of those Churches to which they originally belong and that without any danger of Schism For a bare variety of Ceremonies makes no Schism between Churches while they live in Communion with each other Now every particular National Church has Authority over her own Members to prescribe the rules of Worship but as she does not impose upon other Churches at a distance so she may allow the same liberty to the Members of such Foreign Churches when they live within her jurisdiction For tho' all true Churches are Members of each other yet each Church has a peculiar jurisdiction and therefore for the Church of England to allow Foreigners to observe their own Rules is not to allow separate Communions but to leave them to the Goverment of that Church to which they belong So that distinct Congregations of Foreigners who own the Communion of our Church tho' they observe the customs of their own are not Schismatical as the separate Conventicles of our Dissenters are 2. Those are separate Churches which divide from the Communion of any Church from any dislike of its Doctrine Goverment or Worship For in this case they leave the Church because they think it unsafe to continue one body with it Two Churches may be in Communion with each other and yet not actually Communicate together because distance of place will not permit it but it is impossible that two Churches which renounce each others Communion or at least withdraw ordinary Communion from each other from a profess'd dislike shou'd still continue in Communion with each other Because they are opposite Societies sounded upon contrary Principles and acting by contrary Rules and pursuing contrary ends to the ruin and subversion of each other
3. Those are separate Churches which do not own each others Members as their own The Christian Church is but one Houshold and Family and whoever makes two Families of it is a Schismatic If Christians in the same Kingdom hold separate Assemblies under distinct kinds of Goverment and different Governours and condemn each others constitution and modes of Worship and endeavour to draw away Members from each other they cannot be thought to be one Church And indeed we may as well say that several sorts of Goverment in the same Nation with distinct Governours distinct Subjects and distinct Laws that are always at Enmity and War with each other are but one Kingdom as we may say that such Congregations are but one Church III. I am to explain what is meant by Fixt and by Occasional Communion By fixt Communion the Dissenters understand an actual and constant Communicating with some one particular Church as fixt Members of it By occasional Communion they mean praying hearing and receiving the Sacrament at some other Church of which they do not own themselves to be Members as occasion serves that is either to gratify their own curiosity or to serve some secular end or to avoid the imputation of Schism Now fixt Communion is the only true notion of Communion for occasional Communion do's not deserve the name of Communion For I have prov'd that he who is not a Member cannot perform an act of Communion and therefore it is as plain a contradiction to talk of an occasional act of Communion as of an Occasional Membership Since every act of Communion is an act of Communion with every sound part of the Catholic Church therefore the exercise of Christian Communion is equally fix't and constant or equally occasional with the whole Catholic Church 'T is true in one sence we may be Members of a particular Church that is we may live under the Goverment of a particular Bishop in a particular National Church but yet every act of Communion perform'd in this particular Church is an act of Communion with every sound part of the Catholic Church So that wherever I Communicate whether in that Church in which I usually live or in any other particular Church where I am accidentally present my Communion is of the same nature Now our ordinary Communion with those Churches where our constant abode is may be call'd fix't Communion and our Communion with those Churches where we are accidentally present may be call'd occasional Communion and all this may be done without Schism because all these Churches are Members of each other but we cannot lawfully join sometimes with the establish'd Church and sometimes with a separate Congregation because the case is vastly different For the establish'd Church and the Dissenters Congregations are not Members of each other but separate Churches Now 't is impossible for any man to be a Member of two separate Churches and whatever acts of worship we join in with other Churches of which we are no Members they are not properly acts of Communion Having thus explain'd the Three foregoing particulars I proceed to the main business which was to shew that it is the indispensable duty of all English men to live in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England This I shall do by shewing First That Communion with some Church or other is a necessary duty Secondly That constant Communion with that Church with which occasional Communion is lawful is a necessary duty from whence I shall make it appear Thirdly That it is necessary to continue in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England I. Then it is plain that Communion with some Church or other is a necessary Duty Because to be in Communion is to be a Member of Christ and he that is a Member has a right to the Privileges and an obligation to the duties of a Member and 't is certain that Communion in Prayers c. is none of the least Privileges of Christianity and that 't is the duty of a Member to Communicate in Religious Offices But to put the matter out of all doubt I shall offer Five things to prove that external and actual Communion is a necessary duty 1. Baptism makes us Members of the visible Church of Christ but there can be no visible Church without visible Communion and therefore every visible Member is bound to visible Communion when it may be had 2. This is Essential to the notion of a Church as it is a Society of Christians For since all Societies are instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices therefore some duties and offices must be perform'd by the Society of Christians especially since the Church consists of different Offices and Officers as Pastors c. Eph. 4.11 which are of no use if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them in all Religious Offices 3. The nature of Christian worship obliges us to Church-Communion For we are bound to worship God according to Christ's institution that is by the hands of the Ministry authoriz'd for that purpose Acts 2.42 and therefore tho' the private Prayers of Church-members are acceptable yet none but public Prayers offer'd up by the Ministers are properly the Prayers of the Church and acts of church-Church-Communion Nay the Lord's Supper which is the principal part of God's worship is a Common Supper or Communion-Feast and cannot possibly be celebrated but in actual Communion 4. The exercise of Church-Authority which consists in admitting men to or excluding them from the external acts of Communion supposes that Church-members are obliged to visible Communion 5. If Separation from Religious Assemblies be to break Communion as it plainly appears to be from 2 Cor. 6.17 1 Joh. 2.19 Heb. 10.25 then to live in Communion with the Church requires our actual Communicating with the Church in all Religious duties Accordingly to have Communion with any is to partake with them in their Religious Mysteries 1 Cor. 10.20 21. so that tho' we must first be in a state of Communion before we have a right to Communicate yet we cannot preserve our Church-state without actual Communion And a right to Communicate without actual Communion which is an exercise of that right is worth nothing because all the blessings of the Gospel are convey'd to us by actual Communion This is sufficient to prove the necessity of actual Communion with the Church when it may be had for when it can't be had we are not obliged to it But then the greater difficulty is whether it be lawful to suspend Communion with all because the Church is divided into Parties Now a man may as well be of no Religion because there are different Opinions in Religion as Communicate with no Church because the Church is divided into Parties For 't is possible to know which is a true and sound part of the Catholic Church and when we know that we are bound to maintain Communion with it Indeed if Divisions excuse from actual
Communion with the Church then Church-Communion never was or can be a duty for there were Divisions even in the Apostles times But the rule is plain for we are bound to Communicate with the Establish'd Church if it may be done without sin The advantage lies on the side of Authority and to separate from such a Church is both disobedience and Schism But what is meant by Suspending Communion These men will not say that it is lawful never to worship God in any public Assemblies during the divisions in the Church and therefore they mean that in case of such Divisions they may refuse to enter themselves fixt and settled Members of any Church but Communicate occasionally with them all But I have already shewn how absurd this distinction of fixt and occasional Communion is and that whoever is a Member of the Church is a fixt and not an occasional Member and that every act of Communion is an act of fixt Communion So that when men Communicate occasionally as they speak with all the different Parties of Christians in a divided Church they either Communicate with none or with all of them If with none then they maintain Communion with no Church which I have prov'd it to be their duty to do but if they Communicate with all then they are Members of separate and opposite Parties that is they are contrary to themselves and on one side or other are certain to be Schismatics II. I am now to shew in the 2d place That Constant Communion is a necessary duty where occasional Communion is lawful Every true Christian is in Communion with the whole Christian Church that is is a Member of the whole Church and therefore he must constantly perform the acts of Communion in that part of the Church in which he lives So that he cannot without sin Communicate only occasionally with that Church with which he may and ought to Communicate constantly as being constantly present there There cannot be two distinct Churches in the same place one for constant and another for occasional Communion without Schism and therefore where my constant abode is there my constant Communion must be if there be a true and sincere part of the Catholic Church in that place For it is not lawful to Communicate with two distinct and separate Churches in the same place as for instance sometimes with the Church of England sometimes with the Presbyterians because this is directly contrary to all the principles of Church-Communion For to be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of it and to be a Member of two separate and opposite Churches is to be as contrary to our selves as those separate Churches are to each other and whoever Communicates with both those Churches on one side or other Communicates in a Schism So that if Schism be a very great sin and that which will damn us as soon as Adultery or Murther then it must needs be unlawful and dangerous to Communicate with Schismatics Nothing less than sinful terms of Communion can justifie our separation from the establish'd Church wherein we live for otherwise there cou'd be no end of Divisions but men might new model Churches as often as their fancies alter That is a sound and Orthodox part of the Catholic Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion otherwise no Church can be sound and Orthodox Now that Man that separates from such a sound part of the Church separates from the whole Church because the Communion of the Church is but one Since therefore those who Communicate occasionally with the establish'd Church do thereby own that there are no sinful terms of Communion with it and since he who separates from that establish'd Church where there are no sinful terms of Communion is guilty of Schism therefore a Man is obliged to join constantly with that Church with which he owns it lawful to Communicate occasionally III. Now if these things be true which I have so plainly prov'd then it will easily be made appear in the Third place that it is necessary to continue in constant Communion with the establish'd Church of England For since a Man is obliged to join constantly with that Church with which he owns it lawful to join occasionally therefore it is plain that all English Men are obliged to join constantly with the establish'd Church of England because they may lawfully Communicate with it Occasionally But if any Man say that 't is not lawful to Communicate occasionally with the establish'd Church of England I doubt not to make it appear in the following discourse that he is greatly mistaken 'T is not my present business to prove that the Pastors of Dissenting Congregations ought to subscribe to the Articles c. For tho' that matter may be easily made out yet 't is Foreign to my purpose my design being only to satisfy Lay-Dissenters and to shew that they may lawfully join with our Church because then it will appear to be their duty to do so constantly And certainly if the Case of Lay-Communion were truly stated and understood the People wou'd not be far more averse to Communion with the Parish-Churches than the Non-Conforming Ministers who have often join'd with us And as the Ministers by bringing their Case to the Peoples may see Communion then to be lawful and find themselves obliged to maintain it in a private capacity so the People by perceiving their Case not to be that of the Ministers but widely different from it wou'd be induced to hold Communion with the Church It appears therefore from what I have already said that if that part of the Church in which we live be a true and sound part of the Catholic Church then we are obliged to maintain constant Communion with it And that the Establish'd Church of England is such a true and sound part of the Catholic Church even our Dissenters themselves have fully prov'd For all or most of those with whom I am to Treat have join'd in our solemn Offices of Devotion which they cou'd not lawfully do if our Church were not a true and sound part of the Catholic Church of Christ But I shall not insist upon that personal argument because I design to descend to particulars and to shew First that our Church is a true and sound part of the Christian Church and Secondly that those Pleas which the Dissenters make use of to excuse their separation from her are vain and frivolous First Then the Establish'd Church of England is a true and sound part of the Catholic Church That 't is a true Church appears from the Confession of the most Eminent and Sober (a) Bayly's Dissuasive c. 2. p. 21. Corbet's Discourse of the Religion of England p. 33. Non-Conformists no Schismatics p. 13. See Ball 's Friendly Trial c. 13. p. 306. Letter of Ministers in Old England to Ministers in New England p. 24. Non-Conformists nay the Old Non-Conformists undertake to (b) A Grave and Sober Confut.
