of Christ and no member of his Body which is the Church 4. That no Church-state can depend upon human Contracts and Covenants for then a Church would be a human Creature and a human Constitution whereas a Church can be founded only upon a Divine Covenant It is true no man who is at age can be admitted to Baptism till he profess his Faith in Christ and voluntarily undertake the Baptismal Vow but the Independent Church-Covenant betwixt Pastor and People is of a very different Nature from this unless any man will say that the voluntary contract and Covenant which the Independents exact from their members and wherein they place a Church-state be part of the Baptismal Vow If it be not then they found the Church upon a human Covenant for Christ hath made but one Covenant with Mankind which is contained in the Vow of Baptism If it be then no Man is a Christian but an Independent and then they would do well to shew how the Baptismal Vow which is but one and the same for all Mankind determines one Man to be a fixt member of Dr. Owens Church another of Mr. Griffiths or any other Independent Pastors and if they could get over this difficulty there is another still why they exact this Church-Covenant of Baptized Christians before they will admit them to their Communion if Baptism makes them members of their Church This I think makes it plain that the Independent Church-Covenant is no part of the Baptismal Vow and then it is no part of the Christian Covenant and if there be no true Church-state but what depends on such human Contracts then the Church owes its being to the will of Men not to the Covenant of God 5. I observe farther how absurd it is to gather Churches out of Churches which already consist of Baptized Christians Christianity indeed separates us from the rest of the World but surely it does not separate Christians from each other The Apostles only undertook to Convert Jews and Heathens to the Christian Faith and to make them members of the Christian Church which is a state of separation from the World but these Men Convert Christians from Common Christianity and the Communion of the universal Church to Independency If the Church be founded on a divine Covenant we know no Church but what all Christians are made members of by Baptism which is the universal Church the one Body and Spouse of Christ And to argue from the Apostles gathering Churches from among Jews and Heathens to prove the gathering Churches out of a Christian and National Church must either conclude that a Church and Church-state is a very indifferent and Arbitrary thing and that Men may be very good Christians and in a safe condition without it or that Baptized Christians who are not members of a particular Independent Church are no better than Jews and Heathens that is that Baptism it self though a Divine Sacrament and Seal of the Covenant is of no value till it be confirmed and ratified by a human Independent Covenant 6. I observe that if the Christian Church be founded on a Divine Covenant on that new Covenant which God hath made with Mankind in Christ then there is but one Church of which all Christians are members as there is but one Covenant into which we are all admitted by Baptism For the Church and the Covenant must be of an equal extent There can be but one Church founded upon one Covenant and all who have an interest in the same Covenant are members of the same Church And therefore tho the distance of place and the necessities and conveniences of Worship and Discipline may and has divided the Church into several parts and members and particular Churches yet the Church cannot be divided into two or more distinct and separate Churches for that destroys the unity of the Church and unless they could divide the Covenant also two Churches which are not members of each other cannot partake in the same Covenant but the guilty Divider forfeits his interest in the Covenant without a new grant A Prince indeed may grant the same Charter to several distinct Cities and Corporations but then tho the matter of the Charter be the same their right to it depends upon distinct Grants But if he grant a Charter for the Erecting of such a Corporation and confine his Charter to the members of that Corporation those who wilfully separate themselves from this Corporation to which this Charter was granted forfeit their interest in the Charter and must not think to Erect a new distinct Corporation by the same Charter Thus it is here God hath made a Covenant oâ— grace with Mankind in Christ and declares that by this one Covenant he unites all the Disciples of Christ into one Body and Christian Church who shall all partake of the Blessings of this Covenant By Baptism we are all received into this Covenant and admitted members of this one Church now while we continue in the Unity of this Body it is evident that we have a right to all the Blessings of the Covenant which are promised to this Body and to every member of it But if we divide our selves from this Body and set up distinct and separate Societies which we call Churches but which are not members nor live in Communion with the one Catholick Church we cannot carry our Right and Title to the Covenant out of the Church with us The Gospel-Covenant is the common Charter of the Christian-Church and if we are not contented to enjoy these Blessings in common with other Christians we must be contented to go without them For it is not a particular Covenant which God makes with particular Separate Churches but a general Covenant made with the whole Body of Christians as United in one Communion and therefore that which no particular Church has any interest in but as it is a member of the universal Church God hath not made any Covenant in particular with the Church of Geneva of France or England but with the one Body and Church of Christ all the World over and therefore the only thing that can give us in particular a right to the Blessings of the Covenant is that we observe the conditions of this Covenant and live in Unity and Communion with all true Christian Churches in the World which makes us members of the Catholick Church to whom the Promises are made Secondly The next thing to be explained is what is meant by Church-Communion Now Church-Communion signifies no more then Church-Fellowship and Society and to be in Communion with the Church is to be a member of the Church and this is called Communion because all Church members have a common right to Church Priviledges and a common Obligation to all those Duties and Offices which a Church relation Exacts from them I know this word Communion is commonly used to signifie a Personal and presential Communion in Religious Offices as when Men pray and hear and receive
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
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
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
can or will do in some extraordinary cases when Communion with a true visible Church cannot be had as in a general Apostacy of the Church or Persecution for Religion or unjust Excommunication but what is God's ordinary method and means of bringing Men to salvation and that he himself tells us is by adding them to the Church and the Lord added to the Church daily Acts 2. 47. such as should be saved To this purpose we may observe not only in general that whatever Christ did and suffered for Mankind 't was for them as incorporated into a Church Christ loved his Church and gave himself Eph. 5. 25. for it Christ redeem'd his Church with his own Acts 26. 28. blood Christ is the saviour of the body that is the Eph. 5. 23. Church But also in particular that the Apostle confines the influences and operations of the spirit to the unity of the Church there is one body and one spirit Upon this account viz. the efficacy of the means afforded Eph. 4. 4. in Christ's Church and the necessity of keeping in Communion with it in order to salvation was it that the Primitive Christians lookt upon it as so dreadful a thing to be shut or cast out of it as laughing a matter as some now adays make it as much as they slight the priviledg and benefit to be of Christ's Church and count it their glory and saintship voluntarily to cut off themselves from it I am sure the Primitive Christians had a far different opinion of it with them to be cast Nam judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos c. Tert. Apol. out of the Church and to be deliver'd up to Satan signified the same thing and the one accounted full as dreadful a doom as the other hence was it that this sentance was rarely past against an offender but with 1 Cor. 5 2. grief and sorrow in him that was forc'd to do it and that those against whom it was past us'd the most ardent importunities and were willing to undergo the severest penances in order to be restored into the bosom of it you might have beheld them kissing the chains of imprison'd Martyrs washing the feet of Lazars Nazion 12. Or. wallowing at the Temple-doors on their knees begging the Prayers of Saints you might have seen them stript and naked their hair neglected their bodies whither'd their eyes dejected and sometimes crying out in the words of David as the great Theodosius Theod. H. Eccl. 5. c. 15. in the state of penance My soul cleaveth to the dust quicken thou me O Lord according to thy Word Thus much seems to be enough to be said on the Second Proposition but that our passage to the Third may be the clearer I shall add a little by way of Answer to an Objection or two that lies in our way And the first is Obj. Do not all the Members of Christ's Church that come to the blessed Sacrament having not the power of Godliness as well as the Form come unworthily and to their own great sin and danger no less than being guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ and eating and 1 Cor. 11. 27 29. drinking their own damnation And can they have a right to that they are so unworthy of In doing which they sin so hainously and for doing which they shall be punished so severely Answ I Answer these two things 1. All even the best men in a strict legal sense are unworthy and that even of common mercies from God much more of this prime Duty and Priviledg of Christianity Every man in his best estate is altogether vanity We are all an unclean thing and our righteousness Psal 39. 5. is as filthy rags The meaning is all men are Isa 39. 5. sinners and their best services imperfect and impure But then the right they have to this Priviledg does not depend on their own merit and worth but as was said before on the promise of God when they enter'd at first into covenant with him whereby he was pleas'd to oblige himself to be their God so far and so long as they continued to be his people 2. Those Members that we have asserted to have a right to the external Priviledges of Christ's Church are not guilty of that unworthiness St. Paul speaks of the sin and danger whereof is so great and this will appear by the description he gives of those unworthy Communicants 1. They discern'd not the Lord's body he that eats this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Chrysost 1 Cor. 11. 27. Dr. Lightf in loc bread and drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of Christ how not discerning the Lord's body It may be they did eat it still as a part of the Jewish Passover they understood not the nature of it what it did represent or for what end it was instituted being ignorant of the infinite value and merit of Christ's blood not at all affected with the greatness of his love nor wrought upon by the infiniteness of his mercy and altogether as void of any sincere affection and gratitude to Christ for that mighty redemption he wrought for mankind as the Jew and Pagan that neither know nor believe in him 2. They were open and scandalous sinners The Apostles charges them with Schisms and Divisions 18 21 22 ver pride and contempt of their brethren sensuality and drunkenness In those early days of Christianity the Lord's Supper was usually usher'd in with a Love-feast that was eaten just before it but so unchristian were these Corinthians that every one took before other his own Supper they run into parties and tho' they had not yet left the place they refus'd to communicate at the same time with their brethren The rich despis'd and excluded the poor that came not so well provided as they from their feast and that which was yet an higher aggravation of their sin the poor were hungry whilst the rich fed and pamper'd ther bodies to excess and luxury When ye come together says he this is not to eat the Lord's Supper this is no fit preparation for it for in eating every one takes before other his own supper and one is hungry and another is drunken such Swine as these ought not indeed to come to the Holy Table of our Lord and such as these as I said in the beginning of my Discourse on this Proposition have forfeited their right to it and ought by the Censures of the Church to be excluded This indeed is to be unworthy with a witness to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ or as St. Paul sometimes words it in the case of Apostacy and other hainous sins to crucifie Heb. 6. 6. Heb. 10. 16. afresh the Lord of Life to tread under foot the Son of God and to count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing that is in an high degree to despise
endeavour to inform his Judgment aright in the matters that offend his Conscience before he withdraw his Obedience from his Lawful Governours and his Communion from those that Worship God in Publick under them It appears likewise that it is not enough to justifie a Mans Separation that this or the other thing in our Worship is really against his Conscience for he may be a great Sinner notwithstanding that for leaving our Assemblies if it should prove at last that he is mistaken in his Notions What therefore should every Dissenter among us do that hath any regard to his Duty and would preserve a good Conscience I say what is there that more concerns him to do than presently to set about the true informing of his Judgment in the points where he is now dissatisfi'd for â—ear he be found to live in a grievous Sin all the time he Separates from us And therefore let no Man that Lives out of our Communion satisfie himself with such frivolous pretences as these That as for all the Substantials of Religion the matters of Faith and Good Life they do agree with us and that as for the other matters which concern Ceremonies and Discipline these are Nice Controverted Points Points disputed pro and contra amongst the Divines And therefore why should they trouble their Heads about them nay perhaps if they should they have neither Abilities nor Opportunities to understand them It must be confessed that something of this is true But yet it is nothing to their purpose It is very well that we all agree in the Rule of Faith and Manners and it would be happy if all the Christian World did so too But still Schism is a dreadful Sin And a Man may as certainly without Repentance be damned for that as for being an Heretick in his Opinion or a Drunkard for instance in his Manners Sure I am the Ancient Christian Fathers thought so It is true likewise that the business of Church Government and Discipline and other Points of Ecclesiastical Conformity is a matter of Dispute and Controversy among us But who is it that made it so The Church of England without doubt would have been very well pleased if there had been no dust raised no dispute or contentions moved in these matters but that every Member would have done his Duty peaceably and quietly in his Station Or that if any Controversy had arose it should have been debated among Learned Men and never have proceeded to Separation from the Communion We do not pretend to lay any stress upon Skill and Knowledg about these matters in Order to a Mans Salvation We believe and teach that a Man may be a very good Christian and go to Heaven that never understood how to justifie the Cross in Baptism or to defend the Common Prayer Book against all the Exceptions that are made against it All that we say is that if any Man will scruple and except against the use of these things it lyes upon him nay he is bound as he would keep a good Conscience to use the best means he possibly can to get Satisfaction about them Or if he do not at his own Peril be it nay even at the Peril of his Salvation if he breaks the Churches Peace and Communion upon that Account And as for those that pretend that these are Subtil Points and above their Reach and Capacity and they have not understanding and Wit enough to dive into them Why in Gods Name who desires them We say that they might Innocently enough and with a good Conscience comply with their Governours in these Points as they do in a hundred others without ever diving into them But since it seems they have Wit and Vnderstanding enough to cavil and find fault with these things and upon that Account to deny their Obedience to those Lawful Powers which God hath set over them One would think they should at the same time have so much Honesty as seriously to endeavour to give themselves Satisfaction as to those things they find fault with And this is all we desire of them And it is for their own sakes too as well as ours that we desire it For otherwise they will never be able to answer either to God or Man for the horrible Inconveniences and mischiefs that arise to the Church of Christ by the Division and Separation which they are engaged in To conclude if in any Instance that Famous Precept of the Apostle of proving all things and holding fast that which is good do Oblige Christians it doth especially in this If ever it be a Mans Duty to satisfie himself about the goodness and Lawfulness of a thing that he is apt to doubt of it is certainly in the Case where his Superiours have laid their Commands upon him For there he cannot disobey without Sin unless he can assure himself that he hath done all that he can to reconcile their Commands with his Duty to God but upon the best means he hath used he finds them irreconcileable For a Man to disobey till he has done this is an unwarrantable thing and in the Case that I now speak of it is no less than the Sin of Formal Criminal Schism FINIS A DISCOURSE OF CONSCIENCE THE SECOND PART Concerning a Doubting Conscience LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishops-Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1685. THE CASE OF A Doubting Conscience I Have in a former Discourse spoken to the Case of those Dissenters who separate from the Established Church for this Reason That they are Perswaded that they cannot Lawfully joyn in our Communion I now come to speak to the Case of those who separate from us for a less Reason viz. Because they Doubt whether they may lawfully Communicate with us or no and so long as they thus Doubt they dare not come near us because they fear they should sin against God if they should do any Action with a doubting Conscience To this indeed a short Answer might be given from the former Discourse and that is this That let the Obligation of a doubting Conscience be as great as we can reasonably suppose it yet if Communion with our Church as it is Established be really a Duty then a Mans Doubts concerning the Lawfulness of it will not make it cease to be so or justifie his Separation from it For if a Manssetled Perswasion that an Action is unlawful will not ordinarily acquit him from Sin if he omit that Action supposing Gods Law hath commanded it as I there shew'd much less will a mans bare Doubt concerning the Lawfulness of an Action justifie his Omission of it in such a Case But because this Answer seems rather to cut the Knot than to unty it it is my meaning in the following Discourse particularly to examine and discuss this Plea of a Doubting Conscience and to shew what little force there is in it to keep any man from Conformity that would otherwise Conform Hoping that some Reader whose Case this
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
ac tantae in unam fidem erraverint Nullus inter multos eventus unus est Exitus variasse debueâ—at error doctrinae Ecclesiarum Quod autem apud multos unum invenitur non est eâ—ratum sed traditum Tertull. de praescriptione Haeret. c. 28. Churches erred they would have varied saith Tertullian but what is one and the same amongst them all proceeds not from error but Tradition Or as St. †††De Baptismo contra Donat. l. 4. c. 24. Augustine saith upon this Subject That which the Universal Church doth hold and was never instituted by Councils but was always retained in the Church we most rightly believe to have descended from nothing less than Apostolical Tradition * * * Cassand advers Anabapt p. 675. Menno one of the most learned of the Anabaptists about the time of the Reformation was so pressed with this way of arguing that he acknowledged Infant-Baptism to be as old as the time of the Apostles but then he said it proceeded from false-Apostles and false-Teachers in the Apostles times But if it came first from false Apostles and false-Teachers in the time of the Apostles how came it to pass that we heard nothing of that Innovation in the Writings of the Apostles or of their Companions and Contemporaries such as St. Clement St. Ignatius St. Polycarp c How came St. John who survived unto the latter end of the first Century to pass it over in silence or how came the Spirit in the Revelations which by his Pen reproved so many abuses in the Churches not to censure this It is very strange that none of the Pen-men of the Holy-Ghost nor none of their Assistants and Companions should animadvert upon so scandalous an abuse of the Holy-Ordinance of Baptism which in a short time would fill the Church with sham Christians and destroy the Essence thereof In like manner if it came in by false Teachers in the next Age to the Apostles how came it to pass that none of the famous Saints and Martyrs who flourished then opposed it as a dangerous Innovation nor gave us any account thereof They wrote against the Heresies of Simon Menander Saturnus Cerinthus Ebion Valentinus Basilides Marcion c. but we find nothing in them against Infant-Baptism though we are sure from * * * Omnes enim venit Christus per semet ipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur ad deum infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores i. e. Christ came to save all by himself all I say who by him are born again to God Infants and little Ones and Boys and Young and Old In the Ancient Writers Baptism is called Regeneration and Baptized Persons are said to be Regenerate or born again according to the Scripture which calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. Hence saith Just Mart. Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So hath Phavorinus observed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy Baptism is called Regeneration and those who would see more proofs of it may consult Suicerus in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Ham. on Matth. 19. 28. John 3. 5. Selden de jure l. 2. c. 4. But if after all this evidence any Anabaptist will say that renascuntur in this place of Irenaeus doth not signifie Baptized or born again of Water then it must signifie Regenerated or born again of the Spirit and if Infants and little Ones can be born again of the Spirit then they are capable of being born again of Water or of being Baptized as Vossius argues disp de Baptismo p. 181. Irenaeus and †††De Baptisma Where what he speaks about deferring the Baptism of Infants shews that it was the practice of the Christians in that Age Pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio Baptismi utilior est praecipuè tamen circa parvulos Quid enim necesse est si non tum necesse sponsores periculo ingeri Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum But this Opinion of his that it was more convenient to defer the Baptism of Infants was his own singular opinion as much as that was of deferring the Baptism of Virgins and Widows till they were Married which follows in the next words Non minore de causâ innupti procrastinandi c. And he shews the same cause why he would have the Baptism of Children and un-married Women deferred for fear they should be tempted to renounce Christ after Baptism Siqui pondus intelligant Baptismi magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem fides integra secura est de salute But then how absolutely necessary he thought Baptism for Infants in case of extream danger is evident from other Passages as Cap. 13. Quum vero praescribitur nomini sine Baptismo competere salutem and Cap. 17. Sufficiat scilicet in necessitatibus utaris sicubi aut loci aut temporis aut personae conditio compellit Tunc enim constantia succurrentis excipitur quoniam reus erit perditi hominis si supersederet praestare quod liberè potuit So likewise in his Book de anima Cap. 39. Adeo nulla fermè Nativitas munda est Ethnicorum Alioquin meminerat dominicae definitionis nisi quis nascatur ex aquâ Spiritu non ibit in regnum Dei i. e. Non erit Sanctus Ita omnis anima eousque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiù recenseatur Tertullian that it was practised in that Age. Ignatius Polycarp Papias who were all the * * * Act. Mart. Ignat. Scholars of St. John as likewise Justin Martyr Athenagoras and Hegesippus were all contemporary with Irenaeus who was a a a Ep. Irenaei ad Florinum advers Haeres l. 3. cap. 3. l. 5. cap. 33. the Disciple of Polycarp and who as he tells us in several places of his Works conversed with several Antient b b b Epist ad Florinum advers Haeres lib. 2. cap. 39. Presbyters that had lived in the Apostles times of whom he had enquired after the Apostles practices and yet this inquisitive Father says nothing against Infant-Baptism though we are sure from him and his contemporary Tertullian that it was then of general practice in the Church What meaned all these Men to let such a pestilent practice pass uncondemned which in a short time would leave none in the Church but Mock Christians and so prevail against the Catholick Church which our Lord promised the Gates of Hell should not prevail against What would not the Holy Ghost preserve so much as one Church among so many from such a dangerous error but suffer them all to embrace it without Opposition * * * Nunc omnes Ecclesiae erraverint deceptus sit Apostolus de Testimonio reddendo Nullam respexerit Spiritus Sanctus uti eam in
