together Then Seven more Saints Then all the Bishops and Confessors together Then all the Holy Doctors Then Five more of their own great Saints by Name Then all the Holy Priests and Levites Then all the Holy Monks and Hermites Then Seven She Saints by Name Then all the Holy Virgins and Widows And Lastly All the He and She Saints together But the brevity I am confined to in this Discourse will not permit me to abide any longer upon this Argument of the vast distance between these two Churches in reference to their Publick Prayers and Offices Fourthly We proceed to shew that there is also no small distance between the Church of England and that of Rome in reference to the Books they receive for Canonical This will be Immediately dispatched For no more is to be said upon this subject but that whereas the Church of Rome takes all the Apocryphal Books into her Canon the Church of England like all other Protestant Churches receives only those Books of the Old and New Testament for Canonical Scripture as she declares in her Sixth Article of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church And she declareth concerning the Apocryphal Books in the same Article citing St. Hierom for her Authority That the Church doth read them for Example of life and Instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to Establish any Doctrine And after the example of the Primitive Church no more doth ours and appoints the reading some of them only upon the foresaid Account In the Fifth and Last place The Church of England is at the greatest distance possible from the Church of Rome in reference to the Authority on which they each found their whole Religion As to the Church of Rome she makes her own Infallibility the Foundation of Faith For 1. Our belief of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures themselves must according to her Doctrine be founded upon her infallible Testimony 2. As to that Prodigious deal which she hath added of her own to the Doctrines and Precepts of the Holy Scriptures and which she makes as necessary to be believed and practised as any matters of Faith and Practice contained in the Scriptures and more necessary too than many of them the Authority of those things is founded upon her unwritten Traditions and the Decrees of her Councils which she will have to be no less inspired by the Holy Ghost than were the Prophets and Apostles themselves But Contrariwise the Church of England doth 1. Build the whole of her Religion upon the Sole Authority of Divine Revelation in the Holy Scriptures And therefore she takes every jot thereof out of the Bible She makes the Scriptures the Complete Rule of her Faith and of her Practice too in all matters necessary to Salvation that is in all the parts or Religion nor is there any Genuine Son of this Church that maketh any thing a part of his Religion that is not plainly contained in the Bible Let us see what our Church declareth to this purpose in her 16 Article viz. That Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation So that as Mr. Chillingworth saith THE BIBLE THE BIBLE IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS So you see the Bible is the Religion of the Protestant Church of England Nor doth she fetch one Tittle of her Religion either out of unwritten Traditions or Decrees of Councils Notwithstanding she hath a great Reverence for those Councils which were not a Company of Bishops and Priests of the Popes packing to serve his purposes and which have best deserved the Name of General Councils especially the Four first yet her Reverence of them consisteth not in any opinion of their Infallibility As appears by Article 14. General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes and when they be gathered together for as much as they be an Assembly of Men whereof all be not Governed with the Spirit and Word of God they may Err and sometimes have Erred even in things pertaining unto God Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared that is manifestly proved that they be taken out of Holy Scripture Let us see again how our Church speaks of the matter in hand Article 20. The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith And yet it is not Lawful for the Church to Ordain any thing that is contrary to Gods Word Written neither may it so Expound one place of Scripture that it be Repugnant to another Wherefore although the Church be a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ that is as the Jewish Church was so of the Canon of the Old Testament by whose Tradition alone it could be known what Books were Canonical and what not so the Catholick Christian Church from Christ and his Apostles downwards is so of the Canon of the New Yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same so besides the same ought it not to inforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation If it be asked who is to Judge what is agreeable or contrary to Holy Writ 't is manifest that Our Church leaves it to every Man to Judge for himself But 't is Objected that 't is to be acknowledged that if the Church only claimed a Power to Decree Rites and Ceremonies that is according to the general Rules of doing all things Decently and Orderly and to Edification which Power all Churches have ever Exercised this may well enough consist with private Persons Liberty to Judge for themselves but 't is also said in the now Cited Article that the Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith and accordingly Our Church hath Publisht 39 Articles and requires of the Clergy c. Subscription to them To this we answer that we shall make one Article Egregiously to Contradict another and one and the same to Contradict it self if we understand by the Authority in Controversies of Faith which Our Church acknowledges all Churches to have any more than Authority to Oblige their Members to outward Submission when their Decisions are such as Contradict not any of the Essentials of our Religion whether they be Articles of Faith or Rules of Life not an Authority to Oblige them to assent to their Decrees as infallibly true But it is necessary to the maintaining of Peace that all Churches should be invested with a Power to bind their Members to outward submission in the Case aforesaid that is when their supposed Errors are not of that Moment as that 't is of more pernicious Consequence to bear with them than to break the Peace of the Church by opposing them And as to the fore-mentioned
do ye Transgress the Command of God by your tradition For God Commanded saying Honour thy Father Matth. 15. 3. c. but ye say whosoever shall say to his Father it is a gift c. Thus ye have made the Commandment of God of none effect by your tradition And this we condemn in the Church of Rome who do defeat the Commands of God by their Doctrines of Attrition and Purgatory c. 4. If they mean by adding the making of that which is not the Word of God to be of equal Authority with it This our Saviour condemn'd in the Pharisees when they Taught for Doctrines the Commandments of Men and esteem'd them as necessary to be obeyed and to be of equal force with what was Authorized by him nay it seems they had more regard to the Tradition of the Elders than the Commandment of God as our Saviour Insinuates vers 2 3. and has been observed from their own Authors This we also condemn in the Church of Rome which decrees that the Apocrypha and Traditions should be received with the like Pious Con. Trid Sess 4. Decr. 1. regard as the Sacred Writ 5. If by adding they mean the giving the same Efficacy to humane Institutions as God doth to his by making them to confer Grace upon the rightly disposed and by diminishing that the Service is not complete without it This our Saviour condemn'd in the Pharisees when they maintained that to eat with unwashen Hands defiled a Man verse 20. And this we condemn in the Church of Rome in their use of Holy-Water and Reliques and Ceremonies Thus far we agree but if they proceed and will conclude that the doing any thing not Commanded in the Worship of God is a Sin though it have none of the ingredients in it before spoken of we therein differ from them and upon very good reason For therein they differ from our Saviour and his Apostles and all Churches as I have shewed Therein also they depart from the notion and reason of the thing For adding is adding to the substance and making the thing added of the Nature of the thing it s added to and diminishing is diminishing from the substance and taking away from the Nature of it but when the substance remains intire as much after this humane appointment as it was before it without Loss and Prejudice without Debasement or Corruption it cannot be called an addition to it in the sence that the Scripture takes that Word in Nay so far are we from admitting this charge that we return it upon them and do bring them in Criminals upon it For those that do Forbid what the Gospel Forbids not do as much add to it as those that Command what the Gospel doth not Command And if it be a Crime to Command what that Commands not it must be so to Forbid what it Forbids not And this is what they are Guilty of that do hold that nothing is to be used in the Worship of God but what is prescribed for if that be not a Scripture Proposition and Truth as certain it is not then what an addition is this A greater surely than what they charge upon us for all that is Commanded amongst us is look'd upon not as necessary but expedient but what is Forbid by them is Forbid as absolutely unlawful the latter of which alters the Nature whereas the other only affects the Circumstances of things The second Commandment Thou shalt not make unto Object III thee any Graven Image c. is frequently made use of to prove that we must apply nothing to a Religious Use but what is Commanded and we are told that the sence of it is that We must Worship God in no other way and by no other means or Religious Rites than what he hath prescribed The best way to answer this is 1. To consider Answer what is Forbidden in this Commandment and 2. To shew that we are not concern'd in the Prohibition As to the former 1. In this Command it is provided that there be no act of Adoration given to any besides God By this the Heathens are condemned in their Plurality of Gods and the Church of Rome in the Veneration they give to Saints and Angels 2. That the Honour we give to God be sutable to his Nature and agreeable to his Will Sutable to his Nature and so we are not to Worship him by Creatures as the Sun c. for that is to consider him as Finite nor by Images and Eternal Representations for that is to consider him as Corporeal Agreeable to his Will and so we are Forbidden all other Worship of him than what he hath appointed It s in the last of these we are concerned for I believe there will be no attempt to prove that there is any thing in our Worship that doth derogate from the perfections of God and is unsutable to his Nature further than the defects that must arise from all Worship given by Creatures to a Creator And if we come to consider it as to what he hath revealed there can be nothing deduced thence to prove Rites instituted by Men for the Solemnity of God's service to be Forbidden and which for ought I see is not attempted to be proved from this Commandment or from Scripture else where but by crowding such Rites into and representing them as a part of Divine Worship This way goes one of the most industrious in this cause Ceremonies saith he are External Rites of Religious Worship as used to further Devotion and therefore being Ames Fresh Suit part 2. sect 2. command p. 228. invented by Man are of the same Nature with Images by which and at which God is Worshipped In which are no less than three mistakes As 1. He makes whatever is used to further Devotion to be Religious Worship 2. He makes it a fault in External Rites in Religious Worship that they are used to further Devotion 3. He makes External Rites taken up by Men and used for that end to be of the same Nature with Images If I shew that these are really mistakes I think that in doing so the whole argument taken from 2d Commandment falls with it 1 He mistakes in that he makes whatever is used to further Devotion to be Religious Worship The error of which will appear from this consideration that all things relating to Divine Worship are either Parts or Adjuncts of it Parts as Prayer and the Lord's Supper Adjuncts as Form and Posture Now Adjuncts are not Parts because the Worship is intire and invariable in all the Parts of it and remains the same though the Adjuncts vary Prayer is VVorship whether with a Form or without and the Lord's Supper is VVorship whether Persons Kneel Sit or Stand in the receiving of it And yet though the Adjuncts are no part of VVorship they further Devotion in it This those that are for conceived Prayer plead for Their Practice and this also is pleaded by those that
preces aliunde describit non eis utatur nisi prius eas cum instructioribus Fratribus contulerit i. e. And whosoever shall write out Prayers for himself from elsewhere that is from any Book that hath not been publickly received and allowed for what else can be meant by aliunde he shall not presume to use them till he hath first consulted about them with his more learned Brethren Which is a plain evidence that they used Forms before otherwise how could they have written them out from elsewhere or from other mens composures Whereas before therefore they had liberty to add new Forms as they thought fit to the received Liturgy they are so far restrained by this Council as not to do it without the advice and approbation of their more learned Brethren but this restriction being found insufficient to prevent the ill consequences of their former liberty it was ordained a few years after in the Council of Mela (s) (s) (s) Concil Milev c. 12. That those Prayers which had been approved of in the Council whether Prefaces or Commendations or Impositions of Hands should be used of all and that none should be said in the Church but such as had been treated of by the more prudent or allowed in the Synod lest any thing contrary to the Faith should be inserted either through ignorance or want of care Now though these indeed were but Provincial Councils and so in themselves could oblige no farther than their particular Provinces yet the very Canon above-cited out of the first of them (t) (t) (t) Concil Laod. c. 18. is taken into the collections of the Canons of the Catholick Church being the 122th therein which Collection was received and establish'd in the General Council of Chalcedon (*) (*) (*) Concil Chalced. c. 1. An. 451. By which establishment the whole Christian Church was obliged to the use of Liturgies so far as the authority of the General Council extends And then in the year 541 these Canons are made Imperial Laws by the Emperour Justinian who enacted (u) (u) (u) Justin Novel 131. c. 1. that the Canons of those four General Councils of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcadon should oblige as far as the Empire did extend Of what authority the use of formed Liturgies were in this Emperour's time and long before may be easily collected from his Novels for he complains of the remissness of some Bishops that they did not take care to inforce the observance of the sacred Canons and tells us that he had received several complaints against the Clergy Monks and some Bishops that they did not live according to the Divine Canons and that some among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not acquainted with the Prayer of the Holy Oblation and Holy Baptism (w) (w) (w) Id. Nov. 137. Preface and then he declares that for the future he was resolved to punish the Transgressors of the Canons which had it been done before saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (x) (x) (x) Id. ib. c. 1. Every one would have endeavoured to learn the Divine Liturgies that he might not be subject to the condemnation of the Divine Canons Which is a plain argument not onely that there were form'd Liturgies before Justinian for otherwise how could he expect the Clergy should learn them but that these Liturgies had been long before establish'd by the Canons of the Church And then among other things he requires that for the future such as were to be ordained should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (y) (y) (y) Id. ib. c. 2. Recite the Office for the Holy Communion and the Prayer for Holy Baptism and the rest of the Prayers which Prayers were not made in Justinian's time but long before they being as he tells us before establish'd by the Ecclesiastical Canons And after this he enjoyns all Bishops and Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (z) (z) (z) Id. ib. c. 6. That they should not say these Prayers silently but so as that the People might hear them that so their minds might be raised to an higher pitch of Devotion Thus for near six hundred years after Christ we have sufficient testimony of the publick use of Forms of Prayer And from henceforth or a little after down to Mr. Calvin's time all are agreed that no other Prayers were admitted into the publick Worship but what were contain'd in the establish'd Liturgies of the respective Churches and even that great Light of the Reformation Mr. Calvin though he used to pray extempore after his Lecture yet always used a Form before (a) (a) (a) Praef. ad praelect Calv. in Min. proph and his Prayers before and after Sermon were rather bidding of Prayers according to the ancient usage than formal Prayers (b) (b) (b) Beza in praef ad Conc. Calv. in Job and as he used a Form himself so he composed one for the Sunday-service which was afterwards establish'd by the Order at Geneva And in his Letter to the Lord Protector in the Reign of Edward the Sixth he thus declares his judgment concerning publick Forms (c) (c) (c) Calvin Ep. 87. For so much as concerns the Forms of Prayers and Ecclesiastical Rites I highly approve that it be determined so as that it may not be lawful for the Ministers in their Administration to vary from it Nor is there any one reformed Church whether Calvinistical or Lutheran but what hath some publick Office or Form of Prayer especially for the Administration of the Sacraments So that our Dissenting Brethren in England who disallow the use of publick Forms do stand alone by themselves from all the World And as for that extempore way of praying which they so much celebrate and for the sake of which they despise and vilifie our publick Liturgy as a Relick of Popish Idolatry they would do well to consider who it was that first introduc'd it into England and set it up in opposition to our Liturgy For first there was one Faithful Commin a Dominican Friar who in the 9th of Eliz. to seduce the People from the Church thereby to serve the ends of Popery began to pray extempore with such wonderful Zeal and Fervour that he deluded a great many simple People for which he was afterwards amply rewarded by the Pope (d) (d) (d) Vid. Foxes and Fire-brands p. 7 c. After him one Thomas Heath a Jesuit pursued the same method exclaiming against our Liturgy and crying up Spiritual or Extempore Prayers (e) (e) (e) Id. p. 17. thereby to divide the People from our publick Worship telling the Bishop of Rochester by whom he was examined That he had been six years in England labouring to refine the Protestants and to take off all smacks of Ceremonies and to make the Church purer (f) (f) (f) Of which see more in the Preface of the Learned Treatise The Vnreasonableness of Separation beginning at p. 11. And I hope when our Brethren have well considered
of Rome Our Church having renounced all Communion with the Church of Rome this speaks the greatest distance in the general betwixt the two Churches And as their distance particularly in Government is manifest to all from our Churches having utterly cast off the Jurisdiction of the Papacy so it is easie to shew that there is likewise a mighty distance betwixt them in Doctrine Worship and Discipline But we shall not stand to shew this in each of these distinctly but rather make choice of this Method viz. to shew that our Church is most distant from and opposite to the Church of Rome 1. In all those Doctrines and Practices whereby this Church deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them 2. In all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly Charged with plainly Contradicting the Holy Scriptures 3. In each of their publick Prayers and Offices 4. In the Books they each receive for Canonical 5. In the Authority on which they each of them found their whole Religion First Our Church is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices by which she deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them For instance 1. This Church denieth her Members all Judgment of discretion in matters of Religion She obligeth them to follow her blindfold and to resolve both their Faith and Judgment into hers as assuming infallibility to her self and binding all under pain of Damnation to believe her Infallible But our Church permits us the full enjoyment of our due Liberty in believing and judging and we Act not like Members of the Church of England if according to St. Pauls injunction we prove not all things that we may hold fast that which is good if we believe every Spirit which St. John cautions us against and do not try the Spirits whether they be of God which he requires us to do 'T is impossible that our Church should oblige us to an implicite Faith in herself because she disclaimeth all pretence to infallibility Our Church tells us in her 19th Article that As the Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria and Antioch have erred so also the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their Living and manner of Ceremonies but also in matters of Faith And our Churches acknowledgment is plainly implyed in asserting the most famous Churches in the World to have erred from the Faith that she her self must needs be Obnoxious to Errour in matters of Faith and that she would be guilty of the highest impudence in denying it 2. The Church of Rome imposeth a deal of most slavish Drudgery in the vast multitude of her Rites and Ceremonies and unreasonably severe Tasks and cruel Penances As to her Ceremonies they are so vast a number as are enough to take up as Sir Edwyn Sandys hath observed a great part of a mans life merely to gaze on And abundance of them are so vain and Childish so marvellously odd and uncouth as that they can naturally bring to use that Gentlemans words who was a curious observer of them in the Popish Countries no other than disgrace and contempt to those exercises of Religion wherein they are stirring In viewing only those that are injoyned in the Common Ritual one would bless ones self to think how it should enter into the minds of Men and much more of Christians to invent such things And the like may be said of the Popish Tasks and Penances in imposing of which the Priests are Arbitrary and ordinarily lay the most Severe and Cruel ones on the lightest offenders when the most Leud and Scandalous come off with a bare saying of their Beads thrice over or some such insignificant and idle business But the Church of England imposeth nothing of that Drudgery which makes such Vassals of the poor Papists Her Rites are exceeding few and those plain and easie grave and manly founded on the Practice of the Church long before Popery appeared upon the Stage of the World Our Church hath abandon'd the five Popish Sacraments and contents her self with those two which Christ hath ordained As is to be seen in her 25th Article where she declares that There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel that is to say Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments that is to say Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and Extreme Vnxion are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel being such as have grown partly of the Corrupt following of the Apostles partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures But yet have not like Nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lords Supper For that they have not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about c. And in saying that our Church owns not the fore-mentioned Popish Sacraments is implied that she hath nothing to do with any of those very many Superstitious Fopperies which are injoyned in the Offices appointed for the Administration of those Sacraments Again Our Church no whit more imitates that of Rome in her Cruel Tasks and Penances than in her Ceremonies as is needless to be shewed In short in our Churches few Rites she hath used no other Liberty but what she judgeth agreeable to those Apostolical Rules of Doing all things decently and in order and Doing all things to Edification And she imposeth her Rites not as the Church of Rome doth hers as necessary and as parts of Religion but as meerly indifferent and changeable things as we find in her 34th Article where she declares that Every Particular or National Church hath Authority to Ordain Change and Abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church Ordained onely by Mans Authority so that all things be done to Edifying And this Article begins thus It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like for at all times they have been divers and may be changed according to the diversities of Countrys Times and Manners so that nothing be Ordained against Gods Word 2. The Church of Rome subjects her Members by several of her Doctrines to inslaving Passions For instance that of Purgatory makes them all their life-time subject to the bondages of Fear at least those of them who are so sollicitous about the life to come as to entertain any mistrust or doubting as it 's strange if the most Credulous of them do not concerning the Efficacy of Penances and Indulgences Her Doctrine of Auricular Confession subjects all that are not forsaken of all Modesty to the passion of Shame Her Doctrine of the Dependance of the Efficacy of the Sacraments upon the Priests intention must needs expose all considerative people and those who have any serious concern about their state hereafter to great Anxiety and Solicitude But these Doctrines are all rejected by the Church of England That of Purgatory she
not use means to attract the Praeputium which the Jews did often to avoid Shame and Persecution in Gentile Countries odious and ridiculous to all other People upon the account of it and for this reason it would have been a mighty bar to the Progress of the Gospel had the Gentiles been to be initiated thereby Furthermore it alone was reckoned as a grievous burden by reason of the painful and bloody nature of it and for that Reason also was laid aside as being inconsistent with the free and easie nature of the Christian Religion for if Zipporah was so much offended at Moses and called him a bloody Husband upon the account of it we may well presume how much the Gentiles would have been offended at the Apostles and at their Doctrine upon the account thereof No Religious Rite could be more ungrateful to Flesh and Blood and therefore the Wisdom of our Lord is to be admired in changing of it into the easie and practicable Ceremony of Baptism which was of more universal significancy and which * * * Diabolus ipsas quoque res Sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis aemulatur tingit ipse quosdam utique credentes ac fideles suos caeterum si Numae superstitiones revolvamus nonne manifeste diabolus morositatem illam Judaicae legis imitatus est Tertull. de praescrip haeret c. 40. O nimium faciles Qui tristia crimina caedis tolli flumineâ posse putatis aquâ Pagans as Paganism was nothing but Judaism corrupted by the Devil practised as well as Jews Hitherto I have given the Reasons of altering the Jewish Oeconomy and of reforming of it into the Christian Church but then my undertaking obliges me to prove what before I observed that * * * Verissimum enim est quod vir doctissimus Hugo Broughtonus ad Danielem notavit Nullos à Christo institutos ritus novos c. Grotii opusc Tom. 3. p. 520. See Dr. Hammond in his discourse of the Baptizing of Infants Christ and his Apostles who were the Reformers of it did build with many of the old Materials and conformed their new house as much as they could after the Platform of the old This will appear from Baptism it self which was a Ceremony by which †††Seld. de jure l. 2. c. 2. de Synedr l. 1. c. 3. Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae p. 42. Hammond on Matth. 3. v. 1. and of the Baptizing of Infants Jacob Altingius dissert Philologica Septima de Proselytis Proselytes both Men Women and Children were initiated into the Jewish Church Though it were but a mere humane Institution or as the dissenting Parties usually phrase it a mere humane Invention yet so much respect had our blessed Lord for the Ancient Orders and Customs of the Jewish Church that being obliged to lay by Circumcision for the reasons above mentioned he consecrated this instead of it to be the Sacrament of initiation into his Church and a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith So likewise the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was certainly of | | | Mede 1 Book disc 51. b. 11. Christian Sacrifice Grot. Opusc Tom. 3. p. 510. Dr. Cudworth on the Lord's Supper Thorndike of Religious Assembly chap. 10. Dr. Taylor 's great Exemplar p. 1. disc of Baptism Numb 11. Jewish Original as hath been shewed by many Learned Men and the Correspondence of the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to the High-Priest Priests and Levites doth shew that the Subordination of the Christian Hierarchy is taken from the Jewish Church as St. Jerome observes in his Epistle to Evagrius Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento quod Aaron filii ejus Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia What the High-Priest Priests and Levites were in the Temple that the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are in the Church according to Apostolical Constitution taken from the Old Testament Hither also is to be referred that wonderful Correspondence betwixt the Priest-hood and Altar of the Jewish and Christian Church as it is most excellently discoursed by the Learned and Pious a a a In his Discourse concerning the one Altar and the one Priest-hood c. Mr. Dodwell To all which I may add many other Institutions as that of b b b Dr. Taylor his great Exemplar Disc of Baptism Numb 11. Lightfoot on 1 Cor. c. 5. v. 4. Excommunication and of the ritual performance of Ordination Confirmation and Absolution of Penitents by Imposition of Hands all which are of Jewish Original Likewise the Observation of the antient Love-Feasts before the Holy-Eucharist which for their extream inconvenience were taken away by the c c c Concil Sext. in Trull c. 24. Churches Authority the use of Festivals and Fasts the Institution of the Lord's day which is nothing but the Sabbath translated In a word the manifold and almost entire Correspondence of the Church in her publick Assemblies and Worship with the Synagogue as it is set forth by Mr. Thorndike in his Book of Religious Assemblies even to the formal use of the Hebrew-word d d d 1 Cor. 14. 16 Rom. 11. 36. Eph. 3. 21. Phil. 4. 20. 2 Tim. 1. 17. Heb. 23. 27. 1 Pet. 4. 11. Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 1. 7. Just Mart. Ap. 2. p. 97. Iren. l. 2. c. 10. Athan. Apol. ad const Imper. p. 683. Amen Hitherto I have made a short Previous Discourse concerning many useful Particulars As First Concerning the beginning or Original of the Jewish Church Secondly Concerning the Nature of it Thirdly Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into it and the Persons that were capable of Initiation And Lastly Concerning the alteration of it from the Legal into the Evangelical Dispensation wherein I have briefly shewed the true grounds of that blessed Reformation and how tender Christ and his Apostles were of Altering or rejecting more than was necessary or of receding more than was needful from the Jewish Church All these things I thought necessary to be discoursed as Praecognita to fit and prepare the Reader 's mind to understand the State of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism as it is proposed in these five Comprehensive Questions 1. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptism 2. Whether they are excluded from Baptism by Christ 3. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized 4. Whether it be the duty of Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism 5. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with believers who were Baptized in their Infancy The whole merit of the Controversie about Infant-Baptism lies in these five Comprehensive Questions and I shall presently proceed to the stating of them after I have shew'd that Circumcision was a Sacrament of equal Significancy Force and Perfection with Baptism and that Baptism succeeded in the room of it not as the Antitype succeeded in the
publick Worship of God and all this without the least notice taken by without any complaint or opposition from any particular person either in the then present or succeeding generation 3 The Primitive Church esteemed the Holy Sacrament to be the most solemn part of Christian Worship as that which deservedly challenged from them the utmost pitch of Devotion and the highest degree of Reverence that they could possibly pay and express either with their Souls or Bodies This is clear partly from those Honorary Titles they bestowed upon this Ordinance and adorn'd it with which import the greatest deference and the most awful regard imaginable partly from that tedious See part 1. p. 58. and severe Discipline which she exercised the Catechumens and Penitents with before she admitted them into the Communion of the Faithful and approved of them as fit to partake of the Holy Mysteries To be admitted to the Sacrament so onely as to behold it and to be present at those Prayers which were put up by worthy Communicants over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice was heretofore accounted a high honour and priviledge But to make one at this heavenly Feast and to receive the pledges of our Lords love was esteemed the top and perfection of Christianity and the extremity of honour and happiness that a Christian is capable of in this life Heretofore with shame and reproach be it spoken to our stupidly wicked and degenerate Age to be excluded from the Holy Communion was look'd upon as the greatest curse and punishment that could be inflicted and on the other hand to be a Communicant to have a freedom of access to the Lords Table as the greatest blessing and most ample reward that could be propounded the sum of a Christians hopes the center of all his wishes during his abode here 4. For standing in time of Divine Service both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament there are so many and so clear testimonies extant in pure Antiquity that a man must take a great deal of pains not to see this truth who is never so little conversant in the Records of those times and in such a man it must be height of folly or impudence to deny it The bare asserting of it shall be sufficient because to insist upon the proof of it by an enumeration of particulars would swell this Discourse beyond measure and besides it would be a needless labour since the great Patrons of sitting or the common Table-gesture Gillesp Disp against En. Po. Cer. point 1660. p. 190 191. do frankly own and acknowledge that Standing was a posture generally used by the ancient Church in her religious Assemblies both at their ordinary Prayers and at the Communion-service Howsoever I shall be forced to say something concerning this matter under the following particular 5 Which is this That the Primitive Christians though on the Lords days and for the space of 50 days between Easter and Whitsunday they observed Standing yet at other times used the gesture of Kneeling at their publick Devotions Which will appear from a Decree pass'd in the first general Council assembled at Nice in words to this effect Because there are some Can 20 about the year 325. which Kneel on the Lords day and in the days of Pentecost that is between Easter and Whitsunday it is therefore ordained by this holy Synod that when we pay our Vows unto the Lord in Prayer we observe a Standing gesture to the end that a uniform and agreeable Custom may be maintained or secured through all Churches By which Canon provision was made against Kneeling not as if it were an inconvenient and unbecoming gesture to be used at all in the publick Worship of God but onely as being an irregular and unfit posture to be used at such particular times and occasions as is there specified viz. on the Lords days and the Feast of Pentecost when for any Christian to stand was to cross the general Custom and Practice of the Church at that time For this Council did not you must note introduce and establish any new thing in the Church but onely endeavoured by its authority to keep alive and in credit an ancient Custom which they saw began to be neglected by some Christians And from that clause in the Canon Because there are some which Kneel on the Lords day and in the days of Pentecost c. we may with good reason infer that Kneeling was the posture that was generally used at other times in their religious Assemblies For if Standing had been generally observed by all Churches in time of Divine Service at all other times as well as those mentioned in the Decree what occasion or necessity had there been for such an Injunction whereby all Christians were obliged to do that which they constantly and universally did before There is a passage in the Author of the Questions and Answers in Justin Martyr which will put this matter out of doubt and give us the reason why they altered their posture on the Lords day It is Respons ad quest 115. p. 468. saith he that by this means we may be put in mind both of our Fall by Sin and our Resurrection and Restitution by the Grace of Christ that for six days we pray upon our Knees is in token of our Fall by Sin but that on the Lords day we do not bow the Knee doth symbolically represent our Resurrection c. This he there tells us was a Custom derived from the very times of the Apostles for which he cites Irenaeus in his Book concerning Easter That it was ancient appears from Tertullian who lived in the same Age with Irenaeus and speaks of it as if it had been establish'd An. Dom. 198. by Apostolical Authority or at least by Custom had obtained the force of a Law for these are his words We esteem Die dominico jejunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare Tert. de Cor. mil. c. 3. 206. Col. Agrip. edit 1617. Epiph. exposit Fid. Cathol p. 1105. edit Par. Flor. An. Dom. 390. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Hieronym prolog Comment in Ep. ad Ephes it a great act of wickedness or villany either to Fast or Kneel on the Lords day Which intimates too that Fasting and Kneeling in their publick Worship were both lawful and customary at other times To whose Testimony if we joyn that of another Father who lived some time after the first general Nicene Council we need not produce any more witnesses to clear the matter It is that of Epiphanius in his Exposition of the Catholick Faith where he certifies that the weekly stated Fasts of Wednesday and Friday were diligently kept by the Catholick Church the whole year round excepting the fifty days of Pentecost on which they do not Kneel nor is there any Fast appointed The reason of which Custom was as both St. Jerome and St. Augustin attest because all that space between Easter and Whitsunday was a time of
Scruples satisfied I think most of the Prejudices against the Church of England might be easily removed and we might all joyn in the same Communion to the Glory of God and the Joy and Comfort of all good Protestants and the Confusion of those that design to swallow us up and have no other hopes of prevailing but by the help of those Differences which for that end they have a long time most studiously fomented amongst us Let not our unreasonable Fears and groundless Jealousies encourage their Attempts with too great a probability of Success It would be a sad addition to our Miseries if the Guilt and Shame of them too might be laid to our Charge With what remorse should we reflect upon it when the heat of our Passion was over if the Protestant Profession should be farther endangered and the Agents of Rome get greater Advantages dayly by those Distractions which have been secretly managed by them but openly carried on and maintained by our selves With what face should we look to see our Enemies not only triumphing over us but mocking and deriding us for being so far imposed upon by their cunning as to be made the immediate instruments of our own ruin But God Almighty in his wise and gracious Providence so confound all their Devices that tend to the subversion of the Truth and so Unite and Compose our Differences that hereafter we may have no just occasion to fear either their Treachery o their Force This is a Petition I am sure in which no good Christian can refuse to joyn and if we do heartily desire this let us do what we can to promote it if our Prayer be not unsincere and hypocritical we shall make use of our best endeavours to obtain the thing we have prayed for And now if our Vnion be thus desirable and necessary what should hinder but that at last we might be all most happily united under the Discipline and Government of the Church of England A Church that is already Framed and Constituted that has the Countenance and Establishment of the Laws that has been Protected by a Succession of Wise and Pious Princes that was Defended unto Death by our late Martyred Sovereign that was Restored by His Majesty that now is and has been ever since so graciously Cherished by him as if the Care of it were a Quality inherent and hereditary to the Crown A Church that was Reformed by full and sufficient Authority upon mature and serious Deliberation with a perfect submission to the Rule of holy Scripture and a due regard to the example of the most Primitive times A Church that has constantly rejected all the Errours and Corruptions of Rome that admits of neither their Infallibility nor Supremacy that allows no Purgatory nor Indulgences no adoration of Reliques and Images no Praying to Saints nor Angels that does not think that God can be pleased with idle Pilgrimages or a forced Celibacy or any set number of Ave's and Paternoster's or other formal Devotions exactly computed upon a string of Beads and muttered over in an unknown Tongue that does not rob the Laity of half the Communion nor teach them that strange and contradictious Doctrine that the Elements are transubstantiated into the real Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper that does not only constantly deny these and many more absurd and erroneous Opinions of the Papists but has always sent forth as stout and able Champions to oppose them as any the Christian World affords A Church whose Doctrine is confessed to be Orthodox by the generality of our Dissenting Brethren and whose Discipline and Order of external Worship has nothing in it repugnant to any Law of God And what imaginable ground can there then be to justifie a Separation from such a Church Certainly the use of a few Indifferent things appointed only for Order's sake will not be enough to do it These are not Forbidden and therefore cannot be Sinful in themselves and where God has not Forbidden our Superiours may Command and in all such cases we are bound to Obey Some indeed there are that will not be satisfied with this They tell us that it is not sufficient that a thing be not Forbidden but that it must be Commanded or else it cannot be used in the Worship of God without Sin But if this Opinion be true I must confess that then it is Unlawful to hold Communion not only with ours but with any Church that is or ever was in the World for I do not believe that One can be found amongst them All that has not required the use of some Indifferent thing that was not Commanded Our Dissenting Brethren themselves will allow that the Time and Place of Religious Assemblies may be prescribed by Authority And if these necessary Circumstances may be thus Determined though they be not Commanded by God then it will be as Lawful to prescribe what particular Gestures and Habits shall be there used For these are things of the same Nature Circumstances as necessary as Time and Place and if we have any respect to the Decent and Reverent performance of the Service of God they may be as necessary to be determined too However it must be acknowledged that some things that are not Commanded may be Lawfully Enjoyned and Submitted to and if some then all that are of the same Indifferent nature unless there can be some sufficient reason assigned why some should be excepted and some not which will be very difficult where the Nature of the things is the same And in our present case it will be hard in the general to conceive how the Command of a Lawful Power should make that Unlawful which was not Forbidden and by consequence was Lawful before But if it should be still insisted on that nothing must be Commanded that God has not Commanded they that are of this Perswasion should be very certain that they have clear proof out of the Scriptures for it before they undertake to Forbid that which God has not Forbidden or else they stand condemned by their own Principle Now the Arguments they bring for this out of the New Testament are very few And those very obscure and no way applicable to the matter in hand without being mightily strained Those out of the Old Testament are not many that which has been chiefly urged and seems indeed the most pertinent and material is this The whole Levitical Service was particularly prescribed by God himself and Moses was strictly charged to make the Tabernacle and all the Utensils that belonged unto it After the pattern that was shewed him Exod. 25. 40. Heb. 3. 5 6. in the Mount And Moses verily was faithful in all his House as a Servant and so is Christ as a Son over his own House that is the Church Therefore as Moses laid down all the particular Rules to be observed in the Worship of God under the Legal Dispensation so has Christ under the Evangelical and it is as
say as some have done that it is an Act of Worship to the outward Elements when the Church has declared this to be Idolatry to be abhorred of all Faithful Rubr. after the Communion Christians If it should be said that we ought to receive in the same posture that they received at the first Institution We cannot certainly tell what that was If it were that which is most probably Conjectured it is never used It is wholly laid aside by those that argue the most Zealously for it But sure if the particular Gesture had been so absolutely necessary as some do imagine there would have been some plain and express mention of it somewhere in the Scripture which there is not as I have noted before And then it must be very unwarrantable in those that Separate from our Church because they will not receive in that reverent manner which She has prescribed If there had been nothing injoyned in this matter a man upon a serious apprehension of the infinite mercies of God through the merits and mediation of his blessed Saviour could scarce have forborn falling upon his Knees when he came to partake of the Sacrament of his most precious Body and Blood The commemoration of the Death and Passion of the Son of God by which he was Redeemed would strike him almost naturally into the humblest posture of Adoration But if any reverence be granted to be due at such a time I am sure sitting at the Table is a very unfit posture to express it Or if any man should like it better than that which is required with us yet to make this an occasion of departing from our Communion would argue but too little value for the peace of the Church But some there are who though they be convinced of the Lawfulness of all these Rites and Usages and for their own particular could joyn with us well enough yet they dare not do it for fear of giving Scandal and Offence to those that are not satisfied in these things This matter of Scandal has been so vehemently pleaded sometimes as if it were the only thing to be regarded in all Church Constitutions and that they were to be immediately disused whatever Authority injoyned them assoon as any should be offended at them This puts all external Order in Christian Assemblies into a very tottering condition ready to be presently overturned by every little Scruple that may chance to arise But for answer to this we must observe That they are the Weak and Ignorant that take Offence That their doubts and scruples are not to be nourished and commended See Rom. 14. but only born with for a time That they are bound to take all due Care and convenient Opportunity 1 Cor. 8. of Instruction that they may be fully satisfied and that it is in things meerly Indifferent such as Meats and Drinks where we are obliged to any compliance for the avoiding of Scandal These things thus briefly premised let it be considered whether they who esteem themselves rather more Knowing than others who seem unwilling to part with their Doubts and who have entertained some Prejudices against those that would inform them better are to be treated like weak Brethren And whether we ought to yield to them where Authority has determined the contrary unless we could prove our Obedience as Indifferent as the things scrupled at are supposed to be If it should be said that we ought yet at least it cannot be safely done till it be made appear that all the weak are of one side For in our present Case if there should be as many as doubtless there are that would be offended to see the manner of our Publick Worship altered as there are to see it imposed then though the command of our Superiors should signify nothing we should yet be upon equal terms on the account of Scandal only and as much bound not to Separate as they think they are to Separate by their own Principle But in a word no Scandal taken at an Indifferent thing can be so great as the Sin and Scandal both of Confusion and Disorder and Contempt of Authority There is another Exception near akin to this Some have thought they must withdraw from us because of our mixt Communions and that some which they judg unworthy Receivers are admitted to the Lord's Table This Objection proves nothing but a Supercilious Arrogance and a great want of Charity in those that make it What care they may take in their new way of Discipline I cannot tell but our Church has given the Minister a Power of rejecting those that are guilty See Rubr. before the Communion of any known and scandalous Sin And this is as much as can be done the open Sinner may be excluded but the close Hypocrite will escape the narrowest search that humane Industry can make But if any notorious evil Livers should be admitted through the ignorance inadvertency or negligence of the Minister their Unworthiness cannot defile those that Communicate with them It is generally thought that the Cursed Traytor Judas did partake of the Holy Supper when it was first instituted by our Lord. God be praised I have not heard that amongst us the abuses of this Ordinance did ever arise to that Degree that they were at among the Corinthians when at the very time of receiving one was Hungry and another Drunken 1 Cor. 11. 21. and yet the Apostle does not Command them to forsake the Communion of that Church where these Scandalous Enormities were committed Every man is charged to Examine himself and not another before he presume Ver. 28. to eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. And it would be very well if all men would hearken to this holy and pious Admonition for he that inquires seriously into his own Sins will find great cause to be Humble and Penitent and so may become a worthy Communicant But he that is curious to pry into the miscarriages of other men will be apt to be vain proud self-conceited and censorious which will make him as unfit for the Table of the Lord as any of those Faults which he so scornfully condemns in his Neighbour that he esteems himself and the ordinances of God polluted by his Company But if none of these Pleas I have mentioned should be sufficient many think they may leave our Assemblies only for the sake of greater Edification which they can find elsewhere This I believe prevails with great numbers of the more ignorant especially to depart from us And I would to God they might obtain what they say they depart for and that they were indeed more Edified and did grow in Grace under what Ministery soever it be But alas This talk of greater Edification is many times meer wantonness and instability of humour and too often rather in Fancy than effect Men conceit that they are better Edified not when they are more fully instructed in any weighty point of Faith or
religious Common-wealth And our Blessed Saviour ordained the Apostles and committed the Government of his Church to them and their Successors with a promise to be with them to the end of the World And the Christian Church with respect to the firm and close Union and orderly Disposition of all its Eph. 2. 21 22. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Parts is not only called a Body but a Spiritual Building and Holy Temple and the House of God But then the Church is a Body or one Body in opposition to many bodies for Christ has but one Body and one Church and he is the Saviour of this Body The Jewish Church was but one and therefore the Christian Church is but one which is not a new distinct Church but is grafted into the Jewish stock or Root Believing Jews and Christians being United into one Church built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Rom. 11. 17 18. corner stone Who unites Jews and Gentiles into one Church as the corner stone unites both sides of the House and holds them together Upon the same account the Church is called the Building the House the Temple of God and we know the Temple was but one and was to be but one by the express command and Institution of God And for the same reason Christ tells us that there should be but one Fold under one Shepherd And indeed it is extreamly absurd and unreasonable John 10. 16. to say that the Christian Church which is built upon the same foundation which worships the same God and Saviour which professes the same Faith are Heirs to the same promises and enjoy all priviledges in common should be divided into as distinct and separate bodies tho of the same kind and nature as Peter James and John are distinct Persons tho they partake of the same common nature That is it is very absurd to say that where every thing is common there is not one Community Peter and James and John tho they partake of the same common nature yet each of them have a distinct essence and subsistence of their own as it must be in natural Beings otherwise there could be but one Man in the World and this makes them distinct Persons But where the very nature and essence of a Body or Society consists in having all things common there can be but one Body and therefore if one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all be common to the whole Christian Church if there be no peculiar Priviledges which belong to some Christians and not to all to one part of the Church and not to another then by the Institution of Christ there is but one Church one Body one Communion one Household and Family For where there is nothing to Distinguish and Separate no Enclosures or Partitions of Divine Appointment there can be by Divine Institution but one Body 2. I add that the Church is a Body or Society of Men separated from the rest of the World or called out of the World as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence Ecclesia is derived may signifie and is so expounded by many Divines upon which account the Christians are so of ten called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Called and Chosen or Elect People of God which signifies that the Church is distinguished from the rest of the World by a peculiar and appropriate Faith by peculiar Laws by peculiar rites of Worship and peculiar Promises and Priviledges which are not common to the whole World but only to those who are received into the Communion of the Church But there is no controversie about this matter and therefore I need add no more about it 3. The Church is a Body of Men united to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant The Church is united to God for it is a Religious Society instituted for the Worship of God and they are united among themselves and to each other because it is but one Body which requires a union of all its parts as I have already shewed and shall discourse more presently But the chief thing to be observed here is this that this union with God and to each other which constitutes a Church is made by a Divine Covenant Thus it was in the Jewish Church God entered into Covenant with Abraham and chose him and his Posterity for his Church and Peculiar People and gave him Circumcision for a Sign and Seal of this Covenant And under the Gospel God hath made a new Covenant with mankind in and by his Son Jesus Christ who is the Mediator of a Better Covenant founded upon better Promises and this Gospel Covenant is the foundation of the Christian Church For the Christian Church is nothing else but such a Society of Men as is in Covenant with God through Christ I suppose all men will grant that God only can make or constitute a Church For such persons if there were any so absurd are not worth disputing with who dare affirm the Church to be a human Creature or the invention of Men. And I think it is as plain that the only visible way God has of forming a Church for I do not now speak of the invisible operations of the Divine Spirit is by granting a Church-Covenant which is the Divine Charter whereon the Church is founded and investing some persons with Power and Authority to receive others into this Covenant according to the terms and conditions of the Covenant and by such Covenant Rites and Forms of Admission as he is pleased to institute which under the Gospel is Baptism as under the Law it was Circumcision To be taken into Covenant with God and to be received into the Church is the very same thing For the Church is a Society of Men who are in Covenant with God That can be no Church which is not in Covenant with God he is no member of the Church who is not at least visibly admitted into Gods Covenant and whoever is in Covenant with God is made a member of the Church by being admitted into Covenant Now before I proceed I shall briefly observe some few things which are so plain and evident if these Principles be true that I need only name them and yet are of great use for the resolution of some following cases As 1. That a Covenant-state and Church-state is the same thing 2. That every profest Christian who is received into Covenant as such is a Church member 3. That nothing else is necessary to make us members of the Christian Church but only Baptism which is the Sacrament of our admission into the Christian Covenant For if Baptism which gives us right to all the Priviledges of the Covenant does not make us Church members then a Church-state is no part of the Covenant then a man may be in Covenant with God through Christ and yet be no member of Christ or he may be a member
the Sacrament of the Lords Supper together they are said to be in Communion with one another and to live in Communion with that Church with which they joyn in all Acts of Worship Now we must acknowledge that Publick Acts of Worship performed in the Communion of the Church are an Exercise of Christian Communion but Church-Communion is something antecedent to all the Acts and Offices of Communion For no Man has a right to any Act of Christian Communion but he who is in a State of Communion with the Christian Church What natural Union is in natural Bodies that Communion is in Bodies Politick whether Civil or Religious Societies a member must be vitally united to the Body before it can perform any natural Action or Office of a member before the Eye can see or the Feet can walk or the Ears can hear and the union of the Eye or Foot to the Body does not consist in seeing or walking but seeing and walking are the effects of this Union Thus in a Body Politick when Men by any common Charter are United into one Society they become one common Body or one Communion and this gives them right to all the priviledges of that Body and obliges them to all the Duties and Offices which their Charter requires of them but should any Man who is not regularly admitted into this Society pretend to the same Priviledges or do such things as are required of those who are members of this Body this would be so far from being thought an Act of Communion with them that it would be censured as an unjust Usurpation Should a Man who is no Citizen of London open his Shop and drive a trade as other Citizens do or give his Vote at a Common-Hall and in all other cases Act like a Citizen this would not make him a Citizen but an Intruder He is a Foreigner still and his presuming to Act like a Citizen when he is none is no Act of Communion with that Body of which he is no member but justly exposes him to censure and punishment Thus it is in the Christian Church which is one Body and Society united by a Divine Covenant Our Communion with the Church consists in being members of the Church which we are made by Baptism The exercise of this Communion consists in all those Offices and Duties which all the members of the Church are obliged to and which none have any right to perform but they such as praying and receiving the Lords Supper together c. Now should any Man who is no member of the Church nor owns himself to be so intrude into the Church and Communicate in all holy Offices this can be no more called an Act of Communion than it can be said to make him a member of the Church of which he is no member and resolved not to be Prayers and receiving the Sacraments c. are Acts of Communion when performed by Church-members in the Communion of the Church but they are no Acts of Communion when performed by those who are no Church-members tho to serve a turn they thrust themselves into the Society of the Church As for Instance suppose a member of a Presbyterian or Independant Conventicle should for reasons best known to himself at some critical time come to his Parish Church and there hear the Common-Prayer and Sermon and receive the Lords Supper according to the order of the Church of England does this make this Man a member of the Church of England with which he never Communicated before and it is likely will never do again If it does not all this is no Act of Communion which can be only between the members of the same Body So that to be in Church-Communion does not signifie meerly to perform some such Acts which are Acts of Communion in the members of the Church but since the decay of Church Discipline may sometimes be performed by those who are not members which is such an abuse as would not have been allowed in the Primitive Church who denyed their Communion to Schismaticks as well as to the Excommunicate upon other accounts but to be in Church-Communion signifies to be a member of the Church to be Embodyed and Incorporated with it and I suppose what that means every one knows who understands what it is to be a member of any Society of a City or any Inferior Corporation which consists of Priviledge and Duty and requires all those who will enjoy the benefits of such a Society to discharge their respective trusts and obligations To be in Communion with or to be a member of the Church includes a Right and Title to all those Blessings which God hath promised to his Church and an obligation to all the Duties and Offices of Church Society as Subjection to the Authority Instructions Censures of the Church a Communion in Prayers and Sacraments and other Religious Offices and he who despises the Authority or destroys the Unity of the Church renounces his membership and Communion with it These things are extreamly plain and though Men may cavil for disputes sake yet must needs convince them that no Man is in Communion with a Church which he is not a member of tho through the defect of Discipline he should sometimes be admitted to some Act of Communion with it and I shall observe some few things from hence of great use 1. That Church-Communion primarily and principally respects the universal Church not any particular Church or Society of Christians For to be in Church-Communion signifies to be a member of the Church or Body of Christ which is but one all the World over Church Communion does not consist in particular Acts of Communion which can be performed only among those who are present and Neighbours to each other but in membership now a member is a member of the whole Body not meerly of any part of it how large soever the Body be All the Subjects of England those who live at St. Davids and those at Tarmouth who never saw nor converst with each other are all members of the same Kingdom and by the same reason this membership may extend to the remotest part of the World if the Body whereof we are members reach so far And therefore we may observe that Baptism which is the Sacrament of our Admission into the Covenant of God and the Communion of the Church does not make us members of any particular Church as such but of the Universal Church and I observed before that a Church-state which is the same thing with Church-Communion is founded only on a Divine Covenant and therefore since there is no other Divine Covenant to make us members of particular Churches as distinguisht from the Universal Church such particular Church-membership is at best but a human Invention and indeed nothing else but a Schism from the Universal Church which alone if well considered is a sufficient confutation of Independency which is a particular Church-State as distinguisht from all other
