are Church-Members and in a State of Communion are bound to all the Acts of external and visible Communion with the Church The exercise of Church Authority consists in Receiving in or Shutting out of the Church To receive into the Church is to admit them to all external Acts of Communion to Shut or Cast out of the Church is to deny them the external and visible Communion of the Church not to allow them to Pray or receive the Lords Supper or perform any Religious Offices in the publick Assemblies of the Church Now all this Church Authority would signifie nothing were not External and Actual Communion both the Priviledge and Duty of every Christian and yet this is all the Authority Christ hath given to His Church 5. And to confirm all this nothing is more plain in Scripture than that Separation from a Church is to withdraw from the visible Communion of it and there can be no Notion of Separation without this now if Separation from Religious Assemblies be to break Communion then to live in Communion with the Church requires our Actual Communicating with the Church in all Religious Duties And that this is the true Notion of Separation is easily proved from the most express testimonies 2 Cor. 6. 17. Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch no unclean thing and I will receive you Where come out from among them and be ye separate plainly signifies to forsake the Assemblies of Idolaters not to Communicate with them in their Idolatrous Worship So that not to joyn with any Men or Church in their Idolatrous Worship is to Separate from their Communion which is a very Godly Separation when the Worship is Idolatrous and Sinful but a Schismatical Separation when it is not Thus St. John tells us of the Ancient Hereticks They went out from us because they were not of us for if 1 John 2. 19. they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us Where their going out from them plainly signifies their forsaking Christian Assemblies upon which account the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews admonishes the Christians not to forsake the Assembling of themselves together as the manner of some is in which he Heb. 10. 25. refers to the Separation of those Ancient Hereticks And thus accordingly to have Fellowship or Communion with any is to partake with them in their Religious Mysteries By this Argument St. Paul disswades the Corinthians for Eating of the Idols Feast because they were Sacrifices to Evil Spirits and by partaking of those Sacrifices they had Communion with them But I say that the things which the 1 Cor. 10. 20 21. Gentiles Sacrifice they Sacrifice to Devils and not to God and I would not that you should have Fellowship with Devils Ye cannot Drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devils So that tho we must first be in a state of Communion with Christ and his Church must first be received into Covenant and by Baptism be incorporated into the Christian Church before we have any right to Communicate with this Church yet no Man can preserve his Church-state without Actual Communion no Man has Communion with Christ or his Church but he who Actually Communicates in all Religious Offices and Christian Institutions a state of Communion confers a right to Communicate but Actual Communion consists in the exercise of Communion and a right to Communicate without Actual Communion is worth nothing as no right or priviledge is without the Exercise of it for enjoyment consists in Acts and all the Blessings of the Gospel all the Blessings of Christian Communion are conveyed to us by Actual Communion So that if we would partake of the Blessings of Christ if we would Reap the advantages of Church-Communion we must live in Actual Communion and not content our selves with a dormant and useless right which we never bring into Act. This is sufficient to prove the necessity of Actual Communion with the Christian Church when it may be had for where it cannot be had Non-Communion is no Sin for we are not obliged to Impossibilities he who lives in a Country or travels through any Country where there is no true Christian Church to Communicate with cannot enjoy Actual Communion the right and Duty of Communion continues tho necessity may suspend the Act. But the greater difficulty is whether it be not Lawful to suspend our Communion with any particular Churches when we see the Church divided into a great many Parties and Factions which refuse Communion with each other which is the deplorable state of the Church at this day among us Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Quakers all Separate from the Church of England and from each other and from hence some conclude it Lawful to suspend Communion with all the divided Parties which is just such a reason for a Total suspension of Church-Communion as the different and contrary opinions in Religion are for Scepticism and infidelity Because there are a great many kinds of Religions in the World and a great many divided Sects of the Christian Religion therefore some Men will be of no Religion and because the Christian Church is divided into a great many opposite and Separate Communions therefore others will be of no Church and the reason is as strong in one case as it is in the other that is indeed it holds in neither For it is possible to discover which is the true Religion notwithstanding all these different and contrary perswasions about it and it is equally possible to find out which of these divided Communions is a true and Sound Member of the Catholick Church and when we know that we are bound to maintain Communion with it Indeed if such Divisions and Separations excuse us from Actual Communion with the Church Actual Communion never was and is never likely to be a Duty long together for there never was any state of the Church so happy long together as to be without divisions even in the Apostles times there were those who Separated from the Communion of the Apostles and set up private Conventicles of their own and so it has been in all succeeding Ages of the Church and so it is likely to continue and if we are not bound to Communicate with the Church while there are any Hereticks or Schismaticks who divide from the Church farewell to all Church Communion in this World Should any Man indeed Travel into a Strange Country and there find a Schism in the Christian Church it were very fitting for him to Suspend Communion with either Party till he had opportunity to acquaint himself with the state of the Controversie so as to judge which party is the Schismatick and then he is bound if he understand their Language to Communicate