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
great Significations in them had not the express Institution of God for their warranty and yet were well enough receiv'd in the purest times of the Jewish Church and comply'd with by our Saviour himself Secondly take we a view of the Christian Church and that both as to the first ages of it and all the later Reformations that have been made 1. We may observe even from the days of the Apostles themselves the Church hath taken the Liberty of making use of one Rite or other that hath signifi'd things of greatest weight and moment to instance in a twofold Custom primitively us'd amongst Christians that lookt much more Sacramentally than our use of the Cross in Baptism that is the institution of them seem'd Apostolical being frequently mentioned in their Holy writings and they were immediatly annext to the Holy Eucharist and in their Signification bore some analogy with what that Sacrament it self was in part the token and seal of these were the Holy Kiss and the Agapae or Feasts of Charity The Holy Kiss was perform'd as the best Writers generally conceive after all other preparations immediatly before they entred upon the Celebration of the Dr. Caves prim Christ part 1 Chap. 11. p. 346. 352. Lord's Supper and at the close and upshot of the whole Solemnity from whence Tertullian gives it the term of signaculum orationis the Seal of Prayer This the Apostle is suppos'd to direct to when he enjoyns the Corinthians 1 Cor. 16. 20. to greet one another with an holy kiss And this was kept Quae oratio cum divortio sancti osculi integra Tert. de orat up with that Reverence in Tertullian's time that he speaks as if the Service of the Publick Prayers were maim'd and imperfect if it concluded not with this kiss This was us'd in token of the mutual Communion and Fellowship that Christians had with one another and the unfeigned reconciliation of their Minds that they came with no inward heart-burnings against one another being that great Christian Grace and Vertue so much insisted upon in our Saviour's Gospel and after that by his Apostles made one great Evidence of the Professors having pass'd from Death to Life And yet that this custom had not its Foundation in any Divine Appointment but the voluntary use the Church made of it seems agreed to on all hands because afterward it is not only prohibited by some Councils but by an universal consent in all Churches wholly laid aside and grown out of all use Again we may observe as to that custom of the Agapae or Feasts of Charity which in the Apostles days 1 Cor. 11. 20 21. probably were celebrated immediately before the Lords Supper and in some Ages afterward not till the Holy Communion was finished But whether they had them before or after it is certain they had great Significations in them not only of Christians mutual Love and Communion but also of the equal regards that God and our Blessed Lord had toward all sorts and conditions of Men the poor as well as the rich those of meaner degree and quality as well as the high and noble when they were all to eat freely together at one common meal This the Apostle seems to point at in the remarks he makes upon the disorders in the Church at Corinth that in their Love-Feasts every one taketh before other his own Supper and so did despise the Church of God And those that had Houses to Eat and Drink in sham'd those that had not Now though this custom was hallowed by the practice of the Apostles and had so great Significations in it and was from the first so annext to the Holy Eucharist that it always either begun or concluded it and consequently lookt much more Sacramentally than our Sign of the Cross in Baptism can be suppos'd to do yet is it plain by the universal disuse of it in these later ages of the Church that it self never was esteem'd any Sacrament I might further instance in the Ceremony of insufflation or breathing upon the Person that was to be Baptis'd Aug. de nupt concup lib. 2. 29. call'd by one of the Fathers an ancient Tradition which they us'd as a sign of expelling the Evil Spirit and breathing into them the good Spirit this seem'd to signifie more the Grace of God than Duty of the Christian and yet not suspected as any Sacrament Thus the Baptized Persons stripping of his Garment in token that he put off the Old Man which was corrupt according to his deceitful Lusts doth it not look full as Sacramentally as our Cross in Baptism Yet we find it anciently practis'd without any jealousie of invading the prerogative of Christ in instituting Holy Sacraments To say no more what think we of the trine immersion once accounted a pious usage in the Church whereby the Person being thrice dipt or put under water at the mention of each Person of the Trinity was suppos'd to be Baptiz'd in the beleif of that great Article So Tertullian expresseth it Nam nec semel Advers Praxeam Again in lib de Coron milit sed ter ad singula nomina in Personas singulas tingimur We are dipped not once but three times at each name and so are Baptiz'd into the three Persons And besides this Signification of the three Persons by this threefold immersion which Tertullian and not only he but St. Ambrose have mention'd there are others of the Fathers that have suppos'd the Death the Burial and the Resurrection of our Saviour together with his being in the Grave three days was signifi'd by this custom And yet was this so far from being accounted any Sacrament of it self or a Sacrament within that of Baptism that the Church hath thought fit to lay Immersion aside for the generality and the threefold Immersion much sooner particularly in Spain and that upon a reason that made the single dipping as significant as the Trine had been when it was in use viz to distinguish themselves from the Arrians who had taken occasion from this threefold dipping in Baptism to assert the three distinct substances pretending a Testimony from the Catholick Church by this usage Much such a reason by the way the Reform'd Churches in Poland govern'd themselves by when in a general Synod they decreed against the Posture of sitting at the Lords Supper because that Custom had been brought in first by the Arrians who as they irreverently treat Christ so also his sacred appointments Which leads to a view of the Church in all Synod Petricov An. 1578. its later Reformations 2. Is it not very evident that in none of our later Reformations nay even in those of our Dissenting Brethren themselves but they do in their most Religious Solemnities some things that are very Symbolical Actions that have great significations in them 1. There giving to every Baptiz'd Infant a new Name which both they and we do call the Christian Name this seems to
Pap. of the Presbyt p. 31. before these unhappy Wars began yielded to the laying aside of the Cross and making many material alterations c. They have not those apprehensions of these things that they are unalterable and obligatory upon all Christians as such or that the laying them aside for the bringing about some greater good would be offensive to God I would to God our Brethren at least would but meet us thus far as to throw off those Superstitious prejudices they may have conceiv'd against them and think that as the laying them aside would not be displeasing to God so the use of them cannot be so neither Forgive the expression of Superstitious prejudices For I must suppose we put too high a value upon indifferent rites when we think that either the use or rejection of them will recommend us to God unless there be other accidents of obedience or disobedience to Authority that will alter the Case Otherwise the Imagination we may have of pleasing or displeasing God in any of these things must look like what the Greeks express Superstition by I mean a causeless dread of God It is a passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Calvin that it is equally Superstitious to condemn things indifferent as unholy and to command them as if they were holy It is infinitely In 2 Praecept a nobler Conquest over our selves a proper regaining that Christian liberty to which we are redeemed and would be of far happier consequence to the Church of God to possess our selves with such notions of God and of indifferent things as to believe we cannot recommend our selves to him in the least measure by scrupling what he hath interpos'd no Command to make them either Obligatory or Unlawful FINIS A Catalogue of the several Cases c. 1. A Persuasive 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 unlawfull 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 Lawfull 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 serious Exhortation with some important Advices relating to the late Cases about Conformity recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 14. An Argument for Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 15. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament Stated and Resolved The second Part. 16. The Case of â—ay-Communion with the Church of England considered 17. A Persuasive to frequent Communion c. 18. A Defence of the Resolution of this Case viz. Whether the Church of England 's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawfull to hold Communion with the Church of England In Answer to a Book intituled A Modest Examination of that Resolution 19. The Case of compelling Men to the Holy Sacrament 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 c. 6. A Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints 7. A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church maintained in the Church of England A PERSUASIVE TO Frequent Communion IN THE HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE Lords Supper LONDON Printed by M. Flesher for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill and William Rogers at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet 1684. A PERSUASIVE TO FREQUENT COMMUNION MY design in this Argument is from the Consideration of the Nature of this Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and of the perpetual Use of it to the end of the World to awaken Men to a sense of their Duty and the great Obligation which lies upon them to the more frequent receiving of it And there is the greater need to make men sensible of their Duty in this particular because in this last Age by the unwary Discourses of some concerning the Nature of this Sacrament and the danger of receiving it unworthily such doubts and fears have been raised in the minds of Men as utterly to deter many and in a great measure to discourage almost the generality of Christians from the use of it to the great prejudice and danger of Mens Souls and the visible abatement of Piety by the gross neglect of so excellent a means of our growth and improvement in it and to the mighty scandal of our Religion by the general disuse and contempt of so plain and solemn an Institution of our blessed Lord and Saviour Therefore I shall take occasion as briefly and clearly as I can to treat of these four Points First Of the Perpetuity of this Institution this the Apostle signifies when he saith that by eating this 1 Cor. 11. 26. Bread and drinking this Cup we do shew the Lord's Death till he come Secondly Of the Obligation that lies upon all Christians to a frequent observance of this Institution this is signified in that Expression of the Apostle As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup which Expression considered and compared together with the practice of the Primitive Church does imply an Obligation upon Christians to the frequent receiving of this Sacrament Thirdly I shall endeavour to satisfie the Objections and Scruples which have been raised in the Minds of Men and particularly of many devout and sincere Christians to their great discouragement from their receiving this Sacrament at least so frequently as they ought which Objections are chiefly grounded upon what the Apostle says Wherefore whosoever
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
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
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
only from partaking in that Ordinance and not in the rest But of that farther by and by In the mean time I do not understand but that some Ceremonies and particular Determinations of Circumstances are absolutely necessary in the Worship of God since it cannot be performed without them they that will have no Ceremonies can have no external Worship This I think will not be denied But the Ceremonies that are appointed in our Church are thought by some to be significant superstitious and breaches of our Christian Liberty and therefore not to be indured These are the great Objections against the few Ceremonies that are in use among us and these I shall briefly Consider First we are told our Ceremonies are significant And why may not a significant Ceremony be Lawful Are not Kneeling and lifting up the Eyes and Hands to Heaven significations of the Reverence we owe to the Divine Majesty Yes But Ceremonies that signify something naturally may be permitted but not those that signify by institution There should be some solid reason or some plain Scripture Authority brought to make this difference good And here it is pleaded that every significant Ceremony is a Sacrament and it is downright Popery to make more Sacraments than God has made This I confess were very material if it could be proved But we acknowledge nothing to be a Sacrament but what is An outward and visible sign of Common Prayer in the Catech. an inward and spiritual grace given unto us ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof Now if this be a true Definition as it is owned by us and must be acknowledged by our Dissenting Brethren that talk so much of their approving the Doctrine of our Church then our Ceremonies though they should be never so significant cannot be Sacraments because they want so many Necessary and Essential conditions that are required to make a Sacrament They are not of Divine Ordination and Appointment they are of no efficacy to confer any Grace neither are they any Pledges and Assurances of it But suppose we should grant every significant Ceremony to be a Sacrament for it is neither pleasant nor profitable to quarrel about Words There is but one of the Three Ceremonies and that is the Cross at Baptism that can be pretended Ibid. in Publick Baptism to be significant and that indeed is made In token that the party newly Baptized shall not hereafter be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ Crucified c. But this sign of the Cross was very anciently if not always used at Baptism and upon several other occasions by the Primitive Christians in defiance of all sorts of Infidels and as we do it in Token that they were not ashamed of a Crucified Saviour Our Church in this does but follow the example of the Purest and Holiest Professors of the Gospel that ever were and that but at a distance too in doing that but once which they repeated often And this can scarce be called a significant Ceremony It is not appointed to Represent any thing unto us but only to remind us of a Duty we are bound to do Like the Altar that was built by the Children of Reuben and Gad and the half Tribe of Manasseh Not for burnt-offering nor for sacrifice but Josh 22. 26. that it might be a Witness And if any one should think the Surplice were ordered to be worn to denote the innocency of Life that does more especially become those that are particularly devoted to the Service of God it is more than our Church has declared but yet no man were to be blamed that should take occasion from hence to let his thoughts expatiate into a pious and seasonable Meditation and consider how incongruous it would be to have his inward parts full of filthiness and corruption when his outside was covered with a clean white Linnen Garment The Sum is every significant Ceremony is not a Sacrament and none of ours can be properly said to be significant representing symbolical but only Commemorating or if any man please to call them so Professing signs But though they cannot be proved to be Sacraments yet they may be Superstitious and that is Objection enough against them And I confess that they may be Superstitious but not in themselves for so they are perfectly Indifferent but according to the Opinion or Conceit of those that use them or use them not There may be Superstition in the Observing of these and there may be as much in the forbearing Superstition is nothing but a groundless Fancy attended sometimes with an anxious Fear and sometimes with a fond Hope that God is pleased or displeased with the bare performance or forbearance of what he hath neither Commanded nor Forbidden He therefore that thinks he offends God in doing of that he has not Forbidden and he that imagines he shall please him by the observing of what he has not Commanded are both in some degree and it may be equally Superstitious And then the Superstition that is exercised about the Observation of these Ceremonies must lie on the part of our Dissenting Brethren who think they should Sin in keeping them though they generally confess they are not Forbidden and not on ours who declare them to be Indifferent and no otherwise acceptable unto God but as they are the effects of Obedience to our Superiours and necessary to the preservation of Discipline and Order in the Church But it is farther urged by some that these Ceremonies are a Breach of our Christian Liberty I need not enter upon a Discourse of this but as far as it concerns the matter in hand I say That the being freed from the Ceremonial Law is a part though not the greatest part of Christian Liberty but then it is not so much our being freed from observing it as from the Necessity of observing it The Apostles and first Christians did voluntarily observe it for some time upon Prudential Considerations and imposed some things as the abstaining Acts 15. 29. from bloud and from things strangled and yet they were Free because whatever they did of this Nature they did it not with an Opinion of any Necessary obligation that lay upon them to do it but upon other Motives most commonly out of condescension to the weakness of the Jewish Converts And if some Judaical Rites might not only be observed but imposed then there can be no reason why a few Indifferent Ceremonies may not be appointed now without any intrenchment upon the Liberty which Christ has purchased for us Such things cannot be an infringment of that but only when they are supposed to be either Unlawful or Necessary by Divine Command Kneeling at the Sacrament which is the Ceremony that is wont to be the most scrupled is as little liable to the Objections that I have now answered as either of the other It would be verâ— uncharitable and unjust to
1 Cor. 11. 18 a Man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup In which words the Apostle plainly solves the Case I am discoursing on and shews wâ—at private Christians in whose power ir is not judicially to correct Vice are to do when they see so many vicious Members intruding to the blessed Sacrament viz not to abstain from it but by preparation and examination of themselves to take care that they be not of their number If to seperate had been the way the Apostle would then have manag'd his Discourse after this manner There are many Schisms and Strifes in the Church there is an incestuous person not cast out many proud contemners of their Bretheren Men of strange opinions of untam'd appetites and unbridled passions and therefore I advise you not to come amongst them nor to partake of the Holy Sacrament with them lest you be infected with their Sores and partake of their Judgments But advising Men to examine themselves and then to come he plainly intimates that 't was their duty to continue in the Communion of the Church notwithstanding these as if he had said I do not mention the foul Enormities of some that come to this holy Table to discourage you from coming lest ye should be polluted by their sins but to excite you to a due care and examination of your selves that you be not polluted by any sinful acts and compliances of your own and then there 's no danger of being defil'd by theirs But as clear and satisfactory as this Proposition seems to be it yet suffers very much from the Exceptions of some weak Understandings who meeting often in Scripture with such Commands and Exhortations as these to separate to come out not to touch to have no fellowship with and the like presently without staying to examine the sense of the Texts conclude that it is the duty and character of good Men to be always separating and tho wherever those places of Scripture are found they are for the most part to be understood with relation to Idolaters and Idolatrous Practices either amongst Jews or Gentiles yet will they have them extended to every thing and person that either really is or they think fit to call a Corruption or a corrupt Member in the Church of God Many Texts of Scripture are misunderstood and misappli'd by them to this purpose I shall instance only in two as the chief and hope in rescuing them from the false glosses they labour under to give a deliverance to all the rest The first is Obj. 1. Those words of the Apostle Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord 2 Cor. 6. 17. and touch not the unclean thing Ans This being the main place to which they fly upon all occasions as their strongest hold I shall give it a more particular consideration and that by shewing these three things 1. The occasion of this Apostolical admonition 2. What were the persons the converted Corinthians were to separate from 3. What was the unclean thing they were not to touch 1. What was the occasion of this Apostolical Exhortation To this purpose you must know that the converted Corinthians liv'd in civil Society amongst the unbelieving Gentiles by whom many of them being their kinsfolk and friends after the flesh were often invited to their Idol-feasts to which some of them 1 Cor. 10. 27. did not scruple to go and eat of the things sacrific'd to Idols even in the Idol's Temple thinking it not unlawful 1 Cor. 8. 10. to do so so long as they knew that an Idol was nothing and did not intentionally go and eat in any honour to the Idol Now from this Practice the 1 Cor. 8. 4. Apostle dissuades them by these two Arguments 1. Upon the account of scandal to their weak brethren telling them that tho' they that were strong knew that an Idol was nothing in the World and that there was but one God and so could not be suppos'd to worship the Idol when they eat of the Idol's sacrifice yet some other weak Christians and new Converts might not know so much and consequently by their practice might be drawn into sin not only to go to those Feasts but to do it in honour to the Idol 2. As harmless an action as they esteem'd it that 't was 1 Cor. 8. 7. plain Idolatry Be not ye Idolaters as were some of 1 Cor. 10. 14. them as it is written they sate down to eat and to drink and rose up to play that is they eat of those Sacrifices that had been offered up to the golden Calf Exod. 32. 6 and that this Action was Idolatrous he proves by an Analogy it bears to a Rite of the same nature both amongst Jews and Christians for as the Jews when they feasted on the Sacrifices did it in honour to God to whom the Sacrifices were offer'd and 1 Cor. 10. 18. as the Christians when they partake of the Lord's Supper do it in honour to Christ whose Death and ver 16. Passion is therein commemorated so when they did eat of the Idols Sacrifices they must have been thought to do it in honour to the Idol because to the Idol was the Sacrifice offer'd But blessed be ver 20. God we have not the like occasion for such an Exhortation we live not in a civil society with Idolaters but under a Christian Prince and with a People professing the Christian Religion Here are no publick Idols set up nor any Feasts kept in honour of them had the Case been thus with us we had been as much concern'd in the Text as the Corinthians were but being far otherwise not the least aid can be fetcht from hence to defend Separation from our Publick Assemblies 2. Who were the persons the Christian Corinthians were requir'd to seperate from They were no better than Vnbelievers than Infidels than Idolaters What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness And what communion hath light with 2 Cor. 6. 14. ver 15. ver 16. darkness And what concord hath Christ with Belial Or what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel And what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols And then it follows wherefore come out from amongst them c. But now because Christians ver 17. by the Apostles command were to separate from the Assemblies of Heathen Idolaters does it therefore follow that they must separate from the Assemblies of Christians because some who while they profess Christ do not live like Christians afford their presence at them Is there no difference betwixt a Pagan and an Infidel that denies Christ and worships Devils and an immoral Christian who yet outwardly owns Christ and worships the true God Betwixt a Church wholly made up of Heathens and Idolaters and a Church made up of a mixture of good and bad Christians together 3. What is the unclean thing they are not to