properly Acts of Communion Having thus premised the explication of these terms what is meant by Church and what is meant by Church-Communion and what is meant by Fixt or Constant and occasional Communion the right understanding of these things will make it very easie to resolve those cases which Immediately respect Church-Communion and I shall Instance in these three 1. Whether Communion with some Church or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians 2. Whether constant Communion with that Church with which occasional Communion is Lawful be a necessary Duty 3. Whether it be Lawful for the same person to Communicate with two separate Churches Case 1. Whether Communion with some Church Case 1 or other especially when the Church is divided into so many Sects and Parties be a necessary Duty incumbent on all Christians Now methinks the resolution of this is as plain as whether it be necessary for every Man to be a Christian For every Christian is Baptized into the Communion of the Church and must continue a Member of the Church till he renounce his Membership by Schism or Infidelity or be cast out of the Church by Ecclesiastical censures Baptism incorporates us into the Christian Church that is makes us Members of the Body of Christ which is his Church and is frequently so called in Scripture For there is but one Body and one Spirit Eph. Eph. 5. 23. 4. 12. 4. 4. one Christian Church which is animated and governed by the one Spirit of Christ And we are all Baptized into this one Body For as the Body is one and Col. 1. 18. hath many Members and all the members of that one Body being many are one Body so also is Christ that is the Christian Church which is the Body of Christ of which he is the Head for by one Spirit we are all Baptized 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. into one Body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or Free and are all made to drink into one Spirit for the body is not one member but many Now I have already proved that Church Communion is nothing else but Church-Membership to be in Communion with the Church and to be a member of the Church signifying the same thing And I think I need not prove that to be in a state of Communion contains both a right and an Obligation to Actual Communion He who is a member of the Church may Challenge all the Priviledges of a member among which Actual Communion is none of the least to be admitted to all the Acts and Offices of Christian-Communion to the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments and all other Christian Duties which no Man who is not a member of the Church has any right to And he who is a member is bound to perform all those Duties and Offices which are Essential to Church Communion and therefore is bound to Communicate with the Church in Religious Assemblies to joyn in Prayers and Sacraments to attend publick Instructions and to live like a member of the Church But to put this past all doubt that external and actual Communion is an essential Duty of a Church-member I shall offer these plain proofs of it 1. That 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 by vertue of his Membership is bound to external and visible Communion when it may be had 2. This is essential to the notion of a Church as it is a Body and Society of Christians For all Bodies and Societies of Men are Instituted for the sake of some common Duties and Offices to be performed by the Members of it A Body of Men is a Community and it is a strange kind of Community in which every Member may act by it self without any Communication with other Members of the same Body And yet such a kind of Body as this the Christian Church is if it be not an essential Duty of every Member to live in the exercise of visible Communion with the Church when he can For there is the same Law for all Members and either all or none are bound to actual Communion But this is more absurd still when we consider that the Church is such a Body as consists of variety of Members of different Offices and Officers which are of no use without actual and visible Communion of all its Members To what purpose did Christ appoint such variety of Ministers in his Church Apostles Prophets Evangelists Eph. 4. 11 12. Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ to what purpose has he instituted a standing Ministry in his Church to offer up the Prayers of the Faithful to God to instruct exhort reprove and adminster the Christian Sacraments if private Christians are not bound to maintain Communion with them in all Religious Offices 3. Nay the Nature of Christian Worship obliges us to Church-Communion I suppose no Man will deny but that every Christian is bound to Worship God according to our Saviours Institution and what that is we cannot learn better than from the Example of the Primitive Christians of whom St. Luke gives us this account that they continued Stedfast in the Acts 2. 41. Apostles Doctrine and Worship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers That which makes any thing in a Strict sense an Act of Church-Communion is that it is performed in the Fellowship of the Apostles or in Communion with the Bishops and Ministers of the Church They are appointed to Offer up the Prayers of Christians to God in his Name and therefore tho the private devotions of Christians are acceptable to God as the Prayers of Church-Members yet none but publick Prayers which are Offered up by Men who have their Authority from Christ to Offer these Spiritual Sacrifices to God are properly the Prayers of the Church and Acts of Church-Communion If then we must Offer up our Prayers to God according to Christ's Institution that is by the hands of persons Authorized and set apart for that purpose we must of necessity joyn in the Actual and Visible Communion of the Church The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is the principal part of Christian Worship and we cannot Celebrate this Feast but in Church-Communion for this is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a common Supper or Communion-Feast which in all Ages of the Church has been administred by Consecrated Persons and in Church-Communion for it loses its Nature and Signification when it is turned into a private Mass so that if every Christian is bound to the Actual performance of true Christian Worship he is bound to an Actual Communion with the Christian Church 4. We may observe further that Church Authority is exercised only about Church-Communion which necessarily supposes that all Christians who
are Church-Members and in a State of Communion are bound to all the Acts of external and visible Communion with the Church The exercise of Church Authority consists in Receiving in or Shutting out of the Church To receive into the Church is to admit them to all external Acts of Communion to Shut or Cast out of the Church is to deny them the external and visible Communion of the Church not to allow them to Pray or receive the Lords Supper or perform any Religious Offices in the publick Assemblies of the Church Now all this Church Authority would signifie nothing were not External and Actual Communion both the Priviledge and Duty of every Christian and yet this is all the Authority Christ hath given to His Church 5. And to confirm all this nothing is more plain in Scripture than that Separation from a Church is to withdraw from the visible Communion of it and there can be no Notion of Separation without this now if Separation from Religious Assemblies be to break Communion then to live in Communion with the Church requires our Actual Communicating with the Church in all Religious Duties And that this is the true Notion of Separation is easily proved from the most express testimonies 2 Cor. 6. 17. Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch no unclean thing and I will receive you Where come out from among them and be ye separate plainly signifies to forsake the Assemblies of Idolaters not to Communicate with them in their Idolatrous Worship So that not to joyn with any Men or Church in their Idolatrous Worship is to Separate from their Communion which is a very Godly Separation when the Worship is Idolatrous and Sinful but a Schismatical Separation when it is not Thus St. John tells us of the Ancient Hereticks They went out from us because they were not of us for if 1 John 2. 19. they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us Where their going out from them plainly signifies their forsaking Christian Assemblies upon which account the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews admonishes the Christians not to forsake the Assembling of themselves together as the manner of some is in which he Heb. 10. 25. refers to the Separation of those Ancient Hereticks And thus accordingly to have Fellowship or Communion with any is to partake with them in their Religious Mysteries By this Argument St. Paul disswades the Corinthians for Eating of the Idols Feast because they were Sacrifices to Evil Spirits and by partaking of those Sacrifices they had Communion with them But I say that the things which the 1 Cor. 10. 20 21. Gentiles Sacrifice they Sacrifice to Devils and not to God and I would not that you should have Fellowship with Devils Ye cannot Drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devils So that tho we must first be in a state of Communion with Christ and his Church must first be received into Covenant and by Baptism be incorporated into the Christian Church before we have any right to Communicate with this Church yet no Man can preserve his Church-state without Actual Communion no Man has Communion with Christ or his Church but he who Actually Communicates in all Religious Offices and Christian Institutions a state of Communion confers a right to Communicate but Actual Communion consists in the exercise of Communion and a right to Communicate without Actual Communion is worth nothing as no right or priviledge is without the Exercise of it for enjoyment consists in Acts and all the Blessings of the Gospel all the Blessings of Christian Communion are conveyed to us by Actual Communion So that if we would partake of the Blessings of Christ if we would Reap the advantages of Church-Communion we must live in Actual Communion and not content our selves with a dormant and useless right which we never bring into Act. This is sufficient to prove the necessity of Actual Communion with the Christian Church when it may be had for where it cannot be had Non-Communion is no Sin for we are not obliged to Impossibilities he who lives in a Country or travels through any Country where there is no true Christian Church to Communicate with cannot enjoy Actual Communion the right and Duty of Communion continues tho necessity may suspend the Act. But the greater difficulty is whether it be not Lawful to suspend our Communion with any particular Churches when we see the Church divided into a great many Parties and Factions which refuse Communion with each other which is the deplorable state of the Church at this day among us Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers all Separate from the Church of England and from each other and from hence some conclude it Lawful to suspend Communion with all the divided Parties which is just such a reason for a Total suspension of Church-Communion as the different and contrary opinions in Religion are for Scepticism and infidelity Because there are a great many kinds of Religions in the World and a great many divided Sects of the Christian Religion therefore some Men will be of no Religion and because the Christian Church is divided into a great many opposite and Separate Communions therefore others will be of no Church and the reason is as strong in one case as it is in the other that is indeed it holds in neither For it is possible to discover which is the true Religion notwithstanding all these different and contrary perswasions about it and it is equally possible to find out which of these divided Communions is a true and Sound Member of the Catholick Church and when we know that we are bound to maintain Communion with it Indeed if such Divisions and Separations excuse us from Actual Communion with the Church Actual Communion never was and is never likely to be a Duty long together for there never was any state of the Church so happy long together as to be without divisions even in the Apostles times there were those who Separated from the Communion of the Apostles and set up private Conventicles of their own and so it has been in all succeeding Ages of the Church and so it is likely to continue and if we are not bound to Communicate with the Church while there are any Hereticks or Schismaticks who divide from the Church farewell to all Church Communion in this World Should any Man indeed Travel into a Strange Country and there find a Schism in the Christian Church it were very fitting for him to Suspend Communion with either Party till he had opportunity to acquaint himself with the state of the Controversie so as to judge which party is the Schismatick and then he is bound if he understand their Language to Communicate
with the Sound and Orthodox part of the Catholick Church which he finds in that place But this does not reach the case of those who are constant Inhabitants of the place where the Schism is for they must not live in a Sceptical suspension of Communion all their days And there is one plain Rule to direct all Men in this Inquiry That wherever there is a Church Establisht by publick Authority if there be nothing Sinful in its Constitution and Worship we are bound to Communicate with that Church and to reject the Communion of all other Parties and Sects of Christians For the advantage always lies on the side of Authority no publick establishment can justifie a Sinful Communion but if there be nothing Sinful in the Communion of the National Church which is Establisht by publick Authority to Separate from such a Church is both disobedience to the Supreme Authority in the State and a Schism from the Church But it will be convenient to consider what these Men mean by suspending Communion For is it Lawful for an English Man during these Church divisions among us never to Worship God in any Publick and Religious Assemblies Never to Pray nor Hear nor receive the Lords Supper together If this were so it were the most Effectual way in the World to thrust out all Religion But this they will not they dare not say and therefore by Suspending Communion they mean that in case of such divisions they may refuse to enter themselves fixt and setled Members of any Church but Communicate occasionally with them all But I have already observed how absurd this distinction of fixt and occasional Communion is For no Act of Religion is an Act of Communion not so much as of occasional Communion which is not performed in the Communion of the Church and no Man is in Communion with the Church who is not a Member of it and whoever is a Member of the Church is a fixt and not an occasional Member and whatever Church he Communicates with tho it may be it is but once in a Year or once in his life as he occasionally Travels that way yet he Communicates as a fixt Member of the Catholick Church and of every Sound part of the Catholick Church for a fixt Member does not signifie our fixt abode or constant Acts of Communion in any particular Church but our state of Communion and fixt and permanent relation to the whole Christian Church and every part of it and therefore tho a particular Act of Communion may be performed upon some particular occasion with such a particular Church yet it is not an Act of occasional but of fixt Communion because tho I Communicate but once and that occasionally yet I Communicate as a Member of the Church which is not an occasional but a fixt Relation 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 Communicate with all of them If they perform these Acts of Communion without owning their relation to them as Members then they are in Communion with none of them notwithstanding all these pretended Acts of occasional Communion and so they live in Communion with no Church which yet I hope I have made it appear to be the Duty of every Christian to do if they Communicate with all these divided Parties as Members then they are in Communion with many Separate Churches are Members of Separate and Opposite Bodies that is they are contrary to themselves and on one side or other are certain to be Schismaticks but this will appear further from considering the two following Cases Case 2. The Second Case is this Whether constant Case 2 Communion be a Duty where occasional Communion is Lawful I have already made it appear that the very notion of constant and occasional Communion is absurd and a Contradiction to all the principles of Catholick Communion and therefore there is no place for this distinction nor for this question every Christian as a Christian is a fixt Member of the whole Christian Church and of every Sound part of it and for Men to talk of being Members of any one particular Church in distinction from all other particular Churches of which they will not own themselves Members is a Schismatical notion of Church-Membership because it divides the Christian Church into distinct Memberships and therefore into distinct Bodies which makes the one Church and one Body of Christ not one but many Bodies for if every particular Church has such a number of Members which are Members only of that particular Church wherein they are fixt and are not Members of any other particular Church then every particular Church is a distinct and entire Body by it self which has particular Members of its own which belong to no other Body just as every particular Man has his own Body which consists of such a number of Members united to each other and distinct from all other Bodies The plain state of the Case in short is this Every true Christian is in Communion with the whole Christian Church that is is a Member of the whole Church but he must perform the Acts of Communion in some particular Church and the only allowable difference between constant and occasional Communion is this that we must perform the constant Acts of Communion in that part of the Catholick Church in which we constantly live and Communicate occasionally with that part of the Church in which we are occasionally present and therefore there never can be any Competition between constant and occasional Communion in the same place I cannot Communicate constantly with that Church in which I Communicate occasionally unless I remove my Habitation and turn an occasional presence into a constant and setled abode nor can I without sin Communicate only occcasionally with that Church with which I may and ought to Communicate constantly as being constantly present there for this is only to do that sometimes which I ought to do always This is like a Mans living occcasionally in his own House which signifies that for the most part he is a stranger at home There cannot be two distinct Churches in the same place one for occasional and another for constant Communion without Schism For it is evident these are two distinct Communions and that our relation to them is as different as it is to a House we live in and to an Inn where we lodge for a Night So that there is no foundation for this Inquiry among Men who understand the true Principles of Catholick-Communion It never can be a Case of Conscience whether I should Communicate constantly or occasionally with such a Church unless it be a Case of Conscience whether I should live constantly or occasionally within the bounds and jurisdiction of such a Church for where my constant abode is there my constant Communion must be if there be a true and sincere part of the Catholick-Church
Church-Communion and our obligations to preserve the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace They have no notion at all of a Church or no notion of one Church or know not wherein the Unity and Communion of this Church consists and these Men think it is indifferent whether they Communicate with any Church at all or that they secure themselves from Schism by Communicating sometimes with one Church and sometimes with another that they may choose their Church according to their own fancies and change again when ever their humor alters But I hope who ever considers carefully what I have now writ and attends to those passionate Exhortations of the Gospel to Peace and Unity and Brotherly Love which cannot be preserved but in one Communion which is the Unity of the Body of Christ and the Peace and Love of fellow Members will not only heartily Pray to the God of Peace to restore Peace and Unity to his Church but will be careful how he divides the Church himself and will use his utmost endeavours to heal the present Schisms and Divisions of the Church of Christ THE END A LETTER TO ANONYMUS In Answer to his Three Letters TO Dr. SHERLOCK ABOUT Church-Communion LONDON Printed for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. A LETTER TO ANONYMUS In Answer to his Three LETTERS to Dr. SHERLOCK about Church-Communion SIR I Am very sorry that my Silence and Patience has been mistaken by you for an affront and neglect which is such a provocation as I find some sort of great minds cannot bear But yet that you may have a little mercy I shall give you a brief account of the reason why you had not an Answer before I did not answer your first Letter in so publick a manner as you desired because I believed your Objections were such as no body was concern'd in but your self and I cannot think it decent to trouble so numerous an Auditory with every particular mans conceits I did not answer your Second Letter because by the Temper and Spirit of it I easily foresaw that it would end in a publick Quarrel and if I must be in Print I henceforth resolve to Correct the Press my self and not to suffer any man to Print my private Letters for me But yet I called at Mr. R's Shop whither you directed me several times to have Invited you to a private Conference but could never see him till I accidentally met him in the street the same day I received the present of your Printed Letters The reason why I Printed those Discourses which you heard me Preach was because they were designed for the Press before they were designed for the Pulpit and before I dream't of your terrible Queries and were Printed and Preach'd exactly by the same Copy excepting the Introduction to fit them to a Text which you know is very convenient for a Sermon And the reason why I sent you one of those Tracts when it was Printed was because I did hope you might have had understanding enough upon a careful perusal of it when it lay before you to have answered those Objections which you made against it at the first hearing And now Sir I come to consider the Contents of your First Letter you have made some Repetition of what I Discoursed and a very good Repetition to be done by memory which gives you the commendable Character of a diligent and attentive hearer but when you had the Discourse before you in Print you ought not then to have depended upon your memory but to have given me my own again in my own words and order and with that dependance and connexion in which the whole strength of that Discourse consists and to have applied your Queries distinctly to those parts of the Discourse which they related to Had you done this you would either have been able to have resolved your own Queries or would more effectually have convinc'd me of my mistake or at least have given your Readers better satisfaction in the pertinency of what you say but now you have onely given us a heap of Queries which it is no easie matter to know to what they relate As for your Repetitions the Reader who desires satisfaction may compare them with what I have writ which is exactly the same with what I Preach'd and as for your Queries you know how easie a thing it is to ask Questions however I will endeavour to find out to what they belong and give as plain and short an Answer to them as I can for I assure you I am not at leasure now to write a long Book upon this Argument and therefore it is a great comfort to me that there is no need of it After your Repetition of what you could remember or what you thought fit to take notice of in my Sermon you give us a very mistaken Summary of it To sum up say you what I take to be the force of all p. 4. this The Apostles and their Successors were by our Saviour invested with a power of receiving Members into his Church upon his Terms and with such Rites as they should think fit and they who are not so received into the Church have no right to any of the blessings promis'd to the Members of Christ's Body This Power is by an uninterrupted Succession derived upon the Governours of our National Church wherefore all others that pretend to the exercise of this Power within this Nation are Vsurpers and all the Laity Baptized by their Pastors not being duly admitted into any particular Church are so far from being Members of Christ's Body that they are Vsurpers and Traitors to that Power which is derived from him in a right line Durus hic Sermo Had you not told the World in your Title-Page that you are a Lay-man to make your Triumph over a poor undone Dr. of Divinity the more glorious I should have taken you to be the Founder of some new Sect of Conjectural Divines and truly you are so happy in your guesses that I believe few men will ever be able to out-do you in this Art For there is not one word of all this matter in that Discourse which you pretend to sum up as it was delivered by me That to which you seem to refer is contained in one short Paragraph which I shall Transcribe and leave the most fanciful Reader to try his skill to sum it up as you have done Having before asserted that God onely can Constitute a Church I added And I think it is as plain that the only Resolut of Cases p. 5. visible way God has of Forming a Church for I do not now speak of the Invisible Operations of the Divine Spirit is by granting a Church-Covenant which is the Divine Charter whereon the Church is Founded and investing some persons with Power and Authority to receive others into this Convenant according to the terms and conditions of the Covenant and by such Covenant-Rites and
Forms of Admission as he is pleased to Institute which under the Gospel is Baptism as under the Law it was Circumcision I was discoursing of Gods visible way of Forming a Church which I asserted to be by granting a Church-Covenant which is that Divine Charter on which the Church is Founded but then lest any one should question how men are admitted into this Covenant I added that God had invested some Persons with Power and Authority to receive others into this Covenant by Baptism and by receiving them into Covenant they make them Members of that Church which is Founded on this Covenant Now what of all this will any sober Dissenter deny Here is no dispute who is invested with this Power what form of Church-Government Christ Instituted whether Episcopal or Presbyterian here is no Dispute about the validity of Orders or Succession or in what cases Baptism may be valid which is not Administred by a valid Authority This did not concern my present Argument which proceeds upon a quite different Hypothesis viz. the necessity of Communion with the one Church and Body of Christ for all those who are or would be owned to be Christians or Members of Christs Body I make no inquiry by whom they have been Baptized or whether they were rightly Baptized or not but taking all these things for granted I inquire whether Baptism do not make us Church-Members whether it makes us Members of a Particular or Universal Church whether a Church-Member be not bound to Communion with the whole Catholick Church whether he that separates from any sound part of the Catholick Church be not a Schismatick from the whole Church whether we be not bound to maintain constant Communion with that particular Church in which we live and with which we can when we please Communicate occasionally whether it be consistent with Catholick Communion to communicate with two Churches which are in a state of Separation from each other if you have any thing to say to these matters you shall have a fair hearing but all your Queries which proceed upon a mistaken Hypothesis of your own do not concern me and yet to oblige you if it be possible I shall briefly consider them 1. Your first Query is Whether a Pious Dissenter supposed to be received into the Church by such as he believes to be fully invested with sufficient Power is in as bad a condition as a Moral Heathen or in a worse than a Papist Ans The Catholick Church has been so indulgent to Hereticks and Schismaticks as to determine against the Necessity of Rebaptization if they have been once though irregularly baptized This you may find a particular account of in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still p. 22. c. But the question is whether if they continue Schismaticks whatever their other pretences to Piety be their Condition be not as dangerous as the Condition of Moral Heathens and Papists 2. Whether the Submission to the Power and Censures of this Church which all must own to be a sound Church be part of the Divine Covenant which Vnites the Members of the Catholick Church to God and to each other Ans This is a captious question which must be distinctly answered A general Submission and Obedience to the Authority and Censures of the Church though it cannot properly be called a part of that Divine Covenant whereon the Church is founded which primarily respects the promise of Salvation by Christ through Faith in his Bloud yet it is a necessary Church-Duty and Essential to Church-Communion and so may be called a part of the Covenant if by the Covenant we understand all those Duties which are required of baptized Christians and Members of the Church by a Divine positive Law as Obedience to Church-Governours is But then Obedience to the Church of England is not an universal Duty incumbent on all Christians but onely on those which are or ought to live in Obedience to this particular Church for the particular exercises of Church-Authoritie and Jurisdiction is confined within certain limits as of necessitie it must be and though all Orthodox Churches must live in Communion with each other yet no particular Church can pretend to any original Authority over another Church or the Members of it as is the constant Doctrine of Protestants in opposition to the Usurpations of the Church of Rome But I perceive Sir you know no difference between the Authority and Power and the Communion of the Church But you add If it be then as he who is not admitted into this Church is no Member of the Catholick and has no right to the benefits of being a Member of Christs Body so is it with every one who is excluded by Church-Censures though excommunicated for a slight contempt or neglect nay for a wrongful cause Truly Sir I know not how any man is admitted into the Church of England any otherwise than as he is admitted into the whole Catholick Church viz by Baptism which does not make us Members of any particular Church but of the Universal Church which Obliges us to Communicate with that part of the Catholick Church wherein we live and whoever lives in England and renounces Communion with the Church of England is a Schismatick from the Cathelick Church And whoever is Excommunicated from one sound part of the Catholick Church is Excommunicated from the whole But then there is this difference between Excommunication and Schism the first is a Judicial Sentence the second is a Man 's own Choice the first is not valid unless it be inflicted for a just cause the second is always valid and does in its own nature cut Men off from all Communion with Christs Body I say in its own Nature for I will not pretend to determine the final States of Men for I know not what gracious allowances God will make for some Schismaticks no more than I do what favour he may allow to other Sinners But you proceed If it be no part of the Divine Covenant then a Man that lives here may be a true Member of the Catholick Church though he is not in Communion with this Sound Church This is another Horn of your formidable Dilemma If Obedience to the Authoritie and Censures of the particular National Church of England is no part of the Divine Covenant then those Baptized Christians who live in England are not bound to the Communion of the Church of England and may be Catholick Christians for all that As if because the Subjects of Spain are not bound to obey the King of England therefore English Men are not bound to obey him neither but may be very good Subjects for all that We are bound by the Divine Law to live in Communion with all true Catholick Churches and to obey the Governours of the Church wherein we live and therefore though Obedience to the Church of England be not a Law to all the World yet it is a Law to all English Christians inhabiting in
this Church But your way of arguing is as if a Man should say It is a Divine Law to obey Civil Magistrates but there is no Divine Law that all the World should obey the King of England France or Spain therefore French or English Subjects are not bound to obey their own Prince Oh what comfortable Doctrine is this to some Men You proceed But you will say which I think is not much to the question that he ought to Communicate if Communion may be had Yes I do say this and I believe by this time you see or at least others will see that it is much to the question But then Query whether the Dissenters may not reply that they are ready to Communicate if the Communion be not clog'd with some things which are no part of the Divine Covenant Yes they may replie so if they please or Anonymus for them but whoever does it the replie is very weak and impertinent It is weak because Obedience to Authority in all lawful things is in a large notion part of the Divine Covenant And it is very impertinent because the Supposition of Communicating where Communion may be had supersedes that Query For Communion cannot be had where there are any sinful Terms of Communion and though I assert that the Church must be founded on a Divine Covenant I never said that nothing must be enjoyned by the Church but what is express'd in that Covenant A Corporation which is founded upon a Royal Charter you know may have Authoritie to make By-Laws which shall oblige all the Members of it and so are Terms of Communion with it and yet it is the Charter not these By-Laws whereon the Corporation is founded I was not concerned to Examine the Terms of Communion that is and will be done by other hands but supposing nothing Sinful in our Communion whether all Christians that live in this Church are not bound to live in Communion with it Q. 3. Your next Query concerns the Derivation of Church-Power from Christ himself without any immediate Derivation from other Church-Governours which does not at all concern my Doctrine of Church-Communion for whether it be so or so still we are bound to maintain Communion with all sound parts of the Catholick Church so Church-Authoritie be Derived from Christ any way it is well enough but then we must be sure that it is so and if Christ have appointed no ordinarie way for this but by the hands of Men who received their Authoritie immediately from himself I know not who can appoint any other way But may not a Lay-man preach the Gospel and gather a Church in a Heathen Country where there is none of the Clergy to do it I suppose he may and if you please to consult the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleets Unreasonableness of Separation p. 331 c. you will finde this case largely debated But it seems it doth not satisfie you that this be allowed onely in case of Necessity for then up start two other Queries 1. Whether this will not put the being of our Church upon a very hazardous issue and oblige your self to prove that it was a true Church before the Reformation Ans This is no hazard at all for the Church of England was certainly a true though a corrupt Church before the Reformation as the Church of Rome is at this day A true Church is that which has every thing Essential to the being of a Church though mixt with such other Corruptions as make its Communion dangerous and sinful as a Diseased Man is a true Man and remove these Corruptions and then it is not onely a true but a sound Church as the Church of England is at this day And if you will not allow this I doubt Sir all private Christians will be at as great a loss for their Baptism as the Church will be for Orders But the case of a True Vindicat. p. 64. c. and Sound and Catholick Church if you please you may see Stated in the same Book to which I referred you before And thus your second Query is answered that though this Church was Antichristian before the Reformation yet there was not the same Necessity for private Christians to usurp the Ministerial Office without a regular Authoritie as there is for a Lay-man in a Heathen Nation because an Antichristian that is the most corrupt Church retains the Power of Orders as well as of Sacraments As for that Independent Principle that Christ has instituted a Power in the Church to ordain her own Officers you may see it Examined in the Defence of Dr. Still Vnr of Sep. p. 306 c. But what now is all this to me I don't charge our Dissenters with Schism from the Invalidity of their Orders but for their causeless and sinful Separation Let us suppose that they have no need of any Orders or that such Orders as they have are good or that they had Episcopal Orders and were Governed by Bishops of their own as the Donatists were yet they would be never the less Schismaticks for that while they separate from the Church of England and from each other If Orders be necessary and they have no Orders then they are no Churches at all if they have true Orders and are true Churches but yet divide Christian Communion by Separating from any Sound part of the Christian Church they are Schismaticks 4. Q Whether from the Supposition that there ought to be but one Church-Covenant throughout the Catholick Church that there cannot be one true Church within another and that the Nature of Catholick-Communion is such that one ought to be ready to Communicate with any Sound Church from which one is not hindred by reason of the Distance of Place it do's not follow Ans Fair and Softly let us first consider the Suppositions before we consider what follows from them for you have so mis-represented so curtailed these Propositions and so mixt and blended things of a different Nature that it is necessarie to restore them to their true Sense and proper Place again before we can tell what follows I asserted that the Christian Church is founded upon a Divine Covenant and since God hath made but one Covenant with mankind in Christ Jesus therefore there can be but one Christian Church throughout the World Resol of Cases p. 8. founded on this one Covenant Having explained the general notion of Church Communion which signifies no more than Church-Fellowship and p. 10. Society that to be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of the Church I came to enquire what made a Separate Church For if there be but one Church and one Communion of which all true Christians and Christian Churches p. 19. are or ought to be Members then those Churches which are not Members of each other are Separate Churches And for a fuller explication of this I observed several p. 20. things 1. That there must be but
one Church in one Place Because there is no other Rule of Catholick-Communion but to Communicate in all Religious Offices and all Acts of Government and Discipline with those Christians with whom they live For to Renounce the Ordinary Communion of Christians or true Christian Church is to divide the Vnity and Communion of the Church and to withdraw our selves from Ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into p. 21. distinct and separate Societies for Worship is to Renounce their Communion and when there is not a necessary cause for it is a Schismatical Separation And a little after I added If all Christians are Members of the one Body of Christ nothing can justifie the distinction of Christians into several Churches but onely such a distance of place as makes it necessary and expedient to put them under the Conduct and Government of several Bishops for the greater Edification of the Church in the more easie and regular Administration of Discipline And therefore nothing can justifie the gathering a Church out of a Church and dividing Neighbour Christians into distinct Communions Now then let us consider what follows 1. You say either that the French Protestants have no Church here but are Schismaticks in not Communicating with ours Or that ours is guilty of Schism in making the Terms of Communion so streight that it is not the Duty of of every one though a licensed Stranger to Communicate with this Church Ans If any Foreign Church among us which by Royal Favour is allowed the Observation of their own Discipline and Rules of Worship Renounce Communion with the Church of England or Communicate with our Separatists she is Schismatical her self as the Protestant Churches in France Geneva or Holland would be should they do the like But if there be any reason to allow those Foreigners which are among us to Form and Model their Congregations according to the Rules of their own Churches to which they originally belong this is no more a Schism than there is between the Protestant Churches of France and England which own each others Communion A bare Variety of Rites and Ceremonies makes no Schism between Churches our Church pretends not to give Laws to other Churches in such matters but leaves them to their Liberty as she takes her own and why an Ecclesiastical Colony may not for great reasons be Transplanted into another Church as well as a Civil Colony into another Kingdom while they live in Communion with each other I cannot tell It is a different thing to gather a Church out of a Church and to Transplant some Members of one Church into another maintaining the same Communion though with some peculiar and different usages with the consent of the Church to which they come The case of Strangers and Natives has always been accounted very different both upon a Religious and Civil account Every particular National Church has Authority over her own Members to direct and Govern her own Communion and 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 without breach of Communion for tho the Communion of the whole Christian Church is but one and all true Catholick Churches are Members of each other yet the Authority and Jurisdiction is different every Church challenging a peculiar Authority which it exerciseth in its own Communion and therefore for the Church of England to suffer Foreign Churches to observe their own Customs and Usages is not to allow of distinct and separate Communions in her own Bowels which were Schismatical but onely to exempt such Congregations of Strangers from her particular Jurisdiction and to leave them to the Government and Authority of the Church to which they belong There was no such thing indeed allowed in the Primitive Church as distinct Congregations of Foreigners under a different Rule and Government and it were very desirable that all Christians who have occasion to live in other Countries would conform to all the innocent and laudable customs of the Church where they sojourn which seems most agreeable to Catholick Communion but yet 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 Dissenters are 2. But does it not follow from the obligation to communicate or to be ready to communicate with any true Church where distance does not hinder that a Member of the Church of England is not obliged to constant Communion with that Church but may occasionally communicate with the French Church nay with Dissenters too if he believes that any of their Congregations is a true Member of the Catholick Church Ans This is a great Mastery of Wit to turn my own Artillery upon me I prove the Dissenters to be Schismaticks because they set up a Church within a Church whereas there ought to be but one Church and one Communion in one place every Christian being bound to Communicate with the sound part of the Catholick Church in the place wherein he lives for according to the Laws of Catholick Communion nothing but distance of place can suspend our obligation to actual Communion Hence you conclude that we must Communicate with Schismaticks if there be any among us or so near to us that distance does not hinder our Communion But you should consider that our obligation to Catholick Communion does equally oblige us to renounce the Communion of Schismaticks whether at home or abroad and tho we should allow them to be true Churches yet if Schismatical they are not Catholick Churches and therefore not the objects of Catholick-Communion But however we may lawfully Communicate with the French Church that is among us as occasion serves Yes no doubt we may because they are in Communion with us But then follows the Murdering consequence that a Member of the Church of England is not bound to a constant Communion with her I pray why so every Member as a Member is in constant Communion for to be in Communion with Resol of Cases p. 10. a Church is to be a Member of it as I proved at large but then Church-Communion does not primarily respect a Particular but the Universal p. 13. Church and therefore it is no interruption of our Communion with the Church of England to Communicate actually with any Church which is in Communion with her for as all Christians who are neither Hereticks nor Schismaticks are Members of the Catholick Church so they are in Communion with the Catholick Church and every sound part of it The State of Communion is constant with the whole Catholick Church the acts of Communion are performed sometimes in one part of it sometimes in another as our presence abode or occasions require and thus it is possible actually to Communicate with the French Church either in England or
out of England without interrupting our Communion with the Church of England for the Communion is one and the same in all Christian Churches which are in Communion with each other though they may observe different Rites and Modes of Worship And this I suppose is a Sufficient answer to that other untoward consequence that if the Members of the Church of England may occasionally Communicate with the French Church then Constant Communion is not always a Duty where occasional Communion is lawful I suppose because we are not bound to a constant actual or presential Communion with the French Church though we may occasionally Communicate with it But certainly Sir Had you ever considered what I discourst about constant and occasional Communion you would not have made such an Objection as this For this is a Modern distinction which has no sence at the bottom as I plainly shewed But however by constant Communion our Dissenters understand the performing the Acts of Communion always or ordinarily in the same Church and by occasional Communion performing the Acts of Communion sometimes or as occasion serves in another Church now with respect to this Notion of constant or occasional Communion as it signifies the constant and ordinary or the Occasional Acts of Communion must that question be understood whether Constant Communion he a Duty where Occasional Communion is Lawful the meaning of which question is this whether when other reasons and circumstances determine my Personal Communion Ordinarily to one Church it be not my Duty to Communicate ordinarily with that Church if I can lawfully Communicate sometimes with it and there being no other reason to justifie non-Communion with any Church with which I am bound for other reasons Ordinarily to Communicate but onely Sinful Terms of Communion and there being no Colour for such a Pretence where occasional Communion is acknowledged Lawful for Sinful Terms of Communion make occasional as well as constant Acts of Communion Sinful I hence conclude that it is a necessary Duty to Communicate constantly or ordinarily with that Church in which I live if it be Lawful to Communicate occasionally or sometimes with it But if any Man will be so perverse as to understand this Question as you now do not of the Communion of a Church which for other reasons we are bound to Communicate Ordinarily with but of any Church with which I may Lawfully Communicate as occasion serves it makes it an absurd and senseless Proposition to say that constant Communion by that meaning presential and personal Communion is always a Duty where occasional Communion is lawful For at this rate if occasional Communion with the Protestant Churches of France Geneva Holland Germany be Lawful it becomes a necessary Duty for me to Communicate always personally and presentionally with all these Churches at the same time which no man can do who can be present but in one place at a time But yet thus far the Proposition holds universally true that whatever Church I can occasionally Communicate with without Sin I am also bound to Communicate constantly with whenever such reasons as are necessarie to determine my Communion to a particular Church make it my Dutie to do so And no man in his Wits ever understood this Question in any other sense But this you think cannot be my meaning For accorcording to me no Man is obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than another provided the distance is not so great but that he may Communicate with both It is wonderful to me Sir how you should come to fasten so many absurd Propositions upon me and I would desire of you for the future if you have no regard to your own Reputation yet upon Principles of Common Honesty not to write so hastily but to take some time to understand a Book before you undertake to confute it Where do I say that no man is Obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than of another I assert indeed that no Baptized Christian is a Member of any particular Church considered meerly as particular but is a Member of the universal Church and of all sound Orthodox Churches as parts of the Universal Church This puts him into a State of Communion with the whole Church without which he cannot be properly said to perform any Act of Church-Communion though he should join in all the Acts and Offices of Christian worship But is there no difference between being a Member of the Universal Church and of all particular Churches which are Parts and Members of the Universal Church and not to be Obliged to be a Member of one Sound Church more than of another The first supposes that every Christian whatever particular Church he actually Communicates in is a Member of the whole Christian Church and of all particular Sound Churches the second supposes the quite contrary that Christians are so Members of one Church as they are not of another that constant Communion in a particular Church confines their Church-Membership to that particular Church in which they Communicate So that the question is not what Church I must be a Member of for every Christian is a Member of the whole Church not meerly of this or that particular Church but what particular Church I must Communicate in now our Obligation to Communicate in a certain particular Church results from the place wherein we live The Church in which we were Born and Baptized and have our Ordinary abode and Residence the Church which is incorporated into the State of which we are Natural Subjects if it be a true and sound Christian Church Challenges our Communion and Obedience Now in the same place there never can be any Competition between two Churches because there must be but one Church in the same place and therefore there can be no dispute in what Church we must constantly Communicate which must be the Church in which we live But is there not a French and a Dutch as well as an English Church in London and since distance of place does not hinder may we not choose which of these we will ordinarily Communicate with I answer no we have onely the Church of England in England The French Church is in France and the Dutch Church is in Holland though there is a French and Dutch Congregation allowed in London These Congregations belong to their own Original Churches and are under their Government and Censures but there is no Church-Power and Authority in England but only of the Church of England and therefore though we may occasionally Communicate with the French Congregation our Obligation to constant Communion is with the Church of England which alone has Authority and Jurisdiction in England to require our Communion and Obedience one particular Church is distinguisht from another not by a distinct and separate Communion which is Schismatical but by distinct Power and Jurisdiction and that Church within whose Jurisdiction we live can onely Challenge our Communion and I suppose
no Man will say that in this sence we live in the French or Dutch Church because there is a French and Dutch Church allowed among us 5. Your next Query is Whether a true Christian though not visibly admitted into Church-Communion where he wants the Means has not a virtual Baptism in the Answer of a good Conscience towards God according to 1. Peter 2. 21. Ans What this concerns me I cannot tell I speak onely of the Necessity of Visible Communion in Visible Members you put a question whether the want of Visible Admission by Baptism when it can't be had may not be supplied with the answer of a good Conscience towards God I hope in some cases it may though I do not hope this from what St. Peter saies who onely speaks of that Answer of a good Conscience which is made at Baptism not of that which is made without it But what God will accept of in this case is not my business to determie unbaptized Persons are no Visible Members of the Church and therefore not capable of Visible Communion and therefore not concerned at all in this dispute 6. Query Why a profest Atheist who has been Baptized and out of Secular Interest continues a Communicant with this Church is more a Member of the Catholick Church than such as are above described Ans Neither Atheists nor Schismaticks are Members of the Catholick Church But this is a vile insinuation against the Governours and Government of our Church as if profest Atheists were admitted to Communion Though possibly there may be some Atheists yet I never met yet with one who would profess himself an Atheist If I should I assure you I would not admit him to Communion and I hope there is no Minister of the Church of England would and I am sure no Man who had any kindness for the Church with which he pretends to hold Communion would ask such a question 7. Query Whether as the Catholick Church is compared to a Body of Men incorporated by one Charter should upon supposition of a possibility of the forfeiture of the Charter to the whole Body by the Miscarriages of any of the Officers does it likewise follow that the Miscarriages of any of the Officers or the Church Representative as I remember Bishop Sanderson calls the Clergy may forfeit the Priviledges given by Christ to his Church or at least may suspend them As suppose a Protestant Clergy taking their Power to be as large as the Church of Rome claim'd should deny the Laity the Sacraments as the Popish did in Venice and here in King Johns time during the Interdicts quid inde operatur Ans Just as much as this Query does the reason of which I cannot easily guess I asserted indeed that as there is but one Covenant on which the Church is founded so there can be but one Church to which this Covenant belongs and therefore those who divide and separate themselves from this one Body of Christ forfeit Resol of Cases p. 8. c. their right to this Covenant which is made onely with the one Body of Christ which I illustrated by the instance of a Charter granted to a particular Corporation which no Man had any interest in who divided himself from that Corporation to which this Charter was granted but what is this to forfeiting a Charter by the Miscarriages of Officers I doubt Sir your Head has been Warmed with Quo Warranto's which so affect your Fancy that you can Dream of nothing else I was almost afraid when your hand was in I should never have seen an end of these Questions and I know no more reason why you so soon left off asking Questions than why you askt any at all for I would undertake to ask five hundred more as pertinent to the business as most of these You have not indeed done yet but have a reserve of particular Queries but general Queries are the most formidable things because it is harder to find what they relate to than how to Answer them You have three sets of Queries relating to three several Propositions besides a parting blow of four Queries relating to my Text. The first Proposition you are pleased to question me about is this That our Saviour made the Apostles and their Successors Governours of his Church with promise to be with them to the end of the World Which I alledged to prove that when the Church is called the Body of Christ it does not signifie a confused multitude of Christians but a regular Society under Order and Government Now Sir is this true or false if it be false then the Church is not a governed Society is not a Body but a confused heap and multitude of Independent Individuals which is somewhat worse than Independent Churches If it be true why do you ask all these Questions unless you have a mind to confute our Saviour and burlesque his Institutions but since I am condemned to answer questions I will briefly consider them 1. Whether our Saviours promise of Divine Assistance did not extend to all the Members of the Church considering every man in his respective station and capacity as well as the Apostles as Church-Governours For which you may compare St. John with St. Matthew Ans No doubt but there are promises which relate to the whole Church and promises which belong to particular Christians as well as promises which relate peculiarly to the Apostles and Governours of the Church in the exercise of their Ministerial Office and Authority but what then Christ is with his Church with his Ministers with particular Christians to the end of the World but in a different manner and to different purposes and yet that promise there is peculiarly made to the Apostles including their Successors also for the Apostles themselves were not to continue here to the end of the World but an Apostolical Ministry was 2. Therefore Query Whether it signifies any thing to say there is no promise to particular Churches provided there be to particular Persons such as are in charity with all Men and are ready to communicate with any Church which requires no more of them than what they conceive to be their duty according to the Divine Covenant Ans It seems to me to be a harder Query what this Query means or how it concerns that Authority which our Saviour has given to his Apostles for the Government of the Church to which this Query relates I asserted indeed that Christ hath made no Covenant with any particular but onely with the Universal Church which includes particulars as Members of it nor has he made any promise to particular Persons but as Members of the Church and in Communion with it when it may be had upon lawful terms Whoever breaks the Communion of the Church without necessary reason tho he may in other things be a very good natur'd man yet he has not true Christian Charity which unites all the Members of the same Body in one Communion
and tho the Church may prescribe Rules of Worship which are not expressed in the Divine Covenant this will not justifie a Separation if she commands nothing which is forbid for the very Authority Christ has committed to his Ministers requires our obedience to them in things lawful and if Men will adhere to their own private Fancies in opposition to Church-Authority they are guilty of Schism and had best consider whether such pride and opinionativeness will be allowed for excuse 3. Whether if the promise you mention be confined to the Apostles as Church-Governours it will not exclude the Civil Power Ans There are peculiar promises made to Church-Governours and to Civil Magistrates their Authority and Power is very distinct but very consistent 4. What was the extent of the promise whether it was to secure the whole Church that its Governours should never impose unlawful Terms of Communion or that there never be a defection of all the Members of the Catholick Church but that there should always be some true Members Ans The promise is that Christ will be with them in the discharge of their Ministry and Exercise of their Power and this is all I know of the matter our Saviour gave them Authority to Govern the Church and this was to last to the end of the World as long as there is any Church on Earth which is all I cited it for and so much it certainly proves The Second Proposition you raise Queries on is this 'T is absurd to gather a Church out of a Church of Baptized Christians This I do indeed assert that since the Church is founded on a Divine Covenant and to be in Covenant with God and to be Members of his Church is the same thing therefore Baptism whereby we are received into Covenant with God makes us Members of the Church also and this makes it very absurd to gather a Church out of Churches of Baptized Christians which supposes that they were not a Church before instead of considering the reason whereon this is founded as every honest Writer should do you onely put a perverse Comment on it By which say you I suppose you mean That Men ought not to Separate from such and live in a distinct Church-Communion from any Church of Baptized Christians which I conceive needs explaining But if this were true it were plain enough but the fault is that it is not true for we may Separate from any Church of Baptized Christians if their Communion be Sinful which justifies a Separation from the Church of Rome and answers your two first Queries But indeed the Proposition as asserted by me does not so much as concern a Separation from a Church let the cause be what it will just or unjust For the Independents who are the Men for gathering Churches do not own that they Separate from any Church but that they form themselves into a Church-State which they had not before and which no Christians according to their Principle have who are not Members of Independent Churches Baptism they acknowledge makes Men Christians at large but not Church-Members which I shewed must needs be very absurd if the Church be a Body and Society of Men founded on a Divine Covenant for then Baptism which admits us into Covenant with God makes us Members of the Church and they may as well rebaptize Christians as form them into new Church-Societies This I suppose may satisfie you how impertinent all your Queries are under this head Your two first concern the Separation from the Church of Rome which was not made upon Independent Principles because they were no Church but because they were a corrupt Church 3. Whether every Bishoprick in England be not so many Churches within the National Ans Every Bishoprick is a distinct Episcopal Church and the Union of them in one National Communion makes them not so many Churches within a National but one National Church which you may see explained at large in the Defence of Dr. Still Vnr of Separation 4. And therefore Independent and Presbyterian Churches are indeed within the National Churches within a Church which is Schismatical but not one National Church as Bishopricks are 5. And therefore tho we should allow them to have the External Form and all the Essentials of a Church which is a very liberal grant yet they are not in Catholick Communion because they are Schismaticks 6. And this is all I am to account for that they are not in Visible Communion with that one Church and Body of Christ to which the promises are made But what allowances Christ will make for the mistakes of honest well-meaning Men who divide the Communion of the Church I cannot determine I can hope as Charitably as any Man but I dare not be so Charitable as to make Church-Communion an indifferent thing which is the great Bond of Christian Charity 3dly You take occasion for your next Queries from what I say of the Independent Church-Covenant you say I suppose that the Independents exclude themselves from Catholick Communion by requiring of their Members a new contract no part of the Baptismal vow I prove indeed from their placing a Church-State in a particular explicite Covenant between Pastor and People that they separate themselves from the whole Body of Christians for no other Christians which are not in Covenant with them are Members of their Church nor can they be Members of any other Church And I proved that those are Separate Churches Resol of Cases p. 10. 32. which are not Members of each other and do not own each others Members for their own For the Notion of Church-Communion consists in Church-Membership and therefore no Man is in Communion with that Church of which he is no Member and if no Man can be a Member of a Church but by such an explicite Independent Covenant then he is a Member of no Church but that with which he is in Covenant and consequently is in Communion with no Church but that particular Independent Congregation of which he is a Member by a particular Covenant And if those be Schismaticks and Schismatical Churches which are not in Communion with each other then all Independents must be Schismaticks for they are in Communion with none but their own Independent Congregations Let us now hear your Queries Q. 1. Whether any Obstacle to Catholick Communion brought in by Men may not be a means of depriving Men of it as well as Covenant or Contract Ans Yes it may but with this Material difference Other things hinder Communion as Sinful Terms of Communion this Independent Covenant in its own Nature Shuts up Encloses and breaks Christian Communion into as many Separate Churches and Communions as there are Independent Congregations Sinful Terms of Communion are a just cause of Separation an Independent Church-Covenant is a State of Separation in its own Nature The Communion of the Church may be restored by removing those Sinful Terms of Communion but there can be no