Churches and Societies of Christians 2. I observe further that tho the exercise of Church Communion as to most of the particular Duties and Offices of it must be confined to a particular Church and Congregation for we cannot Actually joyn in the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments c. but with some particular Church yet every Act of Christian Communion though performed in some particular Church is and must be an Act of Communion with the whole Catholick Church Praying and Hearing and receiving the Lords Supper together does not make us more in Communion with the Church of England than with any other true and Orthodox part of the Church tho in the Remotest parts of the World The exercise of true Christian Communion in a particular Church is nothing else but the exercise of Catholick Communion in a particular Church which the necessity of affairs requires since all the Christians in the World cannot meet together for Acts of Worship But there is nothing in all these Acts of Communion which does more peculiarly Unite us to such a particular Church than to the whole Christian Church When we pray together to God we Pray to him as the Common Father of all Christians and do not challenge any peculiar interest in him as members of such a particular Church but as members of the whole Body of Christ when we Pray in the Name of Christ we consider him as the great High Priest and Saviour of the Body who powerfully interceeds for the whole Church and for us as members of the Universal Church And we Offer up our Prayers and Thanksgiving not only for our selves and those who are present but for all Christians all the World over as our Fellow-members and Praying for one another is the truest notion of Communion of Prayers for Praying with one another is only in order to Praying for one another And thus our Prayers are an exercise of Christian Communion when we Pray to the same common Father through the Merits and Mediation of the same common Saviour and Redeemer for the same common Blessings for our selves and the whole Christian Church Thus when we meet together to Celebrate the Supper of our Lord we do not meet as at a private Supper but as at the common Feast of Christians and therefore it is not an Act of particular Church Fellowship but of Catholick Communion The Supper of our Lord does not signifie any other kind of Union and confederation between those Neighbour Christians who receive together in the same Church than with the whole Body of Christ The Sacramental Bread signifies and represents all those for whom Christ died that one Mystical Body for which he Offered his Natural Body which is the Universal Church and our eating of this Bread signifies our Union to this Body of Christ and therefore is considered as an Act of true Catholick not of a particular Church-Communion And the Sacramental Cup is the Blood of the New Testament and therefore represents our Communion in all the Blessings of the Covenant and with all those who are thus in Covenant with God So that there is nothing particular in this Feast to make it a private Feast or an Act of Communion with a particular Church considered as particular but it is the common Feast of Christians and an Act of Catholick Communion Which by the way plainly shews how groundless that scruple is against mixt Communions that Men think themselves defiled by receiving the Lords Supper with Men who are vicious For tho it is a great defect in Discipline and a great reproach to the Christian Profession when wicked Men are not censured and removed from Christian Communion yet they may as well pretend that their Communion is defiled by bad Men who Communicate in any other part of the Church or any other Congregation as in that in which they live and Communicate For this holy Feast signifies no other Communion between them who receive at the same time and in the same Company than it does with all sincere parts of the Christian Church It is not a Communion with any Persons considered as present but it is a Communion with the Body of Christ and all true members of it whether present or absent Those who separate from a National Church for the sake of corrupt professors though they could form a Society as pure and holy as they seem to desire yet are Schismaticks in it because they confine their Communion to their own select Company and Exclude the whole Body of Christians all the World over out of it their Communion is no larger than their gathered Church for if it be then they must still Communicate with those Churches which have corrupt members as all visible Churches on Earth have unless we will except Independents because they have the confidence to except themselves and then their Separation does not Answer its end which is to avoid such corrupt Communions and yet if they do confine their Communion to their own gathered Churches they are Schismaticks in dividing themselves from the Body of Christians and all their Prayers and Sacraments are not Acts of Christian Communion but a Schismatical Combination This does not prove indeed that particular Churches are not bound to reform themselves and to preserve their own Communion pure from corrupt members unless all the Churches in the World will do so too because every particular Church whether Diocesan or National has power to reform its own members and is accountable to God for such neglects of Discipline but it does prove that no Church without the guilt of Schism can renounce Communion with other Christian Churches or set up a distinct and separate Communion of its own for the sake of such corrupt members which was the pretence of the Novatian and Donatist Schism of Old and is so of the Independent Schism at this day 3. I observe further that our obligation to maintain Communion with a particular Church wholly results from our obligation to Catholick Communion The only reason why I am bound to live in Communion with any particular Church is because I am a member of the whole Christian Church which is the Body of Christ and therefore must live in Communion with the Christian Church and yet it is Impossible to live in Communion with the whole Christian Church without Actual Communion with some part of it when I am in such a place where there is a visible Christian Church as no member can be United to the Natural Body without its being United to some part of the Body for the Union and Communion of the whole Body consists in the Union of all its parts to each other Every Act of Christian Communion though performed in a particular Church or Congregation is not properly an Act of particular Church-Communion but is the exercise of Communion with the whole Church and Body of Christ as I have already proved but it can be no Act of Communion at all if it be not performed
in the Communion of the Church which it cannot be unless it be performed in the Communion of some particular Church And this is the only obligation I know of to Communion with any particular Church that as I am a Christian I am a member of the Body and Church of Christ and in a State of Communion and therefore am bound to maintain Actual Communion with the Christian Church where-ever I find it and by Communicating with the Church wherein I live if it be a Sound and Orthodox Member of the Christian Church I maintain Communion with the whole Catholick Church which is but one Body So that here is no choice what Church we will Communicate with for there is but one Church all the World over with which we must Communicate and therefore we have nothing else to do but to judge whether that part of the Church wherein we live be so Sound and Orthodox that we may Communicate with it according to the Principles of Catholick Communion and if it be we are bound to Communicate with it under Peril of Schism from the Catholick Church if we do not 4. From hence we may plainly learn the true notion of a Separate Communion and Separate Church For some Men seem to be greatly sensible of the sin and mischief of Schism and Separation but then they use great art so to confound the notion of Separation as that neither they themselves nor any one else shall ever be able to understand what it is whereas if they will allow that there is or ever can be any such thing as Separation from the Church it is as easie to understand what Separation is as what it is for a member to be divided from the Body For if there be but one Church