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
use the hours of Prayer onely as necessary circumstances of Humane actions or such without which the light of Nature or Common usage shews the thing cannot be done or conveniently or Pag. 1. Pag. 14. comelily done as he saith Or rather did they not use them as they found them instituted and observed in the Jewish Church And not for his Thus and the reasons given by him Will those reasons justifie those very hours of the day or the just number of three hours Or however how will they Justify the Prayers used at those hours But whatever exceptions he had against the time he it seems found nothing to say to the Service which yet was pleaded as well as that Case of Indifferent things P. 11. But he saith There is nothing of Religion in the time If so as is granted then it 's in the power of a Church to institute and determine it where there is no other Religion in the Time than as it 's thus separated to the Service of God Lastly he saith The Apostles might have changed the Hours of Prayer if they had pleased How might they have changed them Might they do it as Apostolical Persons or as Private Members of the Jewish Church As to the former I find not they did exercise any such Power within the Jurisdiction of the Jewish Church nor that they had any Commission so to do As for the latter I deny it For if it lay in the power of Private Members of a Church to alter the Hours in which the Church is to assemble it is in their power to Dissolve the Assembly and there could nothing but Confusion issue from it I must confess he seems to be at a perfect loss what to say as to this matter And it appears so when he dares not so much as touch upon the Prayers used in those hours and applies his Thus to St. Paul's using Circumcision and Purification as if they also were necessary circumstances of Humane action or such without which the light of Nature or Common Vsage shews the thing cannot be done c. which were things of pure Institution at the first and what though peculiar to the Jewish Church the Apostle complied with them in for a time The next instances produced in proof of the Proposition were Washing the Disciples feet Love-Feasts and Holy-Kiss which he joyns together and of which he saith 1. It 's impossible to prove that they were any more Pag. 12 15 16 19. than Civil usages c. 2. They were not used in Worship Whether it is impossible to prove the first or no doth not rest upon our Author's authority and yet that is the Case of Indifferenc things P. 13. only thing which he hath thought fit to confront what I produced in proof of it That they were Civilrites is granted but that they were used by Christ and the Apostles as no more than Civil is I may safely venture to say impossible to prove First Because there is the reason of the thing against it as they were instituted and used for Spiritual ends and in token of Christian Humility and Charity as I then shewed Secondly Case of Indiff p. 9. 12. Because of the great Difference there was betwixt them when used as meerly Civil and as used by our Saviour and the Apostles What this was as to washing the feet I then shewed where he might be Satisfied and to Hor. in Joh. c. 13. 5. Buxtorf I may add the Learned Dr. Lightfoot It appears further they were not meerly Civil from the Character given to the kiss of Charity being called the Holy Kiss But This was saith he because the Apostle commanded Christians to use it in a Sober Temperate Chast Or holy manner But if this was the reason then all Kisses and all Feasts would be holy But now Holiness stamps somewhat peculiar upon the thing it 's applied to and signifies that by Some act end or use it 's Separated from the rest of the same kind And for this reason was it more likely the kiss was called Holy from its end use and signification as it was a Testimony of that Holy and intire love which was or ought to have been amongst Christians rather than in respect of the manner for what reason was there for that when it was betwixt persons of the same and not a different Sex Besides if it was a meer Civil rite and design'd for no Religious end could we think the Apostle would require it and close his Epistles so frequently with it Lastly it appears they were not used as mere Civil Rites because they were used in Religious Assemblies and some of them annexed thereunto Of this he saith he can never Pag. 16. prove that while Our Saviour was Worshipping his Father he stept aside to wash his Disciples Feet Or that the Primitive Christians were either Kissing or Feasting one another in the Time or Act of Worship as Praying c. It would have become our Author rather to have removed the proofs given of this than to call for more which if he had considered he would have expressed himself with more caution and reverence That washing the Disciples feet had a Spiritual signification I have shewed and so was not unfit for a Religious Solemnity and that it was used in such the Apostle shews Joh. 13. 4. for a further account of which I leave him to the Learned Exercit. 16. n. 22. 24. Casaubon How and when the Holy Kiss was used and how it was called the Seal of Prayer and reconciliation I then shewed and is so fully proved by Dr. Falkner that Libertas l. 2. c. 1. §. 3. there needs no more to be added till that at least be refuted That the Love-Feasts were joyned to and used at the same time as the Lord's Supper not only the Apostle's discourse upon it sheweth but also the change of Names and the giving of one to the other doth confirm it For Theophylact supposeth that the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. 20. calls the Love-Feast by the name of the Lord's Supper And on the contrary Tertullian declares that from hence Apel. c. 39. the Lord's Supper came to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It were easy to heap up Authorities in this kind but that is done to my hand by such as write upon this Custom V. Vines on the Sacram. c. 2. p. 25 c. After I had proved that things Indifferent though not prescribed might be used in Divine Worship from the practice of the Jewish Church and that of Christ and the Apostles I further confirm'd it from the incapacity we should be in of holding Communion with any Church if it were otherwise whether Ancient or Modern But our Author doth endeavour at once to overthrow it For saith he that every particular Christian must Case examined Pag. 21. practise every thing which the Churches practise which he hath Communion with or be concluded to have
not excuse him from guilt in not Practising it if indeed Gods Law hath made it a Duty So that it infinitely concerns all our Dissenting Brethren to consider very well what they do when they withdraw from our Communion Schism undoubtedly is a great and crying Sin A Sin against which there are as many hard things said in the Discourses of our Lord and his Apostles and in the Writings of the Ancient Christians as against any other Sin whatsoever And therefore let those that forsake our Communion and set up or joyn with other Assemblies in Opposition to ours I say let them look to it that they be not involved in the Guilt of this dreadful Sin They must be sure that their Separation proceeds upon good grounds if they would free themselves from the imputation of it It is not always enough to excuse them that they do believe there are Sinful Conditions imposed in our Communion and consequently it is their Duty to withdraw For unless the thing be so indeed their believing so will not cancel their Obligation to our Church Communion or make it cease to be Schism to withdraw themselves from it This may perhaps at the first hearing seem very strange Doctrine to many but yet it is true for all that and will appear a little more Evident if we put the Case in another instance wherein we are not so nearly concerned Here is one of the Roman-Catholick perswasion as they call it that hath been trained up in Popery and heartily believes it to be true Religion and the Only one wherein Salvation is to be had and therefore in Obedience to the Laws and Customs of that Church doth pay Religious Worship to Images doth pray to Saints and Angels doth give Divine Adoration to the Consecrated Bread in the Sacrament as really believing it to be turned into the Body of Christ to which his Soul and Deity is personally United Is now such a Person as this Guilty of Idolatry in these Practices or is he not He doth verily believe that he is not He would abhor these Practices if he did in the least believe that God had Forbid them as Idolatrous Nay he is so far from believing that they are Forbid that on the contrary he hath been taught to believe that they are necessary Duties and he cannot be a good Catholick unless he thus Worship Images and Saints and the Bread of the Host Well now the point is Whether such a Man believing as he doth be upon that Account acquitted from the Sin of Idolatry We all grant that if he had such clear Information about these things as we Protestants have he would certainly be an Idolater if he should contitinue in these Practices But whether his belief and Opinion and perswasion concerning these things do not excuse him and make that cease to be Idolatry that would otherwise be so This I say is the question But yet none of us make any great question of it For we do charge the Papists indiscriminately with Idolatry in their Worship notwithstanding their disclaiming it notwithstanding their Profession to Worship God no otherwise than according to his own Will notwithstanding they do really take themselves Obliged in Conscience to give Divine Worship to the Consecrated Elements and those other Objects And we charge them rightly in this For if it be really Idolatry by Gods word to do these things then it will be Idolatry in any Man to do them let his Opinion about them be what it Will. A Mans Ignorance or mistake or false Opinion doth not alter the nature of things it can neither make that cease to be a Duty which God hath Commanded nor that cease to be a Sin which God hath Forbidden All that it will do is that according to the Nature and Circumstances of it it may more or less Extenuate the Transgression that is committed upon the Account thereof And the Case is just the same in the matter before us For any Man to withdraw his Communion from that Church with which he ought and with which he may Lawfully Communicate That is as properly the Sin of Schism as it is the Sin of Idolatry to give Divine Worship to that which is not God For any Man therefore to break the Unity of the Church though it be upon this very Account that he doth believe it is his Duty so to do or that he cannot Communicate with that Church without Sin Yet if this perswasion of his be false and Erroneous he is no less a Schismatick for all this than the other Man is an Idolater that thinks it his Duty to adore Images and those other undue Objects of Divine Worship among the Romanists It is true the Mans Ignorance or Misperswasion will according to the greater or less Culpability of it more or less excuse the Mans Person before God as it doth in the other Case But it cannot in the least make that which God hath made to be Schism to be no Schism no more than in the other Case it makes that to be no Idolatry which Gods word hath declared to be Idolatry Well now admitting all this here comes the pinch of the thing It will be said What would you have a Man do in this Case He cannot conform with a safe Conscience and yet he is a Transgressor if he do not If he comply against his Conscience you grant he is guilty of Sin in so doing If he doth not Comply then you say he is a Schismatick and so is a Sinner upon that Account Why to this I say that both these things are often true and here is that Dilemma which Men by Suffering their minds to be abused with Evil Principles and Perswasions do frequently run themselves into They are reduced to that Extremity that they can neither Act nor forbear Acting They can neither Obey nor Disobey without Sin But what is to be done in this Case I know nothing but this That all Imaginable Care is to be taken that the Error and false Principles which misled the Man be deposed and that his Judgment be better informed and then he may both do his Duty which Gods Law requireth of him and avoid Sinning against his Conscience But how is this to be done Why no other way but by using Conscientiously all those means which common Prudence will Recommend to a Man for the gaining Instruction and Information to himself about any point that he desires throughly to understand That is to say Freeing his Mind from all Pride and Passion and Interest and all other carnal Prepossessions and applying himself seriously and impartially to the getting right Notions and Sentiments about his Duty in these matters Considering without prejudice what can be said on both sides Calling in the best assistance of the ablest and wisest Men that he can come by And above all things seriously endeavouring to understand the Nature and Spirit of the Christian Religion and to practice all that he is undoubtedly convinced to
Theophylact But if any one be not satisfied with this Account of that Business but will further contend that St. Paul here doth not only speak to the Case of Jewish Christians who were zealous for Moses's Law But also takes in the Case of some Gentile Christians at that time who upon a Pythagorean Principle they might have entertained were Averse to the eating any kind of Flesh as thinking all such Food to be Vnclean They may notwithstanding what I have said enjoy their own Opinion For it is indifferent to our Controversie whether the Persons whose Case is here spoken to were Jews or Gentiles Only thus much appears plainly that the most of them were Jewish Christians who together with their Christianity had a Conscientious regard to the Law of Moses Secondly As for what is meant by Doubting in the The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth no where either in Scripture or any other Author signifie to Doubt but most usually to Discern or Distinguish or make a Dâ—fference as it is frequently used in the New Testatament Vid. Matt. XVI 3. Acts XV. 9. I Cor. IV. 7. VI. 5. XI 29. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes taken Actively and then it hath the same Signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to make a difference As is plain not only in St. Judes Text here quoted but in St. James Ch. II. 4. Where our English Translation hath indeed very well rendred the Apostles Sense thus Are ye not Paâ—tial But if they had truly rendred his Words they must have thus Translated Do ye not make a difference Again sometimes it is taken Passively and then the Signification of it is this to be Divided or Severed or Distinguished And when it is used in this Sense it sometimes happens that the English word Doubting doth conveniently enâ—ugh express it Doubting being indeed nothing else but a Mans being Divided as to his own mind And accordingly in some places our Translators have thus Englished it though I belive in some of those more proper words might be found out to express its Sense But though in a Few Texts it be thus used in Scripture yet I do not find that any Profaâ—e Author did ever use it in this Seâ—se of Doubting And therefore unless there be evident reason I do not know why we should depart from the natural and usual Signification of the Word in the Tâ—xt we are now upon Text the Reader may be pleased to take notice that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we here translate He that doubteth doth as properly signifie to distinguish or make a difference as to Doubt or Hesitate And thus it is used both by Profane Writers and in Holy Scripture as particularly in the 22 d. of St. Jude's Epistle And of some have compassion making a difference 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very word in the Text. Now considering the Apostles Argument in this Chapter is the Case of the Jewish Christians who were divided in their Perswasions about the Legal Observations some making a difference between clean and unclean Meats and such like things and others making none It seems every whit as proper and natural and more suitable to the scope of the Place to take the Word in this Sense in this place rather than in that other according to which it is usually translated So that the Text is thus to be rendered He that maketh a difference between clean and unclean Meats If he do eat any thing which he judgeth to be unclean he is damned or condemned for so doing because he eateth not of Faith And so probable is this rendring that our English Translators took care to put it in the Margin of our Bibles as may be seen by every one Nor doth it want good Authority for the Vulgar Latine thus translates the place and not only so but Erasmus Hentenius and generally all the Latine Expositors if we may believe Estius who yet himself interprets it the Common way Indeed I doubt not but this is the true Version of this Word in this Text However I do not so much stand upon it as to preclude any man from the liberty of taking the other if he likes it better For though this way of rendering doth better serve our Purpose as quite putting an end to the Controversie Yet our Cause doth not so absolutely depend upon it but that we may very well allow of the common Translation as will appear hereafter Thirdly As for the Word Faith which is here used let it be taken notice of that when in the verse before the Text the Apostle speaks of having Faith and in the Text of eating without Faith or not of Faith and that whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin We are not to take Faith here in the large sense as it signifies a Belief in Jesus Christ or an Assent to Gods Revelations particularly those of the Gospel which is the usual Notion of Faith in the New Testament But only for a mans Assent to the Goodness or Lawfulness of any particular Action that he takes in hand So that to have Faith about an Action is to be perswaded that that Action may be Lawfully done in the present Circumstances or at least not to be Conscious of any Reason that should make it unlawful And on the other side to do an Action without Faith or not of Faith as the Apostle here expresseth it is to do an Action of the Lawfulness of which we are no way satisfied but on the contrary think we have good reason to believe that it is an unlawful Action Fourthly Whereas St. Paul saith that he that doubteth or differenceth is damned or condemned if he eat we are to take notice that that expression is not to be understood of the punishment of his eating in the other World which is that which in common speech we call Damnation But only of the guilt of his eating as to his own Conscience Indeed there is no colour why our Translators should here use the Word Damned since Condemned is the natural Word whether we consider the Propriety of the Greek or the English Language So that this is the meaning of the Proposition He that doubteth with such a Doubt as is here spoken of and yet eateth such a Man is condemned for so doing Condemned how why condemned of himself as the Apostle had expressed it in the verse before condemned of his own Conscience because without necessity having free power over his own Actions he doth that which he apprehends to be sinful I dare say the Reader will be satisfied of the Truth of our Interpretation as to both the last named Particulars if he will carefully read the foregoing verse together with the Text as indeed they do but both make one compleat Sentence and judge of one by the other St. Paul hath for a good while been addressing himself to the stronger Christians in order to the perswading them so to use their Knowledge and