of Schism or to discover on which side the Schism lies or to avoid it without renouncing all Communion with the Church which course soever they take I leave all such Cases to God who knows when it is fit to dispence with his own Laws and will take care of my own Duty according to Scripture-Rules and not hope to justifie the ordinary breach of known Laws by some extraordinary Cases And yet the Case which you propose is not so unanswerable a difficulty as you imagine Several Councils in Palestine in Rome in Pontus and other places Euseb b. 5. cap. 23. Determine the Celebration of Easter on the day of the Resurrection not on the Fourteenth Day of the Month which was the Jewish Passover which dispute you call a Mistake in Arithmetick but for what reason I know not the Bishops of Asia at the same time decree the observation of Easter on the Fourteenth Day whatever Day of the week it fell on according to the Ancient Observation of the Asian Churches Pope Victor upon this writes to several Bishops very bitterly against them and was very desirous to have them Excommunicated and did as much as in him lay denounce the Sentence against them cap. 24. But this was ill resented by other Bishops in Communion with him and particularly Ireneus wrote a Letter to him about it and earnestly disswades him from it and did prevent it from taking effect if we will believe Eusebius So far is it from being true as you assert that Pope Victor in a Council Excommunicated the poor Asians what he did was only his own Act which was displeasing to other Bishops and which he was forc't to undo So that here was a great deal of Heat and Warmth and tendency towards a Schism but no Schism followed upon it among the Catholick Churches But suppose Pope Victor had Excommunicated the Asian Churches and this Excommunication had taken effect this could not make the Asian Churches Schismaticks for there is a great deal of difference between being cast out of the Communion of a Church and forsaking the Communion of a Church The first is matter of censure the second is our own choice the First is an Ecclesiastical Punishment the Second when it is causeless is Schism So that had the Church of Rome Excommunicated the Asian Churches unless the Asian Churches upon this had made a Separation from the Church of Rome this Excommunication could not make them Schismaticks and therefore any one might safely Communicate with them without partaking in a Schism Nor was it a just reason for the Asian Churches to have renounced the Communion of the Church of Rome though they had been Excommunicated by Victor for this had been to do as ill a thing as Victor had done for no other reason but because Pope Victor had set them an example And therefore we find Saint Cyprian of another temper when he and the African Bishops were threatned in the same manner by Pope Stephen upon occasion of that warm Dispute about rebaptizing Hereticks At that very time in his Epistle to Jubaianus he declares his resolution not to break Communion with any Church or Bishops upon that account and therefore not with Pope Stephen himself notwithstanding his rash and furious Censures And concludes that Patience and Forbearance was the best Remedy in such Cases and therefore upon this occasion he says he wrote his Book de bono Patientiae Well but if the Asiatick Churches were not Schismaticks yet Pope Victor had been a Schismatick had he Excommunicated the Churches of Asia or withdrawn Communion from them And this had made the case of the Roman Christians very hard for they must either have suspended Communion with both these divided Churches and lived without the comfort and advantages of Christian Communion or they must have rejected the Communion of their own Bishop and Churches or have rejected the Communion of the Churches of Asia or have maintained Communion with them both that is with two Separate Churches which according to my Principles is to Communicate in a Schism If they Communicate with their own Schismatical Bishop this is to Communicate in a Schism by Communicating with a Schismatick if they Renounce his Communion when he imposes no new unlawful Terms of Communion upon them this is to Separate from a Sound and Orthodox Church for the sake of a Schismatical Bishop If they Communicate with the Churches of Asia this is to break Communion with their own Bishop who has Excommunicated them if they separate from the Churches of Asia for no other reason but because they are unjustly Excommunicated this is to Separate for an unjust cause which is a Schism if they communicate with both they Communicate with two Separate Churches and therefore must be Schismaticks on one side or other If you can find any more difficulties in this matter you may And yet after all this I do believe the Christians of Rome might have Communicated both with the Roman and Asian Churches without Schism and this I believe upon these Principles which I shall briefly explain and confirm 1. That the Personal miscarriage of the Bishop in the exercise of Ecclesiastical Censures cannot involve his whole Church in the guilt of Schism though it may make him a Schismatick and certainly since Bishops are but Men and Subject to the like passions and infirmities that other men are it would be a very hard case if his personal Schism should be imputed to the whole Church Though the Bishop have the chief Authority in the Church yet it is hard to say that every abuse of his Authority is the Act of the whole Church and therefore the Church may not be Schismatical when the Bishop is and it is possible to Communicate with a Church whose Bishop is a Schismatick without Communicating in the Schism And therefore though Victor had Schismatically Excommunicated the Asian Churches the Christians of Rome at that time might have Communicated with the Church of Rome without partaking in Victors Schism For tho a particular Church-Society consists in that Relation which is between the Bishop and his Clergy and People yet it is possible that the Bishop in the exercise of his Authority may violate the Fundamental Laws of Communion on which the Christians of such a Church unite into one Body and Society and when he does so it being an abuse of his Episcopal Authority it is his personal fault which cannot affect the whole Church The case is very plain where there is an Established constitution in a Church as it is in the Church of England which obliges the Bishops as well as People For should any English Bishop require any thing of his Clergy or People which is contrary to the Establish't Laws and Canons of the Church or should exercise any Authority in Censures and Excommunications which is not allowed him by those Canons this can in no sense be called the Act of the Church nor is any one bound
to obey him in it and though such a Bishop should do any Schismatical Act the Church is not Schismatical because he did not pursue the Laws of the Church in what he did but gratified his own Humour and Passion If the Church indeed Unites upon Schismatical Principles as the Novatians and Donatists did whatever the Bishops do in pursuance of such Principles is the Act of the Church and if the Bishops be Schismaticks the Church is so too but when there is nothing Schismatical in the Constitution of the Church the personal Schism of Bishops cannot make their Churches Schismatical And though the Primitive Churches before the Empire turned Christian had not such a Firm and Legal Constitution as the Church of England now has yet a Constitution they had which consisted either of Apostolical Rules handed down by Tradition and confirmed by long custom and usage or the Canons of particular Councils which in ordinary cases made standing Laws of Discipline and Government and in extraordinary cases provided for new Emergent difficulties and antecedently to all these positive Constitutions they were all under the obligation of that great Law of Catholick Communion So that the Government of the Church since the Apostles days was never so intirely in the Bishops Breast that what he did should be thought the Act of the Church any farther than as he complied with those Laws by which the Church was to be Governed and therefore there was reason in those days to distinguish between the Act of the Bishop and the Act of the Church As to shew you this particularly in the case before us The Church of Rome from the time of the Apostles had observed Easter on the day of the Resurrection which is the first day of the week or the Lords day the Asian Churches on the 14th day of the Month and therefore the Bishop of Rome according to the Laws of that Church might require all the Members of his Church to observe Easter according to the usage of the Church of Rome and might regularly inflict Church-Censures upon the obstinate and refractory and this would be accounted the Act of the Church because it was in pursuance of the Laws and Constitutions of it But there was no Canon nor Custom in the Church of Rome to deny Communion to Foreign Churches who observed their own Customs in this matter and would not conform to the Custom of the Church of Rome Nay there was the Practise and Example of Former Times against it for Anicetus Bishop of Rome received Polycarp an Asian Bishop to Communion though they could not agree about this matter And therefore when Victor Schismatically Excommunicated the Asian Churches for this different observation of Easter it was his Personal Act not the Act of the Church of Rome which had no such Law and owned no such Custom and therefore though this might make Pope Victor a Schismatick it could not make the Church of Rome Schismatical the guilt went no farther than Victors Person unless other Persons voluntarily made themselves guilty by abetting and espousing the Quarrel So that had Victor persisted in his Excommunication of the Asiatick Churches none had been guilty of Schism but himself and such as approved and consented to it but the Body of the Clergy and People who had not consented unto it had been Innocent and therefore any Catholick peaceable Christian who lived in Rome in those Days might have Communicated with the Church of Rome without Schism The like may be said of the Quarrels and Controversies of particular Bishops which have sometimes ended in formal Schisms and denouncing Excommunication against each other which cannot make their Churches Schismatical any further than they take part with their respective Bishops For this is rather a Personal Schism and Separation than a Church Schism neither of them Separate from the Communion of the Church under the Notion of such a Church though they Separate from each others Communion upon some personal Quarrels This was the Case of St. Chrysostom and Epiphanius and some other Bishops in those days which were Catholick Bishops and maintained Communion with the Catholick Church but yet Separated from each other which is a very great fault as all Contentions and Divisions in the Church are but has not the Evil and Destructive Nature of a Church Schism But you will say can we Communicate with a Church without Communicating with its Bishop or can we Communicate with a Schismatical Bishop without Communicating in his Schism I Answer Yes we may Communicate with a Schismatical Bishop without Communicating in his Schism When Schism is his personal fault our Communion with him makes us no more guilty of it than of any other Personal fault our Bishop is guilty of While we take care to Communicate with him in no Schismatical Act no Man is bound to forsake the Communion of the Church for the Personal faults of his Bishop So that the Roman Christians might Communicate with the Church of Rome without Schism notwithstanding Pope Victors Schismatical Excommunication of the Asian Churches And now the only difficulty that remains is whether the Christians of Rome might have Communicated with the Asiatick Churches notwithstanding Victor had Excommunicated them for if they could not then they must inevitably partake in Victors Schism if his sentence obliged them to deny Communion to the Asian Churches And in answer to this we may consider 2. That those who Condemned the Excommunication of the Asian Churches did in so doing own their Communion which is one way and the Principal way of maintaining Communion between Churches at a Distance who cannot actually Communicate with each other 3. That Victor being the Bishop of Rome who had the supreme Authority of receiving in or shutting out of the Communion of that Church if any Persons of the Asian Communion had come to Rome private Christians could not receive them into the Communion of the Church without the Bishops Authority and therefore could not actually Communicate with them in the publick Offices of Religion though they owned their Communion but this is no more their fault than the Excommunication of the Asian Churches was they Communicate with their own Church and would be very glad that the Asians that are among them might be received into Communion but they have no Authority to do it and therefore the fault is not theirs for this is not to Renounce the Communion of the Asian Christians but is only a forc't Suspension of Communion 4. If the Christians of Rome should Travel into Asia I doubt not but that they might very lawfully Communicate with the Asian Churches notwithstanding they were Excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome For the Bishop of Rome had no just cause to Excommunicate the Bishops and Churches of Asia and therefore the Sentence is void of it self and the Roman Christians when they are in Asia are not under the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome and therefore must not forbear
nor suspend Communion with the Asian Churches unless they will justifie this Schismatical Excommunication The Jurisdiction of a particular Bishop is confined within the Bounds of his own Church and every Christian is Subject to the Authority of the Church where he is and therefore though the Roman Christians at Rome cannot receive the Excommunicated Asians to their Communion without the Authority of their Bishop yet when they are in Asia where the Bishop of Rome has no Authority over them they may and ought to joyn themselves to the Communion of the Asian Churches during their abode among them if the Asians would receive them without Commendatory Letters from their Bishop which they could not have in such a case as this Thus Sir I have considered the Case you put about Pope Victors Excommunicating the Asian Churches which is not a real but a feigned Case for there was no actual Schism upon it as I perceive some body had told you there was And yet supposing it had been so I have shewn you how the Roman and Asian Churches might have maintained Communion with each other and that the case of private Christians was not so desperate as you represent it Your following exceptions concerning National Communion and National Churches and the possibility Letters 3. p. 22. that there should be several Sound and Orthodox parts of the Church at the same place have been sufficiently considered already and you twit me so often with my repetitions that though I find you want very frequent repetitions to make you understand the plainest sence yet I will for my Readers sake and my own correct that fault Your attempt to prove Congregational Churches p. 24. from 1 Cor. 14. 23. has been so often answered by the Presbyterian as well as Episcopal Divines that to save my self the labour of transcribing I shall refer you to them and particularly to the Defence of Dr. Still Vnr of Separ p. 392. c. where you may find this matter largely debated in answer to Dr. Owen's Original of Churches You say it is evident that one of these Separate Churches must needs be cut off from Christs Body I readily grant it for Christ has but one Body which p. 26. is one Communion and therefore two Churches which are not in Communion with each other cannot both belong to the same Body or the one Catholick Church but the Church which is the Schismatick according to the Language of the Primitive times is out of the Catholick Church extra Ecclesiam foris as is discourst at large in the Vindication of the Defence In the next place you endeavour to make me contradict my self in talking of occasional Communion and occasional Membership and different Relations when else where I assert That the Communion of the Church does not make us Members of any particular Church But pray Sir where do I assert this I am sure I assert the quite contrary that Church-Communion consists in Church-Membership I say indeed That Church-Communion Primarily and Principally refers to the Vniversal Church not Resol of Cases p. 13 14. to any particular Church or Society of Christians That a Member is a Member of the whole Body not meerly of any part of it That Baptism which is the Sacrament of our admission into the Covenant of God and the Communion of the Church does not make us Members of any particular Church as such but of the Vniversal Church And I do as plainly assert that every true Catholick Christian is a Member of the Vniversal Church and as such is a Member of every particular Church which is a sound part of the Vniversal Church That no Man can properly be said to Communicate with any Church whatever Acts of Communion he may perform in it who does not Communicate with it as a Member and that therefore to talk of Occasional Communion in the sense of our Dissenters is as absurd as to talk of an Occasional Membership these are the very Principles on which I dispute against those absurd Distinctions of p. 30. constant and occasional Communion which I confess to be absurd and a Contradiction to all the Principles of Catholick Communion and therefore you are concerned to answer this absurdity not I. I have charged this absurdity upon our Occasional Communicants and let any man take it off that can But are you not Sir admirably qualified to Answer Books without so much as understanding the general scope and design of the Book you Answer without knowing what makes for you or against you As for your next Question How does it appear that it is necessary to Communion with the Catholick Church that we must perform the constant Acts of Communion in that part of the Catholick Church where we constantly live You ought instead of asking this Question to have shown that what proofs I have alleadged for this are not conclusive or do not sufficiently prove the thing but your Question insinuates that I have said nothing at all about it or at least that you do not know that I have though it be the Principal Design of that discourse and then I am a very careless writer or you a very careless Reader But the Answer to it in short is this That every Christian is bound to live in Communion with the Catholick Church no Man lives in Communion with the Church who does not perform the External visible Acts of Communion when he may do it without sin The whole Catholick Church being but one Communion whoever Communicates with any sound part of it Communicates with the whole no Man can ordinarily Communicate in a Church in which he does not ordinarily live and therefore if he be bound at all to the External and visible Acts of Communion he must perform them in the Church wherein he lives and in so doing if it be a true Catholick Church he lives in Communion with the whole Catholick Church But you attempt to prove That you are not bound to Communicate so much as sometimes with a sound part of Ibidâ— the Catholick Church because you live where there is such an one And this you prove from Mr. Chillingworth's Authority who says that if you speaking to the Papists require the belief of any Error among the conditions of your Communion our Obligation to Communion with you ceaseth Now is not this an admirable proof that we are not bound to Communicate with a sound part of the Church where we live because we are not bound to Communicate with an erroneous Church which imposes the belief of her Errours as Terms of Communion Is not this a wonderful sound Church And are not you a very subtil Arguer You produce another passage of Mr. Chillingworth by which I cannot tell what you intend to prove unless it be that there is no need there should be any External or Visible Church-Society so Men do but Profess the Faith of Christ which seems to be the sence of your foregoing Paragraph But
the words are these I believe our Saviour ever since his Ascension hath had in some place or other a Visible true Church on Earth I mean a Company of Men that profest at least so much as was necessary to Salvation and I believe there will be some where or other such a Church to the Worlds end This is his answer to that Popish Question about the perpetuity of the Visible Church whereby it appears that this Company of Men he speaks of are not single and scattered Individuals which are no Visible Church but he means a Formed and Visible Church-Society and his Answer is true though there were never a sound Church in the World For a corrupt Church which retains all the Essentials of Faith and Worship is a true Visible Church and this is the meaning of Mr. Chillingworth's Answer but how this proves that there is no need there should be any Visible Church at all or that Christians are not bound to actual Communion with the sound and Orthodox Church wherein they live is past my understanding At the same rate you defend your self against me in your Preface by the Authority of those two excellent Persons the Dean of Canterbury and the Dean of Saint Pauls Dr. Stillingfleet had asserted That all things necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture to all that sincerely endeavour to understand them hence S. C. infers That the Governours of our Church have no Authority to teach Truth or to condemn Errours and all the People are become Prophets and all their Articles Answer to several Treatises p. 272. c. Constitutions and Ordinances have been composed and enjoyned by an usurped Authority and if he had added as he might have done with the same reason And all Church-Communion is needless it had been exactly what you aim at in this Citation The Dr. vindicates his Doctrine from such a wild Fanatical inference 1. By shewing the intention of those Principles which was plainly to lay down the Foundations of a Christian Faith living in the Communion of our Church And if this was his design as he says it was certainly he could neither before nor after say any thing which should overthrow the necessity of Church-Communion and then he can say nothing against me nor for you 2. He distinguishes between the necessaries to Salvation and to the Government of the Church that is what is necessary for every Christian considered in p. 275. a private Capacity to know and believe to make him capable of Salvation and what care the Church must take to instruct the ignorant to satisfie the doubting to direct the unskilful and to help the weak and not barely to provide for necessity but safety and not barely the safety of particular persons but of it self which cannot p. 276. be done without prudent Orders setting the bounds of Mens Employments c. i. e. though it is possible for a private Christian who lives alone and has the use of the Bible in a Language which he understands by diligent and honest inquiries to find out so much truth as is absolutely necessary to Salvation yet this does not overthrow the necessity of a setled Ministry and a regular Authority in the Church all this I firmly assent to and yet do as firmly believe the necessity of Church-Communion when it may be had upon Lawful Terms and so does this Reverend Person also and therefore I cannot look upon your alleadging his Authority against me to have any other design than to affront the Dean for his excellent Pains in vindicating the Communion of our Church and shewing people the Evil and Danger of Separation He has sufficiently declared what his Judgment is about Separation and therefore I need not concern my self any farther to prove that he is not my Adversary in this Cause At the same rate you deal with that great Man as you deservedly call him Dr. Tillotson who says I had much rather perswade any one to be a good Man than Preface to be of any Party and denomination of Christians whatsoever for I doubt not but the belief of the Ancient Creed provided we entertain nothing that is destructive of it together with a good life will certainly save a Man and without this no man can have reasonable hopes of Salvation no not in an Infallible Church if there were any such to be found in the World How does this oppose me who assert the necessity of Church-Communion Is the Catholick Church then and the Communion of Saints no part of our Creed and is not Schism destructive to these great Articles of our Faith or is Schism which is the breach of Christian Charity properly so called which is the Love and Charity which the Members of the same Body ought to have for each other and consists in Unity and Communion consistent with a good Life if by that we understand an Universal goodness of which Charity is the most vital and essential part But do you indeed think Sir that the Dean believes a Man may be saved without Communion with any Church when it may be had without Sin when in the very next Paragraph he so earnestly exhorts them to Communion with the Church of England I can easily forgive your usage of me since I find you cannot Read the best Books without perverting them and that you never spare any Mans Reputation to serve your Designes for your Reproaches and your Commendations are but different ways of abuse though I confess I should rather chuse to be reproached by you Your last Consideration is whether it be a good way to convert Schismaticks to prove that Schism is as Letter 3. p. 29. Damning a Sin as Murder or Adultery Truly Sir St. Cyprian and St. Austin and all the Ancient Fathers of the Church thought this a very good way for they insisted very much upon this Argument and if Men will not forsake their Schism though the Salvation of their Souls be endangered by it I am apt to think that no other Arguments will perswade them And if this be true as I verily believe it is and shall believe so till I see the Third Chapter of the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still fairly answered I think it the greatest Charity in the World to warn Men of it and if it should prove by their perverseness no Charity to them it is Charity to my own Soul and delivers me from the guilt of their Bloud whether such Doctrine Preach Men into or out of the Church And now for your parting Blow Certainly if our Church required Conformity to its Rites and Ceremonies as necessary to Salvation It could not blame Men for dividing from it Yes certainly upon such a Supposition the Church could and would blame Men for their Separation though it may be they might not deserve to be blamed for no doubt the more necessary the Church judges her Constitutions the more she will blame Dissenters But he who tells us or he
saies nothing that the divine Spirit confines his Influences and Operations to the Vnity of the Church in such Conformity not only makes such Conformity necessary to Salvation but imputes to the Church the Damnation of many Thousands of Souls who might expect to be saved upon other Terms That the Divine Spirit confines his influences ordinarily to the Unity of the Church I do assert but that this is in Conformity to the Church of England I do not assert For Conformity to the Church of England is not Essential to the Unity of the Catholick Church for every Church has authority to prescribe its own Rites and Ceremonies of Worship in Conformity to the general Rules of the Gospel And therefore though the Unity of the Church is necessary to intitle Men to the ordinary influences of Gods Grace and consequently is necessary to Salvation yet Conformity to the Church of England is not necessary to the Unity of the Church because Christians who live under the Government and Jurisdiction of other Churches may and do preserve the Unity of the Church without conformity to the Church of England Obedience indeed and Subjection to church-Church-Authority in all Lawful things is necessary to the Unity of the Church and necessary to Salvation and consequently it is a necessary Duty to conform to all the Lawful and Innocent Customs of the Church wherein we live but this does not make the particular Laws of Conformity which are different in different Churches to be necessary to Salvation unless you will say the Church has no Authority but only in things absolutely necessary to Salvation which destroys all the external Order and Discipline of the Church and charges all the Churches in the World with destroying Mens Souls if any persons be so Humorsom and Peevish as to break Communion with them for such Reasons But such kind of Cavils as these you may find answered at large in the Vindication of the Defence and thither I refer you if you desire to see any more of it Thus Sir I have with great patience answered your Questions not that they needed or deserved any Answer but that you might not think your self too much despised nor other weak People think your Questions unanswered And now I have given you an Answer I shall take the Confidence to give you a little Ghostly Counsel too which you need a great deal more than an Answer I have not troubled my Head to inquire Scrupulously who you are nor do I use to trust Common Fame in such matters but though I know not you yet I perceive you know me and if as you say you have often p. 1. heard me with great Satisfaction and as you hope not without edifying thereby I think it would have become you to have treated me with a little more Civility than you have done if it be in your Nature to be Civil to a Clergy-Man And I wish more for your own sake than for mine you had done so for I thank God I have learnt not only by the precepts and example of my great Master but by frequent Tryals to go through good Report and evil Report and to bear the most invidious and Spightful Reflections with an equal mind But as contemptible as a Clergy-Man is now these things will be accounted for another day For it is very evident that you have a great Spight at the whole Order whatever personal kindness you may have for some Men they are but a Herd of Clergy-men and you know no other use of a Bishop but to oversee admonish and Censure those who are apt to Preface go beyond their due Bounds I confess this way of Railery is grown very fashionable and I perceive you are resolved to be in the Mode and to be an accomplisht Gentleman but I never knew a man that was seriously religious who durst affront the Servants for their Masters sake But you Sir are in the very height of the fashion and think their Office as contemptible as their Persons generally are thought to be you hope to be saved without understanding the Notion of Church-Government as 't is intreagued by Clergy-men of all sides And I hope you may be saved without understanding a great many other things besides Church-Government or else I doubt your Salvation may be hazardous But this is too plain a contempt of all Church-Authority for though the Church of Rome has usurpt an unlimited and Tyrannical Power under the Notion of Church-Government yet what has the Sound Church of England as you own it done What occasion did I give for this Censure who have expresly confined the Exercise of church-Church-Authority to Church-Communion to receiving in and putting out of the Church And if Resol of Cases p. 39. the Church be no Society I would desire to know what it is and if be a Society how can any Society subsist without Authority in some Persons to receive in and to shut out of the Society But the truth is tho you pretend to be in Communion with the Church of England you make the Church it self a very needless and insignificant thing for you know no necessity of Communicating with any Church you will not allow it to be Schism to Separate from the Church you think it a pretty indifferent thing whether Men be Baptized or not or by whom they are Baptized what your Opinion is about the Sacrament of the Lords Supper I do not know though if you are consistent with your self I doubt that is a very indifferent Ceremony too Truly to deal plainly with you I think you have more need to be taught your Catechism than to set up for a Writer of Books and let me in time warn you what the consequence of this way you are in is likely to be which is no less than a contempt of all revealed and institute Religion and consequently of Christianity Natural Religion may subsist without any positive Institutions but revealed Religion never did and never can for when God Transacts with Mankind in the way of a Visible Covenant there must be some Visible Ministers and Visible Sacraments of this Covenant And when the Evangelical Ministers and Sacraments fall into contempt Men must think meanly of Christianity and return to what they call natural Religion which is a Religion without a Priest and without a Sacrifice which cannot save a Sinner but by uncovenanted Grace and Mercy which no Man can be sure of and which no Man shall find who rejects a Priest and Sacrifice of Gods providing And to convince you of this you may observe that the contempt of the Notion of a Church of the Evangelical Priesthood and Sacraments is originally owing to Deists and Socinians to those who profess to believe in God and to worship him according to the Laws of natural Religion but believe nothing at all of Christ or to those who profess to believe in Christ but believe him only to be a meer Man and a great Reformer of Natural
before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be received and what Tradition is to be rejected 3. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. THE CASE OF Lay-Communion WITH THE CHURCH of ENGLAND CONSIDERED And the Lawfulness of it shew'd from the Testimony of above an hundred eminent Non-conformists of several Perswasions Published for the satisfaction of the Scrupulous and to prevent the Sufferings which such needlesly expose themselves to The Second Edition corrected by the Author LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard M. DC LXXXIV TO THE DISSENTERS FROM THE Church of England Dear Brethren YOU being at this time called upon by Authority to join in Communion with the Church and the Laws ordered to be put in Execution against such as refuse it It 's both your Duty and Interest to enquire into the grounds upon which you deny Obedience to the Laws Communion with the Church of God and thereby expose our Religion to danger and your selves to suffering In which unless the Cause be good the Call clear and Mr. Mede 's Farewel Serm. on 1 Cor. 1. 3. the End right it cannot bring Peace to your selves or be acceptable to God Not bring Peace to your selves For we cannot suffer joyfully the Mr. Read 's Case p. 4. spoiling of our Goods the confinement of our Persons the ruin of our Families unless Conscience be able truly to say I would have done any thing but sin against God that I might have avoided those Sufferings from Men. Not be acceptable to God to whom all are accountable Continuat of Morn Exer. Ser. 4. p. 92. for what Portion he hath intrusted them with of the things of this Life and are not to throw away without sufficient reason and who has made it our Duty to do what we can without Sin in Obedience to that Authority which he hath set over us as you are told by some Read Ibid. in the same condition with your selves To assist Persons in this Enquiry I have observed that of late several of the Church of England have undertaken the most material Points that you do question and have handled them with that Candor and Calmness which becomes their Profession and the gravity of the Arguments and which may the better invite those that are willing to be satisfied to peruse and consider them But because Truth and Reason do too often suffer by the Prejudices we have against particular Persons to remove as much as may be that Obstruction I have in this Treatise shewed that these Authors are not alone but have the concurrent Testimony of the most eminent Non-conformists for them who do generally grant that there is nothing required in the Parochial Communion of the Church of England that can be a sufficient reason for Separation from it The sence of many of these I have here collected and for one hundred I could easily have produced two if the Cause were to go by the Poll So that if Reason or Authority will prevail I hope that yet your Satisfaction and Recovery to the Communion of the Church is not to be despaired of Which God of his infinite Mercy grant for your own and the Churches sake Amen THE CONTENTS THE difference betwixt Ministerial and Lay-Communion Pag. 1 The Dissenters grant the Church of England to be a True Church p. 4 That they are not totally to separate from it p. 12 That they are to comply with it as far as lawfully they can p. 16 That Defects in Worship if not Essential are no just reason for Separation p. 23 That the expectation of better Edification is no sufficient reason to with-hold Communion p. 39 The badness of Ministers will not justify Separation p. 48 The neglect or want of Discipline no sufficient reason to separate p. 59 The Opinion which the Non-conformists have of the several Practices of the Church of England which its Lay-Members are concerned in p. 64 That Forms of Prayer are lawful and do not stint the Spirit ibid. That publick prescribed Forms may lawfully be joined with p. 66 That the Liturgy or Common-Prayer is for its Matter sound and good and for its Form tolerable if not useful p. 69 That Kneeling at the Sacrament is not idolatrous nor unlawful and no sufficient reason to separate from that Ordinance p. 71 72 That standing up at the Creed and Gospel is lawful p. 73 The Conclusion ibid. THE NON-CONFORMISTS PLEA FOR Lay-Communion With the CHURCH of ENGLAND THE Christian World is divided into two Ranks Ecclesiastical and Civil usually known by the Names of Clergy and Laity Ministers and People The Clergy besides the things essentially belonging to their Office are by the Laws of all well-ordered Churches in the World strictly obliged by Declarations or Subscriptions or both to own and maintain the Doctrine Discipline and Constitution of the Church into which they are admitted Thus in the Church of England they do subscribe to the Truth of the Doctrine more especially contained in the thirty nine Articles and declare that they will use the Forms and Rites contained in the Liturgy and promise to submit to the Government in its Orders The design of all which is to preserve the Peace of the Church and the Unity of Christians which doth much depend upon that of its Officers and Teachers But the Laity are under no such Obligations there being no Declarations or Subscriptions required of them nor any thing more than to attend upon and joyn with the Worship practised and allowed in the Church Thus it is in the Church of England as it is acknowledged by Mr. Baxter to whom when it Defence of the Cure part 2. pag. 29. was objected that many Errors in Doctrine and Life were imposed as Conditions of Communion he replies What is imposed on you as a Condition to your Communion in the Doctrine and Prayers of the Parish-Churches but your actual Communion it self In discoursing therefore about the Lawfulness of Communion with a Church the Difference betwixt these two must be carefully observed lest the things required only of one Order of Men should be thought to belong to all It 's observed by one That the Original of all Our Mischiefs A Book licensed by Mr. Cranford sprung from Mens confounding the terms of Ministerial Conformity with those of Lay-Communion with the Parochial Assemblies there being much more required of the Ministers than of the People Private Persons having much less to say for themselves in absenting from the publick Worship of God tho performed by the Liturgy than the Pastor hath for not taking Oaths c. Certainly if this Difference were but observ'd and the Case of Lay-Communion truly stated and understood the People would not be far more
may make Separation from We shall need no further proof of this Doctrine than the Example of our Saviour himself c. For why should our Saviour use it if it was unlawful Or why should it be a Sin to us The unâ—easonableness of Separat p. 104. who have not such Eyes to pierce into the Impiety of Mans Traditions as he had as Mr. Bradshaw argues The same Measures were observed also by the Apostles after the Establishment of the Christian Church This is not to be gainsaid and is therefore granted by one in other things rigid more than enough I Non-conformists no Schismaticks p. 15. do not say that every Corruption in a true Church is sufficient Ground of Separation from it The Unsoundness of many in the Church of Corinth touching the Doctrine of the Resurrection and in Galatia touching the Doctrine of Circumcision and the necessity of keeping the Ceremonial Law were not sufficient Ground of Separation from them for the Apostles held Communion with them notwithstanding these Corruptions Now by Parity of Reason it will follow that if Separation was not to be allowed from those corrupted Churches then surely not from such as are not so corrupted as they So Mr. Cawdrey Independ a great Schism p. 195. pleads Corinth had we suppose greater Disorders in it than are to be found blessed be God in many of our Congregations why then do they fly and separate from us And if our Saviour and his Apostles did not separate from such Churches much less should we who may without doubt safely follow the Advice given by an Author above quoted When you are at England's Remembrancer Serm. 4. p. 111. a stand think how Christ would have carried what he would have done in the like case with yours and we may thereby be concluded Thirdly They further argue That Christ doth Arg. 3 still hold Communion with defective Churches and not reject the Worship for tolerable Corruptions in it and so neither ought we It is supposed by Dr. Owen That there is no such Society of Christians Discourse of Evangelical Love c. 3. p. 81. in the World whose Assemblies as to instituted Worship are so rejected by Christ as to have a Bill of Divorce given unto them until they are utterly as it were extirpate by the Providence of God c. For we do judg that where ever the Name of Jesus Christ is called upon there is Salvation to be obtained however the ways of it may be obstructed unto the most by their own Sins and Errors And if this may be said of Churches though fundamentally erroneous in Worship then Who shall dare as another saith to judg when Christ hath forsaken a People Troughton's Apol. p. 110. who still profess his Name and keep up his Worship for substance according to his Word though they do or are supposed to fail in circumstances or lesser parts of Duty Now this granted the other will follow that then we are not to separate from such Churches Thus Mr. Hildersham concluded of old from the Practice Lect. 35 on John p. 165 166. and Lect. 82. p. 384. of Christ and observes 1. So long as God continueth his Word and the Doctrine of Salvation to a People so long it is evident that God dwells among them and hath not forsaken them c. And till God hath forsaken a Church no Man may forsake V. Dr. Bryan's dwelling with God p. 293. it 2. No Separation may be made from those Assemblies where Men may be assured to find and attain Salvation But Men may be sure to find and attain Salvation in such Assemblies where the Ministry of his Word and the Doctrine of Salvation is contained So Mr. * * * On the Sacramen p. 242. Crofton's hard way to Heaven p. 36. Noye's Temple measured p. 79. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Davenport's Apol. reply p. 281. Ball 's Tryal p. 159 c. Vines The Argument saith he of Mr. Brightman is considerable If God afford his Communion with a Church by his own Ordinances Grace and Spirit it would be unnatural and peevish in a Child to forsake his Mother while his Father owns her for his Wife I might heap up Authorities of this kind but shall content my self with a considerable one from †††Comment on 1 Epist John p. 156. Mr. Cotton who reasons after this manner The Practice of the Brownists is blame-worthy because they separate where Christ keeps Fellowship Rev. 1. 18. And that he walks with us we argue because he is still pleased to dispense to us the Word of Life and edifies many Souls thereby and therefore surely Christ hath Fellowship with us and shall Man be more pure than his Maker where Christ vouchsafes Fellowship shall Man renounce it Upon this are grounded the wholesome Exhortations of many eminent Non-conformists as that of Mr. Calamy You must hold Communion with all Godly Mans Ark Epist Ded. those Churches with which Christ holds Communion you must separate from the Sins of Christians but not from the Ordinances of Christ Of Mr. R. Allein Godly Mans Portion p. 122. Excommunicate not them from you excommunicate not your selves from them with whom Christ holds Communion Judg not that Christ withdraws from all those who are not in every thing of your mind and way Methinks saith another in his V. Bains on the Ephes c. 2. 15. p. 297. England's Remâ—mbrancer Serm. 16. p. 455. Farewel Sermon where a Church as to the main keeps the Form of sound Words and the Substantials of that Worship which is Christ's some adjudged Defects in Order cannot justify Separation I dare not dismember my self from that Church that holds the Head I think whilst Doctrine is for the main sound Christ stays with a Church and it is good staying where he stays I would follow him and not lead him or go before the Lamb. To such we find a severe Rebuke given very lately by one of themselves Proud conceited Christians are not contented to come out Continuat of Morn Exerc. Serm. 16. p. 459. and separate from the unbelieving idolatrous World but they will separate also from the true Church of Christ and cast off all Communion with them who hold Communion with him Fourthly They argue That to separate for such Arg. 4 Defects and Corruptions would destroy all Communion If this should be saith Mr. Bradshaw then no Unreas of the Separaâ— p. 103. Man can present himself with a good Conscience at any publick Worship of God wheresoever because except it should be stinted and prescribed he can have no Assurance but that some Errors in Matter and Form will be committed So Mr. Ball One Man is of Opinion Trial of the Grounds of Separat c. 8. p. 137 138. that a prescribed Form is better than another another that a prescribed Form is unlawful c. In these Cases if the least Eâ—ror do stain the Prayers to others that
p. 10. it unlawful then all Communion in any part of God's Worship with such Ministers is unlawful and so the Church in all Ages of the World the Prophets our Saviour Christ the Apostles and the V. Ball 's Trial p. 310. Faithful in the Primitive Churches sinned in holding Communion with such when the Priests were dumb Dogs that could not bark and greedy Dogs that could never have enough when the Prophets prophesied Lyes when the Priests bought and sold Doves in the Temple c. when they were such and did such things they were ungodly Ministers but we never find that the Prophets our Saviour and the Apostles did either forbear themselves or warn the Faithful not to communicate with such in the Ordinance of Worship So much Mr. Nye doth grant More cannot be objected against our Ministers Case of great and present use p. 14. that Conform than might against the Scribes and Pharisees in Christ's Time either in respect of their Doctrine which was loaden with Traditions their Standing which was not according to Law their Lives which were vicious yet Christ not only permits but requires us to attend the Truths they deliver Secondly They plead that our Saviour himself did Arg. 2 Communicate where such did Officiate So Dr. Bryan In some Countries I am sure there are many Sober Dwelling with God p. 313. Godly Orthodox able Preachers c. And if you know any Country where it is worse This is attested by another in his Farewel Sermon Our Saviour England's Remembrancer Serm. 4. p. 94. Christ used to attend on the publick Worship in his Time notwithstanding such Formalists and superstitious Ones as the Scribes and Pharisees did Officiate in it Thirdly They say that the Sin of the Minister is Arg. 3 not theirs nor doth bring any detriment to them though they Communicate with him So Mr. Baxter A Minister's personal Faults may damn himself Câ—ristian Directory p. 747. Cure p. 113 114. and must be matter of Lamentation to the Church who ought to do their best to reform them or get better by any lawful means but in case they cannot his Sin is none of theirs nor doth it make his Administration null or ineffectual nor will it allow you to separate from the Worship which he Administreth So the Ministers sent to Oxford do assert Some evil Men may and always have de Account given to the Parliament p. 27. facto been Officers and Ministers in the Church c. and the wickedness of such Men did not null or evacuate their Ministerial Acts for our Saviour would have the Scribes and Pharisees heard while they sate in Moses's Chair c. And that the Ministrations in such a case are not invalid and that the People suffer not by it they further prove 1. Because they officiate not in their own Name So the Old Non-Conformists It hath ever-more been held for a Truth Letter of the Ministers p. 11. in the Church of God That although sometimes the Evil hath chief Authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own Name but in Christ's and minister by his Commission and Authority we may use their Ministry both in hearing the Word and receiving the Sacraments neither is the effect of Christ's Ordinance taken away by their wickedness 2. The virtue of the Ordinance doth not depend upon their Goodness but God's Promise So Mr. Rogers saith of Prayer If this burden of bad Ministers Tract 3. p. 223. must be born I ask If among many sweet Liberties we enjoy we may not join in Prayer with them if we can pray in Faith seeing their unworthiness cannot with-hold the Fruit of God's Promise from us which is to one kind of Prayer as well as another So saith Mr. Cradacot of the Word Take heed saith he of being leavened with prejudice Farewel Sermons Vol. 3. p. 22 23. against the Ministry of the Word because of the misdemeanors or miscarriage of the Minister It is the Word of the Lord which converts not the Person of the Dispenser or Speaker Hence it was that the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees was not to be rejected but to be esteemed so long as they failed not of the Substance thereof c. I conceive it 's a rare thing for unconverted Ministers to convert and yet we must remember not to tie the efficacy of the Word and Sacraments to the goodness or badness of a Minister's Person So when it 's Case of great and present Use p. 14. objected How can we expect a Blessing upon the Labours of such though they preach truth Mr. Nye replies Answ 1. The mixtures in Sermons are nearest the irregularities of their Calling next the sins of their Conversations furthest from their Doctrine and therefore have less efficacy at such a distance to prejudice it Answ 2. It 's God's Word and not their own they preach c. 3. That if Persons themselves do believe and are sincere they are notwithstanding such a Ministry accepted The Sacrifice of a faithful Elkanah saith one England's Remembrancer Serm. 4. p. 94. was pleasing to God even when Hophni and Phineas were Priests From all which we find some declaring that notwithstanding this they would Communicate So a Learned Person The Peoples Prejudices Bonasus Vapulans p. 133. against the Liturgy are grounded for the most part upon the wicked Lives of those that are the most constant readers and frequenters of it doubtless the Author if he had considered this would rather have said that they are grounded upon the wicked Lives of some of those that read and frequent it I shall never upon that account cease to join in Prayers and to hear Sermons Others we find exhorting their Auditors to attend even upon such So Mr. Fairclough in his Farewel-Sermons Get all Pastor's Legacy p. 125. good from shew all Duty to him that follows If he should be weak or evil yet while he preacheth Truths while he sits in Moses's Chair hear him seriously and carry your selves towards him as becomes a People to their Minister I have thus far considered the Case of scandalous Ministers because many make it an Objection as well those that are not concerned as those that are Otherwise it must be acknowledged that England was never better provided with a Learned and Pious Ministry than at present who have as good Vnderstanding Non-Conformists Plea for Conformists p. 12 23. preach as good Doctrine do as much good by their Preaching as any others as a late Writer doth confess But though many Congregations are well supplied with a Pious Able and Industrious Ministry yet there are few or none but what have some more or less amongst the Laity that are as it may be supposed not fit to be received into Communion with a Church or to be communicated with This brings me to the next thing in Worship which
Member may be reclaim'd or by its just Censures be cut off from the Communion If he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church Matth. 18. 17. Rubr. before the Commun Our Church hath given every Minister of a Parish power to refuse all scandalous and notorius sinners from the Lord's Supper and as slack and as much disus'd as Discipline is amongst us were such persons more generally inform'd against and complain'd of they would not find it so easie a matter to continue in their Offences and the Church together You see by what means the Church may either be clear'd in some measure of publick Offenders or the Members of it together with the Ordinances of God secur'd from infection by their fellowship By this did the Primitive Christians shew their Zeal for their Religion as well as by suffering for it They were infinitely careful to keep the honour of their Religion â—nspotted and the Communion of the Church as much out of danger as they could from the malignant influence of bad examples for this reason they watch'd over one another told them privately of their faults and when that would not do brought them before the cognizance of the Church and tho' lapsing into Idolatry in times of presecution was the common sin that for some Ages chiefly exerciz'd the Discipline of the Church yet all Offences against the Christian Law all Vices and Immoralities that were either publick in themselves or made known and prov'd to the Church came also under the Ecclesiastical Rod and were put to open Shame and Pennance this was that Discipline that preserv'd their Manners so Uncorrupt and made their Religion so Renown'd and Triumphant in the World and how happy would it be for us in this loose and degenerate Age as our own Church expresses Preface to the Comminat her wishes and desires were it again in its due Force and Vigour restored and resetled amongst us But if after all imaginable care and endeavour by private Christians some scandalous Members through the defects of Power in the Discipline or of Care and Watchfulness in Governours should remain in the Church whatever pollution those whose Office it is to rebuke with all Authority may draw on themselves Tit. 3. last by suffering it private Members that are no way neither by consent nor councel nor excuse accessary to their Sin can receive none for sin no otherwise pollutes than as it is in the will not as it is in the understanding as it 's chose and embrac'd not as it 's known I may know Adultery and yet be Chast see Strife and Debate in the City and yet be Peaceable hear Oaths and Curses and yet tremble at God's Name Noah was a good Man in an evil World Lot a righteous person amongst the conversation of the wicked neither is there any more fear of pollution from wicked Men in Sacred than in Civil Society Our Saviour and his Apostles were not the least defil'd by that Society they had with Scribes and Pharisees nor by that Familiarity they had with the accursed Judas tho' he eat the Passover with them and they kept him company after they knew him to be a Traytor What pollution did Abel receive from Cain when they Sacrific'd together Or Elkanah and Hannah from Eli's Debauch'd Sons when at Shilo they Worshipt together The good and bad indeed Communicate together but in what not in sin but in their common duty and tho' to Communicate with sin is sin yet to Communicate with a sinner in that which is not sin can be none Communion is a common union many partaking of one thing wherein they do agree now the common union of the good and bad in the Church is not in evil but in hearing of the Word in receiving of the Sacrament and in other holy Ordinances and Exercises when therefore some do evil the Communion in spiritual things is not polluted because evil is no part of the union in common one with another but the error of Man by himself out of the Communion which he himself and they only that have been partakers with him in it shall answer for Obj. But does not the Apostle say A little leaven 1 Cor. 5. 6. leaveneth the whole lump Ans This is a proverbial speech and shews only that sin like leaven is of a very spreading and diffusive nature not that it actually defiles where it is not admmitted A People in one Assembly are as a lump and a wicked person amongst them is as leaven but now altho' the leaven is apt to conveigh it self through the whole lump yet only are those parts actually leaven'd with it that take the leaven so it is with the Church the sinner by his bad example is apt to spread the infection through the whole body but only such as allow or any way communicate with him in his sin are actually infected such as Chloe that reprove the offender 1 Cor. 1. 11. and present him doing their utmost endeavour in their place ro reform him remain in spight of its malignity unpolluted Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees says our Saviour he adviseth not his Disciples to leave their Assemblies but to beware that they take no leaven of them shewing thereby that a good Man that stands upon his gaurd may be where leaven is and yet not be leaven'd The incestuous person was not cast out of the Church of Corinth and yet the Apostle says at least of some of them ye are unleaven'd ver 7. And why may not the joynt Prayers of the Church and the Examples of Pious and Devout Men in the Communion be as sovereign an antidote against the infection as the bare company of wicked Men is of power to convey it Why should not the holy Ordinances of God and the presence of holy Men at them be of as much virtue and efficacy to purge and sanctifie the whole body as the impurities of the bad are to stain and pollute it especially considering that the sins of the 2 Cor. 30. 18. wicked shall never be imputed to the righteous but the Prayers of the righteous have obtain'd pardon for the wicked Obj. But were not the pollutions of sin typified by Numb 19 13 20. the legal uncleannesses And was not every thing that the unclean person touch'd made unclean Ans Those legal and ceremonial pollutions concern not us under the Gospel we may touch a grave a dead person a leper and not at all be the less clean it 's not any outward uncleanness but the corruption and depravity of the inner man that incapacitates men for the Worship of God and Communion with him 2. Those legal pollutions did not defile the whole Communion but only those particular persons 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 many times reproved the Priests
for not separating the clean from the unclean the precious from the vile the Jer. 15. 16. Ezek. 22. 26. holy from the prophane yet did they never teach that because the unclean came into the Congregation through the neglect of their duty the whole Communion was polluted by it but as many as touch'd the unclean person were unclean so as many as have fellowship with the wicked in their sins are polluted by it to partake with men in their sins in a moral sense answers to the legal touching an unclean thing 3. When it 's said that the unclean person that did not purifie himself defiled 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' joyn'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 prepared 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 Tit. 1. 15. is nothing pure but even their Mind and Conscience is defil'd The weakness of this suggestion that the whole Communion and the Ordinances of God are polluted by the wicked Mans company at and among them being laid open The truth of the Proposition may be farther evinc'd from these particulars 1. From the example of God's People in the Church of the Jews We do not find that the sins either of the Priests or the People became at any time an occasion of separation to them What sins could be greater than those of Eli's Sons What higher aggravations could there be of sin Whether we consider the quality of the persons that sinn'd being the High-Priests Sons or the publick scandal aed impudence of the sin Lying with the women before the door of the Tabernacle yet did not the People of God not Elkanab and Hannah by name refrain to come up to Shilo and to joyn with them in the publick Worship Nay they are said to transgress who refus'd to come tho' they refus'd out of abhorance and detestation to the wickedness of 1 Sam. 2. 17. 24. those Men They abhorr'd the sacrifices of the Lord ye make the Lord's people to transgress 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 held 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 bowed their knee to Baal absent themselves because of the Idolatry of the rest but they all came and join'd in that publick Worship perform'd by the Prophet All the People fell on their faces saying the Lord he is God the Lord he is God 1 King 18. 39. All along 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 â—rophets at any time exhorted the faithful and sincere to separate or that they themselves set up any separate Meetings but continued in Communion with the Church Preaching to them and Exhorting them to Repentance 2. From the Example of God's People in the New Testament In the Apostolick Churches of Corinth Galatia and the seven Churches in Asia many of the Members were grown very bad and scandalous yet do we not read of the example of any good Man separating from the Church or any such Precept from the Apostles so to do They do not tell them that the whole Body was polluted by those filthy Members and that if they would be safe themselves they must withdraw from their Communion but exhort them to use all means to reclaim them and if neither private nor publick Admonitions and Reproofs would do then to suspend them from the Communion of the Church till by Repentance and Amendment they render'd themselves capable of being restored to Peace and Pardon The Spirit of God in the Second of the Revelation sends his Instructions to the Angels that is to the Bishops of those seven Churches in Asia whose Office it was to Preach Repentance to them and by their Authority to reform abuses but gives them no Command to cease the publick Administration or to advise the unpolluted part to separate from the rest nay altho' those Candlesticks were very foul yet was our Lord pleas'd still to bear with them and to walk in the midst of them Rev. 2. 1. and certainly so song as Christ affords his presence in a Church none of its Members ought to withdraw theirs 3. From our Saviour's own example who notwithanding the Church of the Jews in his time was a most corrupt Church and the Members of it very leud and vicious yet kept in Communion with it and commanded his Disciples so to do We read that the Scribes and Pharisees who rul'd the Ecclesiastical Chair at that time had perverted the law corrupted Mat. 15. 6 7 8. the worship of God were blind guides devoured widows houses were hypocrites and such as only had a form of godliness yet did not our Saviour separate from their Communion but was made under the Law freely subjected himself to all the Rites and Ceremonies of it he was circumcis'd on the eighth day redeem'd by a certain price being a Son and a First-born Luke 2. 22. observ'd their Passover and other Feasts enjoin'd by their Law yea and that of the dedication too tho' Matth. 26. but of humane institution was baptiz'd amongst them preach'd in their Temples and Synagogues reason'd John 17. 37. with them about Religion exhorted his Disciples to hear their Doctrine tho' not to follow their Practice John 10. 6 7. Mat. 6. 7. What greater cause on the account of cortuption in manners could be given to separate from a Church than was here yet how careful was our Saviour both by his Example and Precept to forbid and discountenance it They fit in Moses 's chair hear them 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 There were Schisms 1 Cor. 1. 12 13. 1 Cor. 3. 3. 1 Cor. 5. 1. and contentions amongst them strifes 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 does the Apostle not only not command them to separate but approves their meeting together and exhorts them to continue it But let 1 Cor. 5. 4.