and one Communion of which all true Christians and Christian Churches are or ought to be members then those Churches which are not members of each other are Separate Churches It is not enough indeed to prove a Separation that two Congregations meet in several places for Worship for this is done by all the Parish-Churches of England who are in the same Communion but yet hold distinct and Separate Assemblies as to Local Separation Nor is it sufficient to prove that there is no Separation because these differing Churches agree in all the Articles of Faith and essentials of worship For thus the Novatians and Donatists did who yet were Schismaticks from the Catholick Church But where there are two Churches which are not members of each other there is a Schism tho they agree in every thing else but in one Communion and where Churches own each others Communion as members of the same Body there is no Schism though they are as distant from each other in place as East and West And it is as easie to understand what it is for two Churches to be members of each other but to make this as plain as I can and as far as it is possible to prevent all Evasions and Subterfuges I shall lay down some few rules according to the Principles of Catholick Communion whereby we may certainly know what Churches are in Communion with each other and which are Separate and Schismatical Conventicles 1. There must be but one Church in one place according to that Ancient Rule of the Catholick Church that there must be but one Bishop in a City and this was observed in the Apostolical times that in the greatest and most Populous Cities and where there were the greatest number of Converts yet there was but one Church such as Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus c. this is acknowledged by the Independents themselves who endeavour hence to prove that there were no more Christians in any of those Cities than could meet together in one place for Acts of Worship which is a mighty groundless Surmise and not much for the credit of the Christian Church as has been often shewn by learned Men both Episcopal and Presbyterian Divines And there is an evident reason why this should be so because there is no other Rule of Catholick Communion for private Christians but to Communicate in all Religious Offices and all Acts of Government and Discipline with those Christians with whom they live for to renounce the ordinary Communion of any Christians or true Christian Church is to divide the Unity and Communion of the Church and to withdraw our selves from ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into distinct and Separate Societies for Worship is to renounce their Communion and when there is not a necessary cause for it is a Schismatical Separation So that distinct and particular Churches which are in Communion with each other must have their distinct bounds and limits as every member has its Natural and proper place and situation in the Body But when there is one Church within the Bowels of another a new Church gathered out of a Church already constituted and formed into a distinct and Separate Society this divides Christian Communion and is a notorious Schism These Churches cannot be members of each other because they ought to be but one Church and therefore to form and gather a new Church is to divide and Separate the members of the same Church from each other This is the plain case of the Presbyterian and Independent Churches and those other Conventicles of Sectaries which are among us they are Churches in a Church Churches formed out of the National Church by which means Christians who live together refuse to Worship God in the same Assemblies and have bitter Envyings and Contentions for the Honour and Purity of their several Churches If all Christians are members of the one Body of Christ nothing can justifie the distinction of Christians into several Churches but only such a distance of place as makes it necessary and expedient to put them under the Conduct and Government of several Bishops for the great Edification of the Church in the more easie and regular Administration of Discipline and all holy Offices and therefore nothing can justifie the gathering of a Church out of a Christian Church and dividing Neighbour Christians into distinct Communions Churches at a distance may be distinct Churches under their distinct Bishops but yet in the same Communion but distinct Churches in the same place can never be of the same Communion for then they would Naturally Unite and Cement into one There must either be Antibishops or Schismatical Presbyters set up in opposition to their Bishops under different and opposite Rules of Worship and Discipline which makes them Rival and opposite Churches not members of each other From hence I think it plainly appears that all Separation from a Church wherein we live unless there be necessary reasons for it is Schism and we cannot justifie such distinct Churches within one another from the examples of other distinct Churches whose bounds and limits and jurisdiction also are distinct and separate 2. It is plain those are Separate Churches which divide from the Communion of
something essential to a Church But if the Church have all things essential to it it is a true Church and not to be separated from When the V. Annotations on the Apologet. Nar. p. 17. Church of Rome is called a true Church it 's understood in a Metaphysical or Natural Sence as a Thief is a true Man and the Devil himself though the Father of Lies is a true Spirit But withal she is a false Church as Mr. Brinsly saith from Bishop Hall an Heretical Arraignment of Schism p. 26. Apostatical Antichristian Synagogue And so to separate from her is a Duty But when the Church of England is said to be a true Church or the Parochial Churches true Churches it 's in a moral Sence as they are sound Churches which may safely be communicated with Thus doth Dr. Bryan make the Dwelling with God Serm. 6. p. 289 291. Opposition The Church of Rome is a part of the universal visible Church of Christians so far as they profess Christianity and acknowledg Christ their Head but it is the visible Society of Traiterous Vsurpers so far as they profess the Pope to be their Head c. From this Church therefore which is Spiritual Babylon God's People are bound to separate c. but not from Churches which have made Separation from Rome as the reformed Protestant Churches in France and these of Great Britain have done in whose Congregations is found Truth of Doctrine a lawful Ministry and a People professing the true Religion submitting to and joyning together in the true Worship of God Such a Separation would as has been said unchurch it This would be to deny Christ holds Communion with it or to deny Communion with a Church with which Christ holds Communion contrary to a Principle that is I think universally maintained The Error of these Men saith Mr. Brightman * * * On Rev. c. 3. V. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Allen Vindiciae Pietatis second part p. 123. Vindication of Presbyterian Government p. 130. Cotton on John p. 156. i◠full of Evil who do in such a manner make a Departure from this Church by total Separation as if Christ were quite banished from hence and that there could be no hope of Salvation to those that abide there Let these Men consider that Christ is here feasting with his Members will they be ashamed to sit at Meat there where Christ is not ashamed to sit Further this would be a notorious Schism so the old Non-conformists conclude * * * Grave Consut p. 57. Cawdrey's Independency further proved p. 136. Because we have a true Church consisting of a lawful Ministry and a faithful People therefore they cannot separate themselves from us but they must needs incur the most shameful and odious Reproach of manifest Schism for what is that saith another †††Brinsly's Arraigment p. 15 24 44. but a total Separation from a true Church This lastly would not diminish but much increase the Fault of the Separation As another saith | | | Baily's Disswasive c. 6. p. 104. For it is a greater Sin to depart from a Church which I profess to be true and whose Ministry I acknowledg to be saving than from a Church which I conceive to be false and whose Ministers I take to have no Calling from God nor any Blessing from his Hand This therefore is their avow'd Principle That total Separation from the Church is unlawful And this the old Non-conformists did generally hold and maintain against the Brownists * * * Ames 's Puritanismus Angl. V. Parker on the Cross part 2. c. 91. § 21. Bax. Defence p. 55. and the Dissenting Brethren did declare on their part †††Apologet. Nar. p. 6. We have always professed and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most either actually over-spread with Defilements or in the greatest Danger thereof c. that we both did and would hold Communion with them as the Churches of Christ And amongst the present Non-conformists several have writ for Communion with the Church against those that separate from it and have in Print declared it to be their Duty and Practice So Mr. Baxter | | | Sacril desert p. 75. I constantly joyn i◠my Parish-Church in Liturgy and Sacrament It 's said of Mr. Joseph Allen * * * The Life of Mr. J. Allen p. 111. That he as frequently attended on the Publick Worship as his Opportunities and Strength permitted †††The Doctrine of Schism p. 64. Of Mr. Brinsley that he ordinarily attended on the Publick Worship Dr. Collins saith as much of himself | | | Reasonable Account c. Mr. Lye in his Farewell Sermon doth advise his People to attend the Publick Worship of God to hear the best they could and not to separate but to do as the old Puritans did thirty Years before Mr. Cradacot in his Farewel Sermon professeth That if that Pulpit was his dying Bed he would earnestly perswade them to have a care of total Separation from the Publick Worship of God Mr. Hickman freely declares I profess Bonasus vapulans p. 113. where-ever I come I make it my Business to reconcile People to the Publick Assemblies my Conscience would fly in my Face if I should do otherwise And Mr. Corbet as he did hold Communion with the Church of England so saith * * * Account of the Principles of the Non-conformists p. 26. That the Presbyterians generally frequent the Worship of God in the Publick †††Discourse of the Religion c. p. 33. V. Mr. Read's Case p. 15. Assemblies It 's evident then that it is their Principle and we may charitably believe it is their Practice in Conformity to it * * * Non-conformists Plea for Lay-Communion p. 1. Thus Mr. Corbet declares for himself I own Parish-Churches having a competent Minister and a number of credible Professors of Christianity for true Churches and the Worship therein performed as well in Common-Prayer as in the Preaching of the Word to be in the main sound and good for the Substance or Matter thereof And I may not disown the same in my Practice by a total neglect thereof for my Judgment and Practice ought to be concordant And if these two Judgment and Practice be not concordant it would be impossible to convince Men that they are in earnest or that they do believe themselves while they declare against Separation and yet do not keep it up Those good Men therefore were aware of this who met a little after the Plague and Fire to consider saith Mr. Baxter Non-conformists Plea fo◠Peace § 17◠p 240. whether our actual Forbearance to joyn with the Parish-Churches in the Sacrament and much more if it was total might not tend to deceive Men and make them believe that we were for Separation from them and took their Communion to be
unlawful And upon the Reasons given in they agreed such Communion to be lawful and meet when it would not do more Harm than Good that is they agreed that it was lawful in it self 2. They hold that they are not to separate further from such a true Church than the things that they separate for are unlawful or are conceived so to be that is that they ought to go as far as they can and do what lawfully they may towards Communion with it For they declare * * * Burrough's Irenic p. 182. That to joyn in nothing because they cannot joyn in all things is a dividing Practice and not to do what they can do in that case is Schism for then the Separation is rash and unjust †††Vindication of Presbyter Governm Brinsly's Arraignm p. 16 32. Therefore if the Ministerial Communion be thought unlawful and the Lay-Communion lawful the Unlawfulness of the former doth not bar a Person from joyning in the latter The denying of Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained in the Book of Common-Prayer doth not gainsay the Lawfulness of partaking in that Worship it being sound for the substance in the main c. * * * Corbet's Plea for Lay-Communion c. p. 2. as a judicious Person hath observed This was the Case generally of the old Non-conformists who notwithstanding their Exclusion from their Publick Ministry held full Communion with the Church of England We are told by a good Hand That as Irenicum by Discipulus de tempore Junior alias M. Newcomen Epist to the Reader Friendly Tryal c. 7. p. 121. heretofore Mr. Parker Mr. Knewstubs Mr. Vdal c. and the many Scores suspended in Queen Elizabeth and King James's Reign So also of later times Mr. Dod Mr. Cleaver c. were utterly against even Semi-Separation i. e. against absenting themselves from the Prayers and the Lord's Supper So it 's affirmed of them by Mr. Ball They have evermore condemned voluntary Separation from the Congregations and Assemblies or negligent frequenting of those Publick Prayers And * * * Hildersham Lect on John R. Rogers's 7 Treatises Tr. 7. c. 4. p. 224. some of them earnestly press the People to prefer the publick Service before the private and to come to the beginning of the Prayers as an help to stir up God's Graces c. And others did both receive the Sacrament and exhort others so to do as I shall afterwards shew 2. Again if in Lay-Communion any thing is thought to be unlawful that is no reason against the things that are lawful This was the Case of many of the godly and learned Non-conformists in the last Age as we are told that Vindicat. of the Presbyt Govern p. 135. were perswaded in their Consciences that they could not hold Communion with the Church of England in receiving the Sacrament kneeling without Sin yet did they not separate from her Indeed in that particular Act they withdrew but yet so as they held Communion with her in the rest And thus much is owned by those of the present Age as one declares The Church of England Jerubbaal p. 28 30. being a true Church so that a total Separation from her is unwarrantable therefore Communion with her in all parts of real solemn Worship wherein I may joyn with her without either Let or Sin is a Duty So another saith of them Throughton's Apol. p. 107. They are ready and desirous to return to a full Vnion with the Parishes when ever the Obstacles shall be removed And again They hold Communion with the Parishes not only in