their Christian Liberty that they might edifie the Weak Brethren among them but in no ways give Scandal to any of them and he thus concludes his Advice in this Chapter Hast thou Faith have it to thy selfe before God Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth But he that doubteth or maketh a difference is condemned if he eat because he eateth not of Faith and whatsoever is not of Faith is sin I dare appeal to any indifferent person that hath read St. Paul's foregoing Discourse in this Chapter whether the meaning of this whole Passage be not to this Effect Art thou so well instructed in thy Religion as to be perswaded that the Gospel hath taken away all difference of Meats and that thou mayest Lawfully eat of any Food that is set before thee why it is very well for thee but then be content that thou art thus perswaded and do not upon every occasion make such an ostentation of thy Faith in this matter nor despise others that have it not as to lay a Snare before thy Weak and Un-instructed Brethren who are of another perswasion to sin against their Conscience by Acting as thou dost It is sufficient for thee that God seeth thy Faith and that thou canst justifie thy eating to thy own Conscience For I can assure thee it is no small Happiness for a Man to be able to satisfie his own Conscience in that Action which he takes in hand This is undoubtedly the meaning of that expression Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he approveth That is it is a great Comfort to a Man that his Conscience doth not condemn him in that Action which he thinks fit to do In ea re quam agendam suscipit saith Grotius In eo quod agendum elegit saith Estius En ce qu'il veut faire saith the late excellent French Translation And it is just the same thing that St. John saith in other words Eph. I. 3 21. My Brethren if our own hearts i. e. our Conscience condemn us not then have we confidence towards God But then as the Apostle goes on as to those that are so uninstructed in the Nature of Christianity as still to make a difference between clean and unclean Meats as it infinitely concerns them to have a care what they do so it concerns thee likewise to have a care how thou layest a stumbling block before them For in what a Condition would any of them be if being tempted by thy Insolent Carriage and Unreasonable Example he should through Fear or base Compliance venture to eat such things as he judgeth to be unclean Why certainly he is both an ill and a miserable man for so doing because he is condemned of his own Conscience For he eats not only without being convinced of the Lawfulness of his eating but presuming the contrary and whatever is thus done against Conscience must needs be a sin This I take to be the true meaning of this whole Passage for which if need was we might produce several Authorities particularly that of St. Chrysostome who gives much the same account of it Having thus given an account of the Text as it lies in the Chapter and with relation to the Business that St. Paul had there in hand I now come to consider it with reference to our present Controversie with the Dissenters and to take off the Argument they bring from it against the Position we are now contending for Their Argument as I said is this St. Paul here affirms That whosoever Doubteth about the Lawfulness of any particular Meat and while that Doubt remaineth eateth of that Meat such a man Sins and is Condemned for so doing because he eateth not of Faith If now it be so in this particular Case it must be so in all other Doubtful Cases and consequently in the Case of Obeying Authority where a Man Doubts of the Lawfulness of the thing enjoyned That is to say Whosoever in any Case whatsoever doth an Action of the Lawfulness of which he Doubts he sins and is Condemned for so doing because he acteth not of Faith This is the Argument fairly put and I shall now endeavour as fairly to answer it And first of all I say This Argument proceeds upon a false Ground For it supposeth St. Paul in this Text to speak to the Case of a purely Doubting Conscience which is the Subject of our present Controversie Whereas it may be made to appear with good Evidence that it is the Case of a resolved Conscience only that he here Treats of So that this Text is wholly misapplied by the Dissenters and makes nothing at all to the Business For though there be indeed in this Text a very severe Censure of all those that Act against any kind of Perswasion yet there is nothing here said that toucheth a mans Acting Doubtingly either one way or other That this is true appears from the Account I have before given of the Subject matter of the Apostles Discourse in this Chapter which is the Case of those Christians who were not barely Doubtful and Wavering in their own Minds whether they might Lawfully eat of such Meats as were then Disputed But were Perswaded they ought not as believing that the Law of Moses which had declared them Vnclean was still in force or else believing them to be Vnclean in themselves That this was indeed the Case here discussed seems very clear from the 2 d and 5th Verses of this Chapter where the Apostle states it and more particularly from the 14th Verse where he gives a summary Resolution of it and in my Judgment the very same Resolution that he doth in the Text. I know saith he and am perswaded that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean to him it is unclean So that it seems the Person whose Case St. Paul speaks to was not uncertain or unresolved whether the Meats under Deliberation were clean or unclean but he was perswaded they were unclean he esteemed them to be such and he must of necessity do so so long as he believed the Law of Moses to be in force as by all that appears in this Chapter he did believe But may some say If this was the Case why then doth St. Paul use the word Doubting in the Text To Doubt of the unlawfulness of an Action is quite another thing than to be Perswaded of the unlawfulness of it In answer to this I refer my Reader to the Account I have before given of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may as properly be rendred He that maketh a difference between Meats as he that Doubteth about Meats Now if this Version be admited the ground of this Objection is quite taken away And I see no reason why it should not be admitted since as I said it is as natural as the other and withal it makes the Apostles Sense to run more coherently with
of Time came by the appearance of the Son of God in the World he was in a great measure dethroned his Kingdom overthrown and the last and most effectual means were used for the recovery of Men out of his Snare and Power When therefore he perceived that by all the grievous Persecutions he raised against the Church it spread only so much the faster that at last the whole Heathen Idolatry fell down before the Cross of Christ when he was shamefully expelled out of his Temples and from his Altars his Oracles silenced and the Religion of Jesus prevailed every where he then betook himself to his old Serpentine Arts of dissimulation Since he could no longer oppose Christ's Kingdom by open War he resolved to turn Christian and to set up for Christ's Deputy and substitute here on Earth to fight against Christians under Christ's Banner and by adulterating and corrupting the Christian Doctrine to spoil it of all its Efficacy to introduce his old Heathen Rites and Idolatrous Ceremonies as unwritten Traditions from Christ himself or his Apostles and so under his Name and pretended Authority to exercise all that cruelty oppression and fraud which is so pleasing to his own infernal Nature hoping to burn destroy root out all true Christians from the face of the Earth under colour of propagating the Catholick Faith and enlarging Christ's Kingdom in the World When Christendom had long groaned under this miserable Tyranny it pleased God in many places of Europe but especially here in England to set on foot a Reformation of Religion which was happily and peaceably accomplished among us by the favour and countenance of publick Authority and the wise Counsel and Advice of our Reverend Bishops and other Ministers To nip this in the Bud the Devil raised that sharp Persecution in Qu. Mary's days in which our first Reformers gloriously sealed what they had done with their Blood but this proving ineffectual that he might the better frustrate the ends of our Reformation himself would turn Reformer too A great Cry was soon raised against our Church as not sufficiently purged from Popery our Bishops our Prayers our Ceremonies were all Antichristian and it was not long before all Ministers Tythes Temples and the Universities too were condemned as such and God knows they had well nigh reformed away all Learning true Religion and Worship of God and under the specious Pretence of paring off all Superfluities had grievously shaken the Foundations of Christianity it self insomuch that it came to pass as some of those who now dissent from us did then complain That Professors of Religion did openly oppose and deride almost all that Service of God out of Conscience which other Men used to do out of Prophaneness And what infinite mischief this rash and intemperate Zeal for reforming Abuses and Corruptions hath done to our Church and Nation if the Experience of this last Age will not sufficiently convince men it is not to be hoped that any Discourse should We little consider whose Interest we thus serve and promote we do his work who is most delighted with Strife and Confusion and every one can tell who that is and where he reigns To be sure by these uncharitable Separations we highly gratifie the common Enemy whose great Design and Policy it hath all along been by the Follies and invincible Scruples of Protestant Dissenters to weaken and by degrees pull down the Church of England and then we all become an easie Prey to Rome If any now tell me that to prevent this great Mischief and Danger that ariseth from our Divisions it is not so necessary that the People should lay down their Scruples which they cannot well do since no one can at any time think or believe as he will as it is that the Impositions themselves the Matters scrupled at should be removed and taken away and then Peace and Unity may be better secured To this I only answer these two things 1. I now consider things as they at present stand amongst us We have a Church setled and established by Law in which nothing that is sinful is enjoyned What the Duty of our Governours and Superiours is how far they may or ought to condescend to the Weakness or Scruples of others I shall not take upon me to determine that is another Question which belongs not to us But I consider now only what private Members of such a Church are to do and then I say scrupling the Use of some things prescribed by the Church will not justifie our leaving it nay as I shall shew afterwards it is our best and safest course to submit and comply with such Orders notwithstanding our Scruples But I add 2. If this were a sufficient Reason why the Constitution of any Church should be altered because some things are scrupled in it there never could be a setled Church as long as the World stands for since there will be always a difference in Mens Understandings and Tempers some weak and injudicious others peevish and proud there will consequently be many that shall scruple and be offended at the best and most innocnt Constitutions And if the Ceremonies now in use amongst us had not been retained at our first Reformation those very Persons who are now so much dissatisfied with the Imposition of them would perhaps have been the first that should have then complained of the want of them Of which we have this notorious and undeniable Evidence in the late times when our Church was laid in the Dust when none of those Ceremonies or Forms which are now objected against were imposed or commonly used yet even then were men gathering Congregations out of Congregations purifying and reforming still further Scruples encreased Sects and Divisions upon them multiplied and never such Distractions and Confusions in Religion as in those days and without the gift of Prophecy one may foretell that if what is principally found fault with in our Church was now abolished yet those that are given to Scruples would at least in time find cavelling Objections against any Constitution that can be made They are like Men given to sue and go to Law They never want some Pretence to disturb themselves and their Neighbours Men may talk of reconciling our Differences and making up our Breaches to their Lives end and propound their several Projects and frame their Models and conceive fine designs of Union and Accommodation yet none of these will have any effect or do any good till Men learn Humility and Modesty and be contented to be governed by others in things indifferent till Self-conceit and Pride be in some measure rooted out and when this is effectually done there will then be found but little need of any Alteration in the present Constitution The foundation of our Peace and Agreement must be laid in the reforming our selves and our own Tempers The way to unite us lieth not so much in amending the present Establishment Government Liturgy endeavouring to add to it
doth not like or approve of it he hath some little Reasons and Exceptions against it it is not the best and fittest all things considered This is properly a Scruple and is certainly the case of all those who do sometimes to save themselves from the severity of the Laws joyn in our Worship and communicate with us which we presume they would never do did they judge it absolutely sinful and forbidden by God So that though it should be granted that a man cannot innocently do that of which his Conscience doubts whether it be lawful or not yet a Man may and in some cases is bound to do that which is not unlawful though upon some other Accounts he scruples the doing of it 2. If the Question be about things wherein we are left wholly to our selves and at Liberty having no very weighty Reason for the doing of them then it may be the safest way to forbear all such things we scruple at Of such cases the Apostle speaks in the fore-mentioned Places of eating or not eating some Meats neither of them was required by any Law Eating was no instance of Duty nor was it any ways forbid Christians where to do or not to do is perfectly at our own choice it is best for a Man to forbear doing that of which he hath some suspicion tho he be not sure that it is sinful As suppose a man have Scruples in his Mind about playing at Cards and Dice or going to see Stage-Plays or putting out his Money to Usury because there is no great Reason or Necessity for any of these things and to be sure they may be innocently forborn without any Detriment to our selves or others though we do not judge them absolutely sinful yet it is safest for him who cannot satisfie himself concerning the Goodness and Fitness of them wholly to deny himself the use of them But in these two cases it is most for the quiet of our Consciences to act against or notwithstanding our Fears and Scruples when either our Superiours to whom we owe Obedience have interposed their Commands or when by it we prevent some great Evil or Mischief 1. When our Superiours either Civil or Ecclesiastical whom by the Will of God we are bound to obey in all lawful things have interposed their Commands our Scruples will not excuse or justifie our Disobedience If indeed we judge what is commanded to be absolutely unlawful tho it be a false erroneous Judgment yet whilst we are under such persuasion we are by no means to do it upon any Inducement whatever If I only doubt of the lawfulness of any particular Action and it be an instance wherein I am at liberty I am still bound not to do it For Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin I am certainly innocent when I forbear I may commit a Sin If I do it Wisdom would therefore that the safer part be chosen But now if I am by the command of my Superiours obliged to it my choice is then determined it then becomes my Duty and it can never be safe or advisable to neglect a plain Duty for an uncertain Offence Thus most and best Casuists do determine about a doubtful Conscience particularly the forenamed reverend Bishop in the same Sermon Whatsoever is commanded us by those whom God hath set over us either in Church Commonwealth or Family quod tamen not sit certum displicere Deo saith St. Bernard which is not evidently contrary to the Law and Will of God ought to be of us received and obeyed no otherwise than as if God himself had commanded it because God himself hath commanded us to obey the Higher Powers and to submit our selves to their Ordinances But now this is more plain concerning Fears and Scruples only about the conveniency and expediency of things these ought all to be despised when they come in Competition with the Duty of Obedience Would men but think themselves in Conscience bound to pay the same Duty and respect to the Judgment and Authority of Magistrates and Governours whether in Church or State as they do expect their Servants and Children should to themselves they would soon see the reasonableness of such submission For all Government and Subjection would be very precarious and arbitrary if every one that did not approve of a Law or was not fully satisfied about the reasonableness of it was thereby exempted from all Obligations to obey it This is to give the Supreme Authority to the most humoursome or perverse sort of Christians for according to this principle no publick Laws and Constitutions can be valid and binding unless every scrupulous tho a very ignorant Conscience consent to them 2. We are not to mind or stand upon our Scruples when they probably occasion a great evil a general mischief They are not fit to be put in the balance with the Peace of the Church and Unity of Christians Suppose for once that our publick way of Worship is not the best that can be devised that many things might be amended in our Liturgy that we could invent a more agreeable Establishment than this present is which yet no man in the World can ever tell for we cannot know all the inconveniences of any Alteration till it comes to be tryed yet granting all this it cannot be thought so intolerable an Evil as contempt of God's Solemn Worship dividing into Sects and Parties living in Debate Contention and Separation from one another If there be some Rites and Customs amongst us not wisely chosen or determined some Ceremonies against which just Exceptions may be made yet to forsake the Communion of such a true Church of Jesus Christ and set up a distinct Altar in opposition to it to combine and associate into separate Congregations is as it is somewhere expressed like knocking a man on the head because his Teeth are rotten or his Nails too long How much more agreeable is it to the Christian Temper to be willing to sacrifice all such Doubts and Scruples to the Interests of publick Order and divine Charity for better surely it is to serve God in a defective imperfect manner to bear with many Disorders and Faults than to break the Bond of Peace and brotherly Communion For this we have the Example of our Blessed Lord and Saviour who lived and died in Communion with a Church where there were far greater Corruptions both as to Persons and Practises than can be pretended to be in ours at this day yet though he was the great Reformer of Mankind he forsook not the Jewish Church but assembled with them in their publick Synagogues which answer to our Parish-Churches preached in the Temple though they had made it a Den of Thieves observed their Festivals tho some of them of humane Institution nay commanded his Disciples to continue to hear the Scribes and Pharisees tho they were a most vile and wretched Generation of Men. Great were the Pollutions and Misdemeanours in the Churches of Rome Corinth
Galatia yet no one Member of them is ever commanded to come out or separate from those Churches to joyn in a purer Congregation or to avoid mixt Communions or for better Edification For Men to be drunk at the Sacrament was certainly a worse Fault than to kneel at it or for a wicked Man to intrude himself yet the Apostle doth not advise any to withdraw from that Church but only every one to examine himself We ought to do all that we can do without Sin submit to an hundred things which are against our Mind or we had rather let alone for the sake of Peace and Unity so desirable in it self so necessary for the Glory of God the Honour of Religion for our common Interest and Safety for the Preservation of what I may without Vanity call the best Church in the World I cannot stand now to tell you how earnestly this Duty of maintaining Unity amongst Christians is pressed in the New Testament how concerned our Blessed Master was that all his Disciples should agree together and live as Brethren how severely the Holy Apostles chid and rebuked those that caused Divisions and Strife amongst Christians reckoning Schism and Contention amongst the most heinous and dangerous Sins It should make both the Ears one would think of some amongst us to tingle but to hear what Sense the Primitive Christians had of the sinfulness of separating from and breaking the Communion of Christians nay what the old Non-conformists here in England have said of it yet remaining in Print charging the People to be as tender of Church-Division as they were of Drunkenness Whoredom or any other enormous Crime And did Men know and consider the evil of Schism they would not be so ready upon every slight occasion to split upon that Rock Let us therefore divert our Fears and Scruples upon greater Sins It is far more certain that causless Separation from the Communion of Christians is sinful than that Kneeling at the Sacrament or Praying by a Book is such Why then have Men such invincible Scruples about one and none at all about the other They run headlong into the Separate Assemblies which surely are more like to Schismatical Conventicles than any thing in our Church is to Idolatry Let Men be as scrupulous and fearful of offending against the Christian Laws of Subjection Peaceableness and Charity as they are of worshipping God after an impure manner and this alone will contribute much to the making up those Breaches which threaten sudden Ruine to our Church and Nation I only add here that in all that I have now said I am not conscious to my self that I have used any Argument or affirmed any thing but what many of those very Ministers who now dissent from us did teach and maintain and print too against the Independents and other Sectaries that divided from them when they preached in the Parish-Churches And if this was good Doctrine against those who separated upon the account of Corruptions for purer Ordinances in those Days I see not why it is not as good against themselves when upon the very same Pretences and no other they divide from us now The Lord grant that we may all come at last to be of one Mind to live in Peace and Vnity and then the God of Love and Peace shall be with us FINIS SOME CONSIDERATIONS About the CASE OF SCANDAL OR Giving Offence TO Weak Brethren LONDON Printed by H. Hills Jun. for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard and F. Gardiner and the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. Of giving OFFENCE TO Weak Brethren IT hath been often observed concerning our Dissenting Brethren that when they are urged to mention any one thing required of the People in the Publick Worship of God in our Parish Churches judged by them absolutely sinful on the account of which their separation from us is necessary and consequently justifiable they either put us off with some inconveniencies inexpediences or corruptions as they call them some things appointed and used which in their opinion render our service less pure and spiritual the chief of which exceptions have been considered in several Discourses lately written with great temper and judgment for the satisfaction of all honest and teachable minds Or else some of them tell us that they are indeed themselves sufficiently perswaded of the lawfulness of all that is enjoyned they do not see but a good Christian may serve God acceptably and devoutly our way and may go to Heaven living and dying in our Communion but then there are many other Godly but weaker Christians of another perswasion with whom they have been long joyned And should they now at least totally forsake them and conform they should thereby give great offence to all those tender Consciences which are not thus convinced of the lawfulness of holding such Communion with our Church in Prayers and Sacraments as is by Law required Which is a sin so Heinous and of such dreadful Consequence that our Saviour tells us St. Matt. 18. 6. Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me it were better for him that a Milstone were hanged about his Neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the Sea and in St. Pauls account it is no less than Spiritual Murther a destroying of him for whom Christ dyed Rom 14. 15. Now this Case of giving Offence to weak Brethren I have undertaken briefly to consider where I once for all suppose as all those must do who make this the ground of their refusing to Communicate with our Church that nothing is amongst us imposed as a condition of Communion but what may be done without sin for were any thing in it self sinful required by our Church there could be no room for this Plea of Scandal That alone would be sufficient reason for Separation from us I Discourse therefore at this present only with such who for their own particular could well enough joyn with us but dare not do it for fear of Offending those who yet scruple and are dissatisfied at the use of our Prayers and Ceremonies Nor do I design exactly to handle the whole Doctrine of Scandal or Elaborately explain all the places of Scripture concerning it or state the Cases there treated of Nor shall I now meddle with the Duty of Governours and Superiours how far they ought to condescend to the weakness ignorance prejudices and mistakes of those under their care and charge but I shall confine my self to this one Question Whether there doth lye any obligation upon any private Christian as the case now stands amongst us to absent from his Parish Church or to forbear the use of the Forms of Prayer and Ceremonies by Law appointed for fear of Offending or Scandalizing his weak Brethren Here I shall First of all inquire what is the true notion of a weak Brother Secondly What it is to Offend such an one Thirdly How