our Saviour frequently resorted to it and bore a part in it John 18. 20 c. The like temper we find him of when he used the Cup of Charity after the manner of the Jews in the Passover though there was no institution for it and that it was as many other things taken up and used amongst them by way of signification and as a Testimony of entire Friendship and Charity Luke 22. 16. But I conceive alteration of Circumstances in the Institution is much more exceptionable than the addition of such to it and yet this was both done by them and observed by our Saviour when there was nothing else to oblige him but only a condescension to them in such usages and rites as were inoffensive in themselves and what were then generally used in the Church That the posture first required and used in the Pasiover was standing the Circumstances being to be eat with Staves in their Hands and Shoes on their Feet c. do prove and is affirmed by Philo de Sacrif Able c. Lightf Hor. Matth. c. 26. 20. the Jews and it is as manifest that the Jews in the time of our Saviour and for a long time before did recede from it and did eat it in the posture of discumbency whether it was as they looked upon themselves as settled in the possession of Canaan which they were at the first institution Travelling toward or as it 's said by the latter Jews because it was a sign of Liberty and after the manner of Kings and Great Men is not so material as it is that our Saviour did follow this Custom and complied with this practice of theirs without hesitation And thus did the Apostles when they observ'd the hours of Prayer Acts 3. 1. which were of humane institution as well as the Prayers themselves for without doubt they were publick Prayers which were used in the Temple but though the place was yet that service was of no more Authority than what was used in the Synagogues Now if the Jews did thus institute and alter things relating to external Order and Administration according as the case might require and it was lawful for them so to do as it 's plain from the compliance of our Saviour and the Apostles with them in it then much more may it be supposed lawful for the Christian Church to exercise that liberty when they have no other than such general rules for their direction as they had then without such particulars as they had And that this is no other than a certain Truth will appear from the same liberty taken in Apostolical times in Religious Assemblies when the Christian Church not only complied with the Jews in such Rites as they were under no Obligation but that of Charity to use which they did use because they were not forbidden and so lawful as when St. Paul took upon him a Vow Acts. 21. 26. but also had some Observances of it's own that were of a ritual nature and as they were taken up so might be laid down upon prudential consideration Such I account was the Washing the Disciples Feet which was done by our Saviour in token of the Humility he was to be president of and would have them follow him in and which it seems was observed amongst them 1 Tim. 5. 10. and for a long time after continued in a sort in some Churches (a) (a) (a) Ambros. Tom. 4. l. 3. de Sacrament c. 1. Such also were the Love-feasts at the Administration of the Lords Supper and the Holy-kiss used then amongst Christians if not as a constant attendant upon all publik Worship yet to be sure at Prayer (b) (b) (b) Tertul. de orat c. 14. Which and the like usages however taken up yet were in the Opinion of the Church no other than Indifferent and accordingly were upon the abuse of them as I observed before discarded From all which it appears that there was no such thing as Prescription expected before any Rite should be introduced into the Church or before it would be lawful for Christians to use it but that where it was not forbidden the Practice of the Church was to determine them and if Prescription had been thought necessary for every thing used in Divine Worship which was not Natural then certainly our Saviour and his Apostles would never have used or encouraged others to use any thing that wanted such Authority and that was not of Divine Institution Now if it should be objected that these usages of the Ames Fresh Suit l. 2. Sect. â—3 c. p. 334. Christian Church were Cilvil observances and used as well out of God's Worship as in it and therefore what there needed no Institution for and might be lawfully used without I answer 1. That this doth justify most of the usages contended for and there would be nothing unlawful in using a White Garment c. in Divine Service since that as a sign of Royalty and Dignity was Casaub Exercit 16. c. 73. used in Civil as well as Religious cases and according to this Argument may therefore lawfully be used in Religious because it was in Civil Secondly They must say that either a Civil observance when used in Religious Worship remains Civil notwithstanding it 's being so applied or that it 's Religious whilst so applied if the former then Kneeling or Standing in the Worship of God would be no acts of Adoration and not be Religious because those postures are used in Civil matters if the latter then it must be granted that there may be Rites used in the Worship of God and to a Religious end which there is no Divine Prescription for Nay Thirdly It 's evident that these and the like were not used by the Christians as meer Civil Rites this I think is made evident as to Washing the Feet by a Learned Person (a) (a) (a) Buxtorf Exercit. Hist Sacr. Coenae and not only was the kiss of Charity called the Holy-kiss in Scripture but by the Fatherrs notwithstanding what is (b) (b) (b) Ames ibid. p. 342. n. XXX objected the Seal of Prayer and the Seal of Reconciliation and both consistent the one as it was an attendant upon the office the other as it was a Testimony of their Charity and Reconciliation to each other in it Fourthly If the being Civil usages did make them which were originally so to be lawful in or at Divine Worship then there is nothing that is used out of Worship in Civil cases and affairs but may be introduced into the Church since if it be for that reason that any usages of that kind are defended the reason will as well defend all as one And then the Histrionical Practices of the Church of Rome might warantably be introduced as the rocking of a Babe in a Cradle at night at the Nativity time the Harrowing of Hell at Easter c. Then a Maypole may be brought into the Church for Children to Dance-about
Example have they for it or what reason more than the reason of the thing taken from expedience and the general Practice of the Church of God in colder Climates And yet this is as much used amongst them that pretend to keep exactly to the Rule of Scripture as it is amongst us that take a liberty in things Uncommanded but with this difference that they do it upon the supposition of a Command and so make it necessary and our Church leaves it as it is Indifferent Again where do they find a Command for Sitting at the Lord's Supper or so much as an Example For the Posture of our Saviour is left very uncertain Where again do they find a Command for the necessary use of conceived Prayer and that that and no other should be used in the publick Worship of God And that they must prove that maintain publick Forms unlawful Where again do they find it required that an Oath is to be taken by laying the Hand on the Gospel and Kissing the Book which is both a Natural and Instituted part of Worship being a Solemn Invocation of God and an appeal to him with an acknowledgment of his Omniscience and Omnipresence his Providence and Government of the World his Truth and Justice to Right the Innocent and Punnish the Guilty all which is owned and testified by Kissing that Book that God has declared this more especially in And if we more particularly descend to those that differ from us in this point Where do those of the Congregational way find that even Christians were otherwise divided from Christians than by place or that they did combine into particular Churches so as not to be all the while reputed Members of another and might be admitted upon removal of Place upon the same terms that they were of that they removed from or indeed that they were so Members of a particular as not to be Members of any or the whole Church of Christ upon their being Batipzed VVhere do they find that Christians were gathered out of Christians and did combine into a Society Excluding those from it that would not make a Profession of their Faith and Conversion distinct from that at Baptism Where do we ever read that he that was a Minister of one Church was not a Minister all the World over as well as he that was Baptized in one was reputed a Christian and Church-Member wherever he came Again where do we read that its necessary that Ministers should be alike in Authority Power and Jurisdiction and that there is to be no difference in point of Order and Superiority amongst them Or that there are to be Elders for Governing the Church who are not Ordained to it and are in no other State after than they were before that Service both of which are held by the Prerbyterians strictly so called And if it be said these respect Government but not VVorship I answer the case is the same for if we are to do nothing but what is prescribed in the VVorship of God because as they say it derogates from the Priestly Office of Christ and doth detract from the Sufficiency of Scripture then I say upon the like reason there must be nothing used in Church Government but what is prescribed since the Kingly Office is as much concerned in this as the Priestly in the other and the Sufficiency of Scripture in both Lastly VVhere do any of them find that position in Scripture that there is nothing lawful in Divine Worship but what prescribed and that what is not Commanded is Forbidden And if there be no such position in Scripture then that can no more be true than the want of such a position can render things not Commanded to be unlawful And now I am come to that which must put an Issue one way or other to the Dispute for if there be no such position in Scripture either expressed in it or to be gathered by good consequence from it we have gain'd the point but if there be then we must give it up And this is indeed contended for For it s Objected That it s accounted in Scripture an hainous Crime Object I to do things not commanded as when Nadab and Abihu offered strange Fire before the Lord which he Commanded Levit. 10. 1 c. them not c. From which form of expression it may be collected that what is not Commanded is Forbidden and that in every thing used in Divine Worship there must be a Command to make it lawful and allowable To this I answer that the Proposition infer'd that all Answ I things not Commanded are Forbidden is not true and so it cannot be the Sence and Meaning of the Phrase for 1. Then all things must be either Commanded or Forbidden and there would be nothing but what must be Commanded or Forbidden but I have before shewed and it must be granted that there are things neither Commanded nor Forbidden which are called Indifferent 2. If things not Commanded are Forbidden then a thing not Commanded is alike Hainous as a thing Forbidden And then David's Temple which he designed to Build would have been Criminal as well as Jeroboam's Dan and Bethel and the Feast of (a) (a) (a) Esth 9. 27. Purim like Jeroboam's Eighth Month (b) (b) (b) 1 King 12. 32 33. and the Synagogal Worship like the Sacrificing in Gardens (c) (c) (c) Isai 65. 3. and the hours of Prayer (d) (d) (d) Act. 3. 1. like Nadab's Strange Fire The former of which were things Uncommanded and the latter Forbidden and yet They were approved and These condemned 2. The things to which this Phrase not Commanded is applied to give no encouragement to such an Inference from it for its constantly applied to such as are absolutely Forbidden This was the case of Nadab and Abihu who offered Fire not meerly Uncommanded but what was prohibited which will appear if we consider that the Word Strange when applied to matters of Worship doth signify as much as Forbidden Thus we read of Strange Incense that is other than what was compounded Exod. 30. 9 according to the directions given for it which as it was to be put to no common uses so no common Ver. 34. Ch. 37 29. persmue was to be put to the like uses with it So we also read of Strange Vanities which is but another Jer. 8. 19. Word for Graven Images and of Strange Gods And after the same sort is it to be understood in the case before us viz. for what is Forbidden For that such was the Fire made use of by those Young Men will be further confirm'd if we consider that there is scarcely any thing belonging to the Altar Setting aside the Structure of it of which more is said than of the Fire burning upon it For 1. It was lighted from Heaven (a) (a) (a) Lev. 9. 24. 2. It was always to be burning upon the Altar (b) (b) (b) Ch. 6. 12. 3.
are for a Form This do they urge that are for Sitting at the Lord's Supper and this they say that are for Kneeling so that these and the like Adjuncts do further Devotion and are for Edification is an argument used by both Now if Adjuncts are not part of VVorship and may be yet used to further Devotion then the furthering Devotion by any Rite doth not in it self make that Rite so used to be VVorship I acknowledg there is False VVorship as well as True True VVorship is of Divine Institution and False VVorship is of Humane Appointment and becomes Worship when either Divine Institution is pretended for it or it s used for the same special ends that Gods VVorship is instituted for that is as necessary to acceptance or as a means of Grace And so I confess Adjuncts may be made parts of False VVorship as many Ceremonies are in the Church of Rome but this is not the case with any things used in the Administration of VVorship in our Church we plead nothing of Divine Authority to enforce them use them not as necessary nor as means of Grace after the manner we do the VVord of God and the Sacraments 2. It s another mistake that its charged as a fault upon Rites in VVorship that They are used to further Devotion VVithout this end surely they are not to be used or at least not to be encouraged for Divine VVorship being the acknowledgment of God and a giving Honour to Him should have all things about it Grave and Solemn that may best sute it and promote the ends for which it s used But if Rites are used in it that have no respect to such ends they become Vain and Trifling neither worthy of that nor our Defence And therefore we justly blame the Church of Rome for the Multitude of Ceremonies used in their VVorship and for such that either have no signification or whose signification is so obscure as is not easie to be observed or traced and that rather hinder than further Devotion Surely it would not so well answer the end if the Hand in Swearing was laid upon another Book as when on the Gospel nor if the Love-feasts at the Lords Supper had been only as a Common Meal without respect to Charity signified by it 3. It s another mistake that External Rites taken up by Men and used for the furthering Devotion are made to be of the same Nature with Images This there is no foundation for for the Religious use of Images is expresly contrary to the Command of God and Forbidden because it tends to debase God in the thoughts of those that VVorship him by such mediums But there is nothing in the use of such External Ries as are before spoken of that fall under the censure of either of these but that we may lawfully use them and the use of which is not therefore at all Forbidden in the Second Commandment If there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the VVorship of God the Gospel would be less perfect than Object IV the Law and Christ would not be so Faithful as Moses in the care of his Church Heb. 3. 2. which is not to be supposed The sufficiency of Scripture and Faithfulness of Christ Answer are not to be judged of by what we fancy they should have determined but by what they have It s a plausiable Plea made by the Church of Rome for an Infallible Judge in matters of Faith that by an Appeal to him all controversies would be decided and the Peace of the Church secured But notwithstanding all the advantages which they so hugely amplify there is not one Word in Scripture which in a matter of that importance is absolutely necessary that doth shew that it is necessary or were it so who the Person or Persons are that should have this Power or Commission And in this case we must be content to leave things as the Wisdom of God hath thought fit to leave them and to go on in the old way of sober and amicable debate and fair reasoning to bring debates to a conclusion Thus it is in the matter before us the pretence is very Popular and Plausible that Who can better determine things Relating to the Worship of God than God whose Worship it is And where may we expect to find them better determined than in his Word which is sufficient to all the ends it was writ for But when we come to enquire into the case we find no such thing done no such care taken no such particular directions as they had under the Law and therefore its certain that neither the sufficiency of Scripture nor Faithfulness of Christ stand upon that foundation And if we do not find the like particular prescriptions in Baptism as Circumcision nor in the Lord's Supper as in the Passover nor in Prayers as in Sacrifices its plain that the sufficiency of Scripture and Faithfulness of Christ do respect somewhat else and that they are not the less for the want of them Christ was Faithful as Moses To him that appointed him in performing what belonged to him as a Mediator in which respect Moses was a Type of him and discovering to Mankind in Scripture the method and means by which they might be Sav'd and the sufficiency of Scripture is in being a sufficient means to that end and putting Men into such State as will render them capable of attaining to it And as for modes and circumstances of things they are left to the prudence of those who by the Grace and the Word of God hath been converted to the Truth and have received it in the Love of it I have been the larger in the consideration of this principle viz. that Nothing but what is prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship that I might relieve the consciences of those that are insnared by it and that cannot be so without subjecting themselves to great inconveniences For if nothing but what is of that Nature may be used or joyned with and that the second Commandment doth with as much Authority Forbid the use of any thing not Commanded as the Worshipping of Images If Nadab's and Abihu's Strange Fire and Vzzah's touching of the Ark be examples Recorded for caution to us and that every thing Uncommanded is of the like Nature attended with the like Aggravations and alike do expose to God's Displeasure If the use of any thing not prescribed be such an addition to the VVord of God as leaves us under the Penalty of that Text If any Man shall add unto these things Rev. 22. 18. God shall add unto him the Plagues that are Written in this Book we cannot be too cautious in the Examination of what is or what is not prescribed But withall if this be our case it would be more intollerable than that of the Jews For amongst them every thing for the most part was plainly laid down and though the particular Rites and Circumstances prescribed in their
Service were many yet they were sufficiently describ'd in their Law and it was but consulting that or Those whose Office and Employment it was to be well versed in it and they might be presently inform'd and as soon see it as the Book was laid open This they all agreed in But it is not so under the Gospel and there is no greater proof of it than the several schemes drawn up for Discipline and Order by those that have been of that Opinion and made some attemps to discribe them And then when things are thus dark and obscure so hard to trace and discover that it has thus perplexed and baffled those that have made it their business to bring these things within Scripture Rules how perplexed must they be that are not skilled in it And as I have above shewed must all their Days live in the Communion it 's likely of no Church since though a Church should have nothing in it but what is prescribed yet it would take up a great deal of time to examine and more to be satisfied that all in it is prescribed 3. I shall consider How we may know what things are Indifferent in the Worship of God I may answer to this that we may know what is Indifferent in the Worship of God by the same Rule that we may know what is Indifferent out of Worship that is if the thing to be enquired after be neither required nor Forbidden For the Nature of Indifferency is always the same and what it is in one kind or instance it is in all and if the want of a Law to Require or Forbid doth make a thing Indifferent in Nature or Civil matters it doth also the same in Religious And in things Forbidden by Humane Authority the not being required in Scripture and in things required by Humane Authority the not being Forbidden in Scripture is a Rule we may safely determine the case and judg of the Lawfulness and Indifferency of things in Divine Worship by But I confess the Question requires a more parcicular Answer because things in their Nature Lawful and Indifferent may yet in their use and application become unlawful As it is in Civil cases and Secular matters to be Covered or Uncovered is a thing in it self Indifferent but to be Covered in the presence of such of our Betters as Custom and Law have made it our Duty to stand bare before would be unlawful and it would be no excuse for such an Omission and Contempt that the thing is in it self Indifferent And then much more will this hold where the case is of an higher Nature as it is in the Worship of God where things in themselves Indifferent may become Ridiculous Absurd and Profane and argue rather contempt of God than reverence for him in the Persons using them Again the things may though Grave and Pertinent yet be so numerous that they may obscure and oppress the Service and confound and distract the Mind that should attend to the Observation of them and so for one reason or another are not to be allowed in the Solemnities of Religion Therefore in Answer to the Question I shall add 1. That things Indifferent are so called from their general Nature and not as if in practice and use and all manner of cases they always were so and never unlawful for that they may be by Accident and Circumstance being lawful or unlawful expedient or inexpedient as they are used and applied 2. I observe that there are several Laws which things Indifferent do respect and that may be Required or Forbidden by one Law which is not Forbidden or Required by another and that may be Indifferent in one State which is Unlawful in another and by passing out of one into the other may cease to be Indifferent and therefore when we say things are Indifferent we must understand of what Rank they are and what Law they do respect As for example Humane Conversation and Religious Worship are different Ranks to which things are referred and therefore what may be Indifferent in Conversation may be unlawful in Worship Thus to Enterchange Discourse about Common Affairs is a thing lawful in it self and useful in its place but when practised in the Church and in the midst of Religious Solemnities is Criminal This distinction of Ranks and States of things is useful and necessary to be observed and which if observed would have prevented the objection made by some that if a Church or Authority may Command Indifferent things then they may require us to Pray Standing upon the head c. for that though Indifferent in another case is not in that as being unsutable to it 3. Therefore we must come to some Rules in Divine Worship by which we may know what things in their Nature Indifferent are therein also Indifferent and may be lawfully used It being not enough to plead they are Indifferent in themselves as some unwarily do and therefore presently they may be used For by the same reason a Person may Spit in anothers Face may keep on his Hat before the King c. the Spitting and being Covered being in their Nature Indifferent But now as there are certain Rules which we are to respect in Common and Civil Conversation and which even in that case do tye us up in the use of things otherwise Indifferent So it is as reasonable and must be much more allowed that there are some Rules of the like Nature which we must have a regard to in the Administration of Divine Worship And as in Common matters the Nature of the thing in Actions the end in Conversation the circumstances are to be heeded viz. Time Place Persons as when where before whom we are Covered or Uncovered c. So in Sacred matters the Nature of the thing in the Decency and Solemnity of the Worship the end for which it was appointed in the Edification of the Church and the Peace Glory Security of that in its Order are to be respected And according to these Rules and the circumstances of things are we to judg of the Indifferency Lawfulness or expediency of things used in the Service of God and as they do make for or against and do approach to or recede from these Characters so they are to be rejected or observed and the more or less esteemed But yet we are not come to a conclusion for 1. These are general Rules and so the particulars are nor so easily pointed to 2. Decency and Edification and Order are as was observed before Variable and Uncertain and depend upon Circumstances and so in their Nature not easily determined And 3. Persons have very different Opinions about what is Decent Edifying and Orderly as in the Apostles time in the Church of Rome some were for and others against the Observation of Days and in the Church of Corinth some doubtless were for being Covered others for being Uncovered in Divine Worship And therefore there is somewhat further requisite to give Satisfaction
Austin Epist 1. 3. observes some warmly contend for an usage because its the Custom of their own Church as if they come suppose into another Place where Lent is observed without any Relaxation they however refuse to Fast because it s not so done in their Country There are others again do like and are bent upon a particular Rite or Usage Because saith he they observ'd this in their Travels abroad and so a Person is for it as perhaps he would be thought so much the more Learned and Considerable as he is distant or doth disagree from what is observed at home Now when Persons are Prone thus to Judg upon such little Reasons and may mistake in their Judgment and do Judg against a Church which they have no other Reason against it would become them to think again and to think that the case perhaps requires only time or use to wear off their Prejudices and that by these ways they may as effectually be reconciled to the things Practised in a Church as they are to the Civil Usages and the Habits of a Nation which at the first they looked upon in their kind as Indecent and Inexpedient as they can do of the Usages of a Church in theirs As suppose the Dispute should be about Forms of Prayer or the use of responsals in it we see that Decency Order and Edification are pleaded by the Parties contending for and against but when a Person considers that whatever Opinion he therein hath yet if he be against them he is at the same time against all formed Churches in the World he may conclude safely that there is a Decency Order and Expediency in the Publick use of them and as St. Austin saith of a Christian living in Epist 86. Casulano Rome where they fasted upon the Saturday that such a one should not so praise a Christian City for it as to Condemn the Christian World that was against it so we should not be so Zealous against a Practice as to Condemn those that are for it and be so addicted to our own Opinion as to set that against a Community and a Church nay against all Churches whatsoever This will give us reason to suspect its a Zeal without Knowledge when we presume to set our Judgment Reason and Experience against the Judgment Reason and Experience of the Christian World Which brings to the Fourth General 4. How are we to determine our selves in the use of Indifferent things with respect to the Worship of God For resolution of which we are to consider our selves in a threefold Capacity 1. As particular Persons solitary and alone 2. As we are in Ordinary and Civil Conversation 3. As we are Members of a Publick Society or Church In the first capacity every Christian may chuse and act as he pleaseth and all Lawful things remain to him as they are in their own Nature Free He may eat this or that chuse this day or another and set it apart for the Service of God and his own Soul In this state where there is no Law of Man to require he may forbear to use what is Indifferent where there is no Law to Forbid he may freely use it In the second capacity as in Conversation with others he is to have a regard to them and to use his Liberty so as shall be less to the prejudice and more to the benefit of those he converses with So saith the Apostle all things are lawful for me but all things are 1. Cor. 10. 23. not expedient all things are lawful for me but all things Edify not In this Capacity Men are still in their own Power and whilst it s no Sin they may safely act and where it s no Sin they may forbear in complyance with those that are not yet advanced to the same Maturity of Judgment with themselves as the Apostle did Though saith he I be free from all Men yet have I 1 Cor. 9. 19 c. made my self Servant unto all that I might gain the more And unto the Jews I became a Jew c. In such a case the strong should not despise affront or discourage the weak nor the weak censure and condemn the strong In the third Capacity as we are Members of a Church and Religious Society so the use of Indifferent things comes under further consideration since then the Practice of a Church and the Commands of Authority are to be respected And as what we may lawfully do when alone we are not to do in Conversation because of Offence So what we may allowably do when alone or in Conversation we must not do in Society if Forbidden by the Laws and Customs of it For the same reason if there was no more that Restrains or Determines us in Conversation is as much more forcible in Society as the Peace and Welfare of the whole is to be preferred before that of a part And if the not grieving a Brother or endangering his Soul makes it reasonable just and necessary to forego our Liberty and to Restrain our selves in the exercise of it then much more is the Peace of a Church upon which the present Welfare of the whole and the Future Welfare of many depend a sufficient reason for so doing and to Oblige us to act or not to act accordingly The Apostle saith Let every one of us please his Neighbour for his good to Rom. 15. 2. Edification that is to his Improvement in Knowledg or Grace or Christian Piety and the promoting of Christian Concord and Charity Now Edification is eminently so with respect to the whole as the Church is the House of God and every Christian one of the living Stones of which that Spiritual building is compacted 1 Pet. 2. 5. and so he is to consider himself as well as he is to be considered as a part of it and to study what may be for the Edification of the whole as well as the good of any particular Member of it And how is that but by promoting Love Peace and Order and taking Care to Preserve it So we find Edification Opposed 2 Cor. 10. 8. 1. Cor. 14. 26. 1 Tim. 1. 4. Rom. 14. 19. 1 Thes 5. 11. Eph. 4. 12 16. to Destruction to Confusion to Disputacity and Licentiousness And on the contrary we find Peace and Edifying Comfort and Edification Union and Edification joyned together as the one doth promote the other And therefore as the Good and Edification of the whole is to be always in our Eye so it s the Rule by which we ought to act in all things lawful and to that end should comply with its Customs observe its Directions and Obey its Orders without Reluctancy and Opposition Thus the Apostle resolves the case Writing about publick Order and the Custom newly taken up of Worshipping Uncovered if any Man seem or have a mind to be contentions we have no such Custom neither the 1 Cor. 11. 16. Churches of God looking
upon that as sufficient to put an end to all Contentions and Debates that whatever might be Plausibly urged against it from the Jewish Practice and the Representation even of Angels adoring after that manner and from the reason of the thing as a signification of Shame and Reverence or from the Practice of Idolators that dâ—d many of them Worship Uncovered yet he peremptorily 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 the Peace of the Church depending upon the Observation of its Coustoms that is infinitely to be preferred before Scrupulosity and Niceness or a meer inclination to a contrary Practice For in publick cases a Man is not to go his own way or to have his own mind for that would bring in Confusion one Man having as much a right as another There must be somewhat Established some Common Order and Bond of Union and if Confusion is before such Establishment then to break that Establishment would bring in Confusion and where that is likely to ensue it is not worth the while for the Tryal of a new Experiment to decry and throw down what is already Established or Used in a Church because we think better of another for saith a Grave Author and well Skill'd in these matters The very change of a Custom though it may Aug. Epist 118. happen to profit yet doth disturb by its Novelty Publick Peace is worth all new Offers if the Church is Disquieted and its Peace Endangered by them though in themselves better and it is better to labour under the infirmity of publick Order than the mischief of being without it or what is next to that the Trial of some Form seemingly of a better Cast and Mould that hath not yet been experimented I say it again Infirmity in a Church is better than Confusion or Destruction which is the Consequent of it And I had rather choose that as I would a House to have one with some Faults rather then to have none at all And if I cannot have them mended when tolerable I think my self bound not only to bear with them but to do all I can for its preservation though with them and to observe all things that are lawful for its support and encouragement In doing thus I serve God and his Church my own Soul and the Souls of others promote Religion and Charity in the World For God is not the Author of Confusion but of Peace in all the 1 Cor. 14. 33. Churches of the Saints In things which neither we nor the Worship are the worse for but the Church the better for observing Peace and Order is far to be prefer'd before Niceties And certainly neither we nor the Service of God can be the worse for what God hath concluded nothing in What the Gospel looks as is the Main and Essential parts of Religion in Doctrine Worship and Practice And if these be Secured we are under no Obligation to contend for or against the modes and circumstances of things further than the Churches Order and Peace is concerned in them So the Apostle Let not your Good be Evil spoken of For the Kingdom of Rom. 14. 16. God is not Meat and Drink but Righteousness Peace and Joy in the Holy-Ghost the promoting Love and Charity and substantial Righteousness He that in these things Serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of Men The Beauty of the Kings Daughter is within Aug. Epist 86. saith St. Austin and all its observations are but its vesture which though various in different Churches are no prejudice to the Common Faith nor to him that useth them And therefore what he and his mother received from St. Ambrose and looked upon as a Divine Oracle is worthy to be recommended to all That in all things not contrary to Truth and good Manners Epist 118. 86. it becometh 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 And if the Custom and Practice of a Church should be thus taken into consideration by a Good Man then certainly much more ought it so to be when that is Established and is made a Law and is backed by Authority For then to stand in Opposition is not only an Offence but an Affront and to insist upon the Gratifying our own Inclination against publick Order is to contend whether we or our Superiours shall Govern whether our Will or the publick Good and Order must take place And what can be the Issue of such a Temper but the distraction if not Dissolution of Government which as it cannot be without Governed as well as Governours so cannot be preserved without the submission of the Governed in all lawful things to the Gevernours and the permitting them to choose and determine in things of that kind as they shall see meet It s pleaded That there should be a Liberty left to Christians in things Vndetermined in Scripture and such things indeed there are that Christians may have a Liberty in and yet hold Communion as in Posture c. though Decency Would plead for Uniformity in those things also but there are other things which they must agree in or else there can be no publick Worship or Christian Communion which yet they differ in as much as the other As now whether Worship is to be celebrated with or without a Form whether the Lord's Supper is to be received in the Morning or Evening whether Prayers should be long or short c. Now unless one of these disagreeing Parties doth Yield to the other or there be a Power in Superiours and Guides to determine for them and they are to submit to them in it there will be nothing but confusion And why Superiours may not then Command and why Inferiours are not to obey in all things of the like kind In Posture or Habit as well as the time above specified and Forms I understand not To conlude this if we find any thing required or generally practised in a Church that is not Forbidden in Scripture or any thing Omitted or Forbidden in a Church that is not required in Scripture we may and ought to Act or to forbear as they that are of its Communion do generally Act or forbear or the Laws of that Communion require and in such things are to be determined by the publick Voice of the Communion that is Authority Custom or the Majority But to this it will be said If we are thus to be determined Object in our Practice then where is our Christian Liberty which being only in Indifferent things if we are restrained in the use of them we are also restrained in our Liberty which yet the Apostle exhorts Christians to stand fast in Gal. 5. 1. 1. This is no argument to those that say
understood of such things as are Adjuncts to Divine Worship that are not used upon the score of any of the reasons aforesaid then we are not to expect a command nor do we Sin if we act without it As for example a Servant is required to go a Mile upon some service and he useth a Coat or a Cloak takes an Horse or goes on Foot puts a string about his Finger to remember him of what he is to do Or if to carry a Message considers what to say and Writes it down that he may be the better fitted to deliver it In such cases his Master would think him impertinent to ask Directions and it 's no Disobedience nor Supererogation to act as he sees fit without them And this is the case with us as I shall afterward shew This said there is way made for the next inference Conclus 3. If things Indifferent are neither commanded Conclus 3 nor forbidden and things are not unlawful because not commanded it follows that it 's no Derogation from the Sufficiency of Scripture to maintain the lawfulness of using such things in Divine Worship as are not therein commanded It 's somewhat a Specious way of arguing which this Author useth the Scriptures have determined whatsoever may make us wise to Salvation perfect p. 2â— throughly furnished to all good Works Now if the Worship of God be a good work and the right doing of it hath any tendency to make us perfect they must have a sufficiency to direct us in that And he concludes If there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the Worship of God except as before excepted c. then the Scriptures are not able to make us wise c. By this way of arguing and a challenge he immediately subjoyns viz. If our Author can shew us any Act of Worship c. It may be thought he is a Champion for the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture and we the derogators from it And that without any more ado he would have brought unanswerable arguments for that kind of Scripture-sufficiency which we deny If saith he our R. Author can shew us any Act of Worship for the Pag. 29. performance of which in such a manner as God will accept we cannot shew him direction of Scripture Well! where is it Scripture with the addition of such circumstances as are naturally necessary to all Humane Actions or evidently convenient for an action of a grave and weighty Nature for the obtaining the ends of it or appearing to any Common Judgment to be so decent that without them the performance would be sordid Scripture with the practice of the first Guides of the Church Scripture with the light of Nature shining out in every reasonable Soul c. Scripture with the exceptions before excepted in his Book pag. 21 Suppose then we put it to the question Is Scripture alone a sufficient Rule for matters to be used in the Worship of God He readily answers Yes If you take in the Nature of the thing the light shining in every reasonable Soul if you take in Common Judgment convenience and decency Lastly if you take in the practice of the first Guides of the Church that is it is and it is not Now how he hath all this while pleaded for that Sufficiency of Scripture which we deny And why he should so loudly exclaim against all Supplements and Additions to that and against pag. 38. Reason and Authority as a Supply or what difference he hath conceived betwixt Authority the Guides of the Church or betwixt Reason and the light of Nature Shining out in every reasonable Soul so as to deny to pag. 29. the one what he grants to the other I am not able to understand Yet for all this there must be a difference betwixt him and us and somewhat shall be said to make it out For the Sufficiency of Scripture is a very great argument And so indeed it is and it has been an old pag. 28. argument against the practices of our Church and is not to be easily parted with But yet what to give and what to take and wherein the difference is betwixt what we hold and he is forced to grant he knows not or has not been so kind as to discover But however when all this is pastover he concludes as to one part we cannot possibly agree with our R. Brother in this thing viz. That we have no such particular directions for Worship under the Gospel as they had under the Law This indeed I touched upon to shew that the Case of indifferent things pag. 30. faithfulness of Christ and sufficiency of Scripture consist not in giving as particular directions for Worship as they had under the Law and in proof of this I set Baptism against Circumcision the Lord's Supper against the Passover and Prayers against Sacrifices Now let us consider what are the reasons why he cannot possibly agree Certainly if ever controversie was like to be ended we may now expect it because it 's about plain matter of Fact But in this case he strangely fails of performance For whereas the deciding the case depends upon the comparison betwixt the Law and the Gospel he doth not so much as offer any thing about the latter But let us consider what he saith of the former and as much as we can make up his defect in the latter First he saith As to Circumcision what particular pag. 31. direction had the Jews Their Rule extended no further than to the Act and the time Here I must confess there is nothing but the time that is determined But since there is nothing of that kind in Baptism prescribed the Law is herein more particular than the Gospel 2ly As to the Passover he acknowledges they had a Rule but then he adds What Rule had they to determine them to a Kid or a Lamb But was not that a Rule to determine them when it must be a Kid or a Lamb and no other Creature and is not Two to all the Beasts in the world a determination as well as one to two But was there nothing else determined as his cautious way of expressing it would imply Let him consult the Text and he will find that the Creature was not only thus to be one Exod. 12. c. out of two but it was to be a Male kept the 14th day and to be killed at even without a bone broken to be roasted to be eaten in the house and with unleavened Bread with bitter Herbs and none left to the morning And they were to eat it standing as our Author acknowledges p. 32. with their loyns girt c. And with several other rites too long to enumerate But in the Lord's Supper there is nothing specified or required but the Elements and the breaking and pouring out nothing said of the kind of the Bread or Wine nothing required of the time or posture or number c.
Worship of God Proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of England 's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of Mixt Communion Whether it be Lawful to separate from a Church upon the Account of pâ—omiscuous Congregations and Mixt Communion 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayer and some other Parts of Divine Service Prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament Stated and Resolved c. in Two Parts 11. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where Men think they can profit most 12. A serious Exhortation with some Important Advices Relating to the late Cases about Conformity Recommenced to the Present Dissenters from the Church of England 13. An Argument to Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 14. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to the Weak Brethren 15. The Case of Infant-Baptism in Five Questions c. 16. The Charge of Scandal and giving Offence by Conformity Refelled c. 17. The Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England Considered c. 1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking of us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be Received and what Tradition is to be Rejected 3. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. 5. A Discourse concerning a Guide in Matters of Faith with respect especially to the Romish pretence of the Necessity of such an one as is Infallible A DISCOURSE CONCERNING Conscience WHEREIN An Account is given of the Nature and Rule and Obligation of it AND The Case of those who Separate from the Communion of the Church of England as by Law Established upon this Pretence that it is Against their Conscience to joyn in it is stated and discussed LONDON Printed for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-Street 1684. A DISCOURSE OF CONSCIENCE With Respect to those that Separate from the Communion of the Church of England upon the Pretence of it c. THere is nothing more in our Mouths than Conscience and yet there are few things we have generally taken less Pains to understand We sit down too often with this that it is something within us we do not know what which we are to Obey in all that it Suggests to us and we trouble our selves no further about it By which means it frequently comes to pass that though we have espoused very dangerous Errors or happen to be ingaged in very Sinful Practices yet believing and Acting as we say according to our Conscience we do not only think our selves perfectly Right and Safe while we continue in this State but are Effectually Armed against all sorts of Arguments and Endeavours that can be used for the bringing us to a better Mind This is too Visible in many Cases but in none more than in the Case of those that at this Day Separate from the Communion of the Church as it is Established among us Though the Laws of the Land both Ecclesiastical and Civil do oblige them to joyn in our Communion though many Arguments are offer'd to convince them not only that they Lawfully may but that they are bound to do it though they themselves are sensible that many-fold and grievous mischiefs and dangers do ensue from this breach of Communion and these unnatural Divisions both to the Christian Religion in General and to our Reformed Religion in particular yet if to all these things a Man can reply that he is Satisfied in his Conscience that he doth well in refusing his Obedience to the Laws or that he is not satisfied in his Conscience that he ought to joyn with us upon such Terms as are required this single pretence shall be often thought a sufficient Answer both to Laws and Arguments A strange thing this is that Conscience which among other ends was given to Mankind for a Preservative and Security of the Publick Peace for the more Effectually Obliging Men to Unity and Obedience to Laws yet should often be a means of setting them at distance and prove a Shelter for Disobedience and Disorder That God should Command us to Obey our Governours in all Lawful things for Conscience sake and yet that we should Disobey them in Lawful things for Conscience sake too It is the Design of this Discourse to examine what there is in this Plea that is so often made by our Dissenters for their not complying with the Laws viz. That it is against their Conscience so to do and to shew in what Cases this Plea is justly made and in what Cases not and where it is Justly made how far it will Justify any Mans Separation and how far it will not And all this in order to the possessing those who are concerned with a Sense of the great Necessity that lyes upon them of using their most serious endeavours to inform their Conscience aright in these matters before they prefume to think they can Separate from us with a good Conscience which is all we desire of them for it is not our business to perswade any Man to conform against his Conscience but to convince every Man how Dangerous it may be to follow a misinformed Conscience But before I enter upon this disquisition it will be necessary in the first Place to prepare my way by laying down the Grounds and Principles I mean to proceed upon And here that I may take in all things that are needful to be known before-hand about this matter I shall treat distinctly of these Five Heads 1 Of the Nature of Conscience 2 Of the Rule of Conscience And under that 3 Of the Power of Humane Laws to Oblige the Conscience 4 And particularly in the instance of Church Communion 5 Of the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is Obliged to be guided by his Conscience in his Actions I. And first as for the Nature of Conscience the truest way to find out that will be not so much to enquire into the Signification of the word Conscience or the several Scholastical Definitions of it as to consider what every Man doth really mean by that word when he has occasion to make use of it for if it
the Ecclesiastical Laws A Humane Law grounded upon a Divine or to speak more properly a Divine Law modify'd or Clothed with several Circumstances of Mans Appointment doth Create another kind of Obligation upon every Subject than a Law that is purely Humane that is to say a Law the matter of which is neither Good nor Evil in it self but perfectly indifferent In the former Case we must yield Obedience to the Law as to the Law of God however it comes Clothed with Circumstances of Mans Appointment In the other Case we only yield Obedience as to the Command of Man and for no other reason than that God in general hath Obliged us to Obey our Superiors To make this a little plainer let us for Instance take the business of Paying Tribute and Custom in this Nation in which Case there is a Complication of a Divine Law with a Humane as it is in the Case we are now upon That every Subject should Pay Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom is due is a Law of God as being a branch both of Natural and Christian Justice But out of what goods we should Pay Tribute or Custom or what Proportion of those Goods should be Paid this is not defined either by the Law of Nature or the Law of the Gospel but is left to the Determination of the Municipal Laws of every Kingdom But now because Humane Authority doth interpose in this Affair and settles what every Man is to Pay to the King and out of what Commodities doth it therefore follow that if a Man can by Fraud or Concealment detain the Kings Right from him that he incurs no other guilt for this but only the Transgressing of an Act of Parliament and the being Obnoxious to the Penalties in Case he be detected No certainly for all that the Customs in that manner and form be settled upon the King by Humane Law only yet the matter of that Law being a point of Natural Justice between Man and Man the Man that is thus Guilty ought to look upon himself as an Offender against the Divine Law as an unjust Person before God And his willingness to Submit to the Forfeiture of his Goods will not render him less unjust or more excuseable The Case is much the same as to the matter we have now before us It is not a meer Humane Law or Act of Parliament that Obligeth us to keep the Unity of the Church to bring our Châ—ldren to be made Christians by Baptisme to meet together at Solemn times for the Profession of our Faith for the Worshipping God for the Commemorating the Death of our Saviour in the Sacrament of his Supper All this is tyed upon us by the Laws of Christ These things are as much required of us by God as Christians as it is required that we should Pay the King and every Man what is due to them if we would not be dishonest unjust It is true that the particular Forms and Modes and Circumstances of doing these things are not Commanded nor Prescribed by the Laws of Christ in this Instance of Church Communion no more than they are prescribed by the Laws of God in the other Instance I gave But they are left intirely to the Prudence and Discretion of the Governours that God hath set over us in Ecclesiastical matters just as they are in the other But in the mean time these things thus Clothed by Humane Authority as to their Circumstances Yet being for the Matter of them bound upon us by Christ himself we can no more deny our Obedience to the Publick Laws about them than we can in the other Instance I have named And that Man may as well for Instance purge himself from the Imputation of Knavery before God that will contrive a way of his own for the Paying his just Debts contrary to what the Law of the Land hath declared to be Just and Honest As any Man can acquit himself from the Sin of Schism before God that will chuse a way of his own for the Publick Worship different from and in Opposition to what the Laws of the Church have prescribed always supposing that the Worship Established be Commanded by just Authority and there be nothing required in it as a Condition of Communion that is against the Laws of Jesus Christ The Sum of all this is that it is every Mans Duty by the Laws of Christ as well as the Laws of Man to Worship God in the way of the Church so long as there is nothing required in that Worship that can justly offend the Conscience of a Wise and Good Christian And therefore there is more in departing from the Communion of the Church when we can Lawfully hold it than meerly the Violation of a Statute or a Humane Law for we cannot do it without breaking the Law of God Nay so much is it against the Law of God to do this that I think no Authority upon Earth can warrant it So that even if there was a Law made which should Ordain that wilful causless Separation from the Established Church should be allowed and tolerated and no Man should be called to an Account for it Yet nevertheless such a Separation would still be a Schism would still be a Sin against God for no Humane Law can make that Lawful which Gods Law hath forbid There now only remains our last general Head about Conscience to be spoken to and then we have done with our Preliminary Points And that is concerning the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is Obliged to follow or be guided by his Conscience in his Actions When we speak of the Obligation of Conscience or of being bound in Conscience to do or not to do an Action it sufficiently appears from what hath been said that we can mean no more by these Phrases than this that we are convinced in our Judgment that it is our Duty to do this or the other Action because we believe that God hath Commanded it Or we are perswaded in our Judgment that we ought to forbear this or the other Action because we believe that God hath forbidden it This now being that which we mean by the Obligation of Conscience here we come to inquire how far this Perswasion or Judgment of ours concerning what is our Duty and what is Sinful hath Authority over us how far it doth Oblige us to Act or not Act according to it Now in Order to the resolving of this we must take Notice that our Judgment concernâ—ng what God hath Commanded or Forbidden or left Indifferent is either true or false We either make a right Judgment of our Duty or we make a wrong one In the former Case we call our Judgment a Right Conscience in the latter we call it an Erroneous Conscience As for those Cases where we doubt and hesitate and know not well how to make any Judgment at all which is that we call a Doubting Conscience but indeed
not pretend that it is unlawful or a Sin against God to joyn with us in our Service which is the only thing wherein their Conscience can be concerned but only they are not pleased with many things in our Service as fancying them not to be so decent or convenient or not to be so prudently Order'd as they would have them But what of all this Admit the things to be so as they fancy them yet still so long as they do not think there is any Sin in them it cannot go against their Conscience to joyn with any Assembly in which they are Practised Because Conscience as we have often said is not touched is not affected where no Law of God is Transgressed In the fourth Place all those that are kept from our Communion purely upon the Account of Education or acquaintance with Persons that are of another perswasion Those that have nothing to say against our Worship but only that they were bred in another way or those that would joyn with us in it but that they know a great many Religious Godly Persons that do Condemn it and therefore they dare not come at us These now may be very well meaning Men but yet they cannot reasonably Plead Conscience upon this Account for their Separation For it is not a Mans Education or the Example or Opinion of other Men that makes any Action to be a Duty or a Sin but the Law of God Commanding or Forbidding that Action And therefore before I can say that this or the other Action is against my Conscience I must believe that Gods Law hath either in general or in particular either directly or by Consequence made that Action unlawful I grant the Opinions of other Men especially those that are Learned and Pious are always to be listned to in doubtful Cases But then no Mans Opinion can be the Rule of my Conscience nor am I at all concerned in Conscience to follow it any farther than I am convinced that it declares Gods Law to me And therefore sure in this Case of Church Communion I can be but very little concerned to follow any Mans Opinion when both there are so many Persons and those as Learned and as Pious as any others that are of another Opinion and when also the Publick Law which has much more Authority than any private Opinion hath determined what I am to do in the Case So that it is great weakness sillyness not Conscience that prevails with these Men I am speaking of to live in disobedience to the Laws If indeed they be really perswaded in their own Minds that our way of Worshipping God is in any part or instance of it Unlawful or Forbidden let that Perswasion be upon what grounds it will then they may truly say it is against their Conscience to joyn with us But if they be not convinced of this I do not see how the Example or the advice of their Friends and Acquaintance can in the least give them a Title to Plead Conscience for their refusing our Communion Fifthly those that withdraw from the Church upon this Account that our Governours in their Laws and Prescriptions about Gods Worship have not rightly used the Power which they are intrusted with but have exceeded their bounds have made perhaps too great Encroachments upon Christian Liberty or laid more stress than was meet upon Indifferent things These likewise are excluded by the former Rule from Pleading Conscience for their Separation For admit the Law-givers have been to blame in the Exercise of their Power in these matters which yet is sooner said then proved and have really done more then they can answer to God for yet what is this to them The Conscience of the Governours is indeed deeply concerned about these things and they must give an Account to God for the abuse of their Authority if there be any But how this doth concern the Conscience of the Subject is not easily understood So long as what is Commanded or Enjoyned doth not appear to interfere with any Law of God But having said this I fear there is too much reason to add that those who so much stand up for Christian Liberty and would be thought the great Patrons of it do by their endless scruples about Indifferent things and refusing to Obey Authority in such matters in all appearance take the most Effectuall Course to destroy all Christian Liberty in the true Notion of it and to bring in a Religion that shall consist of Touch not Tast not Handle not and such other Uncommanded things Sixthly and lastly to name no more instances All those that can Communicate Occasionally with us in our Prayers and Sacraments As for instance those that when they have a turn to be served when there is an Office or some such thing in the Case can come to Church and receive the Communion but at other times they do not afford us their Presence These are also excluded from pretending to Conscience for their not constantly joyning in Communion with us For if indeed they did believe it was a Sin in them to joyn with us in our Prayers and Sacraments with what Conscience dare they do it at all They ought not for any worldly good to venture upon such an Action as they do believe to be forbidden by Gods Laws But if they do not believe that to joyn in our Communion is a Sinful thing as I dare say none of these Persons do then I will be bold to make the Inference that it cannot be more against their Conscience to do it Thrice than to do it Once and do it constantly than to do it Thrice But let us leave the false Pretenders to Conscience and come to the Case of those who can justly Plead Conscience for their Separation or that can truly say it is against their Conscience to joyn in our Communion Of this sort are all such and none but such as do teally believe that our Communion is unlawful or that they cannot Communicate with us without Sin as I have before proved As for those that only doubt of the Lawfulness of our Communion but are not perswaded that it is unlawful I do not here consider them because they cannot say that it is against their Conscience to Communicate with us any more than they can say that they are bound in Conscience to Communicate with us For they are uncertain as to both these things and are not determined either way But however because these men may justly Plead Conscience upon this Account that they think it is a Sin to joyn with us so long as they doubt of the Lawfulness of our Communion I shall consider their Case afterwards in a particular Discourse upon that Argument Those that I am now concerned with are such as do believe or are perswaded that there is some thing in our Worship which they cannot comply with without Sinning against God And my business is to Examine whether such a Belief or
Perswasion of the Vnlawfulness of our Communion will justifie any Mans Separation from us Or how far it will do it And what is to be done by such Persons in order either to their Communicating or not Communicating with us with a safe Conscience This is our second Point and I apply my self to it There are a great many among us that would with all their Hearts as they say Obey the Laws of the Church and joyn in our Worship and Sacraments but they are really perswaded that they cannot do it without Sin For there are some things required of them as Conditions of Communicating with us which are Forbidden by the Laws of God As for Instance it is against the Commands of Christ to appoint or to use any thing in the Worship of God which God himself hath not appointed For this is to add to the word of God and to Teach for Doctrines the Commandments and Traditions of Men. It is against the Commands of Jesus Christ to Stint the Spirit in Prayer which all those that use a Form of Prayer must necessarily do It is against the Commands of Jesus Christ to use any Significant Ceremony in Religion As for Instance the Cross in Baptism for that is to make new Sacraments It is against the Commands of Jesus Christ to kneel at the Lords Supper for that is directly to contradict our Saviours Example in his Institution of that Sacrament and Savours besides of Popish Idolatry Since therefore there are these Sinful things in our Worship and those too imposed as Terms of Communion how can we blame them if they withdraw themselves from us Would we have them joyn with us in these Practices which they verily believe to be Sins Where then was their Conscience They might perhaps by this means shew how much they were the Servants of Men But what would become of their Fidelity to Jesus Christ What now shall we say to this They themselves are so well satisfi'd with their own doings in these matters that they do not think they are in the least to be blamed for refusing us their Communion so long as things stand thus with them They are sure they herein follow their own Conscience and therefore they cannot doubt but they are in a safe Condition and may justifie their Proceedings to God and to all the World let us say what we please This is the Case Now in Answer to it we must grant them these two things First of all that if indeed they be right in their Judgment and those things which they except against in our Communion be really Unlawful and Forbidden by Jesus Christ then they are not at all to be blamed for their not Communicating with us For in that Case Separation is not a Sin but a Duty We being for ever bound to Obey God rather than Men. And Secondly supposing they be mistaken in their Judgment and think that to be unlawful and Forbidden by God which is not really so Yet so long as this perswasion continues though it be a false one we think they cannot without Sin joyn in our Communion For even an Erroneous Conscience as we have shewed binds thus far that a Man cannot without Sin Act in Contradiction to it These two things I say we grant them and let them make the best advantage of them But then this is the point we stand upon and which if it be true will render this whole Plea for Nonconformity upon account of Conscience as I have now opened it wholly insufficient viz. If it should prove that our Dissenters are mistaken in their Judgment and that our Governours do indeed require nothing of them in the matter of Church Communion but what they may comply with without breach of Gods Law Then I say it will not acquit them from being Guilty of Sin before God in withdrawing from our Communion to say that they really believed our Communion to be unlawful and upon that Account they durst not joyn with us It is not my Province here to Answer all their Objections against our Forms of Prayer our Ceremonies our Orders and Rules in Administring Sacraments and other things that concern our Communion This hath been done several times and of late by several Persons which have treated of all these particular matters and who have shewed with great clearness and strength that there is nothing required in our Church Appointments which is in the least inconsistent with or Forbidden by any Law of Jesus Christ But on the contrary the Establishments of our Church are for Gravity Decency Purity and agreeableness with the Primitive Christianity the most approvable and the least Exceptionable of any Church Constitutions at this day in the World These things therefore I meddle not with but this is the point I am concerned in Whether supposing it be every Mans Duty to joyn in Communion with the Established Church and there be nothing required in that Communion but what may be Lawfully Practised I say supposing these two things whether it will be sufficient to acquit any Man from Sin that withdraws from that Communion upon this Account that through his mistake he believes he cannot joyn with us without Sin Or thus whether will any mans perswasion that there are Sinful Terms required in our Communion when yet there are not any justifie his Separation from us This is the general Question truly put And this I give as the Answer to it That in general speaking a Mans Erroneous Perswasion doth not dissolve the Obligation of Gods Law or justifie any Mans Transgression of his Duty So that if Gods Law doth Command me to hold Communion with the Church where I have no just cause to break it And I have no just cause to break it in this particular Case but only I think I have My misperswasion in this matter doth not discharge me from my Obligation to keep the Communion of the Church or acquit me from Sin before God if I break it The Truth and Reason of this I have fully shewed before in what I have said about the Authority of Conscience I shall now only by way of further Confirmation ask this Question Was St. Paul guilty of Sin or no when he Persecuted the Christians being verily perswaded in his own mind that he ought so to do and that he Sinned if he did not If any will say that St. Paul did not Sin in this because he did but Act according to his Conscience they contradict his own express words For he acknowledgeth himself to be the greatest of Sinners and that for this very reason because he persecuted the Church of Christ If they say that he did Sin in doing this Then they must at the same time acknowledg that a Mans perswasion that a thing is a Duty will not excuse him from guilt in practising it if really and indeed it be against Gods Law And on the other side by the same reason that a Mans perswasion that a thing is unlawful will