of Grace and receive a right to eternal Life I cannot deny but they may be sav'd without Baptism by the uncovenanted Mercy of God but then the hopes of God's mercy in extraordinary cases ought not to make us less regardful of his sure ordinary and covenanted Mercies and the appointed Means to which they are annex'd Nay Infants do by Baptism acquire a present right unto all the Promises of the Gospel and particularly to the promises of the Spirit 's assistance which they shall certainly receive as soon and as fast as their natural incapacity removes Now since these are the benefits of Baptism and since Infants are capable of them let any impartial Man judge whether it is more for their benefit that they shou'd receive them by being Baptiz'd in their infancy or stay for them till they come to years of discretion Is it better for a Child that has the Evil to be touch'd for it while he is a Child or to wait till he is of sufficient Age to be sensible of the benefit Or is it best for a Traytor 's Child to be presently restor'd to his Blood and Estate and his Prince's Favour or to be kept in a mere capacity of being restor'd till he is a man I must add that Baptism laies such an early pre-engagement upon Children as without the highest baseness and ingratitude they cannot afterwards retract For there is no person of common Ingenuity Honour or Conscience but will think himself bound to stand to the Obligation which he contracted in his Infancy when he was so graciously admitted to so many blessings and privileges before he cou'd understand his own good or do any thing himself towards the obtaining of them And therefore the Wisdom of the Church is highly to be applauded for bringing them under such a beneficial pre-engagement and not leaving them to their own liberty at such years when Flesh and Blood wou'd be apt to find out so many shifts and excuses and make them regret to be Baptiz'd 2. Infant-Baptism is very Expedient because it conduces much to the Well-being and Edification of the Church in preventing those scandalous and shameful delays of Baptism which grown Persons wou'd be apt to make in these as they did in former times to the great prejudice of Christianity Since therefore Infant-Baptism is not only Lawful and commanded by the Church but most Expedient in it self and most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles and Primitive Christians and to the Will of Christ it must needs be concluded that there lies the same obligation upon Parents to desire Baptism for their Children as there do's upon grown Persons to desire it for themselves For what Authority soever exacts any thing concerning Children or Persons under the years of discretion laies at least an implicit obligation upon Parents to see that it be perform'd For if in the time of a general contagion the Supreme Power shou'd Command that all Men Women and Children shou'd every Morning take such an Antidote that Command wou'd oblige Parents to give it to their Children as well as to take it themselves Just so the Ordinance of Baptism being intended for Children as well as grown Persons it must needs oblige the Parents to bring them to it What I have here said about the obligation which lies upon Parents to bring their Children to Baptism concerns all Guardians c. to whose care Children are committed And if any ask at what time they are bound to bring them to Baptism I answer at any time for the Gospel indulges a discretional latitude but forbids the wilful neglect and all unreasonable and needless delays thereof V. As to Communion with Believers who were Baptiz'd in their Infancy 't is certainly Lawful and has ever been thought so nay 't is an exceeding great sin to refuse Communion with them because that wou'd be a disowning those to be Members of Christ's Body whom he owns to be such Nothing now remains but that I take off two objections First 'T is said that Infant-Communion may be practis'd as well as Infant-Baptism But I answer 1. There is not equal Evidence for the Practice of Infant-Communion because St. Cyprian is the first Author which they can produce for it and then the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Cyril of Jerusalem mention it towards the latter end of the Fourth Century and St. Austin in the Fifth whereas for Infant-Baptism we have the Authority of St. Cyprian and a whole Council of Fathers over which he Presided of Origen Tertullian Irenaeus St. Jerom St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom St. Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and the Third Council of Carthage who all speak of it as a thing generally practis'd and most of them as of a thing which ought to be practis'd in the Church I may add that none of the Four Testimonies for infant-Infant-Communion speak of it as of an Apostolical Tradition as Origen do's of Infant-Baptism 2. There is not equal Reason for the Practice of it For Persons of all Ages are capable of Baptism but the Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament of Perfection instituted for the remembrance of Christ's Death and Passion which being an act of great Knowledge and Piety Children are not capable to perform Nor is there an equal concurrence of Tradition or the Authority of so many Texts of Scripture for infant-Infant-Communion it being grounded only upon John 6.53 Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you Now 't is doubtful whether this be meant of the Eucharist or no because it was not as yet instituted but if it be so to be understood yet the sence of it ought to be regulated by the chief end of its Institution Do this in remembrance of me Nay the Western Church discerning the Mistake upon which Infant-Communion was grounded have long since laid it aside tho' they still continue the practice of Infant-Baptism But in truth the practice of Infant-Communion is so far from prejudicing the Cause of Infant-Baptism that it mightily confirms it because none were or cou'd be admitted to partake of the Holy Communion till they were validly Baptiz'd And therefore the practice of Infant-Communion fully proves that all the Churches wherein it ever was or still (e) As in the Greek Russian and Abyssin Churches and among the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies is practis'd were of opinion that the Baptism of Infants is as Valid and Lawful as that of grown Persons Secondly 't is objected that Children who have not the use of Reason cannot know what a Covenant means and therefore they cannot contract and stipulate tho' St. Peter says the Baptism which saveth us must have the Answer or Restipulation of a good Conscience towards God To this I Answer 1. That this Objection is as strong against Infant-Circumcision as against Infant-Baptism 2. That God was pleas'd to Seal the Covenant of Grace unto Circumcis'd Infants upon an implicite and imputative
sins but to excite you to a due care and examination of your selves that you be not polluted by any sinful Acts and Compliances of your own and then there 's no danger of being defil'd by theirs 5. From the Nature of church-Church-Communion I have already prov'd in the First Chapter that every act of church-Church-Communion is an act of Communion with the whole Christian Church and and all the Members of it whether present or absent and therefore those who separate from a National Church for the sake of corrupt Professours are Schismatics in doing so and all their Prayers and Sacraments are not acts of Communion but a Schismatical Combination Because tho' they cou'd form a Society as pure and holy as they desire yet they confine their Communion to their own select company and exclude the whole body of Christians all the World over out of it Their Communion is no larger than their gather'd Church for if it be then they must still Communicate with those Churches which have corrupt Members as all visible Churches on earth have 'T is true good Men must frequently exhort and advise corrupt and scandalous Members they must reprove them with prudence affection and calmness they must bewail their sins and pray to God for their Reformation they must as much and as conveniently as may be avoid their company especially all familiarity with them and if repeated admonitions either private or before one or two more will not do then they must tell the Church that by it 's more public reproofs the scandalous Members may be reclaim'd or by it's just censures cut off from the Communion These things the Holy Scriptures command us to do and the Primitive Christians practis'd accordingly But if after all the endeavours of private Christians some scandalous Members thro' the defect of discipline shou'd remain in the Church they cannot injure those Persons that are no way accessary to their sin For no sin pollutes a Man but that which is chosen by him Noah and Lot were good even amongst the wicked nor did Judas defile our Saviour and his Apostles at the passover The good and bad Communicate together not in sin but in their common duty To Communicate in a sin is sin but to Communicate with a sinner in that which is not sinful cannot be a sin 'T is true the Apostle saies 1 Cor. 5.6 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump but this is a Proverbial speech and shews only that sin like leaven is of a very spreading nature The People are as a lump and a wicked Person is as leaven amongst them but tho' the leaven is apt to convey it self thro' the whole lump yet only those parts are actually leaven'd with it that take the leaven and so tho' the sinner by his bad example is apt to infect others yet those only are actually infected who Communicate with him in sin Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees saies our Saviour he do's not advise his Disciples to leave their Assemblies but to beware that they take no leaven of them The incestuous Person was not cast out of the Church of Corinth and yet the Apostle saies at least of some of them ye are unleavened 1 Cor. 5.7 And why may not the joint Prayers of the Church and the examples of good Men be as sovereign an antidote against the infection as the bare company of wicked Men is of power to convey it Especially considering that the sins of the wicked shall never be imputed to the righteous but the Prayers of the righteous have obtain'd pardon for the wicked If it be said that the pollutions of sin were typify'd by the legal uncleanesses and that every thing that the unclean Person touch'd was made unclean I answer that those legal pollutions did not defile the whole Communion but only those whom the unclean Person touch'd For 1. There was no Sacrifice appointed for any such pollution as came upon all for the sin of some few 2. Tho' the Prophets reprov'd the Priests for not separating the clean from the unclean Ezek. 22.26 yet they never taught that the whole Communion was polluted because the unclean came into the Congregation thro' the neglect of the Priests duty As those that touch'd the unclean Person were unclean so those that have Fellowship with the wicked in their sins are polluted 3. When 't is said that the unclean Person that did not purify himself defil'd the Tabernacle and polluted the sanctuary the meaning is that he did so to himself but not to others so does a wicked Man the Ordinances of God in respect of himself but not of others The Prayers of the wicked tho' join'd with those of the Church are an abomination unto God whilst at the same time the Prayers of good Men go up as a sweet-smelling