far and in what instances we are bound to consider the weakness of our Brother First For the resolution of this Question it is necessary to know what is the true notion of a weak Brother Now a weak Brother or weak in Faith in Scripture denotes one newly converted to Christianity and so neither thorowly instructed in the principles nor well setled in the practice of it the same whom our Saviour calls a little one and the Apostle a babe in Christ 1 Cor. 3. 1. Conversion to Christianity is often called our new birth and consequently at Mens first entrance into the Christian Church they were for a while reckoned as in an Infant state and accordingly were to be most tenderly handled and nursed and gently used with all favour and indulgence not driven faster than they were able to go till by degrees by the improvement of their knowledge they came to be of full Age as the Apostle expresseth it Heb. 5. 14. They were at first to be fed with Milk to be taught the easiest and plainest Doctrines against which least exceptions could be made as our Blessed Saviour himself would not at first tell his Disciples of the shame and sufferings he was to undergo and when he did speak of them it was covertly and obscurely so that they did not perfectly understand him lest they should by it have been presently discouraged and tempted to have forsaken him no unnecessary burdens were to be laid upon them which might render their new Profession grievous to them every Stumbling-block and prejudice was to be removed out of their way that might occasion their falling the grown Christians and proficients were Charitably to condescend to the capacity of these Novices and make allowances and for a time bear with their Ignorance and many mistakes and Childish humours and deny themselves their own Liberty and become even as Children with them as if themselves were of the same mind and understood no better than these raw beginners Now these fresh Disciples little ones or Babes are the same with those St. Paul Rom. 14. calls weak Brethren weak for want of Age or Growth or as the Original word rather signifies Sickly and Feeble like a Man beginning to recover from a wasting Disease his distemper tho cured yet hangs a long time upon him the Dregs of it still remain He must for a while be carefully attended and watched since every little thing discomposes him and hazards a relapse So was it with these first Converts As soon as ever they were brought to acknowledg Jesus to be the Son of God and were willing to become his Disciples they were immediately Baptized tho as yet they understood but little of the Nature or design of the Gospel The Apostles and first Preachers of our Religion were in hast to make more Proselytes and therefore presently Baptized all that were willing to it without that previous Instruction and Preparation which afterwards when Churches were setled was made necessary before Heathens or Jews could be admitted by Baptism Thus the same day the Apostles Preached Christ to the Jews Acts 2. they Baptized about three thousand of them and Philip without any delay Baptized the Eunuch as soon as he professed to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and the Jaylor and his Household were Baptized the same hour at midnight at which Paul and Silas spake unto them the word of the Lord. After their Baptism they were to be tutor'd and train'd up in their new Religion where great care was to be taken great prudence and caution used towards them lest they should suddenly flie back and repent of their change for having been bred up and so long lived Jews or Gentiles and then of a sudden turn'd Christians they retain'd still a great love and kindness for many of their old Customs and Opinions they had mighty and inveterate prejudices to overcome the Old man was by degrees to be put off and therefore they were at first treated with all the tenderness and condescension imaginable the stronger and wiser Christians would not stand rigidly on any little matters would for the present tolerate many things which were necessary afterwards to be done away hoping that in time they might be better taught and be brought off those mistakes they now Labour'd under Had the Apostles in the beginning plainly told all the Jews of the ceasing of their Laws the abrogation of their Ceremonies and Worship the no necessity of Circumcision the taking in of the Gentiles they would never have born such Doctrines they would never have become Christians upon such terms nor ever endured those Teachers who seem'd to make so little account of Moses and their Temple Now to gain these St. Paul became weak himself tied up himself while amongst these Jewish Converts to such observances which he was really free from as if he had the same doubts and were of the same opinion with those weak Christians and advises all others who did understand their Liberty yet to oblige their Brethren by the same inoffensive carriage This then was the difference between the strong and the weak the strong were the well-grounded understanding Christians that knew it was lawful for them to Eat all kind of Meats that Christ had set them free from the burdensome Yoke of the Jewish Ceremonies the weak tho Brethren that is believers in Christ yet abstained from some Meats judging them unlawful or unclean and observed days and Zealously retained the Mosaical rites not being yet sufficiently instructed in that Liberty our Saviour had purchased for them or in the nature of his Kingdom which consisted not in Meat or Drink but in Righteousness and Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost Hence I observe 1. That the rules which are laid down in Scripture concerning weak Brethren principally respect those times when our Religion made its first appearance in the World and were temporary provisions for the easier proselyting men to the Faith of Christ or the better securing and fixing those that were already come into the Church They are not standing Laws equally obliging all Christians in all Ages but were suited to the Infant state of the Church or rather to its condition whilst it was but an Embryo till Churches were formed and setled and our Christianity had got firm Footing and Possession in the World Thus St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 9. 19. For tho I be free from all Men yet have I made my self servant unto all that I might gain the more And unto the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews to them that are under the Law as under the Law that I might gain them that are under the Law To them that are without Law as without Law being not without Law to God but under the Law to Christ that I might gain them that are without Law To the weak became I as weak that I might gain the weak I am made all things to all men that I
might by all means save some And this I do for the Gospels sake that I might be partaker thereof with you This was the Apostles design in all these Compliances and Civilities to win many to the Faith of Christ by these wise arts to insinuate himself and his Doctrine into them but when he had once made his way he then taught them another lesson and behaved himself after a far different manner Now to do as St. Paul did would always be the duty and wisdom of one in his circumstances who had his office and was to propagate any Religion amongst Heathens and Infidels like a Master that dealeth not so sharply with his Scholar at his first entrance into the School as he thinketh fit to do afterwards But the directions St. Paul gave and according to which himself practis'd at the first planting of Christianity do no more agree with our times wherein Christianity is become the National Religion countenanced by the Civil Laws and Authority and so generally professed by every one amongst us that we hardly know of any other Religion than the same Cloaths we did wear in our Infancy would serve us now when we are of full Age. We ought indeed to be very careful of Children and lead them by strings and remove every straw and rub out of their way lest they stumble and fall but it is ridiculous to use the same care towards grown men None of us Labour under those prejudices the first Christians did who forsook a Religion in which they had been bred and long lived and as to the Jews had left a way of Worship commanded them by God himself confirmed to them by many Miracles and Wonders delivered to them from their Fathers by a constant succession of Prophets sent from God There is not now amongst us any such competition between two Religions but every one learneth Christianity as he doth his Mothers Tongue The Apostles therefore and Governours of the Church carried themselves towards these new Converts as God Almighty did towards the Children of Israel when he brought them first out of Aegypt He for a while led them by a Pillar of Fire and of a Cloud gave them Water out of the Rock and rain'd down Bread and Flesh from Heaven This he did for them whilest in their passage thus extraordinarily provide for them and in some cases even humour that People lest upon every little pretence they should return back to the Garlick and Onyons of Aegypt but after they were setled in the Land of Canaan he then left them in their own hands by ordinary Common means to take care of and provide for themselves he did not shew the same indulgence to them as he did whilst they were in the Wilderness St. Paul would not take that reward that was due to him for Preaching the Gospel but himself Laboured hard night and day because he would not be chargeable to his Converts 1 Thess 2. 9. and this he did for the furtherance of the Gospel that all might see he did not serve his own Belly But surely our Dissenting Brethren do not think themselves obliged by this Example in places where Publick maintenance is setled on Ministers by Law to refuse to take it and earn their own Bread by some manual occupation tho thereby they avoid giving offence to Quakers and those who call them hirelings and say they prophesie only for filthy lucre Thus it is usually observed that St. Paul writes quite after a different manner to the Romans and to the Galatians tho upon the same subject In his Epistle to the Romans amongst whom he had never yet been he pitieth and pleadeth for the weak Christians chargeth that they should not be despised or cast off that no cause of offence should be given them but to the Galatians a People that had been fully instructed in the nature of their Christian Liberty amongst whom himself had planted the Gospel and had been present in person and so knew that they understood better when some of them fell into the same Error thinking Circumcision and the observation of the Mosaical Law necessary to Christians he chides them sharply and rebukes them more severely Who hath bewitched you O foolish Galatians c. He who would condescend to the Ignorant Novices amongst the Romans would not in the least comply with the Galatians that had or ought to have had more knowledge and light and afterwards when the reason of such forbearance ceased when the nation of the Jews had rejected Christ and the Gentile world was come into the Church the observation of the Mosaical Law and the distinction of meats contained therein was so far from being tolerated in those whether Jews or Gentiles who through mistake thought themselves obliged to it that it was condemned by the Rules and Canons of the Church The sum of all this is that whatever Argument may be drawn from St. Paul's discourses about weak Brethren by way of Analogy or Similitude or Parity of reason yet there are no such weak persons now amongst us as those were for whom the Apostle provideth or as those little ones were for whom our Saviour was so much concerned 2ly I would desire our Dissenting Brethren to consider by what pretence they can challenge any priviledge belonging to them under the notion of weak Christians when according to their own opinion and conceit of themselves they are of all men furthest off from being such in any sense This is as if a man worth a Thousand pound per annum should Sue in formâ pauperis They who take upon themselves to be teachers of others wiser and better than their Neighbours the only Sober and Godly party and are too apt to despise all other Christians as Ignorant or Prophane with what colour of reason can they plead for any favour to be shewn or regard to be had to them in complyance with their weakness Tho they love to argue against us from the example of St. Pauls condescension to the uninstructed Jews or Gentiles yet it is apparent that they do not in other cases willingly liken themselves to those weak believers or Babes in Christ They have really better thoughts of themselves and would be Leaders and Masters in Israel and prescribe to their Governours and give Laws to all others and do prefer their own private opinion which they call their Conscience before the Judgment of the wisest men or the determinations of their Lawful Superiours And if in all instances we should deal with them as weak persons turn them back to their Primmer advise them to learn their Catechism they would think themselves highly wrong'd and injured If the several Dissenters amongst us did in good earnest look upon themselves as weak that is Ignorant Wavering half Christians did they think their dislike of the Constitutions of our Church to be the effect of such weakness they would be either more careful to hide it or would more diligently seek out for remedy
persons Now tho all this is generally true yet I think there are no certain unalterable rules to be laid down to direct our practise in this affair For it being an exercise of charity must be determined by the measures of prudence according to circumstances and we may as well go about to give certain rules for Mens charity in other cases and fix the proportion which every Man ought to give of his estate towards the relief of the poor as positively to tell how far a Man must deny himself in the use of indifferent things and forego his own liberty for the sake of his Brother and so I end this head with those words of the learned Dr. Hammond in his little Treatise of Scandal This whole matter is to be referred to the Christians pious discretion or prudence it being free to him either to abstain or not to abstain from any indifferent action remaining such according as that piety and that prudence shall represent it to be most charitable and beneficial to other Mens Souls Thus I have done with the first proposition that nothing sinful is to be committed to avoid Scandalizing others 2. I proceed now to the Second that to avoid a less Scandal being taken by a few we must not give a greater Offence and of vastly more pernicious consequence to a much bigger number of persons Not that such a case can ever happen wherein we must necessarily give just Offence to one side or other and so are uncharitable whether we do or forbear to do the same action for then we should be under a necessity of sinning which implies a contradiction but yet it may and often doth happen that some weak persons may take Offence at my doing and others be more Offended at my forbearing to do the same thing and thus whether I do it or not I shall give Offence tho not justly nor through my own fault to some one or other In such circumstances therefore we are to consider which way is given the greater and more dangerous Offence and it can never be either prudence or charity to abstain from that which may Scandalize our Brother when by forbearance a greater and more publick Scandal is ministred to others for in this case we have greater reason on the account of Scandal it self to do than to forbear that action as all that write on this subject do and must acknowledge and for which they usually quote that saying of Bernard Prudenter advertendum est scandalum scandalo non emendari c. We are prudently to mark that one Scandal is not mended by another which kind of emendation we should practise if to take off offence from one party we give offence unto another This was the occasion of that famous Contest between the two great Apostles mentioned in the second Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians St. Peter had freely conversed with the Gentile Christians and had eat with them all kind of meats but afterwards when certain believing Jews from Jerusalem who were still Zealous for Moses's Law and the distinction of meats came to Antioch out of fear of Offending them and occasioning their falling off from the Faith of Christ he abstained from that liberty and withdrew from that conversation which before he had without any scruple used and all the believing Jews that were at Antioch followed his example and separated themselves from their Gentile Brethren Now St. Paul considering the greater Scandal and mischief that would follow this pretended tenderness of St. Peter and his complyance with the Jewish Christians and that it was a likely way not only to confirm them in their error but also wholly to exclude the Gentiles from the Faith of Christ and so to hinder Christian Religion being propagated in the World he withstood Peter to the face and chid him sharply for his imprudent behaviour who to avoid offending some of the weak Jews did give a far greater Offence and of much more dangerous consequence to the Gentile Converts of whom the Christian Church was chiefly to consist In this case therefore of Scandal we are not only to regard one side or party of Men but as the same St. Paul directs us 1 Cor. 10. 32. We must give none offence neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God It would swell this discourse much beyond my present design to set forth at large the many and great Scandals which are given by those who Separate from the Church of England and I doubt not but if this matter was rightly considered and we were but impartially careful to avoid giving all Offence to others we should soon find our selves much more obliged upon this account of Scandal peaceably to communicate with our Church than to continue divided from it I shall hint at some few of the most obvious considerations by which we may a little Judge which way the greater Scandal is given 1. By leaving the Parish-Churches and joyning to the Separate Assemblies we do mightily establish and harden as I have before observed those Dissenters with whom we associate in their sinful Separation and Erroneous persuasion of the unlawfulness of conformity for it is but reasonable with them to judge that we do the same things for the same reasons with themselves and this is the true Scandalizing of our weak Brethren leading them into o confirming them in an evil course Whereas by our forsaking them and returning to the Church we may possibly incline some that are sincere amongst them to consider and suspect their own way and enquire after the Arguments that prevail with us to conform and they may begin to think that there is not so much evil in it as they have all along supposed and thus our Authority or example may contribute something towards the gaining our Brethren 2. Which also I have just mentioned before whatever Sect or denomination of Dissenters we joyn with we Offend all the other Sects or Parties amongst them for they agree only in their opposition to the Church of England but in other things they have their distinct Forms and Models of Worship and Shibboleths and they think as ill and sometimes speak as hardly of one another as they do of Conformists Which would evidently appear if any one sort of them should get the upper hand the rest of them would all act as fiercely and complain as loudly of that Party that did prevail as they now do of the Church of England Till therefore they all agree in one way and speak the same Language there is no reason why any one Sect of them should challenge our condescension to them to the dissatisfaction and Offence of all the other Dissenters who have as good a right to this Plea of weakness as themselves 3. Hereby great Offence is given to all those who do conform for this Separation from the Church is a publick condemning of the Government Orders Discipline or Doctrine of our Church and
the Jews and St. Paul enlargeth their reason in this Chapter because it was a confederating with Devils and being partakers at the table of Devils which he condemns as hugely unbecoming them that eat at the Lords Table vers 20 21. Grotius is so exact in this matter as to tell us there were two ways by which men might eat of things sacrificed to Idols in the sence that the Apostles mean 1. Vel aliquid a Tabulâ c i. e. when at their publick Feasts they sent some part off the Table to be offered solemnly to the Idol and to entitle him to the whole Feast 2. Vel ab Aris ad Mensam defertis or when they took some considerable portion from the Altar and fed upon it at the Table as part of the Idols portion as was hinted before Now for the Christians to be present at and to partake of these things was that which the Apostles forbid in that Canon and which St. Paul also is so sharp upon from 14 to 24 of this Chapter But that which he speaks of afterwards is vastly different from it and plainly means either that part of the Offering which they afterwards spent in their ordinary meals or which was publickly sold afterwards in the Shambles The first of these is easily understood and was common among them to offer some part of the Sacrifice to their Idols and to reserve the rest for their own common use not looking upon it as sacred and the Idols portion as in some great and solemn Sacrifices they did but that which was truly their own and at their own disposal especially having given a part of it to their Gods The other i. e. what was sold in the Shamble◠Criticks give two accounts of 1. It was either that which the Butcher sold part of which he himself had offered to the Idol before he brought the rest to the Shambles Vel à Mà cellario qui ante quam ad marcellum carnes ferret aliquid de Aram in dedisset 2. Or that part which belonged to the Priests and which they often sold having it's probable either more than they could spend themselves or perhaps having a mind to exchange it for other meat which they might purchase with the money they sold it for Vel à Sacerdotibus qui partes quae ipsis cederent venderent saith the same Author Now these were the meats about which the Apostles had made no order at all So that men were at their liberty to buy and eat them if they pleased without asking any questions or troubling themselves with any scruples of Conscience about them And which the Apostle commands them to abstain then onely from when knowing what they were their eating them might wound the Conscience of another and they might give offence thereby either to the Jews or to the Gentiles or to the Church of God To the Jews by seeing them make so little a matter of Idolatry to the Gentiles by encouraging and confirming them in that Idolatry which they ought by all means to seek to wean them from and to the Church of God by seeing them so careless and regardless of the good and benefit of others and without all charity to them By all which I hope it is sufficiently clear that these things to which this Speech relates were not onely indifferent in their nature but undetermined also as to their use no Law having passed one way or other upon them Now this makes them vastly different from the things scrupled among us and by conformity to which Offence is pretended to be given For the use of these is already determined and several Laws both of the Church and State both of the Spiritual and Temporal power have passed upon them So that how indifferent soever they may be in themselves yet it is not indifferent to us whether we observe them or not but it is now matter of Obedience and plain Duty and these things are tied upon the Conscience as strongly as any matter of humane command is or can be And therefore in these we cannot shew favour and indulgence to others if we would for we our selves are under Authority and bound up by the Laws of those above us We have not the power of doing or forbearing nor can we now abstain for fear of offending another man's Conscience without grievously wounding and worse offending of our own and whatever may be the consequence of our Conformity as to another man yet we certainly Know the neglect of it will be a downright sin and a grievous guilt unto our selves So that in this matter the fear of giving offence to others is impertinent a Snare and a direct Temptation and as improperly urged against Conformity as it would be against any other Duty how necessary soever to tell us that there are a great many men that will be offended with our doing of it In this and all such cases we stand immediately responsible unto God and may justly retort that so much abused and mistaken Apology of the Apostles Whether it be not right to obey God rather than regard men judge ye 2. But there is a second thing yet incumbent upon me and that is to shew that supposing the Text were pertinently urged against Conformity and there were a real possibility of giving offence by it yet it would not serve that purpose that it is produced for by our Dissenting Brethren but on the contrary make very much against them And this I shall endeavour to make good by considering who the persons are that the Apostle here cautions us against giving offence unto not onely the Jews nor onely the Gentiles nor both these onely but the Church of God From whence before I come to the main Improvement of this place against the purpose and practice of our Dissenting Brethren we may take occasion to consider what the object of Scandal is and who they are that men ought especially to regard in their cares not to give it At the time of the Apostles writing this there were three different sorts of men that might be offended with eating things offered to Idols the Jews the Gentiles and the body of Christians which he here calls the Church of God In analogy to which there are and always will be different Parties among which men converse Upon which account it will concern us to enquire what our respects to them in this matter ought to be and whether we ought to make any difference among them And this we may resolve our selves in by considering the Cases that concern us which I think are onely these two 1. When we perceive or have reason to think that what we are going to do will offend all Parties equally then no doubt but we ought to forbear it This was plainly the case here The Jews might be prejudiced against Christianity by this practice seeing its Professors make so little a matter of Idolatry which their Law so strictly prohibited and God had always declared himself so