Faith and Doctrine but also in Acts of Worship where they think they can lawfully do it This those of the Congregational-Way do also accord to that they ought in all lawful things to communicate with the Churches of England not only in Obedience to the Magistrate in which case they also acknowledg it to be their Duty as well as others but Mr. Nye's Case of great and present use p. 4 and 5. Mr. Read's Case p. 14. also as they are true Churches and therefore plead for the Lawfulness of hearing the established Ministry and undertake to answer the Objections brought against it whether taken from the Ministers Ordination * * * Burrough's Irenic p. 183. Lawfulness of hearing the publick Ministers of the Church of England Nye's Case p. 24 25. or Lives or the Church in which they are Ministers c. as you may find them in Mr. Robinson's Plea for it of old and Mr. Nye's of late as they are printed together Upon the Consideration of which the latter of these thus concludes In most of the Misperswasions of these latter Times by which Mens Minds have been corrupted I find in whatsoever they differ one from another yet in this they agree That it 's unlawful to hear in publick which I am perswaded is one constant Design of Satan in the variety of ways of Religion he hath set on Foot by Jesuits amongst us Let us therefore be the more aware of whatsoever tends that way Of this Opinion also is Mr. Tombs though he continued Theodulia Or a just Defence of Hearing c. c. 10. § 15. p. 369. c. 9. § 8. p. 319. an Anabaptist who has writ a whole Book to defend the hearing of the present Ministers of England and towards the close of the Work hath given forty additional Reasons for it and in opposition to those he writes against doth affirm Sure if the Church be called Mount Sion from the preaching of the Gospel the Assemblies of England may be called Sion Christ's Candlesticks and Garden as well as any Christians in the World I shall conclude this with what Mr. Robinson saith in this Case viz. For my self thus Treatise of the Lawfulness of Hearing c. p. ult I believe with my Heart before God and profess with my Tongue and have before the World that I have one and the same Faith Spirit Baptism and Lord which I had in the Church of England and none other that I esteem so many in that Church of what State or Order soever as are truly Partakers of that Faith as I account thousands to be for my Christian Brethren and my self a Fellow-Member with them of that one Mystical Body of Christ scattered far and wide throughout the World that I have always in Spirit and Affection all Christian Fellowship and Communion with them and am most ready in all outward Actions and Exercises of Religion lawful and lawfully done to express the same And withal that I am perswaded the hearing of the Word of God there preached in the manner and upon the grounds formerly mentioned both lawful and upon occasion necessary for me and all true Christians withdrawing from that Hierarchical Order of Church-Government and Ministry and the uniting in the Order and Ordinances instituted by Christ Thus far he From what hath been said upon
that the Publick or some private Person shall Suffer Damage or Inconvenience by our not Observing it Or Secondly Though the Law as to the matter of it be never so Trifling nay though perhaps all things considered it be an inconvenient Law yet if the Manner of our not Obeying it be such as gives Offence to our Superiours or to any others that is either Argues a Contempt of Authority or sets an ill Example before our fellow Subjects I say in either of these Cases the Transgression of a Humane Law renders a Man guilty of a Fault as well as Obnoxious to the Penalty of that Law But out of these two Cases I must consess I do not see how a purely Humane Law doth Oblige the Conscience or how the Transgression of it doth make a Man guilty of Sin before God For it is certain if we secure these two Points that is to say the good of the Publick and of private Persons and wâ—th all the sacredness and respect which is due to Authority which is likewise in Order to the Publick good We Answer all the Ends for which the Power of making Laws or laying Commands upon Inferiours was Committed by God to Mankind So that though it be true that Humane Laws do Oblige the Conscience yet it is also true that a great many Cases may and do happen in which a Man may Act contrary to a purely Humane Law and yet not be a Sinner before God Always supposing as I said there be no Contempt or Refractoryness expressed towards the Governours Nor no Scandal or ill Example given to others by the Action For if there be either of these in the Case I dare not acquit the Man from being a Transgressour of Gods Law in the instance wherein he Transgresseth the Laws of Men. For this is that which we insist upon that the Authority of our Governours ought to be held and esteemed very sacred both because the Laws of God and the Publick good require it should be so And herefore wherever they do peremptorily lay their Commands upon us we are bound in Conscience so far to comply as not to contest the matter with them nor to seem to do it And though their Commands as to the matter of them be never so slight nay though they should prove really inconvenient either to our selves or the Publick Yet if they stand upon them if they persist in requiring our Obedience to them we must yield we must Obey always supposing they be not against Gods Laws For we are at no hand either to affront their Authority our selves or to encourage others by our Example to do it For to do either of these things is a greater Evil to the Publtck than our Obedience to an inconvenient Law can easily be IV. And now it is time for us to apply what hath been said in General concerning the Rule of Conscience and the Obligation of Humane Laws to the particular Matter here before us that is the business of Church Communion The Obligation of Conscience to which in such manner as the Laws have appointed is the Fourth general Head we are to consider This point of the Obligation to Communion with the Church as by Law Established hath been largely handled by several Learned Men of our Church and particularly it is the Argument of one of those Discourses which have lately been writ for the sake of our Dissenters Thither therefore I refer the Reader for full Satisfaction about this Matter being only just to touch upon it here as one of the Principles we take for granted and shall proceed upon in the following Discourse And here the Proposition we lay down is this That it is every Mans Duty and consequently every Man is bound in Conscience to joyn in Communion with that Church which is Established by Law in the place where he lives so long as that Church is a true sound part of the Catholick Church and there is nothing imposed or required as a Condition of Communicating with it that is Repugnant to the Laws of God or the Appointments of Jesus Christ This Proposition is Evident not only because it Necessarily follows from the foregoing Principle which was that every Man is bound in Conscience to Obey the Laws of Men that are not contrary to the Laws of God and therefore consequently a Man is bound to Obey in Ecclesiastical matters as well as Civil unless it can be shew'd that Christ hath forbid all Humane Authority whether Ecclesiastical or Civil to make any Laws or Orders about Religion which I believe never was or can be shew'd But it is Evident upon another Account which I desire may be considered We are