Savour and are accepted by him The Person that comes unworthily to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper eats and drinks Judgment to himself but that hinders not but that those who at the same time come better prepar'd may do it to their own Eternal Comfort and Salvation To the pure all things are pure but to them that are defil'd and unbelieving is nothing pure but even their Mind and Conscience is defil'd Tit. 1.15 I grant indeed that the Apostle saies 2 Cor. 6.17 Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing but this makes nothing against my Assertion if we consider 1. the occasion of this Exhortation For the Christian Corinthians liv'd in the midst of Heathens by whom they were often invited to their Idol-Feasts at which some of them did not scruple to eat things Sacrificed to Idols but the Apostle persuades them not to go not only upon the account of scandal to their weak Brethren whose ignorance might suffer them to be drawn by their Example to go and eat at them even in honour to the Idol but also because 't was plain Idolatry so to do For as we receive the Lord's Supper in honour of Christ so they must be thought to eat in honour to the Idol because the Sacrifice was offer'd to the Idol But blessed be God we live in a Christian Country wherein there are no Idol-Feasts at all 2. That the Persons from whom they were to separate were no better than Vnbelievers and Idolaters But now because Christians by the Apostle's command were to separate from the Assemblies of Heathen Idolaters do's it therefore follow that they must separate from the Assemblies of Christians because some who while they profess Christ do not live like Christians are present at them Is there no difference between a Pagan or an Infidel that denies Christ and worships Devils and an immoral Christian who outwardly owns Christ and worships the true God 3. That the unclean thing they were not to touch was the abominable practices us'd by the Heathens in the Worship of their Gods But now because Christians are not to Communicate
with respect to the whole as the Church is the House of God 1 Pet. 2.5 and every Christian is a Stone of it and therefore ought to study what may be for the Edification of the whole And how is that but by promoting Love Peace and Order and taking care to preserve it For so we (e) 1 Cor. 14.26 2 Cor. 10.8 1 Tim. 1.4 Rom. 14.19 1 Thess 5.11 Eph. 4.12 16. find Peace and Edifying Comfort and Edification Union and Edification join'd together as the one promotes the other And therefore as the good and Edification of the Church is to be always in our Eye so 't is the Rule by which we ought to act in all things lawful and to that end we shou'd comply with its customs observe its directions and obey its orders without reluctancy and opposition If any Man seem or have a mind to be contentious we have no such custom neither the Churches of God 1 Cor. 11.16 Whatever might be urg'd the Apostle concludes we have no such Custom c. The Peace of the Church is to a peaceable mind sufficient to put an end to all disputes about it and since the Peace of the Church depends upon the observation of its customs that is infinitely to be preferr'd before scrupulosity and niceness or a meer inclination to a contrary practice There must be somewhat establish'd and the very change of a custom tho' it may happen to profit yet doth disturb by its Novelty saies St. Austin Epist 118. Infirmity in a Church is better than confusion and in things which neither we nor the worship are the worse for but the Church the better for observing Peace and Order are to be preferr'd far before niceties and certainly neither we nor the service of God can be the worse for what God has concluded nothing in In a word what St. Austin and his Mother receiv'd from St. Ambrose is worthy to be recommended to all That in all things not contrary to Truth and good Manners it becomes a good and prudent Christian to practise according to the custom of the Church where he comes if he will not be a scandal to them nor have them to be a scandal to him Epist 118 86. And if the custom and practice of a Church must oblige a good Man much more ought it so to do when 't is Establish'd by Law and back'd by Authority For then to stand in opposition is not only an Offence but an Affront 't is to contend whether we or our Superiours shall Govern and what can be the issue of such a temper but distraction 'T is pleaded that there shou'd be a Liberty left to Christians in things undetermin'd in Scripture but there are things which they must agree in or else there can be nothing but confusion For instance what Order can there be if Superiours may not determine whether Prayers shall be long or short and the like To conclude when the Scripture do's neither require nor forbid an action we ought to obey the Orders of the Church in the performance or omission of it But 't is said That if we be restrain'd in the use of indifferent things we are also restrain'd in our Christian Liberty which the Apostle exhorts us to stand fast in Gal. 5.1 Now to this I answer 1. This is no argument to those that say there is nothing indifferent in the worship of God for then there is no matter of Christian Liberty in it 2. A restraint of our Liberty or receding from it is of it self no violation of it The most scrupulous Persons plead that the strong ought to bear with the weak and give them no offence by indulging that Liberty which others are afraid to take and why I pray is a Man's Liberty more damaged when restrain'd by Superiours than when 't is restrain'd by another's Conscience If it be said that the Superiour's command restrains it perpetually I answer that the case is still the same for the Apostle who knew his own Liberty supposes that it wou'd not be damnify'd tho' it were restrain'd for his whole life For saies he if Meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth 1 Cor. 8.13 and this he wou'd not have said had he not thought it consistent with standing fast in that Liberty c. 3. Christian Liberty is indeed nothing else but freedom from the restraints which the Jewish Law laid upon men This is that Liberty which we are exhorted to stand fast in and I think that in obeying the orders of our Church there is no danger of Judaism But we must note that Christian Liberty consists not in our being freed from the act of observing the Jewish Law but in being freed from the necessity of observing it For the Apostles and first Christians did observe it for some time upon prudential considerations but they did so not out of necessity but in condescension to their weak Converts And if they cou'd observe some Judaical Rites without infringing their Christian Liberty certainly we may safely use a few indifferent Ceremonies From what has been said it plainly appears that the use of indifferent things is no objection against living in Communion with our Establish'd Church and this is enough to satisfy those Persons who upon no other account than that of a few harmless impositions are guilty of separation from her But because they have some particular objections against some particular things impos'd by her therefore I shall not satisfy my self with proving the lawfulness of using indifferent things in general but endeavour to satisfy all their scruples which relate to single instances as I shall have occasion to treat of them in the following Chapters CHAP. III. Of the Lawfulness and Expediency of Forms of Prayer THE next objection against our Communion is the use of Forms of Prayer This the Dissenters judge to be unlawful or at least not expedient and they think it a sufficient excuse for their separation from us I shall therefore in this Chapter endeavour to rectify their mistakes 1. By shewing that both Scripture and Antiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer 2. By answering their objections against Forms of Prayer And 3. by proving that the imposition of Forms of Prayer may be lawfully comply'd with First then I shall shew that both Scripture and Antiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer The Dissenters indeed require us to produce some positive command of Scripture for the use of Forms of Prayer but this is needless because I have shewn in the foregoing Chapter that things not commanded may be lawfully us'd in Divine worship However for their full satisfaction I shall endeavour to prove these Two things 1. That some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture 2. That tho' no Forms were commanded yet Forms are as Lawful as extempore Prayers I. Then some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture I do not say that God's Word commands us to use none but Forms
to be Baptiz'd But if the Scriptures were doubtful in the case I appeal to any Man whether the harmonious practice of the ancient Churches and the undivided consent of the Apostolical Fathers be not the best interpreters of them Let any modest Person judge whether it be more likely that so many famous Saints and Martyrs so near the Apostles times shou'd conspire in the practice of Mock-Baptism and of making so many Millions of Mock-Christians or that a little Sect shou'd be in a grievous Errour The brevity which I design will not permit me to recite the Authorities of the ancients and therefore I refer the Reader to Cassander and Vossius De Baptism Disp 14. only I desire him to consider the following particulars 1. That 't is hard to imagine that God shou'd suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous practice as our Adversaries think Infant-Baptism to be which wou'd in time Unchurch it and that even while Miracles were yet extant in the Church and he bare them witness with signs and wonders and divers gifts of the Holy Ghost And yet 't is plain that Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Cyprian who are witnesses of Infant-Baptism in those daies do assure (b) See Irenaeus Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 56 57. Tertull. Apol. and ad Scapul Origen adv Celsum Camb. p. 34 62 80 124 127 334 376. Cyprian ad Donat. and ad Magn. and ad Demetrian p. 202. Edit Rigalt us that Miracles were then not Extraordinary in the Church 2. If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition how came the (c) See Voss Hist Pelag. lib. 2. p. 2. Id. de Baptis Disp 13. Thes 18. and Disp 14. â—hes 4. Cassand Praef. ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. and Teâ—â—im vet de Bapt. parv p. 687. Pelagians not to reject it for an innovation when the Orthodox us'd it as an argument against them that Infants were guilty of Original sin But they were so far from doing this that they practis'd it themselves and own'd it as necessary for Childrens obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven tho' they deny'd that they were Baptiz'd for the remission of Original sin 3. If Infant-baptism be not an Apostolical Tradition how came all Churches (d) See Brerewood's Enquir c. 20.23 Cassand Expos de Auctor Consult Bapt Inf. p. 692. Osor l. 3. de Rebus gest Eman. cit a Voss Disp 14. de Bapt. whatsoever tho' they held no correspondence but were original plantations of the Apostles to practise it One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into the harmless practice of Infant-Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Lord's Supper as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God shou'd let them all not preserving one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a practice which destroys the being of the Church is a thousand times more incredible than that the Apostles without a prohibition from Christ to the contrary shou'd Baptize Infants according to the practice of the Jewish Church 4. Wou'd not the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision have been much more offended if the Apostles had excluded their Children from Baptism as the Children of Unbelievers and refus'd to Initiate them under the New Testament as they had alwaies been under the Old Wherefore since among their many complaints upon the alteration of the Jewish Customs we never read that they complain'd of their Childrens being excluded from Baptism we may better argue that the Apostles Baptiz'd their Children than we may conclude from the want of an express example of Infant-Baptism that they did not Baptize them III. I am to prove that 't is unlawful to separate from a Church which appoints Infant-Baptism Now it appears from what I have already said that Infant-Baptism is a lawful thing and therefore 't is a sin to separate from that Church which commands it because the Church has authority to Ordain that which may be done without sin But farther Infant-Baptism is not only lawful but highly requisite also For purgation by Water and the Spirit seem equally necessary because Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 And 't is reasonable to think that Children are capable of entring into Covenant because they are declar'd capable of the Kingdom of God Mark 10.14 Nay we may justly conclude that Children were Baptiz'd upon the Conversion of their Parents after the Custom of the Jewish Church because the Apostles Baptiz'd whole housholds Acts 16.15 33. 1 Cor. 1.16 For 't is probable that the federal holiness of Believers Children makes them candidates for Baptism and gives them a right to it because the Children of Believers are call'd Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 To which I may add other Texts Psal 5.5 Rom. 3.23 24. Joh. 3.5 6. 2 Cor. 15.21 22. and 5.14 15. which have been alledg'd by the ancients both before and after the Pelagian Controversy to prove the Baptism of Infants necessary to wash away their original sin which makes them obnoxious to eternal death See Voss Hist Pelag. p. 1. Thes 6. p. 2. l. 2. I say it may be fairly concluded from these Texts that Infant-Baptism is requisite but then these Texts in conjunction with the practice of the ancient Church do demonstrate that 't is requisite because the Church in the next Age to the Apostles practis'd Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical tradition and by consequence as an institution of Christ I do not say that Baptism is indispensably necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptiz'd thro' the carelesness or superstition of the Parents or thro' their mistaken belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism is infallibly damn'd but I affirm that Infant-Baptism is in any wise to be retain'd in the Church as being most agreeable to the Scripture and the Apostolical practice and the institution of Christ And if Baptism be not only lawful but so highly requisite as it appears to be then certainly 't is unlawful to separate from that Church which injoins it IV. In the next place I shall shew that 't is the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children to Baptism and in doing this I must proceed as I did in the foregoing particular Since Infants are not uncapable of Baptism nor excluded from it by Christ nay since there are good reasons to presume that Christ at least allow'd them Baptism as well as grown persons therefore the command of the Church makes it the People's duty to bring their Children to Baptism because 't is lawful so to do But farther Infant-Baptism is highly expedient also For 1. it is very beneficial to the Infants who are thereby solemnly consecrated to God and made members of Christ's Mystical Body the Church Besides they being by Nature Children of Wrath are by Baptism made the Children
sort of stipulation which at years of understanding they were bound to own because if they renounc'd it the Covenant was as void as if it had never been made And therefore an implicite stipulation is sufficient for the Baptism of Infants and St. Peter 't is likely had not respect to all Baptism or Baptism in general but only to the Baptism of adult Proselytes whom the Minister us'd to interrogate at the time of Baptism much after the same manner as we interrogate adult Proselytes now But it is plain that Tertullian (f) De Baptism cap. 18. makes mention of Sponsors or Sureties for Children at Baptism and 't is very probable that the Apostles made Parents c. stipulate in the name of their (g) See Selden de Synedr lib. 1. cap. 3. Minors when they Baptiz'd them as the Jews were wont to do and t is certain that our Saviour speaks of Children that Believe in him Matth. 18.6 And therefore St. Peter might also probably allude to all Baptism because Children might be Answer'd for by other Persons Thus I hope I have sufficiently justify'd the practice of Infant-Baptism and shewn that it is by no means a sufficient excuse for separation from us CHAP. VI. Objections against our Form of Baptism and particularly that of the sign of the Cross Answer'd I Proceed now to consider the Objections against our Form of Baptism I. It is said that all Baptiz'd Infants are suppos'd to be regenerated of which some think we cannot be certain But since they are Baptiz'd into Christ's Body 1 Cor. 12.13 and into Christ and have put on Christ Gal. 3.27 and consequently are new Creatures 2 Cor. 5.17 since I say they are Baptiz'd for the Remission of sins Acts 2.38 and since Baptism is call'd the Washing of regeneration Tit. 3.5 therefore the Scripture as well as our Church supposes them to be regenerated unless the Ordinances and Promises of God are of none effect towards them II. 'T is objected that Godfathers and Godmothers have no Authority to Covenant or act in their names To which I answer 1. That the Sureties are procur'd by the Parents and therefore since 't is granted that the Parents may act in behalf of the Infant the Sureties have all that Authority which the Parents can give them 2. The Church do's hereby take great security that the Infant shall be religiously brought up inasmuch as besides their Parents an obligation is laid upon others also to take care of it If the Parents shou'd die or be negligent the Sureties are engaged to admonish the Child and have greater authority and better advantages of doing so than other Persons And in this Age when the Duty of Christian reproof is so generally omitted 't were well if the defect were this way a little supply'd but 't is by no means fit that the opportunity thereof and obligation thereto shou'd be taken away If it be said this is seldom practis'd I answer that the goodness of a Rule is to be judg'd of by the good that is done where 't is kept and not where 't is broken And if the Dissenters have nothing to say but that 't is neglected they may remove this objection themselves by returning to the Church and increasing the number of those that observe it Thus they shall have the benefit of the order of the Church and the Church the benefit of their Examples As for the Interrogatories put to the Sureties and their Answers they are a Solemn Declaration of what Baptism obliges us to and that Infants do stand engag'd to perform it when they come to Age. This is the known meaning of the Contract and therefore I see not why it shou'd be said to be liable to misunderstanding III. But that which is most dislik'd is the Cross in Baptism against which 't is objected 1. That the sign of the Cross has been so notoriously abus'd by the Papists that our retaining of it makes us partakers of their Superstitions and Idolatry 2. That it seems a new Sacrament and therefore is an invasion of Christ's right who alone may institute Sacraments As to the First pretence tho' I readily acknowledge that the Cross has been notoriously abus'd by the Papists yet this do's not prove our retaining of it to be unlawful if we consider Three things 1. That the use of this sign was common in the primitive times and is more Ancient than any of those Corruptions for which we differ from the Papists Tertullian (a) De Coron Mil. speaks of it as of a practice which Tradition had introduc'd Custom had confirm'd and the Believers faith had observ'd and maintain'd which words together with his frequent and familiar mention of it make it very improbable that he receiv'd it from the Montanists Fourty years after him and about 200 after Christ Origen (b) Hom. 2. in Psal 38. mentions those who at their Baptism were sign'd with this sign and about 100 years after St. Basil (c) De Spir. S. c. 27. gives this usage the Venerable Title of an Ecclesiastical constitution or fixt Law of the Church that had prevail'd from the Apostles daies that those who believe in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ should be sign'd with the sign of the Cross But of all the Fathers St. Cyprian who was before St. Basil and very near if not contemporary with Tertullian himself not only speaks very familiarly of the use of this sign but has some expressions that wou'd now seem very harsh and unwarrantable and yet the authority of this Father has sav'd him from being question'd about it He (d) See Cyprian De Laps p. 169. adv Demet. p. 203. de Unit. p. 175. tells us that they are sign'd in the forehead with the Cross who are thought worthy of the Lord that Baptism is sanctify'd by the Cross and that it compleats every Sacrament The great the antiquity of this usage is manifest nay the Fathers frequently use being sign'd in the forehead for being Baptiz'd I shall not instance in St. Cyril St. Ambrose and St. Austin who sprinkle their writings with the common mention of this Ceremony and oftentimes frame arguments for a good Life from this very sign upon their foreheads Only I shall add this remark that the first Christian Emperour Constantine the Great had his directions probably from Heaven it self to make this sign the great Banner in his Wars with this encouragement that by this he shou'd overcome That this Dream or Vision was from Heaven and a thing of great reality is evident from the success of that Prince's Army under it and we cannot suppose that our Blessed Lord wou'd by so immediate a revelation countenance such a Rite as this already us'd in the Church if he had resented it before as superstitious or any way unwarrantable I may add that we ought not to be too petulant against that which the Holy Spirit has sometimes signaliz'd by very renown'd Miracles as