onely oversaw their being dictated rightly in order to their being repeated rightly When therefore Tertullian saith We pray without a Monitor his meaning is not that we pray without a Priest to dictate our Prayers to us whether it were out of a Book or extempore but that we pray without a Custos or Overseer either to admonish our People of their repeating the Prayers falsly or to admonish our Priests of their dictating them falsly in order to the Peoples repeating them rightly Because saith he we pray from our hearts which words may admit of a twofold interpretation first because we do not vocally repeat our Prayers after our Priest but onely joyn our affections with them and send up our hearts and desires after them or 2ly because we can say our Prayers by heart and so are in no great danger of repeating them falsly and consequently have no such need of a Monitor to observe and correct us for it is well known how much Tertullian in all his Writings affects to imitate and express the Greek which renders him oftentimes so very obscure and therefore it 's probable enough as hath been observ'd (p) (p) (p) Thornd Relig. Assem p. 237. that his de pectore here or from the heart may be onely a translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to say by heart according to which account these words of Tertullian are so far from testifying against the use of Forms that they rather argue the use of them for since he onely denies their having a Monitor he doth in effect grant their having a Priest to read the publick Prayers to them as well as the Heathen and if from the heart be in Tertullian's Language the same with by heart it 's a plain case that they used Forms for otherwise how could they have them by heart That this is the true account of this difficult phrase I will not confidently affirm because it is onely my own single guess but whether it be or no it 's certain it can no more signifie without a Form of Prayer than without a Minister to pray extempore the one being as much a Monitor to the People as the other The last Testimony which our Brethren urge against the Antiquity of Forms of Prayer is that of Sucrates Scholasticus (q) (q) (q) Soc. Hist l. 5. c. 21. whose words they thus translate Everywhere and in all Worships of Prayer there are not two to be found that speak the same words and therefore say they it 's very unlikely they should pray by receiv'd Forms But how far this is from the sence of the Author will evidently appear by considering what he had been before discoursing of In short therefore he had been just before relating the different Customs that were used in several Churches and among the rest he tells us that in Hellas Jerusalem and Thessalia the Prayers were made whilst the Candles were lighting according to the manner of the Novatians at Constantinople and that in Caesarea of Cappadocia and Cyprus the Presbyters and Bishops always interpreted the Scripture on the Saturday and Lord's-day in the evening the Candles being lighted that the Novatians in the Hellespont did not observe the same manner of praying with those of Constantinople but that for the most part they followed the Customs of the chief Churches among them and then he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. upon the whole every where and among all the Worships of Prayer there are not two to be found that agree in the same thing where by Worships of Prayer it 's plain he means the Ceremonies and Rites of Prayer that were used in several Churches for 't was of these he had been immediately before discoursing and therefore his meaning can be no more than this that among all the constituted Rites and Ceremonies of Prayer that were used in the several Churches there were not two to be found that agreed in the same and how doth it follow that because they did not use the same Rites and Ceremonies of Prayer therefore they did not use Forms of Prayer for even now we see there are different Rites of Prayer among those Churches which do yet agree in using Forms of Prayer And now I proceed to the second thing proposed which was to prove the use of Forms of Prayer in the primitive Ages by a short Historical Account of the Matter of Fact That in the first Age there was a Gift of praying extempore by immediate inspiration seems highly probable both from what the Apostle discourses of praying in unknown Languages 1 Cor. 14. and from what St. Chrysostom asserts concerning it (r) (r) (r) Chrys in Rom. 8. 26. viz. That together with those miraculous Gifts which were then poured out there was a Gift of Praying which was called by the Apostle a Spirit by which he who was endued with it poured out Prayers for all the People and while this Gift continued perhaps which how long it was is very uncertain there might no other Form be used in publick Worship in those places especially where it abounded but onely that of the Lord's Prayer and it may be in imitation of this Gift upon which even in the Apostles time the Christians were apt to over-value themselves some might affect to pray extempore after it was wholly expired but it is highly probable that upon the ceasing or abatement of it it was in most places immediately supplied by Forms of Prayer which were composed either of the words or according to the method and manner of those inspired Prayers by Apostolical persons that heard and remembred them for so as the same St. Chrysostom goes on (s) (s) (s) Chrys ibid. For we being ignorant of many things which are profitable for us do ask many things which are unprofitable and therefore this Gift of Prayer was given to some one person that was there i. e. in the Congregation who ask'd for all that which was profitable for the universal Church and taught others to do so that is to form Prayers according to those inspired Models for though I do not pretend that there were no other Prayers used in publick but onely Forms either in or presently after the Age of the Apostles yet it seems most probable that even from the Apostolical Age some part at least of the publick Worship was perform'd in Forms of Prayer and if so we have all the reason in the world to conclude that these Forms were composed according to the Pattern of those primitive inspired Prayers Now that there were Forms from the Apostolical Age seems highly probable because so far as we can find there never was any dispute among Christians concerning the lawfulness of praying by a Form Had this way of praying been introduc'd after the Primitive Ages it would have been a most observable innovation upon the Primitive Christianity and that in such a publick matter of fact that every Christian could not but take notice
Just Mart. Apol. 2. p. 93. Ignat. Ep. ad Magn. the Constituted-Prayers (k) (k) (k) Orig. Cont. Cels l. 6. and the Solemn-Prayers (l) (l) (l) Cyp. de laps serm 14. which last was the Title by which the Heathens then distinguish'd and express'd their publick Forms of Prayer (m) (m) (m) Vid. Ovid. l. 6. de fastis Statius Papin l. 4. Senec. in Oedip. Act 2. Sect 2. and consequently in the Language of that Age must signifie a publick Form And as for that particular Form of Prayers so often used in our Liturgy Glory be to the Father c. St. Basil fetches the Original of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the tradition of the Apostles and cites this Doxology from St. Clemens the Apostles Scholar and from Dionysius of Alexandria (n) (n) (n) Basil de sp s c. 27. 29. who was living Anno 200. and Clemens of Alexandria who was living Anno 160 sets down these words as the Christians Form of praising God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (o) (o) (o) Clem. Alex. Paedag. Praising the Father and the Son with the Holy Ghost And therefore though there are some who attribute the composure of this Eucharistical Hymn to the rise of the Arian Sect yet from these Authorities it is much more probable that it was long before composed and used in the publick Worship of the Church for the Arians are sharply reproved by the Orthodox Fathers for altering this ancient Form into Glory be to the Father by the Son and in the Holy Ghost (p) (p) (p) Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 24. And indeed a great-part of the Primitive Worship consisted of Hymns and Doxologies which could no longer be extempore than while the miraculous Gifts continued after which they must necessarily be composed into set Forms for Tertullian tells us that their Coetus antelucani their meetings before day were ad canendum Christo ut Deo to sing to Christ as God (q) (q) (q) Tertul. Apologet. c. 2. And Lucian before him thus describes the practice of Christians that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spend whole nights in watching and singing of Psalms (r) (r) (r) Lucian Philop. So also Justin Martyr describing the Christian life tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are to sing Hymns and Psalms and Odes and Praise (s) (s) (s) Just Mart. Epist ad Zen. Heren Now it 's evident that in Pliny's and Lucian's time the Christians used set Forms of Hymns not onely of divine but also of humane composure for so Pliny tells us (t) (t) (t) Plin. Epist l. 10. Ep. 97. That early in the morning it was their manner to sing by turns a Hymn to Christ as to God which Hymn was doubtless of humane composure there being no Hymn to Christ in Scripture of that length as to take up a considerable part of their publick Service And besides Eusebius tells us That very early there were various Psalms and Odes composed by Christians concerning the Divinity of Christ (u) (u) (u) Euseb Hist lib. 5. and that Paulus Samosetanus was condemned for suppressing those Hymns that were made in the Honour of Christ as being the compositions of men of late days (w) (w) (w) Ibid. Hist lib. 7. though in all probability those Hymns were composed within much less than an hundred years after the Apostolical Age but as for this Hymn which Pliny speaks of it was earlier for it could not be much above ten years after the death of St. John that Pliny gave this account of Christians to Trajan and therefore to be sure the Hymn he there speaks of was used in the Age of the Apostles And about the same time Lucian makes mention of a Prayer which they used in their publick Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beginning from the Father which doubtless was the Lord's Prayer and of a famous Hymn added to the end of their Service (x) (x) (x) Lucian Philop. which in all probability was the Hymn that Pliny speaks of Since therefore the Primitive Worship did in a great measure consist of Hymns which were Forms of Praise intermixt with Prayer and some of these of humane composure this is an evident Testimony of the Primitive use of Forms And doubtless they who made no scruple of praying by Form in verse could not think it unlawful to pray by Form in prose for that praying in Meeter or composed Hymns was a very early Practice in the Christian Church is evident from the Apostolical Constitutions where it is injoyned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the People sing the verses which answer adversly to one another (y) (y) (y) Constit Apost l. 2. c. 5. which way of singing was so very ancient that Eusebius (z) (z) (z) Euseb Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 17. urges it as an argument to prove the Essenes Christians because they sung by turns answering one another But how could they thus answer to one another in their Hymns and Prayers unless they had constant Forms of Prayer But that they had such Forms of Responsal in Prayer is evident because when Julian for the credit of Gentilism would needs dress it up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) (a) (a) Sos Hist l. 5. c. 15. after the Order of the Christian Worship one thing wherein he sought to imitate it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their constituted Prayers that is not in having constituted Forms of Prayer for that the Heathen had before but in having such constituted Forms as the Christians had that is as Nazianzen explains it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Form of Prayer to be said in parts (b) (b) (b) Nazian Orat. 1. p. 102. for this way of praying in parts Nicephorus (c) (c) (c) Niceph. l. 13. c. 8. derives from Ignatius who was a Scholar of the Apostles All which to me is a plain demonstration of the great antiquity of Forms And that in Constantine's time the Church used publick Forms of Prayer is evident from that often-cited place of Eusebius (d) (d) (d) Euseb d◠Laud. Constant where he tells us of Constantine's composing Godly Prayers for the use of his Souldiers and elsewhere tells us in particular what the Prayer was We acknowledge thee O God alone c. (e) (e) (e) Id. de vit Constant c. 20. which is a plain evidence that it was a set Form of words But it 's objected that this Form was composed onely for the use of his Souldiers who were a great part of them Heathens and that Constantine's composing it is a plain evidence that at that time there were no publick Forms in the Church for if there had what need Constantine have composed one To which I answer That this Form indeed was composed onely for his Heathen Souldiers for as for his Christian Souldiers the story tells us that he gave them liberty to go to Church
that the Minister should read all as he does other parts of the Scripture but that the People should recite the Psalms and other Godly Hymns with the Minister by way of Answering in turns as the Custom is with us more or less in most Places For when the People rise up to do this in order to the Solemn Praising of God this is much nearer to singing wherein the People are allowed to bear a part in God's Vocal Praise than the Ministers reciting all himself and shutting out the People from any part thereof But it is Objected particularly against the reciting of one Verse of the Psalms by the Minister and another by the People that the Peoples Verse is in a manner lost to some of the Congregation since in the confused murmur of so many Voices nothing can be distinctly heard Now if our Brethren should admit of what has been already said in Vindication of these Responsals I hope this Objection will not be insisted upon I grant that which is uttered in the Congregation ought to be understood But then those Verses of the Psalms which are uttered by the Congregation may be well enough understood by every one that has a Book or who is acquainted competently well with the Psalms themselves I need not say much in answer to this Objection because it may be removed by every one that makes it if he can read and will bring a Book along with him And as for those that cannot I must needs say that it is not so hard as is pretended for them also to take those Verses which are uttered by those that are near them if they will carefully attend And I have been credibly informed that some devout People that could never read have attained to an ability of reciting most of the Psalms without Book by often hearing them in those Churches where they are alternately recited which shews that the Murmur is not so confused but that the Words may be heard ditinctly enough to be understood if one has a mind to it And then they that cannot read may by this means be more quickned than otherwise they would be to learn to read however to attend and to learn the Psalms without Book that they also may bear their part Vocally with the Congregation in God's Praises I shall add That for the most part the Psalms are recited alternately in those Churches only where it may be reasonably presumed that the whole Congregation can read very few excepted For by the way this Method of reading the Psalms is not Commanded but every Parish Church is left at liberty to observe her own Custom about it In the Country Parishes the Minister generally recites all which way I do not think so convenient as that of Responsals for the Reason I gave before But there ought to be no breach amongst us about things of this Nature in which one way may perhaps be more convenient in one respect and the contrary more convenient in another and then we should not altogether dwell upon Considerations that favour our own opinion but attend also to those that may be offered for another and put the best construction upon it especially in favour of a Publick Rule or a received Custom This is more Christian-like and will be more for the honour of Religion and the good of other Mens Souls and for our own Comfort at last than to strain our utmost Wit to find faults with and to aggravate Inconveniences against the Laws or Usages of the Church where we live This that I am now speaking of is not a Law imposed on all the Churches of our National Communion but a Custom of some of them which I thought good to desend that they who think not so highly well of it as I do may not yet break Communion with those that use it And I hope our Brethren who grant the People are not to be excluded from Vocal Praise will consider that there is no inconvenience in uttering the Psalms by Responsals but that which is pretended concerning the difficulty to understand what is said And that there is very little reason for this pretence seeing the Psalms are the most known parts in the Bible and that if those few who cannot read will be careful they may reap great benefit by attending to the Congregation as some have done till themselves have been able to recite the Psalms 2. If they grant it Lawful and Expedient that the People should joyn in Vocal Praise I cannot see how they can Dispute the lawfulness or expedience of their joyning with the Minister sometimes in Vocal Prayer It will not be easie to shew a Reason why this should be disallowed if that be allowed If it be said there is some Example and Warrant in the Scripture for the one but not for the other it seems to be a good answer that there is such a parity of reason as that the express warrant of the Scripture for one is an implied warrant for the other Unless a Man will say that Nothing must be done in Gods Worship for which there is not express and particular Warrant which though a Man may say when he is opposing a way of Worship which he likes not yet he will not say it when he comes to defend his own It is a Principle that no Man will stand by though sometimes he may take it up to serve a turn The truth is the Scripture does not pretend to give us a perfect account of the Order and Manner of the Solemn Worship of God either in the Synagogues of the Jews or in the Churches of Christians nor to prescribe a Form for the Service of God by the Church in after times Several things were done in the Religious Assemblies of Christians first of all that were peculiar to the extraordinary effusion of the Spirit in those times and several that were fit enough for the conduct of God's Service when Miracles should cease and of both sorts some are intimated in St. Paul's two Epistles to the Corinthians but no Man that understands these things will say that they are all intimated there or any where else in the New Testament And therefore it does not follow that they did not observe in their Worship this or that Custom from hence that we do not find it written that they observed it We do not read that the Lords Prayer was used in the time of the Apostles but I suppose they are very few who will therefore make a question whether it was used or not We are able to shew that the Peoples joyning in Vocal Prayer with the Minister was very anciently practised In imitation of the way of the Christians Julian the Apostate appointed a Form of Prayer for the Heathen to be recited in Parts which shews that this was a known Custom Naz. Orat. 3. of the Church in those days and that it had been generally practised before And if this was the Primitive way it is more probable that it
that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome that I must needs profess I have often wondred how this should become a Question Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature as it is not Commanded so neither is it Forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law and where there is no Law the Apostle saith there is no transgression Sin being according to his definition the transgression of the Law And whereas certain Circumstances will make things that in themselves are neither duties nor sins to be either duties or sins and to fall by Consequence under some Divine Command or Prohibition I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing 's being used by the Church of Rome can be thought to alter the Nature of that thing and make it cease to be indifferent and become sinful But that it doth so is endeavoured to be proved by that general Prohibition to the Israelites of imitating the doings of the Aegyptians and Canaanites in those Words Lev. 18. 2. After the doings of the Land of Aegypt wherein ye dwell shall ye not do and after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you shall ye not do neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances This place divers of the Defenders of Nonconformity have laid great weight upon as a proof of the Sinfulness of Symbolizing with the Church of Rome Even in indifferent things But I chuse to forbear the Naming of any whose Arguings I purpose to inquire into because I would prevent if it be possible the least suspition in the Readers that I design in this Performance to expose any Mans weakness in particular or that I am therein Acted by any Personal Piques Now then as to the Text now Cited not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of Arguing without mighty caution from Laws given by Moses to the Israelites so as to infer the Obligation of Christians who are under a dispensation so different from theirs and in Circumstances so vastly differing from those they were in I say not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of this way of Arguing which all considering Persons must needs be aware of if this general Prohibition be not at all to be limited then it will follow from thence that the Israelites might have no usages whatsoever in common with the Aegyptians or Canaanites and therefore in as general terms as the Prohibition runs our Brethren must needs acknowledge that there is a restriction therein intended it being the most absurd thing to imagine that the Israelites were so bound up by God as to be Obliged to an unlikeness to those People in all their Actions For as the Apostles said of the Christians if they were never to Company with Wicked Men they must needs go out of the World we may say of the Israelites in reference to this Case of theirs they then must needs have gone out of the World Now if this general Prohibition After their doings ye shall not do be to be limited and restrained what way have we to do it but by considering the Context and confining the restriction to those Particulars Prohibited in the following verses But I need not shew that the particulars forbidden in all these viz. from v. 5th to the 24th were not things of an indifferent Nature but Incestuous Copulations and other abominable Acts of Vncleanness And God doth Expresly enough thus restrain that general Prohibition in the 24th v. in these Words Defile not your selves in any of these things for in all these the Nations are Defiled which I cast out before you But those that alledge this Text to the foresaid purpose will not hear of the general Proposition's being thus limited by the Context as apparent as it is that it necessarily must because say they we find that God forbids the Israelites in other places to imitate Heathens in things of an Indifferent and Innocent Nature To this I Answer First That supposing this were so it doth not from thence follow that God intended to forbid such imitations in this place the contrary being so manifest as we have seen But Secondly That God hath any where prohibited the Israelites to Symbolize with Heathens in things of a meer Indifferent and Innocent Nature I mean that he hath made it unlawful to them to observe any such Customs of the Heathens meerly upon the account of their being like them is a very great mistake Which will appear by considering those places which are produced for it One is Deut. 14. 1. You shall not Cut your selves nor make any baldness between your Eyes for the dead Now as to the former of these prohibited things who seeth not that 't is Vnnatural and therefore not indifferent And as to the latter viz. the disfiguring of themselves by Cutting off their Eyebrows this was not meerly an indifferent thing neither It being a Custom at Funerals much disbecoming the People of God which would make them look as if they sorrowed for the dead as Men without hope Another place insisted upon for the same purpose is Lev. 19. 19. Thou shalt not let thy Cattle-Gender with a divers kind thou shalt not sow thy ground with mingled seed nor shall a Garment of Linnen and Woollen come upon thee Now these three 't is said are things of so indifferent a Nature that none can be more indifferent I answer 'T is readily granted But where is it said that these things were forbidden because the Heathens used them Maimonides indeed as I learn from Grotius saith that the Aegyptians used these mixtures of Seeds and of Linnen and Woollen in many of their Magical Exploits but 't is universally acknowledged that these things among many other were forbidden to the Jews as Mystical instructions in Moral Duties I have found no other Text made use of to prove meer indifferent things to have been forbidden the Israelites only in regard of Heathens using them which make more for this purpose than these two do nor hardly another that makes so much But if there were never so many it is not worth our while to concern ourselves now with them because though we should suppose a great number of instances of such things as were forbidden those People for no other reason but because the Egyptians or Canaanites used them yet this would signifie nothing to the proving Our Churches Symbolizing with that of Rome in indifferent things to be Unlawful because there is not the like reason why in such things we may not Symbolize with Papists that there was why the Jews should be forbidden to Symbolize in such with those Heathens For there could not be too great a distance and unlikeness between those People and these in their usages in regard of their strangely Vehement inclination to their Superstitious and Idolatrous Practices And upon this account the distance was made wider as our Brethren themselves will acknowledge between the Jews and the Pagans than it ought to be between