Form Others Doubt about the Lawfulness of our Ceremonies or our way of Administring the Sacrament And others it may be about other things None of them can indeed say that any of these things do go against their Conscience or that they believe the use of them to be unlawful For that is the Case of a Resolved Conscience with which we have nothing here to do But they are undetermined and uncertain whether they be Lawful or no and so long as they continue under this Suspence of Judgment they dare not joyn in our Worship fearing they would sin against God if they should Now of those that thus Doubt there may be two sorts There are some perhaps that have only a Single Doubt in this matter That is to say They make a Doubt whether they may Lawfully joyn with us so long as those suspected Conditions are required of them But they make no Doubt but are very well satisfied that they may Lawfully Separate from us Again there are others that Doubt on both sides as they have good Reason to do That is As they Doubt on one hand whether the Terms of our Communion be not sinful So they Doubt on the other hand whether it be not sinful to Separate upon account of those Terms Now of these likewise there may be two sorts Some perhaps are equally Doubtful whether the Terms of our Communion be lawful or no. Others Doubt unequally that is are more inclined to believe that they are Sinful than that they are Lawful That now which is to be enquired into is What is most Reasonable and Adviseable in Point of Conscience to be done in each of these Cases Now as to the first of these Cases where a man hath only a Doubt on one side and that is Whether he may Lawfully Communicate with us but he hath no Doubt that he may lawfully Separate To this I say two things First That the mans Doubting only on one side in this matter doth not make it more safe for him to Separate than if he had Doubted on both sides Because indeed if he must Doubt at all it is his Duty he is bound to Doubt on both sides and he is guilty of gross and criminal Ignorance of the Laws of God if he do not And if so then his Doubting only on one side doth not alter the Case but it must have the same Resolution as if it was a Double Doubt properly so called If it be said that it is a constant Rule of a Doubting Conscience and we have allowed it as such that in Cases where a man hath only a Doubt on one side of an Action it is more safe to chuse that side on which he hath no Doubt than that other concerning which he Doubts I do readily grant it But then it is to be remembred that that Rule is always intended and doth only obtain in such Cases where a man may certainly without danger of sinning forbear that Action of the Lawfulness of which he Doubts though he cannot without danger of sinning do the Action so long as he Doubts about it But now in our Case here it is evident to all men that are not wilfully blind that as there may be a danger of Sinning if a man should conform with a Doubting Conscience So there is certainly a danger of Sinning nay and we say a much greater danger if a man do not conform So that that Rule hath here no place at all The truth is Our Case if it be rightly put is this A man is here supposed to reason thus with himself I am very well satisfied in my own mind and I make no Doubt at all that I may Lawfully and without danger of Sin cut my self off from the Communion of the Church which yet by his Christianity he is bound to maintain and preserve as far as he can And I may likewise lawfully and without danger of sinning live in a constant Disobedience and Refractariness to all that Authority that God hath set over me to which yet by as plain Laws as any are in Nature or the Gospel he is bound to be subject I say I am satisfied in my own mind that I may lawfully do both these things But I am very unsatisfied and doubtful whether in my present Circumstances it is not my Duty thus to do so as that I shall Sin if I do not What now would any Prudent man say to this Case Why certainly he would say this That he who can Doubt after this fashion is either a very Ill man or a very Ignorant one And that such a man doth a great deal more stand in need of good Advice and wholsome Instructions about the plain Duties of Christianity than of Rules and Directions how to behave himself in Doubtful Cases Because indeed the best Rules of that kind are not to his Case so long as he continues thus Ignorant And if he should observe them yet that would not justifie his Acting if it should indeed prove contrary to the Law of God because it was both in his power and it was his Duty to know better A mans Right proceeding according to the Rules of a Doubting Conscience in a Case where he is entangled by a wilfully Eroneous one will no more discharge him from Sin as to his Soul if he do an evil Action than the Second Concoction though never so regular can rectifie the Errors of the First as to his Body But Secondly Though that which I have now offered be the proper Answer to the Case before us Yet there is this further to be said to it viz. Though we should suppose that the Law of God had not obliged us to keep the Unity of the Church or to obey our lawful Superiors but had left it as an indifferent matter and that there was no danger at all in forbearing these things but the only danger was in doing them So that the Doubt about Conformity should have perfectly the Nature of a Single Doubt as it is put in the Case I say now even upon this Supposition it will bear a just Dispute whether Conformity or Non-conformity be the more eligible side Nay I say further that if the Rule I laid down about a Single Doubt be true it will appear that as things now stand it is more reasonable for a man to Obey the Laws and Communicate with the Church so long as he hath only a bare Doubt about the Lawfulness of these things than to Disobey and Separate For thus I argue Though in a Single Doubt the Rule be That a man should chuse that side of an Action concerning which he hath no Doubt rather than that concerning which he Doubts Yet as was said before that Rule is always to be understood with this Proviso that all other Considerations in the Case be equal If it should happen that a very great Good may be compassed or a very great Evil may be avoided by Acting on the Doubtful side That very Consideration
or leave out of it till all Parties amongst us are satisfied which indeed can never be effected as it doth consist in our becoming more truly Christian in our Lives and Tempers They are our vicious Dispositions more than our different Apprehensions that keep us at such a distance Let the terms of Communion with the Church be what they will yet as long as Men retain the same quarrelsom Mind and industriously seek for Doubts and Scruples and are glad to find them and prefer their own private Opinion and Judgment before the Wisdom and Authority of all their Governours whether Civil or Ecclesiastical it is plain our Divisions and Animosities will not cannot cease But this leads me to the last thing I design'd to discourse of which was to propound to you the best ways and means by which men may get rid of and ease their Minds of such Scruples where I shall especially consider those that relate to our communicating with our Parish-Churches You must not expect that I should descend to and answer the particular Exceptions which hinder men from constant Communion with us but only in general I shall crave leave to advise some few things which would mightily tend to the removing those Doubts and Scruples that yet detain so many in a state of utter Separation from us or at least discourage their total and hearty joyning with us Which charitable Design and Attempt however unsuccessful I may be in it yet cannot I hope be unacceptable to any whose Consciences are pester'd with such Scruples since I endeavour only to deliver them from those Mistakes which beside the disservice they do to Religion and the Protestant Interest do also expose them to trouble and danger from the Publick Laws and Civil Magistrate Of many Rules that might be given in this case I shall insist only on these following 1. We should take great care to beget and cherish in our Minds the most high and worthy and honourable Thoughts of God Almighty This is the Foundation of all Religion and as our Apprehensions of God are such for the most part will be his Worship and Service Accordingly as we conceive of his Nature so shall we judge what things are most pleasing to him as also what they are that are most offensive and distastful to him Now consider I beseech you Can that Man have becoming and excellent Thoughts of the Divine Nature who imagines that God regards any particular Gestures Habits and Postures so far as that the acceptance of our Service and Worship should depend upon such Circumstances of our Religious Actions When with all Humility and true devotion of Heart a sincere Christian prostrates himself at the Throne of God's Grace and with earnest Desire and Affections begs those good things that are according to Gods Mind and Will can we believe that the Father of our Spirits shall refuse and reject his Petition because it is delivered in a certain prescribed form of Words Shall his importunate renewed Requests fail of Success because he still useth the same Expressions and reads his Prayers out of a Book Is God pleased with variety of Words or the copiousness of our Invention or the elegancy of our Phrase and Stile Is it not the Heart and inward frame of Spirit that God principally respects in all our Prayers Or can we think so meanly of God that he should shut his ears against the united Prayers of his People because offended at the colour of the Garment in which the Minister officiates Suppose two Persons both with equal Preparation with true Repentance and Faith to approach the Lord's Table one of them out of a deep sense of his Unworthiness to receive so great Blessings and out of a grateful acknowledgment of the Benefits therein conferr'd upon him takes the Sacrament upon his Knees in the humblest Posture the other sitting or standing can you think that the Sacrament is effectual or beneficial or that God blesses it only to him that sits or that it would not have been of the same advantage to him if he also had received it kneeling To surmise any such thing is surely to dishonour God as if he were a low poor humoursome Being like a Father that should disinherit his Child tho in all Respects most dutiful to him and every way deserving his greatest Kindness only because he did not like his Complexion or the colour of his Hair The wiser and greater any Person is to whom we address our selves the less he will stand upon little Punctilio's Under the Jewish Law the minutest circumstances of Worship were exactly described and determined by God himself and it was not ordinarily lawful for the Priests at all to vary from them But it was necessary then that it should be thus because the Jewish Worship was typical of what was to come hereafter and those many nice Observances that were appointed were not commanded for themselves as if there were any Excellency in them but they were shadows of things to come which are all now done away by the Gospel and the bringing in of everlasting Righteousness the only thing always pleasing to God and agreeable to his Nature It is a spiritual rational Service God now expects from us and delights in and he must look upon God as a very fond and captious Being who can perswade himself that our Prayers and Thanksgivings and other Acts of Worship tho we be most hearty and devout in them yet shall be rejected by him only because of some particular Habits or Gestures we used which were neither dishonourable to God nor unsutable to the nature of those religious Performances Such mean Thoughts of God are the true ground of all Superstition when we think to court and please him by making great Conscience about little things and so it hath been truly observed that there is far more Superstition in conscientious abstaining from that which God hath no where forbid than there is in doing that which God hath not commanded A man may certainly do what God hath not commanded and yet never think to flatter God by it nor place any Religion in it but he may do it only out of obedience to his Superiours for outward Order and Decency for which end our Ceremonies are appointed and so there is no Superstition in them But now a Man cannot out of Conscience refuse to do what God hath not forbid and is by lawful Authority required of him but he must think to please God by such abstaining and in this conceit of pleasing or humouring God by indifferent things consists the true Spirit of Superstition 2. Lay out your great care and zeal about the necessary and substantial duties of Religion and this will make you less concerned about things of an inferiour and indifferent nature As on the one hand our fierce Disputes and Debates about little things and circumstances are apt to eat out the Heart and Life of Religion so on the other side minding those things most in
do any thing in God's Worship but what is so determined it follows that God cannot be worshipped at all unless we could worship him in no Time Place Habit or Gesture nor indeed can I learn how a Christian can with a good Conscience perform any part of God's Worship if this Principle be admitted for true that whatsoever is not commanded is forbid since the external Circumstances of religious Actions without which they cannot be performed are not prescribed or determined in Scripture and so he must commit a Sin every time he prays or receives the Holy Sacrament Besides this Reason would oblige us to separate from all the Churches that ever were or are in the World there being no constituted Church in which there are not some Orders and Injunctions for the regulating the publick Worship of God no where commanded in Scripture We could never upon this Principle have held Communion with the Primitive Churches which undoubtedly had their instituted significant Ceremonies nor is there any Church at this day that hath not by its own Authority determined some of the Circumstances of Divine Service for the more decent and orderly Performance thereof Nay those very Persons that make this Exception do themselves practise many things in the Worship of God without the least shadow of a Divine Command to which they oblige their Hearers and Communicants for conceived Prayers sitting at the Eucharist sprinkling the Infant at Baptism the Minister's officiating in a black Cloak or Coat are full out as unscriptural humane uncommanded as any Gesture Habit or Form used in our Church 2. That is said to be unlawful which hath been abused to sinful Purposes to Idolatry or Superstition so that nothing ought to be retained in our Worship tho it be not forbid by God which was used in times of Popery Hence the ordinary Objection against our Parish Churches is that they are not sufficiently purged from Popery that our first Reformers were indeed excellent and worthy Persons for the Times they lived in that what they did was very commendable and a good Beginning but they were forced to comply with the necessities of the Age which would not bear a compleat Reformation They left a great deal of Popish Trash in the Church hoping by degrees to reconcile the Papists to it or at least that they might not make the Breach too wide and too much prejudice or estrange them from it But we now live under better means have greater Light and Knowledge and so a further and more perfect Amendment is now necessary Thus the Order of Bishops is decried as Popish and Antichristian our Liturgy as taken out of the Mass Book and our Ceremonies as Relicks of Idolatry But the truth of the case is this We must consider that those of the Church of Rome do hold and maintain all the Essentials of Christianity but then by degrees as they found Opportunity they have added a number of impious and pernicious Doctrines to the Christian Faith the Belief and Profession of which they equally require of all that are in their Communion Besides this they have introduced several idolatrous and superstitious Rites and Practises into the Service of their Church never heard of for the first four hundred Years by which they have miserably defaced and corrupted the Worship of God and made it necessary for all those that love their own Salvation to separate from them Now our first Reformers here in England did not go about to invent a new Species of Government to devise new Rites and Ceremonies and a new form of Worship such as should be least excepted against and then obtrude it upon this Nation as was done at Geneva and some other places but they wisely considered that if they did but reject what the Romanists had added to the Faith and Worship of Christians lay aside their novel Inventions Usurpations and unwritten Traditions there would remain the pure simple Primitive Christianity such as it was before the Roman Church was thus degenerated nor have we any thing of Popery left amongst us but what the Papists had left amongst them of Primitive Religion and Worship As we must not receive the evil for the sake of the good so neither must we reject the good for the sake of the evil In our Church we pray neither to Saints nor Angels nor the Virgin Mary our Liturgy is in a known Tongue we deny the Laity no part of the Sacrament nor the reading of the Scriptures we offer no Mass Sacrifice nor Worship Images or the consecrated Bread We have not one Doctrine or Ceremony in use amongst us that is purely Popish But we must be obliged to part with the most sacred venerable and usefullest things in our Religion if this be a sufficient reason of our forbearing any thing because the Papists abuse it This therefore I conclude to be the best and plainest rule for the governing of our Consciences not wilfully to omit any thing that God hath commanded to avoid to the utmost of our Power what God hath forbid and what ever else we have no particular Divine Law about to guide our selves by the general Rules of Scripture the commands of our Superiours and by the measures of Prudence Peace and Charity This one rule and it cannot but seem a very reasonable one would soon put an end to our squabbles and janglings about Forms and Ceremonies and other indifferent things 5. In order to the bringing men to a complyance with the Laws of our Church we must desire them to consider that there never was nor ever will be any publick Constitution that will be every way unexceptionable The best policy whether Civil or Ecclesiastical that can be established will have some flaws and defects which must be borne and tolerated Some Inconveniences will in process of time arise that never could be foreseen or provided against and to make alteration upon every emergent difficulty may be often of worse consequence than the evil we pretend to cure by it Let the Rules and Modes of Government Discipline publick Worship be most exact and blameless yet there will be faults in Governours and Ministers as long as they are but men We must not expect in this World a Church without Spot or Wrinkle that consists only of Saints in which nothing can be found amiss especially by those who lye at the catch and wait for an advantage against it If men will scruple and reform as long as any thing remaineth which they can object against they must e'en come at last as a Reverend Person of our Church hath observed to the state of that miserable Man who left all humane Society that he might not be defiled with other Mens Sins and at last cut out the Contents of Chapters and Titles of Books out of the Bible because they were humane Inventions added to the pure Word of God Men must be willing if ever they would promote Peace and Unity to put candid Constructions and
for fear of Offence and again in the same place Hic Charitatis rationem haberi decet sed usque ad aras Our charity to our Brother ought to be limited by this that we do not for his sake displease God The very best things and actions may be perverted by Men of ill-disposed or weak minds false consequences and unjust inferences may be strained from them as we know the grace of God in the Gospel was abused into an argument for licentiousness and Christ himself is said to be set for the fall of many St. Luke 2. 24. but still this doth not Cancel our obligations to universal obedience to Gods Law nor can it alter the nature of good and evil duty and sin which are no such uncertain contingent things as to depend upon the constructions others shall make of our actions or the conclusions they shall draw from them God Almighty in the making of his Laws hath a perfect comprehension of all the accidental events that may happen either through the weakness or wickedness of Men and we must not think our selves to be wiser than God taking upon our selves to dispense with his Commands without any allowance from him as if himself had not foreseen those inconveniences which may arise from our doing our duty it can therefore never be that obedience to God should give any real Scandal and whatever Offence may be taken at my doing of my duty it is a contradiction to imagine it imputable to me as a sin or fault for it is to suppose one to disobey God in obeying him but they alone are chargeable who are Offended by it Now by the express Command of God we are obliged to obey the lawful injunctions of our Superiours whether Civil or Ecclesiastical and if any are so hardy as to deny this they must seek for another Bible out of which to judge of Gods will for there is hardly any one duty of Religion more plainly Commanded more frequently and earnestly pressed in the New Testament than quiet and peaceable subjection to Authority both in Church and State in all things lawful and that not only to avoid punishment but for Conscience sake and to refuse obedience in such things is a sin against the fifth Commandment That the Conformity required by our Church contains not any thing in it unlawful must be granted as I have already observed by all those who make use of this Plea of Scandal from all which the necessary Conclusion is Since we may not redeem a Scandal by disobedience to God since God hath plainly required our submission to those whom he hath set over us in all things lawful since it is acknowledged by those I now discourse with that Conformity to the Church is enjoyned by a competent Authority and is lawful I say the necessary conclusion is that no Man can with a good Conscience refuse to conform only for fear of Scandal Our Dissenting Brethren when they are urged with this Argument neither do nor can deny any of the Premises they must confess that no sin may be committed upon any account whatsoever and that a Man is not bound to provide for his Brothers safety by wounding his own Soul they cannot deny but that God hath Commanded us to be subject to Lawful Authority in all things lawful but then to evade the force of this reasoning they have endeavoured to load the conclusion with some seeming difficulties and absurdities which they pretend follow from this principle that we are bound to obey notwithstanding the Scandal that may ensue upon it The chief of these I shall mention and briefly return an Answer to them 1. It is pleaded that those precepts which contain only rituals are to give place to those which do concern the welfare of Mens Bodies and much more to those which do respect the welfare of our Brothers Soul so that when both together cannot be observed we must neglect or violate the former to observe the latter That this is true even of some Commands given by God himself to which purpose our Saviour doth produce that saying of the Prophet Hosea I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice Now if Sacrifices prescribed by God himself which were so considerable a part of the Divine Worship under Moses's Law yet were to give place to acts of mercy how much more are the positive injunctions of Men that concern only the externals and circumstantials of Religion to yield to the Royal and indispensable Law of Charity of which this duty of not giving Offence to others is such an Eminent part Thus saith Mr. Jeans in his Second Part of Scholastical Divinity What Laws of any Earthly Wight whatsoever concerning Ceremonies can be more obligatory than the Commands of God touching the externals of his Worship and Service and yet it is his will and pleasure that these externals of his Worship should be laid aside for the performance of outward works of mercy If therefore the sacred Ordinances of God are to give way unto works of mercy unto the bodies of Men surely then much more is the trash of human inventions to yield unto a work of mercy to the Souls of Men. In answer to this it is readily acknowledged that when there doth happen any such interfering between two Commands of God the one Positive the other Moral the Positive ought always to give place to the Moral and by the same reason the positive Commands of our Superiours ought certainly to give way to the Moral Commands of God which are of eternal and immutable obligation They cease to bind us either in case of absolute necessity or when they plainly hinder our performance of any Moral duty to God or our Neighbour and the Church is presumed to dispense with its orders as God Almighty doth allow the neglect of his own positive Institutions in such circumstances But then this is only where the necessity is urgent and extream the sin we must otherwise commit evident and certain and at last our Obedience is dispensed withal only for that one time Thus in a case of necessity Our Saviour St. Matth. 12. 5. acquits David and his followers of all blame who being ready to perish for hunger did eat of the Shewbread which otherwise was not lawful for them to eat but had they taken a particular fancy to that Bread and refused to have eaten of any other because that best agreed with their Stomacks and was most pleasing to their Palate can we think our Saviour would have so easily excused them Or which is nearer to our Case because God did prefer acts of Mercy before Sacrifices where both could not be done yet this would not have justified any mans wholly leaving off Sacrificing or refusing to do it at Jerusalem inventing another way of Worship as more expedient than Sacrificing or choosing another place to Sacrifice in which might be more convenient for all the Jews than that City was We may leave our Prayers forsake the Church to save
is apt to breed scruples and perplexities in well meaning but less knowing members of it and by degrees produces a distast or dislike of our Worship and plainly hinders the efficacy of the ordinances of Christ as administred in our Church whilest it creates prejudices in people against them as impure and corrupt and why there should not be a due regard had to those many who are Offended at our Dissenters Conventicle Worship as well as of those who are said to be Scandalized by our Church service I cannot at all guess I shall only say here that irreverent sitting at the receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Mens unmannerly wearing their Hats in time of Divine Worship and oftentimes putting them off but half way at their Prayers their indecent postures and antick gestures at their devotions the extravagancies and follies not to say worse some of them are guilty of in their extemporary effusions the strange uncouth Metaphors and Phrases they use in their Preaching in a word the slovenly performance of Divine Worship amongst the Dissenters is much more Scandalous then all the Ceremonies of our Church can ever be 4. Consider the Scandal that is hereby given to Magistrates and our Superiours by bringing their Laws and Authority into contempt concerning which the forenamed Mr. Jeans in his first Edition of his Discourse about Abstinence from all Appearance of Evil hath these words If saith he it were better to be thrown into the bottom of the Sea with a Millstone about ones Neck than to offend a little one a poor and illiterate Artizan what expression shall we then find answerable to the heinousness of a Scandal given to a Pious Magistrate to a Religious Prince to a Parliament and Convocation to an whole Church and Commonwealth 5. By this Separation from the Church great Scandal is given to the Papists not that they are displeased at it they are not indeed offended in that sense but this serves wonderfully to harden them in their false and Idolatrous Worship it increaseth their confidence that their Church is the only true Church of Christ because amongst them only is found Peace and Unity and this is a mighty temptation to many wavering Christians to turn Papists insomuch that Mr. Baxter hath told us that Thousands have been drawn to Popery or confirmed in it by this Argument already and he saith of himself that he is persuaded that all the Arguments else in Bellarmin and all other Books that ever were written have not done so much to make Papists in England as the multitude of Sects among our selves This indeed is a great Scandal to our Protestant Religion and is that which the Papists are on all occasions so forward to object against us and hit us in the teeth with and by our hearty uniting with the Church of England we may certainly wrest out of their hands the most dangerous weapon they use against the Reformation 6. This tends to the Scandal of Religion in general It prejudiceth men against it as an uncertain thing a matter of endless dispute and debate it makes some Men utterly reject it as consisting mostly in little trifles and niceties about which they observe the greatest noise and contention to be made or as destructive of the Publick Peace of Societies when they see what dangerous feuds and quarrels commence from our Religious Differences and all the disorder and confusion that they have caused here in England shall by some be charged upon Christianity it self Thus our causeless Separations and Divisions open a wide door to Atheisme and all kind of Prophaneness and Irreligion After this manner it was of old and always will be where there are Parties in Religion and one contends that their Separation is lawful and the other that it is unlawful the Common people soon become doubtful and ready to forsake all Religion I might add here that such Separations necessarily occasion breach of Charity they beget implacable enmities and animosities Hence cometh strife emulation envying one Party continually endeavouring to overtop the other watching for one anothers halting rejoycing in one anothers sins and misfortunes constant undermining one another to the disturbance of the Publick Government and endangering the Civil Peace of all which and much more than I can now mention the present distracted condition of our Nation is so great and undenyable an evidence that there need no more words to shew the mischiefs that attend such Divisions and now let any one judge whether the Peace and Unity of the Church the maintaining of Charity amongst Brethren the keeping out Popery and Atheism the preservation of the Authority of the Magistrate and quiet of the Society we are Members of the honour and credit of our Religion Lastly Whether giving Offence to all both Conformists and Nonconformists those only excepted of our own particular Sect and Division nay Scandalizing them also in the true and proper sense of Scandal be not of far greater and more weighty consideration than the fear of displeasing or grieving some few weak dissatisfied Brethren Wo to those by whom Offences come But these things I have very lightly touched because they have been the subject of many Sermons and discourses lately published To sum up all I have said Since they who dissent from the Church of England are not such weak persons as St. Paul all along describes and provides for since we cannot by our Conformity really Scandalize or Offend them in that sense in which the Scriptures use those words since tho we did give Offence to them by our Conformity yet that would not excuse us from doing our Duty and by refusing to Conform we should do both them and others greater hurt and mischief I think I may safely conclude that there cannot lie any obligation upon any private Christian as the case now stands amongst us to absent himself from his Parish-Church or to forbear the use of the Forms of Prayer or Ceremonies by Law appointed for fear of Offending his weak Brethren I end all with one word of Advice First to those who are not convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity Secondly to those who are satisfied that it is lawful 1. To those who are not convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity and therefore urge so hard that they ought not to be Offended by us I would beseech them that they would take some care and make some Conscience to avoid giving any needless Offence to those of the Church of England and this cannot but be thought a reasonable request since they require all others to be so tender of them They ought not therefore to meet in such numbers nor at the same time at which we assemble to Worship God in our publick Churches Let them not affront our Service and Common-Prayers nor revile our Bishops and Ministers nor put on their Hats when at any time they chance to be present at our Service in our Churches nor talk nor read in Books nor make sour
aspersing what they separated from and so men are inevitably betrayed into envyings and bitter railings into strife and contention and all those evils that such things are naturally productive of And I am sure it is a sore grief and trouble and an offence in the second notion of it to many good men who cannot but be grieved greatly To see the Institutions of Christ so disregarded the great Duties and Services of Religion so slighted and neglected and to behold the Peace and Welfare of the Church which cost the Saviour of the world so dear and is so greatly beloved by him so very little consulted or rather purposely betrayed To behold men allow themselves nay glory in such damnable sins destroy their Souls by the guilt of them and wilfully forfeit the benefit of all that Christ hath done and suffered for them And lastly to see the way of Religion so perplexed with idle Questions and made intricate by needless Disputes and to see so many unreasonable Controversies started and such eager Quarrels amongst Christians which the best men sometimes have much ado to weather and get over so as they should do These are the things that make many sad and aking hearts among those whom God hath not made sad and these are the effects of the sad Divisions and Separations among us These therefore are the Scandal and the things that so much offend and these are the Divisions for which there are such searchings of heart at this day I would to God some men would seriously consider things they might then possibly begin to reflect upon themselves and their own actions and perhaps see cause to take some part of that reproach upon themselves which they are pleased so prodigally to cast upon us 2. But I have another thing yet to shew the errour of applying this Speech of the Apostle to our case For as there is a mistake in the notion of Scandal and Offence so there is too in those things to which the giving offence here relates and they are vastly different from those things in the Church that we conform unto by which the offence is pretended to be given The difference I mean is this that however they may be things in their own nature equally indifferent yet the supervening command from lawful Authority may make a vast difference between them Those things to which this Text relates were indifferent and undetermined too no humane Law had taken cognizance of them but the Institutions or Ceremonies of the Church in which it is pretended we give offence are things already determined by the Laws of men and such as a lawful Authority hath bound us to the practice of I shall not need to have any controversie I hope with any about the nature of them nor will any of the tragical Outcries against them prove them essentially evil Though some men have been taught to call them Rags of Rome Instances of Superstition and Relicks of Idolatry these are words of course and arts of railing which proclaim indeed the rancour and malice of some mens spirits but do not change the nature of things And certainly a stranger that should hear all this outcry and at last find the things declaimed so against are but pure Modes and Circumstances of things he would either greatly question the judgement and honesty of some men or at least conclude that a little thing will serve those men to quarrel with that are resolved either to find faults or to make them 2. Nor secondly shall I need here to dispute whether such things may be injoyned by a lawful Authority in the Service of God This hath been done fully already by a more learned hand to which I have nothing here to adde but that our Brethren and all the several denominations of them do the same thing themselves and sufficiently confute their own Objection So hard is it for them to frame any argument against us which may not like a two-edged weapon wound themselves And time was when some of them found it sadly true the Arguments that they had used against the Church of England others galled their own sides with and they were forced to think those answers good for them which they will not allow to be so for us against them And what dealing that is I leave others to judge 3. No nor thirdly do I think it worth the while to stay to answer that trifling Objection That this command of men alters the nature of the things and sure the Church of England thinks them more than Indifferent or else it would not lay so much weight upon them nor make so very great a stir about them It is a great mistake to think that the commanding of things indifferent makes any alteration in the nature of them it alters them indeed with respect to us and our practice but the things remain the same and the Church commands them as things fitting to be done but Indifferent still in their nature and so the Church of England declares them to be after her commanding them And her publick Declarations and Rubricks sufficiently acquit her from all such thought and if men will not believe her own Protestations but still pretend that she believes contrary to what she solemnly professeth it is but another instance of some mens ingenuity and candour towards her and needs not be counted strange in this Age. Nor is her standing so stiff as men speak for these things any argument of her thinking otherwise of them for however a Ceremony be in it self a small thing yet Faction and Disobedience is a great one and ought with all care to be suppressed and that Church needs not be blamed for its sharpness against Dissentions about these which hath already by sad experience found that gratifying Faction in these hath in the issue been the utter overthrow of her whole Constitution If any Church may be excused in this certainly this may which hath already felt the smart of Indulging in them and cannot but be concerned when it sees the same practices pursued again and that too by those very men who trampled upon her with so much cruelty and scorn in the late time of her visitation The beginning of strife saith Solomon is as when one letteth out a River and so we have found Faction in these things to be also and therefore no wonder if the wisdom of the Church apply it self with so much care and quickness to obstruct the smallest beginnings in that as men do to repair the least breach in those Banks which keep in the waters of the other 4. Nor fourthly do I think I have any pertinent occasion here to assert the obligation of humane Laws or to dispute whether they oblige the Consciences of men in things that God hath left undetermined We need but consult Scripture for this which will be plain so long as the 13 Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans and the first Epistle of St. Peter shall remain in the
severe against The Gentiles might be encouraged and confirmed in their Idolatry by feeing men of the most holy Religion as they called themselves consent with them in it And the Church might be offended too by seeing her Members have so little a regard to her Constitutions and the plain Canons of her great Founders And therefore they ought to be extreamly careful and cautious what they did in this nice point and so ought we always to be in such cases 2. But secondly it may so happen that what we do may onely offend some These different Parties may have different apprehensions of the same thing Some may think it lawful or a Duty others may scruple it or condemn it as a sin Now in this case it will concern us to consider how we ought to govern our selves and our actions and what difference to make in our respects to men And the Apostles Rule in this Text will be a safe measure and direction to us especially it Ecumenius his Note be true as it commonly is in all places where a Climax or Gradation is used as it seems plainly to be in this place His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. consider what the Apostle saith how he puts the chief thing last and makes giving offence to the Church of God that which especially we ought to have a care of and he gives this reason for the equity of this Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it concerns us to endeavour to win others unto the Faith but by no means to offend and grieve those that already profess it And certainly nothing can be more just and reasonable than this is So that the sum of this advice is plainly this You ought as near as you can to do nothing to offend any but however take care not to offend the Church You ough to have a charitable respect to all particular persons of what denomination soever whether Jews or Gentiles but especially to the Church and never to give offence to that by any thing that you do Now this will be a clear guide to us in our present case and not onely acquit Conformity from all guilt of Scandal but cast it wholly upon Separation and refusing to comply with the present Constitutions of the Church since that is a direct giving offence to those which the Apostle chiefly respects in this prohibition i. e. the Church of God I stay not now to give the notion of the Church I doubt not but all contending Parties understand that competently well Nor to prove the present national Church of England to be justly called the Church of God this God be thanked is fully done against both the opposite Factions against her those that call her Heretical or Schismatical on one hand and those that reproach her as Popish and Antichristian on the other Were her present Constitutions to be tried by Apostolical and Primitive practice her Faith to be judged by that of the first Centuries and four most truly General-Councils or her Liturgy and Discipline her Rites Ceremonies and way of publick Worship to be compared with what we can collect and judge of those purest times Or were she to stand or fall by the judgement and suffrages of the most able and learned of Protestant Divines abroad since the Reformation she would not onely be justified but commended not onely pass for a true and sound part of Christs Church but the most sound and Orthodox the most truly Primitive and Apostolical of any at this day on the face of the earth But I wave all this and proceed to apply this Advice and Rule of St. Paul to our own Case as it is at this day with respect to Scandal and the danger of it by conforming to the Church which is plainly this The Church of England having reformed it self from those Corruptions that had sullied the truth and beauty of Christian Doctrine and Worship not by Noise and Tumult and popular Faction which too much influenced some forein Reformations but upon grave and sober advice with the concurrence of the lawful Civil Power digested her Doctrinals into such a number of Articles as she judged most consonant to the Faith and Doctrine of the Apostles and first Councils established such a Form of Worship as upon most diligent enquiry and search she found most agreeable to the practice of pure and Primitive Ages and retained onely such Rites and Usages as she found most ancient and freest from any just and reasonable Exceptions and Abuses All these thus constituted and framed she imposeth as Conditions of her Communion and requires Conformity unto of all her Members She will be grievously offended if any of her Children reject and comply not with this Constitution as knowing her Knowledge and Integirty questioned her Authority despised and that Power that hath confirmed all this contemned by so doing On the other hand there are some particular men some Hereticks some Schismaticks some either designing or less instructed persons that declare themselves offended by conforming to this Constitution The question now is how we shall govern our selves and which of these Considerations we will permit to sway us Whether respect to the Church and just Authority and fear of giving offence thereto shall engage us to conform or whether respect to some private persons and fear of offending and angring them shall cause us to cast off all regard to those Laws and Constitutions and all care to comply with them This is the plain Case and were there no other Considerations to determine us when yet there are many I would desire nothing plainer than the direction of the Apostle in this Text where he tells us that the persons we ought chiefly to have a care not to give offence unto are the Church of God If some private persons and the Church come in competition and we must needs offend some we ought to have a greater respect to the Church than unto them And were it truly giving them offence which yet it is not yet were it so I say we ought not to attend so to that Consideration as to cast off all regard and care to the Church of Christ This I think is a Rule so very reasonable at the very hearing of and so fair upon its own reasons that I do not know whether it be really worth while to go to adde any strength to it We might venture it to its own strength to stand or fall and may challenge any one to assault or undertake it Yet however I shall proceed to enlarge a little more upon it and to adde some Considerations which may make it something more popularly plain and convincing 1. And first I desire to have it fairly considered whether we ought not to have at least as fair a respect to the Church of God as to any private persons of what character or denomination soever I do not see upon what reasons any person can deny this to me especially in a case where we
into its own Laws After this great example I proceed to take notice of some that we find registred in the life of St. Paul to the like purpose I instance onely in two which will be sufficient The first was his circumcising Timothy of which you have the story Acts 16. 1 2 3. It is certain Timothy might have objected against Circumcision and pleaded his freedom from any obligation to it being the Son of a Grecian Father and there is no reason to doubt but it must be irksome and troublesome to him yet for all that St. Paul hath greater respect to the Church of the Jews in those parts which might be offended had he not been circumcised his Mother being a Jew The other is that famous story of St. Paul's shaving his head and purifying himself in the Temple with the men that had a vow upon them just according to the manner prescribed in the Levitical Law you have the account of it Acts 21. from 23 to 27. I do not at all question but this action of St. Paul must be strangely looked upon at first by Trophimus and those other Heathen Converts that came with him to Jerusalem who knowing his Doctrine and manner of conversation abroad could scarce chuse but reflect with some trouble upon this action and the truth is it was a plain temptation to them to have some hard thoughts of him Yet notwithstanding this St. Paul preferred his respect to the Church of Jerusalem and chose rather to incur this censure of theirs than to give any offence to the Church of Christ which was there From which example a great advantage may be drawn not onely to direct us what regard to have to the Church of God in general above any private persons but even to a National or Local Church which is but a member and part of Christs Church and from which the constitution of other Churches as to Customs and Usages may be different St. Paul might have pleaded strongly against this thing to which St. James advised him especially upon the account of offence to those that were with him and to others from whom he came yet for all this his respect to the present Church where he was and his care not to offend it overcame all other considerations and caused him readily to do that which neither they were greatly pleased with nor himself in all probability neither Which hath often brought to my mind the Apostolical temper of St. Ambrose in that famous answer of his to St. Austin's Mother which he magnifies so highly for Oracular and Divine That at Millain he did not observe the Sabbath-fast because it was not the usage of his Church but at Rome he did because it was the custom there advising her in all such things to make the custom of the present Church her Precedent and Rule and by no means to give any offence to it By both which notable Examples we may learn by what measure to govern our selves in these things namely a respect to the Usages and Constitutions of the present Church we are in provided they be not sinful and plainly contrary to any Law of God for of such things I am speaking all this while and about such things it is that our present dispute about giving offence is by both sides acknowledged to be I onely add one thing more before I leave this Precedent That if we ought to have this great and over-ruling respect to any National Church of Christ to which we chance to come and in which we sojourn we certainly ought much more to have the same to our own National Church in which we not onely live but were born and baptised Members of and therefore suffer our regard to it to over-rule all other respects to private persons that may interfere with it These things might be enough to assure the reasonableness of the present Consideration and I do not see what can well be objected against them 2. And yet I shall proceed to some Popular Considerations here also which are owned for sound and good Rules to act by in all other like Cases by all sorts of men and which when applied in our Case will presently determine it our concern and duty to have greater care not to give offence to the Church of God than to any private persons Four of these I shall just mention and leave to take effect by our leisurely consideration of them 1. That offending the Church is offending the greater party I hope I may say not onely greater than any other single denomination of men but than all of them together I know how forward each party hath been to boast its number and some to threaten Authority with their strength and to that purpose to make false musters and great shews to crowd together upon all occasions and to make it piacular for one to be absent when either the Party or the Cause was to be credited But thanks be to God that we have publick evidences now and of late that the Church-party is not so small and inconsiderable as some men would have it thought to be It is true honest men are not apt to be noisie and tumultuous the sense of their own Integrity satisfieth them and the assurance that they are known to God is to them more than Ten thousand witnesses They do not use to boast of themselves nor court greatly man's observance they keep their station and use not to run from place to place an art by which the same man may appear ten or twenty and this perhaps hath made some good men fearful and some others confident But thanks be to God they know one another better now and have signalized their numbers to material purposes Now this ought to be a swaying consideration with all scrupulous persons in this case In all others it is thought safest to offend the lesser party supposing them but in the same circumstances with others And when a Dissenter considers that by Conforming he can but offend some few of his own small party or at most but some few of others but by his Separation shall certainly offend the whole Church methinks it should soon teach him which side of the Question to chuse Unless those few must be counted the onely wise and the onely good the sober and the godly party and the whole Church be disparaged as consisting onely of ignorant and loose silly and dissolute persons When blessed be God plain experience contradicts both and shews them to be equal at least to their supercilious accusers both for knowledge and virtue and there is nothing to make them appear otherwise but onely the Pride and Uncharitableness of some men whose interest it is to have them believed to be so But Wisdom is justified in her Children 2. Offending the Church of Christ must needs be of worse consequence than offending any private party of men I need not stay to remark each single instance in which this is evident every man's reason
all agree doth in Scripture frequently signifie an Office and that in both these Texts it is so to be understood is evident because those things which the Apostles exhort them to are the proper acts and exercises of those several Offices and Capacities of Bishops Presbyters Deacons and rich men and the Argument by which they exhort them is that they had receiv'd the proper Gifts to which these acts appertain So that if by these Gifts we understand abilities to perform those acts we shall force the Argument to prove too much viz. that it is the duty of every one to Rule and Teach and Minister and Prophesie that hath receiv'd an ability to do so whereas in truth none can have a right to perform these acts as all sober Dissenters will acknowledge but onely such as are vested with the Offices to which they appertain Wherefore either this Argument having received Gifts must oblige all men to rule c. that are able to do so or else by Gifts must be meant the Offices to which those acts of ruling c. belong But you will say 'T is evident that by some of these Gifts must be meant the ability of doing the acts here specifi'd as particularly that of distributing to the Poor and shewing Mercy I answer That as for these acts the meer ability to relieve the poor and miserable not onely authorizes but obliges us to them and by putting it in our power God doth as much make it our Office to relieve them as if he had set us apart to it by a solemn Ordination and because the ability here confers the Office the Gift though it signifies the Office must necessarily include the ability too but in all those other particulars where the Office and Ability are distinct things the Gift must signifie the Office distinct from the Ability because here it being the Office and not the Ability that authorizes and obliges us to perform the acts the necessity of performing the acts must be argued from the Office and not from the Ability So then if by the Gifts here spoken of onely such and such Offices are intended by what consequence doth it follow that because those who are vested with these Offices are here exhorted faithfully to discharge them therefore those who are able to pray extempore are hereby obliged to do so Our Brethren may as well argue from these words that all those who are able to rule are obliged to exercise the Episcopal Office as that those who are able to pray extempore are obliged to pray extempore But then thirdly and lastly I answer That supposing that by these Gifts were not meant Offices but onely Abilities yet all that can hence be argued is that those who have them are obliged to exercise them so far forth as is consistent with edification for so the Apostle exhorts That all things be done to edification and to be sure what he exhorts to in one Text doth not at all clash with what he exhorts in another and even of those extraordinary Gifts that were poured out in the Primitive times the Apostle declares 1 Cor. 14. that those who had them were no farther obliged to use them in the Church than the use of them tended to edification vers 2 6 18 19. and particularly for the Gift of Tongues though it was immediately inspired he totally forbids them the use and exercise of it where there was no interpreter vers 23 27 28. If then we are not to exercise our Gifts meerly because they are Gifts but because the exercise of them tends to Edification and if when they do not tend to it we are to suspend the exercise of them as it 's plain we are by this instance of the Gift of Tongues then although by the Gifts mention'd in the above-nam'd Text were meant Abilities and not Offices yet it doth not follow that those who have an ability to pray extempore should therefore be obliged to exercise it any further than as it tends to Edification and therefore if praying by a Form in publick Worship be more for the publick Edification and that it is hath been proved Part 1. Case 3. we are no more oblig'd to pray extempore though we have an ability to do so than he who had the Gift of Tongues was to exercise his Gift when he could not edifie the publick by it and if we ought to suspend the exercise of our Gift when it is not at all edifying at least we are not obliged to exercise it when we may perform the same thing without exercising it in a more edifying manner Having thus shewn the insufficiency of those Scriptures which our Brethren urge to prove that those who are able to pray extempore are oblig'd to do so it remains that hitherto no discovery can be made of any Command of Scripture by which we are oblig'd to pray vocally by our own gift or ability of expression for upon the utmost enquiry I can make these which I have answer'd are the onely Texts which with any shew of argument our Brethren produce to this purpose Supposing therefore it were true that nothing ought to be admitted into God's Worship but what he hath commanded yet this makes a great deal more against praying by our own Gift and in our own words and expressions than it doth against praying by a Form because there are express Commands for praying in some cases by a Form but there is no Command at all for praying by our own Gifts Since therefore there are sundry instances of God's prescribing Forms of Prayer and since no instance can be given of his requiring us to pray by our own Gifts and Abilities this certainly is a sufficient Scripture-warrant of the lawfulness of worshipping him by Forms I proceed to the second Enquiry included in this Case and that is Whether there be any Warrant for the use of Forms in pure Antiquity For it is pretended by some of our Brethren that in the primitive Ages of the Church all publick Prayers were perform'd by the Gifts and Abilities of him that minister'd and that there was no such things as Forms admitted into their publick Worship for the proof of which bold Assertion they onely urge two or three doubtful Authorities against a whole current of plain and express Testimonies to the contrary In the prosecution therefore of this Enquiry I shall endeavour 1. To answer those Authorities which are objected by our Brethren against the use of Forms in the Primitive Ages 2. To prove that they were used in those Ages by a short Historical Account of the Matter of Fact The first Authority which they object against the Primitive use of Forms of Prayer is that of Justin Martyr (a) (a) (a) Apol. 2. p. 98. who tells us that at the Communion the Chief Minister did send forth Prayers and Thanksgivings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is say they according to his ability from whence they infer that in Justin Martyr's days
of it Now that such an open Innovation should be so silently admitted into the Church without the least contest or opposition seems very strange if not incredible 'T is true there were some Innovations that crept in very early without any opposition but none that was of such a publick cognizance as this and unless the whole Christian World had been fast asleep it is hardly supposeable they would ever have admitted such a remarkable alteration in their publick Worship as from praying extempore to pray by a Form without the least contradiction If therefore praying by a Form were an Innovation upon their Primitive Worship it was certainly the most lucky and fortunate one that ever was of that kind there being no one Innovation besides it of that publick nature but what hath always found powerful Adversaries to withstand it But not to insist upon probabilities we will inquire into the matter of fact And first we have those three ancient Liturgies which are attributed to St. Peter St. Mark and St. James which though they have been all of them wofully corrupted by later Ages yet are doubtless as to the purer parts of them of great antiquity and probably even from the Apostolical Age for besides that there are many things in them which have a strong relish of the simplicity and piety of that Age that of St. James in particular was of great authority in the Church of Jerusalem whereof he was the first Bishop in St. Cyril's time who wrote a Comment upon it (t) (t) (t) Cyril Catech Mystag 5 and is declar'd by Proclus Archbishop of Constantinople (u) (u) (u) Alat de Liturg S. Jacob. and the sixth General Council (w) (w) (w) Concil Trull c. 32. to be St. James's own composure which is a plain argument of the great Antiquity if not Apostolicalness of it for St. Cyril flourish'd in the year 350 and as St. Jerom observes (x) (x) (x) S. Jerom de Scrip. in Cyr. composed this Comment on St. James's Liturgy in his younger years Now it is not to be imagin'd he would have commented on it had it not been of great authority in the Church of Jerusalem and how could it have obtain'd any great Authority had it not been long before receiv'd that is at least seventy or eighty years Supposing then that he wrote this Comment Anno 347 as 't is very probable (y) (y) (y) Vid. Dr. Cave 's Life of St. Cyril and that this Liturgy had been receiv'd in the Church of Jerusalem but seventy or eighty years and less cannot well be supposed it could not be above a hundred and seventy years after the Apostolical Age that this Liturgy was receiv'd in the Church of Jerusalem And that there are Forms of Worship in it as ancient as the Apostles seems highly probable for first there is all that Form with a very small variation from ours call'd Sursum corda Lift up your hearts we lift them up unto the Lord it is meet and right so to do it is very meet right and our bounden duty to praise thee c. Therefore with Angels and Arch-Angels c. all which is in St. Cyril's Comment (z) (z) (z) Cyril Catech Mystag 5. which is a plain argument that 't was much ancienter than he And the same is also in those ancient Liturgies of Rome and Alexandria and in the Constitutions of St. Clemens (a) (a) (a) Constit Clem. l. 8. c. 22. which all agree are of great antiquity though not so great as they pretend And St. Cyprian who was living within an hundred years after the Apostles mentions it as a Form that was then used and receiv'd in the Church (b) (b) (b) Cyprian de Orat. Dominic The Priest saith he in the Preface before the Prayer prepares the minds of the Brethren by saying Lift up your hearts that so while the People answer We lift them up unto the Lord they may be admonished that they ought to think of nothing but the Lord. And lastly St. Austin tells us that this Sursum corda which is the Name and Title of the whole following Form and consequently includes it even as Te Deum Venite exultemus do the Hymns that go under that Title are verba ab ipsorum Apostolorum temporibus petita i. e. words derived from the very Age of the Apostles And the same is asserted by Nicephorus of the Trisagium in particular Hist lib. 18. cap. 53. And that even from that Primitive Age there was a certain Form prescribed in Baptism is evident by those solemn Questions and Answers that were made by the Priests and return'd by the person to be baptized for so Tertullian (c) (c) (c) Tertul. de Resurrect Carn speaking of Baptism tells us That the Soul is not establish'd by the washing but by the Answer And St. Cyprian expresly calls it Interrogatio Baptismi the questioning of Baptism (d) (d) (d) Cyp. 76. 80. which plainly shews that there were certain Questions and Answers given and return'd in Baptism and what the Question was may be guess'd by the Answer which was this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I renounce Satan and his works and his pomps c. (e) (e) (e) Clem. Constit lib. 7. And accordingly Tertullian (f) (f) (f) Coron Milit. In the Church and under the hand of the Priest we protest to renounce the Devil his pomps and works Which form of Question and Responsal Origen who lived not long after derives from Christ or his Disciples Who is there saith he (g) (g) (g) In Numer Homil. 5. can easily explain the reason of some Words and Gestures and Orders and Interrogations and Answers that are used in Baptism which yet we observe and fulfil according as we first took them up they being deliver'd to us by Tradition from our Great High Priest or his Disciples If it be objected that this is no Form of Prayer I answer that 't is a limiting the Minister from exercising his own Gift in performing his Ministerial Office and if in performing he might be limited to a Form of Question why not to a Form of Prayer And if the Church thought fit not to leave him at liberty to question extempore in Baptism it 's very improbable it should leave him at liberty to pray extempore in publick there being as great a necessity to prescribe him a Form for the later as for the former And that de facto there were Forms of Prayer as well as of Question and Answer used in Baptism is not onely affirmed in the Constitutions of St. Clemens but some of the Prayers also are there inserted (h) (h) (h) Clem. Constit l. 7. But that the Christians did very early use Forms of Prayer in their publick Worship is very evident from the denominations which the Primitive Writers give to the publick Prayers such as the Common-Prayers (i) (i) (i)