both in Opinion and Practice touching the Gesture to be us'd at the Lord's Supper Is it to be imagin'd that an Assembly of Learned and Pious Divines met together on purpose to consult how to reform their Churches according to the pure Word of God shou'd thro' weakness and inadvertency overlook an express Command of Christ for the perpetual use of any particular Gesture if any such there had been Or shall we be so uncharitable as to think that all these eminent Churches wilfully past it by and establish'd what was most agreeable to their own fancies contrary to the known Will of God Wou'd they have given liberty to all of their Communion to use several Gestures according to the Custom of their several Churches if our Lord had tied them to observe but one Wou'd they declare as the Dutch Synod doth that what they injoin'd might be alter'd if the good of the Church so requir'd if so be Sitting had been expresly Commanded by our Lord to be us'd by all Christians to the end of the World No undoubtedly they wou'd not we cannot either in Reason or Charity suppose it The true Principle upon which all these Reform'd Churches built and by which they are able to reconcile all this seeming difference in this matter is the very same with that which the Church of England go's by in her Synods and Convocations viz. (d) Vid. Art 34. observat of the French and Dutch Divines on the Harmony of Confessions Edit Geneva 1681. Sect. 14. p. 120. In hoc etiam ritu speaking of Kneeling at the Sacrament suam cuique Ecclesiae libertatem salvam reliquendam arbitramur That as to Rites and Ceremonies of an indifferent nature every National Church has Authority to institute change and abolish them as they in Prudence and Charity shall think most fit and conducive to the setting forth God's Glory the Edification of their People and the Decent and Reverend Administation of the Holy Sacrament Whosoever therefore refuses to receive the Lord's Supper according to the Constitution of the Church of England purely because Kneeling is contrary to the express Command of Christ must condemn the Judgment and Practice of all the Reform'd Churches beyond the Seas who all agree in this That the Gesture in the Act of Receiving is to be reckon'd among things Indifferent and that whether we sit or kneel or stand or Receive walking we transgress no Law of God and consequently they prove my Assertion true That Kneeling is no more contrary to any express Command than any other Gesture because they allow of all as lawful in themselves to be us'd which cannot consist with an express Command for the use of any one Gesture whatsoever Upon the whole matter I think we may certainly conclude that there is not a tittle of a Command in the whole New Testament to oblige us to receive the Lord's Supper in any particular posture and if any be so scrupulous as not to receive it in any other Gesture but what is expresly commanded they must never receive it as long as they live Secondly I shall prove that Kneeling is not a deviation from Christ's example This will appear if we consider 1. that 't is doubtful what Gesture our Saviour us'd at the Institution of the Sacrament For the Scripture do's not inform us what it was and the Jews us'd variety of Gestures at the Passover and therefore since our Lord's Example cannot certainly be known in this Matter our Church cannot be charg'd with deviation from it 2. Those who Kneel at the Sacrament in compliance with the Orders of the Church do manifestly follow the Example of Christ For our Saviour comply'd with that Passover-gesture which the Jews then us'd tho' it was not the same that was us'd at the Institution in Egypt and his compliance may teach us not to be scrupulous about Gestures but to conform to the innocent and prevailing customs of the Church wheresoever we live And if Christians did walk according to this rule they wou'd greatly promote the peace and welfare of the Church of Christ and in so doing procure quiet and peace to themselves with unspeakable comfort and satisfaction But supposing our Lord did sit as the Dissenters will have it yet his bare example do's not oblige all Christians to a like practice 1. Because naked examples without some rule or note added to them to signify that 't is God's Will to have them constantly follow'd have not the force of Laws perpetually obliging the Conscience And therefore in this case because no such note is to be found we are not tied in Conscience to a strict imitation of Christ's Example Thus the Example of our Saviour do's not oblige us to defer our Baptism till the Age of 30 years or not to receive the Sacrament till a little before death and I pray what reason is there to follow his Example in sitting at the Sacrament any more than in those particulars 2. We are bound to imitate Christ in those things only which he has commanded but where there is no command there is no necessity Indeed we must follow Christ and his Apostles but in what Why in acting according to the Gospel-rule An example may help to interpret a Law but of it self it is no Law Against a rule no example is a competent warrant and if the example be according to the rule 't is not the Example but the Rule that is the Measure of our actions 3. The bare Example of Christ is no warrant for us to go by because he was an Extaordinary Person and did many things which we cannot and many which we must not do He Fasted 40 Daies and 40 Nights wrought Miracles c. which we are not to pretend to They say indeed We are bound to imitate Christ and the commendable Example of his Apostles in all things wherein it is not evident they had special Reasons moving them thereunto which do not concern us But I wou'd willingly be inform'd how we shall be ever able to know when they acted upon special Reasons and what they were that we may know our Duty if a bare Example without any Rule obliges us And if we guide our selves by Scripture or Reason in this matter then they are the measures of the Example Besides if we are not to imitate them in such things as they were mov'd to do upon special Reasons which did not concern us then we are obliged to imitate their Examples in such things as they did upon general and common Reasons which concern us as well as them or we are not oblig'd at all by any Example and if so then those Reasons are to be our Rule to which we are to reduce their Examples Unless we find some general or common Reason we have no Warrant according to their own Principle to follow their Examples and when such Reasons do appear then it 's not the Example alone that obliges us but Reason that approves the Example
Son of God will strike a Man almost naturally into the humblest posture of Adoration But if any reverence be due at such a time I am sure Sitting is a very unfit posture to express it In a word whatsoever Gesture best answers the Principal ends of this Holy Feast do's best sute it 's nature and ought to be best esteem'd of if we will be guided by the nature of the thing and that Kneeling do's best answer the Nature and Ends of the Lord's Supper I think I have fully prov'd I shall crave Leave to observe in the last place that the Primitive Church had no such Notion of the necessity of a Table-gesture as the Dissenters maintain There is not the least mention made of the name Table in any of their Writings for the space of 200 years after Christ For they call the Place on which the Consecrated Elements stood the Altar and the Eucharist they call an Oblation and a Sacrifice and what connexion I Pray is there between an Altar or a Sacrifice and a Table-gesture The Dissenters indeed (f) Dispute against Kneeling arg 1. p. 6. â—6 c. say that Kneeling or an Adoring-gesture is against the dignity of Guests and debars us the Privileges and Prerogatives of the Lord's Table such as social admittance and social entertainment that it is against the purpose of Christ whose intention was to dignify us by setting us at his Table and much more of this nature but 't is plain that the Fathers thought otherwise as the Phrases they use and the Titles they give the Sacrament plainly demonstrate They call it as St. Paul doth the Lord's Supper the Kingly Royal and most Divine Supper which import Deference Distance and Respect on our parts the Dreadful Sacrifice the Venerable and Vnbloody Sacrifice the Wonderful and Terrible Mysteries the Royal Spiritual Holy Formidable Tremendous Table The Bread and Wine after Consecration are in their Language call'd the most Mysterious most Holy Food and Nutriment the most Holy things and the place where the Table stood the most Holy part of the Temple in allusion to that of the Jewish Temple to which the Jews paid the highest Reverence The Bread in particular they styl'd the Bread of God the Cup the Holy and Mysterious the Royal and Dreadful Cup. They advise the Communicants to Reverence these Holy Mysteries to come with Fear and Trembling with Sorrow and Shame with silence and down-cast Eyes to keep their Joy within and to approach the Table with all the Signs and Expressions of Reverence and Humility imaginable How can these Speeches consist with that Social Familiar carriage at the Sacrament which the Patrons of the Table-gesture contend for as the Privilege of Guests and the Prerogative of the Lord's Table Fourthly I am to shew that Kneeling at the Lord's Supper is not contrary to the general Practice of the Church in the first Ages This I shall do by proving 1. That it 's highly probable that the Primitive Church us'd to Kneel in the act of receiving the Holy Sacrament as our custom at present is 2. That it 's most certain they us'd an Adoring Posture First then it 's highly probable that the Primitive Church us'd to Kneel in the act of receiving the Holy Sacrament I have already shewn that the Scripture do's not inform us what Gesture was us'd at the Institution of the Lord's Supper and I desire those who contend for a common Table-gesture and particularly Sitting to observe that the Primitive Church thought sitting to be a very irreverent Posture in the Service of God The Laodicean Synod finding great inconveniences to arise from the Love-Feasts which were kept at the same time with the Lord's Supper forbad the said Feasts and the lying upon Couches in the Church as their manner was at those Feasts The same Practice was forbidden by the Council of Carthage c. 28. and the Decree was Ratify'd by the sixth Trullian Council c. 74. and that under the pain of Excommunication Now the Reasons upon which 't was forbidden were in all probability taken from the disorder and irreverence the animosities and excess that accompany'd those Feasts Justin Martyr who liv'd in the Second Century saies We rise up together and send up our Prayers Apol. 2. from whence 't is clear that they did not Sit but in most other places they were not permitted to sit at all not so much as at the Lessons or in Sermon-time as appears plainly from what Philostorgius (g) Hist Eccles l. 3. p. 29. observes of Theophilus an Indian Bishop That among several irregularities which he corrected in those Churches he particularly Reform'd this That the People were wont to Sit when the Lessons out of the Gospel were read unto them and Sozomen (h) Hist Eccles l. 7. c. 19. notes it as a very unusual thing in the Bishop of Alexandria that he did not rise up when the Gospels were read Optatus Bishop of Milevis (i) De Schism Donat. l. 4. See also Albaspin not in Optat. cites a passage out of the 50. Psalm and applies it home to Parmenianus the Donatist after this manner Thou sittest and speakest against thy Brother c. in which place God reproves him that sits and defames his Brother and therefore such evil Teachers as you saies he are more particularly pointed at in the Text For the People are not Licens'd to sit in the Church Now if it had not been the general Custom to stand the whole time of Divine Service and particularly at the Lessons and Sermons Parmenianus might easily have retorted this Argument upon Optatus as concluding nothing against him in particular but what might be charg'd in common upon all private Christians who sate in the Church as well as he (k) De Orat. c. 12. Tertullian reproves it as an ill custom that some were wont to sit at Prayer and a little further in the same Chapter he has these words Add thereunto the Sin of irreverence which the very Heathen if they did perceive well and understand what we did wou'd take notice of For if it be irreverent to sit in the presence of and to confront one whom you have a high respect and veneration for how much more irreligious is this gesture in the sight of the living God the Angel of Prayer yet standing by Vnless we think fit to upbraid God that Prayer has tir'd us Eusebius also (l) De Vit. Constant l. 4. commends Constantine because when he was present at a long Panegyric concerning Christ's Sepulchre and was sollicited to sit down he refus'd to do so saying it was unfit to attend upon any Discourse concerning God with ease and softness and that it was very consonant to Piety and Religion that Discourses about Divine things shou'd be heard standing Thus much may suffice for satisfaction that the ancient Church did by no means approve of Sitting or a common Table-gesture as fitting to be us'd in Divine Service except at