all really bound by the Laws of Jesus Christ and the Nature of his Religion to preserve as much as in uslyes the Vnity of the Church Which Vnity doth consist not only in professing the same Faith but joyning together with our Brethren under Common Governours in the same Religious Communion of Worship and Sacraments And therefore whoever breaks this Vnity of the Church by withdrawing his Obedience from those Church Governours which God hath set over him in the place where he Lives and Separating from the Established Religious Assemblies of Christians under those Governours doth really transgress the Laws of Jesus Christ and is Guilty of that Sin of Schism which is so very much cautioned against and so highly Condemned in the Scriptures of the New Testament Unless in the mean time it doth appear to the Man who thus withdraws and Separates that there is something required of him in those Assemblies and by those Governours and that as a Term and Condition of holding Communion with them which he cannot Submit to without Sin And this Point I do heartily wish was well considered by our dissenting Brethren They do seem often to look upon this business of coming to Church and joyning with us in Prayers and Sacraments no otherwise to bind their Conscience than other purely Humane Laws They think they owe no Obedience to the Laws in these matters different from that which they yield to any common Act of Parliament And therefore no wonder they often make so slight a business of them But this is a great mistake there is much more in these things than this comes to The withdrawing our Communion from the Church carrys a far greater guilt in it than the Violating any Law that is purely Humane For though we do readily grant that all the Circumstances of Publick Worship enjoyned in the Church as for Instance the Times the Gestures the Forms of Prayer the Methods of Reading the Scripture and Administring the Sacraments as also the Habits of the Ministers that are to Officiate be all of Humane Institution and may be altered and varyed at the discretion of our Governours Yet the Publick Worship it self under Publick Lawful Governours is of Divine Appointment and no Man can Renounce it without Sinning against Jesus Christ as well as Offending against
Communion is the sin of Schism and that is a sin of the blackest dye and greatest guilt noted the in Scriptures for an act of carnality a work of the Flesh and of the Devil for the necessity of our coming to Church and Worshipping God in the same publick place with our Neighbours and submitting to the Government Discipline and Customs of that particular Church we live in doth not depend only upon the Statutes of the Realm which enforce it and the Command of the Civil Magistrate who requires it but by the Law of our Religion all needless Separation or Division amongst Christians breaking into little Parties and Factions from whence comes strife envying confusion and every evil work is to be most carefully avoided as the very bane of Christianity the rending of Christs body and as utterly destructive not only of the peace but of the being of a Church So that should all the Laws about Conformity and against Conventicles be rescinded and voided should the Magistrate indulge or connive at the Separate Assemblies yet still this would not make our joyning with them not to be sinful Since to preserve the unity of Christians and one Communion is the necessary duty of every member of the Church and it can never be thought a justifiable thing to cut off our selves from the Communion of the Church or the Body of Christ out of complyance with any erring or ignorant Brethren But the sinfulness of withdrawing from the Communion of our Church either totally or in part hath been so evidently shewn in some late discourses written on that subject that I do despair of convincing those of the danger of it who can withstand the force of all that hath been already offered to them I only conclude thus much that there is far more of the sin of uncharitableness in such Separation and Division than there can be in all the Offence that is imagined to be given by our Conformity From what I have already at large discoursed it plainly follows that they are things meerly indifferent not only in their own nature but also in respect to us in the use of which we are obliged to consider the weakness of our Brethren What is our duty must be done tho Scandal follow it What is evil and sinful ought to be left undone upon the score of a greater obligation than that of Scandal but now in matters wherein our practise is not determined by any Command we ought so to exercise our liberty as if possible to avoid giving any Offence to our Brethren This is an undoubted part of that charity which one Christian ought always to be ready to shew to another by admonition instruction good example and by the forbearance of things Lawful at which he foreseeth his Neighbour out of weakness will be apt to be Scandalized to endeavour to prevent his falling into any sin or mischief and this we teach and press upon our People as much as Dissenters themselves can in obedience to St. Paul's rules about meats and days things neither in themselves good or evil nor determined by any Authority and therefore they were every way a proper instance wherein Christians might exercise their charity and compassion one to the other and in such cases St. Paul declares that he would rather wholly forego his liberty than by these indifferences endanger the Soul of his Brother as in that famous place 1 Cor. 8. 13. If meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth lest I make my Brother to Offend where by Flesh and meat is to be understood such as had been Offered unto Idols which tho lawful for a Christian to eat at common meals yet the Apostle would wholly abstain from rather than wound the weak Conscience of a Brother If I by the Law of charity as the Reverend Bishop Taylour saith Great exemp p. 420 must rather quit my own goods than suffer my Brother to perish much rather must I quit my priviledg And We should ill die for our Brother who will not lose a meal to prevent his sin or change a dish to save his Soul and if the thing be indifferent to us yet it ought not to be indifferent to us whether our Brother live or die After this manner do we profess our selves ready to do or forbear any thing in our own power to win and gain our Dissenting Brethren to the Church We grant that those who conform are obliged by this Law of charity not needlesly to vex and exasperate our Dissenters nor to do any thing which they are not bound to do that may estrange them more from the Church but to restrain themselves in the use of that liberty God and the Laws have left them for the sake of peace and out of condescension to their Brethren We dare not indeed omit any duty we owe to God or our Superiours either in Church or State nor can we think it fit and reasonable that our Apostolical Government Excellent Liturgy Orderly Worship of God used in our Church should all be presently condemned and laid aside as soon as some Weak men take Offence at them but in all other things subject to our own ordering and disposal we acknowledge our selves bound to please our Brother for his good unto Edification I only add here that this very rule of yielding to our Brother in things indifferent and undetermined ought to have some restrictions and limitations several of which are mentioned by Mr. Jeans whom I have so often named as First That we are