assert and which occasioned our Author's Resolution of the Case of Symbolizing c. is this That things which might otherwise be lawfully used in the Worship of God do become unlawfull by their having been abused in Idolatrous or Superstitious Services And some of them do understand this in a more limited and restrained sense as our Author hath shewed than others of them do Secondly as this Question is put you are sure to have no Adversaries For who ever doubted whether a thing be unlawfull in the Worship of God that is Vnsuitable to the Ends thereof whether this thing hath been abused or no in Idolatrous Services Now having thus strangely put the Question you proceed to shew that from thence will follow several things as things out of controversie betwixt us And I perceive you are very cautious herein of reviving a certain Old controversie among your selves viz. Whether our Old Churches Bells and Fonts c. may still be used For you thus word your third particular wherein we are agreed viz. That things of mere conveniency for a Religious Action for the Service of the Ends of it may be used though Idolaters have used the like you are shy I perceive of saying the same so as none scruple the using of Churches to meet in c. You say not none scruple the using of the Old Churches which were built by Papists In your next Page you tell our Author that you think that * * * p. 11. Zanchy's Rule is at least Safest and that he knows that in dubiis animae tutior pars est eligenda But I think you might have Englisht it better than thus in matters of Sin the Safest part is always to be preferred For in matters of Sin or sinfull matters in my silly judgment there is no safest part to be preferred Next you positively assert that in matters of Divine Worship if the things used by Idolaters be not necessary both the abuse and the use also ought to be abolished And you say you cannot understand what else is the meaning of the Apostle in that his Application of the words found Psal 24. 1. in 1 Cor 10. 28. viz. If any man say unto you this is offered in Sacrifice unto Idols Eat not for his sake that shewed it and for Conscience sake For the Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof c. That is you say you shall not need to starve though you do not eat of that meat c. To this I answer that our Author hath freely acknowledged pag. 36. That 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 inclined again so to abuse them At least if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by other means But our Author utterly denies that those Rites which our Church retaineth that have been abused and are still by the Church of Rome have been observed to be any temptation to Idolatry or to the embracing of Popery And therefore there is upon this supposition no Argument to be drawn from that Text against the Sinfulness of using those Rites because the Apostle there forbids the Strong Christian the eating of that meat which a Weak Christian shall inform him was a portion of an Idol-sacrifice for this reason lest he be confirmed in or betrayed to the sin of Idolatry by his example not rightly understood by him And consequently this Christian is supposed to be such a weak one as would be in danger of making this ill use of his Example as being but lately converted from Paganism and not yet sufficiently instructed in the precepts of Christianity It is manifest from the immediately following verse that the Apostle forbiddeth the eating of meat offered to Idols upon this sole account For saying in the former verse Eat not for his sake that shewed it and for Conscience sake he adds in the latter that he means not that he should forbear for the sake of his own Conscience but onely for the sake of the others Conscience If therefore you can prove that these Rites of our Church are Temptations to any of its Members to go over to the Romish Church or to commit Idolatry still continuing therein you shall be so far from being opposed by our Author that he 'll heartily join with you in endeavouring by all lawfull means to have them abolished on supposition that the Temptation cannot otherwise be taken away But I desire you by the way to take notice that it is not the Design of his Book which you could not but see though you would seem not to see it to plead for the continuance of these Rites as innocent and harmless things at least as he takes them to be but onely to perswade Dissenters not to separate from our Church upon the account of such things and to shew that their having been abused is no just ground for Separation And having minded you of this I shall not need to tell you that the other Old-Testament Text which you have added to those which he hath replied to is alledged very impertinently which yet we 'll bestow two or three words in answer to But first let us see what you reply to what he saith to these Texts You say * * * p. 12. you cannot possibly get leave of your self considering under what terms of Divine Abhorrence God every where mentioneth Idolatry in Holy writ c. to be of the mind of our Author that the Texts Lev. 19. 2. Deut. 14. 1. Lev. 19. 19. are merely to be understood of things in themselves evil Nor by the way is our Author of that mind for he acknowledgeth pag. 27. that the things forbidden in the last of these places are things of so indifferent a nature that none can be more indifferent But he asks where it is said that these things were forbidden because the Heathens used them And he addeth that though Maimonides saith that the Egyptians used these Mixtures of Seeds and of Linnen and Woollen in many of their Magical Exploits yet 't is universally acknowledged that these things among many others were forbidden to the Jews as Mystical instructions in Moral duties But to this you are perfectly silent But why cannot you be of our Author's mind as to the two other Texts You say The following part of the Chap. Lev. 18. gives some colour to interpret that place of things morally evil yet why are they forbidden under the notion of things done after the doings of the Egyptians and the Canaanites I answer because they were the doings of those people whom they were exceedingly prone to imitate even their greatest Immoralities And this is a sufficient Answer Then you tell us Nor is Deut. 14. 1. or Lev. 19. 8. capable of such a sense But our Author saith not a word of Lev. 19. 8. for 't is verse the 19th that he speaks to and as hath been said already he
but do know why many of our Festivals receive their names from certain Saints And why may we not on certain Days meet together to praise God for blessing the world with such Saints as have been next to our Blessed Lord the most Glorious instruments of good to the world and at the same time hear those Chapters read wherein their worthy deeds are recorded and together with other Prayers put in one for grace to follow those blessed Examples of a holy Life of both active and passive Obedience which they have through the Divine grace left behind them What Sin is there in all this Nay why should not this highly become us and be of singular advantage to us You give two reasons why this is unlawfull 1. Because God hath no where prescribed it But must we be at this time of day told that nothing is lawfull relating to the Worship of God but what is expresly commanded when the Idleness and Folly of that Doctrine hath been over and over exposed as it hath been But 2dly you say That this is that which the Jews nor Christians in the first times never did But if you mean by the First times the times of the Apostles 't is more than you can prove that the Martyrdom of St. Stephen was never solemnly commemorated by the Christians in their time And I presume you would not have had the Martyrdoms of the Apostles commemorated before they were Martyred what if this be not recorded is it therefore a certain Argument that it never was You find not I think the Martyrdom of any one of the Apostles recorded in holy Scripture except St. James's But if you mean by the first times the Primitive times I perceive you never read or have forgotten The Epistle of the Church of Smyrna concerning Policarp's Martyrdom But I hope it needs not to be proved to you that the Catholique Church observed Martyrum Natalitia the Days whereon they were crowned with Martyrdom even from the Second Century But where do you find it prescribed in God's word or recorded that it was practised in the Apostles times for to be sure you mean those by the First times to praise God for the good Examples of Holy men among other great Blessings is it therefore unlawfull so to doe as well as to doe it upon Set Days You will not assert so absurd a thing In short Sir think not that we need either Precepts or Examples to justifie our doing of that which the very Light of Nature and Right Reason do plainly declare to us to be though not a necessary duty yet highly becoming us and praise-worthy And we are certain that it is dictated thereby to be highly becoming us to commemorate at Annual Selected times the unspeakable Goodness of God to us in giving us such Shining Lights as the Holy Apostles c. and to meditate upon Christ glorified in them who with admirable courage first preached and propagated his Gospel in the World and with admirable Patience for the sake thereof indured the greatest of Miseries and Calamities and at last Sealed it with their Blood 8. You say But if Devout persons will set apart Days you might have said too will observe Days set apart by the Church to give God thanks for any signal mercies among which I think every Apostle is a most signal one or to put up Prayers for any people in distress provided they do not mock God in giving him an holy hour instead of an holy day and spend the rest of the day in Idleness Gaming Drinking c. And can you think that any of our Devout people do not abhor such practices as much as you Dissenters will never blame or condemn them for it I hoped you would have said they will join with us since Authority requires it 9. You say Finally Dissenters will never separate from the Church of England for the true keeping of a day holy to God c. Yes surely they will if it be a Saint's day at least as one would think by what you have said But you add that they will separate from the Looseness and commonly practised Profanation of it and so do thousands of those that are no Dissenters I hope or such as were onely so in the Pope's Kalendar as St. George c. Now you would Sir again feign your self more ignorant than you are for no doubt you know as well as we that St. George his day is no Church of England Holy-day And for all your c. you cannot but know too that Our Church hath no Festival-days called by any Saints names but such as all Christians own for the Greatest of Saints except those Innocents who had the honour to suffer for Christ's sake before they were of age to know him We have indeed a Fast-day occasioned by the Horrid Murther of King Charles the Martyr whom we deservedly honour as a Great Saint But I never heard that this Saint stands in the Pope's Kalendar and I 'll warrant you never shall We should be glad to hear that He stands in yours however we hope He will never be blotted out of ours And now having done with our Author you spend a good part of your five last Pages in such discourse as is so far from tending to the composing of our Differences and healing our wide and most dangerous Breaches that it hath the most apparent tendency to the making them irreparable beyond all Remedy And 't is enough to convince all sober people that the cause of those that separate is desperate to observe what strange principles are taken up of late in the defence of Separation even such as the Old Non-conformists would have thought very wild ones serving no better purpose than the Unhinging of all And those Sir which you here lay down so dogmatically not offering any proof of them you shall find most shamefully baffled by the Dean of St. Pauls in his forementioned excellent Book For my part I am too much tryred with Scribbling thus long to take into consideration this close of your Book farther than reflecting upon two or three passages though I am not at all obliged to take notice of those neither as a Defender of our Author And indeed to deal like a plain-hearted Friend with you it was but the other day before I could be perswaded to think it needfull to Reply at all You say pag. 31. That Separation in these three Cases is Lawfull if not Necessary Your First case is When such errours are in the Constitution of a Church as if they had been known before ought to have hindered Vnion with it But you do not tell us what Errours those are Would you have your Readers take it for granted that there are such Errours in the Constitution of the Church of England But we may guess at one of those Errours in our Constitution from that which you say pag. 30. viz. That Governing Churches must have proper Officers which cannot be unless elected by
of Believers and with his Posterity not as proceeding from him by natural but by spiritual Generation as Heirs of his Faith as is plain from Rom. 4. 16. Therefore the Promise is of Faith that so also it might be by Grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed of Abraham not to that only which is of the Law but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham who is the Father of us all both Jew and Gentile that believe So Chap. 9. 6. c. not as tho' the Word or Promise of God to them had taken none effect For they are not all the Israel which are descended of Israel neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children of God's Covenant but 't is said in Isaac shall thy Seed be called tho' Abraham had more Sons that is all they which are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise only as Isaac was are counted for the Seed Hence saith the Apostle in the name of the Christians Phil. 3. 3. we are the Circumcision which worship God in the Spirit and have no Confidence in the Flesh and it is one God which shall justifie the Circumcision by Faith and the Uncircumcision through Faith and if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise which God made unto Abraham Furthermore that this Covenant was Evangelical and made with the Posterity of Abraham not as his Natural but as his Spiritual Off-spring will appear in the third place from the initiatory Sacrament into it which was Circumcision or cutting off the Fore-skin of the Flesh as it is written You shall Circumcise the Fore-skin of your Flesh and it shall be a Sign of the Covenant betwixt me and you Hence the Covenant of which it was the Sign is called by * * * Acts 7. 8. St. Stephen the Covenant of Circumcision and Circumcision on the other hand is called by St. Paul the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Faith or Faithful Obedience being the Condition of that Covenant which God required of the Children of Abraham and which they promised to perform It also signified the Circumcision of the †††〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 260. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. p. 261. Heart as Moses said unto the People of Israel Circumcise the Fore-skin of your Hearts Deut. 10. 16. and in Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God will Circumcise thine heart and the hearts of thy Seed that thou mayest love the Lord thy God with all thine Heart and with all thy Soul that thou mayest live And agreeable unto this Spiritual Signification of Circumcision St. Paul saith Rom. 2. 28. He is not a Jew which is one outwardly neither is that Circumcision which is outwardly in the Flesh but he is a Jew which is one inwardly and Circumcision is that of the Heart in the Spirit and not in the Letter whose Praise is not of Men but of God As to the Persons who were capable of initiation into the Jewish Church by this Sacrament we have a very plain account at the institution of it in Gen. Chap. 27. I will saith God unto Abraham establish my Covenant between Me and thee and thy Seed after thee for an Everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and thy Seed after thee Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations this is The Token of my Covenant which ye shall keep between Me and you and thy Seed after thee every Male among you shall be Circumcised And ye shall Circumcise the flesh of your Fore-skin and it shall be a Token of the Covenant betwixt Me and you and he that is eight days old shall be Circumcised among you every Male in your Generations he that is born in the House or bought with Money of any Stranger which is not of thy Seed he that is born in thy House and he that is bought with thy Money must needs be Circumcised and my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant From this account of Persons to be Circumcised it is plain First That Gentiles who were born of * * * Exod. 12. 48 49. Gentile Parents in Abraham's House or bought with his Money as Servants then were and Blacks are now among us were to be initiated into the Covenant by Circumcision from whence it appears that the Spiritual Race of Abraham were the Children of the Covenant and that when God promised to be a God to him and his Seed after him he meant the Children of his Faith Hence in all Ages of the Jewish Church if any Gentiles embraced the Jewish Faith and Religion they were admitted into it by Circumcision and thereupon reckoned among the Posterity of Abraham and the peculiar People of God although they were not the Children of Abraham according to the Flesh There were great numbers of Gentiles thus converted to the Jewish Faith and Religion and grafted like wild Branches into the Olive-Tree in all the Ages of the Jewish Church Not to mention particular Persons we read that many of the Medes and Persians became Jews in the time of Ashuerus Esther 8. 17. * * * Selden de jure l. 2. c. 2. Likewise in the time of David and Solomon vast numbers of the neighbouring Countries embraced Judaism and in the time of Hyrcanus the whole Nation of the Idumaeans turned Jews and lived in their own Country according to the Jewish Rites This short account of the Jewish Proselytes may satisfie any Man who is not perverted beyond cure that the Church of the Jews was not founded upon nor constituted by natural Generation but by Spiritual Regeneration as the Church Christian is and that those who were then related unto God as Members of his Church were so because they were the Spiritual Seed of Abraham who then was and still is the Father of the Church and Church Members to whom he is related not in his Natural but in his Religious Capacity as he was a Believer and the Father of all those that believe But Secondly It is manifest from this Scriptural account of persons to be Circumcised that Circumcision was an Ordinance of Latitude comprehending Persons of all Ages and that Children and Minors not yet arrived at years of Discretion who were incapacitated as to some ends of Circumcision were notwithstanding to be solemnly initiated by it as well as grown Men who were capable of all God was pleased to call them his nay they were his Property as much as their Parents of whom they descended he looked upon them as holy and separate and as Candidates of the Covenant and he thought them so well qualified for admission into it that he would not have it put off beyond the eighth day He that is eight days old or as it is in the Original a Son of