the Reading of the Lessons and hearing of the Sermon which too was only practis'd in some places for in others the People were not allow'd to sit at all in their Religious Assemblies Which Custom is still observ'd in most if not all the Eastern Churches at this day wherein there are no Seats erected or allow'd for the use of the People Now if the Apostles had Taught and Establish'd Sitting not only as convenient but as necessary to be us'd in order to worthy receiving the Lord's Supper 't is most strange and unaccountable 1. That there shou'd be such an early and universal revolt of the Primitive Church from the Doctrine and Constitutions of the Apostles 2. That so many Churches in distant Countries being perfectly Free and Independent one upon another shou'd unanimously conspire together to introduce a novel-custom contrary to the Apostolical Practice and Order and not only so but that 3. They shou'd censure the practice and injunctions of inspir'd Men as indecent and unfit to be follow'd and observ'd in the public Worship of God and all this without any Person 's taking notice or complaining or opposing either then or in the succeeding generations As for Standing in the time of Divine Service both at Prayers and at the Sacrament 't is so evident that the ancient Church did use it that I shall not endeavour to prove it and as for Kneeling 't is plain the Primitive Christians us'd that gesture also For tho' on Sundays and the Fifty daies between Easter and Whitsunday they observ'd Standing yet at other times they us'd the gesture of Kneeling at their public Devotions as appears from the authorities cited at the (m) Conc. 1. Nic. c. 20. Resp Quest inter Opera Just Mart. p. 468. Tertull. de Coron Mil. c. 3. Epiphan Expos fid Cath. p. 1105. Edit Par. St. Jer. Prol. com in Epist ad Eph. St. Aust Epist 119. ad Jan. c. 15. Tertull. de Orat. c. 3. bottom Now since they were wont in the first Ages of Christianity to receive the Holy Sacrament every day and since (n) See Tertull. Apol. c. 39. p. 47. St. Aust Epist 118. Const Apol. l. 2. c. 57. St. Chrysost Hom. 1. in c. 2. Ep. 1. ad Tim. St. Ambros de Sacram. l. 4. c. 5. Cave's Prim. Christ c. 11. St. Cyril Catech. Myst 5. St. Aust Resp ad Oros Quest 49. Tom. 4. p. 691. Basil 1541. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 35. it was deliver'd and receiv'd with a Form of Prayer and that on those daies when they constantly Pray'd Kneeling and since it is probable that when they receiv'd the Sacrament they did not alter the Praying-posture of the day therefore I conclude that they receiv'd the Sacrament Kneeling upon those daies on which they Pray'd Kneeling For since Sitting was generally condemn'd as an indecent and irreverent gesture by the Primitive Church and since no Man in his Wits will say that Prostration or lying flat upon the ground was ever us'd in the act of receiving or ever fit to be so therefore the posture of receiving must be either standing or kneeling And from hence I gather that on their common and ordinary daies when there was no peculiar reason to invite or oblige them to Stand at the Sacrament in all likelihood they us'd Kneeling that is the ordinary posture They us'd one and the same posture viz. Standing both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament on the Lord's day and for Fifty daies after Easter contrary to what was usual at other times and why then shou'd any Man think they did not observe one and the same posture at all other times viz. that as at such times they did constantly Kneel at their Prayers so they did also constantly Kneel at the Sacrament which was given and receiv'd in a Prayer From the strength of these Premises I may promise my self thus much success that whosoever shall carefully weigh and peruse them with a teachable and unprejudiced mind shall find himself much more inclin'd to believe the Primitive Church us'd at some times to Kneel as we do at the Holy Communion than that they never did Kneel at all or that such a posture was never us'd or heard of but excluded from their Congregations as some great Advocates for Sitting have confidently proclaim'd it to the World But Secondly Suppose they never did Kneel as we do yet this is most certain that they receiv'd the Lord's Supper in an adoring posture which is the same thing and will sufficiently justify the present Practice of our Church as being agreeable to that of pure Antiquity For the proof of this numerous Testimonies both of Greek and Latin Fathers might be alledg'd but I will content my self and I hope the Reader too with a few of each sort which are so plain and express that he who will except against them will also with the same face and assurance except against the Whiteness of Snow and the Light of the Sun at Noon-day And first for the Greek Fathers let the Testimony of (o) St. Cyril Hierosol Mystag Catech. 5. versus finem Paris Edit p. 244. St. Cyril be heard than which nothing can be more plain and express to our purpose This holy Father in a place before cited gives Instructions to Communicants how to behave themselves when they approach the Lord's Table and that in the act of receiving both the Bread and the Wine At the receiving of the Cup he advises thus Approach saies he not rudely stretching forth thy hands but bowing thy self and in a posture of Worship and Adoration saying Amen To the same purpose (p) 24 Hom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 538. To. 9. Paris St. Chrysostom speaks in his Fourteenth Homily on the First Epistle to the Corinthians where he provokes and excites the Christians of his time to an awful and reverential deportment at the Holy Communion by the Example of the Wise Men who ador'd our Saviour in his Infancy after this manner This Body the Wise Men reverene'd even when it lay in the Manger and approaching thereunto worshipp'd it with fear and great trembling Let us therefore who are Citizens of Heaven imitate at least these Barbarians But thou seest this Body not in a Manger but on the Altar not held by a Woman but by the Priest c. Let us therefore stir up our selves and be horribly afraid and manifest a much greater Reverence than those Barbarians lest coming lightly and at a venture we heap fire on our Heads The same Father in another place expresly bids them to fall down and Communicate when the Table is made ready and the King himself there and in order to beget in their Minds great and awful Thoughts concerning that Holy and Mysterious Feast he further exhorts them (p) St. Chrys Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes in moral p. 1151. That when they saw the Chancel doors open then they shou'd suppose Heaven it self was unfolded from above and that the Angels
also to kneel before any Creature as a memorative object of God tho' there be no intention of giving Divine Adoration to that Creature is Idolatry Now if the Primitive Christians may be suppos'd to prostrate themselves before the Altar upon their first approach to it in order to Receive or immediately after they had Receiv'd the Bread and the Cup from the Hand of the Minister or if they bow'd their Heads and Bodies after a lowly manner in the act of Receiving or if they receiv'd it standing upright and ate and drank at the Holy Table with their Hands and Eyes lifted up to Heaven then they incurr'd the Guilt of Idolatry as well as we who Kneel at the Lords supper in the Judgment of those Scotch Casuists and by Consequence Kneeling at the Blessed Sacrament according to the Custom of our Church is not contrary to the practice of the Christian Church in the first and purest Ages For all those Postures before mention'd were Postures of Worship and Adoration and us'd as such by the Primitive Christians especially standing which is allow'd by the (w) Gillesp Disp against E. Po. Câ—r p. 101. Disp of Kneel p. 93. Patrons of sitting to be anciently and generally us'd in time of Divine Worship and particularly in the act of Receiving To conclude all with an Instance in their own Case about a common Table-Gesture let us suppose the Primitive Christians in some places did receive the Holy Sacrament sitting or lying along upon Beds according to the ancient Custom in those Eastern Countries at their common and ordinary Tables let us put the case that in other places they sate cross-legg'd on Carpets at the Sacrament as the Persians and Turks eat at this day or that they receiv'd standing in other places after the common mode of Feasting which we will suppose only at present Cou'd any Man now object with reason against the lawfulness of sitting upright at the Sacrament upon a Form or Chair according to the Custom of England as being contrary to the Practice of all the Ancients who never sate at all No certainly For tho' they differ from the Ancients as to the site of their Bodies and the particular manner of Receiving yet they all consent in this that they receive in a common Table-Gesture They all observe the same Gesture at the Sacrament that they constantly observ'd at their Civil Feasts and ordinary Entertainments in the several places of their abode And so say I in the present Case What tho' the Primitive Christians stood upright some of them at the Sacrament and others bow'd their Heads and Bodies in the act of Receiving and none of them ever us'd Kneeling Yet they and we do very well agree for all that because we all receive in an adoring or worshipping Posture It is one and the same thing variously exprest according to the modes of the different Countries Fifthly and lastly I am to Prove that Kneeling is not therefore unlawful because 't was first introduced by Idolaters and is still notoriously abus'd by the Papists to Idolatrous ends and purposes This will appear if we consider 1. That it can never be prov'd that Kneeling in the act of receiving was brought in by Idolaters as is pretended 2. That 't is not sinful to use such things as are or have been notoriously abus'd to Idolatry I. Then it can never be prov'd that Kneeling in the act of receiving was brought in by Idolaters I have already made it very probable that the Primitive Christians receiv'd the Sacrament Kneeling and I hope our Dissenters will not charge them with Idolatry I know that they pretend the Kneeling-posture was brought in by Honorius the Third but that which he brought in was a reverent Bow to the Sacrament when the Priest elevates the Patten or Chalice or when the Host is carry'd to any Sick Person and not any Kneeling in the act of receiving For these are the very words of the