not to forbear these indifferent things where there is only a possibility of Scandal but where the Scandal consequent is probable for otherwise we should be at an utter loss and uncertainty in all our actions and never know what to do Secondly Our weak Brethren must have some probable ground for their imagination that what we do is evil and sinful or else we must wear no Ribbands nor put off our Hats but come all to Thou and Thee and for this exception he gives this substantial reason that if we are to abstain from all indifferent things in which another without probable ground imagineth that there is sin the servitude of Christians under the Gospel would be far greater and more intolerable than that of the Jews under the Mosaical administration Thirdly This must be understood of indifferent things that are of no very great importance for if it be a matter of some weight and moment as yielding me some great profit I must only for a while forbear it untill my Brother is better informed Lastly We must not wholly betray our Christian liberty to please peevish and froward people or to humour our Neighbour in an erroneous and superstitious opinion for which he quotes Mr. Calvin who in his Comment upon 1 Cor. 8. 13. tells of some foolish Interpreters that leave to Christians almost no use at all of things indifferent upon pretence to avoid the Offence of Superstitious
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
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
publick Worship of God and all this without the least notice taken by without any complaint or opposition from any particular person either in the then present or succeeding generation 3 The Primitive Church esteemed the Holy Sacrament to be the most solemn part of Christian Worship as that which deservedly challenged from them the utmost pitch of Devotion and the highest degree of Reverence that they could possibly pay and express either with their Souls or Bodies This is clear partly from those Honorary Titles they bestowed upon this Ordinance and adorn'd it with which import the greatest deference and the most awful regard imaginable partly from that tedious See part 1. p. 58. and severe Discipline which she exercised the Catechumens and Penitents with before she admitted them into the Communion of the Faithful and approved of them as fit to partake of the Holy Mysteries To be admitted to the Sacrament so onely as to behold it and to be present at those Prayers which were put up by worthy Communicants over the great Propitiatory Sacrifice was heretofore accounted a high honour and priviledge But to make one at this heavenly Feast and to receive the pledges of our Lords love was esteemed the top and perfection of Christianity and the extremity of honour and happiness that a Christian is capable of in this life Heretofore with shame and reproach be it spoken to our stupidly wicked and degenerate Age to be excluded from the Holy Communion was look'd upon as the greatest curse and punishment that could be inflicted and on the other hand to be a Communicant to have a freedom of access to the Lords Table as the greatest blessing and most ample reward that could be propounded the sum of a Christians hopes the center of all his wishes during his abode here 4. For standing in time of Divine Service both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament there are so many and so clear testimonies extant in pure Antiquity that a man must take a great deal of pains not to see this truth who is never so little conversant in the Records of those times and in such a man it must be height of folly or impudence to deny it The bare asserting of it shall be sufficient because to insist upon the proof of it by an enumeration of particulars would swell this Discourse beyond measure and besides it would be a needless labour since the great Patrons of sitting or the common Table-gesture Gillesp Disp against En. Po. Cer. point 1660. p. 190 191. do frankly own and acknowledge that Standing was a posture generally used by the ancient Church in her religious Assemblies both at their ordinary Prayers and at the Communion-service Howsoever I shall be forced to say something concerning this matter under the following particular 5 Which is this That the Primitive Christians though on the Lords days and for the space of 50 days between Easter and Whitsunday they observed Standing yet at other times used the gesture of Kneeling at their publick Devotions Which will appear from a Decree pass'd in the first general Council assembled at Nice in words to this effect Because there are some Can 20 about the year 325. which Kneel on the Lords day and in the days of Pentecost that is between Easter and Whitsunday it is therefore ordained by this holy Synod that when we pay our Vows unto the Lord in Prayer we observe a Standing gesture to the end that a uniform and agreeable Custom may be maintained or secured through all Churches By which Canon provision was made against Kneeling not as if it were an inconvenient and unbecoming gesture to be used at all in the publick Worship of God but onely as being an irregular and unfit posture to be used at such particular times and occasions as is there specified viz. on the Lords days and the Feast of Pentecost when for any Christian to stand was to cross the general Custom and Practice of the Church at that time For this Council did not you must note introduce and establish any new thing in the Church but onely endeavoured by its authority to keep alive and in credit an ancient Custom which they saw began to be neglected by some Christians And from that clause in the Canon Because there are some which Kneel on the Lords day and in the days of Pentecost c. we may with good reason infer that Kneeling was the posture that was generally used at other times in their religious Assemblies For if Standing had been generally observed by all Churches in time of Divine Service at all other times as well as those mentioned in the Decree what occasion or necessity had there been for such an Injunction whereby all Christians were obliged to do that which they constantly and universally did before There is a passage in the Author of the Questions and Answers in Justin Martyr which will put this matter out of doubt and give us the reason why they altered their posture on the Lords day It is Respons ad quest 115. p. 468. saith he that by this means we may be put in mind both of our Fall by Sin and our Resurrection and Restitution by the Grace of Christ that for six days we pray upon our Knees is in token of our Fall by Sin but that on the Lords day we do not bow the Knee doth symbolically represent our Resurrection c. This he there tells us was a Custom derived from the very times of the Apostles for which he cites Irenaeus in his Book concerning Easter That it was ancient appears from Tertullian who lived in the same Age with Irenaeus and speaks of it as if it had been establish'd An. Dom. 198. by Apostolical Authority or at least by Custom had obtained the force of a Law for these are his words We esteem Die dominico jejunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare Tert. de Cor. mil. c. 3. 206. Col. Agrip. edit 1617. Epiph. exposit Fid. Cathol p. 1105. edit Par. Flor. An. Dom. 390. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Hieronym prolog Comment in Ep. ad Ephes it a great act of wickedness or villany either to Fast or Kneel on the Lords day Which intimates too that Fasting and Kneeling in their publick Worship were both lawful and customary at other times To whose Testimony if we joyn that of another Father who lived some time after the first general Nicene Council we need not produce any more witnesses to clear the matter It is that of Epiphanius in his Exposition of the Catholick Faith where he certifies that the weekly stated Fasts of Wednesday and Friday were diligently kept by the Catholick Church the whole year round excepting the fifty days of Pentecost on which they do not Kneel nor is there any Fast appointed The reason of which Custom was as both St. Jerome and St. Augustin attest because all that space between Easter and Whitsunday was a time of