would have ours to be And though there is greater need of Caution against it in such places yet the way of their Confession makes the mistake more difficult to be prevented Indeed we find in the Scripture Examples of Holy Men confessing such Sins as themselves were not guilty of Thus did Jeremiah Nehemiah Ezra c. But this was upon Solemn Humiliation for those known and publick Idolatries of the Nation which had brought Gods heavy Judgments upon them or for Common and Scandalous Transgressions afterward They considered themselves as part of that Community which had provoked God to send them into Captivity and therefore they bore their part in the Common Calamity with such meekness and confessed the Common Sins with such humility as if themselves had offended as greatly in their own Persons as their Countrey-men had done But I conceive there is a great deal of difference between those Confessions of Sin that such extraordinary occasions of Publick Humiliation require and those that are fit for the ordinary Service of God in the constant and stated Assemblies of the Church But it ought not to be forgot that those particular Confessions of Sin which some Men want in our Liturgie are not properly the matter of that Publick Service we are to offer daily unto God in Religious Assemblies but of that Private Devotion which is necessary to be performed in our Closets And if we could be persuaded seriously to enter upon this Work of Examining our selves impartially concerning those Sins which we have more openly or secretly committed and then to humble our selves before God for them with particular Confessions and sutable Prayer for his Grace and Pardon we should then find our Affections prepared to comply with those more General Confessions of Sin which we make with the whole Congregation we should then have less reason to complain that those Confessions are not apt to move us because this way would cure the deadness of our hearts which commonly are most to blame when we find fault with the means that God hath provided for us To conclude this Matter There is great need of Particular Confession of Sins in Religious Assemblies but that of another sort than what I have yet been speaking of and that is the particular and humble Confession which every Scandalous Sinner ought to make in the Congregation for the satisfaction of the Church and the declaration of a true Repentance This is not properly an Act of Worship but of Discipline but alas almost lost in this miserably divided state of the Church a loss never enough to be lamented For so it has fallen out that by quarreling for a Reformation in things of an Indifferent Nature that ought to be left to the Prudence of Governours and the Communion of Christians is broken and the Spiritual Authority which Christ left in his Church is exposed to Contempt which is a Matter of a thousand times more concern then all the Objections against the Book of Common Prayer put together though they were as considerable as our Adversaries seem to believe they are The second Objection I shall take notice of is that against the shortness of the Collects by reason of which it is pretended that the Prayer is often suddenly broken off and then begun again And this is thought not so agreeable to the Gravity wherewith this Duty ought to be performed nor so likely a means of exciting Reverence and Devotion in the People as one continued Form of Prayer that might be as long as all those put together Now in answer to this I say 1. That the meer shortness of a Prayer is not to be found fault with by any understanding Christian since this would be to disparage that Form of Prayer which our Lord taught his Disciples it being not much longer than most of our Collects and not so long as some of them 2. That it will be hard to prove That many of these short Prayers being offer'd up unto God one immediately after another is either not so Grave or not so Edifying as one Continued Form I do not believe the difference to be so great as it is made by those that do not approve our way For the Work of Praying is as much continued all the while as if there were but one Continued Form Indeed in the Book the Printed Prayer breaks off somewhat often and there is a distinction made between the several Collects by a New Title shewing the Matter of the Prayer and by beginning a New Line But I hope our Brethren do not mean that in this there is a defect of Gravity or any hindrance of Devotion and Edification For the abruption of the Printed Forms is by no means an interruption of our Prayer since we still go on in Praying or in giving Thanks to God and without breaking off pass from one Petition or Matter of Invocation to another as immediately as if the Distinct Forms we use together were all brought into the Compass of One. And as there is no Interruption of our Praying caused by the frequent beginning and ending of the Collects so neither can this cause an Interruption of Attention in the People which is rather helped by that frequency of saying Amen which this way requires Nor can it be charged with a tendency to Interrupt that Devout Affection and Godly Disposition of Mind which is the best thing in Prayer But on the other hand this may be kept alive and more effectually secured by calling upon the Name of God and pleading the Merits of Christ so often as we do I know some have said this is done more frequently than is meet But it would be a lamentable thing if there should be any difference about this Matter When the Decence and Convenience of a thing is considered we should attribute much to the Wisdom of Authority and to the Judgment of Prudent and Holy Men such as our first Reformers were and great numbers of Learned Persons since their time were also who thought this manner of Praying to be Grave and Edifying And I believe others would be of the same Mind if they would not altogether dwell upon their Prejudice against our way but attend a little to those considerations that favour it and which discover the advantage and usefulness of it which sort of Equity they that are Wise and Humble will shew to all Men much more to their Governours Now the Invocation of God somewhat often by his Attributes does of it self tend to maintain in our Minds a reverent sense of his Majesty and Presence which we all know is of necessary use to make us Pray unto him as we ought to do I make no question but those that have been blamed for repeating Lord Lord so very often in their Extempore Prayers would think themselves somewhat hardly used if they should not be believed in saying that this was not for want of Matter but for the exciting of a reverent sense of Gods Authority in
Repetitions of the same thing in calling upon God from being Vain and that is That our Desires and Affections should be raised to keep pace with our Expressions But this belongs to us to take care of And if we would endeavour to stir up in our selves that Zeal and Devotion of Heart which should answer that Appearance thereof which these Repetitions make this would satisfie us beyond all other Argument that they are not Vain To Conclude this Matter I desire those who do not yet approve our Repetition of the Lords Prayer and the other short Devotions to consider whether it be so easie to spend the time it takes up more profitably than by joining in good earnest with the Congregation in these Prayers In the next place the Responsals of the Congregation are Matter of Offence to some Persons They do not approve the Peoples saying the Confession and the Lords Prayer after the Minister nor their alternate Reciting some Petitions in the daily Service with the Psalms and Hymns and least of all do they approve that part which the Congregation bears in the Prayers of the Litany Now it were well if they who blame our Prayers upon this account would consider what has often been said to shew the usefulness of this way Namely That it is apt to check a wandring Spirit and to help and relieve Attention and withal that it tends to quicken a lively Forwardness and Zeal in Gods Service whilst we invite and provoke one another to Pray and to give Thanks These things we say not without some experience of their Truth and we think they carry plain Reason along with them and I do not find that they have been Contradicted by the Leaders of the Dissenting Party It is True they have declared their dislike of this way but still without taking notice of what may be said for it If I have observed right the main Reason of their dislike is this That the Minister as they say is appointed for the people in all Publick Services appertaining to God and that the Scripture makes the Minister to be the Mouth of the People to God in Prayer And therefore I shall Examine this Reason in the first place And 1. If it were granted that the Scripture maketh the Minister to be the Mouth of the People to God in Publick Worship yet this must by no means be so Interpreted as to make all Vocal Prayer and Thanksgiving in Religious Assemblies unlawful to the People For then they must not declare their Assent to the Prayers which the Minister utters by saying Amen which yet the Scripture approves and is not disapproved by any of those that Object our way against us Nor must it be so taken as if the People were to be excluded from a Vocal Part in Praising God by Hymns and Spiritual Songs For this also is warranted by Scripture and seems to be confessed by our Dissenting Brethren who allow the People to Sing Psalms with the Minister Now he that audibly says Amen to the Prayers of the Congregation makes a short Responsal to the Minister And moreover they that sing Psalms in which there are Passages of Prayer Confessions or Petitions containing matter of Invocation proper for us as the Psalms often do they pray Vocally So that notwithstanding what is pretended concerning the Ministers being the Peoples Mouth to God it shall still be lawful for the People sometimes to joyn Vocally in Prayer as well as in Praise and not only by saying Amen but by expressing the very words of Confession or Petition But 2ly Where is it said in Scripture that the Minister is the Mouth of the People to God or that no Prayer may be Offered up to God in Religious Assemblies otherwise than by the Mouth of the Minister I doubt these sayings are grown so samiliar amongst some People that they believe them to be the Words or very near the Words of Scripture But there are no such Words nor meaning in the Bible that I can find or that they have found for us It is not good to pretend the Authority of Scripture for a Doctrine that is not to be met with there It is true that the Minister is the Mouth of the People to God in all those Prayers which he utters for them and because these are many more than what the People themselves utter he may be said to be their Mouth to God Comparatively but not Absolutely It will be true also that the Minister is appointed for the People in all Publick Services appertaining to God if this be understood for the most part or of All with little exception Some Publick Services there are which are inclosed in his Office and he is appointed for them in behalf of the People that is for Administring the Sacrament Absolving the Penitent and Blessing the People And therefore Prayers that immediately concern these things are to be pronounced by him only And as for the rest the Order of the Church and the Authority and Dignity of the Ministerial Function makes it fit and decent that the Minister should utter most ever of them that in those wherein the People have their part he should ever go before and lead them and guide the whole performance which is all taken care for in our Liturgie I said before that the Dissenters do not utterly debar the People from all Vocal Prayer and Thanksgiving of their own in God's Solemn Worship And therefore it were great pity that they should keep at a distance from us upon Questions of this Nature And I heartily intreat them to consider whether they may not upon their own Principles come up to the Rules and Customs of our Church in this thing 1. If they grant the Peoples interest in Vocal Praise let them consider whether they have reason to Condemn the Peoples bearing a part in any of the Hymns and Psalms by alternate Responses For the plain End of reciting those Psalms in the Congregation is to Praise and Magnifie God's Name and to excite in our Hearts such like devout affections in doing so as those Holy Men felt in themselves who were assisted by God's Spirit in Composing them And therefore the Dissenters are not obliged to demand that the People be silent all this while I have heard some of them say that if these Psalms and Hymns were Sung the Congregation might then challenge to put in their Voices with the Minister But when they are read as they generally are in our Parish Churches they say this ought to be the Work of the Minister only But I cannot see why singing or not singing should make such a Difference I grant it were better if they were every where sung because this is more suitable to the Design of Psalms than bare reciting is But if they be not sung which is customarily omitted in Parish Churches for want of skill as I conceive the next use of them that is most agreeable to their Nature and Design is not
was the way in the Apostles time than that it was not But of this let every one Judge as he sees cause This is certain That the Apostles left the Governours of the Church under the Obligation of ordering the Service of God according to General Rules and prescribed that all things should be done Decently and in Order and to Edification And I do not think that our Brethren will ever be able to shew that this Practice which they except against is not agreeable to such General Rules which yet they ought to do very fully and plainly to excuse their Nonconformity That which is most urged is That the People speaking to God in the Church is Disorderly and a breaking in upon the Ministers Office But will they say that the Children of Israel intrenched upon the Priest when they all bowed themselves upon the Pavement and Worshipped the Lord and Praised him saying For he is good for his mercy endureth for ever 2 Chron. 7. 3. I have already observed That Ecclesiastical Order is in this matter secured by the Ministers Presiding in God's Publick Worship and guiding the whole performance of it But not to allow the People to make an audible Confession of Sin after the Minister nor to utter some few affectionate Petitions and those very short to which they are also invited and led by him this rather seems to savour of an affectation of undue superiority over the People than to proceed from any fear lest by this means they should be incouraged to invade the Ministerial Office I believe the Laity of our Communion have as Reverend an esteem of the Sacred Function as their Neighbours and to raise the Comparison no higher have shewn themselves ever since the Reformation as much afraid to usurp the proper Offices of the Clergie as those that have been drawn away from the Communion of the Church and have been taught that they must not say a word in Publick Prayer but Amen We should not think that we endanger our Order and the respect that is due to it if we do not arrogate more to our selves than is meet It has been one great fault of the Church of Rome to advance the Priest unreasonably above the People in the Administration of Holy Things The Dissenting Ministers may be a little guilty of this though in a particular wherein that Church is not guilty of it They seem to make too little account of the Flock of Christ in Condemning our Church for permitting and requiring the People to Offer up those Petitions to God with their own Mouths which are appointed for them in the Liturgie The Minister assuming the whole to himself does not indeed make him much greater in the Church than he is but they that obstinately deny any part of it to the People do make them of much lower and meaner Condition in the Church than they ought to be And it is something strange that those very Persons who Contend for the interest of the Laity in some business in Religious Assemblies that more nearly touches upon Ecclesiastical Authority than the bare offering up of a few Petitions to God should be so unwilling to allow them this They affirm that the People have a right to be heard before Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are Ordained and as several of them contend to interpose also in all Acts of Discipline and yet they do not think them qualified to bear any part in the Prayers of the Congregation unless by saying Amen to what the Minister utters These things do not seem to hang well together And I am persuaded our Church has ordered this Matter with more Judgment and Impartiality in assigning to the People their Interest both in Acts of Worship and Discipline within such Rules and Limits that the Clergie and Laity may know what their proper place and business is in all Ecclesiastical Assemblies I have heard some Object against the Peoples uttering Prayers and Praises in the Congregation that it is Forbidden Women to speak in the Church But this is strangely misapplied to the Matter in hand For it is plain that the speaking mentioned by the Apostle signifies nothing but Prophecying Interpreting Preaching or Instructing and that the reason why he will not allow this to the Woman is because Preaching is an Act that implies Authority whereas the Womans part is Obedience and Subjection They that will read the whole Chapter will find that this is the true meaning of St. Paul And indeed the place it self sufficiently shews it which I shall therefore set down Let your Women keep silence in the Churches for it is not permitted unto them to speak but they are Commanded to be under Obedience as also the Law saith And if they will learn any thing let them ask their Husbands at home for it is a shame for a Woman to speak in the Church 1 Cor. 14. 34 35 The Subject of this Discourse is briefly exprest in the 39 Verse Brethren covet to prophecy and forbid not to speak with tongues Now the reason given why the Woman is not to speak viz. because she is to be under Obedience does plainly restrain that Speaking to Prophecying and the like which is moreover the only sort of Speaking that is discoursed of in this place I know no particular Exception under this Head which remains to be spoken to unless it be that the People are said to utter the Words of Invocation in the Litany for the most part the Minister all the while suggesting the Matter of it to them But this Objectin will be of no force if what I have said concerning the lawfulness of allowing the People an Interest in Vocal Prayer be admitted unless the Objection be this That they are allowed to bear too considerable a part in that Prayer and somewhat to the disparagement of the Ministers Office And then I answer That upon Reasons which I shall presently Offer it seems to me to be otherwise I shall only premise that I am really troubled for their sakes who put us upon this Defence that in Matters of Prudence and Expedience wherein there is a considerable latitude to order them well enough that in these things I say they seem to yield so very little to the Authority and Judgment of their Governours I do not think it hard to make out the Prudence of these Determinations so much disliked This is not the thing I am troubled at But I think it hard that a Publick Rule should not be thought reason enough to justifie things of this sort and to oblige the People to compliance without more adoe I am sorry that our Dissenting Brethren do not consider that it is some diminution to their Modesty and Humility to challenge as in effect they do a nice and punctual account of the prudence of the Publick Orders of this Church before they will Submit to 'em in Practice Now as to the Objection before us The Peoples Vocal Part in the Litany seems to be no
also to be observed that the Chapters omitted are those of the Old Testament which either recite Genealogies or the Rules of the Levitical Service or which relate matters of Fact delivered also in other Chapters that are read or which are hard to be understood This seems to Apologise for the Churches leaving those to be considered at home by them that have ability so to do and appointing some Apocryphal Chapters to be read which are more plain and in that respect more profitable for the Common People Unless a Man will say that because the Scripture is all of Divine Authority it must be always more profitable to read any part of that to the people than to use any other Exhortation or read any other good Lesson And then I do not know what place will be left for Sermons since as I said before they are no more of Divine Authority than the Apocryphal Lessons 3. If it be said that the reading of these as Lessons is a prevailing Temptation to the Vulgar to take them for God's Word or to think them equal to the Writings of the Old and New Testament I believe there is no sufficient ground for this I never heard of any of our Communion that were led into that mistake It is certain that our Church declareth those Lessons to be no part of Canonical Scripture and in the 6th Article saith That they are read for example of Life and instruction of Manners but that it doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine And herein she follows the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church which distinguisheth between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books esteeming those to be of Divine Authority these not so but indeed Godly Writings profitable to be publickly read And why the same use of them may not be retained with the same distinction I can see no good Reason For the Church of Romes receiving the Apocryphal Books into her Canon is not likely to mislead any of our Communion since we are not so forward to take their Opinion in any Matter of Religion But in the last place There is no Apocryphal Lesson read in our Churches upon any Lords day in the year and so there is not this pretence against Communion with us upon the Lords days when it is that we do so earnestly desire the Communion of those that have separated from us And therefore I shall at present say nothing to those Exceptions which are taken from the Matter of some of the Apocryphal Books as that some Relations are pretended to be Fabulous c. For this would engage me to a greater length than I intend But whoever thinks himself capable to judge of this Controversie may receive satisfaction from what Dr. Falkner has said upon it in his Libertas Ecclesiast p. 164 c. To proceed Although the Communion Service for the Gravity and Holiness thereof is preferred by the Dissenters before all other Offices in the Common-Prayer-Book yet that has not past free from Exception The Passages that seem to be disliked are two 1. That Petition in the Prayer before Consecration That our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his Body and our Souls washed by his most precious Blood Here they say a distinct efficacy of cleansing and a greater efficacy is attributed to the Blood of Christ than to his Body inasmuch as the cleansing of our Souls is attributed to the Blood of Christ whereas our Bodies are said only to be cleansed by his Body Now in answer to this I suppose it is plain from those Words at the delivery of the Bread and Wine The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy Body and Soul unto everlasting life And the Blood of our Lord c. It is I say plain from hence that our Church teaches the Sanctification and Salvation of our Souls and Bodies to flow from the Body as well as the Blood of Christ And therefore that former Passage is not to be Interpreted as if our Souls were not cleansed by the Body of Christ because they are said to be washed by his Blood For the saying of this does not exclude the other When the Apostle said We being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread 1 Cor. 10. 17. Though he exprest only the Bread of the Eucharist yet no man will say he meant to exclude the Cup as if the Unity of the Church would be argued only from their partaking in that one kind And when he said that we have been all made to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12. 13. he meant not to exclude the Participation of the Bread as if that one Spirit which animated the Church was signified only by partaking of the Cup. Nor will any Man argue from hence that he attributes a distinct efficacy to the Bread to prove the Unity of the Body and to the Cup to prove the Unity of the Spirit I must needs say that this Exception was sought but never offered it self 2. The Ministers delivering the Elements into every Communicants hands with a Form of Words recited to every one of them at the Distribution is blamed also as being thought a departure from the Practice of Christ at the first Institution of this Sacrament For they say our Lord's Words were Take ye Eat ye Drink ye all of this and therefore the People are not to take the Elements one by one out of the Ministers hand nor ought any Form of Words to be used particularly to every one that receives To this I answer 1. That it does not appear from those Words Take ye c. which are spoken in the Plural Number that our Saviour did not speak particularly to every one of his Apostles when they received or that he did not deliver the Elements into every particular Mans hand For the Evangelists may well be supposed to give a short account of the Institution of Christ not of every Word he then said but what was necessary to be related And then what might be particularly said or done to every one would be sufficiently related in being related as spoken or done Generally to all That is if Christ had said Take thou Eat thou to every one of them this were truly related by the Evangelists who tell us that he had said to all Take Eat c. And therefore I do not see how it can be proved that our Practice varies from this Circumstance of the Institution Tho if it did I suppose it might be as easily defended as the Celebration of the Eucharist about Dinner time and not at Supper which the Dissenters themselves scruple not But he that thinks not this Answer sufficient let him consult the aforesaid excellent Book of Dr. Falkner p. 218 c. where he shall find that it is indeed more probable that our way is agreeable to the way of the First Institution in this Matter than that which the Dissenters would have instead
I believe those Prejudices of the Lay-Dissenters against the Common-Prayer which I have endeavoured to remove have wrought in them a greater a version to it than the best Divines of that way intended I should be very sorry to find my self mistaken in this And this consideration was some encouragement to me to give a true account of those things they seemed to dislike most of all Which I have endeavoured upon the plain grounds of Reason and Scripture almost wholly avoiding appeals to other Church Antiquity not but that great regard is to be had of it and that we can defend our selves by it but because they are very few in Comparison who are qualified to Examine this kind of Argument And the like I say of the Concurrence of other Reformed Churches with us in those things that are disliked As for the Sign of the Cross in Baptism it is pretended that this is a part of Worship or a Sacrament of Mans making The contrary to which has been so plainly shewn in late Discourses that unless I am called to give an account of it I cannot think fit to trouble you with this Dispute But I heartily desire our Brethren to consider at length that though the use of this Ceremony were not so easie to be defended as I think it is yet that it is no Condition of Communion because the People are not required to Sign with the Sign of the Cross but the Minister only As for Kneeling at the Communion of the Holy Table that is indeed every Communicants Act but of this you may expect a Discourse from another Hand which I hope will give satisfaction to all Sober Persons that are yet unsatisfied about it And now I intreat all those of the Dissenting Party into whose hands these Papers shall fall that they would seriously consider whether it be fit to venture the Guilt of Schism and the sad Consequences of it likely to come to pass upon such grounds as these Let us at length consult for the Honour of this Age with Posterity who will stand amazed to find a Separation of Protestants from this Church carried on so long upon so little occasion given and such weak Objections so strongly insisted upon as to build an opposite Communion upon them Let us Consult the Honour and the Safety of the Reformation and no longer suffer it to be exposed to scorn and dnager to be Laught at and Disgraced by the Papists our dangerous Enemies always but never more dangerous than now If the Dissenters are not yet convinced that the wide breach they have made in the Communion of Protestants will certainly let in Popery if it be not prevented by a timely closing with the Church of England Nothing remains but to wait till they are convinced by the last Extremity I can take no comfort in being assured that at last they will believe it when alas it will be to no purpose to believe it I beseech them to consider whether we are likely to be united in any other Communion but that of the Church of England as it is by Law Established and whether so little account ought to be made of Law and Authority as to say that our Governours may as well come down to them by forbearing to require what they dislike as they come up to the Law by doing what it requires Will our case bear this wantonness Will such Expressions consist with our Duty I beseech them by what is most dear to them by the Honour of God and the Love of Christ and the Care of their own Souls and the Charity they have for the Souls of other Men that they will take pains with themselves to lay aside Prejudice and Anger and all Passions that obstruct a clear Judgment of things that have been disputed amongst us and that they would consider impartially what we have said as in the sight of God who knoweth the Hearts of Men. Can they propound to themselves more beneficial Designs than to check the Prophaneness and Atheism which in this last Age hath been so much complained of than to restore in some measure the Ancient Discipline of the Church for the excluding of vicious Men from the Communion of the Faithful than to transmit the Profession of the true Religion Establisht among us down to their Posterity The most effectual means by which they can contribute to all those good Ends is to return heartily and unanimously to the Communion of the Church of England all the true Sons whereof are ready to receive them with open Arms with joy and thankfulness to God and to them for the good they will do us and themselves by it But as for them that for Worldly and Corrupt Interests encourage and support the present Separation from this Church I cannot expostulate with them in this manner since such Men have not the fear of God before them and 't is impossible they should be touched with tenderness for the Concerns of Religion while they continue as they are All I shall say to them is That when that great day of Judgment comes which they of all Men have most reason to be afraid of then all the dismal Consequences of this Schism which are likely to happen will be fully required at their hands to be sure whilst those that in meer Ignorance and Mistake have contributed to them shall have an easier Account to give especially if they have taken pains to inform themselves better What good Effect our Applications to Men will have we cannot say but if it shall appear that they are not yet prepared for Instruction we have the more reason to turn our selves to God by earnest Prayer that he would please to open the Understandings of the simple and to detect the ill Designs of dishonest Men and to enable us to bring forth more and better Fruits of Repentance that whatever happens to this Church it may not be forsaken of his Favour and Protection Amen FINIS THE RESOLUTION OF THIS CASE OF CONSCIENCE Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it Unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England The Second EDITION LONDON Printed for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. The Case Whether the Church of Englands Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes Communion therewith Vnlawful IN speaking to this Case we will First Premise that there is a wide and vast distance betwixt the Church of England and that of Rome Secondly Shew that a Churches Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing Thirdly Shew that the Agreement that is between the Church of England and the Church of Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England Unlawful First We think it necessary to Premise that there is a wide and vast distance betwixt the Church of England and that
Subscription that is required to the 39 Articles it is very Consistent with Our Churches giving all Men Liberty to Judge for themselves and not Exercising Authority as the Romish Church doth over our Faith for she requires no Man to believe those Articles but at worst only thinks it Convenient that none should receive Orders or be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and requires Subscription to them as a Test whereby to Judge who doth so believe them But the Church of Rome requires all under Pain of Damnation to believe all her long Bed-roul of Doctrines which have only the Stamp of her Authority and to believe them too as Articles of Faith or to believe them with the same Divine Faith that we do the indisputable Doctrines of our Saviour and his Apostles For a proof hereof the Reader may consult the Bull of Pope Pius the Fourth which is to be found at the End of the Council of Trent Herein it is Ordained that Profession of Faith shall be made and sworn by all Dignitaries Prebendaries and such as have Benefices with Cure Military Officers c. in the Form following IN. Do believe with a firm Faith and do profess all and every thing contained in the Confession of Faith which is used by the Holy Roman Church viz. I believe in one God the Father Almighty and so to the end of the Nicene Creed I most firmly admit and embrace the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and the other Observances and Constitutions of the said Church Also the Holy Scriptures according to the Sense which our Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold c. I profess also that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and necessary to the Salvation of Mankind although all are not necessary to every individual Person c. I also admit and receive the Received and approved Rites of the Catholick Church in the Solemn Administration of all the foresaid Sacraments of which I have given the Reader a taste I Embrace and Receive all and every thing which hath been declared and defined concerning Original Sin and Justification in the Holy Synod of Trent I likewise profess that in the Mass a True Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice is Offered to God for the quick and dead And that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly really and substantially in the most Holy Eucharist c. I also Confess that whole and intire Christ and the true Sacrament is received under one of the kinds only I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are relieved by the Prayers of the Faithful And in like manner that the Saints Reigning with Christ are to be Worshipped and Invoked c. And that their Relicks are to be Worshipped I most firmly assert that the Images of Christ and of the Mother of God always a Virgin and of the other Saints are to be had and kept and that due Honour and Worship is to be given to them I Affirm also that the power of Indulgences is left by Christ in his Church and that the use of them is very Salutiferous to Christian People I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and I Profess and Swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ Also all the other things delivered decreed and declared by the Holy Canons and Oecumenical Councils and especially by the Holy Synod of Trent I undoubtedly receive and profess As also all things contrary to these and all Heresies Condemned Rejected and Anathematized by the Church I in like manner Condemns Reject and Anathematize This true Catholick Faith viz. all this Stuff of their own together with the Articles of the Creed without which no Man can be Saved which at this present I truly profess and sincerely hold I will God Assisting me most constantly Retain and Confess intire and inviolate and as much as in me lies will take Care that it be held taught and declared by those that are under me or the Care of whom shall be committed to me I the same N. do Profess Vow and Swear So help me God and the Holy Gospels of God Who when he Reads this can forbear pronouncing the Reformation of the Church of England a most Glorious Reformation 2. As to the Motives our Church proposeth for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures viz. that that Doctrine is of Divine Revelation they are no other than such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the Excellency thereof which consists in its being wholly adapted to the reforming of mens Lives and renewing their Natures after the Image of God and the Miracles by which it is confirmed And as to the Evidence of the truth of the matters of Fact viz. that there were such Persons as the Scriptures declare to have revealed Gods will to the World such as Moses our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and that these Persons delivered such Doctrine and Confirmed it by such Miracles and that the Books of Scripture were written by those whose Names they bear I say as to the Evidence of the truth of these matters of Fact our Church placeth it not in her own Testimony or in the Testimony of any Particular Church and much less that of Rome but in the Testimony of the whole Catholick Church down to us from the time of the Apostles and of Vniversal Tradition taking in that of Strangers and Enemies as well as Friends of Jews and Pagans as well as Christians Secondly We proceed to shew that a Churches Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing Agreement with the Church of Rome in things either in their own nature good or made so by a Divine Precept none of our Dissenting Brethren could ever imagine not to be an indispensable duty Agreement with her in what is in its own nature Evil or made so by a Divine Prohibition none of us are so forsaken of all Modesty as to deny it to be an inexcusable sin The Question therefore is whether to agree with this Apostate Church in some things of an indifferent nature be a Sin and therefore a just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing But by the way if we should suppose that a Churches agreeing with the Church of Rome in some indifferent things is sinful I cannot think that any of the more Sober Sort of Dissenters and I despair of success in arguing with any but such will thence infer that Separation from the Church so agreeing is otherwise warrantable than upon the account of those things being imposed as necessary terms of Communion But I am so far from taking it for granted
appointment it was first Erected But there was no necessity for this upon supposition that it had ceased to be abused for any considerable time and there were no appearance of an inclination in the People to abuse it again And no doubt all things of an indifferent Nature that have formerly been abused to Idolatry or Superstition ought to be taken away by the Governours whensoever they find their People again inclined so to abuse them at least if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by other means Sixthly But had Hezekiah suffered the Brazen Serpent still to stand no doubt private Persons who have no authority to make publick Reformations might Lawfully have made use of it to put them in mind of and affect them with the wonderful mercy of God expressed by it to their Fore-Fathers notwithstanding that many had not only formerly but did at that very nick of time make an Idol of it And much more might they have Lawfully continued in the Communion of the Church so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to joyn with them in their Idolatry As we do not read of any that Separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abused as it was by the generality I will also conclude this Head with the sense of Mr. Calvin concerning Rites used and consequently superstitiously abused by the Papists expressed in these Words Let not any think me so austere or bound up Calv. de vitandâ Superstitione c. as to forbid a Christian without any exception to accommodate himself to the Papists in any Ceremony or Observance for it is not my purpose to Condemn any thing but what is clearly Evil and openly Vitious To which may be added many other such like sayings of this Learned Person And thus much shall suffice to be discoursed upon our second general Head viz. That a Church's Symbolizing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so Symbolizing We now proceed in the Third and last place to shew That the Agreement which is between the Church of England and the Church of Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful We have shewed what a vastly wide Distance and Disagreement there is between the Church of England and that of Rome And we have sufficiently though with the greatest brevity made it apparent that a Church's Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome and those such too as she hath abused in Idolatrous and grosly Superstitious Services is no just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing And we have answered the Chief of those Arguments which have been brought for the Confirmation of the contrary Doctrine And now from what hath been discoursed it may with the greatest ease be prov'd that those things wherein our own Church particularly agreeth with the Romish Church do none of them speak such an Agreement therewith as will justifie Separation from our Church's Communion Now the particulars wherein our Church Symbolizeth with that of Rome which our Dissenters take offence at and make a pretence for Separation though all Dissenters are not offended at all of them and much less so offended as to make them all a pretence for Separation are principally these following First The Government of our Church by Bishops Secondly Our Churches prescribing a Liturgy or Set-Forms of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other Publick Offices Thirdly A Liturgy so contrived as that of our Church is Fourthly Certain Rites of our Church Particularly the Surplice the Cross in Baptism the Gesture of Kneeling at the Communion the Ring in Marriage and the Observation of certain Holy-days And to all these I shall speak very succinctly the limits I am confined to not permitting me to enlarge much upon any of them But I must first premise concerning them all in the general these following things First That I take it for granted that they are all indifferent in their own nature That there is nothing of Viciousness or Immorality in any of them to make them unlawful I know no body so unreasonable as not to grant this Secondly That there is no Express positive Law of God against any of these things I do not know of any such Law objected against any one of them And therefore if all or any of them are unlawful they must be made so either by Consequences drawn from Divine Laws or certain Circumstances attending them Thirdly That I am concerned in this Discourse to vindicate them from being unlawful upon the account onely of this one Circumstance viz. Our Symbolizing with the Church of Rome in them Now then First As to the Government of our Church by Bishops This is so far from being an Vnlawful Symbolizing with the Church of Rome that we have most clear Evidence of its being a Symbolizing with her in an Apostolical Institution And what Eminent Divines of the Presbyterial Party have acknowledg'd and is too evident to be denied or doubted by any who are not wholly ignorant of Church-History is sufficient I should think to satisfie unprejudiced persons concerning the truth of this And that is that this was the Government of all Churches in the World from the Apostles times for about 1500 years together Beza in his Treatise of a Threefold kind of Episcopacy Divine Humane and Satanical asserts concerning the second which is that which we call Apostolical that of this kind is to be understood whatsoever we read concerning the Authority of Bishops in Ignatius and other more Antient Writers And the famous Peter Du Moulin in his Book of the Pastoral Office written in defence of the Presbyterial Government acknowledgeth that presently after the Apostles times or even in their time as Ecclesiastical story witnesseth it was ordained that in every City one of the Presbytery should be called a Bishop who should have preheminence over his Collegues to avoid Confusion which oft times ariseth out of Equality And truly saith he this Form of Government all Churches every where received Mr. Calvin saith in his Institution of Christian Religion Quibus docendi munus injunctum erat c. Those to whom was committed the Office of Teaching they called them all Presbyters These Elected out of their number in L. 4. cap. 4. §. 2. each City one to whom in a special manner they gave the Title of Bishop lest Strife and Contention as it commonly happeneth should arise out of Equality And in his Epistle to Arch-bishop Cranmer he thus accosts him Illustrissime Domine Ornatissime Praesul c. Most Illustrious Sir and most Honourable Prelate and by me heartily Reverenced And tells him that if he might be serviceable to the Church of England he would not think much of passing over ten Seas for that purpose Again in his Epistle to the King of Poland he thus speaks of Patriarchs and Arch-bishops The Ancient Church did
comparatively few but you much doubt whether the use of those few was long before Popery appeared in the world unless he means Popery at its full growth for that Mystery of Iniquity as to Rituals began to work very early To this I answer that the Papists may con you great thanks for this passage it plainly enough intimating that the Primitive Fathers and Christians were for the most part Papists though not fully grown Papists And as to those words of St. Paul The Mystery of iniquity doth already work if you can do any thing like proving that the Apostle meant by the Mystery of iniquity which began to work in his days the use of such Rites as those you are offended with in our Church I will engage for our Author that he shall immediately set up for a Nonconformist You say in your Third Page that you cannot well understand how our Author saith that our Church doth not impose her Rites as necessary unless he means as necessary in order to Salvation c. But doth he not expresly tell you what he means by necessary you found he did if you read the whole Sentence which runs thus pag. 4. And she imposeth her Rites not as the Church of Rome does her's as necessary and as parts of Religion but as merely indifferent and changeable things as we find in her 34th Article c. And why Sir did you conceal this part of the Sentence and thus stop at a Comma You thus proceed Nor do I well understand how they are not made necessary to Salvation when the non-observance of them is made sinfull and meritorious of a being cast out of the Church c. And I assure you that I do as little understand if this be good arguing how whatsoever the King commands of his Subjects or a Master of his Servants is not made by them necessary to Salvation since the non-observance of the Lawfull Commands of each is acknowledged to be sinfull by all that believe these Precepts binding viz. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lord's sake c. And Servants obey in all things your Masters c. And as to the Penalty you mention of being cast out of the Church and cut off from the Body of Christ which is the same thing it amounts to thus much That those who will by no means be prevailed with to conform to the Laws of the Society of which they are Members shall be cast out of it which all Societies and Bodies Politique whatsoever have ever thought fit to have inflicted upon obstinate Transgressors of their Laws in order to the preservation of themselves and the upholding of Government amongst them And our Author I am certain will readily grant that none but Obstinate Transgressors of the Churches Laws and such as are incorrigible by all other means first tryed oughâ— to be cast out of the Church and that the Sentence of Excommunication should never be pronounced against them but as the last Remedy As also that the design thereof ought always to be the Reformation of the Offender as well as for example to others never his Destruction But how does this Penalty's being made the Sanction of the Laws of our Church which ordain Rites and Ceremonies for Order's sake and the decent administration of Divine Worship in Publique speak these to be enjoyned as necessary to Salvation when the non-observance of any of them is no otherwise judged to be sinfull than as it is an Act of disobedience to Humane Authority and when this Penalty is never according to the Rules of our Church to be inflicted but in case of the Offender's adding contempt to his disobedience If any instances can be given of persons being Excommunicated upon the account of Nonconformity who are humble and modest and peaceable and that give good evidence of their willingness to comply with the Laws of their Governours as far as they are able with safe consciences this I am sure is wholly the fault of Persons not of our Constitution But this Objection is too inconsiderable to deserve our bestowing so many words upon it All that follows to the bottom of your Fifth Page wherein our Author is concerned hath been replied to And there you thus speak As in England we have a Silent and a Speaking Law so we have also a Silent and a Speaking Church c. We know the Doctrine of the Church of England in the 39 Articles but this is but Ecclesia Muta How many have we that will tell us We are Ecclesia Loquens the Living Church of England and we tell you c. Here follow no fewer than thirteen Doctrines taught by this Ecclesia Loquens contradictory to the 39 Articles But 1. You have given us we thank you the very first information of this Ecclesia Loquens But why do you expect unless we knew you better that we should take your bare word for it Nay we have hardly that for you do not in express terms affirm but ask this Question How many have we that will tell us we are Ecclesia Loquens And therefore it might suffice to give you onely this short answer Do you tell us how many or whether there are any if you know Surely this Church of yours is an Invisible Church or if not none but Dissenters Eyes are clear enough to get the least glympse of it But the truth of it is 't is a mere Figment and the very Dream of a Shadow But 2. Whereas a Positive Assertion of the being of such a Church of England is implied in this Question you cannot well be otherwise understood than as asserting that the Prevailing party of our Church of England Divines have obtruded upon the World this long Beadroll of Heresies as Articles of Faith and so have turned the Old Church of England out of doors And therefore you are brought to this miserable pass that you cannot hold Communion with this New Church except you will separate from and bid adieu to the Old And in good earnest if this be so Dissenters are the onely true Friends of the Church of England as by Law Established and this Church is hugely obliged to them for their Separation But 3. I am well assured that you will never be able to make good this charge or any part of it against any number of the Divines of our Church For I who know I am confident as many of them as most men in England can truly declare as followeth That I cannot name any one Divine of our Church who teacheth your First contradictory Doctrine to the 39 Articles viz. That although we may not terminate our worship in an Image yet we may bow down and worship the true God before an Image Nor your Second viz. That departed Saints know our states here upon Earth and are praying to God for us and therefore we may pray to them Nor know I any one of our Church who teacheth your Third viz. That any Priest may
Church upon the account of them But to go on whereas our Author saith of Episcopal Government and the three other following things pag. 38. That he takes it for granted that there is nothing of Viciousness or Immorality in any of them to make them Vnlawfull and therefore that they are indifferent in their own nature You reply pag. 18. That there are few things to be named unlawfull in this sense I answer there are as many things unlawfull in this sense as there are things prohibited by the Moral Law and if you please to consult our Expositors of the Decalogue I presume you 'll find those things not a few You say at the bottom of this 18th Page That it troubles you to reade your Author saying I know not how our Brethren will defend the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lord's day while they contend that this of Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholique Church c. And why I pray Sir doth this trouble you You give this reason why viz. Because certainly for the Apostolical practice in the Observation of the Lord's day we have the infallible evidence of Holy Scripture Acts 20. 1 Cor. 16. But you must prove that we have in those Scriptures or some other infallible evidence for the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lord's day and not for the mere Apostolical practice or you will say nothing to the purpose But to save my self the labour of saying more upon this Argument and of replying to those few lines that follow against the Primitiveness of our Episcopacy I entreat you to consult Mr. Chillingworth's Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy demonstrated together with the most Learned Dean of St Pauls his Ample Proof of these two Propositions in his Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 244 c. viz. First that our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church And Secondly That it is not repugnant to any Institution of Christ nor devising a new species of Churches without God's Authority As to what you say p. 19. about Liturgies viz. that they cannot be indifferent if indeed as our Author speaks they be highly expedient to be universally imposed yea necessary I reply you have not caught him in a Contradiction as you think for his saying concerning Liturgies c. pag. 38. is That he takes it for granted that they are all indifferent in their own nature And tells you what he means by those words in the next viz. that there is nothing of viciousness or immorality in any of them c. Now is it a contradiction to say of the same thing that it is indifferent in its own nature and that 't is necessary considering certain circumstances And I farther say that Liturgies are necessary considering that through humane Weakness and Frailty the performance of publick worship with that Solemnity and Gravity which it calls for cannot be secured and yet notwithstanding they are still things in their own nature indifferent and so are all those things too which God 's Positive Laws have made necessary as all know who understand the difference between Moral and Positive But as to the Antiquity of Liturgies which you say our Author knoweth to be denied you have had a good while extant that Discourse which he said was expected and which you say you will patiently wait for to give you satisfaction about this matter And it is excellently fitted as I hope you have before now found not onely for the satisfying of Dissenters about that point relating to Liturgies but divers others also In your next Paragraph you tell us that all Divines will readily acknowledge that such a Method and Order of a Liturgy as is not contrived in Subserviency to the 3 General Rules of Doing all to Edification the Glory of God and not giving offence to any of the Churches of God may make it unlawfull And I also do readily acknowledge this and am confident that you cannot prove that Ours is not so contrived as to be made not Subservient unto those Rules And as to the last of them whatsoever Churches please to take offence at our Liturgy I am sure it gives no offence to them In what follows you profess that you never thought it unlawfull for any Laick wholly to separate from the Church of England because of our Liturgy and I hope you think it no more Lawfull for a Clergy-man nor did your self ever so separate But for all that you know that many hundreds and I fear some thousands do But you say there is a new Generation started up that not onely makes you a Separatist but all Conformable Ministers if they do not every time read the Second Service at the Altar This in good earnest is somewhat a hard Case but I pray Sir by what figure do you call one Start-up Warm Head a new Generation In your next Paragraph pag. 20. You say Our Author hath spied four little Thorns in some Dissenters Flesh which he hath very charitably endeavoured to pick out And you add that you will candidly enquire if no bit of them remain which may cause pain and hinder healing To make no reflexion Sir upon your expressing your self thus phancifully your meaning must be that you will enquire whether our Author hath not well defended the four things in our Liturgy which Dissenters object against as symbolizings with the Roman Service from being liable to just Offence Of which The First is The shortness of many Prayers But you say not one word in answer to what he speaks in the Vindication thereof But tell us that if some Dissenters think that throughout the Scriptures there is nothing like this to be found either in the Prayers of Solomon c. or any others and be a little stumbled at it you cannot condemn them But you must needs condemn it as an errour in them to think there are no short Prayers to be found in the Holy Scriptures when there are many more short than there are long Prayers When our Saviour used in the Garden thrice a shorter Prayer than is any one in our Service And when the Form he left behind him for our use is a very short one But if the using of a short Prayer be not the thing blamed but the using of several such in the same Service instead of one very long one I must take leave to say this is mere Wantonness And whereas you say you cannot condemn Dissenters if they be a little stumbled at it I say to be stumbled at it so as to make it one pretence for not joining with us in our Prayers is not to be a little stumbled at it And you know that that which our Author is concerned to doe is to perswade Dissenters not to be so much stumbled at any thing in our Prayers as to leave our Communion upon the account thereof Though he would be very glad to have them so well pleased with
not fearing any thing of Humane Weakness but trusting in God Consecrated the Child to the Priest-hood almost as soon as he saw the Light Thou wilt have no need of Superstitious Charms and Amulets for him in which the Devil steals to himself from silly Souls the Honour which is due to God but call upon him the name of the Holy Trinity which is the most safe and excellent of Charms And afterwards a a a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so far the Baptism of those who desire Baptism but what shall we say of Infants who are sensible neither of the gain nor loss of it shall we Baptize them Most certainly if they be in danger for it is better that they be Sanctified without the Sense of it than that they dye uninitiated and unconsigned and my reason is taken from Circumcision which was administred on the Eighth Day unto Infants that had no Reason to which I may add the saving of the First-Born in Goshen by the sign of the Blood on the Lintel of the Door and the two Side-Posts The Brevity which I design in this Treatise will not permit me to recite many more Authorities which are very b b b Vid. testim Veter Script de Baptism apud Cassand Gerhard Joh. Voss disp 14. de Baptismo numerous out of Chrysostom Ambrose Jerom Augustin c. But I shall rather superadd some Considerations which confirm this Ancient Tradition of Infant-Baptism and are sufficient to induce any considerate and impartial Man to believe that so Ancient and universal a Practice was as old as the Planting of Churches by the Apostles and originally derives its Authority from them For first if Infant-Baptism was not the Practice of the Apostles but an Innovation it is very hard to imagine that God should suffer his Church to fall into such a dangerous Practice which would in time Un-Church it while Miracles were yet Extant in the Church The same Holy Spirit that was the guide of the Apostles into all Truth was the Author of Miracles too but the first four Witnesses which I have produced for Infant-Baptism to wit Irenaeus Tertullian Origen and Cyprian do all likewise assure us that Miracles were then not extraordinary in the Church c c c Adversus haereses l. 2. cap. 56 57. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 5. cap. 7. Irenaeus tells us that the true Disciples of Christ did then dispossess Devils and had the Gift of Tongues and of Praescience and Praediction and of healing the Sick and that the whole Congregation meeting together did by Fasting and Prayer often raise the Dead and that many so raised were then alive in the Church Nay he tells us that the number of Spiritual Gifts were innumerable which the Church all the World over then received from Christ and I truly confess it cannot enter into my heart to believe that God should suffer the Church to Embrace such a pernicious Error as Infant-Baptism was if it was not of Apostolical Tradition and fill the Christian World with Mock-Christians while he bore them Witness with Signs and Wonders and divers Miracles and Gifts of the Holy Ghost Tertullian in his a a a Et ad Scapulam c. 2. Apologetic tells us that the Christians had then power to make the Gods of the Heathen confess themselves to be Devils Nay he Challenges the Heathens to bring any one of those that were acted and inspired with any one of their Gods and Goddesses whom they worshipped and if that Daemon God or Goddess not daring to tell a Lye before any Christian should not confess it self to be a Devil then they should shed the Blood of that Christian upon the Place Origen in his Answer to Celsus frequently appeals to the Miracles which the Christians wrought in his Days particularly in the first b b b Cambridge Edition p. 34. Book he saith that they exorcised Daemons healed the Sick and foresaw Future Events And in the c c c p. 334. See also p. 62 80 124 127 376. seventh Book he proves that Christians did not their Miracles by any curious Magical Arts because Idiots or illiterate Men among them did by nothing but by Prayers and Adjurations in the Name of Jesus banish Devils from the Bodies and Souls of Men. d d d In Epist ad Donatum vid. Epist ad Magnum ad Demetrianum p. 202. Ed. Rigalt St. Cyprian tells us that the Christians in his days had power to hinder the Operation of deadly Poisons to restore Mad-men to their Senses to force Devils to confess themselves to be so and with invisible strokes and Torments to make them cry and howl and forsake the Bodies which they possessed These are the first four Witnesses which I have produced for the Practice of Infant-Baptism and let any man judge whether the Church could yet run into a Church-destroying Practice within such an Holy and Miraculous Period as this But secondly If Infant-Baptism was not an Apostolical Tradition or were derivable from any thing less than Apostolical Practice how came the a a a Vid. Vossii hist Pelag. l. 2. pars 2 Thes 4. 13. disp de Bapt. Thes 18. disp 14. Thes 4. Cassand praefat ad Duc. Jul. p. 670. Testim veteru de Bapt. parvulorum p. 687. Pelagians not to reject it for an Innovation seeing the Orthodox used it as an Argument against them that Infants were guilty of Original Sin It had been easie for them had there been any ground for it to say that it was an Innovation crept into Practice since the time of the Apostles or that it was brought up by False-Apostles and False-Teachers in the Apostles Times but then they were so far from doing this which they would have been glad to do upon any colourable Pretence that they practiced it themselves and owned it for an Apostolical Tradition and as necessary for Childrens obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven tho they denied that they were Baptized for the Remission of Original Sin But thirdly If Infant-Baptism were not in Practice from the first Plantation of Christian Churches or were derivable from any other Cause than Apostolical Tradition let the Opposers of it tell us any other probable way how it came to be the uniform practice of all Churches not only of such as were Colonies of the same Mother-Church or had Correspondence with one another by their Bishops and Presbyters but of such as were Original Plantations and betwixt which there was likely none or but very little Communication by reason of the vast distance and want of intercourse betwixt the Countries where b b b Brerewoods Enquiries c. 23 Cassand exposit de auctor Consult Bapt. Infant p. 692. they lived Among these of the latter sort are the Abassin-Church in the further Ethiopia and the c c c Osor l. 3. de rebus gest Eman cit à Vossio in disp 14. de Baptismo Brerewoods Enquiries c. 20.