Decree (x) Decret Greg. l. 3. tit 41. c. 10. That the Priests shou'd frequently instruct their People to Bow themselves reverently at the Elevation of the Host when Mass was celebrated and in like manner when the Priest carry'd it abroad to the Sick Nay as Bishop Stilling fleet (y) Unreasonab of Separat p. 15. saies tho' Kneeling at the Elevation of the Host be strictly requir'd by the Roman Church yet in the act oâ— receiving it is not as manifestly appears by the Pope's manner of receiving which is not Kneeling but either Sitting as it was in Bonaventure 's time or after the fashion oâ— Sitting or a little Leaning upon his Throne as he doth at this day If any shou'd ask when the Gesture of Kneeling came in I confess I cannot certainly tell but this is no Argument against but rather for the ancient and universal use of it Novel-customs are easily traced to their Originals but generally we cannot tell from whence the most ancient usages of any Country are deriv'd However I am so far from thinking as our Dissenters do that Kneeling owes its birth to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that I verily believe that the Kneeling or Adoring posture us'd by the ancient Christians in the act of receiving did very much among other things conduce to beget and nurse up in the minds of superstitious and fanciful Men a conceit that Christ was really and corporally present at the Sacrament which Notion by subtil and inquisitive heads was in a little time improv'd and explain'd after this manner That after the Elements of Bread and Wine were consecrated they were thereby chang'd into the substance of Christ's natural Body and Blood This I am sure of that the Patrons of Transubstantiation did very early make use of this very Argument to prove that they taught and believ'd no more than the Primitive Bishops and Christians did For what else cou'd they intend or mean say they by that extraordinary Reverence and Devotion which they manifested when they receiv'd the dreadful Mysteries as they call'd the Bread and Wine if they were bare and empty Signs only and not chang'd into the very Body and Blood of Christ Which is in effect the very Argument us'd by (z) Alger de Sacramentis l. 2. c. 3. Algerus a stout Champion for Transubstantiation And (a) Costor Enchirid. p. 353. Edit 1590. Costor another Popish Writer is so far from saying even after Transubstantiation took place that the Pope introduced it that he resolves it into an ancient Custom continu'd from the Apostles times But II. Suppose it were otherwise yet 't is not sinful to use such things as are or have been notoriously abus'd to Idolatry as I shall shew in the next Chapter I shall only observe at present that if it be sinful to kneel at the Sacrament because that Gesture has been and is notoriously abus'd by Papists to Idolatrous ends then Sitting is also sinful which is contended for with so much Zeal For the Pope himself fits in
Better Edification amongst the Dissenters and therefore they may lawfully separate from the Church of England But First what Purer Ordinances wou'd Men have than those of our Saviour's own Institution without any corrupt and sinful mixtures to spoil their Vertue and Efficacy The Purity of Divine Administrations must consist in their agreement with the Institution that there is not any such defect or addition as alters their nature and destroys their Vertue but he who thinks that the Sacraments lose their Efficacy unless they be administred in that way which he likes best is guilty of gross Superstition and attributes the Vertue of Sacraments to the manner of their administration not to their Divine Institution Secondly the pretence of better Edification will by no means justify separation For this Edification must be understood either of the whole Church or of particular Christians Now Edification is building up and is apply'd to the whole Church consider'd as God's House and Temple This is the true Scripture Notion of it as appears by many Texts 1 Cor. 3.9 10. and 8.1 and 14.5 12. Eph. 2.21 and 4.12 13 15 16. Matth. 21.42 Acts 4.11 2 Cor. 10.8 12 19. and 13.10 Now it 's an odd way of building up the Temple of God by dividing and separating the parts of it from each other As for the Edification of particular Persons which is also spoken of in Scripture 1 Thess 5.11 it is therefore call'd Edification because it is an improvement of a Man's Spiritual Condition and it is wrought in the Unity of the Church and makes particular Christians one Spiritual House and Temple by a firm close Union and Communion of all the parts of the Church so that every Christian is Edify'd as he grows up in all Christian Graces and Vertues in the Unity of the Church And indeed if our Growth in Grace be more owing to the assistance of God's Spirit than to the external administrations as St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 3.6 7. and if the Spirit confines his influences to the Unity of the Church there being but one Body and one Spirit Eph. 4.4 then it do's not seem a very likely way for Edification to cut our selves off from the Unity of Christ's Body St. Jude v. 19. seems to tell us that true Edification was a stranger to those who separated from the common building but those who kept to the Communion of the Church built up themselves in their most Holy Faith and Pray'd in the Holy Ghost and a Man may with greater assurance expect the Blessing of God if he continue in the Church than if he separate But I shall examine this pretence at large and shew that it is unlawful for any particular Christian to separate from the Church of England because he thinks he can Edify better amongst the Dissenters This I shall prove by Four Arguments 1. Because better Edification cannot be had in separate Meetings than in our Churches as will appear if we consider First how fit our constitution is to Edify Mens Souls Secondly that this constitution is well manag'd for Edification First then That our constitution is fit to Edify Souls will appear if we consider Four things 1. Our Creeds contain all Fundamental Articles of Faith that are necessary to Salvation but we have no nice and obscure matters in them We believe all that the early Christians in the first Three Hundred years thought needful that is all that Christ and his Apostles taught and this Faith will sufficiently and effectually Edify the Souls of Men. 2. The necessity the Church laies upon a good Life and Works The Articles of her Creed when firmly believ'd do plainly tend to make Men good She declares that without preparatory Vertues the most zealous devotion is not pleasing to God and that it is but show unless obedience follow Such a Faith she laies down as Fundamental to Salvation as produces excellent Vertues and determines that without Faith and Good Works no Man shall see God Her Festivals commemorate the Vertues and recommend the Examples of Excellent Men. Her Ceremonies are decent her Prayers are for Holiness her Discipline is to force and her Homilies to persuade Men to that Piety which her whole constitution aims at She tells Sinners plainly that unless they repent they must perish and saies that plain Vertues are the Ornament and Soul of our Faith And certainly the Civil Interest of a Nation is Edify'd by such a Church as teaches Men to perform the duties of their several relations so exactly 3. She is fitly constituted to excite true Devotion because she gives us true Notions of God and our selves by describing his attributes and our wants Her Prayers are grave and of a due length and she has proper Prayers for most particular occasions She has Offices to quicken our affections and confirm our obedience The Offices of the Lord's Supper Baptism and Burial are extremely good in their kind Bring but an honest mind and good affections to all these parts of Devotion and they will make the Church a Choire of Angels 4. Her Order and Discipline are such that she makes Religion neither slovenly nor too gay Wise and good Men have judg'd all her Ceremonies to be decent and useful and they are of great Antiquity and fit to make our Services comely And truly whilst we have Bodies these outward helps are very convenient if not necessary Her Goverment is so well temper'd that her Members may not be dissolute nor her Rulers insolent And if all Vices are not chastiz'd the reason is because unnecessary divisions have stopp'd her Discipline upon offenders Her Goverment is Apostolical Primitive and Universal None of her parts or Offices give just cause for any to revolt from her but considering all things she is the best constituted Church in the World If therefore (a) Heb. 6.1 2 Pet. 3.18 Rom. 15.2 1 Cor. 14.3 Edification be going on to perfection or growing in grace if it is doing good to the Souls of Men if it be to make plain the great things in Religion to the understandings of Men then it is to be found in this Church Secondly that our Constitution is well manag'd for Edification will appear if we consider 1. That Pastors are not left to their Liberty but strictly commanded under great temporal Penalties to direct their Flocks to preserve Faith and a good Conscience with substantial Devotion which will to the purpose Edify Mens Souls and effectually save them 2. That these commands are obey'd by our Pastors For this we appeal to good and wise Men in our Communion who have honesty and judgment enough to confess that they have found it true and to say that they are prejudiced and want sincerity and knowledge to pass a judgment is uncharitable Our Protestant Neighbours have commended our Goverment condemn'd the Separation Magnify'd our Pastors and wish'd they were under such a Discipline and Translated many of our Mens Works to Edify their People Dissenters
which he may judge of what sort the action is This Measure is the Rule of Conscience and Conscience is no farther safe than as it follows that Rule Now this Measure or Rule of Conscience can be nothing else but the Law of God because nothing can be a Duty or Sin but what is commanded or forbidden by God's Law and that thing only is indifferent which his Law neither commands nor forbids Now by the Law of God which is the Rule of Conscience I mean God's Will for the Goverment of Men's actions whether declar'd by Nature or Revelation By the Law of Nature I mean those Principles of Good and Evil just and unjust which God has written in our minds and which every Man is naturally convinced of Some things are eternally Good as to Worship God c. and we know them to be our Duty others are eternally Evil and we know them to be Sins by the light of Reason and the Apostle saies the Gentiles had this Law written in their hearts But Christians have the Law of Revelation too contain'd in the Scriptures by which God do's not make void the Law of Nature but declare it's Precepts more certainly and accurately with greater strength and greater rewards and punishments than before By this also he has perfected the Law of Nature and obliged us to higher instances of Vertue and added some positive Laws as for instance to believe in Christ to pray to God in Christ's Name to be Baptiz'd and partake of the Lord's Supper Thus then the Natural and Reveal'd Law of God is the great Rule of Conscience Only we must remember that by the Law of Nature is to be understood not only the chief and general heads of it but also the necessary deductions from these heads and by the Reveal'd Law is to be understood not only express Commands and Prohibitions but also the