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
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
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
joy and triumph viz. over Death and the Grave and therefore on these days we neither Fast nor bend our Knees nor incline and bow down our Bodies but with our Lord are lifted up to Heaven We pray standing all that time which is a sign of the Resurrection St. August Ep. 119. ad Jan. c. 15. By which posture that is we signifie our belief of that Article From whence we may conclude that as the Christians of those first Ages did at other times certainly Fast so they did also certainly Kneel at their Prayers in their publick and religious Assemblies 6 Another thing I would have observed in order to my present design is this That the Primitive Christians were wont to receive the Holy Sacrament every day as oft as they came together for publick Worship which Custom as it was introduced Acts 2. 42 46. Acts 20. 7. compared with 1 Cor. 10. 16. and practised by the Apostles themselves according to the judgement of very Learned men and that not without good grounds from the Holy Scripture so it continued a considerable time in the Church even down to St. Austin who flourisht in the beginning Ann. Dom. 410. St. Aug Epist 118. ad Januarium c. 2 3. p. 556. 7. Basil edit a Froben 1541. St. Ambr. cap. ult lib. 5. c. 4. de Sacram. p. 449. Paris St. Hier. adver Jovinian p 37. Paris id in Epist ad Lucinium Baeticum p. 71. edit of the fifth Century and seems clearly to intimate to us in his Writings that it was customary in his days as St. Ambrose and St. Hierome had hinted before him concerning the Churches of Millan and Rome in their times From St. Cyprian we are fully Vid. Dr. Cave Prim. Christ p. 339. St. Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 147. Oxon. edit 1682. Can. 9. Apost Antiochen Concil Can. 2. Basil Ep. 289. ad Caesariam Patriciam To. 3. p. 279. assured that it was so in his days viz. about the year 250. For in his explication of that Petition in the Lords Prayer Give us this day our daily bread he expresly tells us that they did receive the Eucharist every day as the food that nourisht them to Salvation St. Basil Bishop of Caesaria who lived about 370 years after Christ affirms that in his Church they communicated four times a Week on the Lords day Wednesday Friday and Saturday two of which were station-days or set days of Fasting which were punctually observed by the generality of Christians in those times And this I the rather note because in all probability since they did receive the Sacrament on these days they did not alter the Posture of the day but received Kneeling For if Kneeling was adjudged by the Catholick Church an unsutable and improper posture for times of mirth and joy such as the Lords days and those of Pentecost were and if they were thought guilty of a great irregularity who used that posture on those Festivals then we may reasonably conclude that Standing which was the Festival Posture was not used by the Catholick Church on days of Fasting and Humiliation and that they who stood at their publick Devotions on Fasting days were as irregular as they who kneel'd on a Festival And that this was really so may I think be clearly collected from a passage in Tertullian to this purpose Tertull. de Orat c. 3. p. 206. Edit Col. Agrip 1617. We judge it an unlawful and impious thing says he either to Fast or Kneel at our Devotions on the Lords day We rejoyce in the same freedom or immunity from Easter to Whitsontide To be freed and exempted from Fasting and Kneeling not onely on the Lords day but all the days of Pentecost was esteemed a great priviledge and matter of much joy to this Holy Father and the Christians who lived in his days And from hence I infer that at other times when they met together for publick Worship especially on days of Fasting they generally used Kneeling and that at the Lords Supper which was administred every day in the African So St. Cyprian before cited Church whereof Tertullian was a Presbyter For if they had generally stood at all other times of the year in their religious Assemblies as well at their Prayers as at the Lords Supper where is the priviledge and immunity they boasted so much of and rejoyced in viz. that they were freed from Kneeling on such days and at such certain times Not to Fast on the Lords day was a Priviledge because they did Fast on the Week-days and so say I of Standing To Stand on the Lords days and all the time between Easter and Whitsunday could not be thought a special act of favour and the Prerogative of those seasons if Kneeling had not been the ordinary and common Gesture at all other times throughout the year And if Kneeling was the Didoclavius his own argument retorted Si stabant inter orandum viz. Die Dominico toto temporis intervallo inter Pascha Pentecosten non est probabile de geniculis adorasse cum perciperent Eucharistiam sed potius contrarium nempe stetisse Altar Damasc p. 784. Gesture which the Christians did then commonly use at their Prayers on the Week-days then in all probability when they received the Sacrament on those days they received in the ordinary posture The 7th and last particular which I would observe relating to this business is this That the Primitive Christians received the Holy Sacrament Praying The whole Communion Service was performed with Prayer and Praise It was begun with a general Prayer wherein the Minister and the whole Congregation joyntly prayed for the Vniversal Tert. Apol. c. 39. p. 47. St. Aug. Ep. 118. Const Apost l. 2. c. 57. p. 881. St. Chrys Hom. 1. in 2. cap. Epist 1. Tim. Peace and Welfare of the Church for the Tranquillity and the quietness of the World for the Prosperity of the Age for wholesome Weather and fruitful Seasons for Kings and Emperours and all in Authority c. The Elements were sanctified by a solemn Benediction the form whereof is set down by St. Ambrose and De Sacr. lib. 4. c 5. p. 439. See Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity c. 11. p. 347. the whole action was concluded with Prayer and Thanksgiving But that which more particularly affects the matter in hand is that the Minister used a Prayer at the delivery of the Sacrament to each Communicant to which every one at their receiving said Amen The Apostolical Constitutions though in some things much corrupted and adulterated yet in many things are very sound and in this particular seem to express the most Ancient Practice of the Church For there we find this Account The Apostolical Constitutions confessed by all hands to be very Mr. Daillé sets them at the latter end of the 5 Century Const Apost lib. 8. c. 13. p. 483. Ancient though not altogether so much as is pretended in some things give us this
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