Indian Church in Coulan and Crangonor and about Maliapur Planted by St. Thomas both which practice Infant-Baptism tho in all probability they never had it one from the other or both from any third Church It is very incredible that God should suffer all Churches in all the Parts of the World to fall into one and the same Practice which certainly is a Church-destroying Practice if the Apostles and their Assistants did not Baptize Infants but only grown Persons One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into such an harmless Practise as that 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 Sacrament as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God should let them all not preserving any one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a Practice which destroys the Being of the Church is at least a thousand times more Incredible than that the Apostles without a Prohibition from Christ to the contrary and no such Prohibition is Extant in the New Testament should Baptize Infants according to the Practise of the Jewish Church But in the fourth Place what Account can rationally be given why the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision should not have been much more offended if the Apostles had refused to initiate Children under the New Testament which had always been initiated under the Old Is it reasonable to believe that those who complained so much meerly because the Apostles Taught the Jews which lived among the Gentiles that they should not Circumcise their Children would not have complained much more if they had not Baptized them but quite excluded them like the Infants of Unbelievers from Admission into the Church It must in all probability have galled them very much to see their Children Treated like the Children of meer Strangers and to have had no visible difference put between the Infants of those that Embraced and those that resisted the Faith For they always looked upon Pagan Children as Common and Unclean but upon their own as Separate and Holy and St. Paul makes the same distinction between them 1 Cor. 7. 14. But had the Apostles taught that the Children of those who were in Covenant with God had no more right unto Baptismal Initiation than the Children of Idolaters who were out of the Covenant they had Taught a Doctrine which certainly would have offended them more than all they Preached against Circumcision and keeping the Ceremonial Law Wherefore since we never read among their many Complaints upon the alteration of the Jews Customs that they complained of their Childrens not being initiated by Baptism it is a greater presumption that the Apostles and their Assistants Baptized their Children then the want of an Express Example of Infant-Baptism in the New Testament is that they Baptized them not Having now shewed first that Infants are not uncapable of Baptism Secondly That they are not excluded from it by Christ but that on the contrary we have very convincing Reasons to presume that the Baptism of Infants as well as of grown Persons was intended by him Let us now proceed to make a fair and impartial enquiry upon the Third Question Quest III. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized And this considering what I have said upon the former Questions must be determined in the Negative Whether we consider Infant-Baptism only as a thing lawful and allowable or as a Thing highly requisite or necessary to be done I know very well that my Adversaries in this Controversie will be apt to deny this distinction betwixt Lawful and Necessary as acknowledging nothing in Religious matters to be lawful but what is necessary according to that common Principle imbibed by all sorts of Dissenters That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is commanded by some Precept or directed unto by some special Example in the Word of God Hence they ordinarily say Can you shew us any Precept or Example for Baptizing Infants in the New Testament if you can we will grant that the appointment of it is lawful but if you cannot we disallow it as unlawful nay as an Usurpation and will never be of a Church which so Usurpeth it over the Consciences of Men. This way of Arguing is plausible to the Vulgar and would be very good were there such a Principle in the Scripture as this from whence they Argue viz. That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is warranted by Precept or Example in the Word of God Wherefore as the Men with whom I have to deal in this Controversie are generally Persons of good natural Understandings So in the First place I beg them to consider that there is no such Rule in the Scripture as this and therefore those who teach it for a Scripture-rule or Precept do themselves impose upon Mens Consciences as bad as Papists and like them and the Pharisees of old teach the Traditions of Men for Doctrines of God On the contrary the Gospel tells us that Sin is the Transgression of a Law and that where there is no Law there is no Transgression and according to this plain and intelligible Rule though the Baptizing of Infants were not commanded in the Scriptures yet the Church would have Power and Authority to appoint it upon supposition that it is not forbid Secondly I desire them to consider the absurdity of this pretended Scripture-rule in that it takes away the distinction betwixt barely lawful or allowable and necessary and leaves no Negative mean betwixt necessary and sinful but makes things forbidden and things not commanded to be the very same Thirdly I desire them to consider what a slavish Principle this is and how inconsistent it is with the free and manly nature of the Christian Religion under which we should be in a far more servile and Childish condition then the Jews were under the Law which as it is evident from the Feast of Purim and from the Institution of Baptism among the Jews allowed private Persons to practice and the Church to appoint things of a Religious nature which God had not commanded to be done Lastly I entreat them to consider how utterly impracticable this pretended Principle is as might be proved from the contrary Practice of all those who advance it against Ecclesiastical Authority and particularly from their own Practice in Baptizing grown Persons who were bred up from Infants in the Christian Religion and in admitting Women to the Lords-Supper who were not admitted to the Passover nor Paschal-cup of Blessing without any Precept or President for so doing in the Word of God This little well considered is enough to obviate all Objections against my first Assertion viz. That it is not lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized upon supposition that Infant-Baptism is barely lawful and
a a a C. 7. Where arguing for Infant-Baptism he saith Of this we say the same things which our Divine Ministers of Holy things instructed by Divine Tradition brought down to us Dionysius the Areopagite are of no authority as to the first Century when St. Clement and St. Denis lived yet they are most excellent authorities for the third and fourth Century when they were written because they had no interest to write for Infant-Baptism The like I may say of the Testimony which the b b b Quaest respons 56. Where he saith That there is this difference betwixt Baptized and unbaptized Infants that Baptized Infants enjoy the good things of Baptism which those that are not Baptized do not enjoy and that they enâ—â—â— them by the Faith of those who offer them to Baptism Ancient and Judicious Author of the Answers to the Orthodox concerning some Questions gives of Infant-Baptism it is of no authority as for the second Century when Justin Martyr whose name it bears flourished but being a disinteressed writer it is of excellent authority for the third when it was written So much for the Test whereby to try certain and undoubted from uncertain and doubted Tradition and happy had it been for the Church of God if all Writers at the beginning of the Reformation had made this distinction and not written so as many of them have done against all Tradition without any discrimination whereas Tradition as I have here stated it is not only an harmless thing but in many cases very useful and necessary for the Church It was by Tradition in this sence that the Catholicks or Orthodox defended themselves in the fourth Century against the Arians and the Church of Africk against the Donatists and the Protestants defend themselves as to the Scripture-Canon and many other things against the Innovations of the Papists And therefore in answer to the Second part of their Objection against Tradition as detracting from the Sufficiency of the Scriptures I must remind them that the Scriptures whose sufficiency we admire as well as they cannot be proved to be the Word of God without Tradition and that though they are sufficient where they are understood to determine any Controversie yet to the right understanding and interpretation of them in many points Tradition is as requisite as the * * * Lex currit cum praxi practice of the Courts is to understand the Books of the Law This is so true that the Anabaptists themselves cannot defend the Baptizing of such grown Persons as were born and bred in the Church merely from the Scriptures in which the very Institution of Baptism hath a special regard unto Proselytes who from Judaism or Gâ—ntilism would come over unto the Christian Faith Accordingly they cannot produce one Precept or Example for Baptizing of such as were born of Christian Parents in all the New Testament but all the Baptized Persons we read of in it were Jews or Gentiles and therefore they cannot defend themselves against the Quakers who for this and other Reasons have quite laid aside Baptism without the Tradition and Practice of the Church Quest IV. Whether it be a Duty incumbent upon Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism To state this Question aright I must proceed in the same order that I did upon the last First In arguing from the bare lawfulness and allowableness of Infant-Baptism And Secondly From the necessity thereof As to the lawfulness of it I have already shewn upon the last Question That there is no necessity of having a Command or Example for to justifie the practice of Infant-Initiation but it is sufficient that it is not forbidden to make it lawful and allowable under the Gospel Nay I have shewed upon the Second Question that of the two there is more reason that Christians should have had an express command to leave off or lay down the practice of Infant-Initiation because it was commanded by God in Infant-Circumcision and approved by him in Infant-Baptism which the Jewish Church added to Infant-Circumcision under the Legal State Commands are usually given for the beginning of the practice of something which was never in practice before but to justifie the continuation of an anciently instituted or anciently received practice it is sufficient that the Power which instituted or approved it do not countermand or forbid it and this as I have shewn being the case of Infants-Initiation the Initiation of them by Baptism under the Gospel must at least be lawful and allowable and if it be so then Parents and Pro-parents are bound in Conscience to bring them unto Baptism in Obedience unto the Orders of the Church For the Church is a Society of a People in Covenant with God and in this Society as in all others there are Superiors and in Inferiors some that must Order and some that must observe Orders some that must Command and some that must Obey and therefore if the Catholick Church or any Member of it commands her Children to observe any lawful thing they are bound by the Common-Laws of all Government and by the Precepts in the Gospel which regard Ecclesiastical Order and Discipline to observe her Commands Obey them saith the * * * Heb. 13. 17. Apostle who have the Rule over you and submit your selves unto them for they watch for your Souls Accordingly we read that St. †††Act. 16. 4. Paul as he went through the Grecian Cities delivered the Christians the Decrees which the Apostles had made at Jerusalem to keep but I think I need not spend more time in the Proof of a thing which all Dissenters will grant me for though they differ from us as to the Subject of pure Ecclesiastical Power yet they all agree that there is such a Power and that all lawful Commands proceeding from it ought to be Obey'd Wherefore if Infants are not uncapable of Baptismal Initiation as is proved under the first Question nor excluded from it by Christ as is proved under the Second but on the contrary there are very good Reasons to presume that Christ at least allowed them the benefit and honour of Baptism as well as grown Persons then the Ordinance of any Church to Baptize them must needs lay an Obligation of Obedience upon the Consciences of Parents and Pro-parents who live within the Pale of it because the matter of that Ordinance is a thing not forbidden but at least allowed by Jesus Christ But because People when the are once satisfied with the lawfulness are wont especially in Church-matters to enquire into the expediency of their Superiors Commands and to obey them with most Chearfulness and Satisfaction when they know they have good reasons for what they ordain therefore least any one whom perhaps I may have convinced of the bare lawfulness of Infant-Baptism should doubt of the expediency of it and upon that account be less ready to comply I will here proceed to justifie the practice of
being most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles and the Intention and Will of Christ First As being most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles who it is highly to be presumed authorized the practice of Infant-Baptism because it was practised in the next Age unto them And Secondly As being most agreeable to the Intention and Will of Christ who it is to be presumed would have forbidden and countermanded the Jewish practice of initiating Infants if he had not had a mind they should be Baptized Wherefore * * * Nam quum paedo-Baptismus in Ecclesiâ Judaicâ in admissione Proselytorum ita fuit notus usitatus frequens ut nihil ferè notius usitatius frequentius non opus erat ut aliquo praecepto roboraretur Nam Christus Baptismum in manus suas atque in usum Evangelicum suscepit qualem invenit hoc solùm addito quod ad digniorem finem atque largiorem usum promoverit Novit satis gens universa parvulos solitos Baptizari Illud praecepto opus non habuit quod Communi usu semper invaluerat Si prodiret jam edictum regale in haec verba Recipiat se unusquisque die dominico ad publicum conventum in Ecclesiâ insaniet certè ille quicunque olim hinc argueret non celebrandas esse die dominico in publicis conventibus preces conciones Psalmodias eo quod nulla in edicto de iis mentio Nam cavit edictum de celebratione diei dominicae in publicis conventibus in genere de particularibus autem divini cultûs speciebus ibidem celebrandis non opus erat ut esset mentio cum istae ante datum edictum cum daretur semper ubique notae essent in usu assiduo Ipsissimo hoc modo res se habuit cum Baptismo Christus cum instituit in Sacramentum Evangelicum quo in professionem Evangelii omnes admitterentur ut olim in Proselytismum ad Religionem Judaicum Particularis eò spectantia modus scilicet Baptizandi aetas Baptizanda sexus Baptizandus c. regulâ definitione opus non habuerunt eo quod haec vel lippis tensoribus nota erant ex communi usu E contra ergo planâ apertâ prohibitione opus erat ut Infantes parvuli non Baptizarentur si eos Baptizandos nollet servator Si aboleri istam consuetudinem vellet Christus aperte prohibuisset Silentium ergo ejus Scripturae paedo-baptismum firmat propagat Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae in Matth. 3. 6. his very not repealing of that practice is a sufficient Demonstration that it was his pleasure it should be continued it was the practice of the Jewish Church before he came and the practice of the Church Christian not long after he departed and we find the practice of it in the one harmoniously answering to the practice of it in the other and therefore what was before and what was after this time we may well presume was continued in the interim during the time of the Apostles as his presumed Will and Intention who never did or spoke any thing that can reasonably be interpreted that he would have the Jewish custom of admitting Infants into the Church laid aside and therefore his silence and the silence of the Scriptures are so far from being Arguments against Infant-Baptism that considering the Antecedent usage of it they are very strong Presumptions for it as the Learned Author in the Margin foregoing doth excellently prove To this purpose also have I discoursed above upon the Second and Third Questions and therefore if Christ in the Reformation of the Church from the Law into the Gospel did not repeal the Ancient practice of Infant-Baptism but left Baptism to be administred in the same Latitude as before his time then it must needs be concluded that there lies the same Obligation upon Parents abstracting from the Commands of the Church to desire Baptism for their Children as for grown Proselytes to desire it for themselves For what authority soever enacts any thing concerning Children or Persons under the years of discretion doth lay at least an implicite Obligation upon Parents and Pro-parents to see that act be performed As if for Example an Act of Parliament should be made that all Persons whatsoever Men Women and Children should pay so much an Head unto the King the Act by the nature of it would oblige Parents and Pro-parents to pay for their Children and the Minors in their custody as well as for themselves Or if in the time of a general Contagion the Supream Power should command that all Men Women and Children should every Morning take such an Antidote that Command would oblige Parents to give it unto their Children as well as to take it themselves Just so the Ordinance of Baptism being intended or instituted by our Saviour in its ancient Latitude for Children as well as grown Persons it must needs lay an Obligation upon Parents and Pro-parents to bring them to the Holy Sacrrament otherwise the Divine Institution would in part be made void and frustrated of the Ends for which it was instituted as if it did not also lay an Obligation upon Adult Persons to offer themselves unto the Holy Sacrament it would be of no force at all To sum up all in short When our Lord first appointed Baptism and afterwards said Go and Proselyte all Nations Baptizing them c. either he intended that Children should be Baptized as well as Grown Proselytes or he did not if he did not intend they should be Baptized Why did he not plainly discover that Intention Nay Why did he not plainly forbid them to be Baptized as they were wont to be but if he intended they should be Baptized according to the ancient custom in the Jewish Church Parents are as much bound to offer them unto Baptism as Adult Believers Men and Women are bound to offer themselves What I have here said about the Obligation which lies upon Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism concerns all Pro-parents to whose care Children are committed as Guardians Tutors and Church-Wardens and lest any should ask as some Sceptically do at What time they are bound to bring them unto Baptism As soon as they are born or the next day after or when I answer by shewing the impertinency of that Question in reference to Grown Believers thus When must a Believing Man or Woman be Baptized As soon as he Believes or the next day after or when And truly the Answer is the same to both Questions at any time the Gospel indulging a discretional Latitude in both Cases and only forbidding the wilful neglect of the Ordinance and all unreasonable and needless delays thereof Quest V. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with Believers who were only Baptized in their Infancy The stating of this depends upon what I have said upon the Second and Third Questions to prove That Infants are capable Subjects of Baptism and that it is
lawful to Baptize them and if I have not erred as I hope I have not in those two Determinations then the Baptism of Infants is lawful and valid and if the Baptism of them be lawful and valid then it cannot be unlawful to Communicate with them when they come to be Men and Women Accordingly it never entred into the Heart of any of the ancient Christians to refuse Communion with grown Believers who had been Baptized in their Infancy whether they were Baptized in perfect health as Children most commonly were or only in dnager of Death as the Children of those Novatian kind of Parents above mentioned always were who were so far from thinking Infant-Baptism a Nullity or Corruption of Baptism that they thought it necessary for them in case of apparent danger and durst not let them die un baptized Some others deferred the Baptizing of their Children because they thought them too weak to endure the Severities of the Trine immersion and others perhaps according to the private Opinion of a a a De Baptismo c. 18. Ait quidem dominus nolite illos prohibere ad me venire veniant ergò dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quò veniant docentur Tertullian and b b b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 40. Nazianzen thought is more convenient to delay the Baptizing of them till they were capable of being Catechized between Three and Four years old but still this delay of Baptism supposed their continuing in health but in case of danger they thought it c c c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessary to Baptize them and if they survived the danger looked upon them as lawfully and validly Baptized These were all the Pleas we read of for deferring the Baptism of Infants among the Ancients who never urged this for one that Infant-Baptism was unlawful or invalid No They never argued against it from the want of those pre-requisite Conditions in Children which Christ and the Apostles required in Adult Proselytes nor from the want of Precept and Example for it in the New Testament but so understood the Scriptures as to think it as lawful and warrantable as the Baptism of grown Believers and necessary in case of danger and just so did those who deferred their Baptism for fear of sinning after it think the Baptism of Men and Women only necessary at the last extremity in apparent danger of Death But then if the ordinary practice of Infant-Baptism be not only lawful and valid but also necessary as appearing most agreeable to the presumed Will of Christ who did not countermand the practice of it and most conformable to the practice of the Apostles as can be proved from the practice of the very next Age unto them then it must not only be lawful to Communicate with Believers who were Baptized in their Infancy but an exceeding great Sin and Presumption to refuse Communion with them upon that account In a word If Infant-Baptism be not only lawful but necessary what a grievous and provoking Sin must it needs be to disown those for Members of Christ's Body whom he owns to be such But if it be neither as Anabaptists vainly pretend then there hath not been a true Church upon the Face of the Earth for Eleven hundred Years nor a Church for above Fifteen hundred with which a true Christian could Communicate without Sin This is a very absurd and dreadful consequence and inconsistent with the purity of the Apostolical Ages while the Church was so full of Saints Martyrs and Miracles and represented as * * * See Dr. More 's Apocalypsis Apoc. Preface p. 20. and on the 11. Ch. of the Rev. v. 1 2. Symmetral by the Spirit of God under the Symbol of Measuring the Temple of God and the Altar Revel 11. 1 2. THE CONCLUSION ALthough in the management of this Controversie against the Anabaptists I have endeavoured so to state the Case of Infant-Baptism as to obviate or answer all the Considerable Pleas and Material Objections which they are wont to make against it yet there are two of their Objections of which I have yet taken no notice thinking it better that I might avoid tediousness and confusion in determining upon the preceding Questions to Propose and Answer them a part by themselves The First of these two is the ancient Custom of giving the Communion unto Infants which they endeavour with all their Art and Skill to run Parallel with the practice of Infant-Baptism although there is not the like Evidence nor the like Reason for the practice of that as there is for the practice of this First There is not the like Evidence for the practice of it St. a a a Ac nequid de esset ad criminis cumulum Infantes quoque parentum manibus vel impositi vel attracti amiserunt parvuli quod in primo statim Nativitatis Exordio fuerunt consecuti Nonne illi cum judicii dies venerit dicent Nos nihil fecimus nec derelicto cibo ac poculo domini ad profana contagia sponte properavimus Afterwards he tells a Story of a little Girl who having been carried to the Idol-Feasts was afterwards brought by her Mother who knew nothing of it to the Communion when he administred it and when the Deacon brought the Cup to her she turned away her Face from it but the Deacon pouring some of the Wine into her Mouth she fell into Convulsions and Vomitings which the Holy Father looking upon as a Miracle did thereupon discover that she had been polluted at the Idol-Feasts Vid. August ad Bonifacium Episcop Ep. 23. vol. 2. Cyprian being the first Author which they can produce for it and after him the b b b Cap. 7. Contemplat 3. p. 360 362. Author of the Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and c c c Catechesis 3. isluminat Hierosolym Cyril of Jerusalem are the next who make mention of it towards the latter end of the Fourth Century and then St. d d d De verbis domini in Evang. Johan Epist 23. 106 107. Lib. 1. de peccatorum merit remiss cap. 20. lib. 1. Contra Julianum c. 11. Contra duas Epistolas Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 22. lib. 4. cap. 14. Augustine in the Fifth who indeed speaks frequently of it as of the practice of the Church in that Age. These are all the Authorities for Infant-Communion that I know of till St. Augustin's time whereas besides the authority of St. Cyprian which is the first they have for Communicating Infants we have the authority of a whole Council of Fathers in which he presided and of Origen Tertullian and Irenaeus who was the Scholar of St. Polycarp and the Grand-Scholar of St. John And then whereas among the Writers of the 4th Century there are but the two above-cited who make mention of Infant-Communion we have St. * * * See them all cited at large in Walker's Plea for Infant-Baptism from p. 266. to p.
275. Hierom St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom St. Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and the Third Council of Carthage who all speak of Infant-Baptism as of a thing generally practised and most of them as of a thing which ought to be practised in the Church Furthermore none of the four Testimonies for Infant-Communion speak of it as of an Apostolical Tradition as Origen doth of Infant-Baptism not to mention that the Pelagians never owned the necessity of Infant-Communion as they did of Infant-Baptism All which things considered shew that there is nothing near the like Evidence in Antiquity for the practice of the one as there is for that of the other And as there is not the like evidence for the constant successive and general practice of Infant-Communion that there is for Infant-Baptism So there is not the like Reason for the practice of it First Because Baptism is the Sacrament or Mystery of Initiation of which Persons of all Ages are capable it being instituted chiefly for an initiatory Sign to solemnize the admission of the Baptized Person into the Church and to Seal all the Blessings of the Gospel unto him as a Member of Christ This is the Substance or Chief end of Baptism which as I have shewed upon the Second and Fourth Questions is equally answered in the Baptism of Children as well as of professing Believers Confession of Faith as well as Confession of Sins being but accidental Circumstantials which are necessary with respect to the State of the Person to be Baptized but not to Baptism it self But on the contrary the Holy Eucharist or Communion is the Sacrament of Perfection and Consummation in the Christian Religion being primarily and chiefly instituted for a Sacrificial Feast in remembrance of Christ's Death and Passion which being an act of great Knowledge and Piety Children are not capable to perform But Secondly There is not the like Reason for Baptizing and Communicating Infants because that is grounded upon the Authority of many Texts of Scripture which without the Concurrence of Tradition are fairly and genuinely interpretable for it but this is grounded only upon one Text John 6. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you which it is doubtful whether it is to be understood of the Holy Eucharist or no because it cannot be understood of it but in a proleptical sence the Lord's Supper having not been yet instituted by him or if it be to be so understood yet the sence of it ought to be regulated by the Chief end of its Institution contained in those words of our blessed Saviour do this in remembrance of me and this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me Wherefore though this Text were literally to be understood of the Holy Eucharist as St. Augustine first interprets it yet it ought not to be strained to Infant-Communion because Infants cannot partake of the Holy Banquet in remembrance of Christ And therefore though the Custom of Communicating Infants prevailed by Degrees in some Ages of the Church yet the Western Churches discerning the mistake upon which it was grounded have long since laid it aside though they still continue the practice of Infant-Baptism as fully answering the Chief end of Baptism and as being founded upon more and clearer Texts of Scriptures and a much more noble Tradition than Infant-Communion is But Thirdly There is not the like reason for Baptizing and Communicating Infants because the Correspondent practice of the Jewish Church in Infant-Circumcision and Infant-Baptism answered as a Pattern unto that under the Law but there was nothing of a Pattern under it which answered so to Infant-Communion because a Child never partook of the * * * Exod. 12. 26 27. Passover before he was old enough to take his Father by the hand and to go up from the Gates of Jerusalem unto the Mount of the Temple and to enquire about the meaning of the Service and was capable of understanding the nature of it as it was done in remembrance of their Deliverance out of Egypt And in like manner when the Children of Christians are old enough to be instructed in the nature of the Holy Communion and to understand that then they may partake of it be it as soon as it will if they are Baptized and Confirmed though it is true that Christian Children are usually much older than the Jewish were before they Communicate which is merely accidental because it requires a riper reason to understand the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist which is done in remembrance of our Spiritual Deliverance by the Sacrifice of Christ both God and Man upon the Cross than to understand the plain and easie meaning of the Passover which was annually kept in remembrance of the Temporal Deliverance of the Jews But to speak yet more fully of Infant-Communion the practice of it is so far from prejudicing the Cause of Infant-Baptism that it mightily confirms it because none were or could be admitted to partake of the Holy Communion till they were validly * * * Theodoret. Therapeut Serm. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptized and therefore the practice of Infant-Communion is a most emphatical Declaration that all the Churches wherein it ever was or a a a As in the Greek Russian and Abyssin Churches and among the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies still is practised were of Opinion that the Baptism of Infants was as lawful and valid as that of professing Believers can be As for the Original of this custom it is not known when it began probably it came in by degrees from the ancient and laudable custom of administring the Lord's Supper to grown Persons presently after their Baptism and if so many of the ancient Churches were so tender towards Infants as to bring them to the Communion rather than deprive them of the least shadow of right what shall be said in excuse of those uncharitable Men who will rather destroy all the Churches in the World than bring their Children unto Baptism of which they are capable and to which they have a Right so highly probable if not certain and infallible as I have proved above The Second Objection against Infant-Baptism which I took no notice of but reserved for this place is taken from their incapacity to engage themselves in Covenant unto God For say these Men all who enter into Covenant and receive the Seal of the Covenant must contract and stipulate for their parts as well as God doth for his and therefore St. Peter saith That the Baptism which saveth us must 1 Ep. 3. 21. have the answer or restipulation of a good Conscience towards God But how can Infants restipulate or what Conscience can be in them who have not the use of reason nor are capable of knowing what the Covenant means To this Objection I answer as formerly That it is as strong against Infant-Circumcision as Infant-Baptism for the Infants
Sacraments to them for whom they were instituted As for an Example we may behold Joshua who most diligently procured the People of Israel to Jos 2. be Circumcised before they entred into the Land of Promise but since the Apostles were the Preachers of the Word and the very Faithful Servants of Jesus Christ who may hereafter doubt that they Baptized Infants since Baptism is in place of Circumcision Item The Apostles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament Therefore it is certain that they did attemperate Baptism accordingly to Circumcision and Baptized Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism for the People of Israel passed through the Red Sea and the bottom of the Water of Jordan with their Children And although the Children be not always expressed neither the Women in the Holy Scriptures yet they are comprehended and understood in the same Also the Scripture evidently telleth us That the Apostles baptized whole Families or Housholds But the Children be comprehended in a Family or Houshold as the chiefest and dearest part thereof Therefore we may conclude that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or Children and not only Men of lawful age And that the House or Houshold is taken for Man Woman and Child it is manifest in the 17. of Genesis and also in that Joseph doth call Jacob with all his House to come out of the Land of Canaan into Egypt Finally I can declare out of ancient Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours neither that it was instituted by any Councels neither of the Pope nor of other Men but commended from the Scripture by the Apostles themselves Origen upon the Declaration of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans expounding the 6. Chapter saith That the Church of Christ received the Baptism from the very Apostles St. Hierome maketh mention of the Baptism of Infants in the 3. Book against the Pelagians and in his Epistle to Leta St. Augustine reciteth Heb. 11. for this purpose a place out of John Bishop of Constantinople in his 1. Book aganst Julian Chap. 2. and he again writing to St. Hierome Epist 28. saith That St. Cyprian not making any new Decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his fellow Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully Baptized The place of Cyprian is to be seen in his Epistle to Fidus. Also St. Augustine in writing against the Donatists in the 4. Book Chap. 23. 24. saith That the Baptism of Infants was not derived from the authority of Man neither of Councels but from the Tradition or Doctrine of the Apostles Cyril upon Leviticus Chap. 8. approveth the Baptism of Children and condemneth the iteration of Baptism These Authorities of Men I do alledge not to tie the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but Lies for them and new Imaginations which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment After this will I answer to the sum of your Arguments for the contrary The first which includeth all the rest is It is Written Go ye into all the World and Preach the glad Tidings to all Creatures He that believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved But he that believeth not shall be Damned c. To this I answer That nothing is added to God's Word by Baptism of Children as you pretend but that is done which the same Word doth require for that Children are accounted of Christ in the Gospel among the number of such as believe as it appeareth by these words He that offendeth Matth. 18. one of these little Babes which believe in me it were better for him to have a Milstone tyed about his Neck and to be cast into the bottom of the Sea Where plainly Christ calleth such as be not able to confess their Faith Believers because of his mere Grace he reputeth them for Believers And this is no Wonder so to be taken since God imputeth Faith for Righteousness unto Men that be of riper Age For both in Men and Children Righteousness Acceptation or Sanctification is of mere Grace and by Imputation that the Glory of God's Grace might be praised And that the Children of Faithful Parents are Sanctified and among such as do believe is apparent in the 1 Cor. 1 Cor. 7. 7. And whereas you do gather by the order of the words in the said Commandment of Christ that Children ought to be taught before they be Baptized and to this end you alledge many places out of the Acts proving that such as Confessed their Faith first were Baptized after I answer That if the order of words might weigh any thing to this Cause we have the Scripture that maketh as well for us St. Mark we read that John did Baptize in the Desart Mark 1. Preaching the Baptism of Repentance In the which place we see Baptizing go before and Preaching to follow after And also I will declare this place of Matthew exactly considered to make for the use of Baptism in Children for St. Matthew hath it written in this wise All Power is Matth. 28. given me saith the Lord in Heaven and in Earth therefore going forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Disciple ye as I may express the signification of the Word that is make or gather to me Disciples of all Nations And following he declareth the way how they should gather to him Disciples out of all Nations baptizing them and teaching by baptizing and teaching ye shall procure a Church to me And both these aptly and briefly severally he setteth forth saying Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Now then Baptism goeth before Doctrine But hereby I do not gather that the Gentiles which never heard any thing before of God and of the Son of God and of the Holy Ghost ought to be Baptized neither they would permit themselves to be Baptized before they knew to what end But this I have declared to shew you upon how feeble Foundation the Anabaptists be grounded And plainly it is not true which they imagine of this Text that the Lord did only command such to be Baptized whom the Apostles had first of all taught Neither here verily is signified who only be to be Baptized but he speaketh of such as be of perfect age and of the first Foundations of Faith and of the Church to be planted among the Gentiles which were as yet rude and ignorant of Religion Such as be of Age may hear believe and confess that which is Preached and taught but so cannot Infants therefore we may justly collect that he speaketh here nothing of Infants or Children But for all this
the Figure of a Man's Face by the placing of the Nose betwixt the two Eyes and much more in the Position of the whole Body of the Man with his Arms extended They can discern it in the Sword in Paradise See the notes of Laur. le bar upon Tertul. advers Marcion l. 3. p. 178 179. and in the Cross stick that Noah's Dove brought back into the Ark c. And indeed some of the Fathers bend their Imaginations somthing that way and would fancy the Figure of the Cross in Moses his stretching out his Arms whiles the Israelites were fighting with Amalek in the Paschal Lamb when the Spit went through it c. which however they were conceipts too much suiting that way of allegorizing that some of them were fond of yet doth it at least confirm what I am now upon I mean the ancient Reception of this Sign into the Primitive Church Nay I may further add that in some of the passages they have of this kind the hint they take may not deserve perhaps to be absolutely exploded as if there were no weight or moment at all in it I will crave leave to instance particularly in one thing which some of the Fathers do a little insist upon and that is that Mark in Ezek. 9. 4. that was to be set upon the Foreheads of the Men that sigh c. This Mark in several of the ancient Versions is suppos'd to be the Hebrew Tau which St. Hierom tells us was in the Samaritan Character like our T and so made the figure of the Cross from whence he Collects that this was signum crucis quae in Christianorum frontibus pingitur a token of that Cross that is imprinted upon the Forehead of the Christian If St. Hierom be not mistaken in the Samaritan Character his conjecture in the Application of it is not very unjustifiable because as all the promises are in Christ Jesus yea and in him Amen So 2 Cor. 1. 20. all the Prophesies of old where they concern'd any signal advantages or deliverances to the Jewish Church had the assurance of them frequently confirm'd by some hint or Remembrance of the Messiah that was afterward to be reveal'd Thus in that Confirmation that Isaiah was to give to Ahaz of his present deliverance from the Invasions of Ephraim and Syria he gives him this Sign behold Isai 7. 4. a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son How could that great Event that was not to come to pass of so many Ages after Ahaz his Death affect him who stood in need of so immediate Deliverance but that it was brought in as an instance not only that as God could bring about such a wonder as the Birth of a Child from a Virgin could as easily relieve Judah in its present streights but further he that had so gracious a design toward them as to send the Messiah amongst them would in the Prospect he had to that show now his particular regards for the Church at this time In Analogy to this might this passage in Ezekiel look toward that mark which Christians in after Ages should wear upon their Foreheads as a present Symbol of the escape of those that should be found sighing for the Abominations that were then done in Israel And to this probably may that Seal of the living God have some Reference which was to be set upon the Foreheads of the Servants of God Revel 7. 2 3. For as they are there reckon'd up by the number of twelve times twelve to signifie that they are the true and genuine off-spring of the twelve Apostles so the Seal Vid. Med. in loc of the Living God upon their Foreheads may point at the Figure of the Cross to betoken them though under the Prophetick Denomination of the Jewish Tribes to be of the Christian Church This I would not be suppos'd to lay any great stress of Argument upon only offer the Conjecture to the Candor of the Reader And thus having shewen the Antiquity of this Sign as it was receiv'd into the Church long before the Corruptions of Popery appear'd in the World I know but of one thing can be urg'd to take off the strength of what hath been hitherto said and that is that the Primitive Christians might probably take up this Custom of thus signing themselves because they liv'd wholly amongst the Enemies of the Cross of Christ the Jews making the Cross a Stumbling-block and the Greeks Foolishness So that their design of doing it was only to bear their Testimony to the Faces of both that is tho the Cross was scandal to the one and scorn and laughter to the other yet they would not be ashamed of this Cross but made it the Badg of their Profession Whereas we live in an Age and Nation where thanks be to God there seems no such occasion because Christianity is the Religion we openly and universally profess To this I answer that this Objection being thus made doth at least suppose the usage of the Cross not to be a thing that is in it self evil because if so no good end or design in using it could hallow the Action so that the Ceremony is not Evil in its self but that upon some weighty reasons it might be brought into the Church if so then we might reasonably think that the injunction of Authority in this Case might Justifie the Practice of it But much more if the reason now alledg'd might be a just occasion for the Church in its first Ages to take the usage up God knows the occasion may be as urgent still upon an Equally sad account and that is the Prophane and Atheistical Contempt that is thrown not so much upon the Sign as the Doctrine of the Cross by the pretended Wits of our Age. He hath a very slender concernment for the interests of Religion that is not sensibly toucht with those Blasphemous Railleries he may every where meet with upon the whole Scheme of Christianity especially that which we make the great Foundation of our hopes and trust viz. the Merits of our Saviours Cross and Passion That the use of this Sign if ever it was reasonable upon such a score as this it is so now And St. Cyprians Caution is strong and pertinent enough at this time of the day against all the Wit and Pride of the daring and haughty Atheist Muniatur frons c. Arm your Foreheads that the Seal of God may be kept Epist 56. ad Thiberitanos safe q. d. Remember the Badg you took upon you in Baptism and so long as you have that upon your Foreheads never be asham'd or laught out of Countenance as to the Memory of your Saviours Love and the Foundation of your hopes lay'd in his Death and Passion And now since it is so evident how Ancient a practice this hath been in the Christian Church I would not have this part of the Argument pretended further than it was first design'd which was only to
there were any Law of God obliging to the use of any one Gesture whatsoever 2. That there is no express Command in Scripture for any one Gesture in the Act of Receiving may be inferr'd from the Judgment and Practice of all the Reformed Churches abroad Whose Judgment and example will I presume sway much with those who separate from the Church of England as not being sufficiently purged from the Corruptions of the Church of Rome as other Neighbour-Churches are and who stood once engaged in a Solemn Covenant to reform the Churches of England and Ireland according to the Word of God and the Pattern of the best Reformed Churches Let us now compare the practice of our Church with the example of the Protestant Churches abroad and see whether she ought to reform the Gesture prescribed at the Sacrament The Reformed Churches of France and those of Geneva and Helvetia Stand the Dutch generally Sit but in some places as in West-Friesland they Stand. The Churches of the Bohemian and Augustan Confession which spread through the large Kingdoms of Bohemia Denmark and Sweden through Norway the Dukedom of Saxony Lithuany and the Ducal Prussia in Poland the Marquisate of Brandenburg in Germany and several other places and free Cities in that Empire do for the most part if not all of them retain the Gesture of Kneeling The Bohemian Churches were reformed by John Husse and Jerom of Prague who suffered Martyrdom at Constance about the year 1416. long before Luthers time and those of the Augsburg or Augustan Confessions were founded and reformed by Luther and were the first Protestants properly so called Both these Churches so early reformed and of so large extent did not only use the same Gesture that our Church enjoyns at the Sacrament but they together with those of the Helvetick Confession did in three general Synods unanimously condemn the Sitting Gesture though they esteemed it in it self Lawful 1 At Cracow Anno. Dom. 1573. 2 Petricow or Peterkaw 1578. 3 Wladislaw 1583. as being Scandalous for this remarkable reason viz. because it was used by the Arrians as their Synods call the Socinians in contempt of our Saviours Divinity who therefore placed themselves as Fellows with their Lord at his Table And thereupon they entreat and exhort all Christians of their Communion to change Sitting into Kneeling or Standing both which Ceremonies we Indifferently leave free according as the Custom of any Church hath obtained and we approve of their use without Scandal and Blame Moreover they affirm That these Socinians who deny Christ to be God were the first that introduced Sitting at the Sacrament into their Churches contrary to the Practice of all the Evangelical Churches in Europe Among all these Forreign Churches of the Reformation there is but one that I can find which useth Sitting and forbids Kneeling for fear of Bread-Worship but yet in that Synod wherein they condemned Kneeling they left it to the choice of their Churches to use Standing Sitting or an Ambulatory Gesture as the French do and at last conclude thus Harmon 4 Synods of Holl. These Articles are setled by mutual Consent that if the good of the Churches require it they may and ought to be changed augmented or diminished What now should be the ground and reason of this variety both in Opinion and Practice touching the Gesture to be used at the Lords Supper Is it to be supposed or imagined 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 should through 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 established what was most agreeable to their own Phansies contrary to the known Will of God Would 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 tyed them to observe but one Would they declare as the Dutch Synod doth that what they enjoyned might be altered if the good of the Church so required if so be Sitting had been expresly Commanded by our Lord to be used by all Christians to the end of the World No undoubtedly they would not we cannot either in reason or Charitie suppose it The true Principle upon which all these Reformed 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 goes by in her Synods and Convocations viz. That as to Rites and Ceremonies of an indifferent nature every National Church hath Authoritie to institute change and abolish them as they in Prudence and Charitie shall think most fit and conducive to the setting forth God's Glory the Edification of their People and the Decent and Reverend Administration of the Holy Sacrament Whosoever therefore refuses 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 Sacr. suam cuique Ecclesiae libertatem salvam reliquendam arbitramur 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 Reformed Churches beyond the Seas who all agree in this that the Gesture in the Act of Receiving is to be reckoned 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 not contrary to any express Command no more than any other because they allow of all Lawful in themselves to be used which cannot consist with an express Command for the use of any one Gesture whatsoever Query II. Whether Kneeling be not a Devotion from that Example which Christ set us at the first Institution FOr a full and satisfactory resolution of this doubt I shall propound the four following particulars to the consideration of our Dissenting Brethren which I will endeavour with all Brevitie and Clearness to make good 1. That it can never be proved so as that the conscience may surely build upon it what Gesture Christ and his Apostles used at the Celebration of the Sacrament 2. Supposing that our Lord did Sit yet his bare example doth not oblige all Christians to a like practice 3. That they who urge the example of Christ for our Rule in this case do not follow it themselves 4. That they who Kneel at the Lords Supper in complyance with the Custom and Constitution of the Church do manifestly follow the example of Christ First The particular Gesture used by Christ and his Apostles at the Institution and Celebration of
against the Law of the Land and the common practice of the Church Rising up doth not necessarily imply that a man stands or kneels afterwards but somewhat previous to both for we generally rise before we do either But however sitting at the Sermon and Lessons was usual in those Assemblies which this holy Father and Martyr frequented yet in most other places the people were not permitted to sit at all not so much as at the Lessons or in Sermon-time as appears partly from what Philostorgius an ancient Ecclesiastical Historian observes Hist Eccles l. 3. n. 5. p. 29. Flor. A. D. 425 of Theophilus an Indian Bishop That among several irregularities which he corrected in those Churches he particularly reformed this that the people were wont to sit when the Lessons out of the Gospel were read unto them And partly from Sozomens History wherein he notes it as a very unusual thing in the Bishop of Alexandria that he did not rise up when the Gospels were read But the fullest evidence Optatus Bishop of Milevis affords us Eccles Hist l. 7. c. 19. p. 734. Flor. A. D. 440 by what he writes against Parmenianus the Donatist For after he had taxed him with Pride and Innovation with a censorious uncharitable spirit which animated all his Tractates or Sermons to the people he cites a passage out of the Psalms and applies it home to him after this manner Thou sittest and speakest against thy Brother c. in which place God reproves him Psal 49. in our Transl 50. 20. Lib. 4. de Schis Donat. p. 78. Par. Edit An. D. 365. Vid. Albasp not in 4 lib. Oâ—tat who fits and defames his Brother and therefore such evil Teachers as you says he are more particularly pointed at in this Text For the people are not licensed to sit in the Church This Text chiefly respects the Bishops and Presbyters who had onely a right and priviledge to sit in the Publick and Religious Assemblies but doth not concern the people who stood all the time Now if it had not been a general and prevailing custom among the Christians of those times as well Heretical as Orthodox to stand the whole time of Divine Service and particularly at the Lessons and Sermons Parmenianus might have easily retorted this Argument upon Optatus as being weak and concluding nothing against him in particular but what might be charged in common upon all private Christians who sate in the Church as well as he Again that Sitting was esteemed irreverent in the Worship Floruit An. D. 198. Tertul. de Orat. c. 12. Tom. 2. p. 130. edit Collon Agrip. 1617. item quod adsignata oratione assidendi mos est quibusdam c. of God will further be manifested from a passage or two in Tertullian who lived in the same Century with Justin Martyr before cited and I think nothing can be spoken more plain and home to the purpose than what he delivers concerning this Gesture which is so much contended for by our Dissenting Brethren For among other vanities and ill customs taken notice of and reproved by this ancient Father this was one That they were wont some of them to fit at Prayer A little further in the same Chapter Tertullian hath these words Adde hereunto the sin of Eo apponitur irreverentiae crimen etiam ipsis nationibus si quid saperent intelligendum Si quidem irreverens est assidere sub conspectu contraque conspectum ejus quem cum maxime reverearis ac venereris quanto magis sub conspectu Dei vivi Angelo adhuc orationis adstante factum illud irreligiosissimum est nisi exprobramus Deo quod oratio fatigaverit Tertull. de Oratione c. 12. Irreverence which the very Heathen if they did perceive well and understand what we did would 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 unless we think fit to upbraid God that Prayer hath tired us Adde to all this that saying of Constantine the great Euseb de vit Const mag lib. 4 p. 400. Col. Allob. 1612. recorded by Eusebius as an indication of the Piety of that Christian Emperour with which I will conclude this point It was upon occasion of a Panegyrick concerning the Sepulchre of our Saviour delivered by Eusebius not in the Church but in the Palace of the Emperour and the Historian observes to the praise of this excellent Prince that though it was a long and tedious Oration and though the Emperour was earnestly sollicited to fit down on his Throne which was hard by yet he refused and stood attentively all the time as the rest of the Auditory did affirming it to be 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 should 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 used in time of Divine Service except at the reading of the Lessons and hearing of the Sermon which too was onely practised in some places for in others the people were not allowed to sit at all in their religious Assemblies Which Custom is still observed in most if not all the Eastern Churches at this day wherein there are no Seats erected or allowed for the use of the people Now upon what hath been said I shall onely make this brief Reflection and so proceed If the Apostles of our Lord had in pursuance of their Commission to teach all Nations in their Travels throughout the World every where taught and established sitting or discumbing which were the common Table-gestures according to the customs of those Eastern Countries not onely as convenient but as necessary to be used in order to worthy receiving the Lords Supper it is a most strange and unaccountable thing how there should be 1 Such an early and universal Revolt of the Primitive Church from the Doctrine and the Constitutions of the holy Apostles and then 2 Considering what a high value and esteem the Primitive Christians had for the Apostles the first founders of their Faith and for all that passed under their names it seems to me not onely highly improbable but morally impossible that so many Churches together with their respective Bishops and Pastors dwelling in remote and distant Countries not biass'd by Faction nor swayed by a superiour Authority being perfectly free and independent one upon another should unanimously consent and conspire together to introduce a novel Custom into the Church of Christ contrary to Apostolical Practice and Order and not onely so but 3 to Censure the practice and injunctions of divinely-inspired men as indecent and unfit to be followed and observed in the
joy and triumph viz. over Death and the Grave and therefore on these days we neither Fast nor bend our Knees nor incline and bow down our Bodies but with our Lord are lifted up to Heaven We pray standing all that time which is a sign of the Resurrection St. August Ep. 119. ad Jan. c. 15. By which posture that is we signifie our belief of that Article From whence we may conclude that as the Christians of those first Ages did at other times certainly Fast so they did also certainly Kneel at their Prayers in their publick and religious Assemblies 6 Another thing I would have observed in order to my present design is this That the Primitive Christians were wont to receive the Holy Sacrament every day as oft as they came together for publick Worship which Custom as it was introduced Acts 2. 42 46. Acts 20. 7. compared with 1 Cor. 10. 16. and practised by the Apostles themselves according to the judgement of very Learned men and that not without good grounds from the Holy Scripture so it continued a considerable time in the Church even down to St. Austin who flourisht in the beginning Ann. Dom. 410. St. Aug Epist 118. ad Januarium c. 2 3. p. 556. 7. Basil edit a Froben 1541. St. Ambr. cap. ult lib. 5. c. 4. de Sacram. p. 449. Paris St. Hier. adver Jovinian p 37. Paris id in Epist ad Lucinium Baeticum p. 71. edit of the fifth Century and seems clearly to intimate to us in his Writings that it was customary in his days as St. Ambrose and St. Hierome had hinted before him concerning the Churches of Millan and Rome in their times From St. Cyprian we are fully Vid. Dr. Cave Prim. Christ p. 339. St. Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 147. Oxon. edit 1682. Can. 9. Apost Antiochen Concil Can. 2. Basil Ep. 289. ad Caesariam Patriciam To. 3. p. 279. assured that it was so in his days viz. about the year 250. For in his explication of that Petition in the Lords Prayer Give us this day our daily bread he expresly tells us that they did receive the Eucharist every day as the food that nourisht them to Salvation St. Basil Bishop of Caesaria who lived about 370 years after Christ affirms that in his Church they communicated four times a Week on the Lords day Wednesday Friday and Saturday two of which were station-days or set days of Fasting which were punctually observed by the generality of Christians in those times And this I the rather note because in all probability since they did receive the Sacrament on these days they did not alter the Posture of the day but received Kneeling For if Kneeling was adjudged by the Catholick Church an unsutable and improper posture for times of mirth and joy such as the Lords days and those of Pentecost were and if they were thought guilty of a great irregularity who used that posture on those Festivals then we may reasonably conclude that Standing which was the Festival Posture was not used by the Catholick Church on days of Fasting and Humiliation and that they who stood at their publick Devotions on Fasting days were as irregular as they who kneel'd on a Festival And that this was really so may I think be clearly collected from a passage in Tertullian to this purpose Tertull. de Orat c. 3. p. 206. Edit Col. Agrip 1617. We judge it an unlawful and impious thing says he either to Fast or Kneel at our Devotions on the Lords day We rejoyce in the same freedom or immunity from Easter to Whitsontide To be freed and exempted from Fasting and Kneeling not onely on the Lords day but all the days of Pentecost was esteemed a great priviledge and matter of much joy to this Holy Father and the Christians who lived in his days And from hence I infer that at other times when they met together for publick Worship especially on days of Fasting they generally used Kneeling and that at the Lords Supper which was administred every day in the African So St. Cyprian before cited Church whereof Tertullian was a Presbyter For if they had generally stood at all other times of the year in their religious Assemblies as well at their Prayers as at the Lords Supper where is the priviledge and immunity they boasted so much of and rejoyced in viz. that they were freed from Kneeling on such days and at such certain times Not to Fast on the Lords day was a Priviledge because they did Fast on the Week-days and so say I of Standing To Stand on the Lords days and all the time between Easter and Whitsunday could not be thought a special act of favour and the Prerogative of those seasons if Kneeling had not been the ordinary and common Gesture at all other times throughout the year And if Kneeling was the Didoclavius his own argument retorted Si stabant inter orandum viz. Die Dominico toto temporis intervallo inter Pascha Pentecosten non est probabile de geniculis adorasse cum perciperent Eucharistiam sed potius contrarium nempe stetisse Altar Damasc p. 784. Gesture which the Christians did then commonly use at their Prayers on the Week-days then in all probability when they received the Sacrament on those days they received in the ordinary posture The 7th and last particular which I would observe relating to this business is this That the Primitive Christians received the Holy Sacrament Praying The whole Communion Service was performed with Prayer and Praise It was begun with a general Prayer wherein the Minister and the whole Congregation joyntly prayed for the Vniversal Tert. Apol. c. 39. p. 47. St. Aug. Ep. 118. Const Apost l. 2. c. 57. p. 881. St. Chrys Hom. 1. in 2. cap. Epist 1. Tim. Peace and Welfare of the Church for the Tranquillity and the quietness of the World for the Prosperity of the Age for wholesome Weather and fruitful Seasons for Kings and Emperours and all in Authority c. The Elements were sanctified by a solemn Benediction the form whereof is set down by St. Ambrose and De Sacr. lib. 4. c 5. p. 439. See Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity c. 11. p. 347. the whole action was concluded with Prayer and Thanksgiving But that which more particularly affects the matter in hand is that the Minister used a Prayer at the delivery of the Sacrament to each Communicant to which every one at their receiving said Amen The Apostolical Constitutions though in some things much corrupted and adulterated yet in many things are very sound and in this particular seem to express the most Ancient Practice of the Church For there we find this Account The Apostolical Constitutions confessed by all hands to be very Mr. Daillé sets them at the latter end of the 5 Century Const Apost lib. 8. c. 13. p. 483. Ancient though not altogether so much as is pretended in some things give us this