Jewish Church Or if in a short History of their Mission and Undertaking we should have read that they Circumcised and Baptized as many Proselytes as gladly received their word would this have been an Argument that they did not also Circumcise and Baptize the Infants of those believing Proselytes according to the Laws and Usages of their Mother-Church No certainly such a Commission to Proselyte Strangers to the Jewish Religion could not in reason have been strained to prejudice the customary right of Infants to Circumcision and Baptism and therefore in parity of reason neither could the Apostles so understand their Commission without other Notices as to exclude Infants from Sacramental Initiation into the Church The plain truth is their Commission was a direction how they should proselyte Strangers to Christianity according to the nature of propagating a new Religion in strange Countries as it is set forth by the Apostle Rom. 20. 14. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard And how shall they hear without a Preacher And how shall they Preach unless they be sent Accordingly they were sent out to Preach or to Disciple Men and Women by Preaching and to Baptize as many of them as should upon their Preaching Believe and Repent But though the Order of Nature required that they should proceed in this Method with grown Persons as the Jews were wont to do with Proselytes to the Law yet it did not hinder that they who had been born and bred Jews should initiate the Infants of such Proselyted Persons according to the usage of the Jewish Church What need Christ have said more unto them when he sent them out than to bid them Go and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Or to Preach the Gospel to every Creature and tell them that he that would believe the Gospel and be Baptized should be saved But then the respective sence of these words could only concern adult Persons and their qualification for Baptism but could in no reason be construed by them to exclude Infants but only unbelieving Men and Women whereof none were to be admitted into the Church by Baptism before they were taught Christianity and had confessed their Faith and Sins Should God as I said before call twelve Men of any Church where Infant-Baptism had been the constant and undoubted practice and bid them go and Preach the Gospel in the Indies to every creature and to say He that believeth the Doctrine which we Preach and is Baptized with the Baptism which we Administer shall be Saved I appeal to any Dissenter upon the account of Infant-Baptism whether he thinks that these Men bred up to the practice of Infant-Baptism could in probability so interpret this Commission as to think that it was God's intention that they should exclude the Infants of believing Proselytes from Baptismal admission into the Church The Professors against Infant-Baptism put the greatest stress upon these words of our Saviour He that believeth and is baptized shall be Saved But if they would well consider the next words they would find that Infants are not at all concerned in them because it follows but he that believeth not shall be Damned The same want of Faith which here excludes from Baptism excludes also from Salvation and therefore it cannot be understood of Infants unless they will say with the * * * The Petrobusians vid. Cassandri praefat ad Duc. Jul. Cli. praefat advers Anabaptistas Original Anabaptists that the same incapacity of believing which excludes them from Baptism excludes them from Salvation too Wherefore it is plain that the believing and not believing in that Text is only to be understood of such as are in capacity of hearing and believing the Gospel that is of grown Persons just as the words in Joh. 3. 36. He that believeth on the Son of God hath Everlasting Life and he that believeth not shall not see Life but the Wrath of God abideth on him Thus far have I proceeded to shew how inconclusively and absurdly the Anabaptists go about to prove that Infants ought to be excluded from Baptism from the fore-mentioned Texts which speak of the Order of Proselyting grown Persons and their Qualifications for Baptism and as little success have they with some others which they bring to shew how unprofitable Baptism is for Infants as that in 1 Pet. 3. 21. Where the Apostle tells us that external Baptism of putting away the filth of the Flesh of which Infants are only capable signifies nothing but the answer of a good Conscience towards God of which say they Infants are altogether uncapable to which the answer is very easie that another Apostle tells us that external Circumcision of which Infants were only capable profited nothing without keeping the Law which Infants could not keep nay that the outward Circumcision of which Infants were only capable was nothing but that the inward Circumcision of the heart and in the spirit was the true Circumcision and yet Infants remaining Infants were utterly uncapable of that so that their way of arguing from this and such like Texts proves nothing because it proves too much and stretches the words of the Apostles unto undue consequences beyond their just Meaning which was only to let both Jews and Christians know that there was no resting in external Circumcision or Baptism but not that their Infants were unprofitably Circumcised and Baptized So weak and unconcluding are all the Arguments by which the Anabaptists endeavour from Scripture to prove that Christ hath limited the Subject of Baptism unto grown Persons put them all together they do not amount to any tolerable degree of probability much less unto a presumption especially if they be put in the ballance against the early and universal practice of the Catholick Church Had not the Church been always in possession of this practice or could any time be shewed on this side the Apostles when it began Nay could it be proved that any one Church in the World did not Baptize Infants or that any considerable number of Men otherwise Orthodox did decline the Baptizing of them upon the same Principles that these Men do now then I should suspect that their Arguments are better than really they are and that Infant-Baptism might possibly be a deviation from the rule of Christ But since it is so universal and ancient a practice that no body knows when or where it began or how from not being it came to be the practice of the Church since there was never any Church Antient or Modern which did not practise it it must argue a strange partiality to think that it could be any thing less than an Apostolical Practice and Tradition or the Original use of Baptism in its full Latitude under the Gospel which it had under the Law Had the * * * Ecquid verisimise est tot
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
Impediment yet by virtue of it they will be sure to receive it afterwards as soon as they shall in any degree become capable thereof Those are the Blessings and Benefits consequent upon Baptism by God's appointment of which Infants are as capable as actual Believers and let any Impartial Man judge Whether it is more for their benefit that this manifold capacity in them should be actually answered by the timely Administration of Baptism or that it should lay void and unsatisfied till they came to years of Discretion Which is best for a Child that hath the Evil to be Touched for it while he is a Child or to wait till he is of sufficient Age to be sensible of the Benefit Or to make one Comparison more which would be best for a Traytors Child to be presently restored to his Blood and and Estate and his Princes Favour or to be kept in a meer capacity of being restored till he was a Man But besides these Benefits which are consequent upon Baptism by God's appointment there is another no less profitable to young Children which will justifie the practice of Infant-Initiation and that is to have such an early pre-engagement laid upon them which without the highest Baseness can Ingratitude they cannot afterwards retract No Person of common Ingenuity who hath any sence of honour or any tolerable degree of Conscience within him can without shame and horrour break those Sacred Bonds asunder by which he was bound to God in his Infancy when he comes to Years of understanding but on the contrary will think himself in Honour and Gratitude bound to own and stand to the Obligation which he then contracted when he was graciously admitted to so many Blessings and Privileges before he could do any thing himself towards the obtaining of them or understand his own good It would argue a Person to be of a very ill nature and untoward Disposition to break such solemn Foederal Vows and therefore we see that Children generally do readily take upon themselves their Baptismal Obligations when they come to the use of reason whereas were they left alone to their own Freedom when they would be Baptized they would be apt to put it off from time to time through the aversness that the corrupt nature of Man hath to such strict and Spiritual Engagements and in such a State of Liberty as this Men would need as many and as earnest Exhortations unto Baptism as unto the Lord's Supper and in such an Age as ours is at least reluct as much to come unto that as we see by experience they do unto this Wherefore upon Supposition that Christ doth but allow Children to be brought unto him in Baptism The Wisdom of the Church is highly to be applauded for bringing them under such an early and beneficial pre-engagement and not leaving them to their own liberty at such years when Flesh and Blood would be apt to find out so many Shifts and Excuses and make them regret to be Baptized And therefore in the Second place as the Baptism of Infants is very Beneficial and profitable unto them So it conduceth very much to the well-being and edification of the Church in preventing those Scandalous and Shameful delays of Baptism which grown Persons otherwise would be apt to make putting of it off till the time of some great sickness as many were wont to do in the third and fourth Century when being not Baptized in their Infancy they did ordinarily receive Baptism as Papists now receive extream Unction when they were ready to expire For as it is usual now for Persons to defer the receiving of the Lord's Supper for fear of Damnation mistaking the Apostle where he saith He that Eateth and Drinketh unworthily Eateth and Drinketh Damnation to himself So in those Ages it was usual for Persons to defer their own and their Childrens Baptism out of a * * * Dr. Caves Prim. Christian part 1. ch 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 40. p. 647 649. Sed mundus rursus delinquit quò male comparetur diluvio itaque igni destinatur sicut homo qui post Baptismum delicta restaurat Tertull. de Baptismo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nyssen de Baptismo kind of Novatian Principle for fear that if they fell into Sin after Baptism there would be no place for Repentance mistaking that place of the Apostle where 't is said that if they who were once enlightned i. e. Baptized fall away it is impossible to renew them again unto Repentance Now the Baptizing of Children being deferred by their Parents out of this Superstitious fear they when they came to be Men and Women put the doing of it off for several Reasons and Pretences which we learn out of the Writers of those times Some deferred it out of Worldly Love and a Carnal loathness to renounce their sinful Pleasures and take upon them the Yoke of Christ Some put it off pretending want of leisure through multitude of worldly business others out of laziness and careless negligence Others were wont to plead the insufficiency of their knowledge See Mr. Walker's Excellent Preface to his Treatise of Infant-Baptism others the inconveniency of the present time others would not be Baptized but at such a time or in such a place as such a City or such a River or by such a Person or in such a Company Some would put it off upon a pretence of not having such or such Relations present others would decline it upon the account of some small Expences that attended it others because they relucted to confess their Sins others because they favoured not the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity or to comply with the Arians some because they would imitate the Example of Christ who was not Baptized till the 30th Year of his Age and some out of fear of Persecution This happened formerly to the great shame and dishonour of the Christian Religion though the * * * Gregor Nazianz Greg. Nyss and St. Basil Fathers sharply and vehemently Wrote and Preached against it and therefore upon supposition of the bare lawfulness or indifferency of Infant-Baptism I cannot but approve the Wisdom and Prudence of those Churches which appoint it because the practice of it doth prevent such shameful and scandalous Neglects of Baptism which to the great prejudice of Christianity as Experience hath taught us would otherwise arise in the Church Thus much upon enquiry into the lawfulness and expediency of Infant-Baptism to shew Christian Parents what an indispensable Obligation lies upon their Consciences to bring their Children to be Baptized in Obedience to the Church which hath appointed Infant-Baptism but then if Infant-Baptism be not only necessary because the Church hath appointed it but the Church hath appointed it because it is necessary and in any wise to be retained then this Antecedent sort of necessity doth yet lay a stronger Obligation upon the Consciences of Parents to initiate their Children as
condemned with the World For as he that partaketh worthily of this Sacrament confirms his interest in the promises of the Gospel and his Title to eternal Life so he that receives this Sacrament unworthily that is without due Reverence and without fruits meet for it nay on the contrary continues to live in sin whilst he commemorates the Death of Christ who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity this man aggravates and seals his own Damnation because he is guilty of the Body and Bloud of Christ not onely by the contempt of it but by renewing in some sort the cause of his sufferings and as it were crucifying to himself afresh the Lord of life and glory and putting him to an open shame And when the great Judge of the world shall appear and pass final Sentence upon men such obstinate and impenitent wretches as could not be wrought upon by the remembrance of the dearest love of their dying Lord nor be engaged to leave their sins by all the tyes and obligations of this holy Sacrament shall have their portion with Pilate and Judas with the chief Priests and Souldiers who were the betrayers and murtherers of the Lord of life and glory and shall be dealt withall as those who are in some sort guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. Which severe threatning ought not to discourage men from the Sacrament but to deter all those from their sins who think of engaging themselves to God by so solemn and holy a Covenant It is by no means a sufficient Reason to make men to fly from the Sacrament but certainly one of the most powerfull Arguments in the world to make men forsake their sins as I shall shew more fully under the third head of this Discourse II. The Obligation that lyes upon all Christians to the frequent observance and practice of this Institution For though it be not necessarily implyed in these Words as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup yet if we compare these words of the Apostle with the usage and practice of Christians at that Time which was to communicate in this holy Sacrament so often as they solemnly met together to worship God they plainly suppose and recommend to us the frequent use of this Sacrament or rather imply an obligation upon Christians to embrace all opportunities of receiving it For the sense and meaning of any Law or Institution is best understood by the general practice which follows immediately upon it And to convince men of their obligation hereunto and to ingage them to a sutable practice I shall now endeavour with all the plainness and force of persuasion I can And so much the more because the neglect of it among Christians is grown so general and a great many persons from a superstitious awe and reverence of this Sacrament are by degrees fallen into a profane neglect and contempt of it I shall briefly mention a threefold Obligation lying upon all Christians to frequent Communion in this holy Sacrament each of them sufficient of it self but all of them together of the greatest force imaginable to engage us hereunto 1. We are obliged in point of indispensable duty and in obedience to a plain precept and most solemn institution of our blessed Saviour that great Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy as St. James calls him He hath bid us doe this And S. Paul who declares nothing in this matter but what he tells us he received from the Lord admonisheth us to doe it often Now for any man that professeth himself a Christian to live in the open and continued contempt or neglect of a plain Law and Institution of Christ is utterly inconsistent with such a profession To such our Lord may say as he did to the Jews Why call ye me Lord Lord and doe not the things which I say How far the Ignorance of this institution or the mistakes which men have been led into about it may extenuate this neglect is another consideration But after we know our Lord's will in this particular and have the Law plainly laid before us there is no cloak for our sin For nothing can excuse the willfull neglect of a plain Institution from a downright contempt of our Saviour's Authority 2. We are likewise obliged hereunto in point of Interest The benefits which we expect to be derived and assured to us by this Sacrament are all the blessings of the new Covenant the forgiveness of our sins the grace and assistence of God's holy Spirit to enable us to perform the conditions of this Covenant required on our part and the comforts of God's holy Spirit to encourage us in well-doing and to support us under sufferings and the glorious reward of eternal life So that in neglecting this Sacrament we neglect our own interest and happiness we forsake our own mercies and judge our selves unworthy of all the blessings of the Gospel and deprive our selves of one of the best means and advantages of confirming and conveying these blessings to us So that if we had not a due sense of our duty the consideration of our own interest should oblige us not to neglect so excellent and so effectual a means of promoting our own comfort and happiness 3. We are likewise particularly obliged in point of gratitude to the carefull observance of this Institution This was the particular thing our Lord gave in charge when he was going to lay down his life for us doe this in remembrance of me Men use religiously to observe the charge of a dying friend and unless it be very difficult and unreasonable to doe what he desires But this is the charge of our best friend nay of the greatest friend and benefactour of all mankind when he was preparing himself to dye in our stead and to offer up himself a sacrifice for us to undergo the most grievous pains and sufferings for our sakes and to yield up himself to the worst of temporal deaths that he might deliver us from the bitter pains of eternal death And can we deny him any thing he asks of us who was going to doe all this for us Can we deny him this so little grievous and burthensome in it self so infinitely beneficial to us Had such a friend and in such circumstances bid us doe some great thing would we not have done it how much more when he hath onely said doe this in remembrance of me when he hath onely commended to us one of the most natural and delightfull Actions as a fit representation and memorial of his wonderfull love to us and of his cruel sufferings for our sakes when he hath onely enjoyned us in a thankfull commemoration of his goodness to meet at his Table and to remember what he hath done for us to look upon him whom we have pierced and to resolve to grieve and wound him no more Can we without the most horrible ingratitude neglect this dying charge of our Sovereign and
incapable of so performing the one as to receive the other and are resolved to continue so We will not doe our duty in other things and then plead that we are unfit and unworthy to doe it in this particular of the Sacrament 3. The proper Inference and conclusion from a total want of due preparation for the Sacrament is not to cast off all thoughts of receiving it but immediately to set about the work of preparation that so we may be fit to receive it For if this be true that they who are absolutely unprepared ought not to receive the Sacrament nor can do it with any benefit nay by doing it in such a manner render their condition much worse this is a most forcible argument to repentance and amendment of life There is nothing reasonable in this case but immediately to resolve upon a better course that so we may be meet partakers of those holy Mysteries and may no longer provoke God's wrath against us by the wilfull neglect of so great and necessary a duty of the Christian Religion And we do wilfully neglect it so long as we do wilfully refuse to fit and qualifie our selves for the due and worthy performance of it Let us view the thing in a like case A Pardon is graciously offered to a rebel he declines to accept it and modestly excuseth himself because he is not worthy of it And why is he not worthy because he resolves to be a rebel and then his pardon will do him no good but be an aggravation of his crime Very true and it will be no less an aggravation that he refuseth it for such a reason and under a pretence of modesty does the impudentest thing in the world This is just the case and in this case there is but one thing reasonable to be done and that is for a man to make himself capable of the benefit as soon as he can and thankfully to accept of it But to excuse himself from accepting of the benefit offered because he is not worthy of it nor fit for it nor ever intends to be so is as if a man should desire to be excused from being happy because he is resolved to play the fool and to be miserable So that whether our want of preparation be total or onely to some degree it is every way unreasonable If it be in the degree onely it ought not to hinder us from receiving the Sacrament If it be total it ought to put us immediately upon removing the impediment by making such preparation as is necessary to the due and worthy receiving of it And this brings me to the IV. Fourth and last thing I proposed viz. What preparation of our selves is necessary in order to the worthy receiving of this Sacrament Which I told you would give me occasion to explain the Apostle's meaning in the last part of the Text But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. I think it very clear from the occasion and circumstances of the Apostle's discourse concerning the Sacrament that he does not intend the examination of our state whether we be Christians or not and sincerely resolved to continue so and consequently that he does not here speak of our habitual preparation by the resolution of a good life This he takes for granted that they were Christians and resolved to continue and persevere in their Christian profession But he speaks of their actual fitness and worthiness at that time when they came to receive the Lord's Supper And for the clearing of this matter we must consider what it was that gave occasion to this discourse At the 20th verse of this Chapter he sharply reproves their irreverent and unsutable carriage at the Lord's Supper They came to it very disorderly one before another It was the custome of Christians to meet at their Feast of Charity in which they did communicate with great sobriety and temperance and when that was ended they celebrated the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Now among the Corinthians this order was broken The rich met and excluded the poor from this common Feast And after an irregular feast one before another eating his own supper as he came they went to the Sacrament in great disorder one was hungry having eaten nothing at all others were drunk having eaten intemperately and the poor were despised and neglected This the Apostle condemns as a great profanation of that solemn Institution of the Sacrament at the participation whereof they behaved themselves with as little reverence as if they had been met at a common supper or feast And this he calls not discerning the Lord's body making no difference in their behaviour between the Sacrament and a common meal which irreverent and contemptuous carriage of theirs he calls eating and drinking unworthily for which he pronounceth them guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord which were represented and commemorated in their eating of that bread and drinking of that cup. By which irreverent and contemptuous usage of the body and bloud of our Lord he tells them that they did incur the judgment of God which he calls eating and drinking their own judgment For that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Transslatours render damnation does not here signifie eternal condemnation but a temporal judgment and chastisement in order to the prevention of eternal condemnation is evident from what follows He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself And then he says For this cause many are weak and sickly among you and many sleep That is for this irreverence of theirs God had sent among them several diseases of which many had dyed And then he adds For if we would judge our selves we should not be judged If we would judge our selves whether this be meant of the publick Censures of the Church or our private censuring of our selves in order to our future amendment and reformation is not certain If of the latter which I think most probable then judging here is much the same with examining our selves ver 28. And then the Apostle's meaning is that if we would censure and examine our selves so as to be more carefull for the future we should escape the judgment of God in these temporal punishments But when we are judged we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world But when we are judged that is when by neglecting thus to judge our selves we provoke God to judge us we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world that is he inflicts these temporal judgments upon us to prevent our eternal condemnation Which plainly shews that the judgment here spoken of is not eternal condemnation And then he concludes Wherefore my Brethren when ye come together to eat tarry for one another And if any man hunger let him eat at home that ye come not together unto judgment where the Apostle plainly
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
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