necessary consequences of those commands and prohibitions So that whatever is by direct inference or parity of reason commanded or forbidden is a Duty or a Sin tho' it be not commanded or forbidden in the Letter of the Law And if it be neither commanded nor forbidden by the Letter of the Law nor yet by inference or parity of reason the thing is indifferent and we may do it or let it alone with a safe Conscience III. In the third place I must consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience for in a secondary sence they are a part of the Rule of Conscience by vertue of and in subordination to the Laws of God This I shall explain in four propositions First It is most certain that God's Law Commands us to obey the Laws of Men. For all Society is founded in this Principal Law of Nature that we must obey our Governours in all honest and just things Otherwise no State City or Family can subsist happily And 't is most evident that God Commands us in Scripture to Obey them that have the Rule over us and to be Subject not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake So that a Man is bound in duty to obey Human Laws and consequently they are a part of the Rule of Conscience Secondly Human Laws do not bind the Conscience by any Vertue in themselves but merely by Vertue of God's Law who has commanded us both by Nature and Scripture to obey our Superiours Conscience is our judgment of our actions according to God's Law and has no Superiour but God alone but yet we are bound in Conscience to obey Men because therein we obey God Thirdly Human Laws do no farther bind the Conscience than as they are agreeable to the Laws of God so that when Men command any thing sinful we must not obey For God has not given any Man power to alter his Laws or impose any thing inconsistent with them Fourthly Tho' Human Laws generally speaking bind the Conscience yet I do not say that every Human Law tho' consistent with God's Law do's at all times and in all cases oblige every Man's Conscience to active obedience to it so as that he sins against God if he transgress it For then who could be innocent But First where the Public or some private Person shall suffer damage or inconvenience by our not observing the Law or Secondly where the Manner of our not obeying it argues contempt of Authority or sets an ill example there the transgression of a Human Law is sinful and not in other cases So that there are many cases in which a Man may transgress a purely Human Law and yet not be a sinner before God provided I say there be no contempt of Authority or ill example in it for either of these makes it a sin For this I insist upon that God's Law and the public good require that Authority be held sacred and therefore when Governours insist upon a thing tho' it be trifling or inconvenient yet we must not even seem to contest the matter with them provided it be not sinful For to affront their Authority or to encourage others by our example to do it is a greater evil to the public than our obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. I shall now consider the power of Human Laws to oblige the Conscience in the instance of Church-Communion And here I affirm That every Man is bound in Conscience to join with the Church establish'd by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholic Church and nothing sinful is requir'd as a condition of Communion with it For I have already shewn that Men are bound to obey Human Laws that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore they must obey in Church-Matters unless it can be shew'd that God has forbidden Men to make Laws about Religion which can never be done But farther I earnestly desire it may be well consider'd by Dissenters that we are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in us lies the Unity of the Church which consists not only in professing the same faith but joining together in the same worship And therefore whoever breaks this Unity doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ and is guilty of Schism which is so much caution'd against and so highly condemn'd in Scripture Those therefore who think they are no more bound to come to Church than to obey any common Act of Parliament are greatly mistaken because they break not only the Law of Man but the Law of God For tho' all the circumstances of Worship are Human Institutions yet the Public Worship it self under Public Lawful Governours is of Divine appointment and no Man can renounce it without sinning against Christ as well as Human Laws A Divine Law cloath'd with circumstances of Man's appointment creates another kind of obligation than a Law that commands a thing perfectly indifferent In the former case we must obey because 't is
in Prayer Acts 2.42 5. Church-Membership is in order to the Edification and Salvation of Mens Souls and this cannot be attain'd without being admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Church-Communion For it is of mighty advantage to us to hear God's Word duely Preach'd to have our prayers join'd with those of other Christians and our grace strengthen'd in the Holy Communion and these things cannot be had but in Church-Communion Nay our improvement in holiness is more to be ascrib'd to the operations of the Spirit than to the External Administrations and therefore (d) Acts 2.47 Eph. 5.23 and 4.4 since God Promises his Spirit to Believers only as they are Members of of his Church and no otherwise than by the use and Ministry of his Word and Sacraments since his ordinary method of saving Men is by adding them to the Church since Chriâ—â— suffer'd for us as incorporated into a Church and the operations of the Spirit are confin'd to the Church we see the necessity of holding actual communion with the Church in order to sanctification and saâ—vation But it may â—e said that those who have only the Form and not the power of Godliness are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ and eat and drink their own damnation when they receive the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.27 29. and such men cannot have a right to that in doing which they sin so heinousâ—y Now to this I answer 1. that in a strict sense the very best men are unworthy receivers but 2. those Members that we have asserted to have a right to the External privileges of Christ's Church are not guilty of that unworthiness which the Apostle speaks of For we do not plead for the right of such open and scandalous sinners whom St. Paul charges with Schism and Divisions pride and contempt of their Brethren sensuality and drunkenness Such swine as these ought not indeed to come to the Holy Table of our Lord because they have forfeited their right to it and ought by the censures of the Church to be excluded If it be said that those receivers who are destitute of saving grace tho' they are free from scandalous sins are yet in an unconveâ—ted condition and that this Sacrament is not a converting but confirming Ordinance I answer that taking conversion for turning Men to the profession of Christianity ' tâ—s true that none but converted or Baptiz'd Persons must receive the Sacrament but if we take conversion for turning those who are already Baptiz'd to a serious practice of holiness then this is a converting ordinance For what more powerful motives to holiness can be found than what the Sacrament represents to us wherein the great love of God in Christ and our Saviour's sufferings and God's hatred of sin and the dismal consequences of it are so lively set forth Thirdly I proceed to shew that some corrupt Members remaining in the Church is no just cause of Separation from her And 1. From the Example of the Jews What sins cou'd be greater than those of Eli's Sons who arriv'd to such impudence in sinning that they lay with the Women before the door of the Tabernacle Yet did not Elkanah and Hannah refrain to come up to Shilo and to join with them in public worship Nay they are said to transgress who refus'd to come tho' they refus'd out of abhorrence of the Wickedness of those Men 1 Sam. 2.17 24. In Ahab's time when almost all Israel were Idolaters and halted betwixt God and Baal yet then did the Prophet Elijah Summon all Israel to appear on Mount Carmel and hold a Religious Communion with them in Preaching and Praying and offering a miraculous Sacrifice Neither did the Seven Thousand that had kept themselves upright and not bow'd their Knee to Baal absent themselves because of the Idolatry of the rest but they all came and join'd in that public Worship perform'd by the Prophet 1 Kings 18.39 and 19.18 In the Old Testament when both Prince and Priests and People were very much deprav'd and debauch'd in their Manners we do not find that the Prophets at any time exhorted the faithful and sincere to separate or that they themselves set up any separate Meetings but continu'd in Communion with the Church Preaching to them and exhorting them to Repentance 2. From the Example of Christians Many Members of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia and the 7 Churches in Asia were grown very scandalous yet we do not read that good Men Separated from the Church or that the Apostles commanded them so to do 3. From our Saviour's own Example who did not separate from the Jewish Church tho' the Scribes and Pharisees who rul'd in Ecclesiastical Matters at that time had perverted the Law corrupted the Worship of God were blind guides and hypocrites devoured widows houses and had only a form of Godliness Matth. 15.6 7 8. How careful was he both by his Example and Precept to forbid and discountenance a separation upon that account They sit in Moses 's Seat saies he all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do Matth. 23.2 3. 4. From the Apostle's express command to hold Communion with the Church of Corinth notwithstanding the many and great immoralities that were amongst the Members of it (e) 1 Cor. 1.12 13. and 3.3 and 5.1 and 11.18 There were Schisms and Contentions amongst them strife and envyings fornication and incest eating at the Idols Table and coming not so soberly as became them to the Table of our Lord yet do's the Apostle not only not command them to separate but approve their meeting together and exhort them to continue it But (f) 1 Cor. 11.28 let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. In these words the Apostle plainly solves the Case I am discoursing on and shews what private Christians in whose power it is not judicially to correct Vice are to do when they see so many vicious Members intruding to the blessed Sacrament viz. not to abstain from it but by preparation and examination of themselves to take care that they be not of their number If to separate had been the way the Apostle wou'd then have manag'd his Discourse after this manner There are many Schisms and strises in the Church there is an incestuous Person not cast out many proud contemners of their Brethren Men of strange Opinions of untam'd Appetites and unbridl'd Passions and therefore I advise you not to come amongst them nor to partake of the Holy Sacrament with them lest you be infected with their Sores and partake of their Judgments But by advising Men to examine themselves and then to come he plainly intimates that 't was their Duty to continue in the Communion of the Church notwithstanding these as if he had said I do not mention the foul Enormities of some that come to this holy Table to discourage you from coming lest you shou'd be polluted by their