plain account in these words Let the Bishop give the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice by which name the Holy Sacrament was called in Primitive times saying The Body of Christ and let him that receives say Amen Then let the Deacon take the Cup and at the delivery say The Bloud of Christ the Cup of Life and let him that drinketh say Amen Now although it cannot be denied but that these Constitutions are in many things adulterated yet it is allowed on the other hand that in many things they are very sincere and convey to us the pure Practice of the most ancient times That they give a true and sound account in this matter relating to the Sacrament we may rest fully satisfied from the concuring Evidence of other ancient Writers who lived in the fourth Century For both St. Ambrose and St. Cyril of Jerusalem Ambr. de Sacr. lib 4. c. 5. p. 440. To. 4. St. Cyril Hiero. Catech. Mystag 5. Universa Ecclesia accepto Christi Sanguine dicit Amen Resp ad Orosi quest 49. To. 4. p. 691. Basil 1541. make express mention of the peoples saying Amen when the Minister said The Body of Christ So also St. Austin speaks of it as universally practised by the Church of Christ when the Cup was delivered And there is a very remarkable passage recorded by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History which being very apposite to our purpose I will set down for the close of all Novatius a Presbyter of the Church of Rome having renounced the Communion of the Church and the Authority of his rightful Bishop Cornelius set up for himself and became the head Epist Cornel. ad Fab. apud Euseb Eccles Hist lib. 6. c. 35. de Novato of an unreasonable and unnatural Schism and the better to secure to him the Proselytes he had gained he altered the usual form of Prayer at the Sacrament and in the room thereof substituted a new-fangled Oath which he obliged every Communicant to take at the time of their receiving which among other wicked actions is particulary taken notice of and charged upon him by Cornelius as the worst of all and the most villanous Innovation When he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came says he to offer Sacrafices i. e. to celebrate the Lords Supper and to distribute to every one his part at the delivery of it he constrained those persons who unhappily sided with him to take an Oath instead of offering up Prayers and Praises according to custom and instead of saying Amen he forced every Communicant when he received the Bread to say I will never return to Cornelius as long as I live From these plain instances we may see how closely our Church follows the steps of pure antiquity in the Form of Prayer appointed to be used by the Minister at the giving of the Bread and the Cup to the people which runs thus The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ and The Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Body and Soul to everlasting life c. which last Clause was added by latter times by way of explication to that short Form which the Primitive Church used and surely it 's every Christians interest as well as his duty to joyn with the Minister in such a Prayer and return a hearty Amen to it I will now briefly sum up the Evidence that hath been produced out of Antiquity in justification of Kneeling at the Holy Communion according to the custom and practice of our Church and observe where it directs us to fix and what to resolve upon And in this order it lies Sitting was adjudged by the ancient Catholick Church a very unfit and irreverent posture to be used in time of Divine Service when they were solemnly engaged in the Worship of God the Holy Sacrament was esteemed the most solemn Act or Branch of Christian Worship The Primitive Christians generally used standing at their publick Devotions onely on the Lords days and all that space of time that falls between Easter and Whitsunday At all other times in their religious Assemblies Kneeling was their Worshipping posture and they were wont to meet and receive the Lords Supper every day and particularly on their stated Weekly Fasts which they kept every Wednesday and Friday when to stand was thought as great an irregularity as to kneel was on the Lords day And lastly the Holy Sacrament was delivered and received with a Form of Prayer and that on those days when they constantly prayed Kneeling All these things therefore being considered I think the least that can be concluded from them is what I asserted and designed viz. that in all likelihood the Primitive Christians did kneel at the Holy Communion as the Custom is in the Church of England For sitting was generally condemned as an indecent and irreverent Gesture by the Primitive Church and no man in his wits will say that prostration or lying flat upon the ground was ever used in the act of receiving or ever fit to be so it must be therefore one of these two either Standing or Kneeling As for Standing all the time of publick Worship which was used onely on the Lords day and in Pentecost the reason thereof was drawn not from the Sacrament but from the day and festival season when they did more particularly Communicate the Resurrection of our blessed Saviour openly testified their belief of that great Article at such times therefore they chose standing as being a gesture sutable to the present occasion and as an Emblem and sign of the Resurrection And from hence I gather that on their common and ordinary days when there was no peculiar reason to invite or oblige them to stand at the Sacrament in all likelyhood they used Kneeling that is the ordinary posture They used one and the same posture viz. Standing both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament on the Lords day and for fifty days after Easter contrary to what was usual at other times and why then should 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 received in a Prayer From the strength of these Premises I may howsoever 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 used 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 used nor heard of but excluded from their Congregations as some great advocates for Sitting have confidently proclaimed it to the World 2. But secondly Suppose they never did Kneel as we do yet this is most certain that they received the Lords Supper in an adoring posture which is the same thing and will sufficiently justifie the present
Council or Mr. Prynne Apol. for lib. to tender Con. p. 75. printed 1662. Synod from Christs institution of the Lords Supper till above 1460 years after his Ascension Nor any one Rubrick in all the Liturgies Writings of the Fathers or Missals Breviaries Offices Pontificals Ceremonials of the Church of Rome it self that I could either find upon my best search or any other yet produced enjoyning Communicants to Kneel in the Act of Receiving Thus that inquisitive Gentleman assure us and in the same place backs his Report with the authority of the Reverend Dr. Burgesse whom he stiles the best and eminentest Champion for this Gesture of Bneeling of all others The sum of what Dr. Burgesse delivers concerning this matter is Dr. Burg. Ans rejoy to the Reply to Dr. Mort. gen Defence p. 478 478. this That Kneeling in the Act of Receiving was never any instituted Ceremony of the Church of Rome nor is at this day For this he cites Bellarmine and Durantus who make no mention of Kneeling in the Act of Receiving though they treat particularly of the Mass and the Ceremonies of the Roman Church Instead of this Durantus affirms That the Sacrament ought to be taken Standing and proves it also And so doth the Pope himself receive it Missal Rom. in the Rubr. set out by Pius V. when he celebrates and every Priest by order of the Mass-book is to partake standing reverently at the Altar and not Kneeling there The people which receive not as well as they that do receive are reverently to bow themselves to the Sacrament not when they receive it but when the Priest doth elevate the Patin or Chalice for Adoration or when the Host is carried to any sick person or in Procession And this is that Adoration which was first brought in by Pope Honorius the Third and not any Kneeling or Adoration in the Act of Receiving For these are the very words of the Decree That the Priests should frequently instruct their People to bow themselves reverently at the Elevation of the Host when Mass was Celebrated and Ut Sacerdotes frequenter doceant Plebem suam ut cum Elevatur Hostia Salutaris quisque se reverenter inclinet Idem faciens quum eam deferat Praesbyter ad infirmum Decret Greg. l. 3. tit 41. c. 10. in like manner when the Priest carried it abroad to the sick At the last the Doctor thus resolves upon the Question That Kneeling in the Act of Receiving was never any instituted Ceremony of the Church of Rome nor ever used when it was used by them for Adoration to the Sacrament as is falsly believed and talked of by many And with him a learned Papist agrees who in a Book purposely written for the Adoration of the Sacrament declareth Espencaeus de Adorat Euch. lib. 2. c. 16. That it is not much material in what Gesture it is performed whether Sitting Standing Lying or Kneeling And in the same place further informs us That the Kneeling Gesture had not obtained in the Church of Lyons in the year 1555 and when some endeavoured to obtrude it upon that Metropolis a stop was put to their proceeding by the Royal Authority Nothing needs more be said to give satisfaction in this matter and fix us when we have added what a very great man of our own Church now living hath delivered in writing viz. Although Dean of St. Paul's Unreasonableness of Separation p. 15. Kneeling at the Elevation of the Host be strictly required by the Roman Church yet in the Act of Recâ—iving it is not as manifestly appears by the Popes manner of Receiving which is not Kneeling but either Sitting as it was in Bonaventure 's time or after the fashion of sitting or a little leaning upon his Throne as he doth ot this day And now the matter is brought to a fine pass How outragious have the Adversaries of Kneeling been in their Clamours against the Church of England for appointing a Gesture that was first introduced and used by Antichrist and Idolaters and when the matter comes to be sifted not the least proof is produced to make good the Accusation but on the other side it appears that those two Postures which are so earnestly contended for by our Dissenting Brethren are the very Postures which the man of sin uses at this day himself in the Act of Receiving the Holy Sacrament When he celebrates Mass himself and upon some other Vid. Dr. Falk lib. Ecles p. 484 485. particular and solemn occasions he stands but generally and ordinarily he receives sitting or in a posture very like it And this Dr. Burg. lawful of Kneel p. 67. I desire may be remembred against we come to discourse on the second Head viz. that Kneeling is not therefore sinful because it is used by Idolaters If any should after all put the Question thus to me When is it say you that Kneeling first commenced in the World by whose means and upon what reasons my plain Answer is I cannot cerntainly tell nor can I find any account thereof among the ancient Records But this is no Argument against but rather for the ancient and universal use of this Gesture Novel Customs are easily traced to their Originals but generally the most ancient Usages of every Country are without Father and Mother and we cannot tell from what source they are derived 2. I am so far from thinking as our Dissenting Brethren do that Kneeling owes its birth to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that I verily believe the contrary viz. Kneeling or an adoring posture used 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 Phanciful 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 improved and explained after this manner That after the Elements of Bread and Wine were consecrated they were thereby changed into the substance of Christs natural Body and Bloud 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 believed no more than what the Primitive Bishops and Christians did For what else could they intend or mean say they by that extraordinary Reverence and Devotion which they manifested when they received the dreadful Mysteries as they called the Bread and Wine if they were bare and empty signs onely and not changed into the very Body and Bloud of Christ which is in effect the very Argument used by Cassa enim videtur tot hominum huic Sacramento ministrantium vel adorantium veneranda sedulitas nisi ipsius Sacramenti longe major crederetur quam videretur veritas utilitas cum ergo exterius quasi nulla sint quibus tanta impenduntur venerationis obsequia aut insensati sumus aut ad intima mittimus magna salutis mysteria Alger
Subjects more lov'd commanding equally Bowels and Affections and Duty and Honour Masters and Servants Husbands and Wives and all Relations are kept in their just Bounds and Priviledges With other Churches we make good Works necessary to Salvation but think our selves more modest and secure in taking away Arrogance and Merit and advancing the Grace of Christ With other Men we cry up Faith but not an hungry and a starved one but what is fruitful of good Works and so have all that others contend for with greater modesty and security 3. How fitly this Church is constituted to excite true Devotion When we make our Addresses unto God we ought to have worthy and reverend Conceptions of his Nature a true sense and plain knowledge of the Duty and of the Wants and Necessities for which we pray to be suppli'd All which our Church to help our Devotion plainly sets down describing God by all his Attributes of just wise and laying forth the Vices and Infirmities of Humane Nature and that none else but God can cure our needs When her Sons are to pray the matter of her Petitions are not nice and controverted trivial or words of a Party but plain and substantial wherein all agree Her Words in Prayer are neither rustick nor gay the whole Composure neither too tedious nor too short decently order'd to help our Memories and wandring Thoughts Responsals and short Collects in Publick Devotion are so far from being her fault that they are her beauty and prudence There are few Cases and Conditions of Humane Life whether of a Civil or Spiritual Nature which have not their proper Prayers and particular Petitions for them at least as is proper for publick Devotions When we return our Thanks we have proper Offices to enflame our Passions to quicken our Resentment to excite our Love and to confirm our future Obedience the best instance of gratitude When we Commemorate the Passion of Christ we have a Service fit to move our Affections to assist our Faith to enlarge our Charity to shew forth and exhibit Christ and all his bloudy Sufferings every way to qualifie us to discharge that great Duty She hath indeed nothing to kindle an Enthusiastick heat nor any thing that savours of Raptures and Extasies which commonly flow from temper or fraud but that which makes us manly devout our Judgment still guiding our Affections When we enter first into Religion and go out of the World we have two proper Offices Baptism and Burial full of Devotion to attend those purposes So that if any doth not pray and give thanks communicate and live like a Christian 't is not because the Services to promote these are too plain and hungry beggarly and mean but their own mind is not fitly qualifi'd before they use them bring but an honest mind to these parts of Devotion a true sense of God sober and good purposes and affections well disposed that which is plain will prove Seraphical improve our Judgment heighten our Passions and make the Church a Quire of Angels Without which good disposition our Devotion is but Constitution or melancholy Peevishness Sullenness or Devotion to a Party a Sacrifice that God will not acccept 4. Her Order and Discipline Such are the Capacities and Manners of Men not to be taught onely by naked Vertue a natural Judgment or an immediate Teaching of God but by Ministry and Discipline decent Ceremonies and Constitutions and other external Methods these are the outward Pales and Guards the Supplies and Helps for the Weakness of Humane Nature Our Church hath fitted and ordered these so well as neither to want or to abound not to make Religion too gay nor leave her slovingly neither rude nor phantastick but is cloth'd in Dresses proper to a manly Religion not to please or gratifie our senses so as to fix there but to serve the reason and judgment of our Mind There are none of our Ceremonies which good Men and wise Men have not judged decent and serviceable to the great ends of Religion and none of them but derive themselves from a very ancient Family being us'd in most Ages and most of the Churches of God and have decency antiquity and usefulness to plead for them to help our Memories to excite our Affections to render our Services orderly and comely Were we indeed all Soul and such Seraphical Saints and grown Men as we make our selves we might then plead against such external helps but when we have Natures of weakness and passion these outward helps may be call'd very convenient if not generally necessary and as our Nature is mixt of Soul and Body so must always our Devotion be here and such God expects and is pleas'd with Our Church is neither defective in Power and Discipline had she her just dues and others would do well to joyn with her in her wishes that they might be restor'd which would turn all into Confusion nor yet tyrannical want of Authority breeding as many if not more Miseries than Tyranny or too much Power both of them severe Curses of a Nation But her Government like her Clime is so well temper'd together that the Members of this Christian Society may not be dissolute or rude with her nor her Rulers insolent being constituted in the Church with their different Names and Titles not for lustre and greatness and Secular purposes but for suppression of Vice the maintaining of Faith Peace Order and all Virtues the true Edification of Mens Souls And if those Vices are not reprov'd and chastized which fall under her Cognizance 't is not the fault of her Power but because by other ways ill restrain'd unnecessary Divisions from her hindring her Discipline upon Offenders and so they hinder that Edification which thy contend for This Government is not Modern Particular or purely Humane but Apostolical Primitive and Universal to time as well as place till some private Persons for Number Learning or Piety not to be equall'd to the good Men of old who defended it and obey'd it and suffer'd for it out of some mistakes of Humane frailty and passion or born down with the iniquities of the times began to change it and declaim against it though so very fit and proper to promote Christianity in the World This is a general account of that Edification that is to be had in that Church in which we live a more particular one would be too long for this Discourse but thus much must be said that examine all her particular Parts and Offices you will find none of them light or superstitious novel or too numerous ill dispos'd or uncouth improper or burthensome no just cause for any to revolt from her Communion but considering the present circumstances of Christianity and Men the best constituted Church in the World If therefore Edification be going on to Perfection Heb. 6. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 18. Rom. 15. 2. 1 Cor. 14. 3. or growing in Grace if it is doing good to the Souls of
many times is no more than a bright or a lowring day can do acting upon the Animal Spirits and a Dose of Physick will do the same And if they carry the men no further improve no virtue in them they are nothing else but downright flesh and blood And they are hot and cold high and low very changeable and uncertain according as the humours flow and as is the bodily temper of the men Upon this account some are melted into Tears and others are fired into Rage and Zeal their Spirits like Tinder easily catching the flame and these have happened in the worst of Men serving onely the Designs of Fury and Hypocrisie and can no more be called Edification than the Fire from the Altar that may consume the Temple Zeal Yet such mistakes as these have been too common Anger and Revenge have been called Zeal for God Trade and Interest have been Baptized Christianity Fury and Fumes of the Stomach have been thought the Divine Spirit ridiculous Looks and unmanly Postures have been fanci'd true Acts of Devotion and when they themselves were pleas'd and in the good humour God was reconcil'd and when they were dull and heavy the Spirit was withdrawn and according as these heats and bodily passions were stirr'd so the Ministry was Edifying or unprofitable pale Cheeks and hollow Looks have been Matth. 6. 16. counted signs of Grace and the Diseases of their body pass'd for the Virtue of their mind And when a Doctrine hath been so insinuated as to hit and favour these they were strangely improv'd and had obtain'd a good degree in Religion Many of these may be beginnings or occasions leading unto Religion and may serve some good purposes in men that can manage them well but to cry up these for Edification and going on unto perfection is to betray their People into the power of every Cheat and Impostor who hath the knack to raise these heats which pass for reason and conviction of mind and most commonly are great hindrances to solid and sound reasoning plain discourses the true way to Edification to make firm and lasting impressions upon the mind while the silly and the weak who are most subject to these heats and colds the uncertain motions of their Spirits are fickle and inconstant turning round in all Religions such men being all Sail are more easily tost about with every wind of Doctrine 3. Argument to confirm the Answer is That pretence of better Edification will cause endless Divisions in the Church This Question doth suppose that every man must judge and so great a part of the World being ignorant and vicious partial and prejudic'd false and insincere to themselves and others they may run from Teacher to Teacher from Presbyterian to Independent from Independent to Anabaptist or Quaker and never stop till they come at their Grave to find out better Edification ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth ever seeking and 2 Tim. 3. 7. never satisfi'd till they find the Pattern upon the Mount or the new Jerusalem be come down from above till they meet with such a perfect Church as perhaps will never be here upon earth till her great Master comes The ignorant will easily mistake and who can know the heart and intention of the false and the Hypocrite And the Governour hath nothing to do here to retrench this liberty which as they pretend is either born with them or given them by God At this rate may not every single person be a Church leaving all other Christian Societies fancying that he can better Edifie at home with the workings of his own mind and some pretended infusions of the Spirit that he shall better meet with in his privacies and retirements than in an external and carnal Ministry and Crowd When once they have torn the Unity of the Church in pieces and set up their more Edifying Meetings in comes whole shoals of Vices Envy and Detraction Strife and Emulation Murmurings and Complainings Fierceness and Wrath and a great number of things more prejudicial to the State of the Kingdom the interest of Families the good of Friendship and all civil Conversation a wonderful Edification destroying the very Soul of Christianity The same Principles that divide them from this Church will crumble them into endless Parties and every little Chip may call it self a Building and so destroy all good Government and Discipline so necessary to propagate and preserve Christianity in the World And should I live to see that fatal day when the Government in our Church should be dissolv'd and liberty given to every man upon pretence of better Edification to chuse his Pastour and his Church so many Mischiefs and Confusions would follow from it that if there was any regard to common Christianity or sense of temporal happiness left within their Breast they would too late repent their Schism as once in a great degree many of them did and beg upon their Knees that the Pale of this Government in Church might be set up again and they would receive it with all its pretended load of Impositions This will certainly follow from dividing from the Church to the laughter of Rome and joy of all the Enemies of our Christian Religion All this would be avoided if men were sensible of the hainous nature of Schism which the Apostles and all the ancient Christians have painted forth in such black colours though others think our Divisions in the Church are no more than variety of Companies and Liveries in a City 4. What great discouragement this is to an honest and truly Christian Ministry When a Pastour of our Church shall diligently and faithfully plainly and devoutly unfold the Articles of Faith and lay down Rules for Practice which will certainly bring him to Heaven yet his Flock or Charge one after another upon pretence of greener Pastures greater Knowledge better Elocution Delivery Tone or the like to be had elsewhere shall run from him will it not cool his Zeal check his Labours and affront his Person and Office This may be done to the painful as well as idle to the judicious and learned as well as imprudent and Ignorant Pastour where the People shall have liberty of Separation for the sake of Edification The ill effects of this have turn'd upon their own Ministers and new Government and the most judicious among them have sadly complain'd of it Formerly they Petition'd for a painful and preaching Ministry but this pretence of better Edification gives denial to their own request such Discouragements as these happening severely sometimes to the best of Pastours as well as the worst And they have no cure for this having put a power into the Peoples hands which they cannot recal for neither King Parliament Bishop or Pastour can tell them what is Edification so well as themselves And are the Pastours of the Church to be so treated and trifled with who derive their Offices and Authority from God to Command and
found almost only in the Romish Church But here is something of it to be discerned I will not say in all Churches seeing I well understand the good Being of our own which suffered Bonner himself to live yet in all Factions and Parties though the inequality of Power makes it not seem to be alike in all of them The Catt hath the same inward Parts with the Lyon though they differ much in size And some such likewise they will find who dissect humane nature and Bodies civil There is this Disposition in Men whether they be the politick or the Conscientious The External practice of all Parties is answerable to this inward Disposition There is this inward Disposition in men who espouse any Faction whether their Ends be designs of State or of Religion Parties who are not otherwise than in shew concerned for Religion will perpetually covet Power after Power And Parties who are serious and Conscientious in their way whatsoever it is will not remain in an indifference of terms towards those who tread in contrary Paths and with whom they do not maintain Communion For therefore they withdraw from them because they believe Communion with them to be unlawful Otherwise they have no Judgment in the price of Peace and Unity if they willingly part with it when they may without sin enjoy it and if they esteem their way sinful and believe those persons who remain without their pale to be so gone astray as without Repentance to be eternally lost Charity it self will urge them to use all means probable towards the reducing of them And they will be apt to think that the suffering of them in their Wandrings declares them to be contented with their condition External Practice of all Parties do's shew plainly what is their inward Disposition All would do what is good in their own eyes but I do not perceive that any are willing to let others do so Where there is Power their is little Forbearance And the same men as their Conditions alter speak of Mercy or Justice Amongst those of the Party of Donatus whose Schism opened so dangerous a Wound in the Churches of Africa all pleaded earnestly for Forbearance whilst their Power was in its Minority Yet S. Austin remindeth one of them * * * Petil. ap S. Aug. cont Petil. l. 2. Absit Absit à nostra Conscientia ut ad nostram fidem aliquem compellamus c. of a Practice contrary to their Profession whilst they turn'd against the Maximianists the edge of the Theodosian Laws and abus'd the Power which they had gotten under Julian in oppressing as far as in them lay the Catholick Christians Amongst those of the Protestant Perswasion the Heads of the Discipline were plainly unwilling that any should have leave to make a separation from their body And one of them * * * Mr. Calamy in Ser. called The great danger of Covenant refusing A. 46. p 3. with a mixture of Grief and Expostulation thus discoursed before the Commons The Famous City of London is become an Amsterdam Separation from Our Churches is countenanc'd Toleration is cried up Authority lieth asleep Every one would have Power to rowse up it self and maintain his Cause And indeed it is and has been too often in Religion as it is and was in Philosophy Where the divers Sects do not contend meerly for the enlarging the bounds of Philosophical Arts in a sincere and solid inquiry * * * Lord Bacon's Pref. to Adv. of Learn but for the Translating the Empire of Opinion and settling it upon themselves The same men who pleaded for Forbearance in this Church and remov'd themselves into New-England as by themselves was said for the Liberty of their Conscience or Persuasion when once they arrived there and made a figure in that Government they refused Indulgence to the Anabaptists and Quakers and us'd them as to this day they do with great severity Those Commons who in the Year 47 * * * Whitlock's Memoires p. 276. made an Order For the giving of Indulgence to tender Consciences did at the same time make another Order That this Indulgence should not extend to tolerate such who used the Common-Prayer Some who do not well understand the Policy of the Dutch do believe it to be otherwise in those Netherlands But by their Constitution none have liberty to speak against any publick Error or Corruption on which the States shall stamp their Authority And Episcopius * * * Episc Exam. Thes Cap. Op. vol. 1. par 2. p. 185. complain'd that the Calvinists would tolerate none whom they had power to punish There are now great numbers of his own Remonstrant Party who when any juncture of Affairs gives them encouragment are apt to contend for Superiority The Parties in their Sermons and Writings speak with bitter Zeal against each other And where the ordinary Conversation of Men of different Judgments is peaceable amongst them divers who mind Traffick more than Religion seem rather to be an Heterogeneous body frozen together by a cold indifference than a Society united by Christian Love In the Church of Rome the several Orders who at present mortally hate one another if they were not restrain'd by the force of the common Politie they would soon devour one another We are not without a remarkable Instance in this kind published by a Dominican Bishop and a Capuchin Fryer Certain Dominicans * * * See Lettres Sinceres Trois partie Sixieme Lettre p. 111. had seated themselves nigh the River of Plate in Paraguay where there are Gold Mines in the Earth and Gold Sands in the Rivers Of this the Jesuits who have long ears had good intelligence They desired to go thither in order to the further instruction of the American-people and the education of Youth They obtained leave procured Letters of Credence were furnished with Money for the Voyage After having gotten sure footing they soon removed the Dominicans and Spanish Laity and established themselves Among the Socinians the great Asserters of Liberty in Religion both in thinking and speaking though they cannot impose because they have not yet been any-where that I know of the prevailing Party yet they shew sometimes what Spirit they are of Gittichius was beyond all good manners troublesom to a Socinian of better temper I mean Ruarus * because Ruari Epist par 1. p 415 416. he had chosen to fast one day in a week and had taken Friday for the day though without any fixed purpose Among the Quakers themselves whose Principle seems to be the Guidance of each man by his personal persuasion there want not signs of that fierce heat with which their Light is accompanied When some had form'd them into a Society and gotten the Governance into their hands they Excommunicated others they suffered them not to Marry or Bury in their manner who would not be guided by what they called the Light of the Body and the Light
variety of Cases in Humane Affairs I pray from my Heart for the bettering but I dread the tinkering of Government The Conclusion IF then Dissenters are not likely to obtain their Ends of Establishing themselves of rooting out of Popery and promoting pure Religion by overthrowing the Church of England the Inference is natural they ought both in Prudence and Christianity to endeavour after Vnion with it They will it may be say to me Can Men be persuaded two contrary ways Can they both Assent and Dissent And whilst they secretly Dissent would you force them into an Hypocritical Compliance I Answer thus First Though a Man cannot at the same time wholly Assent and Dissent yet there are means for the rectifying of a false persuasion and he may upon good Grounds change his Mind Secondly No Man's Mind can beforced for it is beyond the reach of Humane Power Thirdly Good Governours do not use Severity to force Men to dissemble their Minds and to make them Hypocrites but to move them after a Tryal of fair means to greater consideration I am not concerned in the Emblem of the Persian Dervi * * * Tavern Pers Trav. l. 4. c. 6. p. 155 156. who whilst they go about their Office of teaching the Law to the People carry a great Club in their hands But neither do I think that the best way to remove pernitious error from Men is never to give them any disturbance in it I have two things only to recommend first to the consideration and then to the practice of such as Dissent First This is a time of Prosecution and a time of Adversity is a proper time for Consideration and Consideration is a means to make us hold fast that which is good and reject that which is evil I beseech you make such advantage of this Juncture Sit down and think once more of the Nature of this Church Confer with the Guids of the National Religion read without prejudice the Books commended by them to you Peruse seriously the Books which Authority hath set forth Some who have spoken against them have by their own confession never read them Examine and Judge Many of your Scruples have arisen from what you have heard and read they would not have otherwise been ingendred in your Minds Hear and Read for your Information as well as your entanglement Secondly Do as much as you can do Do as much as the Dissenters who are most eminent for Learning Piety Preaching Writing Experience and Fame sometimes actually do They have owned our Communion to be lawful * * * See Lawf of hearing the publick Ministry c. by Mr. Nye Mr. Robinson c. and Mr. Corbet's Non-Conformists Pâ—ea for Lay-Communion They have received the Communion kneeling They have bred up Children to the Ministry of this Church They have joyned in the Liturgy They have been Married according to the Form of it Nay one who assisted in making the Directory would have his own Daughter in those times be Married in the way of the Book of Common-Prayer * * * Mr. Marshall in Hist of Indep 1 part p. 80. Do as the antient Non-conformists did who would not separate though they feared to Subscribe Who wrote with such Zeal against those of the Separation that Mr. Hildersham was called * * * See Dr. Willit's Epistle Dedicatory before his Harm on 1 Sam. Schismaticorum Qui vulgo Brownistae malleum The Maul of the Brownists Do more for the Peace of God's Church than for a Vote or Office or Fear of Legal Penalty Come as Christians to the Sacrament and not as Politicians Those who have so done yet break the unity of the Church are said to use the Arts of Jesuits and to be without all excuse by a Dissenter * * * Vox Clam Sect. 6. p. 49 50 c. who writes with commendable temper Do constantly what you do upon occasion No Preaching or Praying which is better liked can ballance the evil of Separation from a Church which imposeth no terms of Communion which are sinful For Peace sake let that be more constant in which your Conscience alloweth occasional exercise A Member who joyns himself to any established Church and also to any Churches which are set up not as legal Supplements of it but as Forts against it seems to be a kind of Wooden Legg if I may represent so grave a matter by so light a Similitude He is tyed on and taken off at pleasure he is not as by natural Ligaments and Nerves knit to such Ecclesiasticrl Bodies If all would do constantly what they can in Conscience do sometimes they would create a better Opinion of themselves in the Governours and move them to all due favour and hinder all the destructive breaches amongst us For the remain of other Dissenters would be so inconsiderable as to abide in the Body of the Nation as ill humors thrown off the extream parts from which there may arise some little pain but no mortal danger Now the God of Peace grant Peace to us always by all fit means The END A SERIOUS EXHORTATION With some Important Advices Relating to the late Cases about CONFORMITY Recommended to the Present Dissenters From the CHVRCH of ENGLAND LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard and F. Gardiner at the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1684. Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stilling fleet 's Unreasonableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government 1. A Perswasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God Proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of mixt Communion Whether it be Lawful to separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations and Mixt Communions 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other Parts of Divine Service Prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament Stated and Resolved c. The first Part. 11. Certain Cases of Conscience c. The Second Part. 12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where Men think they can profit most 13. A
have been heretofore written in defence of our Church her Rites and Usages that yet generally lie by the Walls little known and less read by those that so much Cry out against her And at this time how many excellent Discourses have been Published for the satisfaction of Dissenters written with the greatest Temper and Moderation with the utmost plainness and perspicuity with all imaginable evidence and strength of Reasoning so short as not to require any considerable portion either of Time or Cost so suited to present Circumstances as to obviate every material Objection that is made against Communion with us and yet there is just cause to fear that the far greatest part of our Dissenters are meer strangers to them and are not so just to themselves or us as to give them the reading And that those few that do look into them do it rather out of a design to pick quarrels against them and to expose them in scurrilous or cavilling Pamphlets than to receive satisfaction by them I do heartily and from my Soul wish an end of these Contentions and that there were no further occasion for them but if our Dissenting Brethren will still proceed in this way we desire and hope 't is but what is reasonable that the things in difference may be debated in the most quiet peaceable and amicable manner that they may be gravely and substantially managed and only the Merits of the Cause attended to and that the Controversie may not be turned off to mean and trifling Persons whose highest Attainment perhaps it is to write an idle and senseless Pamphlet and which can serve no other use but only that the People may be borne in hand that such and such Books are Answered Which is so unmanly and disingenious a way and so like the shifting Artifices of them of the Church of Rome that I am apt to persuade my self the wiser Heads of the Dissenting Party cannot but be ashamed of it If they be not 't is plain to all the World they are willing to serve an ill Design by the most unwarrantable Means But however that be we think we have great Reason to expect from them that they should hear our Church before they condemn Her and consider what has been said for the removing of their Doubts before they tell us any more of Scruples Tender-Consciences and the hard measure that they meet withall I confess could I meet with a Person that had brought himself to some kind of Unbyas'dness and indifferency of Temper and that design'd nothing more than to seek and find the right way of Serving God without respect to the Intrigues and Interests of this or that particular Party and in order thereunto had with a sincere and honest Mind read whatever might probably conduce to his Satisfaction fairly proposed his Scruples and modestly consulted with those that were most proper to advise him and humbly begged the Guidance and Direction of the Divine Grace and Blessing and yet after all should still labour under his old Dissatisfactions I should heartily pity and pray for such a Man and think my self obliged to improve all my Interest for Favour and Forbearance towards him But such Persons as these I am afraid are but thin sowed and without Breach of Charity it may be supposed there is not One of a Thousand III. Thirdly We desire that before they go on to accuse our Church with driving them into Separation they would directly charge her with imposing sinful terms of Communion And unless they do this and when they have done it make it good for barely to accuse I hope is not sufficient I see not which way they can possibly justifie their Separation from us 'T is upon this account that the whole Protestant Reformation defends their Departure from the Church of Rome They found the Doctrine of that Church infinitely corrupt in several of the main Principles of Religion New Articles of Faith introduced and bound upon the Consciences of Men under pain of Damnation its Worship overgrown with very gross Idolatry and Superstition its Rites and Ceremonies not only over-numerous but many of them advanced into proper and direct Acts of Worship and the use of them made necessary to Salvation and besides its Members required to joyn and communicate in these Corruptions and Depravations nay and all Proposals and Attempts towards a Reformation obstinately rejected and thrown out in which Case they did with great Reason and Justice depart from her which we may be confident they would not have done had no more been required of them than instead of Worshipping Images to use the Sign of the Cross in Baptism or instead of the Adoration of the Host to kneel at the Receiving of the Sacrament A Learned Amyrald de Secess ab Eccles Rom. pag. 233. Protestant Divine of great Name and Note has expresly told us That had there been no other Faults in the Church of Rome besides their useless Ceremonies in Baptisme and some other things that are beyond the measure and genius of the Christian Religion they had still continued in the Communion of that Church Indeed did the Church of England command any thing which Christ has prohibited or prohibit any thing which Christ has commanded then come ye out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord were good Warrant and Authority But where do we meet with these prohibitions not in the word of God not in the nature and reason of the things themselves nor indeed do we find our Dissenting Brethren of late very forward to fasten this charge and much less to prove it whatever unwary sayings may fall from any of them in the heat and warmth of Disputation or be suggested by indirect consequences and artificial insinuations And if our Church commands nothing that renders her Communion sinful then certainly Separation from her must be unlawful because the Peace and Unity of the Church and obedience to the commands of lawful Authority are express and indispensable duties and a few private suspicions of the unlawfulness of the thing are not sufficient to sway against plain publick and necessary Duties nor can it be safe to reject Communicating with those with whom Christ himself does not refuse Communion This I am sure was once thought good Doctrine by the chiefest of our Dissenters who when time was reasoned thus against those that subdivided from them If we be a Church of Christ and Christ hold Communion with A Vindication of the Presbyterial Government 1649. p. 130. us why do you Separate from us If we be the Body of Christ do not they that Separate from the Body Separate from the Head also we are loath to speak any thing that may offend you yet we entreat you to consider that if the Apostle call those Divisions of the Church of Corinth wherein Christians did not separate into divers formed Congregations in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Schisms 1 Cor. 1. 10. may not your
Secession from us and professing you cannot joyn with us as Members and setting up Congregations of another Communion be more properly called Schism You gather Churches out of your Churches and set up Churches in an opposite way to our Churches and all this you do voluntarily and unwarrantably not having any sufficient cause for it And in the same Book they tell us of a Two-fold Schism Negative and Positive Negative when Men do peaceably and quietly withdraw from Communion with a Church not making a Head against that Church from which they are departed the other is when Persons so withdrawing do consociate and withdraw themselves into a distinct and opposite Body setting up a Church against a Church which say they Camero calls a Schism by way of Eminency and further tells us There are Four Causes that make a Separation from a Church lawful 1. When they that Separate are grievously and intollerably Persecuted 2. When the Church they Separate from is Heretical 3. When it is Idolatrous 4. When it is the Seat of Antichrist And where none of these four are found there the Separation is insufficient and Schism Now we are fully assured that none of these Four Causes can be justly charg'd upon our Congregations therefore you must not be displeased with us but with your selves if we blame you as guilty of positive Schism All which is as true now as it was then and as applicable to us and them as it was to them and their Dissenters Admit then there were some things in our Constitution that might be contrived to better purposes and that needed Amendment and Alteration yet I hope every Defect or supposed Corruption in a Church is not a sufficient ground for Separation or warrant enough to rend and tear the Church in pieces Let Mr. Calvin judge between us in this matter Institut lib. 4. Sect. 10 11 12. fol. 349. who says That wherever the Word of God is duely Preached and reverently attended to and the true use of the Sacraments kept up there is the plain Appearance of a true Church whose Authority no Man may safely despise or reject its Admonitions or resist its Counsels or set at nought its Discipline much less Separate from it and Violate its Unity for that our Lord has so great regard to the Communion of his Church that he accounts him an Apostate from his Religion who obstinately Separates from any Christian Society which keeps up the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments that such a Separation is a denial of God and Christ and that it is a dangerous and pernicious Temptation so much as to think of Separating from such a Church the Communion whereof is never to be rejected so long as it continues in the true use of the Word and Sacraments though otherwise it be over-run with many Blemishes and Corrupons Which is as plain and full a Determination of the Case as if he had particularly designed it against the Doctrine and Practice of the Modern Dissenters from our Church IV. Fourthly We entreat them to Consider Whether it be pure Conscience and mere Zeal for the Honour of Religion and not very often Discontent or Trade and Interest that has the main stroke in keeping them from Communion with our Church Far be it from me to judge the Secrets of Mens Hearts or to fasten such a Charge on the whole Body of Dissenters yea I accuse not any particular Person but only desire they would lay their Hand upon their Hearts and deal impartially with themselves and say whether they stand clear before God in this matter And there is the more Reason to put Men upon this Enquiry not only because Secular Ends are very apt to mix with and shelter themselves under the shadow of Religion but because this has been an old Artifice made use of to promote Separation Thus the Donatists in the Primitive Times upheld their Separation from the Catholick Church and kept their Party fast together by Trading only within themselves by imploying none to Till their Grounds or be their Stewards but those that would be of their side nay and sometimes hiring Persons by large Sums of Money to be Baptiz'd into their Party as Crispin did the People of Mappalia And how evident the same Policy is among our Modern Vid. Aug. Epist 173. ad Crisp Quakers is too notorious to need either Proof or Observation Time was when it was made an Argument to prove Independency to be a Faction and not Edward's further Discovery p. 185. matter of Conscience because Needy broken decayed Men who knew not how to live and hoped to get something turned Independents and became Sticklers for it that some who had businesses Causes and Matters depending struck in with them and pleaded for them that so they might find Friends be sooner dispatched and fare better in their Causes that Ambitious Proud Covetous Men who had a mind to Offices places of profit about the Army Excise c. turned about to the Independents and were great Zealots for them Thus it was then and whether the same Leaven do not still spread and ferment and perhaps as much as ever there is just cause to suspect Whoever looks into the Trading part of this City and indeed of the whole Nation must needs be a very heedless and indiligent Observer if he do not take notice how Interests are formed and by what Methods Parties and Factions are kept up how many Thousands of the Poorer sort of Dissenters depend on this or that Man for their Work and consequently for their Livelihood and Subsistence how many depend upon others for their Trade and Custom whom accordingly these Men can readily Command and do produce to give Votes and increase Parties on all Publick Occasions and what little Encouragement any Man finds from them that once deserts them and comes over to the Church of England There is another thing that contributes not a little to this Jealousie and Suspicion that many of the Chiefest and most Stiff and Zealous of the Dissenting Party are they at least the immediate Descendants of those who in the late Evil-Times by Rapine and Violence shared among themselves the Revenues of the Church and the Patrimony of the Crown and are said still privately to keep on foot their Titles to them And if so what wonder if such Men look on themselves as obliged in point of Interest to widen Breaches foment Differences increase Factions and all this to Subvert and over-turn the Church of England being well assured they can never hope but over the Ruines of this Church to make way to their once sweet Possessions Let Men therefore impartially examine themselves and search whether a Worldly Spirit be not at the bottom of their Zeal and Stiffness These I confess are Designs too Base and Sordid to be owned above Board but be not Deceived God is not Mocked Man looks to the outward Appearance but God looks to the Heart V. Fifthly
Church since the Apostles Times that had not its Rites and Ceremonies as many if not more in number and as liable to exception as those that are used in our Church at this Day nay there are few things if any at all required by our Constitution which were not in use in the best Ages of Christianity This were it my design I might demonstrate by an Induction of particulars but it is fully done by other Hands I shall therefore only as a Specimen instance in One and the rather because 't is so much boggled at viz. The Sign of the Cross in Baptism which we are sure was a Common and Customary Rite in the time of Tertullian and St. Cyprian the latter whereof says oft enough that being Regenerated Cypr. adv Demetr p. 203. de Vnit Eccl. p. 185. vid. de Laps p. 169. Bas. de Spir. S. c. 27. Tert. de Coron mil. c. 3. that is Baptized they were Signed with the Sign of Christ that they were Signed on their Foreheads wbo were thought worthy to be admitted into the fellowship of our Lords Religion And St. Basil plainly puts it amongst those Ancient Customs of the Church which had been derived from the Apostles Nay Tertullian assures us that they used it in the most common Actions of Life that upon every motion at their going out and coming in at their going to Bath or to Bed or to Meals or whatever their Occasions called them to they were wont to make the Sign of the Cross on their Fore-heads and therefore 't is no wonder that they should never omit it in the most Solemn Act of their being initiated into the Christian Faith And now let our Dissenting-Brethren seriously reflect whether the Constant and Uniform Practice of the Church in all times be not a mighty Testimony against their Separating from us upon the account of those things which were used in the wisest best and happiest Ages of the Gospel and when their Separation upon this account can in point of Example pretend not to much more than a Hundred Years Countenance and Authority to Support and Shelter it And yet it has not that neither for I could easily shew that most if not all the Usages of our Church are either practised in Foreign See Durels view of the Government and publick worship of God 1662. Churches or at least allowed of by the most Learned and Eminent Divines of the Reformation whose Testimonies to this purpose are particularly enumerated and ranked under their proper Heads by Mr. Sprint in his * * * p. 123 124 c. Cassander Anglicanus which they that are curious may Consult VI. Sixthly We beg that those who by their Conformity have declared that they can close with our Communion would still continue in the Communiâ—n of our Church This is a Request so reasonable that I hope it cannot fairly be denied Whatever Dissaâ—tsfactions others may alledge to keep them at a distance from us these Men can have nothing to pretend having actually shewed that they can do it For I am not willing to think that herein such Men acted against their Consciences or did it meerly to secure a gainful Office or a place of Trust or to escape the Lash and Penalty of the Law These are Ends so very Vile and Sordid so Horrible a prostitution of the Holy Sacrament the most Venerable Mystery of our Religion so deliberate a way of Sinning even in the most Solemn Acts of Worship that I can hardly suspect any should be guilty of it but Men of Proflâ—gate and Atheistical Mindâ— who have put off all Sence of God and Banished all Reverence of Religion I would fain belâ—eve that when any of our Brethren receive the Sacrament with us they are fully persuaded of the lawfulness of it and that the Principle that brings them thither is the Conscience of their Duty But then I know not how to Answer it why the same Principle that brings them thither at one time should not bring them also at another and that we should never have their company at that Solemn and Sacred Ordinance but when the fear of some Temporal Punishment or the prospect of some Secular Advantage prompts them to it 'T is commonly blamed in those of the Romish Church that they can dispence with Oaths and receive Sacraments to serve a turn and to advance the Interest of their Cause But God forbid that so heavy a Charge should ever lie at the Doors of Protestants and especially those who would be thought most to abhor Popish Practices and who would take it ill to be accounted not to make as much if not more Conscience of their ways than other Men. Now I beseech our Dissenting or rather Inconstant Brethren to reason a little if our Communion be sinful why did they enter into it if it be lawful why do they forsake it is it not that which the Commands of Authority have tied upon us and whose Commands we are bound to submit to not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Are not the Peace and Unity of the Church things that ought greatly to sway with all Sober Humble and Considering Christians Does not the Apostle say that if it be possible and as muâ—â— as in us lies we are to live Peaceably with all Men And shall Peace be broken only in the Church where it ought to be kept most entire And that by those who acknowledge it to be possible and within their power Are they satisfied in their Consciences to join in Communion with us and will they not do it for the sake of the Church of God Or will they refuse to do what is lawful and as the Case stands necessary in order to Peace only because Authority Commands it and has made it their Duty Oh Sirs I beseech you by all that 's Dear and Sacred to assist and help us and not strengthen the Hands of those who by a Causeless and Unjustifiable Separation endeavour to rend and destroy the best Church in the whole Christian World VII Seventhly We beg of them that they would Consider what Sad and Deplorable Mischiefs have ensued upon bearing down the Constitution of the Church of England This is matter of Fact and whereof many yet alive were made sensible by Woful Experience Omitting what may seem of a little more remote Consideration the Blood and Treasure the Spoils and Ravages of the late War the Enslaving and Oppressing all Ranks of Men and what is above all the Murder of an excellent and incomparable Prince I shall instance in a few particulars which were the more immediate Effects of it And First No sooner was the Church of England thrown down but what Monstrous Swarms of Errours and Heresies broke in upon us both for Number and Impiety beyond whatever had been heard â—f in the Church of God And here I need go no further than the sad account which Mr. Edwards has given us in the several parts of his Gangraena
owned it at his Condemnation that perhaps he thought Colemans Tryal p. 101. Def. of his Answ to the Admonit p. 349. that Popery might come in if Liberty of Conscience had been granted And this is that which wise Arch-Bishop Whitgift long ago foresaw would come to pass when he told the Dissenters of those Days I am persuaded that Anti-Christ worketh effectually at this Day by our Stirs and Contentions whereby he hath and will more prevail against this Church of England then by any other means whatsoever And now upon the whole matter I desire our Dissenting Brethren to consider whether the orderly and truly Primitive Constitution of the Church of England or Innovation Schism and Separation be the likelier way to keep out Popery and do therefore Conjure them by all the Kindness which they pretend for the Protestant Religion heartily to join in Communion with us as which I believe humanely speaking to be if not the only at least the only safe and durable means of shutting Popery for ever out of Doors IX Ninthly We desire of them that if neither these nor any other Advices and Considerations can prevail with them they would at least cease to Reproach the Government for Reviving the Execution of the Laws about these matters I know it is very natural to Men to complain when any thing pinches them but then they ought to be so just as to consider whose fault it is that has brought it upon them The Laws in this case were framed with great Advice and upon dear bought Experience and every Nation in the World thinks it self obliged when no other ways will do it by Penalties to secure the Publick Peace Safety and Tranquility of the State though it may sometimes press hard in some particular Cases when Men through Fancy Humour Mistake or Design especially about little and as themselves confess indifferent matters shall endanger the Publick Welfare and by an ill Example expose the Reverence and Majesty of the Laws And yet notwithstanding all this and a great deal more that might be said we find them at every turn charging the Government for using them Cruelly and with the hardest Measure censuring their Superiours and speaking Evil of Dignities and this not only the Cry of the mean and common Sort but of their chiefest Leaders even to this Hour It being no hard matter but that I love not to exasperate to instance in several things that are no very good Arguments of that Obedient Patience which some of them so much pretend to It is far from my Temper to delight in Cruelty much more to plead for Severity to be used towards Dissenting Brethren and therefore should have said nothing in this Argument were it not necessary to Vindicate the Government which upon these occasions I have so often heard Blamed and Censured I would these Persons who complain so much would consider a while how their Predecessors were dealt with in the times of the good Queen Elizabeth which will appear either from the Laws then made or from the Proceedings then had against them The Laws then made against them were chiefly these In the First of the Queen An Act for the Vniformity of Common-Prayer c. wherein among other Clauses and Penalties it is provided That if any Person shall in any Playes Songs Rhimes or by other open Words declare or speak any thing in the derogation depraving or despising the Book of Common-Prayer or any thing therein contained being thereof lawfully convicted he shall forfeit for the first Offence an hundred for the second four hundred Marks for the Third all his Goods and Chattels and shall suffer Imprisonment during Life A Clause which had it been kept up in its due Life and Power our Liturgy and Divine Offices had been Treated with much more Respect and Reverence then I am sure they have met with especially of late In Her Fifth Year an Act was passed for the due Execution of the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo amongst others particularly levelled against such as refuse to receive the Holy Communion or to come to Divine Service as now commonly used in the Church of England with severe Penalties upon those that shall not yield up themselves to the same Writ Anno. 13. passed an Act of general Pardon but it was with an Exception of all those that had committed any Offence against the Act for the Vniformity of Common-Prayer or were Publishers of Seditious Books or Disturbers of Divine Service Anno 23. By an Act to retain the Queen's Majesty's Subjects in their due Obedience it is provided That every Person above the Age of Sixteen Years which shall not repair to some Church or usual place of Common-Prayer but forbear the same by the space of a Month shall for every such Moth forfeit Twenty Pounds Which Act was again Confirmed and Ratified by another in the 29th Year of Her Reign with many Clauses and Provisions for the better Execution of it And by the Act of the 35th of Her Reign If any Person so forbearing shall willingly joyn in or be present at any Assemblies Conventicles and Meetings under colour or pretence of any Exercise of Religion contrary to the Laws of the Realm such Person being lawfully Convicted shall be Imprisoned without Bail or Mainprize untill he Conform and if he do not that within Three Months he shall be obliged to Abjure the Realm and if refusing to Abjure or returning without Licence he shall be Adjudged a Felon and suffer as in case of Felony without benefit of Clergy Such were Her Laws and such also were Her Proceedings against those who faultered in their Conformity or began to Innovate in the Discipline of the Church and these Proceedings as quick and smart as any can be said to be against the Dissenters of this time Do they complain of their Ministers being Silenced now so they were then being deprived of their Benefices and Church-Preferments for their Inconformity Thus Sampson was turned out of his Deanry oâ— christ-Christ-Church for refusing to Conform to the Orders and Ceremonies of the Church Cartwright the very Head of them Expelled the Colledge and deprived of the Lady Margarets Lecture Travers turned out from Preaching at the Temple with many more Suspended from the Ministry by the Queens Authority and the Approbation of the Bishops for not Subscribing to some new Rites and Ceremonies imposed upon them as appears from Beza's Letter to Bez. Epist 8. Bishop Grindal Anno 1566. Are any in Prison so they were then Benson Button Hallingham Cartwright Knewstubbs and many others some in the Marshalsey others in the White-Lion some in the Gatehouse others in the Counter or in the Clink or in Bridewel or in Newgate Poor Men miserably handled with Revilings Deprivations Imprisonments Banishments if we may believe what themselves tell us both in the First and Second Admonition And what is yet far beyond any thing which God be thanked our Dissenters can pretend to complain of